Katha Upanishad excerpt

[old3bob]

Easwaran  translation

section 18-25

18. The all-knowing Self was never born,
Nor will it die. Beyond cause and effect,
This Self is eternal and immutable.
When the body dies, the Self does not die.

19. If the slayer believes that he can slay
Or the slain believes that he can be slain,
Neither knows the truth. The eternal Self
Slays not, nor is ever slain.

 

20. Hidden in the heart of every creature
Exists the Self, subtler than the subtlest,
Greater than the greatest. They go beyond
Sorrow who extinguish their self-will
And behold the glory of the Self
Through the grace of the Lord of Love.

 

21. Though one sits in meditation in a
Particular place, the Self within
Can exercise his influence far away.
Though still, he moves everything everywhere.

 

22. When the wise realize the Self
Formless in the midst of forms, changeless
In the midst of change, omnipresent
And supreme, they go beyond sorrow.

 

23. The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.
The Self can be attained only by those
Whom the Self chooses. Verily unto them
Does the Self reveal himself.

 

24. The Self cannot be known by anyone
Who desists not from unrighteous ways,
Controls not his senses, stills not his mind,
And practices not meditation.

25. None else can know the omnipresent Self,
Whose glory sweeps away the rituals
Of the priest and the prowess of the warrior
And puts death itself to death.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

As beautiful and definite a statement of non-dual realization as you'll find anywhere.

 

Quote

When the wise realize the Self
Formless in the midst of forms, changeless
In the midst of change, omnipresent
And supreme, they go beyond sorrow.

 

How much like this is later "Heart Sutra"?

 

Quote

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than emptiness. - Buddha

 

I could go on with many many more examples, but suffice to say that it obvious that there is some great influence from the Upanishads. 

 

Less familiar to most probably, but from what I think of as perhaps the most clear explanation of all:

 

Quote

To return to the root is to find the meaning,
but to pursue appearances is to miss the source.
At the moment of inner enlightenment,
there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness.
The changes that appear to occur in the empty world
we call real only because of our ignorance.
Do not search for the truth;
only cease to cherish opinions. - Seng T'san - Hsin Hsin Ming

 

https://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html#3

 

Same "taste" as the Tibetan Buddhists would say.

[old3bob]

I've only been a guest to Hinduism (which includes vast cultural ways and differing sects with some pretty major differences between them which I'm not qualified to talk about with any expertise - say like Dwai is)  anyway I find the Upanishads to be the clearest pointers for me;  so as far as drawing correlations with sayings from different sects of Buddhism I'd say that I don't know about the wisdom or validity of doing that, although I can appreciate some of Buddhist sayings and common ground  to a certain point, yet to me they skirt or never mention Atman/Brahman meanings. (or deny same per their scriptures or per their Lama's or Guru's)  

Edited April 16, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

It's really obvious to me. The texts above make it quite plain, IMHO. Seeing through the terminology is the tricky part. Which sect of Buddhism does the pointing... or which of Sufism or anyone else are irrelevant. The basis of reality isn't denominational and isn't "owned" by any group... its universal. You don't have to be a Hindu to "see" it. The Oxford Languages dictionary (first google link on the page) defines Brahman as:

. 

Quote

 

(in Hinduism) the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena.

"Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality"

 

 

Perfect! It is FORMLESS, but is the birthplace of all forms! It isn't a person, or a destination - it is THIS. The term used in Buddhism would be Dharmakaya. Quick google brings up Wikipedia first:

 

Quote

The Dhammakāya tradition of Thailand and the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras of the ancient Indian tradition view the dharmakāya as the ātman (true self) of the Buddha present within all beings

 

How's that? No cherry picking or deep searching - these were the first links that came up. The nature of reality isn't hidden, it's RIGHT HERE.

 

-

 

Either way, we can at least agree that the Upanishads ARE clear. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by stirling

[old3bob]

I agree on your last point...but we also know that millions of Buddhists would not appreciate being told they are really Hindus although they just don't know it yet or vice-versa...Btw Hinduism does not have one particular human founder of authority who arose 200, 2000, 2500, or 5,000 years ago and then passed on with or without naming an equal successor, thus it is called Sanatana Dharma.  Anyway common ground can and should be recognized but to force correlations as if all is equal just isn't going to work is it?

[Eduardo]

According to Buddhologist Carmen Dragonetti, Buddhism is nothing more than a split off branch of Yoga...

[stirling]

I'm not saying that Buddhists are Hindus or vice-versa. Enlightenment is the understanding that all distinctions are meaningless. How the understanding is arrived at is meaningless. There AREN'T any enlightened Buddhists, Sufis or Hindus. The practices are the raft... it is discarded when the river is crossed. 

