Meaning

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

Re: Meaning

Postby Rob X » Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:00 pm

rachMiel wrote:
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.


Yes, I agree there may be some issues of interpretation here.

But let's not lose sight of how incredibly simple this is. Simple but difficult to catch largely due to our habitual tendency to inappropriately employ our analytic faculties of mind (left hemisphere.)

I thought I was an independent, inherently existing entity (x) but I realise that what this is is _______

This shift is available to anyone. We don't need a diploma in cosmology or philosophy or comparative religion for this shift in perception to occur.

And I totally agree with you when you say we don't need to name the unnameable - we can't anyway - we can't get on the outside of it and formulate it. Names like Self, Reality, Brahman, Tao, Pure Awareness are strictly placeholders - best not to cling too tightly. And yet we can (we do) know IT intimately.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Meaning

Postby rachMiel » Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:09 pm

Rob X wrote:But let's not lose sight of how incredibly simple this is. Simple but difficult to catch largely due to our habitual tendency to inappropriately employ our analytic faculties of mind (left hemisphere.)

I thought I was an independent, inherently existing entity (x) but I realise that what this is is _______

Yes, very simple, and easy to grok for pretty much anyone with an open mind. But the fathoming of it is NOT the pudding! The pudding is the living of it, the seeping down of it to the bone (body, unconscious mind, whole being). Buddhists would say the *realizing* of it. And that can be anything but simple!
And I totally agree with you when you say we don't need to name the unnameable - we can't anyway - we can't get on the outside of it and formulate it. Names like Self, Reality, Brahman, Tao, Pure Awareness are strictly placeholders - best not to cling too tightly. And yet we can (we do) know IT intimately.

We *are* IT. Right? Can you know what you are? (Can an eye see itself?)
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 6:59 pm

Sounds like we are basically saying the same thing?
Look here-

RM said-Yes, very simple, and easy to grok for pretty much anyone with an open mind.


In Vedanta, this is Self realization.

But the fathoming of it is NOT the pudding!


Right, because Self realization is an experience, that comes and goes.

The pudding is the living of it, the seeping down of it to the bone (body, unconscious mind, whole being).


Yep, in Vedanta "the seeping down" is "assimilating" the knowledge gained from Self realization and Self knowledge...the "pudding" is called "the fruit" in Vedanta of the knowledge, which leads to "Moksha"(freedom/liberation). Which you say, "Buddhists would say the "realizing" of it."

And that can be anything but simple!


I disagree that the living of it is simple or else everyone who's ever realized "it", would be living it.
That's where Vedanta comes in handy, it gives answers to the doubting mind and lays out the cosmology and orders of reality in a clear concise way, but to each their own.

I like Vedanta because there is not a soup of different words used to mean the same thing, except Self/Brahman/pure awareness mean the same thing, but that's not hard to understand or remember, imo.

Not trying to convert anyone, just saying we are maybe on the same page or so it seems. Except, Vedantin's acknowledge Ishvara (the dharma field), the gunas, karma, vasanas, ect.
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 7:11 pm

I deleted this because I felt creepy about having publicly posted a message that was sent to me privately. Bad rachMiel!
Last edited by rachMiel on Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 7:20 pm

dijmart wrote:Sounds like we are basically saying the same thing?

Yes! Like I said, my view is very close to the Advaitin view ... just quirkier and less certain.
And that can be anything but simple!

I disagree that the living of it is simple or else everyone who's ever realized "it", would be living it.

I agree ... it's what I meant by "And that can be anything but simple!"
Not trying to convert anyone, just saying we are maybe on the same page or so it seems. Except, Vedantin's acknowledge Ishvara (the dharma field), the gunas, karma, vasanas, ect.

But afaiu those are all in the field of vyavahara (relative truth, world of form), not paramartha (absolute truth = brahman, period). So Advaitins acknowledge them as relative truths (metaphors more or less), not absolute truths. They are, like all objects of vyavahara, pointers to / expressions of brahman. Sound right to you?
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 8:41 pm

I agree ... it's what I meant by "And that can be anything but simple!"


Haha, apparently I misread!

But afaiu those are all in the field of vyavahara (relative truth, world of form), not paramartha (absolute truth = brahman, period). So Advaitins acknowledge them as relative truths (metaphors more or less), not absolute truths. They are, like all objects of vyavahara, pointers to / expressions of brahman. Sound right to you?


Yes, they are Mithya ("apparent" objects/forms) that are inert and appear like a hologram within Brahman. They are also illuminated/pervaded by Brahman that make them "seemingly" come to life.
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 » Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:52 pm

Also, thanks for sharing your email with Dennis Waite. I don't know much about him, but he seems to know Vedanta?

What's your background by the way, is it Buddhism? Is that considered a religion? Ive thought it was, but don't know for sure really.
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 9:13 pm

dijmart wrote:Also, thanks for sharing your email with Dennis Waite. I don't know much about him, but he seems to know Vedanta?

He's one of the best Western writers of traditional Advaita Vedanta around, tons of books, good clear writer and a sweet guy. His website, filled with really useful Advaita texts: http://www.advaita.org.uk
What's your background by the way, is it Buddhism? Is that considered a religion? Ive thought it was, but don't know for sure really.

My labyrinthine path goes (so far) kinda like this: Catholicism -> Krishnamurti -> Seth -> Buddhism -> Tolle -> Advaita with a smattering of Western philosophy thrown in, especially process philosophy and panpsychism. (Sorry you asked? ;-) )

I'm an avid visitor to many traditions, a permanent resident of none. It makes things complicated ... but endlessly fascinating.

You dij?
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 9:17 pm

Ditto, deleted to preserve privacy.
Last edited by rachMiel on Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 10:43 pm

rachMiel wrote:Btw I ran something you wrote here by Dennis to see if his take differed from yours (= Swartz's I presume?). I hope you're cool with that, probably should have asked you first, sorry if I overstepped. (If I did, pm me.) In any case, here's the exchange:

Self realization happens when pure awareness reflects upon the subtle body (which is reflective, like a mirror), in a clear, still mind. Then there is the thought of limitlessness/oneness. There is the apprehension that this is what you truly are in the intellect, which is the discriminating aspect of the mind. When this knowledge is assimilated fully in every aspect of one's life, the Jiva/person gains Moksha..which is the fruit of this knowledge.

To be pedantically correct, the jIva/person never gains mokSha because there is no person. Atman is ever free. True ‘liberation’ is when this already-existent fact is realized. But this is the final truth/understanding. What you say could be taken as interim understanding for the person (ahaMkAra) that is looking for a personal mokSha.


If we are going to get technical, Moksha (freedom/liberation) is "from" the "apparent" person first and "for" the "apparent" person second. Meaning, you realize you are "not" the "apparent" person you thought you were, but the "apparent" Jiva/Person gets the fruit of that knowledge, which is the end of suffering and the end of the cycle of rebirth.

The "apparent" person, that you (awareness) are "associated" with is not going to disappear with Moksha. He says, "there is no person", well there is and there isn't , the "apparent" person exists (or a body/mind/sense complex), as it can be experienced, its just not real, so while pain and pleasure persist for the "apparent" body/mind/sense complex, you (awareness) are associated with, suffering ends with Moksha.
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 » Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:56 pm

My labyrinthine path goes (so far) kinda like this: Catholicism -> Krishnamurti -> Seth -> Buddhism -> Tolle -> Advaita with a smattering of Western philosophy thrown in, especially process philosophy and panpsychism. (Sorry you asked? ;-) )

I'm an avid visitor to many traditions, a permanent resident of none. It makes things complicated ... but endlessly fascinating.

You dij?


Blips of Christianity -》mediumship (briefly) -》 Tolle/Ananta/Adya/Mooji/Papaji/Nisargadatta/
Ramana maharshi (more I can't recall right now) -》 Vedanta
Last edited by dijmart on Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 10:58 pm

If we are going to get technical, Moksha (freedom/liberation) is "from" the "apparent" person first and "for" the "apparent" person second. Meaning, you realize you are "not" the "apparent" person you thought you were, but the "apparent" Jiva/Person gets the fruit of that knowledge, which is the end of suffering and the end of the cycle of rebirth.

The "apparent" person, that you (awareness) are "associated" with is not going to disappear with Moksha. He says, "there is no person", well there is and there isn't , the "apparent" person exists (or a body/mind/sense complex), as it can be experienced, its just not real, so while pain and pleasure persist for the "apparent" body/mind/sense complex, you (awareness) are associated with, suffering ends with Moksha.

It's an Advaita Vedanta smackdown!

Seems like you really know your AV stuff, dij. You and runstrails have become our resident experts!

I'm curious to know what you think of Tolle's teachings now. (I still love them, maybe even more.)
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 11:00 pm

dijmart wrote:Blips of Christianity -》mediumship (briefly) -》 Tolle/Ananta/Adya/Mooji/Papaji/Nisargadatta/
Ramana maharshi (more I can't recall right now) -》 Vedanta

Very similar! Catholic/Christian -> Seth (channeling)/mediumship -> Advaita!

Are there elements from your mediumship days integrated into your current worldview? I have a hard time finding a place for Seth/channeling in my current path ... it's almost like it was a lovely detour. (And long, I did it for over a dozen years!) Similar with Catholicism ... it set the stage, kindled my spiritual interest more than anything else.
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 11:51 pm

It's an Advaita Vedanta smackdown!


Apparently, it is, perhaps RT will pipe in with her view, if different from mine?

I'm curious to know what you think of Tolle's teachings now. (I still love them, maybe even more.)


Ill see a quote of his on FB and nod my head in agreement, but I haven't picked up a book or watched a video of his since coming to Vedanta. Mostly because I haven't had time. I understand everything he says now, but the thing about Tolle, for me, was that he could only take me so far....the mind/intellect wasn't satisfied, doubted, questioned, ect. I needed the Self knowledge that Vedanta could provide. However, Tolle and all the others I truly believe helped to "prepare" my mind/intellect for Vedanta. So, I'm forever grateful!

Are there elements from your mediumship days integrated into your current worldview? I have a hard time finding a place for Seth/channeling in my current path ... it's almost like it was a lovely detour. (And long, I did it for over a dozen years!)


Ohhh, I forgot something, you reminded me. Ok, so I need to explain. What I meant by mediumship, was that "I" was able to channel myself for about 5 months (22 yrs ago). Long story how it came about.. Anyways, after that I was totally absorbed in anything afterlife-ish for years. Read all sort of stuff. Once Tolle came along (and the others), I still read/watched videos of conversations with God, Seth/Abraham, etc, etc.

I see it all as Mithya now, it exists, but it's not real.
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 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:29 am

Love that mithya ... it's so juicy!
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 3 guests