True meaning of Non-Dual

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If it is literally empty, the void does not move.  Emptiness is displaced and replaced as the cup moves.  How does this relate to comparing awareness to space?

Is that what happens? Or does the cup simply move in space. The space “contained” within the cup is not displaced or replaced - the cup simply moves through space. If space was displaced and replaced it would not be empty space, but some substance. Awareness/pure-consciousness is like space - it is the empty/clear light of knowing. But it is that in which physical space and time appear. So it is “beyond”. To understand this is why I suggested the other experiment to you -

 

“without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

[old3bob]

"non-dua"l is in no way and never has been and never will be limited to Advaita Vedanta, 

 as some seemingly may have us believe. (?) 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

"non-dua"l is in no way and never has been and never will be limited to Advaita Vedanta, 

 as some seemingly may have us believe. (?) 

I agree. Advaita means Non-dual, and there are different ontological and epistemological perspectives provided by different systems about it. 

[Daniel]

17 hours ago, dwai said:

Is that what happens? Or does the cup simply move in space. The space “contained” within the cup is not displaced or replaced - the cup simply moves through space.

 

It is complicated.  It is not simple.  If it is literally empty, then "space" is non-existence.  It is non-being.  It is acosmic.  Discussion of any phenomenon of non-existence is complicated.

 

Starting at the beginning.

 

If space is literally empty then it is non-existence.  If the cup exists then the cup is not space and the space is not the cup.  This immediately disqualifies literal empty space from what you are describing as non-dual.  If it suffuses through and through, then it is not literal emptiness.  Literal emptiness does not suffuse through and tthrough the cup.

 

Implications:

 

1)  If space is literally empty, then there is no difference between the outside of the cup and the inside of the cup.  The same thought experiment can be executed using any object of any form of any substance.  It could be a vessel or a solid object.

 

2)  If space is literally empty, then, space does not move.   Space is non-existence.  Non-existence does not move.

 

3)  If space is literally empty, then, it is not contained in anything.  Space is non-existence.  Non-existence is not contained.

 

4)  If space is literaly empty, then, objects do not move in it.  Space is non-existence.  There is nothing for an object to move in.

 

5)  If space is literally empty, then objects do not move through it.  Space is non-existence.  There is nothing for an object to move through.

 

Agreed so far?

 

Non-existence is acosmic.  It's existence is non-existence.  If it is created, it is created via destruction.  If it is asserted, it is a negation.  everything is flip-flopped when discussing it.  It's an acosmic concept. In dialetics in hebrew non-existence is מכרח.  Literally,  it is "from necessity" which is forced as a consequence.  Non-existence literally does not exist.  In isolation non-existence literally does... not ... exist.  The only way to create non-existence is to start with existence and remove it.  That's exactly what happens when the cup is moving.  The cup is moving forward.  The front of the cup is displacing the non-existence which is front of it.  ( using acosmic language, where everything is flip-flopped:  the front of the cup is displacing the existence which isn't in front of it ).  The existence of the back of the cup is replacing the existence in front of it which is the front of the cup.  Non-existence is replacing the back of the cup.  ( using acosmic language where everything is flip-flopped:  existence isn't replacing the back of the cup. )

 

Let's look at it mapped out.

 

If the cup exists, and the space is literally empty, then, the cup is not the space and the space is not the cup.  Non-existence is symbolized by dots.  The cup is symbolized by "cup".  The "p" is the front of the cup.  The "c" is the back of the cup.  The cup is moving forward in a straight line. 

 

.cup.........................................

.......cup...................................

.............cup.............................

...................cup.......................

.........................cup.................

...............................cup...........

.....................................cup.....

 

As the "cup" is moving forward the "p" forcibly, מכרח, displaces the "dot" in front of it.  What is happening to the "dot"?  The non-existence in front of the cup is annihilated.  However, because it is acosmic, it is annihilated via creation not destruction.  Everything is flip-flopped when considering an acosmic concept like non-existence.  When the "p" displaces non-existence, non-existence is gone.  Poof.  Non-existence doesn't move.  And.  Strangely.  It's gone-ness is being-ness, because, it is acosmic.  

