Where are you on your spiritual journey?

[Aupmanyav]

There is no 'self', it is Brahman only (Aham Brahmasmi, Tattwam asi, Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma).

When there is self, there is 'not-self' too. That is duality.

 

[Windwalker]

That is what I meant when I said, 'If you see grass, then it is an illusion. If you see Brahman, then it is truth'.

That's what I thought. I wanted to just make it clear. It's not something easy to put into words, without it being confused into a "this and not that" statement. It's both/and, and neither/or. It's paradoxical.

Even the paper and script analogy is imperfect because of the nature of the mind and language using dualistic frameworks only. These analogies are all just pointers, or metaphors to something that transcends the analogies themselves.

Otherwise, I am not too enamored of Ramana Maharshi's wordiness (or more correctly, of the wordiness of his followers)

I think the wordiness is a way to satisfy the intellecutal mind of the seeker, because it doesn't want to fall into the trap of just being gullible and "just believing". Rightly so, when you look at the garbage heap of nonsense out there from every other peddler of spirituality with their "I've got the real truth", sales pitch.

Obviously at some point the rational mind does have to simply let go and allow Truth itself to be revealed to it, but when someone is a novice, it's easy to be swept away down the road of the fantastical with the ego riding high on the waves. The end of all that is just a delusional ego, imagining itself as on the path, but in the grips of the ego. Think of the warnings about seeking the siddhis. So intellect is a guard against that. But at the same time, intellect is an impediment to Satori.

So the wordiness of the teacher helps those who are relying on the intellect to keep them surefooted, while at the same time telling them it's safe to transcend the intellect, to transcend words and caterogies of "this and not that".

It comes to mind just now something that Sri Aurobindo said, which really resonates with what I just said about satisfying the intellect, the rational mind, the atheistic perspective, in pursuit of the transcendent. Here too, with Marahisi, with myself here, and with Aurobindo, you see wordiness. But it is all towards that purpose as I see it. This is a great quote:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it imagines the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13
​

and his fixation with 'self'. Where is the 'self'? There is no 'self', it is Brahman only (Aham Brhmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman, Tattwam asi, Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma).

I think you, like many, mistake the Self, as some form of differentiated ego when these teachers speak. There really is no difference between Atman and Anatman. Self and No-self. Atman is best understood as "undifferentiated consciousness". And that is the true "Self" of the individual, before separating into the individual egoic self. It's is no-self, no ego, no differentiation.

I consider those terms of Self to be confusing, but in context when used, when pointed to it is what is both before and beyond the differentiated egoic self. It's the age old question of meditation, "who am I?", or more appropriately "what am I". What is the true Nature of this reality that I am as this form? I have an ego, but am not my ego. There is no I even, but we have to use such language, because that is the nature of the dualistic mind. That doesn't meant we need to understand dualistically.

I hope that maybe helps explain this confusion of language a little. But it's more than just confusion of language, it's confusion of dualitistic thinking, reinforced by dualistic language. Any words obscure the true meaning, but we have to use words to speak to others, or to our own rational minds.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aurobindo is another, whose wordiness, I do not like. I believe that ideas should be stated precisely in their shortest from, like in Brahma Sutras.
What is divine and what is supraphysical? 'Sabda-jaala'.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain. It dies when the body dies - 'nisshesha' (without any remainder).
True nature of what I am is 'physical energy', that is what we started with at the time of Big Bang - there was nothing else.
There are sure, differences between our views - which is perfectly all right with me.

 

[Windwalker]

When there is self, there is 'not-self' too. That is duality.

Exactly. So when using any language it is duality. Whether it is self or no-self. Both are a duality. So what the Buddhist is saying by pointing to no-self, or Anatman, is a dualistic finger pointing to a nondual reality. The Hindu saying the Self, or Atman, is likewise a dualistic finger pointing to nondual reality. Both are saying the same thing, from different approaches of dualistic thought. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[Windwalker]

Aurobindo is another, whose wordiness, I do not like.

