Dangers of Meditation

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The problem is with definitions. What do you mean by Consciousness? Can we try and define it? It's structure? It's mechanics? Depending on how one sees it, That Primordial Wisdom IS Consciousness. There are problems of semantics when Sanskrit is translated into other languages...where Atman is translated as Soul instead of One's True Self, implying Pure Objectless Consciousness. Manas is translated as Consciousness, where it should really be "Mind", which is a field of thoughts (objects) in Consciousness.

 

Consciousness in Buddhism is the individual potential for awareness and arises over and over again for a Samsarin from ignorance. The cosmos does not arise out of wisdom with all it's suffering. The cycling happens out of ignorance, including the arising of an individual consciousness. Ignorance is the cause. When wisdom of the nature of the cycle being empty of inherent existence arises, one becomes a Buddha and one can manifest a pure realm that has the cause of wisdom in relation to there being ignorance. Hinduism says that the cosmos arises from God's bliss. Buddha does not agree. Bliss in Buddhism arises from wisdom.

 

According to Buddhism, primordial wisdom is not consciousness, but arises as a result of the conscious awareness of all things having and always being empty of inherent existence and constant awareness of this arises wisdom of the primordial nature of all things. Consciousness is not considered the primordial nature of all things.

 

 

 

 

DO is a perfect explanation in a Dualistic model, where Subject and Object interact. What happens when Objects don't exist anymore?

 

Actually yes in explanation, like anything, but the experience of DO is deeply intuitive and the non-substantial non-conceptual, non-dual, so called "one taste" arises in a beings awareness through the intuitive comprehension of DO.

 

 

Here... for further reading and clarification... Pratityasamutpada on Wiki

 

Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada

 

See also: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

 

Though the formulations above appear might seem to imply that pratityasamutpada is a straightforward causal model, in the hands of the Madhyamaka school, pratityasamutpada is used to demonstrate the very lack of inherent causality, in a manner that appears somewhat similar to the ideas of David Hume. Many scholars have agreed that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is one of the earliest interpretations of Buddha's teaching on paramartha originated from Pratītyasamutpāda.

 

The conclusion of the Madhyamikas is that causation, like being, must be regarded as a merely conventional truth (saṃvṛti), and that to take it as really (or essentially) existing would be both a logical error and a perceptual one, arising from ignorance and a lack of spiritual insight.

 

According to the analysis of Nāgārjuna, the most prominent Madhyamika, true causality depends upon the intrinsic existence of the elements of the causal process (causes and effects), which would violate the principle of anatman, but pratītyasamutpāda does not imply that the apparent participants in arising are essentially real.

 

Because of the interdependence of causes and effects (because a cause depends on its effect to be a cause, as effect depends on cause to be an effect), it is quite meaningless to talk about them as existing separately. However, the strict identity of cause and effect is also refuted, since if the effect were the cause, the process of origination could not have occurred. Thus both monistic and dualistic accounts of causation are rejected.

 

Therefore Nāgārjuna explains that the śūnyatā (or emptiness) of causality is demonstrated by the interdependence of cause and effect, and likewise that the interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) of causality itself is demonstrated by its anatta.

In his Entry to the middle way, Candrakirti asserts, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that very account, it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence of that, the cause does not exist."

 

Pratityasamutpada in Dzogchen

 

In Dzogchen tradition the interdependent origination (of suffering) is considered illusory:

 

[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice.

"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [sems, citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition."

 

 

Dependent arising of enlightenment

 

Pratityasamutpada is most commonly used to explain how suffering arises depending on certain conditions, the implication being that if one or more of the conditions are removed (if the "chain" is broken), suffering will cease. There is also a text, the Upanisa Sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya, in which a discussion of the conditions not for suffering but for enlightenment are given. This application of the principle of dependent arising is referred to in Theravada exegetical literature as "transcendental dependent arising". The chain in this case is:

 

suffering (dukkha)

faith (saddhā)

joy (pāmojja, pāmujja)

rapture (pīti)

tranquillity (passaddhi)

happiness (sukha)

concentration (samādhi)

knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathābhūta-ñāna-dassana)

disenchantment with worldly life (nibbidā)

dispassion (virāga)

freedom, release, emancipation (vimutti, a synonym for nibbana)

knowledge of destruction of the cankers (āsava-khaye-ñāna)

Edited June 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

And my apologies for butting in here...

 

The problem is with definitions. What do you mean by Consciousness? Can we try and define it? It's structure? It's mechanics?

No need to apologise Dwai - i always enjoy reading your views, even though there may be some minor points i have yet to find agreement with.

