Question for Non-Dualist

[Aupmanyav]

Bodhidharma, the founder of martial arts, taught martial arts in the non-dual state. Most martial arts have zen as their basis. In the Gita, Krishna himself exhorts Arjuna to fight in the non-dual state through karma yoga.

With all this, you still exclaim duality? Living beings and a God? You have not understood what sages said.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am reminded of the fable of the enlightened sage Chuang-tzu, i.e the story of the frog in the well.

Chinese Stories/The frog of the well - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

When one is stuck intensely in delusions, it is quite hard to face facts to the contrary, and rectify one's perception or thought process accordingly. :sad4: :candle:

Well, you might be describing your state of knowledge.

 

[Ravi500]

Here is a good link on the state of non-duality by J.Krishnamurti.....

The Urgency of Change - Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

[Aupmanyav]

No to JK. Does not suit me.

Edited: Neither does UGK. Too much mysticism.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Very well said indeed, Makaranda.

Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss[Sat-Chit-Ananda]. -- Adi Shankaracharya

Ramana Maharshi himself had stated in answer to a devotees inquiry on the non-dual state. "There is Consciousness along with quietness in the mind; this is exactly the state to be aimed at."


When the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Adi Shankaracharya himself, had denoted Brahman as a state of consciousness, blissful and one with existence, I find it bizaree that Advaita is reinterpreted as being nothing but universal energy, and nothing related to consciousness.

Advaita is actually the state of expanded awareness, which comes with the extinction of the ego. And since the whole world is seen as one with that perception, it is considered as the nondual state.

This is the same as Buddha's Shunyata, which means 'empty' or 'void' , meaning the extinction of the ego.

Both Advaita and Shunyata are ways of interpreting the non-dual state or no-mind.

It is the same as saying the glass is half full from one angle, and the glass is half empty from another angle.


When advaita is misinterpreted as universal energy and not a state of consciousness, ignorantly, then I am afraid a time will come when Buddha's Shunyata will be misinterpreted as a black hole, and not a state of consciousness.

Conscious energy, the consciousness is itself energy. All energy is conscious, some energy forms brains which then receive perceptions(illusions)

Energy is really colorless, odorless, soundless, invisible, etc. The world appearance is an illusion, but the world is technically real.

Advaita, vishistadvaita, and pure advaita all are valid ways to explain the "enlightened state".

By positing one thing over another, it is duality.
What you are arguing is monism over pluralism, nondualism is the negation of oneness & plurals.

Idk about most scientists but Albert Einstein made many quotes that would lead one to believe he is realized.
"No reality but the quantum reality" - AL

 

[Contemplative Cat]

In Advaita Brahman is an ontelogical reality, not a potential.
You are confuseing Mahayana and Advaita.
Sat(existence/energy) chit(awareness) ananda(fulfillment)

Buddhism is cool, but it is not identical to advaita. In Buddhism sometimes enlightenment is described as a potential state of mind, which is fine but that's a form of Buddhism.

 

[Makaranda]

Conscious energy, the consciousness is itself energy. All energy is conscious, some energy forms brains which then receive perceptions(illusions)

Energy is really colorless, odorless, soundless, invisible, etc. The world appearance is an illusion, but the world is technically real.

Advaita, vishistadvaita, and pure advaita all are valid ways to explain the "enlightened state".

By positing one thing over another, it is duality.
What you are arguing is monism over pluralism, nondualism is the negation of oneness & plurals.

Idk about most scientists but Albert Einstein made many quotes that would lead one to believe he is realized.
"No reality but the quantum reality" - AL

Maybe the physical 'energy' that constitutes the universe is better understood as Brahman's mAyA shakti, rather than Brahman's essential nature. Somehow, to me, to relegate consciousness to an adjective ('conscious') appended to an impersonal phenomena such as 'energy' (which is an exceedingly vague word) seems to dilute the clarity of all the teachings and remove the sense in which one's own Self in the final analysis is seen to be identical to that consciousness. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this kind of speculation, though it seems rather scientific and objective, misses the whole point of investigating deeply what the subject, I, is. Einstein, after all, never said of himself, 'I am That', did he?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Einstein, after all, never said of himself, 'I am That', did he?

That is what Buddha advised against. Andha Bhakti (blind faith). Since Einstein said this or did not say this, it must be true. Science has gone much further than Einstein. Think for yourself.
".. nor upon what is in a scripture,.. nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' "

Thus spake the Enlightened One to the Kalamas.​

 

[Contemplative Cat]

It doesn't seem so to me. It is supposed to be more nondualistic than advaita.
Because advaita beleives in duality of Brahman & Maya
form is false, and formlessness is true. Duality

Kashmir shaivism as taught by sage vasistha to lord Rama, posits that nothing is but Brahman. Form is actually formless, and formlessness is actually formed.
Formlessness when perceived by 7 senses; tastebuds, eyeballs, nose, nervous system, ears, heart, and brain, brahman appears to be a distinct forms.
By shutting sense organs down the mind enters into a nondistinction of Brahman.
Consciousness(Shiva) is described as existing in all energy(shakti) like wettness to water or heat to fire. They are always together because they are really one. Wherever there is consciousness is energy is, were energy is consciousness is.sat & chit

Consciousness in a tree or rock perceives formless energy, consciousness in a brain perceives distinctions in energy.
the Brahman we call rock sees no distinctions on Brahman, the Brahman called man sees many distinctions in Brahman.
Quiet the mind, forget all notions and we perceive formlessness.
Speed up the mind, imagine many things and we perceive forms.

The philosophical difference is that technically the world is real.
And unlike in advaita, Brahman changes all the time(but the senses need to be active to perceive change and quality)

But this duality is just for explainations. All is Brahman, any perception is Brahman in Brahman.

Energy is an English word often used to denote a monistic substance that all "other" substances are derived. It is the closest word english has to Brahman. (perhaps also Nature)

 

[Makaranda]

That is what Buddha advised against. Andha Bhakti (blind faith). Since Einstein said this or did not say this, it must be true. Science has gone much further than Einstein. Think for yourself.
".. nor upon what is in a scripture,.. nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' "

Thus spake the Enlightened One to the Kalamas.​

Well, I am not a Buddhist, so what Buddha said or didn't say is of no consequence to me. Perhaps there is some irony in this exchange, since it is you that has quoted the words of a teacher from a scripture to advise me to 'think for myself'.

And with regards to the Einstein comment, the point I was making was that Einstein studied the nature of an objective universe, he did not study (or discover) the nature of himself as its ultimate subject. So how can we call him a jnani? A jnani is a self-knower, not a knower of quantum physics or a knower of bosons or quarks or relativity or string theory. The universe and its constituent elements falls under the category of apara-vidyA. The Self alone is what is to be known through para-vidyA, and that Self is consciousness, not an impersonal physical energy out 'there' in the universe. That is my view, at least, as an advaitin.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

There is no inner or outer. You are Brahman whether it is explained as subject or object is irrelevant. Because these are words.
The nondual reality is devoid of words& thus any notion of subject or object. It is non dual, neti neti, no answers but silence.

 

[psychoslice]

There is no inner or outer. You are Brahman whether it is explained as subject or object is irrelevant. Because these are words.
The nondual reality is devoid of words& thus any notion of subject or object. It is non dual, neti neti, no answers but silence.

Now that's a good answer.:clap

 

[Makaranda]

CC (may I call you CC?), it helps to quote or name the person you're responding to, though I'll assume you're replying to me

It is supposed to be more nondualistic than advaita.

How does one become more not-two than not-two?

Because advaita beleives in duality of Brahman & Maya

No it doesn't. Brahman alone is satyam, there is nothing over and against Brahman that has equal reality status (ie, there is nothing other than Brahman that is sat); the presence of mAya in no way contradicts the unity/non-duality of Brahman.

form is false, and formlessness is true. Duality

Ehhh, that's reaching, sounds like a semantic trick. If 'form' is false like the hare's horn, then there is only 'formlessness', hence, only one thing, advaitam. If 'form' is false like the appearance of a snake in a rope, and the rope in this context is 'formlessness', then, again, there is only one thing, appearing as though two things, and yet still there is truly only one thing, hence, advaitam. Either way, no duality.

Kashmir shaivism as taught by sage vasistha to lord Rama...

Ahhh okay I didn't realize you were a Shaivite. No issue with you here.

Edit-

There is no inner or outer. You are Brahman whether it is explained as subject or object is irrelevant.

Doesn't have anything to do with my point viz. Einstein.

The nondual reality is devoid of words& thus any notion of subject or object. It is non dual, neti neti, no answers but silence.

But silence is not good for the health of a discussion forum.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Whats up? Talk to me a little more.
How Does shaivism change the situation?

 

[Makaranda]

Whats up? Talk to me a little more.
How Does shaivism change the situation?

Do use the 'quote' function if you're replying to me, CC, otherwise it might get confusing

Coming into the thread I made the (naughty) assumption that you (and perhaps Aupmanyav) were implying some kind of insentient substratum (like Pradhāna) when you were bandying the term 'energy' about. I'm still not sure about Aupmanyav since he(?) said consciousness was limited to grey matter, but you've made it pretty clear it's not what you meant, so I apologise for making that assumption.

And yes we can talk and talk, though I do need to go to bed first

 

[Poeticus]

Whats up?

What's up is the fact that you keep posting in the HinduDIR even though you aren't Hindu, and you have stated it plainly that you aren't Hindu.

Respectful, contributive posts are more than welcomed - but that's definitely not what you have been doing.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

What's up is the fact that you keep posting in the HinduDIR even though you aren't Hindu, and you have stated it plainly that you aren't Hindu.

Respectful, contributive posts are more than welcomed - but that's definitely not what you have been doing.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one upset by CC's troll posts where he states his "philosophical" position no matter how offensive and classifies those who disagree on shAstrik grounds as fundamentalists...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because advaita beleives in duality of Brahman & Maya. form is false, and formlessness is true. Duality.

Maya is just the effect of existence of Brahman, like a shadow is of the object. Not a duality. There would be no form without the formless. Non-duality.

 

[psychoslice]

Maya is just the effect of existence of Brahman, like a shadow is of the object. Not a duality. There would be no form without the formless. Non-duality.

Yes I can dig that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I am not a Buddhist, so what Buddha said or didn't say is of no consequence to me. Perhaps there is some irony in this exchange, since it is you that has quoted the words of a teacher from a scripture to advise me to 'think for myself'.

Many Hindus accept Lord Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu and it is mentioned in SrimadBhagawat Purana. What he says is relevant. He re-established 'dharma' and moved the 'Kala-chakra'. If you find any problem in Buddhism, reject it; I have done that wrt 'karma'.

I do not know to what extent Einstein knew about 'para-vidya'. Self conscious in what way - the human way? Your views are welcome.