Personal preference. Different audience. Speaking to the Western mind, it tends much more towards the rationalist mentality, and so intellectualizing it is necessary in order to for that part of the brain to feel satisfied that it is not committing intellectual suicide. This I said already.

I believe that ideas should be stated precisely in their shortest from, like in Brahma Sutras.

Ultimately there are no words. So no words are best. Just a smile will do. But as I said, you have to meet people where they are at and bring them forward. There are progressive stages to understanding. Most often skipping to the end, will fail to produce results for most.

What is divine and what is supraphysical? 'Sabda-jaala'.

Yes, words like this can be verbal thickets, just like the use of the word God. But then again, let's not overlook that you calling yourself an atheist plays directly into that. What does atheism mean? Theism and atheism are just verbal thickets too. So why use them? Perhaps for the same reason the Hindu speaks of Atman and the Buddhist speaks of Anatman? Yes, I'd say it's exactly that. All of that is dualism: Theism and Atheism, Self and No-Self.

But personally, I feel saying the Divine is preferable to God, in that it is a less anthropomorphized term. Divine is another word for Brahman, in Western parlance. It speaks to the Nature of reality, as opposed to deity forms, such as Vishnu, or Shiva, or Jehovah, and so forth. It's a good word, if you need to use a word at all, such as Brahman.

Consciousness is an emergent property of brain. It dies when the body dies - 'nisshesha' (without any remainder).

Is it??? This is a very materialistic Western "sciencey" perspective. It has no actual hard data supporting it. It's all philosophical based on a materialistic perspective. And let me add, it's extremely dualistic, splitting apart reality into "this and not that" reality. Hardly conducive to a nondual realization, IMO.

True nature of what I am is 'physical energy', that is what we started with at the time of Big Bang - there was nothing else.
There are sure, differences between our views - which is perfectly all right with me.

This is all very sciencey. And it's not that that perspective of reality doesn't have its merits, but it is however a very dualistic perspective and limits reality to that which the rational mind can comprehend as real, placing reason as the true measure of truth and reality. I don't personally accept that as the full measure of Reality. It's dualistic at its core.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Exactly. So when using any language it is duality. Whether it is self or no-self. Both are a duality. So what the Buddhist is saying by pointing to no-self, or Anatman, is a dualistic finger pointing to a nondual reality. The Hindu saying the Self, or Atman, is likewise a dualistic finger pointing to nondual reality. Both are saying the same thing, from different approaches of dualistic thought. Do you agree with this statement?

Generalization does not work in Hinduism. What kind of Hindu? Dvaita or Advaita (Duality or non-duality). For the Advaita kind, there is no self other than Brahman, while the Buddhists will deny that too. For them it is 'seemingly dependent origination' (Pali: paṭiccasamuppāda, Sanskrit: Pratītyasamutpāda). They termed it as Dhammakaya, Bodhikaya or Tathagatagarbha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But personally, I feel saying the Divine is preferable to God, in that it is a less anthropomorphized term. Divine is another word for Brahman, in Western parlance. It speaks to the Nature of reality, as opposed to deity forms, such as Vishnu, or Shiva, or Jehovah, and so forth. It's a good word, if you need to use a word at all, such as Brahman.

Is it??? This is a very materialistic Western "sciencey" perspective. It has no actual hard data supporting it. It's all philosophical based on a materialistic perspective. And let me add, it's extremely dualistic, splitting apart reality into "this and not that" reality. Hardly conducive to a nondual realization, IMO.

This is all very sciencey. And it's not that that perspective of reality doesn't have its merits, but it is however a very dualistic perspective and limits reality to that which the rational mind can comprehend as real, placing reason as the true measure of truth and reality. I don't personally accept that as the full measure of Reality. It's dualistic at its core.

I would not use 'divine' because of its connotations, a God interfering in worldly affairs, individual soul, judgment, reward or punishment. Advaita Brahman has none of that.

'Not this, not that' (neti, neti) comes up when we try to give properties to 'what exists' (Brahman). We know that it does not interfere in worldly affairs, does not change (which means it continues to change all the time its own way), is free of forms; and perhaps it is not even bound by the rules of existence and non-existence (in the way of virtual particles).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On a scale from 1-10, where are you on your spiritual journey?

I find it rather strange to answer a "where" question with a number from 1 to 10

 

[Windwalker]

I would not use 'divine' because of its connotations, a God interfering in worldly affairs, individual soul, judgment, reward or punishment.

I think there is some confusion about the word divine on your part. The reason I like to use it is because it avoids doing exactly what you say it does.

Divine is an adjective, not a noun. God is a noun, something you can identify as a who or an it. But divine is an adjective that describes nouns, as a certain quality about that noun.

For instance, when I speak of the Divine Reality, I am not speaking of a deity, which is a noun. I'm speaking of the nature of Reality, as having the qualities of transcendence and absoluteness.

It is impersonal, not personal in nature as when you identify "a god". That is the way the word is used as an adjective; divine love; divine wisdom; divine knowledge, etc, and all of those can and do apply to human experience. It is not some externalized deity form. The Divine, is really saying the same thing as saying Brahman, as opposed to Brahma.

'Not this, not that' (neti, neti) comes up when we try to give properties to 'what exists' (Brahman). We know that it does not interfere in worldly affairs, does not change (which means it continues to change all the time its own way), is free of forms; and perhaps it is not even bound by the rules of existence and non-existence (in the way of virtual particles).

Yes. It is the same thing as the apophatic approach of Christian mysticism, where you get rid of any ideas about anything about God, including attributes. It removes the prejudiced mind from projecting itself and seeking its own assumptions, thus obscuring the divine reality as it is.

BTW, the Divine Reality, is saying exactly the same thing as the Tao. And that is definitely not "a god". But the Tao, Brahman, Godhead, the Source, the Divine, the Transcendent, the Ground, and all of these impersonal "God beyond God" ways of speaking of the Source of all that is, are all "Neti Neti".

The second we call any of that an "it", or a "who", or a "what", we separate it from ourselves, and ourselves from "it", and all the rest of reality. That's the point of negation, or neti neti. Get rid of those separations, or "God as a noun", and you realize, "tat tvam asi", that thou art that.

Personally, I think "God" is better viewed as a verb, rather than a noun. It is what we are and do, or not do as the case may be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The second we call any of that an "it", or a "who", or a "what", we separate it from ourselves, and ourselves from "it", and all the rest of reality. That's the point of negation, or neti neti. Get rid of those separations, or "God as a noun", and you realize, "tat tvam asi", that thou art that.

It does not separates or diminishes Brahman. In reality, it include all things in the universe (including ourselves), nothing other than it exists in this illusory universe.

 

[stvdv]

Bhagavan said, “It is said that Brahman is real, and world an illusion; again it is said that the whole universe is an image of Brahman. The question arises: how are these two statements to be reconciled? In the sadhak stage, you have got to say that the world is an illusion. There is no other way, because when a man forgets that he is the Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under that delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because, his vision which has forgotten its own Self, is dwelling in the external material universe and will not turn inward to introspection unless you impress on him that all this external, material universe is unreal. When once he realises his own Self, and also that there is nothing other than his own Self, he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman. There is no universe without his Self. So long as a man does not see his own Self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that all this external universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written. The paper is there, whether the script on it is there or not. To those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper and script as one. So also with Brahman and the universe.
FROM:
Letters from Sri Ramana Ashrama

Take a paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written. The paper is there, whether the script on it is there or not. To those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper and script as one. So also with Brahman and the universe.

Thanks for sharing. I just love Ramana
Reading his words always uplift me

 

[stvdv]

On a scale from 1-10, where are you on your spiritual journey?

Sai Baba taught us:
"Don't overstate, and don't understand"

So, I can't tell you where I am right now

IF I reach 10 THEN I can tell (Deo volente)

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see it as a journey; whatever "it" is.

It is a journey. If you fall asleep, you may wake up in Cockfosters, to find you've missed the last bus home.