What's with this Relative and Absolute Reality dichotomy? It is all very confusing...

[S:C]

On 16.4.2024 at 10:30 PM, forestofemptiness said:

It is interesting that Advaitins have to contend with the idea that things are impermanent and constantly changing, whereas Buddhists have to contend with the idea that things are enduring and lasting! I suppose it depends on how one tunes the mind. 

I am a little rusty in the lingo. Especially with the Advaitins. And I lack understandable explanations - which are not available in my language, as far as I see.
 

Where do the concepts of „substantiality“ differ concerning svabhava… ?

 

@dwai could you provide us with a translation of 

Quote

So interesting. Yet it is the Buddhists who say “kshanikam kshanikam sarvam kshanikam” and the advaitins who say, “sarvam khalu idam 

brahm

a” 

please? (Don‘t know how or why this got an orange colouring…)
 

 

So the Advaitins despite their focus on impermanence see ‚God‘  while the Buddhists do not? 
 

Empty of substance in both views?

Edited April 18 by S:C

[forestofclarity]

6 hours ago, S:C said:

So the Advaitins despite their focus on impermanence see ‚God‘  while the Buddhists do not? 

 

My point was people who criticize Advaita see impermanence in the world as refuting Advaita, and people who criticize Buddhists see permanence and refuting Buddhist teaching. So Advaitins have to defend against critics observing impermanence, and Buddhists have to defend against critics who see permanence. Accordingly, one's experience is open to either or both views. 

Edited April 18 by forestofemptiness

[silent thunder]

Strong description of observation forest.  This exact paradoxical playground is why i have recently found so much resonance in Chuangze's sharings on 'walking two paths ay once'

[dwai]

7 hours ago, S:C said:

@dwai could you provide us with a translation of 

Quote

Kshanikam - Momentary

Sarvam - Everything

 

So the Buddhists say - "Everything is momentary" (impermanence)

 

Khalu - Verify

idam - This 

Brahma - Brahman (the ground of being)

 

Advaitins say - "Everything is verily Brahman"  (Permanence)

 

The two seem mutually exclusive. But are they? Everything is certainly momentary/temporary, but does that mean Brahman is also fleeting and temporary? This can be understood by the statement, "Samsara (everything) is Nirvana (liberation), and Nirvana (liberation) is Samsara (everything)."

 

The Advaitins say that "everything" is perceived as separate, ephemeral objects because the knowledge of Brahman (Pure Consciousness) is not realized. When the realization occurs that all things appear and disappear in Brahman alone, then the confusion is dispelled once and for all. 

 

Edited April 18 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

I think there is a secondary problem as well. If the ancient sages are right, the experienced relative is not material, but mental. Whether you accept this lightly, as in whatever we experience is impacted by our mental structures; or more strongly, in recognizing that everything is fundamentally a cooperative dream; the end result is the same. In modern terms, the lighter version is captured by predictive processing or the interface theory of perception and the heavier by the simulation hypothesis. 

If relative reality is partially or entirely related to the turnings or waves of the mind, then solidified beliefs can edit, diminish, or erase what is perceived or known. Similarly, the all creating mind can produce or focus on experiences and states consistent with what one is seeking or expecting to find--- one reason why diverse and contradictory belief systems have long survived in the world. 

 

So people who dispute or close their mind to the absolute may never know it. Or they may create an object or experience of it, and take the thief for one's own child, as the Chan masters used to say. 

 

 

[silent thunder]

Dropping pearls forest... thanks for sharing that.

[S:C]

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

So people who dispute or close their mind to the absolute may never know it. Or they may create an object or experience of it, and take the thief for one's own child, as the Chan masters used to say.

Very much agree with your first observations and paragraphs. 
 

How should there be knowledge of the absolute? We may have conceptions about it in our own relative minds, no? 
 

Or perhaps you mean that all relative conceptions of the absolute together are the Absolute because they appear on the projection surface of mind?

[Apech]

On 18/04/2024 at 6:55 PM, dwai said:

Kshanikam - Momentary

Sarvam - Everything

 

So the Buddhists say - "Everything is momentary" (impermanence)

 

Khalu - Verify

idam - This 

Brahma - Brahman (the ground of being)

 

Advaitins say - "Everything is verily Brahman"  (Permanence)

 

The two seem mutually exclusive. But are they? Everything is certainly momentary/temporary, but does that mean Brahman is also fleeting and temporary? This can be understood by the statement, "Samsara (everything) is Nirvana (liberation), and Nirvana (liberation) is Samsara (everything)."

 

The Advaitins say that "everything" is perceived as separate, ephemeral objects because the knowledge of Brahman (Pure Consciousness) is not realized. When the realization occurs that all things appear and disappear in Brahman alone, then the confusion is dispelled once and for all. 

 

Brahman is not a thing - would be my answer.

[silent thunder]

Seldom do words and thinking reconcile with being in my awareness... thinking and words seem layered onto raw being and so reconciling words with being seems like objects set on a sheer surface upon which there is no footing...  or a steep convex incline where they rarely find purchase to resonate.

 

i suspect this is why i have always lit up with giddiness when someone shares a phrase that seems to reflect being and raw presence.

 

It is so exceedingly rare.

 

And why as i continue on this path... more and more a foundation in silence and raw being is paramount.

[forestofclarity]

On 4/23/2024 at 12:00 PM, S:C said:

How should there be knowledge of the absolute? We may have conceptions about it in our own relative minds, no? 

 

In my mind, the knowing should be direct. We do have conceptions, but these are little swirls in the pool of mind-stuff. A good concept is one that leads one toward the non-conceptual absolute. For instance, Ramana proposes one examine the I-thought or aham vritti. It is still a vritti, an object, but ii is a better object than others because it is "closer" to the absolute than other objects. Still, it is like trying to build a physical scale model of absolute space, or an ice sculpture of the ocean, or using words to describe the background screen on which they appear. Focus on the words and one may miss the lighted background. 

It is better to find out for oneself rather than fill the mind full of thoughts about it. However, some personal observations follow: 

 

Initially, these seem like opposing tendencies in my experience. Also initially, the more one focuses on and interacts with objects, the more the objectless background tends appear to fade and tends to be hidden in alignment with the "perceptions are mental" points. Objects become more and more pronounced, solidified, and feel more "real." 

 

However, a shift "toward" the background (or inherent nature) has the opposite effect. Now the background is clear and objects less so, thoughts tend to fade and dissolve, emotions stabilize, and objects might even drop away altogether. 

 

But this is a false duality. The presence of the words doesn't hide or impact the background, and the lighted background is needed for the words to appear. Nor does one need to eliminate or make the words go away. The words depend on the background, but the background transcends any and all words. 

 

 

[dwai]

43 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

But this is a false duality. The presence of the words doesn't hide or impact the background, and the lighted background is needed for the words to appear. Nor does one need to eliminate or make the words go away. The words depend on the background, but the background transcends any and all words. 

This is akin to how before one knows what a mirage is, it

is mistaken for water. Once it becomes known what a mirage is, a mirage still appears to be a body of water from the distance,  but one understands it is just a mirage. 

Edited April 25 by dwai