Nak Khid

Don't tell me what to do please. I Condescension is not going to do anything positive

I bolded the above. I'm not sure if Leo would agree with that If such distinctions are valid I don't think they would be made randomly

Adyashanti Swami Avdheshanand Martin Ball Dali Lama ( current Tenzin Gyatso) Jeff Foster Leo Gura Thích Nhất Hạnh Sam Harris Bentinho Massaro Jed McKenna Mooji Peter Ralston Ramaji Sadhguru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Shinzen Shunyamurti Rupert Spira Eckhart Tolle I'm looking at this list and it brings some questions to mind. I'm going to code it with letters, if anybody feels like doing it , copy the list and put the appropriate letters on the name First, each name select one letter from A, B, C, or D A) you consider them a teaching mainly nondualism B) you consider them a teaching some nondualism but a lot of others things not nondualism C) they say they are not a nondualist when asked D) claims to be a nondualist but you think they aren't ___________________________________________ and then go back and add a second letter to each name E,F,G or H E) The frequently talk about God F) They mention God but rarely G) They almost never talk about God H) They say they are an atheist ______________________________________________ So each name gets a letter, one about nondualism and another about how much they talk about God or don't This is not a test it's mainly a subjective thing. Some people may be more informed than me on some of these teachers I think the interesting thing about this is many of these teachers may teach some similar things but each one has a distinctive personality and way of speaking. People may ask "but how do you define________" . Don't worry about that define terms in your own way

No. I am not twisting anything. The topic is God, Zen and Advaita Vedanta your particular interpretation of what God means. Traditional Zen practitioners do not speak about God. The Buddha taught a doctrine called anatta, which is often defined as "no-self," or the teaching that the sense of being a permanent, autonomous self is an illusion. This does not fit our ordinary experience. Am I not me? If not, who is reading this article right now? The Buddha discouraged his disciples from speculating about the self. For example, in the Sabbasava Sutta (Pali Sutta-pitaka, Majjhima Nikaya 2) he advised us not to ponder certain questions, such as "Am I? Am I not?" because this would lead to six kinds of wrong views: 1. I have a self. 2. I have no self. 3. By means of a self I perceive self. 4. By means of a self I perceive not-self. 5. By means of not-self I perceive self. 6. The self of mine that knows is everlasting and will stay as it is forever.

It is a thought provoking video but I'm I'm not sure If I agree. He is a good storyteller Another thing I noticed is that he equated atheists to leftists

so is that an observation that the insights are innately special experiences not applicable to everyday life or do you intend to try to embody them more in your everyday life?

Zen and Advaita Vedanta may not be self-proclaiming atheists but they are nondual traditions and some might consider them atheist by default. Buddhism often does not address the question of if a god exists or not. The traditions that are oriented toward God mention it frequently. It is a focal point Tibetan Buddhism is more influenced by Hindu deities but in the article I posted earlier these deities are discussed in terms of to what extent they are regarded as real beings and to what extent they symbolize principles and to what extent syncretism with native pre-Buddhist Tibetan religion. It is not known if Buddha was exposed to "one God" monotheism or only the polytheism common to his locale Bhakti Hinduism on the other hand Bhakti refers to devotion, participation in and the love of a personal god or a representational god by a devotee. I welcome anyone who has further comment or information

A square of a real person in the public square means the person is being tributed an exemplary member of the community. Times change, buildings are torn down, new ones built. Let somebody buy it if they want to. If no buyers melt it to scrap. Take some pictures if you like for historical documentation. But that old slave owning bastard has got to go

Zen and Advaita Vedanta practitioners don't proclaim atheism So to lack a belief in the existence of a god or gods one is not required to proclaim they are an "atheist". Jews, Christians, Muslims, they all say they exist and believe in God at the same time. The idea that God exists but oneself does not is not common. Unlike Buddhism, but like Jainism, all Vedanta sub-schools consider the existence of Atman (real self, soul) as self-evident. The Vedanta tradition posits the concept of Brahman as the eternal, unchanging metaphysical reality of the universe. The various sub-schools of Vedanta have different views on the relation between Atman and Brahman. The Advaita school of Vedanta considers them to be identical. A drop merging in the Ocean, an analogy for the Atman merging into the Brahman Advaita Vedanta asserts that gaining the knowledge of one's true self or Atman is the only way to liberation.Along with self-knowledge, it teaches that moksha can be achieved by the correct understanding of one's true identity as Ātman, the eternal and unchanging witness consciousness, and the identity of Ātman and Brahman as one, Brahman being the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe

When I sit down and meditate I don't make inquires. Such things block awareness

I disagree, Belief that oneself exists or statements referring to "I" are not part of the definition of atheism.

Sometimes an intermediate teacher is more effective teaching a beginner than an advanced teacher is. And sometimes advanced knowledge is dangerous for someone who has not attained a certain level of mastery.

makyō is the Japanese word that means "realm of demons/monsters". In Zen, it is a figurative reference to a self-delusion that results from clinging to an experience and making a conceptual "nest" out of it for oneself. Makyō is essentially synonymous with illusion, but especially in reference to experiences that can occur within meditation practice. They are saying it's something that may occur but is passing distraction from no mind. That however is just one opinion an may not necessarily be "right" However what is your description of this state and did you mediate in an unusual way when this occurred? I assume what you mean by this it is the materialism of introducing a chemical to the brain

Sometimes a difference raised between belief in a personal gods or belief in impersonal god/s Also, looking at a given tradition, they might answer a question regarding god or deities if asked but depending on the tradition they may not talk about god/s in their everyday teachings. To others it is central

depending on the psychedelic you could have very intense hallucinations and altered states of perception in a matter of seconds with no preparation

don't confuse all contradictions as legitimate (possibly) paradoxes according our guru: there is no reality. If there was reality everything thing would be comprised of the real and the imaginary. @mikelyonsYou need to quit your belief that reality exists, everything is imaginary. I know this might be a hard pill to swallow but you're going to have to give up this religious belief in "reality" That's a word with no meaning, a facade, a hoax We are hallucinations You can't extract reality from a hallucination You want to go believing that real things exist as well as our ability to imagine? Come on, that's what every mainstream Joe Blow thinks. We have go higher than that "Reality exists" that sounds like some kind of faith based idea that Homer Simpson would go for. All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream.

.

Do all people who have taken 5 Meo DMT dozens of times have the ability to determine who is "woke" or not ? (assuming "woke" means some particular thing)

"Reality" is a hypothetical concept. The way it is used in everyday life it means "predictable outcome". Reality is a best guess at an outcome

Impossible if you say "everything is imaginary" which you do. So if apples are imaginary how can their color be real?

checkmate

Imagination doesn't mean no reality. However if you claim everything is imaginary then it does and that is something you say "everything is imaginary" If you imagine reality that doesn't mean what you imagine is reality. If you want to claim everything imagined is reality then everything is reality. If you want to claim reality is imagined and imagination is also imagined how would they be distinguished? Once again if a word is placed after "everything is" the word becomes meaningless. And of course "reality" is a hypothetical concept, a belief

I have the same situation with Kansas and a some other states

rank the following living teachers on wokeness (don't take too seriously) (initial order alphabetical) (add or subtract names ass you see fit, or also include negative rankings) Adyashanti Swami Avdheshanand Martin Ball Dali Lama ( current Tenzin Gyatso) Jeff Foster Leo Gura Thích Nhất Hạnh Bentinho Massaro Jed McKenna Mooji Peter Ralston Ramaji Sadhguru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Shinzen Shunyamurti Rupert Spira Eckhart Tolle Also check out this nicely done list: https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/teachers/