Growing Weary

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Personally, I go through phases of leaning towards different traditions while each informs the other in large part. I've found that different traditions have clarified practices from others more than the original tradition clarified itself for me.

 

There are many parts of Buddhism that have saved me from existential suffering, but there are other parts which at my stage of spiritual involvement I have had to ignore as something which I would do if I were to give up all ties and become a renunciate. I still do what I feel fits my situation, but there are some things which just do not help me.

 

On the debating issue, it is interesting to a point and it's good that people try to preserve the complicated views, but it seems like "knowledge is power" and "power corrupts" so it can be a big turn-off when people start using this knowledge to belittle other people, keeping in mind that chat forums are often fueled by argument which is often sparked just to have a debate and, unfortunately, this often happens very ungraciously even when discussing something as uncorrupted as the Buddhadharma.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's always unpleasant when someone is trying to shove things down your throat instead of showing you a delicious meal to choose from.

[Marblehead]

My guess is cause there's so much love saturating this place already that the Buddhists' only way to differentiate themselves is with cold hard logic

 

Just wanted to let you know that I read that post. I shall remain silent.

[Marblehead]

... so it can be a big turn-off when people start using this knowledge to belittle other people, ...

 

That is the absolute key for me. I admire those who are willing to share their knowledge. Even more so when a person shares their wisdom. But when it gets to the point where "My way is the only right way" the time has arrived where there will be arguements and the arguements will lead to insults in most cases.

[Marblehead]

It's always unpleasant when someone is trying to shove things down your throat instead of showing you a delicious meal to choose from.

 

Beautiful timing for posting this. So true!

[johndoe2012]

This thread reminds me yet again of why I have kept my reading of Buddhist Sutras (1 complete, 2 others *very* sporadic) and especially other Buddhist Practitioner's "Realizations" Comments on assorted forums to a bare minimum. On a practical everyday "news-you-can-use" level I know and do a LOT more Taoist Inner Alchemy than I do Buddhism. I am so weary of the Infallibility Factor of a lot of Buddhist posts at Taobums lately. I'm not talking about Sutras.

 

When I read what Daniel Ingram at dharmaoverground.org and Kenneth Folk at kennethfolkdharma.com write I sense a lot of compassion even for the Buddhist newbie.

 

So maybe if you are still interested in Buddhism, head over there. Or if you are interested in the direct approach to the HeartMind then I think healing others (Ya Mu's stuff) is the most direct, since there is no "conceptual" mind involved.

[Mandrake]

This thread reminds me yet again of why I have kept my reading of Buddhist Sutras (1 complete, a few others sporadic) and especially other Buddhist Practitioner's "Realizations" Comments on assorted forums to a bare minimum. On a practical everyday "news-you-can-use" level I know and do a LOT more Taoist Inner Alchemy than I do Buddhism. I am so weary of the Infallibility Factor of a lot of Buddhist posts at Taobums lately. I'm not talking about Sutras.

 

I'm talking about Infallible View at Taobums.

 

 

I wonder why Taobums Buddhists do not post about daily Loving-Kindness/Compassion practices and any "realizations" or experiences from it as I've seen other Buddhists do? You'd think it would be much easier since the Heart-Mind is opened.

 

Awakened Bodhicitta is *the* thing (along with Buddhism's DIY/Scientific Method Approach) that I liked so much about it. Yet it's so lacking at Taobums. Any guesses as to why?

 

Many things in life depends on Right View: For eating healtily, you need the right view of food;

for surgery, you need a certain category of right view; when you place your finances in the hands of somebody, you wish that person to have the right view of economics/finances; and so on.

 

If I need a heart replacement, do I wish my surgeon to have read a manual consinting of evasive, mysterious poetry alluding to heart transplantation? Obviously the full stuff, with as much details as possible is preferred. The best of course, is a valid training with a tutor who successively demonstrates practically the points in the manual.

If all tutors die, the benefit with a detailed manual is that somebody can relatively easily revive the skill of performing heart transplantations, compared to a book of poetry alluding to heart surgery.

 

The important concept is that every line in the manual has a practical, real life counterpart. It's the same with philosopy. There's a major mistake when reading this stuff without understanding how to apply it to one's own cultivation. Same with showing it down other's throats if it doesn't apply to their cultivation.

 

Use what is of help to you at the moment. It's so easy, just "Let go"! If one has recognized that one has problem with that, one can use abhidharma to find out what they are potentially clinging to; after identifying that, sit on the cushion and let go of those. Similarily, Yogacara and Madhyamaka also tangibly point to stuff that one may be clinging to. Several concepts in Yogacara actually point to a special kind of qi, that if you can get hold of that and stop the clinging to it, will supercharge your cultivation.

 

It's all about practice and what's useful to you at the moment. Just debating these things among people is meaningless if it's not asked for, and if it is not pertinent to the stages of cultivation of the practicioners, and if the practical part is missing.

 

The compassionate buddhists are elsewhere. The people who prefer intellectualization thrive on the internet, and are prone to pop up at internet forums.

 

 

Mandrake

[Jetsun]

On the debating issue, it is interesting to a point and it's good that people try to preserve the complicated views, but it seems like "knowledge is power" and "power corrupts" so it can be a big turn-off when people start using this knowledge to belittle other people, keeping in mind that chat forums are often fueled by argument which is often sparked just to have a debate and, unfortunately, this often happens very ungraciously even when discussing something as uncorrupted as the Buddhadharma.

 

I think if someone used the Buddhadharma to try to belittle someone (like we have seen on this board a few times) in a monastery debate they would more or less be exposing to everyone they are lost and have completely misunderstood some of the fundamental aspects of Buddhism.

 

It is basically a subtle form of spiritual materialism where you are using the Dharma to try to elevate yourself above others for the purposes of trying to raise your own self importance or out of your fear of being degraded yourself and only a really good teacher or psychotherapist will be able to pull you out of that hole quickly. I think this sort of spiritual ego creation is actually quite common though which is probably why Chogyam Trungpa wrote a book about it, it probably happens to most people to some degree at certain stages in their path.

[RyanO]

Just wanted to let you know that I read that post. I shall remain silent.

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

in a monastery debate they would more or less be exposing to everyone they are lost and have completely misunderstood some of the fundamental aspects of Buddhism.

 

 

I have to assume though that people would probably not take the liberties of behaviour that they do here if they were in a more formal environment. The spirit of playful competition is not completely alien to Buddhism nor Taoism, but as you said, the line gets crossed when people show an obvious air of snobbery. Like a "muso" musician who thinks they are better than everyone because they have superior skills, judging themselves and others on superficial grounds which also makes them easy targets -- "live by the sword, die by the sword" at some level. But yes, it does expose painful insecurities when people esteem themselves and others in this way, avoiding deeper feelings about themselves and maybe their jealousy which makes them want to crush other people.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

by the way, I don't mean to direct the above statement at anyone in particular. It's more of just a general psychoanalysis. I'm sure I wouldn't score perfectly under it either.

[mat black]

The compassionate buddhists are elsewhere.

Genuine question: where are they and what sort of things would they be doing? Interested to hear your take

Thanks.

[Encephalon]

Genuine question: where are they and what sort of things would they be doing? Interested to hear your take

Thanks.

 

Pardon my interjection, but his complete statement was "The compassionate buddhists are elsewhere. The people who prefer intellectualization thrive on the internet, and are prone to pop up at internet forums." I think there is some truth to that statement, and it raises more questions about the psychological and sociological effects that online forums have on the participants than questions about which Buddhists do or do not engage in forums.

 

It's probably sensible to suggest that deeply committed Buddhists, lay Buddhists as well as ordained, have taken their precepts seriously and participate in one of the many expressions of Socially Engaged Buddhism. Buddhism has always had an intellectual reputation - "Growth of the heart by way of the mind" to quote the Dalai Lama - and the record of intellectual warfare between different sects, particularly the Tibetan schools, is legendary. So it's all too easy to see Buddhism as an unwitting means of enabling those prone to intellectualism.

 

I have to agree that socially engaged Buddhism does not happen on line. It happens in real life, in the trenches, where compassion is needed most. I can hardly imagine any of the so-called masters signing off on the practice of spending hours every day bantering online when they could be either meditating or participating in acts of compassion needed by their community. That being said, modest online presence doesn't seem all that dreadful, but I've struggled myself with keeping it to a minimum during times when I'm craving destractions from more important matters.

[JustARandomPanda]

So considering how easy the step is, if you already have the I AM stabilized, who cares about Right View?

The proponents here talk as if it is some crucial thing that divides the Bodhisattva's from the deluded Idiots. That is just not True.

 

Some paths like Krishna Menon's direct path Advaita, use the horribly offensive word 'Self' [which reeks of delusion and eternalistic ignorance] to describe Enlightenment but when you analyze their descriptions of the Self, you see again, that they are describing something outside all categories, experiences and Samadhi states...

 

Some here may object that calling it the 'Self' will engender deep clinging, but when you actually take the time to read about they describe this 'Self' you find there is actually nothing to cling to in the description...

 

The very view of a Self leads to clinging no matter how you deny it... No matter how non-conceptual the state is - I AM is non-conceptual, yet with latent dualistic and inherent view, it lends to reification, making a pure identity out of it, which one then tries to constantly abide as.

 

This has me wondering...

 

I'm curious. Do you have direct Prajna Awareness access to the Seth Ananda mindstream? In fact...I believe that is one of the Siddhis is it not?

 

Please explain to the clingy delusional SB mindstream step-by-step how Xabir Prajna Awareness accesses prajnally that what the Seth Ananda mindstream might call "Self" isn't the same "No-Self" as Xabir mindstream Realizations but just using different words (with no reference to any Seth Ananda posts of course)? I presume you go into Samadhi and get direct Prajna access to Seth Ananda mindstream Realizations?

 

I have to agree that socially engaged Buddhism does not happen on line. It happens in real life, in the trenches, where compassion is needed most. I can hardly imagine any of the so-called masters signing off on the practice of spending hours every day bantering online when they could be either meditating or participating in acts of compassion needed by their community. That being said, modest online presence doesn't seem all that dreadful, but I've struggled myself with keeping it to a minimum during times when I'm craving destractions from more important matters.

 

Socially engaged Buddhism is what I've been leaning toward if a label must be put on what I've been focusing on lately. Although I'd be just as happy to call it Socially Engaged Taoism, Socially Engaged Confucianism, Socially Engaged Sufism or Socially Engaged Paganism.

 

Labels don't matter as much to me the more I practice. I suppose being engaged on a message board might be considered an act of compassion if it leads to aiding other beings. But yes...I suspect most posts on message board fall rather short of that ideal.

[xabir2005]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Seth Ananda did not assert a Self, and I did not accuse him of holding self view. The problem is that he is unable to discern what the party is talking about, or he is not fully clear about the different insights and problems that can surface in those phases of insights. He is for example, mistaking the "dissolving into nothingness" phase with the realization of anatta.

 

The view of self, in all and any manners, leads to clinging. Doesn't matter what you view self as, or even if you do not have a clear view of what self is (like most ordinary persons) - nonetheless the view that I Am, I exist, is latent and affecting our perception every moment. Even if you take something like Pure Consciousness or Nothingness as identity, it is going to cause clinging.

 

As I wrote:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/view.html

 

The View

Posted by: An Eternal Now

 

 

Just posted in The Tao Bums a week ago:

 

I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment.

 

I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.

 

I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view.

 

The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.

 

The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.

 

The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.

 

What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of views cause all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views.

 

----------

 

Related stuff:

 

 

A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti)

 

....

 

The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist".

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

 

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

...

 

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

 

Another related article from an Actualist practitioner: http://nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/2011/07/conversations-breakthrough.html#more

[xabir2005]

Also with regards to the discussion of buddhists online being more intellectually inclined, I disagree, and can cite Kenneth Folk Dharma and Dharma Overground among a number of forums which is more catered to practice and meditation inclined Buddhists.

[JustARandomPanda]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Seth Ananda did not assert a Self, and I did not accuse him of holding self view. The problem is that he is unable to discern what the party is talking about, or he is not fully clear about the different insights and problems that can surface in those phases of insights. He is for example, mistaking the "dissolving into nothingness" phase with the realization of anatta.

 

Hi Xabir,

 

My point was missed but that is because I was not clear. I am asking HOW you know 100% that the Seth Ananda mindstream "is unable to discern what the party is talking about, or he is not fully clear about the different insights and problems that can surface in those phases of insights."

