gatito

Incorrect

Thanks Say "Hi" to Greg from me next time you see him and draw his attention to what I've said. Yep - that's Buddhism today. If you don't know about it from first-hand experience and you can't actually teach it yourself, get on some forum and post some Buddhist authority figure's opinions and hope that sticks - lol Incidentally, there's no such thing as an "ego", so he's wrong too.

No you're not familiar with it or you weren't when you posted this: - That's a fact! And you're not speaking about nirvikalpha samadhi first-hand, that's really obvious - for you it's just a concept: - So, I'm not going to waste my time with you - speak to Greg and ask him if he now knows about nirvikalpa samadhi from direct first-hand experience. He didn't when I corresponded with him or later when he wrote the Direct Path - a User Guide. That's also a fact!

You've already made it clear that you're not familiar with the teachings personally: - Nor are you familiar with nirvikalpha samadhi from first hand knowledge On the other hand, I am familiar with both nirvikalpha samadhi and the Direct Path - so perhaps you'd better follow Greg's advice stick to learning about Emptiness from him?

Oops Now there's something else that needs to be corrected:- The Direct Path is about anatta very directly and if that's not clear then there's a big problem. I was concerned about that when I corresponded with Greg about nirvikalpa samadhi, especially as Sri Krishna Menon specifically refers to that in his teachings. I became even more concerned about it when I read page 171 of The Direct Path - a User Guide, which is simply incorrect. It is however correct to say that you certainly should not mix and match from the two teachings (Emptiness and Direct Path Advaita). Even within the Direct Path teachings there are different methods (prakriyas) and Sri Atmananda stated specifically that no attempt should be made to reconcile them, although it is possible so to do.

It's useful to to distinguish clearly between mind and consciousness - perhaps that's impossible in Tibetan Buddhism due to inherent limitations of the Tibetan language? However, from what I can gather from the discussion above, I have no reason to change the quote: - And, in the absence of a any other clear definition of Consciousness, I'll stick with "that which is reading these words and knows that it's reading these words" Mind is, on direct investigation, nothing more than an imaginary construct, as there's no evidence that anything other than the current thought actually exists. Even a memory is just the current thought. The subconscious is an even more imaginary construct, as by definition there's no evidence that it exists. Thanks for your input everyone.

I think that I've been a bit unclear about the books, as I misread Greg's reference to "a giant book of insightful dialogues rich enough to be contemplated for years, which has the ability to help establish one as nondual awareness." That's actually Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda taken by Nitya Tripta. There's no copyright asserted on that book and it's freely available from several places on the web. Here's the link to one of my favourite place, the site of Ananda Wood who gives away several other goodies including his own work Some teachings from Shri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) as reported by a Sadhaka Disciple. https://sites.google.com/site/advaitaenquiry/ ://sites.google.com/site/advaitaenquiry/ You'll find two versions, the second being arranged by subject - which is useful for those with serious interest. Also useful for anyone with serious interest: - you can also buy a hardcopy version in 3 volumes from amazon, which will probably work out cheaper than printing it off yourself: -

^^^ And sadly, that's also my conclusion - In fact, this seems to promote the opposite. ironically, it seems that a meeting of minds is really only possible face-to-face and there seems to be no stomach for that here. I hope we meet sometime and that I can offer you my hospitality to atone for the offence

Just to correct a few inaccuracies: - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/teachings-of-atmananda-and-direct-path.html awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/teachings-of-atmananda-and-direct-path.html Incidentally, as far as I'm aware, although Jean Klein apparently met Sri Krishna Menon, he wasn't actually one of his students, nor did Greg invent "The Direct Path". Atma Darshan is a tiny book physically - just big in terms of content

Magnolia or taupe - but that's just a guess

Seems very complicated to me I'm sitting here knowing that I exist and knowing that I know that I exist but it seems that I don't actually exist at all - according to Buddhist theory What's also rather strange is that I know that I exist even in the complete absence of mind and body, space and time, so my existence certainly isn't predicated on a mind (deluded or otherwise ) I therefore have to conclude that either Longchenpa was wrong or it's anothe one of those "bad translations" This is a big problem (i.e. finding sruti in Buddhism - lots of smriti - but *%&!-all sruti).

Well that makes more sense to me, thanks. So I'm still with: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." unless someone can come up with something that makes more sense

That's something that I've noticed as well - (i.e. fruitlessness and circularity). I'm glad that I'm not the only one - I was beginning to think that I was wrong about that too

That's interesting. So from that, if we inserted it, the quote would read: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total aggregate of thought, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." which makes no sense at all to me now Perhaps, the actual word translated to "consciousness" by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu or on Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's behalf and widely circulated was meant to be "consciousness" in the english sense? After all, thoughts come and thoughts go - there's nothing that can be described as "pure and total" and "the supreme source" and "abides in the all-transcending condition" about (a) thought(s). However, those description could all be applied to consciousness in the english sense. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of the Kunjed Gyalpo, so, could someone explain my error and that of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in plain english? In other words, could I have the actual translation of: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." please? Anyone? And I'll also throw this question out to everyone: - What's the Buddhist definition of consciousness and the Buddhist definition of mind please - in plain english with no circular references back to other Buddhist terms that would need to be defined and/or use of other foreign or complicated words? I'm a simple soul - please don't add to my confusion. Please also remember these words of the Buddhas if you reply: - Thanks in anticipation.

Bump

OK Although, if you'd read through this thread, you'd have seen that I've specifically advised against trying to mix up the two approaches (Emptiness and Advaita) Furthermore, I think that you misunderstand Brahman - but leaving that aside, would you mind giving me the exact "Buddhist" definition of Consciousness please? Thanks in anticipation Edit to add: - Could you also do the same for mind please? Thanks

And to really nail it: - Of course it does.........because they're both nondual

So, Simple_Jack can only assert that: "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." is an inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo He cannot actually provide an accurate translation, nor can Malcolm Smith. The best that Simple-Jack can come up with is to provide quotes from Malcolm Smith who has re-interpreted a clear and simple statement that completely demolishes the main stumbling blocks of Buddhist dogma, anatta and dependent origination - which, incidentally are useful tools in the right hands and which also exist within the teachings of Advaita Vedanta. I think that I'm done here now because if anyone readingh this doesn't get it now, they never will: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." Dependent origination and anatta are provisional truths that are to be applied to specific stumbling blocks that occur in some (but not all) aspirants. Once they have done their job they are thrown away. The thorn has removed another thorn - best not to leave it/them sticking in your flesh to cause ongoing suffering/stress. Buddhism is nondual.

No....no......no...... You're not getting away with tangential transactions at this juncture. You've stated that: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." is an incorrect translation, so we'll stick with that point - no changing the subject/diverting attention elsewhere. Where's the accurate translation Simple_Jack.......? Who is the translator of you accurate version........?

So firstly, there's an underlying nondual basis. Secondly, you can't provide another (accurate - according to Simple_Jack and/or Malcolm Smith) translation of: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." In that case, I guess we'll all lumbered with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's actual official version for now. Oddly, it also alighns exactly with the teachings of Advaita Vedanta Hmm..........the two most prominent and oldest spiritual traditions actually agree with each other....... That's just bizarre

That's very, very funny! It's astonishing that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu hasn't realised this and taken his vile misrepresentation of the buddhadharma out of circulation So, according to Simple_Jack, the correct translation of: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." is............? And the teranslator of the correct version is......?

Even though my nature is fundamental reality that transcends meditation, the teachers of the three dimensions teach cause and effect in order to conform to the principle of causality that governs the world. They explain that an effect must necessarily manifest from a cause, and to this end they teach diverse meditation methods. Even though the fundamental nature, pure and total consciousness, is one alone, [the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas] speak of the four noble truths concerning suffering and its origin. Affirming that the origin of suffering is the cause of rebirth in the three lower states, they forsake the fundamental nature that is pure and total consciousness. Thus, not understanding the fundamental nature, they forsake it. Even though the fundamental nature is pure and total consciousness, [the Bodhisattvas] speak of the two truths: absolute and relative, and on this basis they apply the ten paramitas, starting with generosity and morality, to tread gradually the ten levels of realization. Thus, not understanding the fundamental nature, they remain at the level of training. Even though the fundamental nature is pure and total consciousness, [followers of the kriya] speak of the propitious moment, selected on the basis of planets and constellations, for starting to practice the five factors of realization and the four miraculous actions. In this manner they empower the whole of existence and meditate on it in the form of the deity. Thus, however, they do not understand the true nature of their own minds which is beyond meditating. Kunjed Gyalpo - Translated by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

That's an interesting position but I actually proved conclusively that absolute Consciousness does exist in the higher Buddhist teachings by quoting the Kunjed Gyalpo earlier in this thread. In order to take up less space in this thread and to save you the necessity of refering back you can refer to my my signature below.

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." THE SUPREME SOURCE The Kunjed Gyalpo The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Well Simple_Jack, as it happens, you're completely wrong, as usual. I have received transmission and teachings from a qualified guru and, from my own direct knowledge, this is correct: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." THE SUPREME SOURCE The Kunjed Gyalpo The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde