Does the idea that 'this place' is a Dream upset you?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Davidsun, it all depends on how you interpret fulfillment and fulfillment for what. is it fulfillment for material things or is it fulfillment for truth/brahman?

The idea of 'fufillment' is flawed either way. The 'balloon' perimeter of one's personal soul (atman) as well as of our all-encompassing oversoul (Brahman) - the former is just an aspect of the latter- is infinitely elastic and ever-expanding.

(Hypnotic) Experience or prophecy/promise of 'complete' FULL-fill-ment is therefore a false (concept-based) projection.

See https://youtu.be/Ua-_wzfu-sc to get an idea of what it is that I think is [b]the phenomenological case[/u] in this regard pertianing to people who buy into passages like the one talking about 'fulfillment' which I commented on.

Those who 'claim' the actuality or 'sweet'-carrot-dangle the possibility of 'fulfillment' or 'ultimate fulfillment' in face of 'gullible followers' are therefore ipso facto examples of what is called "Spiritual Materialism" (IMO). You've seen peeps strut-displaying as well as advertising 'wealth' in material regards, I assume. I thinl the same holds true in the case of a huge variety of ostensibly spiritually 'fulfilled' 'adepts' and 'promoters' (not just Advaitians, now)!

Muchas Gracias you for your discerning commentary and additions to the conversation, HS.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by davidsun

The idea of 'fufillment' is flawed either way. The 'balloon' perimeter of one's personal soul (atman) as well as of our all-encompassing oversoul (Brahman) - the former is just an aspect of the latter- is infinitely elastic and ever-expanding.

(Hypnotic) Experience or prophecy/promise of 'complete' FULL-fill-ment is therefore a false (concept-based) projection.

See https://youtu.be/Ua-_wzfu-sc to get an idea of what it is that I think is [b]the phenomenological case[/u] in this regard pertianing to people who buy into passages like the one talking about 'fulfillment' which I commented on.

Those who 'claim' the actuality or 'sweet'-carrot-dangle the possibility of 'fulfillment' or 'ultimate fulfillment' in face of 'gullible followers' are therefore ipso facto examples of what is called "Spiritual Materialism" (IMO). You've seen peeps strut-displaying as well as advertising 'wealth' in material regards, I assume. I thinl the same holds true in the case of a huge variety of ostensibly spiritually 'fulfilled' 'adepts' and 'promoters' (not just Advaitians, now)!

Muchas Gracias you for your discerning commentary and additions to the conversation, HS.

Fulfillment of truth or brahman is not an idea, concept, narrative, or hypnotic suggestion. The 2nd definition of Fulfillment is: the state of being actual or complete
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/fulfillment

Fulfillment, in the context of the article is self/god realization, being content, happy and satisfied. Proof of this are on the last 4 paragraphs of the article you commented on
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/fulfillment

Here is the full context of the article you commented on, my emphasis is in bold : "But the real issue is whether or not a person is ready to let go of the expectation that he or she can find true fulfillment in the world, with objects and activities. If one is not ready to examine the fact of suffering and the inability of objects, relationships, and activities to give ultimate satisfaction, one will not stick around long enough to understand that the world is real because Brahman is Real and realizing this in one's own Self is the Ultimate Fulfillment". The last couple of paragraphs of the article reads as follows: "That one, the Eternal among non-eternals, the Intelligence of the intelligent, who though ever one fulfills the desires of the many those who realize that One as existing in their own self, to them belongs eternal peace, and to none else." and...

"Shining like burnished gold in the luminous sheath of intelligence, the deepest core of the human being, there dwells Brahman, stainless, indivisible, and pure. That is the Light of all that shines.That is what the knowers of the Self realize."

I know you do not believe in self realization, by the comments you made in other threads and I can not help with that. But to say that self realization is false, because you do not believe in it or have not experienced it yourself, is mithya (false).

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

I believe what u say about Brahman/Mithya is all right ,perfect and according to scripture dictated wisdom only . Nobody (probably including DS) should have any issue with it. I think DS's Delusion comment is with respect one-moment-instant-ultimate-kind-of-non-duality which many seekers perhaps think is possible without doing anything / without any realization .

Let's wait for DS to understand whether he meant anything different.

The article that Davidsun commented on was not a one-moment-instant-ultimate-kind-of-non-duality which many seekers perhaps think is possible without doing anything / without any realization. Davidsun missed the self realization part of the article completly. See my response to Davidsun that is before this one.

David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I now think I understand where he's coming from. His is a criticism of radical Neo-Advaita. Many view it as a very superficial Advaita with a tendency towards nihilism, lacking the moral and ethical aspects of Advait Vedanta due to eschewing study of and putting into practice the various Yogas.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The article that Davidsun commented on was not a one-moment-instant-ultimate-kind-of-non-duality which many seekers perhaps think is possible without doing anything / without any realization. Davidsun missed the self realization part of the article completly. See my response to Davidsun that is before this one.

I get your 'point'. You do not seem to get mine, however. In the context presented by such article, I restate: you and I and 'Brahman' (as well!) are always 'in' (ever-unfolding, ever-expanding-revelation!) being-becoming process - there cannot be and so there is no 'ultimate' 'realization' (call it 'fulfillment' or anything else you wish to) in terms of what 'self' or 'Brahman' actually is. I reiterate: IMO, anyone who thinks or feels or believes they are or are headed towards living such 'ultimacy' is living in a 'cocoon' of delusion, walled off from as well as, by virtue of what they proclaim, promoting 'ignorance' of 'greater' possibilities (this includes the author of what's said in the article which I partially agreed with).

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I now think I understand where he's coming from. His is a criticism of radical Neo-Advaita. Many view it as a very superficial Advaita with a tendency towards nihilism, lacking the moral and ethical aspects of Advait Vedanta due to eschewing study of and putting into practice the various Yogas.

You are not wrong. My criticism, however, is really of 'simple'-mindedness in relation to any philosophical formulation or derivative practice.

I articulated my positionality in this regard in:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...9&postcount=26

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by davidsun

You are not wrong. My criticism, however, is really of 'simple'-mindedness in relation to any philosophical formulation or derivative practice.

I articulated my positionality in this regard in:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...9&postcount=26

Carlos Castaneda's mentor, Don Juan described 'the problem' simple-mindedness (on the part of those who aspire to become what he called 'Men/women of Knowledge') typically leads to, thusly:

"What will happen to the man if he runs away in fear?"

"Nothing happens to him except that he will never learn. He will never become a man of knowledge. He will perhaps be a bully, or a harmless, scared man; at any rate, he will be a defeated man. His first enemy will have put an end to his cravings."

"And what can he do to overcome fear?"

"The answer is very simple. He must not run away. He must defy his fear, and in spite of it he must take the next step in learning, and the next, and the next. He must be definitely afraid, and yet he must not stop. That is the rule! And a moment will come when his first enemy retreats. The man begins to feel sure of himself. His intent becomes stronger. Learning is no longer a terrifying task.

"When this joyful moment comes, the man can say without hesitation that he has defeated his first natural enemy."

"Does it happen at once, don Juan, or little by little?"

"It happens little by little, and yet the fear is vanquished suddenly and fast."

"But won't the man be afraid again if something new happens to him?"

"No. Once a man has vanquished fear, he is free from it for the rest of his life because, instead of fear, he has acquired clarity - a clarity of mind which erases fear. By then a man knows his desires; he knows how to satisfy those desires. He can anticipate the new steps of learning, and a sharp clarity surrounds everything. The man feels that nothing is concealed.

"And thus he has encountered his second enemy:

Clarity! That clarity of mind, which is so hard to obtain, dispels fear, but also blinds.

"It forces the man never to doubt himself. It gives him the assurance he can do anything he pleases, for he sees clearly into everything. And he is courageous because he is clear, and he stops at nothing because he is clear. But all that is a mistake; it is like something incomplete. If the man yields to this make-believe power, he has succumbed to his second enemy and will be patient when he should rush. And he will fumble with learning until he winds up incapable of learning anything more."

"What becomes of a man who is defeated in that way, don Juan? Does he die as a result?"

"No, he doesn't die. His second enemy has just stopped him cold from trying to become a man of knowledge; instead, the man may turn into a buoyant warrior, or a clown. Yet the clarity for which he had paid so dearly will never change to darkness and fear again. He will be clear as long as he lives, but he will no longer learn, or yearn for, anything."

"But what does he have to do to avoid being defeated?"

"He must do what he did with fear: he must defy his clarity and use it only to see, and wait patiently and measure carefully before taking new steps; he must think above all, that his clarity is almost a mistake. And a moment will come when he will understand that his clarity was only a point before his eyes. And thus he will have overcome his second enemy, and will arrive at a position where nothing can harm him any more. This will not be a mistake. It will not be only point before his eyes. It will be true power.

"He will know at this point that the power he has been pursuing for so long is finally his. He can do with it whatever he pleases. His ally is at his command. His wish is the rule. He sees all that is around him. But he has also come across his third enemy. Power!

Re: Power ... that's a whole 'nother issue!

Originally Posted by davidsun

You are not wrong. My criticism, however, is really of 'simple'-mindedness in relation to any philosophical formulation or derivative practice.

I articulated my positionality in this regard in:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...9&postcount=26

And this too is Maya. Some are more comfortable in the shallow end of the pool. Perhaps even fearful of the deep end of the pool.

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

"Clean your room."

It seems to me the best change, in truth the only meaningful change, is changing one's self and allow the ripples to spread outward.

Originally Posted by davidsun

You are not wrong. My criticism, however, is really of 'simple'-mindedness in relation to any philosophical formulation or derivative practice.

I articulated my positionality in this regard in:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...9&postcount=26

This is a very good explanation. It speaks to the heart of what I mean when I use "less real" as opposed to "unreal".

https://realitymaps.com/2014/06-advaitanihilism.html

It's a long article and has all the arguments against nihilism, however near the bottom it starts with this:

"A more useful perspective is given by Chingyuan Xingsi, a Chinese sage from the 8th Century:

First there are mountains and rivers. Then there are no mountains, no rivers. Then there are mountains and rivers.

What Xingsi means in the above quote is that when we realise the non-existence of all things, we still come back to live in the world of things. He is not saying that mountains and rivers neither exist nor do not exist, rather he is giving a particular sequence of awakening. Before we wake up to the ultimate reality, we live in a virtual reality created by our collective minds. Then, when we question the reality of everything we realise that "reality" is not as objective as we previously thought — that even a solid object like a mountain does not exist outside of the consciousness that perceives it. This requires a rejection of objectivity in order to place consciousness squarely back into he centre of experience. And finally, when we have placed consciousness back into its rightful role and dismissed blind objectivity, we can return to the world of things, but this time in full recognition that things have no ultimate reality… that their nature is ephemeral… although they have some reality. In this way, meaning is invited back as a guest, but not as full-time tenant."

EDIT: Refer back to either of the two videos I linked in an above post: "Two Steps to the Not-Two: Swami Sarvapriyananda"

Jesus understood this too.

Non-duality - "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Duality - “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

And:

https://swamivivekanandaquotesgarden...ents_8298.html

"You find there the idea of oneness; but Christ also preached dualistic ideas to the people in order to give them something tangible to take hold of, to lead them up to the highest ideal. The same Prophet who preached, "Our Father which art in heaven", also preached, "I and my Father are one", and the same Prophet knew that through the "Father in heaven" lies the way to the "I and my Father are one"."

I also find examples in science.

Duality - Electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force.

Non-duality - Electroweak force.

And of course the ultimate concept of non-duality in science, TOE or Unified Field.