Is non-duality actually a fundamental truth, or just another philosophy?

[Spotless]

22 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

When I say engage, I mean something along the lines of Rumi's 'The Guesthouse'

 

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.

Be grateful for whatever comes.
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

— Jellaludin Rumi

 

 

This appears to be mainly a poem on not resisting and being in the present and grateful for the all and everything - it is ten thousand times this and more in the Awakened state.

[Bindi]

13 minutes ago, Spotless said:

This appears to be mainly a poem on not resisting and being in the present and grateful for the all and everything - it is ten thousand times this and more in the Awakened state.

 

It's specifically about allowing all feelings without judging them, because they have value in guiding us to our innermost essence. But the role of feelings in the awakened state is so vastly different from simply feeling emotions freely? 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

It's specifically about allowing all feelings without judging them, because they have value in guiding us to our innermost essence. But the role of feelings in the awakened state is so vastly different from simply feeling emotions freely? 

 

 

Nice poem.

[KuroShiro]

22 hours ago, Spotless said:

Awakening does not preclude emotion - though when you say "engage" it may be a loaded question. The nature of emotions - highs and lows changes entirely - yet I have seen all great filmed teachers shed a tear or become unable to speak - or have read recounting of students of great masters with "moods" and quick flare-ups now and then. 

In "emergency" situations a general calm is present - gone is any panic.

Panic is gone - vested emotion is gone.

 

 

Interesting, would you say it's similar as when one is a baby/young child? The emotion appears, stays for a few seconds and then naturally disappears?

Due to Qi Gong and Kung Fu practice I've recently experienced this general calm in an "emergency" situation, also no anger (some anger came later hehe).

 

I would hope that after awakening there would be no more "emergency" situations.

[Spotless]

22 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

It's specifically about allowing all feelings without judging them, because they have value in guiding us to our innermost essence. But the role of feelings in the awakened state is so vastly different from simply feeling emotions freely? 

My response was:

"This appears to be mainly a poem on not resisting and being in the present and grateful for the all and everything - it is ten thousand times this and more in the Awakened state."

"not resisting and being in the present" is another way of saying "not judging them and allowing them"

 

This is the way of the Awakened state - though one does not do in the sense of "allow" - one is in the Present in which case arising is not throttled but spontaneous.

[Spotless]

3 hours ago, KuroShiro said:

 

Interesting, would you say it's similar as when one is a baby/young child? The emotion appears, stays for a few seconds and then naturally disappears?

Due to Qi Gong and Kung Fu practice I've recently experienced this general calm in an "emergency" situation, also no anger (some anger came later hehe).

 

I would hope that after awakening there would be no more "emergency" situations.

Regarding the comparison to baby/young child somewhat but considerably different as well - one does not become lost in the moment.

If you have a family and are out in the world "emergency situations" happen - but panic does not ensue - one does not go out into futures of dread and anxiousness or pine for some past or better situation. Getting a drink or taking a sedative is not wanted or needed - ones pulse does not rise unless it is required to for action. It is not a numb state wherein one is detached - one is in Present and in Present the past is not held and extrapolated upon a future or futures as is normally the case.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Spotless

[3bob]

speaking of family, one does not hear of many "spiritual gurus" having a spouse, kids and a grinding nine to five  job in the world;  most are renunciates doing what renunciates do, as in renouncing the "world" and most of its goings on,  thus they need the support of their religion or fellow group of renunciates  to live that type of life.

Btw, I'd say many of the discussions at this site are quoting and advocating methods that are for renunciates (monks or nuns if youwill) which are not applicable or are even counter-productive for house-holders and its type of dharma.  (for one can't live both ways although one could transition from one to the other)

[steve]

15 minutes ago, 3bob said:

speaking of family, one does not hear of many "spiritual gurus" having a spouse, kids and a grinding nine to five  job in the world;  most are renunciates doing what renunciates do, as in renouncing the "world" and most of its goings on,  thus they need the support of their religion or fellow group of renunciates  to live that type of life.

Btw, I'd say many of the discussions at this site are quoting and advocating methods that are for renunciates (monks or nuns if youwill) which are not applicable or are even counter-productive for house-holders and its type of dharma.  (for one can't live both ways although one could transition from one to the other)

 

I have a different experience.

The tradition I embrace is amenable to monastic and secular lifestyles.

My teacher left the monastic life, has a wife and child, and lives in the secular world.

He travels constantly, works endlessly, and expresses the fruition of the teachings through his behavior .

 

I would offer that every tradition can be satisfactorily adapted to lifestyle.

It's a matter of getting some degree of foundation in the basic view and practice and then gradually integrating that into progressively more distracting and challenging circumstances.

It is simply (y)our assumptions and expectations that lead to defeatist attitudes towards these traditions.

For the most part, they are designed to support the householder every bit as much as the renunciate.

It is all a matter of the extremes to which we want to take it.

If we embrace the view and practices, they will work for us provided we are karmically connected.

[3bob]

umm, several thousands of years of certain lineages and their lineage holders also see this differently Steve. (and I believe you know that) Btw.  householders normally give major support to help  monks and nuns with their basic physical needs not the other way around...that is an obvious and accepted practice while the monks, nuns and head of an order attend to their monastery, temples, shrines, religious services, retreats, teachings, and thus basic withdrawal from the world,  etc... Btw. #2. such is not a defeatist attitude towards such traditions but a tried and true way for them, while  eclectic New Age types sometime show disdain for such established ways because they are so  hip spiritually - and can learn, know and even teach advanced practices just by buying some books down at the  local Barnes and Noble store along with getting a few crystals and maybe a deck of Tarot cards. (and maybe some mixed info at a website like Dao Bums)

Again, what I'm trying to say is one can not really live the life and do the practices of both a renunciate and a householder at the same time and do either dharma practice well.  

 

(Btw#3, do you believe a good husband and father who is their for his family as much as possible besides meeting the 9-5 grind  can also travel constantly and work endlessly in relation to outside family pursuits  and also fulfill householder dharma?) 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by 3bob

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

 

(Btw#3, do you believe a good husband and father who is their for his family as much as possible besides meeting the 9-5 grind  can also travel constantly and work endlessly in relation to outside family pursuits  and also fulfill householder dharma?) 

 

 

Of course. Isn’t someone who is serious living the dharma all the time regardless of what they are doing or where they are?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jonesboy

[ilumairen]

 

3 hours ago, steve said:

I  would offer that every tradition can be satisfactorily adapted to lifestyle.

It's a matter of getting some degree of foundation in the basic view and practice and then gradually integrating that into progressively more distracting and challenging circumstances.

 

The idea of "satisfactorily adapted" may be the bit that is pertinent. And there is no denying that the practices of the householder have often been changed, and streamlined. 

[3bob]

umm, there is no "of course" per such a contradiction in mixed pursuits and the serious scattering of forces for either a householder or a renunciate.  Btw. the scattering of forces can be put in other context besides those in the last couple of posts, say that  of a business person who really should not be married or have kids if they are never home and basically neglect their family to the point of it not being a family thus its members suffer, even to the point of  very personal forms destruction on  various levels

Edited September 3, 2018 by 3bob

[Jonesboy]

13 minutes ago, 3bob said:

umm, there is no "of course" per such a contradiction in mixed pursuits and the serious scattering of forces for either a householder or a renunciate.  Btw. the scattering of forces can be put in other context besides those in the last couple of posts, say that  of a business person who really should not be married or have kids if they are never home and basically neglect their family to the point of it not being a family thus its members suffer, even to the point of  very personal forms destruction on  various levels

 

Such neglect is an indication of a closed heart as you are describing it. That is where the dharma is most needed is it not?

 

A great example of why householders should be encouraged.

[3bob]

umm, if a householder is never home (as I stated and implied) with family then their heart condition does not matter to that family... for they are no longer or really a family.

[steve]

23 minutes ago, 3bob said:

... say that  of a business person who really should not be married or have kids if they are never home and basically neglect their family to the point of it not being a family thus its members suffer, even to the point of  very personal forms destruction on  various levels

 

This is an accurate description of my life for too many years. 

 

For me, two experiences were involved in helping me to wake up (in both a practical sense and a deeper, spiritual sense) and neither had anything to do with the judging mind that loves words like "should be" this or that... This mind is rarely helpful in transformation IME, it tends to simply perpetuate the cycle of negativity and closed-mindedness towards oneself and others. One was a profound personal trauma and the other an existential crisis that occurred in the wake of the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides.

 

Connecting to the Dharma was precisely what helped me to (re)connect with family and career in much healthier and meaningful ways.

The Yungdrung Bön tradition has a long history of important and adept lay practitioners, referred to as Ch'öpas - non-monastic spiritual teachers and leaders in Bönpo communities. This was critically important due to the widespread and remote nature of Himalayan communities.

[Jonesboy]

35 minutes ago, 3bob said:

umm, if a householder is never home (as I stated and implied) with family then their heart condition does not matter to that family... for they are no longer or really a family.

 

The heart is about love and compassion.

 

It is the centerpiece of the family. A truly open heart would change everything.

 

So yes it would matter.

 

Unless you think people can’t change. Using your example of someone who only cares about himself and isn’t working hard to provide for his family because it is the only way he knows how to show love is by providing.

 

I have great faith in the power of change spiritual practices can have on people.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jonesboy

[ilumairen]

5 hours ago, 3bob said:

Btw, I'd say many of the discussions at this site are quoting and advocating methods that are for renunciates (monks or nuns if youwill) which are not applicable or are even counter-productive for house-holders and its type of dharma.  

 

I'm interested in this.

 

Any further thoughts or examples?

