dwai Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) I've been reading arguments about what comprises a "sage" in the non-dualism perspective. The two options (perhaps there are a few more) are as follows - A sage is one who is free from the bondage of samsara, because they have realized their innate nature, and know without any iota of doubt that this innate nature is non-dual. All concepts and perceptions are merely projections of itself (Objectless Consciousness) on itself, and are ultimately devoid of "realness". Knowing this, the sage doesn't attach to any position (conceptions) and remains an atemporal and non-spatial presence, free from suffering (attachment to pleasures or rejection of pains). A sage is one who is free from the bondage of Samsara, but "vows" to turn their back from the above realization, and work towards the liberation of all other beings, using their now realized freedom to harness infinite power in this universe, and effect changes as needed - become a "ruler" sage. My contention is as follows - Once the Sage realizes that they are absolutely and unequivocally Non-Dual, there is no scope for the will of an independent infinite being that does actions to affect the limited beings (who are not yet realized). Any action that they do as an individual being (however unlimited their power might be) is going to be in the domain of dualism and therefore limited (because the domain of dualism is limited). Such an individual might be what is called "Ishvara" (God) or an Avatar etc etc, but they too are limited in nature (as its the limitation of the upadhi - limiting adjunct - the body, etc). They might be able to bend the "normal" rules (of space and time), but ultimately if they choose to remain bound in space and time (by opting to "bend" the rules), they remain dualistic. On the other hand, if a body-mind complex (Jiva) who is liberated (Jivanamukta) does not act of a limited volition, but all action becomes just happenings in the dualistic world (happenstance), then that qualifies as non-action (wu wei, nishkama karma) and therefore outside the bounds of karma and the mechanism of duality (maya). Happy to read more thoughts on this topic...I hope I wasn't clear as mud Edited February 8, 2017 by dwai 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spotless Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I would clarify one the quote below from above: "A sage is one who is free from the bondage of samsara, because they have realized their innate nature, and know without any iota of doubt that this innate nature is non-dual. All concepts and perceptions are merely projections of itself (Objectless Consciousness) on itself, and are ultimately devoid of "realness". Knowing this, the sage doesn't attach to any position (conceptions) and remains an atemporal and non-spatial presence, free from suffering (attachment to pleasures or rejection of pains). " End Quote --- I would write this differently and you can see the change - the current edition maintains the conceptual. Note - I will attempt to change what was presented as it was presented but with some key word changes to reflect a less concept world wording. -- A sage is one who is free from bondage of samsara, because they have realized innate nature and do not doubt this Presence is all and everything. All concepts and perceptions are merely projections of itself (Objectless Consciousness) on itself and are ultimately devoid of "realness". IN this, the sage doesn't attach to any position (conceptions - polarities) and remains an atemporal and non-spatial presence, free from suffering (position, polarity and conception).--- The Sage is not no longer suffering because he knows something - he no longer suffers because these causes of suffering have fallen away - they are not a part of him - that has left the building - died. The cause was position , polarity, conception. This is perhaps what is so difficult to see in the veil - it is this frequency of noise in our positions / karma that is no longer. Edited February 9, 2017 by Spotless 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spotless Posted February 9, 2017 Prior to Awakening we are essentially a series of Chinese finger puzzles. As Awakened the fingers are no longer in the cups pulling - and all of those actions that created the suffering of position and polarity are gone - that is - Our Story is gone - "we" are gone. Notice - this does not mean that the Chinese puzzle is now vaporized and forgotten - we are not some void shell - all the old puzzles are still sitting there for us to see - but we are not in them - and so we can see them as they Are/were and not from a position IN them but from a clean neutrality in Presence. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I've been reading arguments about what comprises a "sage" in the non-dualism perspective. The two options (perhaps there are a few more) are as follows - A sage is one who is free from the bondage of samsara, because they have realized their innate nature, and know without any iota of doubt that this innate nature is non-dual. All concepts and perceptions are merely projections of itself (Objectless Consciousness) on itself, and are ultimately devoid of "realness". Knowing this, the sage doesn't attach to any position (conceptions) and remains an atemporal and non-spatial presence, free from suffering (attachment to pleasures or rejection of pains). A sage is one who is free from the bondage of Samsara, but "vows" to turn their back from the above realization, and work towards the liberation of all other beings, using their now realized freedom to harness infinite power in this universe, and effect changes as needed - become a "ruler" sage. My contention is as follows - Once the Sage realizes that they are absolutely and unequivocally Non-Dual, there is no scope for the will of an independent infinite being that does actions to affect the limited beings (who are not yet realized). Any action that they do as an individual being (however unlimited their power might be) is going to be in the domain of dualism and therefore limited (because the domain of dualism is limited). Such an individual might be what is called "Ishvara" (God) or an Avatar etc etc, but they too are limited in nature (as its the limitation of the upadhi - limiting adjunct - the body, etc). They might be able to bend the "normal" rules (of space and time), but ultimately if they choose to remain bound in space and time (by opting to "bend" the rules), they remain dualistic. On the other hand, if a body-mind complex (Jiva) who is liberated (Jivanamukta) does not act of a limited volition, but all action becomes just happenings in the dualistic world (happenstance), then that qualifies as non-action (wu wei, nishkama karma) and therefore outside the bounds of karma and the mechanism of duality (maya). Happy to read more thoughts on this topic...I hope I wasn't clear as mud Part of the issue in your statements is that you are saying... there is this box, and a sage has to be in this box, so therefore... The fundamental point is that for a sage or a (ruler) immortal there is no such (Self) box. Specifically to your points on what a sage is like and can or cannot do, the TTC is very clear. Hear are a few statements that describe the properties... -TTC - Chapter 5 The space between Heaven and Earth is formless, but it has a form. For the Ten Thousand Things all depend upon it. Like this space, the Sage can use its formless qualities; for it yields to whatever, or whoever uses it. Hold fast to this and remain at one. As you can see here, the Sage knows (hold fast) the one, but with that knowing can "use it". It is of "being", not seeing separate things like the concept of duality. Just like you moving your little finger. Continuing... - TTC - Chapter 7 The Sage is detached, so he is like Heaven and Earth; thus he is at one with all. Being at one, he performs selfless actions and so he is fulfilled. The key here is that the actions are "selfless" and helping others. This is similar to the concept of how the buddhist vow works relative to buddhahood. -TTC - Chapter 12 Therefore the Sage is guided by what he feels, and not by what he sees. He lets go of that and chooses this. This is again highlighting the feeling/being. Seeing is duality/astral stuff. But, it is more like a Sage resides in being, but can still differentiate (not ceased)... -TTC - Chapter 22 Therefore the sage embraces the one. He sets an example to the world. By not putting on a display, he shines forth. Having no preferences he is open to all. By never boasting or bragging he can never falter. By knowing this and refusing that, He knows of the ways of man. Thus he can avoid a quarrel. As you can see, he knows the ways of man (can differentiate). -TTC Chapter 33 The Sage knows himself and others, therefore he cares for all men and abandons none. He takes care of all things and leaves nothing. Again, this section is highlighting something similar to the bodhisattva vow. Matching the concept of the Avatamsaka sutra that I have posted. Finally... -TTC Chapter 49 The Sage is at one with the Dao, his mind is open and uncluttered. He is aware of all things. By having an open mind, he can act naturally. When one is with the Dao, one is aware of "all things"... Or if you prefer a more wordy buddhist description... "Conforming to the essential nature of all buddhas, they develop a mind like an immense mountain. They know all falsehood and delusion, and enter the door of omniscience. Their knowledge and wisdom are broad and vast and unshakable, due to the attainment of true enlightenment. This is the insight of practical knowledge of equally saving all sentient beings in the ocean of birth and death." Edited February 9, 2017 by Jeff 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted February 9, 2017 Part of the issue in your statements is that you are saying... there is this box, and a sage has to be in this box, so therefore... The fundamental point is that for a sage or a (ruler) immortal there is no such (Self) box. Specifically to your points on what a sage is like and can or cannot do, the TTC is very clear. Hear are a few statements that describe the properties... -TTC - Chapter 5 The space between Heaven and Earth is formless, but it has a form. For the Ten Thousand Things all depend upon it. Like this space, the Sage can use its formless qualities; for it yields to whatever, or whoever uses it. Hold fast to this and remain at one. As you can see here, the Sage knows (hold fast) the one, but with that knowing can "use it". It is of "being", not seeing separate things like the concept of duality. Just like you moving your little finger. Continuing... - TTC - Chapter 7 The Sage is detached, so he is like Heaven and Earth; thus he is at one with all. Being at one, he performs selfless actions and so he is fulfilled. The key here is that the actions are "selfless" and helping others. This is similar to the concept of how the buddhist vow works relative to buddhahood. -TTC - Chapter 12 Therefore the Sage is guided by what he feels, and not by what he sees. He lets go of that and chooses this. This is again highlighting the feeling/being. Seeing is duality/astral stuff. But, it is more like a Sage resides in being, but can still differentiate (not ceased)... -TTC - Chapter 22 Therefore the sage embraces the one. He sets an example to the world. By not putting on a display, he shines forth. Having no preferences he is open to all. By never boasting or bragging he can never falter. By knowing this and refusing that, He knows of the ways of man. Thus he can avoid a quarrel. As you can see, he knows the ways of man (can differentiate). -TTC Chapter 33 The Sage knows himself and others, therefore he cares for all men and abandons none. He takes care of all things and leaves nothing. Again, this section is highlighting something similar to the bodhisattva vow. Matching the concept of the Avatamsaka sutra that I have posted. Finally... -TTC Chapter 49 The Sage is at one with the Dao, his mind is open and uncluttered. He is aware of all things. By having an open mind, he can act naturally. When one is with the Dao, one is aware of "all things"... Or if you prefer a more wordy buddhist description... "Conforming to the essential nature of all buddhas, they develop a mind like an immense mountain. They know all falsehood and delusion, and enter the door of omniscience. Their knowledge and wisdom are broad and vast and unshakable, due to the attainment of true enlightenment. This is the insight of practical knowledge of equally saving all sentient beings in the ocean of birth and death." Yes. However, that One is the "I AM". "I AM" is not non-dual, it is the gateway between duality and non-duality. "I AM" is also not the True Self. The True Self is beyond that. When we operate with what seems to be unlimited power from that "I AM", it is still in the domain of duality. Again, If the sage has no "independent will", but rather, happenings happen around and with the sage, he is not-doing - there is just presence. If he has and exercises an independent will, he is doing. That is still the domain of duality. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 9, 2017 Yes. However, that One is the "I AM". "I AM" is not non-dual, it is the gateway between duality and non-duality. "I AM" is also not the True Self. The True Self is beyond that. When we operate with what seems to be unlimited power from that "I AM", it is still in the domain of duality. Again, If the sage has no "independent will", but rather, happenings happen around and with the sage, he is not-doing - there is just presence. If he has and exercises an independent will, he is doing. That is still the domain of duality. "I AM"..."True Self"... The is no such thing in the TTC. If one is "being" there is no "i am", but that does not mean that there is no doing. When you move you hand, you do not think "I am going to move my hand", you just move it. As the TTC states, using the formless is just like that for a sage. Maybe try this as an analogy... Your "true Self" is like a giant video game. The video game has formed things (objects) and also a source code so that new objects for the game can be built (unformed). A sage is one who realizes that he is "in" a video game, but not bound by the video game. He knows the source code and hence can build new objects for the game (use the formless to help others). A ruler immortal is one who has realized the entire game (both form and formless), becomes the game itself (valley of the universe) and allows the needs of the video game characters (cause and effect) to define the most useful form (carved block) to upgrade the entire video game. Or, in your terms... Self itself is empty and impermanent, hence it can be "upgraded". In buddhist terms, one would say that a primordial buddha, has new dharmakaya, that gives a basis for a Self/Buddhamind. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) "I AM"..."True Self"... The is no such thing in the TTC. If one is "being" there is no "i am", but that does not mean that there is no doing. When you move you hand, you do not think "I am going to move my hand", you just move it. As the TTC states, using the formless is just like that for a sage. Maybe try this as an analogy... Your "true Self" is like a giant video game. The video game has formed things (objects) and also a source code so that new objects for the game can be built (unformed). A sage is one who realizes that he is "in" a video game, but not bound by the video game. He knows the source code and hence can build new objects for the game (use the formless to help others). A ruler immortal is one who has realized the entire game (both form and formless), becomes the game itself (valley of the universe) and allows the needs of the video game characters (cause and effect) to define the most useful form (carved block) to upgrade the entire video game. Or, in your terms... Self itself is empty and impermanent, hence it can be "upgraded". In buddhist terms, one would say that a primordial buddha, has new dharmakaya, that gives a basis for a Self/Buddhamind. The Self cannot be denied or negated...if it can, then ask "Who is it that is denying it?" and you'll be back to square one. We'll get absurdities like infinite independent streams of discrete consciousness (Alaya vijnana) all mutually co-rising to try and explain away the Self As much as it pains me to use this term (old Bums will know why I wince so when I use the term) - reifying the empty Self into an infinitely powerful "Being" is just that reification. We should not get caught up in labels and concepts. Edited February 9, 2017 by dwai 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted February 9, 2017 The Self cannot be denied or negated...if it can, then ask "Who is it that is denying it?" and you'll be back to square one. We'll get absurdities like infinite independent streams of discrete consciousness (Alaya vijnana) all mutually co-rising to try and explain away the Self ... Denied or negated... These are not being, such are states of the "mind". The proof is in the pudding... Just read the descriptions of a being becoming a buddha or ruler immortal and what they are like. Such are impossible if you have the Self. In the Self (box) there is only your Jivanamukta. As the my quotes above show, their definition of "true enlightenment" is vastly different than what you are describing. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted February 9, 2017 Denied or negated... These are not being, such are states of the "mind". The proof is in the pudding... Just read the descriptions of a being becoming a buddha or ruler immortal and what they are like. Such are impossible if you have the Self. In the Self (box) there is only your Jivanamukta. As the my quotes above show, their definition of "true enlightenment" is vastly different than what you are describing. Or it could just be a mistaken understanding of what is written I won't belabor this anymore...thanks for your compassion and kindness. Hari Om Tat Sat _/|\_ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted February 9, 2017 what comprises a "sage" in the non-dualism perspective. they have realized their innate nature My contention is as follows - Once the Sage realizes that they are absolutely and unequivocally Non-Dual, there is no scope for the will of an independent infinite being that does actions to affect the limited beings (who are not yet realized). Any action that they do as an individual being (however unlimited their power might be) is going to be in the domain of dualism and therefore limited (because the domain of dualism is limited). Such an individual might be what is called "Ishvara" (God) or an Avatar etc etc, but they too are limited in nature (as its the limitation of the upadhi - limiting adjunct - the body, etc). They might be able to bend the "normal" rules (of space and time), but ultimately if they choose to remain bound in space and time (by opting to "bend" the rules), they remain dualistic. On the other hand, if a body-mind complex (Jiva) who is liberated (Jivanamukta) does not act of a limited volition, but all action becomes just happenings in the dualistic world (happenstance), then that qualifies as non-action (wu wei, nishkama karma) and therefore outside the bounds of karma and the mechanism of duality (maya). I found the title very intriguing and assuming the answer was going to be, concepts are duality - plain and simple... but you want to figure out the unlimited being in all of this. Nice So I quoted 'realized their inner nature' as that seemed good. The next section seems interesting since you afford the sage (or whoever) to bend natural law, regardless of space or time, but this is still just duality ? I can follow that to a point but if they bend the natural laws of duality, can't they get outside of duality? Or you think they just turn it like a rubix cube, in a sense? My point would be: What they are doing is one thing, but where they are is another thing. If you are outside of space or time, is that within duality? Then you stated, "but all actions becomes just happenings in the dualistic world then that qualifies as non-action and therefore outside the boundaries of karma and the mechanism of duality". where does this "just happening" arise from ? What is the source ? You just said this was in the dualistic world but outside of it in the end. I don't quite see how my comment and your comment really differ, yet bending past space-time is stuck in dual while just happenings in duality life is beyond dual... We may not agree with what is non-dual... but if the suspension of space-time is not non-dual, then I think there are much harder issues at work when 'just happening' is superior at non-dual. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I found the title very intriguing and assuming the answer was going to be, concepts are duality - plain and simple... but you want to figure out the unlimited being in all of this. Nice So I quoted 'realized their inner nature' as that seemed good. The next section seems interesting since you afford the sage (or whoever) to bend natural law, regardless of space or time, but this is still just duality ? I can follow that to a point but if they bend the natural laws of duality, can't they get outside of duality? Or you think they just turn it like a rubix cube, in a sense? My point would be: What they are doing is one thing, but where they are is another thing. If you are outside of space or time, is that within duality? Then you stated, "but all actions becomes just happenings in the dualistic world then that qualifies as non-action and therefore outside the boundaries of karma and the mechanism of duality". where does this "just happening" arise from ? What is the source ? You just said this was in the dualistic world but outside of it in the end. I don't quite see how my comment and your comment really differ, yet bending past space-time is stuck in dual while just happenings in duality life is beyond dual... We may not agree with what is non-dual... but if the suspension of space-time is not non-dual, then I think there are much harder issues at work when 'just happening' is superior at non-dual. Hi Dawei The awareness/consciousness is the one that travels between duality and non-duality. There simply is no other way. So when the consciousness just IS - Presence, it is not attached to polarity, therefore is Non-dual. There is no before or after, no here or there (no time, no space, only Presence/Being). When the consciousness is in space and time (means there is before and after, here and there), there is relatively no Presence/Being. So it's a choice. Either be Present or exist in space-time. So even if you were to bend the rules of space and time, you are doing so in space and time. So it is dualistic. As a corollary thereof, if one is Present, then they don't choose any more as there is no volition, since volition is in the domain of the mind and is predicated on past and future. Then anything that happens in the dualistic world is "not-doing" (if it involves that Presence). If one chooses to do anything, then they automatically leave the domain of Non-duality (Presence) by attaching to a past or future, here or there - hence domain of duality. Edited February 9, 2017 by dwai 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted February 9, 2017 Hi Dawei The awareness/consciousness is the one that travels between duality and non-duality. There simply is no other way. So when the consciousness just IS - Presence, it is not attached to polarity, therefore is Non-dual. There is no before or after, no here or there (no time, no space, only Presence/Being). When the consciousness is in space and time (means there is before and after, here and there), there is relatively no Presence/Being. So it's a choice. Either be Present or exist in space-time. So even if you were to bend the rules of space and time, you are doing so in space and time. So it is dualistic. how do you explain time or dimension travel? Or deity visits? Where is that in the mix? I don't think it is consciousness traveling but something beyond mind that is prior to and outside of mind. We may quibble about such things if you say the heart is the connection then I would likely come closer to agreement but still not it. Awaken talked of the heart energy and thus Shen arises... so there are connections we really don't acknowledge at times. If you want to say all deities and spirits are duality, then I'm giving you the easy answer, yes? It still ignores this traveling (complete spared space-time) aspect... some can cut across time-space-dimensions... and others will just say, that is duality. I accept that is their understanding. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted February 9, 2017 how do you explain time or dimension travel? Or deity visits? Where is that in the mix? I don't think it is consciousness traveling but something beyond mind that is prior to and outside of mind. We may quibble about such things if you say the heart is the connection then I would likely come closer to agreement but still not it. Awaken talked of the heart energy and thus Shen arises... so there are connections we really don't acknowledge at times. If you want to say all deities and spirits are duality, then I'm giving you the easy answer, yes? It still ignores this traveling (complete spared space-time) aspect... some can cut across time-space-dimensions... and others will just say, that is duality. I accept that is their understanding. I don't consider the mind to be consciousness..it is a tool of consciousness...a more substantial essence of consciousness even. That which I call Consciousness rises from the Heart. All deities and spirits ARE in duality. I saw this clear as day - there is pure consciousness and all things are super-impositions therein. The closer the super-imposition gets to the Pure Consciousness in terms of fine-ness/frequency of vibration, the more "holy" and "powerful" it gets (in the dualistic world). Space and time too are essentially aspects of this super-imposition and depending on how high the frequency of vibration (dimension if you please) is, the experience of space and time varies. But ultimately, they are all like waves of the same ocean. If we chose to focus on the waves, we mistakenly consider ourselves only waves and not the ocean. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted February 9, 2017 That which I call Consciousness rises from the Heart. All deities and spirits ARE in duality. I think this is good I don't think I really grasp your position of non-dual but I'll give it a rest as it was good to hear you further clarify some issues. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted February 9, 2017 I found the title very intriguing and assuming the answer was going to be, concepts are duality - plain and simple... but you want to figure out the unlimited being in all of this. Nice So I quoted 'realized their inner nature' as that seemed good. The next section seems interesting since you afford the sage (or whoever) to bend natural law, regardless of space or time, but this is still just duality ? I can follow that to a point but if they bend the natural laws of duality, can't they get outside of duality? Or you think they just turn it like a rubix cube, in a sense? My point would be: What they are doing is one thing, but where they are is another thing. If you are outside of space or time, is that within duality? Then you stated, "but all actions becomes just happenings in the dualistic world then that qualifies as non-action and therefore outside the boundaries of karma and the mechanism of duality". where does this "just happening" arise from ? What is the source ? You just said this was in the dualistic world but outside of it in the end. I don't quite see how my comment and your comment really differ, yet bending past space-time is stuck in dual while just happenings in duality life is beyond dual... We may not agree with what is non-dual... but if the suspension of space-time is not non-dual, then I think there are much harder issues at work when 'just happening' is superior at non-dual. Hi dawei, Any thought to the idea that non duality is the realization that you are one with everything, one with the essence that is all things which is Siva but one becomes like Siva? If so, what does it mean to become like Siva to you? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted February 9, 2017 Hi dawei, Any thought to the idea that non duality is the realization that you are one with everything, one with the essence that is all things which is Siva but one becomes like Siva? If so, what does it mean to become like Siva to you? I don't really follow Buddhist or Hindu traditional ideas so much... I have come to understand some of them and more recently reconciled Daoist to Buddhist-Indian on some ideas. So I think part of the issue, if we are willing to hear each other out, is we come from different frameworks but, IMO, they should ultimately reconcile on some issues. But I can't speak to anything about Siva... I don't know any of that tradition or sutra stuff. But the core question or issue seems to be about non-dual and if while in the dual state one can experience non-dual. I think this core question means a person has not reconcile this. What else is Form=Void ; Void=Form... than Dual=Non-Dual ; Non-Dual=Dual. I'll stop there as it is not my thread and I am steer this in a wrong direction 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted February 10, 2017 I don't really follow Buddhist or Hindu traditional ideas so much... I have come to understand some of them and more recently reconciled Daoist to Buddhist-Indian on some ideas. So I think part of the issue, if we are willing to hear each other out, is we come from different frameworks but, IMO, they should ultimately reconcile on some issues. But I can't speak to anything about Siva... I don't know any of that tradition or sutra stuff. But the core question or issue seems to be about non-dual and if while in the dual state one can experience non-dual. I think this core question means a person has not reconcile this. What else is Form=Void ; Void=Form... than Dual=Non-Dual ; Non-Dual=Dual. I'll stop there as it is not my thread and I am steer this in a wrong direction What else is Form=Void ; Void=Form... than Dual=Non-Dual ; Non-Dual=Dual. Form is energy/light. First one is caught up in the mind, that all things are objects/dualistic. With increased depth one realizes that all things are really energy or light you could say (oneness/non-duality). Void is more moving beyond the light. I always think of it as that which is in the center of the light is emptiness. It is that emptiness that all things arise from and return too, including the light. When one has realized emptiness, that which is beyond all form/energy/light and that essence which is all things is one and the same aka void=form and form=void then one is a Buddha. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neti neti Posted February 10, 2017 My thoughts... a non-dual perspective may be the closest finger pointing towards the moon, but it still doesn't truly touch it. I'm reminded of Nisargadatta's words as recorded in "Prior to Consciousness", which may help shed some light on a "jivanmukta". "You must come to a firm decision. You must forget the thought that you are the body and be only the knowledge "I am", which has no form, no name. Just be. When you stabilize in that beingness it will give all the knowledge and all the secrets to you, and when the secrets are given to you, you transcend the beingness, and you, the Absolute will know that you are also not the consciousness. Having gained all this knowledge, having understood what is what, a kind of quietude prevails, a tranquility. Beingness is transcended, but beingness is available." ~Nisargadatta Maharaj To the "jivanmukta"("free" from both bondage and liberation), dual and non-dual domains alike are known to be mere ghosts in the machine. For once having "stabilized" in and as that which lies "prior" to conceptual knowledge(like existence and non-existence), being itself is also known to "just happen." Something to pause about, considering all that being entails.The paradoxical equivalent of being all there ever was, is to realize you never were... yet will always be. So the 'liberated soul' can appear to operate from beyond "both worlds", and also from within them. All just happenings. "Beingness" is something available to the all-comprehensive Self of all. The Power of powers, able to even make Itself imperceptible to Itself. This indescribable transcendence of transcendence concurs with the topic's title, and yet, they are simultaneously at odds. "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity." 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted February 10, 2017 Hi neti neti, That reminds me of a quote from the Triadic Heart of Siva. Abhinavagupta explains it like this. "Even as Siva creates the very real game of breaking himself into parts which suffer transformation, division, extinction and emptiness, he is nevertheless able to maintain himself free of the game and intact as Siva, all the while taking on the roles required by the game." 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
