Vedanta

[samadhi]

For a while now I've been feeling that I'm not getting IT.

Now, since my contact with Vedanta, I see a different possibility:

I (already) AM It.

It's just that I don't know this ... really know it, in my bones. And Vedanta can help me "attain" (wrong word?) that knowing.

Sound close?

Totally. You ARE It! Nothing to add to yourself in any way, in fact the remainder is just about subtracting; subtracting all the programmed ignorance that keeps the knowledge that we ARE IT! obscured Stripping away untruth I guess. Vedanta is different to most other spiritual paths as it's not about chasing after spiritual highs and transcendent experiences. They might come along the way, but they never last indefinitely because no experiences does. But once awareness and understanding of what we truly are takes root, it kind of rewires everything and that never goes away. They call that moksha, liberation. It might be immediate for some people but it seems more common for it to be a gradual unfolding.

[samadhi]

James doesn't sound like a total nitwit and from what you guys say he must be a pretty decent teacher. He also sounds like a goddam vedanta salesman in that message and some of his characterizations of Eckhart seemed not only over the top, but motivated by self interest. So I threw some back at him, hehe.

YUP JS is passionate about vedanta and is very outspoken and blunt. I found it off-putting at first until I realised he's very rarely far off the mark. It's not other teachers he has a problem with, only teachings that don't always stack up, or at worse are distorted and damaging. If you think he's critical of Eckhart you should hear what he says about Osho, or the neo/psuedo advaita crowd. (His take on neo advaita http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/ ... dvaita.pdf ) He perhaps was too hard on Eckhart, although I don't think he's motivated by self interest. He does all his teaching for free and his website is packed with literally thousands of pages of articles, books, q&as and hundreds of hours of audio teachings. He's probably the least commercialised spiritual teacher I've encountered. It's clear from his attitude he really doesn't give a toss what people think about him; it's all about the teaching. Again, unlike virtually all western spiritual teachers he hasn't tried to spin his own 'unique' teaching to set himself apart from the crowd. It's 100% pure unadulterated vedanta. He said there's no need to reinvent the wheel when the wheel was already invented centuries ago. Don't mean to sound like a complete sycophant haha...I'm not. He's not what you expect an 'enlightened teacher' to be like...he's irreverent at times and a little fiery but he really has integrity.

I understand that minds are drawn to practices and doing stuff, and I'm certainly not telling people to not do anything. I do find myself pointing out the futility of practicing anything as a means of waking up because of how it reinforces the mind identification and often splits the mind in half. This doesn't mean don't practice, meditate, shift attention, what have you. It just means somethings going on, and we're looking at what that is.

I get what you mean. it's a double-edged sword. DOING a practise emphasises the doer, which can in turn emphasise this false self-identification we have it it, and which also gets us attached and hooked into results and what we'll get out of the practise. That's why the 'practise' of karma yoga (which is really more an attitude or mindset that we adopt toward life and doing than it is a practise) and an understanding of dharma helps neutralise the doer. We can't avoid action - we'll be doing actions every day til the day we drop dead. But changing the way we do things - ceding the actions to the Self/Brahman/whatever and letting go our attachment to results generates a generally more peaceful and steady mind and starts neutralising our conditioning, programming and our over-identification with the 'doer' aspect. Then we hand it over to jnana, knowledge and let the logic of vedanta do the work for us. That's all the 'practise' is in vedanta. Get your act together, clear out obstructing mental/emotional/psychological crap/habits/vasanas/conditioning, and just relax into the truth that we are pure awareness. There's a specific sequence of logic which, when unfolded by a skilled teacher, is pretty much irrefutable when explored, questioned and analysed. It just makes so much sense.

Yah, well things can only be noticed when mind is ready to notice them,

totally.

and if inquiry and meditation play a role in getting mind to that state then those mechanical functions played an implicit role in whatever get's noticed, but there are lots forces out there which compel mind to do and avoid certain things, and none of them are being chosen. On the other hand, I wouldn't say any of these mechanical thangs lead to truth realization or self knowledge or whatever, because its the absence of belief in the untrue idea that one is limited to what one appears as which is being washed away, the one who does stuff. This is why I talk a lot about delusion and split minds and stuff, because noticing, and yes, inquiring into that stuff is something mind can do which can lead to the absence of that stuff. I also understand that some folks don't have the same conceptual understanding of what the term delusion and split mind means to me from over here and my perspective, which leads to a lot of what I write falling on deaf ears. I do enjoy re-wording things and seeing what works for the peeps and what doesn't. Putting things into words is very cool part of being human, and we all put our own unique spin on the truth we fail at expressing.

what you're saying totally gels with what vedanta is saying. just different words and terminology and that's probably part of the problem in such discussions. We' often talk using certain words and terms that have quite differing meanings and connotations to each of us.

There do seem to be enlightened peeps out there who don't seem to be at war with themselves internally, but when they sell that as a product of something they did or the bastion of enlightened who came before who handed down the teachings through the ages from infinity and beyond, I get the wash cloth out. I enjoy the old dead teachers, I love the Tao, and Rumi, and a lot of the expression in Advaita, for the record.

I love them too. like you I often find the traditions that have sprung up around them often miss the point a bit. I do certain taoist practises, qigong, neigong etc, mainly for healing etc, and find them great. But most of the Taoists are not very clear on Lao Tzu's teaching at all. They don't really get it. I don't think I've yet met a Taoist practitioner/teacher/etc who knows who they are. It's all about cultivating Chi...many of them are terrified of even ejaculating as they think their chi is so limited and they can't afford to leave any. They think they're very limited little doers - and if you look into Taoist alchemy, the overall intent is actually to create what they call an 'immortal foetus' so they can have everlasting life. They don't know they already do have everlasting life because that's what they ARE. Lao Tzu would be laughing at them, as he knew the Truth.

[samadhi]

Mind seeking the 'knowing' sounds like mind seeking belief. That's just painting the prison walls. A good spiritual teaching will take what you have away from you, not the other way around. Good in my opinion meaning

Yup it will take what you have away from you (ignorance) and reveal what you already are and always were (Self-knowledge). The desire for knowledge may indeed just be the mind seeking beliefs in a number of people. I see that endlessly in the spiritual world. The people who are only really interested in learning about angels and manifesting. Yet the desire for Knowledge of the Self, of Truth and liberation is something deeper. They call it mumuksha - it's kind of like consciousness stirring from within the dream and wanting to realise Itself. Without that, there won't be sufficient drive and motivation to pursue truth. And it has to be there, otherwise we'd just stay lost in the dream...which is fine as well. It's good enough for most people. Just not us I guess..?

[rachMiel]

Here are the responses that the bloggers associated with Dennis Waite wrote to the question:

Can one ever KNOW that reality is non-dual?

And, if you're into it, check out the Advaita Vision site. It's got tons of solid information about Advaita Vedanta.

Enjoy!

[the key master]

samadhi said,

He perhaps was too hard on Eckhart, although I don't think he's motivated by self interest. He does all his teaching for free and his website is packed with literally thousands of pages of articles, books, q&as and hundreds of hours of audio teachings.

The statement that Eckhart's teachings are nothing but beliefs was utter non sense. Mayhaps I could have left it at that.

He's not what you expect an 'enlightened teacher' to be like...he's irreverent at times and a little fiery but he really has integrity.

I don't set ideals for what an enlightened teacher should be like.

That's why the 'practise' of karma yoga (which is really more an attitude or mindset that we adopt toward life and doing than it is a practise) .....But changing the way we do things - ceding the actions to the Self/Brahman/whatever and letting go our attachment to results

I don't see any direct correlation between changing conditioned behavior and waking up, at all. I do see the potential for a change in behavior as the unconscious mind becomes fully conscious, which is why I talk a lot about noticing unconsciousness, and don't talk about the effects of noticing unconsciousness as some sort of practice, cuz that does nothing but bypass the heart of the matter. Becoming conscious of unconsciousness will alter the conditioning in whatever way that it does, doesn't really matter, cuz you ain't the conditioning.

There's a specific sequence of logic which, when unfolded by a skilled teacher, is pretty much irrefutable when explored, questioned and analysed.

You can't lose an argument when you got God on your side

what you're saying totally gels with what vedanta is saying. just different words and terminology and that's probably part of the problem in such discussions. We' often talk using certain words and terms that have quite differing meanings and connotations to each of us.

Yea sometimes, sometimes not. The issues I often see manifesting in these discussion are mind's tendency to unconsciously layer what's being said with personal meaning so as to not absorb what's actually being said.

It's all about cultivating Chi...many of them are terrified of even ejaculating as they think their chi is so limited and they can't afford to leave any.

[the key master]

Mind seeking the 'knowing' sounds like mind seeking belief. That's just painting the prison walls. A good spiritual teaching will take what you have away from you, not the other way around. Good in my opinion meaning

Yup it will take what you have away from you (ignorance) and reveal what you already are and always were (Self-knowledge). The desire for knowledge may indeed just be the mind seeking beliefs in a number of people. I see that endlessly in the spiritual world. The people who are only really interested in learning about angels and manifesting.

Don't forget about zombies.

Yet the desire for Knowledge of the Self, of Truth and liberation is something deeper. They call it mumuksha - it's kind of like consciousness stirring from within the dream and wanting to realise Itself. Without that, there won't be sufficient drive and motivation to pursue truth. And it has to be there, otherwise we'd just stay lost in the dream...which is fine as well. It's good enough for most people. Just not us I guess..?

It's not possible to harbor the desire for truth within the contours of a deluded mind structure, or any structure, which is why, on the relative level, it is most accurately talked about as an unknowing of what isn't true. The motivation to pursue Truth comes from being fed up with the lies, self deception, suffering, and delusion, all of which are perpetuated by unconsciousness, which ironically, is precisely what most practices are geared up to avoid. I like the pointer of consciousness stirring from within the dream, but what is realized is that what you are is actually holding the spoon from the outside. The whole entire dream is your tasty concoction. There's nothing to realize in the dream except that you aren't in it, and never have been.

[arel]

I got to this excerpt in pdf of J Swartz commenting on the teachings or Maharshi. What he is talking about is subtle, but interesting. I never thought of it this way...
It's from page 66 http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pag ... chings.PDF

Language is very important because these people are
getting their ideas from somewhere. Two languages obtain
in the spiritual world. The most popular and most imprecise
is the language of experience which has been propagated
by the yogic tradition. The least popular and most precise is
the language of identity or knowledge employed by Vedanta.
You can see that in Ramana’s text. It is mostly the language
of Yoga. He brings in the language of Vedanta
occasionally…at the precise points where it is needed.
In the best of all possible worlds there should be no crosspollination.
Each has its value and is specific to its view of
enlightenment. Because the yogic view of enlightenment is
‘experiential,’ it employs a dualistic language because
experience is dualistic, the relationship between a subject
and an object. According to this view enlightenment is a
unique, permanent experience of the Self. The problem with
this view is that the Upanishads, the ultimate authority on
the nature enlightenment, describe the self, which is
everything that exists, in the language of identity as a ‘nondual’
reality and enlightenment as the knowledge ‘I am the
limitless self’ based on the discovery of oneself as such.
You experience yourself as non-dual and then the
knowledge that you are one whole complete being arises
simultaneously with that experience. Enlightenment is
grasping and identifying with that knowledge. The usual
progression in understanding takes one from the language
of experience to the language of identity. Now this it the
crux. It explains the fundamental problem of all these
people who have been seeking but not finding
enlightenment. There are many people in the spiritual world
who have had considerable experience of the reflection of
the self in the mind when the mind was in a sattvic condition
and who would be classified as self realized according to the
stages of enlightenment mentioned above. This is what
Ramana calls ‘antar mukha,’ turning the mind
inward…watching or realizing or experiencing the Self.
But, rightly, these people are not satisfied and continue to
entertain doubts about their ‘state.’ Usually the doubt has to
do with making the state permanent, which is impossible
since the person and his pure mind is still in the realm of
time. In other words there is always the realistic fear that
the experience will not last. And even though they are so
close to enlightenment experientially, it still eludes them.
And the reason? Because they are prisoners of the
language of experience. The language we use indicates the
way we think. And at this stage, when the experience is
more or less continually available, the only barrier to
converting the experience to a ‘permanent’ state, not that
enlightenment is a state, is the way one thinks. What needs
to happen at this point is that the individual needs to convert
the language of experience to the language of identity. The
language of identity states that the experiencer and what is
being experienced are not two separate things, that they are
in fact the same. When any object is experienced the
knowledge of that object arises simultaneously in the
intellect. And if the mind in which the reflection of the self
appears is pure, the knowledge of the self will arise with it in
the intellect. This knowledge is in the form of a thought, an
akandakara vritti, an unbroken idea that I am the whole and
complete actionless awareness that I am experiencing.
(Wow! That’s me! Whoopee! I’m it!!!) If the person is
accustomed to thinking of the self as an object, (the
language of Yoga) he or she will be reluctant to surrender
the experiencer, and the self will continue to remain as an
experienced object. The surrender is in terms of letting go
of the idea of oneself as an experiencer and embracing
one’s limitless identity. This is the destruction of the mind
that the Yogis talk about.
Were the person to be trained in the language of identity,
this problem would not arise. In fact the person would
immediately recognize the content of the experience as ‘I’
and that would finish the work. What all this clinging to
experience is about is hanging on to the container and
therefore sacrificing the content. It’s like a person pouring
the coke out of the bottle and drinking the bottle. We can
throw away the container. It is non-essential. We need the
contents…the Self.
The whole of Vedanta can be reduced to one simple
equation found in the Upanishads ‘You are that’ where ‘that’
is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer
and the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two.

[rachMiel]

I thought yous guys would appreciate this.

[rachMiel]

Interesting passage, arel.

The whole of Vedanta can be reduced to one simple equation found in the Upanishads ‘You are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that this is fully correct, I'm not sure how much good it can do me to try to fathom it, practice it, be it, whatever.

In the Castaneda books, Carlos keeps asking Don Juan for answers and explanations. At one Don Juan tells him that even if he were to whisper The Answer To Everything in his ear, it would be meaningless, because Carlos wouldn't/couldn't understand it.

I guess that's one of the big challenges with writing a book like this for a large faceless audience, rather than teaching a specific person according to his/her specific needs. How much do you reveal? In what language? At what pace?

( key master, that's something for you to remain aware of when you write your book, yes? )

[rideforever]

I got to this excerpt in pdf of J Swartz commenting on the teachings or Maharshi. What he is talking about is subtle, but interesting. I never thought of it this way...
It's from page 66 http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pag ... chings.PDF

It's interesting he begins by saying that commenting on texts is so difficult for many reasons, did the sage really say these things ? how are we to interpret them ? and who is interpreting them ?

... and then he goes on for 100 pages doing all these things he is warning about ! Ha !

He is indeed an expert about himself !

On his website http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/ja ... dvaita.htm he again goes into to analysis overdrive about the who can and who can't, should shouldn't, deserve or doesn't deserve.

Yeah ... this is really helpful for the seeker who is confused enough !

Schwarz leaves you in the dark.

[rachMiel]

On his website http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/ja ... dvaita.htm he again goes into to analysis overdrive about the who can and who can't, should shouldn't, deserve or doesn't deserve.

Yeah ... this is really helpful for the seeker who is confused enough !

Schwarz leaves you in the dark.

So you're saying (kinda sorta) that by trying to provide too much light, Swartz is keeping us in the dark. Yes?

[rideforever]

"The night ... is a very dark time for me ..."

(Will Ferrell)

[rachMiel]

Points for quoting Will Ferrell.

[the key master]

Interesting passage, arel.

The whole of Vedanta can be reduced to one simple equation found in the Upanishads ‘You are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that this is fully correct, I'm not sure how much good it can do me to try to fathom it, practice it, be it, whatever.

In the Castaneda books, Carlos keeps asking Don Juan for answers and explanations. At one Don Juan tells him that even if he were to whisper The Answer To Everything in his ear, it would be meaningless, because Carlos wouldn't/couldn't understand it.

I guess that's one of the big challenges with writing a book like this for a large faceless audience, rather than teaching a specific person according to his/her specific needs. How much do you reveal? In what language? At what pace?

( key master, that's something for you to remain aware of when you write your book, yes? )

Yo rach, yea I think that's right. Looking in the mirror and realizing the face staring back at you isn't your's is something some peeps are institutionalized for. I would say in most cases the mind's built in mechanisms prevent loss of psychic stability when exploring non dual teachings, and that pace is typically self regulating, but sometimes loss of stability does happen, and when there is an understanding of how and why that happens the language utilized to articulate certain things can be tailored to the as gentle as possible approach. But there's also the understanding that there are peeps out there ready to hear pretty much anything about how mind functions, delusion manifests, and unconsciousness moves, so the hold nothing back approach is also something to be thrown in along with the understanding that the book, post, whatever it is anyone is reading or writing is going to end up in the contours of certain structures that aren't or weren't ready to hear or understand what was being said, and confidence is building, over here anyway, that the unconscious defense mechanisms of those structures will lead to disengagement in lieu of a head explosion, which is the ultimate goal, a headless human race meaning, as opposed to book sales. None of its personal, but I would say awakening is a very human thang. Those two words just don't mean the same thing to me, if you can feel me.

[arel]

Interesting passage, arel.

The whole of Vedanta can be reduced to one simple equation found in the Upanishads ‘You are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that this is fully correct, I'm not sure how much good it can do me to try to fathom it, practice it, be it, whatever.

I think this would be the heart of the whole thing. I can't say I resonate with everything Swartz says, but he is onto something here I believe. And keep in mind, he is talking about the teaching, that's why it's so mental.

‘You are that’ where ‘that’ is the self and ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer and the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two.

I will break it down the way I see it:

" where ‘that’ is the self " - "that", is every form that exists. No one can deny existence of everything.

" ‘you’ is the self in the form of the experiencer " - the stage of realizing that the words "I", "you", "we", do not exactly refer to the body, but to the observer of the body, and with it of everything else. The observer, the witness, the awareness, the knowing, is apparent. One then says, "oh wow, I am not the body... I am the witness, observer, the knower". The awareness is known in time and space, even if pointed to by a term "timeless", "limitless" for example. It is known, in human experience, the mind. This realization is quite important. You are not what you thought you were and that's quite important, breaking news right there, I would say.

" the verb ‘are’ is indicates the identity between the two. " - here I believe he refers to being the self, tying the "you" to the "world". The active knowledge that I am awareness giving rise to everything, which simultaneously is gives rise that "I am everyting". What they refer to as Oneness, your identity as everything. He says " Enlightenment is grasping and identifying with that knowledge. "

This is very mental in description, but it's because it describes a teaching, a "method".

I'm not sure how much good it can do me to try to fathom it, practice it, be it, whatever.

That's the key. We can't lose site of why spirituality exists. And we often do, in all these discussions. The whole point of spirituality is relieving human suffering. The point is not philosophy or technicality of all of this. And you are asking a strikingly good question that for me goes to the heart of it, by getting the whole thing back to the original context. So, yes, good question. I think you have a real talent of asking really good questions rachMiel. How does knowledge of Oneness affect human experience? Apparently it affects it quite a bit..