Regarding Upanishads

[Poeticus]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam Ji,

Can you tell me which Upanishads you have read ? I have read some too and never came across this kind of thing. I am curious to know from which ones you got this feeling so I can read them too and see :0
It seems, from what you describe, a bit... Well, extreme ô_ô

Aum Namah Sivaya

 

[Poeticus]

Isha, Mandukya, and Mundaka.

 

[Vinayaka]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

lol ... Life is obviously more interesting than that. If you're seriously contemplating seeing these parts as a description of daily life, I'd suggest you go for a walk in nature, a swim ... an art gallery ... something.

But yes, once upon a time I struggled through a condensed version. Can't remember it much now, other than it was a struggle. Too many distractions, I guess. Maybe it's astill around here somewhere gathering dust, and I'll have another go of it.

 

[Hunter8]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

Namaste,

What you most likely read was a translation heavily influenced by Drishti Srishti Vada, Ajati Vada, or Eka Jiva Vada. Some translations do give the feel you felt. There are other translations though, like the Isha Upanishad is really about Gods ownership of everything and Him being the source of everything. But some translations will translate Brahman into terms like "the Self" "Impersonal Unmanifest", etc. which only shows one side of the spectrum of the beautiful philosophies within Hinduism. I'd say look up other translations, or look at the transliteration and translate as you please.

Aum Namo Narayanaya

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

Sounds like when people of privilege philosophize; blissfully unaware of the pain and suffering of lesser mortals.
Yeah/ sounds like "khangressi" philosophy (where even "poverty is a state of mind"); seems they have been at it ever since before the present era.

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Hey, don't freak out.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

Isha, Mandukya, and Mundaka.

Why don't you provide here with some quotes: both in support of your impressions, and also those that are opposite?

 

[Kalidas]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

What little I read of the Upanishads I got the feeling that it isn't that "nothing" exists (that's nihilism) but that Brahman is the ONLY thing that exists. So those things you mention, they exist just not in the way we think.

That's what I pulled away from it but I read a book called "The philosophy of the Upanishads". It was not the Upanishads directly but a German book translated to English of a Theologian explaining the philosophy behind the passages, with direct quotations and researched evidence to prove the philosophical points. I thought it was a good book, I would rather read the real Upanishads though

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

What little I read of the Upanishads I got the feeling that it isn't that "nothing" exists (that's nihilism) but that Brahman is the ONLY thing that exists. So those things you mention, they exist just not in the way we think.

This is what I walked away with. I had a very abridged version so I think that contributed to the repetitive nature of it. But yes, everything we see exists, but only as a part of Brahman. Everything is an emanation of that.

:camp:

 

[Kalidas]

This is what I walked away with. I had a very abridged version so I think that contributed to the repetitive nature of it. But yes, everything we see exists, but only as a part of Brahman. Everything is an emanation of that.

:camp:

EXACTLY, yeah emanation is a good word. Nothing is "real" in the sense that Brahman is real. Basically Brahman is the sun everything else is the light,heat,colors, etc etc etc the sun gives off. They exist just, not like the sun "exists"

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram MV ji :namaste

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

no , well at least not to me

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

not knowing which portions ar translation you were reading , I would say yes it must be an ''HORRID''and inelequant ''TRANSLATION''

...this message also occurs in the gita where Arjuna stops his chariot in the middle of the battle field and asks Bhagavan , why ? I do not want to kill my kirth and kin I do not want to be the cause of their suffering , he did not want to spit apart the families , leave mothers without their sons , or wives without their husbands . ....where upon krsna tries to explain that these people are allready dead (due to the results of their actions these conditions have come about it is too late to turn them back) and that it is Arjunas duty to fight this war , Krsna even goes to the extent of saying that if Arjuna didnt fulfill his duty then sri krsna would have to do it himself ,
on first hearing this sounds harsh , but exactly as you describe above do we not feel the pain of these situations ? of course , ...you ask if all is illusion then everything is empty , no past no present , no future ....? ... the world is not here ? ....

what wasnt explained well enough was that there is no perminance in this world , it is here but it is not eternal and our position within it allthough momentarily substantial lacks eternal substance .
Krsna takes pains to explain that we are without begining and without end , but that we are not as we assume ourselves to be , ....you ask ....''colour is not real ? past , present and future do not exist ?''.....I must then say , ..exist in what way ?

...yes they exist , but they have no perminance , (that is not to say that they are without worth ) ...and also they have no independance from other phenomena , all phenomena are one as is a droplet in water , ....there is momentary independance , followed by a return to ones original source , so we have an unending cycle of seperation and unity , but it is in this state of seperation that we suffer the illusiory notion of independance and perminance ,
.... we as we know ourselves at this moment are real but only in the transient sence , and as there is transience there is constant change , so there is no perminance , the colour you see is not the colour I see allthough we both call it red , but that doesnot mean that it is not existant , it means that it is imperminent , ...and there is ''thought'' but it too is not perminent , it is also in flux , untill thought becomes realisation , then it is without change , without imperminance , ...that knowledge or truth is eternal , and the same no matter who is realising it .
....and yes there is '' purpose'' ... the realisation of our true state , but that does not make our present unenlightened state non existent , just imperminent , just subject to change .

these are conventional and ultimate realities , and we need conventional reality to accheive ultimate reality , so they are both existent just in different ways .

hope I have not confused you even further , ..... but if I have (please accept my humble appologies ) ....do not worry , ...confusion will not last as it is imperminent ,

realisation however is eternal it is simply covered and awaiting descovery

 

[Maya3]

I agree with what the others have said. It´s not that the world does not exist. It´s that we only see part of it. And the part we see is not permanent but temporary. Eventually it dies, even if it takes a long, long time like the Redwoods that live for thousands of years.
But the "real" thing so to speak is the spark if you will that gets everything in the universe to evolve and grow. That is your Real Self that is the same as The Self.

Maya

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

After reading four of the Upanishads (Isa, Katha, Mandukya and Chhandogya), I could read no more when I got this indescribable feeling "if you have read one Upanishad, you have read them all". This was also the biggest "Sacred Hindu Text Spoiler" for me, ever!

The message I got was slightly different "no matter what anybody says or even tries to say, Brahman is experiential and everything you will ever read/know (mentally) about this matter after this point on will all be just a huge waste of time, so 'look no further".

The Upanishads don't really say these things 'don't exist', just there's something more important that does and to look within to find it.

It says these things are Maya (Illusion) but only and note this please: only in relation to that which is the Ultimate Reality (Brahman). They are no more or less 'real' to us, or on any other level of human awareness/existence. Brahman is nothing, but within that 'nothing' is everything...just like a whole tree is encoded in the DNA of the seed.

These worldly events are not illusions - they are very real and part of what is called 'Mithya' - think of it as the 'Production Department' of the Cosmic Play of Maya. On the surface, it seems very real, but in the whole scheme of things...when we consider time (large amounts of it) and other things going on, nothing much holds more than a 'temporary relevance' no matter how relevant the situation is and to whom.

Yes, this is the ultimate understanding of it all and some also say 'it's because of Karma' but either way...

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[atanu]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

Nooooh man.

The main two teachings are:

1. As long as one sees duality here (see another as separate), one will again and again die.
2. As long as one sees a second one will not be fearless.
...........
So, in order to overcome death and fear -- moksha in other words -- the reality must be experienced and abided as non dual.

But that does not mean that one abiding as the non dual will be insensible. I can do better by reproducing from someone else's note:

There is the knower or observer of "there is and there is not," and so we have another level with which to find unity.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

1. If you read translations, they will most likely be Advaitic interpretations. Other branches of Vedanta would interpret the same text very differently. The rest of the points below are all based on the Advaita view.

2. Yes. Shankara clearly says Jagat Mithya. However, this is not what is perceived in reality. The contradiction is explained by the two-truth doctrine of Nagarjuna, which is also the same for Advaita. Though, the ultimate truth is that no separation exists, there is relative truth where separation exists (Universe, time, space, identity, other people, etc). This relative truth is falsified on liberation as it was never really true.

3. Upanishads were never meant for the general public. It was part of Vedanta and was meant for Sanyasins/people who have renounced worldly life. Today, due to printing, they are available to everyone, but the right understanding of these texts continues to be reserved for just a few.

Definitely not horrid!

 

[Poeticus]

Nooooh man.

The main two teachings are:

1. As long as one sees duality here (see another as separate), one will again and again die.
2. As long as one sees a second one will not be fearless.
...........
So, in order to overcome death and fear -- moksha in other words -- the reality must be experienced and abided as non dual.

But that does not mean that one abiding as the non dual will be insensible. I can do better by reproducing from someone else's note:

1. If you read translations, they will most likely be Advaitic interpretations. Other branches of Vedanta would interpret the same text very differently. The rest of the points below are all based on the Advaita view.

2. Yes. Shankara clearly says Jagat Mithya. However, this is not what is perceived in reality. The contradiction is explained by the two-truth doctrine of Nagarjuna, which is also the same for Advaita. Though, the ultimate truth is that no separation exists, there is relative truth where separation exists (Universe, time, space, identity, other people, etc). This relative truth is falsified on liberation as it was never really true.

3. Upanishads were never meant for the general public. It was part of Vedanta and was meant for Sanyasins/people who have renounced worldly life. Today, due to printing, they are available to everyone, but the right understanding of these texts continues to be reserved for just a few.

Definitely not horrid!

Thank you both for your replies, but please know that this is a 2013 thread from a while back and it is one of those threads that, in hindsight, I regret making. Nonetheless, thank you for your corrections, and clarifications, for they will serve me, and other readers, well.

 

[Kalibhakta]

Nooooh man.

The main two teachings are:

1. As long as one sees duality here (see another as separate), one will again and again die.
2. As long as one sees a second one will not be fearless.
...........
So, in order to overcome death and fear -- moksha in other words -- the reality must be experienced and abided as non dual.

But that does not mean that one abiding as the non dual will be insensible. I can do better by reproducing from someone else's note:

That sounds perfectly in line with the Teachings on the Goddess that I have read.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

Kindly keep the two realities of Sankara in mind. Is the Upanishad talking about 'Vyavaharika' or 'Parmarthika'? For 'Vyavaharika', Srimad Bhagawat Purana and Srimad BhagwadGita are more suitable.

Welcome back NYK. We missed you. (Oh, old thread, NYK is not back. I hope she is well)

 

[Stormcry]

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

The person in a dream wouldn't believe my reality is unreality and that in waking state reality or the person in a waking state wouldn't believe my reality is unreality and that in dream reality. You're in the same mode.

 

[Valjean]

The Upanishads declare a lot of things, and can be read at different levels, but

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

The Upanishads declare a lot of things and can be read on different levels, but, in the Vedantic tradition, particularly the non-dualistic advaita school, this is exactly how the Upanishads are interpreted.
Don't freak out, though. This is nothing new. Relativity theory, Quantum Mechanics and the String theories have questioned our perceptions of reality for a long time.

In a nutshell: There is Objective Reality, and there are various subjective, 'illusory' realities. Dreams are subjectively real while you're dreaming them, but are not Objectively Real. When you wake, their unreality is immediately apparent.
Waking-State is subjectively real while you're awake, but when you 'wake' to 4th or 5th-state its unreality is immediately apparent.

There are multiple, mutually exclusive realities. You have to live in the reality you perceive even if you understand, intellectually, that it violates physics.

 

[Chakra]

I get the feeling, after reading a few Upanishads, that the message is this:

The world is not here, and neither is the past, future, nor present. Nothing is going on. Humanity/humans are not real. There is no purpose. Color is not real. Beauty and ugliness (physically and non-physically) do not exist. Desire and fear do not exist. There is neither of them. Mind does not exist, and there is no thought. There is absolutely nothing.

-------------------------------------
​

Is this true? Is this what the Upanishads declare?

Isn't that type of thinking dangerous? If there is nothing, then how in the world would you explain your heart rushing when you see your own kin killed before you? How do you explain the sufferings of malnourished children in Africa that are forced to kill their own families in order to join Rebel Militias? How in the world are such events "illusions"? If the above is really what the Upanishads teach, that is some of the most dangerous type of thinking that I have ever encountered.

Please tell me that...that is not what the Upanishads teach and whatever I read were just horrid translations!

Only Advaita man.

Actually, even when talking about Advaita, you have got to keep the vyavaharika in mind. Aup made a good post about that.
But in all cases, Advaita may sometimes be hard for the common man.

The only way that Advaita can be used for a dangerous thing is the idea that one is in parmarthika while still in vyavharika (no offense to Aup). While Advaita does say that we are in the vyavaharika right now, and thus your actions still have consequences, the idea that we are in parmarthika can be used to justify a lot of bad things. But you have to understand that this is Hinduism. Advaita, being a Hindu philosophy and the conclusions of a sage, can't be used to justify bad things, unlike some other religions.