Who I Am Not

[Shivani Devi]

Last night, I watched two movies on YouTube.

The first one was called "Kumbh" all about the Khumba Mela in India, and the second one was called "Jnani" and it was a documentary all about the life and times of Sri Ramana Maharishi.

Here are the links to both:

https://youtu.be/ReWiJ4pd6Kc
https://youtu.be/hVYv9ktilQw

After watching the second movie, I got to thinking...

There is a lot of emphasis placed on the "I" or "Self" through self-inquiry to find out "who/what I AM".

If I ask myself this question, I get one of three "answers".

"I am the ego self" or "I am the mind and body conglomerate" or "I am nothing or no one".

For me, the whole inquiry and awareness totally rests on who I am NOT and I guess I can take something from the Buddhist teachings in regards, to the concept of Anatta, or no-self and no "I" because for me at least, as soon as the word "I" or "Self" is used, there is an immediate identification with identity and being this person who "I" am at the physical and mental level.

I thought the whole goal was to transcend the "I" and not to identify by saying "I am Oneness" or "I am Brahman" but rather, "Oneness IS" or "Brahman IS" either respective and/or inclusive OF the "I".

This has been my main sticking point with Advaita Vedanta and non-duality, because whenever somebody says "I AM" there's always room for "you are what"?

Please discuss.

[Tomma]

How I see it is, once you have realized who you are, fully realized the I, you are at the door. The next step is the last you, the I, will ever take, through the door. After that is .... nothing left but consciousness. But the I has to be realized first, seen and felt, and then only the step beyond can be taken.

[Iamit]

Last night, I watched two movies on YouTube.

The first one was called "Kumbh" all about the Khumba Mela in India, and the second one was called "Jnani" and it was a documentary all about the life and times of Sri Ramana Maharishi.

Here are the links to both:

https://youtu.be/ReWiJ4pd6Kc
https://youtu.be/hVYv9ktilQw

After watching the second movie, I got to thinking...

There is a lot of emphasis placed on the "I" or "Self" through self-inquiry to find out "who/what I AM".

If I ask myself this question, I get one of three "answers".

"I am the ego self" or "I am the mind and body conglomerate" or "I am nothing or no one".

For me, the whole inquiry and awareness totally rests on who I am NOT and I guess I can take something from the Buddhist teachings in regards, to the concept of Anatta, or no-self and no "I" because for me at least, as soon as the word "I" or "Self" is used, there is an immediate identification with identity and being this person who "I" am at the physical and mental level.

I thought the whole goal was to transcend the "I" and not to identify by saying "I am Oneness" or "I am Brahman" but rather, "Oneness IS" or "Brahman IS" either respective and/or inclusive OF the "I".

This has been my main sticking point with Advaita Vedanta and non-duality, because whenever somebody says "I AM" there's always room for "you are what"?

Please discuss.

Hi Shivani,

We will agree that Oneness/Brahman is the only reality. So what is all this stuff we see around us, including us? Well surely it flows from the first assertion that it must be Oneness/Brahman "looking" like all this with names and titles. So at least that is clear is it not?

[Melahin]

I believe one can become to intellectual about the whole process, and in that miss it altogether. If the intellect need something it can measure reality with, then the wholeness of oneness gets lost to it, because it cannot be completely absorbed in it. So maybe there is a letting go of it all, a surrendering of the self, in order to become all that you are :dontknow:

[God-Like]

As always, it depends on context .

If Self is all there is, then in this context quite literally Self is al there is . The mind-body-ego included .

I have used the analogy before in reference to neti neti where one renounces all that they are not .

It's likened to getting rid of all the weeds in order to see the path clearly, the path that leads to Self .

When Self is realised there is the realisations that the weeds were Self .


x daz x

[Iamit]

I believe one can become to intellectual about the whole process, and in that miss it altogether. If the intellect need something it can measure reality with, then the wholeness of oneness gets lost to it, because it cannot be completely absorbed in it. So maybe there is a letting go of it all, a surrendering of the self, in order to become all that you are :dontknow:

There are things we dont like and regard as problematic, in this case the intellect. From a nondual perspective both the positive and negative view of intellect are Oneness manifest, always both sides of conflict, each the other.

[Melahin]

There are things we dont like and regard as problematic, in this case the intellect. From a nondual perspective both the positive and negative view of intellect are Oneness manifest, always both sides of conflict, each the other.

What? :hug2:

[Iamit]

What? :hug2:

Another way of putting it may be that the intellect, being Oneness manifest, may be the way some characters end the feeling of disconnection. That approach is no more or less effective than rejecting the intellect as problematic. It depends on the character. One size does not fit all.

[Melahin]

Another way of putting it may be that the intellect, being Oneness manifest, may be the way some characters end the feeling of disconnection. That approach is no more or less effective than rejecting the intellect as problematic. It depends on the character. One size does not fit all.

I am wondering how deep down the rabbit whole I can go with this. Are you making general statements based on my comment, or are you speaking directly to me?

[Shivani Devi]

Thank you all for the replies in this thread. I am reading and digesting them all, without trying to overthink or over reason this.

The last two comments made by Iamit and Melahin come to the whole crux of the matter.

In certain schools of Non dual thought, we are taught about Maya and the concept of neti neti, in that anything which is not the Absolute Reality or Brahman is only a false perception, which is called Mithyavadi or superimposition, like how a rope is thought to be a snake in the darkness. This includes any association with an individual consciousness with a universal or all pervading one.

In another school of Non dual thought, such as those propounded by Ramana, Brahman also includes Maya, but then how does one differentiate the divided from the undivided Self if all, including the ego is Brahman? If "Oneness" is manifesting as ego, what is to stop somebody from doing a heinous crime like murder and say "I did not kill anybody, Oneness killed Oneness..

Having said that, I also understand that the question "who am I" has no answer. It is the ultimate Koan.

[davidsun]

Having said that, I also understand that the question "who am I" has no answer. It is the ultimate Koan.
Whatever 'you' grok to be what Being is, THAT is (then what 'you' think, feel and believe) 'you' are a 'ray' of.

In my view, Being is the experience and expression of Love and Joy. Note: 'I' regard Love and Joy to be the Source-'code' (hence progenitor) of all being(s). 'You' of course may have a different 'view' and hence believe in a different 'progenitor'. But the same logic applies.

Analogy: There's red, yellow, blue, green, etc. - but they are all 'rays' of the same Light (Source).

The 'answer' to "Who am I?" is whatever 'you' grok Being (a/k/a) Life) is.

Some folks 'groks' in this regard overlap and converge with the 'groks' of others . Others' don't.

Whatever is most functional in this regard will 'survive' and 'propagate' via 'natural selection' because it is most (creatively) functional.

By this means, Life is gradually revealing what IT is - what 'you' are, in other words.

Look (without bias) and you will 'see' what IT is clearly revealing itself/yourself to be.

P.S. re what 'grok' means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

[Shivani Devi]

Whatever 'you' grok to be what Being is, THAT is (then what 'you' think, feel and believe) 'you' are a 'ray' of.

In my view, Being is the experience and expression of Love and Joy. Note: 'I' regard Love and Joy to be the Source-'code' (hence progenitor) of all being(s). 'You' of course may have a different 'view' and hence believe in a different 'progenitor'. But the same logic applies.

Analogy: There's red, yellow, blue, green, etc. - but they are all 'rays' of the same Light (Source).

The 'answer' to "Who am I?" is whatever 'you' grok Being (a/k/a) Life) is.

Some folks 'groks' in this regard overlap and converge with the 'groks' of others . Others' don't.

Whatever is most functional in this regard will 'survive' and 'propagate' via 'natural selection' because it is most (creatively) functional.

By this means, Life is gradually revealing what IT is - what 'you' are, in other words.

Look (without bias) and you will 'see' what IT is clearly revealing itself/yourself to be.

P.S. re what 'grok' means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok Thank you, David and I understand (grok) what "grok" is, ever since Baile introduced me to the term.

In any case, whatever we can "grok" as being the Absolute, isn't the Absolute.

I also understand now that for some, a sense of an individualized being remains in tact as the "I" whilst for others, all notion of an "I" is lost in the process and I shall refer back to Tomma's explanation in regards.

Once a person has stepped through that door, the whole perspective changes into not having any perspective whatever, and so trying to relate to a concept like "self inquiry" after the fact becomes pretty moot, so of course I am going to get the answer "I am the ego" or simply say "who is asking?".

[Iamit]

I am wondering how deep down the rabbit whole I can go with this. Are you making general statements based on my comment, or are you speaking directly to me?

Both.

Wherever you are down the rabbit whole will be no more or less Oneness than any other point for if Oneness is the only reality then all points
must be equally Oneness. Nothing else real is available.

[Melahin]

Both.

Wherever you are down the rabbit whole will be no more or less Oneness than any other point for if Oneness is the only reality then all points
must be equally Oneness. Nothing else real is available.

Maybe I should have used the phrase why? rather than what? since that might seem more accurate, though it means exactly the same thing in this case. You just keep pulling the same rabbit out of the hat I have placed; and I am wondering why you feel that trick is needed in this instance :smile: So how far can we go down before you figure it out?

[davidsun]

In any case, whatever we can "grok" as being the Absolute, isn't the Absolute.
'Absolute' is a loaded term.

There's 'water', for example, and then there's absolutely pure 'water' - meaning 'water' that has nothing 'else' dissolved in it - thought water which has things dissolved in it is still 'water'.

What (any)one 'groks' to be the absolute (or absolutely pure) Essence of Life/Being/Creation, i.e. the 'emanator' or 'foundation' from which all Life/Being/Creation spring (or 'emanates'), will of course be 'colored' by that person's 'lens'. But what he or see 'groks' will nevertheless be THAT, albeit a 'colored' version of THAT.

Let's say, for the purpose of conversation, that the Essence of Life/Being/Creation is 'really' pure Love and Joy - the specifics of my (grokked) version of what this means might well differ from the specifics of your (grokked) version of THAT, but we would still (accurately, IMO) grok that we were both/each really THAT as well as really speaking about THAT to and with one another.

I think what you still haven't fully gotten past (i.e. put 'behind' 'you' - in "get thee behind me, Satan" fashion :biggrin: ) is the (false, IMO) notion that the difference(s) between what 'you' and someone 'else' groks to be the 'reality' of the God-Source of Life/Being/Creation means (I mean 'absolutely' means! :biggrin: ) that one of you must be 'right' (or more 'right') and the other 'wrong' (of more 'wrong').

This is what keeps you stuck (and going around in circles like a duck with one foot nailed to the floor!) in the prison of your separatist 'individualism', wherein you experience alienation from others and wherefrom you (though less and less now, thank Love-and-Joy 'God'! :smile: ) speak and act in ways which alienate them.

'I', of course, may be 'wrong' about all this in your view, but if 'you' wish to relate to 'me' as I do 'you', this version of the absolute truth, is (i.e. emanates from, or should I say 'through') Who 'I' really AM.

:love9:

[Iamit]

Maybe I should have used the phrase why? rather than what? since that might seem more accurate, though it means exactly the same thing in this case. You just keep pulling the same rabbit out of the hat I have placed; and I am wondering why you feel that trick is needed in this instance :smile: So how far can we go down before you figure it out?

As long as you continue to exclude some aspects of the manifestation (in this case intellect) as being problematic/something other than Oneness manifest, then of course the same rabbit will be pulled out of the hat:)

[Shivani Devi]

'Absolute' is a loaded term.

There's 'water', for example, and then there's absolutely pure 'water' - meaning 'water' that has nothing 'else' dissolved in it - thought water which has things dissolved in it is still 'water'.

What (any)one 'groks' to be the absolute (or absolutely pure) Essence of Life/Being/Creation, i.e. the 'emanator' or 'foundation' from which all Life/Being/Creation spring (or 'emanates'), will of course be 'colored' by that person's 'lens'. But what he or see 'groks' will nevertheless be THAT, albeit a 'colored' version of THAT.

Let's say, for the purpose of conversation, that the Essence of Life/Being/Creation is 'really' pure Love and Joy - the specifics of my (grokked) version of what this means might well differ from the specifics of your (grokked) version of THAT, but we would still (accurately, IMO) grok that we were both/each really THAT as well as really speaking about THAT to and with one another.

I think what you still haven't fully gotten past (i.e. put 'behind' 'you' - in "get thee behind me, Satan" fashion :biggrin: ) is the (false, IMO) notion that the difference(s) between what 'you' and someone 'else' groks to be the 'reality' of the God-Source of Life/Being/Creation means (I mean 'absolutely' means! :biggrin: ) that one of you must be 'right' (or more 'right') and the other 'wrong' (of more 'wrong').

This is what keeps you stuck (and going around in circles like a duck with one foot nailed to the floor!) in the prison of your separatist 'individualism', wherein you experience alienation from others and wherefrom you (though less and less now, thank Love-and-Joy 'God'! :smile: ) speak and act in ways which alienate them.

'I', of course, may be 'wrong' about all this in your view, but if 'you' wish to relate to 'me' as I do 'you', this version of the absolute truth, is (i.e. emanates from, or should I say 'through') Who 'I' really AM.

:love9:Yes...and not really.

Is there only one reality, or a different reality for each one who experiences it? According to my teachings, reality is one, but the approaches are different...there are not 7.8 billion different "realities".

Truth be told, what keeps me "stuck" is in the similarity or difference between Jivatman (Individualized Consciousness) and Paramatman (Universal Consciousness) or between Brahman and Parabrahman.

There is still the distinction between "without" and "within"...or how can I love and worship a God or a Divine, loving entity which essentially IS me?...I still cannot reconcile this. Many will say "I am God" but I say "God is God" and "I am me" and God is inside my heart, but me loving and worshiping myself AS God seems a bit silly for me.

I can merge with God, but then neither myself NOR God exists...there is Shunya...void. For me to feel Bhakti, there needs to be my ego self and there needs to be an "Absolute" to direct that unconditional loving emotion towards.

This is where I fall and not believing I am "right" or another is "wrong" in any way, as I have gone beyond that stage.

[davidsun]

Truth be told, what keeps me "stuck" is in the similarity or difference between Jivatman (Individualized Consciousness) and Paramatman (Universal Consciousness) or between Brahman and Parabrahman.
These are overlapping ideas/concepts pertaining to (the) ONE reaity. Your dichotomization (as opposed to synthesization) of them sets up an unresolvable dilemma for you, IMO.

In my view, my preceding post meaning-FULLY addressed/resolved this 'issue' - there can be no resolution in yours, again in my view.

[Shivani Devi]

These are overlapping ideas/concepts pertaining to (the) ONE reaity. Your dichotomization (as opposed to synthesization) of them sets up an unresolvable dilemma for you, IMO.

In my view, my preceding post meaning-FUULY addressed/resolved this 'isshttps://youtu.be/jH_tUSH0NeQue' - there can be no resolution in yours, again in my view.I guess this is what one asks for and gets when they try to follow both paths of Bhakti Yoga and Advaita Vedanta simultaneously. :biggrin:

One must eventually give way to the other so that the dichotomy is eventually resolved...and either way does not matter...As long as one is not trying to place each foot into two separate boats.

You mentioned before about "survival of the fittest" and I watched a YouTube video tonight...A crazy Shiva Bhakta, like me who stated that even if the whole world agreed by consensus that what he was doing was wrong or incorrect, he wouldn't be phased and would continue doing it because he totally loves Shiva and draws strength from that and from Him...I felt a bit of solace in that, despite others saying "I am God and you are too".

...and so, I finally have my answer. Who am I? I am a Shiva Bhakta... nothing more or less than that.

[davidsun]

...and so, I finally have my answer. Who am I? I am a Shiva Bhakta... nothing more or less than that.
:thumbsup:

Quoting Paul (from his Letter to the Romans): "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

P.S. Besides 'overlapping' ideas/truths/realities, there are also dynamically feedback-loop interfusing ideas/truths/realities which render dichotomizations non-sensical.

Quoting JC from The Book of John: "I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you!"

WOOHOO - Ride 'em ShaktiGurl!*

*I first wrote 'CowGurl', hearkening back to the 'American WildWest', but I realized that might be taken to insultingly imply that I thought you should be a Vishnuvite Mohini! :icon_eek: :biggrin:

[Melahin]

As long as you continue to exclude some aspects of the manifestation (in this case intellect) as being problematic/something other than Oneness manifest, then of course the same rabbit will be pulled out of the hat:)

Maybe you have not understood a single word of what I said because you try to access it from your intellect, rather than the intelligence that life shares freely with us.

[Iamit]

Maybe you have not understood a single word of what I said because you try to access it from your intellect, rather than the intelligence that life shares freely with us.

We are done I think. Be well and good luck with your intellect issues.

[captainamerica]

I guess this is what one asks for and gets when they try to follow both paths of Bhakti Yoga and Advaita Vedanta simultaneously. :biggrin:

One must eventually give way to the other so that the dichotomy is eventually resolved...and either way does not matter...As long as one is not trying to place each foot into two separate boats.

You mentioned before about "survival of the fittest" and I watched a YouTube video tonight...A crazy Shiva Bhakta, like me who stated that even if the whole world agreed by consensus that what he was doing was wrong or incorrect, he wouldn't be phased and would continue doing it because he totally loves Shiva and draws strength from that and from Him...I felt a bit of solace in that, despite others saying "I am God and you are too".

...and so, I finally have my answer. Who am I? I am a Shiva Bhakta... nothing more or less than that.

I've read somewhere that this is the stage of bhakti that will lead to all the greater things such as salvation.

I think you should continue on this path of bhakti yoga without worrying about the other paths.

I am happy to see that you are doing good on the path of getting moksha.

[Shivani Devi]

I've read somewhere that this is the stage of bhakti that will lead to all the greater things such as salvation.

I think you should continue on this path of bhakti yoga without worrying about the other paths.

I am happy to see that you are doing good on the path of getting moksha.
Thank you, my dear friend and that is very reassuring.

Please don't think I am angry with you or ignoring you because I haven't responded to your recent personal messages.

At the moment, I just don't feel like answering any questions, or seeking any answers for them. I have enough on my own "mental plate" as it is and need to sort out my own conundrums before I can even attempt to be of any assistance in the lives of others.

I haven't responded to you for the past month, because I didn't know how to say this nicely and I was afraid you may take it the wrong way. But today I thought I would just come right out and say it.

I would just like to talk with you and just discuss "stuff" without it turning into a formal Q&A session all the time which does my head in...and who knows? through talking about "stuff" your questions just may be answered anyway...You just need to learn how to be receptive and open to that...and above all, patient.

[captainamerica]

Thank you, my dear friend and that is very reassuring.

Please don't think I am angry with you or ignoring you because I haven't responded to your recent personal messages.

At the moment, I just don't feel like answering any questions, or seeking any answers for them. I have enough on my own "mental plate" as it is and need to sort out my own conundrums before I can even attempt to be of any assistance in the lives of others.

I haven't responded to you for the past month, because I didn't know how to say this nicely and I was afraid you may take it the wrong way. But today I thought I would just come right out and say it.

I would just like to talk with you and just discuss "stuff" without it turning into a formal Q&A session all the time which does my head in...and who knows? through talking about "stuff" your questions just may be answered anyway...You just need to learn how to be receptive and open to that...and above all, patient.

1.Thank you for responding,good friend.

2.I understand and thank you very much for letting me know.

3.Yes,feel free to talk with me about "stuff" or whatever you want.:smile:

[Shivani Devi]

1.Thank you for responding,good friend.

2.I understand and thank you very much for letting me know.

3.Yes,feel free to talk with me about "stuff" or whatever you want.:smile:
It is very rare (if ever) I get the opportunity on SF to actually sit down and have a good old "chin wag" with a fellow follower of Sanatan Dharma....and it can ONLY take one to know one...So I am very appreciative for small mercies.

Nothing makes me happier than discussing Hindu Dharma and mythology, Indian music, Kailash Kher, the 112 foot statue of Aadi Yogi at Coimbatore, the latest offerings from Bollywood, the correct way to make cucumber raita, the topography of Arunachala and the current poicies of Narendra Modi...etc..

Talking about spiritual "stuff" may occur during or after that...

By the way, my opening post contains a link to the documentary about the 2016 Maha Kumbh held at Prayagh...check it out.

[captainamerica]

It is very rare (if ever) I get the opportunity on SF to actually sit down and have a good old "chin wag" with a fellow follower of Sanatan Dharma....and it can ONLY take one to know one...So I am very appreciative for small mercies.

Nothing makes me happier than discussing Hindu Dharma and mythology, Indian music, Kailash Kher, the 112 foot statue of Aadi Yogi at Coimbatore, the latest offerings from Bollywood, the correct way to make cucumber raita, the topography of Arunachala and the current poicies of Narendra Modi...etc..

Talking about spiritual "stuff" may occur during or after that...

By the way, my opening post contains a link to the documentary about the 2016 Maha Kumbh held at Prayagh...check it out.

1.Feel free to talk to me anything about Sanatan dharma,mythology ,hindu dharma ...music...bollywood ....Narendra Modi etc .

I will be waiting eagerly for your response.

2. I have watched half of the documentary just now.Will watch the other half soon.I really liked the documentary.

I suppose you will like this youtube channel :
https://www.youtube.com/user/keerthinavin/videos

Do take a look at it.:smile:

[Shivani Devi]

1.Feel free to talk to me anything about Sanatan dharma,mythology ,hindu dharma ...music...bollywood ....Narendra Modi etc .

I will be waiting eagerly for your response.

2. I have watched half of the documentary just now.Will watch the other half soon.I really liked the documentary.

I suppose you will like this youtube channel :
https://www.youtube.com/user/keerthinavin/videos

Do take a look at it.:smile:
Thank you so much for that link. I already have a few of those videos on my hard drive, but did not make the connection to an actual channel where there are more of them!

I got half way down the page, stopped at the Shiva Rahasya Purana and sorta went "ooohhh...One I haven't seen before". LOL.

I've studied the Shiv Puran, the Linga Puran and the Skanda Puran....this comes as something new for me...So now this kitten has a new ball of string to play with...

Thank you again.

[Shivani Devi]

I just had a brilliant idea.

During the next hour or so, I will make a new thread in the "Yourspace" part of SF.

I haven't made one for years and my old thread is hopelessly outdated.

There, I can post reviews, discuss current issues, talk about stuff SF doesn't have a topic for and I don't feel a whole thread needs to be made just for it, go "off topic" to my heart's content as I am not confined within a framework, talk about trivia, write articles, blog, post random shizz and do whatever.

[captainamerica]

I just had a brilliant idea.

During the next hour or so, I will make a new thread in the "Yourspace" part of SF.

I haven't made one for years and my old thread is hopelessly outdated.

There, I can post reviews, discuss current issues, talk about stuff SF doesn't have a topic for and I don't feel a whole thread needs to be made just for it, go "off topic" to my heart's content as I am not confined within a framework, talk about trivia, write articles, blog, post random shizz and do whatever.

Good idea !

I will take a look at it once you make the thread.

:smile:

[captainamerica]

Thank you so much for that link. I already have a few of those videos on my hard drive, but did not make the connection to an actual channel where there are more of them!

I got half way down the page, stopped at the Shiva Rahasya Purana and sorta went "ooohhh...One I haven't seen before". LOL.

I've studied the Shiv Puran, the Linga Puran and the Skanda Puran....this comes as something new for me...So now this kitten has a new ball of string to play with...

Thank you again.

My pleasure to be of help.You are very welcome.:smile:

[davidsun]

My hat's off to Captain America - great/loving/wise 'vibe'! :smile:

[captainamerica]

My hat's off to Captain America - great/loving/wise 'vibe'! :smile:

Thank you for letting me know friend !

Hope you have a great day ahead. :smile:

[Melahin]

We are done I think. Be well and good luck with your intellect issues.

Sorry, just couldn't help myself when you started making the first assumptions, and when you kept going on and on down your own little path, I just wondered how far down the rabbit whole I could take you. Infinitely it seemed if I had not put the plug in :icon_eek: but yes be very well and have fun :tongue: haha

[Iamit]

Sorry, just couldn't help myself when you started making the first assumptions, and when you kept going on and on down your own little path, I just wondered how far down the rabbit whole I could take you. Infinitely it seemed if I had not put the plug in :icon_eek: but yes be very well and have fun :tongue: haha

To all. Please note it is not me initiating contact with this member

[davidsun]

Sorry, just couldn't help myself when you started making the first assumptions, and when you kept going on and on down your own little path, I just wondered how far down the rabbit whole I could take you. Infinitely it seemed if I had not put the plug in :icon_eek: but yes be very well and have fun :tongue: haha
The subject (of intellect vs intelligence) which you have ignore-antly (IMO) bandied on about is even more rabbit-whole-ish than you have begun to image-in (or so it appears to me) Melahin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect

'Smugness' and 'condescension' (in any regard) is a 'tip-off' that a person is 'playing' the 'game' of 'oneupsmanship' - revealing the player's continuing ego-'investment', IMO, everyone.

[davidsun]

'Smugness' and 'condescension' (in any regard) is a 'tip-off' that a person is 'playing' the 'game' of 'oneupsmanship' - revealing the player's continuing ego-'investment', IMO, everyone.
'Investment', as in investment.

Bejeezus ... "I am the flower, the tree, the vine. I am the path" he says in his 'signature' line! :smile:

[davidsun]

P.S. to Melahin - I know i am being 'ruff' :smile: on you - just my way of welcoming you as one of many a Big league players here, and prodding you to get your act together should you be motivated to do so, Bro.

[Shivani Devi]

I have just read a beautiful post on another site.
http://www.ramakrishnamath.in/e-lectures/?p=1428

For millennia, the paths of Jnana and Bhakti have always appeared in total diametric opposition to each other.

One way is of 'the mind" and the other, of "the heart" and yet, both must be in total balance, working in unison for Moksha to occur.

Adi Shankaracharya knew it (as evidenced by his loving hymns to the Divine Mother), Sri Ramana Maharishi knew it (as evidenced by his devotion to Arunachala), Swami Vivekananda and Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa knew it (by his devotion to Kali)...

It is said that duality cannot lead to non duality, but non duality cannot lead to itself either...The mind will never "know" itself and any concept of "Oneness" is still a dual concept.

For the Bhakta, a Saguna (dualistic) form of a non dual reality, acts only as an intermediary concept to achieve the level of Non dual awareness, where merely trying to conceive of a nebulous, formless and experiential "reality" seems like an absurd exercise in futility.

It is like how Jesus said "The way to the Father is THROUGH me" or the Tantrikas say "The way to Shiva is THROUGH Shakti" and Shakti is another name for Maya...which is another name for Duality.

Shakti in relation to Shiva is not a separate entity FROM Shiva, but THROUGH Shakti and by using Duality, is the only way that Shiva can take form and appear to the Devotee in this dual existence, to take the Devotee back to the non dual state WITH Him.

It is stated in the Upanishads, "by knowing the structure clay, all items made from clay are also known" but if one doesn't know the structure of clay to start with, all they will see is a "pot" or a "toy" or a "brick" and so forth.

[SerendipityLizard]

I have just read a beautiful post on another site.
http://www.ramakrishnamath.in/e-lectures/?p=1428

For millennia, the paths of Jnana and Bhakti have always appeared in total diametric opposition to each other.

One way is of 'the mind" and the other, of "the heart" and yet, both must be in total balance, working in unison for Moksha to occur.

.

I agree. That sounds wonderful.Mind if I add a more modern understanding of this balance?

In my journey in practicing Jnana and Bhakti yoga, I found a strange leap when studying Carl Jung’s theories of personality.

His work has been translated into a pop psychology watered down version called MBTI or Myer-Briggs Type Indicator, but that wasn’t the original idea of it. In MBTI, we only have the dualities of learning towards deciding with our heart and our mind, but the original theories emphasized balance.

It emphasized how we all decide with our hearts and minds — thinking and feeling — but lean to one more than the other. To achieve growth, you need to understand the other side’s perspective. In fact, the only way to master one side of them is to also master the other.

According to him, people who think independently with logic tend to have some deep need to be accepted and loved as part of a group. Without finding that acceptance, they’ll not find the courage to disagree with others ideas’ and eventually share ideas no one has thought of for the benefit of others — which will reinforce the acceptance they already have.

On the other hand, in those who are already skilled emotionally with others in a group, they often lack the ability to think for themselves logically. Without finding a way to find independence in mind, they are stuck to find a lack of self initiative to what they believe in life. As they gain the ability to do so, there’ll be better able to serve others with compassion supported by well thought rational decisions, and in others’ affirmation of them, they’ll find greater independence in thought.

There is much more to this than that — and how each can feedback with each other can manifest differently, but I do like the inherit idea to it.

I think of working with the mind and heart like a judge. The judge uses his mind to create decisions that can allow the balance between justice and mercy. On the other hand, he also needs his heart to make sure that his beliefs and actions are moving towards goodness. Both allow him to become the best he can be in his role.

This is not nonduality of course. Nonduality isn’t full of theories and ideas, but I think it’s a step towards it — at the very least.

[Iamit]

I have just read a beautiful post on another site.
http://www.ramakrishnamath.in/e-lectures/?p=1428

For millennia, the paths of Jnana and Bhakti have always appeared in total diametric opposition to each other.

One way is of 'the mind" and the other, of "the heart" and yet, both must be in total balance, working in unison for Moksha to occur.

Adi Shankaracharya knew it (as evidenced by his loving hymns to the Divine Mother), Sri Ramana Maharishi knew it (as evidenced by his devotion to Arunachala), Swami Vivekananda and Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa knew it (by his devotion to Kali)...

It is said that duality cannot lead to non duality, but non duality cannot lead to itself either...The mind will never "know" itself and any concept of "Oneness" is still a dual concept.

For the Bhakta, a Saguna (dualistic) form of a non dual reality, acts only as an intermediary concept to achieve the level of Non dual awareness, where merely trying to conceive of a nebulous, formless and experiential "reality" seems like an absurd exercise in futility.

It is like how Jesus said "The way to the Father is THROUGH me" or the Tantrikas say "The way to Shiva is THROUGH Shakti" and Shakti is another name for Maya...which is another name for Duality.

Shakti in relation to Shiva is not a separate entity FROM Shiva, but THROUGH Shakti and by using Duality, is the only way that Shiva can take form and appear to the Devotee in this dual existence, to take the Devotee back to the non dual state WITH Him.

It is stated in the Upanishads, "by knowing the structure clay, all items made from clay are also known" but if one doesn't know the structure of clay to start with, all they will see is a "pot" or a "toy" or a "brick" and so forth.

When I use the term "Oneness" it is not meant to indicate some kind of entity but rather that, despite the appearance of difference all is in reality, One. By reality I mean only the reality referred to in the non duality story. In that story, Oneness is the only reality. Outside of such stories I make no attempt to say what reality might be, to much may be hidden to define what may be real or true.

Some characters suite a devontional approach, I presume this is what you are calling heart, others are more in the mind and prefer a conceptual approach. In both cases a resonance may occur. In the former by heart, and the latter by mind. Neither one is preferable to the other. It depends on the character.

Nisargaddata for example appealed to seekers on both approaches as though he sensed what would suite the character of the seeker he was speaking to.

[davidsun]

I have just read a beautiful post on another site.
http://www.ramakrishnamath.in/e-lectures/?p=1428
A lot of thoughtful stuff in his response to the Q, but hello, what's (obvously, IMO!) 'wrong' with this statement?:

"In the spiritual matters, the words of Upanishads are final and factual. The Supreme judge is Upanishad only. Without the Upanishad, nobody, whether he is a philosopher, or saint or even Incarnations can not talk anything about God, Jive, Moksha, etc. This is the unique position, our Upanishads have. All the Incarnations, philosophers, sages accepted this position."

Reminds me of statements made by 'student' of 'schools' and 'followers' of 'movements' based on other 'scriptures' ('scriptures' referencing particular compendiums of 'writing').

Imo, such statements reveal a lack of comprehension pertaining to the 'reality' really is (like) - at least, they 'reveal' that to me.

Ahh, the seductions of wanting to believe and (then) believing in I've-got-a-telephone-line-to-what-the-absolute-truth-really-is 'certainty'! Or a 'link' to someone (else) who does! :icon_eek:

'Followers'! YIKES!!!

[Shivani Devi]

A lot of thoughtful stuff in his response to the Q, but hello, what's (obvously, IMO!) 'wrong' with this statement?:

"In the spiritual matters, the words of Upanishads are final and factual. The Supreme judge is Upanishad only. Without the Upanishad, nobody, whether he is a philosopher, or saint or even Incarnations can not talk anything about God, Jive, Moksha, etc. This is the unique position, our Upanishads have. All the Incarnations, philosophers, sages accepted this position."

Reminds me of statements made by 'student' of 'schools' and 'followers' of 'movements' based on other 'scriptures' ('scriptures' referencing particular compendiums of 'writing').

Imo, such statements reveal a lack of comprehension pertaining to the 'reality' really is (like) - at least, they 'reveal' that to me.

Ahh, the seductions of wanting to believe and (then) believing in I've-got-a-telephone-line-to-what-the-absolute-truth-really-is 'certainty'! Or a 'link' to someone (else) who does! :icon_eek:

'Followers'! YIKES!!!https://www.gktoday.in/gk/shruti-smriti/

I'm feeling lazy today. LOL

[davidsun]

https://www.gktoday.in/gk/shruti-smriti/

I'm feeling lazy today. LOL
On the page linbked to it says: "The Vedic literature is broadly divided into two categories viz. Shruti and Smriti."

Oh, well, talk about one 'canon' :smile: being 'heard' and another being 'remembered', this reminded me of another 'saying' which I present hear in 'translation:

One man-woman's' Shruti is another's Smriti. :D

So anyone who thinks that his or her Shruti or Smriti or whatever is THE CAT's only (absolutely true) MEEOW is really delusional, in my Shritu or Smiriti (or whatever you want to call it) 'view". "Absolutely true" as used here meaning 'supremely' true, in comparison to any and all other MEEEEE OWS!

Talk about 'in'vestment in ME ME ME smugness!!!

Logically corollary: anyone who believes and so thinks and so feels that the above-referenced he or she really knows all there is to know about what he or she is talking about is equally (delusionally) so.

:cool:

[Shivani Devi]

On the page linbked to it says: "The Vedic literature is broadly divided into two categories viz. Shruti and Smriti."

Oh, well, talk about one 'canon' :smile: being 'heard' and another being 'remembered', this reminded me of another 'saying' which I present hear in 'translation:

One man-woman's' Shruti is another's Smriti. :D

So anyone who thinks that his or her Shruti or Smriti or whatever is THE CAT's only (absolutely true) MEEOW is really delusional, in my Shritu or Smiriti (or whatever you want to call it) 'view". "Absolutely true" as used here meaning 'supremely' true, in comparison to any and all other MEEEEE OWS!

Talk about 'in'vestment in ME ME ME smugness!!!

Logically corollary: anyone who believes and so thinks and so feels that the above-referenced he or she really knows all there is to know about what he or she is talking about is equally (delusionally) so.

:cool:Of course the Absolute, known as "Brahman" transcends anything alluded to or written.

However, if one aligns themselves with a philosophy or ideology such as Hinduism, all of this is just accepted as being 'par for the course'.

Within that construct, of course there are going to be "followers"...Just like how the shisya follows the instructions and teachings of the Guru.

In this regard, it is more like a subjugation of the ego, rather than a " I, me, mine" mindset.

[davidsun]

Of course the Absolute, known as "Brahman" transcends anything alluded to or written.

However, if one aligns themselves with a philosophy or ideology such as Hinduism, all of this is just accepted as being 'par for the course'.

Within that construct, of course there are going to be "followers"...Just like how the shisya follows the instructions and teachings of the Guru.

In this regard, it is more like a subjugation of the ego, rather than a " I, me, mine" mindset.
I agree with what you say in reference to "Brahman", SD

As to 'followers' (of particular gurus or philosophies or ideologies), in disagreement I would say (because that is what I 'see') that those who do so are not 'subjugating' their 'ego' - rather they are egotistically 'piggy-backing' their 'ego' onto something which they regard as 'greater' (while hiding that fact from themselves and only seeing themselves as 'dutiful' followers, i.e. pretending they are 'subjugating' their egos), when the fact is that the follower-leader phenomenon is a BIG (conjoint) folie-de-deux EGO dance, the same way Trump's 'followers' 'getting off' (i.e. get their rocks off) by 'following him and he gets his rrocks of by 'leading' them - and they all feel 'know-better than thou' (even those who play 'humble' - though not many Trumpies do! :smile:) in relation to others in this regard.

The 'ego' is a great 'trickster'.

Long story short: My ego ain't 'buying' what your ego has 'bought' and now 'sells' in the latter regard, SD. :biggrin:

[Shivani Devi]

Thing is, I am not "selling" anything to be "bought".

I am only explaining how I "grok" it...and if it ain't the same as how another "groks" it then c'est la vie.

[davidsun]

Thing is, I am not "selling" anything to be "bought".[/quote]
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But do consider the implications of the fact that I 'see' it as 'fitting' you spiritually speaking (in my view, there is something which your 'ego' stands to 'gain' from doing so, IOW). This even though my suppositions in this regard could of course be quite 'wrong' -- and you could really be sharing your perspective in the above regard for others' and Life's sake" (not for your 'own' and your own "kind's" sake, IOW).

I am only explaining how I "grok" it...and if it ain't the same as how another "groks" it then c'est la vie.
Same here, fellow-grokker! :smile:


Just in case you or others are unfamiliar with the term 'folie de deaux' which to be correct should have been 'folie a deux', let me also add this reference as long as I am responding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux

C'est la vie, indeed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoXLKgX0MgU :D

[Shivani Devi]

Thing is, I am not "selling" anything to be "bought".
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But do consider the implications of the fact that I 'see' it as 'fitting' you spiritually speaking (in my view, there is something which your 'ego' stands to 'gain' from doing so, IOW). This even though my suppositions in this regard could of course be quite 'wrong' -- and you could really be sharing your perspective in the above regard for others' and Life's sake" (not for your 'own' and your own "kind's" sake, IOW).


Same here, fellow-grokker! :smile:


Just in case you or others are unfamiliar with the term 'folie de deaux' which to be correct should have been 'folie a deux', let me also add this reference as long as I am responding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux

C'est la vie, indeed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoXLKgX0MgU :DYou are correct.

The "shoe" of Advaita Vedanta does not fit me and I have tried to reduce the size of my foot to make it fit, but all to no avail.

The Shiva Bhakta shoes fit...Agama and Tantra shoes fit...even the non leather sandals of Hinduism fit...and some shoes are totally adjustable..

But that's not to say my feet are going to be the same size as yours.

