dwai

Not sure I understood. The translation of what you wrote comes across as follows — This kind of attention-expanding exercise is called the "Four Major" concept in Buddhism. It has been mentioned in Nan Huaijin's book that I practised this practice more than 30 years ago, but it is not suitable for the law. I don’t understand what you meant by “not suitable for the law”. FWIW I didn’t learn this from any book whatsoever - rather, It is a result of my own experience and understanding, based on years of practice. I only shared it because OP seems to have been struggling with understanding what difference between attention and intention is. Also providing a step-by-step guide to try it out for themselves would be helpful in knowing it directly. But for all of this to occur, witnessing awareness needs to be cultivated first. Once there is separation between the witnessing awareness and the mind-body phenomena, rest becomes easy to teach. For witnessing awareness to manifest, all that is needed is any mechanically repetitive process, like watching the breath. It’s like churning butter from milk/cream — with sufficient repetition, butter naturally separates. Similarly with sufficient repetition of any mechanical action, awareness naturally separates itself, to start witnessing.

For the OP, attention is passive. Intention is active. Attention and intention are two aspects of the mind. To see very easily, focus on your thoughts and in this very moment, simply give it 100% focus, to watch your mind for the next thought to rise. That is attention. Take your time, observe, don’t make any judgement of what happens, just observe, repeat, 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute and so on. Next, direct your mind to the palm of your left hand. Keep it there. That is intention. Intention directs your mind. Now let it rest on the palm of your left hand. Just let your mind rest there. That is attention. After sometime, shift your attention to the right palm. Rest it there. When you are able to stay in one point of a few minutes without wavering, start with your attention on the left palm, and expand the area to your right palm as well. That is your attention expanding to cover more than one point at a time. With time, and practice, your mind can expand to cover more than point - your entire body, then your energy field and beyond. When you can rest your mind, observing the entirety, that is expanded attention.

Watch this video for a good, practical explanation.

Standing in wuji posture is yin-yang balanced. ZZ in other postures is a combination of different proportions of yin-yang. What is the mental state/focus? That could also determine whether the practice is more yin or more yang. What we do at the beginner level in Temple-style Taiji - where we stand and let gravity do its trick, just releasing naturally, without forcing it. Then focus changes depending on what we're trying to achieve -- sometimes standing still doesn't mean more "yin" because as the body is still, the energy is being moved using mind-intent. Sometimes moving doesn't mean more "yang", because the body is following the flow of the energy without any mental efforts. To echo @Taomeow - you can't have yin without yang, and you can't have yang without yin. They go together and complement each other.

I am not saying Kashmir Shaivism is not an Advaita (Nondual) tradition. I am saying, Kashmir Shaivism doesn't use Brahman/Atman terminology. There are certainly differences in perspective between Advaita Vedanta and KS, and certainly, there is some bickering between the two as well (but not a huge dispute). The differences are in the description of the Ultimate State. Such differences are also there between Buddhism, Daoism, and so on. But these are still, in the domain of duality (description). AV says Brahman is ultimately changeless (satyam), and all changes occurring are appearances only (mithya). But also says, the appearance is none other than Brahman itself, as is the individual being (Jiva). KS says, Shiva's bliss manifests as vibration (spanda) and the material universe is a result of that spanda. Coming out of Shiva, it is also real, since how can something unreal come out of something real? But KS also says that the Individual being (Jiva) is none other than Shiva. There is not much difference as it pertains to Brahman or Shiva being Consciousness. AV - Prajnanam Brahma (Brahman is Consciousness) KS - Shuddha Savmit (Pure Consciousness)

That should be the norm in such discussions. We agree on a definition, learn the other side's perspective and then discuss/discourse. It is germane to the topic in hand because we are discussing nondual principles and using terminology used in Advaita Vedanta (and Vedanta in general). One can't use Brahman and Atman outside the scope of Vedanta. If one is discussing non-duality using said terminology, it is Advaita Vedanta, not any other school of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, and so on. So then, one should either use the correct definition/syntax or stop borrowing/mistranslating, so as to not mislead people into thinking they are actually learning Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta. That is true for Indic spiritual traditions too. For instance, Consciousness is also called "Purusha". But specifically, Purusha is primarily used in Samkhya, not so much in Vedanta. Shiva is also used in Vedanta, but to mean "auspicious", not how Shiva is used in Kashmir Shaivism, for instance. Both Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism use "Chaitanyam" and "Atma" in a similar way. So in discussions between those traditions, that could be used as mutually agreed upon terminology. This process of agreeing upon definitions and understanding the other's perspective is called 'purva paksha' -- without which, discourse is meaningless. That is fair. Leaving aside dualist systems for the topic at hand, what actually IS nondual can't be different between traditions. Concepts and theories can be different, language can be different. Experiences can be different too...but none of them actually are "Nondual" in nature. They can only be pointers to the nondual reality that is being alluded to. That is what I mean by nondual principles or "siddhanta". So, it is very important, IMHO to reconcile terminology before discussing these topics. I always try to do so, otherwise, we will end up constantly shouting/talking past each other.

To state that the claim is absurd, doesn’t not necessarily mean the person is too. The role of incorrect/incomplete information in forming erroneous opinions is well known. I don’t understand what your issue is. Is that an opinion you too hold personally? In the context of nondual principles? Is that what is the problem here? Or is it a misunderstanding on your part as to what I found as being absurd? If so, then it is simply the conclusion drawn by the person, and not the person themselves. I noticed that you edited the quoted text and added this in parentheses that I didn’t actually type — “ (and I'd say it is not a matter of a thing as you are labeling)“ Is it safe to assume that you didn’t actually mean to modify what I wrote?

Not sure what you mean. Whom did I demean? Absurd means something that doesn’t make sense/is illogical. I have explained what I find to be that way, and why. To have common purpose of understanding we can’t be talking past each other — we are not talking about “other schools of Hinduism” here, we are conversing about Advaita principles - siddhanta. If someone came from dvaita/vishisthadvaita school, I’ll say, I don’t want to comment on it, as I don’t subscribe to it. More power to you if you do, but we don’t have anything to talk about in this context.

I think the challenge lies in a basic difference in how "awareness" or "consciousness" is being positioned. In the Dharmic traditions, especially in the context of Advaita (or Nonduality), Consciousness is not the process of knowing, but the cause of knowing. We find many examples which illustrate this -- Brahman is likened to the Sun, whose light makes seeing possible. Clearly light is not the process of seeing, but that which allows seeing to happen. Similarly, Consciousness (aka Brahman/Atman) is that which allows knowing to happen -- not the process of knowing itself. So, when we say "expansion of awareness", we are referring to the process of knowing. But according to Advaita traditions, awareness is unbounded/infinite/everpresent already. That's why terminology and proper understanding of said terminology are very germane to such discussions. For example, one modern teacher of Advaita (neo-advaita IMHO), differentiates between "Brahman" and "Parabrahman". They claim that parabrahman is "beyond brahman", and "Brahman" is the experience of sat-chit-ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). But anyone with some degree of knowledge of Advaita Vedanta can point out the flaw in that. Brahman and Parabrahman are used as substitutes for Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. So, Saguna meaning with attributes (so in form of Ishwara or a more personified deity representation like Krishna or Shiva), versus Nirguna, meaning without any attributes -- so pure consciousness itself. When someone doesn't understand this contextually and takes "parabrahman" to literally be a thing beyond "brahman" (which is already considered infinite, unknowable, and so on), it is simply absurd. The challenge also gets exacerbated when people don't understand that Consciousness can never become an object of knowledge. It is like the saying, "how does one know one has eyes"? Do they need to look in a mirror to know that? Of course not -- the very fact of seeing reveals that they have eyes. Similarly, the very process of "knowing" reveals the consciousness behind it. The expansion/contraction is of the mind, which is where consciousness is reflected for the individual being's knowing to be possible. Additionally, in Advaita inquiry, a rule of thumb is, “anything you experience is not it”. So, admittedly, it is possible through the power of meditation etc, to experience mystical states — which can be taken to be “satchidananda”. But satchidananda is not an experience — it is a realization. In context of Brahman, Bliss doesn’t mean raptures of bliss experienced. Rather, “ananda” means absence of dissatisfaction. Or perfect contentment/fullness itself. Sat doesn’t mean “it exists”, but is existence/being itself. Chit doesn’t mean “it is conscious”, but it is consciousness itself. This is expressed far better here -

Fair enough, and most likely I will. But it might be a worthwhile endeavor if our interest is in getting to a common ground of understanding. Of course, we could leave things to lay as they are, and none will be the poorer from it, except, of course, understanding. This is not the first time I've stated what I have, though I think it is the first time I've put together various elements to show "WHY" such contentions of "beyond awareness" don't make sense. Of course, one might be inclined to say, "It is so, because it is beyond sense, as sense and nonsense are dualistic concepts". But that seems to be a massive cop-out and does this entire endeavor a disservice. Of course, that's your prerogative. But you (and others who subscribe to a similar line of thinking) seem to deliberately ignore what the "sanskrit" terminology is pointing toward -- that the usual (modern/western) way of treating "mind/consciousness/awareness" as one (nebulous) thing is actually a result of misunderstanding/lack of clarity on the topic. This is what leads to much confusion in the world of modern sciences as well -- leading to "the hard problem of consciousness", where mind and consciousness are conflated.

Well, clearly it has struck a chord. Why does it do so, if someone is so sure about their assertions? I am honest that I find it ludicrous. Okay maybe ludicrous is a loaded word, how about incredulous? Or Baffling, surprising, and so on? Not really about “inter-sect” arguments from my perspective. It is quite telling to see usual candidates stop by to chide/complain when their pet position is questioned (and wait long enough and one will surely chime in with sagacious prose on why I am wrong), but none will address the actual explanation why I found what I found to be “ludicrous” ! well, why don’t you try it here, based on the OP? How do you make this “more all-encompassing and complete”? BTW, something about the topic was written thousands of years ago in the Upanishads. If the shoe fits. Can’t comment about other Asian countries, but misunderstanding/mistranslations I have only seen in the English language. Maybe possible in other European languages too. The OP was about how incorrect usage/translation/approximation of very clearly defined concepts in the native language lead to misunderstandings. There’s a Tai chi saying which is quite apropos on this topic — how even if you are off by an inch at the start, you might be a thousand miles off your destination by the end of your journey.

that’s what I’m saying too — mind is not in the brain. The brain is a receiver/transmitter only, like the TV signal exists outside the TV/antenna. Yes I know how that works — been there, done that, etc. It’s a lot of fun, until it is not (especially if we are not careful and share presence willy-nilly, as if it is a new toy). When people are unprepared, it can be quite scary for them. I did that with a group of friends a while back, and they said they felt “high”. Of course, its your prerogative

Consciousness is all there is. It exists on its own, without a second. It has no characteristics that one may perceive of in an objective manner. We (Hindus) say it is existence-consciousness-bliss (satchidananda). So it’s not that it exists, but is existence itself. It’s not that it is conscious, but is consciousness itself. It’s not that it’s blissful, but is bliss/fullness itself. There is an apparent “self”ness — as affixed by the ego. This is of course erroneous.

Please re-read the OP. What you describe as “requiring” a brain is what is called the “mind” in the Indic traditions, made up of subtle matter. The brain simply acts as a receiver/transmitter of this substance. This light body business is very messy too - I’ve spent a few years investigating this, and have not found anything to convince me that it is in any way different from consciousness (or awareness). This is why syntax is so important when communicating these topics — in the traditions I’m coming from, there is “chit” or “chaitanya”, which people have translated varyingly as consciousness or awareness. The Nisargadatta Maharaj translators have opted to use “awareness” to mean the ever-present illuminating presence, while “consciousness” to mean phenomenal knowing. It is a choice made by the translators, it is not actually what NDM said in his native Marathi (in which he used the same terminology I’ve used above).

All the references to scripture I’ve seen are also misunderstood/mistranslated. Read Ramana Maharishi’s response to this “turiyatita” business — he explains it as simply the recognition that turiya is not the “fourth” state but the ever-present consciousness in all experiences. This absence of knowing is an intermediate state, and is nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a precursor to sahaja samadhi, which is not in an absent mind, but rather a non-grasping, non-agitated mind. In fact, we go into this absence state every night in deep sleep. Only difference is, “ordinary” people don’t retain awareness of this absence (of objects) as their awareness is covers by tamas. BTW, FWIW, I’ve spent many months in that “absence” state — where I was completely aware in deep sleep, only there were no objects present - only presence. This presence continues through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. It’s hard to describe what that deep sleep is like - but seems like you’ve been there too, based on your description. This state became natural and I stopped paying any special attention/consideration to it. It’s not a matter of me knowing “better” — I’ve seen way too much “mystification” of the process and of “enlightenment” itself, so this is my way to help people (anyone who cares to heed my words) to investigate for themselves. I didn’t ridicule anyone, just find the the premise of “beyond awareness” ludicrous, based on my own realization. Please feel free to ignore this topic if it upsets you.

Can we discuss that in another thread? I don’t want to derail this topic. The appearance (jiva) recognizes/realizes. In KS terms, “jiva becomes shiva”.

Funny thing is, after realization, even realization is recognized as merely an appearance. wrote this a while back, which might be helpful to curious minds — https://www.medhajournal.com/the-unbroken-samadhi-underlying-thoughts/

There is no “reaching”, as one is already Brahman - only the veil of ignorance can be parted. Once parted, and true nature as Brahman is realized, it will never again be veiled.

All the Upanishads say the same thing, in different words. As does the Bhagavad Gita.

That's another good question. How Vedanta (and indeed Hindu dharmic traditions) views unreal is, that which is impermanent. Impermanent is unreal, permanent is real. So, Consciousness is "real" and phenomena witnessed by consciousness are "unreal". The implication is that, by realizing the "Real", it will become apparent that the "unreal" is not apart from the "real", but rather made of that same reality, through and through (aka awareness). Such as ornaments made of gold, pots made of clay, and so on. There is a process of pointing to something that is very subtle, in dharmic traditions, called the Arundhati Darshana Nyaya. Most of these teachings use that method -- direct pointing won't help most seekers, so indirect pointing is used. P.S. There is no "beyond awareness". How does one know? Is there any way to "know" other than awareness?

Good question! The unreal is superimposed upon the real, like the images of a movie are superimposed upon the movie screen. So, let us go from the unreal (appearances) to the real (consciousness). In the Yantra sadhana (though I'm not personally trained in it), the meditation process takes the individual from the outer to inner, surface to origin (bindu). It is very important to understand that Non-dual knowledge has to be realized. The process of realization can take many forms, including worship, action, yoga, and contemplation. Why? Because different individuals have different dispositions due to karma. So different means are provided.

Nicely done! But “beating” out the flames? How big does that fire have to be?!? 😱 P.S. the previous laughemoji was in appreciation of your quick wit (as highlighted in the quoted portion here)

Why would a person "spontaneously" start to beat the pregnant lady (or anyone for that matter)? Why do you think that violence is a natural action that arises spontaneously? That kind of violence is a result of an animalistic, survival instinct.

I'd put it as True Virtue is unselfish. Depending on which tradition one is coming from, Self and "no-self" are defined and approached very differently. Sri Sri Ravishankar says this --

That is a BIG assumption imho/IME. Atheists, I’ve found are usually reacting to younger age trauma wrt religion — they might have had dogmatic parents/family, strong guilt/sin/fear based indoctrination, been punished by authority figures (teachers ), to name a few. Atheists, typically (or at least those I’ve encountered) become so as a reaction to strong religiosity — so their dualism is a negative dualism. And usually as a result, they tend to throw out spirituality along with the religious concepts. So, God-based approaches are discarded as superstitious, and inquiry based approaches too are discarded. Even if an atheist goes down the path of an inquiry based approach, their conditioned skepticism has them second-guessing and rejecting positive experiences thereof. Of course, there are many exceptions to this as well.