 

You see...I am asking HOW you obtain this knowledge about the Seth Ananda mindstream Prajna Level's subtle clingings and that your knowledge of his posts does in fact have 1-to-1 correspondence with what the Seth Ananda mindstream in fact actually Realizes via Prajna also and thus how far it yet has to go.

 

HOW do you go about attaining this knowledge of Seth Ananda's level of Prajna?!! (I'm asking about your METHOD(S). Not WHAT you know about Seth Ananda's mindstream but HOW you know and HOW you know that WHAT you know is in fact 1-to-1 100% accurate in assessment.

 

Interpreting posts on message boards in my personal experience is tricky business. Look at all those years of how many people argued and didn't understand Vajrahidaya. Or look at how many people get upset with VMarco and he keeps insisting very few at Taobums really understand what he's saying. Even you with all your Prajna Awareness and 2 Fold Emptiness Realization missed the point of my post. And I don't even have ANY realizations. I'm one incredibly deluded, clingin mofo.

 

 

If you missed MY point...what assurance do you have that you aren't doing the same with Seth Ananda's or indeed any other posts you respond to?

Edited February 15, 2012 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Also with regards to the discussion of buddhists online being more intellectually inclined, I disagree, and can cite Kenneth Folk Dharma and Dharma Overground among a number of forums which is more catered to practice and meditation inclined Buddhists.

 

*Heavy sigh*

 

That's what I wonder. Why are all the "practice and meditation inclined Buddhists" not here at Taobums as well? Damn shame that they're not.

[Seth Ananda]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Seth Ananda did not assert a Self, and I did not accuse him of holding self view. The problem is that he is unable to discern what the party is talking about, or he is not fully clear about the different insights and problems that can surface in those phases of insights. He is for example, mistaking the "dissolving into nothingness" phase with the realization of anatta.

I am doing no such thing, and for you to say so indicates that you did not read my post properly. For one, In the Advaita school I was talking about, they refer to dissolving into nothingness as becoming the void, and that is considered an experience, and thus an object to be transcended...

 

The view of self, in all and any manners, leads to clinging. Doesn't matter what you view self as, or even if you do not have a clear view of what self is (like most ordinary persons) - nonetheless the view that I Am, I exist, is latent and affecting our perception every moment. Even if you take something like Pure Consciousness or Nothingness as identity, it is going to cause clinging.

 

Again, this is your Belief systems and Dogma at play. You just believe this because Buddhism told you this, and I do also think it is generally true...

What some Advaita schools {definitely not most} refer to as Self, is far removed from any I AM state, which they have very clearly laid bare stabilized and then moved past...

[xabir2005]

I am doing no such thing, and for you to say so indicates that you did not read my post properly. For one, In the Advaita school I was talking about, they refer to dissolving into nothingness as becoming the void, and that is considered an experience, and thus an object to be transcended...

 

 

 

Again, this is your Belief systems and Dogma at play. You just believe this because Buddhism told you this, and I do also think it is generally true...

What some Advaita schools {definitely not most} refer to as Self, is far removed from any I AM state, which they have very clearly laid bare stabilized and then moved past...

No, it has nothing to do with belief. I have seen, realized, how the view of self shapes perception and leads to clinging. I have seen how every clinging comes down to the view 'it is' (exists) or 'it is not'.

 

You have missed what I said earlier. Nisargadatta has went beyond I AM, but the Self they take is actually the nothingness - a source prior or beyond the I AM - which is nonetheless still a Self view.

 

There is no realization of anatta being taught by them.

Edited February 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Hi Xabir,

 

My point was missed but that is because I was not clear. I am asking HOW you know 100% that the Seth Ananda mindstream "is unable to discern what the party is talking about, or he is not fully clear about the different insights and problems that can surface in those phases of insights."

 

You see...I am asking HOW you obtain this knowledge about the Seth Ananda mindstream Prajna Level's subtle clingings and that your knowledge of his posts does in fact have 1-to-1 correspondence with what the Seth Ananda mindstream in fact actually Realizes via Prajna also and thus how far it yet has to go.

 

HOW do you go about attaining this knowledge of Seth Ananda's level of Prajna?!! (I'm asking about your METHOD(S). Not WHAT you know about Seth Ananda's mindstream but HOW you know and HOW you know that WHAT you know is in fact 1-to-1 100% accurate in assessment.

 

Interpreting posts on message boards in my personal experience is tricky business. Look at all those years of how many people argued and didn't understand Vajrahidaya. Or look at how many people get upset with VMarco and he keeps insisting very few at Taobums really understand what he's saying. Even you with all your Prajna Awareness and 2 Fold Emptiness Realization missed the point of my post. And I don't even have ANY realizations. I'm one incredibly deluded, clingin mofo.

 

 

If you missed MY point...what assurance do you have that you aren't doing the same with Seth Ananda's or indeed any other posts you respond to?

Its very simple really, not as complicated as you think.

 

Seth Ananda quoted Nisargadatta, who is describing the nothingness as absolute (thusness stage 3), and being the same as anatta. Therefore I say he has not understood. What Nisargatta taught is beyond I AM, but is not anatta, and still lends to the view of a self and a source. Note that I did not make claims of seth's level of prajna, only that he is mistaken on this point, I do not need to make statements more than what is necessary.

 

I have realized anatta so will definitely know it when someone describes it. Like if you tasted apple, then you will know when another person describes the same thing to you.

Edited February 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[JustARandomPanda]

I have realized anatta so will definitely know it when someone describes it. Like if you tasted apple, then you will know when another person describes the same thing to you.

 

 

Dunno about you but whenever I see people describing the taste of an apple it is also always via referencing commonly held cultural concepts to explain experiences between me and the other apple taster that we picked up in childhood and was sustained throughout or lives by ourselves and those around us. Can't be divorced from it. And I think a Taoist would point that out too.

 

How do you know that your Apple (anatta) is not the same Apple as Nisgardatta's? Because you peg Nisgardatta at Thussness Stage 3? I presume Thussness teaches that Nisgardatta is Stage 3 and shows how Nisgardatta still had Wrong View and thus clinging going on?

 

And all that's ever revolved back to when a beginner like me keeps asking to please CLARIFY the METHOD is:

 

I have realized anatta so will definitely know it when someone describes it. Like if you tasted apple, then you will know when another person describes the same thing to you.

 

AKA:

 

"I know that I know and there's nothing else to say about it except that it's because I've Realized Right View which can not be unseen once seen and therefore can detect (detection method used is never explained) when Right View is absent in someone else's writings".

 

 

The above explanation tells me everything and yet tells me nothing all at the same time. It was for this very reason the Buddha advised to start practicing what he taught (Scientific Method as applied to one's mindstream and body) to see how deep the causes and conditioning go. I get that what once one has seen can not be unseen. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

How do you know that Thusness (and Xabir) 'realized correctly the flawed understanding' of Nisgardatta mindstream's View? Even Thusness had to go off what Nisgardatta *wrote* (just as deluded me still has to go off of what you *write* - which starts accessing all that stuff in the brain that was learned as a tiny tot), not what the Nisgardatta mindstream may or may not have actually Realized.

 

Maybe Nisgardatta just uber-sucked at explaining Anatta so that it seems like he's 'taking Nothing as a Source'? Maybe his actual Realization was way less clingy than his sucky ability at explaining? Or maybe Nisgardatta just explained things in a way that triggers your 'that's a Wrong View' realization since it's not in language you are used to in any shape, form or fashion but someone else may actually realize 'anatta' Rightly via Nisgardatta. Or maybe he had to describe things the way he did to Skillfully Teach the clingy students who were his disciples in a language they could understand so as to aid their realization of Anatta Rightly (which I take is Seth Ananda's take on Nisgardatta writings vs Thusness' take on Nisgardatta writings).

 

Again...how would you separate Nisgardatta student A (realized Anatta Rightly via Nisgardatta teachings) vs. student B (did not realize Anatta Rightly via Nisgardatta teachings). You still have to rely on the written word - as you yourself claim you did. And which I submit is far more problematic than the assertion that it is not. Else why did the Buddha teach the need to cultivate?*

 

I have realized anatta so will definitely know it when someone describes it. Like if you tasted apple, then you will know when another person describes the same thing to you.

 

The above quote is saying a similar thing to the Supreme Court's ruling on what's pornography. "I just know it when I see it."

 

See...I would pose this question to Thusness himself but I'm not a Thusness student although maybe Thusness will swing by (maybe Xabir will invite him?) and explain it personally in this thread - especially since Thusness has a Taobums account.

 

 

 

I'm left scratching my nose, twisting in the wind with such replies.

I guess there's really nothing else left to say. Except it's pretty dang cool being so accurate in one's assessments.

 

 

 

On a totally separate note:

 

Why do we almost never see Buddhists at Taobums swapping their Inner Alchemy, Awareness or Metta practices so that they don't cling to the body nor the mindstream anymore either? Why at other Buddhist forums but NOT Here?

 

 

 

 

 

* I get that what's right in your face is "just thus". That's what the 6th Zen Patriarch's sutra is about (though it's still important to practice and I've got a *very* long way to go - philosophical understanding does not replace or substitute for practice). BTW - a lot of Taoists are not as clever as they think in thinking Buddhists don't realize the 'just thusness' of the Tao every bit as much as Taoists do.

Edited February 16, 2012 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

I have seen how every clinging comes down to the view 'it is' (exists) or 'it is not'.

 

I don't think the Seth Ananda mindstream is disputing the Teachings in Buddhism that clinging goes on by Sentient Beings and leads to the results posited above.

 

I think all the Seth Ananda mindstream is disputing is the Xabir mindstream's 'I know it when I see it' realization of Nisgardatta writings. *shrug*

 

Nisargadatta has went beyond I AM, but the Self they take is actually the nothingness - a source prior or beyond the I AM - which is nonetheless still a Self view.

 

I keep wanting to ask HOW the Xabir mindstream arrived at that Awareness that the Nisgardatta mindstream (and students) are taking Nothingness as a Source (3rd stage instead of 7th) but I guess I won't get anything I'll be able to understand right now.

 

There is no realization of anatta being taught by them.

 

Sigh....

 

I keep wanting to ask the method used to come to the above Realization that there's "no realization of anatta being taught by them"...those mindstreams just *Think* they are but they're really not and (somehow) the Xabir mindstream detects it automatically.

 

But...I guess I won't understand it until I get there.

 

 

 

Anyhoo...

 

Cheers!

[xabir2005]

hi, as I have said I am familiar with Nisargadatta's teachings having read hundreds of pages of them.

 

I am very clear what he teaches.

 

For example he said,

 

"In this spiritual hierarchy, from the grossest to the subtlest, you are the subtlest. How can this be realized? The very base is that you don’t know you are, and suddenly the feeling of ‘I amness’ appears. The moment it appears you see space, mental space; that subtle sky-like space, stabilize there. You are that. When you are able to stabilize in that space, you are space only. When this space-like identity ‘I am’ disappears, the space will also disappear, there is no space. When that space-like ‘I am’ goes into oblivion, that is the eternal state, ‘nirguna’, no form, no beingness. Actually, what did happen there? This message ‘I am’ was no message. Dealing with this aspect, I cannot talk much because there is no scope to put it in words."

 

Also he said,

 

"The ‘I am’ is absent only in the state of ‘samadhi’, when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the ‘I am’ is there, he just doesn’t give much importance to it. A ‘jnani’ is not guided by a concept."

 

This is the description of Stage 3, which as Thusness have said is the state where even beingness or consciousness enters oblivion.

 

When you realize Stage 4 and 5, I.e. Nondual and anatta, then there is no more hierarchy, no more making nothingness-prior-to-i-am as the purest state.

 

Whether I AM, nothingness, or sensate manifestation, all are equally pure. There is no purest absolute state. This is realized only when you see that always already, in seeing just the seen, no seer. Always already, there is no I, so there is no entry and exit, 'I am' identity is not only absent in samadhi state or a purest Absolute, but is already so in all manifestations.

 

And yes, Thusness too have said before that Nisargadatta is describing stage 3, and leads students to I AM first then to the nothingness.

Edited February 16, 2012 by xabir2005

[Protector]

I can solve all your problems with two words almost everyone forgets as they become more familiar with something

 

"be simple"

 

Hehehe. Reminded me of the story:

 

There were a number of Buddhists in a conference hall, in the center of the hall was a table and on the table was a glass half filled with water. The Buddhists were arguing as to whether the glass was half full or half empty.

 

Along come a Taoist Sage into the hall, and, because he had been walking in the heat of a very hot sun was rather thirsty. He saw the glass of water on the table, walked up and drank the water.

 

:lol: