Meaning

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

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:26 pm

Thanks, rt and dij. I'll check out that video. :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:34 pm

Rob X wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I was taught that brahman (Self) cannot be experienced, because that would imply two: experiencer and experienced. What can be experienced is mithya (illusion). So when you experience your Self, you are experiencing an illusion ... a mirage of brahman kinda sorta.

There's ONLY the experiencing of Self/Reality. The illusion (or more accurately, delusion) is in not recognising this.

I understand. How about this version:

You cannot *directly* experience brahman/Self ... you can only experience it indirectly, via the vyavahara world of form/objects.

?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby dijmart » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:46 pm

Rt said-
I wanted to clarify that Self Realization is experiential and comes and goes, but it is Self-Knowledge that actually removes ignorance. Knowledge, once assimilated is constant (i.e., does not come and go).


Nicely said!
Take what you like and leave the rest.
User avatar
dijmart
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby dijmart » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:52 pm

This may help with your question RM-

Be clear that the intense experiential bliss you are feeling in those moments is no more the self than the experience of self-realization you can’t settle for. Experience is an objective phenomenon – that is, it has qualities or a certain character that make it distinguishable from other experiences. But the self is limitless conscious existence. As such, the self cannot be defined in terms of any particular experience or even the collective of all experience, for the self is always and ever beyond the limiting parameters of time and space – which are themselves objective phenomena whose existence depends upon awareness – that define all objective phenomena appearing within the limitless scope of its being. This is the reason we say that the self is not an experience.

At the same time, given the non-dual nature of reality, any and all experience is essentially an experience of the self, for there is nothing but the self. Thus the problem is not that you don’t experience the self, but rather that you don’t appreciate the self in the face of certain experiences. It is similar to saying that you only appreciate the fact that the ocean is water if the waves have a certain quality and character. Ted Schmidt
Take what you like and leave the rest.
User avatar
dijmart
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby Rob X » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:52 pm

rachMiel wrote:
Rob X wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I was taught that brahman (Self) cannot be experienced, because that would imply two: experiencer and experienced. What can be experienced is mithya (illusion). So when you experience your Self, you are experiencing an illusion ... a mirage of brahman kinda sorta.

There's ONLY the experiencing of Self/Reality. The illusion (or more accurately, delusion) is in not recognising this.

I understand. How about this version:

You cannot *directly* experience brahman/Self ... you can only experience it indirectly, via the vyavahara world of form/objects.

?


I'm not sure what is meant by a direct experience of brahman/Self. Just transpose the concept to Reality. Can we have a direct experience of Reality? Of course, that's what THIS is - but we overlook it in our fixation with forms.

Right now there can be the apperception of apparent things OR there can be the realisation of Reality - from which apparent things are manifesting.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:00 pm

> At the same time, given the non-dual nature of reality, any and all experience is essentially an experience of the self, for there is nothing but the self.

Brahman (Self) is attribute-less. The notions of form, time, space, quality, feeling ... none of these apply. So how could one experience brahman directly? There's nothing experienceable there! Its "presence" (in quotes, because being present is an attribute) can only be apprehended *indirectly* by our minds as experienceable ripples in the world of form. Kind of like how the presence of an invisible body in space can be inferred from its gravitational actions on nearby visible bodies. No?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby Rob X » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:27 pm

rachMiel wrote:> At the same time, given the non-dual nature of reality, any and all experience is essentially an experience of the self, for there is nothing but the self.

Brahman (Self) is attribute-less. The notions of form, time, space, quality, feeling ... none of these apply. So how could one experience brahman directly? There's nothing experienceable there! Its "presence" (in quotes, because being present is an attribute) can only be apprehended *indirectly* by our minds as experienceable ripples in the world of form. Kind of like how the presence of an invisible body in space can be inferred from its gravitational actions on nearby visible bodies. No?


Yes RM, I saw the Ted Schmidt quote. But again I'm not sure what a direct experience of Brahman is. So as I wrote above: Transpose the concept to Reality. Can we have a direct experience of Reality? Of course, that's what THIS is - but we overlook it in our fixation with forms.

Right now there can be the apperception of apparent things OR there can be the realisation of Reality - from which apparent things are manifesting.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby dijmart » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:58 pm

Hi RM,

Brahman (Self) is attribute-less.


Yes, but it's also limitlessness and has "apparently" manifested itself into form do to Maya, a power within Brahman, that projects the world into existence. It exists, but it's not real, as it is ever changing. None the less, it is nothing but awareness.

The notions of form, time, space, quality, feeling ... none of these apply. So how could one experience brahman directly? There's nothing experienceable there!


All experience is within Mithya, the "apparent" world of form, which is none other then awareness itself. When he says, "any and all experience is essentially an experience of the self". He's saying that what you experience in Mithya is also the Self...as reality is non-dual. Again, you have to be able to hold both perspectives.

1) That pure awareness (Brahman/the Self) is attributeless, limitless, nondual, ordinary, conscious, existence.
2) that awareness (the self/Brahman) is also Mithya (the "apparent" world of form/objects), for what else could it be?

Experience can happen with #2, but not #1. You can only know and understand you ARE #1 and that everything you experience and know is that. Then a kind of shift can happen in perspective.
Take what you like and leave the rest.
User avatar
dijmart
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby runstrails » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:57 pm

Good stuff everyone!

As Dij and Rob have pointed out all experiences are experiences of the self since it's a non-dual reality. There is only ever one consciousness.

You only ever experience the self---but as a 'jiva' you cannot know the self. This is because there are different levels of reality. I think this is what Dij is trying to point out.

Pure awareness is at a more subtle level of reality than the person. The person always experiences awareness but the person cannot 'know' limitless awareness directly because pure awareness is at a more subtle level of reality than the person.

For example, I can have the knowledge that I am limitless consciousness, but as a person I cannot have the experience of limitlessness.

A good analogy is that of our night time dreams: You are the dreamer and you are also everything that is happening in the dream. The dream character cannot know the (more subtle level of the) dreamer directly, but all that the dream character is only ever experiencing is (the consciousness of) the dreamer.
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:31 am

dijmart wrote:
Brahman (Self) is attribute-less.

Yes, but it's also limitlessness and has "apparently" manifested itself into form do to Maya, a power within Brahman, that projects the world into existence. It exists, but it's not real, as it is ever changing. None the less, it is nothing but awareness.

To my mind, these are all attributes: limitlessness, manifestation, existence, not real, ever changing, nothing but awareness.

If brahman truly is attributeless, how can *any* attributes -- even the most subtle -- be applied to it? And by extension, how could anything be said (with certainty) about it ... even that it exists?

When I asked Dennis Waite a similar question a couple of years ago, he said that this is where you have to trust the ancient sages, which seems a leap of faith to me. And I'm not a good faith leaper, Catholicism and Krishnamurti took care of that! ;-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:45 am

Rob X wrote:Can we have a direct experience of Reality? Of course, that's what THIS is -

Do you mean THIS = the Buddhist concept of tathata? If so, I don't think it can be inserted into the fundamentally different teachings of Advaita without seriously altering/undermining its intended meaning.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby runstrails » Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:17 am

rM wrote:
If brahman truly is attributeless, how can *any* attributes -- even the most subtle -- be applied to it? And by extension, how could anything be said (with certainty) about it ... even that it exists?


Can existence be an attribute?

It might help to think of existence as 'the field' within which all attributes appear including non-existence. In order for non-existence to be known, there would have to be existence!
So existence cannot be an attribute per se. Similarly awareness cannot be an attribute since there cannot be existence without awareness.

The nature of reality (brahman) is Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam (or more commonly known as Sat Chit Ananda). Sat is existence, Jnanam or Chit is knowlege or consciousness and Anantam is limitlessness (simply means outside of the parameters of time and space--which of course fundamental existence would have to be or it would not be fundamental.

So, these three words are not attributes per se but simply describe the nature of the substrate reality within which all attributes occur.
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:07 am

I see things a bit differently ... but welcome the variety of takes. So many lovely flowers! :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Meaning

Postby dijmart » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:20 am

rachMiel wrote:I see things a bit differently ... but welcome the variety of takes. So many lovely flowers! :-)


How do you see things?
Take what you like and leave the rest.
User avatar
dijmart
 
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:11 am

Ultimately it's all a mystery, including us.

My view is really close to the Vedantin view — maybe even essentially identical — but it doesn't try (as hard) to name the unnameable. It's also *a* view ... not *the* view. In other words, I don't claim that it's "objectively" true.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2420
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 2 guests