forestofclarity

I've watched over a thousand hours (or more) of Swami Sarvapriyananda's videos. This is possibly one of the best I have come across. The whole video is great, but the core is probably from 15:00ish-45:00ish. Context: he is explaining the mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi: You are That.

While I agree with much of this post, I think this is a common misunderstanding from a typical Kagyu/Nyingma Buddhist perspective in my experience. This is a common question or suggestion I've seen posed to many teachers and every one of them rejected it. Everything is empty, i.e. it lacks a unitary, independent, permanent self or essence, but not everything is aware. Classic examples are pots and pillars. A pot is empty of a unitary, independent, permanent "pot nature," but we would not say that it is therefore aware. Further, specific to Nyingma based Dzogchen teachings, emptiness is generally considered a non-affirming negation, a minus without a plus. So when we say X is empty, it doesn't not mean that we are asserting anything positive about X. Of course, one is free to disagree with this perspective.

I would say that a proper conceptual understanding can be a precursor to a proper non-conceptual realization, but one is always free to disagree. Typically, we start with conceptual thinking, because that is where most of us are. Next, we replace concepts that are not aligned with the way things are with concepts that are better aligned. Of course, no concept will ever capture it, but some do a better job of leading than others, the same way that using earthly objects can guide one's attention to a faint star in the sky. Finally, we hopefully leap from the proper conceptual to the proper non-conceptual. In other words, leading one from the unreal to the real. But feel free to frame it however you want.

This is one of the things I like least about reality. Terribly inconvenient. I'm not really sure what people mean about reality since it hasn't been defined. In some circles, it tends to mean permanence and independent. Many of the observations here support the illusory nature of reality in this sense, although this appears to be the unpopular opinion in this forum.

Shankara evidently thought this was a sloppy dichotomy, so he developed the idea of mithya as a bridge.

This is a great question for investigation. What does "real" feel like? What is the basis for designation of "real"? What would an illusory tree feel like? How should a tree feel if it wasn't real? The other day, I was touching a mirror with my fingers as a dream state reality check. It was reflective, resistant to my fingers, smooth, and solid to the touch. I tried to push my finger through it, but it didn't budge. It felt like many mirrors I had touched over the course of my life. But in this case, I was dreaming. Sat/asat is usually used in the way we use "real" and "unreal" in my experience.

In an interesting twist, the "momentary" samadhi is translated alternative as "the gap between thoughts" by another translator (although he translates nirdoha from the Yoga Sutras as mastery rather than cessation). The Tripura Rahasya is referred to as an Advaita text Maharshi recommended, but this seems very clearly to be a Tantric text in my opinion.

I would say it depends on the person. People are very different. This is one reason why traditions are so broad and have so many techniques, teachings, etc. One person's essential technique is another person's pitfall. I think one of the largest errors I've come across in the Western spiritual scene is a lack of teaching on errors, mistakes, and side paths. I don't know if it is even a Maharshi quote. As far as I know, he didn't speak English and most quotes come from translated transcripts of his oral teachings. I know that he, like others, initially was in the thought-free camp when he was younger but then become more relaxed about it later. In fact, that quote seems to come straight from the Advaita Bodha Deepika, which itself is a compilation text that was then translated. The status and necessity of nirvikalpa samadhi is hotly debated. But it is not clear to me whether ABD is referring to nirvikalpa samadhi or something else. But (with the above limits in mind), Ramana did not adopt this approach overall. In talk 54, he reportedly says: "Even if one is immersed in nirvikalpa samAdhi for years together, when he emerges from it he will find himself in the environment which he is bound to have. That is the reason for the AchArya emphasising sahaja samAdhi in preference to nirvikalpa samAdhi in his excellent work vivekachUDAmaNi. One should be in spontaneous samAdhi - that is, in one's pristine state - in the midst of every environment." https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/samadhi_ramana.htm#:~:text=Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it,the world is nirvikalpa samAdhi I bring this up because there are famous, often quoted teachers with widely read English works that give misleading impressions that is often only corrected by oral teachings in person from these teachers or their direct disciples. Even written teachings leave a lot of out that is explained and clarified in person.

Sure, but keep in mind anything I say is only partial, limited, etc. Free of thought means a state where subtle visuals, sounds, feelings, and so on do not arise. Often referred to as a state of stillness. Free from thought means that thoughts come and go, and we don't try to cling to them or push them away. This referred to as movement. In some teachings, stillness= good and movement = bad. Accordingly, we should extend stillness and eliminate movement. The goal would be to have a vacant mind, free of thought. Even better if we can reach a state in which there are no appearances. The best of all is dying and then continuing in that type of state forever. Others disagree and state that movements and appearances are expressions of the divine. Not only that, but stillness and movement are not really two different things, and the underlying stillness is never really lost. The goal in this case is to stop getting confused by and entangled in thoughts and appearances, not in eliminating them in some way. Once unentangled, unobstructed divine expression manifests spontaneously and unimpeded. As Thrangu Rinpoche put it: "It’s quite easy to think that the resting mind and the moving mind have completely different natures, and that when the mind is moving, the stillness has been lost. Some students think that they must clear away the movement before the mind can be at rest. They believe that there is a contradiction between the mind at rest and the mind in motion. In fact, both the resting mind and the moving mind are the union of emptiness and luminosity. We perceive differences due to our confusion. Stillness does not obstruct motion and motion does not obstruct stillness. They are simply one inseparable entity." Hui neng (Platform Sutra trans Red Pine): "Deluded people who cling to the external attributes of a dharma get hold of One Practice Samadhi and just say that sitting motionless, eliminating delusions, and not thinking thoughts are One Practice Samadhi. But if that were true, a dharma like that would be the same as lifelessness and would constitute an obstruction of the Way instead. The Way has to flow freely. Why block it up? The Way flows freely when the mind doesn’t dwell on any dharma. Once it dwells on something, it becomes bound. If sitting motionless were right, Vimalakirti wouldn’t have criticized Shariputra for meditating in the forest." AND "And what do we mean by ‘no-thought’? The teaching of no-thought means to see all dharmas without being attached to any dharma, to reach everywhere without being attached anywhere, to keep your nature pure, so that when the Six Thieves pass through the Six Gates, they neither avoid nor are corrupted by the Six Realms of Sensation but come and go freely. This is the samadhi of prajna. Freedom and liberation constitute the practice of no-thought. But if you don’t think any thoughts at all, the moment you make your thoughts stop, you’re imprisoned by dharmas. We call this a ‘one-sided view.’"

There is a very large difference between being free from thought, and being free of thought. At least in some traditions.

Once when all the monks were out picking tea leaves the Master addressed Yangshan: "All day as we were picking tea leaves I have heard your voice, but I have not seen you yourself. Show me your original self." Yangshan thereupon shook the tea tree. The Master: "You have attained only the function, not the substance." Yangshan: "I do not know how you yourself would answer the question." The Master was silent for a time. Yangshan: "You, Master, have attained only the substance, not the function." Master Guishan: "I absolve you from twenty blows!"

So all essence, no function?

Of course, Sanskrit is one of the most precise, well defined languages, and Vedanta is one of the most conservative and intellectually rigorous spiritual traditions. I think TT is just engaging in a bit of spiritual fascism or is joking. The only comparable language and widespread spiritual tradition I am aware of is Judaism and Hebrew. The Tibetan Buddhists come as a close second, since their language over time has been molded by Buddhism.

One might argue: Isn't it about saving all sentient beings, not a personal, transactional relationship? How could someone who possess such art have any need for goodwill? And imagine how one could destroy all the fake, seminar-selling pseudo-Daoists by exposing the actual information? And if it's truly self-secret, then what harm can come? Although, most people probably won't go for it if they have to give up wine, sex, and meat.

There has been some work done about Dzogchen and Chan by Sam van Schaik, but he doesn't concur with the Chan influence theory. I believe he has updated this in his Tibetan Zen book, but here is an old article in which he suggests the influence may have gone the other way: https://www.academia.edu/34502820/Dzogchen_Chan_and_the_Question_of_Influence The Shaivism - Buddhist connection is summarized here by Wallis: http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis It is clear that there was interplay between China and Tibet, and between Buddhism and Shaivism. What I find odd is hearing a lot of overlap between a range of Tibetan Buddhist practices (including deity yoga) and Advaita Vedanta via Swami Sarvapriyananda's oral lectures. There is also a lot of overlap with Shaivism and Shaivism provides some answers to things that aren't entirely clear in the Tibetan context. This suggests to me a common source, and if I had to speculate, I think the common source in Indian Tantra as opposed to Chinese influences. But I haven't really studied it since the practice is more important than the history. However, there are some similarities between some of these practices and Daoist practices as well, particularly as related to body/energy practices. My experience is that the "secrets" of Daoist practices tend to be close held and even when disclosed, tend to be to full time practitioners.

The basic difference in my experience is that in Mahamudra, step by step meditation precedes the view whereas in Dzogchen, the view is introduced and is the meditation. There are also techniques unique to each, and ideas are transmitted with different models depending on the specific school, teacher, etc. Both have been highly flavored by the monastic, Tantric Tibetan culture in my opinion. I'll have to check it out. It seems there are a lot of parallels with Vedanta and Shaivism, and Chinese Chan. I'm curious to what the Daoist influences might be.

Why is that? Genuinely curious.

In my mind, the knowing should be direct. We do have conceptions, but these are little swirls in the pool of mind-stuff. A good concept is one that leads one toward the non-conceptual absolute. For instance, Ramana proposes one examine the I-thought or aham vritti. It is still a vritti, an object, but ii is a better object than others because it is "closer" to the absolute than other objects. Still, it is like trying to build a physical scale model of absolute space, or an ice sculpture of the ocean, or using words to describe the background screen on which they appear. Focus on the words and one may miss the lighted background. It is better to find out for oneself rather than fill the mind full of thoughts about it. However, some personal observations follow: Initially, these seem like opposing tendencies in my experience. Also initially, the more one focuses on and interacts with objects, the more the objectless background tends appear to fade and tends to be hidden in alignment with the "perceptions are mental" points. Objects become more and more pronounced, solidified, and feel more "real." However, a shift "toward" the background (or inherent nature) has the opposite effect. Now the background is clear and objects less so, thoughts tend to fade and dissolve, emotions stabilize, and objects might even drop away altogether. But this is a false duality. The presence of the words doesn't hide or impact the background, and the lighted background is needed for the words to appear. Nor does one need to eliminate or make the words go away. The words depend on the background, but the background transcends any and all words.

How very synchronistic. I've been looking for a summation of different views on synchronicity. I have some theories as well, but am in a theory collecting mode right now. A fun one for me is one day, I went to a particular outdoor mall (Mall X) and decided to sit and watch the people drifting by. My mind drew an analogy to the inner states of mind--- this is how one might observe and relate thoughts/feelings. That night, I went to satsang type of activity. The teacher began to explain how to relax from being caught up in the mind. He said it was like going to Mall X, sitting down, and watching the people wander by. He'd never used that analogy before or since, nor had I explained what I had done.

I think there is a secondary problem as well. If the ancient sages are right, the experienced relative is not material, but mental. Whether you accept this lightly, as in whatever we experience is impacted by our mental structures; or more strongly, in recognizing that everything is fundamentally a cooperative dream; the end result is the same. In modern terms, the lighter version is captured by predictive processing or the interface theory of perception and the heavier by the simulation hypothesis. If relative reality is partially or entirely related to the turnings or waves of the mind, then solidified beliefs can edit, diminish, or erase what is perceived or known. Similarly, the all creating mind can produce or focus on experiences and states consistent with what one is seeking or expecting to find--- one reason why diverse and contradictory belief systems have long survived in the world. So people who dispute or close their mind to the absolute may never know it. Or they may create an object or experience of it, and take the thief for one's own child, as the Chan masters used to say.

Overall, I found this series to be a terrific overview that answers many questions, especially the Advaitic conception of God and how that contrasts with Visistadvaita and even Samkhya. It is also interesting to see how the macrocosm is mapped onto the microcosm from a AV point of view using the pancakosha or 5 sheath model. He has some interesting quips about deity practice as well, and continues to make some daring comparisons with Tibetan Buddhism. The essential point is that Swami sets out the historical, experiential, metaphysical, and grammatical background for the Brahman = Atman equation. In order to do that, he needs to explain first off what we are, what Brahman is, and what it means to draw an equivalence. It is also fairly brief for a Swami S series (although 10-11 hours is probably not brief for most).

I would add that I have found a lot of use on relative concentration, sleeping, and dreaming practices. They can be strong and direct methods of disidentifying with the various layers of body and mind. Of course, these states may also arise with "just sitting," but they also may not. Also, people have different hang ups. A of Zen teachers would say to avoid books, etc., but for me studying Madhyamaka was very useful in letting go of mental knots. Of course, one can always overdo anything.

My point was people who criticize Advaita see impermanence in the world as refuting Advaita, and people who criticize Buddhists see permanence and refuting Buddhist teaching. So Advaitins have to defend against critics observing impermanence, and Buddhists have to defend against critics who see permanence. Accordingly, one's experience is open to either or both views.

It is interesting that Advaitins have to contend with the idea that things are impermanent and constantly changing, whereas Buddhists have to contend with the idea that things are enduring and lasting! I suppose it depends on how one tunes the mind. The Advaitin approach is a bit self-harmonizing. Arguably, change only makes sense in the context of a changeless "background." And the changeless, objectless background is revealed by changing objects. In this sense, Maya is not only veiling, but revealing. Swami S compares it to space. There is light in space, but the light is only revealed when there an object for it to reflect off of. In fact, one cannot even discuss the relative without invoking the absolute: is, being, existence. I do think it is extremely hard to adjust from an object-oriented mind set to a non-object oriented mind set. Again, the "mind" is an object producing object. It makes sense that it would produce or focus on objects in, especially objects that are very subtle ---the sense of presence, the feeling of I AM, the sense of an observer, etc. No doubt given the mind's creativity, all types of false or facsimile experiences can be created to masquerade as the truth.

I was listening to Nonduality by David Loy and this interesting passage from the Zhuangzi popped out: