On The Topic of Religion...
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
I don't subscribe to this philosophy. There is a you and me at the absolute level. Rejection of the relative level just means understanding that one is not the material body, and that one is not even the mind and intelligence. The common perception we have of ourselves in the world, e.g. the son of so-and-so, the friend of so-and-so, etc. and any materially influenced personality traits we identify as are false. However, when all the Maya is stripped away, there still remains you and me. We are not merged together, nor are we merged with God. You can merge into God's brahmajyoti effulgence, but even that state of affairs is temporary. I'm not an advaitist. I'm a dvaitadvaitist or an achintya bhedabheda tattva-ist. The idea that individuality is false is Maya. As I explained before, just because water in the desert mirage is false doesn't mean that water itself is false. The idea that everything is one undifferentiated, homogenous whole on the absolute platform is a material idea, or, rather, it is an idea that arises out of material conception. It is a negation out of disappointment. You're in the desert and since the water is false, out of disappointment you declare that all water is false. This is Maya dictating to you.
Information of spiritual variegatedness is there in Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, etc. Even Krishna condemned the bodily conception of life and then proceeded to explain how all the individuals on the battlefield, including Arjun and Himself, were individuals in the past and will continue to be individuals in the future. By condemning the bodily conception, it is not possible that Krishna was placing a conventional proposition on the body again. Therefore, the individuality to which He was referring is spiritual. Krishna's individuality must be spiritual and must be free from illusion, otherwise the teachings of Bhagavad-gita would have no authoritative value.
Information of spiritual variegatedness is there in Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, etc. Even Krishna condemned the bodily conception of life and then proceeded to explain how all the individuals on the battlefield, including Arjun and Himself, were individuals in the past and will continue to be individuals in the future. By condemning the bodily conception, it is not possible that Krishna was placing a conventional proposition on the body again. Therefore, the individuality to which He was referring is spiritual. Krishna's individuality must be spiritual and must be free from illusion, otherwise the teachings of Bhagavad-gita would have no authoritative value.
My take is that God's eternal love applies to eternal entities. And by "eternal" I don't mean "began to exist, but then continues indefinitely," nor do I mean "beginningless existence that ends at some point." I mean the word in the full sense; the way in which it is applied to God: without beginning and without end. Things that come into existence means they are in flux. Being in flux means that an item is not the concrete fact. It is an illusion to take it as fact. So, to say that God loves such items is to say that God is subject to illusion.
God loves reality and reality is eternal. So, what does it mean to say that God loves us? It means that we are co-eternal with God. Somehow or other, we have fallen under the illusion of nonexistence. God has no Personal desire to create outside of the desire of the conditioned souls to have a facility where they can try and fulfill their conditioned desires. In other words, God creates because we want it and because God loves us. If we did not exist (i.e. were not eternal) then God would not create the material world. He has no reason to. There is nothing missing in God. He isn't lonely.
I see. Still, this can be understood in different ways. For instance, it can mean that God will destroy the stuff that appears to totter and they re-establish them where they are stable, at least for some time. Then eventually when they appear to totter again, the cycle repeats.
God loves reality and reality is eternal. So, what does it mean to say that God loves us? It means that we are co-eternal with God. Somehow or other, we have fallen under the illusion of nonexistence. God has no Personal desire to create outside of the desire of the conditioned souls to have a facility where they can try and fulfill their conditioned desires. In other words, God creates because we want it and because God loves us. If we did not exist (i.e. were not eternal) then God would not create the material world. He has no reason to. There is nothing missing in God. He isn't lonely.
I see. Still, this can be understood in different ways. For instance, it can mean that God will destroy the stuff that appears to totter and they re-establish them where they are stable, at least for some time. Then eventually when they appear to totter again, the cycle repeats.
It is not being seen, and you are right the idea that individuality is false is maya... because taking that identification with thought to be real would be attachment to form. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that's what is going on. Because if you do not see that then this is where the suffering and separation begins.
What I am speaking of can only be experienced through direct seeing and witnessing. And what is seen through direct experience is that what you are is prior to the arising of any of this. You are the space of awareness in which everything comes into play, the ground of all knowledge and experience.
You're correct the idea that everything being one undifferentiated, homogenous whole on the absolute platform is a material idea.. but that material idea arises in awareness... the idea that everything is NOT one undifferentiated, homogenous whole is a material idea.. that arises in awareness. The championing of this concept arises in awareness... the negation of this arises in awareness. The idea of awareness arises in what i am calling awareness... and what i am pointing to as awareness is not awareness at all.. it is unknowable because the conception of it.. arises within it. It always stands prior to the movement of any form that is perceived.
The play of these forms arise in what appears to be duality.. but the dual nature of the phenomena balance each other and create a perfect unbroken wholeness that cannot be seen if one side of the spectrum is attached to.
I cannot make any statements without the opposite of that statement being there to create it. We could not be having this conversation without each "side" we appear to be discussing. The 2 sides create a unity. The duality creates a oneness.
So something appears to be said here by me.. and you come back and you think you are arguing a point. You're re-telling knowledge (thought) that has been learned (attached to) at one point or another in your story and you take that to be true when it is just form arising in this space. You say the word "god" or you claim that you are a "dvaitadvaitist or an achintya bhedabheda tattva-ist" or any term or word used and that is all conditioning that has been acquired. You have picked these things up along the way by attaching to them but you know that when your experience started at your birth you knew nothing of these concepts, words, ideas etc... You heard them and they sounded attractive and you thought that they might be able to further your growth in some way towards a betterment of yourself. Or they were just learned for practical purposes to function in the culture or society. The language. The letters.. A B C, they are shapes that are contrasted against a background running along a certain path.. your thought that this shape "A" makes a certain sound is not related to each other. Only through conditioning have you placed them together and taken that to be true. And this can be applied to every single form that arises in the space of your awareness creating what you think is this reality.
