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

[Marblehead]

6 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you did.  You missed the Marble perspective.  My world is real and we all are living on it; each and every individual one of us.

 

[s1va]

13 hours ago, dwai said:

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

 

Statements such as KS is Advaita tradition.  Buddhism is also part of Advaita tradition and most Buddhists know this (I do not know a single Buddhist who thinks Buddhism is Advaita tradition). These statements are just baffling to say the least for me.  I just find them plain wrong and insensitive in so many ways because they give zero thought to what others believe or cherish as their tradition.  There was no insinuation in my words except expressing this bafflement in mildest terms.

 

13 hours ago, dwai said:

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.

 

I have no interest to setup ground rules for anyone (or any tradition) to qualify or determine what is a genuine discussion in these topics.  That was never my intent.  I was arguing against that right from the start.

[neti neti]

17 hours ago, s1va said:

 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.

 

It does, just not conceptually or as something the mind can grasp at. Advaita doesn't pretend to illustrate that "mystery of vibration-less vibration." It is all just a paradox of language. Words contradict, and so the mind concludes differences where none exist.

Advaita does not deny the apparent expression of the dual in the non-dual(object in the subject). It in fact affirms their inseparableness by denying any reality of an inherently dual relationship between that which is unmanifest and the manifest. Continue ignoring this at the peril of being spun ever deeper into the whirlpool of conceptual waters. Or not, because thankfully the swimmer will eventually drown.

 

Seekers joyfully find the distinction between themselves and the sought is nonexistent. That non-discovery is itself the realization of transcendent immanence. Beyond what any scholar can attempt to classify, one's absence of presence as a separate entity is to discover one's absolute presence, transcendentally immanent, wherein questions of one-ness or two-ness do not arise.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by neti neti

[Daemon]

@neti neti

Haven't you yet realised that what you're saying means that those who've not had this experience themselves cannot even begin to resonate with what you're obviously never going to be able to convey via words?

The opening verses of the Vijnanabhairava tantra, with which you seem to have a passing familiarity, make it clear that all this mere philosophising is a pointless exercise.

Does that make sense to you?

 

☮️

 

[Jeff]

15 hours ago, dwai said:

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

 

In KS everything is an aspect of Shiva. But, to your question, Spanda would be something the motion or movement of Shiva. The major difference would be that Shiva is consciously aware of the movement, as compared to Brahman being more like an unaware blob. The consciously aware aspect is found in the extra body/layer that I earlier described as the Jiva-Siva divine phase.

 

While this is borrowing from buddhism, I think this sutra describes the nature of the conscious realization at this layer itself. Things are both real and not real, but there is direct conscious knowing (not just a nondual cessation of knowing). Also, there is no attachment to things like smoking at this level of existence. For a KS version of this, just change bodhisattvas to sages, and Buddha to Shiva...

 

Avatamsaka Sutra...

 

Great bodhisattvas have no attachment to Buddha and do not develop attachments; 

they have no attachment to the teachings and do not develop attachments; they have 

no attachment to lands and do not develop attachments; they have no attachments 

to sentient beings and do not develop attachments. They do not see that there are 

sentient beings, yet they carry on educational activity, civilizing and teaching ways 

of liberation; they do not give up the practices of bodhisattvas with great compassion 

and great commitment. Seeing buddhas and hearing their teachings, they act accordingly; 

trusting the buddhas they plant roots of goodness, ceaselessly honoring and serving them. 

 

They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are 

broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how 

many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know 

the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected 

images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth. 

 

They carry out practices of bodhisattvas for the sole purpose of saving sentient beings and yet 

do not practice anything. 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.

[s1va]

16 hours ago, dwai said:

16 hours 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. 

 

You say it's not.  But readers can draw their own concussion.

 

As to the part about your answer is not very different from some of my previous answer:. No way!!!  I don't make assumptions that people have not read this or that text.  I would never tell someone point-blank, just go read this or that, before they can ask me certain questions.  Find one post where I did that and then you can claim they are similar.  Until then, I have to dismiss that statement as absurd.

 

As to the part about you have been doing this in TDB from 2007:. That hardly justifies the action in anyway.  I don't even know why you bothered to point it out.  That your seniority gives you the right to do so? Many people do things and get away with it for years, decades or lifetime, that hardly justifies those actions are right.

 

I stand by what I said.  The statement 'Read the 10 primary Upanishads', in response to what appeared like a sincere question, sounds patronizing to me.

[dwai]

13 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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

 

you are conveniently ignoring what I said about what constitutes “unreal” in Indic traditions. 

13 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

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?

Yes. One doesn’t need to become Brahman, one already is Brahman. 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, s1va said:

 

Statements such as KS is Advaita tradition.  Buddhism is also part of Advaita tradition and most Buddhists know this (I do not know a single Buddhist who thinks Buddhism is Advaita tradition). These statements are just baffling to say the least for me.  I just find them plain wrong and insensitive in so many ways because they give zero thought to what others believe or cherish as their tradition.  There was no insinuation in my words except expressing this bafflement in mildest terms.

 

 

I have no interest to setup ground rules for anyone (or any tradition) to qualify or determine what is a genuine discussion in these topics.  That was never my intent.  I was arguing against that right from the start.

Advaita doesn’t mean Advaita Vedanta alone. Advaita is nonduality. Why can’t two more traditions be Advaita (not Vedanta, as the method and theory is different across these traditions). But being nondual, they are essentially reaching the same end. 

 

It seems that you are purposely being presumptuous here (putting words into my mouth). If that helps you in some way, so be it.

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Advaita doesn’t mean Advaita Vedanta alone. Advaita is nonduality. Why can’t two more traditions be Advaita (not Vedanta, as the method and theory is different across these traditions). But being nondual, they are essentially reaching the same end. 

 

It seems that you are purposely being presumptuous here (putting words into my mouth). If that helps you in some way, so be it.

 

Those were your exact words (verbatim) and I did not put any of them there.  You clearly seem to have an expanded view of your tradition as inclusive of all other traditions.  I would hope at least you take responsibility for what you said instead of blaming that also as other's fault.  No, none of this helps me clearly.

[dwai]

 

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

While this is borrowing from buddhism, I think this sutra describes the nature of the conscious realization at this layer itself. Things are both real and not real, but there is direct conscious knowing (not just a nondual cessation of knowing). Also, there is no attachment to things like smoking at this level of existence. For a KS version of this, just change bodhisattvas to sages, and Buddha to Shiva...

The entire thread on Tripura Rahasya specially refutes cessation of knowing (nirvikalpa samadhi).  

 

I agree that there is no concept of spanda in AV. That said, spanda could be the collective of rising and falling (some of which is experienced as gain/loss, pleasure/pain by the sentient beings in the transactional world) which appears in Brahman. 

 

However the statement “Brahman is a static blob” is incorrect and is a strawman. Brahman is the only activity - awareness, that makes everything else known  

 

Energy is the creative power of Brahman - maya. It is called shakti in shaiva traditions. The same Brahman is called shakti (awareness and energy) in the shakta traditions. 

 

 

 

[Jonesboy]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

you are conveniently ignoring what I said about what constitutes “unreal” in Indic traditions. 

Yes. One doesn’t need to become Brahman, one already is Brahman. 

 

No, I didn’t.

 

“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". “

 

So again the world is unreal based on this?

 

Simple yes or no is fine.

 

Brahman, is there more than one? Yes or no is fine.

 

Not sure why you are making this complicated.

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Those were your exact words (verbatim) and I did not put any of them there.  You clearly seem to have an expanded view of your tradition as inclusive of all other traditions.  I would hope at least you take responsibility for what you said instead of blaming that also as other's fault.  No, none of this helps me clearly.

Okay it’s got to a point where there’s no use of this discussion with you anymore. Not because I’m being dismissive, but because it seems you are intent on “winning” an argument.

 

Fwiw, you ARE a winner, already being Brahman. 

 

🤗

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

No, I didn’t.

 

“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". “

 

So again the world is unreal based on this?

 

Simple yes or no is fine.

 

Brahman, is there more than one? Yes or no is fine.

 

Not sure why you are making this complicated.

Wrt Brahman, there is no “ more than one” or “one”. One and many only exist in duality. 

[s1va]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Okay it’s got to a point where there’s no use of this discussion with you anymore. Not because I’m being dismissive, but because it seems you are intent on “winning” an argument.

 

Fwiw, you ARE a winner, already being Brahman. 

 

🤗

 

I never thought there was a point to this discussion from the start and said it so, with the exception that the premise of this thread to judge others as 'qualified' or 'not qualified' to engage in discussions as wrong.

 

Thanks for award, but I am doing fine without it and would like to keep it that way.  Just a suggestion though.  Instead of seeing it as winning of someone, can it also be seen as inner resistence to concede on ideas from our side?

 

I won't stand in the way of you discussing with others if you see no point in continuing the discussion with me.  So, I will leave.

 

Please continue the discussion with others.

 

 Much love  

[Jonesboy]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

Wrt Brahman, there is no “ more than one” or “one”. One and many only exist in duality. 

 

Thank you.

 

Now I am not saying one is right or wrong.

 

AV - World is not real- only One Brahman.

 

KS - World is real - Infinite number of Brahmans/Sivas.

 

A good starting point to how they are different.

 

I would also hope that the inquisitive mind would like to know how KS is non dual and how there can be so many Sivas. Again showing how each tradition IS different it it’s beliefs and therefore results.

[Jeff]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

The entire thread on Tripura Rahasya specially refutes cessation of knowing (nirvikalpa samadhi).  

 

I agree that there is no concept of spanda in AV. That said, spanda could be the collective of rising and falling (some of which is experienced as gain/loss, pleasure/pain by the sentient beings in the transactional world) which appears in Brahman. 

 

However the statement “Brahman is a static blob” is incorrect and is a strawman. Brahman is the only activity - awareness, that makes everything else known  

 

Energy is the creative power of Brahman - maya. It is called shakti in shaiva traditions. The same Brahman is called shakti (awareness and energy) in the shakta traditions. 

 

 

I think we may be talking about differnent things or aspects and missing my point with your straw man comment. My point on the “blob” aspect was in relation to what I was trying to describe as the Jiva-Siva layer or phase.  That is why I also included the Buddhist quote to try to help define that relative space as one of increasing perceptional differentiation. Additionally, that space includes the ongoing dissolution of subconscious attachments (like addiction to smoking), otherwise there is not the necessary clarity to have the direct conscious perception. 

 

If you sort of think of it like Shiva is the universal mind of all interconnected, then it is very much like one brings the subconscious aspects of first local mind, and then all of universal mind into conscious awareness. One becomes fully (all of) Shiva themself, not some component that dissolves into the greater whole.

 

The fundamental difference between the two traditions is in this existence (or not) of this “higher” layer beyond the causal body. Both traditions suppose a shift from dualistic seeing, to more nondualist being, but with this additional layer, KS supposes a layer of differential nondual being.  

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you.

 

Now I am not saying one is right or wrong.

 

AV - World is not real- only One Brahman.

 

KS - World is real - Infinite number of Brahmans/Sivas.

 

A good starting point to how they are different.

 

I would also hope that the inquisitive mind would like to know how KS is non dual and how there can be so many Sivas. Again showing how each tradition IS different it it’s beliefs and therefore results.

 

I would disagree with your above description of KS.  There is only one ultimate Siva. But each being or aspect has the ability to grow/expand to become fully Siva (at a consciously aware level).

 

In theory, to actually get truly infinite (independent) Sivas, you would have add Buddha’s concept of emptiness to KS, with its infinite Buddhas.

[Jonesboy]

10 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I would disagree with your above description of KS.  There is only one ultimate Siva. But each being or aspect has the ability to grow/expand to become fully Siva (at a consciously aware level).

 

In theory, to actually get truly infinite (independent) Sivas, you would have add Buddha’s concept of emptiness to KS, with its infinite Buddhas.

 

Thank you.

 

I see where I was confusing One like Siva with other concepts..

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

I think we may be talking about differnent things or aspects and missing my point with your straw man comment. My point on the “blob” aspect was in relation to what I was trying to describe as the Jiva-Siva layer or phase.  That is why I also included the Buddhist quote to try to help define that relative space as one of increasing perceptional differentiation. Additionally, that space includes the ongoing dissolution of subconscious attachments (like addiction to smoking), otherwise there is not the necessary clarity to have the direct conscious perception. 

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

If you sort of think of it like Shiva is the universal mind of all interconnected, then it is very much like one brings the subconscious aspects of first local mind, and then all of universal mind into conscious awareness. One becomes fully (all of) Shiva themself, not some component that dissolves into the greater whole.

That is called Hiranyagarbha in the Vedantic tradition and is associated with the subtle body (sukshma sharira). At the causal level, Brahman is called Ishwara (or God) and is corresponding to the causal body (kārana sharira). These are still appearances in Brahman. 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

The fundamental difference between the two traditions is in this existence (or not) of this “higher” layer beyond the causal body. Both traditions suppose a shift from dualistic seeing, to more nondualist being, but with this additional layer, KS supposes a layer of differential nondual being.  

In the Vedantic tradition, beyond the causal level there is only Brahman (aka Turiya or Atman). However, at the manifestation level, there are three aspects  corresponding to the physical, subtle and causal bodies/planes. The Physical body of Brahman is the Universe. The subtle body of the Brahman is Hiranyagarbha (Universal Mind) and the causal body of the Brahman is Ishwara (God). 

[Jeff]

13 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

That is called Hiranyagarbha in the Vedantic tradition and is associated with the subtle body (sukshma sharira). At the causal level, Brahman is called Ishwara (or God) and is corresponding to the causal body (kārana sharira). These are still appearances in Brahman. 

 

Agreed. 

 

13 minutes ago, dwai said:

In the Vedantic tradition, beyond the causal level there is only Brahman (aka Turiya or Atman). However, at the manifestation level, there are three aspects  corresponding to the physical, subtle and causal bodies/planes. The Physical body of Brahman is the Universe. The subtle body of the Brahman is Hiranyagarbha (Universal Mind) and the causal body of the Brahman is Ishwara (God). 

 

Yes, understood. But those three bodies of the same Brahman is what I previous referred to as the Brahman “blob”, as there are no other lets call them “intermediate steps” that one can fully become (somewhat similar to the Daoist concept of becoming an immortal). Additionally, I believe that in AV one more realizes their component state in Brahman, then actually becoming conscious as Ishwara or Brahman.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Agreed. 

 

 

Yes, understood. But those three bodies of the same Brahman is what I previous referred to as the Brahman “blob”, as there are no other lets call them “intermediate steps” that one can fully become (somewhat similar to the Daoist concept of becoming an immortal).

I don’t get it. Where is the concept of blob here? Blob makes me think of it as a passive homogenized thing. Whereas here it is active in the sense there is from the causal body (ishwara) an universal mind and then an universal body manifests. All of this is happening in awareness. How is the happening static or passive? Also would using the terms active or passive actually apply to awareness itself? I don’t think so. 

Quote

Additionally, I believe that in AV one more realizes their component state in Brahman, then actually becoming conscious as Ishwara or Brahman.

The realization is that one IS Brahman, not a component of Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta. Per other schools of vedanta, not so. So they are not Advaita pure, but qualified Advaita or dvaita 

Edited September 22, 2018 by dwai

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I don’t get it. Where is the concept of blob here? Blob makes me think of it as a passive homogenized thing. Whereas here it is active in the sense there is from the causal body (ishwara) an universal mind and then an universal body manifests. All of this is happening in awareness. How is the happening static or passive? Also would using the terms active or passive actually apply to awareness itself? I don’t think so. 

The realization is that one IS Brahman, not a component of Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta. Per other schools of vedanta, not so. So they are not Advaita pure, but qualified Advaita or dvaita 

 

I am a sorry that I used the word blob as that now seems to have become the focus rather than the actual point that I was trying to make. The difference that I am trying to describe is why I added the earlier Buddhist sutra quote. The difference is that it is all happening within yourself and not some “awareness that it is happening in”.  And since it is within, one directly knows and can be active or passive. As the Shiva Sutras describe...

 

1.19.  śaktisandhāne śarīrotpattiḥ

By infusing his energy of will the embodiment of that which is willed occurs at once.

1.20. bhūtasaṁdhāna-bhūtapṛithaktva-
viśvasaṁghaṭṭāḥ

By the greatness of this achievement of the energy of will the yogī can focus his awareness and heal the sick and suffering, separate elements from his body and be free from the limitations of space and time.

1.21. śuddhavidyodyāccakreśatva-siddhiḥ

(When this yogī does not desire limited powers and is eager to attain the knowledge of universal being then) . . . pure knowledge rises and by that knowledge he becomes the master of the universal wheel.

1.22. mahāhṛidānusaṁdhānān mantravīryānubhavaḥ

By the attentive continuity of meditation on the great ocean of consciousness the power of supreme I is attained.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Jeff

[3bob]

 

mixing up Buddhist and Hindu concepts just adds to the confusion, and speaking as if one were a lineage holder Satguru or the historic Buddha is mucking things up even more!!!

[Daemon]

@3bob

I'd like to encourage you get on with frying the rather tantalising fish that you previously published, as I feel that might help to dispel the somewhat disagreeable odour of self-basting goose, which continues to permeate this topic.

 

☮️

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Daemon

[3bob]

umm, is that a lure in the water?   

hashing it out can be informative,  lets just remember that we  are not the historic figures we are quoting and very few of us have permission from a lineage to teach  for them in public or privately.  thus an imo  or an in my understanding preface and attitude will or should nip a lot of unfortunate arguments in the bud.