Katha Upanishad excerpt

[stirling]

4 hours ago, old3bob said:

if one desires to be a quasi Buddhist, quasi Hindu or both along with various New Age like correlations mixed in then it should be named so...and we should also know and see that in most cases one will not find lineage holders and serious students that are part of traditional schools doing such mixing. (and for good reasons)  So again common ground should be appreciated but imo it should not end up mudding or dissipating the waters either.  Btw some of the key Buddhist teachings or concepts you have quoted or paraphrased recently do not show any correlations to key Hindu teachings or concepts and never can and never will per Buddhist or Hindu scriptures and their related and well known and respected Lama's or Satguru's that never teach of such mixing in their schools.

 

There is no desiring to be anything, or anything New Age about it. I am a lineage teacher in the Soto Zen school as was my teacher, and my teacher before that. Both used anything from Ramana Maharshi to Rumi or the Upanishads in their teaching without batting an eye. My teachers in the Nyingma tradition before that happily quoted these, or the Pali canon, or Dogen in their talks. All are teaching from legitimate Wisdom/Prajna, which a teacher with deep enough insight will see clearly. It isn't hidden. 

 

Most of these traditions influenced each other, and are part of a continuum of teachings. There are even non-dual teachings in the Kabbalah, Christianity, Islam and more IF you know what you are looking for. 

 

There are as many entrances through the dharma gates as there are sentient beings to go through them, though the non-dual nature will always be present. Reality at its basis has no subject/object or self/other, no yesterday or tomorrow, no here or there. This is non-duality. Understanding is seeing the non-duality of all three in this moment. 

 

Daoism (at least in Lao Tzu, etc.) has it's "alignment", where self drops away and there is just "wu wei", action in line with what is happening and no "doer" - this is not different than emptiness of self and other. There is the Pali Canon's "no self", a similar approach. Speaking about New Age, how about Eckhart Tolle? It is obvious that he arrived via the non duality of time gate. 

 

There is:

 

Quote

Formless in the midst of forms, changeless
In the midst of change, omnipresent
And supreme

 

An "emptiness of separateness" as Tibetan Buddhism would have it, OR a unity... or a "not two". These aren't different, just described differently. A universe empty of separate things IS a unity of all things. A understanding of "no self" IS ultimately an understanding of "no other". Can you see what I am getting at here, even if you choose to disagree? 

 

Do you think something that is:

 

Quote

Formless in the midst of forms, changeless
In the midst of change, omnipresent
And supreme

 

...cares about how you arrive at the destination, or requires "someone" to maintain its purity? It's worth considering... even this could be a gate.

Edited April 20, 2022 by stirling
"wu wei" auto-spelled as "wu wet". Spellcheck is funny!

[old3bob]

ok, so you got a bone and won't let it go, Good luck 

[silent thunder]

Keep yellin' at folks from your porch old bob!

 

yer winnin the interwebs!

[stirling]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

ok, so you got a bone and won't let it go, Good luck 

 

Too late for luck, my friend! I understand if you don't want to answer my questions or engage further... I'm fine with:

 

Quote

 live and let live.

 

...if you prefer. I would only say that you seem to have good taste in dharma. If you really dig around in the neighborhood of what you posted at the beginning of this thread and are open to what it might suggest, you might be very surprised with what you uncover. 

 

Hope you enjoy the remainder of your Wednesday.

[forestofemptiness]

I would agree there are many differences, just as there are many differences between a Vedanta temple and a Buddhist temple. The iconography is different, the ritual space is different, the actions performed therein are different. But this is only on the level of objects. 

 

If we look past the objects to the underlying space that, while not being an object, is the foundation for all objects, well, then how can we say at this level they  aren't the same? It isn't like there is one kind of space for Vedanta temples and one kind of space for Buddhist temples. 

 

So I suppose it depends on where the focus is. 

 

 

[forestofemptiness]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

ok, so you got a bone and won't let it go, Good luck 

 

Oh come now, this stuff is fun to talk about. And very, very few people are even interested! 