If you stop and just look at what is surrounding you. How do you know that that surrounding is separate from you without the use of thought or conceptualizing. The thought that it is separate or not separate arises within the same space as that surrounding and they are not connected you just take them to be by the attachment to that thought which is a sound or subtle vibration in your awareness arising and falling back into the spaciousness.
You say you don't subscribe to this philosophy. And yes it is a philosophy because it is put into words and conceptualized and i am attaching to it by conjuring up this memory of acquired thought and typing it here. But what is being pointed to here is the breaking down of the psycho-schematic, automatic and subconscious identification with any of these forms. Even the "I" thought has been acquired. You are not that "I". The "I" is a thought or word. What you are is unknowable. So you are free to say you don't subscribe to this philosophy if this movement of form is realized and you know that it is a play. But if you truly take the fact that you don't subscribe to this philosophy to be true then you are stuck. And if you take it not to be true and believe that you are stuck.
What I say no matter what it is, is not separate from that which is awake to it... and what you say no matter what it is, is not separate from that which is awake to it. And that which is awake to this cannot be known, only by knowing the false or what you are not can you experience what you are.
A true spiritual endeavor should add nothing to you (initially). It should take everything away. It should destroy you and your world with it so you stand as an island with nothing left. And in that absence of everything you see past the veils of perception and you stand in this desert you speak of with unconditional love and acceptance of all. If the water you speak of (whether mirage or actuality) is the refuge you seek, then the want of that refuge is keeping you from it. Because you've had the water all along and you just didn't know it. I'm not adding any concepts to you. I don't claim to be anything. I'm only asking you to look at yourself and this knowledge you cling to. If what i'm saying is understood fully then it should shake you to your foundation. And there should be no discussion with a counterpoint to show. I'm not giving a counterpoint to what you are saying i am only saying that by attaching to your message you are blind to everything that is not your message and you will push that away. You will not want it and you will fight against it and the separation is then born. An unbelievable illusion that is the seed for conflict wars hatred and all plights of humanity. But those plights are beautiful because without them you could not know the peace, love and wonderful compassion alive in the human experience. Both the war and peace are perfect. The love and hate are perfect and they all create each other in the whole. One cannot be known without the other. You are perfect because our points of view being given create each other.
I have not claimed anything to be false... or true... it all just is. I just AM. The question is what do YOU attach to it. And then who are YOU?
What I am speaking of can only be experienced through direct seeing and witnessing. And what is seen through direct experience is that what you are is prior to the arising of any of this. You are the space of awareness in which everything comes into play, the ground of all knowledge and experience.
You're correct the idea that everything being one undifferentiated, homogenous whole on the absolute platform is a material idea.. but that material idea arises in awareness... the idea that everything is NOT one undifferentiated, homogenous whole is a material idea.. that arises in awareness. The championing of this concept arises in awareness... the negation of this arises in awareness. The idea of awareness arises in what i am calling awareness... and what i am pointing to as awareness is not awareness at all.. it is unknowable because the conception of it.. arises within it. It always stands prior to the movement of any form that is perceived.
The play of these forms arise in what appears to be duality.. but the dual nature of the phenomena balance each other and create a perfect unbroken wholeness that cannot be seen if one side of the spectrum is attached to.
I cannot make any statements without the opposite of that statement being there to create it. We could not be having this conversation without each "side" we appear to be discussing. The 2 sides create a unity. The duality creates a oneness.
So something appears to be said here by me.. and you come back and you think you are arguing a point. You're re-telling knowledge (thought) that has been learned (attached to) at one point or another in your story and you take that to be true when it is just form arising in this space. You say the word "god" or you claim that you are a "dvaitadvaitist or an achintya bhedabheda tattva-ist" or any term or word used and that is all conditioning that has been acquired. You have picked these things up along the way by attaching to them but you know that when your experience started at your birth you knew nothing of these concepts, words, ideas etc... You heard them and they sounded attractive and you thought that they might be able to further your growth in some way towards a betterment of yourself. Or they were just learned for practical purposes to function in the culture or society. The language. The letters.. A B C, they are shapes that are contrasted against a background running along a certain path.. your thought that this shape "A" makes a certain sound is not related to each other. Only through conditioning have you placed them together and taken that to be true. And this can be applied to every single form that arises in the space of your awareness creating what you think is this reality.
If you stop and just look at what is surrounding you. How do you know that that surrounding is separate from you without the use of thought or conceptualizing. The thought that it is separate or not separate arises within the same space as that surrounding and they are not connected you just take them to be by the attachment to that thought which is a sound or subtle vibration in your awareness arising and falling back into the spaciousness.
You say you don't subscribe to this philosophy. And yes it is a philosophy because it is put into words and conceptualized and i am attaching to it by conjuring up this memory of acquired thought and typing it here. But what is being pointed to here is the breaking down of the psycho-schematic, automatic and subconscious identification with any of these forms. Even the "I" thought has been acquired. You are not that "I". The "I" is a thought or word. What you are is unknowable. So you are free to say you don't subscribe to this philosophy if this movement of form is realized and you know that it is a play. But if you truly take the fact that you don't subscribe to this philosophy to be true then you are stuck. And if you take it not to be true and believe that you are stuck.
What I say no matter what it is, is not separate from that which is awake to it... and what you say no matter what it is, is not separate from that which is awake to it. And that which is awake to this cannot be known, only by knowing the false or what you are not can you experience what you are.
A true spiritual endeavor should add nothing to you (initially). It should take everything away. It should destroy you and your world with it so you stand as an island with nothing left. And in that absence of everything you see past the veils of perception and you stand in this desert you speak of with unconditional love and acceptance of all. If the water you speak of (whether mirage or actuality) is the refuge you seek, then the want of that refuge is keeping you from it. Because you've had the water all along and you just didn't know it. I'm not adding any concepts to you. I don't claim to be anything. I'm only asking you to look at yourself and this knowledge you cling to. If what i'm saying is understood fully then it should shake you to your foundation. And there should be no discussion with a counterpoint to show. I'm not giving a counterpoint to what you are saying i am only saying that by attaching to your message you are blind to everything that is not your message and you will push that away. You will not want it and you will fight against it and the separation is then born. An unbelievable illusion that is the seed for conflict wars hatred and all plights of humanity. But those plights are beautiful because without them you could not know the peace, love and wonderful compassion alive in the human experience. Both the war and peace are perfect. The love and hate are perfect and they all create each other in the whole. One cannot be known without the other. You are perfect because our points of view being given create each other.
I have not claimed anything to be false... or true... it all just is. I just AM. The question is what do YOU attach to it. And then who are YOU?
And the interpretation I would give to this (which makes no difference anyways because it's all interpretation) would be that the bodily conception of life was condemned to point them off of attachment to that. And individuals on the battlefield are on the battlefield fighting a war because they have attached to concepts and don't realize that they are fighting the dualistic opposite that allows their conception of the truth to exist. And that both co-create each other. And are individuals in the past and future because the past and future are concepts. And by believing they exist you also believe you are an individual who is having that belief. Feeding the ego they are protecting by fighting to keep it alive.
So there is no past or future except conceptually... There is only Now. The eternal present moment. And if you have the recognition that your experience is undeniably always occuring right now. Then you see that the past and the future arise from right now as the ideas that they are.
The individuality he is referring to is a product of the mind. And you are not the mind though it is the only tool we have to understand his fact.
Individuality is seen to only exist in the past and future through projection of thought and memory. And that cycle is broken in the now.
So krishna stated that the wise man does what is called nishkama karma.. or karma yoga.. which is passionless action or activity... so one acts without seeking a result. Without projecting the fruits of that action into a ideal future conception of how one would like to have the action play out.
So acting without seeking a result or being motivated by the fruits of the action like those on a battle field would clearly be doing. Thus breaking one out of the vicious circle of becoming.. wanting.. thirst... suffering... needing... separation... fragmentation... samsara.
The individuality to which he was referring to could be seen as those stuck in that round of identifying themselves with their past and ideas of a future. By saying they will ALWAYS be that from past to future he left out what is already always apparent. And pointed them to here and now.
So there is no past or future except conceptually... There is only Now. The eternal present moment. And if you have the recognition that your experience is undeniably always occuring right now. Then you see that the past and the future arise from right now as the ideas that they are.
The individuality he is referring to is a product of the mind. And you are not the mind though it is the only tool we have to understand his fact.
Individuality is seen to only exist in the past and future through projection of thought and memory. And that cycle is broken in the now.
So krishna stated that the wise man does what is called nishkama karma.. or karma yoga.. which is passionless action or activity... so one acts without seeking a result. Without projecting the fruits of that action into a ideal future conception of how one would like to have the action play out.
So acting without seeking a result or being motivated by the fruits of the action like those on a battle field would clearly be doing. Thus breaking one out of the vicious circle of becoming.. wanting.. thirst... suffering... needing... separation... fragmentation... samsara.
The individuality to which he was referring to could be seen as those stuck in that round of identifying themselves with their past and ideas of a future. By saying they will ALWAYS be that from past to future he left out what is already always apparent. And pointed them to here and now.
No. It has nothing to do with "taking the identification with thought to be real." Thoughts are not intrinsically false. Or, I should say, the content of thought is not necessarily false. The thought, "aham brahmasmi," for instance, is not false nor does it constitute a false identification.
The idea of one undifferentiated, homogenous whole is speculation out of material conception. That is what I am saying. I am not calling all ideas "material," and I reject your insistence that they are. This notion of monism arises not out of true awareness but out of sheer negation of material variety. Both affirmation and negation constitute illusion, so long as one remains on the speculative platform. Information of spiritual variety is abundant in Vedantic texts, but Advaitists won't touch those texts. They stick with the vague mysticism of the more neophyte literatures. The speculation that the absolute realm is devoid of variety comes out of the desire to end suffering and the mistaken assessment that the cause of suffering - material existence - is intimately tied with the existence of variety, form, etc. Simply put: not all variety is illusion, not all form is illusion. The Advaitists want to pigeonhole these things as being Maya, thus when Isvara descends in human form, they mistakenly think that that form is Maya.
Phenomena are inconsequential. The fact that you view phenomena in such a crucial relationship such as to constitute your "perfect unbroken wholeness" is proof that your conceptions arise out of material considerations. The duality of the material world is only as relevant as the existence of the material world, and the existence of the material world is irrelevant and inconsequential in regard to the Supreme Absolute Truth or "God." In other words, the "perfect unbroken wholeness" does not depend on the material world. The duality of the material world is a manifestation of the individual souls' desires - attraction and aversion. Man proposes, God disposes. Otherwise, God couldn't care less.
That's rather "captain obvious" of you. If I were agreeing with your points, then we wouldn't be having this exact conversation. But such a realization is completely unenlightening. But there is one sense in which I agree: your advaitist position is not the whole truth, and the dvaitist position is not the whole truth. The whole truth includes a hybrid form of the two.
Your negation of language is unenlightening. Yes, I learn words. But it is what the words convey that is important. Your point about what I understood at birth is just a bad argument. The material world defaults to ignorance and darkness. That should explain it for you. The fact that we are discussing our thoughts doesn't necessarily make the content of those thoughts in the realm of material illusion. Not all understanding is materially derived, as you keep insisting. It is possible that one of us in this discussion is promoting a materially derived understanding and the other isn't. If we are both on the level of material speculation, then two halves of a speculation still do not equal a whole truth nor a "perfect unbroken wholeness."
The only thing this proves is that it isn't possible to prove the world "out there." Congratulations, you've discovered Idealism. Also, where thoughts arise is irrelevant. You're only dealing with thought as a phenomena, completely ignorant of the content of thought. The content of thought can be transcendental. The application of such thoughts transcend materially derived thinking and acting. As well, some sound vibration is transcendental. This is Veda 101.
I might not be that "I," depending on what you mean by "that." But there is a real "I." The "I" is not automatically false because I can or am thinking about it. Some things are acquired, and some things are realized. I realize that I cannot subscribe to your philosophy because of its shortcomings. And if this realization is true, it's form is true. The Absolute and the form of the Absolute are non-different. Form is not inherently false. When, for instance, Krishna appears on earth, He is not different from His form: Isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah. Ergo, form is not inherently false, illusion or Maya.
This process of understanding through negation is fine for those who wish to remain on the platform of jnana yoga. But positive information is available in Vedantic texts. I might ask myself, "am I this hand?" "No." then, "am I this arm?" "No." and so on and so on, and through this sort of negation, I can sort of start to understand the nature of self. But more advanced Vedantic texts provide more direct, positive information regarding the self. And such information is testable against materially derived ideas. Pure logic begins upon the understanding that one is different from the fleeting material body and proceeds to a greater understanding of the relationship of that self with the Supreme Whole. Such ideas as monism and the subsequent annihilation of the individual betray this process, and thus, self-refute. As well, these monistic ideas can be shown as being rooted in materially tainted conception.
The endeavor should "destroy" the material conception of you, yes. But the real you remains and forms the basis of understanding. There is a methodology, an epistemology here. Mayavadi and monist ideas are a deviation from this process. Veda is not a collection of cute Zen koans intended to coax you into pseudo-spiritual appreciation. Our points of view do not create each other. Creation is entirely arbitrary. You're still dabbling in the yin and yang. Transcendental knowledge is self-effulgent, self-supporting.
This is just your way of trying to avoid taking responsibility for your position. And it is a poor attempt that boils down to semantics. Saying that you have not claimed anything to be true is contradicted by claiming that something "just is." You have simply attached yourself to Mayavadi and monist conceptions under the illusion that you are unattached. Attachment, per se, is not the enemy. Attachment to that which is false or illusory is. In the material scope of things, attachment is the enemy, but spirituality does not entail total disattachment.
The idea of one undifferentiated, homogenous whole is speculation out of material conception. That is what I am saying. I am not calling all ideas "material," and I reject your insistence that they are. This notion of monism arises not out of true awareness but out of sheer negation of material variety. Both affirmation and negation constitute illusion, so long as one remains on the speculative platform. Information of spiritual variety is abundant in Vedantic texts, but Advaitists won't touch those texts. They stick with the vague mysticism of the more neophyte literatures. The speculation that the absolute realm is devoid of variety comes out of the desire to end suffering and the mistaken assessment that the cause of suffering - material existence - is intimately tied with the existence of variety, form, etc. Simply put: not all variety is illusion, not all form is illusion. The Advaitists want to pigeonhole these things as being Maya, thus when Isvara descends in human form, they mistakenly think that that form is Maya.
Phenomena are inconsequential. The fact that you view phenomena in such a crucial relationship such as to constitute your "perfect unbroken wholeness" is proof that your conceptions arise out of material considerations. The duality of the material world is only as relevant as the existence of the material world, and the existence of the material world is irrelevant and inconsequential in regard to the Supreme Absolute Truth or "God." In other words, the "perfect unbroken wholeness" does not depend on the material world. The duality of the material world is a manifestation of the individual souls' desires - attraction and aversion. Man proposes, God disposes. Otherwise, God couldn't care less.
That's rather "captain obvious" of you. If I were agreeing with your points, then we wouldn't be having this exact conversation. But such a realization is completely unenlightening. But there is one sense in which I agree: your advaitist position is not the whole truth, and the dvaitist position is not the whole truth. The whole truth includes a hybrid form of the two.
Your negation of language is unenlightening. Yes, I learn words. But it is what the words convey that is important. Your point about what I understood at birth is just a bad argument. The material world defaults to ignorance and darkness. That should explain it for you. The fact that we are discussing our thoughts doesn't necessarily make the content of those thoughts in the realm of material illusion. Not all understanding is materially derived, as you keep insisting. It is possible that one of us in this discussion is promoting a materially derived understanding and the other isn't. If we are both on the level of material speculation, then two halves of a speculation still do not equal a whole truth nor a "perfect unbroken wholeness."
The only thing this proves is that it isn't possible to prove the world "out there." Congratulations, you've discovered Idealism. Also, where thoughts arise is irrelevant. You're only dealing with thought as a phenomena, completely ignorant of the content of thought. The content of thought can be transcendental. The application of such thoughts transcend materially derived thinking and acting. As well, some sound vibration is transcendental. This is Veda 101.
I might not be that "I," depending on what you mean by "that." But there is a real "I." The "I" is not automatically false because I can or am thinking about it. Some things are acquired, and some things are realized. I realize that I cannot subscribe to your philosophy because of its shortcomings. And if this realization is true, it's form is true. The Absolute and the form of the Absolute are non-different. Form is not inherently false. When, for instance, Krishna appears on earth, He is not different from His form: Isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah. Ergo, form is not inherently false, illusion or Maya.
This process of understanding through negation is fine for those who wish to remain on the platform of jnana yoga. But positive information is available in Vedantic texts. I might ask myself, "am I this hand?" "No." then, "am I this arm?" "No." and so on and so on, and through this sort of negation, I can sort of start to understand the nature of self. But more advanced Vedantic texts provide more direct, positive information regarding the self. And such information is testable against materially derived ideas. Pure logic begins upon the understanding that one is different from the fleeting material body and proceeds to a greater understanding of the relationship of that self with the Supreme Whole. Such ideas as monism and the subsequent annihilation of the individual betray this process, and thus, self-refute. As well, these monistic ideas can be shown as being rooted in materially tainted conception.
The endeavor should "destroy" the material conception of you, yes. But the real you remains and forms the basis of understanding. There is a methodology, an epistemology here. Mayavadi and monist ideas are a deviation from this process. Veda is not a collection of cute Zen koans intended to coax you into pseudo-spiritual appreciation. Our points of view do not create each other. Creation is entirely arbitrary. You're still dabbling in the yin and yang. Transcendental knowledge is self-effulgent, self-supporting.
This is just your way of trying to avoid taking responsibility for your position. And it is a poor attempt that boils down to semantics. Saying that you have not claimed anything to be true is contradicted by claiming that something "just is." You have simply attached yourself to Mayavadi and monist conceptions under the illusion that you are unattached. Attachment, per se, is not the enemy. Attachment to that which is false or illusory is. In the material scope of things, attachment is the enemy, but spirituality does not entail total disattachment.
Why they are fighting the war is irrelevant. We're talking about the participants' status as idividuals. The past and future being concepts is meaningless. We all know what "past" and "future" mean. Get beyond your semantical arguments. The statement was that all those individuals were individuals and remain individuals. Don't get caught up in the words "past" and "future," else you unnecessarily convolute what is being stated here, as you so obviously have already done with your patently false interpretation.
That's nice.
Incorrect. By condemning the bodily conception of life, Krishna is condemning material conceptions produced from the mind. Those are just two ways of saying the same thing. Bodily conception = material conceptions produced from the mind. Krishna is not condemning this and then immediately after promoting it under a different name. The logical conclusion is that Krishna condemns the bodily conception because His subsequent statement on individuality is devoid of material consideration. Once again, Krishna does not condemn the bodily conception and then place a conventional proposition on that same bodily conception immediately after.
Great. By "past" and "future" we're refering to "now." Whatever way you want to put it, whatever sort of fancy word-jugglery you want to use, the statement relates that we are individuals in the eternal now.
Not only that, but yajna is another name for Vishnu. Karma yoga pertains to converting one's actions into yajna, or sacrifice for God. Karma yoga does not merely mean giving up all desire in action. It means giving up one's material desire. The idea that we should act for the sake of acting alone is a Buddhist idea and, perhaps, later a Mayavadi idea since Mayavadi is really just a counteraction to the Sunyavadi of Buddhism (especially Theravada.)
In the end, Arjun acted because it was Krishna's desire. Always remember that.
There was no material identification being implied when such a conception was already condemned by Krishna. Plain and simple. The only "round" is the round-a-bout way you have of trying to justify Krishna's statements and still uphold your philosophy. Once we get down to the brass tacks, your explanation is seen for what it is: purposely misleading and entirely false.
That's nice.
Incorrect. By condemning the bodily conception of life, Krishna is condemning material conceptions produced from the mind. Those are just two ways of saying the same thing. Bodily conception = material conceptions produced from the mind. Krishna is not condemning this and then immediately after promoting it under a different name. The logical conclusion is that Krishna condemns the bodily conception because His subsequent statement on individuality is devoid of material consideration. Once again, Krishna does not condemn the bodily conception and then place a conventional proposition on that same bodily conception immediately after.
Great. By "past" and "future" we're refering to "now." Whatever way you want to put it, whatever sort of fancy word-jugglery you want to use, the statement relates that we are individuals in the eternal now.
Not only that, but yajna is another name for Vishnu. Karma yoga pertains to converting one's actions into yajna, or sacrifice for God. Karma yoga does not merely mean giving up all desire in action. It means giving up one's material desire. The idea that we should act for the sake of acting alone is a Buddhist idea and, perhaps, later a Mayavadi idea since Mayavadi is really just a counteraction to the Sunyavadi of Buddhism (especially Theravada.)
In the end, Arjun acted because it was Krishna's desire. Always remember that.
There was no material identification being implied when such a conception was already condemned by Krishna. Plain and simple. The only "round" is the round-a-bout way you have of trying to justify Krishna's statements and still uphold your philosophy. Once we get down to the brass tacks, your explanation is seen for what it is: purposely misleading and entirely false.
Not to be intrusive, but from what this post consisted of, it seems as if you don't really fit in with this ego-driven business of rap music. That makes your journey that much more admirable, since most of rap music is based on ego wants.
Anyways, this process of understanding your Self and how the ego emerges is more difficult to explain than any religion or Hindu teachings. Every experience is different, there are individuals that are interested in Crazy Wisdom, some like silent meditation, inquiry, isolation, etc.
Anyways, this process of understanding your Self and how the ego emerges is more difficult to explain than any religion or Hindu teachings. Every experience is different, there are individuals that are interested in Crazy Wisdom, some like silent meditation, inquiry, isolation, etc.
You identify very strongly with your belief system. I read about Achintya Bheda Abheda and the other teaching you mentioned, they are interesting concepts and if they bring you peace that is a wonderful thing. I have no position to defend and have nothing to try to convince you of that would fuel this discussion... the religion you follow actually actively works to convince you that the realization i was trying to convey keeps you from your goal, and you believe that as you should... so who am i to convince you otherwise?
by all means be intrusive its all good! The rap business is clearly centered around ego-driven goals and concepts but only an ego would deny or push that away.. plus this little 'spiritual' interest i have just started about a year ago before that i knew nothing of it.
But i'd almost say the process of understanding the self and how the ego emerges is much easier than understanding everything most religious followings consist of. It's just that most take a very strong refuge in who they take themselves to be and either viciously protect it through ignorance or because they've convinced themselves they know the truth which is a hell of a trap.
All paths are good though and they're all talking about the same shit just in different terms and ways... most of my experience with all this was in buddhism / dzogchen / tantra and later with more basic nonduality teachings.
But i'd almost say the process of understanding the self and how the ego emerges is much easier than understanding everything most religious followings consist of. It's just that most take a very strong refuge in who they take themselves to be and either viciously protect it through ignorance or because they've convinced themselves they know the truth which is a hell of a trap.
All paths are good though and they're all talking about the same shit just in different terms and ways... most of my experience with all this was in buddhism / dzogchen / tantra and later with more basic nonduality teachings.
As do you. The difference is that to try and protect your belief system from scrutiny, you purposely make it vague, equivocate and, in the end, pretend like you have no position to defend.
The fact is, we clearly disagree on a few points. Our discourse began because you had some issues with what I was saying. Now, all of a sudden, you have nothing to try and convince me of. I think our disagreements boil down to what each of us considers as Maya.
I think you just take certain ideas further than their intended use. For you, Maya is all form, all variety, all sense of individuality, etc. But actually, Maya relates to the material nature and that material nature is defined in regard to the three material gunas. Nothing inherent in those gunas say that form, variety and individual consciousness are outright illusions. The gunas must apply to the particular sense of form, variety or individuality in order to determine the entity in question as a constituent of Maya. In other words, the idea that the absolute realm is devoid of form is an assumption you make based on another assumption - namely, that form = Maya. It is like if I say that something is invisible, what am I actually saying? Do I necessarily mean "invisible" in the most absolute sense, or am I speaking in regard to a certain type of eye? If I am being reasonable, I mean it in regard to a certain type of eye. I am always open to the possibility that what might be invisible given a certain facility is visible given another. Similarly, just because the forms that interact with our bodily senses are illusion doesn't mean that all form is illusion.
The fact is, we clearly disagree on a few points. Our discourse began because you had some issues with what I was saying. Now, all of a sudden, you have nothing to try and convince me of. I think our disagreements boil down to what each of us considers as Maya.
I think you just take certain ideas further than their intended use. For you, Maya is all form, all variety, all sense of individuality, etc. But actually, Maya relates to the material nature and that material nature is defined in regard to the three material gunas. Nothing inherent in those gunas say that form, variety and individual consciousness are outright illusions. The gunas must apply to the particular sense of form, variety or individuality in order to determine the entity in question as a constituent of Maya. In other words, the idea that the absolute realm is devoid of form is an assumption you make based on another assumption - namely, that form = Maya. It is like if I say that something is invisible, what am I actually saying? Do I necessarily mean "invisible" in the most absolute sense, or am I speaking in regard to a certain type of eye? If I am being reasonable, I mean it in regard to a certain type of eye. I am always open to the possibility that what might be invisible given a certain facility is visible given another. Similarly, just because the forms that interact with our bodily senses are illusion doesn't mean that all form is illusion.
man the truth is i barely even know what maya is.. the only hindu or advaita stuff i've ever been exposed to is through reading 4 or 5 books with conversations with nisargadatta and some ramana maharshi stuff... UG Krishnamurti brings up maya but says its commonly mistranslated as meaning "illusion" and he claimed it was more close to "measurement" like measuring from your point of reference but he also uses concept deconstruction viciously and shits on anything anyone brings to the table so it could've just been a way to point someone off of the idea of maya i don't know... so what maya really means in the context that it's truly intended you would much better know.
But you are right the discourse began with me addressing something you were saying and not too long after that i started to ask myself why did i care because what you believe is a great thing. What anyone believes is a cool thing. I've really more appreciated this conversation because it gives me a chance to see where i'm throwing out ideas and concepts and subconsciously am not aware of my attachment to them because you're quick to call that out and i like that... i really don't have a belief system i like the nonduality teachings they resonate with me but ultimately i'm content with saying "I don't know" and i think this conversation has pushed me further down that line into the unknown! I'm seeing more and more where those who follow these teachings get to that unknown. But i enjoy talking about it, I don't have friends truly into this stuff so alot of my research is done alone reading, videos i rarely get to talk to others about science or spirituality...
this reality just interests me unbelievably... to sit here and just wonder what the fuck is all this? And what is going on? The fact that i am alive and awake and here experiencing and am able to use this knowledge within me to try to understand and come to conclusions and investigate myself and what is going on here is truly amazing!
Quantum theory and mechanics have been a passion of mine along with all this... unified field theory, superpositions etc.. Shit like the transcending sound you spoke of in the vedas, sound clearly plays and role in the make up of this manifestation, we can see that with cymatics and the way the sound influences the structure of particles to form recognizable patterns and shapes we see in our everyday experience. And how these patterns and shapes all conform to the golden mean or ratio and can all be broken down to specific mathematical schemes. The fractal structure they're beginning to work with that geometrically allows for reality to work with itself in infinite scales in the microscopic and macroscopic levels.
How atoms are really non-existent entities and were only labeled that because at one point they got to a place where they couldn't cut any further and labeled that an "atom" which means the non-cuttable... but that truly these atoms are relationships of smaller particles which are relationships of smaller particles to an infinite scale. And if i am made of those same constituent particles then yes, what is this awakeness happening here? What is the ghost in the shell? Is it a personal soul? Is it universal consciousness experiencing itself through this organism? I don't know! But how fun to look into it!
These particles themselves could possibly just be translated information happening inside my brain anyways. So what is really out there? Is there an out there? It's unknowable. That has become a fact in current science that what is being seen, heard, touched, tasted, felt is only translations so knowing the truth is almost a impossible endeavor.
What you mentioned with lucid dreaming... and out of body experiences... the practices of dream yoga and deep meditation states and samadhi are incredible to me... the fact that the life force can through subconscious states leave the physical realm. Thats the main reason i got into all this shit to begin with was i randomly went to the beach with friends one day and met a friend of a friend who had an experience with DMT and it changed his life. He was in and out of prison fucked up on drugs and was a total maniac and he smoked this shit and said he had an experience unlike anything hes ever known. And it changed his life he's a completely different person, the idea of leading a life of crime like he used to is alien to him now.. he never ever once had interest in spirituality before that. But meeting him set it off and he happened to have an uncle who was a follower of UG Krishnamurti and he set us on our way with this shit.
So i really am not pretending that i don't have a position to defend. I have ideas about what might be the truth but i really don't know! And then when i get further with breaking down how this thought is functioning from moment to moment i start to see that all "I" am is thought. But that might not even be true either. I just don't know and i've come to a place where i'm cool with that.
And you're right just because the form that interacts with our bodily senses is illusion that doesn't mean that all form is illusion. But how can i know if this is the only means that i have to comprehend that concept? Just as one of the dudes who took me under his wing with alot of this shit said when you get close to the truth or what is real it becomes paradoxical. And illusion as defined by us in our experience is just what it is as defined by us in our experience.
I see. But don't get the wrong idea about me. I'm not just saying stuff that I whimsically believe. I'm not being dogmatic. I've just been studying this stuff for about 7 years. And I don't want to discourage you or anything, either. But I recommend taking a break from the Mayavadi stuff to study Vaisnava philosophy. At the end of the day, you'll have to look at the points being made on both sides and come to your own conclusions, of course.
As far as the word Maya goes, in the way we're using it, ma = not and ya = this. For instance, I am not this body. To think I am this body is illusion. It is to mistake one thing for another. So "maya" refers to the illusory material nature. I don't know where this idea of measurement comes from. It sounds like Krishnamurti is just expounding beyond the root meaning of the word, in accordance with his philosophy.
I wouldn't necessarily take that as a hard and fast rule for determining how close you are to truth. The problem is that you might encounter paradox prematurely. Don't use that as an indication that you've approached transcendental knowledge and thus can go no further. In a sense, achintya bhedabheda is paradoxical because it is saying simultaneous oneness and difference. However, even that is clarified with analogies and qualitative versus quantitative distinctions.
At this point, it isn't about how you can know or comprehend what form isn't illusion. My only point is that it is a mistake to assume that all form is illusion.
Positive information on transcendental form is provided in Vaisnava texts. I've mentioned one example, and probably the prime one: Krishna's appearance. How one knows the nature of Krishna's appearance depends upon the attitude one has toward the subject matter to begin with. If you approach these issues mechanically and with a jnana mentality, then Krishna's appearance will be difficult to understand. Instead of realizing the truth of the matter, you're likely to interpret Krishna's appearance according to the impersonalist/Mayavadi philosophy. But if your attitude is one of philosophical humility and submission to the speaker of Bhagavad-gita (Krishna Himself) then you''ll understand the nature of Krishna's appearance, as it is.
It isn't about defining "illusion." There's already a definition. It is useless to be super skeptical and paranoid about the words we use to communicate ideas. Illusion just means taking one thing to be something it is not. For instance, seeing a rope and thinking it is a snake is what is meant by "illusion." In regard to the illusion of the material nature, if you want to break free, you have to approach someone who is already free. This is the principle of the guru. There are many who claim to be guru, and they don't all agree with each other. How to know who to listen to is the big question. My advice is to listen to the one who is giving the most direct explanation of Sastra. If Krishna states that He is the Supreme Source of both the material and spiritual manifestation, and the supposed guru explains this by negating Krishna in form or in name in order to promote a more impersonalist philosophy - e.g. saying, "It is not Krishna who is the source, but rather it is the 'spirit' within Krishna" - then that person is cheating you. Plain and simple. Such a person is basically saying, "Krishna is saying one thing, but I am better than Krishna, so accept my adulteration of His words."
Definitely PM me and if you want, I'll shoot you a copy of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
As far as the word Maya goes, in the way we're using it, ma = not and ya = this. For instance, I am not this body. To think I am this body is illusion. It is to mistake one thing for another. So "maya" refers to the illusory material nature. I don't know where this idea of measurement comes from. It sounds like Krishnamurti is just expounding beyond the root meaning of the word, in accordance with his philosophy.
I wouldn't necessarily take that as a hard and fast rule for determining how close you are to truth. The problem is that you might encounter paradox prematurely. Don't use that as an indication that you've approached transcendental knowledge and thus can go no further. In a sense, achintya bhedabheda is paradoxical because it is saying simultaneous oneness and difference. However, even that is clarified with analogies and qualitative versus quantitative distinctions.
At this point, it isn't about how you can know or comprehend what form isn't illusion. My only point is that it is a mistake to assume that all form is illusion.
Positive information on transcendental form is provided in Vaisnava texts. I've mentioned one example, and probably the prime one: Krishna's appearance. How one knows the nature of Krishna's appearance depends upon the attitude one has toward the subject matter to begin with. If you approach these issues mechanically and with a jnana mentality, then Krishna's appearance will be difficult to understand. Instead of realizing the truth of the matter, you're likely to interpret Krishna's appearance according to the impersonalist/Mayavadi philosophy. But if your attitude is one of philosophical humility and submission to the speaker of Bhagavad-gita (Krishna Himself) then you''ll understand the nature of Krishna's appearance, as it is.
It isn't about defining "illusion." There's already a definition. It is useless to be super skeptical and paranoid about the words we use to communicate ideas. Illusion just means taking one thing to be something it is not. For instance, seeing a rope and thinking it is a snake is what is meant by "illusion." In regard to the illusion of the material nature, if you want to break free, you have to approach someone who is already free. This is the principle of the guru. There are many who claim to be guru, and they don't all agree with each other. How to know who to listen to is the big question. My advice is to listen to the one who is giving the most direct explanation of Sastra. If Krishna states that He is the Supreme Source of both the material and spiritual manifestation, and the supposed guru explains this by negating Krishna in form or in name in order to promote a more impersonalist philosophy - e.g. saying, "It is not Krishna who is the source, but rather it is the 'spirit' within Krishna" - then that person is cheating you. Plain and simple. Such a person is basically saying, "Krishna is saying one thing, but I am better than Krishna, so accept my adulteration of His words."
Definitely PM me and if you want, I'll shoot you a copy of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
Right but the not knowing and questioning on my part isn't that i'm questioning myself in what i believe it's more the constant meditation and observing of myself. There's not really any discouragement that could even go on because that discouragement would have to be born from questioning something that i've put alot of weight into or something I believe.
Upon inquiry any movement towards anything falls apart because the actuality of what i am is always already the case. It's what is awake to all of this happening. The presence that is there before the arising of thought. If the mind is the movement of thoughts in succession pieced together by memory, then i cannot just stop at the recognition that i am not the body like you brought up. If the mind stops (meaning the movement of thought stops), I still am. And that "I" presence does not come and go, and it has no view because it's purely awake beingness/presence/awareness whatever you want to call it. I cannot "know" it through thought because thought appears to "it"... yet i know it intimately because it is what i am. Everything appears to "this" and everything arises within this space prior to the mind coming in and discerning between the forms that arise.. naming, judging.. etc. But the mind arises in this as well and it isn't separate from it and only the mind would deny the mind. I am what is already awake prior to the recognition of any of this.
So it isn't that there's a problem with the words, language is a wonderful thing and I couldn't communicate and understand this experience and life without it. And i couldn't recognize this space that they arise in without them. Whatever non-duality is it cannot be known with the mind because that which we call the mind appears to that.
So theres no issue with anything, everything just arises perfectly into its own state... and this is why you hear in these teachings that theres nothing to accept and nothing to reject... and that you're already perfect. Thinking "the world" or "life" is not perfect is a conceptualization of the mind due to fighting life and having a pre-supposed idea of what is good and what is bad. If you just go with the flow.. and realize your true nature is like the analogy of the mirror that is used in buddhist teachings... then whatever arises is noticed and then falls into its own state and it just flows... there is no suffering anymore here in me with anything. The cultivation of detachment... desirelessness... freedom from the want of anything. And theres extreme power in that position. Its been coined as "compassionate detachment" or "intelligent detachment" and it just comes without any volition of myself through understanding the nature of how my mind relates to "the world".
So yes i'm free to read the Bhagavad-gita, or the bible, or any of these things and they're all great and i have no problem with them but i really have no interest. To think Krishna has some answer to some question i don't even have is the same as thinking Jesus has the answer. There is no question to begin with. When i say i question myself it is to watch the mind. And when i question reality it is because the freedom is in not knowing. And thats why i don't know. From there you have the freedom to investigate.
The staple Dzogchen teaching "the six vajra verses" sums up this whole thing on point... and its very short... Garab Dorje wrote this shit ages ago and these teachings are wonderful because they ask nothing of you but to look at yourself... they give you nothing to believe in, no god, no idol, nothing but tell you that you are already perfect and you just don't realize it due to either fighting life, or wanting something to be the case other than what already is.
"The nature of phenomena is non-dual.
But each one, in it's own state, is beyond the limits of the mind.
There is no concept that can define the condition of "what is".
Yet vision nevertheless manifests.
All is good.
Everything has already been accomplished.
And so, having overcome the sickness of effort, one finds oneself in the self-perfected state.
This is contemplation."