 

As the cup is moving forward the "u" forcibly, מכרח, replaces the "p".  The "c" forcibly, necessarily, מכרח, replaces the "u".  When the "c" replaces the "u", non-existence is acosmically, forcibly, necessarily, מכרח, is being "created" via the absence of the "c".  The non-existence followng the "c", following the cup as it moves is all new.  It's not the non-existence from in-front moving to the rear.  Non-existence doesn't move.  Instead the non-existence following the "c".  The non-existence replaces the "c", acosmically, nothing from something.

 

The same exact mapping and thought experiment can be accomplished when considering the literally-empty-vessel.  The sides of the vessel move in the same way.  Each side has a front and back.  As it moves when considering the non-existence which acosmically is in ( but actually isn't in ) the vessel, it operates exactly the same as a solid object.  The non-existence is displaced bby the existence.  Poof, it's banished from the realm.  Then as the sides of the vessel move, non-existence poofs into acosmic existence ( which is non-existence ) replacing the existence with vacuity.

 

So.  

 

Literal emptiness does not move.  It is displaced and replaced.

 

Quote

Awareness/pure-consciousness is like space - it is the empty/clear light of knowing.

 

If so, it's not like space.  What your describing is clarity, it's not emptiness.  It's empty of anything other than itself and the object which is being observed.  Naturally this will cause a conflict if both the object itself and the awareness of it are considered identical in error.

 

If they were identical, then there is no frame of reference.  In english this is described by the expression "blinded by the light".  There is so much light the individual cannot distinguish any thing one from the other.

 

This is how I would describe it.  I like the clear light analogy, because it superimposes over the object which is being observed.  But it is not empty, it's full, but, translucent.  If this is the model for explaining clarity, pure-concsiousness, truth, then the cup moving example makes sense.  Now it fits beautifully.  This is done in math, and physics all the time.  It's actually done in all of science.  

 

The pure-concsiousness is the 3-d ,x,y,z, coordinate system.  it is an infinite cube of space.  It appears empty, but, it's not.  It's full of invisible dots which can be described as a series of 3 numbers designated x,y,z consecutively.  If I want to clearly observe any object I can overlay this 3 dimesional construct on the object.  Then all of the dots which are not the object are flagged as non-existence.  Now the object is isolated from all the others, and, ( most important ) there is a fixed reference point at the center from which all other aspects of the object can be compared.  If I use the same exact fixed reference point for all objects and the same 3-d construct, then I have a clear awareness of each object.  

 

If I have a cup which is empty.  There is a point in the center of the cup ( 1,1,1 ).  When the cup is moved ( 1,1,1 ) does not move no matter what I do to the cup.  It doesn't matter if the cup is full or if the cup is empty.  ( 1,1,1 ) = ( 1,1,1 ) always and forever.  ( 1,1,1 ) is always and forever true.  It the same for any of the coordinates in the 3-d construct:  ( 1,2,3 ), ( 1,3,4 ), ( 5,5,5 )... It doesn't matter.

 

In order for this to work consistently, the 3-d construct needs to be fixed and reproducible in the same way each time.  Because of this it makes sense to have a method to "zero" it.  To nullify it. To flag the entire construct as non-existence.  But cannot be literally zero'd out because then there is no frame of reference.  There would also need to be a way to isolate the phenomena being observed from other observations.  

 

Futher, it doesn't need to be 3 dimenstions, it could be 2 or 4 or 5 or 100 or 1000.  These additional dimensions permits observing qualities in addition to the 3 dimensional form simultaneously with its form.  It wouldn't be something that can be drawn onto paper, but, it can still occur in the mind.

