dwai

I would say that nothing “predates” awareness, but rather the mind in which knowledge of said phenomenon/object arises (or is obscured). Awareness is beyond both space and time, as these concepts arise with the mind. You can validate this yourself through this simple thought exercise. “Without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

Nonduality realization is always in an individual’s mind. Now we have to be careful about the term “awareness” because that which is referred to in nonduality teachings is not “to be aware of any particular thing” but rather “pure object-less awareness” (think of it like light that illuminates for example’s sake). So I don’t disagree that your mind is yours and distinct from mine. That doesn’t mean that the awareness that illuminates your mind is not the same as that which illumines all minds.

Your counter-examples are non examples because they don’t make any sense. Any experiment you set up to prove/disprove is happening in your mind lit up by awareness. So nothing is happening outside awareness at all. One counter question that people ask often in response to nondual statements is, “if all is in awareness alone, then you must know everything/every thought in all minds!” That misses the point again, since one-many (mind/phenomena) are in the realm of appearance. Minds themselves are appearances, as is the idea of one/many. So in the story that projects this multiplicity, it is perfectly logical that there be “separate” minds, each with its own set of discrete set of objects flowing through. So one mind, even though realized about its true nondual nature, does not know what is in another mind. To elucidate further, ignorance and realization happens in the “individual” mind. Awareness is always nondual and there is never any ignorance there. This ignorance of the mind is basically the result of this projection/appearance. Now one might ask, “Why does it happen?” To that there is no answer that can be satisfactory to the inquiring mind, because the question “why” itself is at the root of this ignorance. It is a self-perpetuating problem. Instead of asking “why?”, a better question would be “whence?”

If we use the Kashmir Shaivism paradigm, shiva becomes jiva by his own volition. And jiva realizes he is shiva also by shiva’s own volition.

It is commendable to experience rarified states of the mind - even the empty mind itself, which is as close as one can get to “experience” awareness/consciousness.

I have only one semantic issue with the above - “experience of highest level of consciousness”. Consciousness cannot be experienced because it is what makes experience possible. But I’m familiar with the KS ontological framework and feel it is very beautiful. Thanks for sharing

There are many terms and methods to get to this (true nature). I’m familiar with the term unmani through the unmani mudra, but not sure whether you are referring to the same thing. Do share - I would love to know more.

I agree. But more often than not, this is rejected as “too simple”, “too basic” or some such categorization. The reason why true nature is so elusive is because it underlies every phenomenon. When the mind is fixated on phenomena, the source is forgotten/neglected.

You are missing the point I’m afraid. What is not known is going to be known, and when it comes into the mind (through the various instruments of knowledge) it is also in the domain of awareness. It is pointless to ask why something is not known and then known. Because something that is knowable but is temporarily unknown, it is not outside the realm of awareness. It is simply not in the domain of the mind, until it is known. I think it is very important to understand the difference between the mind and awareness/consciousness. Mind is a stream of thought objects. Awareness is that which makes knowing possible. To claim something as known or unknown too requires awareness. Not awareness of this or that, but pure object-less awareness.

First get to sat and chit. Ananda follows naturally

you’re welcome And how do YOU know that? How do you KNOW that?

Fascinating -

this link provides a good overview of Shilajit - https://www.banyanbotanicals.com/info/plants/ayurvedic-herbs/shilajit/ AFAIK there are no spiritual aspects to Shilajit. In Indian medicine, generally five plants are considered sacred - Holy Basil (Tulsi), Rudraksha, Bilva, Neem, and Cannabis.

Was it the five mere villages or was it the adharmic actions of the kauravas that got them killed, in spite of several attempts to prevent that fate for them? I think it is the latter. Krishna is not the alleged God of love, he is an avatar - he shows love to those who needed it, wisdom to those who needed it, wrath to those who needed and joy to those who needed it. The role of the avatar is to bring about the change needed for dharma to prevail over adharma. Since you eat meat, are you not indirectly responsible for the death of the animals you eat? Just because you don’t “kill” them, doesn’t mean they are not killed. I’d say that what happens to the poor animals is far worse than what happened to the kauravas, since animals are not responsible for their death - the consumers of meat are, since they create the demand, and the market fulfills that demand via supplying the meat. I’d even say that the butcher is less responsible for the death of the animals than those who “just” eat the meat.

Unfortunately Wikipedia-fu doesn’t give someone the authority to pontificate on something they know so little about. So, maybe you will open your mind a bit more and really try to learn something here? If you had read the Mahabharata you would know that the pandavas were ready to accept 5 villages to prevent the war, never mind that they were the rightful heirs of the full kingdom. It never ceases to amaze me how prominently the dunning-Kruger effect can be seen in action on the internet.

Relative to what happened to India under the British occupation

Yudhisthira declared war against the Kauravas since they were unwilling to concede after repeated attempts to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Here is a brief account of the steps taken to prevent the war https://www.amrita.edu/news/strategical-silhouette-of-an-extraordinary-peace-mission/

So the war turned out to be nothing good for. Thank you for your answers however. Now the next question you can school me on is the issue of the aggressor. Who first officially declared the war on whom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War You know, if you look at Indian history from after Mahabharata to the arrival of Islamic invaders in the 8-9th century AD, it was the most affluent country in the world. In fact, until the arrival of the Europeans, especially the British, India was more than 25% of the global GDP. There were no famines, even amidst the most brutal invasions/conquests by the Islamic marauders, people lived in relatively good conditions. Things only took a turn for the worse after the Europeans arrived. Cherry-picking doesn’t really do justice to a timespan of thousands of years.

Who was whose nephew?

The people of the land lived peacefully for generations. What do you expect should have happened?

What time span are you considering? The Mahabharata happened 5000+ years ago. It was also the beginning of the Kali yuga.

A victory of dharma over adharma.

Please read my posts carefully

Arjuna was not a mere solider - he was a prince, and hence was responsible for laying down/upholding justice in his domain (along with his brothers). Btw those who know the context of the Gita (Mahabharata) know every attempt to broker peace was made - but rejected by the kauravas (duryodhana). The kauravas represent a weak state ruled by egotists and the blind (literally, and also by their filial piety, loyalty, love for their offspring) such that the most heinous crimes were not considered condemnable. Great warriors whose glory and valor spread far and wide, were unable to speak up against the tyranny of duryodhana as they were protocol bound to not oppose the royal throne. it is in this backdrop that Krishna asked Arjuna to fight with dispassion - to do his duty as a warrior. Those who opted to side with adharma were responsible for their consequences.

There is no evolution of souls - all is appearance only. But whatever the divine wants to amuse itself with is what is.