dwai

Did Shankara say that? Maya is called anirvachaniya - it is neither real nor unreal. It seems real until it is realized to be unreal.

I was pointing you to look at the mind-consciousness-impressions-memories from two separate lens (one the Zen Buddhist, and the other the Advaita Vedantin). Context. In our lives we have possibly billions of memories. Do we recall all of them all the time? Of course not. In my experience, even the seemingly mysterious reappearance of a long-forgotten memory has a trigger in the senses - a whiff of a scent, a conversation, a specific feeling of vibration in the space (we call these tanmatras), it could be any of these that trigger a memory. The sequence goes - Sensory stimulus -> intellect (buddhi) tries to correlate with storehouse of memories and impressions (chitta) -> a match occurs -> pulled into the mind (chitta) --> labeled by the ego (ahamkara) Not thought. Thoughts are objects with names and/or forms (nama-rupa). Antahkarana Yes. The thought-field aka manas, is part of the subtle body that I refer to in my article. See the second paragraph yes - it is nothing as sinister as its made out to be. It is just a function of the antahkarana - its job is to label and claim ownership. For instance, when you inquire "who am I?", the ego labels your first thoughtless impression with the label "Daniel-Joseph", which then appears as a thought in your manas as "I am Daniel-Joseph". This is true for any and all things that one experiences. All of these are labeled, and ownership claimed by this process.

What is separated from Brahman?

I'm just trying to help you by using common syntax. Too bad it didn't help you. It is still in the chitta - only not pulled forth by the buddhi. When the conditions are right, the memory will be pulled into the manas.

I would say that all memories and impressions are stored in a function of our antahakarana called the chitta. This is the storehouse of such impressions and any/all memories, feelings arise from it. These are then viewed in the reflected consciousness that is the mind (manas) by the intellect (buddhi), and appropriated by the ego (ahamkara). Never has it ever been apart from the mind (which is actually a subcomponent of the quad of manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara). What you call "mind" is actually a poorly articulated version of what I wrote above, and reflects the muddled-up understanding of the west when it comes to these "internal" subjects. P.S. In order to better understand what I'm articulating here, read this article that I'd written a few years back. - https://www.medhajournal.com/consciousness-according-to-zen-buddhism-and-how-it-relates-to-advaita-vedanta/

I don't know about you, but I can read and write 5 different languages. I need to think about the syntax, grammar, etc for each one of them. The time we spent in spelling as students, is able to provide us with both the practice to help us spell "automagically" (also thinking involved there), and intuitively when we don't exactly know the spelling (also a thought-process). It just happens so fast that you might feel it is involuntary. That also tells me that you've not really spent much time meditating - if you had, you would have the experiential knowledge of how the mind works. No problem there - experienced meditators are a rarity, even though everyone and their uncle seems to claim that they meditate Nope. Not thoughtless at all. Though I spend a large portion of my day without any thoughts. The honest answer is what I told you in my first response.

If the answer is I am x, y, or z, I would say, try again I think we have to understand what you mean by “thought”. If memory is not a thought, how does it surface in your mind? Can anything that is not a thought appear in the mind? One might argue that feelings are not thoughts, but they are also a type of thought object. They arise from the same storehouse of impressions that memory arises from. what was the significance? It was to respond to your question. Very much like how I’m thinking and typing my response to you right now. Being an artist myself and having many artist friends who are also meditation and internal arts practitioners, I can assure you that everything that an artist does involves thought and mind. It might not involve volition - which is what artists mean by “getting out of your own way”. Jazz musicians improvise but there is thought involved - even to string together random notes together, there is thinking and feeling, both of which are objects in the mind.

That is fair The problem is with the English language, unfortunately. I would much rather use Chaitanya for awareness/consciousness. The example given was to illustrate that space is not in the cup; the cup is in space. Similarly, objects are in awareness. Your response tells me that either you haven't tried the experiment or delved deeper into the phenomenon that is the mind (and therefore thoughts, identity, etc). Daniel-Joseph is an identity - if your response is "I am Daniel-Joseph," there is thought involved. What seems like tautology to you actually involves memory. Memory is a type of thought. That is why meditation and stillness is a prerequisite for this line of inquiry. The thoughts when typing the letter "m and g" were literally "type m, type g".

Really? You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?

The traditional Indic view on this is that Space is fundamental in the transactional reality - it is called akasha. Real Emptiness is not non-existent/unreal/non-being.

I agree. Advaita means Non-dual, and there are different ontological and epistemological perspectives provided by different systems about it.

Is that what happens? Or does the cup simply move in space. The space “contained” within the cup is not displaced or replaced - the cup simply moves through space. If space was displaced and replaced it would not be empty space, but some substance. Awareness/pure-consciousness is like space - it is the empty/clear light of knowing. But it is that in which physical space and time appear. So it is “beyond”. To understand this is why I suggested the other experiment to you - “without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

I have been practicing mantras for past 30 odd years. Primarily the gayatri mantra. It is powerful and raises the vibrations rather rapidly. Feels like everything turns to light after meditating on the mantra. I practice it ritualistically like I’ve been taught during initiation.

Don’t know much about them. Hermetic I know a bit more via Franz Bardon’s book and Mark Rasmus’ perspective of using it with Tai chi. Do share more context

One can burn up “karma” through selfless service - that is the simplest and easiest way. Another way is through practices like tantra, yoga, and Daoist internal arts - which can often accelerate the flow of karmic results through the practitioner’s life, which can be quite unnerving if one is not prepared to deal with it. Another way is through devotion - surrender completely to your deity, they will take care of what is needed.

Given that there are Daoist, Hindu, Buddhist, and occultist sub-fora, I think it is only fair to give the other spiritual traditions a place to discuss theirs. I’m not personally interested in Abrahamic religions per se, but would like to find out more about Kabbalah for instance.

It is not a thing, so can’t be something else, neither a noun, nor a verb. As another thought exercise, imagine you have an empty cup on a table top. When you pick up the cup and move it, what happens to the space that was in that cup? Does it move with the cup? Maybe this will help -

Not like that. I mean awareness is not an emergent property of our brains, it is rather primordial and suffuses all phenomena through and through. A good approximation in the phenomenal world would be like space.

I would say that nothing “predates” awareness, but rather the mind in which knowledge of said phenomenon/object arises (or is obscured). Awareness is beyond both space and time, as these concepts arise with the mind. You can validate this yourself through this simple thought exercise. “Without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

Nonduality realization is always in an individual’s mind. Now we have to be careful about the term “awareness” because that which is referred to in nonduality teachings is not “to be aware of any particular thing” but rather “pure object-less awareness” (think of it like light that illuminates for example’s sake). So I don’t disagree that your mind is yours and distinct from mine. That doesn’t mean that the awareness that illuminates your mind is not the same as that which illumines all minds.

Your counter-examples are non examples because they don’t make any sense. Any experiment you set up to prove/disprove is happening in your mind lit up by awareness. So nothing is happening outside awareness at all. One counter question that people ask often in response to nondual statements is, “if all is in awareness alone, then you must know everything/every thought in all minds!” That misses the point again, since one-many (mind/phenomena) are in the realm of appearance. Minds themselves are appearances, as is the idea of one/many. So in the story that projects this multiplicity, it is perfectly logical that there be “separate” minds, each with its own set of discrete set of objects flowing through. So one mind, even though realized about its true nondual nature, does not know what is in another mind. To elucidate further, ignorance and realization happens in the “individual” mind. Awareness is always nondual and there is never any ignorance there. This ignorance of the mind is basically the result of this projection/appearance. Now one might ask, “Why does it happen?” To that there is no answer that can be satisfactory to the inquiring mind, because the question “why” itself is at the root of this ignorance. It is a self-perpetuating problem. Instead of asking “why?”, a better question would be “whence?”

If we use the Kashmir Shaivism paradigm, shiva becomes jiva by his own volition. And jiva realizes he is shiva also by shiva’s own volition.

It is commendable to experience rarified states of the mind - even the empty mind itself, which is as close as one can get to “experience” awareness/consciousness.

I have only one semantic issue with the above - “experience of highest level of consciousness”. Consciousness cannot be experienced because it is what makes experience possible. But I’m familiar with the KS ontological framework and feel it is very beautiful. Thanks for sharing

There are many terms and methods to get to this (true nature). I’m familiar with the term unmani through the unmani mudra, but not sure whether you are referring to the same thing. Do share - I would love to know more.