|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 3:51:13 PM
|
Hi Carson,
quote:
Hi adamant, Christi and All
Perhaps (and very likely) my POV is not desired here, but regardless I will share my perspective anyways....(typical)
"That" is just a word. "Gone from That" is just a phrase. What we truly are is beyond all words, beyond any description. Trying to put words to it, trying to debate about it, is futile from the perspective here. BE your true nature as talk is cheap and words aren't Truth. (hope that doesn't sound offensive or harsh, I don't mean it to be....sorry if this comes across wrong).
Sometimes words can help, like a finger pointing at the moon. But there needs to be receptivity. In a sense, the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating receptivity. |
 |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 3:55:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Carson,
quote:
Hi adamant, Christi and All
Perhaps (and very likely) my POV is not desired here, but regardless I will share my perspective anyways....(typical)
"That" is just a word. "Gone from That" is just a phrase. What we truly are is beyond all words, beyond any description. Trying to put words to it, trying to debate about it, is futile from the perspective here. BE your true nature as talk is cheap and words aren't Truth. (hope that doesn't sound offensive or harsh, I don't mean it to be....sorry if this comes across wrong).
Sometimes words can help, like a finger pointing at the moon. But there needs to be receptivity. In a sense, the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating receptivity.
Unless they point somewhere else.
Adamant |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 3:57:25 PM
|
Hi Christi
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Sometimes words can help, like a finger pointing at the moon. But there needs to be receptivity. In a sense, the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating receptivity.
Agreed. What I was basically meaning though, is that it is very easy to get attached to specific words that are "pointing to the moon" due to a tradition we follow, how we were raised as children, or the experiences we have had in this life so far....so when you say "the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating receptivity" and I say "the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating openness" we aren't contradicting each other, although it may seem like it to some (us included). Meaning, it is pointless IMO to bicker over which words point to the moon best. They are all just words and words can not be Truth. Truth just Is.
Love.
 |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Feb 01 2010 4:07:20 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 3:57:47 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Your way of putting it is your way of putting it: back-door pantheism.
Adamant
Nothing to do with Pantheism, and nothing to do with a back door.
"Your way", "my way", these are simply more divisions of the mind. Go beyond these trivial distinctions and you will come to that which is eternally true.
All the best.
Christi |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:01:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Unless they point somewhere else.
No one can know what it will take to "wake up" another. What works for one may not work for another. The words one person says may not point you towards the moon, but for another could be a rocketship to True Nature. Everyone is different.
Love.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:04:34 PM
|
Hi Carson,
quote:
Agreed. What I was basically meaning though, is that it is very easy to get attached to specific words that are "pointing to the moon" due to a tradition we follow, how we were raised as children, or the experiences we have had in this life so far....but when you say "the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating receptivity" and I say "the whole of the spiritual path is about cultivating openness" we aren't contradicting each other, although it may seem like it to some (us included). Meaning, it is pointless IMO to bicker over which words point to the moon best. They are all just words and words can not be Truth. Truth just Is.
Absolutely. And a lot of the sectarian disputes have been about just that. Which is why it is time to go beyond into a more enlightened era (literally ).
Christi |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:06:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Absolutely. And a lot of the sectarian disputes have been about just that. Which is why it is time to go beyond into a more enlightened era (literally ).
Amen Brother....
Love.
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:35:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Unless they point somewhere else.
No one can know what it will take to "wake up" another. What works for one may not work for another. The words one person says may not point you towards the moon, but for another could be a rocketship to True Nature. Everyone is different.
Love.
If that's the case then everyone would wake up based on what everyone else says. I totally agree in the complete relativity of truth; that complete relativity points to the moon. However, methods should be sound and the results from those methods predictable. When one is working with methods to realize the truth, words do matter, because they describe some fruit to realized. The view that words don't matter is disguising a view about a reality to be realized that is "beyond the mind," and "beyond words." If I say, "words are necessary" and you say I'm wrong, then you made me a sectarian by asserting your sect.
Adamant |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:39:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Your way of putting it is your way of putting it: back-door pantheism.
Adamant
Nothing to do with Pantheism, and nothing to do with a back door.
"Your way", "my way", these are simply more divisions of the mind. Go beyond these trivial distinctions and you will come to that which is eternally true.
All the best.
Christi
Hi Christ, I'll leave you to your eternally true. I'm free of that bondage.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Feb 01 2010 4:55:09 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 4:54:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
No one can know what it will take to "wake up" another. What works for one may not work for another. The words one person says may not point you towards the moon, but for another could be a rocketship to True Nature. Everyone is different.
Love.
If that's the case then everyone would wake up based on what everyone else says.
I don't come to that conclusion at all. The conclusion I draw from what is being said is that what points to Truth for you, will not always point to Truth for someone else. And what doesn't point to Truth for you, may be exactly what someone else needed to wake up. Every journey is totally different....everyone has their own "matrix of obstructions" and what resonates with one will not always resonate with another, and vice versa.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I totally agree in the complete relativity of truth; that complete relativity points to the moon. However, methods should be sound and the results from those methods predictable.
Methods are not words....and as far as I knew we were talking about words pointing to Truth and not methods that bring one to realize Truth....if I am having a discussion with myself here please forgive me .
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
When one is working with methods to realize the truth, words do matter, because they describe some fruit to realized.
I think having a "definition" of what is to be realized is an obstruction on the path. If your experience of Truth doesn't line up with your preconceived definitions of Truth, then you may miss the fact that you are already Home. A "can't see the forest for all the trees" deal. 
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
The view that words don't matter is disguising a view about a reality to be realized that is "beyond the mind," and "beyond words."
How so? How does a reality that is "beyond the mind" and "beyond words" require words?
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
If I say, "words are necessary" and you say I'm wrong, then you made me a sectarian by asserting your sect.
Of course. But remember, I never said "you are wrong", nor would I ever....I can't insert my Truth into your perspective, and I know it would be futile to try.
Love.
|
Edited by - CarsonZi on Feb 01 2010 4:57:36 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:02:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
No one can know what it will take to "wake up" another. What works for one may not work for another. The words one person says may not point you towards the moon, but for another could be a rocketship to True Nature. Everyone is different.
Love.
If that's the case then everyone would wake up based on what everyone else says.
I don't come to that conclusion at all. The conclusion I draw from what is being said is that what points to Truth for you, will not always point to Truth for someone else. And what doesn't point to Truth for you, may be exactly what someone else needed to wake up. Every journey is totally different....everyone has their own "matrix of obstructions" and what resonates with one will not always resonate with another, and vice versa.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I totally agree in the complete relativity of truth; that complete relativity points to the moon. However, methods should be sound and the results from those methods predictable.
Methods are not words....and as far as I knew we were talking about words pointing to Truth and not methods that bring one to realize Truth....if I am having a discussion with myself here please forgive me.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
When one is working with methods to realize the truth, words do matter, because they describe some fruit to realized.
I think having a "definition" of what is to be realized is an obstruction on the path. If your experience of Truth doesn't line up with your preconceived definitions of Truth, then you may miss the fact that you are already Home. A "can't see the forest for all the trees" deal.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
The view that words don't matter is disguising a view about a reality to be realized that is "beyond the mind," and "beyond words."
How so? How does a reality that is "beyond the mind" and "beyond words" require words?
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
If I say, "words are necessary" and you say I'm wrong, then you made me a sectarian by asserting your sect.
Of course. But remember, I never said "you are wrong", nor would I ever....I can't insert my Truth into your perspective, and I know it would be futile to try.
Love.
I have a hard time breaking up quotes blocks: Here it goes..
1. I agree different things resonate with different people.
2. Methods are described in words. And methods point to some fruit otherwise why bother.
3. I agree definitions are obstructions. Not only definitions, but preconceived notions. Not only preconceived notions but also preconceived assumptions, like "You are That," masquerading as open nonconceptual nonsectarianism.
4. "Beyond words" and "beyond mind" veils and assumption about a reality to be realized, and a system of spiritual practice to realize it.
I'm getting at the nature of "freed" and "bondage."
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Feb 01 2010 5:05:23 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:18:51 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christ, I'll leave you to your eternally true. I'm free of that bondage.
"I" and "you", "true" and false", "free" and "bound", these are all ideas in the mind. Go beyond. This is the true meaning of Tathagata (thus come, thus gone).
The rational mind can be a useful tool, but it can also be a prison. Then it is time to "let go".
Christi |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:25:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
1. I agree different things resonate with different people.
Cool...glad we can agree on that
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
2. Methods are described in words. And methods point to some fruit otherwise why bother.
I get what you are saying, but I believe you are missing what I am trying (obviously inadequately) to say. What I am trying to indicate here, is that having a "goal/fruit" to aim for is fine, but attaching to a definition of what that goal/fruit is is an obstacle. Meaning, if "enlightenment" or "liberation" or whatever, is what you are striving for with your "methods", defining what "enlightenment" "liberation" or whatever you are striving for, is an obstacle.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
3. I agree definitions are obstructions. Not only definitions, but preconceived notions. Not only preconceived notions but also preconceived assumptions, like "You are That," masquerading as open nonconceptual nonsectarianism.
Sure. As are statements like "Gone from That". They are all just words. They are not Truth.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
4. "Beyond words" and "beyond mind" veils and assumption about a reality to be realized, and a system of spiritual practice to realize it.
And what assumption would that be?
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I'm getting at the nature of "freed" and "bondage."
Who is there to be free? Who is in bondage?
Love.
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:34:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christ, I'll leave you to your eternally true. I'm free of that bondage.
"I" and "you", "true" and false", "free" and "bound", these are all ideas in the mind. Go beyond. This is the true meaning of Tathagata (thus come, thus gone).
The rational mind can be a useful tool, but it can also be a prison. Then it is time to "let go".
Christi
Hi Christi, Someone with understanding knows what is and what isn't the path. Letting go of rationality is the usual invitation into bondage.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:48:31 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Someone with understanding knows what is and what isn't the path. Letting go of rationality is the usual invitation into bondage.
Yes, usually. Receptivity has to be there... the timely hearing of the Dharma. Then the letting go of the limited mind is a letting go into freedom and not bondage. This is true understanding. It is a letting go into a true relationship with what is real. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:50:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
1. I agree different things resonate with different people.
Cool...glad we can agree on that
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
2. Methods are described in words. And methods point to some fruit otherwise why bother.
I get what you are saying, but I believe you are missing what I am trying (obviously inadequately) to say. What I am trying to indicate here, is that having a "goal/fruit" to aim for is fine, but attaching to a definition of what that goal/fruit is is an obstacle. Meaning, if "enlightenment" or "liberation" or whatever, is what you are striving for with your "methods", defining what "enlightenment" "liberation" or whatever you are striving for, is an obstacle.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
3. I agree definitions are obstructions. Not only definitions, but preconceived notions. Not only preconceived notions but also preconceived assumptions, like "You are That," masquerading as open nonconceptual nonsectarianism.
Sure. As are statements like "Gone from That". They are all just words. They are not Truth.
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
4. "Beyond words" and "beyond mind" veils and assumption about a reality to be realized, and a system of spiritual practice to realize it.
And what assumption would that be?
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I'm getting at the nature of "freed" and "bondage."
Who is there to be free? Who is in bondage?
Love.
1. I'm glad too.
2. I'm not defining a goal. That's what That does.
3. There is no "Truth" there is liberation from mental circling. That's what I mean by "Gone from That." Not mentally pointing anywhere.
4. A reality beyond the mind and beyond concepts.
5. Bondage is ignorance, volition, consciousness, name and form, the sixfold base, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, being, birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair: the whole mass of suffering. When of one of these ceases, the whole mass ceases with it. The methods that provide for one of these to cease, and words used to describe those methods, point to freedom. Even the understanding of such a method is seeing directly the nature of bondage and immediately results in freedom.
Adamant |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 5:51:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Someone with understanding knows what is and what isn't the path. Letting go of rationality is the usual invitation into bondage.
Yes, usually. Receptivity has to be there... the timely hearing of the Dharma. Then the letting go of the limited mind is a letting go into freedom and not bondage. This is true understanding. It is a letting go into a true relationship with what is real.
This is a good insight to have.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 6:17:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Someone with understanding knows what is and what isn't the path. Letting go of rationality is the usual invitation into bondage.
Yes, usually. Receptivity has to be there... the timely hearing of the Dharma. Then the letting go of the limited mind is a letting go into freedom and not bondage. This is true understanding. It is a letting go into a true relationship with what is real.
This is a good insight to have.
Adamant
That's the prison. Right there.
Seeing that is liberation. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 6:27:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Someone with understanding knows what is and what isn't the path. Letting go of rationality is the usual invitation into bondage.
Yes, usually. Receptivity has to be there... the timely hearing of the Dharma. Then the letting go of the limited mind is a letting go into freedom and not bondage. This is true understanding. It is a letting go into a true relationship with what is real.
This is a good insight to have.
Adamant
That's the prison. Right there.
Seeing that is liberation.
Are you in it then? Is this the prison of pedantry?
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Feb 01 2010 6:50:02 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 7:08:52 PM
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Adamant,
In reality there is no in or out. The prison of the mind is real as long as it appears to be real. And the person trapped inside is real only for as long as they appear to be real. The bars dissolve along with the prisoner.
It is useful to be well read, but in the end you have to let go of everything you ever knew, everything you ever heard.
Christi
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 7:26:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Adamant,
In reality there is no in or out. The prison of the mind is real as long as it appears to be real. And the person trapped inside is real only for as long as they appear to be real. The bars dissolve along with the prisoner.
It is useful to be well read, but in the end you have to let go of everything you ever knew, everything you ever heard.
Christi
And then you have to let go of your assumptions, everything you experience, all your subtle abstractions and desires. Again I say, one must know what is and what is not the path. Otherwise, one delusion becomes another.
Adamant |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2010 : 7:50:11 PM
|
quote:
"Do some of the wise say that just this much is the utmost, the purity of the spirit is here? Or do they say that it's other than this?"
"Some of the wise say that just this much is the utmost, the purity of the spirit is here. But some of them, who say they are skilled, say it's the moment with no clinging remaining. Knowing, 'Having known, they still are dependent,' the sage, ponders dependencies. On knowing them, released, he doesn't get into disputes, doesn't meet with becoming & not-becoming : he's enlightened."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi...11.than.html
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 02 2010 : 04:42:37 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
And then you have to let go of your assumptions, everything you experience, all your subtle abstractions and desires. Again I say, one must know what is and what is not the path. Otherwise, one delusion becomes another.
That's right. The idea that the word "That" defines something, whereas the words "That gone one" defines nothing is an idea in the mind only. It is an assumption, a subtle abstraction, ephemeral, fleeting. It is gone almost as soon as it arises, like a drop of dew in the sun. Letting go of this, brings freedom. This is knowing what is the path and what is not the path.
Enjoy,
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 02 2010 : 11:05:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
And then you have to let go of your assumptions, everything you experience, all your subtle abstractions and desires. Again I say, one must know what is and what is not the path. Otherwise, one delusion becomes another.
That's right. The idea that the word "That" defines something, whereas the words "That gone one" defines nothing is an idea in the mind only. It is an assumption, a subtle abstraction, ephemeral, fleeting. It is gone almost as soon as it arises, like a drop of dew in the sun. Letting go of this, brings freedom. This is knowing what is the path and what is not the path.
Enjoy,
Christi
Hi Christi,
You can't be Vedant and Buddhadharm at the same time. What you wrote in this post is Buddhadharm. What you wrote in previous posts is Vedant. These are distinctly two different approaches. Let's not confuse them. Let's not say things in confusing ways either. Let's not use metaphorical language which implies an indescribable existence. Let's get clear.
AYP is Vedant, primarily. Vedant has a specific lineage in common with Semitic tradition which is why you see these ties today, beginning with Yogananda; both are inherently ideological, the existence of an imperceptible reality beyond this one, the unmanifest, brahman, Thatness, God, etc, where happiness is in the heavens, the afterlife. The pranayamas, mantra and prayer repetition evolved here to cause a devolution of the mind into that unmanifest state, to experience the joy of the afterlife during life (with the caveat that liberation occurs in death). This implies belief in a layered order of cosmology, evolving from the unmanifest to the manifest which also implicates creationism and a deity. Even the sanskrit phenomes were created with this ideology of an implicate order.
AYP is also tantra. Tantra arose from an approach opposing Vedant's puritanicalism and control, that through the senses one can experience the unmanifest. But the unmanifest was still the underlying principle. This is like the organic approach, taking up the existing shamanistic traditions in India at the time, utilizing the body to affect the mind. Shamanistic traditions all share a theory of creationism. The Shivaite tradition evolved here, pleasure, even if it's extra-sensory, arising from methods, drugs, sex, twirling or music and dancing or hanging from a hook.
The Buddha, in his earliest teachings, having waded through an ocean of approaches, taught no method and no view; no breathing, concentration or any other techniques. He cut through all these possibilities and arrived at a rational approach. He taught a way of understanding the nature of conditional relations which are observable at any moment, those conditions upon which discontent arises, nothing more. It does not require evolving, devolving or concentrating the mind, as it were, to recognize it. It is also not using the senses. It requires an open and objective non-speculative mind, and that's all. It simply required, as Buddha put it, an equanimous mind, which means impartial, dispassionate, objective, scientific. This is simply about living the good life, a happy life, free of discontent. Jhanas essentially don't matter.
There are two possible extremes of approaching a happy life. On the one extreme, there's concentrating the mind until its no longer perceivable. On the other extreme, there's using the body to its extreme until one no longer feels (blissed out, zoned out). On either side of center, there's all sorts of various approaches to manufacture experiences either mental or sensory. All these forums are about seekers generating mental and sensory experiences in an effort to zap the body-mind construct with energy and achieve some state "nonconceptual." It's like attacking the soldier with two tanks converging. But the path is ecstasy and nonperception.
The true middle is the Buddha's approach of discerning conditional relations in the present moment, under whatever experiences the body-mind construct might find itself. It requires honestly divorcing one's assumptions about planes of existence, and divorcing one's attachments to sensory experience. The utterly momentous event occurred in human thought where the Buddha recognized delight in either views or experiences to be the seed of bondage. Simply by relinquishing delight, there's enlightenment. Remaining detached and dispassionate is an amazing skill to pick up; its enlightenment. Again I quote Kalaha-vivada:
quote:
"Some of the wise say that just this much is the utmost, the purity of the spirit is here. But some of them, who say they are skilled, say it's the moment with no clinging remaining. Knowing, 'Having known, they still are dependent, the sage, ponders dependencies. On knowing them, released, he doesn't get into disputes, doesn't meet with becoming & not- : he's enlightened."
(Notice how purging all clinging is not important).
The modern approach of the so-called New Age is simply to blur everything. There is this movement among Western "enlightenment" teachers to open with the line "not affiliated with any tradition," and then teach Vedant. Yogani does it; Tolle does it, Paulsen, Katie, Adyashanti, etc., etc., etc. There is an attempt to blend Vedant, Tantra, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhadharma. The result of the beyond concepts, in the now, infinite consciousness, what you are talk is about the ancient tradition. This happened before, it was called Vajrayana and Advaita. The bulk of Tibetan Buddhism has this both/neither quality too. All the reform movements of the region have attempted to combine.
Blend is just not Buddha's original intent. However, all those other traditions do blend easily, because they are the same tradition. Buddhadharma can be adapted to Vedant, but not the other way around. The Buddha's teaching technique of "skill in means" basically meant taking what the listener already believed and injecting conditional relations into it to unwind the assumptions. The bulk of what became of Buddhadharma and attempts to create a cosmology or a yoga path (stages of meditation) system from it, came from this skill in means approach to teaching. He was talking to a particular audience, always tailored to the listener. In those times, objectivity was infant concept and the Buddha tried to take people as they were and get them to the point of objective rationality, whether they were brahmans or yogis. He didn't even try to invent new terms, just a new way of seeing.
To understand the Buddha's teaching in purest form, you have to look to the earliest teachings, which are not yet called suttas or you have to look at the Abhidhamma, which involve no cosmology or skill in means approach, only an analysis of conditional relations between apperceptive qualities, ethics and sensory experiences. The twelve links of dependent origination are the Abhidhamma in simplest form, and was one of those earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha to a Brahmin. Abhidhamma boiled down to one link is recognizing delight, or contact, or attachment or any one of the links as the cause of suffering.
Here, you can be one minute enlightened and the next minute in bondage, it depends on whether the links are in place. The Arahant is one who has become so predisposed to self-examination that the links never re-attach. Long meditation sessions, techniques and hard effort are opposite the Buddha's intent. Buddadharma is simply a way of understanding relationships between the immediate perceptible features of oneself and the world. Recognizing the relationships is conceptual and clear. It's also enlightenment, because once one understands correctly, there's happiness. Happiness is also conceptual and clear; it's the absence of discontent. Simple.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Feb 02 2010 11:30:05 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 03 2010 : 04:45:26 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
You can't be Vedant and Buddhadharm at the same time. What you wrote in this post is Buddhadharm. What you wrote in previous posts is Vedant. These are distinctly two different approaches. Let's not confuse them. Let's not say things in confusing ways either. Let's not use metaphorical language which implies an indescribable existence. Let's get clear.
What the Buddha taught was the ending of the known. This is Buddha dharma. The word Vedanta literally means "The ending of the known". This should not come as too much of a surprise, after all, all valid spiritual paths lead to the same truth, the ultimate truth of existence.
The Buddha claimed no lineage, and taught Vedanta, the ending of knowledge.
The constant need to differentiate the methods, spiritual practices, and philosophy taught by the Buddha from all other spiritual traditions seems to be a recurring theme for you. In truth, the differences are only apparent and with the awakening of truth, become transparent. The differences of approach of both philosophy and practical technique have more meaning in the early stages of the path. As we progress, they become increasingly redundant as everything begins to converge in oneness. Paths begin to intertwine, and merge. All roads are seen to be one road, different only in name, but in truth nothing but reality calling itself home to itself. The Dharma is seen to be nothing but Vedanta, the ending of knowledge, of the known. It is the dissolution of the prison bars of mental fabrication.
This alone is freedom. It is the Dhamma and the Abhidhamma, the Suttas, the Upanishads, the Vedas. It is what every true spiritual teacher has ever taught. Yogani is no exception here. AYP is not a teaching about attaining happiness in some heavenly realm, or in some afterlife. It is about the realization of truth through spiritual practice, just as the Buddha taught the realization of truth through spiritual practice. Not much has changed in two and a half thousand years.
If differentiating between different traditions is important to you now, it will be less important later. Eventually it will be of no importance whatsoever. There will be nothing to differentiate between, as it will all be seen to be rivers flowing into the ocean. In the ocean how can you say which drop of water came from one river, and which from another? What does it matter anymore?
All the best.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Dharma Distilled
