You are NOT qualified to critique a Spiritual Tradition if...

[Marblehead]

16 minutes ago, Daemon said:

Something for everyone perhaps?

Except for we Atheists.  But then we don't care.

 

[sagebrush]

I like tears too.

 

[Daemon]

44 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Except for we Atheists.  But then we don't care.

 

 

Really?

Maybe you (or someone else) can explain why it's fundamentally necessary to view the concept of Brahman as God instead of viewing it as consciousness?

 

☮️

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Daemon said:

 

Really?

Maybe you (or someone else) can explain why it's fundamentally necessary to view the concept of Brahman as God instead of viewing it as consciousness?

 

☮️

 

Hehehe.  I have no freakin' idea.

 

I would relate Brahman with Dao but not God because God seems to be a personification of the eternal source whereas Dao does not and if I understand correctly neither does Brahman.

 

 

[3bob]

11 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Hehehe.  I have no freakin' idea.

 

I would relate Brahman with Dao but not God because God seems to be a personification of the eternal source whereas Dao does not and if I understand correctly neither does Brahman.

 

 

is MH  a personification, like trillions of other beings, of a partial degree and variation of Dao...

[Marblehead]

38 minutes ago, 3bob said:

is MH  a personification, like trillions of other beings, of a partial degree and variation of Dao...

I like to refer to myself as one of the ten thousand manifestations of Dao.

 

[neti neti]

20 hours ago, s1va said:

 

The difference has been explained so many times including on the quote that I posted right above.   But first you have to empty your mind of ALL concepts including AV and be open minded truly.  To have a child like curiosity, then you can easily find those differences explained numerous times in the 5 pages of discussion on this topic in the other thread.  Can you do that for one minute? 

 

As they say in my mother tongue, one can wake up a sleeping person.  But it will be very hard to wake up a person that is pretending to sleep. I can only feel for you.

 

In your own words, you are losing sleep and on a crusade to fight what you think are atrociously wrong views and "correct" all of them.  It is important and critical for you to change and correct my 'atrociously wrong views'.   I clearly have no such need to correct you or anyone.  I am not attached to my views and I never push others to buy into my views.  I don't engage in such fanatical fights that you clearly seem to enjoy and thrive, even such thought is repulsive to me,  to 'correct' the wrongs of others views and opinions. Therefore I don't feel the need to keep expanding and explain to you, keep engaging on the same steps that is clearly taking no one anywhere.  This upsets you.  I get it.

 

Do you get it neti neti? It's not important to me what you believe as true.  No matter what it is, I respect it as your opinion. As long as it does not infringe on my freedom to have my own opinions.  Why is it so important for you, that I should accept your views and opinions? Do you respect and look up to me so much that my opinion matters? Clearly not.  It's just an atrociously wrong view you need to correct.  Otherwise, you are going to lose sleep in your own words.

 

I feel for you.  I hope you can get over this.  I know you have it in you to get over this.  Much love my friend, no matter what your beliefs are.  You are in my image, this is the fundamental about non-dual.  It's not about insisting one view is greater than other and to look down upon others and try to 'correct' them.

 

I sleep like a baby. A baby Shiva. Lol

 

With all these strawmen, one could prop up their own scarecrow. 

Have it as you wish though. Thank you for everything. It's a shame we couldn't have a reasonable discussion due to unreasonableness. Really, there's never been any argument here.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat.

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by neti neti

[s1va]

3 hours ago, neti neti said:

Have it as you wish though.

 

I thanked for those words.  I feel it is important to respect other people's beliefs and opinions and let them be, without compelling them to agree, or buy into our views.  Acceptance is the key.

 

I may never agree with your views, that is a possibility you have to come to terms with and just accept.   You can keep insisting they are the same views and there are no arguments, all the while engaging in arguments.  This is nothing new and goes back centuries or even thousands of years.  There are Advaitins who thought Ramanuja, Madhva and even Abhinavagupta and schools of Shaivism were unreasonable and wrong.  They wanted to convince these others into seeing that Advaita is the only all encompassing philosophy.  Despite the relentless effort by Advaitins, as far as I know, none of these other masters ever changed their mind -- not even one iota.  On the contrary, some who tried to convince them, changed their views and bought into the differentiation concept.  You can't tell any of these masters they are not qualified to compare with Advaita and criticize the views as they see fit in public arenas.  You can enforce such rules in the places you govern or control, such as within an Advaita school where you teach, or a website run by your faith.  Similarly, public forums in internet are common area and not controlled by one school of thought to enforce rules as they see fit.

[silent thunder]

It seems to me that anyone is free to criticize and say anything they choose, anytime they wish.

 

Whether their words and viewpoint will possess any gravity, relevance or potency however, resides in the world view, opinions and awareness of the one hearing/reading them... and that will be pretty unique to each person listening.

 

I've been accused of offending god throughout my life.  (can't imagine how that happens.)

 

My reaction to that ranges from "i don't think i can offend god... i don't have that kind of clout" to "what... offend myself?!?  Preposterous!!!"

Edited September 15, 2018 by silent thunder

[Marblehead]

True but one should know a little bit about what it is they are criticizing and they should have a couple support issues to present when criticizing.

 

 

[neti neti]

On 9/15/2018 at 12:54 PM, s1va said:

 

I thanked for those words.  I feel it is important to respect other people's beliefs and opinions and let them be, without compelling them to agree, or buy into our views.  Acceptance is the key.

 

I thanked for everything.

 

Rejection is also key, so have at it. "Have it as you wish", meaning, there is acceptance of you're unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. I'm quite content in your freedom of beliefs, and wouldn't dream of encroaching upon them. That you've become so defensive once having to consider alternatives speaks volumes of their nature. Someone challenging them does not equate to someone compelling you to change them.

 

There having never been an argument points to the reality in which apparent similarities and differences are known to be of one and the same substance. They are non-different from that consciousness which goes by so many names, and non-different from the one who believes he identifies them.

 

As the rising of similarities or differences are like waves on the ocean of consciousness, consciousness is like mist on the ocean of Parabrahman. That which the mere feeling of being Shiva has appeared upon. Contrary to how the ocean appears on its surface, there lies below depths unimaginable. A direct experience expansive in nature quite contrary to the waves of narrow-mindedness or the mist of shallowness, and yet, it contains all waves and all mist simultaneously.

[s1va]

48 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

I thanked for everything.

 

Rejection is also key, so have at it. "Have it as you wish", meaning, there is acceptance of you're unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. I'm quite content in your freedom of beliefs, and wouldn't dream of encroaching upon them. That you've become so defensive once having to consider alternatives speaks volumes of their nature. Someone challenging them does not equate to someone compelling you to change them.

 

There having never been an argument points to the reality in which apparent similarities and differences are known to be of one and the same substance. They are non-different from that consciousness which goes by so many names, and non-different from the one who believes he identifies them.

 

As the rising of similarities or differences are like waves on the ocean of consciousness, consciousness is like mist on the ocean of Parabrahman. That which the mere feeling of being Shiva has appeared upon. Contrary to how the ocean appears on its surface, there lies below depths unimaginable. A direct experience expansive in nature quite contrary to the waves of narrow-mindedness or the mist of shallowness, and yet, it contains all waves and all mist simultaneously.

 

Yes, I don't see the need to take up your challenge.  You are welcome to call it whatever you like

 

[Jeff]

13 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

I thanked for everything.

 

Rejection is also key, so have at it. "Have it as you wish", meaning, there is acceptance of you're unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. I'm quite content in your freedom of beliefs, and wouldn't dream of encroaching upon them. That you've become so defensive once having to consider alternatives speaks volumes of their nature. Someone challenging them does

not equate to someone compelling you to change them.

 

There having never been an argument points to the reality in which apparent similarities and differences are known to be of one and the same substance. They are non-different from that consciousness which goes by so many names, and non-different from the one who believes he identifies them.

 

As the rising of similarities or differences are like waves on the ocean of consciousness, consciousness is like mist on the ocean of Parabrahman. That which the mere feeling of being Shiva has appeared upon. Contrary to how the ocean appears on its surface, there lies below depths unimaginable. A direct experience expansive in nature quite contrary to the waves of narrow-mindedness or the mist of shallowness, and yet, it contains all waves and all mist simultaneously.

 

Wow.  The insults to a tradition, a member, and his beliefs just keep coming... 

[Marblehead]

Is it time to walk away from this thread yet?

 

[dwai]

I think the thread has outlived its usefulness and can be disposed off in any way deemed necessary.

 

[Marblehead]

Yeah.  Point was made.  It served its purpose.

 

I suppose it will remain open so that others may offer their opinions as well.

 

 

[neti neti]

13 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Wow.  The insults to a tradition, a member, and his beliefs just keep coming... 

 

Please enlighten me how being anything at all is not at its root anything more than a feeling. Similar to how you felt the need to assume my motive was to insult. Just a feeling. The use of the word mere was, merely in contrast. Apologies if my attempts at sarcasm are not immediately apparent, and that the sharing of my experience comes across as arrogance.

 

If you've actually followed the discussion you would know that the words you've bolded above were directed towards myself from the member you're defending.

 

My how the trickster that is ego so cleverly distorts our perceptions. Much of what seems to be contention here amounts to that trickster pretending to protect itself. In the end, what suffers is our ability to truly engage in satsang.

Edited September 18, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

10 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Please enlighten me how being anything at all is not at its root anything more than a feeling.

 

Sure, but it is not being “something”, it is more like being all and with it comes the direct knowing. The KS view from the Secret Supreme...

 

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

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

[neti neti]

On 9/18/2018 at 8:28 AM, Jeff said:

 

Sure, but it is not being “something”, it is more like being all and with it comes the direct knowing. The KS view from the Secret Supreme...

 

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

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

 

Agreed, and, I can relate. However, it should be clear that this identified impression of  'direct knowing' is misleading as conveyed in language. It is non-different from my true nature as pure being, else the aspects of my true nature forsake themselves and spring forth as a rising thought of "I know." The pure luminosity that is "I am" is without diffraction(s) of objective knowledge, the knower and knowing triad. It is only "knowingness", or, the power to know.

 

The very moment sat-chit-ananda objectivizes or imagines itself as other than self-abiding(as it is), it becomes non-existence ignorance and misery(duality). To say I contain both pairs of opposites in all their manifestations is accurate to a degree, but really, I am "prior" to them.

 

Indeed, to be Siva is to be pure knowledge, thoughtless, prior to the arising of the knowledge and ignorance dyad. But Parama Siva is beyond ideation, being all there is, it is beyond thought or thoughtlessness, beyond is and is not. Knowing and not-knowing do not apply, for therein lies an implication that there can be something other than to know or not know about. Hence, also beyond the impression, sense or feeling, of being or not being. 

 

Besides that subtilty, KS seems to point well to this paradox... which in reality is no paradox at all.

Edited September 20, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

Agreed, and, I can relate. However, it should be clear that this identified impression of  'direct knowing' is misleading as conveyed in language. It is non-different from my true nature as pure being, else the aspects of my true nature forsake themselves and spring forth as a rising thought of "I know." Pure "I am" is without the diffraction of objective knowledge, the knower and knowing triad. It is only "knowingness", or, the power to know.

 

The very moment sat-chit-ananda objectivizes or imagines itself as other than self-abiding, it becomes non-existence ignorance and misery(duality). To say I contain both pairs of opposites in all their manifestations is accurate to a degree, but really, I am "prior" to them.

 

Indeed, to be Siva is to be pure knowledge, thoughtless, prior to the arising of the knowledge and ignorance dyad. But Parama Siva is beyond ideation, being all there is, it is beyond is and is not. Knowing and not-knowing do not apply, for therein lies an implication that there can be something other than to know or not know about. Therefore, also beyond the impression, sense or feeling, of being or not being. 

 

Besides that subtilty, KS seems to point well to this paradox... which in reality is no paradox at all.

 

I realize what you are describing is the AV view, but as my quote points out, it is different in KS.  What you are describing, would be somehow getting caught up in and dropping to a lower tattva. As the quote states, it is having access to all layers, but not bound by them, so no problem with also the direct knowing.  It is more like you being your entire body, but still being able to know/differentiate your fingernail.

 

The difference between the two views is most easily seen in the respective concepts of various energy bodies/planes.

 

In AV you have...

 

Physical > energy/subtle > casual > Jiva/Atman

 

In KS (and the teachings of Ahbinagupta) you have the concept of another level/layer of being, that is what the higher tattvas are talking about.  It instead goes...

 

Physical > energy/subtle > casual > divine (Jiva going to Siva) > ParamaSiva

 

That Jiva going to Siva layer (or light level) is similar the the concept of the birth of a the golden child (going immortal) in taoism. Mystical christianity would describe it sort of like the difference between realizing the soul and then expanding to become a true son of God.

 

Additionally, the three different approaches in the Shiva Sutras are set up as the descriptions/methods depending on your starting point of being at the casual (1st section), energy/subtle(2nd section), and physical (3rd section).

 

I am not trying to say that one approach is better or more correct (as I am not an AV or KS practioner), but the frameworks and concepts are different. KS itself in both timing (around 1,000 AD) and realization concept is more like how Dzogchen changed buddhist concepts with adding the additional bhumis and the realization of the rainbow body.

 

 

[neti neti]

17 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I realize what you are describing is the AV view, but as my quote points out, it is different in KS.  What you are describing, would be somehow getting caught up in and dropping to a lower tattva. As the quote states, it is having access to all layers, but not bound by them, so no problem with also the direct knowing.  It is more like you being your entire body, but still being able to know/differentiate your fingernail.

 

The difference between the two views is most easily seen in the respective concepts of various energy bodies/planes.

 

In AV you have...

 

Physical > energy/subtle > casual > Jiva/Atman

 

In KS (and the teachings of Ahbinagupta) you have the concept of another level/layer of being, that is what the higher tattvas are talking about.  It instead goes...

 

Physical > energy/subtle > casual > divine (Jiva going to Siva) > ParamaSiva

 

That Jiva going to Siva layer (or light level) is similar the the concept of the birth of a the golden child (going immortal) in taoism. Mystical christianity would describe it sort of like the difference between realizing the soul and then expanding to become a true son of God.

 

Additionally, the three different approaches in the Shiva Sutras are set up as the descriptions/methods depending on your starting point of being at the casual (1st section), energy/subtle(2nd section), and physical (3rd section).

 

I am not trying to say that one approach is better or more correct (as I am not an AV or KS practioner), but the frameworks and concepts are different. KS itself in both timing (around 1,000 AD) and realization concept is more like how Dzogchen changed buddhist concepts with adding the additional bhumis and the realization of the rainbow body.

 

 

 

There is only one view, with many perspectives. The differences only appear to oneself as other than.

 

All words contradict themselves. If you practiced the teachings, I'm sure you would see the futility of this intellectual back and forth over nonexistent layers of access, bondage, or knowing. None of this stands, as That.

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, neti neti said:

There is only one view, with many perspectives. The differences only appear to oneself as other than.

I like that.  I might appear to contradict it at times but that doesn't matter.

 

[Jeff]

17 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

There is only one view, with many perspectives. The differences only appear to oneself as other than.

 

All words contradict themselves. If you practiced the teachings, I'm sure you would see the futility of this intellectual back and forth over nonexistent layers of access, bondage, or knowing. None of this stands, as That.

 

That is just the thing, in KS in does also stand as part of That.  That was what Siva was trying to point out in the other thread.

 

Also, I have practiced the teachings and are directly familiar with them.  My versions of them are somewhat different as my view is different, and hence the outcome of the practice itself becomes different. 

 

Or you could say in my view, there is not just ultimately one view...  

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Jeff

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

That is just the thing, in KS in does also stand as part of That.  That was what Siva was trying to point out in the other thread.

 

Also, I have practiced the teachings and are directly familiar with them.  My versions of them are somewhat different as my view is different, and hence the outcome of the practice itself becomes different. 

 

Or you could say in my view, there is not just ultimately one view...  

 

 

 

I, me and mine... Me, myself and I.  When do vain infatuations come to an end?

Under the assumption these supposed separate experiences have any meaningful reality, how can a practitioner isolating himself from the practice not have varying views of outcomes and versions of differences?

 

So all the layers are divine and supreme. Ok... so what? Where is the substance in this observation when the great Swami Lakshmanjoo himself essentially said all these concepts are totally useless? Whose curiosity is being satisfied if we are knowledge itself? Please identify the substantial merit to be had in this endeavor besides bearing witness to the apparent beauty of a tradition's richness. What is the goal when you yourself are the goal?

Edited September 20, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Why this fixation on wiggling my toes if the whole universe can be donned as if it were  a suit?