The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. — BrianW
However, the answer was given a while back (ironically by his teacher in one of his previous incarnations - he thought he was Arjuna) by Krishna when he said,Why would meditation require me (or anyone else) to do that?
The one who actively performs one’s own duty without desiring a profit is a true sannyasi.
Such one is a Yogi, rather than those living without a fire and duties.
(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6; 1)
Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time. — Nils Loc
Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. — BrianW
What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake
I understand meditation as something that isn't done, it just happens. — TWI
I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. When we think that all there is to us is the relative (or limited) life, we fail to recognise the fundamental on which everything is based - Reality. The absolute is that part of reality which remains constant, while the relative is that part which undergoes change or manifests as activity. — BrianW
So, to find the absolute, we must first find the part of us which is tethered to reality. And because reality is absolute, it means everything is tethered to it. This tether must be constant for as long as we are a 'something' within reality. This means that, no matter our changing thoughts, emotions, physical body, etc, there is an unyielding connection to reality. This, I believe, is what is designated as 'self' (or atman in the Bhagavad Gita) and is the distinct connection with reality. Having realised this 'self' it becomes possible to know reality. — BrianW
I like this as a line that brings everything down to earth. Instead of viewing enlightenment as some static state (perfectly present in silence stillness), I think it makes more sense to think in terms of a generally better sense of life. We can talk in less suspicious terms as a more pleasurable way of thinking and feeling about our situation. The vulnerable individual is still down here. He or she is just in touch with a valuable mode of being, intermittently and yet with a poetry that overhears and edits itself. (Scientism thinks it denies itself this pleasure, but lives to sing its own praises in the same way.)one may be said to be enlightened in comparison to those in the relative state. — BrianW
If we answer instead that the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then all of the above can be swept away in a single movement. — Jake
If the problem and solution is basically simple the "clerical class", by which I mean all teachers, gurus, priests, philosophers and shamans etc, are no longer needed. And so the authority generating machine of all religions and philosophies works to make sure the subject remains complicated, elusive, in need of experts. — Jake
If the structure for persuasion isn't there, no one will come. — Nils Loc
I think heaven is a state of consciousness not a place, one should try to be beneficial or at least harmless for its own sake. — Noah Te Stroete
In other words, does selfish intention taint altruistic action? — gnat
What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake
I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. — BrianW
I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one. — BrianW
I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? — karl stone
What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"? — Jake
Why is it good to recognize reality that which remains constant? Or the unchanging space of and for changing things? — sign
How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division? — Jake
I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. — BrianW
So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". — Jake
The idea is that, as one moves forward, one becomes able to perceive the next few steps ahead. Thus gradually, one is able to see more of the path the further one progresses. And, as one becomes familiarised with the path, one is able to realise more choices and, consequently, greater freedom in one's actions.
Does this make sense? — BrianW
The teachings on enlightenment (e.g. by Krishna or Buddha) are given by teachers who've attained it for themselves. And, they give the methodology by which anyone can attain the same degree as them, but only if one is willing to put in the necessary efforts. Western (modern) teachings allow people to wait for scholars to discover things for them. This has a tendency to make people lazy and complacent. It's why we find so many people who're willing to regard spiritual teachings as nonsense without having taken the time to venture into them for the sake of better understanding. — BrianW
All I can say is, there is a natural tendency, a flow, in nature whereby it seeks to be better realised. This is understood predominantly as the impulse to evolution. The reason or purpose behind it, I'm afraid, still escapes my understanding. But, I recognise it as a part of nature, both internal and external, as a part of me and others, and choose to direct my efforts into venturing further into fields of knowledge in search of whatever truths that may lie within. And, as it turns out, in more ways than one, we're all doing the same, each to their own capability. — BrianW
One thing the "anti-guru" approach (for lack of a better word) may be able to contribute is to help the reader clarify their relationship with all these enlightenment related philosophies. — Jake
Does the reader see the philosophies as a means to an end? Or are they an end in themselves? — Jake
Their is an ecstasy in enlightenment talk. — sign
The anti-guru approach might be summed up as a pointing at the seeking as the very thing it seeks and yet flees. — sign
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.