Vedanta

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

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:33 pm

Okay so I had a bit of an understanding breakthrough. Hopefully I'm getting it right ...

The assertion that awareness is unchanging and eternal has always bothered me. When my mind tries to understand what unchanging and eternal means, it runs up against a wall, throws up its hands in disgust, and says: Balderdash!

But now I realize that my notion of the true nature of change and time is probably very wrong.

Now I'm seeing that change is an invention of the mind/thought ... and that, sans mind, there is no change. There only IS. Ditto for time.

So now, instead of thinking of awareness as changeless/eternal, I'm thinking that the conceptual constructs of change and time don't apply to awareness. And this feels right to me, though extremely odd ... ;-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby samadhi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:02 pm

karmarider wrote:Thanks, Samadhi. I've scanned the articles and I'll continue to check them out.

Whereas I see the value of self-knowledge which can be the fruit of inquiry, and which might even be neccessary to make the right kind of sense of experience, I am very wary of taking on beliefs (as opposed to recognition). Beliefs of the knowledge are what I see as one of the bigger obstacles of this type pursuit.

I'll check out the shiningworld site, and maybe go back re-read Ramana and Nisargadatta.

Thanks for your help.


You're welcome karmarider (v cool site btw!). Also agree re beliefs, I am very wary of beliefs of any sort, although obviously that's a belief in itself. It's probably hard to avoid beliefs altogether in life haha. But vedanta is not about beliefs, signposts perhaps, with a clear methodolodgy for processing and assimilating the main practise of self inquiry. It offers a brilliant and advanced psychological framework for understanding consciousness, the mind and awareness - including the nature of vasanas (mental tendencies), the gunas, and the functioning of what it terms the causal and subtle body and the 5 sheaths. Sure, some of it you might say are concepts, but they are concepts that help us understand reality, a bit like the concept of gravity for instance. I've found this study far more rewarding and enlightening than studying western psychology at degree level. We are really very far behind haha.
samadhi
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Vedanta

Postby samadhi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:10 pm

the key master wrote:
samadhi wrote:Hey Karmarider :)

Inquiry isn't so much then about the experience, or what experiences come from it


Rezzin on that, although I would say the experience of freedom from believing things that aren't true is a somewhat tasty fruit.


Most def. And the key to liberation from this false little, limited, inadequate, grasping, seeking self...the 'desperate doer' as I sometimes think of it.
(experience is transient and ever-changing anyway; what we're really seeking is the Changeless amid the changing, the intransient). It's about the knowledge we gain from the experience of inquiry.


The idea of seeking something changeless doesn't really rez with me. If the inquiry is leading one to unknow what they never were, and you want to call that seeking the changeless, ok. Change is an illusion created by the movement of thought. Seeking is a movement grounded in the idea that one is something that's changing and can find something that's not. This idea isn't true. The person, the idea of the separate individual, is in constant flux, changing all the time, and totally incapable of finding anything.


I agree with that. I prob didn't express it clearly. Seeking wasn't a good word to use, because it implies that what you seek you don't already have. Although I guess that's what we do, like the absent-minded man looking for his hat only to realise he's already wearing it. I agree that the limited is unable to find the limitless; it'd be like a shadow somehow finding a way to transform itself into substance. I guess it's more a realisation that I AM limitlessness and changelessness, already. I think we're on the same wavelength here :D

So when it comes to self inquiry, vedanta is a means of verifying, processing and understanding our experience. I guess some people might question why we should even NEED a means of knowledge when it comes to understanding self, consciousness and reality? Shouldn't it be natural to us? Perhaps, but then we're all ensconced in this grand experience of maya, which is obscures and distorts our perception of reality and is responsible for our misapprehension of ourselves as being seemingly limited, small, inadequate beings - something which, upon inquiry, is revealed to be illusory; an immense case of mistaken identity!


Yea I'm with you here. Its not that we need a means of knowledge, its that we look for a means to drop knowledge when what we know is causing us to go to war with our own spontaneity. We understand truth by un-misunderstanding what was never true to begin with. We don't end up with a golden truth nugget at the end, but with an absence where a terrible burden once lurked, which is liberation.


'At war with our own spontaneity' I love that. God it's true as well. Also 'we understand truth by un-misunderstanding what was never true to begin with'! I want that printed on a tshirt, love it :)
samadhi
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Vedanta

Postby samadhi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:35 pm

rachMiel wrote:Just for fun, a silly "How many angels on the head of a pin" kind of question:

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? In other words, is awareness dependent on existence, is it perhaps even a quasi-synonym for existence?


I love your questioning mind RachMeil. Awesome.

The answer to this is dependent upon realising that there have to be two aspects of existence, the manifested (which is what 99.999% of people are entirely focused and fixated on, because it's what's tangible and therefore 'real') and the unmanifested: the form and the formless. Can one exist without the other? Can the phenomenon exist without the noumenon? We can't perceive the noumenon with our senses because it is the essence of formlessness, and yet by inference it has to exist, or nothing else could or would. It's like the paper upon which words are written. You can erase all the text until there's nothing left, yet the paper is still there. (Analogies can work to a limited point, but you maybe see what I'm trying to say :))

Nisargadatta really helped me grasp this. He said that in the original state 'absolute I Am prevailed' -- formless, limitless, unconditioned, unmanifested and without identity. It was/is just the totality, the limitless potentiality of all things -- the giant sheet of paper of existence. It was awareness at rest. The universe comes into being when the absolute awareness stirs and becomes self-aware, manifested in and through physical forms. In maya, this consciousness then becomes identified with the forms, creating a false identity, a little pseudo-entity that appears to have an independent, inherent existence of its own but which is in fact entirely dependent upon its noumenal source.

'The limitless potential' is therefore mistaken as an object, 'a limited actuality'. In order to break this spell, he says that one must retrace and find out what one was (& always has been) prior to the arising of this body and consciousness. The phenomenon then realises that it is, and always has been, inseparable from the nounemon. The words appear on the paper for a limited duration before being scrubbed away. Because the words have a tangible and distinct appearance, we identity with them, but in reality, our identity is really the paper upon which they are written, because it endures - it was there prior to the arising of the words and after their dissolution.

Does that make any sense? My brain starts to hurt when I think about this. The funny thing is, the mind can only take us so far because it's limited by it's very nature. But if it can take us far enough in the right direction we can take a leap and realise...WOW. YES!
samadhi
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Vedanta

Postby karmarider » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:30 pm

samadhi wrote:You're welcome karmarider (v cool site btw!). Also agree re beliefs, I am very wary of beliefs of any sort, although obviously that's a belief in itself. It's probably hard to avoid beliefs altogether in life haha. But vedanta is not about beliefs, signposts perhaps, with a clear methodolodgy for processing and assimilating the main practise of self inquiry. It offers a brilliant and advanced psychological framework for understanding consciousness, the mind and awareness - including the nature of vasanas (mental tendencies), the gunas, and the functioning of what it terms the causal and subtle body and the 5 sheaths. Sure, some of it you might say are concepts, but they are concepts that help us understand reality, a bit like the concept of gravity for instance. I've found this study far more rewarding and enlightening than studying western psychology at degree level. We are really very far behind haha.


Thanks, Samadhi. You have a nice way of explaining this.

I think in me there is some resistance to learning this type of knowledge because of the intuitive feeling that human freedom cannot possibly require the learning of such specific knowledge as vasanas, gunas, sheaths and so on. There are plenty of examples of people who have freed themselves who did not require this knowledge, and I'm sure there are just as many examples of people who have been aided by vedantic understanding.

And so I feel that freedom is nothing more or less than the absence of fear and its effects, and the realization of freedom does not require this knowledge or any kind of practice--but I am not certain of this, and so I continue to explore.

Thanks for your explanations.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Vedanta

Postby samadhi » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:11 am

rachMiel wrote:Okay so I had a bit of an understanding breakthrough. Hopefully I'm getting it right ...

The assertion that awareness is unchanging and eternal has always bothered me. When my mind tries to understand what unchanging and eternal means, it runs up against a wall, throws up its hands in disgust, and says: Balderdash!

But now I realize that my notion of the true nature of change and time is probably very wrong.

Now I'm seeing that change is an invention of the mind/thought ... and that, sans mind, there is no change. There only IS. Ditto for time.

So now, instead of thinking of awareness as changeless/eternal, I'm thinking that the conceptual constructs of change and time don't apply to awareness. And this feels right to me, though extremely odd ... ;-)


Yay, what you're saying totally clicks for me. Like I said before, the hard part is that we're relying on something limited and finite (our mental apparatus) to try and fathom the limitless and infinite. It's a bit like when I used to sit as a kid and contemplate what I'd been told about the universe having no beginning and no end. I was immensely fascinated and compelled yet it made my brain hurt! The mind balks at such notions, because it likes to be able to process reality into neat little bitesize chunks ;) When it comes to notions of changeless and infinite, the mind gets more than a little uncomfortable. Yet moving outside our comfort zone is sometimes the best thing we can do in life
samadhi
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:20 am

rachMiel wrote:Okay so I had a bit of an understanding breakthrough. Hopefully I'm getting it right ...

The assertion that awareness is unchanging and eternal has always bothered me. When my mind tries to understand what unchanging and eternal means, it runs up against a wall, throws up its hands in disgust, and says: Balderdash!

But now I realize that my notion of the true nature of change and time is probably very wrong.

Now I'm seeing that change is an invention of the mind/thought ... and that, sans mind, there is no change. There only IS. Ditto for time.

So now, instead of thinking of awareness as changeless/eternal, I'm thinking that the conceptual constructs of change and time don't apply to awareness. And this feels right to me, though extremely odd ... ;-)


It is the damndest thang aint it? :mrgreen:

You can't think of something which transcends thought, obviously, which doesn't prevent us from conceptualizing that something. Change and time are also concepts, and belief that one is bound by those concepts is a limitation, a boundary. Noticing there's nothing to that boundary leads to the absence of thinking its actually there.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:22 am

samadhi wrote:It's a bit like when I used to sit as a kid and contemplate what I'd been told about the universe having no beginning and no end. I was immensely fascinated and compelled yet it made my brain hurt!

I had a very similar thing growing up, framed around Catholicism. I was taught that when you die and enter Heaven, your afterlife there goes on forever. Six year old me would sit around and ponder what it would be like, what it would feel like to wake up to a new day over and over and over and over, with no end, like a book with an infinite number of pages. I still remember (very clearly!) the feelings this brought up. (In fact, my current inquiry into non-duality is giving me flashbacks!) It was a combination of ecstasy, terror, deep excitement, and near physical sickness. The equivalent of your "brain hurt!"
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:22 am

samadhi said,
Also 'we understand truth by un-misunderstanding what was never true to begin with'! I want that printed on a tshirt, love it


Hot off the press, 10 bux a piece, buy two get the 3rd one free. Get em while der hot! Can we put a platypus in a coat pocket for the logo??? :mrgreen:
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:24 am

the key master wrote:
rachMiel wrote:Okay so I had a bit of an understanding breakthrough. Hopefully I'm getting it right ...

The assertion that awareness is unchanging and eternal has always bothered me. When my mind tries to understand what unchanging and eternal means, it runs up against a wall, throws up its hands in disgust, and says: Balderdash!

But now I realize that my notion of the true nature of change and time is probably very wrong.

Now I'm seeing that change is an invention of the mind/thought ... and that, sans mind, there is no change. There only IS. Ditto for time.

So now, instead of thinking of awareness as changeless/eternal, I'm thinking that the conceptual constructs of change and time don't apply to awareness. And this feels right to me, though extremely odd ... ;-)


It is the damndest thang aint it? :mrgreen:

You can't think of something which transcends thought, obviously, which doesn't prevent us from conceptualizing that something. Change and time are also concepts, and belief that one is bound by those concepts is a limitation, a boundary. Noticing there's nothing to that boundary leads to the absence of thinking its actually there.

So could one say then that "awareness" (Brahman, the ground, emptiness, God (?)) is that which is not touched by mind?

The Tibetan Buddhist teacher I study with once defined emptiness as: total lack of concepts. That's beginning to make more and more sense to me (in a non-sensical way). :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Vedanta

Postby the key master » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:43 am

rachMiel wrote:
the key master wrote:
rachMiel wrote:Okay so I had a bit of an understanding breakthrough. Hopefully I'm getting it right ...

The assertion that awareness is unchanging and eternal has always bothered me. When my mind tries to understand what unchanging and eternal means, it runs up against a wall, throws up its hands in disgust, and says: Balderdash!

But now I realize that my notion of the true nature of change and time is probably very wrong.

Now I'm seeing that change is an invention of the mind/thought ... and that, sans mind, there is no change. There only IS. Ditto for time.

So now, instead of thinking of awareness as changeless/eternal, I'm thinking that the conceptual constructs of change and time don't apply to awareness. And this feels right to me, though extremely odd ... ;-)


It is the damndest thang aint it? :mrgreen:

You can't think of something which transcends thought, obviously, which doesn't prevent us from conceptualizing that something. Change and time are also concepts, and belief that one is bound by those concepts is a limitation, a boundary. Noticing there's nothing to that boundary leads to the absence of thinking its actually there.



So could one say then that "awareness" (Brahman, the ground, emptiness, God (?)) is that which is not touched by mind?



Yes, I would say that awareness cannot be touched by mind. But I would also say when God touches mind, a dream is born.

The Tibetan Buddhist teacher I study with once defined emptiness as: total lack of concepts. That's beginning to make more and more sense to me (in a non-sensical way). :-)


Well, I'm not sure the context, but I would just caution that mind isn't going to be 'hanging out in emptiness' by simply refraining from conceptualizing stuff. Mind doesn't need to not be thinking for 'you' to notice you aren't the one thinking.

Otherwise, I rez on the word emptiness, I think I'll be using that at some point today (im up b4 the roosters today!)

On a side note, I realize recently I've been doing something silly. I've been trying to get my 10 year olds to engage more freely in conversation. So when i ask them how they are in the morning, and they say "I am happy", I ask them, "Why?" They never have an answer, and I always end up with 7 kids all looking out the window and telling me about the weather. It hadn't occurred to me they could just be happy for no reason. I've been unknowingly embedding my kiddeez into the illusion of separation. noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby arel » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:02 am

samadhi wrote:The universe comes into being when the absolute awareness stirs and becomes self-aware, manifested in and through physical forms. In maya, this consciousness then becomes identified with the forms, creating a false identity, a little pseudo-entity that appears to have an independent, inherent existence of its own but which is in fact entirely dependent upon its noumenal source.


That's a cool way of saying it. Subject somehow thinking it's an object..

rachMiel wrote:
samadhi wrote:It's a bit like when I used to sit as a kid and contemplate what I'd been told about the universe having no beginning and no end. I was immensely fascinated and compelled yet it made my brain hurt!

I had a very similar thing growing up, framed around Catholicism. I was taught that when you die and enter Heaven, your afterlife there goes on forever. Six year old me would sit around and ponder what it would be like, what it would feel like to wake up to a new day over and over and over and over, with no end, like a book with an infinite number of pages.


I would imagine flying far into space where I no longer see anything and I'd sit and imagine what it would be like.. where is it that I am then. Or look at things and wander how is it that they are held together and have a form to them.. silly things like that.

key master wrote:On a side note, I realize recently I've been doing something silly. I've been trying to get my 10 year olds to engage more freely in conversation. So when i ask them how they are in the morning, and they say "I am happy", I ask them, "Why?" They never have an answer, and I always end up with 7 kids all looking out the window and telling me about the weather. It hadn't occurred to me they could just be happy for no reason. I've been unknowingly embedding my kiddeez into the illusion of separation. noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:


haha that cracked me up. Poor kids :)
What I say is only my viewpoint.
arel
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Vedanta

Postby samadhi » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:14 am

karmarider wrote:Thanks, Samadhi. You have a nice way of explaining this.

I think in me there is some resistance to learning this type of knowledge because of the intuitive feeling that human freedom cannot possibly require the learning of such specific knowledge as vasanas, gunas, sheaths and so on. There are plenty of examples of people who have freed themselves who did not require this knowledge, and I'm sure there are just as many examples of people who have been aided by vedantic understanding.


Yup, I totally understand what you mean.

I'll try and explain vedanta's view on this, see if it makes sense. Liberation/self realisation/enlightenment is seen as basically the hard and fast knowledge that we are pure awareness and not the objects that appear in awareness; not the thoughts, beliefs, conditioning, or any of the other elements that comprise the 'person'. There are some people, such as Eckhart, Byron Katie and Ramana Maharshi who undergo this shift of identification from the limited to the limitless in a spontaneous manner - it just happens. They don't even need to have any spiritual inclinations or knowledge, it's just kind of like they're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens!

Generally they're in the minority. The rest of us don't tend to experience the instant enlightenment phenomenon and I know some people who have been pursuing enlightenment for decades - good, sincere people, too! They may have experienced a number of epiphanies and spiritual highs over the years, but each time the high passes and the pendulum starts to swing again, the old mental/personality/egoic structure reasserts itself and it's back to the drawing board. We might intellectually know what we truly are - and what we truly aren't - but we're still bound by the same old programming and limitations. James Swartz notes that in most cases, if we were able to attain liberation on our own, we would have done so long ago. There's no shame in that, and although instant enlightenment is seemingly much easier I don't imagine the hare is really any better than the tortoise - they both get where they're going at the right time for them.

But this is where a tried and tested methodology such as vedanta comes in. I apologise if I sound like a vedanta salesman, lol, I'm really not trying to sell anything. I just love it and have found it so immeasurably helpful :) After a year's study I'm convinced it's as complete a science of consciousness and enlightenment as there is. And it's been around for millennia and virtually every enlightenment tradition borrows from it, although arguably none have improved on it. Most spiritual teachers are trying to reinvent the wheel to put their own stamp on it, but the wheel's just fine as it is, and does the job perfectly.

As vedanta evolved, there was great study into the reasons why some people get enlightened and some don't. It was realised that there have to be certain qualifications in the 'seeker' in order to be able to assimilate the teachings. The qualifications include a dispassionate mind, ability to discern, focus, discipline and a burning desire to be free and to know the truth. The 'practise' involved in true vedanta (worth noting that neo advaita muddies the water by often scorning spiritual practise - but that's another story) is about balancing and purifying the mind, cultivating a peaceful and still (sattvic) state of mind in which we can assimilate and fully realise the teachings...in other words, so we can once and for all shift our locus away from the little ego self and back to our true, original nature and thus attain liberation from it. Again, some people are just inherently 'ripe' for enlightenment and they perhaps only need a little exposure to spiritual teaching in order to fully assimilate it. Or they might spontaneously attain liberation without any teaching at all, simply because something 'pops' in them. But for, I would guess the majority of people, myself included, it takes persistent effort to overcome the gravity of the mind/ego/conditioning and really start to embody the truth that I am simply awareness and not the objects that appear in it.

The fact it actually takes work puts a lot of people off traditional vedanta, which is why neo advaita often seems more appealing, because it tells us that we don't need to do anything because 'we' don't even exist (and that's right on one level - the absolute level. But on the relative level, we don't yet GET that we're pure awareness -- not truly -- and are still being pulled hither and yon by our conditioning, so the words alone are meaningless).

And so I feel that freedom is nothing more or less than the absence of fear and its effects, and the realization of freedom does not require this knowledge or any kind of practice--but I am not certain of this, and so I continue to explore.

Thanks for your explanations.


Yes :) Liberation from fear seems to be a byproduct of knowing what we truly are. The practises offered by vedanta, such as karma yoga, are simply to prepare the mind for the knowledge that we are simply pure awareness, unborn and therefore untouched by anything in this apparent reality. The teaching itself is just a tool to help us discriminate between what is real and what isn't, between what we are and what we are not. We lay the groundwork, get ourselves 'qualified' (as in the criteria mentioned above) and then the knowledge does its work and we can drop the tools. We don't need them any longer. Again, some lucky people don't need all this stuff. But I was one of those that did and, having been wandering lost amid the spiritual marketplace since I was sixteen, I'm so grateful I found vedanta. It felt like I was coming home. It all made such perfect sense. I willingly opened myself to it and set aside my pre-existing spiritual beliefs and notions, as you really have to, otherwise you just cherry-pick the parts that match up with your existing schemas. But I didn't just accept anything, I worked with the logic of it and found it pretty irrefutable. It all makes so so much sense. To me anyway.

Sorry for the long reply, hope it didn't sound preachy. I like speaking about it to people who are genuinely interested and open-minded and they can take from it what they will :)
samadhi
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Vedanta

Postby karmarider » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:13 pm

samadhi wrote:...


Thanks again Samadhi for your clear explanations. You've sparked my interest to continue to look into Vedanta. The resources which appeal to me are Nisaragadatta and Ramana. It's been a long time since I've read the Gita and I don't think I ever really took the trouble to understand it. I have only skimmed quotations from the Upanishad. I'll continue my exploration, but I also continue to feel instinctively that this kind of studying should not be necessary to be free.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Vedanta

Postby rachMiel » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:36 pm

Just got this email from James Swartz. The question I asked is in bold; his response follows. Dis "Rick" guy he keeps talking about is me. Enjoy! :-)

--------------------------------------

How can one KNOW, with utter certainty, that non-dual awareness (Brahman) is real, rather than just a beautiful fairy tale?

How do you know that you are Rick and this world is real? You believe it based on what you think. There is absolutely no evidence that you are a ‘Rick’ nor is there any way for anybody to determine what the word Rick refers to apart from consciousness and a particular body, which is nothing but meat matter. It is clear that you are not the body because the body is an object known to you so that only leaves consciousness. That you are consciousness is self evident. If you weren’t the meat tube would be six feet under.

Minus an epiphany it is true that you need faith in Vedanta’s contention that you are limitless ever-free awareness. But that should not be hard because the idea that you are Rick is purely a belief too. Why should you dismiss one belief in your identity in favour of another? The only reason you persist in the Rick belief is because your desires and fears have generated actions that produce experiences that seem to reinforce the belief that you are Rick. You think that what happens to that body/mind is Ricks life. But there is another explanations for that life that is much more convincing.

The belief that you are whole and complete non-dual actionless awareness, is only a blind belief, like the belief in God or Rick, without a way to prove that it is a fact. So Vedanta provides a method of discrimination based on the unexamined logic of your own experience, that reveals the belief to be a fact. If you practice it properly you will notice your fears and desires dry up and a sense of uncaused happiness gradually arise, and you will start to notice that reality confirms the belief in your completeness. As this process unfolds the belief in your Rickness will slowly abate. You will see that Rick is just an idea that somehow you picked up from outside without hard and fast evidence.

You cannot expect an epiphany to change your identity because discrete experiences do not change thinking patterns which are as deeply embedded in your consciousness as the idea that you are a specific so and so, an experiencing meat tube. So you have to do inquiry, meaning apply the proven teachings of Vedanta over and over again to remove the effects of the ignorance that makes you think you are Rick.

Short of a methodology to actualize the statement that you are whole and complete awareness you are left high and dry. Eckhart and the Neos tell you, based on his experience, that you are awareness but he gives no method, so his ‘teachings’ are nothing but beliefs. Yes, his statements coincide with the truth, but what good is it? This is why Neo Advaita is unsatisfying. It wakes you up but promptly lets you fall back to sleep, left only with the tantalizing memory of your true identity. In fact Eckhart gives a method…that is just absurd…without a way to actualize it. He says you need to ‘be in the now.’ But this is impossible because you are the now. Even if you can’t understand it and if time exists, which it doesn’t apart a way to measure the interval between discrete experiences which is totally subjective, and there is a now as opposed to a future and a past, you are already ‘in’ it, assuming you are a Rick.

So inquiry based on a proven methodology is necessary and Vedanta is such a method. It is the application of self knowledge. But before you apply it you need to know what self knowledge is and what ignorance is. If you think you are a Rick and you think that you can figure it out on your own, you will not succeed because you are not a Rick, an experiencing entity. And because the Rick entity is not actually conscious as Rick. It is just a reflection of awareness in the Subtle Body. To get the knowledge you need to be taught. Even reading books on Vedanta will not set you free, unless you are highly qualified because, assuming they are actually Vedanta and not some guru’s or intellectuals interpretation of Vedanta…which most of them are…does not work because your ignorance will cause you to misunderstand.

The short answer to your question is that you have no doubt that you exist, do you? What you call Brahman is just you, your existence. All that is left to determine, therefore, is the nature of your existence. At present you think that it is limited but Vedanta says that it is limitless and proves it…if you are qualified to understand.

I hope this is helpful.

Love,

James
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2455
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

cron