quote:

---

Originally posted by gumpi

In reality, the Self, the little self, and the rest of the universe and other people DO exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:

---

Originally posted by gumpi

In reality, the Self, the little self, and the rest of the universe and other people DO exist.

---

People don't exist. Only in your own mind, do other people exist.

For example, if you think of your mother right now, she only exists as a flawed packet of memories in the mind. This packet also contains fictitious projections into the nonexistant future.

And similarly, in your mother's mind, her OWN identity is also fictitious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Hi Chinna, Sure, one can rely on the inner guru, and outer guru may be represented by the whole universe. But this is the slow path.

It's not that some will need a guru and others won't. It's that some will be lucky enough to meet a wise guru, and others won't. That's just karma. Every, every, every great master of any tradition had a physical human guru. I guarantee you that any so-called master who claimed enlightenment from visions and dreams is not a master. You are free to believe what you like. I live in the human realm.

However, thinking and following thoughts goes nowhere. One must encounter methods to transcend thoughts. For example, alwayson describes bringing to bear thoughts that have relevance to the present moment. Whether a thing is relevant or irrelevant is a conceptual judgment. The conceptual mind is the obscuration. You cannot use an obscuration to reveal clarity. One must one way or another realize the ground of mind. That can happen spontaneously. But the fruition of enlightenment will not happen until the solitary realizer meets the methods from the guru.

What you describe as a profound yoga is not a profound yoga. Everything is not just thinking. Thinking is illusory. Which means there is a reality. To discover the reality you have to stop thinking and view the ground of the mind.

If you said everything is awareness, you'd be closer to the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Hi Chinna, Sure, one can rely on the inner guru, and outer guru may be represented by the whole universe. But this is the slow path.

It's not that some will need a guru and others won't. It's that some will be lucky enough to meet a wise guru, and others won't. That's just karma. Every, every, every great master of any tradition had a physical human guru. I guarantee you that any so-called master who claimed enlightenment from visions and dreams is not a master. You are free to believe what you like. I live in the human realm.

However, thinking and following thoughts goes nowhere. One must encounter methods to transcend thoughts. For example, alwayson describes bringing to bear thoughts that have relevance to the present moment. Whether a thing is relevant or irrelevant is a conceptual judgment. The conceptual mind is the obscuration. You cannot use an obscuration to reveal clarity. One must one way or another realize the ground of mind. That can happen spontaneously. But the fruition of enlightenment will not happen until the solitary realizer meets the methods from the guru.

What you describe as a profound yoga is not a profound yoga. Everything is not just thinking. Thinking is illusory. Which means there is a reality. To discover the reality you have to stop thinking and view the ground of the mind.

If you said everything is awareness, you'd be closer to the mark.

---

We-ell.....

Ramana Maharshi.

There is no recipe for THAT of which we speak.

Different traditions use words in different ways, and on this basis dismiss only caricatures of one other.

Freedom is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realise your true nature. There are many windows to this realisation, and why should there not be, since it is one's birthright, it is who or what one truly IS? It's the illusion that needs the special teachers!!

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

Osel,

Can you describe specifically what the Buddha's omniscience actually entails, with supporting evidence?

I am not knowledgeable in this area.

---

quote:

---

Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

quote:

---

Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna

---

Hi Chinna,

No need to apologise!

So far nothing in this thread has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is just an endless round of 'who has read more books than so-and-so', 'who has accumulated the most amount of mental knowledge', 'who has done the most number of hours of meditation in one week... , 'who's teacher is more enlightened than someone else's teacher', 'my sect is better than your sect', and so on ad infinitum.

All of this has nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught, and in fact is the very antithesis of his teaching. In a nutshell, this is the worst kind of spiritual materialism. It isn't even the beginning of the spiritual path.

Even if this were a Buddhist discussion (which it is not), all the forum members would be free to participate, as Buddhists naturally welcome discussion and contributions from spiritual practitioners of every tradition.

Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

---

quote:

---

I have a feeling this thread may go on for another 13 pages...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

---

Discussion about what Maharshi meant by "self-realization" aside... Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.

According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.


Ösel Dorje

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

Ramana's omniscience is well attested. I have come across no examples of his flying or disappearing, which I feel he would have regarded as pointless. Indeed, I imagine he'd have regarded the omniscience as pointless too, ultimately.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.

---

quote:

---

FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

quote:

---

Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.

---

quote:

---

FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.

---

Hi Osel,

There is a difference between a discussion, and getting lost in arguments over fixed views. This is exactly what the Buddha asked his monks not to do. When they continued to do it, he walked away, disappointed. He saw that they were missing the whole point of the spiritual life, which is to abandon all fixed views, not to bolster them up and put them to the test in argument. These days this kind of thing is commonplace amongst people who call themselves Buddhists. People bicker over this aspect of the Dharma, or that aspect, attempting to strengthen their own position, whilst putting others down. And all this is done under the name of spirituality.

To be honest with you, it is all nonsense.

You may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Buddhism, or anything to do with the spiritual life. The Buddha walked away from it 2500 years ago. Anyone with any degree of insight would be wise to walk away from it today.

What the Buddha really taught was a path of spiritual practice, restraint and self-inquiry. He taught his followers to live in harmony together, and to live with humility and respect for each other. He taught compassion, and peacefulness.

Spiritual practice is really the key thing here because all the rest... compassion, humility, equanimity, harmony, peace, inner joy, samatha, samadhi, nirvana... are the fruit of that.


Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

Osel,

I have a weird question.

What is the relationship between the syllable/sound AUM, and a Buddha's omniscience?

I have a reason why I am asking, and no it has nothing to do with hinduism Brahman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by divinefurball

Hi Konchok Osel Dorje, you said (responding to Christi's view of the thread above, I believe):

"FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha."

Konchok Osel Dorje, I'm both glad and sad to hear that you are not sensititve.....

The Buddha was not "ESPECIALLY verbose". He was not verbose at all. To say so is offensive in the extreme. Unlike yourself, the Buddha said only what was necessary. The Buddha's Dharma was offered out of personal experience and compassion, and was/is therefore not something to be argued about, but tried and judged on the results, by each - as he himself recommended. Yogani offers his teachings in the same way. Those with real experience don't have anything to argue about, and don't put forward "positions", etc. They ripen and give fruit to be tried. The interdependent exhange of real fruit is the real nature of the Sangha (not a "test of views"). Everything else offered as "teaching," "debate," or "discussion", is pretentious, self-involved palaver and only stands in the way of y/our realization; while leading others astray in illusary drama, and discursive miasma, that is far removed from liberating thought in the Dharmakaya - as the taste of fruit can. Comparing such to the Buddha's Dharma is exceedingly bad karma to say the least, and at best, an indication that self-enquiry is urgently required.

By The Way, the definition of verbose is: "containing more words than neccessary {as this thread does}: wordy: impaired by wordiness; given to wordiness, wordy. (Websters)."

For Y/Our Enlightenment In This Lifetime, dfb

---