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Too late for luck, my friend! I understand if you don't want to answer my questions or engage further... I'm fine with:

 

 

...if you prefer. I would only say that you seem to have good taste in dharma. If you really dig around in the neighborhood of what you posted at the beginning of this thread and are open to what it might suggest, you might be very surprised with what you uncover. 

 

Hope you enjoy the remainder of your Wednesday.

 

Fair-to-midland...I think you have meant well but lets realize or extrapolate on the fact that my op was put in the Hindu forum for a reason, and not the more wild west,  sometimes fun and general forum of wide ranging debates and topics. (or in the Buddhist forum to rub some noses in it) 

Edited April 21, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

12 hours ago, old3bob said:

Fair-to-midland...I think you have meant well but lets realize or extrapolate on the fact that my op was put in the Hindu forum for a reason, and not the more wild west,  sometimes fun and general forum of wide ranging debates and topics. (or in the Buddhist forum to rub some noses in it) 

 

Yes, I ALWAYS mean well. I appreciate you noticing. The Upanishads ARE special. My intention was never to belittle or take away from the specialness of the Upanishads which I have GREAT respect for, only to highlight that the insights that are there are a thread that runs throughout many traditions. 

 

The fact that I referenced materials on the same topic from other sources is precisely what a discussion IS. If we were wine tasting would your first insightful comment be "This definitely tastes just like wine!"? What if I had brought up a concept from science that echoed the qualities of Brahman posited - would that also be problematic? Are you looking for ONLY discussion that contrasts the quote with itself? This isn't clear since you just posted the text without any context about what you wanted from any following posts. If I stepped on your intentions for the thread my apologies, despite all of that.

 

I mean this in kindness: It seems like you might be holding on to some sort of resentment or feelings about other religions or disciplines deprecating or marginalizing your belief system. Maybe you would be willing to share where those feelings come from?

[old3bob]

no problemo with other ways...(in almost all cases except for cults when it comes to forms of violence, subtle or not so subtle) Btw we do have different forums for different peoples to get into it with their particular ways;  and we also have the general forum that is more or less a free for all within site rules.  Anyway and as an example it should be fairly obvious that one should not go into the Taoist forum, even if they mean well, but then imply or hammer on about Taoists somehow being Buddhists, Hindus, Shamans, non-dualists or whatever but its just that they don't get it yet... or doing the likes of that in any other dedicated forum.  So please quit projecting upon me, trying to draw me into, or teach me (with the assumption that I should get it)  your take on things which I don't agree about except for our humanistic type common ground that I've mentioned several times.

Edited April 22, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

Quote

Anyway and as an example it should be fairly obvious that one should not go into the Taoist forum, even if they mean well, but then imply or hammer on about Taoists somehow being Buddhists, Hindus, Shamans, non-dualists or whatever but its just that they don't get it yet... or doing the likes of that in any other dedicated forum.

 

I'm sorry if this is the impression you got. You can see for yourself that I haven't said or done anything like that. I actually credit the Upanishads as the influence on later traditions. Reread the thread if you are in doubt. 

 

I can see I am just frustrating you, so I'll leave this where it is. 

[silent thunder]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I'm sorry if this is the impression you got. You can see for yourself that I haven't said or done anything like that. I actually credit the Upanishads as the influence on later traditions. Reread the thread if you are in doubt. 

 

I can see I am just frustrating you, so I'll leave this where it is. 

Don't take it on yourself.  He's frustrated, you are not frustrating.  It's been a valuable exchange, at least for me.

I appreciate your contributions.

[old3bob]

20 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Don't take it on yourself.  He's frustrated, you are not frustrating.  It's been a valuable exchange, at least for me.

I appreciate your contributions.

 

why are you butting in and making asides about me, not at all kosher dude.  You can pm people if you want to start your own little groupie.

Edited April 22, 2022 by old3bob

[silent thunder]

Not butting in but participating in a public forum.

