Boy

fantastic! to me it's food but what do i know

if you're interested in traditional advaita vedanta, i can think of no better "introduction" than this:

Not much to discuss. All true

Well, well. 1. Appeal to authority won't change my mind. 2. To me, if you reject one (sic.) of the mahavakyas then you're out. This goes for modifications as well. You may find me ignorant, arrogant, uneducated and in pressing need of a psychiatrist, but not even that will change my mind. Have a nice evening and much love!!

Your thread, your rules.

Interesting, albeit not convincing at all. While complaining about the logic of advaitans (and not understand their point of view) he made [...] presuppositions to try to explain his rejection of the Upanishads. [...] A good advaita talk on this particular topic is: [Video removed.]

Sangharakshita needs to take a step back, but basically I think you're right, rocala. No talk of mindfulness. In a way "mindfulness" is akin to to pretending to be the witness in vedanta. There are so many layers of understanding, and communicating this stuff.. And yet the underlying truth is dead simple.

very complicated "definition" but, yes it's sounds somewhat right. normally needs, wants etc aren't said to be generated by the ego, and I think he's wrong in that, but it's actually an interesting idea! a few other details aside, the author is surely onto something. thanks!

Never heard of him. How does he define ego?

I sincerely believe that it’s more helpful to say that it is actually “Tom, Dick or Harry or Jane, Sally or Sue. It is a lie, but is a blindingly white one. Don’t make them look for another ghost when they’ve come so far..

everything about that post made me sad, shortstuff. You are clearly on the path but you've took a wrong turn. Retreat and regroup! Much love!

Sorry, I didn’t mean complex ! This is very beautiful! All of it! Thank you! ..and maybe the word exhaustion points to a third way?

I’d like to add some pointers on enquiry if you don’t mind. Another way of understanding “Abiding in the I” would be to think of it as “Returning to the I”. This returning (nota bene: I’m not at all suggesting dwai is wrong in any way) is indeed an intellectual process. You have to think yourself back to the only “thing” that is evident/beyond words - until the words give up. The best material I’ve come across that describes this process is from the Thai forest tradition, Dzogchen, Ramana Maharshi, and traditional vedanta. For me the Upanishads did it, but I also see supreme value in Ramana’s simple focus. Come to think of it, perhaps dwai’s method is actually tailored to the very advanced practitioner? Or even the enlightened (=realised but not actualised)? ..Oh, you said it yourself, dwai! And with practice it will indeed only take a fraction of a second! I will also suggest an alternative method. Given mumukshutva, there is still the problem that the disciple hasn’t got a clue of what the Self is, so perhaps all efforts to return to it or abide in it will be in vain? The language gives the problem away (“What's this ‘it’", the mind asks, and promptly starts looking for 'it')! So, perhaps Ramana’s method is preferable initially? Thus, just focus on the I! Finally, and I hesitate to say it - it really is a cliché - but the problem really is ignorance. Enlightenment is for the jiva.

I will disregard your initial wild swings if you don’t mind, Wells . When it comes to those two interesting posts above I’d like to comment: In traditional vedanta I’ve heard it said (paraphrased) that “You are the dream but the dream is not you”. It took me some time to digest, but presently I think it’s a very good description. So I guess words are not all bad? And to make it clear: I don’t think anybody is “theorizing the dreamer”. And a question… “Finally”/“spiritual practice”/“I assume”/“probably”/“somehow” etc.? Am I to understand that you don’t know? In that case it would behoove you to show some restraint. If you won’t that is of course fine as well! I said I wouldn't speak anymore of my experiences/realisations in this thread but I'll break that promise to tell you that all this "I am one with everything"-phase is something I've gone through as well. There is more to come. With apologies to 3bob, the Heart sutra says It well enough! I will watch the video you linked tomorrow, I’m sure it’s great. And I hope I made myself clear! With utter disregard for all tradition I've had a couple of beers! Be well!

I don’t mind at all but it might not be pertinent to this thread so I’ll keep it brief. With “Non dual” I simply mean what I just said. There is no subject or object. “You” realise that what you formerly thought of as subject and object doesn’t exist/isn’t correct. This is self realisation (in a sense - there are other realisations, but they all all come in the same instant) in the vedantic tradition. Self actualisation is a quite lengthy process (5+ years?) of making the self realisation (signified by the akhandakara vritti ) stick and take over. The mind has tendencies that need to be eradicated/understood. The I-thought, which in some christian traditions is thought of as the devil, is very persistent but with patience it leaves/is subjugated. For me personally, it’s quite nice. Since I know, I don’t fret over anything. All existential anxiety is gone forever. Actually there are no problems of any kind anymore. The very few kinks that are left will resolve in time. I hope that satisfies you. I won’t say anymore of it in this thread. Much love!