Seth is giving up Buddhism!

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

That is well said but I'm sure you are aware that the Brahman in Advaita is not the Brahma as a god.

 

There are two brahman: nirguna (attributeless) and saguna (with attributes) brahman. Nirguna brahman experience and realization is similar to your clear light experience and realization. The latter is talking about gods with form like brahma, vishnu, shiva

 

Anyway I am not Advaitin, but its good to understand what their teaching is about.

[Vmarco]

That is well said but I'm sure you are aware that the Brahman in Advaita is not the Brahma as a god.

 

There are two brahman: nirguna (attributeless) and saguna (with attributes) brahman. Nirguna brahman experience and realization is similar to your clear light experience and realization. The latter is talking about gods with form like brahma, vishnu, shiva

 

Anyway I am not Advaitin, but its good to understand what their teaching is about.

 

Tilopa, often recognized as the Second Transmission, founder of Kagyu Buddhism, the fourth stream of mastery, who reached the level of Avadhuta, a state of enlightenment in which the distinctions between good and evil no longer exist, was said to have been an Advaitin.

 

However, I'm not aware of all the nuances of brahman or brahman's,...Tilopa and Naropa were both raised as Brahmans, and both had to let go of their Brahmanism as a prerequisite to awakening,...Naropa's 12 ordeals is a testiment to the difficulty of letting go of beliefs.

 

V

 

V

[Birch]

It doesn't belong to anyone, in the sense of possessiveness. But you can't deny that your path belonged to a set of instructions and ideologies you've chosen to adapt your consciousness to.

Hmm, not sure about that. However, if you're correct and instructions and ideologies belong to something then shouldn't that be made clear prior to anyone's adoption of them? And I'd include pretty much anything in that suggestion, not just religion/cultivation

 

Rather than " oh look, try this it will end your suffering"

 

My personal 2cts take is that anything that gets you to realize the "choice" thing you're referring to is probably a good idea. That's about it.

[9th]

Tilopa, often recognized as the Second Transmission, founder of Kagyu Buddhism, the fourth stream of mastery, who reached the level of Avadhuta, a state of enlightenment in which the distinctions between good and evil no longer exist, was said to have been an Advaitin.

V

 

This is wrong. Tilopa was known as a mahasiddha, along with many others, as the tradition was well established in his day. They were known to incorporate numerous teachings and techniques in their work.

 

Also, you are confusing Brahman with Brahmin. Vastly different things. As well as Brahma, which was pointed out earlier.

 

You fill in many blanks on your quest to assert your knowledge of the "highest" or "best" or "most ultimate final enlightenment of total cosmic power" or whatever. Its clear evidence of numerous things, however "enlightenment" is not one of them.

[Vmarco]

[9th]

[dwai]

[Aaron]

[Aaron]

 

This is nothing but semantic masturbation. You have said nothing, revealed nothing, communicated nothing. It is a hollow recitation of new-age buzzwords and bullshit cliches presented as some kind of credential of your "enlightenment". Which is of course, a complete joke.

 

Hello 9th,

 

I get the feeling you might be having a bad day, because normally I don't see you as being so negative in your comments. Regardless I wanted to point out some things regarding your statements. First everything we say to one another is semantics, because semantics is essentially the practice of expressing ideas between each other based on our use of language. Second when you say, " You have said nothing, revealed nothing, communicated nothing", I think what you are really saying is that he has said nothing, revealed nothing, communicated nothing, that you find meaningful/authentic/etc. The mere fact that he has said something means it is something, what you are doing is placing a value on what he says, relative to your own experience. That's fine, mind you, after all, "if all the world saw beautiful as beautiful, that in itself would be ugly", but you should also keep in mind that varied opinions are essential for the human race to evolve and ascend to a higher knowledge of existence. In order to understand non-duality, for instance, one must first experience duality. As far as new-age buzzwords and cliches go, the fact of the matter is that this is your opinion of new-age as well, but not indicative of what new-age actually is. If someone has gained a deeper insight and meaning of life from new-age philosophy and ideology, then why is that any less important than someone who has gained it from what you view as an authentic practice? There is no complete joke, except that the joke may be that someone has missed the importance that new-age ideas have in regards to their own experience, in other words you have gained a deeper insight of your own practices by comparing them to the new-age movements views. In other words, something good has come from the new-age movement, in particular your ability to view their ideas and deduce for yourself, an idea of what you believe to be true or untrue.

 

Perhaps the greatest joke of all, though, is this belief in truth and untruth, because in the end that is semantic masturbation as well.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

I have one argument. Of course (m x c)² is going to be more than c by itself.

All that your equation is saying is that mass times the speed of light squared is going to be more then the speed of light. The speed of light squared is greater than the speed of light alone.

 

so c² is greater then c? so what?

 

I guess it is more of a question than an argument, do you mind elaborating?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Informer

[Vmarco]

Edited December 19, 2011 by Vmarco

[Informer]

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

So how exactly can the mass of an object times the speed of light squared equal less then the speed of light?

 

The speed of light squared without a multiplier is 8.98755179 × 10¹⁶ m² / s² which is far more than the speed of light which is 299 792 458 m / s

 

If what you say is true, wouldn't nuclear reactors be obsolete?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

No! You do not see the world that surrounds you, but only the one that surrounded you. Perception (the Five Aggregates can only perceive the past,...you CANNOT think in the Now, you CANNOT see in the Present, you caanot taste in the Instant. There is no Present in time.

 

Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation expressed no actual need for such human involvement for the world to be.

 

"Change is an illusion of the senses due to motion. There is no change whatsoever in the universe. There is only an illusion of change set up by the two interchanging lights (positive and negative) that divide and multiply within moving matter and mass.

 

V

 

I don't see the world as surrounding me, you're correct. The universe maybe.

 

I understand that the light we are perceiving is only revealing that which is in the past, that isn't too hard to comprehend imo.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Informer

[Vmarco]

 

I understand that the light we are perceiving is only revealing that which is in the past, that isn't too hard to comprehend imo.

 

That's why the first Absolute Bodhicitta lojong is "treat everything you perceive as a dream"

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vmarco]

[Aaron]

Correct,...there is no past or future, only the present. I couldn't agree more. However, show me a person conscious of the present, and that is a Buddha. Nearly everyone, especially you, are living in the past. mc² < c

 

I understand that you believe you see a world that surrounds you, but in truth, you only see the world that surrounded you. There is no Present in time.

 

It is interesting that having mentioned "Tilopa...was said to have been an Advaitin", in response to another post, people seemed to have become unglued.

 

I don't resonate much with Advaita, as I mentioned (although I did receive A's for the classes),...similiarly, I definitely don't resonate with Theravadan Buddhism. That isn't tp say I couldn't learn something from them,...but I don't care for the idea of one possible absolute bodhicitta tidbit for every thousand pages.

 

However, you are obviously not interested in Waking Up,...you are more interested in you senses,...you want to FEEL,...you believe these FEELING are precious.

 

"All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once." Descartes

 

Feh, I could care less whether Tilopa was said to be this or that, in reality I just do what I have to. I try not to have many attachments. Also you're assuming that feelings are precious to me, but in reality they aren't. I see them for what they are and I have had the sixth sense experience of light as you call it. I don't think that you have, simply because much of what you said doesn't correspond to it. That isn't meant to put you down, but rather it's my own observation. Ask anyone that knows me personally and I doubt anyone would question whether I am sincere in this matter. I say sincere since it is nothing I can prove to you, other than point you in the direction I took to get there an hope that you can.

 

I eschew most religions simply because I don't see them as explaining truth, but rather opinion. Whether it's Christianity, Buddhism, Short Path Buddhism, Hinduism, Quantum Physics, or even Taoism, in the end each is presenting the world along the lines of sensual experience, and although not harmful, the world can not be so easily defined into quantum and particles or ideas and truths, rather it is very much a mystery. Can I understand some of that mystery? Yes. But the question really isn't whether I understand some, but rather whether or not what I understand is the truth. The truth, in the absolute and non-absolute sense does not exist, rather it is only the present that exists. As you've mentioned we are existing in the past, and those rare moments when we can realize this and become absolutely still, we begin to perceive that the world is not emptiness or fullness, but rather stillness. In other words what exists that brings existence into reality, is continual and neither empty nor full, it is neither a particle, nor is it mass, rather it is something that can not be explained sufficiently using language that is based on the five senses, hence it is best to point the direction and allow others to experience it themselves, rather than try to define it ourselves.

