Bindi

Differences between dualism and non-dualism

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

Doesn't wu wei action come bundled with nondual realization?  Is it really possible to fully get the nondual thing without acting accordingly?

Act and Wu Wei? Wu Wei is non-action, is it not? (And before y’all pounce on the word - I said non-action, not inaction). 

Share this post


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

Act and Wu Wei? Wu Wei is non-action, is it not? (And before y’all pounce on the word - I said non-action, not inaction). 

 

Actually, it is neither. It's a kind of spontaneous action not guided by your ever discursive mind, but by something deeper.

 

I understand you're an advanced Taiji practitioner. Then you must know what I am talking about. :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Act and Wu Wei? Wu Wei is non-action, is it not? (And before y’all pounce on the word - I said non-action, not inaction). 

 

My understanding?  Wu wei is action without action.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Bindi said:

There are Zen stories where someone claims to have achieved enlightenment or whatever, and they are put in a situation in which they become angry, thus proving they have not actually arrived. If you never fall back into the identification with the body or the emotions or thoughts but remain in nondual contentment permanently then you have achieved something, but you are still identifying with nondual contentment. If you didn’t identify with nondual contentment then you wouldn’t see nondual contentment as any more desirable than emotions or thoughts or the body, all things would be equal. Apech posted very early on if nonduality is seen as the ultimate then it is dual because it is set against duality. Nonduality shouldn’t differentiate between duality and nonduality, all are equally valuable, and ultimately all are limiting identification with a way of perceiving. The Atman, God, Buddha nature is inconceivable, beyond all perception, beyond all description, I suspect the closest  we might ever get is hearing the echo, and this will be a great achievement. 

 

I'll answer your post, but I would still be interested in a direct answer mine. It was:

 

Quote

I'd be interested in hearing more. What do you consider "full blown agency". How does the instruction of the "higher self" appear? How does one "realise agency"? In what tradition is this happening, and who/what are some examples of successful understanding. 

 

Jesus, the Buddha, Ramana Maharshi - you name it - ALL teachers die. They get mad, they suffer, they get sick and they die. The Buddha got mad... Jesus flipped the tables of the money changers in the temple. Every teacher I have ever met, including the ones that I discovered had complete insight get mad. This is because they are HUMANS. How does this prove that they haven't "arrived"? Where do you think there are ultimately going, exactly? Add this to my questions for you. :)

 

"Non-dual containment" is purely your invention. There IS often a pervasive joy of sorts, but there is no "identifying" it. It just IS. With or without it  you are still along for the ride. The story of reality includes wars, disease, sex, taxes, and death amongst the 10,000 things. Who says that is going away? None of the great spiritual teachers of history, certainly. WHERE does it say that goes away? (Another question.)

 

The story of the world is what you experience as a person. Non-dual understanding is knowing that ultimately the person is a fiction like all other appearances. There is only the unity... but ALSO there is still the story of the duality, and the duality doesn't stop suffering. Non-duality doesn't differentiate between the dual and non-dual. Both are ALWAYS present. Non-dual understanding doesn't make duality go away, and NO-ONE is saying it does. 

 

Quote

Nonduality shouldn’t differentiate between duality and nonduality, all are equally valuable, and ultimately all are limiting identification with a way of perceiving. The Atman, God, Buddha nature is inconceivable, beyond all perception, beyond all description...

 

This is a note-perfect description of non-dual understanding. 

Edited by stirling
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

降心為無為

 

這裡的無為指的不是思想上所看到的世界

 

思想上的世界並沒有所謂的非二元對立

 

在思想當中追逐非二元對立的存在,只能看到無窮無盡的二元對立

 

這裡的無為指的是心的力量不增不減

 

這個階段是在二禪階段即將進入三禪之間的關卡

 

也是烏肝進入兔髓之間的關卡

 

看不見自己的心的力量,三禪定和兔髓都不會出現的

 

The way to subdue the mind is Wuwei

Wuwei here does not refer to the world seen in the mind

The world of ideas does not have so-called non-binary oppositions

Chasing the existence of non-dual opposition in the mind can only see the endless dual opposition

Wuwei here refers to the fact that the power of the mind does not increase or decrease.

This stage is the stage between the second jhana and the third jhana about to enter

It is also a checkpoint between black liver and rabbit marrow.

If you cannot see the power of your own heart, neither the three Jhana nor the rabbit marrow will appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I googled (ok Qwanted because I boycott google and duckduckgo) non dualism and got this:

 

https://www.qwant.com/?q=non+dualism&client=ext-chrome-sb&t=web

 

I didn't feel that any of the top six actually understood non-dualism - all quote Advaita and so on - then talk about oneness.  Which in my humble opinion is a side step.  If non-dualism was just oneness then it would be called monism surely?

 

The point about non-dualism is that you have through analysis or thorough examination reduced reality to a dualism.  eg. subject and object - then by reflection realised the 'not twoness' of subject and object - not that they are the same but they are not different.  For instance you look in the mirror and recognise yourself.  Without the image in the mirror you would not see that it is you, but without yourself there would be no reflection.  And yet you are not the image and the image is not you.  This is my clumsy example - but it is closer to the non-dualist position than seemingly most.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

My understanding?  Wu wei is action without action.

Like burning rubber, while applying the brakes before a race/in place of a race.

LOL

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

My understanding?  Wu wei is action without action.

So how would one act accordingly then? Isn't it about letting action arise spontaneously as @Michael Sternbach suggests?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So how would one act accordingly then? Isn't it about letting action arise spontaneously as @Michael Sternbach suggests?

 

 

After awhile all the permutations of action and nonaction can get a little confusing but I think you and Michael Sternbach and I are all talking about the same thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Like burning rubber, while applying the brakes before a race/in place of a race.

LOL

 

 I haven't spent a lot of time in the presence of immortals and other awakened beings.  In my mind their activity/inactivity is without odor, though it would not be surprising to detect a faint fragrance of cherry blossom or aloeswood in their vicinity.  Burning rubber?  Maybe, who knows.  If I had to name two things well outside my wheelhouse, I'd say nondualism and race car driving. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

 I haven't spent a lot of time in the presence of immortals and other awakened beings.  In my mind their activity/inactivity is without odor, though it would not be surprising to detect a faint fragrance of cherry blossom or aloeswood in their vicinity.  Burning rubber?  Maybe, who knows.  If I had to name two things well outside my wheelhouse, I'd say nondualism and race car driving. 

 

Utterance 269

376: To say the words:
The fire is laid, the fire shines,
the incense is placed on the fire, the incense shines.
Your smell comes to Unas, O incense!
The smell of Unas comes to you, O incense!

377: Your smell comes to Unas, O gods!
The smell of Unas comes to you, O gods!
May Unas be with you, O gods!
May you be with Unas, O gods!
May Unas live with you, O gods!
May you live with Unas, O gods!

378: May Unas love you, O Gods!
Love him, O Gods!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dwai said:

So how would one act accordingly then?

As many others have already pointed out...: In order to be functional in the corporeal dual 'reality'

you'd need both things, I guess:

 

embracing the unity/nonduality via surrender/non-action/passivity/stillness

and live also the duality/individuality/personhood that means acting/commitment/dedication/devotion to action if you realize it is important be it survival, conscience, morals, "gut feelings" (that means intuition if you have any) or else. 

 

Via time the impacts this (friction from the stillness of mind) has on your emotional upheaval/reactivity should get smaller or affect you less... as long as you reflect em (maybe also because you just get exhausted or used to it.)

This might allow for space to be filled. 

(That's my guess.)

 

 

Actions then might be more fit, even, rounded, balanced and centered, taking in consideration more of the surroundings and thus better outcome in the whole.

Spoiler

In theory this seems logical, no?

Practicability, well...

Would that be a possible interpretation of wei Wu wei?

 

I believe Ayurveda also has this concept of Tamas (Passivity) and Rajas (Passion) when it comes to the constitution of the psyche, both are viewn as pathological. Aim is to avoid these pathologies and get to sattvaguna (equilibrium) ... but whom am I telling this on a forum like this, you probably well know this already. What's funny about this is the subgroups: sattvika has seven and sounds really cultivated, rajasika has six subgroups and the intensest sounds like the race car macho who got the car from his father's money (no offense!) and tamasika has only three, where the most passive one sounds like a bare vegetable (probably an insult to every vegetable!).

 

Somewhat I don't imagine an infinite 'consciousness' in the way @Bindis article describes it so eloquently with four layers, that are still very much manifest in space and time, in my reading of it. Infinity in my worldview is always also time and spacebound, with gravity and so on... In my imagination what I mean would be more unmanifested awareness potential but in a different 'dimension' (not within time/space/gravity - just another concept probably).

 

One question for @stirling: this approach that there isn't even unity or 'the one' but none, this isn't typical Advaita, is it? Where is it from, it's intriguing but particularly hard to grasp for me...

 

 

 

Edited by schroedingerscat
awful misspellings
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9.5.2022 at 4:22 PM, dwai said:

First of all, there is no freakin' Proto-Indo-European language -- it is an artificially created thing. It is an attempt to fit a flawed linguistic model of a Eurocentric worldview,  hence the entire chain of etymological gymnastics is questionable.

 

The version I like is that root of Atman is from tma, the root of tamas  (darkness/ignorance/inertia). Adding of "A" is the negation of Tamas, so Atman is that which eliminates tamas/darkness/ignorance and so on. Which fits pretty nicely into the Svaprakasha Svarupa (Self-Effulgent, Self-Form) of Atman.

 

 

 

Now adding a "B" to Atman turns it into Batman - which shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that it indeed has perception:

 

974937.png

 

and agency:

 

53-FC75-C9-A762-4221-A948-372-A259870-A9

 

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

:P

Edited by Michael Sternbach
  • Haha 8
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Bindi said:

I think agency is negated because full blown authentic agency is so hard to establish in the appropriate place in the chain of command between mundane self and higher self. I’m thinking only one or two people ever have actually established agency to carry out the higher self’s will, unlike nondual realisation it’s incredibly rare,  but to attempt to realise agency is the authentic path. Nondual realisation without agency is less than half the story. 

 

Perhaps we would have to clarify what exactly you mean by "full blown authentic agency" first. Basically, following the inner self's suggestions is not a difficult thing to do - even though the ego may find them challenging at times and prefer to ignore them. It is true that listening to that small voice within with consistence and confidence presupposes a degree of practice for most. 

 

Furthermore, I don't think that there is actually "a chain of command between mundane self and higher self." It's more of a cooperative endeavour in which the "mundane self" is granted free will to either follow along with the "higher self's" knowledge and wisdom or choose not to do so.

 

Even though it would be in the "mundane self's" best interest to trust this inner guidance - doing its own thing is quite acceptable from the "higher self's" non-dualist view and understood as part of the former's learning process.

 

As seen from a certain perspective, the "higher self" is "the mundane self's" entelechy and telos - the state of perfection or, perhaps more appropriately, completion that it aspires to.

Edited by Michael Sternbach
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I'll answer your post, but I would still be interested in a direct answer mine. It was:

 

Quote

I'd be interested in hearing more. What do you consider "full blown agency".

 

 

“Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment.” By ‘full blown agency’ I mean the ability to HAD (Heal at a Distance), the ability to appear somewhere other than where your physical body is, overall to be able to direct a subtle force from within to interact with and act upon the material world. There might be other ways, these are the only two I am aware of. The alternative is to have no subtle force agency and learn to just accept everything as it is. This seems to me to be the position of the non-dualists, and a primary identifier of nondual experience. 

 

Quote
Quote

How does the instruction of the "higher self" appear?

 

 

I have experienced it a few times in my life, in one form I am compelled to go somewhere with absolutely no logical reason, and find out when I am there that either the place is an answer to my need or someone else’s need, and in another form I am stopped as if by a force field from doing a certain action, and this has invariably been in the best interests of someone else. 
 

Quote
Quote

How does one "realise agency"?

 

 

“I” have the potential to be the actor comprised of subtle energy, but only if this subtle energy is developed to its full potential via appropriate energy work. This developed subtle energy body is not the director, I assign that role to my Higher Self, a consciousness that cannot be directly experienced. “I” am the servant of this Higher Self, and enact what it wills from its greatly expanded perspective. 

 

Quote
Quote

In what tradition is this happening, and who/what are some examples of successful understanding. 

 

Jesus and Saint Seraphim of Sarov both had the agency I’m talking about, but some Indian masters have been able to appear at a distance. In the Neidan tradition multiple ‘selves’ are produced which I gather have agency. 

 

Quote

Jesus, the Buddha, Ramana Maharshi - you name it - ALL teachers die.
 

 

I’m not expecting the nondually realised to not die. 

 

Quote

They get mad, they suffer, they get sick and they die. The Buddha got mad... Jesus flipped the tables of the money changers in the temple. Every teacher I have ever met, including the ones that I discovered had complete insight get mad. This is because they are HUMANS. How does this prove that they haven't "arrived"? Where do you think there are ultimately going, exactly? Add this to my questions for you. :)

 


Nondualists speak as though they are beyond getting mad, everything just is, no need to react or get emotional because that’s just a story you’re identifying with, but the fact is they do still get mad as you say, they don’t accept reality as it is at all times. In this sense they fall back into identification with emotional or mental states. 
 

I don’t have a problem with people feeling and thinking, I believe these are part of a functioning human being, they can inform our actions in appropriate ways, and are not lesser states of perception. They are limited, but not lesser than any other state of perception, and I include nondual perception as just another state of perception. 

 

 

Quote

 

"Non-dual containment" is purely your invention.

 

 

Contentment. 

 

Quote

There IS often a pervasive joy of sorts, but there is no "identifying" it. It just IS.
 

 

Why did dwai ask me “What would you, bindi prefer? An agitated mind or a peaceful mind? A mind filled with anger and hatred or a mind filled with joy and love? 
 

What sense does this question make if everything just IS? Instead he identifies with a peaceful joyful and loving state as a preferred state. 

 

Quote

With or without it  you are still along for the ride. The story of reality includes wars, disease, sex, taxes, and death amongst the 10,000 things. Who says that is going away? None of the great spiritual teachers of history, certainly. WHERE does it say that goes away? (Another question.)

 

The story of the world is what you experience as a person. Non-dual understanding is knowing that ultimately the person is a fiction like all other appearances. There is only the unity... but ALSO there is still the story of the duality, and the duality doesn't stop suffering. Non-duality doesn't differentiate between the dual and non-dual. Both are ALWAYS present. Non-dual understanding doesn't make duality go away, and NO-ONE is saying it does. 

 

 

This is a note-perfect description of non-dual understanding. 

 

Edited by Bindi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Perhaps we would have to clarify what exactly you mean by "full blown authentic agency" first. Basically, following the inner self's suggestions is not a difficult thing to do - even though the ego may find them challenging at times and prefer to ignore them. 
 

 

How do you know what the inner self is suggesting? Also how do you know what level that suggestion is coming from? 

 

18 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

It is true that listening to that small voice within with consistence and confidence presupposes a degree of practice for most. 

 

Furthermore, I don't think that there is actually "a chain of command between mundane self and higher self." It's more of a cooperative endeavour in which the "mundane self" is granted free will to either follow along with the "higher self's" knowledge and wisdom or choose not to do so.

 

 

I’m not so sure we do have free will when it comes to ‘commands’ from the higher self, I have experienced it as a force as I posted above, which I literally cannot go against no matter how much I want to, and I have tried because it hasn’t aligned with my conscious choice. I do have free will to follow along with subconscious knowledge and wisdom or choose not to do so, but I am not equating higher self with the subconscious. 

 

18 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Even though it would be in the "mundane self's" best interest to trust this inner guidance - doing its own thing is quite acceptable from the "higher self's" non-dualist view and understood as part of the former's learning process.

 

As seen from a certain perspective, the "higher self" is "the mundane self's" entelechy and telos - the state of perfection or, perhaps more appropriately, completion that it aspires to.


I suspect I cannot be my higher self, my completion lies in how perfectly I can enact my higher self’s will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

“Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment.” By ‘full blown agency’ I mean the ability to HAD (Heal at a Distance), the ability to appear somewhere other than where your physical body is, overall to be able to direct a subtle force from within to interact with and act upon the material world. There might be other ways, these are the only two I am aware of. The alternative is to have no subtle force agency and learn to just accept everything as it is. This seems to me to be the position of the non-dualists, and a primary identifier of nondual experience. 

 

 

At first glance, the idea of agency, actually doing things in the world, and acceptance might seem opposed.  Why would someone bother to change anything if they're perfectly OK with the way things are right now?  We think it's the people who don't like the world as it is who have the get-up-and-go to change things.

 

But actually acceptance and agency grow together, might even be the same thing.  The more we accept circumstances, the more power we have to change them.  Conversely, wanting things to change isn't a particularly good strategy.  There are several ways I would like my partner to change (a subject for another thread) but wanting hasn't helped me change him.  Starting with acceptance would likely work better.  I believe that those who know the secret of "leaving things as they are" have the power to change the world -- and often do.

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I suspect I cannot be my higher self,

 

Why can't you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Buddha nature is opened to, but once realised why doesn’t a Buddha just sit around in Nirvana? I gather Buddha nature desires to bring everyone else to the same realisation within themselves. What compels Buddha nature to do this? Why engage with anyone else? 

 

Nirvana is HERE. Right now. It's what you are looking at. You are just sitting around in it right now. The Buddha WAS present in nirvana after realization.  Of course, there is also Bodhisattva Vow. The Buddha is said to have vowed to liberate all sentient beings before becoming enlightened himself. The joke is that enlightenment is the realization that all appearances (beings) are ALREADY enlightened. If you knew that parts of the very intimate and beloved fabric of reality were ignorant to their enlightenment or suffering, wouldn't you want to pitch in and throw them a few pointers?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote
for Bindi--

What is Jeff Foster illness?
 
Image result for jeff foster
 
After many exhausting and distressing months of seeing doctor after doctor and undergoing in-depth medical testing in both the UK and USA, Jeff has finally been diagnosed with Late-Stage Chronic Neurological Lyme Disease (or 'neuroborreliosis').

That's from his "Go Fund Me" page, which says he reached his "go-fund-me" goal.  Wish him the best, of course.

  

 

Quote

Awaken


整個練習都必須處在一種覺察心靈力量的狀態下,才能不受心靈力量的牽引

 

The whole practice must be in a state of awareness of the power of the mind, so as not to be drawn by the power of the mind

 

如果沒有這個,心靈就會被某些對象所吸引,例如搬運法練習者被下腹部的氣感所吸引

這種吸引將導致心靈被束縛在一個固定的地方

這稱為『有所住』,是違反佛教的修煉法則的

 

Without this, the mind will be attracted to certain objects, such as the carrying method practitioners are attracted to the sense of qi in the lower abdomen

This attraction will cause the mind to be bound in a fixed place

This is called "residence", and it violates the Buddhist practice.

 

 

Reminds me of Koichi Tohei's remarks about his instruction, "keep one point", namely:

5 Principles to keep the One Point

  1. Do not feel the lower abdomen
  2. Do not feel the weight of the body on your feet
  3. Do not feel your breath
  4. Let everything be absorbed in the One Point
  5. Send all the power from the One Point

 

The mind present, but with "no fixed abode" as in the DIamond Sutra.

 

Quote

Bindi
 

I have experienced it a few times in my life, in one form I am compelled to go somewhere with absolutely no logical reason, and find out when I am there that either the place is an answer to my need or someone else’s need, and in another form I am stopped as if by a force field from doing a certain action, and this has invariably been in the best interests of someone else. 

 


Yup.  Can you experience it lifting a tea cup to your lips?  Dropping into the "cessation of (volition in) in-breathing and out-breathing", the action of the body, nevertheless the tea cup proceeds.  

I think whatever I believe, informs action when volition in action of the body ceases, but it can also be something outside the boundaries of the senses.  The "outside" action is sometimes connected with another person's well-being, for sure.

 

Quote

Awaken


也是烏肝進入兔髓之間的關卡

It is also a checkpoint between black liver and rabbit marrow.

 


Awaken--can you say more about "black liver" and "rabbit marrow"?

 

Quote

Jeff Foster, from Bindi's hidden quote

We are not talking about believing there is no self and no choice, we are not talking about new conclusions, but coming to recognise this freedom and rest moment-by-moment, no matter what is happening in our lives.

 


Point I'm making is that the real freedom is in cessation, and Gautama incorporated that in a way of living that he taught.  His way of living also included relaxing the activity of the body, calming the activity of the senses, and finding and relinquishing the positive in thought, for that moment-to-moment rest Jeff was talking about.

In cessation of bodily activity there is no choice in bodily activity, and no illusion that "I am the doer, mine is the doer" with regard to the "consciousness-informed body".  Most people identify the self with agency, and in particular with agency with regard to the body, and it's pretty much impossible to get across that one can be "compelled to go somewhere with absolutely no logical reason".

Now how do we sit down, and set up mindfulness that includes cessation.  One-pointedness of mind begets an evenness in the stretch of ligaments, an evenness in the stretch of ligaments begets one-pointedness of mind, yet the two seem totally unconnected.  One-pointedness of mind--you can't miss it.


The Layman (Pang) pointed to the snow and said, “Good snowflakes: they don’t fall in any other place.”

("The Blue Cliff Record", case 42, tr. Cleary and Cleary, Shambala p 253)

Edited by Mark Foote
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, old3bob said:

A tangent about your question above Bindi:  In well recognized Buddhist scripture there is a recounting of how the historic Buddha had serious doubts about continuing in this world with a teaching not long after his enlightenment,  but then what would seem to be the highly unexpected took place (per the drift of his previous downplaying of)  namely that  a god level being came to him and implored and more or less convinced him to teach!   So there is grounds for your question along the lines mentioned above, although it is probable that some of our Buddhist folks will rationalize away the point that the historic Buddha needed advice and spiritual reminders from anyone.      

 

In the Buddhist context a "God" is still stuck in samsara, is not on the level of a Buddha, and doesn't see reality as it is. Still, not a bad place to get stuck.

 

Quote
  • Gods realm:[46] the gods (devas)[47] is the most pleasure-filled among the six realms, and typically subdivided into twenty six sub-realms.[48] A rebirth in this heavenly realm is believed to be from very good karma accumulation.[46] A Deva does not need to work, and is able to enjoy in the heavenly realm all pleasures found on earth. However, the pleasures of this realm lead to attachment (Upādāna), lack of spiritual pursuits and therefore no nirvana.[49] The vast majority of Buddhist lay people, states Kevin Trainor, have historically pursued Buddhist rituals and practices motivated with rebirth into Deva realm.[46][note 6] The Deva realm in Buddhist practice in southeast and east Asia, states Keown, include gods found in Hindu traditions such as Indra and Brahma, and concepts in Hindu cosmology such as Mount Meru.[52]

 

vs.

 

Quote
  • Human realm:[46] called the manuṣya realm.[47] Buddhism asserts that one is reborn in this realm with vastly different physical endowments and moral natures because of a being's past karma.[citation needed] A rebirth in this realm is considered as fortunate because it offers an opportunity to attain nirvana and end the Saṃsāra cycle.[46][53]
  •  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃsāra_(Buddhism)#Realms_of_rebirth

Edited by stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

One question for @stirling: this approach that there isn't even unity or 'the one' but none, this isn't typical Advaita, is it? Where is it from, it's intriguing but particularly hard to grasp for me...

 

Mr. S. Cat,

 

All conceptual descriptions in whatever language are incorrect in some way or another, which I honestly believe is the main problem in this thread and with discussion of this topic in general. Still, the discussion itself could be enough for someone to realize how things are, so... why not?

 

The "none" is the "emptiness" aspect of non-duality, IMHO the most explicit version. Its clearest expression is the Madhyamaka doctrine in which all phenomenal objects only exist as dependent on other objects, therefore there ARE no real objects that have an existence which his entirely their own. Even the existence of this emptiness of separateness is itself merely an explanation that depends on their being separate terms the have no reality of their own, so it TOO is empty. The theory is hard to parse for sure, but the experiential understanding of it is contrastingly quite simple.  

 

It is both a unity of things, AND an emptiness of separate things. It is one, and not-two. It is both "Self" (a unity of all things) and no-self (an emptiness of things with intrinsic (separate) reality. It's like looking at a carrot through a prism. Think of these as different views as different facets of the prism looking of the same thing, and all of them are true. 

 

To me it is plainly obvious that what the Upanishads, Buddhism, Advaita and Neo-Advaita, Taoism, Jainism, etc. are talking about is precisely the same thing. THIS thing. Enlightenment is absolutely non-denominational. Why would someone think that there are separate "enlightenments"? It might get explained differently, but it is obvious what is pointed to once understood. People get attached to practices and traditions, but this is an impediment to actual progress. If you prefer a tradition, great, but getting the idea that it has any kind of exclusivity is hilarious nonsense. It is all "empty"... what is there to be exclusive? 

 

Feel free to PM me with further questions, or ask here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.5.2022 at 4:27 PM, Apech said:

subject = subject + predicate

 

(pause to reflect and object)

 

I feel that current (on this thread) definitions of Atman (brahman) are abstract.  By this I mean they objectify the Subject and then attempt to get close to it.  They define it in terms of the extinction of what it is not - thought, feelings, perceptions, matter and so on.  They mistake, in my opinion, the subject which is Atman for the process which is yoga (yogas citta vritti nirodha - that is 'union arises from the evaporation of mind disturbance') - which I accept as it is basic to what we are about.

 

The Atman (breath, self) ... spirit? is all.  Let's start there.  the Atman could be described as an infinite continuum of consciousness, because being conscious arises because of consciousness, the Atman has no parts it is continuous and unbroken (no gaps) and there is nothing other than it (infinite).  The Atman as 'self' is the ultimate subject.  There is no other subject, it is as it is of itself independent of any causes or conditions.  The predicate is everything that can be said about the Atman, which ultimately, because it is infinite is every possible name/form which exists, has existed, or has the potential to exist.  An infinite dictionary of terms.

 

So imagine the infinite continuum of consciousness in which there are an infinity of points of reference.  Each acts as an observing self.  Each self looks out at the infinity of the Atman and sees an infinite display of energy and forms.

 

And this is how Atman/Brahman - the ultimate subject - becomes its own object. For there exists no other, outside its own infinity.

 

So it needs this infinity of points of reference - each acting as an observing self - to fully see (understand) itself. It needs this myriad of individual entities - on all levels of evolution and planes of existence -, each presenting it with its unique angle.

 

All that is, has been, or can be.

 

On 9.5.2022 at 4:27 PM, Apech said:

Then forgetting its own nature falls into seeing these forms as 'other than Atman' and 'other than self'.  So the sky becomes mere sky, earth mere earth, rock just a rock and a tree simply a tree. 

 

And by this divide, forgetting their divine nature...

 

On 9.5.2022 at 4:27 PM, Apech said:

Then recalling its source says I must return to the Atman, which is not the things I see but something else, something transcendent and beyond them.  And looking back to the Atman I shall let these appearances dissolve in my quest for the root of my nature which will wake me up from forgetting.

 

But another turns to that one and says 'nah. I am a tantric alchemist' ...' for me the subject = subject + predicate and the world is the the result of the agency of the self.  For me the tree is a living tree and my resolve is to go through life and realise the unity of all and one in everything.  So see you on the other side.'

 

See you on TDB! ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.5.2022 at 5:47 PM, stirling said:

 

Depends on who you ask:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

 

IMHO for Atman to be labeled correctly (and I have no doubt that it is) it would have to be non-dual as all phantom "things" are, ultimately. There is therefore nothing to perceive as something as separate. Atman simply IS... is simply BEINGNESS... is simply "perceiving" phenomena and understanding it as not separate.

 

And yet perceive them it does - although not as separate from itself (its self).

 

Maybe Atman could even be said to be perception. The All Seeing Eye, as it were.

 

How could there be awareness without perception? How could there be consciousness without either?

 

On 9.5.2022 at 5:47 PM, stirling said:

Having enlightened experience from the witness perspective (the last duality?) IS a common weigh station on the journey, but can also dissolve. This is the deeper understanding amongst these other possible explanations in my experience. 

 

You can play comparative religion here, there is only one way to understand this quandary and that is having the complete understanding. 

 

What does 'the complete understanding' signify - in an infinite Universe?

 

Can you understand the consciousness of a star?

 

In my opinion, "playing comparative religion" is a good place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

And yet perceive them it does - although not as separate from itself (its self).

 

Maybe Atman could even be said to be perception. The All Seeing Eye, as it were.

 

How could there be awareness without perception? How could there be consciousness without either?

 

 

What does 'the complete understanding' signify - in an infinite Universe?

 

Can you understand the consciousness of a star?

 

In my opinion, "playing comparative religion" is a good place to start.

Yes

 

you can understand the consciousness of a star by consulting your inner wisdom.  Especially if you view the cosmos as comprised of essences and not dead matter.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites