dwai

1 hour ago, Sahaja said:

I think the Buddha had a break through insight with dependent origination. However trying to graft on prevailing views such as  karma and transmigration on it was not intrinsically a good fit. Though his reorienting of karma away from actions  more to intentions probably saved a few yogis lives!. Advaita Vedanta’s secret sauce of illusion is a good concept but becomes  a bit unwieldy when it gets separated from Brahman. Still Advaita?  I guess any philosophy can have a part that is a little clunky though perhaps a leap of faith would create less headaches than trying to prove everything logically. Since most of us are still subject to duality trying to have a nondual discussion based on logic is pretty tricky. 

What is separated from Brahman?  

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Just a note, I'm using the same word choices you are using.  "Thought" and "Mind" are your word choices. 

I'm just trying to help you by using common syntax. 

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Not helpful.

Too bad it didn't help you. 

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Seems perfectly reasonable.  We're discussing forgotten-memories.  A memory is an impression stored in the chitta.  What happens when it is forgotten?
 

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.  

23 hours ago, Daniel said:

The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought.  The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind.  When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind.  Before it is remembered, it is not thought.

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/

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

There is no thought of the letter 'g' described in what you wrote above.  Let's try again.

 

Here is what you wrote:

 

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

 

What was your thought about the letter "g" in "thought"?

 

When you typed your reply, where is the thought of 'g' in 't-h-o-u-g-h-t'?  Why include it?  What is the signifcance of it.  What is the thought of 'g' in your mind while you were typing it?

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

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

 

... which is in large part thoughtless.  Not in a bad way.  In a good way.  it's natural.

Nope. Not thoughtless at all. Though I spend a large portion of my day without any thoughts. 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

What was your thought about the letter 'h' in the word 'r-i-g-h-t'?  What is the significance of it?  What was your thought about that letter?

 

I think the honest answer is, you weren't thinking of the letter 'h' at all.  It's just a letter which is automatically included in the word 'right' when the word 'right' is recalled from your vocabulary.  Everytime you type a reply or form a word.  The components which make up the words produced have no corresponding thought.  If they did, you would be able to tell me the significance of the letters chosen and why.  

The honest answer is what I told you in my first response. 

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Agreed.  Let's use that.  Chaitanya.  I was hoping we could abandon the english.  I was going to propose "X".  Lol.  

 

 

The observation is in chaitanya.  

 

 

You asked:  "without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

 

Answer:  Yes, I can.  
 

 

 

If the answer is I am x, y, or z, I would say, try again  

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Not always.  Anytime something is forgotten, when it is remembered it was as if it was never forgotten at all.  This means that the memory is not always a thought.  It exists without thought.  If it was dependent on thought then it could not be forgotten and then later remembered.  The remembering would not have an anchor which produces recognition.  
 

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. 

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

What are the thoughts about "g" and "m" when you typed them?  What is their significance in the words you chose to type?  Why did you type "g" and why did you type "m"?  Who or what are they in relation to the intended meaning?

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. 

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The point is that communication does not require thoughts.  Sometimes they simply flow.  Artists report this sort of behavior.   But it actually happens anyttime words are formed.  Most people don't realize it.

 

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. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I know.  

 

 

This is debatable, but, it doesn't matter as long as we are using the same words with the same meanings.

That is fair

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

So far, what you're describing as awareness isn't literally awareness.  What's being described as emptiness isn't literally emptiness.  Yes, space is not empty.

The problem is with the English language, unfortunately. I would much rather use Chaitanya for awareness/consciousness. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

So, if you would like to describe a cup which is empty, more clarification is needed.  If it is not literally empty, what is in it?  I was clear originally that if the cup is literally empty then ... 

 

I would have very much appreciated clarification after that reply that the cup is not literally empty.

The example given was to illustrate that space is not in the cup; the cup is in space. Similarly, objects are in awareness. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Other than thoughts commanding the fingers to type, I have to work to produce any thoughts about it.  It is a tautology.  I am Daniel-Joseph.  Daniel-Joseph is me.  Even the typing is mostly automatic lacking any conscious thought.   

 

What are your thougths about the letters used to construct the sentence:    "You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?"

 

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "m"?

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "g"?

 

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". 

37 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I am Daniel-Joseph.  Those letters are attached to my identity so strongly that they are produced without thought.  It is a tautology.  I have to do work in order to produce thoughts about it.  Naturally there are no thoughts at all when giving out my name.

 

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

31 minutes ago, Daniel said:

It is complicated.  It is not simple.  If it is literally empty, then "space" is non-existence.  It is non-being.  It is acosmic.  Discussion of any phenomenon of non-existence is complicated.

 

Quote

The prevalent scientific view is that space is real and exists. This is supported by a number of lines of evidence, including:

• The existence of gravity: Gravity is a force that attracts objects with mass towards each other. If space did not exist, then gravity would not be possible.
• The expansion of the universe: The universe is expanding, which means that the distance between any two points in the universe is increasing over time. This expansion would not be possible if space did not exist.
• The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB): The CMB is a faint afterglow of the Big Bang, the event that is thought to have created the universe. The CMB is evenly distributed across the sky, which suggests that the universe was very smooth and uniform at the time of the Big Bang. This smoothness would not be possible if space did not exist.

Of course, there are still some mysteries about space that scientists do not fully understand. For example, we do not know what space is made of or what its properties are at very small scales. However, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that space is real and exists.

The traditional Indic view on this is that Space is fundamental in the transactional reality - it is called akasha. 

Quote

In Hinduism, space is not considered to be a void or an emptiness, but rather as a fundamental element or substance that is the basis of all creation. It is known as ākāśa (Sanskrit: आकाश) and is one of the five primary elements (panchamahabhuta) along with air, fire, water, and earth.

Real Emptiness is not non-existent/unreal/non-being. 

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

"non-dua"l is in no way and never has been and never will be limited to Advaita Vedanta, 

 as some seemingly may have us believe. (?) 

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

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If it is literally empty, the void does not move.  Emptiness is displaced and replaced as the cup moves.  How does this relate to comparing awareness to space?

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. 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Traditional or hermetic ? 

 

 

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. 

8 minutes ago, steve said:

Regarding an Abrahamic religion sub-forum, I will tag @Trunk, @ilumairen, @dwai, and @zerostao to see if they want to be a part of the discussion. Not sure if I would have much interest in such a sub personally but if enough people feel it would be valuable, I have no objection.

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. 

25 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Not an emergent property, ok.  Would you consider it noun or verb? Neither, both?  Something else?

 

I'm struggling with the comparisson with space. 

 

 

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 -

Quote

I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (citta).
I am not the five senses.
I am beyond that.
I am not the seven elements or the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

Neither can I be termed as energy (prāṇa),
nor five types of breath (vāyus - Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna),
nor the seven material essences,
nor the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).
Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,
nor greed,
nor delusion,
nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.
I have no duty (dharma),
nor any purpose (artha),
nor any desire (kāma),
nor even liberation (mokṣa).
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I have neither merit (virtue),
nor demerit (vice).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.
I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yajñas).
I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death.
I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence,
nor have I discrimination on the basis of caste or creed.
I have no father or mother,
nor did I have a birth.
I am not the relative,
nor the friend,
nor the guru,
nor the disciple. 
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

I am all pervasive.
I am without any attributes, and without any form.
I have neither attachment to the world,
nor to liberation (mukti).
I have no wishes for anything
because I am everything,
everywhere,
every time,
always in equilibrium.
I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.

18 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

"the awareness that illuminates my mind is the same as that which illumines all minds" <----- agreed.

 

In a similar way, the circulation through my heart is the same as the circulation through all hearts?

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. 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

I didn't ask why something is known or unknown.  I gave examples of phenomena which pre-date awareness.

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?”

15 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Let's work on the counter examples.  If those can be refuted, then, that will be a magnificent step forward.  Agreed?

 

 

From this the nonduality is limited to the individual's mind.  There are many different minds.  There is a great deal which is beyond your awareness and my awareness.  You don't know it all, and I don't know it all.  Agreed?

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. 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Have no fear, friend, I have not missed the point.  The point is "what is the true meaning of non-dual?"  You brought 2 statements of meaning.  Both are categorical.  In order for them to be literally true, there can be no valid counter-examples.  I brought valid counter-examples.  There are 2 and only 2 options if the true meaning of non-dual is being presented.

1. The statements brought will need to be adjusted to exclude any and all counter-examples.
2. The statements are qualified as non-literal ( figurative or exaggerated for effect ).

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?”

1 hour ago, Sahaja said:

The non dual saiva tantrics take a different view. Man is actually is actually a manifestation of “God -Siva/Sakti” or consciousness  in a limited form.. Consciousness/God uses this restricted form to rediscover himself (Lilla) through the sheddings of these self limitations. Process of recognition of this is the insight associated with emancipation from these restrictions and return to true nature.

 

just giving a different view.

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. 
 

5 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

I experience mind and consciousness as being different things.

 

I do experience highest level of consciousness.

 

 

You say it’s not possible, but my heart tells me otherwise.   

 

 

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. 

37 minutes ago, Sahaja said:

The term is used by different authors in different ways. Abhinavagupta talks about it as the ultimate state of kundalini. My teacher talks about siva/sakti merging at this point (associated with the 7th level of sambavi mudra). It’s also mentioned in uccara practice of pranava (Aum, hrim or hum)  as the highest level that the mantra takes one. Here is a chart for the uccara practice that has some description of it that you might find interesting.  I’m sure it makes it look easier than it is!

Nº	STAGES		DURATION in mātrā(s)*	POINT OF EXPERIENCE	TATTVA	EXPERIENCE ACTING AS A MILESTONE	OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS AND FEATURES
1	AKĀRA	Gross utterance	1	In the navel	The lowest ones	The sound A is felt in the navel	The journey back to Śiva starts from here.
2	UKĀRA		1	In the heart	Prakṛti -13-	The sound U is felt in the heart	Realization of Prakṛti or the undifferentiated source from which this "material" universe has arisen.
3	MAKĀRA		1	In the mouth	Māyā -6-	The sound M (really M̐ or Anunāsika) is felt in the mouth	Realization of Māyā as the matrix giving rise to all causes that will end up bringing about the whole aggregate of objects and subjects in lower tattva-s or categories.
4	BINDÚ	Generic light	1/2	In the space between the eyebrows	Sadvidyā -5-	The vision of a dot of light in the middle of the eyebrows	Realization of the entire universe as compacted in the form of a dot of light (Bindu) symbolic of your present condition as the knower of that universe. Omnipotence dawns here.
5	ARDHACANDRA	Forms assumed by Nāda or divine inarticulate sound	1/4	In the forehead	Īśvara -4-	The vision of a half-moon in the forehead, which results from the eclipse of Bindu	You get to a state in which the objects stop being predominant and arises the predominance of the Supreme Subject. Omniscience dawns here.
6	NIRODHIKĀ or NIRODHINĪ		1/8	In the upper part of the forehead	Sadāśiva -3-	The vision of a straight line in the upper part of the forehead	Objectivity is vanished and only remains the subjective aspect of the universal Manifestation. If you deserve to keep advancing, you will be able to do it, but if you do not deserve it, you will not be able to go beyond this stage... until you deserve it really. Nobody decides that but the Supreme Consciousness.
7	NĀDÁ		1/16	In Suṣumnā	Sadāśiva -3-	A sound similar to the humming of bees or to the rippling produced by the rapids of a river, is heard	You feel that sound fills up the entire universe. Nāda is in fact a form assumed by the Nādānta stage itself.
8	NĀDĀNTA		1/32	In Brahmarandhra	Sadāśiva -3-	The sound of a bell (a cowbell indeed) is heard in Brahmarandhra	Perception of the first form taken by the Absolute Sound (Śabdabrahma) in his movement toward the universal Manifestation.
9	ŚAKTI or ĀÑJANĪ	Forms assumed by Samanā Herself	1/64	In the skin	Śakti -2-	Waves after waves of sublime bliss are felt in the skin, along with a perception of all experiences (past, present and future) in one's own life as occurring right now in a kind of Eternal Present	Cessation of the identification with the physical body and the subsequent expansion of knowledge. Omniscience that had merely dawned in the fifth stage of Ardhacandra, is now developed in the sphere of one's own individual life.
10	VYĀPIKĀ or VYĀPINĪ		1/128	At the root of the śikhā	Śakti -2-	Perception of all that existed, exists and will exist as existing right now in a sort of Eternal Present, simulta- neously	All objects residing here as thoughts are withdrawn into the Supreme Śakti or Power. Omniscience is fully developed.
11	SAMANĀ		1/256	In the śikhā	Śakti -2-	Experience of an activity of thinking without any object of thought	All temporal and spatial conditioning has been removed. Omnipotence, Omniscience and similar powers are at one's disposal.
12	UNMANĀ	The Highest Reality	1/512 (but it is really amātrā)	In the last part of the śikhā	Śiva -2-	Experience of the Highest Consciousness... what else might one say about it?	FINAL EMANCIPATION

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  

43 minutes ago, Sahaja said:

Curious if you are familiar with the term unmana (beyond the mind)  and how it might relate to the state you are describing from your perspective. It’s a tantric yoga concept that seems related to the topic.

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. 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Your entire first post is lovely work.

 

I call attention to this section only to add that this particular glimpse is really not that hard for anyone that is truly curious to explore how their perception of the world is for themselves, and has the requisite genuineness and openness. 

 

I agree. But more often than not, this is rejected as “too simple”, “too basic” or some such categorization. The reason why true nature is so elusive is because it underlies every phenomenon. When the mind is fixated on phenomena, the source is forgotten/neglected. 

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

 

It is known that there are celestial bodies ( planets, stars, and moons ) that are beyond the atmosphere.  Scientists have been able to determine the approximate age of these objects.  Their age pre-dates the awareness of them.

 

 

In a similar manner, cancer cells can be collected and their age can be determined.  The cancer cells predates the awareness of it.

You are missing the point I’m afraid. What is not known is going to be known, and when it comes into the mind (through the various instruments of knowledge) it is also in the domain of awareness. It is pointless to ask why something is not known and then known. Because something that is knowable but is temporarily unknown, it is not outside the realm of awareness. It is simply not in the domain of the mind, until it is known. 

I think it is very important to understand the difference between the mind and awareness/consciousness. Mind is a stream of thought objects. Awareness is that which makes knowing possible. To claim something as known or unknown too requires awareness. Not awareness of this or that, but pure object-less awareness.