Levels/Layers of Progression

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

There is no separation that is dualistic and not what is taught in any tradition.

The body is energy/light, you are energy/light. Yes you can realize it all while still being alive and eating and drinking.

I agree there is no separation in the grand scheme of things but we do experience life as an individual that entertains an individual point of perception .

You are not perceiving every point of perception are you? You are not individually experiencing my suffering or my bliss are you . You are not experiencing running's bliss or 7l's point of view on what running has been talking about .

There is no point playing the non separating duality card in this reality of self experience . To suggest there is no difference is also dualistic .

Originally Posted by jonesboy

There is no difference. You are saying it is always out there somewhere sometime. That you can't live a life and realize what all the great traditions say you can.

The path is about eating a burger, living your life all the while as your true self as you call it.

You say there is no difference and yet you can't have a greater difference in my eyes . Do you understand the difference I am talking about / pointing out?

I am saying there is bliss where there is no sense of self . I am also saying there is the experience of I am feeling blissful with a sense of self identity .

Where there is a sense of I am blissful, there is a sense of the ego self . The supposed non dual Self that is love or bliss that is egoless does not have a vehicle or a single point of expression to support all that is in entirety ..

Do you go about your business with a sense of you? Do you know that bliss exists beyond the thought of you?
Going about your business, eating, drinking, farting and feeling blissful is an experience that pertains to you and not I .

A blissful individual that has a minimal sense of self identity is not looking forward to the weekend barbie, I am only saying that bliss has many levels to it, depending on how one identifies with one's self and the world around them .

Some blissful states has no individual or world to relate too ..





x daz x

[muffin]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey muff ..

Is it more that 'it' changes or is rather more your perception of it changes?


x daz x

Good afternoon daz

Both, you open a door and there something new, then the next one and carry on. In saying that your perception will be changing along the way or you wouldn't be opening the doors.

[Bindu*]

.


Bliss is totally safe !.....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

[r6r6]

Ive seen no one here define, or explain their use of this phrase "non-dual" with any clarity much less truth, other than what I have previously posted.

There can only exist two kinds of non-dual;
1} a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept with no occupied space complement, other than,

2} macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, when consider in isolation-- ergo conceptually only ---from the finite, occupied space Universe.

Integrity is wholistic ergo inherently dualistic erg those who speak of non-duality lack integrity, wholism and basic common sense in these regards.

Non-dualism cannot be explained or defined with any rational, logical common sense beyond what Ive laid out in two posts in this thread.

Humans are based on a bilateral nervous system. Bilateral = dualistic. A wholistic human is composed of left and right considerartions.

Humans consider with two hemi-spheres that have differrent function.

Non-dual ?

Originally Posted by r6r6r

The body is energy but not light. Human body reflects visible light and emits invisible{ to naked eye }as specific frequency of electro-magnetic radiation{ photons }.
Repeating of non-truths will never make non-truths, true.
bliss
1. supreme happiness; utter joy or contentment: wedded bliss.

2.Theology. the joy of heaven.

3.heaven; paradise: the road to eternal bliss.

4.Archaic. a cause of great joy or happiness.



Here is four definitions of bliss we can add to the long list of other words used around here to define bliss. Bliss with out truth is an incomplete bliss. imho


r6

[django]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Here is one.



Another one:



Here he is talking about the dangers of bliss and moving on and how.

... All that we can say is this that the Lanka is not a discourse directly given by the founder of Buddhism, that it is a later composition than the Nikayas or Agamas which also developed some time after the Buddha... All the statements are more or less of the character of an ingenious surmise.

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Wisdom in Buddhism is the realization of.

An example of clear light mind is the term rigpa. You can read more about it here http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=112310&page=2 Post 14 is the one describing rigpa.



I believe I answered the question on bliss. The link to the sutra has many such references. It is my favorite Buddhist sutra. I highly recommend it.


Here are a couple of quotes for you to think about.



Notice not only is he saying motion and rest which is equal to form=void in Buddhism as well as the light and emptiness

Here is another one.

Saying Jesus said these things is pretty much like saying the Buddha said what is written in the Lankavatara sutra. Neither are early texts, and neither recount accurately the actual words of their founders.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I am not sure what is so threatening about our natural state of being which is divine and that it is blissful.

I expect more than just bliss, I also expect wisdom and compassion, if I see little evidence of the latter I have no interest in the former.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I believed i have shown with references that they did say everything i said they did.

I would agree that having a teacher is very beneficial. :)

[django]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Ive seen no one here define, or explain their use of this phrase "non-dual" with any clarity much less truth, other than what I have previously posted.

There can only exist two kinds of non-dual;
1} a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept with no occupied space complement, other than,

2} macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, when consider in isolation-- ergo conceptually only ---from the finite, occupied space Universe.

Integrity is wholistic ergo inherently dualistic erg those who speak of non-duality lack integrity, wholism and basic common sense in these regards.

Non-dualism cannot be explained or defined with any rational, logical common sense beyond what Ive laid out in two posts in this thread.

Humans are based on a bilateral nervous system. Bilateral = dualistic. A wholistic human is composed of left and right considerartions.

Humans consider with two hemi-spheres that have differrent function.

Non-dual ?

Here's a start at defining non-duality, mainly from Dhamma and Non-duality by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.

For Running, non-duality means never-ending bliss.

The Mahayana schools claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment.

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses.

Non-duality is an important concept in Zen, but it’s a relative latecomer on the Buddhist scene. The Pali Canon, the earliest strata of Buddhist sutras, makes no reference to it, and it only finds its full flowering in Nagarjuna’s 2nd century writings on emptiness and Asanga and Vasubandhu’s 4th century writings on subject-object non-dualism. Non-duality is also a crucial concept within Advaita Vedanta, a non-Buddhist philosophical school which developed alongside the Mahayana in India.

https://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/nonduality/

[r6r6]

No common people can relate to any of that. "Vedanta"? is that a table salad? "atman"?

Is "innermost self" the ego ergo the I in I-verse?

"Brahman" = "divine reality" = finite occupied space Universe?

"underlying ground world" = the essence of our finite, occupied space Universe? That would be positive shaped ( ) gravitational geodesics ( ) and negative shaped )( dark energy geodesics.

A resultant of these two inversions from outer surface to inside is the 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 sine-wave /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ or as^v^v that we find with most particles of Universe and even the atom in some circumstances.

God{ess}-ence gravity and dark energy contain{ womb } the sine-wave reality. imho

Humans are bilateral organisms. ( * )( * )

Originally Posted by django

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.

[neil]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Ive seen no one here define, or explain their use of this phrase "non-dual" with any clarity much less truth, other than what I have previously posted.

There can only exist two kinds of non-dual;
1} a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept with no occupied space complement, other than,

2} macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, when consider in isolation-- ergo conceptually only ---from the finite, occupied space Universe.

Integrity is wholistic ergo inherently dualistic erg those who speak of non-duality lack integrity, wholism and basic common sense in these regards.

Non-dualism cannot be explained or defined with any rational, logical common sense beyond what Ive laid out in two posts in this thread.

Humans are based on a bilateral nervous system. Bilateral = dualistic. A wholistic human is composed of left and right considerartions.

Humans consider with two hemi-spheres that have differrent function.

Non-dual ?

You keep refering to us, as humans....with a brain that is supposedly, a form of consciousness.

But what if the brain was not a conscious thing....what if it is just subservient to the true consciousness, and the true consiousness being us, the invisible conscious being, BETTER KNOWN AS "SOUL".

The two hemispheres only seem to do the thinking, humans we are NOT...we are spiritual beings soul entities, connected to the brain, via the energetic cord connection, which is so very short.

All of the thinking and workings of mind originate in the invisible part of the being that we are.

And it all flows back and forward from SOUL to BRAIN and BRAIN to SOUL, THROUGH THE ENERGETIC CONNECTION, in next to no time at all. And which makes the brain look like it is the thinker and the shaker.

So we do not actualy CONSIDER within the two hemispheres of the brain, as you suggest.

Consider what happens to the earthly flesh form, when a person has a totally full on, out of body experience....the earthly flesh "BRAIN" becomes non conscious, and a non thinker as it lays where ever it was left behind, as the one and only conscious part of our being..."US"....is out of body.

SO NOW....WHAT IS "DUALISM" OR "NON DUALISM"...AS YOU ARE DESCRIBING IT....in my understanding of it, there is no conscious brain, "in the invisible soul being" and there is definitely no two dual hemispheric components either.

So I would say, that we are definitely, "NON DUAL BEINGS" AND ARE ENTITIES, UNTO OUR SELVES, AND INDIVIDUALS OF NON DUALITY.

And individuals who are seperate entities from each other and also who are seperate from source energy..but which source energy does flow through and around us, but which does not link us consciously.

GOT TO SLEEP NOW, and I know that I should realy be explaining my thoughts further, but I cannot continue at the moment.
No doubt you will reply, so I will maybe carry on then....tomorrow.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by django

... All that we can say is this that the Lanka is not a discourse directly given by the founder of Buddhism, that it is a later composition than the Nikayas or Agamas which also developed some time after the Buddha... All the statements are more or less of the character of an ingenious surmise.

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

That is an interesting view point but not at all accepted by the 100 of millions of Mahayana Buddhist. You are basically dismissing all of these traditions.

Major traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism today include Chan Buddhism, Korean Seon, Japanese Zen, Pure Land Buddhism, and Nichiren Buddhism. It may also include the Vajrayana traditions of Tiantai, Tendai, Shingon Buddhism, and Tibetan Buddhism, which add esoteric teachings to the Mahāyāna tradition.

Saying Jesus said these things is pretty much like saying the Buddha said what is written in the Lankavatara sutra. Neither are early texts, and neither recount accurately the actual words of their founders.

Of course they do or it wouldn't be accepted as dhrama.

I expect more than just bliss, I also expect wisdom and compassion, if I see little evidence of the latter I have no interest in the former.

You are seeing what you want to see. Do they not all teach of love and compassion? It is not one or the other but an every growing of both.

