I think I'll stick to Buddhadhamma, thank you!
Dan74 wrote:Firstly, I think it could only work if you are already on the brink of realizing no self.
Ben wrote: And the disciples of one extremely obnoxious but charismatic 'enlightened' teacher to go forth and promote to the point of spamming each and every online forum they could find - in a bid to generate sales for that person's book.
Ben wrote:Maybe some people will find this stuff useful and then move on to something a bit more authentic.
m0rl0ck wrote:The guy in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... B6oPN3Bz_Y seems to me to know what he is talking about. The thing is, how good a teacher is he? How would the LU teachers deal with an emergency?
With a teacher in an established tradition its likely that the teacher has been vetted by his superiors and that the tradition has methods for dealing with emergencies or difficulties that students might encounter. Someone who has difficulties with dogma or established religion might benefit from this, but it seems to me that seeing anatta without a proper support system could be very problematic for some. I hope the folks at LU know what they are doing
The method of inquiry used on this site may actually work, unlike many spiritual practices. It may change how you regard your self, your relationships and your world. Neither you nor we can predict how this will turn out for you. If you are already fragile, it may exacerbate any mental condition or disorder, or it may not. If you have issues in your relationship, it may improve it, or not. If you have strong religious or spiritual beliefs, direct experience may support them, or (in our experience) not.
You are responsible for your honesty, integrity and focus.
We advise that you be willing to take the risk and accept that a leap into the unknown is just that.
SamKR wrote:Hello everyone,
As a Buddhist, or even if you are not a Buddhist, what do you think of http://www.liberationunleashed.com?
vajra1955 wrote: there is only oneness there has only ever been oneness
"Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) — The Cosmologist.
"The Oneness of all being is sometimes taught as a basic Buddhist principle, but this discourse shows that the Buddha himself rejected the idea. It is simply one of the extremes that he avoided by teaching dependent co-arising."
Question: This word 'citta' is used in the suttas for the subjective consciousness. If there's a citta from which the asavas (biases) are removed and a citta which is liberated, how does this fit in with the idea of self or no-self? How does one avoid self-view in thinking about the citta? If there's no self, who is it that's aware and what is it that becomes enlightened?
Answer: This is where Buddhism excels. It totally frustrates that desire. The Buddha wouldn't give an inch on that, because that's the non-dualism of the Buddha's teaching. It's psychologically uninspiring. You're left with just letting go of things rather than holding on to the feeling of a God or Oneness or the Soul or the Subject with capital S, or the Overself, or the Atman or Brahman or whatever - because those are all perceptions and the Buddha was pointing to the grasping of perception.
The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.
Like with monism - monistic thinking is very inspiring. "We're all one. We are one - that's our true nature - the one mind." And you can talk of the universal mind and the wholeness and the oneness of everything. That's very uplifting, that's the inspiration. But non-dualism doesn't inspire. It's deliberately psychologically non-inspiring because you're letting go of the desire for inspiration, of that desire and need and clutching at inspiring concepts.
-MN 147"Rāhula, what do you think? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?"—"Impermanent, venerable sir."—"Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"—"Suffering, venerable sir."—"Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?"—"No, venerable sir."
"Rāhula, what do you think? Are forms … Is eye-consciousness …  … Is eye-contact … Is anything comprised within the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that arise with eye-contact as condition permanent or impermanent?"—"Impermanent, venerable sir."—"Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"—"Suffering, venerable sir."—"Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?"—"No, venerable sir."
Do you think the level of "no-self" or "not-self" realization is same as or similar to that of a sotapanna?