dwai

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,286

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Everything posted by dwai

  1. So Shiva is Spanda or is Spanda one of his characteristics?
  2. Again, you are insinuating that there is some sort of jalpa or vitanda being perpetrated here. I had expected better from you... Sorry to see you stop. I was hoping with the renewed direction and tone (non-confrontational and amicable) of this thread, we could actually come up with some ground rules on the basis of which genuine discussion can happen.
  3. Well it was not. There's nothing I can share about Vedanta that is not already in the 10 principle upanishads. My answer is not very different from your answer to my request to post your understanding on KS. Since 2007 I have posted many such posts on Daobums.
  4. There are certain schools of Daoism that are. But in general Daoist teachings don't pay much credence to duality or nonduality (as far as I know). The way I've been taught, it seems to me very similar to Advaita vedanta, but with a difference. Dao is Brahman, Te is considered a complete image of Dao within the human being. By uncovering one's Te, one can realize Dao.
  5. Well Monism is also a term used for Nondualism. Again you come down to personal beliefs. What I stated are not personal beliefs. Just further knowledge of Advaita Vedanta. Its not like the knowledge is not there...but just not realized. Yes I do. Not just me, most Buddhists do to.
  6. Read my point about what is considered "real" and what "unreal" per Indian traditions of philosophy (including buddhism). Anything that has permanent self-existence is Real. Anything that is not (depends on another) is unreal. This has nothing to do with the existence OR non-existence of that which is "unreal". You already are Brahman. As is each and every one of us. Read the 10 primary upanishads.
  7. But Even KS is an "advaita" tradition. I don't see why duality (which is an appearance) needs to be given so much special attention. It gets enough as it is, given that we all seem to operate in it. All duality eventually gets resolved in nonduality. Its not mincing words. it is being exact imho. Again, it is not *my opinion* that real and unreal are defined in that way in the darshana shastras. It is a fact! I'd expected better from you ... In the Isha Upanishad, the first verse is as follows -- Verse 14 of Isha Upanishad
  8. So help me understand how that is different from Jiva not having independent existence per AV and therefore being called "unreal". Huh!?! AV says the separateness is only an appearance, since the limited being (and his world) are dependent on Brahman for existence (or are not independently self-existent). That is simply not correct. Duality is an appearance in Brahman, the Non-dual. How then does Brahman not "encompass" the duality? Seems like the same thing to me.
  9. These are not jivanamuktas yet, but have the jnana. But they oscillate between jnana and ignorance. This is the experience of many "awakened" individuals who are still caught up in samsara. Sort of "half-baked" jnanis...still cooking
  10. So Jiva and Shiva are separate beings? Completely independent? Self existent? So how does Jiva BECOME Shiva? If they both exist independent of each other? And how is that nonduality? Swami Lakshmanjoo seems to disagree with you -- If its not too much to ask for, could you make a post on KS on its own (not this vs that) and share your understanding of it?
  11. That is taking things too literally. What it means is (as I understand it), this type of jivanamukta is free from attachment to desires (thoughts), so he/she is not affected by them in anyway. They neither run away from, nor run after anything.
  12. It is very important to understand what "Real" and "Unreal" mean in Indic philosophical traditions. Saying something is unreal doesn't deny its existence. It simply means that it doesn't have independent existence. When something is called "Real", it means that it is independently existent (or Self-existent). The jnani doesn't help others. It is the Grace of the Self that acts through the jnani. It works in the relative/transactional aspect of the world (jagat). The jiva's existence is not denied, only the independent self-existence of an entity who lives, dies, is reborn, accrues karma is denied. AV goes further to say that even the transactional world doesn't independently exist. It is always predicated on a subject. That subject is Atman/Self/Braman. And the jiva is none other that Brahman itself, only appearing to be a limited being. KS doesn't claim that jiva is independently existent and Siva is independently existent. Then that is no Nonduality...but duality. Jiva is none other than Siva himself.
  13. The link to the specific comments doesn't seem to be working. This is on the three different category of sages --
  14. If you read the extensive quotes from Tripura Rahasya in the "Continuous samadhi" thread, you will find that, it being a classic and advanced AV text, also points out the three different levels of seekers, three different levels of sages (jnanis). The individual predisposition most certainly plays a role in how the Self manifests and how it is expressed through the jnani of each category. Tripura Rahasya clearly articulates how the Shaiva Siddhanta, Shakta views and Advaita Vedanta views map to each other.
  15. Okay re-entering this stream, I think all Spiritual traditions exist because there appear to be separate beings and it seems to be possible to help them. It is the same whether it is KS or AV. Where is the difference here? The method might vary. That has already been acknowledged.
  17. Now to describe the three category of sages (jnani) -
  20. On the three category of seekers
  21. Found a pdf version of the doc here — https://www.beezone.com/Ramana/tripura rahasya.pdf
  23. With this I am informed that my kindle copy limit has been reached. I’d recommend that if you found this brief discussion useful, read the actual document. There’s only one translation of this powerful document available in English.
  25. Making choices won’t interrupt samadhi. Not being able to make it will. If you want to turn on the lights, turn it on. If you want to turn it off, turn it off. Being caught in analysis paralysis is what neurotic thinking is. Yes clinging imho is wrong. And once we shed one level of clinging we find deeper and deeper levels progressively. The first step is recognizing that samadhi. That puts things into perspective imho .