Brahma Rishis - The Mystic Masters who created their own Universes

[dwai]

49 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

The mirage does disappear. That is why it is called a mirage and not real or an illusion. It is of the mind only.

 

So with your answer is the world real or not and if it looms not as large does that mean one can never escape the bonds of illusion?

Mirage doesn't disappear when the conditions are right. You know it is a mirage, but still see it

Illusion doesn't have any bonds if you know it is an illusion. What is there to escape? People seek escape because they think it is real.

[dwai]

57 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Like with 3bob's question, it is not really apples to apples comparison. My question was about how such would fit in the AV/Hindu framework, as it would seem to be logically inconsistent.  The text describes samahdi as some sort of totally gone space where your wife can have sex with you and you don't notice.  And then one is pulled back to the real world from that place.  That kind of view is very different from other traditions.

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a state of cessation, where the mind is stopped. When there is no mind, there is no cognition. But the body will continue to operate. When one is pulled back, the world doesn't disappear. It is just known to be an appearance, thats all.  

 

57 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

But, in general, I definitely agree that it is possible to create what I would call a pocket universe like the text describes.  Many traditions have such capability, and even form sort of astral schools in those realms.  

Just so that we're clear, the text doesn't glorify these universes, but aims to demonstrate what the power of a pure and powerful mind can do. Even though such an universe seems real, and in the story, the king spends 1 day in the pocket universe while 12,000 earth years have passed, both that universe and this universe are just appearances in pure awareness. 

[Jonesboy]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

Mirage doesn't disappear when the conditions are right. You know it is a mirage, but still see it

Illusion doesn't have any bonds if you know it is an illusion. What is there to escape? People seek escape because they think it is real.

 

Interesting

Can you point to a mirage that has never disappeared as an example? Are you also saying that no matter the realization one achieves they will still be caught up/see the illusion?

[s1va]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Just like a mirage in the desert doesn't disappear (when the conditions are appropriate for it to appear), only our knowledge that it is a mirage prevents us from running towards it in search of water...similarly, despite the change of outlook, the world, body or mind don't disappear. They just don't loom large like they used to.

 

Many Advaidic texts directly contradict what I highlighted above and state the opposite.  Including Vivekachoodamani by Adi Shankara.  Like how a dreamer wakes up from the dream, it is clearly stated as cessation.  I will just leave it at that since this is not the core subject matter of this discussion.

[Jeff]

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a state of cessation, where the mind is stopped. When there is no mind, there is no cognition. But the body will continue to operate. When one is pulled back, the world doesn't disappear. It is just known to be an appearance, thats all.  

 

Did you not recently post that Nirvikalpa Samadhi was not useful?  And this guy just constantly stays there?  Hence, my confusion on the logic.

 

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Just so that we're clear, the text doesn't glorify these universes, but aims to demonstrate what the power of a pure and powerful mind can do. Even though such an universe seems real, and in the story, the king spends 1 day in the pocket universe while 12,000 earth years have passed, both that universe and this universe are just appearances in pure awareness. 

 

My point is that it is really not a pure mind in this case as the son was obviously filled with desire to be a king as the text describes...

 

When he grew up, he heard that I had once been a king. He wished to be one also and besought me to grant his prayer. I initiated him in yoga, which he practised with such success that he was able by the force of his will to create a world of his own in this hill which he is now ruling. 

 

To me, this would not be purity in Self, as the kid wanted to have the same kind of power over people like his dad did when he was a king. Also, his dad helps him to realize his wish, rather than point out that none of it is real.  Again, my confusion on the logic.  

[3bob]

Om does not disappear being eternally and unbreakable in connection...but... 

[3bob]

hmm, "when the mind stops",  could that also mean that the powers of mind to really nail down anything further...including cessation or action as we normally know them also stop...for then it's a whole new ball game so to speak. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Many Advaidic texts directly contradict what I highlighted above and state the opposite.  Including Vivekachoodamani by Adi Shankara.  Like how a dreamer wakes up from the dream, it is clearly stated as cessation.  I will just leave it at that since this is not the core subject matter of this discussion.

I used to believe that too. But that is not what it means. Talk to a brahmajnani and see what they have to say.

 

I have asked this question to a few that I know for sure are brahmajnanis, and they all say that what "world cessation means" is just that the world does take on a dream like quality but doesn't really "disappear". If you read the Tripura Rahasya, it clearly articulates that the outcome of "enlightenment" is different depending on the sage. It is interesting to discuss this, but would require a separate thread. 

 

Sages like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, all continued to interact with the world and teach, even though they were jivanamuktas. And each had their own unique perspective on things.

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Did you not recently post that Nirvikalpa Samadhi was not useful?  And this guy just constantly stays there?  Hence, my confusion on the logic.

It is a story within the main text meant to illustrate some specific points. It should not be taken beyond that imho

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

My point is that it is really not a pure mind in this case as the son was obviously filled with desire to be a king as the text describes...

 

When he grew up, he heard that I had once been a king. He wished to be one also and besought me to grant his prayer. I initiated him in yoga, which he practised with such success that he was able by the force of his will to create a world of his own in this hill which he is now ruling. 

 

To me, this would not be purity in Self, as the kid wanted to have the same kind of power over people like his dad did when he was a king. Also, his dad helps him to realize his wish, rather than point out that none of it is real.  Again, my confusion on the logic.  

Perhaps it IS meant to raise questions such as these as well?

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Interesting

Can you point to a mirage that has never disappeared as an example?

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

Are you also saying that no matter the realization one achieves they will still be caught up/see the illusion?

Haha that is a very good question

The answer is nuanced. 

[Jonesboy]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html

Haha that is a very good question

The answer is nuanced. 

 

Thank you but none of the pictures show a mirage that never goes away.

 

I agree the answer is nuanced depending on tradition.

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you but none of the pictures show a mirage that never goes away.

 

I agree the answer is nuanced depending on tradition.

The question is "will knowing a mirage is a mirage, remove the illusion?" 

Seeing the pictures of these mirages it is clear that the photographer knew that they were mirages. You and I know that they are mirages. Yet they appear to be.

Similarly, for the world too...

[s1va]

49 minutes ago, dwai said:

I used to believe that too. But that is not what it means. Talk to a brahmajnani and see what they have to say.

 

I have asked this question to a few that I know for sure are brahmajnanis, and they all say that what "world cessation means" is just that the world does take on a dream like quality but doesn't really "disappear". If you read the Tripura Rahasya, it clearly articulates that the outcome of "enlightenment" is different depending on the sage. It is interesting to discuss this, but would require a separate thread. 

 

Sages like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, all continued to interact with the world and teach, even though they were jivanamuktas. And each had their own unique perspective on things.

 

 

With respect to any one philosophy or tradition, we can only go with what is stated in the fundamental tenets of the tradition.  This cessation is stated clearly and emphasized time and again in almost all major Advaita texts and with examples.   I am not sure how else to give a different interpretation to something that is explained clearly in the bashyas (commentaries) and original texts.  If it is something that one has to learn from a realized saint or brahmajanani, I would expect the text to say so and not call it as 'cessation'. 

[Jonesboy]

49 minutes ago, dwai said:

The question is "will knowing a mirage is a mirage, remove the illusion?" 

Seeing the pictures of these mirages it is clear that the photographer knew that they were mirages. You and I know that they are mirages. Yet they appear to be.

Similarly, for the world too...

 

Thank you Dwai.

 

I completely agree that what the OP talks about is possible.

 

I just disagree with AV in so much that it is really pointless to keep bringing up the same inconsistencies over and over again. I mean I don't even agree that the people you mentioned are jivanamuktas.

 

Anyways, thanks for the OP.

[dwai]

48 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

With respect to any one philosophy or tradition, we can only go with what is stated in the fundamental tenets of the tradition.  This cessation is stated clearly and emphasized time and again in almost all major Advaita texts and with examples. 

That is abjectly inadequate. Our understanding deepens with maturity (of practice) and as we proceed, the same text might mean completely different things depending on that (maturity).  We have to rely on teachers of the traditions to provide fine details and guidance when we have doubts.

 

48 minutes ago, s1va said:

  I am not sure how else to give a different interpretation to something that is explained clearly in the bashyas (commentaries) and original texts.  If it is something that one has to learn from a realized saint or brahmajanani, I would expect the text to say so and not call it as 'cessation'. 

I can only say, understanding will depend on our level. The Bhashyas will mean different things to different people. Some people can't even understand it. And then later they do. 

There's a reason why texts like Ashtavakra Samhita, Tripura Rahasya, Yoga Vasishtha are considered specialized texts and the student needs adhikara to read them. 

[dwai]

41 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you Dwai.

 

I completely agree that what the OP talks about is possible.

 

Quote

 

I just disagree with AV in so much that it is really pointless to keep bringing up the same inconsistencies over and over again. I mean I don't even agree that the people you mentioned are jivanamuktas.

 

Anyways, thanks for the OP.

 That's okay. AV doesn't suffer any great loss because of that...

Do you agree or disagree that the mirage remains despite knowing it is a mirage? Or does the mirage simply disappear once you know that its a mirage?

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by dwai

[Jonesboy]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

 

 That's okay. AV doesn't suffer any great loss because of that...

Do you agree or disagree that the mirage remains despite knowing it is a mirage? Or does the mirage simply disappear once you know that its a mirage?

 

 

 

Show me where a mirage remains. You have shown me pictures of ones coming and going but where is one that never ends?

 

Your question also points to something interesting with AV. Knowing the mirage is an illusion you still see it. You can negate it all you like but it doesn't make the mirage disappear now does it

[s1va]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

That is abjectly inadequate. Our understanding deepens with maturity (of practice) and as we proceed, the same text might mean completely different things depending on that (maturity).  We have to rely on teachers of the traditions to provide fine details and guidance when we have doubts.

 

I can only say, understanding will depend on our level. The Bhashyas will mean different things to different people. Some people can't even understand it. And then later they do. 

There's a reason why texts like Ashtavakra Samhita, Tripura Rahasya, Yoga Vasishtha are considered specialized texts and the student needs adhikara to read them. 

 

Somethings are simply what they are!  Just want to say, it can also become dangerous to introduce new meanings and interpretations to what has been clearly stated and explained.  You may have good intentions here in broadening the scope and definitions, but such precedence could open the flood gates to some (any) claiming to be 'mature' and give whatever meaning they like to scriptural texts.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

 

Show me where a mirage remains. You have shown me pictures of ones coming and going but where is one that never ends?

 

Your question also points to something interesting with AV. Knowing the mirage is an illusion you still see it. You can negate it all you like but it doesn't make the mirage disappear now does it

 the answer was already given but you are unable to see it. So be it. That’s your prerogative. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Somethings are simply what they are!  Just want to say, it can also become dangerous to introduce new meanings and interpretations to what has been clearly stated and explained.  You may have good intentions here in broadening the scope and definitions, but such precedence could open the flood gates to some (any) claiming to be 'mature' and give whatever meaning they like to scriptural texts.

It's really a matter of discussion between each serious practitioner and their teacher(s). Best advise is to follow the instructions of a teacher (stotriya brahmanistha).

[3bob]

7 hours ago, 3bob said:

hmm, "when the mind stops",  could that also mean that the powers of mind to really nail down anything further...including cessation or action as we normally know them also stop...for then it's a whole new ball game so to speak. 

 

also meaning the Self does not cease in any way as we may know ceasing to be...

[s1va]

12 hours ago, dwai said:

It's really a matter of discussion between each serious practitioner and their teacher(s). Best advise is to follow the instructions of a teacher (stotriya brahmanistha).

 

Yes, my teachers and the Masters that I have learned from such as Swami Tejomayananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and some others, were all very clear when they explained what cessation meant in Advaita.  I also happened to have direct discussion in Advaita with some of these.  There is no doubt in my mind as to what cessation means in Advaita.  Plus, for discussions about topics from such texts in forum, we can only go with the generally accepted definitions.  If each person claims, I am mature and have a higher definition of my yown for this or that, these discussions lose meaning.  

 

Also, in your last post, you talked about adhikara, who is qualified to read texts such as Yoga Vasishta, Tripura Rahasya, etc.  I can understand such hierarchy and qualifications within a tradition, based on religion, caste, being a male and based on one's education, etc.  This is all understandable if it is announced and enforced within the tradition, like how it is done generally.  Just curious, if it is such protected text, which only few are allowed to read and only very few can understand with their teachers, is there a point in sharing portions of such restricted texts in posts like this on open forum and having discussions with others, who may clearly not be qualified under the said tradition?

[neti neti]

11 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

also meaning the Self does not cease in any way as we may know ceasing to be...

 

The idea of ceasing is also only within the mind or subtle body. Cessation, the counterpart of action perceived as inaction, is just action by another name. Thorns to remove thorns. Like anything else swirling around in the world of projection, nothing to worry oneself about.

 

To communicate how the "higher" buddhi, or supreme intellect intuitively operates is one thing. The spontaneous knowingness of self-luminous pure knowledge, knowing all by virtue of its being knowledge, is an altogether different ball game indeed.

Edited October 4, 2018 by neti neti

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, my teachers and the Masters that I have learned from such as Swami Tejomayananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and some others, were all very clear when they explained what cessation meant in Advaita.  I also happened to have direct discussion in Advaita with some of these.  There is no doubt in my mind as to what cessation means in Advaita.  Plus, for discussions about topics from such texts in forum, we can only go with the generally accepted definitions.  If each person claims, I am mature and have a higher definition of my yown for this or that, these discussions lose meaning.  

. Maybe you should go back and ask them for some further guidance/clarification. Surely you must be in touch with some of these masters? Let me know if anyone says that the world disappears after enlightenment. 

 

BTW, Why does it bother you so much? Didn't you recently proclaim that you don't believe in rules of engagement and don't accept that ground rules be set?  I don't really care to know your answer and I don't particularly care if you agree with me or not. That is your prerogative. I'll still hold compassion and love for you in my heart. 

 

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

Also, in your last post, you talked about adhikara, who is qualified to read texts such as Yoga Vasishta, Tripura Rahasya, etc.  I can understand such hierarchy and qualifications within a tradition, based on religion, caste, being a male and based on one's education, etc.  This is all understandable if it is announced and enforced within the tradition, like how it is done generally.  Just curious, if it is such protected text, which only few are allowed to read and only very few can understand with their teachers, is there a point in sharing portions of such restricted texts in posts like this on open forum and having discussions with others, who may clearly not be qualified under the said tradition?

 

It depends upon the degree of chitta shuddhi one has, imho. When one has sufficient chitta shuddhi, the meaning becomes clear. That becomes apparent in the type of questions being asked. You are referring to authority of the bhashyas and claiming that we should take these at face value. I'm saying, that different texts are meant for different levels of understanding. Like what they teach in 10th grade is different from what is taught in 12th grade, and  that is different in a PhD program. 

 

I'll be honest and say that based on the type of  questions and the opinions I see being held about AV by some here, the progress stopped at the level of realizing the "unrealness of the world".  If they had persisted with nidhidhyasana, they would have completed the loop about the world itself being Brahman.  The three aspects of knowing - That the world doesn't independently exist apart from awareness (at the beginner level of AV knowledge - The World is unreal), that the Self is none other than Brahman (Atman = Brahman) and that the world itself IS Brahman (jagat is the physical body of Brahman - Virat, Universal mind is the subtle body of Brahman - Hiranyagarbha, God is the causal body of Brahman (Ishvara)), would be complete. 

 

 

 

 

[s1va]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Maybe you should go back and ask them for some further guidance/clarification. Surely you must be in touch with some of these masters?

 

Their books are in plain English and available for anyone to read and understand on the topic of cessation or anything else for that matter.  While I have great respect and tremendous gratitude for all of those masters (some of them are no more in their physical form as you may know), I still go and listen to some lectures and interact with some teachers at various levels in these organizations.  Their view, definition of cessation is different from what you are explaining here.  I can quote several passages from the books written by these Swamis, explaining in plain and simple terms what cessation means with examples.  But there is no point, so I won't do it.

 

Thanks for responding to my comments.  I will take leave from this thread now