 

So, seriously, you believe in the existence of Brahman, but also in distinctions in the teachings? Can you see how that is incompatible?

 

Read the quote you posted carefully.

Edited April 17, 2022 by stirling

[stirling]

41 minutes ago, Eduardo said:

According to Buddhologist Carmen Dragonetti, Buddhism is nothing more than a split off branch of Yoga...

 

Sure... why not... except that the instructions in Buddhism canon are much more detailed, and the pointing wider and broader. Both are useful - neither are singularly definitive. 

 

The "originality" of which teaching came first isn't particularly useful or important. You can't dilute the teachings. There are many "beings" walking around right now that embody the understanding of the teaching and could explain it better to you than ANY of the historical teachings simply because they can interact with you. Much more important.

Edited April 17, 2022 by stirling

[Eduardo]

1 minute ago, stirling said:

 

Sure... why not... except that the instructions in Buddhism canon are much more detailed, and the pointing wider and broader. Both are useful - neither are singularly definitive. 

 

You must understand, something that many thinkers and scholars overlook the influence of the philosophical school called Samkhya, has permeated the Yoga of Patanjali, Advaita Vedanta, Jainism and Buddhism.
Samkhya considered ignorance (Avidyā coincides with buddhism too) as the root-cause of suffering and bondage (Bandha). The Samkhya offers a way out of this suffering through discriminative knowledge (Viveka). That knowledge, which leads to Moksha (liberation), consists in the discrimination between Prakriti (avyakta-vyakta) and Puruṣa (Jna) the real Self.
Moksha is described by Samkhya scholars as a state of liberation. It is a concept that is also found in Jain doctrine.
The Samkhya and Jainism are intimately related with some concepts, in Buddhism instead, the term moksha is not used, but nirvana (extinction), but it pursues the same end; liberation from pain and suffering from the wheel of incarnations.
The liberated being becomes an indestructible Kevala (isolated or independent), with the attributes of Omnipotence and Omniscience, attributes of the Real Self or pure Spirit.

[old3bob]

11 hours ago, stirling said:

I'm not saying that Buddhists are Hindus or vice-versa. Enlightenment is the understanding that all distinctions are meaningless. How the understanding is arrived at is meaningless. There AREN'T any enlightened Buddhists, Sufis or Hindus. The practices are the raft... it is discarded when the river is crossed. 

 

So, seriously, you believe in the existence of Brahman, but also in distinctions in the teachings? Can you see how that is incompatible?

 

Read the quote you posted carefully.

 

(edited clarification)

I don't agree about the use of the word "meaningless" in the context that enlightened beings have picked "rafts" back up or not dismantled them because they re-use them as evidenced by thousands of years of various schools traditions and their teachers modus operandi.   What we believe "in spiritually" and try to practice in manifest worlds per our backgrounds and natures has importance along the lines of what and how a teacher (distinctly) teaches to help their differing students in preparation for "going beyond";  (using the analogy that a 1st grader should progress to the 12th grade before going on)  so to me any throwing of the baby out with the bath water is not unlike dismantling rafts before making a crossing.   You sound pretty wound up about this subject and I'm not sure why....I say live and let live.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by old3bob

[old3bob]

Katha-Upanishad note:

 

"The Katha-Upanishad is probably the most widely known of all the Upanishads. It was early translated into Persian and through this rendering first made its way into Europe. Later Raja Ram Mohun Roy brought out an English version. It has since appeared in various languages;  English, German and French writers are all agreed in pronouncing it one of the most perfect expressions of the religion and philosophy of the Vedas. Sir Edwin Arnold popularized it by his metrical rendering under the name of "The Secret of Death," and Ralph Waldo Emerson gives its story in brief at the close of his essay on "Immortality."

 

There is no consensus of opinion regarding the place of this Upanishad in Vedic literature. Some authorities declare it to belong to the Yajur-Veda, others to the Sama-Veda, while a large number put it down as a part of the Atharva-Veda. The story is first suggested in the Rig-Veda; it is told more definitely in the Yajur-Veda; and in the Katha-Upanishad it appears fully elaborated and interwoven with the loftiest Vedic teaching. There is nothing however, to indicate the special place of this final version, nor has any meaning been found for the name Katha.

The text presents a dialogue between an aspiring disciple, Nachiketas, and the Ruler of Death regarding the great Hereafter."

 

 

[dwai]

This is a wonderful tool to learn the upanishad 

 

https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/06-Katho-Upanishad-Chapter-1.pdf

 

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

This is a wonderful tool to learn the upanishad 

 

https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/06-Katho-Upanishad-Chapter-1.pdf

 

 

Excellent resource Dwai, Thank you  (and a down-loadable pdf!)

