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

[dwai]

15 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Sorry, this is not true and shows clear misunderstanding of the KS system.  The Paramadvaita of Abhinavagutpa as described in KS, accepts bheda-abheda, both duality and non-duality as equally valid, both the transcendent and the immanent are part of the 'Heart' as I stated on the previous post.  It may sound paradoxical, but it is clearly different from Advaita.

 

In the end, Jiva becomes like Shiva.  The Jiva and Shiva are not one and same at all times in KS.

So Jiva and Shiva are separate beings? Completely independent? Self existent?  

So how does Jiva BECOME Shiva? If they both exist independent of each other? And how is that nonduality?  

 

Swami Lakshmanjoo seems to disagree with you --

 

Quote

Kashmir Śaivism explains that when Śiva is reflected by His pure will in the mirror of his freedom (svātantrya), this is the existence of the universe and the existence of individual being.

 

If its not too much to ask for, could you make a post on KS on its own (not this vs that) and share your understanding of it? 

Edited September 21, 2018 by dwai

[s1va]

Just now, dwai said:

So Jiva and Shiva are separate beings? Completely independent? Self existent?  

 

 

That is your interpretation.  I did not say they are completely independent or self existent.  As per Advaita, they have to be one, or completely separate and self existent as per your deduction above.  Further the advaita non-dual does not encompass the dual as explained in the quote below.  The Abhnivagupta's non-dual does, this is what I tried to explain in the other thread.

 

Quote

"Some see reality as inherently dualistic.  In other words that the distinction is ultimately real, this is called the 'bheda' or 'dwaita' view. They do good works and worship a separate almighty God, that they hope will bless them with his grace.  Others see distinctions that are subsumed within a greater unity with distinction and unity having equal weight in experience.  This is called the 'bheda-abheda' view. They cultivate spiritual knowledge and relish beautiful things as a vibration of consciousness.  Still others see completely non-dualistically.  That is seeing difference as unreal or only very superficially real with unity absolutely dominant in experience.  This is the 'abheda' or advaita view.  They reject all practices subtle and gross and dwell in the immediate intuitive insight of the transcendent 'I ' nature.  

 

So, where does the +1 come in this model of things?  Well, this is the key to understanding the ultimate consumption of the tantric philosophy.  You see the non-dual view just mentioned excludes the dualistic view.  Seeing it as simply wrong.  This is not an all inclusive non-duality and therefore it lends itself to transcendentalism and spiritual bypassing a major pitfall on the path.   Therefore Abhinavagupta presented a view he called  Paramādvaita, the supreme non-duality or the higher non-duality, which we already mentioned couple of times.  This view includes both duality and non-duality as valid experiences and levels of perception.  Non-duality transcends duality, but the supreme non-duality transcends the transcendent.  So, how do we understand this seeming paradox?

 

Because as again the supremely non-dual nameless forth is simultaneously transcendent and immanent.  It englobes includes emanates as all these different views.  It is the all inclusive heart of reality, the dynamic power of consciousness which articulates every possibility becomes everything and yet is no-thing.  We have stressed over and over again this higher tantric view that the divine is simultaneously transcendent and immanent precisely because the masters of the tradition tell us that understanding this teaching is right at the heart of the whole tantric project."

(From Tantra Illuminated by Christopher Wallis)

 

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is taking things too literally. What it means is (as I understand it), this type of jivanamukta is free from attachment to desires (thoughts), so he/she is not affected by them in anyway.  They neither run away from, nor run after anything. 

 

Really, seems pretty direct and straightforward to me.  The next group down get to even have "ambitions" and they are still Jivanmuktas.  Finally, the last class of sages seem to just be regular people with all of the normal issues and desires (pleasures and pains) and they are still realized as described in your text...

 

92-94. The last class and the least among the Sages are those whose practice and discipline are not perfect enough to destroy mental predispositions. Their minds are still active and the Sages are said to be associated with their minds. They are barely Jnanis and not Jivanmuktas as are the other two classes. They appear to share the pleasures and pains of life like any other man and will continue to do so till the end of their lives. They will be emancipated after death.

[dwai]

 

18 minutes ago, Jeff said:

92-94. The last class and the least among the Sages are those whose practice and discipline are not perfect enough to destroy mental predispositions. Their minds are still active and the Sages are said to be associated with their minds. They are barely Jnanis and not Jivanmuktas as are the other two classes. They appear to share the pleasures and pains of life like any other man and will continue to do so till the end of their lives. They will be emancipated after death.

These are not jivanamuktas yet, but have the jnana. But they oscillate between jnana and ignorance. This is the experience of many "awakened" individuals who are still caught up in samsara.  Sort of "half-baked" jnanis...still cooking  

 

[s1va]

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

So how does Jiva BECOME Shiva? If they both exist independent of each other? And how is that nonduality?  

 

I guess the post was edited before I replied.  Anyway, I will try to address the parts I missed in the last post.  

 

"How does Jiva become Shiva?"  Several valid paths are described in the system.  Ultimately in KS, no single method is considered as 'The solution' that will work for all Jivas.  Therefore, KS does not promote any one single method to all beings and also does not refute any methods.

 

Quote

Swami Lakshmanjoo seems to disagree with you --

 

Please read my other post in entirety before you decide someone disagrees with my views.  In KS the non-dual is not rejected, it is Paramadvaita that and encompasses non-dual and the dual also.  The universe as a reflection are valid and in no way contradictory to what I stated.

 

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

If its not too much to ask for, could you make a post on KS on its own (not this vs that) and share your understanding of it? 

Edited 16 minutes ago by dwai

 

What I stated are fundamental concepts of KS.  I have made some quote already.  I can quote more from Abhinavagupta's own words and also from Malinivijayottara tantra etc. when I find some time.  I don't have the text or sanskrit verses in front of me right now. 

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

That is your interpretation.  I did not say they are completely independent or self existent. 

 

So help me understand how that is different from Jiva not having independent existence per AV and therefore being called "unreal". 

21 minutes ago, s1va said:

As per Advaita, they have to be one, or completely separate and self existent as per your deduction above. 

Huh!?!  

AV says the separateness is only an appearance, since the limited being (and his world) are dependent on Brahman for existence (or are not independently self-existent). 

21 minutes ago, s1va said:

Further the advaita non-dual does not encompass the dual as explained in the quote below.  

That is simply not correct.  

Duality is an appearance in Brahman, the Non-dual. How then does Brahman not "encompass" the duality?

 

21 minutes ago, s1va said:

The Abhnivagupta's non-dual does, this is what I tried to explain in the other thread.

 

 

Seems like the same thing to me.

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

That is simply not correct.  

Duality is an appearance in Brahman, the Non-dual. How then does Brahman not "encompass" the duality?

 

So, Advaita accepts duality also?  It accepts both bheda/dwaita views and abheda/advaita views like KS?  In this case, don't you think a name change is warranted from 'Advaita' to something that is more inclusive of dual also?  

 

Once again we back to 'appearances', which are not real.  We can mince words all day.  These are not clearly the same views.  Once again no one is stating the AV views are wrong.

 

Also any quote from any authentic Advaitic text that can substantiate the statement that Advaita encomposses dual in the same way Paramadvaita does as I quoted from KS?  

[s1va]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

So help me understand how that is different from Jiva not having independent existence per AV and therefore being called "unreal". 

 

I will try.  It is not static, fixed or rigid at any given time, such as concepts like jiva and shiva are one and same, or jiva and shiva are independent and have self existence, etc. etc.

 

It's spanda, vibration, pulsation, tremor, which is dynamic and cannot be tied to any one single static position, concept or a thing.  If this is not different from Advaita view of non-dual as the highest, then I don't know how further to explain.  It is all of those concepts and not any of them at the same time.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

So, Advaita accepts duality also?  It accepts both bheda/dwaita views and abheda/advaita views like KS?  In this case, don't you think a name change is warranted from 'Advaita' to something that is more inclusive of dual also?  

But Even KS is an "advaita" tradition. I don't see why duality (which is an appearance) needs to be given so much special attention. It gets enough as it is, given that we all seem to operate in it. All duality eventually gets resolved in nonduality. 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Once again we back to 'appearances', which are not real.  We can mince words all day.  These are not clearly the same views.  Once again no one is stating the AV views are wrong.

Its not mincing words. it is being exact imho. Again, it is not *my opinion* that real and unreal are defined in that way in the  darshana shastras. It is a fact! I'd expected better from you ...

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Also any quote from any authentic Advaitic text that can substantiate the statement that Advaita encomposses dual in the same way Paramadvaita does as I quoted from KS?  

 

In the Isha Upanishad, the first verse is as follows --

Quote

ईशा वास्यम् इदं सर्वं यत् किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् । 
तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्य स्विद्धनम् ॥ १ ॥

īśā vāsyam idaṃ sarvaṃ yat kiñca jagatyāṃ jagat | 
tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam || 1 ||

1. In the Lord is to be veiled all this—whatsoever moves on earth. Through such renunciation do thou save (thyself); be not greedy, for whose is wealth?

 

Verse 14 of Isha Upanishad 

Quote

संभूतिं च विनाशं च यस् तद् वेदोभयं सह । 
विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा संभूत्यामृतम् अश्नुते ॥ १४ ॥

saṃbhūtiṃ ca vināśaṃ ca yas tad vedobhayaṃ saha | 
vināśena mṛtyuṃ tīrtvā saṃbhūtyāmṛtam aśnute || 14 ||

14. Whoever understands the manifest and the unmanifest as going together, (he), by overcoming death through the manifest, attains immortality through the unmanifest.

 

[Jonesboy]

Now I am really confused.

 

In AV is the world real or not? Is it an illusion or not?

 

Is there only Brahman or can we each be just like Brahman?

 

If you can provide me a simple answer with some scripture I would appreciate it.

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Jonesboy

[s1va]

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

But Even KS is an "advaita" tradition.

 

Well, the Masters of the KS tradition did not think so.  There is a reason it is classified as Monism.  When statements like that are made, it can only be classified as opinion.

 

I was just reading what Buddha said on philosophical assertions and refutations.  It is hard to make arguments against assertions based on  personal beliefs.

 

Do you consider Buddhism also as Advaita tradition?

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Now I am really confused.

 

In AV is the world real or not? Is it an illusion or not?

Read my point about what is considered "real" and what "unreal" per Indian traditions of philosophy (including buddhism). Anything that has permanent self-existence is Real. Anything that is not (depends on another) is unreal. This has nothing to do with the existence OR non-existence of that which is "unreal". 

Quote

 

Is there only Brahman or can we each be just like Brahman?

You already are Brahman. As is each and every one of us.

Quote

 

If you can provide me a simple answer with some scripture I would appreciate it.

 

Read the 10 primary upanishads. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by dwai

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Well, the Masters of the KS tradition did not think so.  There is a reason it is classified as Monism.

Well Monism is also a term used for Nondualism. 

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 When statements like that are made, it can only be classified as opinion.

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I was just reading what Buddha said on philosophical assertions and refutations.  It is hard to make arguments against assertions based on  personal beliefs.

Again you come down to personal beliefs. What I stated are not personal beliefs. Just further knowledge of Advaita Vedanta. Its not like the knowledge is not there...but just not realized. 

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Do you consider Buddhism also as Advaita tradition?

Yes I do. Not just me, most Buddhists do to. 

[s1va]

Just now, dwai said:

Quote

 

Do you consider Buddhism also as Advaita tradition?

Yes I do. Not just me, most Buddhists do to. 

 

What about Taoism and Taoists?  That also Advaita tradition?

[s1va]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

Quote

 

If you can provide me a simple answer with some scripture I would appreciate it.

 

Read the 10 primary upanishads

 

The question sounds like a simple request and the reply patronizing!

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

What about Taoism and Taoists?  That also Advaita tradition?

There are certain schools of Daoism that are. But in general Daoist teachings don't pay much credence to duality or nonduality (as far as I know). The way I've been taught, it seems to me very similar to Advaita vedanta, but with a difference. Dao is Brahman, Te is considered a complete image of Dao within the human being. By uncovering one's Te, one can realize Dao. 

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

The question sounds like a simple request and the reply patronizing!

Well it was not. There's nothing I can share about Vedanta that is not already in the 10 principle upanishads. My answer is not very different from your answer to my request to post your understanding on KS. Since 2007 I have posted many such posts on Daobums. 

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

There are certain schools of Daoism that are. But in general Daoist teachings don't pay much credence to duality or nonduality (as far as I know). The way I've been taught, it seems to me very similar to Advaita vedanta, but with a difference. Dao is Brahman, Te is considered a complete image of Dao within the human being. By uncovering one's Te, one can realize Dao. 

 

Observing similarities is one thing, but to claim other belief systems are part of one's own tradition is different.  

 

Thanks for the discussion and answering my question.  I think it's time for me to take a break from this thread!

 

 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

Observing similarities is one thing, but to claim other belief systems are part of one's own tradition is different.  

Again, you are insinuating that there is some sort of jalpa or vitanda being perpetrated here. I had expected better from you...

1 minute ago, s1va said:

Thanks for the discussion and answering my question.  I think it's time for me to take a break from this thread!

 

 

Sorry to see you stop. I was hoping with the renewed direction and tone (non-confrontational and amicable) of this thread, we could actually come up with some ground rules on the basis of which genuine discussion can happen. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I will try.  It is not static, fixed or rigid at any given time, such as concepts like jiva and shiva are one and same, or jiva and shiva are independent and have self existence, etc. etc.

 

It's spanda, vibration, pulsation, tremor, which is dynamic and cannot be tied to any one single static position, concept or a thing.  If this is not different from Advaita view of non-dual as the highest, then I don't know how further to explain.  It is all of those concepts and not any of them at the same time.

So Shiva is Spanda or is Spanda one of his characteristics? 

[Jonesboy]

34 minutes ago, dwai said:

Read my point about what is considered "real" and what "unreal" per Indian traditions of philosophy (including buddhism). Anything that has permanent self-existence is Real. Anything that is not (depends on another) is unreal. This has nothing to do with the existence OR non-existence of that which is "unreal". 

You already are Brahman. As is each and every one of us.

Read the 10 primary upanishads. 

 

Your previous quote seemed out of context and didn’t really show what it was talking about.

 

Going off of every previous post the world is not real but an illusion.

 

Not sure why you won’t answer the questions.

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Your previous quote seemed out of context and didn’t really show what it was talking about.

 

Going off of every previous post the world is not real but an illusion.

 

Not sure why you won’t answer the questions.

Help me understand what specifically you are looking for

 

AV as you know is a huge body of work and the primary Upanishads contain all the important teachings. If you want the deep end of the pool, I’d recommend reading Yoga Vashishtha or Tripura Rahasya. 

 

Understanding develops with time, with contemplation and meditation. You are an advanced practitioner, so if you stop looking for flaws and differences in the teachings and give it a fair shot, you will definitely come to the same conclusions I have, of this I’m sure. 

 

 

 

[Jonesboy]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Help me understand what specifically you are looking for

 

AV as you know is a huge body of work and the primary Upanishads contain all the important teachings. If you want the deep end of the pool, I’d recommend reading Yoga Vashishtha or Tripura Rahasya. 

 

Understanding develops with time, with contemplation and meditation. You are an advanced practitioner, so if you stop looking for flaws and differences in the teachings and give it a fair shot, you will definitely come to the same conclusions I have, of this I’m sure. 

 

 

 

 

I am looking for understanding from someone who says they have a deeper knowledge than I do.

 

I am asking you to answer my 3 simple questions.

 

The questions are not meant as a trap.

[dwai]

44 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I am looking for understanding from someone who says they have a deeper knowledge than I do.

 

I am asking you to answer my 3 simple questions.

 

The questions are not meant as a trap.

I answered two. One I said you have to read up yourself. I’m not sure what is unanswered  

Okay repeating my answers again — 

 

Q. Is the world real or unreal? 

 

A. World is existent. But considered unreal in AV. Why unreal? Because it doesn’t have independent self existence, but is rather dependent on a subject/awareness.

 

Q. Is there only one Brahman and can every one become Brahman 

 

A. Everyone is always and already Brahman but the knowledge is obscured by ignorance. What is ignorance? Fixation on objects and identification with the body and mind. 

 

Q. Can you give me scriptural evidence of the above answers? 

 

A. Read the 10 primary Upanishads

 

did you not find my answers satisfactory? 

 

 

[Jonesboy]

20 minutes ago, dwai said:

I answered two. One I said you have to read up yourself. I’m not sure what is unanswered  

Okay repeating my answers again — 

 

Q. Is the world real or unreal? 

 

A. World is existent. But considered unreal in AV. Why unreal? Because it doesn’t have independent self existence, but is rather dependent on a subject/awareness.

 

Q. Is there only one Brahman and can every one become Brahman 

 

A. Everyone is always and already Brahman but the knowledge is obscured by ignorance. What is ignorance? Fixation on objects and identification with the body and mind. 

 

Q. Can you give me scriptural evidence of the above answers? 

 

A. Read the 10 primary Upanishads

 

did you not find my answers satisfactory? 

 

 

 

Okay, so the world is unreal for the first question. Maybe we can agree that it is an illusion?

 

The second one wasn’t what I asked. I asked if in AV if you can be One like Brahman.

 

With your answer I am thinking the answer is no. There is only Brahman.

 

Did I miss anything?