"pure consciousness"

[3bob]

"There is only one reality in form, which is the pure consciousness which is conscious of form,

and this reality is what realizes itself as formless, timeless, spaceless."

 

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

Edited March 29, 2013 by 3bob

[Wayfarer]

I confess to not knowing much about Vedanta. Only came across it because someone here said I sound like I talk Neo-Advaita clap trap - so here goes more lol

 

To me the above comment is a step removed from "Truth"...While I agree there is only one reality - which is both form and non-form, I do not agree that it is consciousness aware of being conscious, or that something realises itself. This is a step removed from how things is.

 

To me, there is only Presence or being. The things we think of as being 'things' are an 'it', where nothing beyond 'it' exists. When we are aware of 'it' or think of 'it' this (in our thinking but not reality) creates distance from 'it'. Our natural state, which is the state of 'it' is not conscious of itself, it just is. In other words there can not be an awareness of awareness as this creates an 'of' or 'about' something. This is kind of like being caught in Self once it has been noticed by the little self. There is still distance for there is a mind thinking about Mind. So for instance when we day dream, are absent-minded or are sleep (but not dreaming) we are That-Which-Is, where there is no self awareness of self or Self. There only is.

 

If humanity remained as intellectually advanced as a baby there would be no thought of consciousness or awareness, or even realisation...this is the natural state: being without aware of being.

 

Hope I've managed to convey what I mean!

 

Heath

[Boy]

...

Edited November 3, 2013 by Boy

[3bob]

Imo the words point, for they can not exactly nail the meaning down.

 

Wayfarer, Self as Truth is not unaware and does not or is not mind or the dualistic tools of mind... which of course mind can not understand since that Truth is beyond thinking or thoughts of this or that from a this or that point of view.

 

Instead of using the term neo Advaita clap trap perhaps the term "quasi-Buddhism clap trap" would be a better description of what you've given in the Vedanta forum?

 

If you haven't already done so I suggest reading various upanishads to get a better feel for Vedanta.

For instance:

 

The Isa Upanishad:
Translated and Commentated by Swami Paramananda From the original Sanskrit Text This volume is reverently dedicated to all seekers of truth and lovers of wisdom

"This Upanishad desires its title from the opening words Isa–vasya, “God–covered.” The use of Isa (Lord)–a more personal name of the Supreme Being than Brahman, Atman or Self, the names usually found in the Upanishads–constitutes one of its peculiarities. It forms the closing chapter of the Yajur–Veda, known as Shukla (White). Oneness of the Soul and God, and the value of both faith and works as means of ultimate attainment are the leading themes of this Upanishad. The general teaching of the Upanishads is that works alone, even the highest, can bring only temporary happiness and must inevitably bind a man unless through them he gains knowledge of his real Self. To help him acquire this knowledge is the aim of this and all Upanishads.

