Question for Non-Dualist

[Contemplative Cat]

Nath and Kaula teach Kashmir shaivism.
Often advaita and tantra mix amoung yogi sadhus.

If one is so concerned with being "right"
then get a realized guru to tell you whats right, and thus to cull the seekers arrogance about being "right"

 

[Makaranda]

Hello Aupmanyav, having a good day/night?

"Is 'Self' conscious in human way? What kind of consciousness does 'Self' has?

The word 'Self' and the word 'consciousness' don't indicate two different things, the Self is consciousness, it doesn't have consciousness. Consciousness isn't an attribute or adjective to be applied to any particular object.

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?

The example seems inappropriate. Though recall what I said:

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.

What is the proof that you transfer your 'sakshya' to a supposed universal 'sakshi'?

No, no, there is only one sAkshi present in all beings.

very living being, humans, animals, vegetation, has its own consciousness.

This is not the teaching of Advaita (Vedanta). I presume you are aware of that. There is a single consciousness which illuminates all bodies, all minds, all sentient beings, which is present as the awareness 'I'; 'I' exist.

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.

You are superimposing the qualities and attributes of an object (the body, pain, etc) onto the awareness by which they are known. The means of knowledge are limited, but the awareness which illuminates them isn't. You cannot feel my pain, because you have no means of knowledge to do so; the senses are too limited to do that. Even if one had the means of knowledge to feel the pain inside another body, this would still be a limitation superimposed onto the limitless awareness.

am I wrong in supposing that each person/living being has a separate consciousness?

If you have seven billion pots of water, and the single sun shines on all of those pots, then it appears as though the sun which is reflected in the water has been split into seven billion little suns in seven billion little pots. In the same way, Brahman illuminates the inner equipment (mind, etc) of every single body, and appears as though limited by each body as a separate consciousness, but in reality it is one only. The seeming manifoldness is not true on a close analysis.

 

[DanielR]

If you have seven billion pots of water, and the single sun shines on all of those pots, then it appears as though the sun which is reflected in the water has been split into seven billion little suns in seven billion little pots. In the same way, Brahman illuminates the inner equipment (mind, etc) of every single body, and appears as though limited by each body as a separate consciousness, but in reality it is one only. The seeming manifoldness is not true on a close analysis.

But I am not the mind, I am the one Brahman, if I am the one, why do I not experience everything simultaneously, I am the sun :sarcastic

Nevermind, it's probably due to ignorance, I answered my own question now lol

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Often advaita and tantra mix amoung yogi sadhus

Too true and especially this yogi sadhu who believes that Shiva (Purusha) and Shakti (Prakriti) existing separately is Dvaita or Maya and when combined into ShivaShakti or Sri Ardanarishwara, becomes Advaita or Brahman.

I haven't been replying much here, because it's all about the history of the Indian subcontinent that I know absolutely zero about and wouldn't know about Ahura Mazda or anything like that.

It's gotten so bad, that kalama reminds me of a type of olive (kalamata), Malik is an actor (Art) and Mazda is a brand of car...

Yup, that's how totally clueless I am about all this.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, no, there is only one sAkshi present in all beings.

That is an assertion, unless you provide me a proof.

This is not the teaching of Advaita (Vedanta). I presume you are aware of that. There is a single consciousness which illuminates all bodies, all minds, all sentient beings, which is present as the awareness 'I'; 'I' exist.

There can be a single consciousness, if you accept all complex entities to be finally constituted by a single entity. That single entity, I take to be Brahman, i.e., 'physical energy'. If there can be any other, please let me know. That means even a rock is constituted by that single entity, which has no consciousness in the human sense.

"Yathā, Saumya, ekena mrt-pindena sarvam mrnmayam vijnātam syāt;
vāchārambhanam vikāro nama-dheyam, mrttikety eva satyam."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yup, that's how totally clueless I am about all this.

Om Namah Shivaya

Do you need to know all this? You know Shiva, and know him quite well. That is more than what we people know.
Namah Shivaya.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Do you need to know all this? You know Shiva, and know him quite well. That is more than what we people know.
Namah Shivaya.

Yeah, you could say I have found my 'niche'.

What I have sacrificed knowing everything about one thing to the detriment of anything/everything else...

MV and JS make me look like a kindergarten student...

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

MV and JS make me look like a kindergarten student...

I'm honestly not that good with history, especially not with memorizing dates (for example, I couldn't tell you whether the Anandagotrika sAmarAjyam came before or after the pUrva chAlukyaru), so I'm often as clueless as you when it comes to the nitty-gritty facts and what not. I like "history" in a story-like manner, even if the majority of the text is "mythological," but absolutely hate meaning to read texts which are filled with observations, because they often tend to be dry and meaningless. I can relate to the characters in the mahAbhAratam for instance, but it doesn't intrigue me in the least to read the views of India by people like Megasthenes or al-Biruni.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I'm honestly not that good with history, especially not with memorizing dates (for example, I couldn't tell you whether the Anandagotrika sAmarAjyam came before or after the pUrva chAlukyaru), so I'm often as clueless as you when it comes to the nitty-gritty facts and what not. I like "history" in a story-like manner, even if the majority of the text is "mythological," but absolutely hate meaning to read texts which are filled with observations, because they often tend to be dry and meaningless. I can relate to the characters in the mahAbhAratam for instance, but it doesn't intrigue me in the least to read the views of India by people like Megasthenes or al-Biruni.

See, now 'mahAbhAratam' was the only word I could identify out of all those words. lol

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

See, now 'mahAbhAratam' was the only word I could identify out of all those words. lol

It's okay though, knowledge of Indian history doesn't really matter. In my opinion, it your bhAva that matters. For example, that f*t Indologist, Wendy Doniger, has a lot of knowledge of Indian history and even about Indian scriptures, but she's a shivadveShiNI who compares shiva to a serial rapist, so I don't give her any respect.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Yes, I still have a difficult time believing that Shiva Lingam is God's penis...

I still should further my knowledge about Indian History, as what I know (all I know) is based upon archaeological evidence of ancient civilisations dug up over time...and that ancient Dwarka now lay under about 20-30ft of ocean, so I can come up with my own theories about when the 'Ice Age' happened...

Apart from all this, I know nothing.

I learned about Shah Jehan and the Taj Mahal...yup, that's about it. lol

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It's gotten so bad, that kalama reminds me of a type of olive (kalamata), Malik is an actor (Art) and Mazda is a brand of car...

It's okay, when I think of kalama I don't think of the kAlAmA people from the kesamuttisuttam in the mUlatipiTaka either. When I think of kalama, the first thing that comes to mind is the Arabic word qalam, which means pen. More specifically, what comes to mind is how the wretched pedo-nabi (Muhammad) pretends as if he has a revelation and says "iq3ra warabbukal-akramul adhii3allamabil-qalami" (read for your lord who is most generous, the one who taught by the pen [bil-qalami]) in suurat al3alaq of the Qur'an.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It's okay, when I think of kalama I don't think of the kAlAmA people from the kesamuttisuttam in the mUlatipiTaka either. When I think of kalama, the first thing that comes to mind is the Arabic word qalam, which means pen. More specifically, what comes to mind is how the wretched pedo-nabi (Muhammad) pretends as if he has a revelation and says "iq3ra warabbukal-akramul adhii3allamabil-qalami" (read for your lord who is most generous, the one who taught by the pen [bil-qalami]) in suurat al3alaq of the Qur'an.

When words start having numbers in them, is when I start to go like this:

It's good that word-association isn't a trait common to only myself though.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

When words start having numbers in them, is when I start to go like this:

The three is just used to transliterate ayin (&#65225 since it looks like a three only backwards. It's generally only used in chat alphabets, I'm just lazy and I don't want to have to use the backwards apostrophe symbol, and the three helps save me the trouble of copying and pasting the backwards apostrophe symbol.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The three is just used to transliterate ayin (&#65225 since it looks like a three only backwards. It's generally only used in chat alphabets, I'm just lazy and I don't want to have to use the backwards apostrophe symbol, and the three helps me save the trouble of copying and pasting the backwards apostrophe symbol.

Yeah, it's like how the capital 'B' is used to express 'SS' in German, but that's still a letter...

You just know so much about language and I have even seen you translate Aramaic.

I guess I am just limited to/by certain South-East Asian languages, where these concepts are just too much 'out there'.

You can rattle off anything in about a dozen (or more) languages...while I am stuck only knowing English fluently, and two other languages only partially...

So when you start posting in Arabic, Hebrew or Greek, my mind does an auto switch to 'off' position. lol

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Makaranda]

Hello Aupmanyav,

That is an assertion, unless you provide me a proof.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.4.23 and 3.8.11 says that there is no other (conscious) entity but Brahman. It's a pretty basic axiom of Vedanta that one's essential nature is Brahman, and Brahman is satchitAnanda, and one without a second. Really it's in countless texts, I don't know why you seem to struggle with it. Brahmajnanavali Mala says, too, sarvasAkshisvarUpo'ham, nishkalo'ham nishkriyo'ham sarvAtmA Adyah sanAtanah, dRg brahma dRSyam mAyeti sarvavedAntaDiNDimah . See also Hastamalakiyam.

There can be a single consciousness, if you accept all complex entities to be finally constituted by a single entity. That single entity, I take to be Brahman, i.e., 'physical energy'

Are you saying that all physical beings/objects added up= Brahman? Like a kind of material pantheism?

 

[Shântoham]

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.4.23

Namaskāram

3.4.23? Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad third Adhyāya fourth Brāmana has only two Mantra(s).

there is no other (conscious) entity but Brahman

Brahman as a conscious entity – an oxymoron, perhaps?

Pranāms

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

3.4.23? Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad third Adhyāya fourth Brāmana has only two Mantra(s).

svAgatam,
I think he's referring to 4.3.21-22 (tadvA\_ asyaita\_dAtma\_kAmamApta\_kAmamakAmaM tadya\_thA priya\_yA striyA\_ saMpa\_riShvakto na bA\_hyaM kiM\_ chana\_ veda nA\_ntarameva\_me\_vAyaM pu\_ruShaHshArira\_ AtmA tadvA\_ asyaitada\_tichChando\_ 'pahatapApmAbhayaN ta\_d vai asya eta\_d a\_tichChandas a\_pahatapApma abhaya\_m )

 

[Makaranda]

Ooo my mistake, I meant to write 3.7.23. Thanks

 

[Aupmanyav]

When I think of kalama, the first thing that comes to mind is the Arabic word qalam, which means pen. More specifically, what comes to mind is how the wretched pedo-nabi (Muhammad) pretends as if he has a revelation and says "iq3ra warabbukal-akramul adhii3allamabil-qalami" (read for your lord who is most generous, the one who taught by the pen [bil-qalami]) in suurat al3alaq of the Qur'an.

Kalām is for what has been written, plural Kalimah (the six).