..ok...Swami Sarvapriyananda sums it up in 17 minute TED talk:
[YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Advaita Vedanta - ancient wisdom
- Thread starter nen888
- Start date
ok, this is afterall the DMT Nexus, so let's ponder that briefly from an Advaita Vedanta perspective
..Who are you?
whether on DMT, or drunk, or sober, or absorbed, or slipping into unconsciousness,
what is experiencing this?
in all states of activity there is a consistent factor..awareness
"Awareness has no form; through awareness all forms are known."
(Swami Dayananda Saraswati)
"Space itself is an object of awareness."
awareness has no spatial dimensions or time..
more remarkable than even the DMT experience is the means by which to experience it, or anything, at all..
That, is the 'spiritual' ..
this is not to say that entheogens cannot be tools in understanding this..
indeed, it can happen above an ordinary 'breakthrough' dosage of DMT that the object (the visions) and the subject become indistinguishable from each other and from the act of perceiving ..but in such an experience there is little or nothing to describe of such a state..some people say they remember nothing...but there is still awareness of the state..and if there is a shard of memory it can resemble completeness, or bliss..
when we are experiencing entities they are relevant, like people, to the context of the individual experiencing them..and on that level can instruct..we may experience heavens, or hells...angels and aliens..past or future..
but from the advaita vedanta p.o.v it is the wholeness which is the spirit...
when the seen, the seer and the seeing become one,
there is no time, or event, or separate objects..
beyond form, complete comprehension
"There is no beyond awareness."
"All the worlds exist in awareness...Every concept exists in awareness...known and unknown exist in awareness.."
Matter, or Dreams...
anything you can imagine, or not..understand, or not..
Limitless is awareness
(you can feel this in your everyday existence)
..Who are you?
whether on DMT, or drunk, or sober, or absorbed, or slipping into unconsciousness,
what is experiencing this?
in all states of activity there is a consistent factor..awareness
"Awareness has no form; through awareness all forms are known."
(Swami Dayananda Saraswati)
"Space itself is an object of awareness."
awareness has no spatial dimensions or time..
more remarkable than even the DMT experience is the means by which to experience it, or anything, at all..
That, is the 'spiritual' ..
this is not to say that entheogens cannot be tools in understanding this..
indeed, it can happen above an ordinary 'breakthrough' dosage of DMT that the object (the visions) and the subject become indistinguishable from each other and from the act of perceiving ..but in such an experience there is little or nothing to describe of such a state..some people say they remember nothing...but there is still awareness of the state..and if there is a shard of memory it can resemble completeness, or bliss..
when we are experiencing entities they are relevant, like people, to the context of the individual experiencing them..and on that level can instruct..we may experience heavens, or hells...angels and aliens..past or future..
but from the advaita vedanta p.o.v it is the wholeness which is the spirit...
when the seen, the seer and the seeing become one,
there is no time, or event, or separate objects..
beyond form, complete comprehension
"There is no beyond awareness."
"All the worlds exist in awareness...Every concept exists in awareness...known and unknown exist in awareness.."
Matter, or Dreams...
anything you can imagine, or not..understand, or not..
Limitless is awareness
(you can feel this in your everyday existence)
..as joedirt mentioned buddhism, i will briefly contrast and compare Buddhism with Advaita Vedanta, but this has been a much debated topic for hundreds of years, from monks to scholars to long internet threads..
it is ironic to note that Adi Shankara(charya), who solidified and really defined advaita vedanta, has been both criticised by some hindus as 'crypto-buddhist' and by buddhists for not having the 'right view'…others have seen the similarities between vedanta and (particularly early) buddhism..Shakara was said to have debated and criticised buddhist schools of his era (who were long after the historical first Buddha), yet his teacher was influenced by buddhist philosophy..and buddhism draws on various ideas of the vedas..the vedic traditions predate the historical buddha..
..on first glance buddhism and advaita vedanta are like mirror opposites..one looks for 'nothing' while the other looks for 'everything'.."non-self (anatta) vs. all-self (atman=brahman)" ..momentariness vs. eternalness..opposite non-dualisms..
personally i believe in both logical and experiential eventualities they ultimately lead to the same place..though many later schools of buddhism don't see this, by focusing on the notion of 'self' (non-self' ) rather than awareness and the non-dual conclusion..
i will use a few selected quotes to briefly highlight the differences..and similarities.. (obviously we've already looked a lot at advaita vedanata, the topic of the thread)
Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same? by David Loy]
.. Leesa S. Davis in Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry finds four deconstructive techniques important to both traditions:
the earliest buddhist works in the Pali canon describe a more solitary form of seeking (like the sanyasi path of Shakara and the swami tradition), not the monastic life of later buddhist schools..
..buddhist teachings, while encouraging focus on void (sunyata) still describe the 'subtle luminosity' of the void...the 'clear light'..the void and the luminosity un-separate are, as i see it, the same as the absolute consciousness of advaita vedanta..
..while i lean to the Advaita Vedanta eternalism (rather than buddhist transientness), the nothing (sunyata) and the all (brahman) are i feel means to the same the same realisation eventually..(despite what many buddhists long after the first buddha have argued)
both are a means in language to describe the undivided nature of reality..omniscient..
like some zen monk said, once the fish is caught, the trap can be thrown away..
"that thou art"
.
it is ironic to note that Adi Shankara(charya), who solidified and really defined advaita vedanta, has been both criticised by some hindus as 'crypto-buddhist' and by buddhists for not having the 'right view'…others have seen the similarities between vedanta and (particularly early) buddhism..Shakara was said to have debated and criticised buddhist schools of his era (who were long after the historical first Buddha), yet his teacher was influenced by buddhist philosophy..and buddhism draws on various ideas of the vedas..the vedic traditions predate the historical buddha..
..on first glance buddhism and advaita vedanta are like mirror opposites..one looks for 'nothing' while the other looks for 'everything'.."non-self (anatta) vs. all-self (atman=brahman)" ..momentariness vs. eternalness..opposite non-dualisms..
personally i believe in both logical and experiential eventualities they ultimately lead to the same place..though many later schools of buddhism don't see this, by focusing on the notion of 'self' (non-self' ) rather than awareness and the non-dual conclusion..
i will use a few selected quotes to briefly highlight the differences..and similarities.. (obviously we've already looked a lot at advaita vedanata, the topic of the thread)
[A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ADVAITA VEDANTA Non-duality, consciousness and the nature of the subject & object relationship. Jonah Cacioppe. 2004.]
[Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta:
Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same? by David Loy]
.. Leesa S. Davis in Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry finds four deconstructive techniques important to both traditions:
the earliest buddhist works in the Pali canon describe a more solitary form of seeking (like the sanyasi path of Shakara and the swami tradition), not the monastic life of later buddhist schools..
..buddhist teachings, while encouraging focus on void (sunyata) still describe the 'subtle luminosity' of the void...the 'clear light'..the void and the luminosity un-separate are, as i see it, the same as the absolute consciousness of advaita vedanta..
..while i lean to the Advaita Vedanta eternalism (rather than buddhist transientness), the nothing (sunyata) and the all (brahman) are i feel means to the same the same realisation eventually..(despite what many buddhists long after the first buddha have argued)
both are a means in language to describe the undivided nature of reality..omniscient..
like some zen monk said, once the fish is caught, the trap can be thrown away..
"that thou art"
.
Wise friend, nen888nen888 said:
I wholeheartedly agree with your impartial, clear-headed insights! And I do concur, that when the mind ceases to subjectively quantify everything into convenient, concrete ideologies... naught remains but the innate, living conscious-awareness of simply being existent. Now, whether we believe that this existence is wholly void of self (Anatma) or the very quintessence of the self (Paramatma)... matters little. IMHO, what is of utmost importance for the humanoid experiencing such deeper and higher levels of consciousness... is the direct interphase with that innermost core state, that "original face" (as the Zen folks poetically say).
How do we effectively shift our mental focus and our perceptual attention? And in so doing, to lucidly awaken to the Supreme reality, centered within the dream-bubble of our mirage of reality? Who are we, that we might succinctly perceive of the Universal/Omniversal state of purest beingness? Some emphatically claim that it is impossible to do so. I disagree, with the caveat that it is only impossible to see this truth from a fixed or sentient vantage point. I assert that we are also universal, not merely temporal dreamers.
Whether we arrive at this perceptual pinnacle through imbibing entheogens or practicing deep meditation (or both), two primary things seem to occur. First, the ego experiences it's own illusory nature and thus, "it dies". Specifically, it dissolves for some sequential duration within the dynamic parameters of the time-space-continuum. All membranes of separation fade and the interrelationship betwixt all that is existent becomes so blatantly obvious. And secondly, something else is known directly, as being the witness of all of this existential play... and is itself, a virtual lens of perception for this experience blossoming (and spontaneously so). This fulcrum appears to indeed possess an awareness of existing, of awakening to itself. Who is it? What is it? Where is it? Is it possible to grasp even an iota of this force? Yes and no... "Ask not for whom does the bell toll, it tolls for thee."
