Question for Non-Dualist

[psychoslice]

Yes I have rejected many things for the better, that's for sure.

 

[ions]

I am slightly bothered by the presupposed intellectual superiority that nondualists imply. Yes, it is elegant; certainly fashionable in a world with conflicting ideas of Godhead. And I believe it's true in part, but not the Ultimate Truth.

"Out of many men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth." BG 7.3

Perfection implies Brahman or Self-realization. Why would Krishna say this? What more is there to know after perfection?

There are many other verses in Gita and other sources that point to the Ultimate Truth, or God, not ending at Brahman or non-dual realization. The topic of saguna, sakar Brahman has been debated by scholars of Vedanta. Even the statement that Brahman is 'sat-cit-ananda' implies qualities (saguna)---although these are not within confines of maya.

Jagadguru Kripalu has explained these ideas in very simple terms, e.g. see:
What is God?

I certainly cannot do justice in trying to explain the idea of a personal God, or the achintya-bhedabhed philosophy... but I would be unsatisfied at accepting I understand the Final Truth, until I Know for certain.

There many veils to the final truth, lest our ego stops our transcendence. Even the four Sanat Kumaras, Sukadeva, Mahraj Janak, many nondualists---after complete self-realization---were ultimately drawn to devotion to a sakar God.

 

[Ravi500]

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

And is the heightened consciousness which is experienced in mindfulness, really energy !!

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

Technically speaking, energy is also matter . Would that mean energy is matter !

There is as much difference between consciusness and energy as between energy and matter.

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.

What I am arguing is that nondualism is a state of consciousness which is to be experienced, and not to be argued about endlessly.

Pluralism denotes a diversity of views and stands rather than a single approach or method of interpretation.


There can be diversity of views, such as Shankara stating the nondual state to be monistic, or Buddha stating the nondual state as shunya.


This is to help the aspirant attain the state easily.


I have no arguments over such pluralistic views provided they are accurate in denoting the nondual state, aiding the spiritual aspirant in reaching the state, instead of confusing him.

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

And as I explained above , intellectual realization does not correspond with direct experience of the state.

 

[Ravi500]

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.

The state of Buddhist shunya is the same as the state of advaita.

Advaita represents infinite consciousness that comes with the extinction of the ego.

Shunya represents the extinct ego, with which comes the infinite consciousness.


As I said before, this is something to be experienced. The company of an enlightened sage will also help in comprehending this subject.

 

[Ravi500]

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.

And , is this mere intellectual understanding, or perceptions coming from a state of heightened consciousness !

 

[psychoslice]

The thing about this non-dualism is that there is nothing to say about it, you cannot debate it, you cannot even understand it, the more you go on about it the less you know not that you can know.

 

[Ravi500]

"Out of many men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth." BG 7.3

Perfection implies Brahman or Self-realization. Why would Krishna say this? What more is there to know after perfection?

But , still it implies that it is the perfected one or Brahman-realized one, who has more chances of getting to know the ultimate truth which you are implying.

Also , who knows, perhaps, Krishna is implying by 'perfection' the bhakta, and the one who knows the ultimate truth as Jnani.

 

[ions]

But , still it implies that it is the perfected one or Brahman-realized one, who has more chances of getting to know the ultimate truth which you are implying.

Yes, true devotion begins after self-realization. Bhakti can be the means to self-realization and can continue after self-realization. Only after self-realization, bhakti is considered pure and unadulterated.

Also , who knows, perhaps, Krishna is implying by 'perfection' the bhakta, and the one who knows the ultimate truth as Jnani.

Endeavouring sadhak cannot be called perfect, either a bhakta or jnani. The simple point is there is more to 'perfection' than meets the eye. I'd rather not speculate on this matter, but suffice to say it is not inconceivable that beyond nondual brahman (parabrahman) there may be existence. This would be beyond space and time. Of course we could never understand it with a mayic intellect---and arguably even after perfection by our own efforts, we would require the grace of God, to really see/understand it. The subtleties of achintya-bhedabhed are inconceivable, by definition

BG 5.4: "Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sāńkhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both."

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Hope you had a sound, undisturbed sleep like Muchukunda of the yore. Should we term the substratum as sentient or insentient? Does it know that a person in the world is in pain? I think, it does not. Herein comes the difference between the conscience of humans and whatever conscience the substratum (Brahman) may have. That is why sages termed it as 'Nirlipta', 'Nirguna' (uninvolved). It works in its own way. Do I make my position clear?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am slightly bothered by the presupposed intellectual superiority that non-dualists imply. Yes, it is elegant; certainly fashionable in a world with conflicting ideas of Godhead.

I am sorry if my posts gave you this impression. I am a non-dualist and I can quote many verses from Srimad BhagawadGita where Krishna talks about the need for non-duality. But that is certainly not the only correct belief in Hinduism. Dualism also is just as correct depending upon the nature of a person. There is no question of superiority. What would Meera, Surdas, Nainsi Bhagat or so many others will have to do with non-duality?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And is the heightened consciousness which is experienced in mindfulness, really energy!!

That is not energy, that is a revved up motor. You can drive a car at a low speed or at a high speed.

Would that mean energy is matter!

Probably yes. They say that Bosons provide mass to photons or whatever. That mass can be changed into energy is amply proved.

There is as much difference between consciusness and energy as between energy and matter.

I think you may be right in the first part but not in the second of your sentence.

What I am arguing is that non-dualism is a state of consciousness which is to be experienced, and not to be argued about endlessly.

Non-dualism may be a physical fact provable by science and not dependent on low of high consciousness.

Pluralism denotes a diversity of views and stands rather than a single approach or method of interpretation.

You are always welcome to differ. That is the way it is with Hinduism.

There can be diversity of views, such as Shankara stating the non-dual state to be monistic, or Buddha stating the nondual state as shunya.

Buddha had a very different focus. I do not think he went beyond 'anatta'. He said a person hit by an arrow needs immediate medication rather than discussion on the arrow.

 

[Ravi500]

That is not energy, that is a revved up motor. You can drive a car at a low speed or at a high speed.Probably yes. They say that Bosons provide mass to photons or whatever. That mass can be changed into energy is amply proved.I think you may be right in the first part but not in the second of your sentence.Non-dualism may be a physical fact provable by science and not dependent on low of high consciousness.You are always welcome to differ. That is the way it is with Hinduism.Buddha had a very different focus. I do not think he went beyond 'anatta'. He said a person hit by an arrow needs immediate medication rather than discussion on the arrow.

There is no need to change Shankara's well-established philosophy to an out of context interpretation. You persist with this even though I showed the teachings of Shankara and Ramana stating that Brahman is a state of consciousness, which is contradictory to your interpretation.

Aupmanyav, as we discussed in the earlier thread, it is better to christen your interpretation as Aupmanyav Vedanta or any other term to your liking, and we can discuss it on an another thread to your hearts content.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/159790-poll-make-hindudir-blue-4.html

The discussion points can also help you to validate your philosophy with the authorised hindu scholars and establish it as a sampradaya or school of philosophy.

 

[Makaranda]

Wow this thread moves fast

Aupmanyav,

I slept well, thank you.

Many Hindus accept Lord Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu.

I know, though I don't think I do, so it is fairly immaterial to me what he said.

Self conscious in what way - the human way?

Not sure what you mean by Self conscious, do you mean Self-knowledge?

Your views are welcome.

Thank you.

Should we term the substratum as sentient or insentient?

Sentient in so far it is consciousness, yeah.

Does it know that a person in the world is in pain? I think, it does not.

Not sure what you mean here. Pain is in the body, detected by the senses. The senses are known to the mind/ego, which says 'I can feel pain' or 'I am in pain' and the mind/ego are in turn illuminated by the presence of the sAkshi which passively witnesses or illuminates the whole show. The witness is consciousness, and in the final analysis is understood as the substratum of the apparent subject-means of knowledge-object relationship. Hence, 'I' am all that exists.

Herein comes the difference between the conscience of humans and whatever conscience the substratum (Brahman) may have.

By conscience do you mean consciousness? So you believe there is more than one consciousness?

That is why sages termed it as 'Nirlipta', 'Nirguna' (uninvolved).

Well since Brahman is the only thing which is sat, and since Brahman has no body or organs of action, there is nothing with which it can act upon anything, nor is there anything separate from itself upon which to act. It accrues no karma (obviously) and hence no merit or demerit, and it is changeless, and so not subject to degradation, hence it is pure and undefiled. It is nirgunam because qualities pertain only to objects and imply limitations (for example, a red ball cannot be a blue ball, a ball cannot be a box, a virtuous man cannot be a sinful man, etc).

Do I make my position clear?

Not crystal

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Kashmir shaivism started around the same time advaita did.

"Some seek of duality, others speek of nonduality.
Neither know the truth, which is the same at all time & everywhere, which is devoid of both duality and nonduality." - Dattatreya

there seems to be something up with
A dualistic debate on the nature of Non-duality.

As no dualistic can be given, dualism is explained for beginners. Truth is not any duality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Self conscious in what way - the human way?

Not sure what you mean by Self conscious, do you mean Self-knowledge?

I should have worded it better. "Is 'Self' conscious in human way? What kind of consciousness does 'Self' has?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Wouldn't self consciousness indicate indicate an awareness of a little self/body
Conscious perception of a locality in time/space.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The discussion points can also help you to validate your philosophy with the authorised hindu scholars and establish it as a sampradaya or school of philosophy.

And who are the 'authorized' Hindu scholars? And who authorizes them? Why do I need an authentication of a view that is mine?

Sentient in so far it is consciousness, yeah.

And not so far as to intervene. If a girl is being raped, this sentience is not bothered about it though it is conscious about it? It is powerless to do anything about it? It is bound by some law that it cannot act? And what proof are you going to provide to show that it is conscious?

The senses are known to the mind/ego, which says 'I can feel pain' or 'I am in pain' and the mind/ego are in turn illuminated by the presence of the sAkshi which passively witnesses or illuminates the whole show. The witness is consciousness, and in the final analysis is understood as the substratum of the apparent subject-means of knowledge-object relationship. Hence, 'I' am all that exists.

So, you yourself are the 'sakshi'. What is the proof that you transfer your 'sakshya' to a supposed universal 'sakshi'? My connection/co-relation is clear. Whether myself or it, all is energy. Where as I am conscious, it is not conscious in that way. It may have some other kind of consciousness or property. What is your connecting link?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Authorization? Go get a guru and he will authorize your spiritual journey.
Advaita isn't Iskon.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you believe there is more than one consciousness?

Sure, every living being, humans, animals, vegetation, has its own consciousness. That is why I do not feel your pain. If it was the same consciousness, I would have felt the pain of a bird in a cage. Sure, I can empathize but I cannot feel the pain.

Well since Brahman is the only thing which is sat, and since Brahman has no body or organs of action, there is nothing with which it can act upon anything, nor is there anything separate from itself upon which to act.

Remember, you said same consciousness. It does not require arms to act. It can perhaps make the person doing a wrong thing to stop doing that. If it cannot do even that, then, am I wrong in supposing that each person/living being has a separate consciousness?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Authorization? Go get a guru and he will authorize your spiritual journey. Advaita isn't Iskon.

Who has made that person into a guru? Can a Nath sampradaya guru authorize an advaitist? If my views are different from a particular Advaita guru, then he would not be eligible to authorize my views. As you know, we do not have popes in Hinduism. We are on our own conscience. If I consider something to be right for me, then no one has the authority to interfere. It is my 'mata' (opinion). For example, a physicist cannot authenticate an answer in history. Only a historian with that particular specialization can do it. A historian with specialization in Ancient Indian History would not have to say anything about European History of the middle ages. It has to be a good match.