Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[dwai]

58 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I also tried Jeff's system but prefer brunettes.

I opted out of that entire add-on feature. I think fine print detail was that it was entirely optional, and completely unnecessary. 

[liminal_luke]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

I opted out of that entire add-on feature. I think fine print detail was that it was entirely optional, and completely unnecessary. 

 

You're right, of course.  I opted out as well --- or, to be more exact, that feature was never offered to me.  Whatever the merits or demerits of his system, I always thought Jeff treated me with kindness and respect.

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You're right, of course.  I opted out as well --- or, to be more exact, that feature was never offered to me.  Whatever the merits or demerits of his system, I always thought Jeff treated me with kindness and respect.

I agree. That was my experience as well. In fact I’ve never seen him be rude or unkind to anyone in a public forum, nor criticize anyone in 1:1 interactions I’ve had with him. Moreover, Jeff and I have publicly debated and disagreed (without an iota of acrimony may I add) on many things, both before I started to work with him as well as after. 

At the same time, I don’t dismiss anyone else’s (unpleasant) experiences as a result of working with him. These things are subjective after all. 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by dwai

[manitou]

6 hours ago, steve said:

 

Everything comes and goes relative to fashion, such is the nature of fashion. That has nothing to do with the value of kundalini, just reflective of the fickle, unsatisfied mind. Most spiritual seekers flirt with many methods, never sticking with something long enough to find their truth. If they do find the right door and manage to pass through, the method no longer matters so much.

 

 

I think this is right on, Steve.  I became K-active maybe 30 years ago, and have been ever since.  Fickle mind and needy ego made it Quite a Thing to me for some time.  Now?  Eh.  Just bothersome tingling.

 

It occurs to me that dual or non-dual can also be equated to knowing or being.  Seems to happen gradually, the metamorphosis from knowing to being.

[Bindi]

6 hours ago, steve said:

 

Everything comes and goes relative to fashion, such is the nature of fashion. That has nothing to do with the value of kundalini, just reflective of the fickle, unsatisfied mind. Most spiritual seekers flirt with many methods, never sticking with something long enough to find their truth. If they do find the right door and manage to pass through, the method no longer matters so much.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

so you want to have your cake and eat it too. We knew that already  

I wish people who gravitate towards yogic practices would spend sufficient time reading Patanjali’s yoga sutras. All misconceptions about “siddhis” will disappear if there is respect for the tradition. The  third section of the YS is called the “vibhuti pada” and covers the topic of siddhis. I’m sharing a specific chapter from a commentary on the YS by swami krishnananda below 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

THE HURDLE OF THE EGO IN YOGA PRACTICE
There is something which intervenes between the object of meditation and that which tries to unite itself with this object. It is this peculiar intermediary screen that is not easily recognised, though it is there as almost a kind of impenetrable wall through which the meditating consciousness is unable to penetrate into the object. It is not easy to discover as to what this thing is which stands between the consciousness that meditates and the object. The whole of yoga is nothing but the process of discovering this obstructing medium and eliminating it completely by some means or the other. The schools of thought and the systems of philosophy have been scratching their heads in trying to discover the relationship between mind and matter, consciousness and object, and so on. All these endeavours have borne various kinds of fruit, each one different from the other, without any kind of uniformity in their opinions.
That which stands between the meditating consciousness and the object is something inscrutable. It is because of this inscrutability that it cannot easily be overcome. On scrutiny, that principle will be realised to be a projection from the meditating consciousness itself. It is you yourself standing there as an obstacle to yourself. Ultimately you will realise that there is nobody else. You are yourself obstructing yourself, in some peculiar manner, by a double activity which you try to engage yourself in. On the one side, there is the practice of yoga, the effort of consciousness to pierce through the veil and to unite itself
421

with the object. But on the other hand, there is a prejuwhat notdice, a peculiar habit and a notion in the mind which prevents this unity that is endeavoured through the practice of yoga. The personality-consciousness, what is known as asmita in yoga parlance—called the ego-principle, usually—is what obstructs this unity. There is an intense affirmation of oneself which is so hard that it cannot be either understood or overcome. And, on the basis of this self-affirmation, there is all this practice—yoga and what not.
It is the most painful thing to conceive the abolition of the ego or the obliteration of one’s personality. Even when we conceive of immortality, we always think of immortality of the ego, or the perpetuation of individuality. We would like to be the same Mr. or Mrs. even in the immortal condition, so that endlessly, for durationless eternity, we will maintain this particular personality. This is the idea of immortality we have, and this does not leave us merely because we are philosophically minded. This is more substantial than our philosophy; and that prejudice will persist even till the end of the day, even till the doom of the person. This sits on our head even at the time of meditation. There is a subtle affirmation of oneself which refuses to get identified with anything else in this world.
How can we identify ourselves with anything else when we have got such a self-conceited individuality which affirms itself as isolated from everything else? We have got a prestige and a status and a meaning of our own, due to which we always keep ourselves aloof from everybody else. We have a thought of our own; we have a feeling of our own; we have an opinion about things which is unique by
422

itself—all which are the expressions of this self-affirming principle. It is this peculiar thing, which refuses to be observed by even the most investigative of minds, that prevents any kind of success in this world. All success, whatever be the nature of this success—temporal or spiritual, secular or religious—is nothing but the unity of the endeavour with the objective on hand. If the objective is not achieved, how can we call it a success?
An achievement is nothing but the unity that we acquire with the aim that we have in our mind. If this unity cannot be achieved, there is no achievement at all. There is no such thing as success where the object of success stands outside us, refusing to come near us. Even the so-called unity of objectives that we achieve in this world and the successes that we speak of in the various walks of life, are really not successes. They are only apparent achievements of the objective, not real achievements, because they have an end. The object has not really come to our possession; it stood outside us always, merely because we did not allow it to come in. We have invited our guest, but when he comes, we close the door. This is what we are doing in meditation.
Meditation is the invitation of a guest: “Come, I want you. I want to embrace you.” But when the guest enters, we close the door, and there is no success. This door is the ego. It will close itself and prevent the entry of the object into itself—the subject, or prevent the entry of consciousness into the object. So, with all the hectic efforts of the meditating consciousness, the unity cannot be achieved as long as this personality asserts itself. The greatest obstacle before us is what yoga calls asmita. There is the form of the object, called the rupa in Sanskrit, and there is the
423

essentiality of the subject, called the svarupa. The svarupa is the quintessential form, the basic essence of the ‘self’, and the rupa is the form of the object. The rupa always manages to keep itself away from the svarupa of the meditating consciousness. We always perceive the object; we never unite ourselves with the object. Such a thing has not been done because the senses, working together with the mind, act as a screen. They sift all processes of perception and take only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc., but will not allow the unity of the substantiality of the subject with the object because if that could be achieved, there would be no function for the senses.
The senses have no work to perform if the unity between what is perceived and the perceiver is achieved. But the senses do not want to go without a job. They would be jobless if this could be done, so they vehemently prevent any such thing. If we perform our work very efficiently, and if all the work is completed, there will be no work for us to do; we will be jobless. So we do the work very slowly and very inefficiently, so that the work will be there forever, and we will be employed. That is a very good way of having work—never doing it completely. This is what the senses are doing. They will never allow this achievement called yoga because the moment it is achieved, they have no work. They will cease to exist. They will be put out immediately.
Thus, there is always a struggle and an effort on the part of the senses to maintain a distance between consciousness and the object. Whatever be the proximity of the object with the subject in meditation, a little distance is maintained. It is not a complete union. And, that little distance is equal to any distance. In an electrical operation,
424

if there is even the least distance between the contacting wire and the plug, though it may be only half a millimetre of distance, there will be no contact, really speaking. It is not physical distance that counts here, but distance as such. Whether I do not like you a little, or do not like you very much, anyhow I do not like you—that is all. It matters little whether it is much or little. The quality is what is important here, not merely the quantity. The quality of the distance maintains the isolation of the object from the subject.
But yoga aims at the abolition of this difference between the rupa of the object and the svarupa of the meditator. The object has to assume the svarupa of the consciousness. There should be no such distinction between svarupa and rupa. The form of the object and the nature of consciousness should stand together on par. This is called samadhi—the balancing of consciousness on par with the nature of the object, so that they stand on equal footing, on a single level. There is no inferiority or superiority between the two. The moment we regard something as an object, we regard it as inferior. It becomes a tool, a kind of instrument for the purpose of the subject. But here, in this balancing of consciousness with the nature of the object, they stand on the same level of reality and value. In this sameness of value and reality they converge, or merge together, so that there is no distance between the object that is meditated upon and the consciousness that meditates.
The distance is really a psychological distance, and that is of greater consequence than physical distance. Physical distance does not count much, but mental distance is very important. Distance that is mentally maintained here has always kept the object outside. To come to the point, there
425

is a subtle feeling that we exist as an independent entity, maintaining our own status as different from the nature and the status of the object. This idea will not leave us at all. How on earth can we ever imagine that we are the same as the object? No man with sense will ever think like that because the moment this idea of the sameness of oneself with the object arises, the attraction for the object ceases. This is a very peculiar thing.
All desire gets burnt up immediately the moment we assume the form of the object. No desire can function unless the object is outside us. If we have ourselves become the object, where is the question of desire? It is very strange—a psychological truth. We like something and we are bent upon brooding over that thing because of our liking for that thing. Day and night we contemplate that thing, but we do not want to become that thing because the moment we become that thing, our liking for it goes. So we are afraid that our love for it will vanish. How peculiar it is! What a peculiar trick of the mind it is that we do not want the intimate proximity of the object with ourselves, though we say that we like it so intensely. With all the force and vehemence of thought, the mind tries to push the object out of itself, even in meditation, so that it may maintain a distance. What prevents us from union with the object is nothing but this peculiar trick of the mind. There is nobody else obstructing us; it is our own mind that is preventing union. That very mind which is meditating on the object for the sake of communion is, at the same time, simultaneously, carrying on what they call a fifth-column activity without our knowing what is happening, and it will not allow us to achieve this purpose. Our own colleague
426

and lieutenant is working against us. This is what is happening in meditation. Our dearest and nearest friend, our secretary himself is against us; that we do not know. Therefore, the instrument which we are using for the purpose of the achievement of the success is itself standing against us in a peculiar manner, with a subterfuge, with an undercurrent of activity which is not visible at the surface.
This peculiar principle of ‘I-ness’ is a subterfuge. It cannot be visualised, because all visualisation proceeds from this affirmation of the ego. So it always remains as a background of the visualisation of even this effort of investigation into the nature of this ego. Who will investigate the ego? The ego itself has to do it. How is it possible for a policeman to catch himself? That is not possible. We always come a cropper and get defeated in this effort. Hence, nobody can attain samadhi—this is what it comes to. We cannot reach that state. Even dhyana is difficult, and what about samadhi? It is far off. We have to simply die first, before we attain samadhi. Who would like to die? We do not want to die, because life is the dearest of things. And what do we mean by ‘life’? The maintenance of this ego—that is called life. The abolition of the ego is the real death for us.
We can imagine what it is to counterattack the wishes of the ego. Let anyone attack our ego—we will see what happens. Is it a pleasure, a joy? Will we feel very happy that the ego is attacked? There can be nothing worse than that. The attack of the ego is the worst of pains that one can endure. This is what we are trying to do in yoga. How is it possible? It cannot work because the ego is the citadel of our greatness in this world; that is the fortress that we have
427

built around ourselves for the values that we recognise in this world. That is what we ourselves are—and we want to abolish our own selves. Who can do that, and what can be worse than this very concept itself? But this is to be done. There is no other alternative. That which is almost impossible now has to be made possible.
That which is unthinkable has to become practicable. That which will appear as most horrible to do, that is the thing that we are expected to do now. The sword of knowledge has to sever the head of even the dearest of things. What is the dearest of things? Our own self. Who else is dearest? All the things of the world are dear to us because of our own dearness. We are very beautiful, we are very pleasurable, we are most wonderful, most valuable and most significant, and everything has to be subservient to us. That has to go. Oh, what a horror! But this is the thing. We have to behead ourselves psychologically. That is the real suicide, if we want to call it so in a psychological sense. Die to live. This is the great dictum of the master. If we have to live in the eternal, we have to die in the temporal. We cannot keep both at the same time. God and mammon do not sit together in the same seat; and the greatest mammon is the ego. So, in the hard effort of meditation for achieving success in the form of communion with the object, this tremendous impediment comes, and that is the hurdle which is difficult to conceive in the mind.
In all the Puranas and the Epics we are told that the ego comes in the end, as the final one to be slain is the devil who is the most powerful. He may be a Ravana, or a Hiranyakasipu, or a Sumbha; whatever he is, he comes in the end. He will not be there in the beginning. We cannot
428

face him like that, at one stroke, because he always sends a retinue. We have been facing the army, the regiment or the retinue of this great power called the ego, and we have been to some extent successful. That is dharana, that is dhyana— concentration, meditation. But when we meet this gentleman face to face, it is terrific. It was a terrific thing even for Rama to face Ravana; it was not an easy thing. It was with great hardship that Ravana could be slain, and he was the last man to be faced. However much we may try to slay this force, it will resume its activity. Ravana could not be attacked. There was another peculiar Ravana called Mahiravana. The more one attacked him, the more powerful he would be because when his head was severed, another head would come up. Oh, what is this peculiarity? He is cut and slain, reduced to pieces, and he reassembles his limbs and resurrects himself once again. How is it possible? In the Devi Mahatmya there is a peculiar personality called Raktabija, whose very drop of blood, if it falls on the ground, will generate thousands of similar demons. One cannot kill him because the moment one attacks him blood falls, and the blood that falls generates many like him instantaneously. So there is no question of attacking him. The moment we attack this ego, it has its own ramifications. It will undergo various shapes and forms like Mahishasura—now it is an elephant, now it is a buffalo, then it is a third thing, and then a fourth thing. If we attack it in the form of a buffalo, it is an elephant. If we attack the elephant, it is a lion. If we attack the lion, it is a fish. If we attack the fish, it is a jackal. How will we attack it?
429

The ego is a chameleon which takes any colour, any shape, according to the atmosphere in which it lives. It knows its tricks very well, much more than all the understanding can work. It is a chameleon in the sense that it can assume the colour of the atmosphere in which it lives, so that we cannot detect it or discover it. It is one with the atmosphere, so how will we discover it? It has taken the same shape, colour and value of the conditions under which it is living, so it cannot be attacked. Even when we try to resume the practice of meditation for the sake of communion, samadhi, this ego will subtly work from inside and maintain its distance from the object. Hence, persistent effort is necessary to be cautious of this subtle activity going on inside, which obstructs our attempt at communion. We have to psychologically analyse ourselves. What is the reason behind this distance that we maintain between ourselves and others? What is the harm if this distance is removed? We will find it will make a world of difference. If I do not maintain a distance between myself and you, what difference will it make to me in my life? Well, it will make all the difference. It will simply make my life impossible; that is what will happen. If there is no distance between me and others, there will be no life at all. What we call life will cease to be, if the distance does not exist. The panoramic drama or the colourful activity and enactment that we call this life—the pageantry of this phenomenal experience— will cease in an instant, the moment we commune ourselves with things.
There is a fear that joy will vanish and sorrow will come. The ego tells us, “Why are you attempting this?” Buddha was told: “My dear friend, what are you trying for?
430

You are digging your own grave. You are a great man. You are a great hero,”—and likewise his ego was pampered by Mara. The thing that Buddha was trying for was the abolition of the ego, the nirvana of experience where he would cease to be and would become the All. And Mara came and said, “Why are you trying for this? This is something very undesirable. You have achieved great success. You are the lord of all the worlds. You have the greatest power conceivable. Get up and go!” This is what Mara was saying in the ear of Buddha: “You are a very great man.”
The idea that you are a very great man and a highly powerful meditator will come. “That is sufficient. I have meditated for years. Who can be equal to me?” This idea that you are a yogi is what prevents you from achieving success. The idea that you are a good person, a virtuous person, and better than others, will not allow you to achieve success. The idea that you are a child of God or you are a divine being and a spark of eternity—that itself is the ego. You always speak of being a spark of God, and all that. Do not speak like that—that is the ego again. Another form of ego is making you think that you are a spark of God: “How great I am!” Whatever thought that arises in the mind is the ego, whatever the thought. It may be a good thought or it may be a bad thought. It may be even a divine thought, from your point of view. That will subtly work a peculiar lever inside you, and then you will be propped up into a level which is exactly the thing which you wanted to avoid.
The lives of saints are our teachers. Theoretical discussions will not do here. We may think that we have understood the subject very clearly, but practice is quite
431

different from understanding theoretically. When we actually face the devil, we cannot really face it. We will find that we have to turn back because we have not seen it. Now we are going to face something which we have never seen in our life. If we have seen it once and we are used to it, that is a different matter. We are going to face something which we have never thought of, which we have never heard about, and which we cannot think about. Therefore, the caution should be very great. The lives of saints who have lived this life of yoga through these hurdles we are speaking of in the systems of yoga, they are the great teachers. What happened to others can happen to us also, and perhaps it will happen to everyone. No one can be exempted from this law of the universe. It is better to learn a lesson before it is taught to us with the rod of punishment. Honourable teaching, honourable learning is much better than harassment in jails and reformatories. The learning, the viveka, the company of saints, the satsanga that we do, and the investigation, self-analysis, etc. are only a way of avoiding the unnecessary pain that may come upon us by the lifted rod of nature if we will not follow her rules honourably.
Thus, we have now come to a very strange conclusion: of all the obstacles that yoga has spoken of, the ego is the most prominent, and it is the principal obstacle. Finally, there is no obstacle at all except the ego. All those other things—impediments, kleshas and what not—that the sutras have described up to this time are only rays emanating from this central phenomenal sun, which makes the whole world shine beautifully. That is the ego. There is no other impediment; this is the only impediment. Finally,
432

this is what we have to face. If something is stolen from our house, we run here and there, and run to the police and tell people, “Some thieves have come at night and stolen. . . .” We will find that our own treasurer has stolen the whole thing! We did not know that. The treasurer to whom we have entrusted everything—he is the thief. We are running about in search of the thief somewhere else, but he is sitting near us. He is speaking to us, and he himself went to the police to make a complaint. The man who has stolen—he himself went to the police.
The ego is trying to practise yoga. Oh, what a pity! The ego cannot practise yoga, because the ego is to be destroyed in yoga. So how can it practise yoga? Here we have a strange difficulty, and it has to be overcome with a strange technique; that is yoga itself. Yogena yogo jñātavya yogo yogātpravartate (Y.B. III.6), says the Yoga Bhashya. Yoga is achieved by yoga itself; there is no other means. This is what yoga tells us.

 

I refer once again to my dream of the vine and the structure, the trunk of the vine and the post are indistinguishable from each other and yet have to be pulled apart, your author chooses yoga, I choose my method, and I have seen that my method will work for me, and the job will be done properly and once and for all. The only way I could make a mistake is by rushing to the outcome before finishing the initial work. 
 

edit to clarify: “The ego is a chameleon which takes any colour, any shape, according to the atmosphere in which it lives. It knows its tricks very well, much more than all the understanding can work. It is a chameleon in the sense that it can assume the colour of the atmosphere in which it lives, so that we cannot detect it or discover it. It is one with the atmosphere, so how will we discover it? It has taken the same shape, colour and value of the conditions under which it is living, so it cannot be attacked.”

 

This is the trunk and the post, indistinguishable from each other. What I know is that the ego can also take on the cloak of nonduality, it assumes the colour of the atmosphere in which it lives… so that we cannot detect or discover it… What better place to hide? 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Bindi

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I opted out of that entire add-on feature. I think fine print detail was that it was entirely optional, and completely unnecessary. 

If a whole house is built on this ‘feature’, can it really be called an add-on? It just wasn’t declared, so you never noticed. 

[Bindi]

53 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

I think this is right on, Steve.  I became K-active maybe 30 years ago, and have been ever since.  Fickle mind and needy ego made it Quite a Thing to me for some time.  Now?  Eh.  Just bothersome tingling.

 

 

And fickle mind and needy ego have been vanquished since? 

 

53 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

It occurs to me that dual or non-dual can also be equated to knowing or being.  Seems to happen gradually, the metamorphosis from knowing to being.

 

[old3bob]

I always liked the following two saying that are used in military intelligence yet can also be used in various spiritual teachings.

"The need (or not the need) to know" and the WWII one of, "loose lips sink ships".  (with an implied combination of both)

Edited June 17, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

58 minutes ago, Bindi said:

If a whole house is built on this ‘feature’, can it really be called an add-on? It just wasn’t declared, so you never noticed. 

 We’ve put the “Jeff issue” to rest a long time ago on this forum. Best to not animate ghosts of the past. 
 

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

 

I wish people who gravitate towards yogic practices would spend sufficient time reading Patanjali’s yoga sutras. All misconceptions about “siddhis” will disappear if there is respect for the tradition. The  third section of the YS is called the “vibhuti pada” and covers the topic of siddhis. I’m sharing a specific chapter from a commentary on the YS by swami krishnananda below 

 

dwai, I began skipping large parts of that tract because it was so repetitious--didn't you find it to be so?  

Swami Krishnananda calls out the senses as an obstacle:

 

There is the form of the object, called the rupa in Sanskrit, and there is the essentiality of the subject, called the svarupa. The svarupa is the quintessential form, the basic essence of the ‘self’, and the rupa is the form of the object. The rupa always manages to keep itself away from the svarupa of the meditating consciousness. We always perceive the object; we never unite ourselves with the object. Such a thing has not been done because the senses, working together with the mind, act as a screen. They sift all processes of perception and take only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc., but will not allow the unity of the substantiality of the subject with the object because if that could be achieved, there would be no function for the senses.
 

 

He seems to attribute action to the senses, saying that they "working together with the mind" as a screen, taking "only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc.".  

 

Gautama described his experience of a "cessation of (volition in) feeling and perceiving".  He said "the disturbance" of the six senses continues, even without any volition or habitual tendency in feeling and perceiving them. 

 

The swami notes that the senses "take only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc., but will not allow the unity of the substantiality of the subject with the object"--as though some action must be taken to counter what the senses are doing. 

I'm going with the cessation of action, and a reliance on the fundamental wellness of the senses and the mind.

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mark Foote

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

dwai, I began skipping large parts of that tract because it was so repetitious--didn't you find it to be so?  

Swami Krishnananda calls out the senses as an obstacle:

 

There is the form of the object, called the rupa in Sanskrit, and there is the essentiality of the subject, called the svarupa. The svarupa is the quintessential form, the basic essence of the ‘self’, and the rupa is the form of the object. The rupa always manages to keep itself away from the svarupa of the meditating consciousness. We always perceive the object; we never unite ourselves with the object. Such a thing has not been done because the senses, working together with the mind, act as a screen. They sift all processes of perception and take only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc., but will not allow the unity of the substantiality of the subject with the object because if that could be achieved, there would be no function for the senses.
 

 

He seems to attribute action to the senses, saying that they "working together with the mind" as a screen, taking "only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc.".  

 

Gautama described his experience of a "cessation of (volition in) feeling and perceiving".  He said "the disturbance" of the six senses continues, even without any volition or habitual tendency in feeling and perceiving them. 

 

The swami notes that the senses "take only the impressions of perception, sensation, etc., but will not allow the unity of the substantiality of the subject with the object"--as though some action must be taken to counter what the senses are doing. 

I'm going with the cessation of action, and a reliance on the fundamental wellness of the senses and the mind.

 

 

 

He’s referring to the subject-object duality that gets reinforced with focus on an “object” as I understand it. The reflected consciousness (the mind) includes the ego which applies labels and identities. So the seer who experiences, the doer who does, applies the separation of “subject and object”, “doer and doing”,  and so on. This is what is being referred to here. 

[old3bob]

overlap included,  an excerpt which could help with the dual and non-dual quandary:

 

"....Later on, with the development of the concept of Brahman  (the supreme cosmic spirit which is regarded to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) in the Upanishads panentheistic notions became more frequent among Hindu thinkers. Although it is commonly described as subsuming all being, Brahman is also described as the embodiment of non-being as well. While such a description is more than somewhat nebulous, it could be interpreted to mean that Brahman also transcends the physical universe and represents a realm inconceivable to humanity beyond the physical realm of "being."  Thus, interpreted in this fashion, the conception of Brahman becomes decidedly panentheistic. Even the deeply personal view of divinity propounded in the Bhagavad Gita the most popular religious text in Hinduism, contains elements of panentheism. In the Bhagavad Gita personal and loving elements of God are unraveled for the reader as the divine Lord Krishna pilots young warrior Arjuna's chariot into battle.  Panentheism seems evident within this formulation of God as well, in various lines of the poem such as Krishna's delineation of his immense heavenly prowess: "With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe."  This seems to suggest that God (Krishna) contains the universe in which he is currently present and more, a definite variation of panentheism.

It is safe to say that Hinduism in general, while being panentheistic as is clear from above, has a pantheistic overlapping between the world and some part of the divine."

[C T]

14 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

This is the trunk and the post, indistinguishable from each other. What I know is that the ego can also take on the cloak of nonduality, it assumes the colour of the atmosphere in which it lives… so that we cannot detect or discover it… What better place to hide? 

 

 

In the same way one could say the ego festers in duality. It does not even bother to be subtle. 

Which explains why the general consensus among those who find affinity with spiritual matters will notice that the majority of folks, wandering in the illusion of duality, have very gross egos. In some ways, this is actually a good thing. Understanding their ways and interactions are less convoluted. It is where mountains are mountains. Where it gets slippery is the phase where mountains are no longer seen as mountains. This is where a lot of potential conflicts within spiritual circles catch fire, making interactions difficult. Because people have begun to see more, and each individual mountain, previously relatable with everyone else's, have begun to take on different hues, dimensions and possibilities. The catch being that such discoveries are very personal, individualistic, and often subjective. This is the phase where the polishing of the view (or diamond) is the most frantic, and therefore, prone to more frequent debates and misunderstandings. 

 

Peaceful, transcendent coexistence and mutual understanding returns when mountains are once again seen as mountains. However, the noticeable difference here, compared to phase one, is unmistakeable authenticity of interactions, and how silence is no longer awkward. 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by C T

[steve]

15 hours ago, Bindi said:

“The ego is a chameleon which takes any colour, any shape, according to the atmosphere in which it lives. It knows its tricks very well, much more than all the understanding can work. It is a chameleon in the sense that it can assume the colour of the atmosphere in which it lives, so that we cannot detect it or discover it. It is one with the atmosphere, so how will we discover it? It has taken the same shape, colour and value of the conditions under which it is living, so it cannot be attacked.”

 

This is why the ego is not utilized or sought in dzogchen. We can always simply look to the thought and it cannot maintain itself. There is no need to attack, simply rest and open and trust the process. It takes some practice to do this with precision and consistency but it can be very effective. I do not recommend it, however.

[Apech]

54 minutes ago, steve said:

 

This is why the ego is not utilized or sought in dzogchen. We can always simply look to the thought and it cannot maintain itself. There is no need to attack, simply rest and open and trust the process. It takes some practice to do this with precision and consistency but it can be very effective. I do not recommend it, however.

 

You do not recommend it???

[old3bob]

perhaps what was meant and the way I took Steve's last post was if one does not have a solid fall back position or dharmic default then shit can happen if floating upon the wind without such...

[Apech]

"Defilements are great wisdom,

supportive for the yogis like a forest for fire."

   -  Maitripa

 

"Connate mind-itself is the dharmakaya as such.

Connate appearances are the dharmakaya's light.

Connate concepts are the dharmakaya's waves.

Connate inseparability is the dharmakaya's actuality."

 - Gampopa

 

"Concepts, which arise as if they were something concrete,

take them firmly to be the dharmakaya.

That is meditation; only then one understands.

When this becomes an experience, the nature of mind is seen."

- Gampopa

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Apech

[steve]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

You do not recommend it???

 

Generally not. If someone is drawn to it or has a karmic connection and is seeking it out, no recommendation is needed and you really couldn’t keep them away if you tried. That was the case with me. If someone is interested and curious and asks my opinion, I highly recommend it. If someone does not feel a connection or is overtly opposed, as is the case with some here, I would not recommend it. They need to follow the path that draws them. I feel strongly that different people are suited to different paths and all paths can be judged only in relation to who is following it, what they need and how it is working for them. 

 

One of the things I find lacking in this discussion is the disclaimer that everything we say applies to ourself and our practice and may or may not apply to anyone else… I automatically assume this but by many reactions here I doubt we all feel that way.

[steve]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

"Defilements are great wisdom,

supportive for the yogis like a forest for fire."

   -  Maitripa

 

"Connate mind-itself is the dharmakaya as such.

Connate appearances are the dharmakaya's light.

Connate concepts are the dharmakaya's waves.

Connate inseparability is the dharmakaya's actuality."

 - Gampopa

 

"Concepts, which arise as if they were something concrete,

take them firmly to be the dharmakaya.

That is meditation; only then one understands.

When this becomes an experience, the nature of mind is seen."

- Gampopa

 

 

I just read this morning a post about Garchen Rinpoche’s experience in a Chinese prison - torture, hard labor… His ability to take this as his path and not just survive but thrive is mind boggling.

[C T]

41 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Connate inseparability is the dharmakaya's actuality."

 - Gampopa

 

 

 

Bears repeating. Thank you.

 

Not to be confused/conflated with the concept of oneness. 

[manitou]

18 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

And fickle mind and needy ego have been vanquished since? 

 

 

 

 

That's the trick,  that's the practice, that's the goal.  I'm not sure it ever ends.  But there comes a point in time where the nuts and bolts of any particular path are no longer important.  It doesn't matter what path was taken to get there.  Once the mind, the fickle thoughts, have been tamed, yes, there is vanquishment.  Not 100% of the time, but enough awareness to pull them back to the place of Om when you see that you're letting your thoughts take you for a ride.  This can be done many times a day, if needed.  And it's fresh every time!

 

Needy ego is also vanquished in degrees.  Arrogance, assuredness, a sense of superiority - these things can be lessened if one earnestly works on diminishing them.  This is why it hurts to admit mistakes or to make an apology - because ego takes a beating.  But that is the very thing that ego needs - to take a beating.  Ego confirms wrongfully our sense of separateness from each other.  So does arrogance, so does head knowledge - they give the illusion of separateness.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by manitou

[natural]

11 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

That's the trick,  that's the practice, that's the goal.  I'm not sure it ever ends.  But there comes a point in time where the nuts and bolts of any particular path are no longer important.  It doesn't matter what path was taken to get there.  Once the mind, the fickle thoughts, have been tamed, yes, there is vanquishment.  Not 100% of the time, but enough awareness to pull them back to the place of Om when you see that you're letting your thoughts take you for a ride.  This can be done many times a day, if needed.  And it's fresh every time!

 

Needy ego is also vanquished in degrees.  Arrogance, assuredness, a sense of superiority - these things can be lessened if one earnestly works on diminishing them.  This is why it hurts to admit mistakes or to make an apology - because ego takes a beating.  But that is the very thing that ego needs - to take a beating.  Ego confirms wrongfully our sense of separateness from each other.  So does arrogance, so does head knowledge - they give the illusion of separateness.

 

 

 

 

 

Emphasis bolded by me.

The entire post deserves consideration, but I chose to place emphasis on key insights or path notes of a well traveled individual!

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, steve said:

 

Generally not. If someone is drawn to it or has a karmic connection and is seeking it out, no recommendation is needed and you really couldn’t keep them away if you tried. That was the case with me. If someone is interested and curious and asks my opinion, I highly recommend it. If someone does not feel a connection or is overtly opposed, as is the case with some here, I would not recommend it. They need to follow the path that draws them. I feel strongly that different people are suited to different paths and all paths can be judged only in relation to who is following it, what they need and how it is working for them. 

 

One of the things I find lacking in this discussion is the disclaimer that everything we say applies to ourself and our practice and may or may not apply to anyone else… I automatically assume this but by many reactions here I doubt we all feel that way.

 

i can relate to that for ever since I was a little kid I could swim very well and enjoyed being in the water,  so now and then I found it kind of strange when I saw someone afraid of getting into a pool because they could not even dog-paddle and would sink, or were unable to go above their knees at an ocean beach,  thus I was assuming everyone had at least the most basic water skills but it is not so.  

[natural]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

i can relate to that for ever since I was a little kid I could swim very well and enjoyed being in the water,  so now and then I found it kind of strange when I saw someone afraid of getting into a pool because they could not even dog-paddle and would sink, or were unable to go above their knees at an ocean beach,  thus I was assuming everyone had at least the most basic water skills but it is not so.  

 

Been there done that as well...

What do they say about assumptions?

Something about making them makes the one making them an ass, and yes I have the t shirt !

 

Now a days my mantra is thought before action when ever possible....

Must I truly react or might I consider a response?

An old not so bold commercial pilot strongly suggested when it looks like you are going into the weeds, It is time wind your watch!

 

But then once when i tried to land a 1940 something Piper Cub A tail wheel front to back two seater on the grass at a large airport, between two active runways, the crosswind caught me off guard. And in a matter of seconds the plane was aimed at the hardest possible odject parallel to the runway. I was awoken out of my fear and stupor by a shout to quit winding your watch and fly the f......... plane to  a complete stop. LOL

Edited June 18, 2022 by natural