Paradoxically, it cannot be encapsulated by any human reasoning, nor be written down in any convenient, conceptual format or formula. It eludes our every effort! Sure, we attempt to isolate this and attribute characteristics to it... but this is sheer folly and Socrates was most correct, "I only know that I know nothing". Although, I prefer this newer translation, "My knowledge comes from an unknowing." His contemporaries, Lao Tzu and Sakyamuni Buddha, each shed their particular beams of illumination, adding their own flavor to this timeless wisdom, about this ungraspable spiritual reality (at least, ungraspable as individuated selves).
Centuries later, Zen monk Bankei Yotaku keenly observed that the undifferentiated reality inherent within everything else has no beginning nor any ending, it is both "Unborn and Undying". 'Tis that which exists with and without our notice, underlying what is known of by the five senses, intellect and intuition.
Simply put... It Is As It Is.
Yet, we are willingly engulfed by this fulcrum of conscious-awareness, however self erasing. It's embrace shakes us out of our transfixed dreamscapes and so we rejoice and exclaim of it's immortal resplendence. Which naturally, generates a euphoric gleefulness. Love is, after all, the ultimate buzz! But this too shall pass, eh?
As we cannot contain this vortexial power, we are behooved to surrender to it's infinitude. It's attributes, however, do seem to profoundly etch themselves into the deepest epicenter of the soul-essence of the seemingly individuated observer, whose expanded/shattered mind (no mind), impresses itself unto the seeker of Truth, as being an indivisible, all-pervasive effulgence. One possessing a kind of infinite love, one which cannot be described as anything short of ecstatic-blissfulness. So, are we really that?
Is the very building block of self, symbiotically and symmetrically reflected in all that exists and simultaneously, free of any limitations of form or substance? Regardless of whether we think about this phenomenon or not, we are drawn to become translucent entities. Likewise, we are deeply inspired to become transparently crystalline, hence reflecting a more perfect clarity of intent. Who can honestly say if this is wise or unwise? We are all free to choose. :?
I maintain that I do believe this is rightly so, yet, my belief system itself is a kind of artifice. A projection to fill this emptiness with "spiritual" conceptualization. Ergo, our mortal ideas are ultimately meaningless, when we stand naked before the Clear Light of the Void. Even so, what resplendent glory manifests, itself, forevermore appearing and dissolving into the enigmatic sea of an absolute frequency of conscious-awareness! And upon eclipsing within the full bloom of a whiteout experience (Samadhi/Satori/Divine Rapture)... all becomes immeasurably silent to the witness of oneself, perceptually speaking.
Not exactly the quietude of non-being, rather, a stillness birthed of the Sacred Unity ringing forth from the Divine itself. And what else might we call it, save the discovery of Heaven or Nirvana? And need we call it anything at all? I have come to accept that the question is the answer itself. We are the primary cause of ourselves as we are the creators of our own sentient mirages. But in our very core degree of beingness, right here & now, within this present moment, we are indeed, That! Tat Tvam Asi. Or are we? I shout yes! The discovery and the journey, awaits each of us in turn. May your path be well suited to your own unique ways. :thumb_up:
Namaste to you all, RS
Lots of good stuff in this thread everyone.
I just want to clarify something about sunyata and it's translation as emptiness which is honestly a piss poor translation into the english language. A more correct definition is empty of inherent existence. Basically Buddha recognized the interdependance of all things (Dependent Origination) and declared this to be sunyata...nothing stands on it's own. Those thoughts in your head for instance are society. The void is not really a void. this is something that has been added in by people mistranslating sunyata. sunyata does not refer to a great nothingness...at least not in anyway that a normal english speaking person would understand it anyway.
In the yogacara school of Buddhism they talk about the ground of all being, continuous manifestation , and consciousness only. Basically nen I agree with you say they are essentially the same thing. I think that the Buddha was so adamant about nonself because he needed people to realize that as long as their ego was striving for the infinite they would be unable to reach it. Many famous Buddhist monks have now come out essentially on the side of a true self that would correspond more to the vedanta concept of Brahman, but still not any sort of self that most people strive for... This is just my take on why the Buddha went this route.
For me, it was forcing myself to grapple with and understand noself that offered me the biggest break through on the path thus far.. But I don't pledge allegiance to any team per say. I'm interested in the removal of dukkha (suffering) as buddha described it.
I just want to clarify something about sunyata and it's translation as emptiness which is honestly a piss poor translation into the english language. A more correct definition is empty of inherent existence. Basically Buddha recognized the interdependance of all things (Dependent Origination) and declared this to be sunyata...nothing stands on it's own. Those thoughts in your head for instance are society. The void is not really a void. this is something that has been added in by people mistranslating sunyata. sunyata does not refer to a great nothingness...at least not in anyway that a normal english speaking person would understand it anyway.
In the yogacara school of Buddhism they talk about the ground of all being, continuous manifestation , and consciousness only. Basically nen I agree with you say they are essentially the same thing. I think that the Buddha was so adamant about nonself because he needed people to realize that as long as their ego was striving for the infinite they would be unable to reach it. Many famous Buddhist monks have now come out essentially on the side of a true self that would correspond more to the vedanta concept of Brahman, but still not any sort of self that most people strive for... This is just my take on why the Buddha went this route.
For me, it was forcing myself to grapple with and understand noself that offered me the biggest break through on the path thus far.. But I don't pledge allegiance to any team per say. I'm interested in the removal of dukkha (suffering) as buddha described it.
Nen888
Thank you for this incredibly fascinating thread... ♥
Joedirt
Perfectly said, when I embarked on my journey to India I had no idea that my whole life was going to change. I first approached Tibetan Buddhist philosophy with great scepticism.
Slowly though through years of practicing and logical analysis of everything my teachers have taught me has always been confirmed and reconfirmed through my entheogen experiences. I have found that it is never good to resign your thoughts to just one perspective or philosophy as it prevents a logical and sceptical analysing state of mind.
Perhaps the profound correlations may have links to Bon Buddhisms more strong shamanistic and animistic traditions which were around Tibet during the 10th and 11th centuries.
Much Peace and Respect
Thank you for this incredibly fascinating thread... ♥
joedirt said:
Joedirt
Perfectly said, when I embarked on my journey to India I had no idea that my whole life was going to change. I first approached Tibetan Buddhist philosophy with great scepticism.
Slowly though through years of practicing and logical analysis of everything my teachers have taught me has always been confirmed and reconfirmed through my entheogen experiences. I have found that it is never good to resign your thoughts to just one perspective or philosophy as it prevents a logical and sceptical analysing state of mind.
Perhaps the profound correlations may have links to Bon Buddhisms more strong shamanistic and animistic traditions which were around Tibet during the 10th and 11th centuries.
Much Peace and Respect
The Avadhuta Gita (Thought this should be a part of this thread)
f1 said:
It is a zen proverb.
When an advanced student gets deep into meditation visions will begin to appear. These visions can be alluring and sometimes spiritual in nature...like a vision of the Buddha. But the arising of these visions should be treated just like all other phenomena. They are in fact composed of the 3 characteristics of existence. 1) They are not permanent, 2) clinging to them leads to suffering, and 3) because of the above they can not be declared as a self.
It is also a warning towards people who make progress on the path from developing an ego around it. Pretty much anytime you start thinking wow I'm really making progress I'm so peaceful or I'm so spiritual you have stepped directly off the path into delusional thinking. Perhaps you are imaging you are the Buddha... that thought should be let go (aka killed)
Lastly it means to release all attachments. Even attachments to one's teachers.
Peace
I have experienced the dissociation from all projetions of the self, and there is still a pure soul self at the core. All the negative self loathing, hating, jealous, etc aspects of my ego unified into a single being that fractaled around me like a billion ego reflections in a cosmic fun house from hell, and they had on top hats..I hated it and lay there sick feeling like a total asshole wanting to vomit all over. A voice inside of me told me to let go of all the these things that make me who I have always been taught by my experiences with society I am. Once I did let go I instantly was removed from the hellish mandala of ego persona and became something much more fundamental and pure. I had no more body and was just like a spiral of energy. I then watched the fractal space surrouding me change and blossom with this raw soul engery into a much more pure coherant fractal that blossomed like a flower charged with bliss. I had no attachment to any story I had aquired about who I am any longer, but I was still myself on a soul level, but it was like the self that comes before and after this life. I stayed like that for a few minutes without any fear until I was brought into another set of visions that were more dualist one on one teachings with other beings.
Sounds like a very cool experience Jamie. I have had similar experiences were I was outside myself seeing all my negative traits and such... Very uncomfortable. Honestly I have found that the better person I am in daily life the better my trips TEND to be...not to say hard trips can't still happen for people that act like saints though.. sometimes it's just a roll of the psychedelic dice.
Also I have come to the conclusion, with regards to Buddhism, that noself has really been expanded into something it wasn't intended to be. I believe the more proper translation would be not self. Buddha would alway's maintain that none of the 5 skandahas are self. He would also say that anything that changes is not worthy of being called a self. Things that led to suffering were also not worthy of being called a self. But I don't believe he ever intended to fully negate the individual nature, other than the ego. He just wanted them to see the utter interconnectedness of it all. That is my honest take on it when I read the Pali Cannon and study the other schools of Buddhism like the Yogacara school.
So noself or not self is really an extension of the Vedanta self inquiry of neti neti neti. This is not me, this is not me, this is not me. Basically a path of inquiry that examines what it is you are composed of to see if you can find a part of you that is eternal.. What most of us identify with on a daily basis is completely transient and truly not worthy of being called a higher self...
Buddha never said there wasn't a you he just claims there is no static underlying fixed you that never changes.. aka he denies a soul or atman, but not the individual... I know it's kinda hard to wrap your mind around, but that is my honest take on it.
when I look at Advaita Vedanta scriptures like the one I linked to above it reads very closely to something I would read in the Pali Cannon except it has more of a mystical world view to it... Vedanta has no qualms about referring to this absolute as a God...Though it's a very impersonal God which honestly to me jives with Buddhism pretty well. Buddha didn't reject the notion of God(s) just that they were somehow apart from the rest of it.
Buddha even said it's wrong view to hold onto nihilism or eternalism.
Buddha seemed to me to be trying to jar people our of their normal way of thinking in hopes of getting their mind to latch onto a wholly new way of seeing things. But alas this is just my take on it.
Also I have come to the conclusion, with regards to Buddhism, that noself has really been expanded into something it wasn't intended to be. I believe the more proper translation would be not self. Buddha would alway's maintain that none of the 5 skandahas are self. He would also say that anything that changes is not worthy of being called a self. Things that led to suffering were also not worthy of being called a self. But I don't believe he ever intended to fully negate the individual nature, other than the ego. He just wanted them to see the utter interconnectedness of it all. That is my honest take on it when I read the Pali Cannon and study the other schools of Buddhism like the Yogacara school.
So noself or not self is really an extension of the Vedanta self inquiry of neti neti neti. This is not me, this is not me, this is not me. Basically a path of inquiry that examines what it is you are composed of to see if you can find a part of you that is eternal.. What most of us identify with on a daily basis is completely transient and truly not worthy of being called a higher self...
Buddha never said there wasn't a you he just claims there is no static underlying fixed you that never changes.. aka he denies a soul or atman, but not the individual... I know it's kinda hard to wrap your mind around, but that is my honest take on it.
when I look at Advaita Vedanta scriptures like the one I linked to above it reads very closely to something I would read in the Pali Cannon except it has more of a mystical world view to it... Vedanta has no qualms about referring to this absolute as a God...Though it's a very impersonal God which honestly to me jives with Buddhism pretty well. Buddha didn't reject the notion of God(s) just that they were somehow apart from the rest of it.
Buddha even said it's wrong view to hold onto nihilism or eternalism.
Buddha seemed to me to be trying to jar people our of their normal way of thinking in hopes of getting their mind to latch onto a wholly new way of seeing things. But alas this is just my take on it.
..thank you Rising Spirit, joedirt, Aegle, jamie and f1, for the contributions to the thread..
not much time for a detailed post, a couple of comments for now..
Aegle...Bon Po is truly fascinating in it's influence on Tibetan buddhism..
f1...this image of 'Buddha' is still not the true nature of reality (bliss) ...abolish it from your mind!
joedirt wrote: (& thanks for the buddhist angle)
in vedanta the perceived universe of things is a result of Maya..but the illusion of Maya is still comprised of Brahman...everything is...so nothing has independent existence from Brahman..
as Rising Spirit wrote:
this is beyond even creation (which in Advaita Vendanta stems from the intellectual concept within Brahman, known as Iswara, and from the veil of Maya)
..as Rising Spirit beautifully put it:
and how long is Now? ...eternity
but, as you say joedirt, the aim is the negation of suffering...by whatever technique works..i appreciate the way of the Buddha too..and see both ways as pointing to something which is impossible to describe fully in language, but is experienceable..in contrasting and comparing buddhism and vedanta i learn things..
jamie, sounds like a transcendent experience...
Ramana said of his realization:
in Advaita Vedanta, going past the individual I leads to the pure state of things..'I' which is always present, in all things experienced..and which did not originate and was not created, but is..
all causes are 'born' of or manifested from this 'I'...Brahman..but it does not cause anything...it is what cause (or object) are made of..
.
not much time for a detailed post, a couple of comments for now..
Aegle...Bon Po is truly fascinating in it's influence on Tibetan buddhism..
f1...this image of 'Buddha' is still not the true nature of reality (bliss) ...abolish it from your mind!
joedirt wrote: (& thanks for the buddhist angle)
..in contrast, in Advaita Vedanta the concept of 'You' is taken to the absolute..all appearances of separate individuals are illusory, superimpositions on the unified consciousness...it's all the same 'you'..'I'..which has in reality has no attributes, simply the actual existence of awareness..
..yes..the 'God' of Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, is the existence/awareness...Brahman did not create the universe, as this is an individual action...Brahman has no actions, it is 'Is-ness'...
in vedanta the perceived universe of things is a result of Maya..but the illusion of Maya is still comprised of Brahman...everything is...so nothing has independent existence from Brahman..
as Rising Spirit wrote:
..in Advaita Vedanta, this thing is the single thing that is real, singularly it is all that there truly is..
this is beyond even creation (which in Advaita Vendanta stems from the intellectual concept within Brahman, known as Iswara, and from the veil of Maya)
..as Rising Spirit beautifully put it:
and how long is Now? ...eternity
but, as you say joedirt, the aim is the negation of suffering...by whatever technique works..i appreciate the way of the Buddha too..and see both ways as pointing to something which is impossible to describe fully in language, but is experienceable..in contrasting and comparing buddhism and vedanta i learn things..
jamie, sounds like a transcendent experience...
Ramana said of his realization:
in Advaita Vedanta, going past the individual I leads to the pure state of things..'I' which is always present, in all things experienced..and which did not originate and was not created, but is..
all causes are 'born' of or manifested from this 'I'...Brahman..but it does not cause anything...it is what cause (or object) are made of..
.
..well f1 i'm no swami or sanskrit expert..it is said the state of realizing the advaita (non-dual), the undivided reality, it is bliss..pure experience unattached to things..
the advaita view of Brahman (paramatma) or That (you) ..Turiya in Vedanta means 'the fourth'
...this because there are said (via the Upanishads, Shankaracharya etc.) to be three states of conscious experience..waking, dreaming and deep sleep (void/nothing) ..the fourth is the experiencer common to all three..which is none of them, but it is in all of them..this is the pure awareness..the I in the three states of being..this is the substratum of reality, and is undivided in totality..the you, minus any identification of what is being experienced..this is what is realized in 'samadhi'..
well that's my take on it anyway ..from what I've been able to take in..
is it same as buddhist 'nirvana'?..at the end of it probably I'd say..
but 'bliss' is a word used in Vedanta via translation to describe this..and this That...you..the true true nature of reality, as that which ultimately experiences..
and it is symbolized through Om, which is like light or sound..
glad Jin you're finding the thread useful, thank you
the advaita view of Brahman (paramatma) or That (you) ..Turiya in Vedanta means 'the fourth'
...this because there are said (via the Upanishads, Shankaracharya etc.) to be three states of conscious experience..waking, dreaming and deep sleep (void/nothing) ..the fourth is the experiencer common to all three..which is none of them, but it is in all of them..this is the pure awareness..the I in the three states of being..this is the substratum of reality, and is undivided in totality..the you, minus any identification of what is being experienced..this is what is realized in 'samadhi'..
well that's my take on it anyway ..from what I've been able to take in..
is it same as buddhist 'nirvana'?..at the end of it probably I'd say..
but 'bliss' is a word used in Vedanta via translation to describe this..and this That...you..the true true nature of reality, as that which ultimately experiences..
and it is symbolized through Om, which is like light or sound..
glad Jin you're finding the thread useful
, thank you
zhoro
Rising Star
zhoro
Rising Star
[YOUTUBE]
मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं
न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥
Mano-Buddhy-Ahangkaara Cittaani Naaham
Na Ca Shrotra-Jihve Na Ca Ghraanna-Netre |
Na Ca Vyoma Bhuumir-Na Tejo Na Vaayuh
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||1||
1.1: Neither am I the Mind nor Intelligence or Ego,
1.2: Neither am I the organs of Hearing (Ears), nor that of Tasting (Tongue), Smelling (Nose) or Seeing (Eyes),
1.3: Neither am I the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air,
1.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः
न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥
Na Ca Praanna-Samjnyo Na Vai Pan.ca-Vaayuh
Na Vaa Sapta-Dhaatuh Na Vaa Pan.ca-Koshah |
Na Vaak-Paanni-Paadam Na Copastha-Paayu
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||2||
2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Air,
2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion,
2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ
मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः ।
न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥३॥
Na Me Dvessa-Raagau Na Me Lobha-Mohau
Mado Naiva Me Naiva Maatsarya-Bhaavah |
Na Dharmo Na Ca-Artho Na Kaamo Na Mokssah
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||3||
3.1: Neither do I have Hatred, nor Attachment, Neither Greed nor Infatuation,
3.2: Neither do I have Passion, nor Feelings of Envy and Jealousy,
3.3 I am Not within the bounds of Dharma (Righteousness), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desire) and Moksha (Liberation) (the four Purusarthas of life),
3.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदो न यज्ञ ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥
Na Punnyam Na Paapam Na Saukhyam Na Duhkham
Na Mantro Na Tiirtho Na Vedo Na Yajnya |
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||4||
4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न मृत्युर्न शङ्का न मे जातिभेदः
पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः ।
न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरुर्नैव शिष्यं
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥५॥
Na Mrtyur-Na Shangkaa Na Me Jaati-Bhedah
Pitaa Naiva Me Naiva Maataa Na Janmah |
Na Bandhurna Mitram Gurur-Na-Iva Shissyam
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||5||
5.1: Neither am I bound by Death and its Fear, nor by the rules of Caste and its Distinctions,
5.2: Neither do I have Father and Mother, nor do I have Birth,
5.3: Neither do I have Relations nor Friends, neither Spiritual Teacher nor Disciple,
5.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो
विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥
Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaara-Ruupo
Vibhu-Tvaacca Sarvatra Sarve[a-I]ndriyaannaam |
Na Caa-Sanggatam Naiva Muktirna Meyah
Cid-aananda-ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||6||
6.1: I am Without any Variation, and Without any Form,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं
न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥
Mano-Buddhy-Ahangkaara Cittaani Naaham
Na Ca Shrotra-Jihve Na Ca Ghraanna-Netre |
Na Ca Vyoma Bhuumir-Na Tejo Na Vaayuh
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||1||
1.1: Neither am I the Mind nor Intelligence or Ego,
1.2: Neither am I the organs of Hearing (Ears), nor that of Tasting (Tongue), Smelling (Nose) or Seeing (Eyes),
1.3: Neither am I the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air,
1.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः
न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥
Na Ca Praanna-Samjnyo Na Vai Pan.ca-Vaayuh
Na Vaa Sapta-Dhaatuh Na Vaa Pan.ca-Koshah |
Na Vaak-Paanni-Paadam Na Copastha-Paayu
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||2||
2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Air,
2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion,
2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ
मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः ।
न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥३॥
Na Me Dvessa-Raagau Na Me Lobha-Mohau
Mado Naiva Me Naiva Maatsarya-Bhaavah |
Na Dharmo Na Ca-Artho Na Kaamo Na Mokssah
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||3||
3.1: Neither do I have Hatred, nor Attachment, Neither Greed nor Infatuation,
3.2: Neither do I have Passion, nor Feelings of Envy and Jealousy,
3.3 I am Not within the bounds of Dharma (Righteousness), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desire) and Moksha (Liberation) (the four Purusarthas of life),
3.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदो न यज्ञ ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥
Na Punnyam Na Paapam Na Saukhyam Na Duhkham
Na Mantro Na Tiirtho Na Vedo Na Yajnya |
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||4||
4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
न मृत्युर्न शङ्का न मे जातिभेदः
पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः ।
न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरुर्नैव शिष्यं
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥५॥
Na Mrtyur-Na Shangkaa Na Me Jaati-Bhedah
Pitaa Naiva Me Naiva Maataa Na Janmah |
Na Bandhurna Mitram Gurur-Na-Iva Shissyam
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||5||
5.1: Neither am I bound by Death and its Fear, nor by the rules of Caste and its Distinctions,
5.2: Neither do I have Father and Mother, nor do I have Birth,
5.3: Neither do I have Relations nor Friends, neither Spiritual Teacher nor Disciple,
5.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो
विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥
Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaara-Ruupo
Vibhu-Tvaacca Sarvatra Sarve[a-I]ndriyaannaam |
Na Caa-Sanggatam Naiva Muktirna Meyah
Cid-aananda-ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||6||
6.1: I am Without any Variation, and Without any Form,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.
..thank you zhoro for those two great posts...! very interesting, very advaitan..:d
and f1...yeah the buddha was a tough guy..
..although, as a true advaitan friend of mine likes to joke: "there is no buddhism!"..
the advaitan may ask the buddhist: 'in the complete absence of 'self', what is experiencing this?'
(i still believe, beyond language, 'nirvana' and 'moksha' (liberation) are experientially the same...another non-dualist position is monoist shaktism, which i like, and which Shankaracharya wouldn't take on directly in debate..maybe more on that another time..but it could still be seen as the same)
also thanks joedirt for the Avadhoota-Gita..
.
a core text of Advaita Vedanta is the Mandukya Upanishad, which is in the Atharvaveda Veda
Shankaracharya's teacher Gaudapada wrote a commentary on it..
it consists of only 12 mantras/verses, and is considered one of the most important Upanishads..
here is a fairly modern translation, the 7th verse (italics) is particularly significant:
"(1) Om, the Word, is all this, a clear explanation of which follows: all that is past, present, and future is Om. Whatever is before the past and after the future is Om.
2) All this is the Limitless. This Self is the limitless I.
(3) The first quarter (of the Self) is the waker whose field is the waking state, who is conscious of the external world of objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths, and who enjoys the world’ s gross objects.
(4) The second quarter is the dreamer whose field of experience is the dream state, who is conscious of the internal world of objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who enjoys the subtle objects of the dream world.
(5) The third quarter is the sleeper in whom all experiences become undifferentiated into a mass of consciousness, and who is the gateway to the waking and dream states. In the deep sleep state the sleeper neither sees or desires subtle or gross objects.
(6) The sleeper is the Lord of all manifest existence. It is the knower of all, the inner controller, and the source of all. The sleep state is that from which all things originate and into which they all dissolve.
(7) The Self is known as “the fourth” and is to be realized. It is neither conscious of the external or internal worlds, nor is it a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness, nor is it unconscious. It cannot be seen by the senses, is unrelated to anything, incomprehensible to the mind, uninferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. It’s nature is pure consciousness, the negation of all phenomena, non-dual, blissful, and peaceful.
(8 ) Viewed as sounds the Self is A, U, M.
(9) The one who meditates on the waking state as “A,” the first and most
pervasive, fulfills all desires and becomes a leader.
(10) The one who meditates on the dream state as “U” because it is between and superior, attains superior knowledge and is treated fairly by all. In his line of descendants everyone attains Self knowledge.
(11) The one who meditates on the sleep state as “M” as the measure and that wherein all things become one is able to realize the nature of things and beings and understand all things within himself.
(12) That which is partless, soundless, incomprehensible, beyond the senses, blissful, non-dual and that wherein all phenomena are resolved is the “fourth,” the Self. The one who knows It dissolves the self in It."
ॐ
and f1...yeah the buddha was a tough guy..
..although, as a true advaitan friend of mine likes to joke: "there is no buddhism!"..
the advaitan may ask the buddhist: 'in the complete absence of 'self', what is experiencing this?'
(i still believe, beyond language, 'nirvana' and 'moksha' (liberation) are experientially the same...another non-dualist position is monoist shaktism, which i like, and which Shankaracharya wouldn't take on directly in debate..maybe more on that another time..but it could still be seen as the same)
also thanks joedirt for the Avadhoota-Gita..
.
a core text of Advaita Vedanta is the Mandukya Upanishad, which is in the Atharvaveda Veda
Shankaracharya's teacher Gaudapada wrote a commentary on it..
it consists of only 12 mantras/verses, and is considered one of the most important Upanishads..
here is a fairly modern translation, the 7th verse (italics) is particularly significant:
"(1) Om, the Word, is all this, a clear explanation of which follows: all that is past, present, and future is Om. Whatever is before the past and after the future is Om.
2) All this is the Limitless. This Self is the limitless I.
(3) The first quarter (of the Self) is the waker whose field is the waking state, who is conscious of the external world of objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths, and who enjoys the world’ s gross objects.
(4) The second quarter is the dreamer whose field of experience is the dream state, who is conscious of the internal world of objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who enjoys the subtle objects of the dream world.
(5) The third quarter is the sleeper in whom all experiences become undifferentiated into a mass of consciousness, and who is the gateway to the waking and dream states. In the deep sleep state the sleeper neither sees or desires subtle or gross objects.
(6) The sleeper is the Lord of all manifest existence. It is the knower of all, the inner controller, and the source of all. The sleep state is that from which all things originate and into which they all dissolve.
(7) The Self is known as “the fourth” and is to be realized. It is neither conscious of the external or internal worlds, nor is it a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness, nor is it unconscious. It cannot be seen by the senses, is unrelated to anything, incomprehensible to the mind, uninferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. It’s nature is pure consciousness, the negation of all phenomena, non-dual, blissful, and peaceful.
(8 ) Viewed as sounds the Self is A, U, M.
(9) The one who meditates on the waking state as “A,” the first and most
pervasive, fulfills all desires and becomes a leader.
(10) The one who meditates on the dream state as “U” because it is between and superior, attains superior knowledge and is treated fairly by all. In his line of descendants everyone attains Self knowledge.
(11) The one who meditates on the sleep state as “M” as the measure and that wherein all things become one is able to realize the nature of things and beings and understand all things within himself.
(12) That which is partless, soundless, incomprehensible, beyond the senses, blissful, non-dual and that wherein all phenomena are resolved is the “fourth,” the Self. The one who knows It dissolves the self in It."
ॐ