Why “Beyond consciousness” is a misunderstanding

[dwai]

Beyond Consciousness or Awareness — I know this has been discussed with varying degrees of intensity and interest here before. 
 

One of the “modern” phenomena associated with “Enlightenment” is the tendency to break down the process into stages and phases. Some suggest various levels of experiences as stages (and here’s my take on them) — 

 

1. Subject-object duality - we can call it the ordinary “unawakened” state
2. The realization that the subject is witness to phenomena (objects) and is apart from the individual self (mind-body complex) - let’s call it the witness state or “awakening” stage 1
3. The realization that objects are appearances in the subject, and are not ultimately real - unreality or illusory nature of objects — let’s call it “awakening” stage 2
4. The realization that there is no reality apart from awareness, and that objects are modifications that arise and dissolve within consciousness/awareness — let’s call this “awakening” stage 3 
5. There is another level suggested, which states that even consciousness/awareness is transcended - it’s proponents call it “full awakening” or “full enlightenment”.

i want to explore this stage 5. To understand the ludicrous nature of this claim, one has to understand what nondual traditions (especially the Hindu traditions, which many of the proponents have claimed to have studied/practiced) mean by Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self-effulgent source and cause for all knowing. Hindu traditions clearly demarcate between “mind” and “consciousness”. This, when reflected in a subtle phenomenon called the “chidabhasa”, results in phenomenal knowing and all experience. This chidabhasa comprises of 4 functions, also called the “antahkarana”, namely - 

• Manas or “mind”, which is a field of objects (thoughts, emotions and feelings). This is what represents in thought forms, what the sensory apparatuses of the human body generate (aka the 5 senses).
• chitta - the storehouse of impressions (memories, and impressions of emotions and feelings left by past experiences)
• buddhi or intellect, which provides the analytical capabilities of an individual
• ahamkara or ego, which appropriates and labels experiences as the individual’s identity

 

This four-part complex is lit up by consciousness, which cannot be objectified. In other words, one cannot ever “know” consciousness as one would know a thought, emotion, feeling or material phenomenon such as a ball or an apple. 
 

In a similar vein, all spiritual experiences are also possible by consciousness or awareness. Any mystical experience, no matter how dramatic, sublime, or ecstatic, is also an experience like any other experience one would have in their normal life. They all depend on consciousness to illuminate their knowing.

 

What is called “mind” in the English language is an unskillful and confused approximate term for this antahkarana. It is also erroneously conflated with  consciousness. So this imprecision in syntax leads to lot of mistakes in understanding if one doesn’t know/understand or use the precise terminology (or its equivalent in another language)  used above. 
 

If all knowing is made possible only by this consciousness (and knowing is in the phenomenal mind), then it is not possible to go beyond consciousness at all. There is no “beyond consciousness” or “beyond awareness” possible. If there is, then it is unconsciousness or unawareness. So how would one know it? If one knows it, that requires consciousness or awareness. So one cannot go beyond awareness, period.
 

This kind of misunderstanding can be easily resolved by taking time to contemplate, and assimilate one’s own experience, and not blindly accepting claims made by attributing to mystical experiences. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

There the saying that, "The Self knows the Self" or some variation of that and "that" can not be nailed down.

 

if one reaches Satchidananda,  can one later fall from it even though it does not fall, but if one reaches Brahman and Brahman reaches them can one later fall from that, or is that beyond a falling back...and who or what would there be to fall back?

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

32 minutes ago, old3bob said:

There the saying that, "The Self knows the Self" or some variation of that and "that" can not be nailed down.

 

if one reaches Satchidananda,  can one later fall from it even though it does not fall, but if one reaches Brahman and Brahman reaches them can one later fall from that, or is that beyond a falling back...and who or what would there be to fall back?

 

 

There is no “reaching”, as one is already Brahman - only the veil of ignorance can be parted. Once parted,  and true nature as Brahman is realized, it will never again be veiled.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

There is no “reaching”, as one is already Brahman - only the veil of ignorance can be parted. Once parted,  and true nature as Brahman is realized, it will never again be veiled.

 

reaching, realizing, falling, no falling, veiling, unveiling,  if the drift is there how much should we argue about it with terms that can never be exactly fitted for that which can not be nailed down?  (although schools all need to agree on terms/concepts within their own fold)   Btw who or what realizes Brahman but Brahman itself...

Edited February 26, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

50 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

reaching, realizing, falling, no falling, veiling, unveiling,  if the drift is there how much should we argue about it with terms that can never be exactly fitted for that which can not be nailed down?  (although schools all need to agree on terms/concepts within their own fold)   Btw who or what realizes Brahman but Brahman itself...