 

For me, consciousness simply means the Thinking principle. In a sort of linear fashion, we could say that 'I' is brought forth when perceptions arise, followed by sensations, then mental activity, and this whole sequential activity sums up 'consciousness'. In some ways, those who want to dissolve the phantom 'I' can do so, through insight meditation, by working on this sequence backwards, that is, recognise consciousness from seeing the mental activities of the mind arising due to gross and subtle sensual grasping, which is a direct result of perceiving things not for what they really are, but how we want them to be (or not to be) due to past conditionings. Hence when, through meditative effort and insight, the activities of the mind begins to, metaphorically speaking, slow down and sink to the bottom, then consciousness becomes refined, leading to a stage where it can then be transcended, at which point, what remains is illuminated, primordial awareness. This is not to absurdly say that thinking stops. I think what happens then is that one can choose when to engage the mind, and when to rest in the soothing waters of pervasive awareness.

 

Somehow i sense there is a better way to express this, but at this point, i am incapable of structuring my thoughts coherently, so i ask for pardon. Maybe if it makes a bit of sense to someone out there, please feel free to add some meaning into this.

 

thanks!

 

..........

This condensed clip (about 10mins) on 'Consciousness' by Peter Russell is very clear: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-368504083878779133#

 

For those who have the time (1 hr 10 mins), this is the longer version: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-368504083878779133#docid=7799171063626430789

[dwai]

No need to apologise Dwai - i always enjoy reading your views, even though there may be some minor points i have yet to find agreement with.

 

For me, consciousness simply means the Thinking principle. In a sort of linear fashion, we could say that 'I' is brought forth when perceptions arise, followed by sensations, then mental activity, and this whole sequential activity sums up 'consciousness'. In some ways, those who want to dissolve the phantom 'I' can do so, through insight meditation, by working on this sequence backwards, that is, recognise consciousness from seeing the mental activities of the mind arising due to gross and subtle sensual grasping, which is a direct result of perceiving things not for what they really are, but how we want them to be (or not to be) due to past conditionings. Hence when, through meditative effort and insight, the activities of the mind begins to, metaphorically speaking, slow down and sink to the bottom, then consciousness becomes refined, leading to a stage where it can then be transcended, at which point, what remains is illuminated, primordial awareness. This is not to absurdly say that thinking stops. I think what happens then is that one can choose when to engage the mind, and when to rest in the soothing waters of pervasive awareness.

 

Somehow i sense there is a better way to express this, but at this point, i am incapable of structuring my thoughts coherently, so i ask for pardon. Maybe if it makes a bit of sense to someone out there, please feel free to add some meaning into this.

 

The reason you cannot structure your thoughts about Consciousness is because it cannot be captured in words or defined via structures. It is not your limitation, it is simply how Consciousness is. All philosophy (at least all pragmatic philosophy) have their roots in phenomenology (even those that claim to not be that way)...because to study life and it's meaning is to study phenomena, since everything we encounter in our mundane life are phenomena -- meaning they can be expressed in names and forms (concepts and percepts). Some have both names and forms, some only names and others only forms. Consciousness is beyond names and forms...that is why anyone has a tough time describing/defining it. One can be Conscious, but cannot use rational faculties to express consciousness or it's workings. All efforts to do so lead to contradictions and absurdity.

 

thanks!

 

..........

This condensed clip (about 10mins) on 'Consciousness' by Peter Russell is very clear: http://video.google....04083878779133#

 

For those who have the time (1 hr 10 mins), this is the longer version: http://video.google....171063626430789

 

I will check it out...thanks

[Seth Ananda]

Thank you Vajra I feel like you actually read my posts properly this time and are trying to engage rather than just speel of some dogma.

Please note also, as you continue to make reference to my Hindu beliefs which I do not have... I do not consider my self a Kashmir Shavite any more but still hold a fondness for aspects of that tradition. All I am interested in is Truth and finding what I can be Certain about if anything... without be[lie]f. So here goes...

 

 

"Yes, you can. Awareness is not a thing in the sense of elements, but it does arise due to a configuration of elements, it's very deep and complex how a human gives rise to consciousness, then has awareness to one degree or another."

 

 

I am afraid I cant agree with you. awareness can not have degrees. In your or my experience awareness is always doing what it does... being aware. Wether it is aware of the experience of being in a drunken stupor or of a universally expanded sense of self, or an intuition of emptiness, awareness is doing one thing and one thing only, and that is experiencing. It is not bigger or smaller, and it can not be focused on or surrendered too, as you have sujested I believe or practice in past threads - As it is the part that experiences, it can not become an experience itself.

From what I can tell so far, all we can do is Let our selves be clear about our relationship to it. Lets just really enter the Experience and In that way we are being what we are, rather than Identifying our self with an element of experience, like our mind or body.

 

I think we maybe have a diferent understanding for the word awareness.

You and many traditions think of awareness as something that Is expanded when in mystical states, or diminished when in mundane states but I believe this is just a value judgement on elements of our experience. If one looks closely and carefully without what the textbooks have told us, one can see that yes, Awareness is just an experiencer... No matter what the state.

 

 

 

"While on the other hand animals, bugs... etc. They all have consciousness but not awareness to the degree that a human being does. Rocks, don't have consciousness at all, but are still made of sound and are arisings of collections of thought co-ordinating the basic elements into coagulation as a rock over and over again through endless time and evolution."

 

 

 

Sorry Be[lie]f's beliefs beliefs and assumptions. This is just you following your dogma and speeling some belief. All you know, and I mean Really 'Know', is what is happening within your awareness in any given moment.

 

I guess you are not happy with the ordinary elements of your experience, so feel you must play with your internals to change the 'scope' of what you experience, such as contemplating emptiness to get that -Deeper clearer Bliss- that you mentioned, but if your consciousness were truly open you would not need to do that, for right here would be just fine...

 

"It's so deep and complex to have a direct experience of what dependent origination means, but it can all be understood in a single moment beyond concrete thought."

 

 

Yep, an experience within Awareness...

 

 

"According to Hinduism, a rock is made of consciousness in a dense form. But, Buddhism does not see this way. Hinduism takes the expansive consciousness that happens in meditative states where the individuals awareness permeates space through the fact of emptiness as a ground of all being. Buddha called this a mis-interpretation of the experience."

 

 

Not sticking up for Hinduism here but, The rock does Take place within awareness. No awareness no rock. and when I experience a rock can I really say it is separate from my awareness? where does awareness end and where does the rock begin?

 

 

 

"No, you don't have to believe, but you have to transcend your current interpretation of your experiences in spiritual pursuit thus far in order to understand what the Buddha was getting at and why he said the Vedas are not authoritative. Also why he said that interpreting a cosmic Self into the cycling of the cosmos is just a high level delusion. He did say these things and there is a reason why. In Buddhism, awareness is indeed a phenomena, but it is the phenomena that makes Buddhahood possible."

 

 

Not Interested in Interpreting, Nor in solely experiencing some divine state, though they are nice, but temporary experiences (for me, at least at the moment...) and am comfortable with the possibility that Awareness is forever Unknowable or a mystery.

 

 

 

 

"Yes it is. In unconscious states of sleep, I am not aware. Of course if I were enlightened these unconscious states of sleep would be filled with awareness as my dense karmas would have been wiped away through the practice of awareness. Also, in the state of infinite nothingness, I am not aware. It's only afterwards that I say... "Oh, there was nothing and no one aware", only in contrast to when I become aware.

Are you always aware of the experience you are living? How about that mosquito that bite's you on the back of the leg while you are sleeping. Are you only aware of that when you wake up?"

 

 

You are never not aware. In your awareness you go to sleep, you may change while dreaming and then you wake up. All this change but no lack of awareness. where in your experience do you not experience? In Deep sleep do you have an 'actual' experience of not existing... Do you ever truly cease to experience.

 

I know from a physicalist perspective the world 'seems' to go on while your awareness comes and goes within it, but from Awareness's perspective, (Which I say is the only true authority, as it is the only way we can have an experience of 'Knowing') It is the world that comes and goes within Awareness.

 

 

 

"Your belief system allows for many assumptions that do not make sense upon deeper investigation. Because you have consciousness, does not mean you are aware. Through the practice you do develop more awareness. It is a phenomena that arises dependent upon practice."

 

 

Wrong. I do not engage In be[lie]f systems. All I am Interested is is what I can see without beliefs being necessary. please read back to my description of awareness so we are both on the same page about what we each mean when we use the word Awareness.

 

 

 

"Buddhadharma is a paradigm shift from the philosophy you think explains everything so well."

 

 

Be[lie]f's.

 

 

 

"You think these are beliefs, but Buddhism is a deeply intuitive process of methods for the sake of unraveling ones true potential and the philosophy that expresses the findings."

 

 

All the unraveling happens within awareness or none of it would happen. Its all a temporary experience within awareness...

 

 

 

"In certain states of sleep we are not aware of the world and in certain states of meditative absorption we are not aware of the world at the same time that we are having these inner experiences. It is only through the fact of connecting moments and awareness of these that memory works. But awareness is NOT constant, even if consciousness is still available, but at times consciousness is repressed and stupor is experienced maybe in one state of sleep or meditation or another. Of course if you have constant awareness, even in deep sleep where you have illumination or your awareness goes to higher realms or you consort with various deities or whatever. That's fabulous. But, this doesn't mean that everything is made of one consciousness. All of it, including the elements and individual consciousness' arise and flows, cycles and evolves within the vastness of inter-dependent origination and is all empty of inherent existence."

 

 

Be[lie]fs and assumptions.

Look, just examine your own actual experience. You never have awareness of NOT experiencing. everything fades out and in within your experience. Everythig, from Higher worlds to getting to drunk at Gana Puju, it is all an experience, and awareness just experiences it.

