dwai

Okay for the last time... For something to be a phenomenon, it has to have a beginning and an end. It is shown that Brahman is beyond that, Brahman is emptiness, a void, nirguna. It cannot be a phenomenon.

It is not possible to do a phenomenological inquiry into something that is not phenomenal. If you think Buddhism does that, you are wrong. No one can.

This had been written through me a few years back on The Medha Journal (The Six Verses to Liberation) The Six verses to Liberation A great Indian philosopher -- Adi Shankaracharya wrote a poem about two thousand years ago. It is called "Atma Shatakam" (also known as Nirvana Shatakam) -- the Six verses on the Self. In this, Shiva is Sat Chid Ananda (or Existence Consciousness Bliss) and is a narration of what he is. Sanskrit Mano Buddhyahamkara Chittani naham| Nacha Shrotra Jihve Na Cha Ghrana Netre|| Nacha Vyoma Bhoomir Na Tejo Na Vayu| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| Na Cha Prana Samjno Na Vai Pancha Vayu| Na Va Saptadhatur Na Va Pancha Koshah|| Na Vak Pani Padau Na Chopastha Payu| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| Na Me Dvesha Ragau Na Me Lobha Mohau| Mado Naiva Me Naiva Matsarya Bhavah|| Na Dharmo Na Chartho Na Kamo Na Mokshah| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| Na Punyam Na Papam Na Saukhyam Na Dukkham| Na Mantro Na Teertham Na Vedo Na Yajnaha|| Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhokta| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| Na Me Mrityu Shanka Na Me Jati Bhedah| Pita Naiva Me Naiva Mata Na Janma|| Na Bandhur Na Mitram Gurur Naiva Shishyah| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| Aham Nirvikalpo Nirakara Roopaha| Vibhur Vyapya Sarvatra Sarvendriyanam|| Sada Me Samatvam Na Muktir Na Bandhah| Chidananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham|| English I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (chitta). I am not the five senses. I am beyond that. I am not the ether, nor the earth, nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. Neither can I be termed as energy (prana), nor five types of breath (vayus), nor the seven material essences, nor the five coverings (pancha-kosha). Neither am I the five instruments of elimination, procreation, motion, grasping, or speaking. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. I have no hatred or dislike, nor affiliation or liking, nor greed, nor delusion, nor pride or haughtiness, nor feelings of envy or jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kama), nor even liberation (moksha). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. I have neither merit (virtue), nor demerit (vice). I do not commit sins or good deeds, nor have happiness or sorrow, pain or pleasure. I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas). I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death. I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence, nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. I am all pervasive. I am without any attributes, and without any form. I have neither attachment to the world, nor to liberation (mukti). I have no wishes for anything because I am everything, everywhere, every time, always in equilibrium. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. Everytime I read this, recite this or hear it being recited, a very unusual reaction occurs in my body. A deep sorrow/anguish is wrenched out from the depths of my heart (literally the chest region) and I feel like I'm going to burst into tears. I don't know why or how this has such an effect on me. Most of times, I cannot look beyond the emotional aspect of this poem. Sometimes when I do, I get some insights... What is Consciousness? Different people call it different things -- God, Tao, Brahman. The Material universe exists as a differentiation of this primordial Consciousness. When you are conscious, you don't need words to express/explain. Once you have words to explain something, you lose the Consciousness and get lost in the trappings of grammar. Lao Tzu (in the Classic of the Macrocosm and the Microcosm -- Tao Te Ching) refers to this as "The Real Tao cannot be spoken. If it can be spoken it is not the Real Tao". Read the last three verses in which Shiva is describing himself (or is it Shankara?) -- I am not of the triad of observer or one who is experiencing, not the observed or that which is being experienced. I am beyond all that. I have no beginning nor end. I have no attributes. Is that what Real Consciousness is? If that is real, then what do we have? Artificial Consciousness? Perhaps what we have is not consciousness at all? Perhaps it is just responses to stimulii, conditioned by Society and Nature to react in a specific manner to a specific sequence of observations. Pure Consciousness transcends all of this, this entire game of observing and experiencing. Pure Consciousness simply IS. So how do/when do we get know that this Pure Consciousness exists? I don't know the answer to that. In those rare unguarded (by Intellect) moments when Pure Consciousness acts on us, coming to us in form of Intuitions, insights and realizations, maybe we realize that there is something that is both within us and yet without us. To get to this "thing", we have first lose ourselves within ourselves. Hmm...interesting thoughts there. My Tai Chi Master tells us about the Tai Chi Classics (a compilation of Aphorisms much akin to the Yoga Sutras) and of this cardinal rule of Tai Chi meditation -- Every part must be connected to every other part. This is (now I understand) in reference to being aware of the entirety of the self (not just the body parts physically), but the little quantum (Te) of the whole (Tao) that exists within each of us (it resides in the Lower Dan tien or Swadhisthana Chakra). Without first transcending the barriers of our social conditioning and intellect, that breaks us up into finite chunks of lesser reality -- the Physical (my hand, my foot, my finger, my hair, my blood, my heart and so on) and the Mental (my brain, my intellect, my mind), we cannot experience the full flow of the higher reality. And this re-integration of the differentiated Consciousness continues, on and on, until we can regain the totality of ourselves (beyond our selves), as the One Ultimate Consciousness. References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatakam

Actually you are right. It should be Aatman for Pure/Objectless Consciousness and Jiva for objective consciousness, where Jiva is the unlimited Aatman limited by the mechanism of Upadhi. It is Jiva that superimposes

Objectless Consciousness is aatman. Consciousness with Subject and Object is Manas and Chitta.

doesn't seem like it helped with your "moodhata" though. Keep trying...I'm sure one day...maybe...

I really don't have anything to say to you except Bhaja Govindam Moodhamate!

Seems like Taoists and Vedantins are allowed to discard the framework. Instead of looking at the finger that points to the moon, we have the capability to see the moon in all it's beauty. It took me 20+ pages of mayhem to *really* understand what Lao Tzu said about Tao. It cannot be described. If an attempt is made to describe it, it really is not the real Tao. Since we as subjects will always try to superimpose our categorical framework onto the Tao. It can only be experienced.

I guess safety IS in numbers...or is it?

Doesn't matter. Everything is Brahman anyway.

you would be amusing if you weren't so fanatical. I hope you manage to realize that Dependent Origination is just another framework. To get to the "real" no-thing, you have to drop it. Another thing -- I am proud of my Hindu heritage. Unlike converts like you(who try and overcompensate their late arrival to a particular tradition with dogmatic fanaticism), I don't have any compelling reason to prove that "my way" is the "Best way". My way is simply a way. And if you remember, the purpose of this thread was to show similarities not differences. My intention never was to show that Buddhism is not good or that Advaita is better. May your intellect be sharpened to be able to break through the veil of Avidya that your attachment to DO has cast on your chitta. Meanwhile, I will take refuge in my attempts to be Sat Chit Ananda.

For a 34-year old you seem to have done a lot mahaprabhu! You don't even understand what you are frothing in the mouth about. You are stuck in the framework of Dependent Origination. Superimposition is precisely that. When a Jiva superimposes a framework on Brahman, they will see exactly what their framework intends them to see. That's why all the great masters have said that Brahman/Tao/Sunyata cannot be intellectually understood. They have to be experienced. The way to do that is by ceasing the modifications of the mind. For the Advaita Vedantin, the framework has to be discarded. I guess there IS a difference between Buddhism and Vedanta after all. Buddhists are stuck in the rut of their categorical framework while the Taoists and Advaitins are working towards their liberation. I appreciate xabir2005 of all the "contestants" here. He is respectful while trying to debate. Here's something for you to mull over Hari -- Adhjal ghagari chalkat jaye! Ask those "many" indians what this means. Oh...but you probably already know what means...oh half-empty pot of perfection!

