Seth is giving up Buddhism!

[Vmarco]

 

After anatta realization in October '10, NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) becomes truly effortless - I am no longer in ignorance pertaining to a self, it is completely and permanently seen through.

 

That's awesome,...so nice to hear of the uncovering of the impermanent self.

 

"those desiring speedily to be

A refuge for themselves and other beings,

Should interchange the terms of I and Other,

And thus embrace a sacred mystery."

Shantideva 8.120

 

As when a flash of lightening rends the night,

And in its glare shows all the dark black clouds had hid,

Likewise rarely, through the buddhas' power,

Virtuous thoughts rise, brief and transient, in the world.

Shantideva 1.5

 

Keep Flashing!

[Lucky7Strikes]

.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't affirm hearing or seen....

Substantialist Brahman, or non-substantialist brahman. Call Brahman non-substantial, as many mystics have, like the Tao. Dependent origination leads you to the view that you are arising of causes and conditions. Brahman as totality that occurs through causes and conditions, One Law. They all say the same thing.

 

But besides the point...oh my god. This post is almost all bullshit.

 

You do argue about the superiority of Buddhism over Advaita. It's what you've been doing here for the past four years, that Advaita only takes you to a certain state.

 

2008 we debated pages and pages on nondualism, inherency, no-self before you had any true firsthand experience in Thusness's states. That came to me as a shock later on. You debated so strongly for a set of teachings purely out of faith.Not once in those debates have you shown your leanings towards advaita, besides respect towards certain mystics. You were convinced in Thusness even before the experience, why else devote an entire site to his methods otherwise?

 

Hahahahah! AF teachings? The only reason AF teachings attracted you is because they were closely in line with Thusness's. It wasn't an alternative, it was basically, "hey! here is something that agrees with what I believe!"

 

But what's seen is seen - you cannot convince me of something there is no doubt or illusion about. For example, you cannot tell me 'self exists' - this is bullshit, as illusory as the notion of a santa claus or a rabbit with horns. I've already woken up from that dream and there is nothing you can say that can make me go asleep again - what's seen cannot be unseen.

Of course not. Even before you saw it, you wanted it. You need to go practice vipassana and look into not what you are seeing but how you've come to see them. You have a serious problem.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why would someone want a "dualistic understanding of source?" “you can’t solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created it” Albert E...

You speak too much of irrelevant topics to the discussion, as in this thread and in others. Why don't you go clear your head a bit, your bible thumping isn't that impressive.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vmarco]

 

I like these kinds of posts a lot better than whatever you (Xabir) usually put out here. Speak about personal experience. You spoke about bliss. Why don't you describe that a little further? How do you experience it? What is it like? As in show it. For someone who is so open to the transience of life, you sure depend a lot of second hand analytical language. Any third person reading through these posts can see that Seth is very much more open than you are. You just seem all in the head.

 

Could Xabir's use of "second hand" language be as humble,...thus suggesting that it's not that analytical, except for those who perhaps cannot grasp abstract dialogue,...like conservatives. Surely not implying that anyone here is a conservative,...just that it has been shown that conservatives generally see the world as a dark and forbidding place, express greater disgust and fear, have little tolerance for ambiguity, etc. Conservatism is a hinderance to non-dual understanding,...as those with Downs syndrome have congenital heart problems, hearing impairment, sleep apnea, etc., which is a hinderance to various life pursuits.

 

Xabir has obviously accessed Maslow's levels of self-actualization and self-transcendance,...but, as Buddha discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts, and for the most part was unable to communicate that something, except to a few (self-actualized) who had the capacity to understood,...how is Xabir going to communicate something to those who don't share a similiar ground? Thus Xabir presents the "ground" upon which the flashing occurred,...painting a much larger picture for those with similiar ground,...but always rejected or misunderstood by those unfamiliar, or incapable of understanding the ground from which flash occurred.

 

Enlightenment or Unborn Awareness is not for the empirical minded.

 

V

[Lucky7Strikes]

Could Xabir's use of "second hand" language be as humble,...thus suggesting that it's not that analytical, except for those who perhaps cannot grasp abstract dialogue,...like conservatives. Surely not implying that anyone here is a conservative,...just that it has been shown that conservatives generally see the world as a dark and forbidding place, express greater disgust and fear, have little tolerance for ambiguity, etc. Conservatism is a hinderance to non-dual understanding,...as those with Downs syndrome have congenital heart problems, hearing impairment, sleep apnea, etc., which is a hinderance to various life pursuits.

 

Xabir has obviously accessed Maslow's levels of self-actualization and self-transcendance,...but, as Buddha discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts, and for the most part was unable to communicate that something, except to a few (self-actualized) who had the capacity to understood,...how is Xabir going to communicate something to those who don't share a similiar ground? Thus Xabir presents the "ground" upon which the flashing occurred,...painting a much larger picture for those with similiar ground,...but always rejected or misunderstood by those unfamiliar, or incapable of understanding the ground from which flash occurred.

 

Enlightenment or Unborn Awareness is not for the empirical minded.

 

V

No doofus. He's been writing like that for 4 and more years even before he has any of those cool realizations. The way you write with so much self glory is really unbearable.

 

Who mentioned anything about conservatism? It's just unnecessary topic here man.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Substantialist Brahman, or non-substantialist brahman. Call Brahman non-substantial, as many mystics have, like the Tao. Dependent origination leads you to the view that you are arising of causes and conditions. Brahman as totality that occurs through causes and conditions, One Law. They all say the same thing.

If you wish to think that Advaita calls Brahman the process, the dependent origination, instead of something much more substantial, independent and permanent Self, then whatever you think man. Try telling that to Advaita followers - that their Brahman is doctrinally the same as impermanence, as dependent origination... you'll get laughs I think.

 

Tao is less substantialist - since Tao is 'the way' sort of like the 'river'. Nonetheless how a person interpretes Tao Te Ching depends on each individual.

 

But besides the point...oh my god. This post is almost all bullshit.

 

You do argue about the superiority of Buddhism over Advaita. It's what you've been doing here for the past four years, that Advaita only takes you to a certain state.

Just not today. Or any day recently. I'm more for pragmatic discussions nowadays than debating on Advaita vs Buddhism since I've learnt from past experience that they're pointless and futile.

 

Now I'm all for practical discussions that can help your practice. If you're interested to investigate and experience what I experience, I'll give you some practical advice and share notes. If you're interested in Self-Realization, I will even tell you to go study Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi and stuff, cos these are definitely going to help you in your quest. Whatever works - pragmatic dharma.

2008 we debated pages and pages on nondualism, inherency, no-self before you had any true firsthand experience in Thusness's states. That came to me as a shock later on. You debated so strongly for a set of teachings purely out of faith.

Like I said - I can totally get 100/100 for nondual exams or thusness exams or buddhism anatta emptiness dependent origination exams, way before I truly realized them. I spoke out of faith at that time - actually not just out of faith but I have come to an intellectual, inferred understanding - it makes sense. But intellectual understanding is not going to help you truly see things. Actually not exactly - it DOES help, if you have right view. Just insufficient. You really need direct experience and insight.

 

BTW it is not totally intellectual even then - I've had NDNCDIMOP (as a temporary peak experience, many times since 2006) which does sort of confirm the validity of anatta and non-duality, even though it requires a little extrapolation.

 

If the sense of self can totally fade into just the scenery, sounds, etc, then by inference surely, that sense of self illusory, right?

 

I've also had glimpses of experiences of I AM since 2007. But the realization came in 2010. I discussed the difference between experience vs realization in the new topic I created on experience, realization, view, etc

Not once in those debates have you shown your leanings towards advaita, besides respect towards certain mystics.

I have posted Advaita stuff, Ken Wilber stuff, Ramana stuff in my own forum, in fact I focus mainly on those stuff in my practice and is what truly appealed to me. But I point out anatta and emptiness to those who already knew those stuff. It's like if you already knew A, B, C, I'll talk about D. If you know D, I'll talk about A, B, C.

 

If you only had intellectual understanding of emptiness, I'll actually tell you to start reading Advaita stuff and do self-inquiry. Why? I AM realization is valuable. It brings out the luminosity aspect.

 

You were convinced in Thusness even before the experience, why else devote an entire site to his methods otherwise?

Of course I had faith in him. Faith is a good thing. In Buddhism, faith is one of the five powers. We should have faith in Buddha.

 

But it doesn't mean faith is all thats enough, or that because of faith we should not continue investigating and finding things out for ourselves... like I did. This is why I studied Advaita, Actual Freedom, and anything that is interesting that I can find.

 

Hahahahah! AF teachings? The only reason AF teachings attracted you is because they were closely in line with Thusness's. It wasn't an alternative, it was basically, "hey! here is something that agrees with what I believe!"

It is closely in line with my experience too, at that time.

Of course not. Even before you saw it, you wanted it. You need to go practice vipassana and look into not what you are seeing but how you've come to see them. You have a serious problem.

There is no need for that - once you wake up, you wake up. You don't need to find out how you wake up - and in fact I do know how I woke up but to you it seems insufficient for whatever reason, but they are all besides the point because you already wake up and thats the whole point.

 

Somehow you think that to truly wake up, you cannot have faith in anybody.

 

This is not compatible with Buddhism which actually asks you to have faith in Buddha but at the same time investigate things for yourselves. Like I did.

 

For example. When I practice self-inquiry, I don't doubt Ramana Maharshi: I don't doubt 'Thusness and Buddha say anatta, so how can Who am I result in a real answer?'

 

I had faith in Ramana Maharshi and Thusness - there must be an answer to it.

 

But I am not satisfied with that mere knowledge... in fact knowing that there is an answer to 'Who am I?' I worked very hard on resolving that question, until one day through the question the mind subsides to its Source and I realized.

 

Faith has its place, practical application and investigation has its place.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Birch]

Bhuddism = digital, Other stuff (like Taoism) = analogue.

 

----opinion alert----

Not to say bhuddist meditation practice ain't useful. Of course it is. I think I'm a bit of an idiot but if any religion enables a person to acheive that which by definition it intends (or professes to intend) then why get annoyed when it works?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Bhuddism = digital, Other stuff (like Taoism) = analogue.

 

----opinion alert----

Not to say bhuddist meditation practice ain't useful. Of course it is. I think I'm a bit of an idiot but if any religion enables a person to acheive that which by definition it intends (or professes to intend) then why get annoyed when it works?

Yup. And that achievement belongs to that religion as a result. You submitted to it, you practiced it, and attained what it said will attain. But don't tell that other guy in some other religion how his/her experience is inferior, or only just one aspect of your own.

[Seth Ananda]

Xabir, you can keep posting 1000 line responses if you want, about how the substantialist view is wrong, and is simply a misunderstanding of emptiness but that is missing my point.

 

My point is that no matter how good your argument is, there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism...

 

And that can only be understood in a theistic or Intelligent universe framework.

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you wish to think that Advaita calls Brahman the process, the dependent origination, instead of something much more substantial, independent and permanent Self, then whatever you think man. Try telling that to Advaita followers - that their Brahman is doctrinally the same as impermanence, as dependent origination... you'll get laughs I think.

Not really. If I interpret Brahman as Everything. As in everything there is, the concept of independence, or permanence are all pretty mute. Independence is an idea on the opposite of dependence, as is permanence opposite of impermanence. We can only see motion in comparison to stillness, same with substantial and insubstantial. So if we understand God as all, that all is awareness, those conceptual definitions don't apply. But I don't think you can understand this type of approach at all because your mind has tied all these language patterns to "oh no no, clinging 101."

 

Like I said - I can totally get 100/100 for nondual exams or thusness exams or buddhism anatta emptiness dependent origination exams. I spoke out of faith at that time - actually not just out of faith but I have come to an intellectual, inferred understanding - it makes sense. But intellectual understanding is not going to help you truly see things. Actually not exactly - it DOES help, if you have right view. Just insufficient. You really need direct experience and insight.

Faith is not something you have or don't have. It comes in degrees. Also, intellectually anything can make sense. You're just bullshitting yourself. Your faith in Thusness was irrational. You had an affinity for his teachings, the man himself, and the methods. They are not wrong, that's not what I'm trying to point out. I'm trying to point to you your false sense of how you've come to these realizations. Your memory seems to be very hazy. Don't pretend like you approached this whole thing with an open mind. Clearly you didn't. It was very much an single pointed effort towards Thusness stage 7 from the very beginning.

 

I have posted Advaita stuff, Ken Wilber stuff, Ramana stuff in my own forum, in fact I focus mainly on those stuff in my practice and is what truly appealed to me. But I point out anatta and emptiness to those who already knew those stuff. It's like if you already knew A, B, C, I'll talk about D. If you know D, I'll talk about A, B, C.

Yup. They were posted in context of "A" and "B." Not in the context of which they were written. Do you think Ken Wilbur was thinking "oh hey, what I write is Stage 3 of Thusness's teaching!" Likely not. That man, as well as all these different practitioners came to the knowledge they had through their own context and experience. You very much disregard that by shoving it all into some A, B, C program.

 

Of course I had faith in him. Faith is a good thing. In Buddhism, faith is one of the five powers. We should have faith in Buddha.

It's good in small doses. But seems like you chugged the Kool aid.

[Seth Ananda]

It is indisputable that the Abrahamic god, from whom the majority on the planet get their belief from, is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional god. And amazingly, a god who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

 

V

 

Lol, I contend that historically you are right, but that 'God' is not the same god that the most modern followers of theism worship. There are probably millions of Abrahamic Gods.

 

Try a little experiment for me.

 

Hold the picture in your minds eye of wrathful Jehova, jealous and Greedy and Murderous, and Imagine what it would be like to believe in him... Toxic huh?

 

Now try Imagining a View of God from some forms of Shamanism, Neo Platonism, and many Abhramic Mystics. Its qualities are an all embracing love, it is the Single Infinite life force behind all Life forms, and everything rises and falls within it. It does not have a human kind of Personality but it is vastly Intelligent, and it is aware of you, whilst simultaneously being you...

 

Can you really say that these are the same Gods?

[Birch]

Yup. And that achievement belongs to that religion as a result. You submitted to it, you practiced it, and attained what it said will attain. But don't tell that other guy in some other religion how his/her experience is inferior, or only just one aspect of your own.

I didn't think it belonged to anyone. I thought that was the point. Oh well.

[Vmarco]

My point is that no matter how good your argument is, there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism...

 

 

Then I assume you haven't read the Mountain Doctrine.

 

V

[Vmarco]

 

 

Try a little experiment for me.

 

Hold the picture in your minds eye of wrathful Jehova, jealous and Greedy and Murderous, and Imagine what it would be like to believe in him... Toxic huh?

 

Now try Imagining a View of God from some forms of Shamanism, Neo Platonism, and many Abhramic Mystics. Its qualities are an all embracing love, it is the Single Infinite life force behind all Life forms, and everything rises and falls within it. It does not have a human kind of Personality but it is vastly Intelligent, and it is aware of you, whilst simultaneously being you...

 

 

1. Yes,..."picture in your minds eye"...that says it all.

 

2. I wouldn't mix Shamanisn with Neo Platonic and Abrahamic Mystic book philosophies. As for Shamanism,...they get around to the emancipation of theist beliefs,...like the Bon shamans. Never heard of an Awakened Sufi or Christian,...although their relative wisdom is much embraced by other believers.

 

Anyway,...as I've mentioned,...Light is proof that no god, regardless of dictionary definition, exists. However, until you understand Light, that will merely be my opinion.

 

A good Shaman read:

http://bon-encyclopedia.wikispaces.com/file/view/TheFloweringLightTantra.pdf

 

V

[dwai]

Ok, Title says it all.

 

I have tried being Buddhist for the last couple of years, but really the world view just doesn't suit me. I am very glad for having given it a go, and aspects of its View will always be with me.

 

Here are a few points relevant to my decision making process.

 

1) I am not sure that Tibetan Buddhism can get many western students very far.

After finally meeting a High level practitioner - Changling Rinpoche, and meeting students of his that have been with him for the last 10 years, I am worried.

