SiliconValley

My eyes have been tearing up a lot lately and leaving salt around my eyelids as they evaporate off. And also forming lots of mucous. I wonder if my eyes are detoxing...or is this just allergies?

After an intense practice of Chilel Qigong for about 5 months, I had similar symptoms along with fading vision. An energetic evaluation done by my chi kung teacher did not show any imbalance. He suggested it could be a passing thing but it persisted for more than 2 months. Then I ran into Jeannie Garner, one of the original Kundalini Reiki teachers and lo! what an amazing lady. She fixed it in a whiff - heaven knows what she did...eyes felt normal overnight. She even teaches for free and purely for the love of it.

My cousin who studies with Santiago ran into similar issues last month and Santiago was able to diagonize his issue through an email! He saw a protein deficiency and taking more proteins fixed it. Michael Winn writes many places about eyes being primary areas affected in case of an energetic imbalance, or as you said, they are just allergies ...

Not sure if Yoda is reading it, but here is what Master Choa Kok Sui recommended to a couple with a young daughter who had similar issue in one of the early classes I was privileged to take with him. He told them do the energetic practice, open the heart to the best possible extent and give a bear hug to the child. They came back to report a great improvement overnight.

claims that "Buddhist" Non-duality is superior to "Hindu Advaita" is a bunch of baloney by overzealous upstarts.

I think with practice comes maturity and they will eventually get over the urge to impose the superiority of their view over the other's, to dwell on an overall integration rather than differentiation. But assuming there is enough practice along any of the chosen paths

While on a trip to one of the middle eastern countries, I was a forced witness to an exorcism performed by Sufi Priest on a 7-year old. She spoke several tongues - it all seemed same to me though. But the ones there which included a visiting French linguist, all visibly shaken, stated that she was speaking several ancient dialects of Persian, and Hebrew and something else. It was fascinating to watch the whole ritual and equally frightening. In this case, explaining is easy as all this was attributed to an entity within the child.

SiliconValley, Ok some young Buddhist upstarts had the temerity to over zealously but sincerely apply Buddhist concepts to refute a claim that two traditions were the same. It was hardly unsolicited and alot of referenced information was offered to support their case. Can you offer any referenced sources to counter their refutation that doesn't descend into subtle sniping and ridicule?

You need to probably read through the past few pages and catch up

The issue I am talking about is not about the discussion whether the two "are" same. I stated repeatedly that I don't subscribe to that belief that they are same. What I contested was the passing off of Buddhist Enlightenment as the "superior" one based solely on Buddhist concepts, definitions and analysis of partisan Buddhists which do not serve any useful purpose in establishing a concept such as of superiority.

About the controversy over the Sanskrit word ati:

 

I believe the word mikaelz was thinking of is adi, which is Sanskrit for original or primordial.

 

He was close, so give him a break .

I was about to wait, probably for Xabir to point that out. Thank you! I am not trying to be an ass but just trying to illustrate the "view" of karma - what you sow so you reap. Those who disagree with others based on reason and some level of courtesy, can expect the same back. I was typing up the historical origin of Ati Yoga as he put it, how it was influenced by extremist teachings of some sects and all that, but I will save that for later. Vajrayana is something I have studied seriously for seven years and still continue to. So attacking Buddhism is certainly not the intention here. Namaste

generally it seems that people who want all religions to be the same, haven't fully studied all religions, especially Buddhism. This is a big New Age habit, as people tend to sleep better at night knowing that 'it's all the same'.

 

This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga.

 

Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit?

 

This isn't directed towards Advaita, but just in general to all practitioners:

 

Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

Mikaelz is 100% sure Dalai Lama is. May be he is! The three times I have seen him, he seemed like a nice person and great guy to talk to, with great interest towards Tantra and its branching into Buddist/Hindu branches. Certainly seemed to have a very open mind to listen, ask questions and express his views. And meeting him as representatives of a well-established Hindu organization certainly helped.

I would not know how to recognize an enlightened guy for sure, but, as Trunk said, I see a very strong possibility that Mark Griffin is Enlightened. He seems to translate a lot of what Advaita/Kashmiri Shaivism teaches into an actual experience and help others embrace it.

Buddhist view is a view without concepts, a method to disentangle one from limiting beliefs. if an Advaitan cannot question his beliefs then he isn't a true seeker of truth.

That you stick to the "concept" of "no concept" is funny and that is one of the beliefs you assume and use as the sole reason to criticize other paths. Funny What are these "views" and how are these "views" not concepts really? But don't Buddhists believe in a lot of things because a sutta that they think came from Buddha said so? Please note that every one believes something because they think it is the right thing to do. Leave it to an individual to decide and stop screaming from rooftops that you are "different" and "better".

Actually, very less of what I have said can be translated as "belief". So the part of inquiry and questioning needs to be directed inwards by those who stick to "I feel", "I think" and the concept of "No concept".

every Tibetan source translates it as this in this context. and the Tibetans were pretty meticulous at translating Sanskrit into tibetan, i don't really care, you're just arguing for the sake of argument

Another "belief" which is not entirely true, at least not in the relevant case. As for the futility of this argument and the childishness of "MY daddy is bigger and better" because "he says so" and "it makes sense to me" - I agree 100% with you, as I have repeatedly stated before.

everything that 'we' have said has been carefully explained to avoid confusion, if you care to prove a point its your job then to explain it clearly.

Ok, I get it. Creative exhaustion... We can wait for Xabir It is actually a real pleasure talking to him.

yeah.. i'm still pretty ticked they decided to close that down! but there are some existing threads still from the p

"This pansentient totality is the great continuum, the "great perfection" or "total completion" (Tibetan: rdzog pa chen po) of Dzogchen and Ati Yoga (Tibetan: shin tu rnal 'byor where "shin tu" holds the semantic field "total", "complete", "absolute" and "rnal 'byor" holds the semantic field of "yoga"; Sanskrit: "Ati" holds the semantic field "primordial", "original", "first"; "yoga" holds the semantic field "communion", "union")."

Bliss is a side-effect, not the goal, and not the means to test. Being happy certainly doesn't make him enlightened. rather it is realization of emptiness and I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama has this realization since he is a Dzogchen master and is qualified to give transmission, introduction to the true nature of mind. Only one who has realization of emptiness can do this.

The Buddhists have never been good at Sanskrit have they?

Ati, to the best convenience of your definition can be exceeding or excess or extreme, and that can be translated as Transcending. First, original - well please check the root of the word ati and not wikipedia

And a lot of us have similar beliefs, like Buddha sat under a tree for shade and that Pope represents the God as he is the chosen one to do many things. As I said, beliefs are their own and I don't contest them. But self-contradiction and the circularity of your arguments are something you would need to deal with yourself

you quoted a bunch of Sanskrit terms, a language i'm unfamiliar with. can you talk about these specific instances and concepts in your own words to describe them?

Hey you guys threw pages of terms - most of which are English but really meaning nothing outside the Buddhist framework. I am following the lead here. You seem to google well, and these can be easily googled as well

Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it..

Shaktipat's goal, unlike the guy quoted from E-Sangha mentioned, is not simply to awaken Kundalini but rather to dissolve malas or impurities that cause the apparent illusion of duality. At a lower energetic level, its initial stages can be simply awakening Kundalini thus initiating the journey. Kundalini is described as aham-svarupini or of the form of I-AM. The peak of Kundalini phenomenon is really the experience of Brahman, and other goals of her awakening have been called Kshudra or petty by the Yogins like Abhinavagupta. There are examples.

Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati had a full state of Advatic experience and realization through one shaktipat from his master. He was the high priests of one of the four chief monastic institutions of Shankara and revered widely as an enlightened soul like Sri Ramana. My family learnt under him and witnessed how, to the qualified ones, this "grace" was bestowed upon unconditionally by the Master, propelling them deep into complete absorption and state of Aham. But he did advice practice for most, and that issue forms a separate post for the thread on neo-advaita vs traditional advaita.

