Interesting 🤔

It is not enough in modern times because people don’t want to be home leavers and renunciate, but have it all, the spouse, kids, career, big bank account, house, car etc..

That's why she's there. If she wasn't identified with her thoughts, she wouldn't need a teacher.

John Hagi truly waking up really is somewhat of a mental breakdown.

From their point of view, the so called "normal" condition of people is psychosis

@@cutyoursoul4398 isn’t it tho? Wars, genocide, greed, hatred, racism, rape, child molesters, violence, assault. All of this pure insanity is considered “normal society” or “that’s just life” when it’s absolutely out of the deepest realms of possibility from the state of awareness. All of the aforementioned insanity is indeed psychosis.

Isn't nihilism a concept, like "nothing is worth doing"? It's not a state of peace where you get energy to enjoy doing things in life! If it were simply dissociation, there would have to be the concepts of "someone" who is dissociated and "everything else", wouldn't there? It's a very slippery subject, but maybe that's because we approach it using our mind as a the go-to intellectual tool, whereas it's about direct experience which is beyond our normal waking dream state of being.

Because there is no avoiding the truth. It's just taking a step back so that you can deal with life's problems more effectively. It's a dissociation with the mind yes, but the fruit of that are positive, not negative.

Feeling is a guiding force . Feelings respond to what we value.

Don't worry, Buddhism is in the process of being hit like a truck by the questions raised by neuroscience, AI, a plethora of new techniques being developed, social movements etc. It is being forced into the adapt-or-die position and I like it. Adya is of the last generation of teachers who aren't actively engaging with these issues.

The realm of subjective experience has been extensively described and catalogued by Buddhism in the most extraordinary fashion. And understanding the mechanisms behind enlightenment will not change it, any more than understanding that romantic love is changed because it's produced by oxytocin, serotonin adrenaline and dopamine dousing your system all at the same time. What I mean is that the skillful means of Buddhism will change, and the way in which it taught will change massively. It will become much more systematic, and meditation - a horribly inefficient method right now - will be supported or even supplanted by a plethora of developing technologies derived from our knowledge of neuroscience and the application of scientific rigour to the path. For instance, I have OCD and deeply buried trauma that is far too difficult for me to access with meditation alone unless I go on a long retreat, which is not possible for me. However, if I take 0.5 mg of psilocybin, within an hour my conditioning is pushed to the surface and is burning, and I apply strong mindfulness to those mental patterns and they weaken over the course of about a three-hour sub-perceptual 'trip'. My mood generally lifts afterwards. The evidence for the efficacy of psychedelics in mental health and spirituality (they are closely related, obviously) is substantial, and yet most Buddhist teachers refuse to go there. That attitude must go. The dogma about what to teach and how to teach it has to go.

Looks like we share the enthusiasm! You'd be surprised - or perhaps not - by how many people think meditation is 'sacred' or whatever. They are confusing the means with the goal. I find the people who are most open to new techniques are those who have no knowledge of Buddhism at all - therefore they are not attached to any concept of what Buddhism 'should' look like. The ones who are the most dogmatic are usually people who have some experience, just enough to get attached and not enough to weaken attachment :D

Thank you and you as well :)

@@squamish4244 🎉fabulous. 100% agree.

That's true, although some teachers claim that mindfulness if done with enough precision and attention can become so deep as to turn into self-inquiry without the actual need to ask "Where is this coming from?" My experience suggests this is true.

Yes, anything basically can turn into beings being aware of being aware as emptiness. And no method is absolutely certain to "take you there". Whatever "takes you there takes you there" as That. Some methods try to point you directly towards That. But some people are not ready to take "that" message. For those a more progressive path is required... which can also yield the non-phenomenal recognition of That.

Well, from the POV of 'you', yes, all of that is true. From the POV of awareness, it is not.

but you might for example ask what the diffarence is between when im talking to you and when you hear thoughts? what makes one more you than another when they both seem to appear in the same feild of awareness? meaning you know, its the same thing that hears both?

@@squamish4244 Well put 👍

@@BananaBug The same people hear both, but the reactivity is drastically lower when you no longer think you are an independent 'self'.

You have good idea about her 😉

She's more interested in her own thoughts and telling her "story" than understanding what Adya has to say.

@@miguelfilo962 That's why she's there. If she didn't need help and wasn't stuck in her ego, she wouldn't need a teacher at all.