|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 4:16:35 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
This is the straying known as "reifying the essence." Giving the samadhi "experience" a nature of "absolute," "god," "brahma," etc., is the nature of this mistake.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is the direct experience of reality, as it is, so it simply cannot be reification. Sometimes when people hear the word "Brahman" they instantly think that reification must be involved (and it often is). When the word Brahman is being used to describe the absolute, and that is the nature of a direct experience of reality, then the word is being used simply as a description of reality. As I see it, Swamiji is using the term in that sense here.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is an experience, it has a beginning and an end, but reality, glimpsed in nirvikalpa samadhi is still reality.
quote:
Ajahn Brahm also gives this literal "blown out" interpretation to nibbana. It doesn't hold up, even by his own definition, because nibbana is not attained in samadhi, but in post-meditation contemplation.
As I saw it, Guruswamiji was not saying that nirvikalpa samadhi is enlightenment. In fact, she said that when we come out of nirvikalpa samadhi, the mind can come back in and take over again, in which case nothing has been learned. So she is saying that nirvikalpa samadhi is an experience, which we can learn from, not enlightenment itself. This is in contrast to some teachers who would say that nirvikalpa samadhi is enlightenment itself.
She does suggest that nirvikalpa samadhi in itself has the power to blow out the mind, and bring about nibbhana, if the conditions for awakening are right. The timely hearing of the truth also has the power to bring about nibbana.
quote:
Nibbana means no further birth
Well, nibbana means a number of things, but literally it does mean "blown out" or more literally, "without flame". It can also mean "no further birth".
quote:
Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,
Negation can be a useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start negating reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-negating ontological nihilism, but an all-embracing (and accepting) divine love, which is the nature of Christ consciousness.
Christi
|
 |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 5:15:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,
Negation can be a useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start negating reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-negating ontological nihilism, but an all-embracing (and accepting) divine love, which is the nature of Christ consciousness.
Christi
Affirmation can be useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start affirming reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-affirming ontological absolutism, but an all-embracing (and negating) divine compassion, which is the buddha-nature.
Adamant |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 5:24:02 PM
|
The dharmakaya is emptiness, not nothingness. The sambhogakaya is its radiant continuity, not void. The nirmanakaya is the unobstructed manifestation of all possibilities, not absolute reality. This has the nature of compassion and enjoyment.
This is our present condition, not something to attain. It is not nihilism, because we recognize emptiness. However, all-embracing absolutism is not dharma. Dharma practitioners do not adhere to any view, because any view is a limited position. Reality does not have such limitations of nihilism or eternalism. Yet the view is SEEING NOTHING. Though there is nothing to see, there is seeing. Thus, it is not void and not something.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 14 2009 5:28:12 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 7:00:30 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Affirmation can be useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start affirming reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-affirming ontological absolutism, but an all-embracing (and negating) divine compassion, which is the buddha-nature.
Adamant
quote:
The dharmakaya is emptiness, not nothingness. The sambhogakaya is its radiant continuity, not void. The nirmanakaya is the unobstructed manifestation of all possibilities, not absolute reality. This has the nature of compassion and enjoyment.
This is our present condition, not something to attain. It is not nihilism, because we recognize emptiness. However, all-embracing absolutism is not dharma. Dharma practitioners do not adhere to any view, because any view is a limited position. Reality does not have such limitations of nihilism or eternalism. Yet the view is SEEING NOTHING. Though there is nothing to see, there is seeing. Thus, it is not void and not something.
Adamant
That's right. Any view taken to it's extreme is going to be of limited worth. Either, negation, or affirmation.
Personally, I find that with continued practice, it becomes clearer to see when negation is a useful tool on the path, and when acceptance (affirmation) is a useful tool. Used inappropriately neither would serve their purpose. Negation can come in many forms including negating the ego (personality) or negating the validity of experience, or negating reality itself. It can be useful if used at the right time and in the right way. Accepting what is, is the natural outcome of that path as the witness begins to expand into oneness (unity) and all things are seen to be our own true nature.
Truth, or reality is beyond the path, which leads to its realization. It has it's own nature and laws. On the path, we adopt certain tools, methods, practices, views etc. In reality, none of those things exist. There are no seekers and nothing to be sought. Words fail.
Even divine love is an inadequate description to use to describe the infinite majesty and glory of reality, as it is known to itself.
Christi
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 8:18:46 PM
|
Dear Christi
I'd say that the practice, in many traditions, and in individual seekers' tendencies, is to take the positive way or the negative way to its end, to the extreme, rather than that this is of limited use as you suggest. Siva or sakti. Apophasis or cataphasis.
We are freed by losing the negater in the negating and the negated; or by losing the embracer in the embracing and embraced. Confusing for many to both embrace and negate at the same time, though for some this dialectic is helpful, or at a certain stage.
Either way, negative or positive, pursued to the end, to the extreme, we learn that these are not-two:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
There may be middle ways too, but it would be wrong to suggest that extremes are not valid keys to christ-consciousness, or buddha consciousness.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Dec 14 2009 8:48:08 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2009 : 9:24:49 PM
|
Christ-consciousness. I can accept that Christ may have had this. But what was the method? The documents, the oral transmission and the methods are all lost. "Christ-consciousness" is just a modern conjecture. This is just the way Christians are able to practice yoga while remaining Christian. But really Christ-consciousness is just a christian name given to a yogic state. However, at the apex of yogas are documents, an oral transmission lineage and working methods that are far beyond any "tradition" of Western or Eastern, shared by several galaxies. The fruition of these practices is beyond any description of "it is like this or that." But there is a concrete result of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence in the state of the Body of Light. This is something masters have achieved in the past decade. The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ. 
In keeping with Wayne's spirit of leaving the dead guys alone, enlightenment is a personal experience of one's environment. It has nothing to do with God. You might want to say silence is God, but a silent God is not the Word. At the highest levels of yoga, God is not only irrelevant, but an impediment. It is a judgment, a limitation, confinement, suffering.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 14 2009 9:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 12:07:57 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman, Christi, Chinna, Adamant, Wayne, Carson, Katrine, Everyone ... :)
I dedicate this post to everyone who has not yet seen the LIGHT.
Today I am stopping all seeking of silence, non-dualism, emptiness, awareness and similar concepts. I will be devoting more time to the LIGHT. God is everywhere and the doorway is the LIGHT. Today, I am the happiest person alive!!! (not overjoyed, just very happy deep inside)
Today, I went back to meditating on the light. This morning's meditation was quite interesting! Prayers, bhastrika, Spinal Breathing and then "Seeking the source of the mantra, the light".
As I focused on the light, I started to see geometric shapes and patterns. The light was quite bright and these shapes were appearing directly before the light as if the light was emitting them; beautiful colors and patterns like metalic structures or 3D mandalas.
This intrigued me so later I did a search on the net and I found this page on the internet about the LIGHT. Here is a story about true nirvikalpa (death for sure). Here is a story that confirms my experiences of going to Heaven, seeing Jesus and Buddha, of healing and miracles. It explains the void and Oneness (unity consciousness). It explains a whole lot of things. Reading this page made me so full of tingles and happiness, you just can't believe! And it is written in simple sincere language that anyone can understand.
It is the story of Mellen-Thomas Benedict:
link: http://near-death.com/experiences/r...ation04.html
The page is quite long so I'm only going to quote a few parts but I recommend reading the whole story:
quote:
There was this light shining. I turned toward the light. The light was very similar to what many other people have described in their near-death experiences. It was so magnificent. It is tangible; you can feel it. It is alluring; you want to go to it like you would want to go to your ideal mother's or father's arms.
As I began to move toward the light, I knew intuitively that if I went to the light, I would be dead.
So as I was moving toward the light I said, "Please wait a minute, just hold on a second here. I want to think about this; I would like to talk to you before I go."
To my surprise, the entire experience halted at that point. You are indeed in control of your near-death experience. You are not on a roller coaster ride. So my request was honored and I had some conversations with the light. The light kept changing into different figures, like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, mandalas, archetypal images and signs.
Adamant, please read that very last line. I believe it reveals some of the answer to your questions..
Also, please read this next line:
quote:
I asked God, "What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?"
And Godhead said, with great love, "I don't care."
That was incredible grace. What that meant was that we are the caring beings here.
The Ultimate Godhead of all the stars tells us, "It does not matter what religion you are."
They come and they go, they change. Buddhism has not been here forever, Catholicism has not been here forever, and they are all about to become more enlightened. More light is coming into all systems now. There is going to be a reformation in spirituality that is going to be just as dramatic as the Protestant Reformation. There will be lots of people fighting about it, one religion against the next, believing that only they are right.
Everyone thinks they own God, the religions and philosophies, especially the religions, because they form big organizations around their philosophy. When Godhead said, "I don't care," I immediately understood that it is for us to care about. It is important, because we are the caring beings. It matters to us and that is where it is important. What you have is the energy equation in spirituality. Ultimate Godhead does not care if you are Protestant, Buddhist, or whatever. It is all a blooming facet of the whole. I wish that all religions would realize it and let each other be. It is not the end of each religion, but we are talking about the same God. Live and let live. Each has a different view. And it all adds up to the Big Picture; it is all important.
Was the river of life the cure for his cancer, for his spontaneous remission?
quote:
The light seemed to breathe me in even more deeply. It was as if the light was completely absorbing me. The love light is, to this day, indescribable. I entered into another realm, more profound than the last, and became aware of something more, much more. It was an enormous stream of light, vast and full, deep in the heart of life. I asked what this was.
The light responded, "This is the RIVER OF LIFE. Drink of this manna water to your heart's content."
So I did. I took one big drink and then another. To drink of life Itself! I was in ecstasy.
Perhaps this is the most intriguing statement on that page:
quote:
Since my return I have experienced the light spontaneously, and I have learned how to get to that space almost any time in my meditation. Each one of you can do this. You do not have to die to do this. It is within your equipment; you are wired for it already.
My method to find the LIGHT is by intending the mantra and seeking the source near the top of the head.
For my afternoon meditation I again meditated on the LIGHT.
The LIGHT was a whole lot brighter now, and understandably so. As I focused on the light, I started to see visions, but the visions had a kind of texture to them, and the visions were coming from the light, nowhere near the third eye.
I saw a vision of a young Egyptian boy, about 9 or 10 years old. He had had his head shaved and there were two Egyptian ladies painting the top of his head/skull with white powder. The boy had large brown eyes. I kind of knew, but I thought I'd ask anyway... Who is this? Is this me? "YES" was my reply. I asked, is this why I have an affinity to people with large brown eyes and why I've been seeking such a person? "YES". I had been searching for myself.
Some other visions appeared and I watched in awe. Then, I thought of the boy again, and instantaneously, I was watching him/me once again. The powder was being painted on his head in the outline of where the hairline should have been. I had the impression that I was very important. There was a lot of sand in the background. The two Egyptian ladies who were painting my head had long golden rods with leaves on the ends.
I returned to focusing on the light and more geometric patterns appeared, lovely blues and metalic greens. I went back to the boy again and looked into those eyes. It was me all along! I started to think and realize that I had gained the ability to consciously choose which scene to focus on.. then other realizations became apparent.. glad nobody saw me crying for joy on my way out of the building..
My hope is that one day I will learn how to transmit the light to others, or teach them how to see the LIGHT for themselves.
Smiling in the LIGHT!
:)
TI
If scenery can heal cancer, tell you about past lives, take you to heaven and let you speak to the Godhead, then that's the scenery for me!
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Dec 15 2009 03:13:16 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 04:18:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Dear Christi
I'd say that the practice, in many traditions, and in individual seekers' tendencies, is to take the positive way or the negative way to its end, to the extreme, rather than that this is of limited use as you suggest. Siva or sakti. Apophasis or cataphasis.
We are freed by losing the negater in the negating and the negated; or by losing the embracer in the embracing and embraced. Confusing for many to both embrace and negate at the same time, though for some this dialectic is helpful, or at a certain stage.
Either way, negative or positive, pursued to the end, to the extreme, we learn that these are not-two:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
There may be middle ways too, but it would be wrong to suggest that extremes are not valid keys to christ-consciousness, or buddha consciousness.
chinna
Hi Chinna,
What I was saying is that negation can be useful to take us beyond identification with form (mind/body) into the eternal witness. But it is not a useful tool to take us beyond separation of the witness and the witnessed into oneness (unity). For that, acceptance (expansion of the witness to include all) rather than negation is needed. Beyond oneness (unity) neither the path of negation, nor the path of acceptance (embracing) are needed, and a new dynamic begins to take place. At the level of the Christ, nothing is denied (negated) and nothing is affirmed. Everything is known as it is, even whilst the power, light and love of the divine flows in stillness.
This is why I say that any view (negation or acceptance) taken to its extreme is of limited use. We have to be ready and willing at all times to let go of one path and take up what is needed as the sadhana progresses.
Christi |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 04:44:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Christ-consciousness. I can accept that Christ may have had this. But what was the method? The documents, the oral transmission and the methods are all lost. "Christ-consciousness" is just a modern conjecture. This is just the way Christians are able to practice yoga while remaining Christian. But really Christ-consciousness is just a christian name given to a yogic state. However, at the apex of yogas are documents, an oral transmission lineage and working methods that are far beyond any "tradition" of Western or Eastern, shared by several galaxies. The fruition of these practices is beyond any description of "it is like this or that." But there is a concrete result of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence in the state of the Body of Light. This is something masters have achieved in the past decade. The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ.
In keeping with Wayne's spirit of leaving the dead guys alone, enlightenment is a personal experience of one's environment. It has nothing to do with God. You might want to say silence is God, but a silent God is not the Word. At the highest levels of yoga, God is not only irrelevant, but an impediment. It is a judgment, a limitation, confinement, suffering.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Christ consciousness is a modern translation of the Greek word "Christos" which in turn is a translation of the Hebrew "Messiah". Both terms were in use before the birth of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah), so as an aspect of the human spiritual tradition Christ consciousness pre-dates Christianity. They both mean the same thing which is "one who is annointed".
In Yoga, the equivalent of the term "Christ consciousness" would be "jivan mukti" which means "one who has attained liberation whilst still living". Liberation in this very life (jivan mukti) is of course what the Buddha was teaching, so Christ consciousness (jivan mukti) is really the point of unification between all the great world religions.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Dec 15 2009 06:32:11 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 06:58:46 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ.
p.s. Personally, I find it useful to let go of ideas of superiority and inferiority. Obviously these ideas are based in duality (division) and lead neither to unity (oneness) or to liberation. The Buddha would have been as aware of this as anyone, as his primary focus was not in proving his own superiority over the divine, but in the liberation of all beings.
The God that the Buddha spoke about is very different than the God that Christ spoke about. The God that the Buddha spoke about was an idea in his mind, whereas the God that Christ spoke of was a living reality, beyond all ideas and concepts.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Dec 15 2009 07:26:15 AM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 07:45:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
But it is not a useful tool to take us beyond separation of the witness and the witnessed into oneness (unity). For that, acceptance (expansion of the witness to include all) rather than negation is needed. Beyond oneness (unity) neither the path of negation, nor the path of acceptance (embracing) are needed, and a new dynamic begins to take place.
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'. I do mean totally, absolutely, experientially, extreme, not an idea of extreme.
Yes, beyond unity, there is no path, or need for one, provided it is totally, absolutely, experientially, extremely, really, not-two!
To see this issue about extreme is to see suddenly, rather than gradually.
chinna
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 08:05:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ.
p.s. Personally, I find it useful to let go of ideas of superiority and inferiority. Obviously these ideas are based in duality (division) and lead neither to unity (oneness) or to liberation. The Buddha would have been as aware of this as anyone, as his primary focus was not in proving his own superiority over the divine, but in the liberation of all beings.
The God that the Buddha spoke about is very different than the God that Christ spoke about. The God that the Buddha spoke about was an idea in his mind, whereas the God that Christ spoke of was a living reality, beyond all ideas and concepts.
Christi
All nice opinions, but you can't fit the Buddha's teaching into a theistic model, at least, not using the Buddha's teaching. Hindu yoga and Christianity fit nicely together, per Parahansa Yogananda. God is love and all that. The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about. And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones. I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up. And this chaotic melieu is the door to enlightenment, to giving up views, to letting be and just seeing things for what they are.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 08:41:14 AM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'.
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi |
|
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 08:58:45 AM
|
TI: You will find my book, The Implications of the Soul quite useful I'm sure. It's a free download. I don't even ask for an email address.
I was going through what you are currently going through about two years ago. Ken Wilber calls it the "Subtle Level" -- the level of the soul, or the Divine within. It is a very useful phase for dropping the personal self completely as it weakens the grip of the ego (if you focus on future lives--not past lives). See the book, you'll understand. http://waynewirs.com/impofsoul/ - Free, no personal info collected. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 09:17:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'.
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 09:30:55 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about.
Yes, the Buddha was talking about the God of the vedas, or rather, his idea about the God of the vedas which existed in his mind.
quote:
And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones.
There were many documents written about Jesus and his teachings, a few of which were recorded in the New Testament. That doesn't mean that all we can know about the teachings of Jesus is what is recorded in scriptures. In silence, many things can be known.
quote:
I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up.
One of the amazing things about reality (and it completely blew me away) is that everything fits together, and everything is connected. Personally I find that the closer I come to that which is true, the more the teachings of spiritual teachers make sense and are seen to be pointing towards the same truth. Many fingers, one moon. Ultimately, as Kirtanman pointed out earlier in this thread, foccusing on the finger (or the many fingers), is not going to help us see the moon.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 09:55:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about.
Yes, the Buddha was talking about the God of the vedas, or rather, his idea about the God of the vedas which existed in his mind.
quote:
And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones.
There were many documents written about Jesus and his teachings, a few of which were recorded in the New Testament. That doesn't mean that all we can know about the teachings of Jesus is what is recorded in scriptures. In silence, many things can be known.
quote:
I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up.
One of the amazing things about reality (and it completely blew me away) is that everything fits together, and everything is connected. Personally I find that the closer I come to that which is true, the more the teachings of spiritual teachers make sense and are seen to be pointing towards the same truth. Many fingers, one moon. Ultimately, as Kirtanman pointed out earlier in this thread, foccusing on the finger (or the many fingers), is not going to help us see the moon.
Christi
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 10:17:46 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Liberation isn't liberation from something. That is still a dualistic view. Liberation is beyond all views.
quote:
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Yes, but there is a natural order of progression. If we are using negation as a spiritual tool (and we don't have to of course), then after negation has served its useful life, there has to be affirmation (or negation of separation if we are using double negatives). And only after affirmation has served its useful life do we reach a place where we no longer negate or affirm. So it is about getting things in the right order. Fitting things together in a way that works, rather than a way which doesn't work.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 11:31:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Liberation isn't liberation from something. That is still a dualistic view. Liberation is beyond all views.
quote:
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Yes, but there is a natural order of progression. If we are using negation as a spiritual tool (and we don't have to of course), then after negation has served its useful life, there has to be affirmation (or negation of separation if we are using double negatives). And only after affirmation has served its useful life do we reach a place where we no longer negate or affirm. So it is about getting things in the right order. Fitting things together in a way that works, rather than a way which doesn't work.
Christi
No Christi, It is liberation from circling, chasing mirages, tail chasing. In the sense that illusions don't exist, indeed, you don't throw water on an illusory fire. But you do if you are stupid and believe there is really a fire there. Liberation is beyond all views. This is true. Views are bondage, fire, one's tail. So this is also dualistic, views/no views. This talk about first there has to be negation and then affirmation is nonsense. There's nothing to affirm or negate from the outset. The path of seeking is due to confusion. I am not agreeing with our friend Chinna. Pursuing things to extremes is the Advaita view. I don't buy into any views or pursuing. The real path of no path is no effort, everything is spontaneously self-perfected with no intervention. Simply letting be in the open absence of any reality. And this leads to the perfect position dissolving into the Clear Light, aimlessly, without concern.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Steve
277 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 12:39:14 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
I have been enjoying and learning from your many posts. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Your most recent discussion with Christi regarding the Buddha and the Christ spawns one question. Within your lineage and dzogchen practices does Heart and Love have a place? Could you please clarify, regarding. Thanks much.
Steve  |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 12:58:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Hi Adamant,
I have been enjoying and learning from your many posts. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Your most recent discussion with Christi regarding the Buddha and the Christ spawns one question. Within your lineage and dzogchen practices does Heart and Love have a place? Could you please clarify, regarding. Thanks much.
Steve
Of course, it is the heart of the teaching. What is the essence of love? Unidentifiable, yet present. It is known in one's continuum, in one's heart. This presence is shown through the examples of the crystal ball, mirror and prism. Such is one's own nature, energy and manifestation. One is introduced directly the unidentifiable yet present nature of compassion which resides in the heart chakra. All appearances and possibilities abide nondual in the heart as emptiness, sound and light. All the manifestations of one's body and world radiate from here. This puts the individual in the center of the universe radiating reality as one's perfection of love. The whole cosmos is one's own heart.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 5:27:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi
Dear Christi
Thanks that helps me understand where you are. I am not talking about semantics or an intellectual negation at all. That's only negating 101. I can see that, from there, what I say would seem like an intellectual game. I am talking about inner dynamic reality. Instead of negate, perhaps it is easier for you to hear what I am pointing to if I say 'go beyond'. It is more difficult to imagine semantics with this phrase. But it is not really accurate enough because it can be used with embracing too.
Negating and affirmation are different inner dispositions, movements, different directions of travel, which lead to the same unity/not-two. Either direction, 'inwards' (negating) or 'outwards' (embracing) needs to be followed until we are beyond all beyonds. It is extreme, passing beyond every subtlety. And extreme negating doesn't need to be constantly balanced by embracing.
It is the subtlest feeling rather than semantics I am pointing to.
regards
chinna
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 5:39:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
[
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Adamant
Yes, mind makes meaning, makes all appear interdependent, or otherwise.
It is a key step to realise the relatedness of all, before we go beyond even that.
One/unity still implies further numbers, relationships. Not-two is not a relationship.
'Ego-I is the illusion of relationship' as the late Da once said.
chinna |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 6:02:32 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
No Christi, It is liberation from circling, chasing mirages, tail chasing. In the sense that illusions don't exist, indeed, you don't throw water on an illusory fire. But you do if you are stupid and believe there is really a fire there. Liberation is beyond all views. This is true. Views are bondage, fire, one's tail. So this is also dualistic, views/no views.
I think we are saying the same thing here. The tail chasing, circling, chasing mirages is really just a dream, so what is there in reality to be liberated from? This is what I meant by liberation is not liberation from something, it is simply liberation.
quote:
This talk about first there has to be negation and then affirmation is nonsense. There's nothing to affirm or negate from the outset. The path of seeking is due to confusion.
This discussion about negation and affirmation began between us because you wrote this:
"Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,"
Sounds very much like negation to me.
So if we are using negation as you do (and as I mentioned above not everyone does or needs to) then it becomes relevant as to when it is useful, and when not. Ultimately it may not have relevance, but at the stage where it is being used (and sometimes used heavily) then it is of relevance and it's counterbalance is also of relevance.
Christi |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2009 : 6:17:42 PM
|
Just identify with the natural clarity and vividness of ordinary reality rather than the thoughtstream
This is the bottomline. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Wirs: Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy
Topic Locked