No. because as profound as Kashmir Shivaism is, it's still based on a wrong view, eternalist emanationism. I have already stated many times why View is so important to Buddhists. it has nothing to do with tainted glass. View determines realization. This is just the way it is for Buddhists, not out of faith, but because it makes sense. if you disagree then you know what you need to argue against.

View....that is exactly what I am saying...what you repeatedly quote without a pause is Buddhist view. Does not make sense for an Advaitin and that does not mean others are treading the path on non-sense? Get it?

yes, it is lacking in fantasy. anyone who thinks Buddhist enlightenment is dry and lacking in bliss has not met many Buddhist masters. The Dalai Lama for example is always bouncing around, smiling, laughing, and having a great old time.

So you assume he is Enlightened? Reason for that? Bliss is not smiling, laughing or having a great time right? A street trash guy I see on the way to work every day does that...of course, it is good to be happy...better to be enlightened.

Of course nobody in India outside of Tibetan Buddhism would know Dzogchen since it is a tibetan term. the Sanskrit is Ati Yoga, Ati meaning primordial or original (i think).

Homework brother! That will reduce a lot of "I thinks", "I feels" "Dunno why but just makes sense". Ati means 'extreme'.

ou keep saying that Buddha was influenced by this teacher and that, saying Samkhya especially, when that school was explicitly dualistic and has nothing in common with what Buddha taught. just because Buddha learned breath control does not mean he borrowed ideas from his teachers.

People who want to see a mole will find one, no matter where

Please go back and read what I wrote. I even listed some of the many specific instances of what concepts he picked from where. If Buddha were such a moron that he just did a copy+paste, I would not spend time discussing him here. Let's give him some credit

 

if you really want to try that out it might be better to go and debate on E-Sangha, since there are much more knowledgeable people there.

The Advaita list is still open to discussion and the best of East and West in advaita in the current day are on that forum. Those interested in discussing the "superiority" of Buddhism - I am just using this side as the example as this claim appeared on this thread before a counter-claim from the opposite side - could move the discussion there. There are many practicing Buddhists visiting that forum, unlike the representation of Advaita in E-Sangha where I posted frequently till about a year ago.

Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman.

 

Yes i'm like a child, good argument.

You like to quote stories, and you agree you're a child! There rests my case.

How about letting go of an idea that Buddha was the only correct one? At least till you experience if what he said was true beyond the books? I hate to actually get down to this oft repeated statement, but in the absence of other valid counter-arguments, this is all I can think of!

By the way, there has been a significant softening of your stand and less contempt towards Hinduism or Advaita from the scream in the original post. Arguments, at the end of the day, may do nothing else, but at least mellow both sides and bring in some civility. Good to know ...

you're going against your tradition here! I thought he was an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna or something

Does it matter what the "belief" is? Belief or unsubstantiated "I feels" have not been my way of argument

I now think Buddha was probably trying to find some shade on a hot day and sat under a tree

The Buddha and his followers certainly claimed to reject all older traditions and orthodoxies, whether they really did so or not. I myself don't see any connection between Buddhism and the Vedas. From what I can see, even the connection between Upanishadic philosophy and the Vedic hymns is tenuous at best.

There is not much to respond to this ...is there? I have listed some specific details but cannot really take exception to what "you think" or what "you see". Peace and Blessings ...

I have a strong feeling you have read the shoddy translation of Max Mueller or someone of the Veda. If at all one could understand Veda with such ease, there would be no commentaries required. You may want to take a look at Yaska's nirukta and Sayana's commentary to understand what the hyms mean. To understand every hymn, one would need to understand the shat angas - or the six limbs of Veda and this is where a competent commentary steps in to rescue the uninitiated.

maybe Buddha was influenced by Upanishads, and used different teachings, language, and method to get to the same goal, but I think that if Buddha read the Upanishads, achieved moksha, and thought that these methods and philosophies were ok.. he would not have started a new religion.

Okay, this is like a child, who after being refused by parents, complains of a monster

Ok, but what if Buddha read upanishads, did not understand them and was more interested in opposing the then Brahminical hierarchy than anything else and with that goal created a branch off from various paths? We don't know for sure if at all Buddha, through his new path attained moksha! If one goes arguing on said lines, we could go on till the limit of one's imagination.

