Dissolving the "I". Becoming "ONE"

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I like the Advaita Vedanta perspective that all religions are seeking the same end albeit by different paths, some more aligned than others, but all with the same fundamental mission. For instance it regards Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as one of the great spiritual teachings and recognizes him as one manifestation of God incarnate.

My exercise of LOGIC results in my concluding that to some degree overlapping, and therefore to some extent 'aligned' pathways, in no way means that said pathways (except as they are become fully/completely integrated) are intended to or will lead to the same 'end'.

That would be like concluding that because you enjoy and eat the certain kinds of 'music' (muse-ic) as another, one's and their philosophies are (in terms of goals and 'ends') are convergent (i.e. 'the same') . there and There is much more to the 'substance of Jesus's teaching than his Sermon on the Mount which Advaita ignores.

Of course, if you find 'simple' analyses (as suggested by your choice of screen-name/title) as opposed to more 'complex' ones such as mine completely fulfilling in terms of your truth-quest, such will continue to be your choice.

My only caution is that conflation for personally satisfying/gratifying 'reasons' is a potential seduction-danger in the above regard.

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello Legrand. I really do feel that such appreciation is most properly acknowledged with thanks to the eye of the beholder. X pete

I agree Pete,

Antoine

[weareunity]

Hello JB, Antoine, David, --and all. This from many years ago here as an expansion.

If we see beauty in words, shall we worship the words?
If we sense truth in words, shall we sanctify the words?
Or shall we rather bow to that within us which sees the beauty
And hold sacred that within us which senses truth?

For is that which does so the fount of beauty and the source of truth?
And when words so move us, is it because they are our own unspoken words?

petex

[JosephineB]

Or shall we rather bow to that within us which sees the beauty
And hold sacred that within us which senses truth?For is that which does so the fount of beauty and the source of truth?And when words so move us, is it because they are our own unspoken words?

..................

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello JB, Antoine, David, --and all. This from many years ago here as an expansion.

If we see beauty in words, shall we worship the words?
If we sense truth in words, shall we sanctify the words?
Or shall we rather bow to that within us which sees the beauty
And hold sacred that within us which senses truth?

For is that which does so the fount of beauty and the source of truth?
And when words so move us, is it because they are our own unspoken words?

petex

A practical way to live that...

https://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-practice/#pathofwork

“Karma-Yoga is the attaining through unselfish work of that freedom which is the goal of all human nature. Every selfish action, therefore, retards our reaching the goal, and every unselfish action takes us towards the goal; that is why the only definition that can be given of morality is this: That which is selfish is immoral, and that which is unselfish is moral.”

—The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 1, Ch 8 The Ideal of Karma Yoga

https://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-p...rk-karma-yoga/

Whatever your action,
Food or worship;
Whatever the gift
That you give to another;
Whatever you vow
To the work of the spirit. . .
Lay these also
As offerings before Me.

Originally Posted by weareunity

Or shall we rather bow to that within us which sees the beauty
And hold sacred that within us which senses truth?

For is that which does so the fount of beauty and the source of truth?
And when words so move us, is it because they are our own unspoken words?

petex

Like wrote Josephine,

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello JB, Antoine, David, --and all. This from many years ago here as an expansion.

If we see beauty in words, shall we worship the words?
If we sense truth in words, shall we sanctify the words?
Or shall we rather bow to that within us which sees the beauty
And hold sacred that within us which senses truth?

For is that which does so the fount of beauty and the source of truth?
And when words so move us, is it because they are our own unspoken words?

petex

There is no truth 'in' words/concepts etc. They are 'dumb' tools, though we may indeed better sense truth via (i.e. by way of intelligently utiliizing) them.

A vedic quote (I did not record specific source where I found this):

Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore.

Of course, different people relate to the same words differently - hence no one being the sole (only true) under-stand-er or re-presentative of said 'Brahman'.

Originally Posted by davidsun

There is no truth 'in' words/concepts etc. They are 'dumb' tools, though we may indeed better sense truth via (i.e. by way of intelligently utiliizing) them.

A vedic quote (I did not record specific source where I found this):

Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore.

Of course, different people relate to the same words differently - hence no one being the sole (only true) under-stand-er or re-presentative of said 'Brahman'.

One source is the Kena Upanishad. It's literally Neti Neti.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

One source is the Kena Upanishad. It's literally Neti Neti.

EXCEPT for the fact that everyone and everything is an ex-press-ion i.e. a real 'manifestation', of Brahman, which means that it is all 'Brahman' in action, which is the opposite of 'Neti, Neti' (and there is no real 'self') - so it is only figuratively (i.e. metaphorically, not literally. i.e. not really!) Neti, Neti - in my way of thinking and speaking that is.

Literalists (you maybe SimpleGuy?) in this regard are as as off-track and miss-leading of others, in terms of the truth, U]as[/u] those who subscribe to literal interpretations of what's in the Bible, IMO.

Originally Posted by davidsun

EXCEPT for the fact that everyone and everything is an ex-press-ion i.e. a real 'manifestation', of Brahman, which means that it is all 'Brahman' in action, which is the opposite of 'Neti, Neti' (and there is no real 'self') - so it is only figuratively (i.e. metaphorically, not literally. i.e. not really!) Neti, Neti - in my way of thinking and speaking that is.

Literalists (you maybe SimpleGuy?) in this regard are as as off-track and miss-leading of others, in terms of the truth, U]as[/u] those who subscribe to literal interpretations of what's in the Bible, IMO.

You're interpreting Eastern philosophy from a non-Eastern perspective. That's the difficulty you're having understanding what it's saying.


Not that which the eye can see (not this), but that whereby the eye can see (but this that illumines - awareness): know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the ear can hear (not this), but that whereby the ear can hear (but this that illumines - awareness): know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which speech can illuminate (not this), but that by which speech can be illuminated (but this that illumines - awareness): know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

Not that which the mind can think (not this), but that whereby the mind can think (but this that illumines - awareness): know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore.


It is unambiguously saying anything that can be seen, heard, spoken, thought is not Brahman. Brahman is what illuminates, i.e. awareness.

You're identifying the underlying reality with the objective, whereas these verse identify underlying reality with the subjective. It's also saying your true nature isn't body-mind but awareness.

It's saying those who adore the objective are not liberated and destined to cycles of reincarnation and suffering, whereas those who see their true nature and adore that will gain eternal bliss.

You can't admire that part of the Upanishads and at the same time deny its meaning. That very same theme runs throughout them. It's the core of the teaching. Thou art That, and not the thou of body-mind but of awareness.