The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

[dwai]

While I understand your logic, I see it differently and believe we are describing two different principles/concepts. But maybe our challenge is in my understanding of Brahman.  Is not Brahman, the highest reality, beyond which no other (self) exists? And hence, Brahman "exists"; and with Atman=Brahman, it is kind of like extrapolating it to the concept of infinity?

 

Like I said, syntax cannot be used to describe Brahman. No extrapolation is necessary. Infinity is also a dualistic concept. Brahman, like the Dao, is simultaneously everything and nothing, neither everything, nor nothing  because it is not a thing - it is a no-thing (not an entity - which has a form or can be labelled/described).  

 

 

I think I explained why Atman (Self) is considered to be non-different from Brahman. It is just a literary/syntactical device used to explain that there is no "self", only Brahman. 

 

But there is also the concept of the two-level model of reality (as posited by Vedanta and also adopted by Buddhism). The Paramarthika (one of most value or absolute) and vyavaharika (one of regular use or relative).  Brahman is paramarthika, but the dualistic world is vyavaharika.

 

Brahman exists on its own accord. Doesn't depend on anything to exist. But it is considered unborn because it is not a thing (phenomenon) which has a beginning (and therefore, an end). It is considered atemporal, because time has no meaning (time is a vyavaharika construct). That is why it is considered eternal. But it meant to imply non-spatial, atemporal (not bound by the rules of the dualistic world of space and time).

[Jeff]

Like I said, syntax cannot be used to describe Brahman. No extrapolation is necessary. Infinity is also a dualistic concept. Brahman, like the Dao, is simultaneously everything and nothing, neither everything, nor nothing  because it is not a thing - it is a no-thing (not an entity - which has a form or can be labelled/described).  

 

 

I think I explained why Atman (Self) is considered to be non-different from Brahman. It is just a literary/syntactical device used to explain that there is no "self", only Brahman. 

 

But there is also the concept of the two-level model of reality (as posited by Vedanta and also adopted by Buddhism). The Paramarthika (one of most value or absolute) and vyavaharika (one of regular use or relative).  Brahman is paramarthika, but the dualistic world is vyavaharika.

 

Brahman exists on its own accord. Doesn't depend on anything to exist. But it is considered unborn because it is not a thing (phenomenon) which has a beginning (and therefore, an end). It is considered atemporal, because time has no meaning (time is a vyavaharika construct). That is why it is considered eternal. But it meant to imply non-spatial, atemporal (not bound by the rules of the dualistic world of space and time).

 

Since you have personally defined Brahman as the same as the Dao, it make such a discussion challenging.  But, our difference of view can be found in this simple statement of yours..."Brahman exists on its own accord".  Whether non-dual or not in view, that is a defining statement, and creates rungs on a ladder...

[dwai]

Since you have personally defined Brahman as the same as the Dao, it make such a discussion challenging.  But, our difference of view can be found in this simple statement of yours..."Brahman exists on its own accord".  Whether non-dual or not in view, that is a defining statement, and creates rungs on a ladder...

That is your interpretation of what I said. Does the Dao not exist on it's own accord? Will the Dao cease to be the Dao if the 10,000 things, or three, or two or one thing ceases to exist?

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[Jeff]

That is your interpretation of what I said. Does the Dao not exist on it's own accord? Will the Dao cease to be the Dao if the 10,000 things, or three, or two or one thing ceases to exist?

 

Is that not what you said in the text I quoted?

 

The concept of the Dao "existing" is like my post from the gospel of Thomas and realizing that motion and rest are the same thing.  If something is to "exist", such is not possible.  Here is another quote from the TTC (SFH version) that touches on this point...

 

CHAPTER 4

The Dao is forever like an unfathomable empty space. If used, it can never be used up.

It is the source of the Ten Thousand Things.

Look with your heart, see its form in the glare,

be at one with the dust of the Earth, simplify your nature.

For it is ever present, hidden in the depths of the myriad things.

I don't know from whence it came, but it is great. 

 

The statement of... "The Dao is forever like an unfathomable empty space.  If used, it can never be used up." As described as an empty space, it does not really exist. And, in that unfathomable empty space, motion and rest are the same thing.

[dwai]

Is that not what you said in the text I quoted?

 

The concept of the Dao "existing" is like my post from the gospel of Thomas and realizing that motion and rest are the same thing.  If something is to "exist", such is not possible.  Here is another quote from the TTC (SFH version) that touches on this point...

 

CHAPTER 4

The Dao is forever like an unfathomable empty space. If used, it can never be used up.

It is the source of the Ten Thousand Things.

Look with your heart, see its form in the glare,

be at one with the dust of the Earth, simplify your nature.

For it is ever present, hidden in the depths of the myriad things.

I don't know from whence it came, but it is great. 

 

The statement of... "The Dao is forever like an unfathomable empty space.  If used, it can never be used up." As described as an empty space, it does not really exist. And, in that unfathomable empty space, motion and rest are the same thing.

The way I see it, you are focussing on the literal use of the words "empty space". Similar words have been used to describe Brahman as well. Since it is unfathomable, then you can't be sure what the empty space is truly empty of? 

 

So let me quote (which I'm loath to usually) from the Dao de Jing --

 

chapter 1

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

 

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin

of all particular things.

 

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

 

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.

This source is called darkness.

 

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.

chapter four

 

The Tao is like a well:

used but never used up.

It is like the eternal void:

filled with infinite possibilities.

 

It is hidden but always present.

I don't know who gave birth to it.

It is older than God.

 

5, 6 and 7

 

5

The Tao doesn't take sides;

it gives birth to both good and evil.

The Master doesn't take sides;

she welcomes both saints and sinners.

 

The Tao is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable.

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

 

Hold on to the center.

6

The Tao is called the Great Mother:

empty yet inexhaustible,

it gives birth to infinite worlds.

 

It is always present within you.

You can use it any way you want.

7

The Tao is infinite, eternal.

Why is it eternal?

It was never born;

thus it can never die.

Why is it infinite?

It has no desires for itself;

thus it is present for all beings.

 

The Master stays behind;

that is why she is ahead.

She is detached from all things;

that is why she is one with them.

Because she has let go of herself,

she is perfectly fulfilled.

[Jeff]

The way I see it, you are focussing on the literal use of the words "empty space". Similar words have been used to describe Brahman as well. Since it is unfathomable, then you can't be sure what the empty space is truly empty of? 

 

So let me quote (which I'm loath to usually) from the Dao de Jing --

 

chapter 1

 

chapter four

 

 

 

5, 6 and 7

 

Yes, I would agree that using any such text can be challenging as the words themselves are open to interpretation.  And since we both seem to be basing our interpretation on our own direct experience and perspective, rather than some absolute, it makes it even more interesting.

 

Maybe it is as simple that we just see it differently, based upon each of our own experiences. Agree to disagree.

[dwai]

Yes, I would agree that using any such text can be challenging as the words themselves are open to interpretation.  And since we both seem to be basing our interpretation on our own direct experience and perspective, rather than some absolute, it makes it even more interesting.

 

Maybe it is as simple that we just see it differently, based upon each of our own experiences. Agree to disagree.

I don't think we are disagreeing. You are misunderstanding what I wrote

[Jeff]

I don't think we are disagreeing. You are misunderstanding what I wrote

 

Haha... Now that was a good one... Disagreeing about disagreement...

[dwai]

Haha... Now that was a good one... Disagreeing about disagreement...

I think our conditioning makes us interpret even the same sentence in different ways sometimes. I too said (as quoted in the Dao De Jing), that the Brahman is eternal, infinite (and why - because it is not subject to space and time). It is empty yet full of potentiality and the source of everything, even though it is empty. It stands on its own, because it is not dependent on any "thing" to exist (why, because it is not subject to space and time).

 

It is ever present since it is eternal and is our True Self (see the quote from DDJ chapter 6 about it always being present in us). What is the confusion?

[Bud Jetsun]

Humans receive some perceptions of phenomena.

 

No matter the labels they may choose to assign to some perception of phenomena, the ultimate nature of reality remains unaffected.

 

Beings are free to squabble over a preference in constructed phenomena labels, ultimate nature of reality continues unaffected.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

[Jeff]

I think our conditioning makes us interpret even the same sentence in different ways sometimes. I too said (as quoted in the Dao De Jing), that the Brahman is eternal, infinite (and why - because it is not subject to space and time). It is empty yet full of potentiality and the source of everything, even though it is empty. It stands on its own, because it is not dependent on any "thing" to exist (why, because it is not subject to space and time).

 

It is ever present since it is eternal and is our True Self (see the quote from DDJ chapter 6 about it always being present in us). What is the confusion?

 

The difference is in the concept of "exist" and "eternal".  It goes to the fundamental nature of "what is".

[dwai]

The difference is in the concept of "exist" and "eternal".  It goes to the fundamental nature of "what is".

I think if you introspect the subject, you might come the to same conclusion as me. The Ancient Daoists and Vedantins chose to use "exist" or "existent" or "beingness" as opposed to non-beingness, non-existent, "absolutely real", "truly real", etc because they realized while it (Dao/Brahman) is NOT a thing, it is also not "NOTHING".

 

They chose to refer to it positively, because after all the 10,000 things rise from it and dissolve into it.

Why would it not be "existent" or "eternal"? What other words would you use? It has already been said The Real Dao/Brahman can't be named and labeled, described.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[Jeff]

I think if you introspect the subject, you might come the to same conclusion as me. The Ancient Daoists and Vedantins chose to use "exist" or "existent" or "beingness" as opposed to non-beingness, non-existent, "absolutely real", "truly real", etc because they realized while it (Dao/Brahman) is NOT a thing, it is also not "NOTHING".

 

They chose to refer to it positively, because after all the 10,000 things rise from it and dissolve into it.

Why would it not be "existent" or "eternal"? What other words would you use? It has already been said The Real Dao/Brahman can't be named and labeled, described.

 

I have dived very deep into the nature of it, and simply have not found it to equate as you do. But, I would definitely agree that the "difference" is very, very subtle.  That is why I have pointed to the motion=rest example.  In buddhism, it would be found in the Heart Sutra, where Emptiness = Form and also Form = Emptiness.  Both are uniquely true and required with the realization of emptiness; the concept that you are describing is only half (or Form = Emptiness).

[dwai]

I have dived very deep into the nature of it, and simply have not found it to equate as you do. But, I would definitely agree that the "difference" is very, very subtle.  That is why I have pointed to the motion=rest example.  In buddhism, it would be found in the Heart Sutra, where Emptiness = Form and also Form = Emptiness.  Both are uniquely true and required with the realization of emptiness; the concept that you are describing is only half (or Form = Emptiness).

I see this as simply being semantics.

emptiness = form and form = emptiness is like saying x = y and y = x.  

[Jeff]

I see this as simply being semantics.

emptiness = form and form = emptiness is like saying x = y and y = x.  

 

It is definitely saying something like that, and I would totally agree, that in the (local) mind, they are the same. But, that is also why I do not use that example often (because of the easy confusion) and why I instead pointed the the motion=rest example instead first.

[dawei]

It is definitely saying something like that, and I would totally agree, that in the (local) mind, they are the same. But, that is also why I do not use that example often (because of the easy confusion) and why I instead pointed the the motion=rest example instead first.

 

Not sure I followed the entire exchange... but why would 'motion=rest' not be the local mind saying they are the same, too?

[Jeff]

Not sure I followed the entire exchange... but why would 'motion=rest' not be the local mind saying they are the same, too?

 

By saying the same, Dwai was using the X=Y and Y=X example related to the Heart sutra definition of emptiness.  Logically, in math terms, they are equivalent, but that is not what the Heart sutra is saying (hence the challenge and often misunderstanding regarding the buddhist concept of emptiness).

 

Motion=Rest is giving the equivalent concept as the Heart sutra, but the example is not subject to the same logical math trap. In the "local" mind, motion is not equal to rest (or at least only when motion=0) and hence conveys the point/meaning.

 

Or you could also say, that when one realizes that motion=rest, then the subtle difference between our points is better noticed.

[dwai]

By saying the same, Dwai was using the X=Y and Y=X example related to the Heart sutra definition of emptiness.  Logically, in math terms, they are equivalent, but that is not what the Heart sutra is saying (hence the challenge and often misunderstanding regarding the buddhist concept of emptiness).

 

Motion=Rest is giving the equivalent concept as the Heart sutra, but the example is not subject to the same logical math trap. In the "local" mind, motion is not equal to rest (or at least only when motion=0) and hence conveys the point/meaning.

 

Or you could also say, that when one realizes that motion=rest, then the subtle difference between our points is better noticed.

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of the Heart Sutra, but per my Taijiquan and internal arts experience, I can tell you there is motion in stillness and stillness in motion all the time. Because energy is in motion even if the body and mind are still and the mind is still even if the body and energy in motion. But even that, is in the real of "local mind" as you put it (or as I say, in the dualistic world view). It a step closer to the non-dual experience but is still not there, imho.

 

To be more precise, if we are referring to opposites, we are in the realm of duality, therefore not non-dual.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai

[Jeff]

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of the Heart Sutra, but per my Taijiquan and internal arts experience, I can tell you there is motion in stillness and stillness in motion all the time. Because energy is in motion even if the body and mind are still and the mind is still even if the body and energy in motion. But even that, is in the real of "local mind" as you put it (or as I say, in the dualistic world view). It a step closer to the non-dual experience but is still not there, imho.

 

To be more precise, if we are referring to opposites, we are in the realm of duality, therefore not non-dual.

 

No opposites... That is why I had all of the equal signs in my post...

Edited February 25, 2016 by Jeff

[dwai]

No opposites... That is why I had all of the equal signs in my post...

Stillness and Motion are in the realm of the interplay of yin and yang

[dawei]

The difference is in the concept of "exist" and "eternal".  It goes to the fundamental nature of "what is".

 

Here is an interesting paper on Dao and Brahman.  On page 28 is a novel use of DDJ42 to compare them.

 

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp252_dao_brahman.pdf

[dwai]

Here is an interesting paper on Dao and Brahman.  On page 28 is a novel use of DDJ42 to compare them.

 

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp252_dao_brahman.pdf

Thanks for sharing Dawei

[ilumairen]

And the sage is still - even in movement.

And in the movement, stillness.

And silent - even in speech.

And in speech, silence.

 

Not interplay, not one or other - inseperably interwoven.

 

IMO, of course.

[Jeff]

Stillness and Motion are in the realm of the interplay of yin and yang

 

Not in the context that I was using, remember I said they were the same, not both existent.  I was talking about the emergence of the "One" from the Dao. Or as I originally stated from the GOT verse 50...

 

Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.

[dwai]

Not in the context that I was using, remember I said they were the same, not both existent.  I was talking about the emergence of the "One" from the Dao. Or as I originally stated from the GOT verse 50...

 

Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.

In the Dao/Brahman, opposites don't have any meaning. There is no other. There is no stillness, there is no motion. There is no existence or non-existence as we know it. But something makes the appearances happen. Whatever that may be, is still not Dao/Brahman. 

 

I think no one can truly tell why appearances, forms, motion occur out of the Dao/Brahman. Only two make sense to me. Dao/Brahman are conscious and full of pure joy (and therefore of unconditioned love). And the joy and love is what provides the impetus for creation to occur. As the Kashmir Shaivites say "spanda" is a result of the joy of Satchidananda or Shiva.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dwai