Jeff

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    4,044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Jeff

  • Rank
    Focused on the moment

Recent Profile Visitors

11,458 profile views
  1. Wow. Not the response I would have guessed.
  2. It is the definition of Atman. Here you go... I am of the nature of consciousness. I am made of consciousness and bliss. I am nondual, pure in form, absolute knowledge, absolute love. I am changeless, devoid of desire or anger, I am detached. I am One Essence, unlimitedness, utter consciousness. I am boundless Bliss, existence and transcendent Bliss. I am the Atman, that revels in itself. I am the Sacchidananda that is eternal, enlightened and pure. — Tejobindu Upanishad, 3.1-3.12 (Abridged)
  3. How is enduring and indestructible different then permanent? And how is ultimate different than without a second?
  4. Excellent point... as the mind is very tricky and tends to find what it looks for...
  5. I didn't say it was... Also, I am sure that an experienced Hindu practitioner would say the same about their perceived essential nature...
  6. Ok... How about perceived essential nature of experienced practitioners... Anyway forget it... Enjoy the day.
  7. On this point I would have to disagree with you. View very much effects the experience of dedicated practitioners.
  8. Are we? Depends on the definition of “conscious”. He goes on to say... "The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."
  9. Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shaivism) responds.... "True, but even though it shines there, it has not truly become a conscious apprehension. Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."
  10. Yes, Emptiness “includes” both nirvana (universal subject) and samsara (dualistic). Or you could also say that the natural state has both pure and impure vision, as it is “beyond” the mind.
  11. If the mind is simply at rest, then how do you know it is not simply torpor? Non-dual is vibrant, pristine and clear... Also, in my view, both pure and impure vision are part of the natural state.
  12. Interesting... 51. BUT WHEN HE IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN ONE PLACE THAT IS THEN GENERATED AND WITHDRAWN (BY HIM AT WILL) , HIS STATE BECOMES THAT OF THE (UNIVERSAL) SUBJECT. THUS HE BECOMES THE LORD OF THE WHEEL. If one is the universal subject and firmly established in that place, I see how you are now "One, with no second", but then how can one also be empty?
  13. Not sure what you are trying to say here? That the "presence that knows the quiet mind" is the "natural state"?
  14. That too many mistake the natural state for a momentarily quiet mind.
  15. I think there is much confusion about what resting in presence/space really is or means. I think this an issue for both eastern and western students, but also across traditions.