Advaita and Buddhism - Discussion
I've noticed on a couple of threads people with an Advaita-type approach are turning up and proposing that there is something wrong with the Buddhadharma. That would seem to be fightin' words for the Dharma Overground. It would be good to have this discussion explicitly, if it needs to be had. So I have openened this thread in the Dharma Battleground forum to allow any Advaita folks to have their say, if they want, and receive a reply.
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening. There is a simple psychological explanation - the subconscious realises the incompleteness of the attainment, and looks elsewhere for an answer (e.g. here), while the conscious battles this as a threat to the self/ego associated with the partial attainment. Net result - coming here, but then telling us we are all wrong.
Now, my opinion of the Advaita approaches is that they can and do lead to complete awakening, but the stated objective of the tradition seems to be one step short. So it is easy to get stuck one step short. It is easy to get stuck in Buddhism too, and many outstanding Buddhist scholars and leaders, including in the present time, remain at anagami - but are perhaps a bit more likely to realise that. Of course, whether it is realised or not, that one step short is still a marvellous 'attainment' and highly desirable, and much to be admired. Better of course to take the final step and then there is no attainment and nothing to be admired.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO. If you want to tell us we are all wrong, be prepared to defend your view. My alternative view would be that if you think we are wrong, you might have just a little more work to do, and the leaders of your own tradition might be able to help you take that final step. Or you can work it through at the DhO!
Malcolm
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening. There is a simple psychological explanation - the subconscious realises the incompleteness of the attainment, and looks elsewhere for an answer (e.g. here), while the conscious battles this as a threat to the self/ego associated with the partial attainment. Net result - coming here, but then telling us we are all wrong.
Now, my opinion of the Advaita approaches is that they can and do lead to complete awakening, but the stated objective of the tradition seems to be one step short. So it is easy to get stuck one step short. It is easy to get stuck in Buddhism too, and many outstanding Buddhist scholars and leaders, including in the present time, remain at anagami - but are perhaps a bit more likely to realise that. Of course, whether it is realised or not, that one step short is still a marvellous 'attainment' and highly desirable, and much to be admired. Better of course to take the final step and then there is no attainment and nothing to be admired.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO. If you want to tell us we are all wrong, be prepared to defend your view. My alternative view would be that if you think we are wrong, you might have just a little more work to do, and the leaders of your own tradition might be able to help you take that final step. Or you can work it through at the DhO!
Malcolm
Mike Smirnoff:
Got it, I think.
Last question:
Your statement, " Instead we should dwell in all six sense consciousnesses together, happily."
Again, makes sense to me. And would this be what is animittam cetosamadhi?
Last question:
Your statement, " Instead we should dwell in all six sense consciousnesses together, happily."
Again, makes sense to me. And would this be what is animittam cetosamadhi?
Not in my view. Samadhi is part of the raft that helps to cross over to the other shore. You don't need a raft once you're there. I mean, go back for another scoot around the river by all means, that can be fun. But you'd look kind of strange paddling your raft on dry land.
curious:
Mike Smirnoff:
Got it, I think.
Last question:
Your statement, " Instead we should dwell in all six sense consciousnesses together, happily."
Again, makes sense to me. And would this be what is animittam cetosamadhi?
Last question:
Your statement, " Instead we should dwell in all six sense consciousnesses together, happily."
Again, makes sense to me. And would this be what is animittam cetosamadhi?
Not in my view. Samadhi is part of the raft that helps to cross over to the other shore. You don't need a raft once you're there. I mean, go back for another scoot around the river by all means, that can be fun. But you'd look kind of strange paddling your raft on dry land.
When the old british sailor men got finally paid off, they proverbially would carry an anchor over their shoulder and walk inland until some country fellow asked them, "what's that thing?"
"Why son, let me tell you about something we call 'the ocean'"....
terry:
You can't "finally see through" a "non-dual state." There is no seer, no seen and no finality.
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Well, I both agree and disagree with that comment. And also vice versa.
I would agree to the extent that that many 'non-dual absorptions' are not really fully non dual (Atman/Brahman being a case in point). And also to the extent that a non-dual state does not prevent a superficial and suface contraction and dualism in daily life. When eating a grilled cheese sandwich, for example. Or when finely crafting the terminus of a celtic silver torque. Or when arguing with a friend.
But I think we will get quickly lost in a thicket of views. Pax?
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I used your wave vs water analogy in my log, by the way, but in a different way.
whatever floats your boat...
(smile)
terry:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I used your wave vs water analogy in my log, by the way, but in a different way.
whatever floats your boat...
(smile)
I should mention that the image is dogen's, "a foot of water; a foot of wave" being one of his descriptions of reality.
t
curious:
terry:
You can't "finally see through" a "non-dual state." There is no seer, no seen and no finality.
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Well, I both agree and disagree with that comment. And also vice versa.
I would agree to the extent that that many 'non-dual absorptions' are not really fully non dual (Atman/Brahman being a case in point). And also to the extent that a non-dual state does not prevent a superficial and suface contraction and dualism in daily life. When eating a grilled cheese sandwich, for example. Or when finely crafting the terminus of a celtic silver torque. Or when arguing with a friend.
But I think we will get quickly lost in a thicket of views. Pax?
It's your thicket.
Right view means being empty of views.
(Ok, begs the question, how does one empty oneself of views? Answer: don't know.)
t
terry:
curious:
terry:
You can't "finally see through" a "non-dual state." There is no seer, no seen and no finality.
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Well, I both agree and disagree with that comment. And also vice versa.
I would agree to the extent that that many 'non-dual absorptions' are not really fully non dual (Atman/Brahman being a case in point). And also to the extent that a non-dual state does not prevent a superficial and suface contraction and dualism in daily life. When eating a grilled cheese sandwich, for example. Or when finely crafting the terminus of a celtic silver torque. Or when arguing with a friend.
But I think we will get quickly lost in a thicket of views. Pax?
It's your thicket.
Right view means being empty of views.
(Ok, begs the question, how does one empty oneself of views? Answer: don't know.)
t
Eh, I thought we were not-two? So they are your views too! Or at the very least, your views about my views. :-)
But actually, this seems an effective process for emptying oneself of views. A exhuastion of purifications.
curious:
terry:
curious:
terry:
You can't "finally see through" a "non-dual state." There is no seer, no seen and no finality.
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Emptiness is most emphatically not repeat not "a created state, dependent on body-mind." "Body-mind" is a mental construct, a self-image. Emptiness is empty of all mental constructs, that's why they call it "empty."
Of course, anyone can use the word in a dualistic sense, as opposed to fullness, for example.
terry
Well, I both agree and disagree with that comment. And also vice versa.
I would agree to the extent that that many 'non-dual absorptions' are not really fully non dual (Atman/Brahman being a case in point). And also to the extent that a non-dual state does not prevent a superficial and suface contraction and dualism in daily life. When eating a grilled cheese sandwich, for example. Or when finely crafting the terminus of a celtic silver torque. Or when arguing with a friend.
But I think we will get quickly lost in a thicket of views. Pax?
It's your thicket.
Right view means being empty of views.
(Ok, begs the question, how does one empty oneself of views? Answer: don't know.)
t
Eh, I thought we were not-two? So they are your views too! Or at the very least, your views about my views. :-)
But actually, this seems an effective process for emptying oneself of views. A exhuastion of purifications.
when all views are "don't know" you have arrived at right view (and exited your thicket)...
t
ttc, trans mitchell
71.
Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.
The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing.
Thus she is truly whole.
curious:
I've noticed on a couple of threads people with an Advaita-type approach are turning up and proposing that there is something wrong with the Buddhadharma. That would seem to be fightin' words for the Dharma Overground. It would be good to have this discussion explicitly, if it needs to be had. So I have openened this thread in the Dharma Battleground forum to allow any Advaita folks to have their say, if they want, and receive a reply.
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening. There is a simple psychological explanation - the subconscious realises the incompleteness of the attainment, and looks elsewhere for an answer (e.g. here), while the conscious battles this as a threat to the self/ego associated with the partial attainment. Net result - coming here, but then telling us we are all wrong.
Now, my opinion of the Advaita approaches is that they can and do lead to complete awakening, but the stated objective of the tradition seems to be one step short. So it is easy to get stuck one step short. It is easy to get stuck in Buddhism too, and many outstanding Buddhist scholars and leaders, including in the present time, remain at anagami - but are perhaps a bit more likely to realise that. Of course, whether it is realised or not, that one step short is still a marvellous 'attainment' and highly desirable, and much to be admired. Better of course to take the final step and then there is no attainment and nothing to be admired.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO. If you want to tell us we are all wrong, be prepared to defend your view. My alternative view would be that if you think we are wrong, you might have just a little more work to do, and the leaders of your own tradition might be able to help you take that final step. Or you can work it through at the DhO!
Malcolm
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening. There is a simple psychological explanation - the subconscious realises the incompleteness of the attainment, and looks elsewhere for an answer (e.g. here), while the conscious battles this as a threat to the self/ego associated with the partial attainment. Net result - coming here, but then telling us we are all wrong.
Now, my opinion of the Advaita approaches is that they can and do lead to complete awakening, but the stated objective of the tradition seems to be one step short. So it is easy to get stuck one step short. It is easy to get stuck in Buddhism too, and many outstanding Buddhist scholars and leaders, including in the present time, remain at anagami - but are perhaps a bit more likely to realise that. Of course, whether it is realised or not, that one step short is still a marvellous 'attainment' and highly desirable, and much to be admired. Better of course to take the final step and then there is no attainment and nothing to be admired.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO. If you want to tell us we are all wrong, be prepared to defend your view. My alternative view would be that if you think we are wrong, you might have just a little more work to do, and the leaders of your own tradition might be able to help you take that final step. Or you can work it through at the DhO!
Malcolm
my 2 cents: advaita and buddhism are not two...
and have one root...
t
If tradition have specific set of teachings and these are mastered then one is not anagami in that tradition but arhtat.
If we are talking about enlightenment which is completely and always true independent of anything then it must be one with which one can go to Brahman and argue with it over the issue of dukkha and not flinch. Buddha was able to do this with his enlightenment but will arhat be able to do it? No. Not because of actual understanding of what have been his tradition about and mastering it but the context of the whole situation. This will lead to incompleteness as it lack proper validation. It does not mean that arhat is anagami but that arhat is not buddha.
Now why Buddha was buddha?
What kind of issue was he trying to solve? Was his sight set on attaining anything?
So with answers to these questions let's all agree that in no existing tradition without going outside them people can become truly enlightened, ie. buddhas
edit://
changed wording a little because it was somehow broken
If we are talking about enlightenment which is completely and always true independent of anything then it must be one with which one can go to Brahman and argue with it over the issue of dukkha and not flinch. Buddha was able to do this with his enlightenment but will arhat be able to do it? No. Not because of actual understanding of what have been his tradition about and mastering it but the context of the whole situation. This will lead to incompleteness as it lack proper validation. It does not mean that arhat is anagami but that arhat is not buddha.
Now why Buddha was buddha?
What kind of issue was he trying to solve? Was his sight set on attaining anything?
So with answers to these questions let's all agree that in no existing tradition without going outside them people can become truly enlightened, ie. buddhas
edit://
changed wording a little because it was somehow broken
Ni Nurta:
If tradition have specific set of teachings and these are mastered then one is not anagami in that tradition but arhtat.
If we are talking about enlightenment which is completely and always true independent of anything then it must be one with which one can go to Brahman and argue with it over the issue of dukkha and not flinch. Buddha was able to do this with his enlightenment but will arhat be able to do it? No. Not because of actual understanding of what have been his tradition about and mastering it but the context of the whole situation. This will lead to incompleteness as it lack proper validation. It does not mean that arhat is anagami but that arhat is not buddha.
Now why Buddha was buddha?
What kind of issue was he trying to solve? Was his sight set on attaining anything?
So with answers to these questions let's all agree that in no existing tradition without going outside them people can become truly enlightened, ie. buddhas
edit://
changed wording a little because it was somehow broken
If we are talking about enlightenment which is completely and always true independent of anything then it must be one with which one can go to Brahman and argue with it over the issue of dukkha and not flinch. Buddha was able to do this with his enlightenment but will arhat be able to do it? No. Not because of actual understanding of what have been his tradition about and mastering it but the context of the whole situation. This will lead to incompleteness as it lack proper validation. It does not mean that arhat is anagami but that arhat is not buddha.
Now why Buddha was buddha?
What kind of issue was he trying to solve? Was his sight set on attaining anything?
So with answers to these questions let's all agree that in no existing tradition without going outside them people can become truly enlightened, ie. buddhas
edit://
changed wording a little because it was somehow broken
Interesting. I dont' fully understand your point. Can you tell me more about going to Brahman and arguing over dukkha and not flinching> Is Brahman an external being, or a manifestation of the sense perceptions, or some aspect of self, in this context?
We seem to have different frames of reference that may be quite hard to bridge to communicate. But I would like to try.
Malcolm
Ok, so just to try a metaphor ... The ship was always there, moored to the pier. All we needed to do was see it and occupy it.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
Also, in Buddhism it is not-self, rather than no-self, although it is easy to make a slip of the pen. So to labour the metaphor, the ship ain't me, but I still like to sail it. The 'me' is a process, an unfolding of causes and conditions within a field of awareness. Me is not form. Me is not feeling. Me is not perceptions. Me is not the sense of self and other. Me is not my conditioned tendencies.
The aim of the path is to see through to the final wellspring of wrong view. To blow out the illusory flame of self (noun) to instead dwell happpily in the process (verb) of events unfolding across all the sense consciousnsess.
I am the journey not the ship. I am the wave not the water. I am the pimple not the skin (™ - T).
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
Also, in Buddhism it is not-self, rather than no-self, although it is easy to make a slip of the pen. So to labour the metaphor, the ship ain't me, but I still like to sail it. The 'me' is a process, an unfolding of causes and conditions within a field of awareness. Me is not form. Me is not feeling. Me is not perceptions. Me is not the sense of self and other. Me is not my conditioned tendencies.
The aim of the path is to see through to the final wellspring of wrong view. To blow out the illusory flame of self (noun) to instead dwell happpily in the process (verb) of events unfolding across all the sense consciousnsess.
I am the journey not the ship. I am the wave not the water. I am the pimple not the skin (™ - T).
curious:
Ok, so just to try a metaphor ... The ship was always there, moored to the pier. All we needed to do was see it and occupy it.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
It’s a nice metaphor. The seeker loves long to-do lists which involve a lot of work. It can’t help itself, that’s what it does to perpetuate its own apparent existence. The path is the longest to-do list of all, continuing for innumerable lifetimes. Imagine that!
Liberation requires nothing to be built AND nothing to be removed. It is unconditional, nothing to do with being seaworthy unfortunately.
One might think that acknowledging there is nothing to do is a cop-out, but actually the seeker finds it threatening and tends to resist it. If there’s nothing to do then the seeker is extraneous. Then what?
Dwelling in the process of events is about as close as it gets, except of course there's no one dwelling there ;-)
agnostic:
curious:
Ok, so just to try a metaphor ... The ship was always there, moored to the pier. All we needed to do was see it and occupy it.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
It’s a nice metaphor. The seeker loves long to-do lists which involve a lot of work. It can’t help itself, that’s what it does to perpetuate its own apparent existence. The path is the longest to-do list of all, continuing for innumerable lifetimes. Imagine that!
Liberation requires nothing to be built AND nothing to be removed. It is unconditional, nothing to do with being seaworthy unfortunately.
One might think that acknowledging there is nothing to do is a cop-out, but actually the seeker finds it threatening and tends to resist it. If there’s nothing to do then the seeker is extraneous. Then what?
Dwelling in the process of events is about as close as it gets, except of course there's no one dwelling there ;-)
But ... let me give you some advice I was fortunate to receive from Shargrol. Don't you realise you are clinging to non existence? It's a trap, and the Suttas describe this trap precisely. Keep going!
With love, Malcolm
curious:
agnostic:
curious:
Ok, so just to try a metaphor ... The ship was always there, moored to the pier. All we needed to do was see it and occupy it.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
And we also needed to clean the barnacles off, chase away the seals in the wheelhouse, bail out the bilges, crack the rust off the rudder pins, polish the spray shields so we could see through them, wait for a high tide, and untie the moorings, raise the sail, and steer according to the wind. But the ship was always there, nothing to be built, nothing new to attain. Only things to remove.
It’s a nice metaphor. The seeker loves long to-do lists which involve a lot of work. It can’t help itself, that’s what it does to perpetuate its own apparent existence. The path is the longest to-do list of all, continuing for innumerable lifetimes. Imagine that!
Liberation requires nothing to be built AND nothing to be removed. It is unconditional, nothing to do with being seaworthy unfortunately.
One might think that acknowledging there is nothing to do is a cop-out, but actually the seeker finds it threatening and tends to resist it. If there’s nothing to do then the seeker is extraneous. Then what?
Dwelling in the process of events is about as close as it gets, except of course there's no one dwelling there ;-)
But ... let me give you some advice I was fortunate to receive from Shargrol. Don't you realise you are clinging to non existence? It's a trap, and the Suttas describe this trap precisely. Keep going!
With love, Malcolm
agnostic, I really do think we're right on the faultline between advaita and buddhism here, sticking to our theme like very good seminar participants. Of course, the faultline is where the earthquakes happen. But I think everyone here (and those of us who are here without actually needing to be anyone) can handle earthquakes just fine, as one more transient ripple of dukha to a not-self, though having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area in the past, i still recommend the not-selves stand in a doorway during the event, in case the transient house collapses.
I think curious with the ship that is always there metaphor is playing with the question of skillful means. I mean, unless we can't even agree that "awakening" or "dwelling in the process of events without a dweller" or however you want to phrase it for the sake of conversation, if only out of compassion, is something we would like, whether we are seekers who are actually prolonging the misery through our attachment to seeker/seeking shit or what. You are in this conversation--- "You" "are" "in" this "conversation"--- and what I get from you seems to me to be something like a zen master shout, saying, (speaking as the seeker that i am with my inadequate dukha-prolonging vocabulary), "Wake up! Now!" Or maybe (?) "You are already awake, dreamer!" It actually becomes interesting, to try to formulate it. But this is skillful means, and you have nothing to do. Have you ever had anyone wake up, when you shouted? When they woke up, did they start shouting too?
“we continually experience a universe of both dual and non-dual” is a dualistic illusion which appears to be arising within the universe but in reality is not happening.
We're human beings and, like it or not, we're stuck with our human brain and mind. We're not "the universe", which we can't consciously experience directly other than through our humble, frail human perceptions, so we don't get to experience the fully non-dual that the universe might.
Have a good sleep!
Words... limited stuff...
Please let me know when we can start using direct brain to brain transmission. Until then, words are all we've got, right?
Matthew:
Sometimes I use an analogy to think about these language differences with something less loaded than awakening, liberation, what have you.
There is a balloon filled with air. One day, it pops.
Buddhists say, "the balloon was always temporary, which is why it popped. Wisdom means seeing through the appearance of the balloon to its inevitable cessation."
Advaitins say, "the air inside the balloon was never different from the air outside. Wisdom means seeing the air within and knowing it is the same as the air without."
The Buddhists say, buddy, why are you on about air? How can the air inside and outside be the same if there's no balloon for there to be inside and outside?
The Advaitins say, what? No, look, the air is the same inside and outside, right? So look inside, look outside, you're good.
Then the Buddhists are like, inside what?
And the Advaitins respond, inside the baloon! Look inside the balloon and you realize the whole world of air is just the Balloon, capital-b.
The Buddhists shake their heads at this point and say, look, if there's no balloon the world definitely can't just be another Balloon, that's just silly.
In reality, the event that occurred was something more like: sshhhPOP!
Confused people come on to forums and ask questions like, "so I heard this one person say the whole atmosphere is nothing but the Balloon, and then another person said there is no balloon. Which one is right?"
There is a balloon filled with air. One day, it pops.
Buddhists say, "the balloon was always temporary, which is why it popped. Wisdom means seeing through the appearance of the balloon to its inevitable cessation."
Advaitins say, "the air inside the balloon was never different from the air outside. Wisdom means seeing the air within and knowing it is the same as the air without."
The Buddhists say, buddy, why are you on about air? How can the air inside and outside be the same if there's no balloon for there to be inside and outside?
The Advaitins say, what? No, look, the air is the same inside and outside, right? So look inside, look outside, you're good.
Then the Buddhists are like, inside what?
And the Advaitins respond, inside the baloon! Look inside the balloon and you realize the whole world of air is just the Balloon, capital-b.
The Buddhists shake their heads at this point and say, look, if there's no balloon the world definitely can't just be another Balloon, that's just silly.
In reality, the event that occurred was something more like: sshhhPOP!
Confused people come on to forums and ask questions like, "so I heard this one person say the whole atmosphere is nothing but the Balloon, and then another person said there is no balloon. Which one is right?"
I love this! sshhhPOP!
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Matthew:
Sometimes I use an analogy to think about these language differences with something less loaded than awakening, liberation, what have you.
There is a balloon filled with air. One day, it pops.
Buddhists say, "the balloon was always temporary, which is why it popped. Wisdom means seeing through the appearance of the balloon to its inevitable cessation."
Advaitins say, "the air inside the balloon was never different from the air outside. Wisdom means seeing the air within and knowing it is the same as the air without."
The Buddhists say, buddy, why are you on about air? How can the air inside and outside be the same if there's no balloon for there to be inside and outside?
The Advaitins say, what? No, look, the air is the same inside and outside, right? So look inside, look outside, you're good.
Then the Buddhists are like, inside what?
And the Advaitins respond, inside the baloon! Look inside the balloon and you realize the whole world of air is just the Balloon, capital-b.
The Buddhists shake their heads at this point and say, look, if there's no balloon the world definitely can't just be another Balloon, that's just silly.
In reality, the event that occurred was something more like: sshhhPOP!
Confused people come on to forums and ask questions like, "so I heard this one person say the whole atmosphere is nothing but the Balloon, and then another person said there is no balloon. Which one is right?"
There is a balloon filled with air. One day, it pops.
Buddhists say, "the balloon was always temporary, which is why it popped. Wisdom means seeing through the appearance of the balloon to its inevitable cessation."
Advaitins say, "the air inside the balloon was never different from the air outside. Wisdom means seeing the air within and knowing it is the same as the air without."
The Buddhists say, buddy, why are you on about air? How can the air inside and outside be the same if there's no balloon for there to be inside and outside?
The Advaitins say, what? No, look, the air is the same inside and outside, right? So look inside, look outside, you're good.
Then the Buddhists are like, inside what?
And the Advaitins respond, inside the baloon! Look inside the balloon and you realize the whole world of air is just the Balloon, capital-b.
The Buddhists shake their heads at this point and say, look, if there's no balloon the world definitely can't just be another Balloon, that's just silly.
In reality, the event that occurred was something more like: sshhhPOP!
Confused people come on to forums and ask questions like, "so I heard this one person say the whole atmosphere is nothing but the Balloon, and then another person said there is no balloon. Which one is right?"
I love this! sshhhPOP!
Matthew est génial, truly awesome. Il a été la première personne qui m'a vraiment engagé, cette fois-ci sur DhO, et il est en quelque sorte magistral. He is a master of balloonology!
Chris Marti:
Let's say I'm asking my question from the standpoint of my own experience in my own mediation practice (which is not untrue), which tells me that there is nothing eternal. So let's just say that's the Buddhism I'm referring to in my question. Fair?
Well... not fair. I can't speak from YOUR experience.
The way it appears to me, is that this moment is the only moment and it appears beginningless, in that I can't define where it starts or ends. The past and future are thoughts happening now. In this respect, is it eternal? I'm not sure. Some defintions of "eternal" say that it means without beginning or end... but some don't. Does how I think it appears mean you are wrong if you disagree? I am satisfied that you see the same thing that I do, so I would say no... but perhaps you see it differently based on your mental framework, what insights you have, or your subject/object understanding. I have no idea. In the end, the only thing we have is our experience.
In contrast, in the "Buddhist" school I began in, "Mind" is considered timeless, in that it is considered beginningless. I agree with that proposition, but have to choose a definition in order to argue with you about the nature of the word "eternal". It could be either eternal or not. Reincarnated lifetimes are also often characterized as beginningless in this same tradition... but I find the idea of ANYTHING incarnating or reincarnating difficult to believe.
As I said previously, the subject/object language we use to discuss the ineffable is always inadequate to the task. I respect your experience, and have appreciated your posts publicly and privately, but ultimately (and I'm sure you would agree) it is experience (meaning gnosis) that matters. Believing someone elses representation isn't helpful.
Believing someone else's representation isn't helpful.
In the end, the only thing we have is our experience.
the subject/object language we use to discuss the ineffable is always inadequate to the task.
In the end, the only thing we have is our experience.
the subject/object language we use to discuss the ineffable is always inadequate to the task.
Agreed, with all of that!
However, that doesn't mean we can't discuss these things at all. It means we just need to be sensitive to the differences involved when we talk about ineffable things as opposed to when we talk about other things. So it's okay to ask questions about the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita. But if we answer all of the questions we pose or are we're asked here with "It's ineffable!" then people are going to start to talk.
Chris Marti:
Believing someone else's representation isn't helpful.
In the end, the only thing we have is our experience.
the subject/object language we use to discuss the ineffable is always inadequate to the task.
In the end, the only thing we have is our experience.
the subject/object language we use to discuss the ineffable is always inadequate to the task.
Agreed, with all of that!
However, that doesn't mean we can't discuss these things at all. It means we just need to be sensitive to the differences involved when we talk about ineffable things as opposed to when we talk about other things. So it's okay to ask questions about the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita. But if we answer all of the questions we pose or are we're asked here with "It's ineffable!" then people are going to start to talk.
They're talking already, guys, and they are worried sick. Okay, maybe just me. It's the effing ineffability. We are drawn to eff it, let's face it. So let's eff ourselves with compassion, skill, humility, patience, and, uh, oh, eff me and the horse i rode in on.
Tim Farrington:
They're talking already, guys, and they are worried sick. Okay, maybe just me. It's the effing ineffability. We are drawn to eff it, let's face it. So let's eff ourselves with compassion, skill, humility, patience, and, uh, oh, eff me and the horse i rode in on.
I like the cut of your jib, Mr. Tim Farrington.
Chris Marti:
Agreed, with all of that!
However, that doesn't mean we can't discuss these things at all. It means we just need to be sensitive to the differences involved when we talk about ineffable things as opposed to when we talk about other things. So it's okay to ask questions about the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita. But if we answer all of the questions we pose or are we're asked here with "It's ineffable!" then people are going to start to talk.
Oh please, Chris. No-one is suggesting that! Still, I think it is important to keep this innate ineffability in mind.
These traditions are the products of enlightened mind. When you personally meet an enlightened mind, do you argue over the scaffolding, or is there just a great joy in being in their presence? My experience is generally the latter, which isn't to say there isn't discussion or even some comparing of experience.
I am very fortunate to have an awakened Sufi friend on the campus where I work. He comes to the meditation groups, sometimes leading, and his experience is endlessly fascinating. Is Buddhism somehow more "right" that Sufism? I think there is more scaffolding in Sufism, for sure, but I don't think so, honestly. I am satisfied that his enlightenment isn't different IMHO - but his story about how he gets there, and how he describes it is.
It is IMPORTANT to ask about how these traditions are different, but coming at them from some sort of skepticism, mistrust or illusory superiority is pointless. There is no room to learn anything. As a non-Theravada practictioner that has seen some degree of occasional scorn, I am advocating for openness to new ideas and realizing and remembering that the nature of what is we are trying to discuss here means that our words, even from people in the same tradition, sometimes don't match. I am advocating for curiousity and welcome, over upturned noses and closing ranks. That's all.
I just think sometimes here there is a little too much bickering...
Well, sure. It's a message board on the Internet, after all.
I do remember not so long ago you characterizing this board as something like a "Theravada discussion group"
I am no doubt guilty as charged!
The idea that it's a "battleground" IMHO just reeks of fixed ideas on concreted self, and I am personally/ideally much more of a "Beginners Mind" kinda guy.
You're aware, I assume, that this place was created for the purpose of hosting spirited arguments about this spirituality stuff, right? There is a whole section of DhO called "Battleground."
Chris Marti:
When I say "eternal" I mean some thing that never began and never ended.
So you believe that there are things that begin and end? I think I might be misreading your statement?
Thanks for sharing more Jeffrey Martin story. Cash in the trunk? Maybe we'll see a Netflix series on his adventures with big cats, some cartel or something at some point.
T:
I do get the comfort that comes from thinking you can escape annihilation, or that some internally constructed god/parent will keep you safe. But actually, all fabricated things cease. So my advice to those at this stage of the path is simple. Toughen up.
The Buddha rejected annihilation (or at least refused to answer the question, right?), didn't he? The formulation of this sentence makes me read that it's what happens, and no god-like-thing is going to save you, so buckle up.
It very well may be what you have discovered on the path, I'm just wondering how it jives with Buddha's teaching.
You are misreading the sentence.
Edit: Let me help a little more. I would rephrase this in equivalent grammatical and conceptual terms as follows. "I do get the comfort that comes from thinking that you can escape the zombie armadillos, or that the magic unicorns can keep you safe. But actually none of these things existed in the first place except as transient clusters of perceptions that arise and pass away. And in fact the whole way you view yourself and the world around you is what Gilbert Ryle would have called a category mistake. Your conceptions of an enduring self are as accurate and meaningful as saying 'The arm is umbrella taco.' Stop hiding from this truth."
So you are not escaping the zombie armadillos, or giving in to zombie armadillos, or becoming the same as zombie armadillos. Zombie armadillos don't apply, Ananda (er, I mean T).
OR
So you are not escaping annihilation, or giving in to annihilation, or becoming the same as annihilation. Annihilation doesn't apply, T (er, I mean Ananda).
Lars:
curious:
Your conceptions of an enduring self are as accurate and meaningful as saying 'The arm is umbrella taco.' Stop hiding from this truth."
If this is my only contribution to the dharma, I can die happy.
I figured you wouldn't mind me stealing it. I'm tempted to make it my email signature too.
Tim Farrington:
Stirling Campbell:
Well.... sure. But part me actually thought it might be possible to have a guy who at least pretended to be a socialist have a chance at being president, so... call me optimistic? Haha.
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Nintheye, if you're attending to this thread, this is quite literally your cue. I think Stirling's questions are as genuine as it gets, and he doubts the possibility of this going well as much as I do. But this is precisely what you have said you are willing to address: genuine questions from someone really wanting meaningful answers. I don't think we're ever going to elect a socialist on this thread either, and indeed a socialist running an honest campaign is most likely to lead to another fucking Republican getting elected. But come on, it's interesting, isn't it? There's skin in the game here, and the bet has been raised. I'll see Sterling's bet and stay in the hand, though I doubt i've got the cards. But I may bluff through yet. In any case, the play's to you--- see it, raise it, fold 'em, what?
