Recommended Posts

i am wondering if TTB has a section like twinner's and marblehead's TTC, only this section would be on the upanishads?

or maybe a thread of the upanishads? Serene Blue, what do you think?

 

I like the idea except there are a few issues all the Vedanta forum fans need to consider.

 

1. Sean (the owner of Taobums) is the only Admin for the site. That means he is the only one who actually has access to the software controls that can create such a subforum.

 

2. Sean let the Mods know that he is very, very busy lately and simply does not have the time this year to be involved with running Taobums. That means he actually delegated all running of the site to the Mods. Also...even we - the Mods - have a very difficult time getting a hold of him. Believe me. We've tried on several occasions and months will go by with not a reply from him. So it could be months before I or other Mods could even hear back from him - much less see if we could convince him to create such a subforum.

 

3. I was thinking...since it IS so difficult to get a hold of Sean (and there doesn't seem to be any indication this will change through this year or possibly the next) it might be easier to create a Pinned Topic within the Vedanta forum for discussion of the Upanishads or whatever other traditional literature Vedanta forum participants might like. That IS something the Mods have access to. Furthermore...since I'm pretty much the only Mod on the team that has a deep interest in the subject I don't think the other Mods would object to having such Pinned Topics within this forum. Especially if it became clear to them that there was enthusiasm for such among the Vedanta (this goes for the Buddhist forum as well) forum participants.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Oh F*** it. I'm gonna pin this sucker anyway. If any of the other Mods squawk and throw a hissy fit - too bad. LOL. I just like the idea too much. :wub:

 

 

So! Let's get started discussing the Upanishads! Woot! :D

Edited by SereneBlue
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woot!

and yeah , sometimes one just needs to say F*** it!! :D

thank you Serene Blue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a free PDF of the Upanishads for reference

 

Upanishads - translated and commented by Swami Paramananda

Lets start with the list of the 10 most important upanishads.

 

 

2 Major Upanishads

2.1 Ishavasya Upanishad

2.2 Kena Upanishad

2.3 Kathopanishad

2.4 Aitareya Upanishad

2.5 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

2.6 Prashna Upanishad

2.7 Mandukya Upanishad

2.8 Taittireeya Upanishad

2.9 Chandogya Upanishad

2.10 Mundakopanishad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ishavasya Upanishad --

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/upanishad/upan_04.html

 

Lessons on the Upanishads

by Swami Krishnananda

 

Chapter 4: The Isavasya Upanishad

Of the many Upanishads, I mentioned the names of ten that are very important. Among these ten, one is known as the Isavasya Upanishad. Inasmuch as it occurs in the mantra portion, or the Samhita part of the Vedas, it is also called the Mantra Upanishad. Though it is very short, it is a very important Upanishad.

 

In a sense, this Isavasya Upanishad gives us four important instructions. Four types of knowledge are imparted to us by this Upanishad. Firstly, the Creator pervades the whole of creation. Secondly, everyone is to do one's duty. Thirdly, knowledge and action have to be combined and not be considered as opposites. Fourthly, we should view God and the world as being in a state of harmony, not as opposed to each other.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ishavasya upanishad sure has a lot to chew on.

this may take awhile.

 

It is a good idea to cover one upanishad at a time and cover the first ten...indeed the ishavasya upanishad is simple in structure but rich in content.

 

Perhaps as a auxiliary objective, we could start mapping sections from Dao de Ching and the 10 Upanishads and see where the commonalities are, etc. I have found that a lot of topics in both these traditions can be complemented/better understood by considering the perspective of the "other"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woot!

 

The Swami's words on creation and manifestation are nicely aligned with a book I happen to be re-reading now - the Impersonal Life - probably my 30th reading:

 

What is called Desire in human personalities, is but the necessary Action of My Will pushing forth the epression of My Idea into outer Manifestation or Being.

 

What to you would seem to be in Me a desire for expression, is but the Necessity of My Idea of My Self to Be, or Express Itself.

 

Therefore, every real desire you feel, every desire of your heart, comes from Me and must of necessity sometimes, in some shape or other, be fulfilled.

 

But as I have no Desire, because I AM All Things, once this Idea of expressing My Self in this new condition was born, I had but to think, that is, to concentrate or focus My Attention upon My Idea and Will It to come forth into expression, or, as is told in My other Revelation, to Speak the Creative Word, and at once did the Cosmic Forces of My BE-ing, set in vibration by the concentrating of My Will, proceed to attract the necessary elements from the eternal storehouse of My Mind, and, with My Idea as a nucleus, to combine, form and shape around It these elements into wht is called a thought-form of a planet, filling it with My Life Substance - My Consciousness - and endowing it with all the potentialities of My Being.

 

But this act of thinking produced only a vitalized thought-form of a planet, and its manifestation was still in a nebulous state in the thought realm.

 

From a thought-form, however, the quickening power of the Idea within, with My Will focused upon It, proceeded to mold, fashion and gradually to solidify into material form the various elements of Life Substance; until My Idea finally shone forth in substantial manifestation in the world of visible forms as the planet Earth, a medium ready for living expression, and now capable of both containing and expressing Me.

Edited by manitou
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "everyone should do one's duty"

we realize what our assigned specific duty is? innately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "everyone should do one's duty"

we realize what our assigned specific duty is? innately?

 

Actually I think that refers to our "Dharma" as human beings. Being human beings, we have certain "responsibilities" that need to be followed (as in dharma). A good source would be the yamas and niyamas of the Yoga Sutras.

 

As members of social organizations we have certain responsibilities (protect the weak, provide for our family, help the needy, etc) which are also our dharma by virtue of such membership...

 

Does this answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think that refers to our "Dharma" as human beings. Being human beings, we have certain "responsibilities" that need to be followed (as in dharma). A good source would be the yamas and niyamas of the Yoga Sutras.

 

Is dharma innate?

 

As members of social organizations we have certain responsibilities (protect the weak, provide for our family, help the needy, etc) which are also our dharma by virtue of such membership...

 

Are social values innate?

 

Does this answer your question?

 

friend zerostao says yes but i say no.

 

I guess my innate in not the same as zero's innate. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought "dharma" simply meant ones nature...what one feels compelled to be, think, and do.

 

It is clearly read as that in the Bhagavad Gita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought "dharma" simply meant ones nature...what one feels compelled to be, think, and do.

 

It is clearly read as that in the Bhagavad Gita.

If that were the case then every criminal or wayward individual would be acting according to their respective "dharma".

 

The word dharma is "dhr" + "ma" --- dhr is to raise or uphold "ma" is source or mother. So dharma then is to uphold the source. The unifying thread of all existence and non-existence is sentience - so that which supports, nourishes and nurtures this sentience then is dharma.

 

For some it however so that this sentience is buried under layers of ignorance ( to not know what their true self is). These are deluded into thinking that their relative identity is their real Identity. Under such misunderstanding their actions are not always dharmic ( since their identities are the very things leading them away from the source. And every action thereby taken leads them farther astray.

 

So then, could you still hold on to your definition?

 

Some things are innate, however most of us lose the ability to understand this innate knowledge by the time we are active in this world. Thereby the need for gospels and scriptures and the need for teachers who can help us reveal our true self to each of us.

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, there is no use for the word except " that which upholds sentience."?

 

It seems to me so far that sentience is an effect of the cause of energy existing. Energy existing is nature itself. Without energy there cannot be sentient beings and forms... Therefore to uphold to uphold the quality of sentience one must remain energized.

 

Criminals and wayward individuals uphold their own sentience... Just because they may commit immoral actions that we have laws against does not mean that they are "non-sentient."

 

So dharma then is more or less a word to describe following a certain way of life, morals, teachings, and attitudes. It's just a "way" to go through the process of living. That could be the open general definition of the term "dharma". Taken that into consideration my definition still makes sense, because anyone alive is following a certain dharma. Anyone alive is sentient and has a way of upholding their sentience, so therefore following their own nature is their following ther own dharma.

 

Other people may be able to help you reflect and think in different ways, but I don't see how or why anyone would refer to someone else as an authority on who their "true self"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, there is no use for the word except " that which upholds sentience."?

 

It seems to me so far that sentience is an effect of the cause of energy existing. Energy existing is nature itself. Without energy there cannot be sentient beings and forms... Therefore to uphold to uphold the quality of sentience one must remain energized.

 

Criminals and wayward individuals uphold their own sentience... Just because they may commit immoral actions that we have laws against does not mean that they are "non-sentient."

 

So dharma then is more or less a word to describe following a certain way of life, morals, teachings, and attitudes. It's just a "way" to go through the process of living. That could be the open general definition of the term "dharma". Taken that into consideration my definition still makes sense, because anyone alive is following a certain dharma. Anyone alive is sentient and has a way of upholding their sentience, so therefore following their own nature is their following ther own dharma.

 

Other people may be able to help you reflect and think in different ways, but I don't see how or why anyone would refer to someone else as an authority on who their "true self"

Therein lies the proverbial rub. Sentience IS energy. Without consciousness there is no energy or non energy. Who is to witness? To wit, no one.

 

And the True Self is that ineffable, unnameable source , from where all existence as well as non-existence rises...

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now we begin into semantics.... Like I said sentience is the effect of energy being present, it is not the energy itself. The energy has no sentience, it enables it to exist but it is not sentience itself.

 

I am to witness. People who go unconscious and temporarily die are jolted back to life by electrical energy, not sentience. You can't apply sentience to a problem that it can't solve and hope to achieve anything can you? .... That's like shoving a square through a circle.

 

If the true self is that, then the true self is nothing but space. A giant void of potentiality. Which is not a "self" whatsoever, it's just the present moment flowing out of the past and into the future. So this part of you then I don't think should be called the "true self", because that implies that all other aspects of yourself are untrue...which they aren't. My thumbs are mine, not yours, my face is mine, not yours. The things that make me different are what I am inclined to label with a sense of self. The things which make me identical to you fundamentally are the exact opposite, they're more like "us" then the self. Like yes we have brains, yes we have emotions, yes we have this and that..... But the quality of it and the quantity of them is what your " true" self is, in the truest sense of the word.

 

Who in the world could ever be able to pinpoint the origination of something that does not exist?....when you say source of non existence what are you talking about ? Little green swords dancing in wind, polar bears livin in the rainforest.... What are you talking about source of non existence? If something doesn't exist, it has no source.... Because it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now we begin into semantics.... Like I said sentience is the effect of energy being present, it is not the energy itself. The energy has no sentience, it enables it to exist but it is not sentience itself.

 

I am to witness. People who go unconscious and temporarily die are jolted back to life by electrical energy, not sentience. You can't apply sentience to a problem that it can't solve and hope to achieve anything can you? .... That's like shoving a square through a circle.

 

If the true self is that, then the true self is nothing but space. A giant void of potentiality. Which is not a "self" whatsoever, it's just the present moment flowing out of the past and into the future. So this part of you then I don't think should be called the "true self", because that implies that all other aspects of yourself are untrue...which they aren't. My thumbs are mine, not yours, my face is mine, not yours. The things that make me different are what I am inclined to label with a sense of self. The things which make me identical to you fundamentally are the exact opposite, they're more like "us" then the self. Like yes we have brains, yes we have emotions, yes we have this and that..... But the quality of it and the quantity of them is what your " true" self is, in the truest sense of the word.

 

Who in the world could ever be able to pinpoint the origination of something that does not exist?....when you say source of non existence what are you talking about ? Little green swords dancing in wind, polar bears livin in the rainforest.... What are you talking about source of non existence? If something doesn't exist, it has no source.... Because it doesn't exist.

Given that I have no idea about your background (what you have learnt, practiced, etc), I will adjust my commentary. And I acknowledge that these kinds of discussions are usually pointless (in that the individual has to "realize" experientially), and it is prudent not to get too caught up in semantics.

 

Yet, from the perspective of the Upanishads (and Vedanta in general), it is important to agree upon the syntax (and their translations into English for fora such as this one). Without this, everyone will interpret, literally, the concepts as they are presented in the Upanishads in different ways.

 

In the classical Vedanta tradition, there are three schools of interpretation of the Upanishads -- thereby leading to the three systems of Vedanta -- Kevala Advaita (of Shankara), Dvaita (Madhava) and Vishisthadvaita (of Ramanuja). These simultaneously put in context/juxtaposition with the Sankhya narrative (which is the older mode (as compared to Vedanta) of phenomenology in classical indian systems).

 

So, if you are not familiar with the nuances of these systems, most of what I write will be lost to you (and I don't mean to use this in pejorative of condescending manner).

 

To summarize my position at this juncture --

 

you are welcome to your interpretation and I wish you all the very best in your endeavors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

non-duality is big enough to contain duality, so to speak. :)

Edited by 3bob
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites