Utter Nonduality

[RongzomFan]

Sorry another Robert Bruce thread. This forum is a little slow though. Robert Bruce has an interesting take on nonduality. Usually people take nonduality to be a state of mind. But Robert Bruce takes it further saying YOU are literally God. Everyone is a part of YOU. Everyone who prays to God all around the world is actually praying to YOU. Its crazy stuff, that sort of reminds me of some Vajrayana stuff I read about in Chakrsamvara tantra by David Gray.

 

Robert Bruce uses this power to manifest stuff through verbal affirmations. Verbal affirmations apparently work on the astral plane where your "Higher Self" is more receptive. Maybe this is how eastern mantras work?

 

He just came out with a new product on the Higher Self:

 

Manifestation and Healing DVD

Edited February 7, 2011 by alwayson

[Sunya]

Sorry another Robert Bruce thread. This forum is a little slow though. Robert Bruce has an interesting take on nonduality. Usually people take nonduality to be a state of mind. But Robert Bruce takes it further saying YOU are literally God. Everyone is a part of YOU. Everyone who prays to God all around the world is actually praying to YOU. Its crazy stuff, that sort of reminds me of some Vajrayana stuff I read about in Chakrsamvara tantra by David Gray.

 

It just sounds like a grand ego attachment and has nothing in common with Vajrayana.

[devoid]

Hi alwayson,

 

As always: thanks for posting Robert Bruce stuff.

 

About the idea of God being in every one of us: I think you might enjoy the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza who's basic premise is that rather than God being something with a uniquely identifiable personality, God is in everything.

 

I always really liked this idea as neither monotheistic nor atheistic world-views resonated with me and if I could think of "God" as being the entire universe I would not take personal offence of the term.

 

Today, I think of Spinozan Ethics (that's the name of his book) as a nice way to try to bridge the gap between the monotheistic religions and taoism, although I am sure that was not his goal - I simply see it as an interesting by-product

[Sunya]

Hi alwayson,

 

As always: thanks for posting Robert Bruce stuff.

 

About the idea of God being in every one of us: I think you might enjoy the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza who's basic premise is that rather than God being something with a uniquely identifiable personality, God is in everything.

 

I always really liked this idea as neither monotheistic nor atheistic world-views resonated with me and if I could think of "God" as being the entire universe I would not take personal offence of the term.

 

Today, I think of Spinozan Ethics (that's the name of his book) as a nice way to try to bridge the gap between the monotheistic religions and taoism, although I am sure that was not his goal - I simply see it as an interesting by-product

 

Actually Spinoza's God does not have a unique identifiable personality at all. For Spinoza, everything is of one substance, but this substance does not have any personality at all. You are not God because you are in God, for Spinoza. God is the unique substance that everything is part of, but it is incorrect to identify with the totality because you are only a part of that totality. He calls these parts 'modes' which are expressions of the infinite substance.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat

 

Not saying I agree with Spinoza entirely, but I do certainly agree that it's a great bridge from monotheism to taoism.

 

Spinoza's God isn't fully nondual. There is still a duality between God (the infinite eternal substance that causes everything) and reality (the expressions of God).

Edited January 30, 2011 by Sunya

[RongzomFan]

Robert even recommends praying to ONESELF.

 

If you are going to pray, pray like this "Almighty God within...."

 

Thats what he said a couple of times. And the prayer has to be out loud so that it activates the throat chakra on the astral level.

Edited January 30, 2011 by alwayson

[devoid]

Actually Spinoza's God does not have a unique identifiable personality at all. For Spinoza, everything is of one substance, but this substance does not have any personality at all. You are not God because you are in God, for Spinoza. God is the unique substance that everything is part of, but it is incorrect to identify with the totality because you are only a part of that totality. He calls these parts 'modes' which are expressions of the infinite substance.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat

 

Not saying I agree with Spinoza entirely, but I do certainly agree that it's a great bridge from monotheism to taoism.

 

Spinoza's God isn't fully nondual. There is still a duality between God (the infinite eternal substance that causes everything) and reality (the expressions of God).

 

Hi Sunya,

 

Edit: Sunya, I just checked again: I said: " Spinoza who's basic premise is that rather than God being something with a uniquely identifiable personality, God is in everything." - so, I think we're in agreement here?

 

About the non-duality, I must admit I see that's as a bit of an over-used term - but perhaps you can help me clear that up? (Here's where I am coming from: In discussing the Tao, you will have the same requirement for a starting premise, i.e. the initial spark of yang in the wuji, so to say, i.e. the start or beginning of the creating force. I haven't seen Robert Bruce having a different take on that either, for that matter.)

Edited January 30, 2011 by devoid

[Mandrake]

 

Maybe this is how eastern mantras work?

 

 

Not at all, far from it.

 

M

[RongzomFan]

A BUNCH OF ROBERT BRUCE LINKS:

 

http://blog.astraldynamics.com/2009/07/31/understanding-godsourceself/

http://blog.astraldynamics.com/2010/03/01/what-is-your-higher-self/

http://blog.astraldynamics.com/2009/09/30/the-meaning-of-life/

http://blog.astraldynamics.com/2009/01/01/affirmations-the-great-shortcut/

http://blog.astraldynamics.com/2009/01/06/the-great-secret/

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=12491&p=105676&hilit=source#p105676

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=12491&p=115360&hilit=source#p115360

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=6520&p=79585&hilit=+prison#p79585

Edited January 31, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

It just sounds like a grand ego attachment and has nothing in common with Vajrayana.

 

Exactly, there is no realization of emptiness or the inner meaning of dependent origination, which is not different from the inner meaning of emptiness in Buddhism.

 

What Robert Bruce is on about is the Brahma realm stuff, formless, all pervasive bliss leading to heaven realms, but not Buddhahood.

[Vajrahridaya]

Robert even recommends praying to ONESELF.

 

If you are going to pray, pray like this "Almighty God within...."

 

Thats what he said a couple of times. And the prayer has to be out loud so that it activates the throat chakra on the astral level.

 

This is all substance non-dualism and not the same realization as Vajrayana.

[RongzomFan]

what about those body mandalas, where you are Heruka i.e. the universe and even the buddhas are just parts of you?

[Vajrahridaya]

what about those body mandalas, where you are Heruka i.e. the universe and even the buddhas are just parts of you?

 

Yes, but you dissolve this into emptiness through contemplation of dependent origination, therefore one does not fall into an extreme of Eternalism which is what Robert Bruce teaches.

 

This is merely a technique for mental alignment, but conjoined with contemplation of experiential emptiness, Brahma pride does not overtake one, and instead one has vajra confidence based on integration of enlightened bliss of luminous mind and emptiness.

[Aetherous]

.

Edited February 24, 2011 by center

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmmm...I don't understand what you're saying.

 

Realizing nonduality as spoken of like this: "what about those body mandalas, where you are Heruka i.e. the universe and even the buddhas are just parts of you?" Isn't that direct experience of emptiness and dependent origination...just without the terminology?

 

Only if you experience the vajrayana intention for the practice which has to be conjoined with contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination.

 

The same technique is utilized in Hindu Tantra, merging with the deity, but without contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination, thus only luminosity is realized but not emptiness through these traditions. So, Buddha non-dual realization without substance is different from Brahma non-dual realization of Eternal substance which is what Robert Bruce is talking about. According to Buddhism, this only leads to long lived god realms and formless bliss realms but not complete liberation from the cycle of ignorance becoming.

 

So... no it's not the same. Which is why the 1st noble truth is very important for realization which is "right view" and has everything to do with dependent origination and understanding it's inner meaning as experiential emptiness.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Edit:

 

About the Robert Bruce techniques described here, it doesn't seem like a good idea to start thinking "I am God!" The concept of our "I" is very very very limited. So as always it seems that following actual teachings from enlightened lineages, instead of made up new age ones, is best.

 

I agree, though what Robert Bruce is teaching is mostly just traditional hindu tantra.

 

Which for a Buddhist is not conducive to Buddhahood, but merely powerful god realms and high altered states of consciousness.

[RongzomFan]

I agree, though what Robert Bruce is teaching is mostly just traditional hindu tantra.

 

Which for a Buddhist is not conducive to Buddhahood, but merely powerful god realms and high altered states of consciousness.

 

 

from what I understand RB is not really familiar with eastern philosophies and mainly teaches from his personal experience.

[Aetherous]

Only if you experience the vajrayana intention for the practice which has to be conjoined with contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination.

 

The same technique is utilized in Hindu Tantra, merging with the deity, but without contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination, thus only luminosity is realized but not emptiness through these traditions. So, Buddha non-dual realization without substance is different from Brahma non-dual realization of Eternal substance which is what Robert Bruce is talking about. According to Buddhism, this only leads to long lived god realms and formless bliss realms but not complete liberation from the cycle of ignorance becoming.

 

So... no it's not the same. Which is why the 1st noble truth is very important for realization which is "right view" and has everything to do with dependent origination and understanding it's inner meaning as experiential emptiness.

 

Hmm, still don't know what you're getting at. I guess I don't see the difference between Buddhahood and "god realms"...if it's nondual realization.

 

My understanding of terminology is poor.

 

So luminosity is experiencing all things as one?

 

Then experiential emptiness is...?

Edited January 31, 2011 by center

[Vajrahridaya]

from what I understand RB is not really familiar with eastern philosophies and mainly teaches from his personal experience.

 

Well, you keep talking about kundalini and chakras in the same context as Robert Bruce, which are sanskrit terms known from Indian traditions.

 

The thing is, without right influence, most spiritually inclined people will only reach Brahma realms due to the strong attachment to self, merely expanding this attachment to include everything as most traditions do without the insight of the 1st noble truth.

 

The expansion of self paths into a universal Self is easier and more accessible because this is the root of samsaric cycling and we've been passing from lower to higher realms throughout beginningless cosmic cycles throughout beginningless lifetimes, so going from low to high back to low to high is what we've been doing naturally.

 

The insight of Buddhahood is almost, "unnatural" in a sense... from this perspective at least.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

I do RB style energy work with the chakras. They are real. Everyone has them, not just Indians.

 

Just think about your throat chakra. You might feel a lump in your throat. Thats your throat chakra activating.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmm, still don't know what you're getting at. I guess I don't see the difference between Buddhahood and "god realms"...if it's nondual realization.

 

That's ok, but yes, they are different.

 

So luminosity is experiencing all things as one?

 

It's experiencing everything as submerged or merged with the light of awareness, it's an experience which can lead to mistaken views because when things come into focus after such an experience, it seems as if they are all coming from this light, when really one was just blinded by ones inner luminosity, the natural shining of mind experienced directly through focus or in samadhi states, basically from a meditative state. Those that are in a high stage of this level of experience can experience this manifesting out of luminosity moment to moment, mistaking this experience as the "light of god" manifesting everything, seeing everything as one.

 

But, with insight into dependent origination, one sees the emptiness of this experience and sees that this experience of manifesting out of the luminosity of mind is merely a personal experience and is not a revelation of "god" or an all mighty "one" behind everything. This mistaken experience is very, very deep, because there are high level beings from other realms which will come to you and say, "yes... I am god"... and they actually think they are and then they say things and give teachings, some good, some limited, some just straight up bad as if from a "jealous god"... and these gods do actually exist in higher realms. Thus the scriptures of many theistic or monotheistic traditions.

 

Buddhist cosmology is very exhaustive and deep, both metaphorically and literally. I do recommend getting into it as it lays out all the possible experiences and mistakes one can make on the path to higher awakening.

 

Then experiential emptiness is...?

 

Seeing directly that you do not inherently exist, but only relatively exist. That there is no truly self existing personal self, nor is there a truly self existing universal Self of all.

 

That all experiences and phenomena arise inter-dependently and thus are empty of inherent substance, or essence. Even enlightenment is a relative phenomena according to any Buddha and not a revelation of an ultimate, self shining nature, but is rather an insight into inter-dependence, the luminous nature of mind which is also inter-dependent and it's emptiness, which is also dependent and not "independent."

 

What Robert Bruce is on about is called independent origination, as if all things arise from one ultimate thing as the rooftop or core of all things. It's basically taking the experience of luminosity and ascribing ultimate Self to it, thus clinging to the experience as the "source of all things." This merely leads to long lived god realms, like those talked about in various myths from all the worlds myths, Egyptian to Hindu to Greek to Shamanistic.

 

Buddhism is thoroughly atheistic or even polytheistic but with emptiness, thus none of these gods are ultimate.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I do RB style energy work with the chakras. They are real. Everyone has them, not just Indians.

 

Just think about your throat chakra. You might feel a lump in your throat. Thats your throat chakra activating.

 

Yes, of course everyone has them, but how they are worked with and understood may differ, as are the outcomes.

 

Buddhist view of the chakras is less static than the hindu view for instance. We don't consider the elements as static with any chakra and can utilize one or other element for one or other outcome with any chakra... the same with the associated mantras.

[Aetherous]

.

Edited February 24, 2011 by center

[Vajrahridaya]

Ah yes, thanks for sticking with me on this. Now I see clearly what you mean, and completely agree.

 

Wonderful! This is why I think Buddhism and Taoism are most likely the most compatible traditions on planet Earth, as well as Bon, as Bon Shamanism already had a cosmology similar to Buddhism pryer to Buddhism coming to Tibet.

 

Some Taoists seem to get it in a Buddhist sense, and others seem to be more into personal power building and less into compassion and enlightenment. But, Taoism is a path of many, many sources... thus many different interpretations of the Tao.

 

I love throwing the I-Ching though... it's my favorite divination method. I also love Chi-Gong and am into Martial Arts. But, I contextualize everything through the insight I've gained through internal Buddhist Tantra (Vajrayana) and Dzogchen, as I find these traditions to be the most clear in the subtler aspects of describing the experience of minds "nature" as well as the "internal" practices for it's realization, as in mental exercises for the sake of realizing minds nature directly.

[Aetherous]

.

Edited February 24, 2011 by center

[Sunya]

from what I understand RB is not really familiar with eastern philosophies and mainly teaches from his personal experience.

 

While I greatly respect that approach, I personally feel it is invaluable to learn from those who came before us. Saves time, since time is precious