Funny thing is, after realization, even realization is recognized as merely an appearance. 
 

wrote this a while back, which might be helpful to curious minds —

https://www.medhajournal.com/the-unbroken-samadhi-underlying-thoughts/

Edited February 26, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

that would take some study on the study...and it is obvious you put a great deal of hard work into it!

 

btw, and a sideline of some additional perplexing points:  #1. for those that may be interested there several Saivite schools besides just the Kashmir School;  they have important common ground and they also have key differences that they have not reconciled and may never reconcile.   #2.  some schools in Hinduism do not recognize the Bhagavad Gita as revealed scripture at all, as are the Upanishads

(from the Vedas) and several other major works of Hinduism.

 

back on subject...who does this recognizing?  (which is commonly known as a power of the mind)

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, old3bob said:

that would take some study on the study...and it is obvious you put a great deal of hard work into it!

 

btw, and a sideline of some additional perplexing points:  #1. for those that may be interested there several Saivite schools besides just the Kashmir School;  they have important common ground and they also have key differences that they have not reconciled and may never reconcile.   #2.  some schools in Hinduism do not recognize the Bhagavad Gita as revealed scripture at all, as are the Upanishads

(from the Vedas) and several other major works of Hinduism.

Can we discuss that in another thread?  I don’t want to derail this topic. 

Quote

 

back on subject...who does this recognizing?  (which is commonly known as a power of the mind)

The appearance (jiva) recognizes/realizes. In KS terms, “jiva becomes shiva”.

Edited February 26, 2022 by dwai

[Lairg]

In one tradition, consciousness requires a physical brain, while awareness requires a light body.   Thus we often become aware of some thing or energy long before there is a corresponding thought anchored in the brain.  Then we realize that the sound (for example) had actually been occurring for some time before we became conscious of it.

 

Being self-conscious is a higher form of consciousness.  For example some cats can recognize themselves in a mirror.

 

The awareness of dreams often fades immediately upon wakening as the brain consciousness was not involved in the out-of-body dream process.   Hypnosis or meditation can sometimes allow the particular dream to be re-entered and continued under conscious control since the brain is still engaged.

[MIchael80]

6 hours ago, dwai said:

Beyond Consciousness or Awareness — I know this has been discussed with varying degrees of intensity and interest here before. 
 

One of the “modern” phenomena associated with “Enlightenment” is the tendency to break down the process into stages and phases. Some suggest various levels of experiences as stages (and here’s my take on them) — 

 

1. Subject-object duality - we can call it the ordinary “unawakened” state
2. The realization that the subject is witness to phenomena (objects) and is apart from the individual self (mind-body complex) - let’s call it the witness state or “awakening” stage 1
3. The realization that objects are appearances in the subject, and are not ultimately real - unreality or illusory nature of objects — let’s call it “awakening” stage 2
4. The realization that there is no reality apart from awareness, and that objects are modifications that arise and dissolve within consciousness/awareness — let’s call this “awakening” stage 3 
5. There is another level suggested, which states that even consciousness/awareness is transcended - it’s proponents call it “full awakening” or “full enlightenment”.

i want to explore this stage 5. To understand the ludicrous nature of this claim, one has to understand what nondual traditions (especially the Hindu traditions, which many of the proponents have claimed to have studied/practiced) mean by Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self-effulgent source and cause for all knowing. Hindu traditions clearly demarcate between “mind” and “consciousness”. This, when reflected in a subtle phenomenon called the “chidabhasa”, results in phenomenal knowing and all experience. This chidabhasa comprises of 4 functions, also called the “antahkarana”, namely - 

• Manas or “mind”, which is a field of objects (thoughts, emotions and feelings). This is what represents in thought forms, what the sensory apparatuses of the human body generate (aka the 5 senses).
• chitta - the storehouse of impressions (memories, and impressions of emotions and feelings left by past experiences)
• buddhi or intellect, which provides the analytical capabilities of an individual
• ahamkara or ego, which appropriates and labels experiences as the individual’s identity

 

This four-part complex is lit up by consciousness, which cannot be objectified. In other words, one cannot ever “know” consciousness as one would know a thought, emotion, feeling or material phenomenon such as a ball or an apple. 
 

In a similar vein, all spiritual experiences are also possible by consciousness or awareness. Any mystical experience, no matter how dramatic, sublime, or ecstatic, is also an experience like any other experience one would have in their normal life. They all depend on consciousness to illuminate their knowing.

 

What is called “mind” in the English language is an unskillful and confused approximate term for this antahkarana. It is also erroneously conflated with  consciousness. So this imprecision in syntax leads to lot of mistakes in understanding if one doesn’t know/understand or use the precise terminology (or its equivalent in another language)  used above. 
 

