Yay! It's All Me

[dybmh]

I have a whole book dedicated to it's study.

It reveals the occult?

 

[The Hammer]

It reveals the occult?

I see what you hid there.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Without looking it up, Isn't it, something approximately:

"I see the divine in you"?

None the less, without that included in the story this seems to be an irrelevant question. A quiz. Nothing more

I have never seen a Hindu bow to another in greeting "namaste" where the other didn't bow in return. And the bowing is not supplication.

Again, the story as told in this thread indicates the enlightened-sage is different and above another. The story as told here, cannot be enlightened. Being inspired by it cannot be enlightened.

I asked a question if we agreed. I'm not sure why that question was returned with a question asking about a word/concept. If it is attempting to demonstrate a difference between our positions when none exists...

Well.

If this were a debate, that would be called a red-herring, a distraction.

I'd like to stay on topic which is how these concepts can be flipped and applied in reverse.

Your posts are riddled with assumptions.

You assume that Shankaracharya bowed to the sage, and the sage did not return the gesture. Without asking or reading the whole story, how could you know?

Also, you assume the reason I asked the question I did. Namaste/namesake quite literally means “I bow to the divine in you.” Bowing can be a greeting and a gesture of honor or reverence and not supplication. Without asking, how could you know?

Perhaps if you spent more time asking questions and less time passing judgment based on assumptions, discourse might prove to be more fruitful.

 

[dybmh]

I see what you hid there.

Hiding in plain sight. Open-secrets, inside-jokes, riddles, word-games... it's all fun and games till... someone loses an eye.

 

[The Hammer]

Hiding in plain sight. Open-secrets, inside-jokes, riddles, word-games... it's all fun and games till... someone loses an eye.

Sorry, what? Having trouble reading that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This an interfaith discussion.

Do you know what the word "shalom" means?

I'm asking because it seems there is an assumption that the concepts being discussed are not part of my culture.

As I understand it, it means “peace.”

If I’m incorrect, please let me know.

And there was no assumption. Maybe you’re projecting. There was an assessment based on your contributions here.

 

[dybmh]

Your posts are riddled with assumptions.

You assume that Shankaracharya bowed to the sage, and the sage did not return the gesture. Without asking or reading the whole story, how could you know?

If you read my posts more clearly and carefully, the answer to your question is there. I am not assuming anything. You're assuming that I'm assuming.

The story was told by a poster here. They did not include those details. I said I wanted to read the story myself.

You laugh when I draw you a map to the posts and the words so you can read them. And yet, that's what I feel like I need to do here. Again.

Also, you assume the reason I asked the question I did. Namaste/namesake quite literally means “I bow to the divine in you.” Bowing can be a greeting and a gesture of honor or reverence and not supplication. Without asking, how could you know?

How could I know what?

The story is above. Read it for yourself. The word you have brought up is missing. One is bowing to another. The story is told to indicate that the one bowing is below the other. You seem to be skipping context and detail for the purpose of setting up a false distinction between what I said and what you said.

What good can come from pretending we disagree when we don't?

Perhaps if you spent more time asking and less time passing judgment based on assumptions, discourse might prove to be more fruitful.

I am not passing judgement at all. In fact that is what you are doing right here, right now.

I notice you did not answer my question about "shalom". Why not? Is there something wrong?

"I see the divine in you"?

Namaste/namesake quite literally means “I bow to the divine in you.”

Great. I did pretty good.

And all of this points directly back to how these ideas can be flipped and appliied in reverse. Instead of non-dual it is lifting oneself above others. It inteads to be non-dual, and fails.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry, what? Having trouble reading that.

View attachment 83783

You are HUGE! And.

Magnificent.

 

[dybmh]

As I understand it, it means “peace.”

If I’m incorrect, please let me know.

Not incorrect... incomplete.

I'm winking because the word comes from the S-L-M root which means complete. There's many teachings about this. And what the word means and why.

When it is understood as peace, that is because true lasting peace only comes when everyone is included. Literally complete. The divinity is included in the word with the "vav". Not "waw", that is arabic. Specifically it is the Holam form of the "vav". There is a deep mystery there.

None the less, it's almost identical to namaste. Except we would never-never bow to each other. That is inconsistent with our unity.

And there was no assumption. Maybe you’re projecting. There was an assessment based on your contributions here.

If it is not an assumption then it is, yet again, a lack of reading what I have written, in detail and in context.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If it is not an assumption then it is, yet again, a lack of reading what I have written, in detail and in context.

*smiles* Says the person that just lit me up for not responding to a post that I had already responded to.

 

[The Hammer]

You are HUGE! And.

Magnificent.

Yeah, I can only post cropped photos haha

 

[dybmh]

*smiles* Says the person that just lit me up for not responding to a post that I had already responded to.

I didn't see the reply to the question I asked. It was in a seperate post which came after. It's a simple mistake. I editted my post as soon as I noticed. Simple. Mistake. That is not ignoring what was written in detail or in context.

It's still true what I said. I've shown multiple examples of this recently. This is yet another one. What is going on?

All that's needed is to read the the very few sentences I posted and answer honestly. I'm not sure why one would intentionally avoid this.

We actualy agree. Please. Here it what was written. Please read it. Then I'll put my reply after it. Please read it and answer the question. Asking about namaste, doesn't answer the question, it is only an attempt to setup a false dichotomy, a false dualism between our positions.

An enlightened sage remains engaged with the world, even though they realize this perceived reality is only an appearance…that there is no duality. There is only Brahman.

Then when a person bows to them a proper response, imo, is "we are the same". And lifting up a story which promotes the idea that the enlightened-sage is somehow different from the others is itself, not-enlightened.

Being inspired by such a story is, itself, not-enlightened.

On the other hand, if the story includes the lesson "we are the same, literally", then, imo, the story has returned to its proper context.

Agreed?

Where is the fault in what is written above?

 

[Jimmy]

I’m guessing you’re about 30 years old. Assuming you take good care of yourself and will continue to do so we all have about 50 years left, correct?

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, I can only post cropped photos haha

I can minimize mine... shrinkage has its advantages... if one has no shame.

 

[Jimmy]

So what country does the almighty Riddler hail from?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Where is the fault in what is written above?

I never said there was fault. I wanted to make sure you understood the bowing to another isn't necessarily supplication. There was no response needed as you quoted. Shankaracharya bowing was a sign of admiration, not supplication.

Plain an simple, I think you misinterpreted the gesture, and I remain unconvinced you aren't fully understanding what a bow means in Hinduism. I think your understanding is based on your own perception based on your personal experiences.

No fault of yours. I'm just helping you to understand.

 

[dybmh]

I wanted to make sure you understood the bowing to another isn't necessarily supplication.

Fine not literal supplication, I chose the wrong word repeatedly. But that is missing the point.

An enlightened or Self-realized person, no matter whatever caste he may belong, is considered superior to the brahmana

bowed down in reverence to an enlightened sage

caste brahmins and kings bowed down before Guru Ravidas.

The term Maharaj meaning 'great king' was often used as a honorific title for such enlightened sages

None of these are coming from an enlightened perspective. If they are inspiring, then the one who is inspired by them is not enlightened.

There was no response needed as you quoted.

I asked you if we agreed. There was no response to that. Instead you asked about "namaste" and wrote about wondering if there is a cultural misunderstanding.

If we agreed, and there is no fault in what is written, then there is no reason to ask the question about cultural differences. The culture is irrelevant if what is written is accurate.

I think you misinterpreted the gesture

You missed the details in the post I was replying to. Again.

1. is considered superior
2. in reverence
3. bowed down
4. great king

All of these communicate a sharp difference between the "enlightened-sage" and the others. They are considered superior? That is completely out of context with a realization of Brahman unqualified. We agreed on this.

I would like to discuss how this occurs. How is it that the enlightened are considered superior from within this philosophy?

The OP claims that these principles cannot be reversed and applied in error.

 

[SalixIncendium]

None of these are coming from an enlightened perspective. If they are inspiring, then the one who is inspired by them is not enlightened.

Why not? Is the enlightened sage giving direction on how he should be perceived in transactional reality (vyavaharika) by others?

I asked you if we agreed. There was no response to that. Instead you asked about "namaste" and wrote about wondering if there is a cultural misunderstanding.

How can I know if we agree if I'm not confident we are understanding the terms used in the same way?

You missed the details in the post I was replying to. Again.

1. is considered superior
2. in reverence
3. bowed down
4. great king

Yeah...I'm always missing stuff. I clearly suck at reading.

All of these communicate a sharp difference between the "enlightened-sage" and the others. They are considered superior? That is completely out of context with a realization of Brahman unqualified. We agreed on this.

We did? If someone is enlightened, can the behavior of others in transitional reality negative this? I so, how?

I would like to discuss how this occurs. How is it that the enlightened are considered superior from within this philosophy?

They have transcended ignorance and attained self-realization. No easy task. Those who attain this are honored and revered. They're not "superior." They are self-realized. They have transcended karma and are free of samsara. Quite the honor, no?

The OP claims that these principles cannot be reversed and applied in error.

I don't know what this means. Should we split them.

 

[dybmh]

Why not? Is the enlightened sage giving direction on how he should be perceived in transactional reality (vyavaharika) by others?

At this point, there is a story being told. Please hear me. The story that is being told is the subject of the conversation. The story. The one telling it, and the audience.

How can I know if we agree if I'm not confident we are understanding the terms used in the same way?

You didn't ask about the terms used. You introduced a term which was NOT included in my post and it was NOT included in the post I was replyying to. And there were repeated accolades applied to the enlightened-sage assuming a severe dichotomy between them and all others. "Namaste" has nothing to do with it.

Yeah...I'm always missing stuff. I clearly suck at reading.

Something is going on repeatedly. I do not think you suck at reading. I think there is a knee-jerk reaction and desire to discredit my comments. Thus the "question" about cultural misunderstanding. There is also an assumption that I am criticizing those who are *actually* enlightened.

We did? If someone is enlightened, can the behavior of others in transitional reality negative this? I so, how?

The subject is the story. The subject is the one who is telling it, and the ones who are inspired by it.

They have transcended ignorance and attained self-realization. No easy task. Those who attain this are honored and revered. They're not "superior." They are self-realized. They have transcended karma and are free of samsara. Quite the honor, no?

The subject is the story. The subject is the one who is telling it, and the ones who are inspired by it.

Please read what I wrote, I would like to stay on topic.

I would like to read this story myself. The grandiose self-image accepts and encourages supplication from another llifting oneself up far above the others. The enlightened-sage whom has the realization of Brahman-unqualified would not.

If the story is written in a way which encourages this supplication, then, I do not think the source is, themself, enlightened, nor those who are inspired by the encouragement of this the supplication.

Then when a person bows to them a proper response, imo, is "we are the same". And lifting up a story which promotes the idea that the enlightened-sage is somehow different from the others is itself, not-enlightened.

Being inspired by such a story is, itself, not-enlightened.

On the other hand, if the story includes the lesson "we are the same, literally", then, imo, the story has returned to its proper context.

---

---

---

I don't know what this means. Should we split them.

Spilt what?

It means that the concepts of a non-dual realization can be aproached / studied, but instead of a realization of Brahman unqualifed, the reverse occurs where the enlightened-sage is considered far-far above the others even though the realization ( as we agreed ) prohibits these sorts of judgements and attachments.

Then there is a special case of this phenomena where one desires to become the enlightened-sage. It is not for the purpose of the realization of Brahman unqualified. It could be this was the purpose from the beginning, or perhaps it happened along the process of their study and practice. But the pursuit is about a feeling that is being produced. And this feeling is rewarding. That reward is inherently dual. It encourages dualism, but in a specific manner where the individual is being rewarded by convincing others that they are enlightened.

 

[ajay0]

Why would an enlightened sage accept this supplication? If they were enlightened it is 100% wrong and out of context to accept supplication of any kind. This is one of the contradictions that stand out to me like a bright blinking neon sign.

I would like to read this story myself. The grandiose self-image accepts and encourages supplication from another. The enlightened-sage whom has the realization of Brahman-unqualified would not.

If the story is written in a way which encourages this supplication, then, I do not think the source is, themself, enlightened, nor those who are inspired by the encouragement of the supplication.

It was not an act of supplication but reverence for a wise sage. In the east, it is considered auspicious to meet or bow to an enlightened sage. This also includes one's parents, elders and teachers.

Yes, the Vedas and Buddhism teach the equality and fraternity of all human beings, considering that the seed of enlightenment or Buddhahood is there in all human beings. However, the enlightened sage is considered the ideal in eastern religious philosophy having eliminated all his karmic impurities through hard austerity, and thus a source of auspiciousness and bliss to all others and nature as well. She also serves as a wise reminder to people of the purpose of life.

Hence he or she is given the respect or reverence that is due to her.