gatito

-

You might be looking in the mirror there.

Francis Lucille knows quite a lot about Buddhism (and the Tao), although he's normally regarded as a Master of traditional advaita (and yoga). You can attend satsangs with him just outside Temecula (about 80 miles south of central LA) or via internet webcasts (either by donation or for free): - www.meetup.com/Advaita/

Namaste and welcome.

Sorry bubbles - I wasn't ignoring you; I just spotted this post. I could - but I don't feel comfortable about doing that. TI should have received the copy that I sent to him by now and it's up to him if he wants to repost it. Perhaps he wants to post something else (or nothing at all now).

Hey TI It got sent to me by email because I'd subscribed to this thread. I've pasted it into a PM and sent it to you a couple of minutes ago. Best Wishes Gatito

Yes. An interesting, balanced and useful post (although there were a couple of minor points with which I disagreed). I have an email copy of it - which I'll be happy to give to TI if he wants to repost it.

It disappeared during the instability when the server transfer was taking place. I posted a couple of things myself during that period, which subsequently disappeared. Presumably they weren't backed up to the database.

Sorry Boy. My reading of your previous post was that you seemed to have some expectation that the subject (Consciousness) might disappear. Also, in this discussion, I think that Implicate Order is much clearer in his explanations than I. We are getting to a level of subtlety here where all words begin to fail anyway. Describing objectless consciousness is impossible because it doesn't involve mind, memory, time, "me" or, indeed, any duality. Nirvikalpa samadhi is non-dual. However it is (IME) SatChitAnanda.

You might want to conside whether it would have been wiser to to do your research and get the answers to these vital questions before starting these practices.

Yes. After encountering AYP, it has to be face-to-face as far as I'm concerned. It's also a good idea to check-out the long-tem students and to stay well away from DIY systems (i.e. those with no established respectable lineage).

Everything is divine and why assume that anything disappears? "That which is not never comes into being. That which is never ceases to be" Parmenides (and, apparently, the Bhagavad Gita ) Detailed discussion by Rupert Spira (who seems to have a too much time on his hands judging from the amount of writing that he does ) here: - www.stillnessspeaks.com/ssblog/rupert_spira_on_sat_chit_anada/ Is that what you're getting at?

You'd need to be a bit more specific.

That's very good advice and if you can't contact the author of the book and s/he won't therefore help you if you encounter a problem with their system, then walk (or preferably run) in the opposite direction!

Just came across this, which may shed further light: - www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm

It seems to that there's possibly some confusion about Consciousness. Consciousness is simply "that which is reading these words". Try examining Consciousness in the presence of objects first. See if you can find an edge or boundary to Consciousness; that's an extremely useful experiment. Most people believe that they have an individual, personal, limited Consciousness - there's no evidence for that. Where does your consciousness touch another person's consciousness? People often visualise consciousness as a bubble with an outside and an inside - it's not like that. Be open to the possibility that Consciousness is Universal (i.e. that there isn't more than one). Being open to that possibility and exploring it thoroughly is extremely powerful and liberating. However, don't take anyone's word for that - you must explore it yourself until you are sure that you can find no evidence for a separate individual, personal consciousnes. It's neither necessary (nor possible) to do it the other way around (that would involve thinking, which is necessarily dual). You've already seen that you cannot study Objectless Consciousness - don't get hung-up on that. You can also explore deep sleep, as suggested by Sri Atmananda. John Levy goes into greater detail in The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta. You can also find further detailed discussion of deep sleep in written answers to questions on Rupert Spira's website. You may also find Ananda Wood's website useful : - www.advaitin.net/ananda/3States&1Real.htm (pdf here: - www.advaitin.net/ananda/3States&1Reality.pdf). It's said that if you nail that prakriya; it alone is sufficient for Liberation. Also, there isn't really a problem. Consciousness already Knows Itself. It's nature is Knowing/Being (Chit Sat). It never doesn't Know Itself. Take your stand as Consciousness (as opposed to body or mind) and you'll see that the Universe will confirm your stand.

Here's a good working definition of Neo-advaita: - "Teaching which does not recognize the existence of teacher, seeker, path, etc and which attempts to communicate the nature of reality directly." (from www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm) Advaita recognises the importance of teacher, seeker, path etc. and it encourages the seeker to investigate their own direct experience (as opposed to following a religion of nihilism and non-doing). Tony Parsons www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/hypnotic_parsons.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_parsons.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_parsons.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/final_parsons.htm Richard Sylvester www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/paths_sylvester.htm Jeff Foster www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/jeff_dialog.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/silence_foster.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/walkrain_foster.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/oneness1_foster.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/oneness2_foster.htm www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/nihilism_foster.htm Unmani www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/whatiam_unmani.htm Nathan Gill www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/nomind_gill.htm Sailor Bob etc. etc........................ (ad infinitum )

Perhaps because if you go to a more advanced teaching too soon and miss out the intermediate steps, it's unhelpful to the sadhaka (like Neo-Advaita)?

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Yes; it not only depends on the source but on the context and I'm going to stick to my guns on this one because regarding nirvikalpa samadhi, I don't need to go to a secondary source; I'm speaking (or rather writing ) from my own knowledge. Regarding the specific Atmananda quote: Notes on Spiritual Discourses Taken by Nitya Tripta. Note 1034. ACTIONS, I've a couple of comments/suggestions that you may wish to consider : - Notes on Spiritual Discourses suffers from the absence of the questions that were asked, so that the replies cannot be matched to the context of the specific question, which in this case appears to have been primarily about "Action" rather than primarily about nirvikalpa samadhi, which is definitely not limited by time. Direct Path teachings rely on provisional truths which address the specific issuses of the sadhaka and therefore the answers should be viewed from this perspective - they are often apparently contradiuctory and Sri Atmananda makes it clear that he''s speaking from the relative level (as opposed to a more absolute level) in his answer. Given that I'm an anonymous poster on an internet forum and that you've never met me in person, I can understand that you may (sensibly) view my comments about nirvikalpa samadhi with a degree of healthy skepticism. This being the case, I'd suggest that you might want to go directly to Atma Darshan, as a more advanced (absolute) level of Sri Atmananda's teachings. You will see immediately that it contradicts the Notes (Atma Darshan Chapter 5. Deep Sleep, Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Natural State)

I'd disagree with that - but we're almost certainly looking at different sources. A witness implies subject/object duality. Consciousness does not. Also, nirvikalpa samadhi isn't a "state", as it's timeless and objectless (as is savikalpa samadhi because although objects (and therefore time) appear to be present the apparent objects are not seen to be separate from the Self and it's seen that there is only this Present moment). Cannot disagree with that but seeing this isn't a problem - it's an important intermediate step. I'd disagree with some of that, I'm afraid. We can use analogies and everyone knows Consciousness - it's that which is reading these words. Everyone Know that they Exist and that they Know (that they Exist) (i.e. Sat Chit). Consciousness Knowing Itself = Self-Illuminating. Cannot disagree with that. And thank you for an extremely interesting and thought-provoking post - the Advaita Forum's been a bit of a barren desert lately. Also, in looking for Drg Drska, which friends have refererred to before but which I'd never read myself previously, I also came across this video, which may help others unfamiliar with what you're discussing here: -

Interesting. Here's something else on similar lines: - The only intelligent position is to be open to the possibilities and to investigate them for oneself.

Hey TI It doesn't seem like 3bob liked your tangent. So, I'll have a go at answering your MCQ: - I prefer option 2 when I come across a pit like the one you've described. If I'd known that AYP was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's lineage, I wouldn't have gone anytwhere near it and I'd have been extremely grateful for that warning myself. Nor woud I have gone anywhere near it if I'd known that it was a totalitarian regime, which denies people the right to free speech, so I'd have been similarly grateful for that warning too. (And what's with all the Biblical quotes? I thought this was the Vedanta discussion. Doesn't Christianity belongs in General Discussion (or Off-Topic) .) Best Wishes Gatito

Sorry not to pick up on this earlier - I've been a bit preoccupied with something recently. People seem to get quite preoccupied with the concept of what's "real". I'd say that what meet's that criterion is that you exist and that you know that you exist. That's beyond any shadow of a doubt (to you). So explore that which you are perhaps? If you do, I'd be quite suprised if you regret it. What's appearing to you in the present moment is also "real" (and is actually you). As for the rest: when people get into social groups, agreeing with consensual "reality" is usually defined as "sanity" (which would make most of us here totally nuts as far as almost everybody in the rest of the world is concerned ).

My intuition is that you have some "issues".

@ DreamBliss Welcome. I hope that you will soon have a very different experience here and that all your questions are answered. Ask away. As MH says, we love answering questions (but it's up to you to pick the right answer. Just think of it as MCQs.