Going Theravadin Taoist-style!

[Sunya]

As you've stated the Buddhist tradition is different -- but I would argue it is an extension of the "Neti, Neti" -- "neither this, nor that" philosophy in the Vedas. Advaita Vedanta states that "neti, Neti" does not achieve eternal liberation -- but ONLY logical inference of the I-thought achieves eternal liberation because no matter what astral realm of insight analysis achieved (rational logic applied to light astral experience) there is still the sense of the ego based on the concept of the I-thought. There is still an "object" of ego focus to the interdependent origination.

 

HI Drew.

 

Dependent origination is the conceptual framework dissolver that is unique only to the tradition passed down by the Buddha. Now, every Buddhist tradition may differ on the outside, and have different methodology and emphasization but they all contain the teachings of emptiness, or dependent origination, which is seen as absolutely necessary to kill subtle clinging to wrong views. In terms of meditation, the traditions differ... though it seems that every Buddhist tradition starts off with some sort of jhana or shamata meditation, which is concentrating on an object, then there is objectless awareness type meditation which is akin to vipassana or shikantaza or mahamudra. this meditation is not a 'formless' meditation because the goal is not a dissolution of form, a disappearance of everything into a state of nothingness... rather the goal is to relax the mind and observe everything that arises without judgment/craving. this experience gives insight to anatta and dependent origination as the subtle dependencies and conditions are seen. Vajrayana has all these but also employs workings on the subtle body. So the ultimate meditation in Buddism has no object at all, rather there is simple observance. And all experiences are interpreted through the teachings of dependent origination because these experiences are simply that, experiences. and until actual insight arises, the framework dissolver is necessary. This insight is of Shunyata, Emptiness, Dependent origination and is seen as the 'condition' of everything, but this does not mean that everything is the same, that I am You or You are That. This line of thinking is seen by all Buddhists as extremist and of fantasy. It is only the aggrandizing of a super Ego and identifying with that Ego. So that is why the insight of the condition of all phenomena (including the mindstream) is seen as the insight necessary for liberation and that's it, not going further to attach and get idealistic about metaphysics.

 

Advaita has negation but they don't negate far enough, they negate negate negate and then say AHA! That is Self! Sat Chit Ananda! Buddhists say: No. That experience simply arose because of causes and conditions and it is temporary. It isn't permanent. Buddhists always negate because to posit is to give reality and substance which automatically gives rise to clinging and suffering. Even the state of Sat Chit Ananda is seen as suffering because its impermanent; due to subtle clinging to a grand Self that state is impermanent. It took me a while to accept this because I for a time was very fond of learning from Advaita teachers, being myself initiated into Nityananda's lineage. But now I can only hope that these wonderful beings will learn the Dharma when the conditions arise [which they will]

 

You don't have to agree with what I say, i'm just stating the Buddhist position for you as clearly as possible because I know its hard to get a clear view if you read books by teachers like Nan, no offense to any students of him here but like I said before I don't think he presents Buddhism clearly and accurately.

Edited October 12, 2009 by mikaelz

[voidisyinyang]

Edited October 12, 2009 by drewhempel

[voidisyinyang]

Also Nityananda's lineage of advaita is part of the BHAKTI tradition of singing and using emotion -- in contrast to the JHANA mind yoga tradition of logical inference. I didn't realize this but it may explain why the "tantric" tradition of "Nityananda advaita" (what I googled) is what enables you to be transferred to Buddhism with its tantric emphasis as well.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=pOUdVTjZF...ita&f=false

 

Here's an academic book discussing the classic Advaita (name of an Advaita yogi) versus Nityananda tantric advaita -- the Advaita RETURNED TO THE ORTHODOX BRAHMIN MONASTERY and this was criticized by Nityananda as not real advaita since it is dependent on caste hierarchy, etc.

 

SEE PAGE 89.

 

 

HI Drew.

 

Dependent origination is the conceptual framework dissolver that is unique only to the tradition passed down by the Buddha. Now, every Buddhist tradition may differ on the outside, and have different methodology and emphasization but they all contain the teachings of emptiness, or dependent origination, which is seen as absolutely necessary to kill subtle clinging to wrong views. In terms of meditation, the traditions differ... though it seems that every Buddhist tradition starts off with some sort of jhana or shamata meditation, which is concentrating on an object, then there is objectless awareness type meditation which is akin to vipassana or shikantaza or mahamudra. this meditation is not a 'formless' meditation because the goal is not a dissolution of form, a disappearance of everything into a state of nothingness... rather the goal is to relax the mind and observe everything that arises without judgment/craving. this experience gives insight to anatta and dependent origination as the subtle dependencies and conditions are seen. Vajrayana has all these but also employs workings on the subtle body. So the ultimate meditation in Buddism has no object at all, rather there is simple observance. And all experiences are interpreted through the teachings of dependent origination because these experiences are simply that, experiences. and until actual insight arises, the framework dissolver is necessary. This insight is of Shunyata, Emptiness, Dependent origination and is seen as the 'condition' of everything, but this does not mean that everything is the same, that I am You or You are That. This line of thinking is seen by all Buddhists as extremist and of fantasy. It is only the aggrandizing of a super Ego and identifying with that Ego. So that is why the insight of the condition of all phenomena (including the mindstream) is seen as the insight necessary for liberation and that's it, not going further to attach and get idealistic about metaphysics.

 

Advaita has negation but they don't negate far enough, they negate negate negate and then say AHA! That is Self! Sat Chit Ananda! Buddhists say: No. That experience simply arose because of causes and conditions and it is temporary. It isn't permanent. Buddhists always negate because to posit is to give reality and substance which automatically gives rise to clinging and suffering. Even the state of Sat Chit Ananda is seen as suffering because its impermanent; due to subtle clinging to a grand Self that state is impermanent. It took me a while to accept this because I for a time was very fond of learning from Advaita teachers, being myself initiated into Nityananda's lineage. But now I can only hope that these wonderful beings will learn the Dharma when the conditions arise [which they will]

 

You don't have to agree with what I say, i'm just stating the Buddhist position for you as clearly as possible because I know its hard to get a clear view if you read books by teachers like Nan, no offense to any students of him here but like I said before I don't think he presents Buddhism clearly and accurately.

Edited October 12, 2009 by drewhempel

[Vajrahridaya]

[Sunya]

Drew, your friend is using the sources of the original Nikayas, which are wonderful.. but it must be understood that from the perspective of Mahayana/Vajrayana, the original teachings of the Buddha in 500BC were very limited due to the people he was teaching to, he had to teach the Dharma to people who were all about grasping to an eternal self, due to Vedic conditioning, and so Buddha did indeed posit an eternal undying, but what he was referring to was a condition with no source.

 

I would suggest to your friend to look into Tibetan sources as they are very clear in their view and understanding, they were basically taught by Indian Mahasiddhas, masters, like Shantarakshita, Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), Naropa, etc. Nargarjuna is also considered a great Mahasiddha from India who founded the Madhyamaka school [Middle Way] which focused on Sunyata. It is from him that we see a much clearer view than from the Buddha, though the Buddha was fully enlightened, the people he taught to were very limited and so he had to sort of 'dumb' things down. Every teaching was for a selected audience and only later were the teachings written down by the monks, the audience itself not being reflected in the teachings. He taught differently depending on your karma. This is skillful and compassionate means. Even the Buddha cannot make you enlightened if the conditions aren't there.

 

During Nagarjuna's time the conditions were more ripe, and even more so during the time of Garab Dorje and Guru Rinpoche . So that is why I suggest to study Mahayana view rather than the original Pali suttas simply because those teachings are more liberated due to good conditions on our part. The Mahayana view does indeed speak of Emptiness as unborn and undying but very subtly; and there is an implicit understanding of what emptiness is, and is not.The Brahman of Advaita is not the Brahman that the Buddha spoke of, because that Brahman did not exist yet. It was only until Sankara that Advaita came about and it was then that Brahman was spoken of as Nirguna Brahman or without form or quality. But if you understand the subtlety of the following passage you cannot miss that this is different than Sunyata: Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness. So Nirguna Brahman is seen as a static unchanging background that is without form while Sunyata is seen as the condition of form itself; this is subtly different. Since form is seen as interdependent but not the same, Buddhism is free of the extreme of monism.

 

I checked out your blog and I find your posts very interesting. you get into a lot of detail that I've never even considered and a lot of it is over my head as I have no technical knowledge of much of what you say. I'm not very scientific so it's nice to get a new perspective. so thank you for sharing that

Edited October 12, 2009 by mikaelz

[voidisyinyang]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

* The claim Buddha was taught by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, as stated in the literature of numerous early Buddhist sects, is historically authentic.

* Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta taught a form of early Brahminic meditation.

* The Buddha must consequently have been trained in a meditative school whose ideology was provided by the philosophical portions of early Upanishads.

* This hypothesis is confirmed in the Parayanavagga, where the Buddha teaches an adapted practice of Alara Kalama's goal to some Brahmins, and appears to be fully conversant with the philosophical presuppositions of early Brahminic meditation.

 

 

This has never been attested. Also, Uddaka leads the Buddha to the meditative stability of neither perception nor non-perception. But, the Buddha say's this is not the end and attains a deeper realization, that of dependent origination and goes back to try to teach his two Brahman teachers the cessation that is Nirvana.

 

It's good that you study. Take care...

 

p.s. Also, the Right View in Buddhism is considered dependent origination which is the viewless view. The cessation of all views, as well as the view of infinite paradigm or infinite perspective.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

Again I appreciate the finely nuanced presentation of Buddhism yet how about the same for Advaita? If there are so many different interpretations of Buddhism with each person claiming they know the RIGHT one -- and this is definitely true as I've had many Buddhists very strongly (with righteous male anger) tell me that's NOT Buddhism, yet they contradict each other. And so it is the same in Advaita Vedanta -- different interpretations, etc.

 

I can definitely have a better appreciation for the real differences between Advaita Vedanta and Theravada Buddhism but when it comes to Advaita and Mahayana mind yoga then the differences are extremely subtle.

 

Of course for people to dismiss Master Nan, Huai-chin as a not real Buddhist is silly since he is a Buddhist professor and a Buddhist monk and he has the Buddhist canon MEMORIZED -- and most importantly because he took the monk vows he is not allowed to discuss the finer experiences of samadhi.

 

Even more so Master Nan, Huai-chin states it would be impossible to put the real samadhi experiences into words yet without body transformation the real samadhi does not exist. His books are focused on exposing the "mind yoga" delusions that don't transform the body -- and again the full-lotus is the easiest way to demonstrate the body has been transformed.

 

So all the talk and debate is fun but without full-lotus it is nothing. For real training there would not be time for left-brain dominant writing and reading on the internet. Chunyi Lin read the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and Chunyi Lin states that the Holographic Universe is an accurate portrayal of the samadhi perception. Yet Chunyi Lin says he doesn't have TIME to read as he's too busy healing and meditating.

 

Also phone healings are MORE effective because there is less chance for ego to block the energy flow -- ego attachment due to PHOTOS or visual images, etc. The voice "embodies" the generative force or jing healing energy and so phone enables very efficient energy transmission. This is why radio remains such a popular medium whereas newspapers are dying off and most people don't read very seriously.

 

NOT ENOUGH PICTURES. haha.

Edited October 12, 2009 by drewhempel

[nac]

I agree that Tibetan Buddhism and Advaita aren't that widely divergent at the level of relative truth, but their metaphysics of absolute truth is quite different. Eg. Advaita sees existence as a single self-contained reality -- one world, one true existence. Buddhism on the other hand, views it as an interdependent web of non-conscious phenomena stretching indefinitely along every dimension, with eddies of self-referential subjectivity called "sentient beings" embedded in it. In other words, each of us don't "fit into" the workings of the world-unit, but this conception of a giant, self-contained world-unit is itself imaginary.

 

I don't deny that there are and have always been misogynistic Buddhists. However, even if their beliefs did have doctrinal support, (which it doesn't) that's not the basis on which I evaluate philosophical and religious teachings. In Indian religious imagination, the quality of compassion is attributed to the masculine and power to the feminine. (like black, the color of wet mud, is a symbol of life in Egypt, the polar opposite of western culture) Since compassion is considered so important in Buddhism, it tends to stress masculinity as an unfortunate side-effect. IMO all this cultural garbage has nothing to do with the rationality of compassion and Codependent Origination, which is thus far the only rational means to stop clinging to the world I've found.

 

TBH I don't really care for the Buddhist tradition. It's yet another impermanent, dependently arisen entity that has the potential to contribute to samsaric suffering as much as anything else. It's teachings on the other hand, are priceless and transcendental. I intuitively agree with practically all of them and to not call myself a Buddhist because some lamas sexually harass their students would be like lying to myself. Eg. If the God of the Bible was real, it would be the immoral Catholic priests who are at fault, not Christianity itself. The morality of Darwin (misogyny, racism, ...) has no bearing on the truth of evolution. I mean really, what are we supposed to do? Punish deviant lamas by not practicing compassion? Should we willfully spread suffering in the world because some random practitioners of a religion that we liked or had unrealistic hopes about do the same in the name of compassion? The larger and more popular a religion, the more its cumulative misdeeds. This is the nature of samsara we're always trying to overcome.

 

BTW if you guys really believe that early and tribal societies treated women (or anyone for that matter) better than civilized nations, I have nothing to say. Seriously, you should study some anthropology 101 or something. Cimmeria isn't a real tribe or even an attempt to present a realistic depiction of one. It's basically a reworking of a late Christian romanticized view of the Vikings from the sagas and stories like the Nibelungenlied. Here's what happens in 90% of real tribes:

 

A woman, when going out of a hut or from the presence of a man, must always, according to Ainu etiquette, walk slowly out backwards. She must never turn her back on a man! She must always honour her betters, i.e. the opposite sex. She must also smooth back her hair, draw her finger acress her upper lip and cover her mouth with her hand. This is the woman's mode of salutation and showing honour to her superiors. In the present case, however, this comely woman was paying respcct to the brilliant beauties of nature which she saw depicted upon the heavens, hence she came into her hut reverently walking backwards.

 

Here I may perhaps note in passing, that, when men are talking together in a house, the women present must endeavour to become nonentities. They must sit apart and either keep silent or speak in whispers. They generally sit in a ring and go on with what work they have in hand, such as needle-work, p. 135 making string or cloth, or cleaning fish. They are supposed to be neither seen nor heard, though they must of course be at the beck and call of the men and attend to the fire.

 

Also in passing a man in the forest, she must always make way for the stronger sex, must cover her mouth with her hand and not speak unless spoken to.

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/safl/safl05.htm

[JustARandomPanda]

BTW if you guys really believe that early and tribal societies treated women (or anyone for that matter) better than civilized nations, I have nothing to say. Seriously, you should study some anthropology 101 or something. Cimmeria isn't a real tribe or even an attempt to present a realistic depiction of one. It's basically a reworking of a late Christian romanticized view of the Vikings from the sagas and stories like the Nibelungenlied.

 

Yes, I was aware of Cimmeria being fake. i picked it to avoid using a real-world example because I have no anthropological knowledge to draw from when I was pondering things. I will do my best to refrain from commenting in the future about anything not having to do with myself as the subject.

 

My apologies

 

 

 

p.s. I wonder how one would teach a deaf, blind, mute person how to achieve altered states, meditation, Samadhi and realization of Dependent Origination. Part of me keeps thinking Drew is onto something here when he keeps getting back to music.

 

p.p.s. I confess I am surprised to hear there are ANY tribal societies (much less an astounding 90%!) that permit some individuals to accumulate wealth/resources that lie idle while other members of that same tribe starve (which was the point I was trying to make) !

[voidisyinyang]

This is the third comment detailing the difference between Buddhism and Advaita -- but, again, I submit that Advaita is more similar to Buddhism than we imagine -- because the PRACTICE of Advaita as logical inference is an interdependent process of origination, just as Buddhism teaches. So when it's said "Advaita" has this position or view focused on one truth -- in fact Advaita has no view since the practice relies on no words -- just at first repeating I-I-I and then LISTENING to the source of I. The process of listening as logical inference is not some frozen "one" truth -- it's an eternal interdependent process of vichara, as Buddhism acknowledges vichara as well. So in Buddhism there is more emphasis on analysis as insight -- conceptual analysis that both "notices" and then "labels" perception, consciousness, etc. Advaita, in contrast, just focuses on the goal -- no matter what is experienced, the answer is always WHO is experiencing and then the "I-thought" is emptied out again.

 

Is one more right or wrong -- essentially there are very similar because insight is described as WORDLESS AWARENESS -- noticing as conceptual awareness out of worldless awareness is insight vipassana of Theravada while conceptual analysis from "naming" is the next step. But as insight vipassana deepens then the labelling left-brain naming analysis has to be left behind -- the perceptual information becomes too deep and too fast as samadhi concentration kicks in. And then only the insight worldless awareness remains -- again just like Advaita.

 

Anyway as for misogyny in Native American spirituality -- I was just listening to "Paratopia" about the Kogi embracing the menstrual blood while the Post-Colonial Natives think menstrual blood is pollution. The Pre-Colombian Kogi avoided colonial culture. While the West projected and enforced misogyny on Native cultures I agree that Native cultures already had misogyny. But compare this with the BUSHMEN HEALING CULTURE -- the Bushmen remain ignored in Western study of shamanism -- because the Bushmen rarely used psychotropic plants! Yet the Bushmen were 90% of human history -- the original human culture from 80,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE. The Bushmen are matrifocal with the females guiding spiritual healing. So just because a culture like Natives rely on "essentialist" feminism -- inherent "mother earth" beliefs where females are to be gardener/farmers and males hunters -- females lunar and males solar, etc. - this goes back to the Bushmen who were not misogynist. When the female first went through menstruation each male walked past her and she held their penis! This was the original tantric training for the males who, when they wanted to marry, had to go live with the females' parents, and provide hunting food for 3 years before the male could even sleep physically with the female! That's some serious sex discipline for sublimation energy....

 

But again this whole Bushmen matrifocal tradition has remained unknown and ignored by the West PRECISELY because it undermines and challenges "male" spirituality -- be it Eastern spirituality or New World spirituality....

[nac]

drewhempel: All Buddhists, from the most orthodox Theravadin to the most esoteric Kagyupa, subscribe to the view of Dependent Origination, the Three Marks, etc.

 

Yes, I was aware of Cimmeria being fake. i picked it to avoid using a real-world example because I have no anthropological knowledge to draw from when I was pondering things. I will do my best to refrain from commenting in the future about anything not having to do with myself as the subject.

 

My apologies

 

That's okay, I'm just saying we shouldn't confuse imagination with truth.

 

p.s. I wonder how one would teach a deaf, blind, mute person how to achieve altered states, meditation, Samadhi and realization of Dependent Origination. Part of me keeps thinking Drew is onto something here when he keeps getting back to music.

Non-verbal teachings? Buddhists are supposed to use whatever skillful means is necessary to help beings attain liberation:

 

We're all "disabled" in relatively minor ways. We only call them disabilities when they are serious enough to have a profound impact on the individual's social life. Hence, the method of teaching always must be suited to the recipient. There's a story in the Tipitaka: The Buddha had a disciple who was unable to comprehend the basics of Buddhist philosophy or memorize the suttas by rote. So the Buddha instructed him to just sweep the grounds of the monastery. He kept at this every day until he was able to attain nibbana on his own. Sorry, I can't remember which Sutta this is from.

 

Cucumber Sage

[Vajrahridaya]

And then only the insight worldless awareness remains -- again just like Advaita.

 

Advaita considers this the source of the entire universe, the primal cause of all things, as a causeless cause. With the intellectual excuse... "all things are one with this cause, so it causes nothing and it takes two to conceive of one and thus there is neither." But, the subtle treatment of it as the subsuming reality leads to re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon. So, all your discussion is mere discursive thinking without seeing that one view leads to actual liberation from re-absorption and the other does not. I used to have the habit of trying to see all paths as one until I really saw dependent origination and how it actually works. Your still trying to say that a thoughtless awareness is beyond dependent origination or transcendent. As if being without thought is some transcendent substratum when in Buddhism, it's merely a state of focus. Your still not understanding dependent origination if your trying to think that Advaita and Mahayana are the same.

 

This is exactly what is not the result of the insight that is dependent origination.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

This is the third comment detailing the difference between Buddhism and Advaita -- but, again, I submit that Advaita is more similar to Buddhism than we imagine -- because the PRACTICE of Advaita as logical inference is an interdependent process of origination, just as Buddhism teaches. So when it's said "Advaita" has this position or view focused on one truth -- in fact Advaita has no view since the practice relies on no words -- just at first repeating I-I-I and then LISTENING to the source of I. The process of listening as logical inference is not some frozen "one" truth -- it's an eternal interdependent process of vichara, as Buddhism acknowledges vichara as well. So in Buddhism there is more emphasis on analysis as insight -- conceptual analysis that both "notices" and then "labels" perception, consciousness, etc. Advaita, in contrast, just focuses on the goal -- no matter what is experienced, the answer is always WHO is experiencing and then the "I-thought" is emptied out again.

Is the link from Great I to No I taught explicitly as in Buddhism? See: http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewt...p?f=12&t=48 If so, then Advaita doesn't really teach unity and it's practically the same as Buddhism.

 

Is one more right or wrong -- essentially there are very similar because insight is described as WORDLESS AWARENESS -- noticing as conceptual awareness out of worldless awareness is insight vipassana of Theravada while conceptual analysis from "naming" is the next step. But as insight vipassana deepens then the labelling left-brain naming analysis has to be left behind -- the perceptual information becomes too deep and too fast as samadhi concentration kicks in. And then only the insight worldless awareness remains -- again just like Advaita.

That's correct, nibbana isn't supposed to have any "I" experience remaining at all. Is Jainism the same too?

 

Anyway as for misogyny in Native American spirituality -- I was just listening to "Paratopia" about the Kogi embracing the menstrual blood while the Post-Colonial Natives think menstrual blood is pollution. The Pre-Colombian Kogi avoided colonial culture. While the West projected and enforced misogyny on Native cultures I agree that Native cultures already had misogyny. But compare this with the BUSHMEN HEALING CULTURE -- the Bushmen remain ignored in Western study of shamanism -- because the Bushmen rarely used psychotropic plants! Yet the Bushmen were 90% of human history -- the original human culture from 80,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE. The Bushmen are matrifocal with the females guiding spiritual healing. So just because a culture like Natives rely on "essentialist" feminism -- inherent "mother earth" beliefs where females are to be gardener/farmers and males hunters -- females lunar and males solar, etc. - this goes back to the Bushmen who were not misogynist. When the female first went through menstruation each male walked past her and she held their penis! This was the original tantric training for the males who, when they wanted to marry, had to go live with the females' parents, and provide hunting food for 3 years before the male could even sleep physically with the female! That's some serious sex discipline for sublimation energy....

 

But again this whole Bushmen matrifocal tradition has remained unknown and ignored by the West PRECISELY because it undermines and challenges "male" spirituality -- be it Eastern spirituality or New World spirituality....

Isn't this... just a little paranoid? Bushmen have tantric methods of attaining liberation? Why does everyone here have such a poor view of modern scholarship? Or did I misunderstand you?

Edited October 13, 2009 by nac

[JustARandomPanda]

NAC,

 

Is this true? Your correction I mean.

 

p.p.s. I confess I am surprised to hear there are ANY tribal societies (much less an astounding 90%!) that permit some individuals to accumulate wealth/resources that lie idle while other members of that same tribe starve (which was the point I was trying to make) !

 

Because this is what I understand you were correcting me about. 90% of all tribes allow some individuals to accumulate wealth that remains idle while other members of that same tribe starve?

[voidisyinyang]

But, the subtle treatment of it as the subsuming reality leads to re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

Wow -- that's a new one for me as per Advaita -- do you have any references about Advaita relying on "re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon"?

 

I realize there are the cosmic cycles in Vedanta but Buddhism relies on those as well -- from what I can only guess! haha.

 

Again the PRACTICE of Advaita is an eternal process -- this is clear from reading Ramana Maharshi and Poonjaji -- the modern Advaita masters. It's a philosophy so even after "eternal liberation" is achieved the philosophy continues although no new karma gets established.

 

Mahayana makes a similar critique of Theravada Hinayana -- that only the 7th level of consciousness (the ego) is "emptied out" through mind yoga without transforming the body through full-lotus.

 

Who am I during full-lotus? haha. This idea of "me" does not bother me! Just keep sitting in full-lotus and all these conceptual arguments are silly.

 

Once one experiences this process then the unity behind the various angles on conceptual description can be seen -- Master Nan, Huai-chin does acknowledge this universal truth as well but then he already integrates Taoism and Buddhism, along with Hinayana and Mahayana.

 

I guess he really is CONFUSED then? haha.

 

Please though continue to insist I don't understand because I find it very hilarious.

[Vajrahridaya]

[nac]

NAC,

 

Is this true? Your correction I mean.

Because this is what I understand you were correcting me about. 90% of all tribes allow some individuals to accumulate wealth that remains idle while other members of that same tribe starve?

No, that's not true. I'm sorry for giving a false impression. For most tribes, all members other than the chief probably starve together. (Hawai'ians, for instance, used to starve voluntarily to keep the Ali'i Nui fat and the mana flowing)

 

PS. In fact, there wasn't any connection with what you said at all. The statements in that post are stand-alone.

Edited October 13, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

But, the subtle treatment of it as the subsuming reality leads to re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

Wow -- that's a new one for me as per Advaita -- do you have any references about Advaita relying on "re-absorption at the end of a cosmic eon"?

 

It's standard Advaita not to really talk about it much, but it's talked about a bit in Vasisthas Yoga which I recommend if you want to see the entirety of Advaita as well as it's limitations in omniscience. Since we are all expressions of the one Brahman at the start of the universe, at the end we are all re-absorbed into the single deity, since we are all just energies of the one transcendent being. This being expresses and re-absorbs the cosmos over and over again. So, liberation under that view is not permanent and thus not true liberation at all as it's still a Samsaric interpretation of spiritual experience which is why Nagarjuna said, "Other paths lead to the edge of Samsara, but only Buddhadharma leads to the end of Samsara."

 

I realize there are the cosmic cycles in Vedanta but Buddhism relies on those as well -- from what I can only guess! haha.

 

Yes, but we see them as expressing how dependent origination works as a cosmic process and thus don't see the cycles as the play of one deity.

 

To understand this subtle difference will put an end to the idea that Advaita leads to the same realization as any Mahayana or Buddhist path.

 

Again the PRACTICE of Advaita is an eternal process -- this is clear from reading Ramana Maharshi and Poonjaji -- the modern Advaita masters. It's a philosophy so even after "eternal liberation" is achieved the philosophy continues although no new karma gets established.

 

The liberation of these beings is basing itself on the paradigm that all complexity resolves into a single transcendent substratum. So, according to Buddhism, their liberation is not eternal.

 

Mahayana makes a similar critique of Theravada Hinayana -- that only the 7th level of consciousness (the ego) is "emptied out" through mind yoga without transforming the body through full-lotus.

 

Who am I during full-lotus? haha. This idea of "me" does not bother me! Just keep sitting in full-lotus and all these conceptual arguments are silly.

 

Yes, and you might find yourself re-absorbed into a formless realm. Your clinging to an experience without concept. Did you not read my poem I quoted from Saraha? You are thinking your peak experience is something more than it is. It's just a jhana state and that is all.

 

Once one experiences this process then the unity behind the various angles on conceptual description can be seen -- Master Nan, Huai-chin does acknowledge this universal truth as well but then he already integrates Taoism and Buddhism, along with Hinayana and Mahayana.

 

Your just thinking that oneness is the ultimate reality. This is not seeing dependent origination.

 

I guess he really is CONFUSED then? haha.

 

Maybe so. There are very high levels of delusion.

 

Please though continue to insist I don't understand because I find it very hilarious.

 

I used to as well and argued for years from your position. But I hadn't yet seen and understood the subtle difference between Dependent Origination and Vedanta yet.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

[nac]

drewhempel: In the west, a lot more women practice eastern traditions than men.

[Vajrahridaya]

I appreciate you dialoging with me again but let's clarify this statement:

 

"Your idea that one needs to have full lotus in order to attain full and total realization is a limiting condition in your mind."

 

Please show me where I stated "one needs to have full-lotus" -- no again I said full-lotus is not necessary yet it's the most effective way to demonstrate that the body has been transformed.

 

You keep stating that this is all that is needed. Which is not true, as is why the Buddha said Jhanas or Samadhi alone don't lead to liberation, one must understand dependent origination intuitively and train in vipassana.

