Buddhism Chart

Although to remain consistent I must say, it was a mistake to include the Visuddhimagga in the chart, as it contradicts the suttas in a few ways

OP what do you think of Nyanavira Thera's Clearing the Path and Notes on Dhamma?

Should the nikayas be read in that order?

Attached: 18-59-01-14727329202101.jpg (1498x984, 502K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Turnings_of_the_Wheel_of_Dharma

The 'Three Turnings of the Wheel' is a conceptual model which is used with some variation throughout Tibetan and East-Asian Buddhism to refer to 3 bodies of texts. The first consists of the Tripitaka, the second usually is seen as constituting some of the earliest Mahayana Sutras dealing with Bodhisattvas, compassion and Sunyata (the Prajnaparamita is including in this turning), and the third turning of the wheel includes the early foundational Yogachara texts and sutras accepted by both Yogachara and Mahayana like the Tathagatagarbha Sutras. It's not uncommon for specific schools to claim that they themselves represent a fourth or fifth turning in addition to the previous three, Dzogchen and other Vajrayana sometimes refer to themselves or Buddhist Tantra as the fourth, Jonang considers itself a fourth, Huayen considers itself the fifth etc. The turning of the wheel classification system includes both texts which present themselves as authentic records of Buddha's teachings as well as the exegesis on these by various figures like Nagarjuna or Asanga.

A good amount of Mahayana schools regard some of the texts included in the 2nd and 3rd schools as being authentic teachings of Buddha, sometimes they come up with myths regarding their origin such as the story about the Nagas preserving some of the texts that Nagarjuna wrote about, but other schools simply hold that these texts were passed down from the time of the Buddha down to them by the Mahayana lineage. Generally most of the sutras included under the classification "the Mahayana Sutras" are considered by Mahayana schools to be the actual words of Buddha; this includes a wide range of types of texts ranging from the Prajnaparamita, Tathagatagarbha, and Pure Land Sutras to various others like the Lotus, Diamond and Avamtasaka Sutra.

>These texts are considered by Mahayana tradition to be buddhavacana, and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_sutras

There is a common misconception that most of the Mahayana Sutras were themselves composed in China, Tibet, Japan or wherever but actually many of them even scholars agree come from India. With some of the ones composed over hundreds of years throughout the 4th and 5th centuries etc it's not likely they are fully genuine or that they are at best heavily edited elaborations of some much smaller material. The Mahayana Sutras included in the 2nd and 3rd turnings however have a decent chance of being real. The Tathagatagarba Sutras appeared in writing as early as around the 1st-2nd millennium AD (only a hundred years or so after the Pali Canon was first written down) and could very well along with the Prajnaparamita Sutras reflect oral teachings passed down by Mahayana groups who heard Buddha teach them. I don't really see any of the Mahayana Sutras in the 2nd and 3rd turnings as conflicting with the Tripitaka.

*1st-2nd century AD

The Nikayas can be read in any order
I read the Majjhima Nikaya first, the length of each discourse feels perfect, and there are plenty of really great, important suttas in there

I've never read it but it seems interesting
I'll check it out

Thanks.

Needs a bit more Mahayana to be an overview of Buddhism as a whole I would say.
Better list than anything I've come across though.

>want stuff
>sit under tree
>don't want stuff anymore

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. How do you even get up from under the tree, though? Don't you have to *want* to get up?

I don't think you have read all of these books

I don't think YOU have read all of these books.

You're right, I haven't read the ones in yellow on the bottom left, written without their English titles in brackets
I still included them because they are part of the Sutta Pitaka

i loled

What do you guys do when your sense of personal selfhood has started to dissolve, and you've now begun to realize that everyone was really you, and you feel an overwhelming level of empathy for everyone you see, and you just want to love everyone and help them all, but you find it difficult to carry on a worldly persona and casual disposition as a result of these facts? It's too difficult to live like this.

Can any Buddhists here pls halp?

Buddhism is nothing but a late stage of corrupted Hindusim for bourgeois westerners. There's a reason it died out in the country where it originated.

bumppana

I come to an anime porn forum to ask advice about it.

OP, you should add this thread/your OP post number like Yea Forumspost# onto the image now so that people can look back in this thread to read your justifications

For the love of god every reccomendation chart needs to start doing this

It's not about having "no intentions" whatsoever, rather its about figuring out and extinguishing the cause for personal, ego-based desires.

Think about a principal at a school. It would really make no difference to them, personally, if one of the students at their school failed, and yet that principal will go out of their way to make sure the school is functioning and giving that student the best possible chance at succeeding (given they're a good principal.)

>Buddhism is for westerners
>It's mostly practiced east of India
I bet you uncritically believe the old "Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export" quote.

Thank you for the chart OP

I don't know if it's right to say "everyone was really you" that sounds kind of new-agey
If you're asking how to keep on going in the world after the mind is purified and you've made substantial progress on the path, the answer is METTA
Metta is what keeps Buddhists from inaction, from nihilism. It is the reason why Buddhism doesn't advocate that you sit under a tree all day doing nothing. It is the single greatest reason for doing things in the world.
Try and center your career around goodwill loving-kindness for others, and if it's too late for that, start doing it in your free time and allow your career to support your ability to do that in your free time.
Even the part about "ego" is a bit inaccurate, there is nothing about ego in Buddhism. And even the part about extinguishing desires as the goal is a bit off. It is more a byproduct of the goal, which is the cessation of clinging/attachment which fuels becoming: Nibbāna.
In the four stages of Awakening, sensual desires are not extinguished until the third stage, Non-Returner or Anāgāmi. The Sotāpanna (Stream-Enterer) and the Sakadāgāmi (Once-Returner) still haven't dropped sensual desire or even ill-will entirely, but they have still glimpsed the unconditoned element, Nibbāna, through cessation "experiences."
I didn't think of that, thanks for the suggestion
I'll probably just make a second chart to fix some stuff up so that it's as faultless as I can make it, and then I'll do what you suggested.

Ah sorry I misread "the cause for personal, ego-based desires"
That's sounds right, but again ego is a weird word to use here.

Fixed

Attached: buddhism_chart.jpg (2360x5056, 2.03M)

Also user, if it helps with the "everyone was really you" thing, there are (as I understand) different beings in Saṃsāra only in that there are different sort of clusters of aggregates being clung to
To say "I am the universe" or "I am everyone" is still I am-conceit. In ultimate reality there is no you or "I," and this does not imply that somehow everyone is you.

Attached: IMG_1833.jpg (300x436, 28K)

as a pathetic recovering weed addict
where should I start, so I can work on my willpower and perseverance?

I think writing is the only thing that keeps me sane and functioning and safe right now.

While Buddhism is not self-improvement and you'd probably be better off joining a gym and sticking to some sort of daily regimen to develop discipline, even basic level meditation can help a lot with teaching you to not get caught up in your every thought or craving
However you need to develop morality and virtue before you can meditate beyond the surface level of Headspace-tier "10m of relaxation so you can be recharged and ready to make more money"
So for a start in meditation, I'd say make a conscious effort to uphold the Five Precepts (if you fail at first that's fine, they're not the 10 commandments, but when you fail you should observe the effect it has on your mental state and the rest of your day, while intending to avoid failing again)
Gain a basic understanding of Buddhist ethics by reading. As I told another user, the Majjhima Nikaya is pretty good, or In The Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi for an anthology
Then start meditation either after you develop an understanding of Buddhism's basics, or at the same time, but not before.
The Eightfold Path has eight parts to it, and mindfulness and concentration are mentioned last.
Lastly, again Buddhism isn't a magic self-help tool though I think some things from it can help, but ultimately discipline is entirely its own skill (ie I know a couple Buddhists who have awful discipline which hinders their ability to study the texts and maintain a consistent meditation practice)
If you're looking for a way out of suffering and a way to develop equanimity in life, that's essentially what the Eightfold Path is for.
The Buddha taught the truth of suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering

Oh yeah and for Samatha meditation, With Each and Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is good, as well as The Mind Illuminated by John Yates (this one in particular explains in detail how to develop very advanced levels of Samatha)
For mindfulness/vipassana (which I would only recommend at the basic level until you develop Samatha), The Manual of Insight is good, but if you don't want to read a long ass book just to get started, just look up basic noting meditation practices, a pretty easy one is the Ajaan Tong variant of noting

I'm just describing my personal experiences. After detaching myself to a certain degree from what I was previously identifying with and thereby created my sense of "identity", I'm starting to see now that there was no "me", and that there are similarly no "others" either, the latter being a false concept which was s
also born from personal identification. The identification to "myself" created both an illusion of "self" and "other" simultaneously, but when you stop identifying at all, both distinctions begin to disappear. This is what i mean by "everyone was me", not saying I literally am them or vice versa, substituting an old identity for a new one, but that, if we're all nothing, then we're all of the same substance, which our personhood previously prevented us from seeing. Like how, every morning, you awake from a dream of many people, places and events, but realize that you were all of them (in the sense that you weren't merely that tiny character of the dream, but identical to everything). I'm not Buddhist so I'm not too knowledgeable on their exact philosophies. Maybe Hinduism is more what I'd agree with instead. Metta is a must for me, as I said I want nothing but to love others so i'll try to find a field that allows me that.

Glad to see the thread still here. Wanted to thank for the reply.
I had over 20 meditations last year, each lasting between 20 and 30 minutes. I'm interested in Buddhism not only for the cause of mending my weaknesses, but because as a philologist I'm keen on keeping my mind intact, like neat little attic, as Conan Doyle made Holmes to say. Working with big and complex text, I need all the discipline and focus I can gather, if I would a just result. Meditation opened a path towards that.
Other than that, I'm into aesthetics and I make music and in a local journal I stumbled upon this fascinating article about the Buddhist philosophy of perception and the different ways and level of perception that it can differentiate. Through meditation and focus of awareness I was able not only to perceive art better, but also find more in natural soundscapes that inspires and intrigues me.

I've only read Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and the Heart Sutra for now. Very glad that there is a new chart now.

I'm being totally honest, you might find it off-putting how unfriendly the Buddha of the suttas is to the arts
It is seen as sensual indulgence (though poetry seems to be a-okay, or at least neutral, since the suttas are all written in verse, and the Theragatha and Therigatha are poems written by monks and nuns)
If you want the ability to focus for long periods of time, I think a consistent Samatha would help with that tremendously
If you want to keep your mind intact, avoid Vipassana until you've developed Samatha considerably
Read The Mind Illuminated for what is probably the most in-depth modern day explanation of Samatha practice

*a consistent Samatha practice
again, try to follow the precepts and develop your virtue if you want it to go anywhere

yeah I'm certain that there's no "you are everything/you are the universe" philosophy in the Pali Canon.
I'm assuming you've gotten this from Alan Watts, who seemed to push this idea a lot (an idea popular with LSD users because I guess it matches what they've felt while tripping) while identifying as "Buddhist."
However, this might be a partial insight into the convenient illusion of "self and other"
I would like to point you to the teaching of "Nāmarūpa," which means "name and form." I recommend you read up on the Buddhist variant of it, and check out the first Nibbāna sermon by Ñāṇananda (as listed in the chart) which goes quite in depth into it. Also read The Miracle of Contact.
In short, as I understand it, name and form are inseperable, they arise dependent on eachother, there is no name without form, and no form without name. To think one exists independent of the other is wrong.

No

I didn't get it from Alan Watts, it's just something I've experienced from stilling my own identification-function within myself. I wasn't claiming it to be a Buddhist concept, and I'm not Buddhist myself. My personal view is that I'm purely awareness, and everything in my awareness is equally and inseparably me. I haven't grasped the meaning of the Name-form concept yet, but I'll look into it and that book when I can. Thanks. I was just asking you guys for advice on what someone should do if they feel like their identity is lessening, and simultaneously that they are less filtering in other's identities through their own one, but other people are now in some sense "replacing" their own identity which is not as much there to fill up any space. I don't know if that makes sense, I'm just describing my experiences to you in terms of what I've felt after I stopped identifying with my thoughts, speech, emotions and the rest of the parts which created my illusion of "selfhood".

Sorry if I typed that shittily, I meant that Alan Watts expounds those ideas while identifying as Buddhist.
I did not mean that you do that

>My personal view is that I'm purely awareness
If you'd like the Buddhist perspective on that, awareness too is not-self.
The Five Aggregates are:
>Form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness
All of these are not-self.
Perceptions, awareness, feeling, forms, volition, consciousness....etc are all not-self. They are impermanent, inconstant, subject to change, there is no control over them, they do not ask permission to change, deteriorate and to die.
Perception, awareness, consciousness, is just as much "self" as something like the weather: not at all.

also it might help to read about the "Two Truths Doctrine" with ultimate reality vs conventional reality to help you maintain your ability to operate in the world (in addition to Mettā which I already suggested).
If one were to live life as if there were no mundane reality, he would end up being like those weird pseudo-Zen posters online who say "heh that's a lot of 'I'-talk in that post" anytime someone calls themselves "I" in a post for convenience of communication.

A roaring tiger.

Attached: FF6457D5-6B6E-4E1A-9756-3F6E055B6048.jpg (975x1390, 435K)

>posting Advaita-like personal experiences in a Buddhist thread and expecting answers that won't fundamentally conflict with what you experienced
ya dun goofed!

To answer your original question though, if you let go of attachment to the results of your actions (via helping and/or showing love to others) then it should stop seeming difficult or stressful. If you simply let these actions flow from a place of relaxed spontaneity without any regard for success than it won't seem difficult and you also you won't be troubled anymore by the results or lack thereof. If it helps you let go of attachment to the results just remember that according to the unborn/non-origination doctrine found in both Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism the universe with its beings never actually originated as a real existent thing to begin with and so the idea of there being real beings that it's important to do things for is in a sense just as unreal as the identity of conventional selfhood, and thus it's unreasonable to assign undue importance to it.

Hi, I'm a Buddhist & very impressed by your selection here, especially Ven Nyanananda & Nagarjuna, & of course the EBTs....if you have a facebook please add me @ fb dot com slash dylanmjewel...anyway sadhu for this dhammadana content

White people can't be buddhist, idiot

Race is merely a conventional truth, not ultimate truth.

no problem

Attached: Moist-Vanilla-Cupcakes-011.jpg (600x900, 37K)

This triggers the poltard

OP again, I think you will most appreciate The Deliverance of The Heart Through Metta.
As for your conflicting desires to be celibate but also for intimacy: desires are like that I suppose, confusing, often conflicting. Probably try and observe the sadness for what it is, a feeling, and don't get caught up in it. Instead of thinking "I am sad" just think "sadness" or "feeling sadness." Observe the physical aspects of the emotion (ie tightness in the chest, pressure in the head) as objectively as possible, and watch them fall away. This should help remove the urgency from the feeling, as though it has significance or relevance to your identity.
I am sure you want advice from the other posters as well, so take what I said with a grain of salt and see what they say too. I do strongly recommend starting that reading list with The Deliverance of the Heart Through Metta, though.
I'll leave you with this sutta, which contains my favourite explanation of how to skillfully deal with pain, both physical and emotional. It is not too long, should only take a few minutes to read:
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html

Ooh also regarding the "I became the sound" stuff or "and all the other things you mentioned as merely within awareness," I HIGHLY recommend you read The Miracle of Contact, which will clarify the Buddhist view of these things, directly (and it is a fairly short read too).
So yea once again, check out The Deliverance of the Heart, The Miracle of Contact, and that sutta I linked in the previous post. If you find these to be useful, continue with the rest of the books in the chart and I think you will appreciate them tremendously.

I will read those books for sure. I'll see if my local library has them, or an online copy (but preferably my library).

So is your advice that I shouldn't ultimately seek intimacy, or merely that I should try to detach myself some from the pains my loneliness brings me? Do you or others you know struggle with the same feelings? Of wanting to be chaste, while also longing for love?

Can I also describe other particulars of my experience to you? I have for much of my life, since teenagehood, had struggles with identity. Not merely the usual ones of cementing my self-concept, but ones of feeling a relative absence of personhood next to my peers. As in, struggling not with finding myself, but with being-a-self at all. This lacking of personhood continued into my college years, which I'm still in. But it was recently that I began to pursue meditation, and lightly read into some of these Eastern doctrines, and found relation to my own experiences. I also here realized what I mentioned earlier, that the subject-object distinction is one we ourself impose, and isn't real. And basically, I've understood clearly now that there's something we could call a "identification-function", and that we are at every moment attaching to many, many aspects of ourselves. Our bodies, our thoughts, our voices, our friends, and innumerable other elements. But when you actively detach from these, and simply observe them with neutrality, you can enter a state of consciousness that is far more blissful, and that all of what laid before was previously being perceived through an illusory lens. I am reaching states now where much of my life feels like a dream to me - my schooldays, my friends, my very walking through this world - because I've detached far enough, all of these ordinary, mundane things have become the substance of dreams to me. And I don't know how to cope with it. As I said earlier, I'm losing my sense of self, and because of this, the people around me are automatically starting to fill that space now. I was previously intaking everyone else through my own identity (which I believe we all do), but now that I've detached enough from the latter, it's only the others that are now left. And this state has also brought me to a state of overwhelming love for others, who I'm no longer perceiving merely through my ego, in the way that "i'm here, and they're there", but in the same sense I explained earlier, that of "becoming the sound", similarly am I "becoming the other". I'm sorry if these experiences align more with Advaita or some other school, but personally I have little philosophical alignment, and am just describing my phenomenological experiences as an individual. Can you lend any insights on this, if you have any? What do I do if my personhood is somewhat slipping from me, and my present and past life have started becoming something of a waking dream to me, with the same surreal quality of one?

Any advice would be really appreciated.

>Is there anything which I've experienced that a Buddhist should not be able to?
Not necessarily, Mahayana Buddhism includes areas that teach non-dualism, they usually teach that it's an epistemic (or experiential) non-dualism which is attained as opposed to the more 'ontological' non-dualism that Advaita teaches, although theoretically both could be experienced as an almost-identical state of prisine awareness untainted by the activity of the mind and where there is no subject-object distinction. The framework that one learns about and approaches it through could characterize it although if one gets deep enough into it all thoughts of the framework itself could possibly recede to the point of the two states being identical.
>And the Jhanas of Buddhism, isn't that something anyone, even one without knowledge of Buddhism, could be able to experience themselves?
Quite possibly, much of Buddhist terminology and the themes are derived from or influenced by the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Samhkya/Jainism (themselves influenced by the same texts), and so it's possible that one school of Hinduism etc could have realized a path to the same state by a different name
>It is by this that my personal, pseudo-Advaita views, of myself as merely awareness and all of the phenomena within it, have came to me. But isn't this something anyone could also experience, and if they did, why wouldn't they come to a similar position?
The reason why I was saying you shouldn't expect perfectly tailored advice to that in a Buddhist thread is because despite that they made be able to reach the same thing in practice the differences in the ontology between the two could likely cause people to still get hung up on exterior differences in the respective models such that their advice wouldn't really apply to you; for example the user who replied to you with "well according to Buddhism you aren't actually just awareness"
>consider it completely backwards to not perform one's moral duties simply because of this. But maybe that's not what the doctrine means, and you're just telling me not to stress about my own moral dilemma.
I wasn't saying to not perform moral actions but to not let it become a source of stress/sadness/frustration etc. Helping others is considered to be good for its own sake for numerous reasons, but at the same time you shouldn't worry about it, and you should remember that no matter what, "existence" is going to be okay anyway, it's not as though there is an urget existential crisis which will become a catastrophe if you fail to do something.
>celibate, but also really want to be loved by a lady?
It's one or the other, the middle is to get married/gf but abstain from all unwholesome/empty stuff like porn/vidya/tv/movies/Yea Forums etc. You're the Indian Canadian right? Try asking your parents about an arranged marriage (I know you don't want kids but remember Grihastha is the stage before Sannyasa) or try attending local Hindu temples or cultural events.

Can you also tell me your personal views on the "supernatural" aspect of Buddhism? Do you believe in all the realms described of, and the beings and so on? The Devas, for example? Not that I'm skeptical to these concepts, I'm open to many things. But how do you personally gauge what is true and what is not? Do you merely accept it on faith, or simply contemplate it without giving your acceptance to any of it? Do you believe the Buddha really had knowledge of such an extra-normal kind, and these weren't merely ungrounded speculations?

If your life is feeling unreal and dream-like and this is negatively impacting your life to a debilitating degree, you may be experiencing derealization or depersonalization. I would suggest looking into these disorders to see if they match your experience, in which case I would seek professional help.
I cannot speak to Advaita perspectives, but Buddhist insight into not-self is always liberating and does not produce the symptoms you are describing (which would indicate to me that this is not insight into not-self, not in the Buddhist perspective at least).
My advice is not that you shouldn't seek intimacy, but that you should not let your lack of intimacy hurt you to an unnecessary degree. I am sorry to say but ultimately you are not suffering because of lack of intimacy, you are suffering because of your aversion and resistance to lack of intimacy.
As to my reaction to your experiences as they are, and their potential significance, I am sorry to say that if they do not lead to the cessation of suffering, they are probably not all that significant. It is almost definitely the case that Buddhists (and many others, non-Buddhists alike) have had similar experiences to you, seemingly spiritual experiences, supernatural ones, visionary experiences, all which are ultimately insignificant if they don't produce reduction in suffering; or if they are not conducive to suffering's cessation. Such experiences are to be regarded just as phenomena.
Also I am almost certain you will not find those books at the library. If you want to read Ñāṇananda's works, they are all freely available in PDF form here:
seeingthroughthenet.net/books/

Just read Hesse and skip all of this desu.

>anyway sadhu for this dhammadana content
wut

I have no way of knowing of the existence of the different realms as described by The Buddha or any of the other "supernatural" claims, but I do not write them off as baloney. I don't claim to know them as true or false, and unless I were to develop some supramundane vision to confirm these things, I don't think I will ever be able to know either way in this lifetime. I do not think it is entirely relevant however, because the cessation of suffering (Nibbāna) is realizable in this lifetime and I see no reason not to pursue it. Even if I were to not realize Nibbāna in this life, the great benefits and fruits of the Eightfold Path are very clear to me, and again, I see no reason not to follow it.
I do think faith has a place in Buddhism though. It is helpful to think that the people you're following and listening to for guidance in modelling your whole life, know what they're talking about, and it is helpful to think that the path goes somewhere (even beyond the many road signs I have come across directly indicating that it does).
Do I personally think the Buddha was lying when he talked about the realms of existence or about his supernormal psychic abilities? No, I don't think he was lying. Would I say I know for certain what the case was either way? Of course not.

ik this is bait but there are people on this board who unironically believe this.
I don't get how people are able to comprehend that it is best to read the primary texts for other religions/philosophies like the Bhagavad Gita when getting into Hinduism, or to read Ovid's Metamorphoses and Homer's Iliad and Odyssey instead of Percy Jackson
But at the same time, whenever Buddhism is discussed on this board, its primary texts (the Nikayas) are never ever mentioned, and Western interpretations (and even just entertainment loosely based on Buddhism) are discussed in their place?
Would you read Jordan Peterson to learn about the ideas of Carl Jung and Nietzsche? Or would you just read the works of Jung and Nietzsche to learn their ideas?

you yourself admit that it's blissful; literally just stop worrying and it will be okay

>It is the cosmic net in which the infinite number of beings are caught like birds; in it all these worlds manifest, though in fact, nothing has ever happened. That consciousness is of the nature of being and nonbeing and the resting place of all that is good and divine. It plays the roles of all beings and it is the source of all affection and peace, though it is forever united and liberated. It is the life of all living beings, the uncreated nectar that cannot be stolen by anyone, the ever existent reality. That consciousness which is reflected in senseexperiences is yet devoid of them and cannot be experienced by them. In it all beings rejoice, though it itself is pure bliss beyond all joy; like the space but beyond space; glorious yet devoid of all expansions and glory. Though seemingly it does all, it does nothing. All this is All this is 'I' and all this is mine. But I am not and I am not 'other than I'. I have realised this. Let this world be an illusion or substantial. I am free from the fever of distress

>Established in this realisation of the truth, the great sages lived for ever in peace and equanimity. They were free from psychological predisposition and hence they did not seek nor reject either life or death. They remained unshaken in their direct experience like another Merumountain.Yet, they roamed the forests, islands and cities, they travelled to the heavens as if they were angels or gods; they conquered their enemies and they ruled as emperors—they engaged themselves in diverse activities in accordance with scriptural injunctions as they realised that such was appropriate conduct. They enjoyed the pleasure of life; they visited pleasure gardens and were entertained by celestial damsels. They duly filfilled the duties of the household life. They even engaged themselves in great wars. They retained their equanimity even in those disastrous situations where others would have lost their peace and balanced state of mind. Their mind had fully entered the state of satva or divinity and was therefore utterly free from delusion, from egoistic notion ('I do this') and from the desire for achievement, though they did not reject such achievement or the rewards for their actions. They did not indulge in vain exultation when they defeated their enemies nor did they give way to despair and grief when they were defeated. They were engaged in natural activities, allowing all actions to proceed from them nonvolitionally. Follow their example, O Rama. Let your personality be egoless and let appropriate actions spontaneously proceed from you. For the infinite indivisible consciousness alone is the truth; and it is that which has put on this appearance of diversity, which is neither real nor unreal. Hence live completely unattached to anything here. Why do you grieve as if you are an ignoramus?

- The Yoga Vasistha

hey guys sorry i'm really sleepy at the moment, about to pass out, but if this thread is up tomorrow, i'll try to respond to you guys

>I don't claim to know them as true or false, and unless I were to develop some supramundane vision to confirm these things, I don't think I will ever be able to know either way in this lifetime.
isn't yoga entirely for this purpose?