..thanks zhoro glad you're enjoying and also Tattvamasi..your last post was a nice summary of learning to 'abide in Brahman'..good to hear, and well put..

VTSeeker48..that's a nice coincidence..yes, enjoy to hear of the path..a good section from the Yoga Vasistha was kindly posted in post#31 by zhoro..are you studying this?

and thanks Rising Spirit..good words, yes..how many can we use to try to get the meaning of experience..we can only ever point indirectly to this thing…in the language i attempt to use myself i am bounded by meanings, concepts and apparent contradictions or paradoxes..in this subject we come to the limits of language, or analogy..

joedirt. thank you for your posts, i enjoy the conversation too..

we are definitely in areas of thought that can be meditated on for some time to 'break through'..for now i will ponder some your previous conjecture, and Buddhist 'nirvana'..

joedirt wrote:

..from an Advaita Vedanta perspective, as i understand it, the particles 'jump' to the unmanifest aspect of the same thing which is perceiving them (or causing their objectification) ..non-manifest is unbecome..'potential'..not in time or space, which also arise from the unmanifest potential..

while most, if not all things, could be 'non-existing' from a particular point of view, i think one thing must exist…existence itself..which is phenomenal and non-phenomenal, and ultimately neither..it is the unification..wholly unbroken universally..

if we make the statement 'there is nothing', or there is absolutely no thing being experienced, there is still a comprehension that there was nothing..

using the word 'comprehension', rather than 'awareness',

the most basic of comprehensions simply is that 'there is'..not of anything..just there 'is'..

can one comprehend comprehension? it would be to comprehend that there is the means of comprehension..but what comprehends that? it can only be pure comprehension, which cannot be be comprehended outside of it self..it is 'experienceable' in it's existence unto itself...but by any ordinary sensory means, comprehension itself is incomprehensible..

if think could we take that comprehension away, in the absolute sense of (doing) nothing, then we can only be left which it's potential..or source..neither real nor not-real, it still exists.. this same 'potential' is the potential for anything which is comprehended..being 'incomprehensible', yet which results in every 'thing'..the means of comprehending anything..the potential (and actual) comprehension itself..we are left with what in Upanishadic texts is Brahman..the basis (in Shaktism, Adi Shakti is the basis of this) of comprehension..

it is the means of the verification of existence (or non-existence)..'It'..transcendent from any object, action  or attachment..'Brahman'

which i think is surely 'Nirvana'..there is no beyond this..without comprehension nothing can be known to exist, except existence itself..unbroken whole..the 'pure' comprehension..everpresent

the 'clear' light..

but all such language tries to point to at something which..well..is outside its bounds..

i like this conjecture..i think the difference is in the language being used to try to reach this..for by neither intellect or experience can i see a difference in the end between these 'non-dualisms'..except in conceptualisations which derive from mind and language..i mean, 'non dual' is non dual, isn't it?

i agree also the Experience is the core understanding of the transcendent, beyond intellect..

..advaita vedanta is largely about the careful observation of mind, and what underlies this phenomena..so, using intellect (buddhi) and reading texts is not the realisation itself..various practices, techniques (mantras, yogas) aid in experiential focus..

.

thanks everyone..