If all knowing is made possible only by this consciousness (and knowing is in the phenomenal mind), then it is not possible to go beyond consciousness at all. There is no “beyond consciousness” or “beyond awareness” possible. If there is, then it is unconsciousness or unawareness. So how would one know it? If one knows it, that requires consciousness or awareness. So one cannot go beyond awareness, period.
 

This kind of misunderstanding can be easily resolved by taking time to contemplate, and assimilate one’s own experience, and not blindly accepting claims made by attributing to mystical experiences. 

First i would say ... why not ask people who claim that and have stabalized there?

 

Next is...there are some hints to that unfolding in scriptures, i was shown but forgot where because i am really bad with scriptures. 

 

It is also not my experience at all that stages are a modern concept. All the old traditions i know have describtion of stages of awakening. 

 

Next, from the experience here ... i am not stabalized there but was there for a while...because for me it felt like falling out of consciousness and had no reference for it i began searching and found some who where there.

It was very different from breathless samadhi and the awakened "experience " so i needed a frame for it.

And normal awake teachers gave the same answers you write here.

 

Well you describe excactly what it is ...it is the abscence of knowing....for me it was like a blankness.... and only the contrast to consciousness got it some recognition.

However those that are there say that changes with time .

 

I have met several of these individuals and they agree on this unfolding... some have been awake for decades and then moved beyond consciousness... but it is seldom. 

 

If you know everything better maybe write these people that they are deluded and post the response here? 

As my understanding is ridiculed by you. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by MIchael80

[dwai]

38 minutes ago, MIchael80 said:

First i would say ... why not ask people who claim that and have stabalized there?

 

Next is...there are some hints to that unfolding in scriptures, i was shown but forgot where because i am really bad with scriptures. 

All the references to scripture I’ve seen are also misunderstood/mistranslated. Read Ramana Maharishi’s response to this “turiyatita” business — he explains it as simply the recognition that turiya is not the “fourth” state but the ever-present consciousness in all experiences. 

Quote

 

It is also not my experience at all that stages are a modern concept. All the old traditions i know have describtion of stages of awakening. 

 

Next, from the experience here ... i am not stabalized there but was there for a while...because for me it felt like falling out of consciousness and had no reference for it i began searching and found some who where there.

It was very different from breathless samadhi and the awakened "experience " so i needed a frame for it.

And normal awake teachers gave the same answers you write here.

 

Well you describe excactly what it is ...it is the abscence of knowing....for me it was like a blankness.... and only the contrast to consciousness got it some recognition.

However those that are there say that changes with time .

This absence of knowing is an intermediate state, and is nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a precursor to sahaja samadhi, which is not in an absent mind, but rather a non-grasping, non-agitated mind. In fact, we go into this absence state every night in deep sleep. Only difference is, “ordinary” people don’t retain awareness of this absence (of objects) as their awareness is covers by tamas. 
 

BTW, FWIW, I’ve spent many months in that “absence” state — where I was completely aware in deep sleep, only there were no objects present - only presence. This presence continues through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. It’s hard to describe what that deep sleep is like - but seems like you’ve been there too, based on your description. This state became natural and I stopped paying any special attention/consideration to it. 

Quote

 

I have met several of these individuals and they agree on this unfolding... some have been awake for decades and then moved beyond consciousness... but it is seldom. 

 

If you know everything better maybe write these people that they are deluded and post the response here? 

As my understanding is ridiculed by you. 

 

 

It’s not a matter of me knowing “better” — I’ve seen way too much “mystification” of the process and of “enlightenment” itself, so this is my way to help people  (anyone who cares to heed my words) to investigate for themselves. I didn’t ridicule anyone, just find the the premise of “beyond awareness” ludicrous, based on my own realization.
 

Please feel free to ignore this topic if it upsets you. 
 

Edited February 26, 2022 by dwai

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

In one tradition, consciousness requires a physical brain, while awareness requires a light body.   Thus we often become aware of some thing or energy long before there is a corresponding thought anchored in the brain.  Then we realize that the sound (for example) had actually been occurring for some time before we became conscious of it.

 

Being self-conscious is a higher form of consciousness.  For example some cats can recognize themselves in a mirror.

 

The awareness of dreams often fades immediately upon wakening as the brain consciousness was not involved in the out-of-body dream process.   Hypnosis or meditation can sometimes allow the particular dream to be re-entered and continued under conscious control since the brain is still engaged.

Please re-read the OP. What you describe as “requiring” a brain is what is called the “mind” in the Indic traditions, made up of subtle matter. The brain simply acts as a receiver/transmitter of this substance.
 

This light body business is very messy too - I’ve spent a few years investigating this, and have not found anything to convince me that it is in any way different from consciousness (or awareness). This is why syntax is so important when communicating these topics — in the traditions I’m coming from, there is “chit” or “chaitanya”, which people have translated varyingly as consciousness or awareness. The Nisargadatta Maharaj translators have opted to use “awareness” to mean the ever-present illuminating presence, while “consciousness” to mean phenomenal knowing. It is a choice made by the translators, it is not actually what NDM said in his native Marathi (in which he used the same terminology I’ve used above).

[Lairg]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

What you describe as “requiring” a brain is what is called the “mind” in the Indic traditions

No doubt you have read of cases of surgery where the human died - no brain activity - was resuscitated and recounted all the details of what was being done while there was no brain activity.

Thus there was mind without brain.

 

38 minutes ago, dwai said:

This light body business is very messy too - I’ve spent a few years investigating this, and have not found anything to convince me that it is in any way different from consciousness (or awareness).

 

In one case I was on a Skype call and the other party thought I had hung up when she answered another call.  She said to her friend: I don't know what it is, but when I am talking to him I can see so much more.

 

When I was speaking to her, I was sharing my light body so she had improved vision etc

 

As you may know, the word convince comes from the French convaincre.  One of its meanings is to conquer.  Mostly I prefer not to be convinced.

 

[stirling]

7 hours ago, dwai said:

There is another level suggested, which states that even consciousness/awareness is transcended - it’s proponents call it “full awakening” or “full enlightenment”.

 

Do you believe that consciousness exists and has "self" nature, meaning does it exist on its own or only dependent on other factors? Are you saying that consciousness itself has no characteristics?

 

Does the "four-part complex" itself have "self" nature? 

 

Bows.

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Do you believe that consciousness exists and has "self" nature, meaning does it exist on its own or only dependent on other factors? Are you saying that consciousness itself has no characteristics?

Consciousness is all there is. It exists on its own, without a second. It has no characteristics that one may perceive of in an objective manner. We (Hindus) say it is existence-consciousness-bliss (satchidananda). So it’s not that it exists, but is existence itself. It’s not that it is conscious, but is consciousness itself. It’s not that it’s blissful, but is bliss/fullness itself. 

Quote

 

Does the "four-part complex" itself have "self" nature? 

 

Bows.

 

 

 

 

There is an apparent “self”ness — as affixed by the ego. This is of course erroneous. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by dwai

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Lairg said:

No doubt you have read of cases of surgery where the human died - no brain activity - was resuscitated and recounted all the details of what was being done while there was no brain activity.

Thus there was mind without brain.

that’s what I’m saying too — mind is not in the brain. The brain is a receiver/transmitter only, like the TV signal exists outside the TV/antenna. 

Quote

 

 

In one case I was on a Skype call and the other party thought I had hung up when she answered another call.  She said to her friend: I don't know what it is, but when I am talking to him I can see so much more.

 

When I was speaking to her, I was sharing my light body so she had improved vision etc

Yes I know how that works — been there, done that, etc.  

It’s a lot of fun, until it is not (especially if we are not careful and share presence willy-nilly, as if it is a new toy). When people are unprepared, it can be quite scary for them. I did that with a group of friends a while back, and they said they felt “high”. 

Quote

 

As you may know, the word convince comes from the French convaincre.  One of its meanings is to conquer.  Mostly I prefer not to be convinced.

 

Of course, its your prerogative  

Edited February 27, 2022 by dwai

[stirling]

Thus far, the most comprehensive investigation of emptiness I have read is Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche's brilliant "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness". In my opinion no-one has dug into the nature of reality as deeply as the Tibetans, and this is the finest expression of just what the arguments and deeper meaning of emptiness are about extant, outside of Nagarjuna's Einstein level work in the "Mulamadhyamakakarika". 

 

In rinpoche's brilliant book, speaking about the Shentong view (IMHO the ultimate examination) he relates:

 

Quote

 

"From the Shentong point of view, the luminous self-aware non-conceptual mind that is experienced in meditation, when the mind is completely free from concepts, is Absolute Reality, and not a vijnana; vijnana is always samvrti from the Shentong point of view and is not what is found by the supreme wisdom (prajna) that sees Absolute Reality. When the luminous, self aware, non-conceptual mind that is the Wisdom Mind (Jnana) is realized by the supreme wisdom (prajna) there is no seeing and seen aspect, no realizing and realized aspect to the realization. This is called the Transcendence of Supreme Wisdom (Prajnaparamita). It is none other than the non-conceptual Wisdom Mind (Jnana) itself. It is also called the non-dual Wisdom Mind (Jnana), the Clear Light (prabhasvara) Nature of Mind and Dhatu (spacious expanse or element). Elsewhere it is called Dhatu and awareness inseparable, clarity and emptiness inseparable, bliss and emptiness inseparable. It is also called the Dharmata and the Tathagatagarbha.

