Cao Khánh wrote in AtR group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/25438496085765148/?__cft__[0]=AZW8JbPtGcnaNGO5rlSsT7lSKjoP9SU8e64eeY5Tx1k-TG8TLtnZS7Vys97Q5j1jFZegi24q7zx4S6uQmAYC0sSA4JgzGBehl8vCTMdqk_ypil0DyLw1Ax78HyfIw7xHsHPNdfE13EO3iiwlICPkEnR-F5f0LRjxNKoFvpfRPD6d7HqXUBCRVf7L5mOSc-2E7Yep49B9PZ2jt0ORZVCI2Q2uafSM7NB_hMzyaGE8GAks-A&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

Top contributor

  · 

6 hours ago

  · 

Recommending Lama Joe Evans (Jigme Rangdrol) for Practitioners Interested in Dzogchen

I believe there are many people here already knows about Lama Joe or have been actively learning from him. And I have talked to Soh about him and Soh thinks it's okay for me to share this here.

So if you're interested in Dzogchen teaching, I would recommend Lama Joe for the following reasons:

Malcolm Smith, a Dzogchen teacher endorsed by AtR, said: "Joe Evans is my student and I vouch for him 100%".

I've attended the Spring Retreat with Lama Joe and his Rangdrol Foundation sangha, and can attest that he is very attentive and takes his teaching responsibilities very whole-heartedly, while also being very chillaxing about it.

Lama Joe says if you're genuinely interested in Dzogchen then that is good enough to start learning and practicing Dzogchen.

He holds his teaching online and accepts dana, so location limitation and monetary limitation is not the problem

He has a very active Discord sangha for ongoing correspondence as well.

He is hosting another retreat coming this summer so you can have a chance to receive Direct Introduction if you haven't had one already.

There is surely more things to appreciate about Lama Joe, so I invite other members who have received his teachings to share their perspectives

If you want to check out Lama Joe Evans, here's a few links that I've found helpful:

The Rangdrol Foundation website: https://www.rangdrolfoundation.org/

Interview about his experience with his different teachers (Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche, Acarya Malcolm Smith, and Dungse Rigdzin Dorje Rinpoche) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOShiRbfHDI

YOUTUBE.COM

Praxis Behind The Obscure: Dzogchen w/ Jigme Rangdröl

In this episode, Joe Evans also known as Jigme Rangdröl joins the podcast to discuss his Buddhist journey, how to find a qualified teacher, and stories of ex...

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

Some nice writings from Lama Joe

"gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

The point of rushen and semdzin is really to bring distracting proliferations to a point of exhaustion so that you can observe the empty clarity of your mind, which is the nature of mind. In that moment of unfabricated consciousness you recognize your nature. If there’s no recognition of the presence you have slipped into dullness. If you’re grasping and labeling the experience you have slipped back into proliferation. The two diversion’s are fairly recognizable so in practice they are actually allies because they indicate when we have returned to distraction. Once you are familiar with rigpa then your thoughts are not a problem because you are now able to skillfully apply the three modes of liberation.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Chogyal Namhkai Norbu was very adamant about this particular pitfall as well. People mistakenly claim that a blank state of quiescence is the dharmakaya. One has to understand that such a state is not the great perfection and merely leads to the formless realm at best but likely rebirth as an animal since it is marked by dullness.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Sure, the main point is that rigpa is your rigpa, it is the naturally perfected cognizant aspect of the basis; which is in your body. It’s not outside, everyone has their own mind stream and thus their own rigpa.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Right, the nature of the individual, the basis."

Soh has commented his other writings to point that Lama Joe's view is "definitely not substantialist"

6h

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Cao Khánh its from his other posts that i knew his views are not substantialist, not these particular ones

6h

Reply

Edited

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

Soh Wei Yu can you share them here as well? I'll correct the previous comment

6h

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Cao Khánh hmm i forgot, quite a number actually, i recommend people go through the whole pdf i posted if they are interested

6h

Reply

Edited

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

damn 202 pages!!! nice one

6h

Reply

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Here is a compilation of his writings from reddit: https://app.box.com/s/eprptl38hilnznqk87kuif3vy62w7nkw

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

APP.BOX.COM

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

6h

Reply

Remove Preview

Resources & related reads

Samo-dociekanie, Neti Neti (Polish translation) Adyashanti — The Art of Self-Inquiry What Is Your Very Mind Right Now? Tips on Self-Enquiry: Investigate “Who am I?” The Direct Path to Your Real Self Awakening-to-Reality Practice Guide (abridged) How Silent Meditation Helped My Non-Dual Inquiry Do You Need to Quiet the Mind for Self-Enquiry? Quietening the Inner Chatter

I often say, self enquiry is not a mantra. It's not something you just repeat mentally "who am i.. who am i..." it's not that sort of practice. It is an investigation, an exploration, an inquiry into the true nature of identity and the true nature of consciousness.

The inquiry/koan "Before Birth, who am I?" has a dual purpose: the elimination of all conceptual identification (ego) and to discover one's underlying radiant Consciousness, or Pure Presence/Beingness.

During my journey of self-enquiry, which spanned over two years (2008-Feb 2010), involving meditative contemplations such as “before birth, who am I?” During the process, this line of questioning, we eliminate all the candidates for my self -- I am not my hands, my legs, my name, my thoughts. They come and go and are observed, they are not me. So what am I? As John Tan said before, “you cannot know the “Ultimate Source” without the process of elimination”. What does it eliminate? The conceptual identification of self with various mentally constructed and perceived objects. This is why "before birth" is asked, as it directs the mind to this elimination. And what does that elimination reveal? Who am I, what is this radiant Being that stands alone revealed after that process of elimination?

Ramana Maharshi said:

"1. Who am I ?

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense- organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning’s, I am not.

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

After negating all of the above-mentioned as ‘not this’, ‘not this’, that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

3. What is the nature of Awareness?

The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss"

- continue reading at https://app.box.com/s/v8r7i8ng17cxr1aoiz9ca1jychct6v84

This line of questioning (before birth, who am I?) led me to a moment in silent meditation where everything subsided, leaving only a doubtless unshakeable certainty of pure existence and presence.

So eliminating concepts until none is left with some prompting like self enquiry or zen koan will allow one to reach a complete state of stillness (stillness of the conceptual mind) and authenticate presence/clarity/radiance directly. 

While this method effectively dissolves conceptual attachments and reveals the radiant core of Consciousness, it fails to address the view of inherency and the dualities of subject and object or the deeper insight of both self and phenomena as merely nominal and overcome views that reifies the four extremes. Sometimes we call it "inherentness" in short, and inherentness means concepts being reified and mistaken as real. But that requires deeper insights and realisations and is crucial for releasing the deeper afflictive and knowledge obscurations. Merely the pausing of conceptual thinking or even revealing one's Radiance is insufficient to realise its nature. 

At this point, after radiance is realized, as John Tan points out, "before we can hop into the next path and focus on radiance and natural state, without recognizing implication of conventional and seeing through them, there will be ongoing cognitive as well as emotional obscurations. How deep and far can you go? Much less talking about natural state when one can't even distinguish what is conventional and what is ultimate."

As John Tan said before,

“When we authenticate radiance clarity directly, we have a first hand experiential taste of what is called the "ultimate free from all conceptual elaborations" but mind is not "free from conceptual elaborations".”

John Tan also said before: "If non-conceptuality does not end up in non-mentation, then it will have to involve special insight that sees through conventional constructs that lead to direct authentication of suchness/pure appearances. Experiential insight of this relationship between the dissolution of mental constructs and empty clarity is Prajna. Realising this, one can then extend to body-construct and eventually to all other much more subtle constructs until natural state free of any artificialities."

"Actually anatta is a good direct method of pointing, analysis can later be used to support this direct experiential insight. Not easy for the path of analysis to trigger such insight. It will have to have a sudden leap or break-through much like koan."

(Commenting on someone else:) "This is like freedom from all elaborations into natural state. But instead of realizing the natural state that is primordially pure, one can be misled and led into non-conceptuality of non-mentation."

I also wrote some time back:

"Seeing selfness or cognizance as a subject and phenomena as objects is the fundamental elaboration that prevents the taste of appearances as radiance clarity.. then even after anatta, there are still the subtle cognitive obscurations that reified phenomena, arising and ceasing, substantial cause and effect, inherent production and so on.

So elaboration is not just coarse thinking like labelling but to me is like a veil of reification projecting and distorting radiant appearances and its nature.

Another way to put it is that the fundamental conceptual elaboration that obscures reality/suchness is to reify self and phenomena in terms of the extremes of existence and non existence through not apprehending the nature of mind/appearance.

...

If you mean just authenticate radiance clarity like I AM, then it’s just nonconceptual taste and realisation of presence.

That moment is nondual and nonconceptual and unfabricated but it doesnt mean the view of inherency is seen through. Since fundamental ignorance is untouched the radiance will continue to be distorted into a subject and object."

"The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance." - Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103"

It is important however to note that Gelug and non Gelug authors may have different definitions of conceptualities, as John Tan pointed out years ago: “Not exactly, both have some very profound points.  Mipham "conceptualities" is not only referring to symbolic layering but also self-view which is more crucial.  Mipham made it very clear and said the gelug mistake "conceptualities" as just symbolic and mental overlay, which is not what he is referring then he laid down 3 types of conceptualities.  Same for dharmakirti also...there is the gross definition and the more refine definitions.”

However, for the purpose of beginners trying to realize the I AM, just going through and focusing on self-enquiry and the process of elimination mentioned earlier is sufficient to result in Self Realisation. 

You should read this article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-direct-path-to-your-real-self.html as this author was able to bring several to the realization of I AM, and explains well the process of self enquiry and the process of elimination.

Question: "What are the simplified steps to self enquiry/I AM as referred to in the ATR guide?"

Answer: "For the purpose of the initial awakening:

“Hi Mr. H,

In addition to what you wrote, I hope to convey another dimension of Presence to you. That is Encountering Presence in its first impression, unadulterated and full blown in stillness.

So after reading it, just feel it with your entire body-mind and forgot about it. Don't let it corrupt your mind.😝

Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way.

When contemplating the koan "before birth who am I", the thinking mind attempts to seek into it's memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works - compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.

However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM!

I. Just I.

Before birth this I, a thousand years ago this I, a thousand later this I. I AM I.

It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates it's own clarity, it's own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because.

Just ITSELF in stillness nothing else.

Intuit the vipassana and the samantha. Intuit the total exertion and realization. The essence of message must be raw and uncontaminated by words.

Hope that helps!” - John Tan, 2019

Ken Wilber on I AMness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8tDzK_kPI

-- excerpt from the abridged AtR guide, which you can read for self-enquiry pointers: https://app.box.com/s/zc0suu4dil01xbgirm2r0rmnzegxaitq

On the difference between glimpses and doubtless self realization: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html

......

self enquiry (asking Who/What am I?) can lead to the I AM realization. You can read the abridged AtR guide, which you can read for self-enquiry pointers: https://app.box.com/s/zc0suu4dil01xbgirm2r0rmnzegxaitq

——-

Also, Angelo wrote:

Inquiry for First Awakening

The inquiry that leads to first awakening is a funny thing. We want to know “how” precisely to do that inquiry, which is completely understandable. The thing is that it’s not wholly conveyable by describing a certain technique. Really it’s a matter of finding that sweet spot where surrender and intention meet. I will describe an approach here, but it’s important to keep in mind that in the end, you don’t have the power (as what you take yourself to be) to wake yourself up. Only Life has that power. So as we give ourselves to a certain inquiry or practice it’s imperative that we remain open. We have to keep the portals open to mystery, and possibility. We have to recognize that the constant concluding that “no this isn’t it, no this isn’t it either...” is simply the activity of the mind. Those are thoughts. If we believe a single thought then we will believe the next one and on and on. If however we recognize that, “oh that doubt is simply a thought arising now,” then we have the opportunity to recognize that that thought will subside on its own... and yet “I” as the knower of that thought am still here! We can now become fascinated with what is here once that thought (or any thought) subsides. What is in this gap between thoughts? What is this pure sense of I, pure sense of knowing, pure sense of Being? What is this light that can shine on and illuminate a thought (as it does thousands of times per day), and yet still shines when no thought is present. It is self illuminating. What is the nature of the one that notices thoughts, is awake and aware before, during, and after a thought, and is not altered in any way by any thought? Please understand that when you ask these questions you are not looking for a thought answer, the answer is the experience itself.

When we start to allow our attention to relax into this wider perspective we start to unbind ourselves from thought. We begin to recognize the nature of unbound consciousness by feel, by instinct. This is the way in.

At first we may conclude that this gap, this thoughtless consciousness is uninteresting, unimportant. It feels quite neutral, and the busy mind can’t do anything with neutral so we might be inclined to purposely engage thoughts again. If we recognize that “not interesting, not important, not valuable” are all thoughts and simply return to this fluid consciousness, it will start to expand. But there is no need to think about expansion or watch for it. It will do this naturally if we stay with it. If you are willing to recognize every thought and image in the mind as such, and keep your attention alert but relaxed into the “stuff” of thought that is continuous with the sense of I, it will all take care of itself. Just be willing to suspend judgement. Be willing to forego conclusions. Be willing to let go of all monitoring of your progress, because these are all thoughts. Be open to the pure experience. Just return again and again to this place of consciousness with no object or pure sense of I Am. If you are willing to do this it will teach itself to you in a way that neither I nor anyone I’ve ever seen can explain, but it is more real than real.

Happy Travels.

—-

For further reading check out

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/08/tips-on-self-enquiry-investigate-who-am.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/11/angelo-dilullos-inquiry-pointers.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/11/what-is-your-very-mind-right-now.html

www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-direct-path-to-your-real-self.html

—

Do watch this: https://youtu.be/ZYjI6gh9RxE?si=6M4zn5tHE7fQlJcr

----

You can try inquiring, “Before birth, Who am I?”

Inquiring that for two years led to my Self Realization in feb 2010.

And if that doesn’t work for you, try this:

“

Yuan Yin Lao Ren:

In the past there was a Master who contemplated, "what is the original face before my parents were born?" He contemplated for many years, but did not awaken. Later on he encountered a great noble person and requested for his compassionate guidance. The noble one asked: "What koan did you contemplate?" He replied: "I contemplated what is the original face before my parents were born?" Noble one replied: "You contemplated too far away, should look nearby." He asked: "How should I look nearby?" Noble one replied: "Don't look into what is before your parents were born, need to look at: before a thought arise, what is it?" The Zen practitioner immediately attained great awakening.

Everyone that is sitting here, please look at what is this before a moment of thought's arising? IT is radiating light in front of everybody's [sense] doors, the brightness radiates everything yet is without the slightest clinging, nothing is known and nothing is seen yet it is not similar to wood and stones, what is This? IT is right here shining in its brilliancy, this is awakening to the Way. Therefore it is said, "the great way is not difficult, just cease speech and words"!

“

---

More quotes:

I wrote to my mother:

English translation from Chinese:

Contemplating Zen [Koan] is about inquiring what exactly is our original face, what is our Self-Nature, it is not about achieving a meditative state.

It is rather to discover, to realize, what exactly is our Self-Nature/Awareness. One must reach a state of utter doubtlessness/certainty to be considered '[Self-Realization]'.

After the utter cessation of all thoughts, one must turn one's light around to find out, What am I? What is it that is Aware? If there is a thought which answers 'it is this or that' then that's wrong, because the real answer lies not in words and letters. Therefore cast aside those thoughts and continue inquiring, turning the light around. This is the most direct method to apprehend one's Mind.

You should meditate everyday. Master Yuan Yin asks his students to meditate two hours a day.

If you are unable to quiet your mind to a state of no-thought, it will be difficult to realise. You should think carefully what is the best method for you to still your mind? Is it meditation? Or is it chanting the Buddha's name and reciting mantras? Whatever methods which calms the mind will do, but you have to practice everyday, not only practice intermittently or occasionally.

However, reaching a state of no-thought is not awakening. Upon reaching a state of no-thought, continue turning the light around to find out Who is that which is the Clear Knowingness? What is it? Then you will realise your Self-Nature. Otherwise your meditation is merely a state of stillness, not yet realising Self-Nature.

Realizing Self-Nature is only Apprehending one's Mind, it is not yet realizing Nature [the nature of mind and phenomena] (the principle of the twofold emptiness of persons and phenomena as realized by a first bhumi Bodhisattva), therefore one must continue. Hence, "Apprehending Mind and Realising Nature" consists of two parts: first apprehend one's Mind (True Mind), later realize [Empty] Nature.

Therefore practice hard to Apprehend Mind and Realize Nature.

The Sixth Ch'an Patriarch said: It is useless to learn the dharma without recognising original Mind.

-----

Question: "Thank you so much for your kind welcome and answers. These quotes and posts are beautiful and I find them really useful, it will take me a bit more time to get through the further reading links. I think you are the one who posted the abridged ATR on SoundCloud which is what I listened to! Thank you again for that.

