dwai

And then there is no confusion and no doubt at all

That is a good question. There are many theories abound about it. Karma, etc etc. I think the dualistic world is like a video game. Whatever that is, assumes all these various characters and does plays this MMPORPG . The "awakening" is a very simple and ordinary event, that happens to all of us many times in the game. However, we are so engrossed in the role-playing that we fail to see this event when it happens. And even if we do see this event, we look it over because we are so engrossed in the game. This happens often in dreams when we become aware that we are dreaming but the dream continues as we don't exercise the freedom that arose from that awareness. I too have a friend who was "awake" from childhood. He is often mistaken as being "naive" or "foolish". But he has no guiles whatsoever, innocent like a child. He "knows" a lot of stuff but doesn't know what they mean or even that they are supposed to be these mega-super-powerful-nuggets of "enlightenment". So when I tell him stuff he'll go "Wow...you are teaching me a lot!". Haha...no I'm not teaching him squat...he already knows. He even had a dream that I am his spiritual "confirmer" My Master is like that too...innocent like a child. But with him, there is also a confidence that arises from total faith in the Dao. Each of his acts are acts of pure compassion and detachment. Yet he is actively involved in helping people all the time, pretty much throughout the day. When i look back at myself, I know the point when I lost this "innocent connectedness". So there is something to the "losing innocence" bit. But the fact is, that the true nature is always there, just masked by the contrivances and modifications of the mind and body. I think each of us can identify this sort of thing at a certain point in the journey.

I think agreeing or disagreeing is non-sequitur. To be able to reside as the non-dual awareness, we have to drop the dualistic attachments. That means, the dropping of dualistic modes of thinking. Of course no one can deny that our mundane existence hinges on dualism. However, so long as we stick with the dualism, it is very hard impossible to reside in non-dual. Yes...but the method to be able to achieve that is to pay no heed to the dualism that inundates our senses and mind, until such permanent residing happens. The subject-object dualism is what is called "Maya". It is what births the ephemeral ghosts. What you are proposing can only happen after a certain maturity. Yes, we can still go about the world and it's affairs and have conversations with people about it and still be 100% aware and sure that there is only the non-dual that everything rises from and ceases into. That actually puts the worldly affairs into a better perspective. But, there has to be a clear and unequivocal 'awakening' first. Without that, there is only the transmigrating soul. That is the reason why Advaita Masters tell us to refute the dualistic world first, so we can know without an iota of doubt that the non-dual is our true nature. Otherwise, what happens is pramAda -- described as the course of a ball dropped from the top of the flight of stairs. It is likely impossible for one to stop this ball from rolling all the way down to the lowest level and then some before it comes to a halt. Then it is an upward climb again, in which time, the time to leave this body might be upon us. Like the sign in the airplanes say - "Before helping someone else with their oxygen mask, we should ensure our oxygen mask is securely installed".

One is called the truth of “ultimate value” and the other of “practical value”. But it is also true that as long as one puts currency in the relative dualistic reality, one cannot go beyond it to see the nondualistic one.

Understanding has a role to play for sure. It will never get one to reside in nondual awareness. But then again, awareness it is never not nondual. A Frustrating topic when approached from the mind. But the intellect does have a role to play, until it doesn’t anymore.

That is predicated on the experience of a body-mind that needs this type of thinking for survival right? Does it have any bearing on your awareness by itself?

Nice...welcome to the block Can you really use words to describe something that is not an object? Can you describe your awareness? I mean a real description , not a label. Can you describe the Dao? Yes all experience is predicated on duality. So as One (I), are you not awareness experiencing objects through your mind-body (which themselves are objects as well)? Decide this -- are you "One" - the Mind-body? Or are you "One" to whom the mind-body seems to belong? Why is that important? In the "I" do the past and the future even exist? Past is gone, future is not there yet. This is better +1 Is it? In the Present, are you not aware even if there is no object? I refer to the fraction of a second exercise. Where is all this known? Is it not only in awareness? Is it many awarenesses? Are there any qualities that you can attribute to awareness that implies multiplicity is even possible? Indeed Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

It is very important to discern what the "sense of self" is and whether it is indeed non-dual. IMHO (and in that of many other Advaita Vedantins), if you have a sense or even feeling, there is an experiencer and an experience. Then there is a Subject-object duality. That is not it. Most of these discussions are based on different conceptualizations of "self". You say "self" is the identification with body-sensations and mind. I say, it is not. That is the non-self. The Self IS emptiness. space and presence.

Yes of course it is the same! You are already that...the non-dual parabrahman. All the exploration is to drop the veil of illusion that obscures your true nature . The thing is, after the veil drops, it becomes very apparent that the veil didn't exist at all in the first place.

Yes yes of course in atma vichara one has to let go and surrender after a point. It is only the grace of the Self that can “liberate”.

Thanks for the link. I was commenting on the point about Bhakti being said to be the only/best way. Each section of the Gita claims each of the yogas is the best way. So taking one without the others ends up supporting one way over others.

Please share the abhinavagupta commentary. I’d love to read it too Understood about the intent, but do you see how it can be viewed as “cherry picking”?

Perhaps some clarification is needed then?

No one said jnana Yoga or any system is Advaita. They can be leveraged to drop dvaita identifications. Each yoga is a valid path unto itself depending on the individual. What happens when they do follow said system is called antahakaranashuddhi. With antahakaranashuddhi, a clarity is attained which allows one to clearly discern between the Self and the appearances. Jnana Yoga is called the direct path because it leads to direct apperception. However one must have had sufficient antahakaranashuddhi to be able to follow this path. For others, they might need other methods first to attain that. Antahkaranashuddhi by itself is not Advaita either. It is needed so that individual jiva starts to see through the veils of maya. I think the challenge is that we try to understand what Advaita means from subject-object framework and jump to conclusions. That is the cause of picking intellectual nits, so to speak... Adding more context — what does “one without a second” mean? What is one without the concept of “not one” or “more than one”? Does it make sense even without something against which, the said number can be juxtaposed? So “one without a second” can mean “not two, not one” as well, when put into context. Emptiness is interesting. Emptiness doesn’t mean “void like a vacuum”. It means “not a thing”. That “one without a second” is not a thing either. So there is no difference between the two. To claim emptiness as opposed to fullness (of things) is dualistic. The Buddhist concept of shunya came from the idea “svabhava shunya”. It means “devoid of self nature”. That was the primary argument against Advaita Vedanta which they (Buddhists) assume claims that there is a jiva-atma that has independent self nature.

So what is this conscious apprehension? It is a dropping of the ignorance of the true nature. It is not an acquisition of some dualistic knowing in a subject-object paradigm.

that’s your opinion and it’s fine that you hold it.

In the same Gita, there are four sections. Each extolling the virtue of one of the four yogas. It is not because Lord Krishna was lying, but because each is suitable for people with different temperaments and gunas. i would recommend reading the Gita again in its entirety. It’s easy to cherry-pick a verse or two.

This is also the way of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is not some cold intellectual philosophical system, it contains within its framework very similar practices to let the cage disappear (instead of fighting with it). Most of the arguments against Advaita Vedanta I’ve read are non sequitur, made from a position of incomplete understanding of what it entails or teaches.

Yes. Of course. So then why is the topic of “practical value” so important? Why should we care about what is of practical value for an illusory, nonexistent thing? You feel that to say this is also point of view of ego. But it is better that the ego recognizes it’s own inconsequentiality, as opposed to feeling more important so as to demand a practical value of its source. Do you see the irony in that? Imho, we should abide in the first principle until it too dissolves. To let the “chitta vritti” continue is the path of bhoga instead of yoga, of preya instead of shreya.

It is actually that you realize that the cage doesn’t exist at all. It is not a breaking out, so much as recognizing that the cage is the desire to be separate and unique.

Practical from whose point of view? The dualistic appearance that rises from and falls back into the nondual? It does not matter. To think that it has to be of practical value is the ego thinking it is separate.

If you read the OP you’ll see that I clearly point out that reducing nondualism to “one thing” based on the name “Advaita” is a case of misunderstanding. It is neither dual, nor is it one. It is not-dual. Non-Duality here doesn’t mean multiplicity of numbers as opposed to a single entity. It means not dual. Both many and one are dualistic. Non-dual is neither.

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=7595.0

It is not a realization of a dual being as being nondual. It is a dropping of dualistic identification. We are already nondual.

Why should dropping. of identification with the mind be beyond nonduality? Nondual is not a state. It is the reality. It is always nondual. What drops is the misconception that we are something or someone separate from it. Simultaneously also drops the misconception that others are separate from it. Is bliss a state you experience or is it your own nature? It is the latter to me, so it doesn’t go away or rise due to anything else. What comes and go is the identification with the mind and body. What is called awakening is the realization that we are not these separate body-mind entities. We see the patterns that bind us into these seemingly separated existences. That we are born and we die. That we are matter to which consciousness happened. The samadhi that seem to appear and disappear is not some state that seem to be induced, stay for a while and then disappear. Rather, samadhi is our nature. What comes and goes is the identification with things (including body and mind). That’s why we say the avidya rises due maya. Maya is the identification with ephemeral objects thinking they are real.