Tibetan_Ice Posted October 26, 2012 TI, this is the Vedanta forum. I don't see how your sources relate to Vedanta. Hi Forest of Emptiness Emptiness? Isn't that a Buddhist term? Sorry, I thought the topic was "Objectless Consciousness", and well, in my opinion, I have found that the Buddhists have a more detailed map of levels of consciousness than the Vedantans. I mean, Nisargadatta: Seek the "I AM" and then go beyond. Ramana: Seek the self. Gnan Vidhi: purusha, Most: the atman, Brahman, and all the samadhis including nirvikalpa and sahaja. Then throw kundalini in there, the chakras and everything else.. It is hard to tell any sequence or stages of development in achievements with reference to 'consciousness' in Vedanta. I suppose one could say that the levels of consciousness for Vedantans are the chakras. But even Patanjali's last three limbs of yoga don't distinguish between types of consciousness in the samadhis in samyama. In Buddhism, the stages of consciousness are all mapped out. I've always thought that both were leading to the same place, but who knows.. I don't mean to offend anyone.. I've also noticed that most Buddhist meditation manuals have mapped the stages of meditation/concentration explicitly. Where else do you find the issues of excitement and laxity addressed during meditation? Detail.. love that detail.. TI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted October 26, 2012 Dharma Wheel's probably your best place for informed discussion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adept Posted October 26, 2012 Dharma Wheel's probably your best place for informed discussion. arguments. Fixed for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted October 26, 2012 LOL You do get one or two on there who seem to know what they are talking about though. Just thought casting the net a it wider might pay dividends. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 2, 2012 What's good about the words “objectless consciousness” is that they can only point you in one direction. If you see objects you're looking the wrong way. However, to find this objectless consciousness, you will need to make the subject an object. I see no other way. True. But to find objectless consciousness you don't need to make the subject and object. Objectless consciousness is ever present, and the knowing in OC is different from the knowing of dualistic mode. That's why sadhus recommend that you simply be, not over-think things. Albeit, Advaita vedanta IS jnana yoga, so there has be "some thinking", but at one point the thinking needs to be discarded. If not, all we get is a hot head and upset stomach Also, I pointed out "Upadhi". There is no escaping the limiting adjunct of this physical body. Even those who are sthita-prajnas still need to shed this body at some point, and the body will bring them back to consciousness that is not objectless. There is an over-romanticized, over-exaggerated emphasis on Non-duality. The role of Advaita is to make the process of Maya apparent and eventually unnecessary. For whom and for what purpose is something that cannot be answered. Non of the jnanis do answer it...why? Because they cannot. And for those who think that "because they cannot, they must be somehow inadequate or incomplete jnanis", that is a fallacy. Because we can see the other extreme of taking non-dualism to intellectual OCD levels in some Buddhist and Neo-Advaita paradigms. To quote an all time great -- "Those who know, do not say; those who say, do not know"... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) @gatito: Your descriptions doesn't come off as mistaken, but I just cannot see where the subject disappears. And if it remains, then it remains as divine. That is all. Everything is divine and why assume that anything disappears? "That which is not never comes into being. That which is never ceases to be" Parmenides (and, apparently, the Bhagavad Gita ) Detailed discussion by Rupert Spira (who seems to have a too much time on his hands judging from the amount of writing that he does ) here: - www.stillnessspeaks.com/ssblog/rupert_spira_on_sat_chit_anada/ Is that what you're getting at? Edited November 2, 2012 by gatito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 2, 2012 @implicate order: The disappearing of the subject - or more precisely but less correctly: the disappearing of the identification with the subject - is it. This is the best I can describe it. What other ways would you suggest? Perhaps we should first come to an agreement regarding what being an object entails. In my opinion, an object is basically an item of inquiry, that can be inspected, categorized and described (sometimes one or another) using the sensory faculties such as vision, hearing, taste, touch, smell or the intellect. Objectless consciousness is nothing of that sort because only thing we can describe about it, is that it is not consciousness with objects. There are no specific characteristics except the lack of characteristics. So, in short, it is a state in which there no more subject or object...and even that observation is only reflective, retrospective. Is a lack of characteristics a valid description? Or is it in fact not a description at all, since a description entails details, not a complete lack of them, thereof. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 2, 2012 et thoughts. interesting that you habitually say 'dew' instead of 'due'. rather poetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 2, 2012 Maybe the agreement required here involves something akin to 'the distinctions' rather than 'the map' or 'the territory'... BTW 'Love' is one of those things of inquiry that defiles inspection, categorization and description ... God is also one of those things... defiles? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 2, 2012 I have enjoyed it. the contemplation of dew. thankyou. 'sheet of paper' or 'sheet for your bed' is .. normals! 'fuction', I like and will steal for my own usage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 2, 2012 I thought you meant 'defies' and wanted to assist clarification. CLARIFICATIO alchemy has a dew all of its own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted November 2, 2012 @gatito: Hello. I am assuming nothing. You may disagree, or not yet understand it, but please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I will have a look at the article. Sorry Boy. My reading of your previous post was that you seemed to have some expectation that the subject (Consciousness) might disappear. Also, in this discussion, I think that Implicate Order is much clearer in his explanations than I. We are getting to a level of subtlety here where all words begin to fail anyway. Describing objectless consciousness is impossible because it doesn't involve mind, memory, time, "me" or, indeed, any duality. Nirvikalpa samadhi is non-dual. However it is (IME) SatChitAnanda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 2, 2012 dws_r8_charts-tattvas.pdf This chart from "Hinduism Today" may be of help for some in this string... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted November 2, 2012 Whether you talk about zero limits or infinite limits you still be talking about limits :-) while maybe seeking to talk about the vastness that transcends the vast experiences in time and space. Imagine all of space and time condensed into a blink of an eye in the enduring moment of now... and then having that instant expanded infinite fold... This sublimely blissful experience of the possibilities in, pure consciousness is just a glimpse of ultimate reality... Certain words serve to create images that serve to understand and experience certain experiences and understandings... 'a level of subtlety here where all words begin to fail anyway' still can use words in sublet ways... in singular ways... 'Infinite limits' makes about as much sense as 'chocolate fireguard' or 'military intelligence'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
