Spirituality involves speculation, philosophy does not.

July 4, 2003

Namaste,

>

> Would anyone like to offer an opinion on why the teachings of the

> Buddha, which are totally Advaitic, ended up with a huge Bhakti

> religion. Excepting some areas like Sri Lanka and Burma.

>

> My own thought is that ordinary people could not see the difference

> between Nir Guna, Nir Vana and the Atheistic Nastikas perhaps?

>

> Very few people could really ever understand this so they revert to

> form, which is actually forms. Nobody wanted to worship something

> they couldn't understand or describe........ONS...Tony.

July 4, 2003

Namaste Tony,

I see you are over here too. In fact, I have noticed

something interesting now that I've searched other

Advaitin related lists. The same one or two dozen

usual suspects contribute regularly to these various

lists. I can't understand why there are not more,

out of a pool of over 6 billion people.

Anyhow, I agree with what you said. Most people

need something 'objective' (i.e. conceptual) to believe

in, or they get confused. This means dogmas and

deities in one form or another. And you have to

admit that the negative formless approach is indeed

abstract and difficult. My feeble understanding of it

has to do with a 'vast cosmic feeling', as I said earlier.

This is also Consciousness whch is Everything.

Please feel free to criticize my quaint idea. It works

for me! (As an idea, not yet a realization)

Om!

Benjamin

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > Would anyone like to offer an opinion on why the teachings of the

> > Buddha, which are totally Advaitic, ended up with a huge Bhakti

> > religion. Excepting some areas like Sri Lanka and Burma.

July 4, 2003

Hi,

I don't agree with the "Subject line" of this thread, but I do

identify with the thoughts being expressed here.

I find it very interesting that there is such a drive to "worship"

something; and then, identifying with the thing worshipped, one comes

to feel superior to others who are so lacking as to not worship

the "something".

I find it very interesting to find in myself this very desire, and to

search for others with whom to share my "path".

I find it very interesting that there are several related paths which

all have the characteristic that it is almost impossible to worship

and to share. These paths are Advaita, Non-Dual, Contemplative

Taoism, Elder Shamanism including many of the Native American

teachings, and certain of the Buddhist Teachings which focus entirely

on realization (some Zen groups come to mind). There are isolated

teachers in the West who try to avoid the religious jargon of both

East and West while focussing on the individual's realization. Such

people include William Samuel, who is probably the closest to a full

Non-Dual teacher, Krishnamurti, Toni Packer, Echkart Tolle (who falls

into duality occasionally in order to communicate), and, well, the

list is long.

It is strange that we can talk and write about Non-Duality, but we

can really only share in silence. It appears nothing need be said to

those who have some degree of realization.

Namaste,

John L.

, "Benjamin Root"

<orion777ben> wrote:

> Namaste Tony,

>

> I see you are over here too. In fact, I have noticed

> something interesting now that I've searched other

> Advaitin related lists. The same one or two dozen

> usual suspects contribute regularly to these various

> lists. I can't understand why there are not more,

> out of a pool of over 6 billion people.

>

> Anyhow, I agree with what you said. Most people

> need something 'objective' (i.e. conceptual) to believe

> in, or they get confused. This means dogmas and

> deities in one form or another. And you have to

> admit that the negative formless approach is indeed

> abstract and difficult. My feeble understanding of it

> has to do with a 'vast cosmic feeling', as I said earlier.

> This is also Consciousness whch is Everything.

> Please feel free to criticize my quaint idea. It works

> for me! (As an idea, not yet a realization)

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

> , "Tony O'Clery"

<aoclery> wrote:

> > > Would anyone like to offer an opinion on why the teachings of

the

> > > Buddha, which are totally Advaitic, ended up with a huge Bhakti

> > > religion. Excepting some areas like Sri Lanka and Burma.

July 5, 2003

Re: Spirituality involves speculation, philosophy

does not.

John L wrote...

> Hi,

> I don't agree with the "Subject line" of this thread, but I do

> identify with the thoughts being expressed here.

>

> I find it very interesting that there is such a drive to "worship"

> something; and then, identifying with the thing worshipped, one comes

> to feel superior to others who are so lacking as to not worship

> the "something".

Hi John...

In my experience, I don't feel as if I drove anywhere to worship

"something." I feel more as if I was driven to the "something". I *felt*

something, something I cannot deny. And I fully accept that I will move on

as time goes by. I have already gone through many changes.

There has been one coincidence after another which will crop up

and somehow I will find myself in another, different place

than I was the week or the month before. While it is exciting, I will admit

that sometimes it is also traumatic, so much has happened so fast.

Even though intellectualy I know it is all an *illusion* and I am even

willing to accept that premise (being that I am outnumbered) , it sure felt

real to me :-) And I do not feel superior to others who do not worship the

"something." As a matter of fact, there are times when I feel somewhat self

conscious of my devotion, especially when I read about how it is "better" to

be something other than what I am. That there is no form, and that when you

worship form, you are somehow inferior to those who do not worship form,

etcetera, etcetera...I am where I am on my path; so Be It.

Even that has changed in a subtle fashion for me too. I am kind of betwixt

and between right now. But the feelings and the memories are still there

and I do not want to lose them, for it is what keeps me grounded

and um, sane.

> I find it very interesting to find in myself this very desire, and to

> search for others with whom to share my "path".

The Infinite seeking Itself?

Infinity seeking infinity?

For me, the comfort of affinity.

All in the Oneness of Divinity.

Love,

Joyce

> , "Benjamin Root"

> <orion777ben> wrote:

> > Namaste Tony,

> >

> > I see you are over here too. In fact, I have noticed

> > something interesting now that I've searched other

> > Advaitin related lists. The same one or two dozen

> > usual suspects contribute regularly to these various

> > lists. I can't understand why there are not more,

> > out of a pool of over 6 billion people.

> >

> > Anyhow, I agree with what you said. Most people

> > need something 'objective' (i.e. conceptual) to believe

> > in, or they get confused. This means dogmas and

> > deities in one form or another. And you have to

> > admit that the negative formless approach is indeed

> > abstract and difficult. My feeble understanding of it

> > has to do with a 'vast cosmic feeling', as I said earlier.

> > This is also Consciousness whch is Everything.

> > Please feel free to criticize my quaint idea. It works

> > for me! (As an idea, not yet a realization)

> >

> > Om!

> > Benjamin

> >

> > , "Tony O'Clery"

> <aoclery> wrote:

> > > > Would anyone like to offer an opinion on why the teachings of

> the

> > > > Buddha, which are totally Advaitic, ended up with a huge Bhakti

> > > > religion. Excepting some areas like Sri Lanka and Burma.

>

> /join

>

> The Heart is the Self. The Self is the Heart.

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

July 5, 2003

Hi Joyce

> I *felt* something, something I cannot deny.

>Even though intellectualy I know it is all an *illusion*

As one accused of being a 'jnana' (i.e. favoring the

intellectual path over the devotional path), I want to say

that I have never denied the possibility of intuitions that are

in some sense real communications from the divine. The

way I see things is like this. First there is Consciousness,

which is synonymous with Being, Reality, and also Space and

Time. Then forms appear in the Consciousness, and there is

no material reality distinct from these appearances. But the

same Consciousness that projects forms could also project

intuitions and other forms of communication. However, I

also note that what appears to be material reality obeys the

laws of physics (at least most of the time), so that it is useless

to sit around waiting for miracles in the material world, such

as water turning into wine. However, I think it far more likely,

and no violation of physics, for intuitions and feelings to

appear which are true communications from the Divine.

This is probably what you experienced, though you must be

the ultimate judge.

Benjamin

July 5, 2003

, "John Logan"

<johnrloganis> wrote:

> Hi,

> I don't agree with the "Subject line" of this thread, but I do

> identify with the thoughts being expressed here.

Namaste,

Yes it needs explanation. The Spiritual Search is full of enquiry and

speculation. That is the nature of the jnana path.

Followers of philosophy are somewhat religious; for they usually

follow a written down philosophy and don't deviate from it.

This is why may assertion that Sat-Cit-Ananda describes Saguna not

Nirguna, caused a fuss amongst some people. I base this on the fact

that any positive description can only be Saguna. I found there was

no point in pursuing the discussion for they had it in their minds

and a negative description was unacceptable to many. Mainly because

their lead philosopher didn't use the negative. I also believe that

in some Advaitins there is still the desire to worship something and

there is the fear of extinction also. In other words they would much

rather be Sat-Cit-Ananda than Nir Guna, for their imaginations can

see that. This brings to mind the statement by Ramana that only

realised people can really understand Nir Guna. I also believe that

Nisargadatta's statement about only 1 in 10 million even

understanding Advaita even intellectually has to be about accepting

Nir Guna.

I personally do not see a difference between Gautama's Nir Vana and

Vedanta's Nir Guna, although Sankara didn't use this expression. This

was because he was battling the Buddhists at the time, and wished a

bhakti attitude instilled. Sankara didn't mention Avidya either

although he mentioned universal Maya, this hasn't stopped Advaitins

from using it..........ONS....Tony.

July 5, 2003

Hi Tony,

You are quite right that the ineffable Brahman of the Advaitins must be the same

as

the ineffable Emptiness of the Mahayanists. In fact, they both use the word

'Tathata'

or 'That' to describe it, since this word has no qualities. I also believe that

there is

rivalry between SOME Buddhists and Hindus, as one would expect since they are

human beings. Finally, my studies have indicated that there are lesser known

forms

of Buddhism that look a lot like Advaita, with concepts very similar to Brahman.

For

example, check out the 'Tathagatagarbha' literature, such as the Awakening of

Faith.

But you're right, it's all ultimately beyond words, as they all say.

'Emptiness' is

emptiness of concepts only, so that only pure shining Consciousness remains. So

much confusion over semantic quibbles!

Benjamin

> This is why may assertion that Sat-Cit-Ananda describes Saguna not

> Nirguna, caused a fuss amongst some people. I base this on the fact

> that any positive description can only be Saguna. I found there was

> no point in pursuing the discussion for they had it in their minds

> and a negative description was unacceptable to many. Mainly because

> their lead philosopher didn't use the negative. I also believe that

> in some Advaitins there is still the desire to worship something and

> there is the fear of extinction also. In other words they would much

> rather be Sat-Cit-Ananda than Nir Guna, for their imaginations can

> see that. This brings to mind the statement by Ramana that only

> realised people can really understand Nir Guna. I also believe that

> Nisargadatta's statement about only 1 in 10 million even

> understanding Advaita even intellectually has to be about accepting

> Nir Guna.

>

> I personally do not see a difference between Gautama's Nir Vana and

> Vedanta's Nir Guna, although Sankara didn't use this expression. This

> was because he was battling the Buddhists at the time, and wished a

> bhakti attitude instilled. Sankara didn't mention Avidya either

> although he mentioned universal Maya, this hasn't stopped Advaitins

> from using it..........ONS....Tony.

July 5, 2003

Sorry, Harsha, but I'm posting this again without wrapping,

because my ego cannot tolerate the untidy look!

Hi Tony,

You are quite right that the ineffable Brahman of the Advaitins

must be the same as the ineffable Emptiness of the Mahayanists.

In fact, they both use the word 'Tathata' or 'That' to describe it,

since this word has no qualities. I also believe that there is rivalry

between SOME Buddhists and Hindus, as one would expect since

they are human beings. Finally, my studies have indicated that

there are lesser known forms of Buddhism that look a lot like

Advaita, with concepts very similar to Brahman. For example,

check out the 'Tathagatagarbha' literature, such as the

Awakening of Faith. But you're right, it's all ultimately beyond

words, as they all say. 'Emptiness' is emptiness of concepts only,

so that only pure shining Consciousness remains.

So much confusion over semantic quibbles!