They are exceptionally moral and lovely people, but they [the ones i talked to] are proud of all the Highest Tantra empowerments they have. Some are very consistent in their practices, doing 3-4 hours a day, just to fulfil their vows from all the Tantra Initiation practice requirements, and that is great, but, it is 3-4 hours a day of reciting endless prayers/aspirations/confessions with points of deity visualisation.

Where is the serious Insight development or even serious concentration needed for 'actual' enlightenment?

Changling was testament to the fact that the path works in a Monastery, where all day every day is all that stuff. But I lost faith that I with my Karma as a father and a house holder can make any decent progression in this path.

 

2) Then there is Theravada, which requires a ton of Vipashna/Samahdi in varying degrees depending on the school.

My house mate is doing very well on this path. This year he has done a 4 month, a three month and then another 4 month retreat, and he is actually seems to be getting somewhere with it. I know many many people who do several 10 days a year, but that does not really seem to give them any great results.

Again as a Father, I can not be spending months at a time in Vipashna.

 

3) And Vmarco will Love this - I am a Theist at heart. I can believe all I want that there is no underlying substance to the universe, [and i really did get convinced by this logically with the E&DO teachings] but I can see and feel the light underlying all things on a daily basis, and my heart knows that I live in a Interactive and Conscious universe.

I experience that fact with the deepest layers of my being.

Also this is the experience that is central to probably nearly every tradition before Buddhism, from the earliest Shamanisms to the Abrahamic religions, Egypt to India...

World Inclusive paths like Sufism, and KS are far more suited to my way of growing and my karmic circumstances and have practices I can use constantly throughout my day to day life.

The Sufi practice of remembrance - Keeping ones heart in constant communion with the one - I can use everywhere. And I have missed it so much these last few years.

 

4) I had some great realisations in Buddhism. An experience of Emptiness, a realisation of No Self... I can continue developing these in a different context.

Even the teachings on [not] clinging to subtle states I can still use. Although the devotional practices actually engender clinging, I can use them to get into very deep states far faster than anything Buddhism has to offer me, and then I can apply those teachings...

 

 

 

So Great blessings to you all, and special thanks to CowTao {CT} for all your help with Buddhism, and your friendship over these last few years.

 

May all your paths Blossom and give fruit.

 

Seth Ananda.

 

I grin because it is bound to happen. If one is true to his/ her Self, the raft has to be discarded...especially the literalistic versions of it. Dont forget what you learnt and where/ whom you have learnt from. There have been too many cases of weterners doing a u-turn on native spritiual traditions and creating rebranded hash-browns sold in spiritual fastfood tradition. From what limited interaction ive ad with you, you seem like a sincere and sensible type....good luck on your journey...

[dwai]

If you wish to think that Advaita calls Brahman the process, the dependent origination, instead of something much more substantial, independent and permanent Self, then whatever you think man. Try telling that to Advaita followers - that their Brahman is doctrinally the same as impermanence, as dependent origination... you'll get laughs I think.

 

Tao is less substantialist - since Tao is 'the way' sort of like the 'river'. Nonetheless how a person interpretes Tao Te Ching depends on each individual.

 

Just not today. Or any day recently. I'm more for pragmatic discussions nowadays than debating on Advaita vs Buddhism since I've learnt from past experience that they're pointless and futile.

 

Now I'm all for practical discussions that can help your practice. If you're interested to investigate and experience what I experience, I'll give you some practical advice and share notes. If you're interested in Self-Realization, I will even tell you to go study Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi and stuff, cos these are definitely going to help you in your quest. Whatever works - pragmatic dharma.

Like I said - I can totally get 100/100 for nondual exams or thusness exams or buddhism anatta emptiness dependent origination exams, way before I truly realized them. I spoke out of faith at that time - actually not just out of faith but I have come to an intellectual, inferred understanding - it makes sense. But intellectual understanding is not going to help you truly see things. Actually not exactly - it DOES help, if you have right view. Just insufficient. You really need direct experience and insight.

 

BTW it is not totally intellectual even then - I've had NDNCDIMOP (as a temporary peak experience, many times since 2006) which does sort of confirm the validity of anatta and non-duality, even though it requires a little extrapolation.

 

If the sense of self can totally fade into just the scenery, sounds, etc, then by inference surely, that sense of self illusory, right?

 

I've also had glimpses of experiences of I AM since 2007. But the realization came in 2010. I discussed the difference between experience vs realization in the new topic I created on experience, realization, view, etc

I have posted Advaita stuff, Ken Wilber stuff, Ramana stuff in my own forum, in fact I focus mainly on those stuff in my practice and is what truly appealed to me. But I point out anatta and emptiness to those who already knew those stuff. It's like if you already knew A, B, C, I'll talk about D. If you know D, I'll talk about A, B, C.

 

If you only had intellectual understanding of emptiness, I'll actually tell you to start reading Advaita stuff and do self-inquiry. Why? I AM realization is valuable. It brings out the luminosity aspect.

 

Of course I had faith in him. Faith is a good thing. In Buddhism, faith is one of the five powers. We should have faith in Buddha.

 

But it doesn't mean faith is all thats enough, or that because of faith we should not continue investigating and finding things out for ourselves... like I did. This is why I studied Advaita, Actual Freedom, and anything that is interesting that I can find.

 

It is closely in line with my experience too, at that time.

There is no need for that - once you wake up, you wake up. You don't need to find out how you wake up - and in fact I do know how I woke up but to you it seems insufficient for whatever reason, but they are all besides the point because you already wake up and thats the whole point.

 

Somehow you think that to truly wake up, you cannot have faith in anybody.

 

This is not compatible with Buddhism which actually asks you to have faith in Buddha but at the same time investigate things for yourselves. Like I did.

 

For example. When I practice self-inquiry, I don't doubt Ramana Maharshi: I don't doubt 'Thusness and Buddha say anatta, so how can Who am I result in a real answer?'

 

I had faith in Ramana Maharshi and Thusness - there must be an answer to it.

 

But I am not satisfied with that mere knowledge... in fact knowing that there is an answer to 'Who am I?' I worked very hard on resolving that question, until one day through the question the mind subsides to its Source and I realized.

 

Faith has its place, practical application and investigation has its place.

 

Why dont you ask me? Oh wait...i told you so 4 years ago

[dwai]

Xabir, you can keep posting 1000 line responses if you want, about how the substantialist view is wrong, and is simply a misunderstanding of emptiness but that is missing my point.

 

My point is that no matter how good your argument is, there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism...

 

And that can only be understood in a theistic or Intelligent universe framework.

Er...actually they CAN be understood via buddha or nagarjuna...but not via blind faith buddhism...

 

At the risk of seeming gloaty, i posted my thought here because this is a journey im fmilir with. I hve no intention of embrking in an advaita vs soethingelse discussion.?..those who hve context will automaticlly understnd...those who dont will do so one day...

Edited December 17, 2011 by dwai

[dwai]

The BS you shared is quite enjoyable. It is amazing how people arrive at various beliefs to make their illusions more palatable. This idea of theism (which Seth broached in the top post) is wholly bizarre for those who take a look at it. It is indisputable that the Abrahamic god, from whom the majority on the planet get their belief from, is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional god. And amazingly, a god who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

In the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. And as for their definition of love,...it's insane. Their Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7, has nothing to do with love (or compassion). Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

Buddhism is fully contrary to bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring. Tilopa said, that to transcend the mind's dualities all hope must die. "the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear." But Christianity advocates hope and fear (of their Lord).

 

Some may ask, why did the Buddha object to hope. Simply look up the word.

 

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff.

 

Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope?

 

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

 

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or evil, beauty or blight.

 

Someone, perhaps a Buddhist said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

V

 

The problem for weterners is that their formative years have been at the hands of yahweh...so the word "God" automtically gets translated as a old white dude with white hair and beard sitting with an accounts ledger passing verdicts on the fate of his "children". The dharmic God is a completely different concept...thus allusions towards this dharmic God too gets flushed down the toilet of the western condition wrt religion ( be it apathy, antipathy or sympathy)

[doc benway]

 

But all the logical reductionism, intellectual masturbation, and otherwise stale and uninspired rhetoric that has rendered the last 3 topics i have viewed totally unreadable is getting on my nerves. Hahahah why don't you guys go post on dharmawheel or something?

 

This is why I don't go to sangha... all the buddhists. I'd rather be at home by myself thankyouverymuch.

 

I'm following Scotty, ouuuuuutta here, and i'm keeping my views and practices private, so the buddhist brigade can't critique it.

Don't mind the buddhist brigade. They mean well (well, some of them anyway).

I like your contributions and I hope you don't go too far.

The mind wants really badly to convince itself that it "understands."

Then it can feel more secure. Buddhism is a wonderfully scientific way of convincing oneself that one understands.

And if it works for you, wonderful. And if it doesn't, wonderful.

Because it makes absolutely no difference...

The guys and gals that portray to us, and themselves, that they have understanding are still here, just like the rest of us who are in the dark, typing on a keyboard.

We're all the same.

The irony is that each of us is deeply wrapped in our warm cloaks of "understanding" whilst pointing out the failings of each others' garments...

It's like arguing over the shape and texture of the color purple, while trying to eat a menu.

 

 

 

My point is that no matter how good your argument is, there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism...

 

And that can only be understood in a theistic or Intelligent universe framework.

And I will make the point that:

there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism - period...

The theistic or intelligent universe framework simply substitutes different thoughts and concepts.

It is still an artificial, illusory, and inadequate verbal and conceptual representation of something that transcends explanation and understanding.

And I don't mean to say that pursuing a more theistic view is any more or less valuable or desirable than Buddhism.

They're all the same, more or less.

Different fingers pointing at the moon.

Just be careful not to use those fingers to put out your (or someone else's) eye ...

 

There is no question about the fact that the universe is intelligent ... we are manifesting that right here and now (well, a few nanoseconds ago... a few nanoseconds ago.... a few nanoseconds ago, anyway). And it is quite stupid as well.... (I'm here!)

The important thing is to enjoy the journey, and for me at least, to do what I can to help others enjoy their's as well...

 

Live long and prosper, Set

[Seth Ananda]

 

It's like arguing over the shape and texture of the color purple, while trying to eat a menu.

 

 

 

And I will make the point that:

there are experiences had in relationship with 'source' that can not be explained by Buddhism - period...

The theistic or intelligent universe framework simply substitutes different thoughts and concepts.

 

There is no question about the fact that the universe is intelligent ... we are manifesting that right here and now (well, a few nanoseconds ago... a few nanoseconds ago.... a few nanoseconds ago, anyway). And it is quite stupid as well.... (I'm here!)

 

Live long and prosper, Set

Perfect!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I didn't think it belonged to anyone. I thought that was the point. Oh well.

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.

[konchog uma]

Don't mind the buddhist brigade. They mean well (well, some of them anyway).

I like your contributions and I hope you don't go too far.

 

Thanks for saying so steve!

 

i didn't mean i was leaving TTB. I can weather a storm of dreary buddhist knowitallism. I just meant that I wasn't going to engage this thread any longer. Except for this post of course.

 

I'm not going anywhere, but the attitude of the brigade makes me want to swear off buddhism for fear that my mind will harden and i will become convinced that i actually understand anything. GAAAHHH pinch me im having a nightmare!!

[9th]

[xabir2005]

Not really. If I interpret Brahman as Everything. As in everything there is, the concept of independence, or permanence are all pretty mute. Independence is an idea on the opposite of dependence, as is permanence opposite of impermanence. We can only see motion in comparison to stillness, same with substantial and insubstantial. So if we understand God as all, that all is awareness, those conceptual definitions don't apply. But I don't think you can understand this type of approach at all because your mind has tied all these language patterns to "oh no no, clinging 101."

Sure you can interprete any way you want. But don't tell Advaitins that their Brahman is impermanent, impermanence, not-self and dependent origination, unless you want to get laughed at, or you want to engage in those thousand pages long debate in 2008.

 

Advaita clearly says Brahman as the ultimate reality is permanent, Self, independent, unchanging, etc.

 

But more importantly I think your way of expression overemphasize nonconceptuality to the point of putting aside the importance of insight and implication of views... it can potentially lead into the disease of non-conceptuality that I have warned ThusComeOne some months ago: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/disease-of-non-conceptuality.html

 

p.s. 'all is awareness' implies awareness is absolute, isn't it? To me, there is no 'the awareness' at all. Awareness is a label like weather is a label for ungraspable process of activities, the activities themselves are also empty.

 

You see, even though you may not see 'all is awareness' as a view, it actually is a subtle view that causes attachment to this sense of awareness since you see it 'inherently here' or existing. It can become something to cling to - even if you have no concepts. You will subtly cling to or sink back to a source.

 

Just like you can say "I have no concepts with regards to I AM" yet still cling to that non-conceptual sense of beingness as the purest identity and thus preventing non-dual experiences of transient sights, sounds, thoughts, etc. (but even if one realizes nondual, still one can cling to One Mind) Non-conceptual does not mean no-attachments or no-delusions.

 

As I said,

 

Non-conceptuality does not mean non-attachment. For example when you realize the I AM, you cling to that pure non-conceptual beingness and consciousness as your true identity. You cling to that pure non-conceptual thought very tightly – you wish to abide in that purest state of presence 24/7. This clinging prevents us from experiencing Presence AS the Transience. This is a form of clinging to something non-conceptual. So know that going beyond concepts does not mean overcoming the view of inherency and its resultant clinging. Even in the substantial non-dual phase, there is still clinging to a Source, a One Mind – even though experience is non-dual and non-conceptual. But when inherent view is dissolved, we see there is absolutely nothing we can cling to, and this is the beginning of Right View and the Path to Nirvana – the cessation of clinging and craving.

 

So as you can see, non-conceptual experience does not liberate - so we have to use the intellect to understand right view, and then investigate it in our experience. This is like a fire that in the end burns up the candle it is burning on, consuming itself in the process, leaving no trace even of itself. In other words, conceptual understanding of right view, coupled with investigative practice, results in true realization that dissolves concepts leaving non-conceptual wisdom - but without that process of investigating and trying to understand right view, merely remaining in a state of non-conceptuality isn't going to help you get free. People who fear engaging in thought, trying to understand the right view, challenging their views and understanding of things, are unfortunately going to stick with their own deluded framework of perceiving things.

Faith is not something you have or don't have. It comes in degrees. Also, intellectually anything can make sense. You're just bullshitting yourself. Your faith in Thusness was irrational. You had an affinity for his teachings, the man himself, and the methods. They are not wrong, that's not what I'm trying to point out. I'm trying to point to you your false sense of how you've come to these realizations. Your memory seems to be very hazy. Don't pretend like you approached this whole thing with an open mind. Clearly you didn't. It was very much an single pointed effort towards Thusness stage 7 from the very beginning.

My memory is clear and if its not clear enough for you please refer to my e-book.

Yup. They were posted in context of "A" and "B." Not in the context of which they were written. Do you think Ken Wilbur was thinking "oh hey, what I write is Stage 3 of Thusness's teaching!" Likely not. That man, as well as all these different practitioners came to the knowledge they had through their own context and experience. You very much disregard that by shoving it all into some A, B, C program.

Ken Wilber is Stage 4. I'm sure he will recognise his experience as that if he is sincere enough. But if he thinks he is fully enlightened or he clings to his framework tightly, then he will not be open to anything else for consideration.

 

I posted Thusness 7 stages to Seraphis in Dharma Overground not too long ago. He is a sincere person. I told him he is at Stage 2. I get people scorning at me for 'belittling' him cos they think he is higher than that just because Stage 2 seems too low for something that has 7 stages, so he thinks I am belittling his attainment. I explained that I AM is not 'low' at all, and the 7 stages are not actually necessarily linear for everyone, and that I AM is not less precious than non dual or emptiness. After explaining and clearing misunderstandings, they no longer think that way.

 

In any case, Seraphis himself, after reading what I told him, actually did make a public statement that he was actually in Thusness Stage 2. He could recognise his experience as that. It is all clear to me, and clear to him. So he did put my advice to him in practice, now he's moving to another phase and getting clearer about non-dual.

Edited December 18, 2011 by xabir2005