[voidisyinyang]

Right but who are the "leaders" of nonwestern spirituality? Ken Wilber? Ram Dass? Osho? In fact even in China, as qigong master Effie P. Chow details in her "Miracles Healing in China" book -- female healers are DRIVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY because the spiritual masters are supposed to be MEN.

 

Now is this sexist or is there another reason? As I've discovered through the "O at a D" psychic mutual climax -- the female electrochemical jing energy (kundalini or N/um) is the SOURCE for the male power and the male 3rd Eye healing is transmitting electromagnetic chi or laser shen back into the female. This is from complementary opposite harmonics -- meaning it's a NATURAL inherent resonance of life-force energy -- think "sexual tension" on steroids. haha.

 

So yes there are MORE females practicing nonwestern healing, etc. but their "leader" is usually a male and guess what -- his "power" is FROM THE FEMALES! So it's all interconnected and yet this complementary opposite tantric dynamics to nonwestern meditation healing and enlightenment is IGNORED by Western white male spiritualists -- there's a fixation on philosophy be it Advaita or Buddhism, etc. -- yet only the full-lotus truly enables sublimating the sex energy in modern society.

 

Full-lotus padmasana is the foundation practice for the Brahmacharya (sp?) tradition -- the sublimation of sex energy is what enables yogic spirituality. Is it "necessary"? No but mind yoga was dependent on having NO CONTACT with females -- even visual contact. The Brahmin priests had to do a 3 day purification ritual if there was visual contact with females -- because mind yoga otherwise would not sublimate and purify the sex energy.

 

Thanks again for dialoging with me -- sharing your opinion so I can share mine as well. haha.

 

Now where's SereneBlue?

[Vajrahridaya]

You keep stating that this is all that is needed. Which is not true, as is why the Buddha said Jhanas or Samadhi alone don't lead to liberation, one must understand dependent origination intuitively and train in vipassana.

 

But, what I think I am doing is mistaking your expression of enthusiasm for the experience of the full lotus as being a dogma. So, it's probably just me mis-reading your enthusiasm.

 

Oh Drew, please read my post #44 as I wrote it as you were answering to another post and you might have missed it. Take care!

Edited October 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

Please see my post on mind yoga as my last reply to NAC -- the monastery tradition relies on females FEEDING the male monks and in turn there is a tantric electromagnetic transmission back to the females. Is this discussed in Buddhist theravada teachings? I haven't come across it -- yet it's the experiential complementary opposite reality. In fact in Thailand successful monks have the problem of being considered SEX SYMBOLS by the "liberated" females. haha.

 

Again Vipassana starts out relying on left-brain insight analysis -- naming, conceptual awareness, etc. but as Vipassana mind yoga leads to full-on samadhi the conceptual awareness drops and reliance on "wordless awareness" as INSIGHT remains. So there is "naming" and there is "insight" -- true Vipassana as wordless insight only happens AFTER nirvikalpa samadhi (or achievement of cessation) is reached -- what is it the 4th Jhana in Buddhism?

 

The same is true in the Brahmin tradition -- real meditation doesn't begin until AFTER nirvikalpa samadhi -- which rules out (almost) EVERYONE on this website. Nirvikalpa samadhi happens after the 7 day fast from food and even little water -- when the body is FILLED with electromagnetic fields. And guess what? You can KNOW this is reached by being able to sit in full-lotus as long as you want. Now maybe you have no legs -- well again it's not NECESSARY to sit in full-lotus but full-lotus does confirm the body transformation before "real" Vipassana happens. Most insight vipassana starts as mind yoga relying on

 

Sila or morality using mind yoga to develop concentration after many many years (if then even). This mind yoga Theravada relies on separation from females, not visualizing the opposite sex, limiting food, and again years of practice which FINALLY finishes in the 7 day fast for "achievement of cessation" as the 4th level of Jhana. Now if you're just practicing mind yoga you can THINK you've achieved all the jhanas just as tons of Advaita practitioners think they've already achieved sahaja samadhi -- it's a BIG joke.

 

You keep stating that this is all that is needed. Which is not true, as is why the Buddha said Jhanas or Samadhi alone don't lead to liberation, one must understand dependent origination intuitively and train in vipassana.