Samsara

[neti neti]

In the end, Jeff and I almost always agree to disagree. Which is perfectly OK.

[s1va]

2 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Questions were posted and answers were offered in that thread, unlike this one.

 

When someone like Jeff, who I believe to be quite knowledgeable in the subject at hand, comes in here with what seems like the sole purpose of pointing out logical flaws without any support for the foundations of his conclusions, (other than "it's obvious , you're wrong") then yes, I see that as trolling. Sorry if you don't see it s1va.

 

I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion similar to the thread you've highlighted if he would be so kind as to lay out the reasoning behind HIS premises. Most preferably, by the common courtesy of at least attempting to answer the questions asked of him. The fact that he won't, speaks volumes of his intentions from my perspective. Perhaps he will yet prove me wrong.

 

Thanks for the response.  I have liked reading some of your posts in that other thread and in general.   The comments yesterday just surprised me coming out of you suddenly.  Just wanted to point that out.  I understand you may have your own justifications!

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Questions were posted and answers were offered in that thread, unlike this one.

 

When someone like Jeff, who I believe to be quite knowledgeable in the subject at hand, comes in here with what seems like the sole purpose of pointing out logical flaws without any support for the foundations of his conclusions, (other than "it's obvious , you're wrong") then yes, I see that as trolling. Sorry if you don't see it s1va.

 

I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion similar to the thread you've highlighted if he would be so kind as to lay out the reasoning behind HIS premises. Most preferably, by the common courtesy of at least attempting to answer the questions asked of him. The fact that he won't, speaks volumes of his intentions from my perspective. Perhaps he will yet prove me wrong.

 

I honestly did not mean it to be trolling.  Also, I was not attempting to take the counter point as this is the Hindu forum, just point out the logic issue back related to the original post I commented on.

 

I am happy to either step away, or state my own personal premise and defend it in relation to the OP.  Also, I am happy to directly answer any question specifically that you think that I have not responded to in the thread already.

[neti neti]

It's interesting how about a year to the date the same things are being said from that thread to this thread. Dwai and Jeff arguing semantics, Jeff  talking about logic traps, and my questions being ignored. I'd rather not go that route again, so I'll just gracefully bow out. Thanks everyone.

[Jeff]

Just now, neti neti said:

It's interesting how about a year to the date the same things are being said from that thread to this thread. Dwai and Jeff arguing semantics, Jeff  talking about logic traps, and my questions being ignored. I'd rather not go that route again, so I'll just gracefully bow out. Thanks everyone.

 

Yes, Dwai & I do just keep repeating the Dao = One or not point.  But, on these unanswered question, I have now asked you to point them out a few times.  I will go back on and see what I have missed and respond.

[dwai]

24 minutes ago, neti neti said:

It's interesting how about a year to the date the same things are being said from that thread to this thread. Dwai and Jeff arguing semantics, Jeff  talking about logic traps, and my questions being ignored. I'd rather not go that route again, so I'll just gracefully bow out. Thanks everyone.

And my apologies for hijacking this thread

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, neti neti said:

It's interesting how about a year to the date the same things are being said from that thread to this thread. Dwai and Jeff arguing semantics, Jeff  talking about logic traps, and my questions being ignored. I'd rather not go that route again, so I'll just gracefully bow out. Thanks everyone.

 

Ok, I went back to mind any possible questions missed before your "troll" comment. The only possible question I could find without a direct response I could find was...

 

What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind?

 

To which I responded as part of the broader comments based upon your quoted text with...

 

But, that still does not give you the object seen as being the same “stuff”. Your seeing the video game object in your “reality”, is just a bunch of software programming code in the outside/objective reality. 

 

The difference is sort of like the difference between a television transmission itself and what is “seen” on the television screen.  

 

Since that response did not seem to address your question, I will try again...

 

What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind?

 

While we were using a video game analogy, I assume by "inside" and "outside" you mean inside and outside of mind( or what I would call universal mind). By mind, I mean both active mind stream/activity and also the mind in a quiet/non-active state.  In this case "inside" would be what you call Awareness, and this is the One that emerges from the Dao.  The "outside" is the primordial Dao.

 

A dream is mind based activity, so by definition it is happening in the mind.  All thinking, seeing, percieving, etc... is mind based activity in my view. A dream is simply subconscious thinking/seeing stuff.

[doc benway]

On 3/14/2018 at 6:28 AM, neti neti said:

"The rising of thought (the rising of the first thought, ‘I am so-and-so’) itself is birth, and the forgetfulness of Self itself is death. The mind’s phenomena of such thinking and forgetting is called samsara.

 

When the mind, freed from its impure state of thinking and forgetting, stands ever holding on to Self, that is called the destruction of the mind [manonasa], which itself is liberation."

 

~Sri Muruganar

 

Just looking at this thread, I hope it's OK to comment on the OP.

 

For me, that "ever holding on to Self" is really a letting go of self. 

The "holding on to" has too much connotation of attachment.

The one who is holding on is precisely the obstacle so to hold on to Self is a bit of a misnomer from a practical point of view, at least in the way I approach meditation and integration. I don't say this to imply that Sri Muruganar is wrong but I think the use of language can be misleading. I understand what he is pointing to but have some discomfort with the choice of words.

[dwai]

47 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Just looking at this thread, I hope it's OK to comment on the OP.

 

For me, that "ever holding on to Self" is really a letting go of self. 

The "holding on to" has too much connotation of attachment.

The one who is holding on is precisely the obstacle so to hold on to Self is a bit of a misnomer from a practical point of view, at least in the way I approach meditation and integration. I don't say this to imply that Sri Muruganar is wrong but I think the use of language can be misleading. I understand what he is pointing to but have some discomfort with the choice of words.

The discomfort is a result of one's existing/held belief, is it not?

 

For a Hindu, the concept of Atman is not alarming at all. When an advaita vedantin say "Hold on to the Self", he/she means "The One without a Second" and not the personality appearance who is considered "self" in the mundane sense. We consider it to be an unequivocal fact. Now, exactly what this is, is a source of debate and questions between different camps, but not any different from say it would be between buddhist schools or Daoist schools too.

 

One could say, based on my Buddhist or Daoist or XYZ paradigm, I find these concept (Atman and Abiding in Self, etc) alarming. But that is without trying to understand what the the AV/Hindu means. Same words can mean different things to different people. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[doc benway]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

The discomfort is a result of one's existing/held belief, is it not?

 

For a Hindu, the concept of Atman is not alarming at all. When an advaita vedantin say "Hold on to the Self", he/she means "The One without a Second" and not the personality appearance who is considered "self" in the mundane sense. We consider it to be an unequivocal fact. Now, exactly what this is, is a source of debate and questions between different camps, but not any different from say it would be between buddhist schools or Daoist schools too.

 

One could say, based on my Buddhist or Daoist or XYZ paradigm, I find these concept (Atman and Abiding in Self, etc) alarming. But that is without trying to understand what the the AV/Hindu means. Same words can mean different things to different people. 

 

Thank you for clarifying.

If he is referring to the Self holding on to the Self, I understand and can connect somewhat with that image.

Too often the admonition to hold on to something results in the self doing the holding...

That was my concern. 

Nevertheless, from my personal meditative experience and practice, it is far more an action of letting go than of holding on.

There is no need for the Self to hold on to what it already is, and there is no value in the self trying to hold on to something it is not, for me it is more a process of remembering to let go. In that letting go, the Self arises spontaneously, effortlessly, and there is no need for it to hold on to anything.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by steve

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

The one who is holding on is precisely the obstacle so to hold on to Self is a bit of a misnomer from a practical point of view, at least in the way I approach meditation and integration. 

 

Not to disregard the rest of your contribution steve, but just wanted to comment on the above.

 

The one holding on eventually does let go. The integration is ultimately disintegration, for the practitioner "dissolves" into that unidentified Space of Jnana, as the Absolute... all pointers are misnomers.

Edited March 16, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

A dream is mind based activity, so by definition it is happening in the mind.  All thinking, seeing, percieving, etc... is mind based activity in my view. A dream is simply subconscious thinking/seeing stuff.

 

Thanks Jeff. Have you ever dreamt a dream so real, that you did not realize you were dreaming until you woke up?

 

I'm sure you have. If so, then how do you know that the waking experience is also not happening "in the mind" ?

 

What exactly determines the difference between the two, for you?

Edited March 16, 2018 by neti neti

[doc benway]

7 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Not to disregard the rest of your contribution steve, but just wanted to comment on the above.

 

The one holding on eventually does let go. The integration is ultimately disintegration, for the practitioner "dissolves" into that unidentified Space of Jnana, as the Absolute... all pointers are misnomers.

 

Agreed, than you for adding that.

There's no other way really, tradition notwithstanding.

That is precisely why the "holding on" reference is not as supportive for me personally.

Not a big deal, just caught my attention.

[doc benway]

3 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Thanks Jeff. Have you ever dreamt a dream so real, that you did not realize you were dreaming until you woke up?

 

I'm sure you have. If so, then how do you know that the waking experience is also not happening "in the mind" ?

 

This is the basis of dream yoga practices.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Thanks Jeff. Have you ever dreamt a dream so real, that you did not realize you were dreaming until you woke up?

 

Honestly no, I have not had any such a dream that I can remember. At least not in the last 20 years or so.

 

3 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

I'm sure you have. If so, then how do you know that the waking experience is also not happening "in the mind" ?

 

What exactly determines the difference between the two, for you?

 

As, I stated above, all waking stuff (thinking, seeing, etc...) does happen in the mind. To me, both waking and dreaming activity is in the mind, the difference is more just if it is subconscious or conscious mind activity. More broadly, all that is “perceived” is really just a reflection in the mind of the underlying energy of it all.

[neti neti]

8 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Honestly no, I have not had any such a dream that I can remember. At least not in the last 20 years or so.

 

 

As, I stated above, all waking stuff (thinking, seeing, etc...) does happen in the mind. To me, both waking and dreaming activity is in the mind, the difference is more just if it is subconscious or conscious mind activity. More broadly, all that is “perceived” is really just a reflection in the mind of the underlying energy of it all.

 

Ok. If this is your understanding, then can you explain why you consider it circular logic to conclude that you as the perceiver, the perceived and the perceiving consist of the same nature/reality?

Edited March 16, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Ok. If this is your understanding, then can you explain why you consider it circular logic to conclude that you as the perceiver, the perceived and the perceiving consist of the same nature/reality?

 

The logic is circular because the quote (and concept) was assuming that everthing is inside of the same Awareness. It stated that...

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible.

 

The actual object being “seen” does not necessarily need to really be in the same reality, as it is to the seer there is really only a reflection in the seer’s mind. A seer could simply be existing in a world of sonar pulses and not really be perceiving the “true” underlying reality of the objects that are supposedly being seen. Similarly, a tree can fall and there can be a sound, even if there is no “seer” to be aware of/perceive/hear the sound. 

 

Just as you stated with the dream example, a seer can make up his/her own world in their mind, no need (or proof) that it is really the world itself. Seeing is a product of the seer, not necessarily the underlying object supposedly being seen. If that was not true, then dreams would be very boring.  

[neti neti]

44 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

The logic is circular because the quote (and concept) was assuming that everthing is inside of the same Awareness. It stated that...

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible.

 

The actual object being “seen” does not necessarily need to really be in the same reality, as it is to the seer there is really only a reflection in the seer’s mind. A seer could simply be existing in a world of sonar pulses and not really be perceiving the “true” underlying reality of the objects that are supposedly being seen. Similarly, a tree can fall and there can be a sound, even if there is no “seer” to be aware of/perceive/hear the sound. 

 

Just as you stated with the dream example, a seer can make up his/her own world in their mind, no need (or proof) that it is really the world itself. Seeing is a product of the seer, not necessarily the underlying object supposedly being seen. If that was not true, then dreams would be very boring.  

 

I already responded to that line of thought, in agreement btw , and then followed up with a question you have yet to answer.

 

Quote

... the initial impression of himself or the table isn't necessarily the true nature or reality of the things seen.

 

Is it not an assumption that the seeing, the reflections seen in the mind space, and the mind space itself are all of a different nature/reality?

 

I await your response in suspense.

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Not to disregard the rest of your contribution steve, but just wanted to comment on the above.

 

The one holding on eventually does let go. The integration is ultimately disintegration, for the practitioner "dissolves" into that unidentified Space of Jnana, as the Absolute... all pointers are misnomers.

 

PS - When I refer to integration, it is integration of the meditative experience, the experience of non-duality if you will, beyond the cushion and into every possible waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment. The self disintegrates and the Self is integrated into all experience. In that sense, there is no disintegration, there is total integration through the end of life (?and beyond?). Just wanted to clarify what I am referring to by integration. In my usage of the word, disintegration would be reverting to the relative experience of duality.

 

PSS - Dwai, I am not at all alarmed by the concept of Atman. The distinction between Self and Empty of Self is, in my view, more theoretical than practical. We practice skillfully and hopefully are blessed with experience of the non-dual nature of existence. We then stabilize that experience over time and eventually integrate it into our lives as thoroughly as possible. Whether the nature of that experience is labeled a permanent, inherently existent Self or Space/Clarity/Bliss with no definable inherent and independent existence, has little impact on the experience IMO. It is more a matter of ontology which is a byproduct of the intellect. I am in the Madhyamaka camp philosophically but am comfortable equating Self and Emptiness/Clarity/Bliss for discussion purposes. What I was concerned with was not the nature of Self but rather the one who is doing the holding on to Self. Reinforcing that one perpetuates duality and using terms like hold on to Self tends to push me in that direction if I am the practitioner following the guru's direction. I hope I'm being clear, not sure that I was earlier.

[3bob]

Siva can not "forget" Shakti and Shakti can not forget Siva, 

and whatever springs from the Self returns to the Self,

 

[doc benway]

21 minutes ago, 3bob said:

Siva can not "forget" Shakti and Shakti can not forget Siva, 

and whatever springs from the Self returns to the Self,

 

 

What can leave the Self?

What can return?

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

I already responded to that line of thought, in agreement btw , and then followed up with a question you have yet to answer.

 

I await your response in suspense.

 

You stated in the quote...

 

Is it not an assumption that the seeing, the reflections seen in the mind space, and the mind space itself are all of a different nature/reality?

 

i am not stating that they are all different, I am stating the opposite, that they are the same. But, that too is an assumption. If you changed the original quoted statement to...

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the perceived to be seen by the seer [not necessarily the actual world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible.

 

Then I would be in agreement. The issue for me is the big assumption with the “reflection in mind” necessarily being the actual reality, when it could simply be a mind stuff dream. As with my problem with Dwai’s three types of knowing, they are not necessarily really knowing. Really just some perception of (local) awareness.

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

I've come up with this theory today..

 

Any part of samsara exists as long as we need it..

 

Or as long as we perceive we need it..

 

So it's the belief that we need certain illusions that propogates them?

[dwai]

 

 

Quote

Then I would be in agreement. The issue for me is the big assumption with the “reflection in mind” necessarily being the actual reality, when it could simply be a mind stuff dream. As with my problem with Dwai’s three types of knowing, they are not necessarily really knowing. Really just some perception of (local) awareness.

 

 

Those three forms of knowing are for mundane knowing. For Brahman/Parabrahman there is only aparoksha anubhuti, or direct apperception. Other forms of knowing are not real.

 

And again,  awareness is not knowing. Knowing happens in awareness  

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by dwai

[neti neti]

5 hours ago, steve said:

 

PS - When I refer to integration, it is integration of the meditative experience, the experience of non-duality if you will, beyond the cushion and into every possible waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment. The self disintegrates and the Self is integrated into all experience. In that sense, there is no disintegration, there is total integration through the end of life (?and beyond?). Just wanted to clarify what I am referring to by integration. In my usage of the word, disintegration would be reverting to the relative experience of duality.

 

Thanks for elaborating.

 

The meditative experience is a means of transcending body-consciousness, in both waking and dreaming, and finally, even sleep is revealed to be unreal in the light of the singular non-dual consciousness. But even the resulting state of "wakeful/conscious sleep" or "turiyatita", is also known to be unreal once its novelty expires. In this sense, (s)elf is dis-integrated.

 

Self cannot be experienced, for as Self, there is no experience to be called one's own that is not Self itself. Rather, Self's nature, reflected in the mind-space as sat-chit-ananda, is "directly known" as one assumes its nature throughout the waking, dreaming, sleeping or dying dramas, by being Self. In this sense, (S)elf is integrated.

 

Whether on the cushion or beyond, there is neither duality nor non-duality. There is only Self.

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by neti neti
edit to add: Self alone is.