Modern buddhism and spiritual contradictions

[Adamq8]

Anyone else noticed that alot of modern buddhists is materialists and reductionistic? 

As well as this neo advaitan teachings makes awakening and enlightenment really one dimensional and sounds to easy.

And some teachers deny GOD and awareness and conciousness as being the ultimate ground.

Why is there so much contradiction in spiritual circles?

How can "one" go past awareness?

Why do alot of meditation teachers piss on psychedelics? Alot of them have not done them. 

And psychedelics clearly shows u what awakening is there is no doubt about it.

It shows you pure being. 

How is that any different?

And why can you have the realization that you are GOD and everything is imaginary but this is fabricated? Is not the no self as much a fabrication?

Isnt everything a fabrication of being?

 

[Adamq8]

And why do we piss on thoughts? Thoughts is as much a part of you as anything else,  and I do feel that we are seperating thoughts from being, it is in being anything arises and it is still valid. 

Not two.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Adamq8

[Vibroverse]

Contradictions are everywhere in every group. It is just that when you identify as a member of a group, you don't see the contradictions, because you've narrowed your focus. 

[allislove]

Q: Why ________________________?
A: Why not? Unconditional Love.

All these why&how questions encourage more dreaming ??

The questions that help to wake up ?❤️
• "Who or what am I?"
• "From where do thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions arise?"
• "What is it that knows or is aware of my experience?"
• "What element of my experience never disappears?"

[Vibroverse]

Knowledge as distinction. When you know something, you focus on a narrowed part of awareness. 

[Hello from Russia]

What exactly do you mean by being a materialist/reductionist and what contradictions do you see? 

Reductionism is actually a very robust technique for contemplation and scientific breakthroughs. Of course it has its limits and mainstream science clear overuses it, but an amazing technique still. It will skyrocket your contemplation inquiry if you learn it and add it to your arsenal. What is ironic is that scientific inquiry actually started in Asia. Buddha notoriously used it. All zen stuff is basically a scientific inquiry, it's just focused on the mind and life in various abstract phenomena more than it is on some concrete material objects

[Adamq8]

27 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

What exactly do you mean by being a materialist/reductionist and what contradictions do you see? 

Reductionism is actually a very robust technique for contemplation and scientific breakthroughs. Of course it has its limits and mainstream science clear overuses it, but an amazing technique still. It will skyrocket your contemplation inquiry if you learn it and add it to your arsenal. What is ironic is that scientific inquiry actually started in Asia. Buddha notoriously used it. All zen stuff is basically a scientific inquiry, it's just focused on the mind and life in various abstract phenomena more than it is on some concrete material objects

Yes the neti neti method is awesome in that way, but it is not good to reduce everything down cause it is limiting in my view,  and anatta is more correctly = not my soul, today modern buddhists think that anatta means that the Buddha taught that there was no soul only material body conciousness, which is not the Truth. 

Anatta = not my soul, guatama didnt teach no soul. 

 

[Adamq8]

39 minutes ago, allislove said:

Q: Why ________________________?
A: Why not? Unconditional Love.

All these why&how questions encourage more dreaming ??

The questions that help to wake up ?❤️
• "Who or what am I?"
• "From where do thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions arise?"
• "What is it that knows or is aware of my experience?"
• "What element of my experience never disappears?"

Yes it is good inquiry and something im almost doing every day while at work or at the gym or anywhere

 

[Bodhitree]

Meditation teachers need a unique selling point, if they were to say ‘just do some psilocybin mushrooms and it will show you everything’ then there is no more need for meditation or teaching it. Meditation teachers are not shamans.

[Michal__]

Do the practices, get the psychadelic experiences, read the books & form your own opinions. No need to ask others.

[Consilience]

I think a lot of teachers don't recommend psychedelics because the end goal of meditation is not the end goal of psychedelics. Mystical experiences are transient and can create bigger egos, clinging, craving, and even attachment to the idea that truth or freedom resides in some altered state of oneness. Meditation teaches us how to let go and find freedom within ‘this’; a freedom that transcends all states of consciousness. The unfortunate part is that when psychedelics can be used holistically with a watchful eye on an attachment forming around experiences, they provide the seeds of insights which can further blossom in manual practice. Many meditation teachers just dont have the experience or wisdom on this subject due to lack of experience, yet their warnings and concerns are valid. Just observe how many people on this forum attribute spirituality to nihilism to see what “unearned,” unprocessed, and unintegrated mystical experiences and knowledge lead.

Make no mistake though, trying to shamatha or vipassana your way to god is very unlikely. Maybe self inquiry alone would be enough, but having the irrefutable direct experiences of god on psychedelics is hugely advantageous assuming we know how to set them aside for again, a freedom, a truth that transcends all states of consciousness. 

[tsuki]

22 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

Why do alot of meditation teachers piss on psychedelics? Alot of them have not done them. 

And psychedelics clearly shows u what awakening is there is no doubt about it.

It shows you pure being. 

How is that any different?

Meditation is a skill you build.
Psychedelics are substances that take you places.

Which is better? This is a trick, context-dependent, question.