 

That's it.  Pure-consciousness.  Aka "truth".  It's not literally empty.  It starts with everything, then that everything is flagged as non-existence.  This non-existence is overlayed onto a filtered isolated phenomenon via mindfulness.  From this pure-consciousness produces two simultaneous types of awareness.  It is simultaneously aware of what it is and simultaneously aware of what it is not. It is lacking all judgements and attachments to the phenomonon itself which would compromise clarity.  It must remain almost completely translucent, but not literally empty.  It must remain detached so that the next observable phenomenon is not compromised by the previous one.      

 

Quote

But it is that in which physical space and time appear.

 

The observation of time and space appear in pure-consciousness.

 

 

Quote

So it is “beyond”.

 

If it were beyond it, then physical time and space would not appear in it.  if it is beyond it then they are isolated from each other.

 

Pure-concsiousness is beyond not limited to observations of time and space.

 

Quote

To understand this is why I suggested the other experiment to you -

 

“without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

 

OK.  

 

Yes.

 

I am Daniel-Joseph.  Those letters are attached to my identity so strongly that they are produced without thought.  It is a tautology.  I have to do work in order to produce thoughts about it.  Naturally there are no thoughts at all when giving out my name.

 

You can do the same expereiment and produce the same results as you are typing your reply.  

 

Are any thoughts produced as the letters are chosen to express your thoughts in writing?  The letters are part of the words so intimately there is no thought at all when placing them in the correct sequence to produce the word you are choosing to express your thought.

 

What are your thoughts about each letter you are typing in the words you are choosing for your next reply?  

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Daniel

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, Daniel said:

It is complicated.  It is not simple.  If it is literally empty, then "space" is non-existence.  It is non-being.  It is acosmic.  Discussion of any phenomenon of non-existence is complicated.

 

 

Quote

The prevalent scientific view is that space is real and exists. This is supported by a number of lines of evidence, including:

• The existence of gravity: Gravity is a force that attracts objects with mass towards each other. If space did not exist, then gravity would not be possible.
• The expansion of the universe: The universe is expanding, which means that the distance between any two points in the universe is increasing over time. This expansion would not be possible if space did not exist.
• The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB): The CMB is a faint afterglow of the Big Bang, the event that is thought to have created the universe. The CMB is evenly distributed across the sky, which suggests that the universe was very smooth and uniform at the time of the Big Bang. This smoothness would not be possible if space did not exist.

Of course, there are still some mysteries about space that scientists do not fully understand. For example, we do not know what space is made of or what its properties are at very small scales. However, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that space is real and exists.

The traditional Indic view on this is that Space is fundamental in the transactional reality - it is called akasha. 

Quote

In Hinduism, space is not considered to be a void or an emptiness, but rather as a fundamental element or substance that is the basis of all creation. It is known as ākāśa (Sanskrit: आकाश) and is one of the five primary elements (panchamahabhuta) along with air, fire, water, and earth.

Real Emptiness is not non-existent/unreal/non-being. 

[dwai]

37 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I am Daniel-Joseph.  Those letters are attached to my identity so strongly that they are produced without thought.  It is a tautology.  I have to do work in order to produce thoughts about it.  Naturally there are no thoughts at all when giving out my name.

 

Really? You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought? 

 

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, dwai said:

The traditional Indic view on this is that Space is fundamental in the transactional reality - it is called akasha. 

 

I know.  

 

Quote

Real Emptiness is not non-existent/unreal/non-being. 

 

This is debatable, but, it doesn't matter as long as we are using the same words with the same meanings.

 

So far, what you're describing as awareness isn't literally awareness.  What's being described as emptiness isn't literally emptiness.  Yes, space is not empty.

 

So, if you would like to describe a cup which is empty, more clarification is needed.  If it is not literally empty, what is in it?  I was clear originally that if the cup is literally empty then ... 

 

I would have very much appreciated clarification after that reply that the cup is not literally empty.

 

24 minutes ago, dwai said:

Really? You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought? 

 

Other than thoughts commanding the fingers to type, I have to work to produce any thoughts about it.  It is a tautology.  I am Daniel-Joseph.  Daniel-Joseph is me.  Even the typing is mostly automatic lacking any conscious thought.   

 

What are your thougths about the letters used to construct the sentence:    "You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?"

 

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "m"?

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "g"?

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

Your thoughts about linking who you are to merely a name  are probably going on, you are just not aware of them .

 

Unconscious thought processes are thoughts too .   Just like your computer works .... on a rather incredible complex and near 'magical' level , yet you only see the results on the screen  - the equivalent to your 'conscious mind' .

[dwai]

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I know.  

 

 

This is debatable, but, it doesn't matter as long as we are using the same words with the same meanings.

That is fair

 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

So far, what you're describing as awareness isn't literally awareness.  What's being described as emptiness isn't literally emptiness.  Yes, space is not empty.

The problem is with the English language, unfortunately. I would much rather use Chaitanya for awareness/consciousness. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

So, if you would like to describe a cup which is empty, more clarification is needed.  If it is not literally empty, what is in it?  I was clear originally that if the cup is literally empty then ... 

 

I would have very much appreciated clarification after that reply that the cup is not literally empty.

The example given was to illustrate that space is not in the cup; the cup is in space. Similarly, objects are in awareness. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Other than thoughts commanding the fingers to type, I have to work to produce any thoughts about it.  It is a tautology.  I am Daniel-Joseph.  Daniel-Joseph is me.  Even the typing is mostly automatic lacking any conscious thought.   

 

What are your thougths about the letters used to construct the sentence:    "You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?"

 

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "m"?

What were your thoughts when typing the letter "g"?

 

Your response tells me that either you haven't tried the experiment or delved deeper into the phenomenon that is the mind (and therefore thoughts, identity, etc). Daniel-Joseph is an identity - if your response is "I am Daniel-Joseph," there is thought involved. What seems like tautology to you actually involves memory. Memory is a type of thought. That is why meditation and stillness is a prerequisite for this line of inquiry. The thoughts when typing the letter "m and g" were literally "type m, type g". 

[Daniel]

42 minutes ago, dwai said:

The problem is with the English language, unfortunately. I would much rather use Chaitanya for awareness/consciousness. 

 

Agreed.  Let's use that.  Chaitanya.  I was hoping we could abandon the english.  I was going to propose "X".  Lol.  

 

Quote

The example given was to illustrate that space is not in the cup; the cup is in space. Similarly, objects are in awareness. 

 

The observation is in chaitanya.  

 

Quote

Your response tells me that either you haven't tried the experiment or delved deeper into the phenomenon that is the mind (and therefore thoughts, identity, etc). Daniel-Joseph is an identity

 

You asked:  "without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

 

Answer:  Yes, I can.  

 

Quote

If your response is "I am Daniel-Joseph," there is thought involved. What seems like tautology to you actually involves memory. Memory is a type of thought.

 

Not always.  Anytime something is forgotten, when it is remembered it was as if it was never forgotten at all.  This means that the memory is not always a thought.  It exists without thought.  If it was dependent on thought then it could not be forgotten and then later remembered.  The remembering would not have an anchor which produces recognition.  

 

Quote

The thoughts when typing the letter "m and g" were literally "type m, type g". 

 

What are the thoughts about "g" and "m" when you typed them?  What is their significance in the words you chose to type?  Why did you type "g" and why did you type "m"?  Who or what are they in relation to the intended meaning?

 

The point is that communication does not require thoughts.  Sometimes they simply flow.  Artists report this sort of behavior.   But it actually happens anyttime words are formed.  Most people don't realize it.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Daniel

[dwai]

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Agreed.  Let's use that.  Chaitanya.  I was hoping we could abandon the english.  I was going to propose "X".  Lol.  

 

 

The observation is in chaitanya.  

 

 

You asked:  "without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?”

 

Answer:  Yes, I can.  
 

 

 

If the answer is I am x, y, or z, I would say, try again  

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Not always.  Anytime something is forgotten, when it is remembered it was as if it was never forgotten at all.  This means that the memory is not always a thought.  It exists without thought.  If it was dependent on thought then it could not be forgotten and then later remembered.  The remembering would not have an anchor which produces recognition.  
 

I think we have to understand what you mean by “thought”. If memory is not a thought, how does it surface  in your mind? Can anything that is not a thought appear in the mind? 
 

One might argue that feelings are not thoughts, but they are also a type of thought object. They arise from the same storehouse of impressions that memory arises from. 

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

What are the thoughts about "g" and "m" when you typed them?  What is their significance in the words you chose to type?  Why did you type "g" and why did you type "m"?  Who or what are they in relation to the intended meaning?

what was the significance? It was to respond to your question. Very much like how I’m thinking and typing my response to you right now. 

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The point is that communication does not require thoughts.  Sometimes they simply flow.  Artists report this sort of behavior.   But it actually happens anyttime words are formed.  Most people don't realize it.

 

Being an artist myself and having many artist friends who are also meditation and internal arts practitioners, I can assure you that everything that an artist does involves thought and mind. It might not involve volition - which is what artists mean by “getting out of your own way”. Jazz musicians improvise but there is thought involved - even to string together random notes together, there is thinking and feeling, both of which are objects in the mind. 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

what was the significance? It was to respond to your question.

 

There is no thought of the letter 'g' described in what you wrote above.  Let's try again.

 

Here is what you wrote:

 

"You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?"

 

What was your thought about the letter "g" in "thought"?

 

When you typed your reply, where is the thought of 'g' in 't-h-o-u-g-h-t'?  Why include it?  What is the signifcance of it.  What is the thought of 'g' in your mind while you were typing it?

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

Very much like how I’m thinking and typing my response to you right now. 

 

... which is in large part thoughtless.  Not in a bad way.  In a good way.  it's natural.

 

What was your thought about the letter 'h' in the word 'r-i-g-h-t'?  What is the significance of it?  What was your thought about that letter?

 

I think the honest answer is, you weren't thinking of the letter 'h' at all.  It's just a letter which is automatically included in the word 'right' when the word 'right' is recalled from your vocabulary.  Everytime you type a reply or form a word.  The components which make up the words produced have no corresponding thought.  If they did, you would be able to tell me the significance of the letters chosen and why.  

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

There is no thought of the letter 'g' described in what you wrote above.  Let's try again.

 

Here is what you wrote:

 

"You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?"

 

What was your thought about the letter "g" in "thought"?

 

When you typed your reply, where is the thought of 'g' in 't-h-o-u-g-h-t'?  Why include it?  What is the signifcance of it.  What is the thought of 'g' in your mind while you were typing it?

I don't know about you, but I can read and write 5 different languages. I need to think about the syntax, grammar, etc for each one of them. The time we spent in spelling as students, is able to provide us with both the practice to help us spell "automagically" (also thinking involved there), and intuitively when we don't exactly know the spelling (also a thought-process). It just happens so fast that you might feel it is involuntary. That also tells me that you've not really spent much time meditating - if you had, you would have the experiential knowledge of how the mind works. No problem there - experienced meditators are a rarity, even though everyone and their uncle seems to claim that they meditate

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

 

... which is in large part thoughtless.  Not in a bad way.  In a good way.  it's natural.

Nope. Not thoughtless at all. Though I spend a large portion of my day without any thoughts. 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

What was your thought about the letter 'h' in the word 'r-i-g-h-t'?  What is the significance of it?  What was your thought about that letter?

 

I think the honest answer is, you weren't thinking of the letter 'h' at all.  It's just a letter which is automatically included in the word 'right' when the word 'right' is recalled from your vocabulary.  Everytime you type a reply or form a word.  The components which make up the words produced have no corresponding thought.  If they did, you would be able to tell me the significance of the letters chosen and why.  

The honest answer is what I told you in my first response. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

The honest answer is what I told you in my first response. 

 

You keep asserting that there is a thought producing the letter "g" when the word thought is recalled from vocabulary, but, you have not articulated it other than "g is g in the word thought".  This is a tautology.  Is there anything more that can be expressed about the letter "g" in the word "thought" other than its identity:  "g is g in the word thought"?

 

Similarly, is there anything that can be expressed about the letter "u" in the word "thought" other than "u is the letter u in the word thought"?

 

What is the thought for "identity".  Being-ness.  Can you articulate it?  If you cannot articulate it, how do you know it is a thought other than assuming it is, because, you do not have any other word to describe it?

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

If memory is not a thought, how does it surface  in your mind?

 

It's not just any memory.  It's a forgotten-memory.  That's a specific type of memory. 

 

How does a forgotten-memory surface in the mind?  It's a mystery.  The science of forgetting-and-remembering is in the majority at this time not understood.  Please notice.  When I do not know the source of a phenomenon, or the mechanism which is producing it, I do not place it in any category other than "unknown".  This is true absolute ambivilance.  It is literally having no like nor dislike for the phenomenon.  

 

If I placed the forgotten-memory in the category of "thought", then, that shows a preference for the category "thought".

 

However, there is an interesting correlation between the remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany.  The liklihood of both remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany greatly increases in the absence of thought.  Un-thinking encourages the phenomena.  This is good reason to exclude both the forgotten-memory and the epiphany from the realm of thought.

 

Quote

Can anything that is not a thought appear in the mind? One might argue that feelings are not thoughts, but they are also a type of thought object. They arise from the same storehouse of impressions that memory arises from. 

 

The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought.  The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind.  When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind.  Before it is remembered, it is not thought.

 

A great example of this is when a word is temporaily forgotten.  In english the expression used is "it's on the tip of my tongue".  The individual knows the word exists, but cannot think if it.  The word exists but is not a thought which has appeared in the mind.  They can feel it.  It's the same thing that happens when I know I have a great idea, but, I don't know what the idea is yet.  I can feel the idea "percolating" for lack of a better word, but I don't have any thoughts of it yet.    

 

This aspect of creativity is outside of the scope of thought.  I can understand the desire to force everything into the category of thought, but, this would violate the previously stated principle "I have no like nor dislike".  Forcing everything to be "thought" is liking "thought" and disliking every other category.  "What else could it be?" is an argument from ignorance which is the root cause of dillusion.  If it is not known, then labeling it "unknown" is the only way to satisfy all three conditions:  "I have no like, nor dislike, nor dillusion." 

 

Edit:  there is another category which includes both the known and the unknown, both thought and not-thought.  That category is "truth".  "Truth" is the best fit so far for any english word describing non-dual.  

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Daniel

[Brad M]

On 29.11.2023 at 12:30 AM, Daniel said:

The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought.  The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind.  When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind.  Before it is remembered, it is not thought

 

Memories are the worst.  The good ones I want to relive and the bad ones I want to forget, but they keep popping up in my head. 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Brad M
.

[dwai]

23 hours ago, Daniel said:

The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought.  The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind.  When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind.  Before it is remembered, it is not thought.

I would say that all memories and impressions are stored in a function of our antahakarana called the chitta. This is the storehouse of such impressions and any/all memories, feelings arise from it. These are then viewed in the reflected consciousness that is the mind (manas) by the intellect (buddhi), and appropriated by the ego (ahamkara). Never has it ever been apart from the mind (which is actually a subcomponent of the quad of manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara). 

 

What you call "mind" is actually a poorly articulated version of what I wrote above, and reflects the muddled-up understanding of the west when it comes to these "internal" subjects.  

 

P.S. In order to better understand what I'm articulating here, read this article that I'd written a few years back. - https://www.medhajournal.com/consciousness-according-to-zen-buddhism-and-how-it-relates-to-advaita-vedanta/

Edited November 29, 2023 by dwai

[Daniel]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:23 AM, dwai said:

If memory is not a thought, how does it surface  in your mind?

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

What you call "mind" is actually a poorly articulated version of what I wrote above, and reflects the muddled-up understanding of the west when it comes to these "internal" subjects.

 

Just a note, I'm using the same word choices you are using.  "Thought" and "Mind" are your word choices. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

In order to better understand what I'm articulating here, read this article that I'd written a few years back. - https://www.medhajournal.com/consciousness-according-to-zen-buddhism-and-how-it-relates-to-advaita-vedanta/

 

Not helpful.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I would say that all memories and impressions are stored in a function of our antahakarana called the chitta.

 

Seems perfectly reasonable.  We're discussing forgotten-memories.  A memory is an impression stored in the chitta.  What happens when it is forgotten?
 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

23 hours ago, Brad M said:

Memories are the worst.  The good ones I want to relive and the bad ones I want to forget, but they keep popping up in my head.  I personally eprience more suffering from memories than any other phenomenon.  I've often thought why do memories they arise.  What causes them?  Is it karma or spontenaety? I dont know.  All I can really do is train myself to freely let the memories arise, and then let them go, without grasping on to them.  This might be non-dual, but I am not too worried about forming a logical proof about whether the memory is on one side of my spiritual veil or the other.  More concerned with dealing with pain and suffering, because at their core that is what the phenomena are.  

What sort of bad memories?

[dwai]

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Just a note, I'm using the same word choices you are using.  "Thought" and "Mind" are your word choices. 

I'm just trying to help you by using common syntax. 

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Not helpful.

Too bad it didn't help you. 

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Seems perfectly reasonable.  We're discussing forgotten-memories.  A memory is an impression stored in the chitta.  What happens when it is forgotten?
 

It is still in the chitta - only not pulled forth by the buddhi. When the conditions are right, the memory will be pulled into the manas.  

[Daniel]

12 minutes ago, dwai said:

I'm just trying to help you by using common syntax. 

 

The point is, criticising the word choice "what you call mind" is inappropriate.  I didn't choose that word.

 

Quote

Too bad it didn't help you. 

 

What relevance does it have?  The words you've chosen are not defined there?  It's completely unrelated.

 

Quote

It is still in the chitta - only not pulled forth by the buddhi. When the conditions are right, the memory will be pulled into the manas.  

 

What is preventing it from being pulled forth?

 

And, may we review for a moment?  Maybe take a detour?

 

Chaitanya?  = "empty/clear-light-of-knowing"?  What was previously referred to as "awareness"?  Is this also what should be used instead of "thought"?

 

The quad: manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara?  Does this quad have a name?

 

Manas?  "the reflected concsciousness"?  Is this where "being-ness" is reflected?

 

Buddhi?  you wrote this is "pulling"?  Was that an intentional word choice?  It "pulls"?  What is "driving" it?  What directs the buddhi to pull the specific impression from chitta?  Of all the impressions that are collected there ( hopefully "collected" is a good word for this ), what is making the selection?

 

Ahamkara?  The ego?  ( public enemy #1.  I'm kidding. It's everyone's favorite scapegoat. )  You wrote the memory is "appropriated".  That's interesting.  I would very much appreciate elaboration on this appropriation?  It's claiming the memory as itself? 

 

[Sahaja]

14 hours ago, dwai said:

I would say that all memories and impressions are stored in a function of our antahakarana called the chitta. This is the storehouse of such impressions and any/all memories, feelings arise from it. These are then viewed in the reflected consciousness that is the mind (manas) by the intellect (buddhi), and appropriated by the ego (ahamkara). Never has it ever been apart from the mind (which is actually a subcomponent of the quad of manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara). 

 

What you call "mind" is actually a poorly articulated version of what I wrote above, and reflects the muddled-up understanding of the west when it comes to these "internal" subjects.  

 

P.S. In order to better understand what I'm articulating here, read this article that I'd written a few years back. - https://www.medhajournal.com/consciousness-according-to-zen-buddhism-and-how-it-relates-to-advaita-vedanta/

I think the Buddha had a break through insight with dependent origination. However trying to graft on prevailing views such as  karma and transmigration on it was not intrinsically a good fit. Though his reorienting of karma away from actions  more to intentions probably saved a few yogis lives!. Advaita Vedanta’s secret sauce of illusion is a good concept but becomes  a bit unwieldy when it gets separated from Brahman. Still Advaita?  I guess any philosophy can have a part that is a little clunky though perhaps a leap of faith would create less headaches than trying to prove everything logically. Since most of us are still subject to duality trying to have a nondual discussion based on logic is pretty tricky. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Sahaja said:

I think the Buddha had a break through insight with dependent origination. However trying to graft on prevailing views such as  karma and transmigration on it was not intrinsically a good fit. Though his reorienting of karma away from actions  more to intentions probably saved a few yogis lives!. Advaita Vedanta’s secret sauce of illusion is a good concept but becomes  a bit unwieldy when it gets separated from Brahman. Still Advaita?  I guess any philosophy can have a part that is a little clunky though perhaps a leap of faith would create less headaches than trying to prove everything logically. Since most of us are still subject to duality trying to have a nondual discussion based on logic is pretty tricky. 

What is separated from Brahman?  

[dwai]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The point is, criticising the word choice "what you call mind" is inappropriate.  I didn't choose that word.

 

 

What relevance does it have?  The words you've chosen are not defined there?  It's completely unrelated.

I was pointing you to look at the mind-consciousness-impressions-memories from two separate lens (one the Zen Buddhist, and the other the Advaita Vedantin). 

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

What is preventing it from being pulled forth?

Context. In our lives we have possibly billions of memories. Do we recall all of them all the time? Of course not. In my experience, even the seemingly mysterious reappearance of a long-forgotten memory has a trigger in the senses - a whiff of a scent, a conversation, a specific feeling of vibration in the space (we call these tanmatras), it could be any of these that trigger a memory. The sequence goes - 

 

Sensory stimulus -> intellect (buddhi) tries to correlate with storehouse of memories and impressions (chitta) -> a match occurs -> pulled into the mind (chitta) --> labeled by the ego (ahamkara)

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

And, may we review for a moment?  Maybe take a detour?

 

Chaitanya?  = "empty/clear-light-of-knowing"?  What was previously referred to as "awareness"?  Is this also what should be used instead of "thought"?

Not thought. Thoughts are objects with names and/or forms (nama-rupa). 

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The quad: manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara?  Does this quad have a name?

Antahkarana

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Manas?  "the reflected concsciousness"?  Is this where "being-ness" is reflected?

Yes. The thought-field aka manas, is part of the subtle body that I refer to in my article. 

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Buddhi?  you wrote this is "pulling"?  Was that an intentional word choice?  It "pulls"?  What is "driving" it?  What directs the buddhi to pull the specific impression from chitta?  Of all the impressions that are collected there ( hopefully "collected" is a good word for this ), what is making the selection?

See the second paragraph 

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Ahamkara?  The ego?  ( public enemy #1.  I'm kidding. It's everyone's favorite scapegoat. )  You wrote the memory is "appropriated".  That's interesting.  I would very much appreciate elaboration on this appropriation?  It's claiming the memory as itself? 

 

yes - it is nothing as sinister as its made out to be. It is just a function of the antahkarana - its job is to label and claim ownership. For instance, when you inquire "who am I?", the ego labels your first thoughtless impression with the label "Daniel-Joseph", which then appears as a thought in your manas as "I am Daniel-Joseph". This is true for any and all things that one experiences. All of these are labeled, and ownership claimed by this process. 

[Sahaja]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

What is separated from Brahman?  

Good question. We need to ask Shankara what he meant  by maya being conceptually distinct from Brahman.  Though saying that siva and sakti are two views of one thing that is indivisible subordinating Maya to a lower tattva isn’t exactly clear either, though I do prefer living in a world that is real to one that is illusory.
 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Sahaja said:

Good question. We need to ask Shankara what he meant  by maya being conceptually distinct from Brahman.  Though saying that siva and sakti are two views of one thing that is indivisible subordinating Maya to a lower tattva isn’t exactly clear either, though I do prefer living in a world that is real to one that is illusory.
 

Did Shankara say that? Maya is called anirvachaniya - it is neither real nor unreal. It seems real until it is realized to be unreal.