 

The Shentong contention is that the experience of complete freedom from conceptual contrivance (nisprapanca) must also be the experience of the Clear Light Nature of Mind. In their opinion a Prasangika who denies this must still have some subtle concept which is obscuring or negating this Reality; in other words he has not truly realized complete freedom from conceptual contrivance. This happens because for a long time the meditator has been cutting through illusion and seeing emptiness as a kind of negation. This becomes such a strong habit that even when the experience of Absolute Reality, the Clear Light Nature of Mind, starts to break through like the sun from behind clouds, the meditator automati­ cally turns his mind towards it to subtly negate it. The Shentong argues that if there really were no conceptual contrivance in the mind the Clear Light Nature would shine forth so clearly and unmistakably that it would not be possible to deny it."

 

 

Most would say that there is nothing to argue about emptiness. ALL conceptual designations and appearances are empty. 

[wstein]

Perhaps what was written is correct WITHIN the 'Hindu' tradition (which clearly is limited in scope).

 

In a more general sense, one can go beyond consciousness/awareness though of course without any 'experience' of it. 'Too far' beyond that one simply ceases to exist or be (and cannot return to consciousness or awareness).

 

[very advanced] through OBE techniques, one can travel to regions of reality that lack support for awareness and consciousness. When doing so there is of course a risk of ceasing and not returning. As suggested, without consciousness or awareness, there is no experience and no memory of the journey. However, one can be altered by (changed) the excursion. One way to cheat a bit is to send sensory awareness 'ahead' separate from consciousness. This allows exploration of some regions where consciousness is not supported.

[Cleansox]

17 hours ago, dwai said:

To understand the ludicrous nature of this claim, one has to understand what nondual traditions (especially the Hindu traditions, which many of the proponents have claimed to have studied/practiced) mean by Consciousness. 

The use of the word "ludicrous" here is definetly an attempt to establish dominance instead of discussing ideas. 

 

That's fine, it is firmly established in the tradition of inter-sect arguments passed down through milennia. 

 

More relevant to the latest discussions on the subject is the historical fact that different spiritual groups have had different ideas about consciousness, and different ideas about what constitutes reality. 

 

There are also examples where a group with a new development say "we accept the ideas you have, but we add a layer or two on top of your model which incorporates more and therefore more all-encompassing and complete". 

 

Probably silly and new agey western misunderstanding, but it has been around for quite a long period of time in various asian countries. 

[old3bob]

 

  Brahman,  that which is clearly unlimited in scope, and never can be nailed down...no matter the amount of misinformation or misunderstanding around It.   

 

Btw a core teaching or precept in Hinduism (verified by historic facts) is that it respects/tolerates its various major branches and sects that span a very, very wide spectrum of teachings, many of which don't always agree on many things,  and going further to include the same for teachings outside of  Hinduism, (remember Gandhi?) thus it is incredulous to paste being limited in scope upon it!

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Cleansox said:

The use of the word "ludicrous" here is definetly an attempt to establish dominance instead of discussing ideas. 

Well, clearly it has struck a chord. Why does it do so, if someone is so sure about their assertions?

 

I am honest that I find it ludicrous. Okay maybe ludicrous is a loaded word, how about incredulous? Or Baffling, surprising, and so on? 

7 hours ago, Cleansox said:

 

That's fine, it is firmly established in the tradition of inter-sect arguments passed down through milennia. 

Not really about “inter-sect” arguments from my perspective. It is quite telling to see usual candidates stop by to chide/complain when their pet position is questioned (and wait long enough and one will surely chime in with sagacious prose on why I am wrong), but none will address the actual explanation why I found what I found to be “ludicrous” !   

 

7 hours ago, Cleansox said:

More relevant to the latest discussions on the subject is the historical fact that different spiritual groups have had different ideas about consciousness, and different ideas about what constitutes reality. 

 

There are also examples where a group with a new development say "we accept the ideas you have, but we add a layer or two on top of your model which incorporates more and therefore more all-encompassing and complete". 

well, why don’t you try it here, based on the OP? How do you make this “more all-encompassing and complete”?

 

BTW, something about the topic was written thousands of years ago in the Upanishads. 

 

Spoiler

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते । 
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥ 
ॐ शांतिः शांतिः शांतिः ॥ 

om pūrṇamadaḥ, pūrṇamidam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate,
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate.