 

Then again, who am I to say whether or not you have experienced all of this? The man who touched God, does not necessarily come away knowing everything, just what he knew of God. Touching God doesn't make him good or pure, it only means he has had that experience, he may very well be just as evil (or good or ignorant or wise) after the experience as he was before. In the end having the experience does not render one all knowing, rather it renders one more aware of the true understanding of the human condition and the real pretext of the universe.

 

Aaron

Edited December 19, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vmarco]

I try not to have many attachments. Also you're assuming that feelings are precious to me, but in reality they aren't. I see them for what they are and I have had the sixth sense experience of light as you call it.

 

I eschew most religions simply because I don't see them as explaining truth, but rather opinion....

Aaron

 

Please forgive me if I've ever implied a "sixth sense experience of light"...the sixth sense, which arises from the sense organ of thinking, cannot directly experience Light.

 

Mastering one's human-ness (or skandhas) would be noble,...depends on the master. If the master is a product of the skandhas, what's really mastering what?

 

The human condition usually has the ego drive the vehicle,..so how does one (the non-ego or beyond ego self) take over the driven?

 

ACIM 6 IV 5 said, "the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.

The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.

No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

 

Considering that,...one needs to uncover their Unborn Awareness, before the senses, especially the Sith Sense, can be truly mastered,...and Light directly recognized.

 

As for your eschewing,...that's great. Tilopa said, "clear light cannot be revealed, By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals."

 

Doesn't matter if that is truth or opinion,...but something to consider if you have yet to uncover a single truth.

 

V

 

V

[dwai]

Actually, my family wasn't very religious. Hadn't studied the Bible at that point in my life and in fact we never really attended church at all. The only times I went was with a friends family and that was when I was like 11 and even then I only went a few times with them. So there wasn't really any major early conditioning or images in my mind of what "God" was.

 

You dig deep into the Western framework and you will be surprised as to how "deeply" the abrahamic traditions have actually shaped it. That includes Western science too. Descartes' statement "Cogito ergo sum" is a direct result of him having to reconcile his religious background with that of Science (as it was in those days). The rift that occurred and has continued ever since is the biggest problem with Modern Science, where the physical world and the mental world are irreconcilably split. Even those who have subscribed to a Post-modern framework or claim to be agnostic/atheist etc have been germinated with the legacy of two systems -- The Greek (Aristotelian -- equation of external appearances with "Goodness" and the rejection of the Middle ground, resulting in Either/Or and Black/White type binary logic) and the Abrahamic (the concept of Sin and the associated collective guilt which has been cultivated into the Western Psyche). Even if someone stands apart from this framework for the sake of "rejecting it", he/she is inadvertently reinforcing it.

 

Actually, I remember by the age 12/13; questioning the notion of "God" being something "external" to us. I remember thinking that "God" is "within" us and that we were never separated from "God."

 

As for my teen years and up I still wasn't religious or pursuing anything towards that aspect...In fact I was Like an undecided voter or probably closer towards atheism...It wasn't until I had that first "self-realization" of the "I AM" experience (the initial seeing through of the conceptual framework that we put onto reality, or the "ego," and the non-locality of consciousness/awareness, that proceeded when a burst of energy shot up the spine/central channel.) So these definitely were just the seeds of inherent and dualistic views expressing themselves into that experience. This was once again the seeds of the 7th consciousness (klistamanas) reasserting themselves in the experience of consciousness.

 

In fact I remember as the experience first happened I said to myself "Wow! So this is what being "One" with God feels/is like!" That is a much different experience than D.O.

 

I actually don't have a problem with the word itself, but the way the expression can be used to mean some sort of "source" or "creator" of reality.

 

The fact that you would tend to associate the word with the description is indicative of the ingrained conditioning that you have been subjected to. And I'm not saying in a disparaging way...there are many great things that have sprung from the Western framework, but it is not something that can be used to access the Eastern/Dharmic framework, especially Eastern spirituality. One has to give up all the labels and conditioning of the former to be successful with the latter. There has to be context, a background in the tradition (be it Buddhism or Hinduism or Taoism) to be able to relate to the concepts and modality of thinking that the latter sprung from.