Someone explain this to me

Etu Malku said:
LOL, then wouldn't the goal be "the fullness of this moment"?
Click to expand...

No, it is simply so.

Etu Malku said:
See, I talk with dozens of you every day in my travels and you are all the same . . . babbling, parables, paradoxical koans . . . all BS in my opinion.
Click to expand...

An opinion is a projection, you are too much stuck in ego to look so you avoid by creating an excuse.

Etu Malku said:
None of it does anything really except prepare you for this moment, no this moment, no this moment, wait . . . this moment :D
Click to expand...

Mind has come in again and said there is another moment coming, there is not.

You have only been observing the movements around this moment, correlating cause and effect and labelling this time. You develop a story around those movements and you call it "my life". When all this falls away, you simply are here, now.

The mind wants to suggest the moment is a second, or a fraction of a second, but this moment is not related to time. This is the intent of saying we are eternal, time is secondary, it is not original to our nature.

Etu Malku said:
You see? Your life is not, it is really nothing, and there is no silly paradox that can explain someone that has chosen NOT to participate in LIFE.
Click to expand...

It is not my life, you cannot possess life.

I think this is your fear, you want your life to be meaningful, you want to do something with your life.

Can you belong to your thought? That is all the you is.

Etu Malku said:
**Why can't you disclose your Path? Fear? Embarrassment?
Click to expand...

Why do you insist there must be a particular path?

A path suggests you are going somewhere, and this is the error.

You create the idea of a path because it permits you to avoid truth for a while longer.

Looking directly at what is present now, all is finished.
 
Etu Malku said:
Hey AdvaitaZen:
Though I know you mentioned you don't proselytize, try to refrain from it while you're on the "Abrahamic Religions" forum . . . it's very 'paradoxical' of you! Why don't start a new discussion in an appropriate forum?
Click to expand...

If it is a problem, a mod can move or remove the thread.
 
Thomas said:
Absolutely wrong. Find yourself a decent theological dictionary.
Click to expand...

Sin means "to miss the mark".

Repent means "to return (to the mark)".

That mark is awareness, without awareness your actions are unconscious.

To disagree with this only shows ignorance.
 
What your Bible calls God, and thus the basis for Theology, is exactly what I mean by awareness.

The problem is that Theology projects this outward, yet it is said the Kingdom of God is within, the Kingdom of Heaven is within, be still and know. So much points at something within us, but somehow this is missed on your theologians.

In a way, they are perfectly correct. In the East, God is considered consciousness, but it is something beyond this. All that arises in consciousness has sprung out of awareness, awareness is Truth. It was absolutely necessary to make this distinction, but in the end consciousness and awareness are the same in essence.

Awareness cannot be aware if there is nothing in consciousness to be aware of.

Nothing in consciousness can be seen without awareness.

Words are poor.
 
This awareness is the mind which was also in Christ Jesus.

It is the Divine Nature.

I can reference much from your Bible to show it.

It is not any of the contents of consciousness - whether objective or subjective - though, which is why I call it awareness.

How to say this?
 
Etu Malku said:
Well, finally we are getting somewhere . . . agreed, opposites are really polar extremes of the same thing (Hermetics).

The rest of your currents posts don't work in my world, let me ask you this;
Assuming you are a Buddhist (Zen Buddhist?) . . . What is the goal of your practice?
Click to expand...
He's much more Advaita than Zen. He misrepresents Zen even more than the likes of Alan Watts, imo. (Watts preached Advaita and called it Zen, using Zen as a sock puppet/strawman for Advaita, imo.)
 
seattlegal said:
He's much more Advaita than Zen. He misrepresents Zen even more than the likes of Alan Watts, imo. (Watts preached Advaita and called it Zen, using Zen as a sock puppet/strawman for Advaita, imo.)
Click to expand...

Advaita means nondual.

Zen means absorption into that.

I do not understand what you mean when you say I am more one than the other.

Certainly what I say has little to do with Theravada teachings, because it is a dead corpse.

I have only been interested in living systems.
 
I think that limiting yourself to ANY stream only ensures your path is more difficult.

What moving between streams allows is to see things from different perspectives, and I have never known an enlightened one who has remained within a single stream.

Only fanaticism seems to be the result of this.
 
Zen is an attempt to say Dhyana.

It is not something specific to any tradition.

It is the experience each tradition culminates in.

This is why so many use it, rather than pointing at any tradition or set of teachings.

Zen is not a teaching, it is silence.
 
Advaita, Yoga, Hasidism, Sufism, Tantra, these all have so many requirements.

When you have seen, these all become absurd.

Zen is now.
 
Simply coming to this moment utterly naked.

Seeing you are not other than this moment.

Seeing nothing can happen outside this moment.

Not trying to control, not trying to get anywhere.

This is Zen.
 
What is any tradition trying to teach other than trust though?

Other than love?

Do not create such a finite perspective.

All are trying to share the same experience, they are only saying it differently.

The words do not matter, look where they are pointing.
 
It is only ever mind which tries to define, tries to divide.

Existence has already done Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, why try to repeat these men?

Far better is to stand on their shoulders and let existence reach a new height in you.
 
seattlegal said:
He's much more Advaita than Zen. He misrepresents Zen even more than the likes of Alan Watts, imo. (Watts preached Advaita and called it Zen, using Zen as a sock puppet/strawman for Advaita, imo.)
Click to expand...
Ahh . . . thank you Seattlegal! Ramana Maharshi's teachings? Sathya Sai Baba? LOL . . . now it's all making sense, or rather utter 'non'sense!

Advaita – a variant of philosophical ‘mentalism’ – holds that matter is a mind-created ‘illusion’ (Maya) which is actually emptiness. Hence we get the crown of absurdity in “Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything” – Sathya Sai Baba). This surely represents the most inclusive tautology conceivable? Indeed, meaningless verbiage which says nothing of anything (and anything of nothing?) - Robert Priddy Professor of Philosophy and Socialism University of Oslo, Norway
Click to expand...

Advaita is just extended circular reasoning, a degraded and overly complex form of solipsism. Nonduality Spirituality . . . a quick read into any modern psychology reveals the truth behind duality and our perception of it and the aspects of the Self (the I's and Me's).

Just to merely have "the Understanding" (as some have made a fetish out of it) that "only the Self is Real," or that "Consciousness is all there is" and think that there is nothing more to spirituality than this conceptual understanding and a corresponding "blanked-out" zombie demeanor is simply not sufficient for authentic awakening.

“You are That”, “The Self is Everything”, “All is One” . . . all nonsensical verbal exercises. Advaita is 100% unempirical. That is enough to condemn it as anything relating to factual truth. The claim that God is everything, everything is God - in some forms of advaita - is no more sensible than saying 'Energy is everything, everything is energy'. or 'God is God'.
 
Etu Malku said:
Advaita is just extended circular reasoning, a degraded and overly complex form of solipsism. Nonduality Spirituality . . . a quick read into any modern psychology reveals the truth behind duality and our perception of it and the aspects of the Self (the I's and Me's).

Just to merely have "the Understanding" (as some have made a fetish out of it) that "only the Self is Real," or that "Consciousness is all there is" and think that there is nothing more to spirituality than this conceptual understanding and a corresponding "blanked-out" zombie demeanor is simply not sufficient for authentic awakening.

“You are That”, “The Self is Everything”, “All is One” . . . all nonsensical verbal exercises. Advaita is 100% unempirical. That is enough to condemn it as anything relating to factual truth. The claim that God is everything, everything is God - in some forms of advaita - is no more sensible than saying 'Energy is everything, everything is energy'. or 'God is God'.
Click to expand...

Please watch the video I posted earlier in the thread.

Understand, psychology has remained of the mind, and mind is dualistic.

Physics goes far higher today.
 
Also, please do not mistake Brahman for God.

Brahman is the same void, emptiness as Buddhist Sunyata.

Sankara said much about Ishwara - which can be compared to the Christian God - being more maya, illusion, and in truth Advaita Vedanta is just an adaptation of Buddhism with Vedantic vocabulary. Let us not forget that Buddha does not reject any God either, for at least two have visited him, and he has apparently taught many more. What is clear though is that God is no goal for either school, God too is just another arising in consciousness, maybe the first which explains his need to control all.

There is really no difference between Zen and Advaita, I can provide many materials which go into detail on this, showing the two cannot really even be called two schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top