Katha Upanishad excerpt

[doc benway]

Just now, old3bob said:

 

as he gets older his practice of "Right" eating will probably become more orderly. 

 

And older yet, he will leave the practice behind and slurp it up once again!

[old3bob]

lets see, there is an Upanishad that speaks directly about respecting food and sharing food and the wisdom of doing so...Don't remember which one so I'll have to look it up.

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, old3bob said:

lets see, there is an Upanishad that speaks directly about respecting food and sharing food and the wisdom of doing so...Don't remember which one so I'll have to look it up.

Spoiler

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् । 
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ ४-२४॥

---

brahmārpaṇaṃ brahma havirbrahmāgnau brahmaṇā hutam 
brahmaiva tena gantavyaṃ brahmakarmasamādhinā

---

BRAHMAN is the oblation; BRAHMAN is the clarified butter, etc. , constituting the offerings; by BRAHMAN is the oblation poured into the fire of BRAHMAN; BRAHMAN verily shall be reached by him who always sees BRAHMAN in all actions.

 

[liminal_luke]

47 minutes ago, steve said:

 

And older yet, he will leave the practice behind and slurp it up once again!

 

 -- Out beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing there is a restaurant.  Let's do lunch.

 

Rumi (as interpreted by Luke)

 

 

[Bindi]

Non-dualism is just one more school of thought, though undeniably popular.

 

“Advaita Vendanta begins with the Commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, written by Gaudapada around the seventh Century CE. We saw earlier that the Mandukya Upanishad contains passages that can be interpreted as describing a philosophy of nondualism. Writing almost 1300 years later, Gaudapada draws on elements of the Buddhist theory of emptiness to re-interpret the Mandukya Upanishad in a strongly nondual manner… There is some controversy over the extent to which Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism. Gaudapada uses intellectual arguments and images directly drawn from Buddhist sources to construct his philosophy.

 

…Gaudapada was the paramguru (guru’s guru) of Shankara, who is recognized as the founder of the Advaita Vedanta movement…

In Shankara’s formulation the individual soul and Brahman are identical. The soul (atman) is not some small part of Brahman that eventually merges back into Brahman. The soul is actually the entirety of Brahman. According to Shankara (unlike in the Western religions, and some forms of Hinduism), each person does not have a unique, individual soul that then returns to Brahman upon enlightenment or death. Instead there is no individual soul whatsoever. There is only one Atman, and it is identical with Brahman. The false idea that there are many souls arises from the tricks of maya. Individuals (jiva) live in a state of ignorance in a body with senses, which causes the delusion that we feel as if we have an individual soul. In Shankara’s metaphor, it is as if the one moon in the sky were reflected by many bubbles.

 

Critics accused Shankara of being a “secret Buddhist,” and of more or less sneaking Buddhism into Hinduism. Indeed, it is hard not to compare his atman/Brahman concept to the Buddha-nature or storehouse consciousness ideas. They seem to just be different names for the same idea. For his part, Shankara vehemently denied this. He was an erudite philosopher, and used his extensive knowledge of Buddhism to show the differences between his teachings and the Buddhist view. A review of these differences, however, quickly shows them to be (in my opinion) very minor. Call it Brahman or Buddha-nature, it is nondual awareness either way.” From Here.

 

So Advaita Vendantists and Western non-dualists and Buddhists can all agree that their philosophy is the Truth, that this is how it actually is, whilst overriding earlier Hindu approaches, and throwing Daoism into the non-dual mix - all the while forgetting that non-duality is just a belief,  just a philosophy, an opinion, currently popular but by no means the final word on spiritual thought. 
 

I would suggest that ‘non-duality’ is so popular because it is experienced as a temporary relief from the clamouring of the mind and the emotions. To authentically clarify the emotional and mental streams takes a lifetime of work, which does lead directly to ‘the Self’, which in its turn is equivalent to energy entering the central channel. The Tibetan Buddhists are an interesting juncture between non-duality and energy entering the central channel, because they go about forcing exactly this to happen, energy is directed into the central channel, but this in its turn is also misguided because we all know that forcing anything is wrong don’t we? 
 