Isa Upanishad

Peace Chant
OM! That (the Invisible–Absolute) is whole; whole is this (the visible phenomenal); from the Invisible Whole comes forth the visible whole. Though the visible whole has come out from that Invisible Whole, yet the Whole remains unaltered. OM! PEACE! PEACE! PEACE!
The indefinite term “That” is used in the Upanishads to designate the Invisible–Absolute, because no word or name can fully define It. A finite object, like a table or a tree, can be defined; but God, who is infinite and unbounded, cannot be expressed by finite language. Therefore the Rishis or Divine Seers, desirous not to limit the Unlimited, chose the indefinite term “That” to designate the Absolute. In the light of true wisdom the phenomenal and the Absolute are inseparable. All existence is in the Absolute; and whatever exists, must exist in It; hence all manifestation is merely a modification of the One Supreme Whole, and neither increases nor diminishes It. The Whole therefore remains unaltered.
I
All this, whatsoever exists in the universe, should be covered by the Lord. Having renounced (the unreal), enjoy (the Real). Do not covet the wealth of any man. We cover all things with the Lord by perceiving the Divine Presence everywhere. When the consciousness is firmly fixed in God, the conception of diversity naturally drops away; because the One Cosmic Existence shines through all things. As we gain the light of wisdom, we cease to cling to the unrealities of this world and we find all our joy in the realm of Reality.
The word “enjoy” is also interpreted by the great commentator Sankaracharya as “protect,” because knowledge of our true Self is the greatest protector and sustainer. If we do not have this knowledge, we cannot be happy; because nothing on this external plane of phenomena is permanent or dependable. He who is rich in the knowledge of the Self does not covet external power or possession.
II
If one should desire to live in this world a hundred years, one should live performing Karma (righteous deeds). Thus thou mayest live; there is no other way. By doing this, Karma (the fruits of thy actions) will not defile thee. If a man still clings to long life and earthly possessions, and is therefore unable to follow the path of Self–knowledge (Gnana–Nishta) as prescribed in the first Mantram (text), then he may follow the path of right action (Karma–Nishta). Karma here means actions performed without selfish motive, for the sake of the Lord alone. When a man performs actions clinging blindly to his lower desires, then his actions bind him to the plane of ignorance or the plane of birth and death; but when the same actions are performed with surrender to God, they purify and liberate him.
III
After leaving their bodies, they who have killed the Self go to the worlds of the Asuras, covered with blinding ignorance. The idea of rising to bright regions as a reward for well–doers, and of falling into realms of darkness as a punishment for evil–doers is common to all great religions. But Vedanta claims that this condition of heaven and hell is only temporary; because our actions, being finite, can produce only a finite result. What does it mean “to kill the Self?” How can the immortal Soul ever be destroyed? It cannot be destroyed, it can only be obscured. Those who hold themselves under the sway of ignorance, who serve the flesh and neglect the Atman or the real Self, are not able to perceive the effulgent and indestructible nature of their Soul; hence they fall into the realm where the Soul light does not shine. Here the Upanishad shows that the only hell is absence of knowledge. As long as man is overpowered by the darkness of ignorance, he is the slave of Nature and must accept whatever comes as the fruit of his thoughts and deeds. When he strays into the path of unreality, the Sages declare that he destroys himself; because he who clings to the perishable body and regards it as his true Self must experience death many times.
IV
That One, though motionless, is swifter than the mind. The senses can never overtake It, for It ever goes before. Though immovable, It travels faster than those who run. By It the all–pervading air sustains all living beings. This verse explains the character of the Atman or Self. A finite object can be taken from one place and put in another, but it can only occupy one space at a time. The Atman, however, is present everywhere; hence, though one may run with the greatest swiftness to overtake It, already It is there before him. Even the all–pervading air must be supported by this Self, since It is infinite; and as nothing can live without breathing air, all living things must draw their life from the Cosmic Self.
V
It moves and It moves not. It is far and also It is near. It is within and also It is without all this. It is near to those who have the power to understand It, for It dwells in the heart of every one; but It seems far to those whose mind is covered by the clouds of sensuality and self– delusion. It is within, because It is the innermost Soul of all creatures; and It is without as the essence of the whole external universe, infilling it like the all–pervading ether.
VI
He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from It (the Self).
VII
He who perceives all beings as the Self’ for him how can there be delusion or grief, when he sees this oneness (everywhere) ? He who perceives the Self everywhere never shrinks from anything, because through his higher consciousness he feels united with all life. When a man sees God in all beings and all beings in God, and also God dwelling in his own Soul, how can he hate any living thing? Grief and delusion rest upon a belief in diversity, which leads to competition and all forms of selfishness. With the realization of oneness, the sense of diversity vanishes and the cause of misery is removed.
VIII
He (the Self) is all–encircling, resplendent, bodiless, spotless, without sinews, pure, untouched by sin, all–seeing, all–knowing, transcendent, self–existent; He has disposed all things duly for eternal years. This text defines the real nature of the Self. When our mind is cleansed from the dross of matter, then alone can we behold the vast, radiant, subtle, ever–pure and spotless Self, the true basis of our existence.
IX
They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidya (ignorance and delusion); they fall, as it were, into greater darkness who worship Vidya (knowledge).
X
By Vidya one end is attained; by Avidya, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught this.
XI
He who knows at the same time both Vidya and Avidya, crosses over death by Avidya and attains immortality through Vidya. Those who follow or “worship” the path of selfishness and pleasure (Avidya), without knowing anything higher, necessarily fall into darkness; but those who worship or cherish Vidya (knowledge) for mere intellectual pride and satisfaction, fall into greater darkness, because the opportunity which they misuse is greater. In the subsequent verses Vidya and Avidya are used in something the same sense as “faith” and “works” in the Christian Bible; neither alone can lead to the ultimate goal, but when taken together they carry one to the Highest. Work done with unselfish motive purifies the mind and enables man to perceive his undying nature. From this he gains inevitably a knowledge of God, because the Soul and God are one and inseparable; and when he knows himself to be one with the Supreme and Indestructible Whole, he realizes his immortality.
XII
They fall into blind darkness who worship the Unmanifested and they fall into greater darkness who worship the manifested.
XIII
By the worship of the Unmanifested one end is attained; by the worship of the manifested, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught us this.
XIV
He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested (the cause of manifestation) and the destructible or manifested, he crosses over death through knowledge of the destructible and attains immortality through knowledge of the First Cause (Unmanifested). This particular Upanishad deals chiefly with the Invisible Cause and the visible manifestation, and the whole trend of its teaching is to show that they are one and the same, one being the outcome of the other hence no perfect knowledge is possible without simultaneous comprehension of both. The wise men declare that he who worships in a one–sided way, whether the visible or the invisible, does not reach the highest goal. Only he who has a co–ordinated understanding of both the visible and the invisible, of matter and spirit, of activity and that which is behind activity, conquers Nature and thus overcomes death. By work, by making the mind steady and by following the prescribed rules given in the Scriptures, a man gains wisdom. By the light of that wisdom he is able to perceive the Invisible Cause in all visible forms. Therefore the wise man sees Him in every manifested form. They who have a true conception of God are never separated from Him. They exist in Him and He in them.
XV
The face of Truth is hidden by a golden disk. O Pushan (Effulgent Being)! Uncover (Thy face) that I, the worshipper of Truth, may behold Thee.
XVI
O Pushan! O Sun, sole traveller of the heavens, controller of all, son of Prajapati, withdraw Thy rays and gather up Thy burning effulgence. Now through Thy Grace I behold Thy blessed and glorious form. The Purusha (Effulgent Being) who dwells within Thee, I am He. Here the sun, who is the giver of all light, is used as the symbol of the Infinite, giver of all wisdom. The seeker after Truth prays to the Effulgent One to control His dazzling rays, that his eyes, no longer blinded by them, may behold the Truth. Having perceived It, he proclaims: “Now I see that that Effulgent Being and I are one and the same, and my delusion is destroyed.” By the light of Truth he is able to discriminate between the real and the unreal, and the knowledge thus gained convinces him that he is one with the Supreme; that there is no difference between himself and the Supreme Truth; or as Christ said, “I and my Father are one.”
XVII
May my life–breath go to the all–pervading and immortal Prana, and let this body be burned to ashes. Om! O mind, remember thy deeds! O mind, remember, remember thy deeds! Remember! Seek not fleeting results as the reward of thy actions, O mind! Strive only for the Imperishable. This Mantram or text is often chanted at the hour of death to remind one of the perishable nature of the body and the eternal nature of the Soul. When the clear vision of the distinction between the mortal body and the immortal Soul dawns in the heart, then all craving for physical pleasure or material possession drops away; and one can say, let the body be burned to ashes that the Soul may attain its freedom; for death is nothing more than the casting–off of a worn–out garment.
XVIII
O Agni (Bright Being)! Lead us to blessedness by the good path. O Lord! Thou knowest all our deeds, remove all evil and delusion from us. To Thee we offer our prostrations and supplications again and again.
Here ends this Upanishad

[Wayfarer]

Thanks Bob, that is the first Upanishad I have read and I'm glad you have included it. There is (to me) a step further than what is written here but whether it matters or not is arguing over trifling things really. And I'm not here to argue my corner, just to discuss openly with people as it is not something you can chat about with folk at a bar and I am interested in anyone's views as we have a lot of wise people here.

 

What I talk of has come from personal experience and I then investigated various religions to see if what I had experienced was similar or the same as of that mentioned in holy books and scripture. It seems clear to me that all religions are pointing to the same thing; that which is Nameless and does not exist because it is in fact the only thing to exist.

 

The "Truth" has to apply to all things for it to be true - not just man and not just life. Whatever was relevant to the person who wrote/spoke the above Upanishad must also be relevant to a stone or the space between planets. If we are to call something consciousness or awareness then it must also be present (and aware/conscious) when we are unconscious or if we were a stone. So here is the fine dividing line: when we Awaken to that which is alight everywhere we are not at our natural state of being because our "awareness" and "consciousness" of there being a God/True-Self ablaze everywhere is the mind thinking about the Mind. That awareness is what prevents our going beyond, to our Original State of being. It is still a residue.

 

So if I were unconscious where would that residue be, where would thoughts of holy or unholy be? Does a stone have such thoughts? Is the space between planets actively conscious of either itself or the Divine Presence?

 

A holy person might argue that God is aware while I am not, however that creates separation and duality. I am that which is God, what changes when I am no longer conscious is I am no longer aware - so awareness cannot be the True-State for it is not always present. Therefore pure consciousness cannot be aware of form or a reality of itness - it just IS. A bird singing a song is its Original Nature. Its ignorance of the Divine is bliss because it also ignorant of un-Divine and therefore there is no consideration of duality or not, holy or not. Humanity however in general thinks of self and when it awakens thinks of SELF but the latter is as much a trap as the former - to be as our natural self we need to go beyond even thoughts of it or awareness or consciousness of it; then we are totally free in our natural innocence - without a care.

 

Many blessings,

 

Heath

[Seth Ananda]

What I talk of has come from personal experience and I then investigated various religions to see if what I had experienced was similar or the same as of that mentioned in holy books and scripture.

I would be careful with statements like this. Many people here have based their conclusions on personal experience, but that does not mean that you or they have in any way fully unveiled truth or come to the 'correct' conclusion in relationship to said personal experience.

 

It seems clear to me that all religions are pointing to the same thing; that which is Nameless and does not exist because it is in fact the only thing to exist.

Really? what about traditions that see the divine as entirely inactive, sort of like being without mind, vs traditions that see the divine as having volition and intelligence? Not to mention the many subtle differences that can be found...

 

The "Truth" has to apply to all things for it to be true - not just man and not just life. Whatever was relevant to the person who wrote/spoke the above Upanishad must also be relevant to a stone or the space between planets.

Why? {or who's rule is that?} and how do you know that it isn't?

 

If we are to call something consciousness or awareness then it must also be present (and aware/conscious) when we are unconscious or if we were a stone.

Say 'unconscious' has been incorrectly named, and is not actually the opposite of consciousness.

If consciousness was the screen everything happens on, could it be that 'unconsciousness' is really just a temporary experience of a 'lack of sensory and cognitive processes', mixed in with all the other experiences that are normally 'full of stuff' and thus normally called 'conscious'?

Or what about dreams? Can you say with absolute certainty that you can remember every dream you ever had? Do you recollect a dream ever slipping from memory as you wake? How do you know that in an experience of 'unconsciousness' you are not perfectly awake and aware but just in such a grand or 'other' scale that your waking mind simply can not contain it and thus in memory gives you a 'blank'...?

 

So here is the fine dividing line: when we Awaken to that which is alight everywhere we are not at our natural state of being because our "awareness" and "consciousness" of there being a God/True-Self ablaze everywhere is the mind thinking about the Mind. That awareness is what prevents our going beyond, to our Original State of being. It is still a residue.

You sound so sure of yourself here... How do you know? And consider the fact that in these experiences, people generally describe the fact that they have stopped thinking, at least with conceptual reasoning and linguistic phrases... Mind thinking about mind... lol

 

So if I were unconscious where would that residue be, where would thoughts of holy or unholy be? Does a stone have such thoughts? Is the space between planets actively conscious of either itself or the Divine Presence?

Why does a stone have to think? Could it exist as it exists, and we exist as we exist, in a way that is bigger than your narrow range of rules allow? Is there room for possibilities outside of your current conceptions?

 

A holy person might argue that God is aware while I am not, however that creates separation and duality.

Does it? What about the possibility that it creates only a seeming separation? Is there a way ignorance could exist within awareness and not distort it?

 

I am that which is God, what changes when I am no longer conscious is I am no longer aware - so awareness cannot be the True-State for it is not always present. Therefore pure consciousness cannot be aware of form or a reality of itness - it just IS. A bird singing a song is its Original Nature. Its ignorance of the Divine is bliss because it also ignorant of un-Divine and therefore there is no consideration of duality or not, holy or not. Humanity however in general thinks of self and when it awakens thinks of SELF but the latter is as much a trap as the former - to be as our natural self we need to go beyond even thoughts of it or awareness or consciousness of it; then we are totally free in our natural innocence - without a care.

 

Many blessings,

 

Heath

Your conclusions are too rigid, with too many unexamined assumptions hidden within them...

Edited June 6, 2013 by Seth Ananda

[Wayfarer]

You are probably right Seth. Isn't Vedanta about non-duality. So look at your questions at where they might be dualistic. Perhaps non-duality is rigid and yet somehow open - a paradox huh?

Edited June 6, 2013 by Wayfarer

[3bob]

Wayfarer, Thanks for your reply, I'm short on time right now for a second reply but found some more material you may be interested in...

 

The great number of schools related to the great vastness of "Hinduism" have a great deal to share! , here is an long excerpt from one that be of interest to you?

 

Text by Swami Lakshmanjoo, Kashmir Shaiva lineage Holder/Master:

 

Thirty-Six Elements
Tattvas

"To begin with, I will explain to you the nature of that which is known as the tattvas, or elements. In Vedānta we are told that there are only twenty-five tattvas; however, in Śaivism we know that there are really thirty-six tattvas. These thirty six tattvas are the most important points for entering into Śaivism.

I will give the explanation of the tattvas in the manner of rising not descending . We must rise up to Parama Śiva. I prefer rising, not descending, so we must rise. I will, therefore, explain the grossest element ‘earth’ first and then proceed to explain subtler and subtler elements, until we reach the subtlest element, the finest, which is Parama Śiva.

THIRTY SIX TATTVAS

 

– 36 ELEMENTS

 

Pañca mahābhūtas –

Five Great Elements

pṛithvī =

earth

jala =

water

tejas =

fire

vāyu =

air

ākāśa =

ether

 

Pañca tanmātras –

 

Five Subtle Elements

gandha =

smell

rasa =

taste

rūpa =

form

sparśa =

touch

śabda =

sound

 

Pañcakarmendriyas –

 

Five Organs of Action

upastha =

creative

pāyu =

excretion

pāda =

foot

pāṇi =

hand

vāk =

speech

 

Pañca jñānendriyas –

 

Five Organs of Cognition

ghrāṇa =

nose, organ of smelling

rasanā =

tongue, organ of tasting

cakṣu =

eye, organ of seeing

tvak =

skin, organ of touching

śrotra =

ear, organ of hearing

 

Antaḥkaraṇas –

 

Three Internal Organs

manas =

mind

buddhịḥ =

intellect

ahaṁkāra =

ego connected with objectivity

prakṛiti =

nature

puruṣa =

ego connected with subjectivity

 

Ṣaṭ kañcukas –

 

Six Coverings

niyati =

limitation of place

kāla =

limitation of time

rāga =

limitation of attachment

vidyā =

limitation of knowledge

kalā =

limitation of action (creativity)

māyā =

illusion of individuality

 

Śuddha tattvas –

 

Pure Elements

śuddha vidyā =

I-ness in I-ness—Thisness in Thisness

īśvara =

Thisness in I-ness

sadāśiva =

I-ness in Thisness

śakti =

I-ness

śiva =

I-ness (Being)

We will begin, therefore, from the lowest degree of the tattvas, which are the gross tattvas. The gross tattvas are called the pañcamahābhūtas, the five great elements. They are the tattvas of pṛithvī (earth), jala (water), tejas (fire), vāyu (air), and ākāśa (ether). The element “ether” is not a perceptible ele-ment, such as the elements earth, air, fire, and water. Rather, it is space, unoccupied space. It gives you room to move. It is that element in which the other four gross elements have room to exist. We could say that it is a special vacuum which is filled by the other four great elements. These tattvas are gross and are called mahābhūtas (great elements) because the whole uni-verse is based on these five elements.

 

After the five mahābhūtas, you move up to the five tanmātras. The five tanmātras correspond to the five mahābhūtas. Gandha tanmātra arises from the element of earth (pṛithvī tatt-va). The word gandha means “smell”; however, it is not exactly smell, it is the abode of smell, where smell lives. And that abode of smell is called ganda tanmātra. The next tanmātra, rasa tanmātra, has come out from the element of water (jala mahābhūta). Rasa tanmātra is the residence of the impression of taste (rasa). And then from the element of fire (tejas mahā- bhūta) issues forth rūpa tanmātra. Though the word rūpa means form, rūpa tanmātra is not exactly form; it is the residence of form, where the impression of form resides. This residence is called rūpa tanmātra. From the element of air (vāyu mahābhūta) rises sparśa tanmātra, which is the tanmātra of touch, the sensation of touch. This tanmātra is the residence of the sensation of touch. And finally, rising from the element of ether (ākāśa mahābhūta) is śabda tanmātra, the tanmātra of sound. This is the residence of the sensation of sound.

After the five tanmātras come the five tattvas, which are known as the five karmendriyas, the five organs of action. These organs of action are vāk, pāṇi, pāda, pāyu, and upastha. The first karmendriya is vāk tattva, the organ of speech. Next is pāṇi tattva. The word pāṇi means “hand.” Pāṇi is that organ of action by which you take and give. Then comes pāda tattva. The word pāda means “foot.” It is the organ by which you move about. It is the organ of locomotion. Next is pāyu tattva, which is the active organ of excretion. It is the organ of passing stools. The fifth and last karmendriya is upastha tattva. Upastha tattva is that karmendriya, that organ of action which is the active organ of sex and urination, the organ by which sex is performed and by which one urinates.

 

The next five tattvas are the five organs of cognition (knowledge) and are known as the five jñānendriyas. These are the mental organs with which we experience the world. These five organs are ghrāṇa, rasanā, cakṣu, tvak, and śrotra. The first jñānendriya is ghrāṇa tattva. The word ghrāṇa means “nose.” The use of the word nose does not refer to breathing; rather, nose is used here to indicate smell. This is the organ of cognition by which you smell. It creates odors. The next tattva is rasanā tattva. Rasanā means “tongue.” Here the use of the word tongue does not refer to speech but to taste because, athough speech also comes from the tongue, it is an organ of action, not an organ of cognition. Rasanā tattva is that organ of cognition by which you taste. It creates flavors. Now follows cakṣu tattva. The word cakṣu means “eye.” It is that organ of cognition by which you see. It creates form (rūpaḥ). The fourth jñānendriya is tvak tattva. Tvak means “skin.” It is the organ of cognition by which you feel. It creates touch. The last organ of cognition is śrotra tattva. Śrotra means “ear.” It is that organ of cognition by which you hear. It creates sound.

 

All of the above twenty elements;—the five mahābhūtas, the five tanmātras, the five karmendriyas, and the five jñānendriyas,—are called gross elements. They are all objective elements. The following elements, as we continue rising in our explanation of the tattvas, are said to be objective cum subjective elements. You should understand though that, in Śaivism, all the elements are really objective elements. They are called objects. Only that Super Being is subjective. Yet, as the following elements are a bit more connected to subjectivity than the former, we say that they are objective cum subjective elements.

Now we rise to the three tattvas which are known as the antaḥ̇karaṇas. The word anta ̇karaṇas means “internal organs.” The three internal organs are manas (mind), buddhiḥ̇ (intellect), and ahaṁkāra (ego).

Manas tattva, the element of mind, is said in Sanskṛit to be saṁkalpasādhana, the means by which you create thought. This could be any thought, such as, “I am going there, I will go there, I have done this, I have done that.” This is the action of manas. The action of buddhiḥ̇ tattva, the element of intellect, is to confirm whether I should do this or not. This is the field of the confirmation of the rightness of any proposed action, whether intellectual or moral, because, first, you must determine the rightness of a proposed decision or action and then make a choice dependent on this rightness. You ask yourself internally, “Should I perform this action or not? Is this the right decision or not?” The buddhi will reply to you, “No, you should not do it,” or “Yes, you should do it.” “This is bad, it is wrong to do it.” “This is good, you should do it.” “This answer is right, this answer is wrong.” All this is done by the intellect. Ahaṁkāra tattva is the element of ego which is connected with objectivity. When you attribute any action or knowledge to your self, such as, “I have done this and it was a mistake, I have done that and I ought not to have done it,” or “I did a wonderful thing today which will benefit me a lot,” this is the action of ahaṁkāra tattva. It creates limited “I” consciousness, the limited ego which is connected with objectivity.

Rising still further, we come to the two tattvas of prakṛiti and puruṣa. These two tattvas are interdependent. Prakṛiti is dependent upon puruṣa and puruṣa is dependent upon prakṛiti. Prakṛiti is the element which is known as “nature.” It is the field where the three tendencies arise and flow forth. These three tendencies are known as the three guṇas, the three qualities. They are, respectively sattva, rajas, and tamas. Prakṛiti is the combination of these three guṇas but without any distinction. The three guṇas emerge from prakṛiti and thus it is said that the three guṇas are not in the field of the tattvas. They are not to be considered as tattvas because they are created by prakṛiti. Tattvas are creators, they are not created. It is, therefore, not the guṇas which are tattvas but their creator prakṛiti. And that which responds to that prakṛiti, which owns that prakṛiti, is called puruṣa.

 

Up to this point, I have explained twenty-five tattvas; five mahābhūtas, five tanmātras, five karmendriyas, five jñānendriyas, three antaḥ̇karaṇas, prakṛiti, and puruṣa. This is the limit of the Vedāntin’s understanding of the tattvas. They say that there are only twenty-five tattvas. Yet in Śaivism, nothing as yet has happened. All these tattvas exist in the field of māyā, in the field of objectivity.

In Śaivism, puruṣa is not a realized soul. Puruṣa tattva is bound and limited just as ahaṁkāra tattva is. The only difference between puruṣa and ahaṁkāra is that puruṣa is connected with subjectivity and ahaṁkāra is connected with objectivity. And this puruṣa is entangled and bound in five ways, which are the five kañcukas: niyati, kāla, rāga, vidyā, and kalā.

First, there is niyati tattva. The function of niyati tattva is to put the impression in puruṣa that he is residing in a particular place and not in all places. You are residing in a houseboat near the First Bridge and you are not residing simultaneously at Ishiber near Nishat. You are residing in Kashmir; you are not residing simultaneously in Australia or Canada. This is the limitation which niyati tattva causes for puruṣa; that one is residing in a particular place and not everywhere.

 

Next comes kāla tattva. The word kāla means “time.” The action of kāla tattva is to keep puruṣa in a particular period, the victim of being in a particular period. For instance, you are 25 years old, I am 64 years old, and he is 43 years old. This limitation is the result of the action of kāla tattva.

 

The third tattva by which puruṣa is limited is known as rāga tattva. Rāga means “attachment.” This is that attachment which results from not being full. The action of rāga tattva is to leave the impression in puruṣa that he is not full, that he is not complete, and that he must have this or that to become full. He feels a lack which he must fill. This is the function of rāga tattva in limiting puruṣa.

 

The fourth tattva which limits puruṣa is vidyā tattva. Vidyā means “knowledge.” The action of vidyā tattva is to put the impression in puruṣa that he has this or that particular and limited knowledge, that he is not all-knowing for he knows only some limited things.
The fifth and final bondage and limitation for puruṣa is kalā tattva. Kalā tattva creates the impression in puruṣa that he has some particular creativity, some particular artistic talent. He has mastered the art of writing, or the art of music, or the art of medicine; however, he does not have unlimited creativity. He is good at some things and not all things.

These five bondages of puruṣa are caused by puruṣa’s ignorance of his own nature. And this ignorance is another tattva, which is known as māyā tattva. These five tattvas are created by māyā for puruṣa. That puruṣa who is the victim of māyā, therefore, does not know his own real nature and becomes bound and entangled by these five (kañcukas) and thus becomes a victim of prakṛiti. He takes on individuality and becomes a limited individual.

These five tattvas plus māyā are known as ṣat kañcukas (the six-fold coverings). These are the six coverings which bind and entangle and, therefore, limit puruṣa. He is not limited by only one covering but by six and these coverings must be removed, and this is done automatically by the grace of the Master. Through this grace, at the time of real knowledge, māyā is transformed into His śakti, His great energy. In His glory, māyā becomes the glory of Parama Śiva. When puruṣa realizes the reality of his nature, māyā becomes glory for him.

We have completed our examination of those tattvas, from the antaḥkaraṇas to māyā, which are connected with objectivity cum subjectivity. We will now rise to those tattvas which are connected with pure subjectivity. This is the subjective course to be entered into by puruṣa for rising from pure subjectivity to purer subjectivity to purest subjectivity.

Pure subjectivity is found in the tattva known as śuddhavidyā tattva. This exists when puruṣa actually realizes his own nature. And yet that realization is not stable; it is flickering, it is moving. This is the realization at the level of śuddhavidyā tattva. This realization is in motion. Sometimes you realize it, sometimes you forget it. And the experience (parāmarśa) of śuddhavidyā tattva is, “I am Śiva, this universe is in duality. This universe is unreal, I am Śiva.” This is the impression which comes in śuddhavidyā tattva and it is pure subjectivity.

Now purer subjectivity will come in the next two tattvas, īśvara tattva and sadāśiva tattva. In īśvara tattva, you realize, “This universe is my own expansion. This universe is not an illusion, it is my own expansion.” The realization which takes place in sadāśiva tattva is the same as the realization which takes place in īśvara tattva, but more refined. In sadāśiva tattva, you realize,“I am this whole universe.” This is the difference between these two impressions. In īśvara tattva, you have the impression, “This universe is my own expansion,” whereas in sadāśiva tattva, you will find “I myself am this whole universe.” These two tattvas comprise subjectivity in a purer form.

 

Now in the final two tattvas, we come to subjectivity in its purest form. These two tattvas are the interdependent tattvas: śakti tattva and śiva tattva. The impression which comes in these two tattvas is only I, the pure I, the universal I. It is not “this universe is my own expansion” or “I am this whole universe.” No, it is just I, pure I, universal I.

Last is that Being which does not come in the cycle of tattvas that Being called Parama Śiva. Parama Śiva is not only found in śiva tattva or in śakti tattva. It is not only here, not only there. You will find It everywhere. You will find It from the lowest tattva to the highest. It is all levels, and therefore no level. It is everywhere, that is why It is nowhere. The one Being who is everywhere, It is nowhere".

 

All contend on this website is copyright protected. All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2012 Universal Shaiva Fellowship (USF), John Hughes

 

Secret Supreme
contents

chapter 01

chapter 04

chapter 05

chapter 10

chapter 14

chapter 16

chapter 17

chapter 19

return to Teachings

 

Kashmir Shaivism:
The Secret Supreme Study Set
(Book and MP3 audio files with PDF info) :

Order here!

Edited June 6, 2013 by 3bob

[Seth Ananda]

"There is only one reality in form, which is the pure consciousness which is conscious of form,

and this reality is what realizes itself as formless, timeless, spaceless."

 

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

I really like this quote. I keep thinking about it...

 

It collides a little with the modern pluralistic views that there are many realities, because no, there is only one reality or truth in form, which is the consciousness that knows form, and thus recognises itself as free from form.

 

Very cool.

[3bob]

Hello Seth,

 

Glad to hear that the quote speaks to you I feel that there are some parallels with it and the Isa upanishad, for instance:

 

"He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested (the cause of manifestation) and the destructible or manifested, he crosses over death through knowledge of the destructible and attains immortality through knowledge of the First Cause (Unmanifested)".

 

I'd also add, free within or attachment to all forms yet also able to enjoy the "divine play" of same.

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth,

 

Glad to hear that the quote speaks to you I feel that there are some parallels with it and the Isa upanishad, for instance:

 

"He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested (the cause of manifestation) and the destructible or manifested, he crosses over death through knowledge of the destructible and attains immortality through knowledge of the First Cause (Unmanifested)".

 

I'd also add, free within or attachment to all forms yet also able to enjoy the "divine play" of same.

Thats great! The Upanishads are beautiful texts.

I have only recently been gaining an appreciation for them and their sophisticated view. All my past reading has been limited to some Tantras, KS texts and the Yoga Sutras.

 

He crosses over death through knowledge ~would 'knowing' be a better word translation? I don't think it means conceptual knowledge?

 

As for the balance between becoming free attachment's and still enjoying the divine play, that is something I have been struggling with lol.

I realised recently how some of my late teen reading of new age texts distorted my reading/hearing of KS texts... The World is God teachings out weighed the become free of attachments teachings and in many ways caused me to cultivate attachments... well, glad I see that now...

[3bob]

Seth,

A commentary I came across may help with your latest question concerning "knowledge" (btw, the right question has half the answer or something like that?) I believe through the shared insight of said commentary that the text is pointing to knowledge as realization, thus not or only conceptual knowledge as you say, but a knowledge that is a deep down realization from within -so to speak - thus not acquired one day and lost or forgotten the next.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

Edited June 7, 2013 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited November 3, 2013 by Boy

[Wayfarer]

Hi Bob, Seth, Boy,

 

Thanks for the messages again. I particularly like this section:

 

Last is that Being which does not come in the cycle of tattvas that Being called Parama Śiva. Parama Śiva is not only found in śiva tattva or in śakti tattva. It is not only here, not only there. You will find It everywhere. You will find It from the lowest tattva to the highest. It is all levels, and therefore no level. It is everywhere, that is why It is nowhere. The one Being who is everywhere, It is nowhere".

 

My original message was regarding the pure consciousness being conscious of something but hey we (I) am splitting hairs. I have read the Bhadavad Gita and Patanjali which are similar to what I've read here as is much of Taoism which I practice. This is what I mean by religions pointing to a single thing, yes there are lots of Gods and Goddesses and some people believe in them or see them as a reflection of Parama Siva. Whichever, the quote I've included here is bang on the button for me.

 

You all have a wonderful evening too.

 

Heath

[Simple_Jack]

I confess to not knowing much about Vedanta. Only came across it because someone here said I sound like I talk Neo-Advaita clap trap - so here goes more lol

 

To me the above comment is a step removed from "Truth"...While I agree there is only one reality - which is both form and non-form, I do not agree that it is consciousness aware of being conscious, or that something realises itself. This is a step removed from how things is.

 

To me, there is only Presence or being.

 

Presence or Being = Brahman

 

Instead of using the term neo Advaita clap trap perhaps the term "quasi-Buddhism clap trap" would be a better description of what you've given in the Vedanta forum?

 

Definitely not anywhere close to what Buddhism describes, but is closer to what you would come across in Neo-Advaita.

[Simple_Jack]

Thats great! The Upanishads are beautiful texts.

I have only recently been gaining an appreciation for them and their sophisticated view. All my past reading has been limited to some Tantras, KS texts and the Yoga Sutras.

 

He crosses over death through knowledge ~would 'knowing' be a better word translation? I don't think it means conceptual knowledge?

 

As for the balance between becoming free attachment's and still enjoying the divine play, that is something I have been struggling with lol.

I realised recently how some of my late teen reading of new age texts distorted my reading/hearing of KS texts... The World is God teachings out weighed the become free of attachments teachings and in many ways caused me to cultivate attachments... well, glad I see that now...

 

You should also look more into Samkyha's influence over all major Indian philosophies (both the non-theistic and theistic variety), even though it's a dualistic school.

[roger]

What I believe is that EVERYTHING is consciousness. A pencil is consciousness and has conscious awareness. The sun, the moon, the stars, and even a rock has and is consciousness.

 

Consciousness is being, love, joy, truth, peace.......all of these things are ONE. So basically, in my belief, there is only one thing that exists, and every form (all relative phenomenon) is a manifestation of that One.

 

I'd love to hear if you all agree with this, not to argue, but just to hear your opinions, as I'm open to different ways of looking at things.

 

I feel that one of the most helpful things people can do is be open-minded to different points of view.....otherwise you might never learn anything new.

 

You guys said that a thing is not the FORM, but rather, the CONSCIOUSNESS of that form, and that through conscious awareness, it can realize that it is not the form.

 

Is this like the teaching that when I observe my inner activity, I can realize that I am NOT that activity, and know myself as pure consciousness?

Edited September 5, 2013 by roger

[Wayfarer]

Hi Roger,

 

Yes, however belief and experience are a little like the gap between explaining something you cannot see and seeing something you cannot explain. So in a sense the THING is the form and the consciousness but if we think in terms of form and consciousness we place ourselves "outside the box" so to speak. The best I can explain it is as follows:

 

That which is without shape finds its form in all things. When that which is without shape is noticed all things lose their form.

 

Heath