Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

The most important thing I can say is that spirituality is a one to one transmission.  Just sitting with someone, a teacher and sharing, this is the only way.   Large groups are illusions.   Take this approach when you read and practice also.    Perhaps you will have to initiate yourself on your own; nevertheless, initiate yourself.

 

It is very possible historically and has been done many times in the bums chat room even.

Edited by Jonesboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I chose to go with the literal meaning for the purposes of this topic.  But, you are right.  Many times there is a higher meaning and purpose to normally sounding words or sentences from the prophets or scriptures, that is completely missed or overlooked.

I like Jeff’s version that would make a great movie

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Link please

 

Here are the links I mentioned.  There are few other topics and some other stuff on Tantra & KS in my ppd.  Most of them are work in progress (incomplete).  I describe and share my understanding little at a time.  I have covered only the first Anda (sphere) and few tattvas (principles) so far in the thread below.  I am hoping to proceed and complete this thread in the near future.

 

There are some good sources available online and as books, such as Swami Lakahmanjoo academy that has some excellent resources on KS.

 

 

 

 

I consider the following book to be user friendly and a gentle introduction to authentic Tantra.  You may be well aware of the basic terms and concepts of Tantra.  Those that do not can start with the book I have reviewed below.  After a person has a good of the basics, they can proceed to other texts like, Shiva Sutras, Triadic Heart of Shiva, The Secret Supreme, The Doctrine of Vibration or even directly into Abhinavagupta's works like Tantra loka, Tantra Sara, etc.

 

After starting to read and understand the texts of Kashmir Shaivism, I gave up multiple times.  It sounded too abstract, theoretical and not easy to connect with my actual experiences.  I had good understanding of Sanskrit, Hindu terminologies, Vedanta, etc and still this happened to me.  I noticed it happened to several others also, some who are advanced practitioners in my opinion.  I later realized it is because these Tantric traditions have unique ways, their own world of terms and meanings and it is important to have a very good grasp of the basics to further go on.  Otherwise, most likely those who start to read these texts give up!  Christopher Wallis's 'Tantra Illuminated' fills this initial gap.  The author claims in the preface of this work,  in English this is a unique undertaking that no one has undertaken before.  I agree with his claim after reading -- actually listening to his audio book in Audible.  Most people that claim to know Tantra have absolutely no clue as the author explains.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 9:50 AM, Zhachev said:

How do folks here deal with frustration, anger, and rage? How can we go on in this world so filled with injustice?

 

In my opinion, these emotions are natural and necessary expressions.

 

First, it is important to be aware of them. Repression allows them to gain strength and often express as physical or psychological illness. Next, it is important to allow them to arise and express without suppression and without augmentation. Only if allowed to express, will they be able to liberate. These feelings are present to teach us something. Sooner or later they will have their say, like it or not.

 

The method I practice comes from the Dzogchen teachings of Bön Buddhism.

 

Once I become aware of the negative feeling, I allow it to remain in my awareness. This does not mean to engage with it, follow it, add to it, or analyze it; it simply means to acknowledge its presence and host it in awareness. Next, I notice the identity that is experiencing this reactivity. There is a tendency to think that "I" am reacting to something but when we look deeply at the "I" we can't really find anything solid. The "I" that is reacting is an aspect of me that identifies with a role, a set of expectations (father, daughter, teacher, seeker, lover, boss, addict, victim, etc...); often it is a complex amalgam of identities. When I recognize that reactive identity, I invite it to rest in stillness (of body), silence (of inner and outer speech), and spaciousness (of heart and mind). This resting is referred to as trekchöd, or cutting through the illusion. In that openness and resting, it becomes clear that "I" am so much more than the limited identity that is feeling hurt and angry. If I'm able to truly allow that reactive identity to open and rest deeply, it will loosen and dissolve. As this happens, I rest deeply in my fundamental essence which can be described as having the characteristics of openness, clarity, and warmth. 

 

The way I go on in this world filled with perceived injustice is to do what I can to liberate my own aversion, attachments, and ignorance so that I'm able to see as clearly as possible and, from that place of clarity, openness, and warmth, do what I can to help.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

The definition of righteous is morally correct.

 

 And I have not touched the idea of rage. 

 

 

Hence the qualifier 'righteous'.

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not mixing anything up. 

 

 

 

Yes it is my opinion and I understand it may not be accurate in your views.

 

I think we may be in agreement with the actual happenings like what you refer to as righteous anger and what I call as acts of controlled aggression with good intent, that these are not bad.  But our definition and the terms we use and understand seems to differ.  Thanks for the discussion and sharing your views!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acting in a 'rightheous' manner can be problematic as it rests on the assumption of one's own moral superiority.

Edited by Lakshmi
Missing word added
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 8:50 AM, Zhachev said:

How do folks here deal with frustration, anger, and rage? How can we go on in this world so filled with injustice?

 

www.smitegame.com

 

Nerd rage is plausibly the healthiest rage in my experience.

Edited by whitesilk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

I thought about this some more and feel you have a valid point and it is honest and accurate from your perspective.

 

It's also your perspective, though. Honesty is the best policy!

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

As long as we hold on to individuality and separation

 

It's not a matter of holding on. We are by nature individual and separate...yet interconnected. When you cease grasping, you're still differentiated, even if your mind isn't (for a time).

There are many notions regarding nonduality which are false, and have their root in dualism rather than genuine realization.

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

the problem of suffering cannot be solved for all sentient beings, not even with majority of the world having full realization as Buddhas.  Even if one sentient being is left, we cannot claim it's done or even agree on realization as a universal solution.  Only at the time of pralya or at the dissolution of the current cycle of creation, we will all dissolve into the source from where we came.  But this is not true at this point, so is not relevant.

 

So...no realization of our own ends the suffering of others in a sufficient way.

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

However, I want to point out that you are  looking at this only from the standpoint of relative truth or the individual separation.  The universal truth of non-duality is also valid, from that perspective it can be argued that there we have no problem ever.

 

But we just covered that individual realization doesn't change the fact that there are still problems for people in the world.

It can't be argued that from a "nondual perspective" (which is a dualistic concept) that there are no problems. To put it into other terminology, relative truth doesn't cease being the case when taking up an absolute truth perspective...if we can even honestly take up that perspective.

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

I propose that you consider this.  You are looking at the problem from within the limitation of time, space and duality and expecting to solve the problem for all.  There is no other way to analyze since mind operates only in time and space.  There are certain realization and awareness that are beyond the local body/mind.  When we get there we start to see (know) things differently.

 

Those realizations have no impact on the problems of the world. We're spiritual bypassing here...

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

Until a person reaches this state of realizations (there are various layers of realization like the 10 Buddha bhumis) beyond the local body/mind, and they try to analyze and resolve this with the mind, your assertions are 100% valid.

 

They're still valid after even the final realization. No genuinely enlightened being ever taught, "forget about those people's issues, just think about nonduality" (or however you'd prefer to word the same idea).

 

On 2/2/2019 at 4:25 PM, s1va said:

This problem cannot be solved by the mind no matter how sincere or honest the efforts made by the mind are.  Because the very limitations imposed by the mind are the problems.  The mind has to be transcended entirely and when this happens, the solution just starts to shine!

 

When you transcend the mind entirely, the real world is still there...in fact, even more so, because then one is unclouded by false notions of spirituality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lakshmi said:

Acting in a 'rightheous' manner can be problematic as it rests on the assumption of one's own moral superiority.

 

It can be, and it tends to be divisive. 

 

One night long ago, I was awoken by a scream. I found the neighbor lady laying on her porch, crying, as her husband was trying to drag her inside by her hair. I didn't question whether I was feeling morally superior, or how wrong that might be on my part. I stopped him, and sent her into my home. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

It's also your perspective, though. Honesty is the best policy!

 

 

It's not a matter of holding on. We are by nature individual and separate...yet interconnected. When you cease grasping, you're still differentiated, even if your mind isn't (for a time).

There are many notions regarding nonduality which are false, and have their root in dualism rather than genuine realization.

 

 

So...no realization of our own ends the suffering of others in a sufficient way.

 

 

But we just covered that individual realization doesn't change the fact that there are still problems for people in the world.

It can't be argued that from a "nondual perspective" (which is a dualistic concept) that there are no problems. To put it into other terminology, relative truth doesn't cease being the case when taking up an absolute truth perspective...if we can even honestly take up that perspective.

 

 

Those realizations have no impact on the problems of the world. We're spiritual bypassing here...

 

 

They're still valid after even the final realization. No genuinely enlightened being ever taught, "forget about those people's issues, just think about nonduality" (or however you'd prefer to word the same idea).

 

 

When you transcend the mind entirely, the real world is still there...in fact, even more so, because then one is unclouded by false notions of spirituality.

 

I think we may be going around circles here.  I understand that you are opposed to many notions of nonduality.  I can understand and relate to some of your arguments.  I am also opposed to some notions of non-duality, but consider some other that has room for both duality and non-duality as valid.  Yes, the real world is there when the mind is transcended, but it's significance changes entirely in relation to who I am and how I relate to it.  When not driven by desires and attachments, a person relates to the world better or in the right way.

