Boy

fantastic! to me it's food but what do i know

if you're interested in traditional advaita vedanta, i can think of no better "introduction" than this:

Not much to discuss. All true

Well, well. 1. Appeal to authority won't change my mind. 2. To me, if you reject one (sic.) of the mahavakyas then you're out. This goes for modifications as well. You may find me ignorant, arrogant, uneducated and in pressing need of a psychiatrist, but not even that will change my mind. Have a nice evening and much love!!

Your thread, your rules.

Interesting, albeit not convincing at all. While complaining about the logic of advaitans (and not understand their point of view) he made [...] presuppositions to try to explain his rejection of the Upanishads. [...] A good advaita talk on this particular topic is: [Video removed.]

Sangharakshita needs to take a step back, but basically I think you're right, rocala. No talk of mindfulness. In a way "mindfulness" is akin to to pretending to be the witness in vedanta. There are so many layers of understanding, and communicating this stuff.. And yet the underlying truth is dead simple.

very complicated "definition" but, yes it's sounds somewhat right. normally needs, wants etc aren't said to be generated by the ego, and I think he's wrong in that, but it's actually an interesting idea! a few other details aside, the author is surely onto something. thanks!

Never heard of him. How does he define ego?

I sincerely believe that it’s more helpful to say that it is actually “Tom, Dick or Harry or Jane, Sally or Sue. It is a lie, but is a blindingly white one. Don’t make them look for another ghost when they’ve come so far..

everything about that post made me sad, shortstuff. You are clearly on the path but you've took a wrong turn. Retreat and regroup! Much love!

Sorry, I didn’t mean complex ! This is very beautiful! All of it! Thank you! ..and maybe the word exhaustion points to a third way?

I’d like to add some pointers on enquiry if you don’t mind. Another way of understanding “Abiding in the I” would be to think of it as “Returning to the I”. This returning (nota bene: I’m not at all suggesting dwai is wrong in any way) is indeed an intellectual process. You have to think yourself back to the only “thing” that is evident/beyond words - until the words give up. The best material I’ve come across that describes this process is from the Thai forest tradition, Dzogchen, Ramana Maharshi, and traditional vedanta. For me the Upanishads did it, but I also see supreme value in Ramana’s simple focus. Come to think of it, perhaps dwai’s method is actually tailored to the very advanced practitioner? Or even the enlightened (=realised but not actualised)? ..Oh, you said it yourself, dwai! And with practice it will indeed only take a fraction of a second! I will also suggest an alternative method. Given mumukshutva, there is still the problem that the disciple hasn’t got a clue of what the Self is, so perhaps all efforts to return to it or abide in it will be in vain? The language gives the problem away (“What's this ‘it’", the mind asks, and promptly starts looking for 'it')! So, perhaps Ramana’s method is preferable initially? Thus, just focus on the I! Finally, and I hesitate to say it - it really is a cliché - but the problem really is ignorance. Enlightenment is for the jiva.

I will disregard your initial wild swings if you don’t mind, Wells . When it comes to those two interesting posts above I’d like to comment: In traditional vedanta I’ve heard it said (paraphrased) that “You are the dream but the dream is not you”. It took me some time to digest, but presently I think it’s a very good description. So I guess words are not all bad? And to make it clear: I don’t think anybody is “theorizing the dreamer”. And a question… “Finally”/“spiritual practice”/“I assume”/“probably”/“somehow” etc.? Am I to understand that you don’t know? In that case it would behoove you to show some restraint. If you won’t that is of course fine as well! I said I wouldn't speak anymore of my experiences/realisations in this thread but I'll break that promise to tell you that all this "I am one with everything"-phase is something I've gone through as well. There is more to come. With apologies to 3bob, the Heart sutra says It well enough! I will watch the video you linked tomorrow, I’m sure it’s great. And I hope I made myself clear! With utter disregard for all tradition I've had a couple of beers! Be well!

I don’t mind at all but it might not be pertinent to this thread so I’ll keep it brief. With “Non dual” I simply mean what I just said. There is no subject or object. “You” realise that what you formerly thought of as subject and object doesn’t exist/isn’t correct. This is self realisation (in a sense - there are other realisations, but they all all come in the same instant) in the vedantic tradition. Self actualisation is a quite lengthy process (5+ years?) of making the self realisation (signified by the akhandakara vritti ) stick and take over. The mind has tendencies that need to be eradicated/understood. The I-thought, which in some christian traditions is thought of as the devil, is very persistent but with patience it leaves/is subjugated. For me personally, it’s quite nice. Since I know, I don’t fret over anything. All existential anxiety is gone forever. Actually there are no problems of any kind anymore. The very few kinks that are left will resolve in time. I hope that satisfies you. I won’t say anymore of it in this thread. Much love!

haha! relax. I'm just trying to communicate with the stragglers.

Yes, that is what the buddha says, and that is also what the Upanishads teaches. I’m sad to say that I haven’t read through this whole thread but I presume dwai is correct. For me, at my enlightenment (self realisation) the concept of non duality became clear as day immediately. Subject and object collapsed in an instant. Now, afterwards, some people (elsewhere) speak of self actualization, and I guess that’s where “I” am at. But when I hear these lofty discussions of another (?) non duality, but I just don’t buy it. It’s a red herring. When you see it you know. Didn’t venerable Gautama disregard the wrong questions? Anyway, it’s good to see a long and active thread on the dying hindu subforum! Much love to all of you!!

This further confirms my intuition that there are basically two kinds of people in this world! And now I can also call them Ashtavakrans and Avadhutans!! Have a wonderful day, my friend!

Bravo! Very nicely put; poetic, and most certainly true. Still, I can't help to reiterate my point through this clip - but please, it's all in good jest: I would also like to point to Ashtavakra Gita, which I'm sure you've heard of. In my view it, among other things, points to the importance of putting your feet steadily on the ground before burning the raft (sorry for the buddhist analogy ). Again, this is not really a criticism, and I will vouch for your every word!! Much love!

Yes, with the caveat that I don't exactly understand what you mean by "[m]odifications of differentiating" I very much agree, neti neti (not that it matters ). Nonetheless, in my experience such descriptions tend to awaken the pathos to such a degree that the realization (or whatever path lies before it) gets "lost" temporarily. This is not a critique but just an innocent thought - I personally found it more helpful to get it in "plain english" with as few paradoxes as possible and with fixed definitions. Much love.

Yes, I agree completely, 3bob. So it's disconcerting to see the word "nirvana" in this thread. That said IMHO the truth beyond concepts/doctrine/school is singular, wouldn't you agree?

The mind is an object. You tell me, but I wouldn't say that things appear to each other. Remember that awareness is you. It would seem that the world appears to you. Through the body, perhaps, sometimes with the mind interfering? My general suggestion - and this may not apply to you, Nothingness - would be to put these kinds of questions aside and focus on self realization.

Bonjour! One still perceives the world. The one consider[ing] both or making up koans is just an object.

@dwai (#22): Yes, this is true for the sadhaka and those unlucky (!) jnanis who got self realized before proper preparations and/or with lacking qualifications, but not for one fully established in the truth. For him there is no ball. I think you friends/teachers are basically correct. The analysis you speak of need not be that advanced. Just think - oh, there he went again, that lovable old fool! This is for you the stage of nididhyasana. Working out the kinks.. Lastly, don’t be discouraged if the ball has fallen far - it it always possible (and very easy) to bring it back up again. I do not agree with the doom and gloom at all, but think it’s unhelpful scare tactics. Now get on with it, you lucky bastard!

First of all let me clear that I only care about Vedanta. If you like to mix and match I am not sure my responses will be helpful. Secondly I answered dwai first and then you. I didn’t think of a potential connection between you two. You added questions and I answered to the best of my ability. And yes, it was to your first post (post #10). Thirdly.. And here it get’s confusing. I will try to make sense of it, but remember that I read your questions as your questions and that they had nothing to do with this character named dwai. That is sort of the crux, since ”dwai” - just like ”me” and ”you” are all jivas. All according to Vedanta (which is the truth ) - so again, if you just have a fleeting interest in Vedanta the following comments may mean very little to you. I’ll go by the question marks! (Also, apologies to dwai if you feels singeled out here. It’s only semantics.) 1. Fundamentally yes, but remember: you are the Self. There is no discrete entity named ”Jeff”, ”Boy” or ”dwai”. However, this does not in any way negate the control you have over your own body and mind as an individual/ego. Furthermore, the Self is not a doer, but through Ishvara and the power of Maya things appear to be and happen. Come to think of it, it’s actually quite similar to Plato’s cave. Or you watching a movie - for a moment losing yourself in it, believing you’re the main actor. Or a dream. It’s that simple, but you have to realize it for yourself to remove doubt. 2. No. ”dwai”, ”you” and ”I” are the jivas - normal folks with free(ish) will. Then there’s the idea that there couldn’t be any free will because of cause and effect etc, and that might represent Ishvara - the totality/creation. And then there’s the Self/Brahman/Parabrahman etc. which is signalled by your subjective realization that everything you can possibly perceive cannot be not you. This is not mysticism or magic. Just the truth. 3. Again, the jiva is just (the apparent) you. Nothing spooky. 4. No no. We all have an unconscious side to us (as normal people/jivas). We don’t know everything about ourselves and we probably never will. The point is that from the perspective of the jiva - which is all we have go on as humans - we are limited (uphadis!) but from the perspective of the Self we perceive everything. When we see it 5. Yes I believe so. Reiterating. Ok, i did as best I could. (Please come back if I missed something essential!) Your questions are well founded, but they go into a kind of nitty gritty that is unnecessary if you want self realization. I went through hell myself, so I surely sympathize, but.. words are just pointers. You need to see that you are not who you think you are. When you do, it will all become clear. And if you’re better with words than me, perhaps you could pass it along. Normally I’ll just refer to sruti. Nonetheless - Thank you Jeff! Much love!