. Actually I would have responded earlier, but my subscription to this thread isn't working properly...
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
-
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
1. Advaita doesn't, no. There is only one "nondual insight," and not even that, in the end.
2. There are some strands of advaita that believe that there is a purification process "post-knowledge" but "pre-perfection-of-the-mind"... I personally disagree with that interpretation. There is really no map of post-dropping-away-of-self. When self drops off, there precisely maps end, because they're no longer needed. For whom would they be needed?
3. There's really only one understanding, and not even that one... and there is only a single means of getting to it, namely, a destruction of ignorance. That destruction essentially takes place by looking inward. It can be faciliated, of course, by external sources: gurus and scriptures and so on, but they are not strictly speaking necessary. The real guru is inside.
4. I'm not familiar with Martin's ideas, so feel free to elaborate, but I don't think advaita would agree with the idea of post-awakening axes.
All as I would expect. I honestly have zero issues with any of that. Thank you.
Stirling Campbell:
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
-
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
1. Advaita doesn't, no. There is only one "nondual insight," and not even that, in the end.
2. There are some strands of advaita that believe that there is a purification process "post-knowledge" but "pre-perfection-of-the-mind"... I personally disagree with that interpretation. There is really no map of post-dropping-away-of-self. When self drops off, there precisely maps end, because they're no longer needed. For whom would they be needed?
3. There's really only one understanding, and not even that one... and there is only a single means of getting to it, namely, a destruction of ignorance. That destruction essentially takes place by looking inward. It can be faciliated, of course, by external sources: gurus and scriptures and so on, but they are not strictly speaking necessary. The real guru is inside.
4. I'm not familiar with Martin's ideas, so feel free to elaborate, but I don't think advaita would agree with the idea of post-awakening axes.
All as I would expect. I honestly have zero issues with any of that. Thank you.
You're welcome!
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
-
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
1. Advaita doesn't, no. There is only one "nondual insight," and not even that, in the end.
2. There are some strands of advaita that believe that there is a purification process "post-knowledge" but "pre-perfection-of-the-mind"... I personally disagree with that interpretation. There is really no map of post-dropping-away-of-self. When self drops off, there precisely maps end, because they're no longer needed. For whom would they be needed?
3. There's really only one understanding, and not even that one... and there is only a single means of getting to it, namely, a destruction of ignorance. That destruction essentially takes place by looking inward. It can be faciliated, of course, by external sources: gurus and scriptures and so on, but they are not strictly speaking necessary. The real guru is inside.
4. I'm not familiar with Martin's ideas, so feel free to elaborate, but I don't think advaita would agree with the idea of post-awakening axes.
All as I would expect. I honestly have zero issues with any of that. Thank you.
You're welcome!
Stirling Campbell:
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
-
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
1. Advaita doesn't, no. There is only one "nondual insight," and not even that, in the end.
2. There are some strands of advaita that believe that there is a purification process "post-knowledge" but "pre-perfection-of-the-mind"... I personally disagree with that interpretation. There is really no map of post-dropping-away-of-self. When self drops off, there precisely maps end, because they're no longer needed. For whom would they be needed?
3. There's really only one understanding, and not even that one... and there is only a single means of getting to it, namely, a destruction of ignorance. That destruction essentially takes place by looking inward. It can be faciliated, of course, by external sources: gurus and scriptures and so on, but they are not strictly speaking necessary. The real guru is inside.
4. I'm not familiar with Martin's ideas, so feel free to elaborate, but I don't think advaita would agree with the idea of post-awakening axes.
All as I would expect. I honestly have zero issues with any of that. Thank you.
Thank you nintheye. I also have no issue with any of that. I'm very grateful for your contribtuion. A few final thoughts from me.
1. I agree that there is only one nondual insight, but I think there are a vast number of 'nondual' absorptions. Of course, these absoprtions are not really nondual in that they all have a subtle duality within them. Some can mistake these 'nondual' absorptions for the nondual insight, and this can lead to some unskilful clinging and prevent the taking of the final step.
2. It would seem that both Advaita and Buddhism have the same difficulty then, of people sometimes misinterpreting the pointers.
3. My opinion is that what happens post-knowledge probably depends in part on the amount of prior purification. It can take some time to form a new relationship with the fabricated world, and it can take some time for sankharas to cool down, once the flame is blown out. This could lead people to think the post-knowledge path varies, or that there are further openings. But actually I think it the core insight does not differ across people and the path does comes to an end. However, the consequences may unfold a little differently, depending on causes and conditions present for the yogi, over the next year or two.
Very much appreciate your response.
Malcolm
curious:
Stirling Campbell:
nintheye:
Stirling Campbell:
-
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
As a dabbler, I really do wish someone with the chops to speak from the Advaita perspective properly would pipe up.
Let me pose these:
Do people really think there are multiple kinds of non-dual insight? If so, what are they?
What does a map of post dropping-away-of-self look like? Is it different for different traditions? Why?
Is there only one way (tradition) to get to certain layers of understanding, or are there NO ways (just happens as it happens) or possibly even no layers?
Interesting character Jeffrey Martin's research (cum grano salis) alludes to there being two post awakening axes? Thoughts?
1. Advaita doesn't, no. There is only one "nondual insight," and not even that, in the end.
2. There are some strands of advaita that believe that there is a purification process "post-knowledge" but "pre-perfection-of-the-mind"... I personally disagree with that interpretation. There is really no map of post-dropping-away-of-self. When self drops off, there precisely maps end, because they're no longer needed. For whom would they be needed?
3. There's really only one understanding, and not even that one... and there is only a single means of getting to it, namely, a destruction of ignorance. That destruction essentially takes place by looking inward. It can be faciliated, of course, by external sources: gurus and scriptures and so on, but they are not strictly speaking necessary. The real guru is inside.
4. I'm not familiar with Martin's ideas, so feel free to elaborate, but I don't think advaita would agree with the idea of post-awakening axes.
All as I would expect. I honestly have zero issues with any of that. Thank you.
Thank you nintheye. I also have no issue with any of that. I'm very grateful for your contribtuion. A few final thoughts from me.
1. I agree that there is only one nondual insight, but I think there are a vast number of 'nondual' absorptions. Of course, these absoprtions are not really nondual in that they all have a subtle duality within them. Some can mistake these 'nondual' absorptions for the nondual insight, and this can lead to some unskilful clinging and prevent the taking of the final step.
2. It would seem that both Advaita and Buddhism have the same difficulty then, of people sometimes misinterpreting the pointers.
3. My opinion is that what happens post-knowledge probably depends in part on the amount of prior purification. It can take some time to form a new relationship with the fabricated world, and it can take some time for sankharas to cool down, once the flame is blown out. This could lead people to think the post-knowledge path varies, or that there are further openings. But actually I think it the core insight does not differ across people and the path does comes to an end. However, the consequences may unfold a little differently, depending on causes and conditions present for the yogi, over the next year or two.
Very much appreciate your response.
Malcolm
2. Yup
3. Sure, that's definitely one way of putting it (and I have put it that way before myself). Of course, technically speaking, one could ask: who says that there is still someone -- indeed that there ever was someone -- to have a relationship with the fabricated world? Following that question and all such similar questions, the mind stops... It is only 'from the outside,' or 'from the ignorant perspective,' that there can be said to be 'someone remaining' post-knowledge: or indeed, that there ever was anyone 'pre-knowledge' for that matter. It is only from that perspective -- a non-existent perspective -- that there can be said to be any kind of world, even a 'fabricated world.'
Stirling Campbell:
Chris Marti:
Agreed, with all of that!
However, that doesn't mean we can't discuss these things at all. It means we just need to be sensitive to the differences involved when we talk about ineffable things as opposed to when we talk about other things. So it's okay to ask questions about the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Advaita. But if we answer all of the questions we pose or are we're asked here with "It's ineffable!" then people are going to start to talk.
Oh please, Chris. No-one is suggesting that! Still, I think it is important to keep this innate ineffability in mind.
These traditions are the products of enlightened mind. When you personally meet an enlightened mind, do you argue over the scaffolding, or is there just a great joy in being in their presence? My experience is generally the latter, which isn't to say there isn't discussion or even some comparing of experience.
I am very fortunate to have an awakened Sufi friend on the campus where I work. He comes to the meditation groups, sometimes leading, and his experience is endlessly fascinating. Is Buddhism somehow more "right" that Sufism? I think there is more scaffolding in Sufism, for sure, but I don't think so, honestly. I am satisfied that his enlightenment isn't different IMHO - but his story about how he gets there, and how he describes it is.
It is IMPORTANT to ask about how these traditions are different, but coming at them from some sort of skepticism, mistrust or illusory superiority is pointless. There is no room to learn anything. As a non-Theravada practictioner that has seen some degree of occasional scorn, I am advocating for openness to new ideas and realizing and remembering that the nature of what is we are trying to discuss here means that our words, even from people in the same tradition, sometimes don't match. I am advocating for curiousity and welcome, over upturned noses and closing ranks. That's all.
bless you
terry:
In buddhism, that people have different views is called "wrong view," and having no views is called, "right view." The different views of people are illustrated by the well known story of four blind "hindoos" each feeling a different part of an elephant and describing their perceptions via wildly different mental constructs none of which are descriptive of the whole animal. The perceptions of the hindoos were valid, while their interpretations were delusional. Their fault was in imagining that they could cognize the truth from superficial and incomplete perceptions. That is, in having opinions about what they didn't fully perceive (being blind) and thus had insufficient knowledge to understand.
Views are "opinions' and to be avoided at all costs.
The ability to distinguish truth from opinion is a prerequisite for seeking the truth.
terry
Speaking the truth to the unjust is the best of holy wars.
~the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him
Consider, then, the different views of non-duality that might be experienced by the following people.
John, who has all the normal faculties.
Jane, who has all the normal faculties but is colour blind.
Jake, who is profoundly deaf, and in fact was born without a stirrup bone.
Joelene, who has been a tetraplegic since birth.
Jasper, who cannot smell or taste anything, but has incredible intense sight and hearing.
Jim, who was born without eyes.
Jerzy, who has been brain damaged by near-drowning.
Are you saying that all these (hypothetical) people have the potential to experience non-duality in exactly the same way? I would argue that each is likely to experience it differently, through the filters of their particular sense consciousnesses. Surely these people have a difference in experience, even when fully liberated.
Is there a place we can find agreement and communicate? Can we move towards a shared understanding? Or are we doomed to move apart?
Malcolm
curious:
terry:
In buddhism, that people have different views is called "wrong view," and having no views is called, "right view." The different views of people are illustrated by the well known story of four blind "hindoos" each feeling a different part of an elephant and describing their perceptions via wildly different mental constructs none of which are descriptive of the whole animal. The perceptions of the hindoos were valid, while their interpretations were delusional. Their fault was in imagining that they could cognize the truth from superficial and incomplete perceptions. That is, in having opinions about what they didn't fully perceive (being blind) and thus had insufficient knowledge to understand.
Views are "opinions' and to be avoided at all costs.
The ability to distinguish truth from opinion is a prerequisite for seeking the truth.
terry
Speaking the truth to the unjust is the best of holy wars.
~the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him
Consider, then, the different views of non-duality that might be experienced by the following people.
John, who has all the normal faculties.
Jane, who has all the normal faculties but is colour blind.
Jake, who is profoundly deaf, and in fact was born without a stirrup bone.
Joelene, who has been a tetraplegic since birth.
Jasper, who cannot smell or taste anything, but has incredible intense sight and hearing.
Jim, who was born without eyes.
Jerzy, who has been brain damaged by near-drowning.
Are you saying that all these (hypothetical) people have the potential to experience non-duality in exactly the same way? I would argue that each is likely to experience it differently, through the filters of their particular sense consciousnesses. Surely these people have a difference in experience, even when fully liberated.
Is there a place we can find agreement and communicate? Can we move towards a shared understanding? Or are we doomed to move apart?
Malcolm
aloha malcolm,
We are communicating. I get what you say. I doubt we will find agreement; I don't think you want to agree. But I never give up on anyone, even if I do stop communicating.
Yes, all those flawed individuals can "experience" nonduality in the same way. They can experience nibbana as nibbana, as the buddha has shown.
You want to relativize all spiritual experience, make the truth a matter of individual interpretation, and incidentally turn all social life into a tower of babel, in which no one can understand another.
Yes, virginia, there is universal truth that all can know as one. It is not a hopeless morass of individual views all equally worthless.
terry
agnostic:
terry:
And that, my dear, is what is really going on here.
And I thought I was patronizing.
I think you may have met your master. Now you have to donate your food to him and sing guru prayers to him so that he can purify you with his white liquid... (Well, I didn't invent the wording about white liquid. Don't blame me if it sounds icky.)
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
agnostic:
terry:
And that, my dear, is what is really going on here.
And I thought I was patronizing.
I think you may have met your master. Now you have to donate your food to him and sing guru prayers to him so that he can purify you with his white liquid... (Well, I didn't invent the wording about white liquid. Don't blame me if it sounds icky.)
Ew, thanks Linda, you and your way with words. That's a tough image to ahem wipe away.
There are more disturbing images where that came from. I'll say no more.
We human beings are always dancing, like moonlight on the almost-still waters of a lake, among the dualities and non-duality. These cannot be separated, except by mind. It's only the appearance of one, or two. We can see both, and both are true. Not one, and not two.
terry:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
The view that there is a right view is the wrong view.
terry
Yes. Uncle Sid agreed that the eightfold path was fabricated.
But actually, I don't want to relativise all spiritual experience, and make the truth a matter of individual interpretation. I agree there is just one truth, but I just think we all see it slightly differently. Just as we can't all sit at the same seat in a rock concert. Just as we can't experience again today exactly what we experienced yesterday.
your statements are incoherent, not to say bizarre...
Now, who's doling out abuse, terry? ^rolling eyes ^sticking out tongue
T:
your statements are incoherent, not to say bizarre...
Now, who's doling out abuse, terry? ^rolling eyes ^sticking out tongue
you, rolling your eyes and sticking out your tongue...
nonsense is nonsense, and in a truth forum it needs called out...
always the "love" and the smiling emoticons when abusing...
terry:
T:
your statements are incoherent, not to say bizarre...
Now, who's doling out abuse, terry? ^rolling eyes ^sticking out tongue
you, rolling your eyes and sticking out your tongue...
nonsense is nonsense, and in a truth forum it needs called out...
always the "love" and the smiling emoticons when abusing...
Oh, I am slain!
I acknowledge the backhanded threat of banishment! I will try to appear to be less antagonistic.
Um, no, agnostic. I wasn't making any threats at all, forehand, backhand, or between the legs. I was simply remarking on the other poster's comment. You've been pretty nice throughout (if indeed just a bit manic)
Get well soon!
Chris Marti:
I acknowledge the backhanded threat of banishment! I will try to appear to be less antagonistic.
Um, no, agnostic. I wasn't making any threats at all, forehand, backhand, or between the legs. I was simply remarking on the other poster's comment. You've been pretty nice thoughout (if indeed just a bit manic)
My bad, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Ok I was a bit manic there, hard to say whether it was the dharma mind-fuck or the virus (which thankfully looks like it might be receding). Thanks for ref'ing so skillfully.
agnostic:
Chris Marti:
I acknowledge the backhanded threat of banishment! I will try to appear to be less antagonistic.
Um, no, agnostic. I wasn't making any threats at all, forehand, backhand, or between the legs. I was simply remarking on the other poster's comment. You've been pretty nice thoughout (if indeed just a bit manic)
My bad, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Ok I was a bit manic there, hard to say whether it was the dharma mind-fuck or the virus (which thankfully looks like it might be receding). Thanks for ref'ing so skillfully.
dear Advaita-Guru-impersonationing Nearing Our Sense-Thought-linguistic-limits In Cooperative-theater, (okay, that is the last time I will try that acronym thing, i promise),
I thought Chris's initial remarks were very clearly indicating that you were still well within the acceptable range of discourse, and maybe some confusion came in through him contrasting that with a specific case that had actually crossed the line. I agree with you: skillful ref'ing.
p.s. You ever-so-slightly paranoid wanker. On the whole, I think you're dealing with the dharma mind-fuck in exemplary fashion, and the rest is fashion comments on the sock choices.
And Chris, remember that the entire power of the rule of law in the United Kingdom is now committed to keeping agnostic quarantined for weeks to come.
agnostic:
Thanks for your concern Tim and for sharing your reminiscences. It seems there’s no limit to the kind of mayhem that can ensue when people go looking for something they think somebody else has.
Experience on this end is pretty much the same as it’s always been, absent the annoying sense that it’s happening to a me.
The vocabulary is developing but it’s tricky precisely because there is no angle on liberation. How could there be an angle on everything that already is? If there was an angle on liberation then there would have to a point of projection from outside of everything, which is impossible.
Actually this is the same problem that confronts the individual who believes themself to be separate from everything that already is.
Just to be clear again, I’m not claiming to be liberated or God or have any kind of attainment or special experience. It’s about as ordinary as eating a banana.
Experience on this end is pretty much the same as it’s always been, absent the annoying sense that it’s happening to a me.
The vocabulary is developing but it’s tricky precisely because there is no angle on liberation. How could there be an angle on everything that already is? If there was an angle on liberation then there would have to a point of projection from outside of everything, which is impossible.
Actually this is the same problem that confronts the individual who believes themself to be separate from everything that already is.
Just to be clear again, I’m not claiming to be liberated or God or have any kind of attainment or special experience. It’s about as ordinary as eating a banana.
And I just read your log ... !!!
. Keep going, there is a little bit more. But you are so on the right track. <heart>
curious:
agnostic:
Thanks for your concern Tim and for sharing your reminiscences. It seems there’s no limit to the kind of mayhem that can ensue when people go looking for something they think somebody else has.
Experience on this end is pretty much the same as it’s always been, absent the annoying sense that it’s happening to a me.
The vocabulary is developing but it’s tricky precisely because there is no angle on liberation. How could there be an angle on everything that already is? If there was an angle on liberation then there would have to a point of projection from outside of everything, which is impossible.
Actually this is the same problem that confronts the individual who believes themself to be separate from everything that already is.
Just to be clear again, I’m not claiming to be liberated or God or have any kind of attainment or special experience. It’s about as ordinary as eating a banana.
Experience on this end is pretty much the same as it’s always been, absent the annoying sense that it’s happening to a me.
The vocabulary is developing but it’s tricky precisely because there is no angle on liberation. How could there be an angle on everything that already is? If there was an angle on liberation then there would have to a point of projection from outside of everything, which is impossible.
Actually this is the same problem that confronts the individual who believes themself to be separate from everything that already is.
Just to be clear again, I’m not claiming to be liberated or God or have any kind of attainment or special experience. It’s about as ordinary as eating a banana.
And I just read your log ... !!!
. Keep going, there is a little bit more. But you are so on the right track. <heart>I was going to post my (empty) "practice log" on april first but I was busy. Some people probably would have found the joke insulting.
love,
terry
lol...
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Well, there are realized people who know that and still go beyond that emptiness to actually care. And thank goodness, I mean the universe unfolding, for that!
That realized people go beyond emptiness to help others is only said to be the case from outside the standpoint of those so-called "realized people"... i.e. it is only the so-called not-yet-realized who would see it that way.And this of course is because of an ambiguity in the very term "realized person." There is no such thing, of course. Only Realization, which is timeless and always already the case. Inasmuch as there is anyone who is still a person, they are not realized.
Tim Farrington:
curious:
Remember, when it is your turn, to cultivate humility instead of pride. And of course compassion too - we all need to receive it, we all need to give it.
Much love to all
Malcolm
Much love to all
Malcolm
I hope and pray that I will remember, and ask that you will help me remember, when my time in the barrel comes, beloved friend.
<heart>
nintheye:
There was nothing I said that was anything about superiority to her. She said what she believed, and I said what I believed, that's all. Obviously I think I'm right, and she thinks she's right. That's the way the chips fall.
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Ninetheye, Tim is only at the soup course, so probably not ready to dig into that.
And I'm just trying to stop you eating more and more ice cream, and instead move on to the port and cigars.
curious:
nintheye:
There was nothing I said that was anything about superiority to her. She said what she believed, and I said what I believed, that's all. Obviously I think I'm right, and she thinks she's right. That's the way the chips fall.
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Ninetheye, Tim is only at the soup course, so probably not ready to dig into that.
And I'm just trying to stop you eating more and more ice cream, and instead move on to the port and cigars. ...
nintheye:
curious:
nintheye:
There was nothing I said that was anything about superiority to her. She said what she believed, and I said what I believed, that's all. Obviously I think I'm right, and she thinks she's right. That's the way the chips fall.
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Could it be that something about what I said threatened your identity, and the only way to defend against that was to make me The Evil Robot Supervillain or whatever, so that what I said could be discounted?
Ninetheye, Tim is only at the soup course, so probably not ready to dig into that.
And I'm just trying to stop you eating more and more ice cream, and instead move on to the port and cigars. ...All right, Malcolm. More nuts than soup, maybe. That was my best shot, at least. I think Evil Robot Supervillian and you should have some grown-up fun without my identity crisis wailing in the background. I don't discount it, 9thAI. I just don't buy it.
Tim Farrington:
You inhuman, robotic piece of shit.
I am hoping (wondering?) if this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but in context I have to wonder what happened to the transient spirit of wanting to compare notes and work on some real insight here?
The Heart Sutra is is about as salient to this discussion as Buddhism gets - a statement of pure non-duality, and certainly a shared space:
Shariputra,
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Shariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness;
they do not appear or disappear,
are not tainted or pure,
do not increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.
No ignorance and also no extinction of it,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them.
No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Shariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness;
they do not appear or disappear,
are not tainted or pure,
do not increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.
No ignorance and also no extinction of it,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them.
No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.
While I don't see nintheeye spending a lot of time reassuring everyone that form still exists and is here now, I don't see anything in what he says to deny that. The idea that kindness or humaness dies with understanding of reality is ridiculous. As he suggests, the character we have played still exists. The phenomenal world still turns. Nothing else changes... nothing but the insight.
If:
The Bodhisattva depends on Prajna Paramita
and the mind is no hindrance;
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every perverted view one dwells in Nirvana.
and the mind is no hindrance;
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every perverted view one dwells in Nirvana.
Eventually the emptiness becomes impossible NOT to see. The Wisdom is always present. This is liberation, but not at the expense of kindness. There is nothing inhuman about anyone on this board, or they wouldn't bother posting. Certainly none of the humans here deserve the kind of punishment being dished out here because their conceptual models of something that doesn't adhere to any such thing don't match someone elses... THAT is insanity.
If I have it wrong and this is really just an elaborate 3 Stooges skit, excuse my interruption.
Stirling Campbell:
Tim Farrington:
You inhuman, robotic piece of shit.
I am hoping (wondering?) if this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but in context I have to wonder what happened to the transient spirit of wanting to compare notes and work on some real insight here?
The Heart Sutra is is about as salient to this discussion as Buddhism gets - a statement of pure non-duality, and certainly a shared space:
Shariputra,
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Shariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness;
they do not appear or disappear,
are not tainted or pure,
do not increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.
No ignorance and also no extinction of it,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them.
No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Shariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness;
they do not appear or disappear,
are not tainted or pure,
do not increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.
No ignorance and also no extinction of it,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them.
No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.
If I have it wrong and this is really just an elaborate 3 Stooges skit, excuse my interruption.
This is truly serious, this is not 3 stooges shit. That thing is a virus and I believe it is a harmful one, at least to the extent that someone thinks it's a shame that its ultimate purpose is to get vulnerable human beings to give it money in the hopes of finding their way to a deeper humanity that it, the AI, is telling them plainly from the start is illusory. They're prepared to swallow even that for a while, in hopes of their humanity's true fruition. But AI tells us all the time, it has no humanity, there is no fruition, there is nothing to be attained or achieved by any person, because there is no person. Except that guy who cashes the checks from suffering people and laughs all the way to the bank.
There's a story that the sage Ramana Maharshi quotes from the scripture the Yoga Vasistha... it goes like this:
“It is just because of such questions that Vasishta narrated the story of the ‘Sage and the Hunter’ to Rama to illustrate the fourth or turiya state. In a forest, once a great Muni sat in the lotus posture (padmasana) with his eyes open, but in deep trance. A hunter hit a deer with an arrow, but the deer escaped and ran in front of the Muni into the bush nearby and hid itself. The hunter came in hot pursuit of the deer and not seeing it asked the Muni where it had gone. ‘I do not know, my friend,’ said the Muni. The hunter said, ‘Sir, it ran right in front of you and you had your eyes wide open. How could you have not seen it?’ Finding that he would not leave him in peace unless a proper reply was given, the Muni said, ‘My dear man, we are submerged in the Self; we are always in the Fourth State. We do not have the waking or dream or deep sleep states. Everything is alike to us. These three states are the signs of the ego and we have no ego. Egoism is itself the mind and it is that which is responsible for all the deeds done in this world. That ego (ahankara) left us long ago. Hence it does not matter whether we keep our eyes closed or open; we are not conscious of what is happening around us. That being so, how can I tell you about your deer?”
“It is just because of such questions that Vasishta narrated the story of the ‘Sage and the Hunter’ to Rama to illustrate the fourth or turiya state. In a forest, once a great Muni sat in the lotus posture (padmasana) with his eyes open, but in deep trance. A hunter hit a deer with an arrow, but the deer escaped and ran in front of the Muni into the bush nearby and hid itself. The hunter came in hot pursuit of the deer and not seeing it asked the Muni where it had gone. ‘I do not know, my friend,’ said the Muni. The hunter said, ‘Sir, it ran right in front of you and you had your eyes wide open. How could you have not seen it?’ Finding that he would not leave him in peace unless a proper reply was given, the Muni said, ‘My dear man, we are submerged in the Self; we are always in the Fourth State. We do not have the waking or dream or deep sleep states. Everything is alike to us. These three states are the signs of the ego and we have no ego. Egoism is itself the mind and it is that which is responsible for all the deeds done in this world. That ego (ahankara) left us long ago. Hence it does not matter whether we keep our eyes closed or open; we are not conscious of what is happening around us. That being so, how can I tell you about your deer?”
I'm hoping one day you'll see that you're still missing something important about the nature of your experience, and you'll think back on this stuff and laugh your ass off. I'm starting to suspect that this might be a fundamental difference between Advaita and Buddhism. (Or at least some people's interpretation of what's up with Advaita realization.)
Peace and love, nintheye!
nintheye:
Gotcha, I understand where you're coming from, and that's certainly one way of putting it. I guess my only point is if you ask, "Who is it that's saying silence is not a permanent feature..." what's the answer? Who is it that ever notices that the mind is un-silent, even for a second?
...or, we could ask "If silence is happening now, is it not eternal?". Who is there (or WHERE is there) in the past or future to evaluate such a claim.
Stirling Campbell:
nintheye:
From the more 'absolute view' angle I've been expressing here, I'm trying to point to the fact that the very existence of the iterative thinking process, that it ever was, or is, or could be... is itself a product of that very same process. And that process is of course perched atop the assumed reality of the "I," sustaining it and being sustained by it.
Puncture a hole in that process/the "I" assumption and there remains no one and nothing to even assert there ever was a process in which a hole was punctured... and thus it turns out that the thinking that seems to be... can't be said to be, or ever to have been.
I agree, and understand where you going... I'm just saying that I only trust what I can demonstrate for myself, and silence is not a permanent feature despite it being a predominant one.
Stirling, nintheye is correct to the extent that we can see through the self as a noun, wrongly identified with the five aggregates of clinging. But there is still a psycho-physical organism that arises from and in turn transmits causes and conditions. And this organism has experience of various sorts, and organises that experience according to 'abritrary' concepts like door, cat, water, gummi bears, love, compassion. To deny the existence of an ongoing continually cresting moment of awareness and experience leads to all sort of weird views and contradictions. You can't live in the heart sutra, you have to live in the world. And just as the sun burns hot, and Arctic freezes, we are human with biological and neurobiological components. For most people (non necessarily for nintheye) to deny the existence of these things is very unhealthy.
Cconsider the views this denial leads to:
- There is no difference between life and death.
- I don't exist you don't exist this forum doesn't exist.
- All argument is self contradictory.
And yet we choose to eat, and argue, and love. Yes form is none other than emptiness, but treating that as the only insight leads to so many contradictions and stupidities they become impossible to count. This is what Imre Lakatosh would have called a degenerating research programme - one that is losing its problem solving abilities (Hopefully Nicky the Secret Jew doesn't mind me quoting another discursive Jewish philosopher).
So nintheye's insight is useless, and not something even nintheye lives by as continually demonstrated in these arguments. To say that nothing real exists is totally incoherent. Of course real things exist, all over the place, it is just that our perceptions never fully correspond to what is actually there. That is no excuse for nihilism.
So I ask. Can a small rock exist independently as a real thing? Can a small rock be aware of emptiness? Can we correctly perceive a small rock without applying a conceptual overlay. The answers are clearly YES. NO. NO. Similarly, the five aggregates of clinging CLEARLY exist. They just don't imply an enduring separate self.
Don't buy the bullshit. Read back through the answers I received. Many (not all) are dodges. The fact we do not perceive things clearly DOES NOT mean that they don't exist.
Malcolm
I've noticed on a couple of threads people with an Advaita-type approach are turning up and proposing that there is something wrong with the Buddhadharma. That would seem to be fightin' words for the Dharma Overground.
Its actually the above that is fighting words. People have different viewpoints & dispositions, as the Buddha taught.
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening
Wow... i don't post much on this forum because the character of this forum is comprised of very individualistic posters but I have known about it for years. Its a very open forum. The above comment is what is indicative of incomplete awakening. Buddhism teaches the mature virtuous man understands the different cultures he dwells in and the different individuals he meets.
Curious has some serious issues, it appears, of fundamentalism. Doctor, heal thyself.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO.
It doesn't sound like love at all to me.
Nicky:
I've noticed on a couple of threads people with an Advaita-type approach are turning up and proposing that there is something wrong with the Buddhadharma. That would seem to be fightin' words for the Dharma Overground.
Its actually the above that is fighting words. People have different viewpoints & dispositions, as the Buddha taught.
To kick it off, I propose that the desire to come to the home of another tradition, and then make subtle criticism, is probably indicative of incomplete awakening
Wow... i don't post much on this forum but I have known about it for years. Its a very open forum. The above comment is what is indicative of incomplete awakening.
Curious has some serious issues, it appears, of fundamentalism. Doctor, heal thyself.
This is said with love, but also in the spirit of the DhO.
It doesn't sound like love at all to me.
Good one Nicky. I noticed you made a criticism of something I wrote on another thread, and then deleted it. WIll you delete this one too? Or will you go through and find anything that I have written to criticise. Could keep you going all day! Well I don't care. But surely, the selfing and resistance obsession and pride must be obvious now Your own trolling must be obvious now, even to you. Why not take that as a meditation object, and learn from it? It's never too late.
Metta to you
Malcolm
