3bob

Right, "new age" and dubious type liberties taken will get one a fair ways down a new age and dubious path. Btw, who said anything about declaring one way or path? Scrambling them all up like mixing oil and water after common ground has been exceeded is what I was getting at.

so here we go again -

Sri Aurobindo Writings in Bengali Translated into English The Isha Upanishad [1] (copied from web) The main obstacle that stands in the way of accepting the straightforward meaning of the Isha Upanishad and rightly understanding its inner truth about the Brahman, the Self and the Divine, is Mayavada, Illusionism, preached by Shankaracharya and the commentary he wrote on this Upanishad. The one-pointed drive towards withdrawal that is Illusionism and the much-praised inaction of the Sannyasi are completely at variance with the Isha Upanishad. If the meaning of the slokas is strained and tortured to give an opposite sense, the solution of this quarrel becomes impossible. The Upanishad in which it is written: “Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years”, and again: “Action cleaves not to a man” — the Upanishad which proclaims with courage: “Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone”; and again says: “By the Birth one enjoys Immortality”, how can that Upanishad be reconciled with Mayavada, Illusionism and the path of withdrawal? A highly erudite person, who was possibly the chief sponsor of Monism in South India after Shankara, expunged it from the list of the twelve Upanishads and installed the Nrisimhatapini in its place. Shankaracharya was not so daring as to alter the prevailing canon. The Upanishad was a “Sruti” (heard scripture), and Illusionism was a subject for inquiry in the “Sruti” and as such, he assumed, the meaning of the “Sruti” could not but be favourable to real Illusionism. If jagat (in īśa vāsyamidam sarvam yat kiñca jagatyām jagat) meant the earth, then the meaning would be: “all that is moving on the earth in motion”, that is to say, all men, animals, insects, birds, torrents, and rivers, etc. This meaning is absurd. In the language of the Upanishads, the word sarvamidam signifies all the visible objects of the universe, not of the earth. Therefore we must understand by the word jagati the Shakti in movement manifested as the universe and by the word jagat all that is a movement of motion of the Prakriti whether present as a living being or as matter. The contradiction lies between these two: the Ishwara and all that is in the universe. Unlike the Ishwara who is immobile, the Prakriti, the Shakti, is in movement always engaged in work and world-wide motion; all that exists in the universe is also a small universe in movement which is always, at each instant, the meeting-place of creation, preservation and destruction, the restless and perishable, the opposite of the immutable. The eternal contradiction does not become evident if we place on one side the Ishwara and on the other, the earth and all that is in movement on the earth. This Upanishad opens with the eternal contradiction observed by everybody which puts the immutable Ishwara on one side and on the other the restless Prakriti and all that she possesses in the universe created by her, all ephemeral objects. The whole Upanishad is constructed upon this contradiction and its resolution. Later on, the author of the Upanishad, while discussing the nature of the Ishwara and the nature of the universe brings up thrice the same problem but each time with a different approach. First when he talks about the Brahman, he demonstrates the opposition of the Purusha and the Prakriti and in these few words, “anejad” (unmoving) and manaso javīyaḥ... tad ejati tannaijati (swifter than Mind, That the Gods reach not, for It progresses ever in front. That, standing, passes beyond others as they run. In that the Master of Life established the Waters. That moves and moves not) he explains that both are Brahman: the Purusha is Brahman, the Prakriti and the universe which is her outward form are also Brahman. Again, while speaking of the Atman, he explains the opposition between the Ishwara and everything concerning the universe. The Atman is the Ishwara, the Purusha... If it is squeezed, then most surely the true hidden meaning, that is to say, the doctrine of Illusionism, will be forced out because of the pain: this was the conclusion that overpowered Shankaracharya, and he wrote a commentary on the Isha Upanishad. Let us hear on the one hand what the commentary of Shankara says, and on the other what the Upanishad has truly to say. The author of the Upanishad right in the beginning compares the truth of the Ishwara with the Truth of the universe and indicates their fundamental relation. “īśa vāsyamidam sarvam yat kiñca jagatyām jagat”, “All this is for habitation by the Lord, whatsoever is jagat within jagati or individual universe in movement” — the still all-pervading controller Purusha and the Prakriti in motion — the Ishwara and the Shakti. As the name of Ishwara has been given to the Immutable, we have to understand that the true relation between the Purusha and Prakriti is this: “jagat” depends on the Ishwara, is governed by Him and accomplishes all work by His will. This Purusha is not only a witness and giver of sanction but Ishwara, the knower, the director of action; the Prakriti is not the controller of action but she works out the destiny, the mistress but dependent on the master, the obedient active Shakti of the Purusha. Then we observe that “jagati” is not simply the Shakti in movement, not simply the principle which is the cause of the universe; she is also present as the universe itself. The ordinary meaning of the word “jagati” is “the earth”, but it cannot apply here. By combining these two words jagatyām jagat the author of the Upanishad has hinted that the root-meaning of these two words must not be neglected. To emphasise it has been his aim...." text continues at: http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/04/0011_e.htm

Jeff, I suggest reading the op again. (and using the link to complete it if you want)

I think we have a mish-mash of various teachings going on here which can be useful and informative up to a point through their common ground but after that has been exceeded problems start to multiply - with some (edit: and at times myself included to whatever degree) apparently thinking and or implying that direct or almost direct correlations can continue to apply all the way across the board or as far as they want them to regardless of key differences!