Soh replied: 

I didn't do self inquiry in a step by step way. Self enquiry is a direct path, so you can awaken instantaneously if your conditions are ripe (e.g. Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle), but for me it took 2 years, others may take other varying periods of time. But you must have an earnest interest to discover what your Self is, so the inquiry must be genuine.

Here's an excerpt from the AtR practice guide:

"Soh:

Hi,

Steps are not necessary in self inquiry, because this method is meant to cut through all steps, thought-inference-process, conceptualizations, to directly awaken to your True Self. This is why Koan and Zen is known as the method and school of Sudden or Instantaneous Awakening, not gradual or step-by-step awakening. This is the Direct Path.

For example,

Hear a bird chirping.

What/who is hearing?

(silence)

Silence means you aren't trying to answer the question using your mind (because the answer cannot be found there - the more you try to figure out with your mind the more time is wasted because you are looking at the wrong direction), but instead you are directly looking at 'What Hears' and experiencing your True Self, your Hearing-Nature/Pure Awareness. The inner cognizer (I AM) turns within and cognizes itself, its true nature.

The pure silence underneath the sound is your true nature, but it is not an inert nothingness, in fact not even silence as such, but more accurately a featureless wide-awake space which perceives all sounds, all sights, all thoughts, etc. It cannot be understood by the mind. You have to trace the hearing, the radiance, the seeing, to its Source.

If you truly and successfully traced all perceptions to its Source, you will realize and experience a Certainty of Being, an undeniability of your very Consciousness which is formless and intangible but at the same time a most solid self-evident fact of your being.

However if during the process of self-inquiry a thought arise like "could this be it, what is Awareness, etc", just ignore the thought, don't attempt to answer them using the mind/logic, but continue turning the light around, asking "Who am I" or "Who is aware of the thought?" and so on. Turn away from all doubts to the Doubtless Certainty/Undeniability of Being/Consciousness, and all your doubts and questions are resolved in an instant.

As Jason Swason said:

“By turning the attention to the mind, immediately there are doubts. More thoughts rush in to question the questions, confirm or contradict other thoughts. A maddening cycle...

Notice when thoughts are paused there are no doubts; the certainty of (doubtless) Being is obviously present; the unquestionable FACT of EXISTENCE. Notice that the Being is ALWAYS presently shining, effortlessly and spontaneously. Stay with that undeniable non-conceptual confidence. Your Being has always been present for every single experience. That natural cognition in which all experiences arise is not a person.

Be as you ARE and not what you imagine yourself to be.”

…

“I was doing self inquiry yesterday with my back straight and legs crossed in the position of sitting meditation, contemplating 'Who am I', 'Before Birth Who am I'... with an intense desire to know the truth of my being. As the thoughts subside, an intense and palpable sense of beingness and presence, the only 'thing' that remains that I feel to be my innermost essence... became very obvious... very very vivid and intense, and feels like a constant background in which everything is taking place, thoughts (almost none at that moment, but arise afterwards) that arise are also taking place in this unchanging background... and there is this certainty and doubtlessness about this I AM-ness, IT is absolutely real and undeniable. IT/I AMness/The Witness is the only solid and undoubtable Presence and is clearly present with or without thoughts.” - Soh’s E-Book & Journal, February 2010 entry

"

---

Don't worry about learning difficulty. Learning is of the mind, of concepts, what you are trying to discover is prior to all thoughts and concepts, it is what you are even before all thoughts, so learning disability cannot prevent you from discovering it in any way as it is not something 'learnt', it is just what you are and discovering what you are, your birthright.

Turn the light around means directing the light of awareness upon itself. Awareness, the radiant core of your Being, has an aspect that may be described as 'luminous' but it is not a visual thing, so you do not need to visualise anything. It is the intensity of your Presence-Awareness, the Knowingness of your pure consciousness that is called luminous, so feel and discover that intensity of your Beingness, that Presence-Awareness, even without a thought. Visualisation is a thought, what you are trying to discover is the essence of Being, of what you truly are, prior to thought. So cast aside thoughts and find out what are you before any thought?

As John Wheeler said ( https://awakeningclaritynow.com/awakening-to-the-natural-state-guest-teaching-by-john-wheeler/ ), "Right now, as you read this, you exist and you are aware that you exist. You are undoubtedly present and aware. Before the next thought arises, you are absolutely certain of the fact of your own being, your own awareness, your own presence. This awareness is what you are; it is what you always have been. All thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings appear within or upon that. This awareness does not move, change or shift at any time. It is always free and completely untouched. However, it is not a thing or an object that you can see or grasp. The mind, being simply thoughts arising in awareness, cannot grasp it or know it or even think about it. Yet, as Bob says, you cannot deny the fact of your own being. It is palpably obvious, and yet, from the time we were born, no one has pointed this out. Once it is pointed out it can be grasped or understood very quickly because it is just a matter of noticing, ‘Oh, that is what I am!’ It is a bright, luminous, empty, presence of awareness; it is absolutely radiant, yet without form; it is seemingly intangible, but the most solid fact in your existence; it is effortlessly here right now, forever untouched. Without taking a step, you have arrived; you are home. No practice can reveal this because practices are in time and in the mind. Practices aim at a result, but you (as presence-awareness) are here already, only you don’t recognize it till it is pointed out. Once seen, you can’t lose it, and you don’t have to practice to exist, to be."

Eckhart Tolle said in The Power of Now, "So when you listen to a thought, you are aware not only of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. A new dimension of consciousness has come in. As you listen to the thought, you feel a conscious presence - your deeper self - behind or underneath the thought, as it were. The thought then loses its power over you and quickly subsides, because you are no longer energizing the mind through identification with it. This is the beginning of the end of involuntary and compulsive thinking. When a thought subsides, you experience a discontinuity in the mental stream - a gap of "no-mind." At first, the gaps will be short, a few seconds perhaps, but gradually they will become longer. When these gaps occur, you feel a certain stillness and peace inside you. This is the beginning of your natural state of felt oneness with Being, which is usually obscured by the mind. With practice, the sense of stillness and peace will deepen. In fact, there is no end to its depth. You will also feel a subtle emanation of joy arising from deep within: the joy of Being.

It is not a trance-like state. Not at all. There is no loss of consciousness here. The opposite is the case. If the price of peace were a lowering of your consciousness, and the price of stillness a lack of vitality and alertness, then they would not be worth having. In this state of inner connectedness, you are much more alert, more awake than in the mind-identified state. You are fully present. It also raises the vibrational frequency of the energy field that gives life to the physical body.

As you go more deeply into this realm of no-mind, as it is sometimes called in the East, you realize the state of pure consciousness. In that state, you feel your own presence with such intensity and such joy that all thinking, all emotions, your physical body, as well as the whole external world become relatively insignificant in comparison to it. And yet this is not a selfish but a selfless state. It takes you beyond what you previously thought of as "your self." That presence is essentially you and at the same time inconceivably greater than you. What I am trying to convey here may sound paradoxical or even contradictory, but there is no other way that I can express it."

You can also read my article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/the-transient-universe-has-heart.html on the aspect of luminosity.

More on turning the light around upon itself, tracing the radiance of all perceptions to the Source so that you discover the Source that You Are:

Chinul's Approach of Returning to the Source

Question: What is the mind of void and calm, numinous awareness?

Chinul: What has just asked me this question is precisely your mind of void and calm, numinous awareness. Why not trace back its radiance rather than search for it outside? For your benefit I will now point straight to your original mind so that you can awaken to it. Clear your minds and listen to my words.

From morning until evening, all during the 12 periods of the day, during all your actions and activities - whether seeing, hearing, laughing, talking, whether angry of happy, whether doing evil or good - ultimately who is it that is able to perform all these actions? Speak! If you say that it is the physical body which is acting, then at the moment when a man's life comes to an end, even though the body has not yet decayed, how is it that the eyes cannot see, the ears cannot hear, the nose cannot smell, the tongue cannot talk, the hands cannot grasp, the feet cannot run?

You should know that what is capable of seeing, hearing, moving and acting has to be your original mind; it is not your physical body. Furthermore, the four elements which make up the physical body are by nature void; they are like images in a mirror of the moon's reflection in water. How can they be clear and constantly aware, always bright and never obscured - and, upon activation, be able to put into operation sublime functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? For this reason it is said: "Drawing water and carrying firewood are spiritual powers and sublime functions."

There are many points at which to enter the noumenon. I will indicate one approach which will allow you to return to the source.

Chinul: Do you hear the sound of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?

Student: Yes.

Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Do you hear any sounds?

Student: At that place, sound and discrimination do not obtain.

Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokitesvara's method for entering the noumenon. Let me ask you again. You said that sounds and discrimination do not obtain at that place. But since they do not obtain, isn't the hearing-nature just empty space at such a time?

Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never obscured.

Chinul: What is this essence which is not empty?

Student: Words cannot describe it.

Labels: I AMness, Self Enquiry, Zen Master Chinul 0 comments | |

--------

Don't conceptualize 'how to do this', don't complicate it. What's more important is that you really want to find out what you are and you inquire earnestly into the Source, into what you truly are. That's it. Day and night, whether in sitting meditation, or even in daily life throughout the day (as much as you can), you inquire.

Another quote from the AtR practice guide:

“Something I always say when you are doing self enquiry or any other contemplations and meditations, this is crucial:

"We think it's all about like, again, because of our modern mind, we almost think everything can be solved through some sort of technology. Right, oh, I just need to do it different, there must be some secret trick to inquiry, that's our technological mind-set. Sometimes that's a mindset that is very useful to us. But, we don't want to let that dominate our spirituality. Because as I witnessed, the intensity of the living inquiry that's more important than all the techniques.

When somebody Just Has To Know. Even if that's kind of driving them half crazy for a while. And, that attitude is as important or more important than all the ways we work with that attitude, you know, the spiritual practices, the meditations and various inquiries and various different things, sort of practices. If we engage in the practices because they are practices, you know like, ok I just do these because this is what I'm told to do, and hopefully it will have some good effect. That's different than being engaged, when you're actually being deeply interested in what you're inquiring about, and what you're actually meditating upon. It's that quality of real, actual interest, something even more than interest. It is a kind of compulsion, I know I was saying earlier don't get taken in by compulsion, but there is/can be a kind of compulsion. And that's as valuable as anything else going on in you, actually."

- Adyashanti "

Question: “ Thank you Soh, much appreciated.

I'm familiar with some of the material but i'll work my way through it all again. 

Can you say anything more specifically about the quality of the question "what is aware of self" as opposed to "who am I"? If it leaves me in an "emptier" experience is it necessarily a better question for me, or is it important to keep trying to deconstruct that ickily shifting sense of self that "who am I" points at?”

Soh replied: “ Who am i doesnt point at sense of self, it lets you see that the sense of self is not in fact who you are. You are what is aware and prior to that sense of self. So all objects conceived or perceived that is mistaken as Self are naturally negated as neti neti - not this, not this. And so you revert back to the Source, or the pure Beingness prior to all concepts and sense of self.

Who am i points at the pure I-I prior to all conceived sense of self and perceived objects. In other words it points to the same thing as “what is aware” is pointing at.

The fact that the sense of self is as you put it, “ickily shifting” is already a hint to you that it is not in fact who you truly are at all, it is not your true self. So inquiring who am I naturally negates that shifting sense of self as being a possible candidate for who you are. And so seeing this you naturally deconstruct that and trace back to the Source in self enquiry.”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/207646316294607/posts/2330941190631765/ -

"THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT KNOWS, "I AM"

Ramana Maharshi describes the sense of 'I' as the fundamental, self-evident awareness that is always present. It is the consciousness that knows, "I am." This 'I' is not the body, mind, or ego but the pure, unchanging awareness that underlies all experiences. Ramana often refers to this as the 'I-I' or the true 'I'.

To know that it is the true 'I' Ramana speaks of, one must recognize that it is ever-present and self-luminous. Unlike the transient thoughts and sensations that come and go, this 'I' remains constant. It is the silent witness to all that occurs without being affected by it. When all thoughts and identifications with the body and mind are relinquished through self-inquiry, what remains is this pure sense of being.

Ramana advises that through persistent self-inquiry, asking "Who am I?" and turning attention inward, the false identifications fall away. The true 'I' reveals itself not as an object to be seen but as the very essence of our existence. It is experienced as a deep, inherent sense of presence and peace, devoid of attributes, distinctions, or forms.

In essence, this sense of 'I' is simply the state of pure awareness, the unchanging consciousness that is always present. Knowing it is the true 'I' comes from the direct experience of this unbroken, self-evident awareness that transcends all temporary experiences and phenomena."

Do watch this: https://youtu.be/ZYjI6gh9RxE?si=6M4zn5tHE7fQlJcr

Also watch this: https://youtu.be/MTvyLfCd9jI?si=9sUAHomIpD76iQn-

Resources & related reads

Samo-dociekanie, Neti Neti (Polish translation) Adyashanti — The Art of Self-Inquiry What Is Your Very Mind Right Now? Tips on Self-Enquiry: Investigate “Who am I?” The Direct Path to Your Real Self Awakening-to-Reality Practice Guide (abridged) How Silent Meditation Helped My Non-Dual Inquiry Do You Need to Quiet the Mind for Self-Enquiry? Quietening the Inner Chatter

From: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/25468433356104754/?__cft__[0]=AZWn5BcNlBzxvadefdYZz8QD_yc5YjBCRi6VEIqVXLAUO2ejTQ-qOKDIVdeXzqXJBHh6CLZFEW-aZdj5LQojucGiR94JITsvvRSqcpwMF7zGvat8_lNiwlAt6aL1Wf6e9MxlnrPeU33-K731izBSRLMSGaR8R9e5lXMmsg6C0xhS1A&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

If they all were under the same post criticizing ATR, then probably that post alone is the issue. Nobody but Soh was allowed to post there by the filter. BTW I also tried to criticize carbon dating lol. It's a very naive idea.

• 3h
• Like
• Reply

2

 

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. PP see the following comment from krodha regarding the carbon dating of Mahayana sutras: https://www.reddit.com/.../comments/1ckgcux/comment/l2xh5ot/

Carbon dating isn't a guarantee that the oral traditions originated at similar times, but then again, it also doesn't guarantee that the oral tradition the Pali suttas were based on came before Mahayana. So it is pointless to discuss. Carbon dating is the best evidence we have.

Further, in Mahayana the historical Buddha is not the only Buddha, so it doesn't actually matter. What's important is that a text corresponds to the views of Buddhadharma.

• 2h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Mr. MK

Author

Rising contributor

Chris Jones Agreed that carbon dating is pointless, but a rough chronology can be worked out from the content. The suttas that are likely memorized by Ananda (in the four major Nikayas, the Udana and the Itivuttaka) have an authentic character to them as based on actual events. None of the Mahayana sutras, whatever their merits, have that quality.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Mr. AS

Yeah, I don't think the dating is disputed much, and carbon dating was never really part of it.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Kyle's arguments about carbon dating are very weak. He basically refuses to use any tools of early buddhist studies, besides the one he likes, carbon dating. He says all the techniques are bad, but his technique is the best we have. This is just cherry picking the evidence. It's easy to win an argument when you take off the table all methods that disagree with you by dismissing them as speculative nonsense. Relying on carbon dating actually is speculative nonsense. You simply can't judge the age of content transmitted orally (pali canon) by the time it was written down.

The reality is that carbon dating is less reliable than the other methods used in early buddhist studies which focus on analysis of content, comparison between agamas and sutta, analysis of the language, analysis of metre, analysis of structure of the texts etc etc.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

2

Chris Jones

Top contributor

What are these indisputable, non-speculative methods that he dismisses?

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Chris Jones Those aren't my words at all.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr MK I didn’t mean that carbon dating was pointless, what I meant was that we simply don’t have any definitive evidence about when the oral traditions began, the only thing we have to go on is what’s been written down and when. Carbon dating is one way of determining that.

So your argument boils down to the idea that the suttas have an “authentic character” to them, which is entirely subjective. Hopefully you are aware that we can’t definitively determine the authenticity of a text from its content. What makes the content of the Pali suttas any more “authentic” than the content of the Mahayana sutras? The fact that it describes events relating to Gautama Buddha’s life? They just have a different presentation, context, and purpose.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Anyways, to be clear all the method of analysis in early buddhism are not absolutely certain mathematical proofs. They all involve some degree of uncertainty. This doesn't mean that they are bullshit. For instance, the foundations of science and engineering often depend on probabilistic reasoning. These are not bullshit either.

There is a difference between a valid argument which has some uncertainty about it and a very poor argument which has no grounded evidence for it. In fields like early buddhist studies most arguments have some degree of uncertainty.This doesn't mean 'anything goes', and it certainly doesn't mean carbon dating can be applied to an oral tradition to determine it's age.

Some arguments in early buddhism are bullshit though, not denying that. But more grounded approaches exist. As for what they are I already listed 4 examples of different kinds of approaches. I don't really feel like going into detail here about them, but for one example-we can analyze the metres deployed in a text to date them since some forms of poetic metre simply don't exist until after a certain date. Another more welll-known example-we can compare the content of different schools an see what is the same and what is different. What is the same is more likely to be earlier and presectarian. We can also compare content-if a doctrine in one text is described briefly but in another we get a long elaboration then it's more likely the elaboration comes later as a commentary or an expansion of the shorter text.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Mr. AS

A lot more than you seem to think can be determined from text, there's a lot that goes into that...

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. PP feel free to correct it as you see fit, I believe your words were “take off the table all methods that disagree with you by dismissing them as speculative nonsense”, so it seemed like you were implying there were other methods, which are not speculative, that you had in mind? Otherwise I suppose we would be in agreement that carbon dating is just as effective as any other method.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. AS I didn’t say we can’t determine anything from text, I said that we can’t definitively determine the authenticity of the Pali (or Mahayana sutras) from their content alone. Otherwise, this debate would have been over a long time ago.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Mr. AS

I agree, but we can determine there's like a thousand year difference between the bulk of the two, a century give or take.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Mr. MK

Author

Rising contributor

Chris Jones Agreed that my approach is "subjective." It is based on meeting living enlightened ones, and reading the lives of far more others. They all speak in a certain way, have teachings in common, and above all interact with their interlocuters in a certain way. In addition there is contextual detail, such as descriptions of places, persons and events. Even the fact that the Buddha coughs politely before entering a bikkhus hut. The Pali suttas I list all ring true on those counts.

In contrast the Mahayana sutras are lacking in contextual detail, have teachings that contradict what is in the Pali suttas, are heavily mythologised and full of archetypal imagary entirely lacking in the Pali serious suttas.

So agreed, all of this is "subjective". So let us be content to identify our thinking as "Pali" on the one hand and "Mahayana" on the other, as we engage in dharma talk. We will still gain by it.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. PP I think you are putting words in my mouth because I didn’t call these methods bullshit, nor did I say that carbon dating can be used to determine the age of an oral tradition. They just have to be taken in context and their respective purposes understood.

Even if we know one text is a commentary of another, we can’t say that the “original” text comes from the Buddha in the first place. It could be one witness of an event describing it in detail, and another witness of the same event describing it briefly. We still can’t determine from this *when* the original text was written, nor the commentary, and this says even less about the oral tradition. The text and it’s commentary could have been written at the same time, for all we know. Unless of course we use carbon dating.

Also hopefully you can see the problem with “grouping” texts from different schools based on their content and then using this to make assumptions on the age or authenticity of said schools. If we have two groups of similar texts, they could just be from different authors (disciples of the Buddha, for example) from around the same time who have their own unique writing styles. They could be similar for all kinds of reasons. This is by no means proof of authenticity or age.

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Mr. AS

I think we should be speaking of "evidence" rather than "proof".

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Chris Jones I wasn't implying you said anything was BS, but Kyle does seem to dismiss these things. Anyways, at the end of the day I really don't care that much about this topic. If people want to believe prajnaparamitra is the same age as the suttas, fine. That's definitely an extreme minority view among academics afaik, but my concern really is practice and liberation.

I only responded to Kyle's stuff at all out of irritation that such unfair reasoning was being repeated again and again. This argument from carbon dating is being used to combat 'pali canon fundamentalism'. I can be on board with criticizing that at least, but I would prefer better arguments were used.

So that's all from me.

• 47m
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Mr. AS Yeap.

• 46m
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. MK I am of course happy to make the distinction between Pali/Theravada and Mahayana views, and do.

Unrelated, but this group primarily consists of Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners, FWIW. You may have met people you believed were “enlightene… 

See more

• 45m
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Mr. PP If you mean the written sutras and not the oral tradition, there’s not much debate about when they were written down. The margin of error for radiocarbon dating is about 2-5%. That’s what I was trying to point out. But I don’t really need to labour the point further.

• 38m
• Like
• Reply

Active

Mr. PP

Top contributor

Chris Jones No one disagrees about the written date. Carbon dating does work to tell you that much. Hopefully it was clear that we were talking about the antiquity of the content. But with that clarification down, I would like to be done with this conversation. (Feel free to reply, but that's really all from me)

• 36m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

I personally believe most Mahayana sutras are visionary revelations, in the same way Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and other tertons received many visionary revelations perhaps from pure realms. The way they are received are not hazy like a dream, and the visions of those masters/Buddhas miraculously pointed out information not previously known that they later verified to be factually true.

So personally I have no problem if it turns out that Prajnaparamita sutras did not come from historical Buddha. I find them to be completely profound and worthy of studying and a source of great insight.

Acarya Malcolm said in 2017,

"I once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.

However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.

For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?

Image

Image

How are 12,000 arhat bhikṣus supposed to fit there? Let alone, 2,000 extra, 6,000 nuns, and 80,000 bodhisattvas? Were they all levitating in space around the mountain?"

Acarya Malcolm said in 2021,

"So, do you literally believe the events of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra happened? Do you believe the Buddha flew through the air to Śṛī Lanka to have a buddy to buddy conversation with rakṣasa king, Ravana, as the Lankāvatāra portrays? Do you literally believe thousands of monks and bodhisattvas can fit on Rajagriha?

More to the point, does it actually matter if these things happened in history, or is the content and message of these texts more important?

If you decided that these events did not happen in history, that they were a kind of religious fictional narrative, would you lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings? And if you did lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings, wouldn't that mean the provenance of a teaching is more important to you than its doctrine?

When it comes to history, I read historians; when it comes to tenets, I read panditas; when it comes to the meaning of sūtras, I read the charioteers, Nāgārjuna, and the rest; when it comes to Vajrayāna, I read the mahāsiddhas, like Virupa, Indrabhuti, etc. I am perfectly comfortable adapting my perspective based on what is useful in that moment. Here, in the academic forum, what is useful is history and modern scholarship."