 

 

"I think you are clouded by your beliefs Seth. I can say the same thing about you that your be"lie"f's lie to you. You think subtracting everything from awareness leaves God, cosmic awareness."

 

 

lol, I do not think this at all. I am not Interested In beliefs. I wonder about the experience of what I call God but am perplexed. God in the mystical traditions is an experience but that puts it under and within Awareness which makes me doubt the whole God hypothesis as an authoritative source... Brings up many more debates in my head...

You on the other hand Are clouded by your be[lie]f's. You constantly bring them up in a justifying or explaining manner as I pointed out. How about we both get really simple and just look at what we can see.

I am not Inhibited by the fear of being wrong because I do not believe, so I do not need to defend my stance. Also this means I have nothing to loose.

You on the other hand have a lot of time and Faith and energy Invested in being Buddhist, which makes you afraid to really get down and even contemplate the Basics of our experience. but I Invite you to 'transcend' all that and get child like with me

 

 

 

"But how deeply aware of the cosmos are you, personally? Where is the proof that there is this God that wills everything to be and is the underlying principle behind everything outside of having experiences of expansive consciousness and deities whispering in your ears saying this is so? Yes, there are Gods that have vast awareness, some think that they created everything out of being the first born. I know, I remember being a God like this and having this vast awareness. But, the truth is, is that as vast as my awareness was, it was not the same level of awareness of a Buddha. I was un-aware of other universes and other dimensions outside of my own experience. But, others were not un-aware, and others were aware of me as I was aware of lots and lots of beings traversing through my domain like ants on a table. Many ants are not aware of your presence as you stand above them, watching them come and go, until you put your finger next to one of them. Awareness is a phenomena."

 

 

I think I already answered most of this. At different points in your Experience dimensions will come and go...

And I am not talking about God, I am talking about simple self Knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

"Our consciousness permeates our body but we are not always aware of all the nooks and crannies of it. Our consciousness is a conditioned and karmic arising. How conscious is a tree body? Of course our mind stream is subtler than our physical body and our body arises within the karmic stream of our individual mind."

 

 

Still within awareness, so Irrelevant.

 

 

 

"You do all the time. Your body consciousness is having the experience of walking on thousands of micro-organisms, but are you aware of it all the time?"

 

 

All I am having Is the experience I am Having. That is all I can be certain of. The Micro organisms may have their own awareness of this event (blessings on them) but their awareness is no different to my own.

 

This brings up the subject of Oneness of awareness. But before we broach that, let me point out once more that If I ever experience life from their perspective, It is not awareness that changed, but just mu experience within it.

 

 

 

"Inter-dependent origination is not a theory. It's how the cosmos works. It's deeply subtle, more complex, profound and simple than you are aware of."

 

 

Wrong again. It is a theory. Your Awareness is limited to what you experience within the present moment, including your subjective memory's and your subjective mental models for understanding time.

 

Dependent origination is a mental theory you paste over your observation and then Interpret the world from, and you can carry (cling) to that on any experience level, subtle or gross, within Awareness.

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth Ananda...

 

Apologies in advance for butting in to this interesting exchange - from what i understand and have gained minute insight into, the Buddhist concept of the union of 'wisdom and method' does not say which takes precedent over the other - its more exact-ish to see in the way that DO points to primordial wisdom, existing prior to and above consciousness, and Awareness is Method, which includes all the stages that eventually takes the realizer even beyond conceptual union. Until such time, conceptual practices are useful to an extent, and over time, the practitioner learns to drop old habits of fixation and contraction.

 

I could be wrong here, but thats the way i have come to understand it.

 

 

 

ps- just out of curiosity, is Seth Ananda your real name? I like it. If one takes the Seth away, we both have the same name! Mine's not adopted, btw...

 

 

Hi CowTao, I always like your posts by the way and your name is very Cool.

Seth is my real name but Ananda is what my Yoga friends dubbed me along time ago. I am yet to change it by depol, but probably will soon as it is my daughters last name legaly. Scarlet Ananda.

I had a late night and my brain is getting tired after answering Vajra and watching Scarlet, so sorry to not answer properly this time... I think I explained a good part of my perspective on the subject in my reply to Vajra.

Have Fun!

[dwai]

[Vajrahridaya]

you say all the words, but they seem hollow...

for you have learnt them well, but your understanding is narrow

you will get it one day, who knows? perhaps tomorrow...

but you will know you get it when it resonates in your marrow

 

 

I know you feel threatened when your only retort is an ad-hominem.

 

You should watch your own mind Dwai. You are trying to come off wise but it's just an overly worked out insult coming from inside of you. If you can't debate in a mature way and say something nice. Don't say anything at all, your karma will be better this way.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I know you feel threatened when your only retort is an ad-hominem.

 

You should watch your own mind Dwai. You are trying to come off wise but it's just an overly worked out insult coming from inside of you. If you can't debate in a mature way and say something nice. Don't say anything at all, your karma will be better this way.

 

 

 

Speak for yourself, please. you cannot expect your perceptions of others, your judgments, your opinions, to be taken seriously when you automatically do not respect ours.

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

Not Interested in Interpreting, Nor in solely experiencing some divine state, though they are nice, but temporary experiences (for me, at least at the moment...) and am comfortable with the possibility that Awareness is forever Unknowable or a mystery.

 

Yes, I understand. You take the blank level of formless consciousness as the Self. I understand the leaning on this experience as the end all be all and how it blocks one from going deeper in investigation. I used to be blocked by such a bliss and love that felt ever present. It's just a state of expanded awareness that is possible due to the fact that phenomena and consciousness is empty of inherent existence so malleable. That light is blissful, but to lean on it as a Self of all is a block according to the Buddhas and according to my reluctant experience as well. Buddhism beyond my beliefs of it, made me very uncomfortable because I agreed with the universal consciousness as truth experience as beyond rebuke. I used to think that the Buddha taught the same thing as all the other mystics. But, I was really under mis-assumptions.

 

 

"Yes it is. In unconscious states of sleep, I am not aware. Of course if I were enlightened these unconscious states of sleep would be filled with awareness as my dense karmas would have been wiped away through the practice of awareness. Also, in the state of infinite nothingness, I am not aware. It's only afterwards that I say... "Oh, there was nothing and no one aware", only in contrast to when I become aware.

Are you always aware of the experience you are living? How about that mosquito that bite's you on the back of the leg while you are sleeping. Are you only aware of that when you wake up?"

 

 

You are never not aware. In your awareness you go to sleep, you may change while dreaming and then you wake up. All this change but no lack of awareness. where in your experience do you not experience? In Deep sleep do you have an 'actual' experience of not existing... Do you ever truly cease to experience.

 

This is your assumptions based upon your interpretation of your experiences. You are wrong according to the Buddhas though. This has nothing to do with indoctrination, though you could use some study. This has to do with investigating more deeply your beliefs about awareness.

 

I know from a physicalist perspective the world 'seems' to go on while your awareness comes and goes within it, but from Awareness's perspective, (Which I say is the only true authority, as it is the only way we can have an experience of 'Knowing') It is the world that comes and goes within Awareness.

 

More monist dogma.

 

It exists within the awareness of many conscious beings as an inter-dependently co-created play of all sentient beings experiencing it. But awareness is not a single cosmic non-phenomena that the entire cosmos arises from.

 

Wrong. I do not engage In be[lie]f systems. All I am Interested is is what I can see without beliefs being necessary. please read back to my description of awareness so we are both on the same page about what we each mean when we use the word Awareness.

 

In my opinion, you are fooling yourself. You don't realize how much the traditions you have enjoyed has effected your interpretation of your experiences.

 

Be[lie]f's.

 

Did you read that book by Venkatesananda? "Total Love"?

 

He talks a lot like this... saying, "be-lie-f's" I really enjoyed his writings and they used to boost my belief in a cosmic consciousness and the experience of this as the truth. Even though I experienced the formless state of Samadhi very deeply before I read a single book on spirituality at the age of 14. Because I had no other form of interpretation in my influence as my mother was a Shaivite my entire life, I considered this experience an experience of God. I wondered around in an altered state of awareness for a week while at the ashram at 14, deeply effected by this direct experience beyond time, form and limitations and it was deeply blissful on a deeply peaceful level and I felt deeply connected to all things afterwards. It was very nice. But, I mis-interpreted the experience due to various causes and conditions.

 

All the unraveling happens within awareness or none of it would happen. Its all a temporary experience within awareness...

 

Yes it happens within my awareness. Some deities that follow me around are aware of much of what I experience as well.

 

 

"In certain states of sleep we are not aware of the world and in certain states of meditative absorption we are not aware of the world at the same time that we are having these inner experiences. It is only through the fact of connecting moments and awareness of these that memory works. But awareness is NOT constant, even if consciousness is still available, but at times consciousness is repressed and stupor is experienced maybe in one state of sleep or meditation or another. Of course if you have constant awareness, even in deep sleep where you have illumination or your awareness goes to higher realms or you consort with various deities or whatever. That's fabulous. But, this doesn't mean that everything is made of one consciousness. All of it, including the elements and individual consciousness' arise and flows, cycles and evolves within the vastness of inter-dependent origination and is all empty of inherent existence."

 

 

Be[lie]fs and assumptions.

Look, just examine your own actual experience. You never have awareness of NOT experiencing.

 

Yes, I do. Only when I become aware of experiencing do I contrast the non-experiencing of dreamless black sleep where the subtle elements that arise my consciousness recede into potentiality, and awareness is lost for a while during deep body rest. But the energy of body karma which is another type of consciousness pulsates my body even though my sense consciousness and dream consciousness receded into non-awareness in the subtle elements dulled by the darkness of my unconscious. I'm not that enlightened yet all the time where I am ever aware, even in deep dreamless sleep, only sometimes. My Rinpoche is though, he has 24 hour awareness.

 

The Buddha didn't break down an individuals consciousness' into different aspects for no reason.

 

I feel that you are under the sway of beliefs and assumptions. So... I do disagree with your assessment of me. As I very much have direct experience of many of the Buddhas statements. I spent many years meditating many hours a day and chanting many hours a day, avoiding movies, even friends other than passing spiritual conversations with spiritual minded folks. I was quite the shut in. A very blissful shut in though! I very intensely wanted to know the truth of things.

[Vajrahridaya]

everything fades out and in within your experience. Everythig, from Higher worlds to getting to drunk at Gana Puju, it is all an experience, and awareness just experiences it.

 

The truth is much subtler than this assumption that everything rests on a universal consciousness.

 

 

"I think you are clouded by your beliefs Seth. I can say the same thing about you that your be"lie"f's lie to you. You think subtracting everything from awareness leaves God, cosmic awareness."

 

 

lol, I do not think this at all. I am not Interested In beliefs. I wonder about the experience of what I call God but am perplexed. God in the mystical traditions is an experience but that puts it under and within Awareness which makes me doubt the whole God hypothesis as an authoritative source... Brings up many more debates in my head...

You on the other hand Are clouded by your be[lie]f's. You constantly bring them up in a justifying or explaining manner as I pointed out. How about we both get really simple and just look at what we can see.

I am not Inhibited by the fear of being wrong because I do not believe, so I do not need to defend my stance. Also this means I have nothing to loose.

 

This is exactly my opinion of you. I am not holding to beliefs outside of my own direct experience. My words are reflective of my insight. You and many others just don't have the karmic dimension to connect with what I say is all. There are others that do though. They find the words enlightening. You and many others here do not. It's quite subjective you see.

 

You on the other hand have a lot of time and Faith and energy Invested in being Buddhist, which makes you afraid to really get down and even contemplate the Basics of our experience. but I Invite you to 'transcend' all that and get child like with me

 

No, I had a lot of time invested in believing as you do, to one degree or another. The contemplations on the teachings of the Muni actually cut through my previous assumptions and mis-interpretation of my experiences and what I saw and heard in deep meditative states and during seva or work or whatever as I revolved around the habit of leaning on a supreme identity of all things which creates many other subtle assumptions and mis-interpretations that I was not previously aware I was even doing. As I can see you doing right now in fact.

 

Still within awareness, so Irrelevant.

 

An assumption. We as in vast amounts of mind streams did co-create the trees through unconscious manipulation of the elements from subtler dimensions before we even took body here, yes. But, a Buddhas treatment of consciousness and awareness is much subtler and nuanced in understanding, more omniscient that is, or rather... truly omniscient, as opposed to the Gods who think they created everything, even us as if it all was a single entity, when it's not.

 

 

All I am having Is the experience I am Having. That is all I can be certain of. The Micro organisms may have their own awareness of this event (blessings on them) but their awareness is no different to my own.

 

It is different, they have a different awareness and even if they were to eventually become human, and practiced meditation and experienced a formless state of Samadhi, they might or might not identify this as a cosmic Self. You do, I don't. Same experience, different non-conceptual interpretation.

 

This brings up the subject of Oneness of awareness. But before we broach that, let me point out once more that If I ever experience life from their perspective, It is not awareness that changed, but just mu experience within it.

 

The Buddha subverted this interpretation. I've had many, many, countless experiences of oneness both in meditation and outside of meditation. I realized that this was a subtle mis-interpretation of expansive consciousness that is made possible due to the fact of emptiness, even if I wasn't aware of the fact of emptiness, which I wasn't for much of my sadhana. It feels like oneness to the subtle habit of clinging to a self, it's just a bigger and more blissful experience of this egoic habit pattern. The truth is much subtler than the "I AM" experience, or the all is "I" experience.

 

 

Wrong again. It is a theory. Your Awareness is limited to what you experience within the present moment, including your subjective memory's and your subjective mental models for understanding time.

 

All this arises inter-dependently, beyond theory... more as fact.

 

Dependent origination is a mental theory you paste over your observation and then Interpret the world from, and you can carry (cling) to that on any experience level, subtle or gross, within Awareness.

 

Your idea of dependent origination being merely a conceptual model arises dependent upon your mis-interpretation of your own experiences of awareness or awareness conditioned by your level of experience.

[Vajrahridaya]

Speak for yourself, please. you cannot expect your perceptions of others, your judgments, your opinions, to be taken seriously when you automatically do not respect ours.

