Prerequisites for enlightenment (if any)

[3bob]

Mind can not know outside itself, yet there is the Self that is not a mind or even of the realm of mind type knowing if you will...

 

....that's the catch for it can't be pinned down with mental logic or the tool of reason, for if it could then it would not be the Self, just another logical whatever bind-able in or by mind or minds. Also "Neti, "neti is a method per-se - not satisfaction known.

 

Several great Gurus have more or less said, "know the Self by the Self"!

Edited May 9, 2017 by 3bob

[SeekerOfHealing]

Bunch of bs and feces.

[C T]

Bunch of bs and feces.

Dont think your participation on this forum/site will persist for much longer, to be honest. 

 

Guess you probably dont even care.

[Michael Sternbach]

Leaving Upanishads aside and just inquiring.  How can the Self/Atman know it as Self/Atman?  Atman/Self is described as everything.  To know, there should be otherness.  If it is everything, how can it know itself?

 

If I were to assume an entity like God, who is everything.  Such God cannot possibly tell the difference between good and bad.  Because God is both good and bad at the sametime.

 

I read in a book, that a little kid questioning, where was God (physical location) before creating the Universe?  The universe is yet unmanifest.  God just was.  It is impossible to give a location where he was before creation.

 

Going by the same logic, Atman cannot know itself.  The moment, the Atman knows it is Atman, it is not Atman anymore (as described).

Thus, the One Awareness split itself up into myriads of 'awarenesses', as to experience Itself from so many different perspectives, all of which are needed for the One to understand Itself.

[SeekerOfHealing]

Of course I do not care. I'm only realizing how spiritual people are getting more stupid and stupid and more entangled in the concepts thinking they getting somewhere.

 

I wanted to share some valuable experiences for genuine seekers but all I see are people who are destined to die ignorant and still neglect their stupidity taking it as a kind of wisdom.

 

First you need to understand that none of you are showing any sings of understanding of reality, just recycling concepts again and again without any benefit for yourself and others. It's like eating someone poop and taking delight in this. Disgusting.

 

Atman, not atman, self, not self. Puke. Start questioning all those concepts not following them and then maybe you will get somewhere.

Edited May 9, 2017 by SeekerOfHealing

[Sudhamma]

Fundamentalism, Fundamental Buddhism? What complexity is required in order to be engaging when the fundamentals of the Faith are not even grasped and understood in totality? Did the Buddha spend most of his time refuting Atman/Brahman/Self/Soul in his 40 years of ministry? Who ever made that statement must have read through and understood His 40 years of teachings otherwise, he would not have made such a sweeping statement. Spent most of His time (40 years of ministry) on one main concern? I must be reading fake suttas over these few decades. There are other Paths teaching the same thing as the Buddha, said some, only that the terms are different, the approach are different, and the Time is different. Believable?

 

During the time of the Buddha, some 2500 years ago, there was, besides the Vedic religions collectively known as Hinduism, were also ascetic yogic practices and even ‘nihilism’, an atheistic no-god approach to Life on the other extreme end of the religious spectrum. There were many “Paths” then as of now. Like what we now read in this thread on, “What are the requisites of enlightenment (if any)”, the many arguments between the Buddha and other adherents of other faiths brought about the rise of Buddhism in the Indian sub-continent. In those open debates between the Buddha and the other proponents, there was a prize in winning those arguments. The prize was that those who had lost the debate would join (and “convert” to the winning side) the winner together with ALL his followers.  No blood had ever flowed in those oral challenges. There were times when some of His opponents though lost in the argument would not ‘surrender’ to Him, and in some of those cases, the followers of their defeated religious teacher would change side to the Buddha. Among the multitude of religions, monothetic, polythetic, animism, shamanism, Daoism, and all that could come to mind, is a religion of Man, a path of freedom from samsaric existence, from sufferings, from dependence on Atman or God-head if you wish. That religion of Man (not that of the Lord of the Ring trilogy) is Buddhism, and the Buddha, is a Teacher of both Gods and Men.

 

As aforesaid of the 7 factors of Enlightenment is “the investigation of the Law”. Not only is studying the Dhamma is encouraged, you are expected to check and test the truthfulness of what the Buddha taught. That’s the challenge laid down 2500 years ago for anyone who is really interested to find out what is this Enlightenment from the Buddhist perspective. Ehipassiko.

[SeekerOfHealing]

Yep. You can not really convert to buddhism are you are born buddhist as you have a mind and that's all you need to become buddhist, but moment of convertion is actually when you start investigating the mind consciously and moment you understand that mind is determining factor of our existence, feeling of how we are etc. (or how the skandhas/aggregates are)

 

 

Before speaking about buddhism learn this.

[Jeff]

It is also called "tad ekam evadvitiyam". It means existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence have no meaning from that Perspective.

 

NOTE: Corrected the statement "tad ekam nadvitiyam to Tad ekam evadvitiyam" (meaning that one, without a second...I had misquoted it)

I think you may be looking at it out of context. If you look at in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1, you will see that your texts means "That [brahman] is one, without a second". That "one, without a second" is being and non being. Both form and formless. Is there some text that you know of that states that Brahman is impermanent? That Brahman changes and/or ceases?

[dwai]

Edited May 9, 2017 by dwai

[s1va]

On 5/9/2017 at 7:23 AM, Jeff said:

I think you may be looking at it out of context. If you look at in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1, you will see that your texts means "That [brahman] is one, without a second". That "one, without a second" is being and non being. Both form and formless. Is there some text that you know of that states that Brahman is impermanent? That Brahman changes and/or ceases?

You are right to point out the  distinction to me earlier.  And you are right to point out about Brahman once more.

 

Moving away from the similarity or dissimilarity from Buddhism, I am thinking of something else.  

 

The interpretation you gave is not the only interpretation to the Upanishad or even entire Vedanta.  Shankara's main critics were not Buddhist, but are Vedantins.  They are from the Vaishnava schools  -- Vishistadvaita and Dvaita.  I used to dismiss such things and look at Vedanta only from the stand point of Advaita.  But, the entire Vedanta (upanishads, brahma sutra...) all are explained beautifully in these other schools also.  I used to think this was not possible.  Such meaning can never come out of Vedanta.  When I heard/read them, and from what little I understood, I realized that it is possible to explain the Vedanda in dualistic views.  Their explanation:  Brahman is one without second.  They entirely agree, but they say it means, it is unique and there is no second like it.  But there are other things such as jivas that are impermanent.   It took me a while to understand, that their interpretations are equally valid as advaita.

 

I used to do simply reject such views taking one side.  But, these are from some of the greatest Acharya's and intellectual people.  They don't ask me to accept anything in face value.  Just as in the spirit of Vedanta, they beautifully explain the questions.  

 

Edit:  No school of Vedanta can refute what you mentioned, up until the point where you said, "one without second".  The other schools may differ from the part, "all form and formless".  The dualistic schools say, the other second things are also valid.  This may be a simplistic view.  For the sake of my understanding and progression, it has helped me.

Edited June 18, 2017 by kāvēri

[s1va]

Mind can not know outside itself, yet there is the Self that is not a mind or even of the realm of mind type knowing if you will...

 

I see it other way around.  Mind can know itself and everything else.  Self cannot know outside itself.

 

You have pointed out Self is not of realm of mind.  Knowing falls entirely in the territory of mind.  

[dwai]

 

 

From the pure advaitic stand point of Bramham in one without second: we can't be having this discussion here, or any discussion.  We can't help but hold on to dvaita to carry out discussions.

 

Yes. Dvaita is what the world appears to be. In fact, it is a necessary precondition for material existence (as we know our universe to be). It's root is the duality of the poles (Purusha/Prakriti, Yang/Yin and so on). So in order to realize the non duality (advaita) nature of reality, one must work within the boundaries of duality, until sufficient work has been done to catapult us out of duality. 

 

For some (in one lifetime) it never happens. That is also within the framework of the duality we operate in. For others it happens in  a fraction of an instant. All this we are doing (reading, posting, debating, discussing, meditating, etc) are all part of work being done.

[s1va]

Yes. Dvaita is what the world appears to be. In fact, it is a necessary precondition for material existence (as we know our universe to be). It's root is the duality of the poles (Purusha/Prakriti, Yang/Yin and so on). So in order to realize the non duality (advaita) nature of reality, one must work within the boundaries of duality, until sufficient work has been done to catapult us out of duality. 

 

For some (in one lifetime) it never happens. That is also within the framework of the duality we operate in. For others it happens in  a fraction of an instant. All this we are doing (reading, posting, debating, discussing, meditating, etc) are all part of work being done.

Yes,  I am working within the boundaries

 

As someone within the boundary, I can appreciate advaita only intellectually and talk.  To the intellect it looks lofty at times.

 

Awareness kicks in some times, the oneness or witness stands apart even during sleep.  Then it's gone.  Perhaps, I should not engage in too much discussion at this stage.

Edited May 9, 2017 by kāvēri

[dwai]

Yes,  I am working within the boundaries

 

As someone within the boundary, I can appreciate advaita only intellectually and talk.  To the intellect it looks lofty at times.

 

Awareness kicks in some times, the oneness or witness stands apart even during sleep.  Then it's gone.  Perhaps, I should not engage in too much discussion at this stage.

 

Yes I too have felt that discussing this subject too much churns the mind and pulls one back into mental mode.

[Jeff]

I see it other way around.  Mind can know itself and everything else.  Self cannot know outside itself.

 

You have pointed out Self is not of realm of mind.  Knowing falls entirely in the territory of mind.

 

Bring the two together, and then you have Kashmir Shivaism.

[Jonesboy]

Speaking of which...

 

Here is an interesting quote from The Doctrine of Vibration

 

The Vedantin's way is one of withdrawal from the finite in order

to achieve a return (nivrtti) to the infinite. This process, however, from

the Saiva point of view is only the first stage. The next stage is the

outward journey (pravrtti) from the infinite to the finite. When perfection

is achieved in both movements, that is, from the finite to the infinite and

back, man participates in the universal vibration of the absolute and

shares in its essential freedom. Thenceforth, he no longer travels 'to'

and 'from' but eternally 'through' the absolute, realised to be at once

both infinite and finite.35 The highest level of dispassion (paravairrIgl~a)

is not attained by turning away from appearance but by realising that

the absolute manifests as all things.3The absolute freely makes diversity

(bheda) manifest through its infinite power. The wise know that this

power pours into the completeness of the All (viSvamandala) and in

so doing, flows only into itself.3' Standing at the summit of Being

(parakii~thd) the absolute is brimming over with phenomena. The

streams of cosmic manifestation flow everywhere from it as does water

from a tank full to overflowing.'8 Replenished inwardly by its own

power, it emerges spontaneously as the universe, and makes manifest

each part of the cosmic totality as one with its own nature.3

He goes on to say:

 

The absolute oscillates between a 'passion' (raga) to create and

'dispassion' (virriga) from the created. This is the eternal pulsation-

Spanda-of the absolute. Through it the absolute transforms itself

into all things and then returns back into the emptiness (Siinya) of its

undifferentiated nature. Both poles of this movement are equally real;

both are equally absolute. Allowing for the reality of manifestation,

the Saiva absolute is called the Great Oneness (mahridvaya).43 An

experienced music lover, hearing a fast sequence of notes played on

the vinii can distinguish whether the microtones are high or

Similarly the well-practiced yogi can discern the unity of reality while

phenomena are manifest to him. If duality and unity were in fact

absolute contraries, the moment they appeared together, they would

cancel each other out. This, however, is not the case. We continue to

experience the diversity of daily life (vyavahara).45 The Vedantin who

distinguishes between duality and unity, saying that the former is false

while the latter is true, is under the spell of May%-the ignorance he

seeks so hard to overcome. All forms of relative distinction, even that

between the dual and the non-dual, are due to May%; none of them are

applicable to the uncreated, self-existent reality, free of all limitation.46

[3bob]

I see it other way around.  Mind can know itself and everything else.  Self cannot know outside itself.

 

You have pointed out Self is not of realm of mind.  Knowing falls entirely in the territory of mind.  

 

Here is an analogy: think of mind as a computer like device along with its various software programs, they run and run and "think" of themselves as reality,  they do not remember nor can they see their software programmer or their hardware maker but the software programmer and hardware maker can easily see them for exactly what they really are....that is like the Self free of being bound by mind but still working with mind.   Btw. it is somewhat of eureka moment in mental to spiritual transition to realize one was caught up as a software like program! (or identification)

Edited May 9, 2017 by 3bob

[3bob]

Speaking of which...

 

Here is an interesting quote from The Doctrine of Vibration

 

 

He goes on to say:

 

 

I'd say getting warmer, warmer, getting hot....   

[Jeff]

Here is an analogy: think of mind as a computer like device along with its various software programs, they run and run and "think" of themselves as reality,  they do not remember nor can they see their software programmer or their hardware maker but the software programmer and hardware maker can easily see them for exactly what they really are....that is like the Self free of being bound by mind but still working with mind.   Btw. it is somewhat of eureka moment in mental to spiritual transition to realize one was caught up as a software like program! (or identification)

There is danger with such an analogy, as often that software programmer and hardware maker are themselves part of the virtual video game where they see themselves as programming a computer as part of the video game (inside a computer itself).

 

Many talk about swimming in the ocean, when it is really just their own local swimming pool. Regarding the topic of this thread, there is no swimming in the ocean, there is only being the ocean itself, as all such swimming is the "mind" (perception of).

[3bob]

could be but not when mind is revealed once and for all for what is then there is no doubt or fear for death has died.

[Jeff]

could be but not when mind is revealed once and for all for what is then there is no doubt or fear for death has died.

So dropping (or the loss of) "fear of death" relates to seeing beyond what you would call "mind"?

 

Thanks.

[3bob]

Hello Jeff,

Many beings do not fear death, but in many cases that is not the same as knowing the dying of death. 

Along this line there was a post in the past called "the eater of death" that you may be interested in.