Dear SiliconValley, I understand that the other thread was triggered by me and that many (including yourself) might not agree with me. But the fact of the matter is that Tao, Brahman, Sunyata cannot really be described. We can try and try but no use. It is the culmination and fruition of dedicated practice. We are all travellers on the same path. How can words or rational minds encapsulate something that doesn't even belong to the realm where words and ration thinking works? Words, intellect, etc work at the phenomenal level. Brahman, Tao etc are completely separate from these levels. Nothing from the material level can fathom it. No words can capture it's essence. All we can do is try and use various frameworks of categorization and recognition to realize this fact. Tao can only be experienced. And no amount of mental gymnastics can capture this experience in words. In effect, my purpose with the other thread was to show, that Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism all point to this fact. Only way to understand Tao is to become Tao.

When that level of realization is reached, the "You" has been transcended. There is not separation, there simply is being. When you witness, there is an object to be witnessed. Where is this object? Where is this witness? What is being superimposed upon? That is Objectless Consciousness. That is Brahman. That is emptiness. You cannot have a separation of Witness and Witnessed without giving rise to duality (if there is a witness, there is a subject, there is an object). Only way non-duality can arise is when there is no object, no witness, no subject.

the shortcoming i'm afraid is in you. if you understood frameworks you would know... since you are on the framework bandwagon, you must know that truth-claims made within the frameworks are relative right? Will be glad to elucidate if you like. All paths are not equal. Some are easier, some are hard. The underlying existent that every path is alluding to is the same. ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti All that is an etic perspective. to understand something you have to be part of it. You cannot learn to swim without jumping into the water. Well I'm not the one strutting around about how my "tradition" is the best... who told you Advaita Vedanta claims that Brahman is a self? It is non-phenomenal. It is not an object, or an entity. It simply is. It always has been and will always be. No creator, no maker, not a creator, not a maker. It is pure objectless consciousness, which has always been and will always be. Dependent Origination is a concept. It demonstrates that all phenomena are interdependent and therefore empty of self-nature and self-existence. The question then arises, why do phenomena exist? Brahman is not a substratum but every phenomenon is an appearance of it via superimposition. Those who have realized this fact have articulated this in various ways. But that (whatever you choose to call it), cannot be articulated. It is beyond the realms of mind, reason, material objectivity. It simply is. That is Brahman. So where did the first mind stream come from?

And with this "pedigree" you deem yourself an expert into the "Hindu" psyche and gleam a complete understanding of their "dogmatic" nature? Whatever! I was born in India into a kuleen brahmin household which draws it's roots from the early ages of the Vedic civilization. I had my upanayanam and do my daily oblations till date, but I still haven't figured out what "Orthodox Hinduism is" or where the "dogma" of the Hindu exists. As a matter of fact, Hindus are perhaps the only collective group of people who consider all sincere ways to liberation as valid (some are easier, some are harder) and don't make any claims to exclusivity (which automatically reflects the fears and insecurity and/or stupidity of the system that makes such claims). As no two people are the same, no two paths are the same. Some choose devotion (Bhakti), some choose Karma (Impeccable action), some choose Jnana (wisdom) and some choose Raja (the 8-limb path of Yoga). Mostly everyone has to do all the above in various permutations and combinations. Don't mistake pauranic concepts to be those of Vedanta. They are not. Vedanta is important for those who practice Jnana Yoga. It is not the way for 95% of Hindus in the world. These 95% probably follow a combination of Bhakti and Karma. It is not the calling of most people to delve into the matters of liberation. Go to any Buddhist nation in the world and see what percentage of these actually do any of the practices/introspections themselves. They are merely content kow-towing to the monks and deities (thin Buddhas, fat buddhas, short buddhas, stout buddhas, laughing buddhas, angry buddhas, and so on). The bottom line is, you don't know much about Hinduism. Your hubris is valid in North America where you and your community might have been an exception. If you want to learn about Hinduism, go live in India for at least 10 years. First 2 years you'll hate everything and everyone. Then the next 4 years you'll curse yourself for having gone there. The last 4 years you'll slowly realize that everything you knew about Hinduism was only .05% of it and at that, you misunderstood most of it. It is evident in your behaviours and actions. When you have been brought down to earth a few notches and your ego is a little subsided, you might learn something of value. That said, let us continue with your education. So it is eternal?

What is your mind stream? Does awareness have a beginning and an end?

Who/what is aware? Awareness of who/what?

Can you define consciousness? Upadhi

Hmm...if it is empty of objects, it is empty. When there is objectless consciousness, does the concept of "I" even arise? If there is an I, the "I" is an object too? Upadhi...

That doesn't make sense logically. If something witnesses something else, then that something is an object that the subject (who is experiencing) is witnessing. If that is the case, then there are objects in the consciousness that is witnessing them. If that is the case, then it cannot be anything but objective consciousness (one which as objects in it). Okay, let's do it this way. You define consciousness and then I will respond. It seems we have a syntactical mismatch. Turiya -- I am not saying that it is not there in other states. Ceasing the modifications of the mind is in effect realizing that fact.

I am tempted to keeping posting, but that won't do justice to my professional duties. I will post follow-ups to my previous summary in detail later this evening. But what Advaita says is this -- Objectless consciousness is not Witnessing presence. Witnessing presence has to be objective consciousness, since there are objects in it. When modifications of the mind is completely ceased, as in there are no objects (thoughts, etc) left, that which remains is Brahman. We enter this state already in deep sleep. This is Turiya.

True...Maya is called Illusory. But that doesn't imply that they are unreal/non-existent. If you understand DO and Adhyasa correctly, Maya is a reference to the relatively real forms, shapes, sizes, thoughts, etc that are caused by superimposition. They are interdependent and are phenomenal. They are empty. Vedanta doesn't consider them non-existent. That would be a stupid thing to do, for are we not living in this samsara? You have not understood Vedantic thought. Suffering is due to ignorance, avidya. I will not comment on the "Goal" of Buddhism. I am interested in the message. And you haven't convinced me that the message is different.

How exactly were you a Hindu? By Birth? Or by association? What is your lineage? Being Hindu implies being immersed in the culture and tradition. Mine is directly traced to Sage Sandilya. I was born into a family of Santanis who have always been thus. My family tradition is Shakta. My Grandfather was an exponent of Vedanta. My maternal grand-uncle is a Sanyasi and Advaitin. Disclaimer: This is not to be construed as credentials that I want to flaunt around etc (lest I be accused of that). My purpose of posting this is to ascertain the level of "Hinduness" of Thunderheart. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not Hindu by origin, but perhaps by association (perhaps one or both his parents were members of the New-Age movement etc)? Re-cap of what I have posted: emptiness as implied by the principle of dependent origination (meaning everything is connected to everything else and nothing can exist on it's own) establishes that all material things in this universe are empty (lacking own-nature and own-existence). Anything that has a beginning and an end (ie time-bound) is a phenomena and all phenomena (which are objects of our intellect/mind/awareness) are empty (of self-existence and self-nature). Buddist and Vedantic teachings talk about two-truths, Vyavaharika/samvritti Satya and Paramartha Satya (or Lower and Higher truths, respectively). All Material universe is in the realm of lower truth, as everything is time-bound and phenomenal. As a result, it is empty (of self-nature and self-existence). Higher Truth is non-phenomenal (or devoid of phenomena) and is not time or space bound. Being Higher Truth, Tao, Brahman and Sunyata is also emptiness, by virtue of being empty of phenomena. And since it doesn't logically make sense to consider plurality of these (since there is no objectivity to these in the phenomenal/material sense), it logically makes sense to consider these to be one and the same. There is no causal relationship between Material universe (Phenomena) and Higher Truth (or Ultimate Truth). The relationship is a result of superimposition of categorical frameworks on the Higher Truth. So phenomena are a result of superimposing various categorical frameworks on Higher Truth or Brahman/Tao/Sunyata (B/T/S). So in other words, all phenomena and the material universe is an image, a reflection, an appearance. Hence they are empty. This concept is called Maya in Vedanta. B/T/S is empty. But it is also the fount of all phenomena/objects of material universe by virtue of superimposition. The Categorical framework being applied is by the observer which is objective consciousness. Once Yoga (replace with meditation/tai chi/ba gua/tao gong/what have you) is applied to remove the modifications of the mind, what remains is objectless consciousness. Because it is objectless, it is non-phenomenal. This is called Aatman in Vedanta. This objectless consciousness being non-phenomenal is Higher Truth. Being Higher Truth, it logically makes sense to consider Aatman and Brahman to be one and the same -- Emptiness.