Here is a nice write up from the Theravada perspective.

Nibbana is described as the highest happiness, the supreme state of bliss.[7] Those who have attained Nibbana live in utter bliss, free from hatred and mental illness amongst those who are hateful and mentally ill.[8] Sukha in Paali denotes both happiness and pleasure. In English happiness denotes more a sense of mental ease while pleasure denotes physical well being. The Paali word sukha extends to both these aspects and it is certain (as will be shown below) that mental and physical bliss is experienced by one who has attained Nibbana.

The experience of non-sensuous physical bliss for limited periods is possible even before the attainment of Nibbana through the practice of jhaana or meditative absorption. The Saamaññaphala Sutta describes these physical experiences with the help of eloquent similes.[9] When bath powder is kneaded with water into a neat wet ball, the moisture touches every part of the ball but does not ooze out; similarly, the body of the adept in the first jhaana is drenched and suffused with joy and pleasure born of detachment from sense pleasures (vivekaja.m piitisukha.m). The experience in the second jhaana is elucidated with a different simile. A deep pool filled to the brim with clear cool water is fed by underground springs, yet the waters do not overflow and no part of the pool remains untouched by the cool waters. Similarly joy and pleasure born of concentration (samaadhija.m piitisukha.m) pervade the body of the meditator in the second jhaana. The simile for the third jhaana is a lotus born in water, grown in water, fully submerged in water, and drawing nourishment from water, with no part of the lotus remaining untouched by the cool water. Thus happiness/pleasure suffuses, drenches, and permeates the entire body of the adept in the third jhaana. These are the experiences of non-sensuous pleasure before the attainment of Nibbana. On the attainment of Nibbana more refined non-sensuous pleasure is permanently established. The Ca"nkii Sutta specifically states that when a monk realizes the ultimate truth, he experiences that truth "with the body."[10]

Regarding the experience of the arahant, the Suttanipaata states that by the destruction of all feelings/sensations a monk lives desireless and at peace.[11] Once Saariputta was asked what happiness there can be when there is no feeling/sensation.[12] He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness.[13] It is relevant to note here that the Buddha says that he does not speak of happiness only with reference to pleasant feelings/sensations. Wherever there is happiness or pleasure, that he recognizes as happiness or pleasure.[14]

....

The Vedanaasa.myutta differentiates between three types of joy and pleasure:[25]

Saamisaa piiti saamisa.m sukha.m : joy and pleasure stimulated by sense objects, e.g. worldly sense pleasures.
Niraamisaa piiti niraamisa.m sukha.m : Joy and pleasure free from stimulation by sense objects, e.g. jhaanic experiences.
Niraamisataraa piiti niraamisatara.m sukha.m : more refined joy and pleasure free from stimulation by sense objects, e.g. Nibbana.

An arahant experiences both physical and mental bliss

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....062.than.html

Also if you use the access to insight search you can find many references to bliss in Buddhist texts from a Theravada perspective.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I believed i have shown with references that they did say everything i said they did.

I would agree that having a teacher is very beneficial. :)

Hi jonesboy

You said "Buddha talked about bliss all the time" to which I said, no he did not!

It's also very easy to cherry pick texts that use the words you want to argue with, but come on, Buddha's teaching is not just about bliss so please stop painting yourself into a corner and defending yourself.

Translations can use different words.

Here's some more, using a different translation of the Lankavatara

As thou reviewest the world with thy perfect intelligence and compassion, it must seem to thee like an ethereal flower of which one cannot say: it is born, it is destroyed, for the terms being and non-being do not apply to it.

As thou reviewest the world with thy perfect intelligence and compassion, it must seem to thee like a dream of which it cannot be said: it is permanent or it is destructible, for being and non-being do not apply to it.

As thou reviewest all things by thy perfect intelligence and compassion, they must seem to thee like visions beyond the reach of the human mind, as being and non-being do not apply to them.

With thy perfect intelligence and compassion which are beyond all limit, thou comprehendest the egolessness of things and persons, and art free and clear from the hindrances of passion and learning and egotism.

Thou dost not vanish into Nirvana. nor does Nirvana abide in thee, for Nirvana transcends all duality of knowing and known, of being and non-being.

Those who see thee thus, serene and beyond conception, will be emancipated from attachment, will be cleansed of all defilement, both in this world and in the spiritual world beyond.

In this world whose nature is like a dream, there is place for praise and blame, but in the ultimate Reality of Dharmakaya which is far beyond the senses and the discriminating mind, what is there to praise? O thou most Wise!

The multi-dimensionality of insights taught by the Buddha is much more realistic than portrayals that Buddha talked about bliss "all the time" - which is a false claim

Also quoting some teachings here and there is silly as many people use different words, but Nibbana is NOT just about bliss.

That much is clear to any Buddhist practitioner (although not saying that bliss is excluded either) but without the penetrative insights associated with Truth (Dharma) that is just an empty shell game that anyone can play. (Not to mention if it can hold up under any duress)

As to Jesus, quoting a few times of him using a few words does not mean that's what it was all about either