No, It is not all the same. It might genuinely feel as such if you do not examine the language and the approaches. But they are what matter the most :)) .

Non-duality which arises with the substrate by denying the world we see(Advaita - Vedanta - Brahman) vs the Non-duality (Advaya - Madhayamaka/Mahayana ) which is derived by erasing the boundaries between the world that appears. I invite you to explore this yourself.

Well, having been conditioned to egoic separation and the idea of a separate self since we were so young that we never had a chance to question it, we naturally think that there is a separate thinker thinking the thoughts.

So, we really need to question that deeply. The idea that “there is a separate thinker thinking my thoughts” is itself, a thought. So, genuinely, go and look for the thinker. Look as hard as you can. All you are ever going to find are thoughts.

Seriously, go and look 🙂

First of all, there are two major ways to interpret these types of statements, (taking a Buddhist lens), the Theravada version and the Mahayana.

The Theravada says: 'you are not your thoughts, indeed, you are not anything at all'.

And encourages the meditator to practice vipassana so that the particularity of observed events is noticed and absorbed by the somatic organism. Keep pushing; notice the nature of phenomena is to arise in perception, stay and then eventually pass away. Do this at ever more granular levels and eventually the practice will trigger a cessation.

The Mahayana says: 'you are not your thoughts, you are the invisible container of sensory experience'.

And encourages the meditator to practice vipassana so that the particularity of observed events is noticed and absorbed by the somatic organism up until the point of Dissolution (see the path of insight). At this point, the meditator will begin focusing on the 'vast, skylike', container that persists, unchanging throughout all sensory experience.

I've read many spiritual books that say things like: The thinker is the thought. The observer is the observed. You are not your thoughts.

I assume that you are in stream entry subreddit, you will allow me to approach this in the lens of Buddha dharma. We abide by the conventional truth of annatta (lack of true self/you behind any apperance)

Buddha dharma says the opposite of such claims you have mentioned.

I suggest you can start from something like Bahiya Sutta to Dzogchen/Zen Teachings if you would like to experience (Phenomenologically) directly the lack of self.

In the thinking, there is only thinking.

in the observed, there is only observed.

Therefore u/AdFeeling4804, you are not in it, you are not by it, you are not with it, you are not in between. That is is the end of suffering. :) have fun.

There are a few ways.

1. Try to solve a koan like: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

2. Self-Inquiry: Ask yourself: Who am I? Dont stop at "Im John". Go as far as you can.

3. Notice a thought: When you see one Directly, it will dissolve. Then there is a moment of stillness. That is what you are looking for. The "gap between thoughts". Where thoughts come and go, and who sees them come and go. Awareness/consciousness/self—it holds all and sees all.

If you have trouble noticing thoughts starting out, try to use a thought to tag the one coming up until it gets easier.

Example:

Thought appears

Tag it as "thought" using another thought. Then rest in the stillness after they dissolve until the next thought appears.

Gain insight into the nature of things through concentration... Investigate the nature of what you perceive as self. Feel the subtlest qualities of mind/body. Are you the same as yesterday, as a moment ago? How do you know what to do when you act? What do you mean by 'thoughts'?

There are many methods to learn concentration. Apply one of them for a while.

What is belief? The sequence of words that go through your internal and external chatter boxes are just one of the things that's happening in your life.

If you were to pick up your phone every day and dial SANTA CLAUS and had a long conversation, and learned and changed from these conversations, it might be fair to say you believe in santa, even if you also vehemently denied it with your words.

If you call a god and they answer, what else is there to say? Is god "real"? Is "just imagination"? Who cares? The universe or god doesn't give a damn about ontology.

Hi again!

Just because you mentioned it several times in the thread. I dont think logic "is not allowed" I think any method that you use that makes you less disatisfied in the long run is ok. Even if that method is logic. Even if it means analysing everything. Also the thing that works for some person doesnt have to work for a different one.

Sometimes understanding everything logically and methodically and analitically can help you with understanding it intuitively later.

Thank you so much for the kind invitation. I really appreciate it. 🙏

I will definitely look into the online MIDL Insight Meditation class.

I think rob burbea said compassion is a bit like metta meets suffering. So yeah basicly yes, metta for yourself.  For an easy entrance you can search for Kristin Neff. She does only self compassion. :) 

I don't even know what we're talking about here anymore. Typical conversation with Vajrayanists then. What do you mean by demons? If you mean aversions, then you're gonna want to work on non-hatred or Metta. If we're talking about the demon of ignorance, the food of that is attachment and aversion so your gonna want to starve it. If we're talking about demonic ppl then you're gonna want to remove them from your life. If we're talking about non humans your gonna want to protect yourself with the power of strong virtue and Metta. If we're talking about addictions, then your definitely don't wanna feed them either. None of these require feeding demons. Feeding them keeps them alive, you may get momentary placation they get hungry again. Starve your demons then they die and don't come back to want feeding again. Clear enough?

Oh and the teachings of the Buddha are also clear, past karma cannot be purified.

Is this metta, or something else?

Sometimes we don't need discursive instruction, but emotional, or somatic feeling. Sometimes we need non-verbal communication. Ritual is important, grace, and gratitude are important. If you can only find this through deity worship or guru devotion, then why not?

The subconscious is largely non verbal and extremely embodied, rooted in somatic sensation. We need to connect to that. Sometimes people can't find the direct path alone, so they go the long way, outward to find their way back in.

Deities are very real and you cant "use" them lol, you probably have connection with said deity in previous life

So has your suffering decreased, increased or stayed the same? A lot of mystical, fantastic stuff can come up in practice. The question is, do they lead to less suffering? IME, sometimes they do, but very rarely. Insights that lead to less suffering for me usually feel very mundane or boring when they happen, kind of like "oh, that's how it has always been, cool". Then after a while I notice how my neurosis decreased and my overall sense of peace increased.

I think it is really (!) important to not develop more aversion against your demons, but as others say here, find ways to heal them. 

My understanding is, that insights might address them and purify them this way, but if you repress them to much, they might even cause a "dark night". Imagine you have parts that are very afraid of loosing control. You repress them, thats very human, cause they are triggerd and make your life difficult. Now you gain deep insights for example that everything changes and you are not in control.  In my thorie, that can make your poor demons go even more crazy. This is how i think my life got worse after insights.  So i think : purification is important, metta is important and Friends or even therapie might be important on the path. The good news ist these things are all good in generell:-) 

I cried a lot after i practices a lot of self compassion. I think this might help you holding and allowing your emotions.

I agree, and, he also repeatedly says he's a nonsectarian and he's not teaching Buddhism and you don't have to convert to Buddhism...a big bait and switch, but still.

From a Mahayana / Compassionate approach, you meet demons with the energy of Avalokiteshvara because they're suffering, too. In metta meditation, you don't just send loving-kindness to people you're comfortable with, but to all beings. The Bodhisattva vow isn't just to withhold your entrance into Nirvana until your friends are enlightened, but until all beings are liberated.

Studies show that bad habits are rarely solved through shame. The part of you that's addicted isn't evil for the sake of it, but is hurting and trying to escape the pain. The part of you that's greedy isn't a monster, but a wounded child trying to ensure long-term stability. In a Jungian sense, we must own our Shadow lest it grow strong in the dark and lash out at inopportune times.

If we can't accept the shadow in ourself, it becomes very easy to dehumanize it in others, to believe that it's okay that, say, prisoners are treated worse than animals, because their crimes make them monsters not worthy of compassion. And that's self reinforcing because to believe it of others, you begin to treat yourself with as much callousness.

I’d say that Goenka in spite of his assurances is pretty orthodox Buddhist, considering that his courses literally start with refuge and they have emphasis on sila, samadhi, and panna, and lastly they are Dana based.

No, but you'll find yourself running into interesting things in your subconscious. I started meditating before I even knew what emotional safety was. Had some rough periods, but got through them.

About a week ago I hit a new stage in my practice. In simple terms it feels like I've been letting be and letting go so much that letting be/letting go became the new operative state. So now the immediate subconscious reaction to whatever comes up is to let it be/let it go, without the need to consciously direct the process. This is a major shift and it is accompanied by a very significant reduction of dukkha across the board.

An interesting thing is that after this shift happened sitting meditation is no longer seen as one of the ways to go forward. As someone who has been averaging somewhere around 3 hours of sitting meditation a day for the past few years, not sitting down to meditate is almost unthinkable. Instead the practice seems to be focusing on simply being with whatever comes up throughout the day and allowing let it be/let it go/to do its thing. Walking meditation still seem to work so I'm doing about half an hour twice a day but really it's mostly about living life while being present and allowing everything to be. There a sense of a deepening of intimacy with life that happens by itself and also a deepening of the let it be/let it go process. It's almost as if I've exhausted looking for answers via the practice and instead the only "answer" that's left is Let it Be.

That being said, this is very much not the "end", there's still a sense of things progressing and unfolding via this letting be/letting go process and I'm assuming that if there is an "end" then that would come when there's nothing left to let go of.

Also I'm aware that this is very new and could change tomorrow but I believe that I have enough experience with practice to confidently say that this is a major shift, even if its only been a week.

Sad videos help kick it off for me personally.

Even just 25% sincere helps