The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jeff

Recent Profile Visitors

10,897 profile views
  1. Is this some entity that you "called"? Or think you may have helped in creating? Or more like some Spirit at some specific location?
  2. It also can be a lot of fun too... The stuff you find can be so cool. Making even an old man like me smile like a little kid...
  3. I think this is a good approach. But, I think it is important (as I think CT said earlier) to not get attached to your view, otherwise you will never notice if you find something that doesn't really fit your scientific hypothesis. To me, childlike curisiousity is more valuable than trying to prove out something you have read or heard.
  4. My question was not meant as an intellectual thing, just trying to find out if the above was accurate from your view. My experience/knowing is different on points like that.
  5. Thanks. So you completely agree with the above? As an example that... 41. Without the body sense I am perfect, total and complete. 42. You are changeless and permanent.
  6. Are there not many other traditions that would disagree about AV being the true essence of the Upanishads? Or is that now something that is universally agreed?
  7. The OP was only a starting point for a discussion. But also I think many here (like in Steve's example) have also raised a very good point about even what you call "direct knowing" and how even that perception may change. Just because someone has directly experienced something, it does not prove there is not more deeper or refined to "know".
  8. I was really just kidding, as in this case you posted something, rather than deleting and not posting at all. Thank you for sharing this point. I think it is excellent and a very useful point to make. If I may be so bold, it sounds to me like you are saying something different that Roger was above.
  9. Thanks, that does sound like you are saying something exactly like "One without a second (permanently existing)" for Advaita Vedanta.
  10. Then how would you describe that difference that you perceive?
  11. Non-duality is simply a word phrase, it can easily have different meanings to different people as CT has pointed out. Lightless light is also called "clear light" in many traditions. Clear light is a "state" of the One and to me would go perfectly with the concept of "one with no second". But, to me, that is not the same as zero.
  12. Very good point. Another good point about how we all tend to reflect such views on the light of our own experiences. But, if one never examines their views in the light of other views, is there not the danger of never broadening the light of your own experiences? In my own experience, I often find a different perspective/view helpful in my own reflections.
  13. With the above, it seems that is really not the case... Come on... Join the discussion... surely more interesting than another mopai debate or arguement about mods...
  14. Ok, so Brahman is not "One without a second"?
  15. I thought this was very interesting and very well written. It touches on the difference between the two traditions, and ultimately the meaning of the word "emptiness"... The primary difference is in the nature and implications of "non-dual".The puruṣa of Vedanta is "non-dual", however it is an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that Advaita is a substantial and reductive non-duality.Whereas one's nature in Dzogchen is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's nature in Dzogchen is insubstantial and a non-reductive non-duality.An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized. In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.