 

I don't disrespect people like this. I question peoples beliefs and stage of experience in the spiritual pursuit. I don't call people or their opinions hollow. I just say at most that they are incomplete and dismantle the belief system through debate.

 

I mean hollow not hallow.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

Sorry Vajra That was the worst reply to what I wrote yet.

I can't be bothered with someone who has zero ability to read another perspective.

You are still trying to keep me in a camp that I am no longer in, and because you think you already know and understand my perspective you do not actually, really read what I am saying. I have never had such a lengthy reply that babbled so much nothing, and that completely comprehended Zero of what I was suggesting.

 

If you had understood what I was saying you could at least have argued and made points relevant to my perspective, which I was hoping for.

 

Now I realise you are just as bad as any Fundamentalist preacher your deep south has to offer.

 

Fail!

 

Over and Out.

[dwai]

I know you feel threatened when your only retort is an ad-hominem.

 

You should watch your own mind Dwai. You are trying to come off wise but it's just an overly worked out insult coming from inside of you. If you can't debate in a mature way and say something nice. Don't say anything at all, your karma will be better this way.

 

come on now...don't get so melodramatic. I am a spontaneous poet...I thought you'd see the wisdom in what I wrote.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry Vajra That was the worst reply to what I wrote yet.

I can't be bothered with someone who has zero ability to read another perspective.

You are still trying to keep me in a camp that I am no longer in, and because you think you already know and understand my perspective you do not actually, really read what I am saying. I have never had such a lengthy reply that babbled so much nothing, and that completely comprehended Zero of what I was suggesting.

 

If you had understood what I was saying you could at least have argued and made points relevant to my perspective, which I was hoping for.

 

Now I realise you are just as bad as any Fundamentalist preacher your deep south has to offer.

 

Fail!

 

Over and Out.

 

It's quite clear. You believe in a one behind the many and you call it awareness. It's a monist position. You believe in the oneness of all awareness' and you believe that all things find there source in one grand underlining awareness. I argue a different interpretation of experience. If this is not so... then what is it you are saying?

 

What I am preaching is what the Buddha taught and experienced. It is also what I have experienced. Just because it fly's in the face of your system of comprehension does not make me as bad as a Southern Baptist who preaches hellfire and damnation. :lol:

 

Wow, the level of subjectivity in this room is quite staggering.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

come on now...don't get so melodramatic. I am a spontaneous poet...I thought you'd see the wisdom in what I wrote.

 

Your spontaneous poetry revolves around the intention of insult rather than debating the words. What am I supposed to do, agree with you and see your ultimate wisdom and go... "Oh... all my experiences and sadhana are just hollow words"? This is not wisdom, this is you getting personal instead of wise.

 

How subjective can you be?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I question peoples beliefs and stage of experience in the spiritual pursuit.

 

It's how you go about it, promoting "your" (buddha's) path as superior, and how you promote what YOU have learned as absolute, without regard for alternative or necessity.

 

I don't call people or their opinions hollow. I just say at most that they are incomplete and dismantle the belief system through debate.

 

and by dismantling their belief system, you are essentially "proving" your point that they are somehow inherently wrong.

 

Try to be more gentle about how you approach guidance and advice for people toward a workable path for their spiritual fulfillment. What Buddha has accomplished is not the only path to reaching his accomplishments and not a necessary path for all.

The continuity will never discontinue. even if it takes some people infinite lifetimes to reach their own spiritual fulfillment, YOUR JOB is not to tell them how to do it, but to guide them to activities that will help them discover how from their own first hand experiences.

 

That is what Buddha taught with the most emphasis. his methods were merely his own cultivations. the four noble truths, however, are something we must all learn first hand, on our own. until we do, we can never KNOW them or follow them with intent.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Vajra, can't you see this is a revolving door, here?? You always believe it's never you...even though you keep coming up against different people in your elitist postings, denigrating others, yet you fail to own your behavior. I believe it's because you are not able, and cannot admit the difficulty one has in viewing himself as others do. You always, always, always turn it around on whoever it is you're preaching to and arguing with that day. You always make the other person wrong. Your 'debating style' is Teflon, so that no true exchange of ideas ever takes place. Your failure to see your patterns astonishes me in someone who claims to be self-aware. But all of this seems to be part of a profound passive-aggressive pattern, it's just that new people keep stumbling into your "debates".

 

What I am preaching is what the Buddha taught and experienced. It is also what I have experienced. Just because it fly's in the face of your system of comprehension does not make me as bad as a Southern Baptist who preaches hellfire and damnation. :lol:

 

At least you are finally admitting that you're here preaching rather than your previous disingenous "Oh, I'm here to debate and to learn".

 

 

 

By the way, this is not an ad-hominem argument that dwai is asserting here. To say that "your understanding is narrow", is not an 'ad hominem' argument.

Vajrahridaya

Posted Yesterday, 09:37 PM

"

I know you feel threatened when your only retort is an ad-hominem".

 

dwai: on 20 June 2010 - 07:36 PM, said:

you say all the words, but they seem hollow...

for you have learnt them well, but your understanding is narrow

you will get it one day, who knows? perhaps tomorrow...

but you will know you get it when it resonates in your marrow

 

 

 

This is not ad hominem.

 

See definition:argumentum ad hominem.

Edited June 21, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Seth Ananda]

Vajra, can't you see this is a revolving door, here?? You always believe it's never you...even though you keep coming up against different people in your elitist postings, denigrating others, yet you fail to own your behavior. I believe it's because you are not able, and cannot admit the difficulty one has in viewing himself as others do. You always, always, always turn it around on whoever it is you're preaching to and arguing with that day. You always make the other person wrong. Your 'debating style' is Teflon, so that no true exchange of ideas ever takes place. Your failure to see your patterns astonishes me in someone who claims to be self-aware. But all of this seems to be part of a profound passive-aggressive pattern, it's just that new people keep stumbling into your "debates".

 

 

Nicely Said.

 

And Vajra, If we have a conversation, I dont want you to swallow my Idea's but I do want you to think about them before you reply on automatic. Do you even read the whole post and try and get a feel for it or are you So pumped up on Southern preacher Juice, that you just answer paragraph by paragraph as you read?

 

And you are As bad as any Southern preacher because (as them) you believe there is no way for you to be wrong. This makes conversation Impossible cause you wont 'LISTEN' as you 'KNOW' that everything someone else says is Wrong. That is a Disgraceful attitude in a spiritual seeker.

 

 

I myself (dons Halo...) am very happy to be Wrong as that will bring me closer to the Truth. In fact I hope I am wrong about any of my Ideas as that would mean even greater expansion...

 

Seth.

 

P.S. Vajra's Hell and Damnation preaching is near endless cycles of Delusion and Suffering in Samsara, till we agree with Him. Why don't you start passing round a plate?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Edited June 23, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

It's how you go about it, promoting "your" (buddha's) path as superior, and how you promote what YOU have learned as absolute, without regard for alternative or necessity.

 

 

Why not, I know without a paradigm of doubt. Why should I lie? I am open and thus I have received the blessing of experiential knowledge of what the Buddha was talking about when he himself said that his teaching was superior. He said it, and I do as well. Nothing new... why should it be? The truth remains unsullied.

 

and by dismantling their belief system, you are essentially "proving" your point that they are somehow inherently wrong.

 

It depends on what one wants out of the spiritual path. Every path does not have the same goal.

 

Try to be more gentle about how you approach guidance and advice for people toward a workable path for their spiritual fulfillment. What Buddha has accomplished is not the only path to reaching his accomplishments and not a necessary path for all.

 

He didn't say that. He said if you want Buddhahood, you need Buddhadharma. Everything arises dependent upon view and Buddhadharma has a specific view that is different from other paths. It's the viewless view. Other paths have a deeply ingrained attachment to a supreme subject, call it Tao, Brahman, God... whatever. This is what the Buddha called the mistake of Eternalism. So, Buddha doesn't agree with you and neither do I. If you want Buddhahood, you need to first understand the Buddha view, the first of the 8 fold noble path. Of course this experience of the view evolves from conceptual to experiential and intuitive. Just like the Buddhadharma evolves from Hinayana to Mahayana/Vajrayana and finally Dzogchen.

 

The continuity will never discontinue. even if it takes some people infinite lifetimes to reach their own spiritual fulfillment, YOUR JOB is not to tell them how to do it, but to guide them to activities that will help them discover how from their own first hand experiences.

 

Yes, that would be better... I could use some more tact of course. I'm not a Buddha even though I've had many glimpses, I'm still merely a Buddhist.

 

That is what Buddha taught with the most emphasis. his methods were merely his own cultivations. the four noble truths, however, are something we must all learn first hand, on our own. until we do, we can never KNOW them or follow them with intent.

 

That is true!

 

Thank you for your gentleness spiritual path walker!

Edited June 22, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

This is not ad hominem.

 

See definition:argumentum ad hominem.

 

That is fine... the path is narrow, the view is tight and concise, this alone leads to complete opening and Buddhahood. Not... all is one theories...

 

I just disagree with the majority of views here, as the Buddha does as well. As far as what the goal of them is at least. They all follow incomplete paths. The Buddha also taught this. He didn't say that every spiritual tradition leads to Buddhahood, he said that Buddhadharma does, the Sanatana Dharma of the endless displays of Buddhas only leads to Buddhahood.

 

He debated and he preached and he didn't agree with wrong views. He of course did it with more tact and enlightened energy though.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Vajrahridaya