dwai
-
Content count
8,286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Everything posted by dwai
-
As viewed in the context of Kashmir Shaivism, yes In the context of Southern Indian Shaiva Siddhantas, no.
-
In the Dao/Brahman, opposites don't have any meaning. There is no other. There is no stillness, there is no motion. There is no existence or non-existence as we know it. But something makes the appearances happen. Whatever that may be, is still not Dao/Brahman. I think no one can truly tell why appearances, forms, motion occur out of the Dao/Brahman. Only two make sense to me. Dao/Brahman are conscious and full of pure joy (and therefore of unconditioned love). And the joy and love is what provides the impetus for creation to occur. As the Kashmir Shaivites say "spanda" is a result of the joy of Satchidananda or Shiva.
-
Thanks for sharing Dawei
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
Stillness and Motion are in the realm of the interplay of yin and yang
-
I'm not sure what you mean in terms of the Heart Sutra, but per my Taijiquan and internal arts experience, I can tell you there is motion in stillness and stillness in motion all the time. Because energy is in motion even if the body and mind are still and the mind is still even if the body and energy in motion. But even that, is in the real of "local mind" as you put it (or as I say, in the dualistic world view). It a step closer to the non-dual experience but is still not there, imho. To be more precise, if we are referring to opposites, we are in the realm of duality, therefore not non-dual.
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
I see this as simply being semantics. emptiness = form and form = emptiness is like saying x = y and y = x.
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
I think if you introspect the subject, you might come the to same conclusion as me. The Ancient Daoists and Vedantins chose to use "exist" or "existent" or "beingness" as opposed to non-beingness, non-existent, "absolutely real", "truly real", etc because they realized while it (Dao/Brahman) is NOT a thing, it is also not "NOTHING". They chose to refer to it positively, because after all the 10,000 things rise from it and dissolve into it. Why would it not be "existent" or "eternal"? What other words would you use? It has already been said The Real Dao/Brahman can't be named and labeled, described.
- 64 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
I posit that De is nothing but the Dao that is in us. It is the same as Dao (and not the literal "virtue" as many have interpreted it to be). The processes etc are all part of the 10,000 things. That is not the Dao. They are of the Dao, the Dao is not of them. Even if the 10,000 things, or the 3 or the 2 or 1 disappear, the Dao still remains. There is no "De of Dao", the De is Dao. If we see a "de of Dao", then the Dao is not the real Dao, as it can be named and described
-
I think our conditioning makes us interpret even the same sentence in different ways sometimes. I too said (as quoted in the Dao De Jing), that the Brahman is eternal, infinite (and why - because it is not subject to space and time). It is empty yet full of potentiality and the source of everything, even though it is empty. It stands on its own, because it is not dependent on any "thing" to exist (why, because it is not subject to space and time). It is ever present since it is eternal and is our True Self (see the quote from DDJ chapter 6 about it always being present in us). What is the confusion?
-
I don't think we are disagreeing. You are misunderstanding what I wrote
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
The way I see it, you are focussing on the literal use of the words "empty space". Similar words have been used to describe Brahman as well. Since it is unfathomable, then you can't be sure what the empty space is truly empty of? So let me quote (which I'm loath to usually) from the Dao de Jing -- chapter 1 chapter four 5, 6 and 7
-
That is your interpretation of what I said. Does the Dao not exist on it's own accord? Will the Dao cease to be the Dao if the 10,000 things, or three, or two or one thing ceases to exist?
-
Like I said, syntax cannot be used to describe Brahman. No extrapolation is necessary. Infinity is also a dualistic concept. Brahman, like the Dao, is simultaneously everything and nothing, neither everything, nor nothing because it is not a thing - it is a no-thing (not an entity - which has a form or can be labelled/described). I think I explained why Atman (Self) is considered to be non-different from Brahman. It is just a literary/syntactical device used to explain that there is no "self", only Brahman. But there is also the concept of the two-level model of reality (as posited by Vedanta and also adopted by Buddhism). The Paramarthika (one of most value or absolute) and vyavaharika (one of regular use or relative). Brahman is paramarthika, but the dualistic world is vyavaharika. Brahman exists on its own accord. Doesn't depend on anything to exist. But it is considered unborn because it is not a thing (phenomenon) which has a beginning (and therefore, an end). It is considered atemporal, because time has no meaning (time is a vyavaharika construct). That is why it is considered eternal. But it meant to imply non-spatial, atemporal (not bound by the rules of the dualistic world of space and time).
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
You might think the Buddha said something, but that doesn't mean he actually did. There are many interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. Theravada, Mahayana, etc. Advaita vedantins tend to come to similar conclusions as Sri ramakrishna did, based on their experiences. That said, the nondual experience is very confusing to begin with. Nondual doesn't mean literally one, it means no duality. So even syntax we use (dualistic constructs) can't do justice to what that (nondual) really is. Bear with me as I try to explain my understanding of this topic -- Does the absence of duality mean singularity? I don't think so. To consider something to be singular, there has to be a concept of what is non-singular. If the concept of non-singular exists then that is not non-dual. Ergo, non-dual is not singular. In non-Dual, there IS no other. Since there is no other, there is no self either. Vedantins call it the Brahman. When they experience non-duality, they realize that their self doesn't exist in the everyday sense. So they say Brahman and Atman (Self) are non different. So the idea that the Dao is beyond Brahman is due to a flaw in dualistic logic being applied, where the Brahman is falsely being conflated to One (as opposed to two). But the Brahman is not only not "one", but also outside the domain of duality itself. Labels, concepts, thoughts and language don't mean anything therefore. And cannot be used to either describe it or label it. From the Dao de Jing we know, the Dao that is named is not the real Dao. So Dao and Brahman are non different.
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
I doubt if the sad-guru can even claim to be iota of what Sri ramakrishna was. And I like what he says (jaggj vasudev) for the most part. Look I'm not going to say more on this topic. sometimes we think political correctness warrants whitewashing historical events and facts. But it is dishonest to do so. Sri ramakrishna never tried to convert anyone. He was a mystic and lived a most modest live (some would say one of penury) as a priest in a temple. Neither did swami vivekananda (who was instrumental to bringing Hindu dharma to the west) try or want to convert anyone. In fact they said you should stick to your own religion and make the most of it if you can.
-
it sounds arrogant but it is a spiritual reality. Some cannot go beyond duality. So they should worship with complete devotion and faith. That's what he said. Whether someone likes it or not is a different matter. If you don't like what he has to say, don't read his words...very simple. No point arguing about it. You can't get him to recant his statements now, can you?
-
Semantics. Brahman is non different from Dao.
- 64 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sri
- Ramakrishna
- (and 3 more)
-
Hi Jeff, That defines "two states". One of absorption and one of separation. In the absorption state there is no "other" as there is only one. Nothing to refine further. In the separation state, there are "levels" - total separation, partial separation (and various degrees of separateness)... Imho if one feels there is a beyond to the Non-dual state, then they are not at the non-dual state. That's why I said, it is a matter of stabilizing this state. So much so, I have stopped trying. I just follow my teacher's guidance and use the path of devotion and practice of nei gong, taijiquan along with mantra meditation. At one point I was walking around with a constant state of connectedness...where my small self was under the wing of the greater Self. It lasted for a few months. But samsara reduces the connectedness/absorption. When I told my teacher about this he said when the energies stabilize in your body and you let go of your bondages, you will be able to stay in this state.
-
Honestly I've not reached Sri Ramakrishna's level. So I'll trust him and Adi Shankar's statements on this matter that true seekers would indeed be successful. However, looking at how many people fight and divide based on these other religions, I would also like to add that I wonder what constitutes a "true seeker"? Is a true seeker one who is most sincere seeker (who truly and completely follows the spirit of these monotheistic traditions - as opposed to the literal word)? Or is a true seeker who follows the word most literally? Brahma-jnana is the realization of Brahman/Atman. Nothing else...very simple (based on the glimpses I've had). Yet, it is very hard to stabilize. Most people I know tend to go in and out of it...being "enlightened" this minute, and not another minute
-
So do you agree or disagree?
-
Because for him the end of seeking is in realizing that everything is Brahman/Atman. And all sincere forms of worship will take the seeker to that point. If not in one life-time, over many such lifetimes. Did i mention that this rankles people of other traditions (even within the Sanatana/Hindu dharma traditions)? Doesn't mean he is wrong or was not fully enlightened. Typically they get angry because they feel that their "system" is slighted by the ladder analogy. That somehow they are spiritually "less" advanced than the Advaitin. My theory is that they feel "slighted" so they transfer it to their "system". Essentially there are ego-attachments to their system/theory. That said, unlike say Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramakrishna advocated the Bhakti path for most people. He believed that most people don't have the capacity needed to do direct inquiry. He too, like Adi Shankara, suggested that devotion is the way for most people. With the suggestion that after certain period of bhakti and austerity etc, by the Grace of God, they would be enlightened. I'm just stating my understanding of the historical facts
-
Well...people say Sri Ramakrishna was different and already a fully enlightened Advaita Vedantin. Also deeply versed in Shakta tantra (being a Kali worshipper). Some people might crinkle their noses at the thought of someone being a pure non-dualist and yet worshipping a deity. But I would say, they don't understand Advaita well enough. Advaita doesn't posit absolute either/or positions. Reading small parts of the vast body of work that is Advaita will lead one to interpret it as such (statements such as Brahma Satyam jagan mithya), but is not the case, when viewed in the correct, more holistic perspective. To not belabor the point I was trying to make (and promptly forgot), I echo Jetsun's view.
-
This is however the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". I don't believe Sri Ramakrishna made any commentary on Jesus' Gospel. He did practice every major religion (Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity) and said they all lead to the same non-dual Brahman. However, he also posited the ladder theory. Saying all are rungs of a ladder that leads to Brahma-jnana.
-
My Sifu told us about this last week. He said this center should not be directly worked with or forcibly manipulated. He said this is the gate through which we can access our higher Self. It is very delicate work. One exercise he showed us is to form a taiji ball and hold it above the head. Then breathing from the lower dan tien (or opening and closing the lower dan tien naturally).
-
Gravity waves can allow us to use it at minimal cost of our own energy to do things. This phenomenon is not just active for extremely large masses, but all around, always. My teacher often tells us to work with gravity, become sensitive to and learn to use gravity energy (he calls it energy) instead of burning through our own internal power. He also refers to this as "surface energy". And he is being literal not allegorical when he says this. And not just say, he can demonstrate how this works at will. We can feel the effect. I know most people who pride themselves on a being "rationalists" will scoff and roll their eyes. But fact is I too have encountered this, though for me it was only a fleeting moment. To experience it involves a very refined level of internal cultivation.
