Superimposition of views on reality

[Simple_Jack]

I can however, simply relate neti, neti to a statement of the ultimate purity of the pristine awareness, free from illusions...This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing. 'All is Mind' of course is the same. That is itself not a statement about awareness itself, just mind. Everything seems to line up as far as I can tell.

 

You've unknowingly adopted the substantialist view of an undifferentiated, conglomerate, subsuming and over-arching, "awareness". This is why it's paramount to understand the context of Buddha's teachings of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas, and how this applies to vipashyana/vipassana. This is why I recommended you to read Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, Ch. 9 "Examination of the Prior Entity" [http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=chapter%20nine&f=false].

 

Taoism (various schools), Theraveda Buddhism, Mahamudra, Zen and other Mahayana, Sufism, Spiritism, Shamanism, Tantra (various facets of Indian and Tibetan Vajrayana), Western Science (i.e. empiricism), Western Psychologies (transpersonal, gestalt, jungian, health, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and others), Advaita Vedanta, Yoga (Patanjali's, 8-limbs, etc.), and more and more...

 

I am not, and have no intentions of becoming a traditionalist anything. I am not in a hurry! I am having fun.

 

I am in my heart a Universalist.

 

Yes, you're a perennialist:

 

http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf

 

"They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis....

This is detrimental to understanding and engaging in Buddhist meditation.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Songtsan]

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

This is great stuff...I will add it to my 'bible'

 

thank you

[Songtsan]

 

You've unknowingly adopted the substantialist view of an undifferentiated, conglomerate, subsuming and over-arching, "awareness". This is why it's paramount to understand the context of Buddha's teachings of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas, and how this applies to vipashyana/vipassana. This is why I recommended you to read Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, Ch. 9 "examination of the prior entity" [http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=chapter%20nine&f=false].

 

 

Yes, you're a perennialist:

 

"They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis....

This is detrimental to understanding and engaging in Buddhist meditation.

 

no - I see that there are major differences - I am a builder of my own system out of the many different styles and even contradictory philosophies....it is forever a work in progress, and will not end...actually I try my damndest not to define myself.

 

I fully believe that one should "Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters. Instead seek for yourself what the masters sought."

 

Even Buddha studied various systems before he finally came to his own personal way. Clinging to spiritual systems is much like tribalism to me - joining a gang! lol Also, one might not feel comfortable not being in what has been defined as a 'sure path to enlightenment,' whereas I am not afraid to fail, and I am in fact not attached to succeeding. I am simply enjoying the paths.

 

mainly I am a "It's time to stop studying for a while and meditate-ist" - that is what I would call myself at this moment, although its not been actualizing all that great because I am in such a stressful life period.

[RongzomFan]

Taoism (various schools), Theraveda Buddhism, Mahamudra, Zen and other Mahayana, Sufism, Spiritism, Shamanism, Tantra (various facets of Indian and Tibetan Vajrayana), Western Science (i.e. empiricism), Western Psychologies (transpersonal, gestalt, jungian, health, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and others), Advaita Vedanta, Yoga (Patanjali's, 8-limbs, etc.), and more and more...

 

I am not, and have no intentions of becoming a traditionalist anything. I am not in a hurry! I am having fun.

 

I am in my heart a Universalist.

 

Why no Hinduism?

 

Ignore the gang rape stuff.

 

25% of American rapes are gang rapes. America has the highest gang rape and rape in the world.

[Songtsan]

Why no Hinduism?

 

Ignore the gang rape stuff.

 

25% of American rapes are gang rapes. America has the highest gang rape and rape in the world.

 

I like Shiva, Krishna, Kali, and bunches of the other deities, but I am not so much into deity worship anymore, as I think that most of them are simply divinized thought constructs. I do believe in the existence of the Mahashakti though, and this is significant to my path - to my mind, it is 'she' who animates the deities in the minds of men, although I could be way off.

[RongzomFan]

I like Shiva, Krishna, Kali, and bunches of the other deities, but I am not so much into deity worship anymore, as I think that most of them are simply divinized thought constructs. I do believe in the existence of the Mahashakti though, and this is significant to my path - to my mind, it is 'she' who animates the deities in the minds of men, although I could be way off.

 

You don't believe in deities??!!

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/

[Simple_Jack]

no - I see that there are major differences - I am a builder of my own system out of the many different styles and even contradictory philosophies....it is forever a work in progress, and will not end...actually I try my damndest not to define myself.

 

I fully believe that one should "Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters. Instead seek for yourself what the masters sought."

 

Even Buddha studied various systems before he finally came to his own personal way. Clinging to spiritual systems is much like tribalism to me - joining a gang! lol Also, one might not feel comfortable not being in what has been defined as a 'sure path to enlightenment,' whereas I am not afraid to fail, and I am in fact not attached to succeeding. I am simply enjoying the paths.

 

mainly I am a "It's time to stop studying for a while and meditate-ist" - that is what I would call myself at this moment, although its not been actualizing all that great because I am in such a stressful life period.

 

Ironically, you've unknowingly adopted a Vedantin view and practice, even if this is only in intention and not in name. These are a direct result of latent tendencies, expressed as reifications, at work on the subconscious level.

[Songtsan]

You've unknowingly adopted the substantialist view of an undifferentiated, conglomerate, subsuming and over-arching, "awareness". This is why it's paramount to understand the context of Buddha's teachings of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas, and how this applies to vipashyana/vipassana. This is why I recommended you to read Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, Ch. 9 "Examination of the Prior Entity" [http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=chapter%20nine&f=false].

 

What you speak of sounds a lot like the concept of Brahman - no I am not that - holding views about such things I try to avoid anyways...I have not yet seen it in its pure form myself, so I hold no such notions as to its place in the universe - I do believe that the original nature of the mind is purity without superimpositions.

 

If I am an anythingist, which I can be from time to time, it is a sort of agnostic like 'I am not sure yet-ist'

 

I have studied Theraveda pretty thoroughly, especially the writings of Thanissaro Bhikku - know him? - excellent teacher - all his stuff is available free online somewhere, or else he will send you his books for free, although donations are accepted.

[Songtsan]

You don't believe in deities??!!

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/

 

YES/NO

 

as idealized thought constructs that are inter-shared between many beings, and so thus they have reality, but I don't hold a traditionalist view...I personally think that shakti is behind them all!

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...I am not, and have no intentions of becoming a traditionalist anything. I am not in a hurry! I am having fun.

 

I am in my heart a Universalist.

Someone with a good understanding of what their goals are, what paths lead to those goals, and what practices match those paths can select methods from different traditions according to the strengths of those traditions.

 

Mixing conflicting views, though, leads to confusion and poor results. You can't get far working from a Madhyamika view one minute and a Samkya view the next. Either there is an ontological absolute, or there isn't.

 

It's fine to use shamatha methods from both Buddhism and Raja Yoga because they're complementary, but when it comes to the end goals and insight, they conflict.

 

I think there should be a clear commitment to one system, and others can be used as 'catalysts' to shore up the primary system.

 

In my practice, I am a Buddhist with an emphasis on shamatha, but I use some things from Taoism and yoga to help with the chi side of cultivation, and accept good teachings on virtue wherever they come from.

[Simple_Jack]

What you speak of sounds a lot like the concept of Brahman - no I am not that - holding views about such things I try to avoid anyways...I have not yet seen it in its pure form myself, so I hold no such notions as to its place in the universe - I do believe that the original nature of the mind is purity without superimpositions.

 

This could also be used as a description for Brahman.

 

 

I have studied Theraveda pretty thoroughly, especially the writings of Thanissaro Bhikku - know him? - excellent teacher - all his stuff is available free online somewhere, or else he will send you his books for free, although donations are accepted.

 

Studying is one thing, but it's another thing to implement what has been studied accurately and correctly. Vipassana is not complicated, once you understand the principles, but it takes trial and error to really comprehend and be proficient at this on or off the cushion.

[Songtsan]

Someone with a good understanding of what their goals are, what paths lead to those goals, and what practices match those paths can select methods from different traditions according to the strengths of those traditions.

 

Mixing conflicting views, though, leads to confusion and poor results. You can't get far working from a Madhyamika view one minute and a Samkya view the next. Either there is an ontological absolute, or there isn't.

 

It's fine to use shamatha methods from both Buddhism and Raja Yoga because they're complementary, but when it comes to the end goals and insight, they conflict.

 

I think there should be a clear commitment to one system, and others can be used as 'catalysts' to shore up the primary system.

 

In my practice, I am a Buddhist with an emphasis on shamatha, but I use some things from Taoism and yoga to help with the chi side of cultivation, and accept good teachings on virtue wherever they come from.

 

Honestly, I simply haven't decided yet what I will be. Perhaps one day I will commit to a specific path. There is a funny quote which I used to like: "The whole banquet is in the first bite." - which I took to mean that the patterns of all things can be seen from the simplest of experiences, as nature/reality is fractal-like in its ways. Enlightenment shouldn't be so complex that one needs to pick and choose between different systems - even these systems are constantly arguing, and were formed when specific individuals 'broke off from the pack.'

 

That being said, I would enjoy the discipline of a rigorous system - but I am very picky about teachers and I don't know that there are any around me that I would place great faith in.

 

I hate to even be defined as adhering to madhyamika or samkya - if I come to my own conclusions about something after reading various teachings, using my conceptual mind, it is clear that there will be contradictions...this is the price I have to pay for being a maverick.

 

At the same time, I must come back to the simplest of practices - direct perception with wisdom eye open....I don't really feel worried!

 

I am not a Buddhist - I honestly feel more Taoist anyways - in Taoism there is much more room for mystery and finding knowing by doing versus extensive philosophy...one needs hold nothing in their mind - no views....

 

I have the view that no views is a good view.

 

Reality is the great teacher - its always around me.

 

I like you accept good teachings wherever they come..I also try to let them become vague in my mind so that the teachings that stand out the most will be those with the most power and truth. I use fuzzy logic style behavior to understand things, and then come back to these things from a thousand different angles.

 

I like to lose track of big words....

 

A lot of times, even though I have read about a certain thing hundreds of times, I purposefully try to lose the definition - especially when it deals with words in others languages...I am trying to basically allow phoenix-like processes of re-arisal teach me anew each time so that I don't become functionally fixed or think I know it all.

 

I am a big fan of spontaneous meditation

also shikan taza

 

the more one throws oneself into different things, the more flexible ones mind becomes

 

I aim for transpersonality

 

I dont like feeling fixed

 

to me, following a specific spiritual path as outlined by the 'sages' is almost a form of replication.

 

Let's say we are all hiking up the same mountain - I walk on some people's trails that they have made in their journey - then I cut across the bush to someone else's trail. In the mean time I get way cut up by brambles and berry bushes. I take way the hell longer to get to the top than a lot of people.

 

I am busy exploring - that is the bottom line.

 

One should not have fear that one won't make it somewhere special...the universe has a funny way of making sure everyone gets what they want.

 

Endless beings have endless ways to enlightenment.

 

I you see me thinking I am Buddha - please kill me!

 

But if you see me thinking that I am the fool, then you know that I am doing everything right. The fool can go anywhere and be anyone. He is actually more powerful in many ways than a Buddha!

[Simple_Jack]

 

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination.

 

I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

Ironically, you've unknowingly adopted a Vedantin view and practice, even if this is only in intention and not in name. These are a direct result of latent tendencies, expressed as reifications, at work on the subconscious level.

 

P.S. Stating, "I have no views", is a view in itself.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[3bob]

Nagarjuna is a smart person but his reflections and insights along the lines of "four fold negation" only go so far and thus are in effect and to me his wise admission of those limits.

[3bob]

Simple Jack, (btw, why the misnomer ?)

 

"ironically", some could say, you've adopted a Buddhist view and practice which is not the only workable vehicle as some Buddhists tend to attach to and which must also be set down at the river bank.

[Simple_Jack]

Nagarjuna is a smart person but his reflections and insights along the lines of "four fold negation" only go so far and thus are in effect and to me his wise admission of those limits.

 

That's funny because, Advaita Vedanta is a product of Gaudapada's and Shankara's plagiarism of Madhyamaka dialectics, which was then used to refute other Indian schools such as Samkyha.

[RongzomFan]

Nagarjuna is a smart person but his reflections and insights along the lines of "four fold negation" only go so far and thus are in effect and to me his wise admission of those limits.

 

Advaita is the illegitimate bastard son of Nagarjuna.

[RongzomFan]

Gaudapada took specific verses verbatim from Najarjuna.

[Simple_Jack]

Simple Jack, (btw, why the misnomer ?)

 

"ironically", some could say, you've adopted a Buddhist view and practice which is not the only workable vehicle as some Buddhists tend to attach to and which must also be set down at the river bank.

 

The name is based off of a portrayal of a mentally handicap person by Ben Stiller from the movie "Tropic Thunder". I apologize if this offends anyone. It's no secret that I've adopted a Buddhist view and practice, but you must also understand that the "river bank", in the case of Mahayana, is buddhahood, which is traversed by way of the 5 paths towards buddhahood. Also, in MN 28, Buddha states: "He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination."

[3bob]

the fanatics are popping out of the woodwork now, funny but not really since missing the principles and meanings in preference for debatable historic reference's is telling.

Edited January 28, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Yes, these kinds of arguments on the internet have only ever been productive helpful chats, staying directly on topic with no needless insults and leading to everyone happily agreeing on something in the end after the digital version of a handshake and hilarious memes aplenty.

[Simple_Jack]

the fanatics are popping out of the woodwork now, funny but not really since missing the principles and meanings in preference for debatable historic reference's is telling.

 

Yes, my statements are antithetical, to perennialist fanatics.

[3bob]

One must also understand that "Buddhahood "is not limited to or just attained through Buddhism's various schools teachings. The meaning of the term is not just a Buddhist school or teacher meaning.

[RongzomFan]

the fanatics are popping out of the woodwork now, funny but not really since missing the principles and meanings in preference for debatable historic reference's is telling.

 

Gaudapada has the same "principles and meanings" as Nagarjuna because he took them from Nagarjuna.

[Simple_Jack]

One must also understand that "Buddhahood "is not limited to or just attained through Buddhism's various schools teachings. The meaning of the term is not just a Buddhist school or teacher meaning.

 

It has a very specific meaning: the eradication of afflictive and cognitive obscurations to omniscience; which are the wisdoms, kayas, and omniscient qualities of a samyaksambuddha.