Is non-duality actually a fundamental truth, or just another philosophy?

[Jonesboy]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

indeed which is why I gave the premise of a householder (namely a husband and father) that is never home - and who goes off to a monastery or forest to mediate and happens to opens their heart in that setting it will still not matter directly to their family since they are not home.  (and may choose to never go home like the historic Buddha did although...)

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

 So, you truly believe anyone who isn’t a monk is limited? Can’t experience changes in their being because they have a family?

[Apech]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

One topic that comes up in the Advaita Vedanta circles is “how can one be in the world and still abide as the Self?”. 

 

This is a loaded topic and depends on the stage the individual is at. If one is in the stage of realizing the ineherent “emptiness” of phenomena (jagat mithya), that evokes (and is predicated on) a progressively increasing detachment (Vairāgya). Then one goes to the point of realizing what is it that is Real (brahma satyam — or Brahman). At this stage Brahman is considered reality and world an appearance. The individual (jiva) and his world seems unreal and nonexistent. The detachment becomes stronger. 

 

Then the final understanding happens - Jiva brahmaiva nāparāha) - jiva is none other than brahaman itself.

 

That the Self of the jiva is Brahman (Atman IS NONE OTHER THAN Brahman). This gives rise to a great love. Unconditional love for the world. How can one be a renunciate in the normal sense of the word anymore? Everything is verily my own Self. From here rises selfless action, service and love. 

 

A householder js in a unique situation. He/she can continue living in the world and yet not be of it. He/she can fulfill all social duties without vacillating between desires and suffering. 

 

 

This reminds me of 'in the world but not of the world' - which I think was Jesus (?) - some one will let us know.

[Michael Sternbach]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

This reminds me of 'in the world but not of the world' - which I think was Jesus (?) - some one will let us know.

 

Arguably he had to become one with the world, though.

[Michael Sternbach]

1 minute ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Arguably he had to become one with the world, though.

 

And isn't that - in a certain sense - the purpose of spiritual practice?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[Apech]

Just now, Michael Sternbach said:

 

And isn't that in a sense the purpose of spiritual practice?

 

depends what you mean I guess.

[Michael Sternbach]

Just now, Apech said:

 

depends what you mean I guess.

 

What do you mean by it? 

[Michael Sternbach]

Well yeah, cats are notorious for being somewhat aloof.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

What do you mean by it? 

 

 

Me?  Well since you ask.

 

If by the world you mean what the Buddhists mean by samsara then no you would not want to become one with it.  But if you mean something like the world-soul of hemeticism then you would.  Which is why I thought that it depends what you mean by world.

[Michael Sternbach]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Me?  Well since you ask.

 

If by the world you mean what the Buddhists mean by samsara then no you would not want to become one with it.  But if you mean something like the world-soul of hemeticism then you would.  Which is why I thought that it depends what you mean by world.

 

Since you brought it up now, is there a conception if the World Soul in Buddhism?

 

The closest approximation that comes to mind is ālayavijñāna.

[Apech]

Just now, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Since you brought it up now, is there a conception if the World Soul in Buddhism?

 

The closest approximation that comes to mind is ālayavijñāna.

 

No there isn't.

 

The alayavinana is the storehouse consciousness.  

[Michael Sternbach]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

No there isn't.

 

The alayavinana is the storehouse consciousness.  

 

And the World Soul is where stuff is being stored in the Hermetic view.

[Michael Sternbach]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

No there isn't.

 

The alayavinana is the storehouse consciousness.  

 

Assuming just for now that there isn't, would you say that's because Buddhists regard the World Soul as of being of an illusory nature as well?

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

And the World Soul is where stuff is being stored in the Hermetic view.

 

 

Yes but its a kind of web of subtle energy isn't it?  Anyway I would see them as different and any equation as forced.

[Apech]

Just now, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Assuming just for now that there isn't, would you say that's because Buddhists regard the World Soul as of being of an illusory nature as well?

 

 

I don't use the word illusory.  I would say that anything like a world-soul would not be existent in any absolute sense.

[Michael Sternbach]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

Yes but its a kind of web of subtle energy isn't it?  Anyway I would see them as different and any equation as forced.

 

So that kind of info is being stored in more than one place?

 

Or should we consider one of the two teachings wrong?

[Michael Sternbach]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't use the word illusory.  I would say that anything like a world-soul would not be existent in any absolute sense.

 

Isn't it the epitome of Buddhism that there is no absolute sense?

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So that kind of info is being stored in more than one place?

 

Or should we consider one of the two teachings wrong?

 

 

Buddhist ideas are consistent.  Hermetic ideas are consistent.  But if you try to read across it gets difficult - or a bad fit at best-  This is my view.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Isn't it the epitome of Buddhism that there is no absolute sense?

 

Are you being deliberately difficult?

[Michael Sternbach]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

Buddhist ideas are consistent.  Hermetic ideas are consistent.  But if you try to read across it gets difficult - or a bad fit at best-  This is my view.

 

So you don't try to personally reconcile those divergent views as a Hermetic Buddhist cat? 

[Michael Sternbach]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Are you being deliberately difficult?

 

Of course not! I am just trying to help you reach a higher level of sophistication.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So you don't try to personally reconcile those divergent views as a Hermetic Buddhist cat? 

 

No I see them as two self-consistent systems.

[Michael Sternbach]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

No I see them as two self-consistent systems.

 

Is it fair to say that you operating from two unreconcilable mind sets then?

[Apech]

Just now, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Is it fair to say that you operating from two unreconcilable mind sets then?

 

 

No I am in duality but not of duality.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

No I am in duality but not of duality.

 

 

 

Can you be positive?

[liminal_luke]

About householders and renunciates...

 

Seems to me that everybody gets to choose what works for them; there is no right way that`s necessarilly better for everybody.  At first glance, the path of the renunciate would seem to be spiritually advantageous -- all that time for focused and uninterrupted practice.  Then again, the demands of the secular world may provide spiritually useful challenges.  The best environment is not always the most comfortable or the easiest.  

 

Also, who says that everything needs to be tackled with 100%  devotion.  It`s OK, I think, to approach some things more casually, even spirituality.  I play piano and I^m pretty good though there are literally millions who play better.  Should I devote every waking minute to become a more proficient piano player?  That would be one valid choice.  To me, though, it`s just as valid to enjoy my present level of skill such as it is and put my time towards a balance of other activities that I also find rewarding.  

 

Some people meditate for five minutes in the morning before work and that`s it.  They might find it sets a nice tone for the day and helps them not be so stressed.  Should they instead pack their bags for the forest monastery?  Perhaps not.  I think that no effort is wasted, no matter how small, and we`d do well to accept people where they are.

Edited September 3, 2018 by liminal_luke