As Iamit has said, we choose that in accordance with temperament and character and if one's salvation lay in tradition and ritual, then so be it.

That's all from me for today...it's 1am over here and my bed is calling.

[Shivani Devi]

Just by the by..

The only thing my ego wants from doing this, is to have a nice conversation about spiritual matters on SF forums and nothing more.

People can show me "shoes" and say they think they will look good on me...but they may not be my style or match any outfit I own..So then, I have to work out the most respectful way of saying "thanks but no thanks" without hurting their feelings.. bearing in mind they are only trying to help...

[davidsun]

The only thing my ego wants from doing this, is to have a nice conversation about spiritual matters on SF forums and nothing more.

People can show me "shoes" and say they think they will look good on me...but they may not be my style or match any outfit I own..So then, I have to work out the most respectful way of saying "thanks but no thanks" without hurting their feelings.. bearing in mind they are only trying to help...
:thumbsup: :hug3:

[r6r6]

Shoes are not cosmic laws/principles.


Some people confuse truth of a shoe, being a shoe, with a cosmic truths facts related to them.


This boils out to two kinds of truth;


1} absolute truths, and


2} relative truths ex the sky is blue.


It is easy to find relative truths and just state falsehoods and call them true.


It is more difficult to find, accept{ drop the ego } absolute truths for those who live in lies much of the time.


On the other hand, some who live with false lies all of them find it a breath of fresh air to discover absolute truths.


People are differrent and it is not easy, for most people, to place ego to the side and let in the truth.

[Ashok]

I am the Self, should be the answer of every living being and that is the only subject and no object.

[davidsun]

:cool: I am the Self, should be the answer of every living being and that is the only subject and no object.
Hello Ashok -

I'm thinkin' that you have heard the saying, "There are no shoulds!"

If not, now said Self has! :D

[davidsun]

It is more difficult to find, accept{ drop the ego } absolute truths for those who live in lies much of the time.
Reminded me of Jesus' saying: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11)

People are differrent ...
You can say that again!

... and it is not easy, for most people, to place ego to the side and let in the truth.
Ya, Bro! :D

[r6r6]

Davidsun, I am not you.

I share the commonality of metaphyscial-1, ego, like you.

The I/ego comes into existence when we first learn, as a baby, that we can manipulate other animals and humans.

Animals also have a degree of self-awareness, the degree of self-wareness, understanding and comprehension of our individual ego/I-ness is a matter of degree.

There is large degree or many degrees of seperation between human ego and other animals self-awareness.

I am not any animal that is less complex than a human.

I am not algorithm however, my biological occupied space is composed of finite number of events ergo numerical considerations cannot be excluded.

[davidsun]

Davidsun, I am not you.
Not the same version at least. There ain't any such thang! :biggrin:

[r6r6]

Not the same version at least. There ain't any such thang! :biggrin:

Sure, we share commonality of bilateral occupied space human etc. and metaphysical-1 ego.

I'm sure others have told you that you like an older Opie from Andy Griffith show.

I am not you, I am not God/Universe. I am not an ant. I am not a rock. I am not Opie from Andy Griffith show.

[davidsun]

I am not you, I am not God/Universe. I am not an ant. I am not a rock. I am not Opie from Andy Griffith show.
I 'got' that. I am looking, when and as 'the Spirit of Life' so moves me, to (as much as possible lovingly) engage (embrace and dance?) with what 'you' are.

[r6r6]

..with what 'you' are.


I am not a ballerina dancer. I am not macareni dance. I am not Tango dancer. I am not a Morroccan dancer. I am not contender on the "whats my secret" day game show form 60's.

[davidsun]

I am not a ballerina dancer. I am not macareni dance. I am not Tango dancer. I am not a Morroccan dancer. I am not contender on the "whats my secret" day game show form 60's.
Is this the ultimate 'via negativa' game-challenge, or what?

But who or what are 'you'. Ya, I know the answer which goes, 'I' are THAT. But just what is[/U THAT and why is it (what is IT doing) interacting with 'me' and others HERE - [U]that is my positively inquiring game-question.

[r6r6]

Is this the ultimate 'via negativa' game-challenge, or what?
......that is my positively inquiring game-question.

I never thought that "Whats My Line" was a negative game show.

If you have a question I have not yet been able to decipher what it is.

I am not a game show player. I am not a game show host. I am not an 'answer-all-questions-genie'. I am not any kind of a genie. I am not an aladin lamp.


You and I share many commonalities, looking like and older Opie{ Ron Howard } from Andy Griffth Show is not one of them ergo I am not a Ron Howared look-alike.


You and I ware within 50th cousin. I am not your 1st cousin, to best of my knowlege, could be stuff that occurred I know nothing about.

[davidsun]

If you have a question I have not yet been able to decipher what it is.
Oh well, I thought it was worth a try - never mind.

[r6r6]

I am not a mind, I am a bioloigcal with more access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept than a worm.


I am not a worm tho that is what they called me on the oil drilling rig.


I am not a cowboy, tho I did ride quarter horses and lasso cattle for awhile.



I never thought that "Whats My Line" was a negative game show.

If you have a question I have not yet been able to decipher what it is.

I am not a game show player. I am not a game show host. I am not an 'answer-all-questions-genie'. I am not any kind of a genie. I am not an aladin lamp.


You and I share many commonalities, looking like and older Opie{ Ron Howard } from Andy Griffth Show is not one of them ergo I am not a Ron Howared look-alike.


You and I ware within 50th cousin. I am not your 1st cousin, to best of my knowlege, could be stuff that occurred I know nothing about.

[Alice_1]

I am the soul. Part of Paramatma. The supreme mind is my mentor.