Who I Am Not

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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!

'Followers'! YIKES!!!

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

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!

'Followers'! YIKES!!!

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

I'm feeling lazy today. LOL

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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' 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.

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.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

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' 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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! ) 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.

[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).

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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!


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

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

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!


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

You 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...