That which is anantavavtu is spoken of as pūrṇam. It is that to which there is no limit; beyond which there can be nothing. If there is something outside it, it becomes an individualised object. But objects cannot be pūrṇam. The śāstrik meaning of pūrṇam is, that more than which nothing can exist, i.e., it is the infinite. And creation has come from pūrṇam. And this creation too is pūrṇam. This śloka is from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and forms the mangalā-carana mantra for this Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad. The terms adaḥ and idamhave often occurred in Kathopaniṣad also. Adaḥmeans the cause from which the effect comes. Idammeans that which is manifest and here it means the world. The objects of the sense organs are spoken of as idam. That which is beyond the sense organs is adaḥ. As the cause is, so is the effect. The effect exists within the cause in an unmanifested form. In the seed, the tree is not seen, but it is in an unmanifested state. In reality, the world is also limitless. Wherever you go, you still will see it extending further. You find that ether, a subtle mani­festation of the Supreme is limitless, and wherever you go you cannot find its limit. This is so, because it is a manifestation of that which is infinite. This mantra says that, that which has come from the Infinite is also Infinite from this point of view, even though it is comprehensible to the senses. Really speaking, the world is not outside you, that is to say, outside the senses, but within you. This, the later mantras of the Upanishad is going to tell us. The world appears to exist outside you. And hence it is correct to say, ‘this world is pūrṇam.'

Pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate—When the effect which is pūrṇam has been removed from the cause which is pūrṇam, what is left over is also pūrṇam. It remains undiminished. That is why Sankaracarya says that īśvara is advitīya, that which has no second. It is not a mathematical calculation where one minus one leaves zero. Īśvara is not a numerical like 1. Īśvara who is infinite is beyond all numericals. This is a bit difficult to comprehend with our minds. We have neither seen the pūrṇam nor can go beyond numericals. We can go on saying crores, a hundred crores, a hundred-thousand-crores and so on, that is all. But He is beyond countable numbers. Hence the word pūrṇam is used to indicate īśvara. There is no place where He is not. This is the essence of this verse.

Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is a mantropaniṣad. We are initiated into the Supreme Truth. There are two types of upaniṣads viz., the Brahmopaniṣads and the Mantropaniṣads. Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is a Mantropaniṣad. Now it may be asked, if the Upanishads are placed at the end of all Vedas, why this separate division into what are known as Brahmopaniṣad and Mantropaniṣads etc. All Vedas have four divisions: (1) Samhita, (2) Brahmana (3) Aranyaka and (4) Upanishad. Some Upanishads come within the Samhitas, like this one before us. The Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is placed (perhaps) in the 40th chapter, in the Sukla Yajurveda, at the end of the Samhita. The other Upanishads are placed at the end of the Brahmanas. And because this Upaniṣad is placed in the Samhitas, it is also known as Samhita Upaniṣad.

7 hours ago, Cleansox said:

 

Probably silly and new agey western misunderstanding, but it has been around for quite a long period of time in various asian countries. 

If the shoe fits. Can’t comment about other Asian countries, but misunderstanding/mistranslations I have only seen in the English language. Maybe possible in other European languages too. 
 

The OP was about how incorrect usage/translation/approximation of very clearly defined concepts in the native language lead to misunderstandings. There’s a Tai chi saying which is quite apropos on this topic — how even if you are off by an inch at the start, you might be a thousand miles off your destination by the end of your journey. 

[Cleansox]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Well, clearly it has struck a chord. Why does it do so, if someone is so sure about their assertions?

Yes, when someone discuss this subject, it tend to strike a chord. 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It is quite telling to see usual candidates stop by to chide/complain 

Yes, there are not that many here that post regulary, mainly the usual suspects. Which, by all means, include you as well. 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

well, why don’t you try it here, based on the OP? How do you make this “more all-encompassing and complete”? 

Lets see. 

If I bothered to look up the exact quotes from published works on Kashmir Shaivism, you would just state that it is poorly translated material, so why go through the effort? 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

BTW, something about the topic was written thousands of years ago in the Upanishads. 

From what I have read, there are groups that have written about the subject after that as well, but since you seems to believe that translations into english suffer terrible, they must have fed me with misunderstanding. 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते । 
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥ 
ॐ शांतिः शांतिः शांतिः ॥ 

om pūrṇamadaḥ, pūrṇamidam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate,
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate.

That which is anantavavtu is spoken of as pūrṇam. It is that to which there is no limit; beyond which there can be nothing. If there is something outside it, it becomes an individualised object. But objects cannot be pūrṇam. The śāstrik meaning of pūrṇam is, that more than which nothing can exist, i.e., it is the infinite. And creation has come from pūrṇam. And this creation too is pūrṇam. This śloka is from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and forms the mangalā-carana mantra for this Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad. The terms adaḥ and idamhave often occurred in Kathopaniṣad also. Adaḥmeans the cause from which the effect comes. Idammeans that which is manifest and here it means the world. The objects of the sense organs are spoken of as idam. That which is beyond the sense organs is adaḥ. As the cause is, so is the effect. The effect exists within the cause in an unmanifested form. In the seed, the tree is not seen, but it is in an unmanifested state. In reality, the world is also limitless. Wherever you go, you still will see it extending further. You find that ether, a subtle mani­festation of the Supreme is limitless, and wherever you go you cannot find its limit. This is so, because it is a manifestation of that which is infinite. This mantra says that, that which has come from the Infinite is also Infinite from this point of view, even though it is comprehensible to the senses. Really speaking, the world is not outside you, that is to say, outside the senses, but within you. This, the later mantras of the Upanishad is going to tell us. The world appears to exist outside you. And hence it is correct to say, ‘this world is pūrṇam.'

Pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate—When the effect which is pūrṇam has been removed from the cause which is pūrṇam, what is left over is also pūrṇam. It remains undiminished. That is why Sankaracarya says that īśvara is advitīya, that which has no second. It is not a mathematical calculation where one minus one leaves zero. Īśvara is not a numerical like 1. Īśvara who is infinite is beyond all numericals. This is a bit difficult to comprehend with our minds. We have neither seen the pūrṇam nor can go beyond numericals. We can go on saying crores, a hundred crores, a hundred-thousand-crores and so on, that is all. But He is beyond countable numbers. Hence the word pūrṇam is used to indicate īśvara. There is no place where He is not. This is the essence of this verse.

Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is a mantropaniṣad. We are initiated into the Supreme Truth. There are two types of upaniṣads viz., the Brahmopaniṣads and the Mantropaniṣads. Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is a Mantropaniṣad. Now it may be asked, if the Upanishads are placed at the end of all Vedas, why this separate division into what are known as Brahmopaniṣad and Mantropaniṣads etc. All Vedas have four divisions: (1) Samhita, (2) Brahmana (3) Aranyaka and (4) Upanishad. Some Upanishads come within the Samhitas, like this one before us. The Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad is placed (perhaps) in the 40th chapter, in the Sukla Yajurveda, at the end of the Samhita. The other Upanishads are placed at the end of the Brahmanas. And because this Upaniṣad is placed in the Samhitas, it is also known as Samhita Upaniṣad.

 

The OP was about how incorrect usage/translation/approximation of very clearly defined concepts in the native language lead to misunderstandings. 

Ah, I thought that you were commenting recent posts in another thread, and looking at it through Advaita Vedanta glasses, but hey, if you were only discussing translations from sanskrit, that is another thing. Doesn't know that lingo, wouldn't try to translate from it. 

 

I was under the impression that you were commenting some of the content in that thread, but now I see that the similarity between the OP here and content in that other thread that was likely to ruffle your feathers was just an unhappy coincidence, and I will leave you here with this discussion about the finer points about glossing (sanskrit?) terminology, which is somewhat beyond my paygrade. 

[dwai]

50 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Yes, when someone discuss this subject, it tend to strike a chord. 

Yes, there are not that many here that post regulary, mainly the usual suspects. Which, by all means, include you as well. 

Lets see. 

If I bothered to look up the exact quotes from published works on Kashmir Shaivism, you would just state that it is poorly translated material, so why go through the effort? 

From what I have read, there are groups that have written about the subject after that as well, but since you seems to believe that translations into english suffer terrible, they must have fed me with misunderstanding. 

Fair enough, and most likely I will. But it might be a worthwhile endeavor if our interest is in getting to a common ground of understanding. Of course, we could leave things to lay as they are, and none will be the poorer from it, except, of course, understanding. 

Quote

Ah, I thought that you were commenting recent posts in another thread, and looking at it through Advaita Vedanta glasses, but hey, if you were only discussing translations from sanskrit, that is another thing. Doesn't know that lingo, wouldn't try to translate from it. 

This is not the first time I've stated what I have, though I think it is the first time I've put together various elements to show "WHY" such contentions of "beyond awareness" don't make sense. Of course, one might be inclined to say, "It is so, because it is beyond sense, as sense and nonsense are dualistic concepts". But that seems to be a massive cop-out and does this entire endeavor a disservice. 

Quote

I was under the impression that you were commenting some of the content in that thread, but now I see that the similarity between the OP here and content in that other thread that was likely to ruffle your feathers was just an unhappy coincidence, and I will leave you here with this discussion about the finer points about glossing (sanskrit?) terminology, which is somewhat beyond my paygrade. 

Of course, that's your prerogative. But you (and others who subscribe to a similar line of thinking) seem to deliberately ignore what the "sanskrit" terminology is pointing toward -- that the usual (modern/western) way of treating "mind/consciousness/awareness" as one (nebulous) thing is actually a result of misunderstanding/lack of clarity on the topic. This is what leads to much confusion in the world of modern sciences as well -- leading to "the hard problem of consciousness", where mind and consciousness are conflated. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by dwai

[Cleansox]

20 hours ago, dwai said:

Fair enough, and most likely I will. But it might be a worthwhile endeavor if our interest is in getting to a common ground of understanding. Of course, we could leave things to lay as they are, and none will be the poorer from it, except, of course, understanding. 

True. 

20 hours ago, dwai said:

"beyond awareness" 

I thought that the discussion was about "still unbounded consciousness", and that "beyond consciousness" referred to that. 

 

Now, I don't analyze things with the frame you use, and I would probably use "awareness" instead of "consciousness". 

 

And here we probably differ in opinion and experience: In the daoist tradition I have trained in, the experience of still unbounded awareness is just a stage, and than we move on to things that are in the blind spot (what we still are unaware of) which is based on a rather specific body based method. 

 

That leads to an integration and an expansion of awareness (beyond still unbounded consciousness) but still not beyond awareness, because, as you said, that is not possible (in my understanding). 

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Cleansox said:

True. 

I thought that the discussion was about "still unbounded consciousness", and that "beyond consciousness" referred to that. 

 

Now, I don't analyze things with the frame you use, and I would probably use "awareness" instead of "consciousness". 

 

And here we probably differ in opinion and experience: In the daoist tradition I have trained in, the experience of still unbounded awareness is just a stage, and than we move on to things that are in the blind spot (what we still are unaware of) which is based on a rather specific body based method. 

 

That leads to an integration and an expansion of awareness (beyond still unbounded consciousness) but still not beyond awareness, because, as you said, that is not possible (in my understanding). 

I think the challenge lies in a basic difference in how "awareness" or "consciousness" is being positioned. In the Dharmic traditions, especially in the context of Advaita (or Nonduality), Consciousness is not the process of knowing, but the cause of knowing. We find many examples which illustrate this --

 

Brahman is likened to the Sun, whose light makes seeing possible. Clearly light is not the process of seeing, but that which allows seeing to happen. Similarly, Consciousness (aka Brahman/Atman) is that which allows knowing to happen -- not the process of knowing itself. So, when we say "expansion of awareness", we are referring to the process of knowing. But according to Advaita traditions, awareness is unbounded/infinite/everpresent already. That's why terminology and proper understanding of said terminology are very germane to such discussions. 

 

For example, one modern teacher of Advaita (neo-advaita IMHO), differentiates between "Brahman" and "Parabrahman". They claim that parabrahman is "beyond brahman", and "Brahman" is the experience of sat-chit-ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). But anyone with some degree of knowledge of Advaita Vedanta can point out the flaw in that. Brahman and Parabrahman are used as substitutes for Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. So, Saguna meaning with attributes (so in form of Ishwara or a more personified deity representation like Krishna or Shiva), versus Nirguna, meaning without any attributes -- so pure consciousness itself. When someone doesn't understand this contextually and takes "parabrahman" to literally be a thing beyond "brahman" (which is already considered infinite, unknowable, and so on), it is simply absurd. 

 

The challenge also gets exacerbated when people don't understand that Consciousness can never become an object of knowledge. It is like the saying, "how does one know one has eyes"? Do they need to look in a mirror to know that? Of course not -- the very fact of seeing reveals that they have eyes. Similarly, the very process of "knowing" reveals the consciousness behind it. The expansion/contraction is of the mind, which is where consciousness is reflected for the individual being's knowing to be possible.

Additionally, in Advaita inquiry, a rule of thumb is, “anything you experience is not it”. So, admittedly, it is possible through the power of meditation etc, to experience mystical states — which can be taken to be “satchidananda”. But satchidananda is not an experience — it is a realization. In context of Brahman, Bliss doesn’t mean raptures of bliss experienced. Rather, “ananda” means absence of dissatisfaction. Or perfect contentment/fullness itself.

 

Sat doesn’t mean “it exists”, but is existence/being itself. 
 

Chit doesn’t mean “it is conscious”, but it is consciousness itself. 
 

This is expressed far better here -

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

 

Btw, when does one school of Hinduism call or imply that another school of Hinduism  is "absurd"?.... 

Edited April 26, 2022 by old3bob