The Vedas are not the same as Vedanta.

That seems to be a personal opinion. This is not the opinion of either the traditional Advaitins who hold vedanta as the third and the final part of the Veda or of their critics - jaina, buddhist and other schools - who accept Upanishads verily as the vedic teaching. The difference in the content of veda (by which you probably mean brahmana and aranyaka) is intentional due to the three part division.

No, I was referring to Buddha being influenced by Vedas, since some of the Upanishads were around during the same time (the early ones), and some came after Buddha. but that doesn't mean they directly influenced him.

 

As for Samkhya, it is a dualistic philosophy of emanationism, not similar to emptiness. it is more akin to Taoism.

You miss my point! I never said Buddha picked one system and kept its concepts. What the scholars I quoted are trying to say is that he picked a lot of different points from other systems and built a base for his own theory. Of course, he did have his individual thought like anatta and stuff. This seems to be reasonable to accept unless one believed Buddha to be a super human or something.

Mundaka, Brihadaranyaka and Taittiriya have been established by several scholars as spheres of influence that existed before Buddha (assuming a historical personality by that name and his accepted period). I can list the references here if that helps.

I think its very dangerous to jump to conclusions and assume that since two systems have similiar ideas than one borrowed it from another, even if these system derived from the same region.

 

Exactly what I was trying to say! I wrote a couple things to point out that if you think Advaita Vedanta was "derived" from x or y Buddhist's teachings, the other way is a possibility as well, considering the diversity and antiquity of Hinduism. And I assumed such conclusions were the norm here as such a lot posted on this thread is exactly reflective of such conclusions.

Unless of course, scholars work on the a priori assumption that things such as karma and rebirth are in fact false, and not independently verifiable. But such an assumption would simply be another methodological error.

While I would not state that Buddhism was a "derivative" of Hinduism or Vedanta - like Shankara or Advaita was accused here as a "derivative" of Buddhism - I have listed some clear influences on Buddhism here. They are not coincidences and are not restricted to rebirth or karma, which of course are some original Vedic concepts. An entire book on Upanishadic and Vedic analogies and concepts that are used viz-a-viz in the Pali Nikayas is available for study. And importantly, most of the authors I have quoted here are specifically third-party Westerners who have no affiliation either to Hinduism or Buddhism, unlike Buddhist bhikkus quoted by other friends here And what really is "borrowing" or "deriving"? Does saying getting inspired sound better?

You are challenging anyone how? you didn't respond to anything Xabir said.

It really doesn't matter. this sort of historical argument is useless.

 

here are some facts:

there is no thing close to dependent origination or emptiness, sunyata, or the 2 truths teaching in the Upanishads or any of the Vedas in fact.

 

If these elements are in Vedanta then there is obviously Buddhist influence.. Buddha was not a Hindu, he completely rejected the Vedas and discarded any notion of a permanent essence-like Brahman. but his line of thinking was Indian, and having rejected the Vedas he was still influenced by them too: such as the notion of liberation.

 

these are all facts, anything else is theory.

You seem to consider what you like as fact and other stuff as theory - after 3 pages full of just theory. Other than just quoting some person and stating what you think of, there is really no analysis here, and hence nothing to respond to. What you state is thus your belief and you're entitled to it.

In course of debate, Adi Shankaracharya had to understand what the other is saying (ie Buddhist POV). It is known as Purva Paksha.

The same reasoning behind the use of Buddhist terminology in Gaudapadakarika - that leads to the notion of "advaita derived from madhyamaka". For example, Kumarila Bhatta, who is credited with the complete disappearence of Buddhism from India today (along with Shankara), was an adherent of purva mimamsa school and he studied Buddhism under Dharmakirti (who first incorporated concepts from the Nyaya school into Buddhism through pramana nishchaya) to sufficiently understand and refute Sautrantika and other Buddhist schools.

This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example).

Not true. The ancient saying - ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti - has been frequently translated as all paths lead to one and stuff. It really means that the "wise" ones refer to the "sat" or "the absolute truth" through various terminologies. The variousness here is only indicative of the impossibleness of describing the "truth" through words. Veda neither states everything as leading to one goal, nor tries to describe itself as different and the only way. In fact, it recognizes that the "top of the mountain" is really not the same for everyone and deals with individual aspirations on a case by case basis.

those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga.

I don't know why you developed hatred towards Hinduism - probably a bad shaktipat? - but this generalization is largely incorrect. Buddha being one of the ten incarnations is a long held belief and how do you contest that? And there is no harm discarding that as that belief has had no bearing on Advaita Vedanta or the devoted practice of a Hindu. And the part about Jesus going to India was floated by Westerners and not Hindus per say. The last I heard, it was to Tibet to learn Buddhism and not Yoga

Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit?

If a religion - or I would prefer to say spiritual system - could cater to one goal or class alone and different such religions were needed to cater to each group, we would be in a greater mess. Not that we are not already in one. This is exactly what the Vedic system does not do. It recognizes different goals, aspirations and qualifications and its varied teaching is easily evident through the many derived schools of Hindu philosophy we see today. And that there is the highest summit itself is an erroneous thing and there is no logical relevance to such a concept in the approach you speak of. That Buddhism goes beyond the witness of sakshi is a merit only from the Buddhist angle and not from the angle of Vedanta. So, this model where you judge one summit as superior to another is hardly acceptable outside the framework within which you hypothesize.

Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

Again, you speak based on what you "think" and not on what you have "experienced". You said each individual is different and so is his experience. It is quite possible that the element of grace does do something for someone and surrender in path of Bhakti has been put to some good use towards realization. It is good to stick to your school but wiser to not talk about something based on premature conclusions. Yes, that is what you think, but there is a really big possibility that it is completely untrue and it is you who are fantasizing through overt logic? I am not saying it IS, but consider the possibility. Till both of us can experience brahman/emptiness, we should avoid such baseless conclusions - as you pointed out earlier and avoid unneeded hypothesis. You were on the shaktipat bandwagon, now got on to Buddhism and may be you will hop onto various others before you reach your goal and your descriptions will keep changing meanwhile. So, let's reserve judgments and criticism of other paths till we get somewhere. Or till you can prove that the realization of a Sufi dervish intoxicated with the divine or of a vaishnava who cannot bear a minute of separation from his beloved is lower or inferior when pitted against the serenity of a Buddhist monk. Different expressions of realization or terminologies which matter not outside specific frameworks are no definitive tools for such comparison.

unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it

Ho, ho .. slow down brother I can rephrase what you said and say"unfortunately most Buddhists never fully digest Advaita Vedanta because they look at it through a Buddhist view. Those that do digest Advaita Vedanta tend to stick to it.

Now to something not childish, what are the examples of those who "digested" Buddhism and stuck to it, having realized the drawbacks of Advaita? There are, on the contrary, famous names including Kumarila Bhatta (who I wrote about in an earlier post) who did not. Many Advaitins studied Buddhism under the best of Buddhist scholars to understand the subtleties before writing Advaitic works that refute those schools. And observing the way they give credit to what they see good in the Buddhist school, they can hardly be declared as Blinded by "Hinduism".

My guess is that it's just different packaging.. The ones I've seen say 10 drops 3 times daily, from each bottle, or the full daily dose put into a water bottle to drink throughout the day. I think the website that says 10 drops total per day just got it wrong. In any case, the contents are the same, so it doesn't really matter.

 

It's kind of hard to generalize about what a "healthy person" would need on a regular basis, because we're all exposed to external and internal toxins, and experience emotional stresses at various times in unpredictable patterns.. So the most general rule of thumb is to do detox in spring and/or fall, and also at other times when needed. It's not always necessary to do the full protocol.

 

-Karen

Thanks Karen! So 30 drops seems to be the mandate. I checked the weights from both sources and both seem same. Both also speak of the kit as a 30-day detox kit. So, they probably got it wrong and added up 10 drops of each bottle to get to 30.