I have a Buddhist meditation practice (Dzogchen inspired specifically), but man, I'm reading an Upanishad, and this stuff makes way more sense to me than Buddhism (or is at least, more appealing). I could try to reverse engineer an Upanishadic meditation practice, but I'm wondering if anyone here does something like that. Maybe I just need to reread Ramana Maharshi, but I want to try something more ancient, something about the solar Self.
And this is IQfy, spirituality and intellectuality are ultimately the same thing, Guenon is very right on that point.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>spirituality and intellectuality are ultimately the same thing
you really missed the point of a lot of buddhist literature, assuming you read any to begin with
You think Buddhism is anti-intellectual? Jesus Christ, it's a strong candidate for the most philosophical spiritual tradition out there. Some even see Buddha as more of a philosopher than spiritual leader. He even taught not to take his words on faith, you were instead supposed to test them.
>You think Buddhism is anti-intellectual?
You are doing it again. Grasping some intellectual framework, being able to refute heterodoxy, is not the same "thing" as spiritual practice, growth, attainment, accomplishment, etc. It is merely useful, not the actual purpose. Finger, moon, etc.
But who declares that the spiritual practices are not themselves intellectual? I think it's a narrow conception of intellectuality that seeks to exclude those from its remit.
I think it's a narrow conception of spirituality to equate it to intellectualizing. Would you consider yourself an accomplished architect for having read a book about construction?
Would you say an accomplished architect is not an intellectual? Just look at all the intellectual labor Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad did, composing all those teachings in ways that would endure the test of time and be accepted by millions.
>composing all those teachings in ways that would endure the test of time
sure, so being a mere intellectual is not sufficient at all, thank you for making my point; not sure I would include the caravan raider or the god-incarnations as "intellectuals" but I digress
Those teachings are intellectual labor, they very obviously are. Sure, I get the distinction you're throwing to force, of the intellectual as being merely some ineffective academic or something of that sort, but that's just low-level intellectuality. The higher levels do lead to transcendence, the domain where spirituality and intellectuality can no longer be distinguished.
And Jesus is known by many as the Great Teacher, Muhammad composed his gnosis as poetry, it's all intellectual labor.
>The higher levels do lead to transcendence, the domain where spirituality and intellectuality can no longer be distinguished.
I don't think being a scholar will magically enlighten you once you reach level 99 in intellect. It's far more likely that you will be magically enlightened through following spiritual practices for which "intellect" can only be preparatory at best.
>Muhammad composed his gnosis as poetry, it's all intellectual labor.
I think you're conception of gnosis is incorrect and improperly fleshed out. Gnosis and labor are diametrically opposed, I think.
>Just look at all the intellectual labor Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad did, composing all those teachings in ways that would endure the test of time and be accepted by millions.
As far as this statement goes, I don't think that Buddha or Jesus performed intellectual labor to conceive of a teaching before teaching what they taught. I think there is reality which is directly experienced which is easy to teach about without having to hammer out a doctrine by reason and intellectual labor.
Gotama did, there was some time before he taught and his efforts and method expanded over time, at least if the sutras are to be relied upon in that capacity.
This sutta seems to intimate the opposite thing:
https://suttacentral.net/mn12/en/bodhi
Of note, to me at the least, is the phrase "merely hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him" and how it is regarded in the sutta as a whole.
>Some even see Buddha as more of a philosopher than spiritual leader.
>Some people are moronic
Yes, anon. We know. 🙁
I mean, where you're at the point you say your teachings should not be taken on faith, that's something that puts you at odds with pretty much every other religion, so it makes sense that people would see Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion.
>you say your teachings should not be taken on faith
Earnest question, who said that and about what? What are you really referring to?
Trying reading Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries. Once you really grasp their import and “break through” so to speak you don’t even need to do meditations anymore but it becomes possible to effortlessly maintain understanding of non-duality at all times and regular troubles cease to bother you anymore and you find yourself peacefully and contently floating through life without a care in the world.
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad.pdf
The above links has all of his Upanishad commentaries except for Chandogya, the best translation of it by Gambhirananda is not online and you have either buy it or read worse translations. The Ashtavakra Gita is also phenomenal.
https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html
Oh, I love the Ashtavakra Gita, but thanks for linking those commentaries. Hmm, I suppose I do have an attachment to spiritual practices, even if I do find myself in a state where "Even when pleased he is not pleased, not suffering even when in pain. Only those like him can know the wonderful state of such a man." makes perfect sense. It's still better to have no pain, and yet...
>Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries
I was looking for picrel, as it also includes the original sanskrit
>except for Chandogya, the best translation of it by Gambhirananda is not online
its been uploaded on scribd
>Dzogchen inspired specifically
Inspired in what way? Do you have a teacher?
Well, no, I'm a little heterodox rascal (I don't really have a choice), but it's one I learned from the Aro gTer, which appears legit to me.
You can't practice Dzogchen without a teacher
>Aro gTer, which appears legit to me.
Really?
Yeah, he clearly knows his stuff, you can't be a racist and dismiss him just because he's white (he studied under like 5 Tibetan lamas, to the point of taking Vajra commitment)
This makes total sense, anon, as you're already acquainted with a particular (and highly developed) branch of a more primordial practice.
Buddhism and Hinduism both are indeed surprisingly similar in praxis and outlook, although they differ at their cores in their characterization of ultimate truth and reality. (One puts it in terms of negation of objectivity, inherent essence, or self-nature to anything, the other in terms of a transcendental non-dual all-pervading Self — Buddhism puts Voidness, Hinduism puts Brahman at the core of reality).
Buddhism could seriously be considered as largely a deconstruction and reconstruction of Indian yogic philosophy and practice, with different emphases and intellectual conclusions, but ultimately having a very similar (if not identical) end-state it claims practitioners can reach, along with similar practices to reach this goal. (Nirvana in Buddhism, Moksha in Vedanta). The practices and teachings of Buddhism will be very similar, pragmatically, to jnana yoga (the yoga of knowledge or intellect) as taught in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, as well as to the Samkhya school and Samkhya-inspired yogic philosophy. So it’s not surprising that from Dzogchen, you’ve moved to Vedanta and the Upanishads. These all have some very similar roots ultimately reaching back to Indian philosophy, and Dzogchen is extraordinarily similar to what’s to be found in texts like the Tejobindu Upanishad and Avadhuta Gita. All of them speak of an innate luminous clarity of awareness which can instantly show us “enlightenment” right here and right now. They all also put how this is to be “attained” in seemingly paradoxical ways, by speaking of or suggesting things like meditation-beyond-meditation, meditation-without-meditation, non-effort, effortlessness, complete rest from all goal-bound striving and action, even resting from the attempt to calm oneself and one’s mind with yogic practice, even resting from the attempt to find enlightenment, or even conceiving of “liberation” as a dichotomy with “bondage” and having the notion that one can be defined by either of these states. (Which is essentially also the Taoist concept of wu wei, non-doing, or wei wu wei, doing-without-doing). They also stress this state (or supreme truth) is non-conceptual and non-dual (beyond “this” and “that”, or “subject” and “object”, although again there is the key difference Buddhism characterizes this core truth as Sunyata and Vedanta as Atman=Brahman).
>I could try to reverse engineer an Upanishadic meditation practice, but I'm wondering if anyone here does something like that. Maybe I just need to reread Ramana Maharshi, but I want to try something more ancient, something about the solar Self.
(Cont.)
Ramana Maharshi is great. Nisargadatta Maharaj is also great. If they were incarnated as Tibetan Buddhists, you can plausibly imagine them as Tibetan lamas essentially teaching the same high-level teachings and having reached the same blessed state, simply in the different vocabulary and language of Tibetan teachings, or of Dzogchen particularly (or corresponding teachings like Mahamudra or Maha Ati teachings, as they’re expressed in other Tibetan schools, being the equivalent of the formless practice of Dzogchen).
Tilopa’s Song of Mahamudra, reportedly transmitted to his disciple Naropa on the banks of the Ganges and recorded for posterity, also has these same very similar teachings/practices. It’s also interesting to note that the famous saying Neti, neti (not this, not that) to be found in the Upanishads and Avadhuta Gita overlaps rather well with Buddhis thought and practice. Pragmatically, both Buddhist and Hindu yogic philosophy analyze and separate the “self” (whether really or only apparently existing in that tradition) into various elements or components (the five skandhas in Buddhism, and the division of elements of the self and mind in the Samkhya school ranging from the gross to the subtle). The practice then becomes very similar of turning on a little “light of awareness” in oneself, to look upon these components of “oneself” (or what one takes to be oneself) and hence progressively disentangle one’s consciousness from being bound with or identifying with them — “the senses are not myself, the emotions are not myself, none of these bhutas (substances) or tanmatras (elements or objects of sense) are myself, the manas, buddhi, ahamkara, and chitta are not myself (being the four-part division of the human mind in Samkhya), the five skandhas of form, feeling, perception, formation of volitional dispositions, and consciousness are not myself [etc.]”.
https://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Poetry,%20Prayer/Tilopa%27s%20Song%20of%20Mahamudra/Allspirit%20-%20Tilopa%27s%20Song%20of%20Mahamudra.htm
>Tilopa’s Song of Mahamudra, reportedly transmitted to his disciple Naropa on the banks of the Ganges and recorded for posterity, also has these same very similar teachings/practices. It’s also interesting to note that the famous saying Neti, neti (not this, not that) to be found in the Upanishads and Avadhuta Gita overlaps rather well with Buddhis thought and practice.
At the time of Tilopa and Naropa, Vajrayana and Kashmiri Shaivism were playing in the same schoolyards, quite literally. The buddhists won out politically but the practice is different only in perspective (I AM THAT &c). Masters of Mahamudra is a good foundational text for the background of the movement, many of these dudes were likely Shaivist for all the difference it makes when you're wearing a tiger skin and dooting your thighbone trumpet in the charnel ground.
And the stories are hilarious.
>be some kid
>follow drunken madman around for years
>build his house for him
>twice
>go innadesert
>get told to make a mandala
>nothing but sand
>piss in the sand
>mandala
>hit on head with sandal
>wake up enlightened 3 days later
>be total vagrant
>murder some guy
>basically go around murdering guys for several years
>finally murder one specific guy
>this perfectly zeros out your karma
>enlightenment
Tibetan boddhisatva stories are the best