[3bob]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

The heart is about love and compassion.

 

It is the centerpiece of the family. A truly open heart would change everything.

 

So yes it would matter.

 

Unless you think people can’t change. Using your example of someone who only cares about himself and isn’t working hard to provide for his family because it is the only way he knows how to show love is by providing.

 

I have great faith in the power of change spiritual practices can have on people.

 

indeed which is why I gave the premise of a householder (namely a husband and father) that is never home - and who goes off to a monastery or forest to mediate and happens to opens their heart in that setting it will still not matter directly to their family since they are not home.  (and may choose to never go home like the historic Buddha did although...)

Edited September 3, 2018 by 3bob

[Fa Xin]

Times have indeed changed. 😊

[dwai]

One topic that comes up in the Advaita Vedanta circles is “how can one be in the world and still abide as the Self?”. 

 

This is a loaded topic and depends on the stage the individual is at. If one is in the stage of realizing the ineherent “emptiness” of phenomena (jagat mithya), that evokes (and is predicated on) a progressively increasing detachment (Vairāgya). Then one goes to the point of realizing what is it that is Real (brahma satyam — or Brahman). At this stage Brahman is considered reality and world an appearance. The individual (jiva) and his world seems unreal and nonexistent. The detachment becomes stronger. 

 

Then the final understanding happens - Jiva brahmaiva nāparāha) - jiva is none other than brahaman itself.

 

That the Self of the jiva is Brahman (Atman IS NONE OTHER THAN Brahman). This gives rise to a great love. Unconditional love for the world. How can one be a renunciate in the normal sense of the word anymore? Everything is verily my own Self. From here rises selfless action, service and love. 

 

A householder js in a unique situation. He/she can continue living in the world and yet not be of it. He/she can fulfill all social duties without vacillating between desires and suffering. 

[steve]

46 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

The idea of "satisfactorily adapted" may be the bit that is pertinent. And there is no denying that the practices of the householder have often been changed, and streamlined. 

 

Similarly, the practices of the monastic are not nearly as homogenous or necessarily as conducive to awakening as one might expect.

Monastics run the gamut of human personality and proclivity and must adapt practices just like anyone else.

The mandatory rituals can take up as much time as a full-time secular job and one's state of mind during such rituals is not a given.

While one may think the renunciate has plenty of time to practice, the quality of practice is as critical to growth as quantity and it's painfully clear to all who pay attention that not all renunciates show signs of spiritual awakening and transformation.

Streamlining of practices is not always a bad thing, IMO. 

I am as much a traditionalist as many but have also seen and experienced very favorable results from streamlined, progressive practices as compared to more traditional, ritualistic ones - particularly in Westerners who have no frame of reference for the Eastern paradigms. 

 

[steve]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

 

indeed which is why I gave the premise of a householder (namely a husband and father) that is never home - and who goes off to a monastery or forest to mediate and happens to opens their heart in that setting it will still not matter directly to their family since they are not home.  (and may choose to never go home like the historic Buddha did although...)

 

If they go off to the forest, they are no longer a householder - at that point they are defined as renunciate.

I am looking more at practicing and engaging in secular life.

[3bob]

20 minutes ago, steve said:

 

If they go off to the forest, they are no longer a householder - at that point they are defined as renunciate.

I am looking more at practicing and engaging in secular life.

 

so apparently you agree that a person can not do both types of dharma at the same time and do justice to both...

 

[3bob]

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

One topic that comes up in the Advaita Vedanta circles is “how can one be in the world and still abide as the Self?”. 

 

This is a loaded topic and depends on the stage the individual is at. If one is in the stage of realizing the ineherent “emptiness” of phenomena (jagat mithya), that evokes (and is predicated on) a progressively increasing detachment (Vairāgya). Then one goes to the point of realizing what is it that is Real (brahma satyam — or Brahman). At this stage Brahman is considered reality and world an appearance. The individual (jiva) and his world seems unreal and nonexistent. The detachment becomes stronger. 

 

Then the final understanding happens - Jiva brahmaiva nāparāha) - jiva is none other than brahaman itself.

 

That the Self of the jiva is Brahman (Atman IS NONE OTHER THAN Brahman). This gives rise to a great love. Unconditional love for the world. How can one be a renunciate in the normal sense of the word anymore? Everything is verily my own Self. From here rises selfless action, service and love. 

 

A householder js in a unique situation. He/she can continue living in the world and yet not be of it. He/she can fulfill all social duties without vacillating between desires and suffering. 

 

I'd say the Sat Guru is normally the most or absolute renunciate, without husband or wife or kids although they are a truly compassionate being!   I'd also say that a house holder can not reach that level although they may reach very, very far.

[Michael Sternbach]

58 minutes ago, steve said:

 

If they go off to the forest, they are no longer a householder - at that point they are defined as renunciate.

I am looking more at practicing and engaging in secular life.

 

I am looking more at secular life as my practice.