While calling out your petulance and bullying.

 

Keep slinging mud old boy, yer winnin'.

[Bindi]

I agree with 3bob, Buddhists aren’t Hindu’s aren’t Daoists, different methods lead to different results and to imagine they all end up at the same place when they have arrived at their particular destination is common but shallow thinking. 

 

[dwai]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

I agree with 3bob, Buddhists aren’t Hindu’s aren’t Daoists, different methods lead to different results and to imagine they all end up at the same place when they have arrived at their particular destination is common but shallow thinking. 

 

In order to make any claim for or against this stance, one must have reached the higher levels of at least one of these traditions, if not more. 
 

All those who have, have said exactly the same thing — it IS the same truth, expressed in different ways.

 

I don’t know about others, but I prefer to rely on both the testimony of reliable witnesses and my own experience/realization. 
 

I support @stirling’s contributions on this thread, fwiw. 
 

[steve]

12 hours ago, Bindi said:

I agree with 3bob, Buddhists aren’t Hindu’s aren’t Daoists, different methods lead to different results and to imagine they all end up at the same place when they have arrived at their particular destination is common but shallow thinking. 

 

 

No one here is saying that Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, their methods, or associated results are the same from what I've read. They are pointing to something more subtle, more pure and pervasive. The point being made has nothing to do with imagination, thought, method, or result, and yet all of these things are subsumed within what is being described.

 

The excerpt from the Katha Upanishad in the OP espouses the non-dual nature of Self.

If Self is of a non-dual nature, can there be more than one Self?

If Self encompasses all by its very nature, is it separate from Daoists, Buddhists, Hindus and their various rituals, methods, and realizations?

 

Some here are speaking from a perspective of genuine non-dual realization, the perspective to which the OP is directing the reader. When one has a taste of this perspective, that flavor can be discerned in all of the teachings of all of the wisdom traditions. You need to have some familiarity with the taste of a green mango to recognize it in a soup, a stew, or a cake. Indeed deep thinking can no more approach what the verses in the OP are pointing to than shallow, although one could perhaps say that if thinking is shallow enough, meaning absent, there may be a glimpse... 

 

23. The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.
The Self can be attained only by those
Whom the Self chooses. Verily unto them
Does the Self reveal himself.

 

PS - I love the synchronicity of dwai and I posting the same message at the same time...

[old3bob]

51 minutes ago, dwai said:

In order to make any claim for or against this stance, one must have reached the higher levels of at least one of these traditions, if not more. 
 

All those who have, have said exactly the same thing — it IS the same truth, expressed in different ways.

 

I don’t know about others, but I prefer to rely on both the testimony of reliable witnesses and my own experience/realization. 
 

I support @stirling’s contributions on this thread, fwiw. 
 

 

Like I've said sever

48 minutes ago, steve said:

 

No one here is saying that Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, their methods, or associated results are the same from what I've read.

They are pointing to something more subtle, more pure and pervasive.

The point being made has nothing to do with imagination, thought, method, or result.

 

Some here are speaking from a perspective of non-dual realization, the perspective to which the OP is directing the reader.

When one has a taste of this perspective, that flavor can be discerned in all of the teachings of all of the wisdom traditions.

You need to have some familiarity with the taste of a green mango to recognize it in a soup, a stew, or a cake.

Indeed deep thinking can no more approach what the verses in the OP are pointing to than shallow, although one could perhaps say that if thinking is shallow enough, meaning absent, there may be a glimpse... 

 

23. The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.
The Self can be attained only by those
Whom the Self chooses. Verily unto them
Does the Self reveal himself.

 

 

48 minutes ago, steve said:

 

No one here is saying that Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, their methods, or associated results are the same from what I've read.

They are pointing to something more subtle, more pure and pervasive.

The point being made has nothing to do with imagination, thought, method, or result.

 

Some here are speaking from a perspective of non-dual realization, the perspective to which the OP is directing the reader.

When one has a taste of this perspective, that flavor can be discerned in all of the teachings of all of the wisdom traditions.

You need to have some familiarity with the taste of a green mango to recognize it in a soup, a stew, or a cake.

Indeed deep thinking can no more approach what the verses in the OP are pointing to than shallow, although one could perhaps say that if thinking is shallow enough, meaning absent, there may be a glimpse... 

 

23. The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.
The Self can be attained only by those
Whom the Self chooses. Verily unto them
Does the Self reveal himself.

 

 

So Steve (or anyone else) did the historic Buddha ever embrace and use pointers to the Eternal unchanging Brahman and The Grace of Brahman?  And do stout Buddhists in the present day  (for instance the Dalai Lama)  who follow the Historic Buddha's teachings yet somehow also go against him and thus embrace such pointers to Eternal Brahman and the Grace of Brahman?  (and also spread such a teachings and GIVE WITNESS AS YOU IMPLY to same via their own "subtle" realizations)   I'd say the answer is simply NO, regardless of rationalizations used here lately along with transcendental finery to do so.

 

(btw and as anyone who has studied a little bit about Hinduism knows, its major and differing sects and a great many of its major and differing schools that are directed by highly achieved mystic guru's  do not agree on a lot of key and important points across such sects and schools,  yet it is built into their common ground Hindu dharma to respect such differences and to not make trespassing like claims that they all end up at the same realization or enlightenment....and that is even with them using many of the same spiritual resources per the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, etc. etc.)    

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by old3bob

[steve]

5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

So Steve (or anyone else) did the historic Buddha ever embrace and use pointers to the Eternal unchanging Brahman and The Grace of Brahman? 

 

Absolutely!

When we can let go of attachment to labels and our concepts and expectations with which they are entangled there is an opportunity to have a genuine glimpse of the what the Buddha and the Upanishads are pointing us toward. When we assign names and concepts and all of the baggage that comes with  them, we are lost.

 

5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

And do stout Buddhists in the present day  (for instance the Dalai Lama)  who follow the Historic Buddha's teachings go against him and thus embrace such pointers to Eternal Brahman and Grace of Brahman? 

(and also spread such a teachings and GIVE WITNESS AS YOU IMPLY to same via their own realizations) 

 

There is nothing to go against when resting in the open embrace of the ground of being, nothing is excluded or preferred.

 

5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 I'd say the answer is simply NO, regardless of rationalizations used here lately along with transcendental finery to do so.

 

Our beliefs do a very good job of obscuring our ability to realize the fullness of what the Upanishads point to.

Beliefs of any kind lead us away from the fundamental truth of the Katha Upanishad.

 

The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.

 

The completeness of Self-realization knows no distinctions - fine, transcendental, rational, irrational, or otherwise.

To believe otherwise is to miss the forest for the trees.

[old3bob]

6 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Absolutely!

When we can let go of attachment to labels and our concepts and expectations with which they are entangled there is an opportunity to have a genuine glimpse of the what the Buddha and the Upanishads are pointing us toward. When we assign names and concepts and all of the baggage that comes with  them, we are lost.

 

 

There is nothing to go against when resting in the open embrace of the ground of being, nothing is excluded or preferred.

 

 

Our beliefs do a very good job of obscuring our ability to realize the fullness of what the Upanishads point to.

Beliefs of any kind lead us away from the fundamental truth of the Katha Upanishad.

 

The Self cannot be known through study
Of the scriptures, nor through the intellect,
Nor through hearing learned discourses.

 

The completeness of Self-realization knows no distinctions - fine, transcendental, rational, irrational, or otherwise.

To believe otherwise is to miss the forest for the trees.

 

interesting that you put your opinion higher than the teachings (transmitted in the the lines and in between the lines) of the Historic Buddha, and all of the teachers that came after him.... 

Knock me up the side of the head for being so obscured...

Edited April 23, 2022 by old3bob

[steve]

57 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

interesting that you put your opinion higher than the teachings (transmitted in the the lines and in between the lines) of the Historic Buddha, and all of the teachers that came after him.... 

Knock me up the side of the head for being so obscured...

 

My opinion is worth less than a politician’s oath or a misplaced NFT… Please don’t take it seriously.

 

What I find interesting is that you quote and presumably value non-dual scripture and yet insist on framing it in dualistic perspective… 

 

The Upanishads tell us nothing if not of the pervasive and all-inclusive nature of Self and yet Buddhist and Daoist views and their followers are somehow excluded in your interpretation.

 

To understand the Upanishads requires coming closer to non-dual realization. Non-dual realization involves recognition that all distinctions are illusory and the appreciation of a common thread that runs through all experience and all spiritual paradigms.

 

I’m curious how you reconcile the non-dual teaching of the Upanishads with a refusal to acknowledge the common ground among non-dual teachings from disparate and even closely related traditions.

[old3bob]

13 minutes ago, steve said:

 

My opinion is worth less than a politician’s oath or a misplaced NFT… Please don’t take it seriously.

 

What I find interesting is that you quote and presumably value non-dual scripture and yet insist on framing it in dualistic perspective… 

 

The Upanishads tell us nothing if not of the pervasive and all-inclusive nature of Self and yet Buddhist and Daoist views and their followers are somehow excluded in your interpretation.

 

To understand the Upanishads requires coming closer to non-dual realization. Non-dual realization involves recognition that all distinctions are illusory and the appreciation of a common thread that runs through all experience and all spiritual paradigms.

 

I’m curious how you reconcile the non-dual teaching of the Upanishads with a refusal to acknowledge the common ground among non-dual teachings from disparate and even closely related traditions.

 

I don't do any such thing, for Buddhist scripture (and their teachers) differ from Hindu teachings on  Eternal Brahman and the Grace of Brahman,  btw there are also "qualified non-dualism" (Vishishtadvaita) and "dualism" schools in Hinduism which I'm sure Dwai could go into much greater detail about than me.  Also I try not to make trespassing like claims for or against disparate non-dualistic teachings  as if I'm in the know about them (as I've tried to express recently by saying, "live and let live" ) thus I hear what sounds like a kind of unfounded projection on your part...but no biggy since we may hash it out.

[steve]

4 minutes ago, old3bob said:

I don't do any such thing,

 

Hmm, that’s not my experience of your posts on the topic but I’m pleased that I simply misunderstand you.

🙏🏼

नमस्ते

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

I don't do any such thing, for Buddhist scripture (and their teachers) differ from Hindu teachings on  Eternal Brahman and the Grace of Brahman,  btw there are also "qualified non-dualism" (Vishishtadvaita) and "dualism" schools in Hinduism which I'm sure Dwai could go into much greater detail about than me.  Also I try not to make trespassing like claims for or against disparate non-dualistic teachings  as if I'm in the know about them (as I've tried to express recently by saying, "live and let live" ) thus I hear what sounds like a kind of unfounded projection on your part...but no biggy since we may hash it out.

I have no issues with dualistic or qualified monistic interpretations of Vedanta. The proponents/adherents are free to practice and believe whatever they like. However, in my understanding and per my realization, upanishads articulate the most pristine of nondual teachings/pointers. So, I approach them from that perspective. And I have absolutely no doubt that Buddhism and Daosim (or any other nondual tradition) also point to that same truth, be it called Brahman, Dao, Tathāgata garbha or something else. 

[steve]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

And I have absolutely no doubt that Buddhism and Daosim (or any other nondual tradition) also point to that same truth, be it called Brahman, Dao, Tathāgata garbha or something else. 

 

In the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pastafarian masters express the Bliss of Non-Dual Realization in terms of the inseparability of Pasta and Sauce…

 

Spoiler

 

[old3bob]

28 minutes ago, steve said:

 

In the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pastafarian masters express the Bliss of Non-Dual Realization in terms of the inseparability of Pasta and Sauce…

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

as he gets older his practice of "Right" eating will probably become more orderly.