 

 

[old3bob]

40 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Non-dualism is just one more school of thought, though undeniably popular.

 

“Advaita Vendanta begins with the Commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, written by Gaudapada around the seventh Century CE. We saw earlier that the Mandukya Upanishad contains passages that can be interpreted as describing a philosophy of nondualism. Writing almost 1300 years later, Gaudapada draws on elements of the Buddhist theory of emptiness to re-interpret the Mandukya Upanishad in a strongly nondual manner… There is some controversy over the extent to which Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism. Gaudapada uses intellectual arguments and images directly drawn from Buddhist sources to construct his philosophy.

 

…Gaudapada was the paramguru (guru’s guru) of Shankara, who is recognized as the founder of the Advaita Vedanta movement…

In Shankara’s formulation the individual soul and Brahman are identical. The soul (atman) is not some small part of Brahman that eventually merges back into Brahman. The soul is actually the entirety of Brahman. According to Shankara (unlike in the Western religions, and some forms of Hinduism), each person does not have a unique, individual soul that then returns to Brahman upon enlightenment or death. Instead there is no individual soul whatsoever. There is only one Atman, and it is identical with Brahman. The false idea that there are many souls arises from the tricks of maya. Individuals (jiva) live in a state of ignorance in a body with senses, which causes the delusion that we feel as if we have an individual soul. In Shankara’s metaphor, it is as if the one moon in the sky were reflected by many bubbles.

 

Critics accused Shankara of being a “secret Buddhist,” and of more or less sneaking Buddhism into Hinduism. Indeed, it is hard not to compare his atman/Brahman concept to the Buddha-nature or storehouse consciousness ideas. They seem to just be different names for the same idea. For his part, Shankara vehemently denied this. He was an erudite philosopher, and used his extensive knowledge of Buddhism to show the differences between his teachings and the Buddhist view. A review of these differences, however, quickly shows them to be (in my opinion) very minor. Call it Brahman or Buddha-nature, it is nondual awareness either way.” From Here.

 

So Advaita Vendantists and Western non-dualists and Buddhists can all agree that their philosophy is the Truth, that this is how it actually is, whilst overriding earlier Hindu approaches, and throwing Daoism into the non-dual mix - all the while forgetting that non-duality is just a belief,  just a philosophy, an opinion, currently popular but by no means the final word on spiritual thought. 
 

I would suggest that ‘non-duality’ is so popular because it is experienced as a temporary relief from the clamouring of the mind and the emotions. To authentically clarify the emotional and mental streams takes a lifetime of work, which does lead directly to ‘the Self’, which in its turn is equivalent to energy entering the central channel. The Tibetan Buddhists are an interesting juncture between non-duality and energy entering the central channel, because they go about forcing exactly this to happen, energy is directed into the central channel, but this in its turn is also misguided because we all know that forcing anything is wrong don’t we? 
 

 

Ah, very interesting points!  Btw I relate to the Saivite sects and schools of Hinduism a lot, more so to Saiva Siddanta's core teachings in particular (that include Lord Nataraja meanings and evolving souls)  which do not agree with several points of Advaita Vedanta or with certain other non-dual teachings like you have noted above.  Appreciate your contribution Bindi.      

Edited April 24, 2022 by old3bob

[Bindi]

Saiva Siddanta philosophy states that “Before taking any birth, the soul was in a state, enmeshed in the darkness of anavam, unable to exhibit its capabilities to know, act and desire.” For the soul to come to exhibit these capabilities is the goal of Saiva Siddanta (as you say above the evolution of the soul). It is interesting that Buddhism’s philosophical solution specifically aims to extinguish desire, and as far as I know doesn’t value knowing and acting. No wonder there is a fundamental mis-fit between your views and non-dualism/Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. 
 

Interestingly in terms of the capabilities of the subtle body I appear to be more aligned with Saiva Siddanta philosophy. I have come to understand that subtle acting and subtle mentation/directing are the capabilities of ida and pingala respectively, perhaps leaving ‘desiring’ as the capability of the central channel? In this case I imagine desiring as in accord with God/the Dao/ultimate truth etc. I’m not sure as I haven’t enabled this channel yet. Enabling these subtle energy channel capabilities is exactly the aim of my life. 

edit to add: It might be taking a liberty but it might be that the ‘soul’ is in fact one and the same with the subtle energy body, both need to evolve into their full capacity.

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Bindi

[Geof Nanto]

I have no problems with accepting the non-dual nature of absolute reality but I do have problems with those on this forum who speak of it as if it's their lived reality. Here's something I wrote in my journal a few months ago which I've been reluctant to post because of its controversial nature but will do so now in the interests of presenting my perspective, and out of curiosity to see what reaction it gets:

 

Although absolute reality may be non-dual, we are very much living in a world of dualities; of complementary yin-yang polar opposites. Without polarity there can be no energy flows, and without energy flows all life as we know it would cease to exist. Our psyche (mind in the greater sense) is likewise powered by polar differentials.

 

Within some contemporary spiritual circles, this deeply perplexing inner tension caused by the inherent polarity of our lived reality is simply bypassed. Identification with the light of divinity is proclaimed as an absolute truth and no mention is made of its opposite, namely the fact that most of what constitutes our psyche is shrouded in darkness. Hence, a one-sided attitude, brought about by a glimpse into the numinousity of transcendent reality, gets called Self and non-dual is spoken of as if it’s felt as a continuously lived experience. Worse, the glimpse of ineffable experience becomes an elaborately constructed non-dual belief system. Although I feel within myself the enticement of such certainty, I also know it causes stuckness if not eventually worked through and transcended. All these spiritual beliefs (theologies, cosmologies, and cosmogonies) are like the straw dogs of the Daodejing – something to be revered while useful, but then to be discarded once their purpose is served. Non-dualists recognise this yet their words and their continual need to promote non-dualism reveals a strong inner dualism (such as is apparent in this discussion).

 

Carl Jung observed that an ego inflation arises when the enlightened one identifies with his own light and confuses his ego with the Self. "He [the spiritual seeker] forgets that light only has a meaning when it illuminates something dark and that his enlightenment is no good to him unless it helps him to recognize his own darkness."

 

In other words, a greatly expanded ego is not the Self. (Jung uses the term ‘ego’ simply to refer to the centre of our consciousness. It has no pejorative implication like the term ‘egoism’ does.)  

 

One of Jung’s closest colleagues, Marie-Louise von Franz continues (edited):

 

“Are we today, after over two millennia of spiritual heritage, mature enough to understand and realize our divinity without forgetting our smallness and darkness? The phenomenon of the Self, in which all the opposites are united, is, as Jung constantly stressed, simply inconceivable, a mystery with which one had better not identify, as long as one is in possession of one's normal faculties. We humans cannot master the uncanny polarity within our own nature; instead we must learn to understand it as an objective psychic content within ourselves, as a numinous experience which in the past was reserved for the few, but which takes hold of more and more people in the contemporary world.”

 

Of course, we’ve all heard of the great ones in every spiritual tradition who were able to master “the uncanny polarity within our own nature.” However, having numinous experiences, as a number of people on this forum have had, only marks the beginning of a life-time’s journey towards total transcendence; a goal that’s rarely achieved.  

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

My other gripe with non-dualists is their assumption that everybody would want to immerse themselves in the bliss of non-dual union if only they had felt it for themselves. That is not my wish, although it was when I first had a powerful spiritual experience. But since then, I’ve been guided towards something which is more akin to what many alchemical texts describe in both in the Western and Chinese spiritual traditions.  

[doc benway]

My reaction is one of gratitude and humility. Beautifully said, timely, and important. 

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

[Geof Nanto]

2 hours ago, steve said:

My reaction is one of gratitude and humility. Beautifully said, timely, and important. 

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

 

Thank you Steve. I certainly never expected a response as favourable as that. My reaction is likewise one of gratitude and humility. Significantly, your words suggest my post didn’t touch on any strongly held hidden dualities within your psyche. 

 

Part of my reason in posting was to let go of my feelings of adversity to the way prominent non-dualists on this forum are continually promoting their perspective. A non-oppositional reply such as yours makes it easier to do so. Another part of my reason for posting was to see if anyone says anything that provokes a strong emotional reaction in me; that is, one that triggers hidden aspects within my psyche. Experience has shown me, taking note of that is a valuable way to enrich my perspective, though not necessarily in ways in line with what is being said.  

 

But most of all, having written what I’ve written, I’d like to bow out of this conversation. I will of course continue to read comments with interest, as I do on all topics here that interest me. I appreciate the effort people put into these Dao Bum discussions. I very much need the input as a counterbalance to my mostly silent, semi-reclusive, forest dwelling lifestyle. 

 

Moreover, there’s a strand within my psyche making itself felt in stronger and stronger ways that is telling me it’s no longer appropriate for me to make posts like that one. I’m needing to keep what little energy I have in my older age for inner development; to shut the gates and close the doors. Yet experience has shown me I must continue the long process of shedding beliefs and opinions by engaging in dialogue with the outer world, elsewise it’s like trying to seal up a wound that still needs to shed foreign matter. Thankfully, because I’m feeling more at peace within myself and with the world at large than ever before, I feel I’m nearing the end of that process, at least sufficiently to continue productive inner cultivation with ever less outer engagement.  Besides, my declining energy levels give me no choice.       
 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Yueya

[old3bob]

8 hours ago, Bindi said:

Saiva Siddanta philosophy states that “Before taking any birth, the soul was in a state, enmeshed in the darkness of anavam, unable to exhibit its capabilities to know, act and desire.” For the soul to come to exhibit these capabilities is the goal of Saiva Siddanta (as you say above the evolution of the soul). It is interesting that Buddhism’s philosophical solution specifically aims to extinguish desire, and as far as I know doesn’t value knowing and acting. No wonder there is a fundamental mis-fit between your views and non-dualism/Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. 
 

Interestingly in terms of the capabilities of the subtle body I appear to be more aligned with Saiva Siddanta philosophy. I have come to understand that subtle acting and subtle mentation/directing are the capabilities of ida and pingala respectively, perhaps leaving ‘desiring’ as the capability of the central channel? In this case I imagine desiring as in accord with God/the Dao/ultimate truth etc. I’m not sure as I haven’t enabled this channel yet. Enabling these subtle energy channel capabilities is exactly the aim of my life. 

edit to add: It might be taking a liberty but it might be that the ‘soul’ is in fact one and the same with the subtle energy body, both need to evolve into their full capacity.

 

 

well I'm not a qualified teacher but consider the koshas:  (which include evolving aspects or that which is helped by and becomes unveiled per the meaning of teachings about Lord Nataraja which include an all important Grace.  (with the Anandamaya kosha actually being the individual soul body as it sounds like what you mean...)

 

"What are the koshas?

Annamaya kosha, "food" sheath (Anna)

Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana)

Manomaya kosha "mind" sheath (Manas)

Vijñānamaya kosha, "discernment" or "Knowledge" sheath (Vigynana)

 

Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)" 

 

And going further with Brahman and Satchidananda being the non-evolving and Eternal core of all souls or beings often referred to in the Upanishads as Brahman in the cave of the heart !  (which btw. is not a limited location or place as well described or pointed to in the Chandogya Upanishad and others)   So this means to me or I'd say the true desire of all souls  (that gets veiled with changing identifications or desires ) is to know beyond regular knowing or any doubt is the "Soul of their soul" which in Hinduism is called Brahman.

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by old3bob

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Yueya said:

 

Thank you Steve. I certainly never expected a response as favourable as that. My reaction is likewise one of gratitude and humility. Significantly, your words suggest my post didn’t touch on any strongly held hidden dualities within your psyche. 

The dualities in my psyche are anything but hidden! Not that I’ve exposed and integrated or liberated all karmic traces in my life experience by  any means rather they are the primary focus and a seemingly endless source of fuel in my own practice. I’ve been fortunate to have help to identify the signs and avoid bypassing.

 

5 hours ago, Yueya said:

Part of my reason in posting was to let go of my feelings of adversity to the way prominent non-dualists on this forum are continually promoting their perspective. A non-oppositional reply such as yours makes it easier to do so.

I would say we need to anticipate and welcome some non-dual perspective here, particularly when discussing explicitly non-dual scripture. Conversely, I welcome the grounding and reality testing your post provides. Public discussions of non-dual experience are fraught with dangers for both “sides.” No doubt this is one explanation for the extreme secrecy and caution historically surrounding such teachings in certain traditions and communities

 

5 hours ago, Yueya said:

Another part of my reason for posting was to see if anyone says anything that provokes a strong emotional reaction in me; that is, one that triggers hidden aspects within my psyche. Experience has shown me, taking note of that is a valuable way to enrich my perspective, though not necessarily in ways in line with what is being said.  

More synchronicity, I recently shared something very similar in a PM. I receive no greater gift from this community than the opportunity to see myself a little more clearly and comprehensively through the mirror of reactivity to my posts. And I learn far more from negative response than positive…

 

5 hours ago, Yueya said:

But most of all, having written what I’ve written, I’d like to bow out of this conversation. I will of course continue to read comments with interest, as I do on all topics here that interest me. I appreciate the effort people put into these Dao Bum discussions. I very much need the input as a counterbalance to my mostly silent, semi-reclusive, forest dwelling lifestyle. 

 

Moreover, there’s a strand within my psyche making itself felt in stronger and stronger ways that is telling me it’s no longer appropriate for me to make posts like that one. I’m needing to keep what little energy I have in my older age for inner development; to shut the gates and close the doors. Yet experience has shown me I must continue the long process of shedding beliefs and opinions by engaging in dialogue with the outer world, elsewise it’s like trying to seal up a wound that still needs to shed foreign matter. Thankfully, because I’m feeling more at peace within myself and with the world at large than ever before, I feel I’m nearing the end of that process, at least sufficiently to continue productive inner cultivation with ever less outer engagement.  Besides, my declining energy levels give me no choice.       
 

I welcome and value whatever you are moved to share here. I find great value and compassion in your presence and contributions.

[dwai]

11 hours ago, Yueya said:

My other gripe with non-dualists is their assumption that everybody would want to immerse themselves in the bliss of non-dual union if only they had felt it for themselves. That is not my wish, although it was when I first had a powerful spiritual experience. But since then, I’ve been guided towards something which is more akin to what many alchemical texts describe in both in the Western and Chinese spiritual traditions.  

That IS already the fact. There is only and always the nondual  reality. Duality is merely an appearance.  

 

To resort to what alchemical traditions speak of is a compromise that is completely and utterly unnecessary. The “choice” of duality or nonduality is only valid if there is a duality apart from our nondual true nature. There isn’t. 
 

BTW if someone is under the impression that our  nondual nature is an experience, or that one experiences infinite bliss, that is a misunderstanding of monumental (though understandable) nature.
 

What nondual realization does, is simply neutralizes the compulsive oscillation between craving and loathing. This leads to an acceptance of what is, and fulfillment/contentment which nothing can shake. The “ananda” one often misunderstands as “bliss” is better described as “completeness” (purnam). One can’t take away from this completeness. One can’t add to this completeness. And one realizes this completeness in every experience, as along with the appearances of names and forms, is this ever-shining, ever-present, ever-complete reality. 
 

Are these just a lot of words? Maybe.
 

But can you not see the luminous completeness that shines forth? The readers mind is illumined by it. The writers mind is illumined by it. Without it, nothing is. Nothing is without it.   

Edited April 24, 2022 by dwai

[dwai]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

well I'm not a qualified teacher but consider the koshas:  (which include evolving aspects or that which is helped by and becomes unveiled per the meaning of teachings about Lord Nataraja which include an all important Grace.  (with the Anandamaya kosha actually being the individual soul body as it sounds like what you mean...)

 

"What are the koshas?

Annamaya kosha, "food" sheath (Anna)

Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana)

Manomaya kosha "mind" sheath (Manas)

Vijñānamaya kosha, "discernment" or "Knowledge" sheath (Vigynana)

 

Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)" 

 

And going further with Brahman and Satchidananda being the non-evolving and Eternal core of all souls or beings often referred to in the Upanishads as Brahman in the cave of the heart !  (which btw. is not a limited location or place as well described or pointed to in the Chandogya Upanishad and others)   So this means to me or I'd say the true desire of all souls  (that gets veiled with changing identifications or desires ) is to know beyond regular knowing or any doubt is the "Soul of their soul" which in Hinduism is called Brahman.

 

The “panća kosha viveka” is a powerful technique for nondual realization. 
 

In the dharma, there are two paths outlined. One is called krama mukti — or gradual liberation. This is a posthumous liberation, in the sense that one’s good deeds karma will eventually (over several lifetimes) take them to progressively higher levels of existence (lokas), with the highest being brahmaloka.  At which point one realizes one’s true nature as Brahman. 
 

The other is jivana mukti or liberation in this lifetime itself, where the realization of one’s true nature as Brahman arises. Nondual sadhanas are for jivanamukti. 

 

Some food for thought - In today’s Hindu dharma, one hardly finds a clear separation of Shaivism or vaishnavism, or dualism or nondualism. Mostly the ritualistic tradition of the dharma is already a blend of Vedic and agamic (tantric) systems. The nondualist seeker and the dualist seeker both go and pray to the same deity, but (maybe) for different reasons. 
 

Also, speaking from experience, for a devotee to give up their beloved deity/God is very difficult.
 

For me it arose as follows - “if I give up my separation from you my lord, how will I maintain loving you, as I do today?”

 

Next morning, synchronistically, the Lord replied in the form of an upanishadic verse about how the entire universe is already and entirely the Lord. So what is separate, and what is to be kept apart? 
 

Spoiler

îsHâ vâsyamidaM sarvaM yat kiñca jagatyâM jagat,
tena tyaktena bhuñjîthâ mâ gRidhaH kasya sviddhanam. 1.

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।
तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।


ishaa - God, the Lord
vaasyam - clothed, enveloped, pervaded, dwelling
idam - this
sarvam - all

yatkincha (yat kim cha)- whatsoever ?
jagatyaam - in this world, on earth
jagat - world, moving, movable, earth
tena tyaktena -renouncing this, it
bhunjitha - enjoy
ma - dont 
gridha - covet
kasya - whose
svid - indeed, i wonder, do you think
dhanam - wealth
 

 

[old3bob]

another important tangent I think worth touching on is the feeling we may sometimes have of wanting to escape from all worlds, (as Yueya may have been implying several posts back?) yet that is problematic unless it also means freedom in all worlds,  with freedom including fearlessness in all worlds.  

 

A saying along these lines from  the Chandogya Upanishad:
"And just as, here on earth, whatever is earned through work perishes, so does the next world, won by virtuous deeds, perish. Those who depart hence without having realized the Self and these true desires-for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart hence after having realized the Self and these true desires-for them there is freedom in all the worlds.

Edited April 24, 2022 by old3bob