Jeff
-
Content count
5,254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Everything posted by Jeff
-
I completely agree regarding your point regarding one’s individual view. An individual view can potentially refine such that it transcends some written dogma, while not necessarily disagreeing relative to a specific perspective. Also, two views can be relatively correct, but not fully contain the perspective (since they have not noticed) the other’s aspects of view. Sort of like focusing on different aspects of the spectrum. But, if one does not accept a conceptual position as truth, and posits a different position based upon personal experience, how is that really not disagreeing? Thanks again for the discussion. Also, I really would be interested in your reincarnation perspective.
- 107 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- dao
- englightenment
- (and 2 more)
-
I would be very interested in hearing your view on rebirth, as I would also disagree with the classical view on reincarnation. But, to be fair with 3bob’s original point, you have basically stated that you personally disagree with with Buddhist and Hindu thought, not supported that they are both really saying the same thing in the first place. Why cannot those two traditions disagree based upon their shared experiences, just like you are disagreeing on the reincarnation point?
- 107 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- dao
- englightenment
- (and 2 more)
-
Then the Second Kukuraja perfectly understood the meaning of the primordial state and expressed his realization thus: I am Khenpo Dhahuna! I have understood that the five aggregates and the five elements Are the male and female deities of the various families in union. Their non-dual condition is bodhicitta, the universal ground. All of existence is the pure mandala of the enlightened ones!
- 107 replies
-
- 3
-
-
-
- dao
- englightenment
- (and 2 more)
-
It is also the mind that defines some perceptional state as changeless essence, unborn, boundless... To me, the danger of this position is that the mind can grasp upon such an perceptional view and declare “done” or arrived. These two diffent sides of the equation, is why I find the Heart Sutra so beautiful and sublime. As the Heart sutra states... Form is emptiness, but Emptiness is also form. Everything dissolves down to nothing, but also nothing expands out to everything. Always infinite potential in that empty bucket.
- 107 replies
-
- 4
-
-
-
- dao
- englightenment
- (and 2 more)
-
The Feng version is very good for this chapter... SIXTY Ruling the country is like cooking a small fish. Approach the universe with Tao, And evil will have no power. Not that evil is not powerful, But its power will not be used to harm others. Not only will it do no harm to others, But the wise will also be protected. We will not hurt one another, And the Virtue in each one of us refreshes everyone.
-
You are building up energy flows in your meditation and it is spilling over into your subconscious. The shaking or erection and ejaculation is a natural thing. I would suggest that you move beyond simple mantra meditation into something else that moves the energy thru your body. You have basically just out grown your current practices. All good stuff.
-
I am really just trying to make the distinction of the differences in thoughts on Karma and the nature of desires between different traditions. The Tao Te Ching would agree with Buddha regarding being desireless... Chapter 1 ... Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; This appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery. Chapter 64 ... People usually fail when they are on the verge of success. So give as much care to the end as to the beginning; Then there will be no failure. Therefore the wise seek freedom from desire. They do not collect precious things. They learn not to hold on to ideas. They bring people back to what they have lost.
-
Depends on your view, but this discussion is taking place in the Buddhist forum, and most people seem to be talking about the Hindu version and definition of Karma. To me, buddha is very clear about it... But the master guards his watching. It is his most precious treasure. He never gives in to desire. He meditates. And in the strength of his resolve He discovers true happiness. He overcomes desire - And from the tower of his wisdom He looks down with dispassion Upon the sorrowing crowd. -Dhammapada
-
Again, you are trying to define some sort of spectrum where some types of likes (good) and dislikes (bad) are ok, but some where it is a really big like (craving) are not ok. My point is that it is all same thing, a desire is a desire, being a strong desire or not is just some sort of arbitrary judgement on the spectrum. Such arbitrary judgements will then also be based upon the local society beliefs at the time. Like with a smoking addiction, back in the 1950s everyone was doing it, so by society’s definition it is a norm (just like breathing) and obviously not an addiction.
-
My point is really about conscious as compared to subconscious desires. The way you are describing karma, it would seem to almost simply down to guilt or not with some act, as you are saying it is not based upon acting on a desire. My point is that there are many subconscious desires (like addiction to smoking) that effectively create karma. I am not saying that a realized person cannot act or the realization goes away. But, any ongoing attached behavior (addiction like), is a sign that one is still in the land of subconscious desire. But, I understand that my definition is different than the classical Hindu view of karma and realization.
-
Yes, the binding and non binding karma concept would be consistent with other threads where in Hindu traditions one can be realized (Jivamukta) while still addicted to cigarettes and stuff. In other traditions, there is no such thing as non binding karma. There is either karma or not karma.
-
Sure, I get it. In that context there are really no other people as everything is just an aspect of Brahman. Hence, karma would only be a local mind thing and what you are consciously aware of. So if you dont feel guilty about an act (did it for sheer pleasure), then there is no karma result. But, since I see other sentient beings as “existing”, there is effectively a broader karmic aspect beyond the individual view. An obvious example would be if you had sex with someone for the sheer pleasure of it and got someone pregnant. I would say the act (of sheer pleasure) had a huge karmic impact to others and in the world (and that original subconscious desire would come back to you as karma big time ).
-
In my view, there is no such thing. Where there is pleasure, there is the inverse absence of that pleasure (and hence suffering). What you would call “pure pleasure”, would for me just be subconscious desires being acted out. Someone desires sex, and they go for it. There are obvious karmic impacts on a broader level to acting on that desire, even if you consciously think it was just for the pleasure. But, thank you for the discussion, this has helped me better understand the Gita.
-
Yes, that is exactly my point.
-
So then in the Gita view, theoretically a psychopath who is a mass murderer and just enjoys killing for the sheer pleasure of it, incurs no karma? To me, the war example is a different case.
-
Very interesting. So if someone has sex with a partner and just does it for the pleasure, there is no karma with it? Or, if someone kills someone just for the pleasure of killing, you would say there is no karma with it?
-
When you act with intent you create karma. Karma is the ongoing cause and effect of that intent. Works sort of like the law of motion in physics... A body in motion stays in motion...
-
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
Did you not recently post that Nirvikalpa Samadhi was not useful? And this guy just constantly stays there? Hence, my confusion on the logic. My point is that it is really not a pure mind in this case as the son was obviously filled with desire to be a king as the text describes... When he grew up, he heard that I had once been a king. He wished to be one also and besought me to grant his prayer. I initiated him in yoga, which he practised with such success that he was able by the force of his will to create a world of his own in this hill which he is now ruling. To me, this would not be purity in Self, as the kid wanted to have the same kind of power over people like his dad did when he was a king. Also, his dad helps him to realize his wish, rather than point out that none of it is real. Again, my confusion on the logic. -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
Very cool. While I would probably describe it a little differently, I would agree with your description of the very ancient and ever young goddess supporting/stabilizing the earth realms. That would be a very interesting discussion if you are ever interested. -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
Very interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
Like with 3bob's question, it is not really apples to apples comparison. My question was about how such would fit in the AV/Hindu framework, as it would seem to be logically inconsistent. The text describes samahdi as some sort of totally gone space where your wife can have sex with you and you don't notice. And then one is pulled back to the real world from that place. That kind of view is very different from other traditions. But, in general, I definitely agree that it is possible to create what I would call a pocket universe like the text describes. Many traditions have such capability, and even form sort of astral schools in those realms. -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
In Sutra, it is described as something to avoid, as it is considered being trapped in a "god realm". In such a place, one eventually uses up all of their "good karma" and comes crashing back down just like the example S1va gave. But, in variants like Pureland Buddhism, in theory a buddha creates a realm to bring his followers to when they die and finish off their process. -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
Makes sense as such a creation would sort of be within one's own "mind space". Hence easy to get caught up in it and have it all come crashing down. -
Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes
Jeff replied to dwai's topic in Hindu Discussion
I also have to agree that I having some confusion with the above passsages. It seems to mix a lot of concepts, that dont seem to be consistent. If someone was realized, why would create some artificial world where they can be king/god over others in the first place? That would seem to be the ultimate ego trap. Also, the text seems to be saying that samadhi is some state where you are so unaware/out of it, that your wife can have sex with you and you dont notice it. That the wife brought him out of it after the child was born. -
Very cool that you could feel/sense it, and yes, I could feel your return hug connection. It makes sense that your mind would translate it into something like you feel when you are meditating, but what you have done is a little different than that. Maybe think of it more like you are consciously accessing the "higher mental" space you touch on when meditating, making it easier for you to actually feel/sense the energy.