[stirling]

On 4/16/2022 at 7:08 PM, old3bob said:

 

(edited clarification)

I don't agree about the use of the word "meaningless" in the context that enlightened beings have picked "rafts" back up or not dismantled them because they re-use them as evidenced by thousands of years of various schools traditions and their teachers modus operandi.   What we believe "in spiritually" and try to practice in manifest worlds per our backgrounds and natures has importance along the lines of what and how a teacher (distinctly) teaches to help their differing students in preparation for "going beyond";  (using the analogy that a 1st grader should progress to the 12th grade before going on)  so to me any throwing of the baby out with the bath water is not unlike dismantling rafts before making a crossing.   You sound pretty wound up about this subject and I'm not sure why....I say live and let live.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me, and for that I apologize. I am saying that enlightened mind no longer needs a structure to get it to enlightenment - it sees that all such structures are not enlightenment itself, therefore the "raft" is left where it is. Truly, no teaching or practice has ever enlightened anyone, so getting hung up on them is just another attachment.

 

As for an enlightened teacher using historically available teachings as skillful means... nothing wrong with that, though the teachings don't have to be traditional or even denominational, and they are best when directed precisely at the obscuration in question, IMHO. It isn't the teaching that creates enlightenment, it is seeing through obscurations and finally understanding things as they are. I am not suggesting throwing out the teachings, only saying that once there is enlightenment the teachings are only helpful as a pointing aid for others. There is nothing further to understand once there is enlightenment.

 

If you find a particular teaching effective that's great. I'm not wound up, just excited. You posted an amazing section of those texts, and I am always hoping people connect the dots. I think it is a shame that people get stuck in traditions and don't realize that there is teaching literally EVERYWHERE. In fact, the places where we have clinging/aversion or have cognitive dissonance in life are the most powerful and are utterly tailored to what we most need to clear.

[dwai]

Watch the video where he answers a very relevant question (2:24) which @stirling alludes to in the previous comment -

Knowledge coming from texts and teachers are called paroksha jnana (or indirect knowledge). “Enlightenment” is called aparoksha jnana (direct knowledge). Indirect knowledge can only point — only direct apperception will lead to realization. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I think you are misunderstanding me, and for that I apologize. I am saying that enlightened mind no longer needs a structure to get it to enlightenment - it sees that all such structures are not enlightenment itself, therefore the "raft" is left where it is. Truly, no teaching or practice has ever enlightened anyone, so getting hung up on them is just another attachment.

 

As for an enlightened teacher using historically available teachings as skillful means... nothing wrong with that, though the teachings don't have to be traditional or even denominational, and they are best when directed precisely at the obscuration in question, IMHO. It isn't the teaching that creates enlightenment, it is seeing through obscurations and finally understanding things as they are. I am not suggesting throwing out the teachings, only saying that once there is enlightenment the teachings are only helpful as a pointing aid for others. There is nothing further to understand once there is enlightenment.

 

If you find a particular teaching effective that's great. I'm not wound up, just excited. You posted an amazing section of those texts, and I am always hoping people connect the dots. I think it is a shame that people get stuck in traditions and don't realize that there is teaching literally EVERYWHERE. In fact, the places where we have clinging/aversion or have cognitive dissonance in life are the most powerful and are utterly tailored to what we most need to clear.

 

Thanks for all of that feedback Stirling and I think I get what you are saying...but above you have used the term "mind" per Buddhism...which has a very different and factual meaning in schools of Hinduism. Thus making or assuming certain correlations between the two is way off for both.  Also certain teachings and methods have proven fruitful for preparation although they do not make the choice or have the power of Grace as alluded to in the quoted Upanishad above and as far as I know is a very major point in most schools of Hinduism, since it is Brahman/Grace that makes the choice, something that the historic Buddha never mentions as being an all important and key factor if I'm not mistaken.   (granted he taught the merits of human compassion as being of great importance - yet I'd say that is not the same as the infinite magnitude of Brahman/Grace!) 

 Good day

Edited April 19, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

15 hours ago, dwai said:

Watch the video where he answers a very relevant question (2:24) which @stirling alludes to in the previous comment -

Knowledge coming from texts and teachers are called paroksha jnana (or indirect knowledge). “Enlightenment” is called aparoksha jnana (direct knowledge). Indirect knowledge can only point — only direct apperception will lead to realization. 

 

Swami is very obviously highly realized. I agree with him absolutely. Nothing he says here contradicts Buddhism, IMHO, or any other non-dual understanding, but it IS suffused with the clarity I normally associate with Advaita teaching. It is easy to get stuck on terminology, and I appreciate how different sets of terminology have sewn confusion. This is the unfortunate byproduct of the underlying reality and trying to describe it with thoughts/concepts/ideas. 

[stirling]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Thanks for all of that feedback Stirling and I think I get what you are saying...but above you have used the term "mind" per Buddhism...which has a very different and factual meaning in schools of Hinduism. Thus making or assuming certain correlations between the two is way off for both.  Also certain teachings and methods have proven fruitful for preparation although they do not make the choice or have the power of Grace as alluded to in the quoted Upanishad above and as far as I know is a very major point in most schools of Hinduism, since it is Brahman/Grace that makes the choice, something that the historic Buddha never mentions as being an all important and key factor if I'm not mistaken.   (granted he taught the merits of human compassion as being of great importance - yet I'd say that is not the same as the infinite magnitude of Brahman/Grace!) 

 Good day

 

Mind is one way of expressing it, but not the only one, of course. I am sorry if this is confusing. I find that "God", for example, is lacking as a descriptor since it suggests deistic beings that have separate existence somehow, or could be in some way exempt from cause and effect. Most terms seem to fail in most ways. I most often use the terms "presence" or "awareness" since they seem as simple and clear as you could get to me.  

 

Buddha doesn't use the terms Brahman or grace as far as I am aware, it is more down to a set of causes and conditions in one moment where realization happens. It is never up to "us". 

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” – Suzuki Roshi

 

This would be a decent summary, IMHO. 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Mind is one way of expressing it, but not the only one, of course. I am sorry if this is confusing. I find that "God", for example, is lacking as a descriptor since it suggests deistic beings that have separate existence somehow, or could be in some way exempt from cause and effect. Most terms seem to fail in most ways. I most often use the terms "presence" or "awareness" since they seem as simple and clear as you could get to me.  

 

Buddha doesn't use the terms Brahman or grace as far as I am aware, it is more down to a set of causes and conditions in one moment where realization happens. It is never up to "us". 

 

This would be a decent summary, IMHO. 

 

well do we now see or can we agree that certain correlations do not work?  As for pointers or descriptors they are what they are and if they can be useful then fine, if not then we should come back to the idea of toleration with, "live and let live" imo.  Btw a major saying in Hinduism is the aspect, if one wants to call  it that, is that God is transcendent besides other aspects that manifest or are connected, so in that sense God is not bound by any causes or effects as Source, Brahman or Supreme Being...

[stirling]

17 hours ago, old3bob said:

well do we now see or can we agree that certain correlations do not work?  As for pointers or descriptors they are what they are and if they can be useful then fine, if not then we should come back to the idea of toleration with, "live and let live" imo.  Btw a major saying in Hinduism is the aspect, if one wants to call  it that, is that God is transcendent besides other aspects that manifest or are connected, so in that sense God is not bound by any causes or effects as Source, Brahman or Supreme Being...

 

I am utterly convinced that the correlations DO work. Is that a problem? I not sure why it would be.

 

There is no question of toleration here. I am perfectly happy for you to resonate or like whatever works for you, and the same goes for anyone else. My first post merely draws parallels about what I perceive to be obvious correlations between different traditions and mentions that the Upanishads must be considered some influence on Buddhism. You could also read me as saying that Buddhism, read one way, does not contradict the Upanishads. IMHO it is only the terminology that confuses. Do I believe that there are clearer ways to express these ideas in the English language in this day and age? I do. I think the central understanding as expressed in your first post, or the Heart Sutra (see above) are about as clear as things get in traditional texts.  

 

The last sentence of your post cements my belief that these are one and the same. There are not myriad enlightenments - only "one".

Edited April 20, 2022 by stirling

[Klinsly]

Thanks for sharing! This is what I love about The Upanishads,  and The Bhagavad Gita. They are so Concise and clear yet still esoteric. But when you come to the point of having ears to hear as they say, or understand the concepts. You're just blown away because its all there so straight forward, yet so deep.

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I am utterly convinced that the correlations DO work. Is that a problem? I not sure why it would be.

 

There is no question of toleration here. I am perfectly happy for you to resonate or like whatever works for you, and the same goes for anyone else. My first post merely draws parallels about what I perceive to be obvious correlations between different traditions and mentions that the Upanishads must be considered some influence on Buddhism. You could also read me as saying that Buddhism, read one way, does not contradict the Upanishads. IMHO it is only the terminology that confuses. Do I believe that there are clearer ways to express these ideas in the English language in this day and age? I do. I think the central understanding as expressed in your first post, or the Heart Sutra (see above) are about as clear as things get in traditional texts.  

 

The last sentence of your post cements my belief that these are one and the same. There are not myriad enlightenments - only "one".

 

if one desires to be a quasi Buddhist, quasi Hindu or both along with various New Age like correlations mixed in then it should be named so...and we should also know and see that in most cases one will not find lineage holders and serious students that are part of traditional schools doing such mixing. (and for good reasons)  So again common ground should be appreciated but imo it should not end up mudding or dissipating the waters either.  Btw some of the key Buddhist teachings or concepts you have quoted or paraphrased recently do not show any correlations to key Hindu teachings or concepts and never can and never will per Buddhist or Hindu scriptures and their related and well known and respected Lama's or Satguru's that never teach of such mixing in their schools.

Edited April 20, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

if one desires to be a quasi Buddhist, quasi Hindu or both along with various New Age like correlations mixed in then it should be named so...and we should also know and see that in most cases one will not find lineage holders and serious students that are part of traditional schools doing such mixing. (and for good reasons)  So again common ground should be appreciated but imo it should not end up mudding or dissipating the waters either.  Btw some of the key Buddhist teachings or concepts you have quoted or paraphrased recently do not show any correlations to key Hindu teachings or concepts and never can and never will per Buddhist or Hindu scriptures and their related and well known and respected Lama's or Satguru's that never teach of such mixing in their schools.

that is not quite correct and is certainly not a rule per se (in response to the bolded sentence above). There are certain things that are exposed to the general public, and others are kept more for inner-door students (with proper qualifications). I am personally aware of direct disciples of Shankaracharyas of Sringeri, Vrindavan etc who have been guided to out-of-lineage teachers or traditions for further study. Usually, the teacher decides based on the temperament and aptitude of the student. Of course, such guidance is not meant for those who are heavily invested in the traditional ritualistic path. 

 

Some more special cases might have teachers teaching both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism (properly initiated lineage holders in both traditions).

 

Yes, it is advisable to stick to one tradition up to a certain point. Beyond that point (and where that point is, varies per individual) it might be beneficial to look across traditions. If one is able to gain benefit from the teachings of more than one tradition without sullying either, who can question them? I personally found that the Daoist tradition was able to unlock certain things in Vedanta for me. And then I found that Vedanta was able to unlock some things in Daoism.

 

The truth is ultimately the same, the sages call it by different names. 

[old3bob]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

that is not quite correct and is certainly not a rule per se (in response to the bolded sentence above). There are certain things that are exposed to the general public, and others are kept more for inner-door students (with proper qualifications). I am personally aware of direct disciples of Shankaracharyas of Sringeri, Vrindavan etc who have been guided to out-of-lineage teachers or traditions for further study. Usually, the teacher decides based on the temperament and aptitude of the student. Of course, such guidance is not meant for those who are heavily invested in the traditional ritualistic path. 

 

Some more special cases might have teachers teaching both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism (properly initiated lineage holders in both traditions).

 

Yes, it is advisable to stick to one tradition up to a certain point. Beyond that point (and where that point is, varies per individual) it might be beneficial to look across traditions. If one is able to gain benefit from the teachings of more than one tradition without sullying either, who can question them? I personally found that the Daoist tradition was able to unlock certain things in Vedanta for me. And then I found that Vedanta was able to unlock some things in Daoism.

 

The truth is ultimately the same, the sages call it by different names. 

 

of course a lot of that depends on vows... and if a student is ever going to chosen as a successor and lineage holder or a particular school then they too will have to decide at what point  they will stick to that.  (for instance a Hindu swami will not advocate for their students and householders to quit Hinduism and go over to Buddhist schools although they may teach of common ground and understanding of same and also of differences)  But what do I know since I have very limited experience....

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

of course a lot of that depends on vows... and if a student is ever going to chosen as a successor and lineage holder or a particular school then they too will have to decide at what point  they will stick to that.  (for instance a Hindu swami will not advocate for their students and householders to quit Hinduism and go over to Buddhist schools although they may teach of common ground and understanding of same and also of differences)  But what do I know since I have very limited experience....

There are different sets of rules for those who will become heads of organizations (such as Mathas). The restrictions are for their own observance, not to enforce them on others. In hindu dharma there are the institution based traditions, as well as avadhuta traditions (Shirdi Sai Baba, Neem Karoli Baba, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa are a few that come to mind). Avadhuta traditions don't have to follow any ritualistic rules in the shastras, though they may choose to follow some (or all of them). But they are as much a part of the dharma tapestry and tradition as any matha - in fact, they are most highly regarded and sought after for bestowing grace and knowledge in a flash. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by dwai