More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[xabir2005]

Ok, thanks for some interesting history. Yet one may wonder about all the different schools of Buddhism (some of which disagree) if the 501 kept everything straight, so to speak? Btw, I was referring to examples of Ananda in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta.

 

Good evening

The Theravadin Maha-parinibbana Sutta, you mean?

 

Well, he was still not an Arhant then - he only becomes an Arhant 3 weeks after Buddha's passing.

 

Anyway, different schools arose due to many reasons, not just one.

[dwai]

We must be careful here when we use sentences such as "it is everything else" because such statements are quite useless because we have to clarify what you mean by everything. Every object? That which is behond objects? The characteristic of objects? This is often the phrase used to put a term on a pedestal (I'm not necessarily saying you are doing this).

 

And furthermore, in the second paragraph you seem to be saying that anything that can be labelled is a phenomenon (did you read my criticism on your usage of the term beginning and an end? because it's an important concept to understand that these are extreme notions based on solidifying phenomena). You have just mentioned many times this thing called Consciousness. And if we say, "Non-existence," or "Non-phenomena" or "non-labelledness", we have given labels to non-label things. Does this mean they are phenomena? No not really. Labelling isn't that important.

 

There are labels ascribed upon perception/cognition and then labels ascribed due to lack of perception/cognition. Phenomena are the former, Consciousness is the latter.

 

 

The word noumenon is used to connote cognition in the history of its usage through philosophy and language, so I mentioned thought and formless ness.

 

So the word doesn't quite fit what you are trying to get at. And in your case it cannot be labelled, it is indescribable, etc. etc. Then there is no use for any of this discussion is it? In fact, there is no use for you to at all think about these things. And moreover, there is no way you can use your understanding or effort to get there because these are ways learned via the laws of phenomena world. And if it is beyond the workings of the phenomenal word, you definitely cannot go from phenomena to this Ultimate.

 

You can...by realizing this Consciousness in it's purest form, in the gap between thoughts. The rub is in the expression without explanation. The problem is in the inadequacy of the English language. If used terms like prajna, cit, antahkarana, etc and you understood what they meant, the conversation would perhaps be easier. For that, you have to learn a different categorical framework...and I am saying it with all due respect...not trying to trivialize your intelligence or your sincerity.

 

 

So do you see how quite useless this conceptualization, this glorification of the Self is to actual practice?

 

If we cannot understand through language, physical, mental, form, formless efforts, including that of gap between thought, which is, mind you, still a phenomena,

 

what is the use of all this talk? Why do you at all read, write, think, do yoga to realize this thing when you have stated here you can't realize it by these methods of "phenomena"?

 

I never said you cannot realize it. I said you cannot realize it using the phenomenological apparatii directly. You can verily realize it by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna). That is the goal of all these schools...Taoism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta.

 

 

Then do you agree that this state is not a beyond state? That it is constant in every experience?

 

But then there is two parts to one experience isn't there? The consciousness and the phenomena.

 

But we must end out discussion about consciousness here, because we can no longer use words to describe it.

 

in the phenomenal sense, yes there are two parts to experience...but in the absolute sense, there is only Consciousness.

 

So you agree that Consciousness is not a phenomenon, since you don't want to discuss it any further...I do think you understood what I'm trying to express here.

 

You don't know at all that these traditions lead to the same experience unless you believe yourself to have truly understood and experienced them all. Yet I have yet come across your commentaries on Vaj's experience or Thusness's stages from an experiential standpoint. And I say this with respect, but your stance has always been from a purely hypothetical standpoint (And unfortunately, mine has often been also, but hopefully that will die down).

 

I can detect a fraud when I see it. Sorry to say it, I like Thusness' articles and have deep respect for him and Xabir. However, I don't extend that to Vaj...

 

And my stance has not been a purely hypothetical one. It is driven by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna).

 

 

"to better one's practice..." this statement is very important and I'm glad you mentioned it. Why don't you give the "other Buddhist" interpretations a try? Consider an alternative and see where it takes you. If you don't meditate on what what has been written against you over and over, how will you know if it is not indeed better or worse? Or more importantly, what the hell have we been doing if you or I have not even done that yet?

 

Let me turn that around. You still haven't answered why the "non-self" is so seductive to you. To answer your question....I did...It didn't make sense to me...neither intellectually, nor experientially. And I realized that Buddhism too is merely a categorical framework, a raft that needs to be discarded at some point in the journey.

[dwai]

We are speaking of gaining insight into reality of every moment, and not about inducing states through practice.

 

We induce states in order to gain deeper insight into reality, or for practical purposes (like inducing wakefulness by drinking coffee), not be lost in a "gap." I think this is actually very revealing of limitations of this discussion, because the very purpose of practice for you and I are different.

 

Every moment is dependently originated and empty of self-nature.

That is a natural course of things...the important thing is to delve deeper into the "unknowable".

[Marblehead]

...the important thing is to delve deeper into the "unknowable".

 

But be careful where you walk 'cause you might walk right off the edge of this flat earth.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

There are labels ascribed upon perception/cognition and then labels ascribed due to lack of perception/cognition. Phenomena are the former, Consciousness is the latter.

Then you must not say phenomena is defined by the ability to label it, for anything can be labeled, and always wrongly.

 

You can...by realizing this Consciousness in it's purest form, in the gap between thoughts. The rub is in the expression without explanation. The problem is in the inadequacy of the English language. If used terms like prajna, cit, antahkarana, etc and you understood what they meant, the conversation would perhaps be easier. For that, you have to learn a different categorical framework...and I am saying it with all due respect...not trying to trivialize your intelligence or your sincerity.

All linguistic expression is a symbol, of letter and words and descriptions. Terms like Prajna, cit, Antahkarana are not any more special than wisdom, awareness, higher consciousness, 6th.7th consciousness alaya vijnana, or whatever.

 

You cannot express without explanation. The belief that you could is precisely why much misunderstanding happens in communication. The belief that a single word can be communicated without proper context is to put that word on a pedestal of "oh it's a pretty special word" without understanding it's relation to direct experience. One of these words is God. Or Consciousness. As if they are untouchable you worship it.

 

I never said you cannot realize it. I said you cannot realize it using the phenomenological apparatii directly. You can verily realize it by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna). That is the goal of all these schools...Taoism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta.

All the methods you have listed as your practice are methods on the phenomenological sphere. They come for phenomenal habits and actions.

 

Please do not state that "this is the goal of all these schools." I do not think you have experience or knowledge enough in Taoism or Buddhism (and even perhaps Advaita) to declare that this is the goal. Taoists don't all agree on what i means to merge with the Tao, or what immortality entails. And as you have seen here, Buddhists do not agree what it means to be enlightened. Also the level of experiential understanding of Brahman is also different throughout Hindu thought, including ascribed methods to realization.

 

If you are familiar with the latter, as it seems you are, but please don't "mix and match" for your own liking because it seems as though you have not had personal insights into the other two.

 

in the phenomenal sense, yes there are two parts to experience...but in the absolute sense, there is only Consciousness.

 

So you agree that Consciousness is not a phenomenon, since you don't want to discuss it any further...I do think you understood what I'm trying to express here.

And here is the precise problem of interpreting reality dualistically as phenomenon and Consciousness. Experience is always non-dual. Why? Because when we try to investigate its duality, already another experience arises. We can never ascertain the duality of experience, because upon seeing duality, we see the new non-dual "duality" and not the original experience (itself also non-dual) attempted to be investigated. Hence we can never perceive the original experience and analyze it, but only transform it into a new experience.

 

So if there was a background called "Consciousness" and the foreground, the two would need to present themselves as one. But our daily experiences are different! From moment to moment a different experience arises! The table, the chair, hunger, thought of "what is consciousness?" all arise in their difference. So there is no point to ascribing a one unifying term to call these experiences as one, if we do so, we are discarding the very basis of language which is to discern and sort through differences.

 

You are still thinking in the definitive dual aspect of phenomenon and consciousness. There is no such division in experience. The division is made only upon a senseless label like saying wind is separate from blowing.

 

I can detect a fraud when I see it. Sorry to say it, I like Thusness' articles and have deep respect for him and Xabir. However, I don't extend that to Vaj...

That's quite an insult to Vaj and all his teachers. Actually here you reveal another difficult mode of learning. We shouldn't care so much about who or what has/is teaching but see if their teachings are applicable to our realities and can help deepen your insight. Just as you wrote above that the goal is the same for Taoism Buddhism and Advaita, we are thinking too narrowly in academic terms of "here's this tradition and that is their goal" or "here is this practitioner and his experience (which is fraud) without experiential insight.

 

And my stance has not been a purely hypothetical one. It is driven by direct intuitive knowledge (prajna).

 

Let me turn that around. You still haven't answered why the "non-self" is so seductive to you. To answer your question....I did...It didn't make sense to me...neither intellectually, nor experientially. And I realized that Buddhism too is merely a categorical framework, a raft that needs to be discarded at some point in the journey.

"direct intuitive knowledge" is a dangerous way of knowing. People can say they have direct intuitive knowledge of God without much explanation. People can say they have direct intuitive knowledge of unicorns existing somewhere. Oh, they just know.

 

But if you meant to use prajna as a knowing directly, not by intuition but from every moment in experience, I doubt you experience the "I AM" consciousness from moment to moment, because your practice still consists in inducing states, and believe that your progress depends on this state. So it is still in the realm of faith, and not complete understanding.

 

No-self is not seductive. I see that it is as reality truly is. It didin't make sense to me because I didn't understand it, or I tried to understand it without direct experience. The very act of "trying to make sense of it" is a mistaken approach to understanding a direct insight. And since my experience was governed by the attempt to make sense of it, it is not whole, it is not sincere. (By the way, your thinking of "categorical framework" is yet another "categorical framework.") But explanations in Buddhism have been as direct as anything I have come across. You can't get much direct than that.

 

I speak mainly of my own mistakes in approach to Buddhism in the previous paragraph and believe that you are encountering similar problems. But I can only speak from my experience, so I am doing that.

 

After considering many aspects of Buddhist thought I discarded it for the dual model of Consciousness and Object because of the problem of "free will" (but that is another discussion). Like you, I tried to make sense of it, which was a mistake and when it didn't make "sense" to my liking, I couldn't agree with it. But during meditation, Kunlun, etc, I realized that the very concept of Background or Watcher was very detrimental to exploring and evolving into newer ground of experience that my body (I was not consciously doing this) was trying to break through (Kunlun does this through two aspects). It was as if I had let go of thoughts, but then clung to a state of consciousness that was supposedly behind those thoughts, a new "entity" of sorts. There was a dropping of thoughts only to come to another level of "thoughts." I felt that the progress I was making through Kunlun and meditation was continually shifting and challenging this "ground."

 

So for sometime I gave to the mantra "thinking, but no thinker, sound but no hearer on and on, free will be damned " And immediately everything fell into alignment. There was nothing holding my practice in the sense of "goals" (higher state, purer state of consciousness and such) or a crash between through/ground, evolution/identity. The act itself was all there was. Really all aspect of practice changed when I delved into this switch in perception, and not only was there no longer a division between me "practicing" and not practicing, but every waking hour was truly practice itself! There was no need to "stabilize" any state, but simply recognize thoughts and thoughts, walking as walking, wanting to sit as sitting, sitting as sitting, etc.

 

So I hope you give it a try. It's quite a new opening.

[dwai]

Then you must not say phenomena is defined by the ability to label it, for anything can be labeled, and always wrongly.

 

 

All linguistic expression is a symbol, of letter and words and descriptions. Terms like Prajna, cit, Antahkarana are not any more special than wisdom, awareness, higher consciousness, 6th.7th consciousness alaya vijnana, or whatever.

 

You cannot express without explanation. The belief that you could is precisely why much misunderstanding happens in communication. The belief that a single word can be communicated without proper context is to put that word on a pedestal of "oh it's a pretty special word" without understanding it's relation to direct experience. One of these words is God. Or Consciousness. As if they are untouchable you worship it.

 

 

All the methods you have listed as your practice are methods on the phenomenological sphere. They come for phenomenal habits and actions.

 

Please do not state that "this is the goal of all these schools." I do not think you have experience or knowledge enough in Taoism or Buddhism (and even perhaps Advaita) to declare that this is the goal. Taoists don't all agree on what i means to merge with the Tao, or what immortality entails. And as you have seen here, Buddhists do not agree what it means to be enlightened. Also the level of experiential understanding of Brahman is also different throughout Hindu thought, including ascribed methods to realization.

 

That is actually your opinion and might not have any bearing to facts. You don't know me or anything about me. Likewise I don't know you and don't know anything about you. What we have is perception that has grown with a few interactions on the internet. Based on which, I quite share your opinion of my "knowledge" with you, in that I don't think you have much maturity in Buddhism or Taoism either. But that doesn't mean I will discount your perspective...I will simply not agree with it. Our interactions have been not so much about the proverbial pat on each other's backs but of pitting two different modes of thinking against each other. You (and a few others here) try to find the differences, I find the commonality. It boils down to a difference in our inherent personalities. Just because you THINK you are right doesn't automatically make me wrong. And vice versa...I only challenged those assertions and views that challenged those that I hold. I haven't seen any convincing argument to make me change mine. And don't for one instance think I'd turn to an internet forum to gather knowledge from anonymous individuals...I will turn to more familiar and reliable sources, like my Sifu, my Guru, etc.

 

If you are familiar with the latter, as it seems you are, but please don't "mix and match" for your own liking because it seems as though you have not had personal insights into the other two.

 

 

And here is the precise problem of interpreting reality dualistically as phenomenon and Consciousness. Experience is always non-dual. Why? Because when we try to investigate its duality, already another experience arises. We can never ascertain the duality of experience, because upon seeing duality, we see the new non-dual "duality" and not the original experience (itself also non-dual) attempted to be investigated. Hence we can never perceive the original experience and analyze it, but only transform it into a new experience.

 

I can assure you that in the school of Taoism I follow, it is exactly as it is in Advaita Vedanta. My teacher of Madhyamika/Advaita is not only a renowned physicist but also a classically trained philosopher in Madhyamika and Advaita Vedanta (in the Gurukul system). He teaches a synthesis of the two and the fact that it all leads to the same realization. My personal experiences starting with a series of "lightning strikes" when I was 19 to present moment (and I am 35 now) have all led to the same realization...so then we are pitting your (and your friends') training and experience against those that I hold to be in my tradition(s) (in each of these systems). So, I complement my personal practice with material that has a long tradition and also academic rigor.

 

So if there was a background called "Consciousness" and the foreground, the two would need to present themselves as one. But our daily experiences are different! From moment to moment a different experience arises! The table, the chair, hunger, thought of "what is consciousness?" all arise in their difference. So there is no point to ascribing a one unifying term to call these experiences as one, if we do so, we are discarding the very basis of language which is to discern and sort through differences.

 

That demonstrates a lack of experience and more in the realm of intellectual "understanding".

 

 

You are still thinking in the definitive dual aspect of phenomenon and consciousness. There is no such division in experience. The division is made only upon a senseless label like saying wind is separate from blowing.

 

Yes and no. They are phases...first there is no division, then there is division, then there is no division (because you choose to have it that way).

It changes with maturity of practice.

 

That's quite an insult to Vaj and all his teachers. Actually here you reveal another difficult mode of learning. We shouldn't care so much about who or what has/is teaching but see if their teachings are applicable to our realities and can help deepen your insight. Just as you wrote above that the goal is the same for Taoism Buddhism and Advaita, we are thinking too narrowly in academic terms of "here's this tradition and that is their goal" or "here is this practitioner and his experience (which is fraud) without experiential insight.

 

The veracity or lack of it thereof is evident to in the words and actions that one projects (even on a medium such as the internet). I stand by my opinion of Vaj...impetuous, circular and ignorant. If you notice, I don't engage him anymore, neither Mikaelz...I don't find any point in doing so.

 

"direct intuitive knowledge" is a dangerous way of knowing. People can say they have direct intuitive knowledge of God without much explanation. People can say they have direct intuitive knowledge of unicorns existing somewhere. Oh, they just know.

 

But if you meant to use prajna as a knowing directly, not by intuition but from every moment in experience, I doubt you experience the "I AM" consciousness from moment to moment, because your practice still consists in inducing states, and believe that your progress depends on this state. So it is still in the realm of faith, and not complete understanding.

 

Quite the contrary, since these "states" are important to breaking out of the conditioned consciousness that we have, due to the dualistic nature of this material existence. If not, everyone would be "enlightened"... Of course, you might be an Enlightened Sage...but it doesn't show (with all due respect of course).

 

No-self is not seductive. I see that it is as reality truly is. It didin't make sense to me because I didn't understand it, or I tried to understand it without direct experience. The very act of "trying to make sense of it" is a mistaken approach to understanding a direct insight. And since my experience was governed by the attempt to make sense of it, it is not whole, it is not sincere. (By the way, your thinking of "categorical framework" is yet another "categorical framework.") But explanations in Buddhism have been as direct as anything I have come across. You can't get much direct than that.

 

For you maybe. Why is it so hard to understand that different people have different ways to get certain insights and understandings? I have had similar conversations with hare Krishnas, who think that only their religion is correct and everyone else is a fool. As it is with Christians and Moslems...I don't see any difference in the level of dogmatism here.

 

I speak mainly of my own mistakes in approach to Buddhism in the previous paragraph and believe that you are encountering similar problems. But I can only speak from my experience, so I am doing that.

 

After considering many aspects of Buddhist thought I discarded it for the dual model of Consciousness and Object because of the problem of "free will" (but that is another discussion). Like you, I tried to make sense of it, which was a mistake and when it didn't make "sense" to my liking, I couldn't agree with it. But during meditation, Kunlun, etc, I realized that the very concept of Background or Watcher was very detrimental to exploring and evolving into newer ground of experience that my body (I was not consciously doing this) was trying to break through (Kunlun does this through two aspects). It was as if I had let go of thoughts, but then clung to a state of consciousness that was supposedly behind those thoughts, a new "entity" of sorts. There was a dropping of thoughts only to come to another level of "thoughts." I felt that the progress I was making through Kunlun and meditation was continually shifting and challenging this "ground."

 

So for sometime I gave to the mantra "thinking, but no thinker, sound but no hearer on and on, free will be damned " And immediately everything fell into alignment. There was nothing holding my practice in the sense of "goals" (higher state, purer state of consciousness and such) or a crash between through/ground, evolution/identity. The act itself was all there was. Really all aspect of practice changed when I delved into this switch in perception, and not only was there no longer a division between me "practicing" and not practicing, but every waking hour was truly practice itself! There was no need to "stabilize" any state, but simply recognize thoughts and thoughts, walking as walking, wanting to sit as sitting, sitting as sitting, etc.

 

So I hope you give it a try. It's quite a new opening.

 

Isn't that what we do anyway?

[Lucky7Strikes]

That is actually your opinion and might not have any bearing to facts. You don't know me or anything about me. Likewise I don't know you and don't know anything about you. What we have is perception that has grown with a few interactions on the internet. Based on which, I quite share your opinion of my "knowledge" with you, in that I don't think you have much maturity in Buddhism or Taoism either. But that doesn't mean I will discount your perspective...I will simply not agree with it. Our interactions have been not so much about the proverbial pat on each other's backs but of pitting two different modes of thinking against each other. You (and a few others here) try to find the differences, I find the commonality. It boils down to a difference in our inherent personalities. Just because you THINK you are right doesn't automatically make me wrong. And vice versa...I only challenged those assertions and views that challenged those that I hold. I haven't seen any convincing argument to make me change mine. And don't for one instance think I'd turn to an internet forum to gather knowledge from anonymous individuals...I will turn to more familiar and reliable sources, like my Sifu, my Guru, etc.

I haven't seen a constructive argument from you regarding anything I have written besides phrases that fall into maxims and cliches. You often resort to "oh it is beyond," "oh you cannot understand it," without addressing any logical or experiential insights I, or any others here, have shared with you

 

"Just because you Think you are right doesn't make you wrong." This isn't a childish game of who is right or who is wrong. I'm sad that you see it that way. We shouldn't even be considering "who" is right or wrong, but whether are interpretations hold true to reality. IMHO, The gurus, teachers, whoever be damned, all we have is our own experiences as the basis for truth. So one shouldn't be so obsessed with whether one knows the other person or not. As I see it, what is important is to learn their views, see where it comes from, and see how it can deepen or challenge or own insights. But this quote really threw me off...

 

"I haven't seen any convincing argument to make me change mine. And don't for one instance think I'd turn to an internet forum to gather knowledge from anonymous individuals...I will turn to more familiar and reliable sources, like my Sifu, my Guru, etc."

Wow. So you won't change your views. So how will you even fairly see a "convincing argument"? More importantly, if this is your attitude, what is the point of all these months we have carried on this discussion? Thanks for admitting to this so we won't ever carry on with these lengthy posts assuming that its purpose is to deepen our understandings or learn from them. It is as if you are here to spit out your views and let that be that. I know that many people here already do this (and I am certainly guilty of it too), but I had hoped that the multiple thread you have started here, consuming many people's time explaining and discussing with you, that there was more of a constructive purpose. One of the reasons I like this forum is the open mindedness people bring to various practices and ideologies and a willingness to consider their validity. But you're apparently not here to gather knowledge, but only bicker and bicker.

 

The veracity or lack of it thereof is evident to in the words and actions that one projects (even on a medium such as the internet). I stand by my opinion of Vaj...impetuous, circular and ignorant. If you notice, I don't engage him anymore, neither Mikaelz...I don't find any point in doing so.

It is you own projection. Literally and figuratively. It is exactly how you are.

 

Quite the contrary, since these "states" are important to breaking out of the conditioned consciousness that we have, due to the dualistic nature of this material existence. If not, everyone would be "enlightened"... Of course, you might be an Enlightened Sage...but it doesn't show (with all due respect of course).

Everyone is enlightened. They just don't recognize it. This is where we see the difference between insight into the nature of all realities vs. induced states. The former is eternal, the latter is not. Enlightenment is in every aspect of being, it is not in a induced state.

 

Material existence is not dual. Only the view that it is dual makes it dual, but even that duality is non-dual, hence Nirvana and Samsara are the same.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

That's quite an insult to Vaj and all his teachers. Actually here you reveal another difficult mode of learning. We shouldn't care so much about who or what has/is teaching but see if their teachings are applicable to our realities and can help deepen your insight. Just as you wrote above that the goal is the same for Taoism Buddhism and Advaita, we are thinking too narrowly in academic terms of "here's this tradition and that is their goal" or "here is this practitioner and his experience (which is fraud) without experiential insight.

 

 

 

 

It's kind of like some conspiracy theories. They give reason for helplessness. Theism does this in a sense as well... "It's all God's will that I'm like this and these things happen to me." More reason for helplessness instead of self examination and transformation.

 

Some people would rather concoct ideas that all my experiences and insights that I have shared here are coming from a fraudulent source and that I make things up rather than question what they can do from within to test the validity of the information I have honestly shared here.

 

I don't know if you read it, but a couple of weeks ago Dwai said that I made up everything. I have not and did not, but this seems to me like a cop out. But, to each their own. I'll continue to debate if I'm inspired to do so. For me, it's more of a revelation of insecurity to go to such extreme ideas about someone you don't know and think that it's based upon "divine insight"... AAAAHHHHHHHH! "My Lord came to me and said, 'VH is a fraud'!"

 

I will say for the record, that I'm just a regular human being who before I spent many years meditating, chanting and reading spiritual texts from all the major traditions, I acted like a fool and ran around on the streets. But, starting in 94' I had an awakening experience that reminded me of many spiritual experiences had as a youth as well. After this I followed very intensely and closely Vedic branches of practice and contemplation under the guidance of a living Hindu adept before meeting an experienced Buddhist scholar online named Malcolm Smith (Lappon Namdrol in the Sakya tradition [The Sakya's are the scholars]) who revealed that all my assumptions about Buddhism based upon Advaita Vedantin conditioning were not complete.

 

We debated, much like we are with Dwai for about 3 years before I really just let go. My responses to Namdrol were much like Dwai's responses to us, with the exact same platform for conditioning, that the primal "I" is absolute and static and all dynamic things emanate from that transcendent experience on a cosmic level.

 

I decided that I wanted to know the truth, not use my experiences, no matter how deep I may think them to be, as an escape from further investigation.

 

So, I really started to contemplate the new teachings and perspectives that were coming at me and I at first started to have dream revelations as I would think about them as I was going to sleep. So, the truth of Buddhas revelations would reveal themselves to me in lucid dream states. This is all a process of course.

 

Then I met a Buddhist Master in person and got blown out of the water. I saw the subtle differences between non-substantial non-duality and substance based non-dualism such as Advaita Vedanta and how incomplete the wisdom of substantial non-dualism is through direct experiences and visions of the 6 realms and intuitive comprehension of the meaning of the 31 realm model in link with the 8 form and formless jhanas. I saw how much subtler a view dependent origination is directly and how it leads to a completely un-obscured view! Because infinite and faceless consciousness is considered an obscuration if identified with as absolute.

 

This really scared me and pulled me apart and I fought tooth and nail within to keep both traditions afloat as one. But, I came to the conclusion through intense experiences of spiritual pain with energy and spirit guides, etc. that both traditions were developing the energy body differently for different purposes as the goals are different on more levels than just philosophically and the two could not be reconciled. At least not yet. A fully developed being can go anywhere and not be influenced externally. But, "they say" when you are still developing that the spirit guides in the astral realm change when you change lineage and tradition and some people who have strong development in the previous tradition actually don't even survive the change. Anyway... I'm saying too much maybe.

 

So, for Dwai to come to a revelation of what we are saying, might be asking for too much. As it certainly was hard for me, for many years. Re-arranging pathways in the brain and mind of spiritual interpretation is probably one of the hardest things to do as these pathways are deep and subtle, transcending the mundane. In Dwai's case his entire family lineage is trapped in Vedic conditioning for this lifetime. So he'd rather call me a fraud and allocate me to the not worth listening to box.

 

I will say that I am still a screw up in many ways in my personal life. But, the experiences and insights that I have shared here do come straight from my heart and my life and no one elses.

 

But to label someone a fraud because their interpretation of spiritual experiences is in disagreement with ones own tradition? Ok... We'll let that speak for itself.

[adept]

meeting an experienced Buddhist scholar online named Malcolm Smith (Lappon Namdrol

 

I take it this is the same Namdrol that used to rule over E-Sangha with an iron fist. Banning members who didn't share his views.

A rather controversial figure to say the least.

Now I know where you get your evangelist type preaching from.

You keep good company.

[Vajrahridaya]

I take it this is the same Namdrol that used to rule over E-Sangha with an iron fist. Banning members who didn't share his views.

A rather controversial figure to say the least.

Now I know where you get your evangelist type preaching from.

You keep good company.

 

I've spent plenty of time with him in person. The thing about E-Sangha as they wanted to keep the teachings in line with what the Buddha taught from people who actually studied all the texts for many years, including Namdrol and not get overwhelmed with divergent views that would confuse new-comers to Buddhism.

 

You are welcome to your negative perspective of course. But, I have spent plenty of personal time with Namdrol... as in live and in living color and have done practice with him. He is not merely a scholar. He is deeply experienced and his knowledge is worthy of veneration. Buddhist masters would not have given him the title of Lappon very lightly. He did complete his 3 years, 3 month, 3 day solitary retreat within the Sakya tradition under strict masterful guidance.

 

Anyway... yes, that's him.

[adept]

The thing about E-Sangha as they wanted to keep the teachings in line with what the Buddha taught from people who actually studied all the texts for many years, including Namdrol and not get overwhelmed with divergent views that would confuse new-comers to Buddhism.

 

What you mean to say is that they wanted to keep a sectarian bias towards certain types of Tibetan Buddhism and anyone who disagreed with it was met with hostility.

There are loads of stories about experienced Buddhists ( many of who were ordained ) who were banned from E Sangha for disagreeing with the Namdrol. (He does sound like an orc chieftain from LOTR !)

[Vajrahridaya]

What you mean to say is that they wanted to keep a sectarian bias towards certain types of Tibetan Buddhism and anyone who disagreed with it was met with hostility.

 

There were many boards there, not only Tibetan Buddhist. They also welcomed all the traditional sects of Tibetan Buddhism including Bon within the Tibetan Buddhist forum. So, there were many erudite discussions on the different arguments surrounding view. But, if you are too distracting with your pronunciation based upon ignorance, sure you will get warned, then kicked out for a little while. If you ask questions and wish to get better acquainted with the traditions, that was fine. There indeed were a few in there that were Ban happy and Namdrol was not one of them.

 

I got kicked out many times myself during the 4 years I was in E-Sangha. So, if you got kicked out, you must have been over stepping some rules and guidelines.

 

There are loads of stories about experienced Buddhists ( many of who were ordained ) who were banned from E Sangha for disagreeing with the Namdrol. (He does sound like an orc chieftain from LOTR !)

 

I've never heard these stories or saw these arguments leading to banning from him. I read most everything he wrote. So, these must be unfounded rumors.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

What you mean to say is that they wanted to keep a sectarian bias towards certain types of Tibetan Buddhism and anyone who disagreed with it was met with hostility.

There are loads of stories about experienced Buddhists ( many of who were ordained ) who were banned from E Sangha for disagreeing with the Namdrol. (He does sound like an orc chieftain from LOTR !)

If you mean the notion that there is no rebirth, then that is non-Buddhist and have no place in a Buddhist forum - it is not something related to Tibetan Buddhism.

[adept]

I've never heard these stories or saw these arguments leading to banning from him. I read most everything he wrote. So, these must be unfounded rumors.

Read This

And This

And This

 

There's lots more.

Scandalicious !!!

Edited August 2, 2010 by adept

[Vajrahridaya]

Read This

And This

 

You know, I've had posts completely erased by one moderator or another here in Tao Bums, as well as reply's to them. I have never complained. It is what it is! I'm not saying that all the Moderators on E-Sangha acted upon non-emotional objectivity all the time, but plenty of it was necessary.

 

E-Sangha was a vast and beautiful resource of information for me. Those that take the short time suspensions too personally need to do some more inner contemplation, IMO.

[adept]

Maybe the hacker who brought down E Sangha was one of the many people who were denied a voice on the forum ?

[Vajrahridaya]

Read This

And This

And This

 

There's lots more.

Scandalicious !!!

 

This does not have much to do with Namdrol. They had hundreds of moderators. Yes, sure... tons of scandal. People like scandal, in robes or in plane clothes, or even without any clothes on.

 

I really don't care. I know Namdrol personally.

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe the hacker who brought down E Sangha was one of the many people who were denied a voice on the forum ?

 

Could be!

[adept]

I really don't care. I know Namdrol personally.

 

Like an ostrich who buries it's head in the sand.

[Vajrahridaya]

Like an ostrich who buries it's head in the sand.

 

No, I just don't care about the scandals on E-Sangha. I know Namdrol personally and from the links you gave me, there is no discussion on him though I didn't read every nook and cranny. He didn't go onto E-Sangha very much anymore towards it's end. Your statements to me are more of a reflection of your view of my view than having anything to do with Namdrol as a Lappon in the Sakya tradition.

 

What does any of these scandals have to do with Namdrol as a person who I know? Nothing.

 

Your just reaching...

[Pero]

No, I just don't care about the scandals on E-Sangha. I know Namdrol personally and from the links you gave me, there is no discussion on him though I didn't read every nook and cranny. He didn't go onto E-Sangha very much anymore towards it's end. Your statements to me are more of a reflection of your view of my view than having anything to do with Namdrol as a Lappon in the Sakya tradition.

 

What does any of these scandals have to do with Namdrol as a person who I know? Nothing.

 

Your just reaching...

 

Don't bother with him Hari, it's not worth it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Don't bother with him Hari, it's not worth it.

 

I agree, it's funny what some people will reach for.

[dwai]

I haven't seen a constructive argument from you regarding anything I have written besides phrases that fall into maxims and cliches. You often resort to "oh it is beyond," "oh you cannot understand it," without addressing any logical or experiential insights I, or any others here, have shared with you

 

"Just because you Think you are right doesn't make you wrong." This isn't a childish game of who is right or who is wrong. I'm sad that you see it that way. We shouldn't even be considering "who" is right or wrong, but whether are interpretations hold true to reality. IMHO, The gurus, teachers, whoever be damned, all we have is our own experiences as the basis for truth. So one shouldn't be so obsessed with whether one knows the other person or not. As I see it, what is important is to learn their views, see where it comes from, and see how it can deepen or challenge or own insights. But this quote really threw me off...

 

 

Wow. So you won't change your views. So how will you even fairly see a "convincing argument"? More importantly, if this is your attitude, what is the point of all these months we have carried on this discussion? Thanks for admitting to this so we won't ever carry on with these lengthy posts assuming that its purpose is to deepen our understandings or learn from them. It is as if you are here to spit out your views and let that be that. I know that many people here already do this (and I am certainly guilty of it too), but I had hoped that the multiple thread you have started here, consuming many people's time explaining and discussing with you, that there was more of a constructive purpose. One of the reasons I like this forum is the open mindedness people bring to various practices and ideologies and a willingness to consider their validity. But you're apparently not here to gather knowledge, but only bicker and bicker.

 

I didn't bicker. If you didn't want to discuss this with me and not "bicker", you should have just kept your thoughts to yourself. I posted what I did to share with those TTBers who aren't into pseudo-buddhist crap that is being floated here. If it doesn't float your boat, just go on your own merry way with your practice and your ideas.

 

My arguments don't seem constructive to you because they deconstruct the platform you are standing on.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">I have clearly and succinctly articulated what my position vis-a-vis Consciousness, Reality, Experience etc are. I don't know how else i can make my position more "constructive" than that!

I stopped seeking "guidance" from the great Buddhists on this forum a long time back...right when it became abundantly clear to me that there was nothing much of value I could learn from them. I did not however jump in and hijack threads on other traditions by shoveling the pseudo-buddhist garbage into them...so I guess I am lesser of the "evils" that lurk in the dark corners of TTB. As far as those who take time to "show me the way" are concerned...please by all means ignore my posts. I'm sure I'll just fade away into the anonymity of the Web just like any other troll whose ego is not fed.

 

 

It is you own projection. Literally and figuratively. It is exactly how you are.

 

 

Everyone is enlightened. They just don't recognize it. This is where we see the difference between insight into the nature of all realities vs. induced states. The former is eternal, the latter is not. Enlightenment is in every aspect of being, it is not in a induced state.

 

Material existence is not dual. Only the view that it is dual makes it dual, but even that duality is non-dual, hence Nirvana and Samsara are the same.

 

Sure...everyone is enlightened It shows in the way the humans in this world behave...in stochastic, non-deterministic, nihilistic "miraculous" ways!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I didn't bicker. If you didn't want to discuss this with me and not "bicker", you should have just kept your thoughts to yourself. I posted what I did to share with those TTBers who aren't into pseudo-buddhist crap that is being floated here. If it doesn't float your boat, just go on your own merry way with your practice and your ideas.

 

My arguments don't seem constructive to you because they deconstruct the platform you are standing on.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">I have clearly and succinctly articulated what my position vis-a-vis Consciousness, Reality, Experience etc are. I don't know how else i can make my position more "constructive" than that!

I stopped seeking "guidance" from the great Buddhists on this forum a long time back...right when it became abundantly clear to me that there was nothing much of value I could learn from them. I did not however jump in and hijack threads on other traditions by shoveling the pseudo-buddhist garbage into them...so I guess I am lesser of the "evils" that lurk in the dark corners of TTB. As far as those who take time to "show me the way" are concerned...please by all means ignore my posts. I'm sure I'll just fade away into the anonymity of the Web just like any other troll whose ego is not fed.

I hope this now ends any further discussions regarding Self and non-Self teachings with you. Your position is now clear. You will not change or consider changing your views and have never considered to do so. You seldom share from experience and respond not in a critical manner, because you simply cannot, holding to the conviction that these anonymous internet users do not deserve a place in consideration compared to your real life teachers. I will now keep my thoughts to myself, because you have cut off your ears here. "Sharing" is not the correct word in this case.

 

You have no argument, because you leave no room for true argument or discussion, calling people frauds who do not fall into your interpretations.

 

"I have clearly and succinctly articulated what my position." Exactly, you make your stance and that's that. It shows in the responses as they are seldom a reply, or a articulated criticism, but a re phrasing of your own stance over and over. This is precisely communication with you regarding these manners is fruitless.

 

I'm sad you say "evils." This isn't about Vaj, Xabir, or Buddhists, and I think it's foolish to judge one in relation to other "evils." This is about you. No one is here to show any way. I'm exercising my own flaw, as I am clear that what I'm doing here is absolutely foolish, self serving, and ego-driven. But I have to do it, because I see the same flaws in you that I see in me. I am criticizing you and me both because what I see I feel needs to be criticized. So this isn't really about anyone else but me and you. Take from it what you will because I've gotten what I wanted and seen why this "discussion" will never end.

 

I am sure you are a sincere practitioner and I am certain we both share a mutual respect for one another. So I have to be critical with what you write.

 

Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sure...everyone is enlightened It shows in the way the humans in this world behave...in stochastic, non-deterministic, nihilistic "miraculous" ways!

We have discussed the difference between states and insights. But you have obviously missed it. .