quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Whatever appears to the mind - memories, thoughts, and so on - be they positive or negative, are not grounded or rooted in any reality.

From what little I know of Tibetan Buddhism, that's not a precise enough statement of their position. They take their ontology from Nagarjuna and his commentators. Nagarjuna didn't deny the reality of things; he simply held that they have no solid, substantial, persistent existence of their own (svabhava). (Actually, there is case to be made that Nagarjuna didn't make assertions at all but merely demolished all assertions to the contrary, but that's a whole other story.)

Also, the contents of consciousness are always felt or stored in the body or nervous system, and personally, I'm not interested in any spirituality that denies the body its experiences as intrinsically human and spiritual. If thoughts, memories etc aren't real, then the body isn't real .

Derek, just to note that I was quoting aion above.

Stephen . . I guess if one believes that duality is an illusion, then you'd have to conclude that the body is an illusion, no? It does get to be ridiculous after awhile.

quote:

Whatever appears to the mind - memories, thoughts, and so on - be they positive or negative, are not grounded or rooted in any reality. From the ultimate vantage point, the perspective of a buddha's primordial wisdom, they are not seen as having any substance, any reality - not even one atom of reality.

This needs to be seen in the context of the doctrine of the two truths - the absolute and the relative.

From the level of the relative truth (or conventional truth) we of course experience our thoughts and emotions as reality and so we should because otherwise we could not communicate with anybody.

From the level of the absolute truth (God-level) we are constructing an illusory reality from these thoughts and emotions. The insane person constructs a hell experience and the spiritually realised person constructs a paradise-like experience. But all these more or less healthy constructs are constructs none the same.

Enlightenment means to realise the illusory nature of our existence but to function within it none the less.

quote:

Enlightenment means to realise the illusory nature of our existence but to function within it none the less.

It's one thing to say we construct an illusory identity and/or understanding of reality from our thoughts and emotions, but another to say that our existence is an illusion. Who or what is having these illusory thoughts if not an exist-ent? The illusion is not, then, the fact of existence, but the way we understand it, which is biased from our woundedness (which needs to be healed).

In Christianity, we believe that God became incarnate -- an individual human being. It seems that God does not view creation to be an illusion that we have to somehow pretend exists so we can get along, but takes it very seriously, so much so as to be personally identified with it.

I am not an illusion. Neither are my children or grandchildren or the Brown Thrashers that eat grape jelly from my bird feeding station. All this talk of duality being illusion is absurd, imo. I can't believe how much time I have spent on this board just making the point that I am real, you are real, reality is real, etc.

There are irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Buddhism, as we have noted on other thread, the most basic being the view of creation.

It's years since I looked at this stuff, but here goes.

It's unfortunate that many translations use words like "reality" and "illusion," since these give a misleading impression of the Madhyamaka philosophy (the school founded by Nagarjuna and adopted by the Tibetans). Just to be clear, this is not the advaita vedanta of Shankara and his followers, and there is no mention of maya or "illusion" here.

There's quite a good article on the two-truths theory here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...twotruths-india/#Mad

From that article, with my emphasis added:

quote:

to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nagarjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing.

However, I have to say that the article is only "quite" good because it again uses the word "reality" in its translations. That's where it has the potential to mislead.

What Nagarjuna actually denies is that anything has svabhava. This is not the same as denying that things exist, or asserting that they are illusory.

As for the two truths, Nagarjuna's concern seems more pedagogical and soteriological than ontological:

dve satye samupasritya buddhanam dharmadesana /
lokasamvrtisatyam ca satyam ca paramarthatam // MMK 24.8 //

vyavaharam anasritya paramartho na desyate /
paramartham anagamya nirvanam nadhigamyate // MMK 24.10 //

How this two-truths theory became ontological, I do not know. That Stanford article I linked to earlier says of the Svatantrika Madhayamaka schools: "Both schools reject ultimate intrinsic reality while positing conventional intrinsic reality."

Perhaps someone better informed than me can elucidate here.

To be quite honest, I have been wondering for some time why we are discussing enlightenment and reality here when we have such different backgrounds. For me this is very much like comparing apples and oranges - totally different cattle of fish

I don't mind carrying on comparing Buddhism and Christianity if this is what people desire but we could also come back to discussing practical aspects of the kundalini syndome.

quote:

Originally posted by KundaliniTherapist:
For me this is very much like comparing apples and oranges - totally different cattle of fish

You mean Christian ultimate reality is different from Buddhist ultimate reality? Very postmodern!

quote:

You mean Christian ultimate reality is different from Buddhist ultimate reality? Very postmodern!

As I said before, in terms of mystical experience there is no 'religion' as such but the experience transcends these differences between religions.

However, in terms of doctrines and terminology there are massive difference as Phil rightly points out. That is why I am surprised how many of you freely use Hindu and Buddhist terms like 'awakening', 'enlightenment' and 'non-duality' on a Christian forum.

I personally feel that these terms should be thoroughly studied and understood within the framework of the religion they originate from and only be used with caution within the framework of another religion. I have noticed many misconceptions in the way some of you use these terms but I am in no position to correct this as I would have to write an entire book to explain them. I have tried here and there but my little posts do no justice to these massive spiritual complexities.

Having said all that, it is an interesting question why you see the need to use Buddhist and Hindu terms. Why not stick to Christian terms?

Tara, I have a question that may fall under the
term Kundalini Syndrome. My husband & I are dealing with grief. Around 3 weeks after the initial loss, overnight my husband developed heart issues.

It's been about 5 weeks since the onset of his symptoms. He's going in for testing tomorrow. I woke up a couple nights ago understanding that while i knew what i was addressing, I was not emotionally connected. As the flow of grief came there were many threads involved going back decades. Later that day my partner's condition started to improve. I don't know if the improvement has been maintained till tomorrow. Have any thoughts on this?

quote:

Having said all that, it is an interesting question why you see the need to use Buddhist and Hindu terms. Why not stick to Christian terms?

Awakening, enlightenment, duality and so forth are terms that are used in the Christian literature, only differently, at times (not always, however). I agree, however, that many Christians have adopted Eastern ideas without fully understanding them.

The terminology need not be an obstacle to discussion, especially if the terms are explained and related to experiences. Karma, for example, means consequences and their formative power. Christians do get this, and recognize that there is truth to the idea. Where we differ is in ascribing to karma the power to determine the form a creature takes, which is what transmigration teaches. Our beliefs about human being individual and unique with an immortal destiny (as a human -- so we'd better learn to accept ourselves! ) is especially different.

But, sure, we can get back to kundalini syndrome. I have no idea why "non-duality" keeps showing up in discussions of kundalini. It is compatible with Christianity's dualistic spirituality, as with Eastern forms as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Sue:
Tara, I have a question that may fall under the
term Kundalini Syndrome. My husband & I are dealing with grief. Around 3 weeks after the initial loss, overnight my husband developed heart issues.

It's been about 5 weeks since the onset of his symptoms. He's going in for testing tomorrow. I woke up a couple nights ago understanding that while i knew what i was addressing, I was not emotionally connected. As the flow of grief came there were many threads involved going back decades. Later that day my partner's condition started to improve. I don't know if the improvement has been maintained till tomorrow. Have any thoughts on this?

Think of people as points in a web. All the connections of your life are the friends, memories and issues and the connecting threads are that. When part of the web breaks we all feel the loss but those closest to the break feel it most.

And here you are for a moment with these broken threads needing time to heal.

But grief like love is something strong enough to completely break down the barrier that separates one from another.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
...I have no idea why "non-duality" keeps showing up in discussions of kundalini. It is compatible with Christianity's dualistic spirituality, as with Eastern forms as well.

The merging of Shakti with Shiva is a representation of the movement from duality to non duality. Emptying of the unconscious mind and then the conscious mind is a necessity as is singing and silence in a church.

quote:

Awakening, enlightenment, duality and so forth are terms that are used in the Christian literature, only differently, at times (not always, however). I agree, however, that many Christians have adopted Eastern ideas without fully understanding them.

Phil
if the terms awakening and enlightenment are to be used with any terminological consistency (they are Buddhist terms, after all) they should be used on the basis of:

1. our innermost nature and the God's nature are one at the same
2. the human self is an illusion (how else could we discover our inherent identity with God)
3. the 'reality' that we see around us is an illusion in the sense that it is like a very real dream, from which we can 'awake'. (our illusory view of reality is linked to our illusory view of ourselves)
4. The deep-seated illusion that leads us to believe that what we perceive is real has been accumulated and hardened throughout countless life-times, which makes it so hard to give it up.

We have discussed at length that none of those four points is consistent with Christian (Catholic) views, which is why, to me, it does not make sense to use Buddhist terms like enlightenment and awakening.

I know of course that many people throw around many words that they do not fully understand (myself included) and I have no real problem with that. It's also fun and opens doors to new explorations that could lead to greater development, which is of course a good thing

One of the earliest uses of the word enlightenment in Christian literature is Paul writing to the Ephesians 1:18 - "I pray that the eyes of your heart(understanding) may be enlightened..." This seems to refer to our calling and inheritance in Christ, rather than the eastern idea, but it might be said that our position in Christ might involve an enlightened or awakened mind. Really though, it's about understanding the divine glory that is ours through Christ.

Other specifically Christian terminology, like salvation and divine union, should perhaps be used more often, but with salvation, I think, the term has become so debased by a fundamentalist over usage and limited understanding of it's meaning. Thomas Merton talks about this at the start of New Seeds of Contemplation. I know a bit of it because of my evangelical background. The idea seems to be that if you follow a certain formula, that's it, bingo, you're saved, when really the term is best understood as the fulfilment of a life long relationship with Christ.

Other Christian approaches to the divine I think are equally as rich, if not richer, than the non dual idea of awakening. The experience of relating to God through faith, for example, is precious, because it suggests that no state of consciousness really comes near to God in himself, but that he is nonetheless experienced by divine grace, as a gift through faith. Similarly, the idea that the kingdom of God is "at hand" or "among us", contrasting with the kingdom within, which has somehow become more popular and accepted, suggests a giving and receiving - in other words, a relational experience of the divine.

I confess to having been caught up a little in the ego pursuit of enlightenment or awakening. It's such a BUZZ these days, and it does seem like a nice state to be in from the glimpses I've had and the testimony of others. And there are lots of people who seem to have "wakened up", so maybe there's something going on after all. But there's a real delicacy, a poignancy in the heart in these specifically Christian experiences, and I think they come with a humility to the extent that not many seem to be testifying about it. Maybe we should be encouraging more of that here at shalomplace (the testifying and the humility ).

My own deepest resonance is the feeling of being held so tenderly, of the soul, the 'I', at rest in the beloved. There's no end to the depth of this, and perhaps that's another reason it's not as popular an experience as the pursuit of enlightenment. People seem to want some kind of resolution, an end state. In all of this, we're just beginners however. There's no end to the "riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints."