"Personal relationship with God"

That is why. I open the doors just enough, he has them wide-open. :D

Restricting yourself, restricting truth to a particular definition only serves to limit yourself.

Go on deeply indulging in the various devices, dropping any that do not work, and do not settle until it is your own experience. When you know, all scripture, all satsang talks look so poor. You will begin to understand the struggle these men have had in trying to convey this.

The Sufi's are great for a Western religious seeker, because fundamentally we identify religion with God. Especially the Universal Sufi movement, but many other of the less traditional (read, attached to the Quran) branches move the seeker away from a personal God to God as a more abstract idea. Essentially a Sufi teacher is taught "All is Brahman", but will see many names along with Brahman, all the names of God are included. Many Sufi's will tell you what is contained in Advaita is aligned utterly to Sufism, and this is not surprising. Such Sufi groups have grown around Hindu and Buddhist influences. In genuinely seeking truth, they have sought all material that might be of assistance - always with an eye to enlightenment. This is quite eye opening for the Westerner, it was my first exposure to the idea all religions are teaching oneness. Deeply, Sufis are teaching the merging of lover and beloved, the discovery of love itself.

What the Sufi's never provided was a direct device for realizing oneness, they are beautiful people, but mostly it seems to be all theory. Their practices are very accepting, but they fall short because identification ever remains. Everything is necessarily related to Allah and the Quran, but it is not so foreign as the Eastern religions. Knowing all is one, yet remaining a worshipper, was my first sticking point, a simple device from Buddha allowed me to see I was also included in the oneness of God. Yet, in realizing this oneness, the concept of God itself had to be dropped, God was the objective universe at this point, its opposite was the subjective universe, both had to fall together. This was the moment of enlightenment for me, the transcendence of duality happened in inquiring what now remained.

Osho has been instrumental for me since this initial enlightenment, although I do not recommend or even usually talk about him to those who have not at least glimpsed reality. He is quite dangerous, but if you can understand him he is beautiful. The principle role he has played, though, was seeing through the enlightened ego. As you probably noticed, I said "this was the moment of enlightenment for ME", ego returned. Osho helped me see certain things about this, to see this is the case with everyone, that it didn't make one special in any way. He provided the environment in which ego could be dropped, but of course Osho couldn't do it directly - part of the enlightened ego had clung to him.

Advaita has helped here, and it was an Advaita master which removed the ego. Without Osho, I think their teaching would have been more harmful, since essentially they would have been confirming my belief that I am God, never calling into question the idea or concept of what God actually is. I knew now what God was, but to assert this was absurd, it looks simply insane to say. My path still revolved around this idea until I encountered Osho, and without him I would never have understood Brahman or Sunyata correctly, I would not have recognized Nirvana. Yet it was an Advaita teacher that finally triggered this, and a few others have clarified further the language.

I suppose this is why I look more like Advaita than anything else, but every path I am aware of has been looked at honestly. I have not chosen what is truth, I have simply allowed truth to guide me. Now I am left with bliss, with no need for more, with complete contentment, yet a love that wants to be shared.
the doors to what though ;)


The problem with the Advaita tradition is that it has great emphasis on the Vedas, all this knowledge must be acquired first, so much must be done.

All that is truly necessary is to see what is actually here.

Words cannot describe truth, so it is irrelevant how much you read about it.

Advaita traditionally lacks meditation as far as I know, and to this day they simply assert "who meditates?"

Yet, without watching the movements of the mind, how to know you are not it?

Your knowledge will all stem from it, the practice is firming ego.

This is its danger, why Zen is needed as well.

Zen de-emphasizes knowledge, its principle interest is in watching the bodymind as it functions.

Together, the ultimate emphasis is placed on experiential truth.

For me, this is what Osho has taught.

For me, it is what man needs, enough dogma is already in the world.
Adi Sankara (the first Sankaracharya, 8th Century (?)) said there are two realities, Absolute and Pragmatic. I acknowledge that. Advaita Zen acknowledges only the Absolute.

No, I speak only of the absolute, there is a vast difference.

Understanding the absolute permits us to be at ease with the relative, yet does not deny the relative in any way.

Truth remains always one.

To divide into absolute and relative creates a division, what benefit does either vantage have?

Why do we insist the absolute denies what is present?

The present consists only of the absolute.

All that is denied is what is non-existential, what is imagination.
Nonduality cannot deny or confirm anything, else nonduality is no more.

It is said there are three aspects of ego, three directions of duality:


What is beyond these?

Only intimacy.

Intimacy with what is, yet when it is not, no clinging.

This is love.
Would you run if chased by a mad elephant? :)

No, I would approach it and calm it down.

An elephant cannot turn sharp corners, if it continues beyond a certain point, just side step it.

Eventually it will see your love.
Most animals will forget their violence if you simply offer them food.

In nature, this is the ultimate peace treaty.
Running will present yourself as prey, it is rarely the right action.

Even if the animal has only been curious, as soon as you run you trigger its predatory instinct.

As with humans, the key is to be respectful.
You've convinced me. I've been trying to see the benefit of reading your posts....trying to glean something of value from them.

This post has done it, it has provided me the insight to avoid them completely...let us hope I can.

Yup, pretty much says it all. I was okay with the stink of zen, but that post pretty much defines the person behind the rhetoric.

Two truths doctrine

We also have a thread around here about it that I started as my PMS thread. :p

The Heart Sutra tells us:

"Samsara is Nirvana,
Nirvana is Samsara"

Ultimately, the absolute and relative are not two.

The relative is the expression of the absolute, yet is inseparable from it.
Similarly, you cannot know the absolute without the mirror of the relative.

I really recommend you read the Heart and Diamond Sutras.
Admire your courage and conviction, but still would advice against it.

Admire your courage and conviction, but still would advice against it.


Why you advise against it?

Perhaps because you care what others think?

What meaning can your knowledge have when it is not lived?

If your spiritual path is not towards killing the ego, it will be worthless.

Just more acquisition, yet they're all saying "let go".

You have misunderstood.
I was thinking of the groups who flew their airplanes into World Trade Center.

Any action taken against another is not religious, it is fanatical.

In complete let go you realize all is love, how will love harm anything knowingly?

It is an interesting correlation though.

If there is one thing the terrorists have not done it is let go.

Identification has gone so deep they are willing to kill and be killed.

All for an idea.

We must go beyond ideas.
You mean 'let those who have not let go' do whatever they will, but I should 'let go'?

Let go of your concepts of other and yourself.

Let go of all beliefs in the mind.

What is there beneath it all is already love.

Love is the ultimate let go.

Have you ever seen, in love, the utter lack of defence towards the other?

You can sit with one you love for hours without uttering a word and be ok.

When we go out into the world, though, we begin playing a role, and so everyone we meet we are trying to present what we think we are. We become utter actors, yet everyone is acting, trying to impress.

This all has to fall away, yet this isn't true.

In the mind, in the brain, it all will remain stored, but we identify with the storage, the hard drive.

Who has decided in you that the World Trade Center was something bad, and why has it remained effecting your present experience - you have projected it on this discussion. This very conclusion is the ego, love has another understanding.

In the love of parent and child, the parent will often jar the child, bring them out of their dream for a moment to see something. This is what the World Trade Center has done, more people in the world are waking up in the last 12 years than any other time in history. The internet has been a huge part of this, people have been able to explore alternate ways of thinking, there has been much good to come of it.

The strange thing is that those who have allowed themselves to become identified with the event itself, these people have done far more calamitous things. There has been almost as many deaths in friendly fire as there were that day, let alone those that have actually been killed in battle. When we attack negativity negatively, only a far worse negativity can come.

All calamities simply show that the ego, the me, can cease any moment.

It invites us to see that we can simply drop the whole story right now, and then no fear need be there.

It brings us back to simply living life as it is, without someone saying it is "my life", you cannot own life, you cannot control life, you cannot do anything about life.

It is because you are life, not something separate.