forestofclarity

Done.

Timeless awareness.

I'm not really an energy type but I do feel certain centers tend to activate based on simple finger mudras.

Welcome!

Welcome

Welcome!

You need the oral explanation in my mind.

Well, it is not anything goes. The Middle Way is tricky. There are the four dharma seals, for example. Depends on what interpretation one is taking. Arguably, the closest would be Advaita as opposed to Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita schools. Swami S has one of the better presentations/arguments here by approaching Buddhism more or less on its terms:

Welcome!

There is no inherent Buddhism-- no abiding, permanent, unchanging teaching. IMO, stirling, doc, and Keith are all expressing the dharma in particular ways, from different traditions learned from living masters, but it isn't really three different dharmas. There's a certain family resemblance. All exists’: this is one extreme.‘ Sabbamatthī’ti kho, kaccāna, ayameko anto. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. ‘Sabbaṁ natthī’ti ayaṁ dutiyo anto. Avoiding these two extremes, Ete te, kaccāna, ubho ante anupagamma the Realized One teaches by the middle way: majjhena tathāgato dhammaṁ deseti You can see here the Buddha is using atthi (the same as in the Nibbana quote) and natthi (nonexistence) is an explicit way.

So you didn't bother to read any of the Buddhist's posts in this thread? And your revolutionary (non-Buddhist) reinterpretation of Buddhism comes down to "there is"?

Not really. Ajatam, abhutam, akatam, asankhatam. It does not say "asunnatam."

Emptiness is a subtle topic that can take a long time working with a teacher and one's own practice to understand and then hopefully experience. It also has different meanings depending on which tradition and which level you are dealing with. In the Tibetan world, for instance, Madhyamaka, Tantra, and Dzogchen all have different meanings to terms. Ultimately, the traditions tend to come together, but they often have different starting points depending on what you are dealing with. Often it starts intellectually, wth an inference, but with the right guidance it should eventually become experiential. The "sutra" definition generally means that nothing (meaning neither the self nor phenomenon) has a permanent, independent nature (sometimes called true existence or inherent existence, svabhava). Everything has parts, and these parts are dependently originated. For instance, a tree is not self produced, it comes about due to a number of causes and conditions like the sun, soil, waters, etc. When these causes and conditions cease, the tree ceases. In addition, there is nothing "substantial" to the tree--- there is no single, indivisible entity you can point at an label "tree."

Welcome!

Splitting this off from the BES thread. Krishnamenon (and others) take this position, but this is also often rejected in Advaita circles, explicitly so in the Vedantasara for example. There is an interesting split in opinion on this if people want to have a discussion.