Vedanta

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:44 am

arel wrote:
rachMiel wrote:If the universe eventually exhausts itself and fades out to nothing ... absolute nothing, not one iota's iota of matter/energy/existence left ... does awareness (Brahman) persist?


What is that "absolute nothing" that you are talking about?


I thank he was referring to the absence of something, which is obviously not the idea of absolutely nothing, but the absence of anything at all. Do you really want him to describe that?
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:23 pm

the key master wrote:Rezzin on that, ...

key master = the elf of self inquiry

( BOOM! )
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:30 pm

arel wrote:
rachMiel wrote:If the universe eventually exhausts itself and fades out to nothing ... absolute nothing, not one iota's iota of matter/energy/existence left ... does awareness (Brahman) persist?


What is that "absolute nothing" that you are talking about?

It's like key master said, it's not a "what" rather an utter absence of what. And I'm not saying I believe in the possibility of such a (total lack of) thing. I'm just having some harmless ontological fun speculating.

But there is a real question that underlies my thought experiment: Is awareness (Brahman, the ground, etc.) a "function of" existence? Does it underlie, arise out of, enable (etc.) existence? What is the relationship between awareness and existence?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:18 pm

rachMiel wrote:But there is a real question that underlies my thought experiment: Is awareness (Brahman, the ground, etc.) a "function of" existence? Does it underlie, arise out of, enable (etc.) existence? What is the relationship between awareness and existence?


Awareness is prior to the appearance of form, the creation of a human to be, the beginning of the universe, and the end of existence. Awareness does not depend on anything to exist, it depends on appearances to be aware of stuff. The universe is quite literally, your very own creation.

In terms of the relationship between awareness and existence:

In order for a relationship to even be possible, there must be a movement of mind to create the idea that there is other than one thing to be in relation to something else. This possibility arises from and depends on the bifurcation implicit in all thought movement. The movement of thought creates the illusion of change, separation, and an objective universe. The term illusion is used to imply no fundamental or independent existence. THey are dream phenomena created and permeated by what IS fundamental, the unchanging nothingness without which somethingness could not even appear.

We create the idea of an immovable observer to address the delusion of being identified as a mind or separate person. As the separate person is an illusion created by thought and identified with due to believing in the illusion of separation, we say, you are not that, that there is no that, and you are what that appears to. Of course this still implies a relationship between appearance and non appearance, which itself is also untrue. No concept is ultimately true, which means nothing is ultimately separate, and couldn't possibly be. The limitations of thought allow mind to express things in a limited way. Even the idea that everything is one isn't true. Every what thing? Every imaginable thing with no fundamental existence?

Nothing can't depend on anything. Otherwise it'd be suttin, which it ain't. THe idea of nothing, on the other hand, depends on the idea of something to have any meaning whatsoever. The nothing we're talking about here isn't an idea, it transcends the realm of ideation such that it can not be ideated.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:48 pm

the key master wrote:
rachMiel wrote:But there is a real question that underlies my thought experiment: Is awareness (Brahman, the ground, etc.) a "function of" existence? Does it underlie, arise out of, enable (etc.) existence? What is the relationship between awareness and existence?


Awareness is prior to the appearance of form, the creation of a human to be, the beginning of the universe, and the end of existence. Awareness does not depend on anything to exist, it depends on appearances to be aware of stuff. The universe is quite literally, your very own creation.

In terms of the relationship between awareness and existence:

In order for a relationship to even be possible, there must be a movement of mind to create the idea that there is other than one thing to be in relation to something else. This possibility arises from and depends on the bifurcation implicit in all thought movement. The movement of thought creates the illusion of change, separation, and an objective universe. The term illusion is used to imply no fundamental or independent existence. THey are dream phenomena created and permeated by what IS fundamental, the unchanging nothingness without which somethingness could not even appear.

We create the idea of an immovable observer to address the delusion of being identified as a mind or separate person. As the separate person is an illusion created by thought and identified with due to believing in the illusion of separation, we say, you are not that, that there is no that, and you are what that appears to. Of course this still implies a relationship between appearance and non appearance, which itself is also untrue. No concept is ultimately true, which means nothing is ultimately separate, and couldn't possibly be. The limitations of thought allow mind to express things in a limited way. Even the idea that everything is one isn't true. Every what thing? Every imaginable thing with no fundamental existence?

Nothing can't depend on anything. Otherwise it'd be suttin, which it ain't. THe idea of nothing, on the other hand, depends on the idea of something to have any meaning whatsoever. The nothing we're talking about here isn't an idea, it transcends the realm of ideation such that it can not be ideated.

key'm, you are clearly fluent in nondualSpeak and (concept-less) concepts. But do you *believe* that whereof you utter? Or better: Do you KNOW it to be true, rather than a beautiful construct that might or might not be true? If so, do you know it in the way you know that when you push a key on your keyboard a letter will appear on your screen?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:27 pm

rach said,
But do you *believe* that whereof you utter? Or better: Do you KNOW it to be true, rather than a beautiful construct that might or might not be true?


Believe wouldn't be a good word, but I would say I am wholeheartedly certain that no belief is actually true, and this expresses itself as clarity. No one can take that clarity away from you, as this clarity doesn't actually belong to mind, but is nonetheless expressed through the limitations of the very same mind. As a mind or person I am as limited as anyone else (granted in a different way), while the sovereignty being pointed to is the realization that what I am couldn't possibly be that, or just that, or anything other than everything, or 'insert shiny non dual word here' :mrgreen:.

If so, do you know it in the way you know that when you push a key on your keyboard a letter will appear on your screen?


If you think there's a platypus in your pocket, and you look in your pocket, and see there's no platypus, you don't have to continually check for the existence of said platypus. You've unknown the idea that it was there in the first place, so the worry of being clawed by the hind legs isn't a concern for you anymore. Its sort of the same way with seeing personhood for what it is.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:17 pm

the key master wrote:... the realization that what I am couldn't possibly be that, or just that, or anything other than everything, or 'insert shiny non dual word here' :mrgreen:.

I'm quite in sync with what you say. It's the "couldn't possibly be" part that raises the red flag. Them's bold words! Too rich and absolute for my blood. I can always see another possibility. If you (and others) had said "is probably not" I would be there. But utter certainty, about anything, is too much certainty for me.

If so, do you know it in the way you know that when you push a key on your keyboard a letter will appear on your screen?

If you think there's a platypus in your pocket, and you look in your pocket, and see there's no platypus, you don't have to continually check for the existence of said platypus. You've unknown the idea that it was there in the first place, so the worry of being clawed by the hind legs isn't a concern for you anymore. Its sort of the same way with seeing personhood for what it is.

So it's truth by negation? A la Sherlock's: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:12 pm

rachMiel wrote:
the key master wrote:... the realization that what I am couldn't possibly be that, or just that, or anything other than everything, or 'insert shiny non dual word here' :mrgreen:.

I'm quite in sync with what you say. It's the "couldn't possibly be" part that raises the red flag. Them's bold words! Too rich and absolute for my blood. I can always see another possibility. If you (and others) had said "is probably not" I would be there. But utter certainty, about anything, is too much certainty for me.



Did you miss the part where I gave 3 other interpretations immediately after that?

So it's truth by negation? A la Sherlock's: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."


Yupsey doodle.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:42 pm

the key master wrote:Did you miss the part where I gave 3 other interpretations immediately after that?

I think I misunderstood what you meant by the part below. Couldja try again?

As a mind or person I am as limited as anyone else (granted in a different way), while the sovereignty being pointed to is the realization that what I am couldn't possibly be that, or just that, or anything other than everything, or 'insert shiny non dual word here' :mrgreen:.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby far_eastofwest » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:38 am

the key master wrote:

If you think there's a platypus in your pocket, and you look in your pocket, and see there's no platypus, you don't have to continually check for the existence of said platypus. You've unknown the idea that it was there in the first place, so the worry of being clawed by the hind legs isn't a concern for you anymore. Its sort of the same way with seeing personhood for what it is.



Mate, if you think there's a platypus in your pocket, you need to visit the pysche unit... and if you are so far gone as to actually
Check
then its quite likely to continually check for the existance cos you'd be off your head anyway to look in the first place..

funniest thing i've read in ages.... really clarifies concept of 'means nothing'

:lol:

omg... that is so funny.... hahahaha...
There is nothing harder to find than a black cat in a dark room
Especially when there is no cat....
User avatar
far_eastofwest
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:53 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:42 am

rachMiel wrote:
the key master wrote:Did you miss the part where I gave 3 other interpretations immediately after that?

I think I misunderstood what you meant by the part below. Couldja try again?

As a mind or person I am as limited as anyone else (granted in a different way), while the sovereignty being pointed to is the realization that what I am couldn't possibly be that, or just that, or anything other than everything, or 'insert shiny non dual word here' :mrgreen:.


Nobody becomes consciousness, they unbecome unconscious, unbecome the idea that they were something else. This is experienced as a loss only, a loss of identification with what is inherently limited, the conditioned consciousness, the mind or person, which has the curious charm of never having existed in its own right. What's actual couldn't possibly be an illusion, but it can play one on TV.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:45 am

far_eastofwest wrote:
the key master wrote:

If you think there's a platypus in your pocket, and you look in your pocket, and see there's no platypus, you don't have to continually check for the existence of said platypus. You've unknown the idea that it was there in the first place, so the worry of being clawed by the hind legs isn't a concern for you anymore. Its sort of the same way with seeing personhood for what it is.



Mate, if you think there's a platypus in your pocket, you need to visit the pysche unit... and if you are so far gone as to actually
Check
then its quite likely to continually check for the existance cos you'd be off your head anyway to look in the first place..

funniest thing i've read in ages.... really clarifies concept of 'means nothing'

:lol:

omg... that is so funny.... hahahaha...


I do try to keep things light hearted :D , but it was an attempt to metaphorically describe the process of unknowing something. If you unknow the idea that separation is real, you don't need to know anything else in its place. Does that mean anything to you?
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:36 am

the key master wrote:What's actual couldn't possibly be an illusion, but it can play one on TV.

Getting closer ...

By definition, what's real (actual) is not illusion. But zee question remains: How can one KNOW what's real? Or, more to the point of this thread, how can one know that non-duality is real? (Why do I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round? ;-) )
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:44 am

rachMiel wrote:
the key master wrote:What's actual couldn't possibly be an illusion, but it can play one on TV.

Getting closer ...

By definition, what's real (actual) is not illusion. But zee question remains: How can one KNOW what's real? Or, more to the point of this thread, how can one know that non-duality is real? (Why do I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round? ;-) )


Yes, what's actual is all that exists, in my book, and everything else is illusion. Maybe if we break it down a bit:

The movement of mind creates the illusion of continuity. The mind "appears to start moving" at one point, now, and "appears to stop moving" at another point, a new now. Between these two 'points', change happens. We call this change an illusion because if it were not for the movement of mind, there wouldn't be an idea of then to compare to an idea of now. This is why we call mind the 'illusion generator'. The illusion generator, mind, moves against the backdrop of what isn't moving, changing, or appearing, and we call this awareness. If everything in flux requires an illusion to be generated to even exist, then clearly what isn't changing, awareness, is the only thing that's real, or actual. That makes a pretty good case for Oneness, this separate self thinks 8)

Shall we have another go - round??
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:24 pm

the key master wrote:The movement of mind creates the illusion of continuity. The mind "appears to start moving" at one point, now, and "appears to stop moving" at another point, a new now. Between these two 'points', change happens. We call this change an illusion because if it were not for the movement of mind, there wouldn't be an idea of then to compare to an idea of now. This is why we call mind the 'illusion generator'. The illusion generator, mind, moves against the backdrop of what isn't moving, changing, or appearing, and we call this awareness. If everything in flux requires an illusion to be generated to even exist, then clearly what isn't changing, awareness, is the only thing that's real, or actual. That makes a pretty good case for Oneness, this separate self thinks 8)

Nice. This body/mind needs (the illusion of) time to ponder the (interpreted) meaning of that body/mind's words (i.e. consciousness bubbling up through that body/mind's neuro-linguistic field). Response soon ... :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest