How do I know myself as Consciousness?

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The one whom wears the chains is the one whom does not Know thou art is atmnan.

It depends on what you mean by Know. It's not the knowing of the senses and mind as was said at the beginning of the clip linked in the OP: https://youtu.be/6NxQwOjF7j4?t=3238

From the Kena Upanishad:

The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think that I do not know It. He among us who knows It truly, knows (what is meant by) "I know" and also what is meant by "I know It not."

Commentary - This appears to be contradictory, but it is not. In the previous chapter we learned that Brahman is "distinct from the known" and "beyond the unknown." The disciple, realizing this, says: "So far as mortal conception is concerned, I do not think I know, because I understand that It is beyond mind and speech; yet from the higher point of view, I cannot say that I do not know; for the very fact that I exist, that I can seek It, shows that I know; for It is the source of my being. I do not know, however, in the sense of knowing the whole Infinite Ocean of existence."

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

It depends on what you mean by Know. It's not the knowing of the senses and mind as was said at the beginning of the clip linked in the OP: https://youtu.be/6NxQwOjF7j4?t=3238
From the Kena Upanishad:

By know, I mean consciousness, a mind that is still or emty.

Just so you know, I take any scrpture that has been translated from sanskrit to english, with a grain of salt. I was told, by someone whom I trust, a while ago, when I was looking for an accurate or perfect translation of the hindu scriptures, that there are not any. The translations are a literal translation, and what you get with a literal translation is a metaphrase, and the essential meaning is invariably lost in translation. Plus, there is the incompatibility of sanskrit to english definitions. Also the translations were translatd by 19th century colonial translaters., and the scriptures have been christiansted in the translation process. by christiansted, i mean, english words which revolve around the subject of god have a very narrow view/meanings which originate from bible since the greek origins of those words are not very much alive and can be understood with context only just like sanskrit /vedic meanings.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

By know, I mean consciousness, a mind that is still or emty.

Is Consciousness in mind or mind in Consciousness?

1 - That passage from Kena Upanishad was from a translation by Swami Paramananda who was a student of Swami Vivekananda, and he was the foremost student of Sri Ramakrishna and it's posted on hinduwebsite. So no colonial translator and not Christianized. He also penned the commentary explaining its meaning.

2 - Since he had a mastery of Sanskrit, English and Advaita the translation is in the correct context.

3 - It's a very simple passage with words like "I", "know", "think", "well", "meant". Not much to get lost in translation.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

Is Consciousness in mind or mind in Consciousness?

The way I am starting to understand it is that atman or soul or spirit is consciousness, Consciousness is not in anything or in No Thing. Consciousness being in mind or mind in consciousness, will make consciousness a thing. Cconsciousnes is not a thing!

An example of a christiansted sanskrit to english translation is that of atman. Atman is the sanskrit to english, translation of the christian soul or spirit. I only use the translated word atman, and other sanskrit to english translated words to communicate with other people whom use those terms, and I am starting to realize, doing so may be a mistake. if not everyone uses the translated words, then almost everyone.

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

2 - Since he had a mastery of Sanskrit, English and Advaita the translation is in the correct context.

Whom says, he had a mastery of english? Where did he get the mastery of english from, and is there proof of his mastery of english? Or should my mind blindly believe and trust that his mastery of english is a fact, when it could not be a fact? I am not saying that it is not a fact, I am saying it is only a fact, if or when there is proof of the fact. I like to fill my mind with facts, nothing less and nothing more.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The way I am starting to understand it is that atman or soul or spirit is consciousness, Consciousness is not in anything or in No Thing. Consciousness being in mind or mind in consciousness, will make consciousness a thing. Cconsciousnes is not a thing!

Exactly and mind knows things so mind cannot know It well. So knowing Consciousness is a different knowing. It's not an intellectual knowing.

As for Swami Paramananda, here's his bona fides. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...ma/swamiji.asp

He travelled the West extensively, assisting in running the original Vedanta center in New York and then opening one in Boston, and he published many English language books and translations and was familiar with Western thought as evidenced by his writings on Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Here's his full translation of the Kena Upanishad and with commentary: https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...arama/kena.asp

I'd say that's proof of his mastery of English and especially the commentary as that's his thoughts and not translation. Oh, and also the fact he taught Western students for many, many years.

I go to a mechanic to get my car fixed. I go to a dentist to get my teeth fixed. If I want to understand nonduality I go to one of the main schools of nonduality and this Swami was from one of the main schools of nonduality, i.e. the Ramakrishna Order of Advaita Vedanta. The other place I could go is Buddhism, however that doesn't resonate as strongly for me even though I believe it points towards the exact same No Thing.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

Is Consciousness in mind or mind in Consciousness?

One would have to know what consciousness is, and what mind is.

Unfortunately no one knows what consciousness is, apart from it's a made up word to relate to what you are.


x daz x

[God-Like]

forum meltdown - not quoting properly.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Baile

That's precisely where conceptual road veers into the ditch. Everything is not illusion, far from it. Love for example is quite real.

I think where non duality stands there are so many different notions had about most things. This is the silliness of it all where there is meant to be some kind of absolute truth pertaining to everything and yet unless you are singing from the same non duality hymn sheet there can be complete opposite truths portrayed.


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

I'd say that's proof of his mastery of English and especially the commentary as that's his thoughts and not translation. Oh, and also the fact he taught Western students for many, many years.

Ok, so you give him the english mastery. Did he speak english before, he came to NYC, or did he learn english after he came to NYC, with either english learning help or without any help?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

One would have to know what consciousness is, and what mind is.

Unfortunately no one knows what consciousness is, apart from it's a made up word to relate to what you are.


x daz x

My understanding, to put it in another way is that consciousness is just being awake, and being asleep is everything else. Non- duality, oneness or wholeness is undertsanding that being awake and being asleep are one and the same thus are not seperate from each other. The same is true for life and death.