I think it important that new-comers to the vast Vedic teachings are also exposed to other non-"illusionist" type interpretations of same - as alternatives to the possible assumption that such are the main teaching to be followed. For me personally I do not hear the Upanishads pointing to the illusionist based type dismissals.

but there is also a war going on and lots of other sayings about it...Jesus is compassionate but he also like a Lion and a indomitable warrior with a two edged sword, thus take care for all is not fuzzy as some would believe.

I'd say that any sects bias is far less important than the greater and essential Spiritual meaning of the this Upanishad per what Sri Aurobindo is trying to point out.

being unattached can easily have the connotation of indifference or of one being out to lunch, whereas turning the other cheek in the deeper sense is meant to be more of a transformative interaction and event (as you said in helping someone without thought of the smaller self even if they were unkind to you) - thus not just just ignoring, escaping or looking the other way at someone or something through a type of "above it all" detachment. And I'd say such does not come naturally for the vast majority of us human beings being that it is really a very advanced state when it gets down to the brass tacks of human existence.

umm, I meant a lot further back in time than that although surviving in cold climates or in non-farming areas and cultures still have a lot in common today.

Jeff, I can run with that for a ways... and then what else do we soon hear or read, is it not, "turn the other cheek", something really much more difficult and which to me points to a Being-to or a by-Being transformation through the stopping of a chain of violence. Now taking this tangent could we say it may get tangled up in way with the OP of effort or non-effort, either in one's self or towards another with various forms of violence, gross or subtle? And if so I then like the idea of turning the other cheek on our own inner warfare as being a useful thing.

...and how would that spin with, "resist not evil"?

MH, "Understandable" as in excusable to missing the aim, or informative as in showing such to be counter to the aim? And now we could take off on Zen type sayings with something like, in being one with the target the aim will not fail...

a great deal of effort has been taken in this string to hammer the hell out of illusion, beat it to death, expunge it, deny it, reject it, go on and on about it, etc.. hmm...

if "everything" may not be as it appears or truly known then what relative point of reference can it be correctly assigned to?

if one knows that they do not know what else is there but miracles and Mystery?

labels through words... which sounds like words don't have much importance yet we come back to Sanskrit and mantra (as one example among many) that use a great deal of words which are very important as part of what could be called spiritual science... Om

I have a bad push rod on my Ford truck that needs repair, I asked the Transcendent if he could swing by and pull a miracle on it by manifesting but he said he was pre-disposed as the Source and towards Chevys for the rest of this cosmic cycle, he did kindly encourage me to muster up the will to fix it myself - after which I said thanks for the eternal support bubba, it's appreciated. See you around. Thus as I walk through the valley of the manifold I will fear no bad lifters and will keep my pushrods on the straight and narrow all the days of my engines life, behold I make all things new with a trip to the auto parts store.

there is no Buddha without their Mother, and remember that the term "Buddha" is in no way limited to Buddhism.

so without devotion/emotion in some way and regardless of path all of this stuff is burn out - ime.

Jetsun nailed it. (as far as nails can go)

l Mark, Agreed that Spirit is working through Beings - great, small, medium, etc....for Spirit will use any means or vessel possible, still all of us beings are like transformers at various voltages doing our duty in our place under the sun, but the infinite voltage (so to speak) cannot be matched by any transformer of it - being that a transformer transforms to another value. Although if a transformer "returns" back to the infinite then it no longer exists as an individualized transformer that transforms.

Buddhist and Christian teachings are counter to each other in key ways even if they have some common ground, which is so when it comes to most spiritual teachings. but imo implying or making certain major correlations is problematic at least. Btw, both Jesus and the Buddha are the primary and human founders of their teachings - while Sanatana Dharma has no human founder.

Jeff, It's strange to me that you keep bringing up and interpreting dualistic Christianly as if it were non-dual, and which non-dualistic schools and teachers would refute as far as I know... for two in one is still dual - for instance in the "joint heirs" quote there are multiple great souls in golden soul bodies which is wonderful - but not - Brahman beyond such categories. (btw. the "casual" realm heaven is also both within and without)

Jeff, Individual souls or "Sons of God" doing this or that by law within mental or even casual light realms is still not at the level of Grace, with Grace being at and of Source. (which is not knocking individual souls acts of compassion and love)