ground

Although meditation is recommended in many teachings one should not get obsessed about meditation. Meditation is not a necessary cause or prerequisite for anything. It is just that meditation may be helpful depending on circumstances, but notice 'may' not necessarily 'is'. Meditation can also be harmful depending on one's own situation and depending on the teaching one follows. There are even teachings that recommend to avoid meditation. What did strike me was your 'do nothing' technique you described with 'I will do nothing and let thoughts take over' and I wondered what 'let thoughts take over' actually should mean.

I don't think one should mix up different techniques. Awareness of breath is one and labeling mindfulness is another and non-conceptual awareness is still another. It really depends what system of thought / teaching you are following. Usually different system of thought / teachings recommend different techniques. Following a given system one should stick to its techniques.

Both, something and nothing are mere habits of thinking in extremes. Actuality is in between. Seeking explanations is cultivating the habits of thinking in extremes. In terms of liberation it is better to overcome these habits.

No that's just negative thoughts or feelings. No issue. If you don't impute truth to anything, i.e. if you do not affirm anything that appears, then negative thoughts or feelings don't arise. Affirmation or imputation of truth is just a mental factor. This factor can be extinguished.If you can identify this factor and extinguish it then you know. Acceptance is not appropriate in the context of liberation. Someone who pursues liberation trains in overcoming both, acceptance and rejection. Someone who does not pursue liberation may take a different approach.

The pleasure of a steak is enlightenment.

Thanks for your understanding.

@SoonHei you may produce millions of different verbal expressions trying to get at 'it'. Still you won't succeed because all there is is conceptual fabrication without which there still would be intuitive fabrication and thus you.

In this thread you claimed to have attained nirvana. your attachment to buddhism however does not correspond with your claim.

Don't worry if you have attained such 'knowing' you're still deeply involved in ordinary world.

I am saying this and Leo is saying that. A third may say still something else. Who cares about who is saying what? And why? Krishna=cheeseburger non-cheesy=cheesy So if cheeseburger is cheesy then in non-cheesy cheeseburger is Krishna

That is certainly not the case. your posts have shown that you are still attached to conceptuality.

Wow. i guess you, Mu_ and Emanyalpsid are totally on a wrong path. Why can't you let go?

Do you really expect to get answers from Preetom or Leo Gura that are more close to actuality? Or is it that the buddhist answers left you dissatisfied? if the former the energy of your belief will determine. if the latter that's close to actuality

A recommendation: If you're interested in the ultimate (??) difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of conceptual teachings then investigate into the difference between advaita (hinduism) and advaya (buddhism). If you're interested in the ultimate difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of the fruits of the paths then investigate into the difference between nonconceptual fruit of hindu path and nonconceptual fruit of buddhist path. Good luck!

No and no. If you have negative thoughts or feelings in your body then it's just that. What? you have negative thoughts or feelings in your body. if you don't have resistance to anything then you may suffer nevertheless. I don't understand. All is just in your mind, be it negative thoughts, feelings, acceptance or resistance/rejection. Acceptance it just letting go of resistance.

you are right, it is nonsense Having said that I do not assert truth as I do not assert happiness.

Neither I am in a space. Nor am I outside of a space. Nor am I both. Nor am I neither. But basically: Neither do I and space exist. Nor do I and space not exist. Nor do I and space both. Nor do I and space neither.

you're funny. But I understand that your insistance on alleged 'direct experience' is the basis of your authority. I.e. one can always claim 'direct experience' of this or that and reject 'direct experience' of this or that of an opponent. 'Direct experience of having sex' is just a mere fabrication. Otherwise 'direct experience' would just be conceptuality. My understanding of whatever is mere conceptuality and fabrication.

Since there is no god and any god is mere fiction that is really a good question. Why? Because it hints at the dependency of so called 'realization' or perception and belief. I.e. cultivating belief may cause realization/perception that corresponds with belief. Actually all has to do with conceptuality and intuition. One has to understand that intuition is no different from conceptuality and that conceptuality and the practice of a specific conceptuality, i.e. cultivation of belief, determines intuition that corresponds with conceptualiity. All is fabricated and mentally fashioned. Nothing is real or true from its own side.

Such alleged 'direct experience' is mere fabrication.

Both, buddhism and hinduism are empty of truth. Mere fabrications.

although 'the absolute' doesn't exist either. So 'the absolute' is paradoxically relative as every linguistic expression is. But 'collapse of dualities' is nevertheless an appropriate hint. However those who follow advaita teachings usually have trouble to grasp this because advaita teachings are based on affirmation of true existence of 'oneness' or 'nonduality' or 'awareness' and the like. They obviously think that duality has to be overcome and that it can be overcome through choosing one side of it and reject the other, but neither the former nor the latter applies.

'Nothing' isn't a some-thing so the expression is 'nothing' for 'no-thing'. The sentiment of 'thinginess' in relation to the concept 'nothing' is the creation of your habitual mind. And since this habit applies to all concepts all concepts are revealed to actually be no-thing and 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' applies.

This is funny, isn't it? Mind is always looking for support. When all there is has been denied then there has to be at least one remainder. So let's take 'awareness'. And since mind needs support and all there is has been denied - except 'awareness' - the ontological monism so typical for Hindu-like thinking ensues. Because - please please please be true! - at least this 'awareness' has to truly exist. However having said that 'Mind is always looking for support' is actually implicitly asserting a support. Why? Since 'mind' has been applied in the affirmative. Ok, then: 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' To this it may be replied 'Who/what is saying this?' It's only language. Therefore: 'Is awareness all there is?' - 'No, everything exists.' 'But wait, above you have said Nothing whatsoever exists.' - 'yes'. 'you're contradicting your self!' - 'No.' 'But why?' - 'Because it's only language.'

Attached to the good one is attached to the bad and sometimes one does the good and sometimes one does the bad. Not attached to anything at all one does always the good. Why? Because one does not do anything.