 

There are dimensions beyond the conception of the mind, when we get there the fundamental perception changes and with it everything changes.  So, trying to understand, analyse or make broad pronouncements about everything -- like there will always be suffering no matter what -- from right where we are at this point may not be conducive.  I try not to form conclusive opinions about anything and try to be as open as possible.  This helps with my progress.  If we hold on to one paradigm, whether it is non-dual or against non-dual like suffering can never be eliminated, that paradigm could turn into a limiting factor for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I mentioned this already, but I discovered recently that when I am angry I am not actually angry, but in a state of resistance to anger.   Strange but true.   A state of trying to control anger.

So, when somebody says "I feel angry" or "I have anger problems", what they might be is in a state of "anger resistance".

 

Which changes the picture considerably.   If you don't even understand what is happening, all fancy ideas are irrelevant.

 

Strange but true, like many other things humans talk about that never seem to improve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

It can be, and it tends to be divisive. 

 

Exactly.

 

13 hours ago, ilumairen said:

One night long ago, I was awoken by a scream. I found the neighbor lady laying on her porch, crying, as her husband was trying to drag her inside by her hair. I didn't question whether I was feeling morally superior, or how wrong that might be on my part. I stopped him, and sent her into my home. 

 

I wouldn't call that acting 'righteously' (implying a sense of moral superiority), though, or even acting in anger (for that matter). It sounds more like you spontaneously came to the aid of a helpless person, much like you might pluck a child from the middle of a street when you see an approaching truck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focus on the part of the problem that one has influence upon - there is only one that a person has the right to change, in thought, in feeling, in word, and in action.  Once one has begun this task, one should continue to practice patience … as others perceive a desirable state of being within one, they will inquire as to how they might also attain such peace and contentment - at such times, one may share some tips for the curious.  No one can be brought to enlightenment by force - the process is ongoing, and will take as long as it takes.  One doing one's own part, that is not only sufficient, that is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-attachment simply means, when I am angry, I am just angry.
Neither attached nor non-attached, I do not move from reality.
This is why Buddha said "when for you seeing is just seeing .... you are enlightened".

 

In society we are taught to be so fake and false, most of our thoughts and emotions are encrusted upon us and work automatically as our buttons are pushed.   They are unconscious and harmful.   We become afraid of them and want to suppress them, to get rid of our anger.   But this approach just worsens the problem, it is more fakeness.

 

However unfamiliar it is, only the truth is true.

 

There is no "purification" if you do not wish to be true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like where Aetherous went addresing my original question. My question contains this dimension of human agency. Also...overall, I could benefit from less Jesus, and more philosophy, but great thread so far, and thank you!

Edited by Zhachev
words
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how justified I am with being angry, it always feels really crappy.  That tells me something.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zhachev said:

I like where Aetherous went addresing my original question. My question contains this dimension of human agency. Also...overall, I could benefit from less Jesus, and more philosophy, but great thread so far, and thank you!

 

If this is honestly what you want, then I would suggest contemplating this:

 

On 2/3/2019 at 3:06 PM, steve said:

The way I go on in this world filled with perceived injustice is to do what I can to liberate my own aversion, attachments, and ignorance so that I'm able to see as clearly as possible and, from that place of clarity, openness, and warmth, do what I can to help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rideforever said:

Whether you are justified or crappy, you still have not taken an interest in what is actually occurring.

 

Can you explain a bit more ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

Can you explain a bit more ?

 

 

Perhaps this is your response?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 7:38 AM, Fa Xin said:

No matter how justified I am with being angry, it always feels really crappy.  That tells me something.

 

May I ask if you may have been taught to feel crappy over being angry?

 

:curious:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said if you investigate anger it leads to certain underlying reasons, like wounds that need healing, or action that needs to be taken.   So if healing is needed, then heal.   If action is needed then act.

 

Feeling justified or crappy ... is not useful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rideforever said:

As I said if you investigate anger it leads to certain underlying reasons, like wounds that need healing, or action that needs to be taken.   So if healing is needed, then heal.   If action is needed then act.

 

Feeling justified or crappy ... is not useful.

 

Do what needs done, as the need arises, and then let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Do what needs done, as the need arises, and then let it go.

 

It is the doing what needs to be done .... that is the letting it go.
It is an interesting and important distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rideforever said:

As I said if you investigate anger it leads to certain underlying reasons, like wounds that need healing, or action that needs to be taken.   So if healing is needed, then heal.   If action is needed then act.

 

Feeling justified or crappy ... is not useful.

Thanks for clarifying for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites