dwai

I'm all for freedom of expression. But there have been cases where certain individuals have attempted to "snipe" topics to "prove they/their system/teacher/<fill in the blank> is better". It becomes very clear after a few interactions when such things happen. Another kind is where there are attempts to elicit emotional responses and ad hominem, etc. I think while this is a powerful ability (to moderate one's own posts), anyone abusing these powers will soon end up being "shunned" because people won't take the trouble to bother with their posts/threads (if the OP doesn't demonstrate integrity in how he/she handles things). So, in all, I think the Dao will work itself out...this way we are guaranteed a better process of enhancement as well as elimination. It's like separating the fluff from the stuff...what remains will be "stuff", the "fluff" will fly away

I think it depends on what we define as "rich" Who is "rich" and what is the yardstick by which one measures. I think it is a matter of attachment vs lack of attachment thereof. I know many "rich" generous people who give freely and are able to let go of attachments. It also depends on the background/circumstances... I know many not so rich people who hoard attachments like there was nothing else.

I've heard of it being described as "consciousness" and "objectless consciousness". I think what you are referring to as "awareness" is "objectless consciousness". Objectless consciousness is that which is left when all objects disappear (like in the gap between thoughts during meditation). It is as you describe awareness. In Indian traditions, the Mind is what you call consciousness...a field of thought objects.

My issue with the New Age isn't necessarily in their assimilation of the Eastern knowledge. As someone who bridges the East and the West, I find it offensive to see my traditions being watered down, repackaged and sold as something "original". Or appropriated and references to its source (the mother tradition) omitted. A better approach would be to take a more humble and "empty-cup" approach and learn in the native tradition. That's why I object to titles such as "Western Yoga, Western Tai Chi, Wester Daoism, Western <fill in the blank>". If it is not the real Yoga, it is not yoga. If it is not the real Tai chi, it is not tai chi (and so on). Because these traditions have cultural nuances that will be missed if you omit their culture. What I'll tell the Westerner who wants to try something different is to give that differentness a real try. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too. If your Western system doesn't work for you, don't try to mould something else to fit that framework (since it doesn't really work anyway). If you want to study Yoga, study yoga (or which ever non-western system you pick), don't change its tenets to suit your fancy (or sell your books and videos - which far worse and far more harmful imho).

Very well articulated. I'm a culprit of doing many of the things you point out...funny thing is, sometimes the "truth" scares us so much, we want to go back to living the "lies". Reminds me of the movie "The Matrix", about how the thought of plugging back/staying plugged into the "matrix" is so tempting for so many. Also funny thing is, the "New Age" is essentially repackaging and regurgitating what systems like Daoist meditation and Yoga etc have already covered in far greater detail (I have issues with the new age stuff around this) - it is tempting to look at the thing that is most familiar to us (culturally) - so we gravitate towards that. I think we can't completely block out "Mother Culture" and her whispers...

Effortless effort ties into wei wu wei. It is a paradox but in my experience, it is a state of mind. You set your mind intent to do something, then do the actions that will take you towards that goal. It is a fine balancing act between not too much effort and too much effort. If you do either, the result is inability to reach your goal, or reaching your goal at the cost of mental anguish or some other form of exhaustion etc. When action is effortless, things will seem like they are just happening on their own. Another explanation of this in the Hindu poem - The Bhagavad Gita. Where Sri Krishna tells the warrior prince Arjuna to do "Nishkaama karma" (or Action without desire). This is also a concept that is congruent with effortless effort. The premise is that the action is done for the sake of the action - the aesthetics, the joy of doing the action alone, without worrying about the consequences. If the action is perfect, the result will automatically follow. And what is perfect action? That which is not too much or too little...

Master Waysun Liao suggests that "Te" is mistranslated as "virtue". It really is a complete copy of the Dao that is available to us. When we can connect with it, we connect with the Dao. This is achieved through vibrating our energy/qi in resonance with the Te/Dao. Power then is anything that happens when we are in resonance with Te/Dao. Then there is no abuse or use. Power works through us. It is the will of Dao.

Thought this was an excellent documentary...

Traditionally, one didn't become a "Buddhist" by self-education. One had to learn from a teacher. So that is dependence on reliable testimony, right? But it is true, that Buddhists didn't consider the "Vedas" as infallible (or in many cases, outright rejected them) - that's why they are considered "Nastika" within the traditional Indian Dharma system. That doesn't of course mean they consider their own books infallible (not factoring in factions within the Buddhist ecosystem)?

At the risk of aiding and abetting that which I just put down ("intellect"), perhaps emotion is a reaction - a response based on interpretations of what we perceive (however flawed it might be) ? When we can experience the perception without the story, then perhaps the oneness is all that will matter?

Very well put. One thing in your post got me thinking - "Perhaps there are distinct qualities or characteristics of intellect that can be beneficial on the path but, at least for me, the process and individuals are far too varied and complex for me to see a pattern. What I do tend to see, however, is a spark, a genuineness, a glimmer of wisdom, in those that have made contact. " Perhaps what is normally considered "intelligence" should be labeled logical left brain activity. "Real" intelligence involves intuition and spontaneous realization (which I'm sure we've all had from time to time - and then the story-teller kicks in to rationalize things to death ) - perhaps that is the spark you were referring to (the pre-interpreter module phase of intelligence)?

This is meant to be a guideline/summary of what Vedanta is and a little bit of it's history, key concepts therein as well as common terminology with associated meanings. As has been discussed often, there are many words in Vedanta's original language -- Sanskrit, that are untranslatable into English (or other western languages). A general meaning of these words/concepts can be made, but they would still fail to grasp the meaning/import of the word (as spoken in Sanskrit or derivatives thereof, such as Hindi, Bangla, etc). Let us try to keep our personal predilections/beliefs from coloring this thread, and let us collectively work on building a repository of information that can be used to understand/expound on the Upanishads (the core and essence of Vedanta) by any individual seeking to advance their understanding. The source of Vedanta The Hindu tradition considers the Vedas to be the source, and Vedanta is part of the Vedas. It is the fourth and final component of the Vedas. The Vedas are composed of the following parts: The Samhitas The Brahmanas The Aranyakas The Upanishads All three systems of Vedanta are based on the Upanishads and hence the name Vedanta (or the last part of the Vedas). Etymology: Veda + anta (Veda - root Vid, to know - thereby Veda means knowledge; anta - End/conclusion) - thereby the Conclusion of Veda is Vedanta. The three systems of Vedanta These are: Advaita Vedanta or Non-Dualistic Vedanta (Shankaracharya being the primary teacher of this system) Dvaita Vedanta or Dualistic Vedanta (Madhavacharya being the primary teacher) Vishisthadvaita Vedanta or Qualified Non-dualistic Vedanta (Ramanujacharya being the primary teacher) Key Concepts in Vedanta Brahman Brahman is the ultimate reality, in Vedanta/Upanishads. It has been likened to the smaller than the smallest particle we can see but larger than the largest fathomable entity (capable of being conjured by the human mind). It is without properties (and all references to it are allegorical/metaphorical) and therefore is without gender, without shape, without form. Brahman is also likened to be the source, participant and activity (all there is). Atman Atman is the "True Self", that is the "True identity", when stripped of all extraneous identities (in general every which way we do identify ourselves). Ishwara This is the "God" (as we would understand it from the theistic point of view). In that, a God that creates, nurtures, destroys and so on. Jiva Jiva translated from sanskrit means "Living being". So Jiva is the being that lives (and the identities that we use for ourselves, are in context of, with reference to this). The Two-level theory of Reality In Vedanta, there are two levels of Reality (or Truth), one being called the Vyavaharika Satya and other other being the Paramarthika Satya. Satya comes from the sanskrit word "Sat" or "Substantial/Existence/Reality/Truth". Vyavahar in sanskirt stands for "Use" or "Usage". So Vyavaharika is that which is used - so our everyday lives, world and interactions fall in this category. Paramartha is sanskrit is a compound consisting of Parama (Ultimate) and Artha (Meaning/Value). So Paramarthika is that which is of Ultimate Meaning/Value. All of Vedanta is about putting into context the dynamics between Brahman, Atman, Ishwara and Jiva, using the two-level theory of Reality (I'm being reductionistic here, but its a good starting point). We can revise these statements/semantics after (if we do have) discussions in this regard here. The 10 Principal Upanishads The following are the 10 principal Upanishads, that form the core of Vedanta. I will refer to the associated "Mukhya Upanishads" (or Main Upanishads) page i wikipedia for this: Īṣa, (ŚYV) "The Inner Ruler" Kena (SV) "Who moves the world?" Kaṭha (KYV) "Death as Teacher" Praṣna, (AV) "The Breath of Life" Muṇḍaka (AV) "Two modes of Knowing" Māṇḍūkya (AV) "Consciousness and its phases" Taittirīya (KYV) "From Food to Joy" Aitareya, (ṚV) "The Microcosm of Man" Chāndogya (SV) "Song and Sacrifice" Bṛhadāraṇyaka (ŚYV) These are the dasopanishads (or 10 upanishads) that form the core of Vedanta. The parenthesized acronyms are the Vedas they are associated with. SYV - Shukla Yajur Veda (White Yajur Veda) SV - Sama Veda KYV - Krishna Yajur Veda (Black Yajur Veda) AV - Atharva Veda RV - Rg Veda The Relation between Vedanta and other systems originating out of India The other systems that originated out of India (Darsanas) can be categorized as Astika (Theistic) or Nastika (Atheistic): Astika Systems The following six systems are Astika systems Purva Mimamsa (Ritualists) Sankhya Yoga Vaisheshika (Atomists) Nyaya (Logicians) Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta) Nastika Systems The nastika systems are: Jaina (Jainism) Bauddha (Buddism) Charvaka (Materialists) Where do the Tantras fit? Nama Rupa What is this concept? Nama = Name/label, Rupa = form/shape. So Nama Rupa is a key concept in the understanding of Vedanta. It lends towards comprehension of the two levels of reality/truth concept. A relatively long time ago, there were discussions on phenomena, noumena, etc here on TTB. Nama Rupa needs to be understood to be able to ascertain (first intellectually, then experientially) what it is that is Paramartha, beyond mundane reality. Nama Rupa is the basis of what is called a "Categorical framework" in philosophy. Nama (as in Label) and Rupa (as in form) give substance to what we view, how we view it and what interpretations we give to it. <more to come>

The Indian traditional view, as far as my knowledge goes. My views on Vedanta are there in the OP (and it is a WIP that's halted right now. but I will continue to add it to as time and energy permits). Perhaps you should create another thread and post your views there? I don't know how many people actually read and were helped by the Vedanta "boot camp" that is the OP, but my hope it that at least a few are. You should do the same in an alternate thread - Call it "Vedanta Basics - Part 2" (or whatever else pleases your heart). Unless of course my conceding "defeat" is more important to you. Then I humbly bow out of this discussion - my energy is better used else where

That is up to the moderators. It is not about philosophical taste. It is about whether tradition considers all commentaries on Vedanta as mainstream Vedanta. Traditionally there are 3 main schools of Vedanta. The interpretations that you mention are identical/based on the Dvaita commentaries on the Upanishads. That is my position on it. But like I said, you don't have to be limited or restricted by my statements - I'm a fool who doesn't usually know his butt from his head Feel free to post what you want where you want. Those who are interested will participate and read Peace and well being to you brother.

Yes it is. I authored this thread and it is my perspective of what the Vedanta Basics look like. If you have alternate views, feel free to post another topic on it.

Yeah I don't consider the Hare Krishna stuff valid Vedanta interpretations

Sometimes we lay too much weight on IQ and intelligence. My experience is that the "truth" as it were, needs a dropping of "intelligence" (as in applying our standard categorical frameworks). We are often too smart of our own good...and the more intelligent we are, the greater our propensity for self-delusion...

I don't think Vallabhacharya's system is considered part of the traditional 3 interpretations of the Upanishads. That doesn't mean there isn't much to be learnt from it. Please add more thoughts on it in your own words - your understanding of this

There is no such thing as far as I am aware. There was a person called Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, who founded the ISKCON movement - but he has nothing to do with Vedanta imho. The ISCKON/Hare Krishna movement is about Gaudiya Vaishnavism and not about Vedanta.

There is always that risk (and we see a lot of cases that are so). Like I said, this is not for everyone.

Ego is an integral part of our dualistic existence. As long as we have to function in this dualistic world, we need an "I" (varies from I need to eat, drink, to I need to wear clothes, have shelter, etc at the very least). My teacher told me "Ego is a tool that can be used productively. The key is to not let Ego control you...but you have to control Ego". Even with spiritual attainment, the Ego grows commensurate to the spiritual progress. The opposite of the "I am nothing to become everything" paradigm is the "I become everything to become nothing" paradigm. Instead of negating our existence, a good way is to expand our existence - so everything is a part of me, and I am part of everything else. So much so that compassion develops for everything and everyone. But that's not the way for everyone...imho.

Let's start an alternate thread for it. Typically discussions in my experience tend to gravitate towards Jalpa ... Of course reductio ad absurdum is the position of vitanDa and has been used by pandits in the past. I don't like it personally because it leads to lot of heartburn and vitiates the discussions/environment. Don't think Samvada is a likelihood here on TTB (Even Vada is often Jalpa or VitanDa in disguise).

You mean Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari? These aren't necessarily about dialogue but about the levels of meditative immersion/advancement in meditation...

The author of The Ramayana, Maharishi Valmiki was a murderer and a robber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmiki

Chakras are merging and distribution centers for the network of meridians through with energy flows in the body. These are called Nadis (meridians) and energy is called Prana (qi). The explanation of forces affecting the body is at a gross level. At a finer level, there are energies that are essentially following similar patterns. The Ayurveda/yoga system recognizes prana being categorized into 5 types of "winds" (Pancha Vayu) that have specific functions on the energetics of the body (and as a result there of, the biology of the body). They are called "Prana, Vyana, Apana, Udana and Samana". This link has a good introductory article on the subject -- http://www.yogabasics.com/learn/the-five-vayus/ So now, these 5 types of energy (essentially same prana, but due to direction of flow, vibration patterns etc) are what interconnect the 7 major centers (and many more minor ones) to create a 'network' of intelligent energy within the body.