• 15m
• Like
• Reply

2

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

That being said, I also like what Anzan Hoshin Roshi said about Prajnaparamita sutras:

Excerpt from https://wwzc.org/dharma-text/transparent

Returning to the text. Subhuti now says:

That thought is no thought, since in its essential original nature thought is transparently luminous.

The Roshi says:

That is the whole Teaching, right there in these opening passages. This is extraordinary. If the Buddha didn't Teach this, then he should have. If the Buddha didn't Teach this, then he wasn't a quarter of the Teacher that he should have been.

Perhaps the Prajnaparamita Teachings were Teachings that originally had been given by the Buddha in some context. This is certainly possible in that if we look at the fact that the sutras were fragments of discourses which were compiled together, mainly sets of stock phrases which were built together to form some kind of storyline and that many of these were not written down until many hundreds of years after the Buddha's death and that monks would wander from place to place and sometimes they would meet and they would share and compare little bits of Teachings that they had heard and in this way texts would form. Perhaps the Prajnaparamita Teachings do form part of the authentic body of the Buddha's words, but we really have no way of knowing what the Buddha actually taught.

The remarkable thing here is that if the Buddha did not Teach these, he should have; and that the people who did compile and present these Teachings did not just simply start their own School. They weren't particularly into any kind of trip. They weren't saying, "Well, look what I've realized and blah blah blah blah blah." They said, "Well here is a tradition which is working - the Dharma - but there are certain points at which people are getting stuck. We don't need to get stuck in that kind of way. We need to go past that." And so they realized that the Prajnaparamita Teachings are the most radical and direct Path and yet they are only really comprehensible in the context of the Gradual Path, only in the context of moment-to-moment mindfulness, paying attention to what is going on, being able to see the process of the five skandhas, so on and so forth. Only when one has encompassed all levels of Dharma is it really Dharma. The radical Path is not something which is completely split off from the rest of the Dharma. It is a way in which the rest of the Dharma can be approached right at the beginning of the Path, or it can be the fruit of the Path, or it can be what one is practicing. But it is not really separate from the Abhidharma Teachings or any of the other things that the Buddha taught. It is not so much a new Teaching as a new view, a new orientation. It is not a doctrine; it is not a Teaching. It is a practice and it is a view.

WWZC.ORG

Transparent | White Wind Zen Community

Transparent | White Wind Zen Community

• 13m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

On a side note and perhaps totally off topic, I personally believe that Gospel of Thomas is Jesus's authentic words. Even if they weren't officially sanctioned by the church as canonical. Even a mainstream Christian once admitted to me that due to the early nature of that gospel, it could very well have come from Jesus's mouth.

• 8m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Soh Wei Yu that was quite off topic indeed, but interesting! what do you think of Christianity in general? Do you think there is some truth to it?

• 13m
• Like
• Reply

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Chris Jones Gospel of Thomas imo points more towards I AM and no mind. There's a passage inside that sounded like Bahiya Sutta. Other gospels (the four canonized ones) also points towards I AM (before abraham was, I AM, and other passages) and impersonality. It's clear to me that Jesus was a mystic that was crucified (like many mystics of his days) for stating the truth he realized, also because of the political threat he became.*

I just told someone yesterday: I think theres a saying maybe by alan watts, something like in the west if you say you are god, you will be treated like madmen or likely in the olden days be executed.

In India if you say that, people will say oh congratulations, you found out.

Jesus was just born in the wrong place.

I quoted some passages from bible here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../all-religions-on...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

What All Religions Have in Common: Light

What All Religions Have in Common: Light

• 9m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• Edited

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

*I also told someone yesterday: More like he (Jesus) was seen as a political threat at that time i think.

In india it was always a much more permissive and safe environment for various ascetics of different views to thrive. Less persecutions

Im glad that modern societies tend towards the indian pluralistic style

Chatgpt:

Jesus' persecution and the relative safety of ascetics in ancient India are influenced by very different historical, cultural, and political contexts.

1. Jesus' Persecution: Jesus lived in Roman-occupied Judea, a region marked by political tension and resistance against Roman authority. His teachings, which were seen as radical at the time, challenged the established religious and social order. This posed a threat not only to the Jewish religious leaders but also to the Roman rulers who feared any form of uprising or challenge to their authority. Jesus' claim to being the Son of God was viewed as blasphemy by Jewish authorities and as subversive by the Romans, leading to his crucifixion.

2. Safety of Ascetics in India: In contrast, ancient India was known for its philosophical diversity and spiritual tolerance. The region was home to a variety of religious and philosophical traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and others, each of which supported ascetic practices to varying degrees. Indian society was generally more accepting of spiritual experimentation and ascetic lifestyles. The rulers and the common people often respected ascetics and viewed them as harmless and sometimes even as beneficial for spiritual guidance or as intercessors with the divine.

The difference in these environments highlights the impact of the socio-political context on religious figures. In Rome, a monotheistic framework and an imperial system that did not tolerate opposition shaped Jesus' fate. In India, a pluralistic religious landscape allowed for a greater tolerance of diverse spiritual practices.

• 8m
• Like
• Reply

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Chris Jones Mainstream Christianity however is mostly about believing etc, few go into the contemplative/mystical side and could not see what Jesus was pointing to.

But the same goes for Hinduism, etc. How many Hindus are actually Advaita Vedantins? Maybe in the West you hear a lot about Advaita, but in India probably most are just devotional Hindus.

• 6m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

Chris Jones

Top contributor

Soh Wei Yu really cool and fascinating, thanks. Will check out the link

• 5m
• Like
• Reply