On the nature of creation - Ramana Maharshi

[Zen Pig]

I try to not chime in with true believers.  And I am really not trying to be a cunt,  but talking to many of the neo-guru followers is like talking to Facebook vegans.  I can tell them that I eat meat and living in the mountains we hunt to only eat like humans have done for tens of thousand of years, and we respect the animal that gives us life as one day, it will be our turn to give life to these animals.  I also respect folks for there world view, and end up saying, "well, if that works for you, then great, hope you all are happy"......... but much like the neo-non-duality folks, the vegans will denounce me as "worst then Hitler", (yes that really happened), and then go on to point out how there their way is the only way to be spiritual, save the earth, and be a good evolved person.....  I much rather be with folks who honestly say, "I have experienced this, but in the end, who really knows where the road will go".   For me, once I start to pull my experiences into a coherent, belief system, the deep things I have seen become corrupted.  Others who have not had any experience will then latch on to this new religion, and find it comfortable, and think they found, at last some real truth.  walking down the unknown road without a destination is a frighting path, until you start to sing, and have fun.  just my two cents from an old fart.  Happy Sitting

[3bob]

umm, as guys here we could probably call each other dickheads or worse and it would not be that big a deal for most guys,

on the other hand I'd suggest you edit out the 'c' word from your post which is probably a big deal for many folks, "neo" whatever or not.

[Zen Pig]

19 hours ago, 3bob said:

as guys here we could probably call each other dickheads or worse and it would not be that big a deal for most guys,

on the other hand I'd suggest you edit out the 'c' word from your post which is probably a big deal for many folks, "neo" whatever or not.

 Sorry 3bob, did not mean to upset anyone with my Irish potty mouth.  

 

[3bob]

ok man, I think anyone who may have had trouble with that word and not your tone appreciate it... 

[silent thunder]

I for one, deeply appreciate an authentic fuckin' potty mouth.  Particularly the Irish and Scottish varieties. 

 

 

[Kar3n]

1 hour ago, Zen Pig said:

 Sorry 3bob, did not mean to upset anyone with my Irish potty mouth.  

 

So how about that edit, please?

[silent thunder]

why not just install the profanity filter while we're at it... sheesh.

[3bob]

 

21 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I for one, deeply appreciate an authentic fuckin' potty mouth.  Particularly the Irish and Scottish varieties. 

 

 

try that word (not the tone as was noted) with your Grandmother, Mum, Aunt, wife or daughter and see how well it goes over,  then get back with us if they haven't knocked your block off.

Edited December 9, 2018 by 3bob

[silent thunder]

 

[Still_Waters]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:35 AM, Jeff said:

 

Your Zen quote is an important differentiation from the classical hindu view. It is saying something different than 3bob.

My spiritual mentor for over 30 years was the first female mahamandeleshwara in the orders of Shankaracharya and an acknowledged adept in classical Hinduism and Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras (Asthanga Yoga). Above all, she was a seeker of Truth regardless of tradition and often quoted from the scriptures and teachings of other traditions. She often said that words were inadequate to express the inexpressible but that the various systems taught as best as possible within the realm of words. Such systems, while generally consistent within themselves, may sometimes apparently contradict other systems at some level(s) but less and less so as one goes deeper and deeper.

 

My mentor was once lecturing on Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras when a question was raised regarding an apparent contradiction with another philosophical school of thought. (The specific details are unimportant.) Her response was exactly as stated above in agreeing that certain apparent contradictions may indeed arise between different systems at the lower levels and that, for purposes of the lecture in progress, it was important to stay within the consistent context of Pantanjali.

 

You may already have intuited where this is leading but, to get back to your original point, I have come across too many people who quote extensively from various systems without really having any direct experience relevant to the subject at hand. Therefore, as Zen masters do, it is important to test the waters with the equivalent of "dharma battles" to ascertain true depth. When some one takes the somewhat standard position of "oneness" or "there is only one of us", one raises the question as to how they shift back-and-forth between unitary consciousness (the One) and the apparent separateness or whether they can even get into the unitary consciousness state which they are so casually stating. One does not know until one probes the depths if indeed there is depth instead of mere repetitious book knowledge that "sounds enlightened". Hence, I raised the Zen statement as a probe not only to probe the depths but to get the other out of the comfort zone of a particular system. In this particular case, whether the Zen statement is an "important differentiation from the classical Hindu view" or not is completely irrelevant to me.

 

Personally, I do not subscribe to one system or another and attach no label to myself. Like my teacher, I seek Truth. When differences arise due to wording and theories in the various systems, I find it best to raise the level (or go deeper depending on which wording you prefer) where the essences of the various religions converge and more meaningful dialogues can proceed until, of course, those "dialogues" are conducted in utter and complete silence as in the case of several extraordinary masters whom I've encountered during the course of my travels.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Still_Waters

[Still_Waters]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:29 AM, 3bob said:

directed at an apparent us 

Apparently !

 

[3bob]

Still waters, if that is the case then why are you naming names positions and certain schools as authorities?  (then throwing some of them or the idea of them out with the bathwater - but also going with,  "it was important to stay within the consistent context of Pantanjali."? 

Edited December 9, 2018 by 3bob

[dawei]

7 hours ago, silent thunder said:

why not just install the profanity filter while we're at it... sheesh.

 

very cool idea... found it in the Admin panel 

[Still_Waters]

On 12/7/2018 at 9:14 AM, rideforever said:

None of us is "unity consciousness" ... you can see this very clearly when you try to manifest a new star ... give it a try for a few minutes.  
Nothing right.
So what are we then ?
We are structures created in the outflow of Creation that have a certain duration unless we create a union with the Source, in which case we become a Communion-Being ... which is a like a leaf that knows the branch trunk and roots.
And that leaf has its own intelligent perspective on the universe.
If the leaf before Communion then it actually dies as that perspective is lost permanently, it's not like when the leaf dies it wakes up again ... it does not, it just dies, bye bye.
But I wouldn't worry about it as the One was always behind us anyway.
So then I suppose a nice approach to life is to stop hiding and start doing cool stuff without fear.

In which case you come back down the mountain and just be what you are.

A lot of spiritual talk is just cowardice and refusal to be cool roll up sleeve do the thing.

 

When I accompanied my spiritual mentor to the Khumba Mela in Haridwar, India, in 1998, at the foothills of the Himalayas, I met several really extraordinary beings. One of them manifested to a friend of mine and me in the middle of an open field with no one else in sight. Without being asked, he precisely answered a question that we were discussing in exactly six words. (That answer is not germane to this discussion.) When I turned to my friend and looked back, the being was gone. Questioning my sense of perception, I asked my friend open-ended questions such as "Did you see anything", "What did you see", "Did you hear anything", "What did you hear", etc. When I realized that he had seen and heard exactly what I had seen and heard, we went back to the ashram to bring this to the attention of our teacher who was sitting with various sages. When she saw us, she detected a sense of ego and she was correct. She summoned us into her immediate presence and, after we had told her what had happened and described the sage who had manifested since he had been at a bandara (feast) the previous day, she and the other sages looked at us very knowingly. After a long silence, she stated: "Oh, that's Sri <so-and-so, as I don't recall his name>. He does this from time to time. Everyone knows that." To us, this was extraordinary. To the sages, it was just another day. She then directed us to meditate in silence on what had just happened and, to keep us busy, she also directed us to clean the hallways and the bathrooms.

 

In your opening statement, you wrote: "None of us is "unity consciousness" ... you can see this very clearly when you try to manifest a new star ... give it a try for a few minutes." While this sage most assuredly did not manifest a new star, he did manifest his body and, just as mysteriously, vanished. I used this example since there was another direct eye-witness and several sages who attested that this sage did indeed do this from time to time.

 

That is the only point in your post on which I choose to comment since the rest is more theoretical than experiential.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Still_Waters

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

My spiritual mentor for over 30 years was the first female mahamandeleshwara in the orders of Shankaracharya and an acknowledged adept in classical Hinduism and Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras (Asthanga Yoga). Above all, she was a seeker of Truth regardless of tradition and often quoted from the scriptures and teachings of other traditions. She often said that words were inadequate to express the inexpressible but that the various systems taught as best as possible within the realm of words. Such systems, while generally consistent within themselves, may sometimes apparently contradict other systems at some level(s) but less and less so as one goes deeper and deeper.

 

My mentor was once lecturing on Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras when a question was raised regarding an apparent contradiction with another philosophical school of thought. (The specific details are unimportant.) Her response was exactly as stated above in agreeing that certain apparent contradictions may indeed arise between different systems at the lower levels and that, for purposes of the lecture in progress, it was important to stay within the consistent context of Pantanjali.

 

You may already have intuited where this is leading but, to get back to your original point, I have come across too many people who quote extensively from various systems without really having any direct experience relevant to the subject at hand. Therefore, as Zen masters do, it is important to test the waters with the equivalent of "dharma battles" to ascertain true depth. When some one takes the somewhat standard position of "oneness" or "there is only one of us", one raises the question as to how they shift back-and-forth between unitary consciousness (the One) and the apparent separateness or whether they can even get into the unitary consciousness state which they are so casually stating. One does not know until one probes the depths if indeed there is depth instead of mere repetitious book knowledge that "sounds enlightened". Hence, I raised the Zen statement as a probe not only to probe the depths but to get the other out of the comfort zone of a particular system. In this particular case, whether the Zen statement is an "important differentiation from the classical Hindu view" or not is completely irrelevant to me.

 

Personally, I do not subscribe to one system or another and attach no label to myself. Like my teacher, I seek Truth. When differences arise due to wording and theories in the various systems, I find it best to raise the level (or go deeper depending on which wording you prefer) where the essences of the various religions converge and more meaningful dialogues can proceed until, of course, those "dialogues" are conducted in utter and complete silence as in the case of several extraordinary masters whom I've encountered during the course of my travels.

 

Thank you for your response. But it seemed a little long to simply say that you do not think there really is any difference between the two views. Contrary to your mentor, I would argue that it is really only more at intermediary levels that it appears that differentiation drops.  I think that is particularly true with something like Pantanjali’s Yoga sutras.  In an attempt to point this out I will highlight the Zen koan... First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain again.  The yoga sutras are based upon the premise that there is no mountain, and when someone is locked into that view, it is very challenging to realize there is a mountain again.  These subtle differences highlight a dramatic difference.  

[rideforever]

10 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

While this sage most assuredly did not manifest a new star, he did manifest his body and, just as mysteriously, vanished. I used this example since there was another direct eye-witness and several sages who attested that this sage did indeed do this from time to time.

 

Great, well it's a nice story but it does not contradict what I said.
The invocation "Atman is Brahman" and such ... are practices they are not conceptual boasting, by repeatedly merging with the universal then you will awakening meaning your individual perspective enters communion.

Which ashram were you staying at btw ?

[Still_Waters]

19 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Thank you for your response. But it seemed a little long to simply say that you do not think there really is any difference between the two views. Contrary to your mentor, I would argue that it is really only more at intermediary levels that it appears that differentiation drops.  I think that is particularly true with something like Pantanjali’s Yoga sutras.  In an attempt to point this out I will highlight the Zen koan... First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain again.  The yoga sutras are based upon the premise that there is no mountain, and when someone is locked into that view, it is very challenging to realize there is a mountain again.  These subtle differences highlight a dramatic difference.  

My response was indeed a bit long. You are, of course, correct about the lengthiness. I just wanted to ensure that my point was clear.

 

I am very familiar with the Zen koan that you quoted and have used it extensively .... in the past.

 

These discussions are causing me to ponder more and more deeply the nature of Reality. Gaudapada, who wrote a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, "explains" the nature of apparent multiplicity by simply saying that this is the very nature (Unity in Diversity) of the Effulgent Being. It may sound overly simplistic but he does have a point. Hence, in addressing your statement, he would probably avoid the discussion on whether "there is no mountain" (your impression of the yoga sutras) or whether there is a mountain, then there is not, and then once again there is a mountain (obviously in a totally different light). Therefore, it does not seem constructive to continue the "mountain" discussion differences between the two philosophies that you referenced; whether the "mountain" exists or not or perceptions change in stages is not really that important. What is important is Truth .... that which is.

 

I agree with you that it is really only at a certain level that it appears that differentiation drops. (I did not mention my teacher's understanding of differentiation. Hence, your perspective is not necessarily contrary. All I said was that each system of words is inadequate but generally internally consistent though it may apparently contradict another system due to the obvious conflicts introduced by the use of inadequate words.)

Edited December 9, 2018 by Still_Waters
Added "Unity in Diversity" after "nature".

[Still_Waters]

3 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

Great, well it's a nice story but it does not contradict what I said.
The invocation "Atman is Brahman" and such ... are practices they are not conceptual boasting, by repeatedly merging with the universal then you will awakening meaning your individual perspective enters communion.

Which ashram were you staying at btw ?

"Communion" is a reasonably good word to describe the restoration of Original nature.  I like it.

 

How does one "repeatedly" merge with the universal if I may ask? Do you view this as a repetitive process ? I did not fully understand what you meant in your post.

 

(By the way, I did not mean to imply "conceptual boasting" though I must admit that hearing a person merely saying words such as "Atman is Brahman" certainly does not convince me that the person is actually at that level of realization and not just repeating words. However, one most assuredly does not know what is in the mind of another so one must continue to explore the understanding behind the understanding behind ... the words. If there is depth behind the spoken words, than one can learn a lot from that person.)

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Still_Waters

[Jeff]

50 minutes ago, Still_Waters said:

My response was indeed a bit long. You are, of course, correct about the lengthiness. I just wanted to ensure that my point was clear.

 

I am very familiar with the Zen koan that you quoted and have used it extensively .... in the past.

 

These discussions are causing me to ponder more and more deeply the nature of Reality. Gaudapada, who wrote a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, "explains" the nature of apparent multiplicity by simply saying that this is the very nature of the Effulgent Being. It may sound overly simplistic but he does have a point. Hence, in addressing your statement, he would probably avoid the discussion on whether "there is no mountain" (your impression of the yoga sutras) or whether there is a mountain, then there is not, and then once again there is a mountain (obviously in a totally different light). Therefore, it does not seem constructive to continue the "mountain" discussion differences between the two philosophies that you referenced; whether the "mountain" exists or not or perceptions change in stages is not really that important. What is important is Truth .... that which is.

 

I agree with you that it is really only at a certain level that it appears that differentiation drops. (I did not mention my teacher's understanding of differentiation. Hence, your perspective is not necessarily contrary. All I said was that each system of words is inadequate but generally internally consistent though it may apparently contradict another system due to the obvious conflicts introduced by the use of inadequate words.)

 

I have actually found that when the words are inadequate it is often more a product of the one writing down the words and the relative depth of understanding (or get lost in the no mountain ). As an example, in the hindu tradition, someone like the KS master Abhinavagupta describes it beautifully and at an incredibly deep level of the mountian coming back. 

 

Additionally, when the mountain comes back the nature of the mountain has shifted. In Taoist terms, when the mountain is back, one is  called a (golden) child and has already realized the “stream of the universe”. At that level of realization, one is beyond simple energy and can directly share. Or as the Shiva Sutras state...

 

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, Still_Waters said:

How does one "repeatedly" merge with the universal if I may ask? Do you view this as a repetitive process ? I did not fully understand what you meant in your post.

 

Well that's what the non-dual tradition is about it's not a conceptual boasting.

Basically you feel the universal force but feel it as yourself, and this results in communion, deeper and deeper.  Of course there are other thngs like contemplation and so recogntion, but in terms of the energetic side of the practice that is what results in the Halo (higher body) which is the awakening of Consciousness.

Same thing happens in Taoism but you use the Dantien and it awakens downwards.

Recognition is instantaneous because how can recognition not be, but the process of becoming higher being body and stable and integrated with other functions takes much time and never ends really.

Anyway truth is humans are not so mega intelligent, they need simple instructions.

So saying "let yourself die"  "you are Brahman" is appropriate, but don't get on high horse and take it literally.

So where was that ashram, always interested to have good recommendations.

 

Humans are at very different levels of evolution on multiple planes, so for instance someone upon birth can find themselves smacking their forehead into a wall and re-awaken a 3rd eye that was cultivated in previous life.

Others can be touch by a master and bang.

Others struggle and struggle and struggle and no amount of magic will make it quicker.

 

Masters often don't really understand either.

After all how many really understand the location of Consciousness ?   Few, many don't even think it is in the head.

How many talk of the "heart" but don't know the awakening of the Heart Chakra (true heart).

And so on.

How many are engaged in complex energetic or esoteric work, who don't really understand the point of waking up, and just want more power.

 

How many say "this is all there is", or "we don't exist", or "emptiness is fullness", or "mindfulness is emptiness".

Wow, crazy.

So mankind's intellectual power not so much.

Often better to shut up and keep head down, hang around with someone with Light, cross fingers and smile nicely.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by rideforever

[rideforever]

Another thing is that on this planet it seems that unintelligent people are in charge of spirituality.
Intelligent people are normally working or perhaps they find it easier to understand who they are, and don't need spirituality.
Quite interesting because the plethora of spiritual paths might indicate real stupidity and that more integrated species have no need of plumbing the depths of various deep states, because they simply understand who they are ... and it's only on particularly disturbed planets that such deep paths are investigated.
Anyway, the intelligence of paths is often quite low, though without any alternatives ... what choice do you have.
Ha !

[dwai]

Too much pride on intelligence is another trap. The truth is beyond the intellect as well. Intellect will only take us to the gates of the truth. When you walk through the gate, the intellect stays behind. 

 

That is the source of so much mischief. The ego wants explanations. It needs the intellect to make up a satisfactory story. 

 

The fact is that no story is ever necessary.  But that realization comes after making up and breaking down many layers of stories. The truth is that which makes story making possible. How can it ever be an object of any story?   

[rideforever]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

Too much pride on intelligence is another trap.

 

This is very true, however on the other side many wish to never use their intelligence and become dumb smiling awakened people.

What we call the mind is in fact part of the system of intelligence we have that is very powerful and difficult to train or wield, so it's an unpleasant and difficult journey.

Maybe one can take the view that a beheaded form of awakening is appropriate for this planet and perhaps next time you are born somewhere where their spiritual schools are more efficient.

[Still_Waters]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

I have actually found that when the words are inadequate it is often more a product of the one writing down the words and the relative depth of understanding (or get lost in the no mountain ). As an example, in the hindu tradition, someone like the KS master Abhinavagupta describes it beautifully and at an incredibly deep level of the mountian coming back. 

 

Additionally, when the mountain comes back the nature of the mountain has shifted. In Taoist terms, when the mountain is back, one is  called a (golden) child and has already realized the “stream of the universe”. At that level of realization, one is beyond simple energy and can directly share. Or as the Shiva Sutras state...

 

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

Are you suggesting that, for a realized being, words are adequate to express the Reality ? As eloquent as a master may be, my experience has been the opposite of yours in that words, while most assuredly helpful in certain instances and actually in most instances with the masses, are at least two levels removed from the Reality that they are trying to express (words and thoughts constituting a minimum of two levels though I am aware that some masters speak without activating the thought processes). Having spent time with masters who communicate in complete and utter silence, that "communication" (in my opinion) is incomparable to anything expressed in words.

 

Since you mention the Taoists, there is a saying attributed to Lao Tzu that has resonated completely with me. Though I don't recall the exact words, the gist is: "In utter emptiness and complete silence (thoughts implied as well), simply watch the Return (to original nature)." How does one communicate that in words. My sense is that it must be experienced.

 

Having said this, words do serve a purpose .... until they are no longer needed.

[Still_Waters]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Too much pride on intelligence is another trap. The truth is beyond the intellect as well. Intellect will only take us to the gates of the truth. When you walk through the gate, the intellect stays behind. 

 

That is the source of so much mischief. The ego wants explanations. It needs the intellect to make up a satisfactory story. 

 

The fact is that no story is ever necessary.  But that realization comes after making up and breaking down many layers of stories. The truth is that which makes story making possible. How can it ever be an object of any story?   

Well said. For the longest time, the pride of intellect was a major hindrance for my unfolding and it took an awesome spiritual mentor and many direct experiences to shake me out of that. As you duly noted, "when you walk through the (gateless) gate, the intellect stays behind."

 

As you most appropriately pointed out, "how can it (the Truth) ever be an object of any story?" Too many people, however, prefer to hear the stories and talk about the various theories and utilize the intellect ..... because, as you also noted, "the ego wants explanations; it needs the intellect to make up a satisfactory story". As the Sufi Master Pir Vilayat Khan once said, "The ego is very important ... until one no longer needs it."

 

Thanks for sharing !