Daoism and Advaita Vedanta - convergence

[dwai]

24 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Of course, no practice enlightens. Confusing a practice with illumination is problematic, but to practice by resting in awareness, where the mind is empty and still, IS cessation (nirodha), the 3rd Noble Truth. There is no difference between the mind where it is still and enlightened mind, even though there is no realization of it. It is only re-identification with the contrived thoughts of the mind and  becoming a subject again that cessation is lost.

 

Therefore, in Maharshi's case, he presents the very essence of practice in many traditions. 

 

As Dogen would say:

 

 

.

This reminds me of another thread from another time -

 

 

[stirling]

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

This reminds me of another thread from another time -

 

 

 

Wow... thanks for that, friend. I have never heard of that text before. What a corker! Deep dharma there. Adding it to my reading list.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, stirling said:

 

Wow... thanks for that, friend. I have never heard of that text before. What a corker! Deep dharma there. Adding it to my reading list.

For those who might be interested - this kind of reading and meditating on the contents of such texts is considered AV meditation (aka nidhidhyasana). In fact, texts like Ashtavakra Gita, Tripura Rahasya, Yoga Vashishta are considered Nidhidhyasana texts.

[old3bob]

the Self which does not evolve nor have any need to evolve is complete, but the soul continues to evolve and develop thus becoming a more advanced matrix for Self to manifest through or work in various realms, that is until its evolution is complete and its identity then merges with the Self and it is no more... meaning being finished with evolution in the earth, astral, and causal realms.   This is one take out of many.

 

as to why manifestation in the first place mankind can not really say...or "God" can not un-cause causeless cause...

Edited May 8 by old3bob

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

Of course, no practice enlightens. Confusing a practice with illumination is problematic, but to practice by resting in awareness, where the mind is empty and still, IS cessation (nirodha), the 3rd Noble Truth. As Dogen would say:

 

There is a very large difference between being free from thought, and being free of thought. At least in some traditions. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

There is a very large difference between being free from thought, and being free of thought. At least in some traditions. 

Please elaborate if you can - we're interested.

[dwai]

And just because I can, I will add a 3rd part to this "puzzle" - Dzogchen. Some food for thought provided below -

Practice	Potential Benefits	How it Could Support Other Practices
Zuowang	* Cultivating stillness and presence.	* Provides a foundation for Dzogchen's direct pointing-out instructions.
	* Releasing mental fixations.	* Creates mental pliancy for deeper Vedantic contemplation in Nidhidhyasana.
Dzogchen	* Direct experiences of rigpa (pure awareness).	* Validates the non-dual insights suggested in Vedanta and Daoism.
	* Profound understanding of emptiness.	* Helps cut through conceptual clinging during Nidhidhyasana and Zuowang.
Nidhidhyasana	* Strengthening intellectual clarity of Advaita concepts, direct realization of Self/True Nature.	* Provides a conceptual map to understand experiences in Zuowang and Dzogchen.
	* Removing deep-seated doubts about the true Self.	* Supports letting go in Zuowang, and solidifies the confidence in Dzogchen's realization.

[forestofclarity]

17 hours ago, dwai said:

Please elaborate if you can - we're interested.

 

Sure, but keep in mind anything I say is only partial, limited, etc.  

 

Free of thought means a state where subtle visuals, sounds, feelings, and so on do not arise. Often referred to as a state of stillness. 

 

Free from thought means that thoughts come and go, and we don't try to cling to them or push them away. This referred to as movement. 

 

In some teachings, stillness= good and movement = bad. Accordingly, we should extend stillness and eliminate movement. The goal would be to have a vacant mind, free of thought. Even better if we can reach a state in which there are no appearances. The best of all is dying and then continuing in that type of state forever. 

 

Others disagree and state that movements and appearances are expressions of the divine. Not only that, but stillness and movement are not really two different things, and the underlying stillness is never really lost. The goal in this case is to stop getting confused by and entangled in thoughts and appearances, not in eliminating them in some way. Once unentangled, unobstructed divine expression manifests spontaneously and unimpeded. 

 

As Thrangu Rinpoche put it:

 

"It’s quite easy to think that the resting mind and the moving mind have completely different natures, and that when the mind is moving, the stillness has been lost. Some students think that they must clear away the movement before the mind can be at rest. They believe that there is a contradiction between the mind at rest and the mind in motion. In fact, both the resting mind and the moving mind are the union of emptiness and luminosity. We perceive differences due to our confusion. Stillness does not obstruct motion and motion does not obstruct stillness. They are simply one inseparable entity."

 

 

Hui neng (Platform Sutra trans Red Pine): 

"Deluded people who cling to the external attributes of a dharma get hold of One Practice Samadhi and just say that sitting motionless, eliminating delusions, and not thinking thoughts are One Practice Samadhi. But if that were true, a dharma like that would be the same as lifelessness and would constitute an obstruction of the Way instead. The Way has to flow freely. Why block it up? The Way flows freely when the mind doesn’t dwell on any dharma. Once it dwells on something, it becomes bound. If sitting motionless were right, Vimalakirti wouldn’t have criticized Shariputra for meditating in the forest."

 

AND 

 

"And what do we mean by ‘no-thought’? The teaching of no-thought means to see all dharmas without being attached to any dharma, to reach everywhere without being attached anywhere, to keep your nature pure, so that when the Six Thieves pass through the Six Gates, they neither avoid nor are corrupted by the Six Realms of Sensation but come and go freely. This is the samadhi of prajna. Freedom and liberation constitute the practice of no-thought. But if you don’t think any thoughts at all, the moment you make your thoughts stop, you’re imprisoned by dharmas. We call this a ‘one-sided view.’"

 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Sure, but keep in mind anything I say is only partial, limited, etc.  

 

Free of thought means a state where subtle visuals, sounds, feelings, and so on do not arise. Often referred to as a state of stillness. 

 

Free from thought means that thoughts come and go, and we don't try to cling to them or push them away. This referred to as movement. 

 

In some teachings, stillness= good and movement = bad. Accordingly, we should extend stillness and eliminate movement. The goal would be to have a vacant mind, free of thought. Even better if we can reach a state in which there are no appearances. The best of all is dying and then continuing in that type of state forever. 

 

Others disagree and state that movements and appearances are expressions of the divine. Not only that, but stillness and movement are not really two different things, and the underlying stillness is never really lost. The goal in this case is to stop getting confused by and entangled in thoughts and appearances, not in eliminating them in some way. Once unentangled, unobstructed divine expression manifests spontaneously and unimpeded. 

 

As Thrangu Rinpoche put it:

 

"It’s quite easy to think that the resting mind and the moving mind have completely different natures, and that when the mind is moving, the stillness has been lost. Some students think that they must clear away the movement before the mind can be at rest. They believe that there is a contradiction between the mind at rest and the mind in motion. In fact, both the resting mind and the moving mind are the union of emptiness and luminosity. We perceive differences due to our confusion. Stillness does not obstruct motion and motion does not obstruct stillness. They are simply one inseparable entity."

 

 

Hui neng (Platform Sutra trans Red Pine): 

"Deluded people who cling to the external attributes of a dharma get hold of One Practice Samadhi and just say that sitting motionless, eliminating delusions, and not thinking thoughts are One Practice Samadhi. But if that were true, a dharma like that would be the same as lifelessness and would constitute an obstruction of the Way instead. The Way has to flow freely. Why block it up? The Way flows freely when the mind doesn’t dwell on any dharma. Once it dwells on something, it becomes bound. If sitting motionless were right, Vimalakirti wouldn’t have criticized Shariputra for meditating in the forest."

 

AND 

 

"And what do we mean by ‘no-thought’? The teaching of no-thought means to see all dharmas without being attached to any dharma, to reach everywhere without being attached anywhere, to keep your nature pure, so that when the Six Thieves pass through the Six Gates, they neither avoid nor are corrupted by the Six Realms of Sensation but come and go freely. This is the samadhi of prajna. Freedom and liberation constitute the practice of no-thought. But if you don’t think any thoughts at all, the moment you make your thoughts stop, you’re imprisoned by dharmas. We call this a ‘one-sided view.’"

 

I agree with Thrangu Rinpoche and Hui Neng, FWIW

There is continuous samadhi interrupted by thoughts - only a few are able to recognize this. Given that, there is no need to try and eliminate thoughts - just not grasping is sufficient. 

 

 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

I agree with Thrangu Rinpoche and Hui Neng, FWIW

There is continuous samadhi interrupted by thoughts - only a few are able to recognize this. Given that, there is no need to try and eliminate thoughts - just not grasping is sufficient. 

 

It is in the space between thoughts most are apt to NOTICE and awaken, IMHO, but the experience of enlightened mind itself is, I agree, a continuous samadhi that has the flavor of (is?) 5th jhana, usually. Arisings in consciousness (including emotion and individual thoughts) never stop, but are lessened, and never belong to a "self" or have intrinsic nature, and pass almost immediately like all other phenomena. 

 

The Maharshi quote is an example of direct pointing, not necessarily the end of the path.

Edited May 9 by stirling

[dwai]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

It is in the space between thoughts most are apt to NOTICE and awaken, IMHO, but the experience of enlightened mind itself is, I agree, a continuous samadhi that has the flavor of (is?) 5th jhana, usually.
 

One of my earlier practices was to meditate on the space between thoughts. Very interesting experience when this “clicked” for me was when one day after asana practice I lay down in corpse pose and the mental chatter started flowing and then floated to the surface and a luminous clarity became apparent underlying the chatter, like a majestic river on which debris was floating. 
 

BTW what is the 5th jhana?

1 hour ago, stirling said:

Arisings in consciousness (including emotion and individual thoughts) never stop, but are lessened, and never belong to a "self" or have intrinsic nature, and pass almost immediately like all other phenomena. 

 

The Maharshi quote is an example of direct pointing, not necessarily the end of the path.

Thanks for pointing out “not belonging to a self” - it was a point I intended to make but promptly forgot  

[stirling]

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

One of my earlier practices was to meditate on the space between thoughts. Very interesting experience when this “clicked” for me was when one day after asana practice I lay down in corpse pose and the mental chatter started flowing and then floated to the surface and a luminous clarity became apparent underlying the chatter, like a majestic river on which debris was floating. 

 

Yes, this was essentially MY first practice too, in the Nyingma/Dzogchen tradition. IMHO, it might be the most direct practice extant.

 

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

BTW what is the 5th jhana?

Thanks for pointing out “not belonging to a self” - it was a point I intended to make but promptly forgot  

 

This is an explanation of the JHANA, only. 

 

Quote

 

The Fifth Jhana: The Base of Infinite Space

 

Everything that happens in the mind can be thought of as existing “somewhere,” as if in a mental space. You turn your attention away from the characteristics of whatever is in the mind and toward the “space” it occupies. This infinite space is your object of contemplation.

Anything you attend to could be likened to a signal being carried on some medium of communication. You turn your attention away from the signal and toward the carrier wave that conveys it. The mind as a space, medium, channel, or vehicle is your object of awareness.

Equanimity and one-pointedness now mature fully. You find yourself in a realm where all perception of form has ceased. You cannot be disturbed or disrupted from the outside, but the tiniest suggestion of the material senses remain. You ignore them totally; if you turn your attention to any of them, the jhana is lost.

 

 

https://www.lionsroar.com/jhanas-taste-of-liberation/

 

The jhanas are meditative absorptions which have the flavor of enlightened realization. In this case I am referring to the character of the jhana as an analog of enlightened mind,  not saying that my daily experience is a "state" which it is not. The primary characteristic in this case is the perception of being in any way a subject in a world of form. 

 

[forestofclarity]

15 hours ago, stirling said:

Yes, this was essentially MY first practice too, in the Nyingma/Dzogchen tradition. IMHO, it might be the most direct practice extant.

 

I would say it depends on the person. People are very different. This is one reason why traditions are so broad and have so many techniques, teachings, etc. One person's essential technique is another person's pitfall. 

 

I think one of the largest errors I've come across in the Western spiritual scene is a lack of teaching on errors, mistakes, and side paths.

 

17 hours ago, stirling said:

The Maharshi quote is an example of direct pointing, not necessarily the end of the path.

 

I don't know if it is even a Maharshi quote. As far as I know, he didn't speak English and most quotes come from translated transcripts of his oral teachings. I know that he, like others, initially was in the thought-free camp when he was younger but then become more relaxed about it later. In fact, that quote seems to come straight from the Advaita Bodha Deepika, which itself is a compilation text that was then translated. The status and necessity of nirvikalpa samadhi is hotly debated. But it is not clear to me whether ABD is referring to nirvikalpa samadhi or something else. 

 

But (with the above limits in mind), Ramana did not adopt this approach overall. In talk 54, he reportedly says:

 

"Even if one is immersed in nirvikalpa samAdhi for years together, when he emerges from it he will find himself in the environment which he is bound to have. That is the reason for the AchArya emphasising sahaja samAdhi in preference to nirvikalpa samAdhi in his excellent work vivekachUDAmaNi. One should be in spontaneous samAdhi - that is, in one's pristine state - in the midst of every environment."

 

https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/samadhi_ramana.htm#:~:text=Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it,the world is nirvikalpa samAdhi

 

I bring this up because there are famous, often quoted teachers with widely read English works that give misleading impressions that is often only corrected by oral teachings in person from these teachers or their direct disciples. Even written teachings leave a lot of out that is explained and clarified in person. 

 

Edited May 10 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I would say it depends on the person. People are very different. This is one reason why traditions are so broad and have so many techniques, teachings, etc. One person's essential technique is another person's pitfall. 

 

I think one of the largest errors I've come across in the Western spiritual scene is a lack of teaching on errors, mistakes, and side paths.

 

 

I don't know if it is even a Maharshi quote. As far as I know, he didn't speak English and most quotes come from translated transcripts of his oral teachings. I know that he, like others, initially was in the thought-free camp when he was younger but then become more relaxed about it later. In fact, that quote seems to come straight from the Advaita Bodha Deepika, which itself is a compilation text that was then translated. The status and necessity of nirvikalpa samadhi is hotly debated. But it is not clear to me whether ABD is referring to nirvikalpa samadhi or something else. 

 

But (with the above limits in mind), Ramana did not adopt this approach overall. In talk 54, he reportedly says:

 

"Even if one is immersed in nirvikalpa samAdhi for years together, when he emerges from it he will find himself in the environment which he is bound to have. That is the reason for the AchArya emphasising sahaja samAdhi in preference to nirvikalpa samAdhi in his excellent work vivekachUDAmaNi. One should be in spontaneous samAdhi - that is, in one's pristine state - in the midst of every environment."

 

https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/samadhi_ramana.htm#:~:text=Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it,the world is nirvikalpa samAdhi

 

I bring this up because there are famous, often quoted teachers with widely read English works that give misleading impressions that is often only corrected by oral teachings in person from these teachers or their direct disciples. Even written teachings leave a lot of out that is explained and clarified in person. 

 

Tripura Rahasya has a very nice chapter on different types of jnanis. I have quoted from it on the “continuous samadhi” thread. There is no one-size-fits all, in that, after realization, there is no homogenization of the “individual”. 

[forestofclarity]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

Tripura Rahasya has a very nice chapter on different types of jnanis. I have quoted from it on the “continuous samadhi” thread. There is no one-size-fits all, in that, after realization, there is no homogenization of the “individual”. 

 

In an interesting twist, the "momentary" samadhi is translated alternative as "the gap between thoughts" by another translator (although he translates nirdoha from the Yoga Sutras as mastery rather than cessation). The Tripura Rahasya is referred to as an Advaita text Maharshi recommended, but this seems very clearly to be a Tantric text in my opinion. 

 

 

Edited May 10 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

The Tripura Rahasya is referred to as an Advaita text Maharshi recommended, but this seems very clearly to be a Tantric text in my opinion

It is also part of the Sri Vidya Tantra tradition 

[Forestgreen]

On 2024-05-08 at 6:48 PM, dwai said:

 

The problem with alchemical methods is 

That they are tools, and they can be used with more than one goal in mind.  Side doors and crooked paths, I belive one of the chinese expressions state it. 

[forestofclarity]

So I ended up reading most of the Tripura Rahashya during my recent trip. I must say, it ranks up there are one of my favorite scriptures of all time. For translations, I would recommend the updated SAMVID translation along with the Steps to Samadhi translations. Both of them have things the other doesn't. 

 

One ingenious thing I enjoy about these kinds of scriptures is the story inside a story method. 

 

On 9/17/2018 at 6:48 PM, dwai said:

 

He says that nirvikalpa samadhi is a continuous experience of every being. It is only interrupted by thoughts and objects.

 

This is an interesting model because it can apply in different ways--- it wouldn't matter if we consider this the same state of all beings, or a similar state across multiple beings. However, the question is whether this underlying state is inherently still, as a Samkhyan (and possibly Theravedan) might have it, or creative, as a Tantric might put it, or creative as a Tantric may say. 

 

It seems that from a more Shaivite/Tantric perspective, instead of interrupt, it would be express. In other words, thoughts and objects are expressions rather than interruptions. And the underlying state is not eternally still, but would contain infinite potential, and accordingly manifest infinitely. This strikes me as being a bit more Daoist than the former. And from this perspective, we can see that all methods are ultimately one method-- that of letting go (even if that is preceded by gnosis). 

However, a lot of Daoist alchemist talk about building, adding on, and attaining immortality rather than realizing it is already present (which the TTC and ZZ would have me believe). Not sure if that is a provisional teaching or not. 

 

[dwai]

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

So I ended up reading most of the Tripura Rahashya during my recent trip. I must say, it ranks up there are one of my favorite scriptures of all time. 
 

 

IMHO it is a post-nidhidhyasana text par excellence. It’s intended for tattvajnanis. 

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

For translations, I would recommend the updated SAMVID translation along with the Steps to Samadhi translations. Both of them have things the other doesn't. 
 

 

where have you sourced your copies? 

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

One ingenious thing I enjoy about these kinds of scriptures is the story inside a story method. 
 

 

Me too! I use somewhat of a similar approach in my own writing (no comparison of course, but it’s my way to pay homage to the masters)

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

This is an interesting model because it can apply in different ways--- it wouldn't matter if we consider this the same state of all beings, or a similar state across multiple beings. However, the question is whether this underlying state is inherently still, as a Samkhyan (and possibly Theravedan) might have it, or creative, as a Tantric might put it, or creative as a Tantric may say. 

 

 

I can see how you get that. But it is primarily an Advaita Vedanta text. 

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

It seems that from a more Shaivite/Tantric perspective, instead of interrupt, it would be express. In other words, thoughts and objects are expressions rather than interruptions. And the underlying state is not eternally still, but would contain infinite potential, and accordingly manifest infinitely. This strikes me as being a bit more Daoist than the former. And from this perspective, we can see that all methods are ultimately one method-- that of letting go (even if that is preceded by gnosis). 

 

Stillness and movement are still dualistic aren’t they? What is beyond stillness and movement? That is what is Reality. 

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

However, a lot of Daoist alchemist talk about building, adding on, and attaining immortality rather than realizing it is already present (which the TTC and ZZ would have me believe). Not sure if that is a provisional teaching or not. 

 

My own understanding of daoism is heavily influenced by master Liao and his students. So, I guess I fall in the TTC/ZZ camp. It goes back to the Xing and Ming discussion. The doing stuff is Ming, the realization part is Xing. Ming maybe necessary before Xing, and usually not the other way around. 

[forestofclarity]

On 6/4/2024 at 5:26 PM, dwai said:

where have you sourced your copies? 

 

The unholy trinity of Everand, Kindle, and Scribd mostly. But I'm also buying hard copies. 

 

On 6/4/2024 at 5:26 PM, dwai said:

I can see how you get that. But it is primarily an Advaita Vedanta text. 

 

It seems very syncretic. It also includes things I have not seen openly described. Are there other Advaita texts using goddess symbology? 

 

On 6/4/2024 at 5:26 PM, dwai said:

Stillness and movement are still dualistic aren’t they? What is beyond stillness and movement? That is what is Reality. 

 

I get the point, although in some teachings, duality is polarity. In other words, there is always a third that unified the two. The other is eliminating the distinction between imminent and transcendent. The transcendent is imminent, and the imminent is transcendent, and there is really isn't a bright line to distinguish one from the other. 

 

But the point I was driving at is that the practices changes depending on your conceptual view of the absolute. If one feels they must reach a permanent state of nirvikalpa samadhi, a la Samkhya, then it makes sense to renounce the world, still thoughts, etc. On the other hand, if everything is divine, then endless creation is not problematic. In these instances, nothing to done to avoid or eliminate various states and objects. 

 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Are there other Advaita texts using goddess symbology? 

Most famously, there is the Bhavani Ashtakam, attributed to Adi Shankaracharya. But it is a bhakti-oriented composition.

Also, other deity-oriented compositions like Bhajagovindam, with a focus on Govinda (Krishna/Vishnu), also attributed to Shankara.