dwai

You are NOT qualified to critique a Spiritual Tradition if...

Recommended Posts

I suppose one could just say, why not? I like wiggling my toes. Lol. Which is of course fair enough.

 

Though I would suggest one intimately acquaints themselves with 'God' first as a priority. Only then will one truly be 'qualified' to spot that shifty devil in all of those lovely details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, neti neti said:

Why this fixation on wiggling my toes if the whole universe can be donned as if it were  a suit? :D

 

In KS, wearing the universe would be a very small Siva suit, and not fully Siva. :)

 

But, to your more general point, it is really about compassion and the ability to help others. If one is wearing the universe (only), then one is not able to hug and share with another person (or soul). With such realized differentiation of being, the ability to help others is vastly greater.  This is why Ahbinagupta talks about "conscious" realization. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposing a frog lived it's entire life in a well.  It says all reality everywhere is one and the same.  It can be felt right here right now in this well.  And therefore this reality is the only truth and everything is aspects of this.

 

There is another frog that has gone outside the well and seen different things, like a beach, river, forests, etc.  Having seen (and knowing) there are other things, this frog sometimes talks about the beauty of the vast reality and the numerous things that make up the world.  

 

The well frog says, how can you say all those things are different?  What is the point in talking about all this?  Are they not part of one reality that is present and felt right here and right now, in this moment in the well?  Therefore it is all the same.  It is futile to talk about all these other things. (Is it?).  Question whether seperate experiences have any meaningful reality, etc. etc. (For the well frog they don't.  But the other frog thinks it's meaningful to hang out at the beach)

 

The frog that has seen other things feels otherwise about this futility, meaningless, etc.  It feels that it is also important to see and acknowledge the different parts that make up the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

In KS, wearing the universe would be a very small Siva suit, and not fully Siva. :)

 

But, to your more general point, it is really about compassion and the ability to help others. If one is wearing the universe (only), then one is not able to hug and share with another person (or soul). With such realized differentiation of being, the ability to help others is vastly greater.  This is why Ahbinagupta talks about "conscious" realization. 

 

Personally this makes a huge difference for me and also a very important factor plus the reason to differentiate.  If everything is seen as a dream, if the waking state is the same as the dream state, just a projection, a person that awakens from this dream has no need to help others, since there are no others!  When I wake up from a horrible dream, I rarely ever (never) go back into the dream to help other dream beings (my mind's creation) suffering in the dream, because there is no need. 

 

There is no compassion in viewing the waking state as same to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Personally this makes a huge difference for me and also a very important factor plus the reason to differentiate.  If everything is seen as a dream, if the waking state is the same as the dream state, just a projection, a person that awakens from this dream has no need to help others, since there are no others!  When I wake up from a horrible dream, I rarely ever (never) go back into the dream to help other dream beings (my mind's creation) suffering in the dream, because there is no need. 

 

There is no compassion in viewing the waking state as same to this.

 

Depending on one's view, these are all hugely different points.  First, one has to know/decide if there really are other (separate) sentient beings.  If there are not, then there is no point in ever trying to help them as it is all just a movie/dream.  Second, is even if there are other sentient beings, is it possible to even help them, or is everyone just alone trapped in their own karmic path.

 

To me, these two simple questions ultimately define the view and subsequent potential realization of the underlying tradition.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Depending on one's view, these are all hugely different points.  First, one has to know/decide if there really are other (separate) sentient beings.  If there are not, then there is no point in ever trying to help them as it is all just a movie/dream.  Second, is even if there are other sentient beings, is it possible to even help them, or is everyone just alone trapped in their own karmic path.

 

To me, these two simple questions ultimately define the view and subsequent potential realization of the underlying tradition.

 

1) In my personal view, there is subjective reality to separate sentient beings.  2) It is not only possible to help, I feel it is not possible for anyone to live alone without the interdependent help of other sentient beings and taking help from other factors of the universe.  Such as, I benefit from the Sun's light everyday, breathe the oxygen that is transformed by the trees and plants, etc.  Every time I eat a meal, some animal or plant has given it's life to become that meal on my plate.  I am not fanatical about this view.  But I feel it is important to be consciously aware that other beings are contributing to my survival all the time, without asking me anything back in return.  To have gratitude and be able to give back is also important in my personal view.

 

Others don't have to necessarily agree with my views.  I respect if someone else holds a different view and sees it all as movie/dream.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

In KS, wearing the universe would be a very small Siva suit, and not fully Siva. :)

 

But, to your more general point, it is really about compassion and the ability to help others. If one is wearing the universe (only), then one is not able to hug and share with another person (or soul). With such realized differentiation of being, the ability to help others is vastly greater.  This is why Ahbinagupta talks about "conscious" realization. 

Then I guess differentiation between my body as a whole and my fingernail would be like lint in a very small Shiva's pocket. <_< If it's more about the acknowledgment of "both at the same time", then what does a lesser or greater Shiva even mean?

 

Perhaps Self can't help but to help itself, whatever that means, in a vastly greater way than Self can ever imagine. I'm immensely grateful for myself. :lol:

 

Lucidly dreaming doesn't change the reality of one dreaming a dream, no matter how " conscious" or "awake" one feels. Reality is as it is. Regardless of one's perception of it, there is only the totality of the functioning that is perceiving.

 

As That, it's painfully obvious there has absolutely never been such thing as a realization, ever.

Edited by neti neti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, neti neti said:

Then I guess differentiation between my body as a whole and my fingernail would be like lint in a very small Shiva's pocket. <_<

 

If it's more about the acknowledgment of "both at the same time", I would offer that Self can't help but helping itself, whatever that means, in a vastly greater way than Self can ever imagine. :lol:

 

Lucidly dreaming doesn't change the reality of one dreaming a dream, no matter how " conscious" or "awake" one feels. Reality is as it is. Regardless of one's perception of it, there is only the totality of the functioning that is perceiving.

 

As That, it's painfully obvious there's absolutely no such thing as a realization.

 

Again, that is just big difference between the views... In KS, there is no such thing as separate dreaming that one wakes up from, it is all one big conscious integration.  From the Shiva Sutras...

 

3.20. triṣu caturthaṁ tailavadāsecyam

The fourth state (turya) must be expanded like oil so that it pervades the other three: waking, dreaming and deep sleep.

 

2.9. jñānamannam

(For such a yogī) differentiated perception is his food, or knowledge of his own nature is his food.

 

1.11.  tritayabhoktā vīreśaḥ

The one who enjoys the oneness of the three states, waking, dreaming and deep sleep in turīya becomes the master of all organic energies.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Again, that is just big difference between the views... In KS, there is no such thing as separate dreaming that one wakes up from, it is all one big conscious integration.  From the Shiva Sutras...

 

3.20. triṣu caturthaṁ tailavadāsecyam

The fourth state (turya) must be expanded like oil so that it pervades the other three: waking, dreaming and deep sleep.

 

2.9. jñānamannam

(For such a yogī) differentiated perception is his food, or knowledge of his own nature is his food.

 

1.11.  tritayabhoktā vīreśaḥ

The one who enjoys the oneness of the three states, waking, dreaming and deep sleep in turīya becomes the master of all organic energies.

 

 

 

Again, there is no difference, for as Parabrahman, the states of waking dream and sleep come and go, while You, the stateless, remain throughout. KS says oneness of states, AV says the separate states are illusion. It's a matter of perspective, not a difference.

 

Conscious integration of what? That which springs forth from you? That's one perspective. Another is, there is nothing separate from you to integrate. :)

Edited by neti neti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, neti neti said:

You've quoted from 3 "separate" approaches, BTW.

 

They are not separate approaches. They are all from the Shiva Sutras, but for different levels of capacity of the practioner as I described earlier.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

They are not separate approaches. They are all from the Shiva Sutras, but for different levels of capacity of the practioner as I described earlier.

 

 

As above so below, it seems. Let me try.

 

There are no differences among traditions. They are all from the one Self of all, but for the apparently differing variety of aspirants' dispositions as I described earlier. :)

 

Edited by neti neti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, neti neti said:

As above so below, it seems. Let me try.

 

There are no differences among traditions. They are all from the one Self of all, but for the apparently differing variety of aspirants' dispositions. :)

 

Yes, you have remained steadfast in that view. Thanks for the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, you have remained steadfast in that view. Thanks for the discussion. 

 

I presume there isn't much of a choice in an experience wherein only one really exists. But in truth, it's no different than saying all traditions differ though. Flip sides, same coin. There is no coin.

 

Regards.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences are really as significant as are the differences between various schools of other religions.  Just look at Christianity.

 

Basically, I think that as long as the primary dogma is being adhered to the differences are simply personal choices s to how different people wish to honor their religion.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Depending on one's view, these are all hugely different points.  First, one has to know/decide if there really are other (separate) sentient beings.  If there are not, then there is no point in ever trying to help them as it is all just a movie/dream.  Second, is even if there are other sentient beings, is it possible to even help them, or is everyone just alone trapped in their own karmic path.

 

To me, these two simple questions ultimately define the view and subsequent potential realization of the underlying tradition.

Okay re-entering this stream, I think all Spiritual traditions exist because there appear to be separate beings and it seems to be possible to help them. It is the same whether it is KS or AV. Where is the difference here? The method might vary. That has already been acknowledged. 

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

They are not separate approaches. They are all from the Shiva Sutras, but for different levels of capacity of the practioner as I described earlier.

 

 

If you read the extensive quotes from Tripura Rahasya in the "Continuous samadhi" thread, you will find that, it being a classic and advanced AV text, also points out the three different levels of seekers, three different levels of sages (jnanis). The individual predisposition most certainly plays a role in how the Self manifests and how it is expressed through the jnani of each category. 

 

Tripura Rahasya clearly articulates how the Shaiva Siddhanta,  Shakta views and Advaita Vedanta views map to each other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dwai said:

If you read the extensive quotes from Tripura Rahasya in the "Continuous samadhi" thread, you will find that, it being a classic and advanced AV text, also points out the three different levels of seekers, three different levels of sages (jnanis). The individual predisposition most certainly plays a role in how the Self manifests and how it is expressed through the jnani of each category. 

 

Tripura Rahasya clearly articulates how the Shaiva Siddhanta,  Shakta views and Advaita Vedanta views map to each other. 

 

Different level of sages (or effective realization) in AV?  Can you share the differences or what causes the different types of realization?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Different level of sages (or effective realization) in AV?  Can you share the differences or what causes the different types of realization?

 

The link to the specific comments doesn't seem to be working.

 

This is on the three different category of sages --

 

Quote

Thus there are seen to be different classes of Sages.
69. O Scion of Bhrighu’s lineage! There are apparent differences in the characteristics of Jnanis, caused by the aspects and attitudes of intellect and the varieties in its activities.
70-77. Such differences are quite obvious in Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver) and Siva (the Destroyer) who are Jnanis by nature. That does not mean that jnana (realisation) admits of variety. These attitudes depend on their vasanas (dispositions) and environments. They are Lords of the universe and all-knowing. Their jnana is pure and uncontaminated by what they do. Whether a Jnani is fair or dark in complexion, his jnana neither shares these qualities nor the qualities of the mind. See the difference in the three sons of Atri, namely, Durvasa (said to be of the aspect of Siva and reputed to be exceedingly irritable), Chandra (the moon, of the aspect of Brahma and reputed to be the husband of the twenty-seven constellations who are in their turn daughters of Daksa) and myself (Dattatreya, of the aspect of Sriman Narayana or Vishnu, reputed to be the ideal of saints, roaming nude in the forests, etc.). Vasishta (one of the greatest Rishis, well known as the family preceptor of the Solar line of kings) never fails in the strictest adherence to duty as prescribed by the scriptures; whereas Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatsujata and Sanatkumara (four sons born of Brahma’s volition and instructed by Narada) are types of ascetics totally indifferent to any action, including religious rites; Narada is the ideal of bhakti (devotion to God); Bhargava (Sukra, the well-known preceptor of Asuras, who incessantly fight against the gods) supports the enemies of the gods, whereas the equally great Sage Brihaspati (Jupiter, the preceptor of gods) supports the gods against their enemies; Vyasa is ever busy in codifying the Vedas, and in propagating their truth in the shape of the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Upapuranas; Janaka famous as the ascetic-king; Jadabharata looking like an idiot; and many others.

—-x——
 79. Of the three typical vasanas mentioned, the one
of action is the most potent and is said to be ignorance.
80-83. Those are the best who are free from all of the vasanas, and particularly from the least trace of that of action. If free from the fault of mistrust of the teachings of the Master, the vasana due to desire, which is not a very serious obstruction to realisation, is destroyed by the practice of contemplation. Dispassion need not be very marked in this case. Such people need not repeatedly engage in the study of scriptures or the receiving of instructions from the Master, but straightaway pass into meditation and fall into samadhi, the consummation of the highest good. They live evermore as Jivanmuktas (emancipated even while alive).
84-86. Sages with subtle and clear intellect have not considered it worthwhile to eradicate their desire, etc., by forcing other thoughts to take their place, because desires do not obstruct realisation. Therefore their desires continue to manifest even after realisation, as before. Neither are they tainted by such vasanas. They are said to be emancipated and diverse-minded. They are also reputed to be the best class of Jnanis.
87-90. Rama, he whose mind clings to the ignorance of the necessity of work cannot hope for realisation even if Siva offers to instruct him. Similarly also the person who has the fault of marked indifference to or misunderstanding of the teachings. On the other hand, a man only slightly affected by these two vasanas, and much more so by desires or ambitions, will by repeated hearing of the holy truth, discussion of the same, and contemplation on it, surely

reach the goal, though only with considerable difficulty and after a long lapse of time. Such a Sage’s activities will be small because he is entirely engrossed in his efforts for realisation.
[Note: His activities will be confined to the indispen- sable necessities of life.]
91. A Sage of this class has, by his long practice and rigorous discipline, controlled his mind so well that pre- dispositions are totally eradicated and the mind is as if dead. He belongs to the middle class in the scheme of classification of Sages and is said to be a Sage without mind.
92-94. The last class and the least among the Sages are those whose practice and discipline are not perfect enough to destroy mental predispositions. Their minds are still active and the Sages are said to be associated with their minds. They are barely Jnanis and not Jivanmuktas as are the other two classes. They appear to share the pleasures and pains of life like any other man and will continue to do so till the end of their lives. They will be emancipated after death.
95-96. Prarabdha (past karma) is totally powerless with the middle class, who have destroyed their minds by continued practice.
The mind is the soil in which the seed, namely prarabdha, sprouts (into pleasures and pains of life). If the soil is barren, the seed loses its sprouting power by long storage, and becomes useless.
97-103. There are men in the world who can carefully attend to different functions at the same time and are famous and extraordinarily skilful; again some people attend to work as they are walking and conversing, while a teacher has an eye upon each student in the classroom and exercises control over them all; or you yourself knew Kartaviryarjuna, who wielded different weapons in his thousand hands and fought with you using all of them skilfully and simultaneously. In all these cases, a single mind assumes different shapes to suit the different functions at the same time. Similarly the mind of the best among Jnanis is only the Self and yet manifests as all without suffering any change in its eternal blissful nature as the Self. They are therefore many-minded.
[Note: Kartaviryarjuna was the chief of the Haihayas who were the sworn enemies of Parasurama. He was himself a devotee of Sri Dattatreya and had received the most wonderful boon from his Master, namely, that his name should be transmitted to posterity as that of an ideal king unparalleled in legend or history. His reign was indeed remarkable and his prowess was unequalled, much less excelled. Still, as destiny would have it, he was challenged by Parasurama and killed in battle.]
104-05. The prarabdha of Jnanis is still active and sprouts in the mind but only to be burnt up by the steady flame of jnana. Pleasure or pain is due to the dwelling of the mind on occurrences. But if these are scorched at their source, how can there be pain or pleasure?
106-08. Jnanis of the highest order, however, are seen to be active because they voluntarily bring out the vasanas from the depth of the mind and allow them to run out. Their action is similar to that of a father sporting with his child, moving its dolls, laughing at the imagined victory of one doll over another, and appearing to grieve over the injury to another, and so on; so the many-minded Sages have pleasure or pain from work.
109-12. The vasanas not inimical to realisation are not weeded out by the best class of Jnanis because they cannot seek new ones to crowd the old out. Therefore the old ones continue until they are exhausted and thus you find among them some highly irritable, some lustful and others pious and dutiful, and so on.
Now the lowest order of Jnanis still under the influence of their minds know that there is no truth in the objective universe. Their samadhi is not different from that of the rest.
113. What is samadhi? Samadhi is being aware of the Self, and nothing else — that is to say — it should not be confounded with the nirvikalpa (undifferentiated) state, for this state of samadhi is very common and frequent, as has been pointed out in the case of momentary samadhis.
114-15. Everyone is experiencing the nirvikalpa state, though unknowingly. But what is the use of such unrecog- nised samadhis? A similar state becomes possible to the hatha yogis also. This experience alone does not confer any lasting benefit. But one may apply the experience to the practical affairs of life. Samadhi can only be such and such alone. (Sahaja samadhi is meant here.)

116-17. (Having spoken of the Jnani’s samadhi as approved by the Sages, Dattatreya proceeds to prove its unbroken nature). What is samadhi? Samadhi is absolute knowledge uncontaminated by objects. Such is the state of the best Jnanis even when they take part in the affairs of the world.

The blue colour of the sky is known to be an unreal phenomenon and yet it appears the same to both the knowing and the unknowing, but with this difference, that the one is misled by the appearance and the other is not.
118. Just as the false perception does not mislead the man who knows, so also all that is perceived, which is known to the wise to be false, will never mislead them.
119. Since the middle class of Jnanis have already destroyed their minds, there are no objects for them. Their state is known as the supramental one.
120. The mind is agitated when it assumes the shape of those objects which it mistakes for real; and unagitated otherwise. Therefore the latter state alone is supramental.
[Note: The mind of the highest order of Jnanis though associated with objects, knows them to be unreal and there- fore is not agitated as is the case with the ignorant.]
121. Since a Jnani of the highest order can engage in several actions at the same time and yet remain unaffected, he is always many-minded and yet remains in unbroken samadhi. His is absolute knowledge free from objects.
I have now told you all that you want to know.
Thus ends the Chapter XIX on “The Different States

 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dwai said:

Okay re-entering this stream, I think all Spiritual traditions exist because there appear to be separate beings and it seems to be possible to help them. It is the same whether it is KS or AV. Where is the difference here? The method might vary. That has already been acknowledged. 

:)

 

 

The difference is right there in the highlighted sentence.  In AV, it is just an appearance when it comes to the existence of other beings.  Such appearance is just maya and not real.  The transcendental reality of the 'I' is the only truth.

 

Whereas Abhinavagupta accepts both the transcendent and the immanent (bheda-abheda) as reality.  If other sentient beings are just an appearance similar to a dream, what is the need for a jnani to help others?  I doubt if we can find an answer to this question in AV.  If there is no answer to this question, then there is no need for compassion, or for that matter morals or ethical values.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

The difference is right there in the highlighted sentence.  In AV, it is just an appearance when it comes to the existence of other beings.  Such appearance is just maya and not real.  The transcendental reality of the 'I' is the only truth.

It is very important to understand what "Real" and "Unreal" mean in Indic philosophical traditions.  Saying something is unreal doesn't deny its existence. It simply means that it doesn't have independent existence. When something is called "Real", it means that it is independently existent (or Self-existent).  

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Whereas Abhinavagupta accepts both the transcendent and the immanent (bheda-abheda) as reality.  If other sentient beings are just an appearance similar to a dream, what is the need for a jnani to help others?  I doubt if we can find an answer to this question in AV.  If there is no answer to this question, then there is no need for compassion, or for that matter morals or ethical values.

 

The jnani doesn't help others. It is the Grace of the Self that acts through the jnani. It works in the relative/transactional aspect of the world (jagat). The jiva's existence is not denied, only the independent self-existence of an entity who lives, dies, is reborn, accrues karma is denied. AV goes further to say that even the transactional world doesn't independently exist. It is always predicated on a subject. That subject is Atman/Self/Braman. And the jiva is none other that Brahman itself, only appearing to be a limited being. 

 

KS doesn't claim that jiva is independently existent and Siva is independently existent. Then that is no Nonduality...but duality. Jiva is none other than Siva himself. 

 

 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dwai said:

KS doesn't claim that jiva is independently existent and Siva is independently existent. Then that is no Nonduality...but duality. Jiva is none other than Siva himself. 

 

Sorry, this is not true and shows clear misunderstanding of the KS system.  The Paramadvaita of Abhinavagutpa as described in KS, accepts bheda-abheda, both duality and non-duality as equally valid, both the transcendent and the immanent are part of the 'Heart' as I stated on the previous post.  It may sound paradoxical, but it is clearly different from Advaita.

 

In the end, Jiva becomes like Shiva.  The Jiva and Shiva are not one and same at all times in KS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, dwai said:

84-86. Sages with subtle and clear intellect have not considered it worthwhile to eradicate their desire, etc., by forcing other thoughts to take their place, because desires do not obstruct realisation. Therefore their desires continue to manifest even after realisation, as before. Neither are they tainted by such vasanas. They are said to be emancipated and diverse-minded. They are also reputed to be the best class of Jnanis.

 

Thanks, this is helpful and also highlights to me the differences with many other traditions. So in AV, the best class of sages can still have all of their normal desires and it does not in any way obstruct realization? Theoretically you could be addicted to porn and still be a fully realized Jivanmukta?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

 

Thanks, this is helpful and also highlights to me the differences with many other traditions. So in AV, the best class of sages can still have all of their normal desires and it does not in any way obstruct realization? Theoretically you could be addicted to porn and still be a fully realized Jivanmukta?

That is taking things too literally. What it means is (as I understand it), this type of jivanamukta is free from attachment to desires (thoughts), so he/she is not affected by them in anyway.  They neither run away from, nor run after anything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites