Vedanta and the Temple

[Gem]

In my curiosity I have read that Vedanta means the end of the Vedas, or the goal the Vedas supposedly lead to. I chose this topic because Advaita is but one school of Vedanta, so perhaps the topic of Vedanta will provide a 'bigger picture' within which Advaita is. Even then, according to the very reliable Wikipedia (rolly eyes) Vedanta itself is but one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy.

There's nothing I can 'really know' as I have never been to any Hindu temples or schools, and all I could say is what I read on Google - though that does seem to qualify 'the experts' on Buddhist philosophy.

I hope someone who knows about this stuff might happen along so a reasonable discussion can be had, along with some citations to the Vedas - as it seems Vedanta as the 'end' means the conclusions or the goals of the Vedas.

[Shivani Devi]

In my curiosity I have read that Vedanta means the end of the Vedas, or the goal the Vedas supposedly lead to. I chose this topic because Advaita is but one school of Vedanta, so perhaps the topic of Vedanta will provide a 'bigger picture' within which Advaita is. Even then, according to the very reliable Wikipedia (rolly eyes) Vedanta itself is but one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy.

There's nothing I can 'really know' as I have never been to any Hindu temples or schools, and all I could say is what I read on Google - though that does seem to qualify 'the experts' on Buddhist philosophy.

I hope someone who knows about this stuff might happen along so a reasonable discussion can be had, along with some citations to the Vedas - as it seems Vedanta as the 'end' means the conclusions or the goals of the Vedas.Dear Gem.

It seems that I had somehow anticipated this post by an hour or so, as I just got through typing up an actual summation on this very topic, according to the Svetasvatara Upanishad and the Rig Veda.

It can be found here:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118919

It is full of Vedic citations about this very thing! (as per your request).

Advaita Vedanta means the end of Vedic wisdom through the practical application of Non-Duality.

However and that being said, to conceptualise or try to rationalise Brahman or an absolute Non-Dual state of awareness is nigh to near impossible...we cannot merely think of something either/neither/both 'there' or 'not there' according to it's own 'existence' or 'nonexistence' no matter which way our brain tries to slice the Non-Dual cake.

To realise Brahman..or our 'Buddha Nature' or 'the Void' or whatever fits, requires mindfulness and unwavering focus on an objectified awareness in the dual sense of that relationship, until the whole relationship is transcended through the conceptual/perceptual notion of 'subject/object' or 'self/self' or anything that is only a manifestation (Prakriti/Shatki) of that indeterminate nature of substratum or impetus (Purusha/Brahman).

In regards to this Dualistic relationship within the Non-Dual causality, the term is called Vishistavdaita Vedanta or Qualified Monism/monistic thought with regard to the end of the Vedic wisdom. Just as salt may dissolve in water to become 'salty water'...evaporation of that water will reveal the salt once more and condensation will reveal the water once more.

I shall go into the Samkhya philosophy and others a bit later, because I'm tired and my brain is philosophy-fried right now...but when I'm able to think clearly again, I shall respond with 'part 2'....watch this space. :biggrin:

*who needs wikia when you have a walking Vedic encyclopedia right here on SF?* lol

[Gem]

Dear Gem.

It seems that I had somehow anticipated this post by an hour or so, as I just got through typing up an actual summation on this very topic, according to the Svetasvatara Upanishad and the Rig Veda.

It can be found here:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118919

It is full of Vedic citations about this very thing! (as per your request).

Advaita Vedanta means the end of Vedic wisdom through the practical application of Non-Duality.
Yes I read that Advaita is the 'non-dual' part of Vedanta, but apparently there are more aspects of Vedanta than just Advaita.

However and that being said, to conceptualise or try to rationalise Brahman or an absolute Non-Dual state of awareness is nigh to near impossible...we cannot merely think of something either/neither/both 'there' or 'not there' according to it's own 'existence' or 'nonexistence' no matter which way our brain tries to slice the Non-Dual cake.
Indeed.

To realise Brahman..or our 'Buddha Nature' or 'the Void' or whatever fits, requires mindfulness and unwavering focus on an objectified awareness in the dual sense of that relationship, until the whole relationship is transcended through the conceptual/perceptual notion of 'subject/object' or 'self/self' or anything that is only a manifestation (Prakriti/Shatki) of that indeterminate nature of substratum or impetus (Purusha/Brahman).

In regards to this Dualistic relationship within the Non-Dual causality, the term is called Vishistavdaita Vedanta or Qualified Monism/monistic thought with regard to the end of the Vedic wisdom. Just as salt may dissolve in water to become 'salty water'...evaporation of that water will reveal the salt once more and condensation will reveal the water once more.

I shall go into the Samkhya philosophy and others a bit later, because I'm tired and my brain is philosophy-fried right now...but when I'm able to think clearly again, I shall respond with 'part 2'....watch this space. :biggrin:

*who needs wikia when you have a walking Vedic encyclopedia right here on SF?* lol
I'll go have have a look at the link you posted and see wassup wit dat.

[no1wakesup]

"Just as salt may dissolve in water to become 'salty water'...evaporation of that water will reveal the salt once more and condensation will reveal the water once more"

Beautiful.

[Shivani Devi]

Yes I read that Advaita is the 'non-dual' part of Vedanta, but apparently there are more aspects of Vedanta than just Advaita.
Exactly...and I shall get to all that in due course. I have already completed one...five more to go. lol

See, my friend...when the mind cannot conceptualise a nebulous and mentally unattainable notion like Brahman Absolute in the true Advaitic terms OF the Vedanta which states "That thou ART" and "Brahman Alone Exists"...it tries to understand...it tries to become that, which it already is...and so, the subject/object predication and predilection begins in earnest.

The mind does backflips and somersaults trying to 'know' and to 'understand' this thing called Non-Duality...until finally, it goes "AHA!...if I concentrate/meditate for long enough, I will become one with it - I will merge/join with it and unify my essence with the whole essence of Brahman"...still trying to 'become' that, of course. Thus, Qualified Monism is born.

Out of Qualified Monism (Vishistadvaita) we get the concept of Bheda-Abheda..which means "the difference of indifference" and from there, comes the whole concept of YOGA - which means to "yoke" or "unify" one's consciousness with the Supreme Brahman through that discipline which is called Tapas and/or through total surrender TO a conceptual permutation of the Absolute, which is called Ishwara (God/Brahman/Source) Pranidhana (surrender of ego-self TO it)...and from there, the whole Vedanta period ENDS and the Puranic period BEGINS and one path somehow becomes six.

Which leads on to the whole Samkhya Philosophy which I shall expound tomorrow.

Also with all due ego aside...it's time I let this all out of me and showed others what I actually know, have learned, have experienced for myself...and maybe they will understand it...stop taking me for granted just a tad and understand my Hindu roots...where I come from when I say all the stuff I do on here.

[Gem]

Exactly...and I shall get to all that in due course. I have already completed one...five more to go. lol

See, my friend...when the mind cannot conceptualise a nebulous and mentally unattainable notion like Brahman Absolute in the true Advaitic terms OF the Vedanta which states "That thou ART" and "Brahman Alone Exists"...it tries to understand...it tries to become that, which it already is...and so, the subject/object predication and predilection begins.

Yes, that makes some sense.

The mind does backflips and somersaults trying to 'know' and to 'understand' this thing called Non-Duality...until finally, it goes "AHA!...if I concentrate/meditate for long enough, I will become one with it - I will merge/join with it and unify my essence with the whole essence of Brahman"...still trying to 'become' that, of course. Thus, Qualified Monism is born.

I did notice when sitting with others that the 'becoming' was quite a strong attachment, as it pertains directly to the self that becomes...

Out of Qualified Monism (Vishistadvaita) we get the concept of Bedha-Abheda..which is "the difference of indifference" and from there, comes the whole concept of YOGA - which means to "yoke" or "unify" one's consciousness with the Supreme Brahman through that discipline which is called Tapas and/or through total surrender TO a conceptual permutation of the absolute, which is called Ishwara (God/Brahman/Source) Pranidhana (surrender of self-ego TO it)...and from there, the whole Vedanta period ENDS and the Puranic period BEGINS and one then path somehow becomes six.

Which leads on to the whole Samkhya Philosophy which I shall expound tomorrow.
kewl

Also with all due ego aside...it's time I let this all out of me and showed others what I actually know, have learned, have experienced for myself...and maybe they will understand it...stop taking me for granted just a tad and understand my Hindu roots...where I come from when I say all the stuff I do on here.

Ok, that sounds great, but take it slow, don't get in a rush, because I never heard of Vedanta ways before, and I won't be able to keep up.

[Shivani Devi]

No problem, Gem...I shall take my time and allow it to sink in and digest a bit first. I understand it's a lot to take in all at once.

In retrospect, I see that I have also covered the school of YOGA and explained how this came about through the individual need to unify with Brahman beyond the mental concept.

Yoga is the orthodoxy I personally follow and it's perhaps the main one.

So, two down, four to go. lol

If you have understood it up to this point, I shall summarise.

The Vedas are all about the nature of Brahman/Consciousness from a purely intellectual perspective.

However, the mind cannot grasp Brahman from a purely intellectual perspective...even though it sorta understands what it is, but understanding isn't enough to become aware of it.

So then they say..."well the Vedas have taught us all that, but what's the use of just knowing it? I'm still no different within myself after having known...so let's say, "this is the point at which the Vedas ENDS...when I can actually think/understand NO MORE...and it all goes beyond words now" this is Vedanta! This is what it really means!

So, the mind/consciousness/soul seeks to unify/join/yoke with that awareness through various means called yoga.

How this does so, depends on the nature and character of the individual mind and thus many different types of yoga arise:

Hatha Yoga (Physical)
Jnana Yoga/Raja Yoga (Mental)
Bhakti Yoga (Heart/Devotion) - yeah, that's the way I do it.
Karma Yoga (Action, helping/serving others)
Mantra Yoga (Chanting) - I do that too.

There are many, many more...and these paths of yoga can also be combined...one can practice one, two...as many as they like.

Also each Major school of Yoga has subschools within itself.

For example, Hatha Yoga also comprises Kriya Yoga (purification rituals), Kundalini Yoga/Laya Yoga (awakening and arising the inner cosmic power) etc

I could go on, but I don't want to confuse you...beyond that which you probably are already. lol

I'll leave it for a few days then until what I have said groks with you, before I go onto the next four.

[Shivani Devi]

Oh heck...it wants to immediately express now and I can't stop it.

Sankya/Samkya Philosophy

I've already covered two schools of Orthodox Hinduism, that of Yoga and of Vedanta itself...but that was the easy part.

Before I go any further now, we need to look at a concept called Pramana, which are the 'right ways' or 'laws' which govern the experiential realisation of the Absolute:

Pratyakasha (direct perception), Upamana (comparative analogy), Arthapatti (effect arising from cause), anupalabdhi (non-perception and negation) and Shabda (words, teachings and grace from the Guru).

I have mentioned the terms "Prakriti" and "Purusha" before..."Prakriti" is also called Maya (illusion) or that which is not Brahman - which basically includes everything we can directly perceive as being diametrically opposed to Brahman, existing as "Purusha".

In Samkya philosophy, Brahman is given the term "Ishwara" or "God" or "Personal Deity" to represent the formless which is also called "Purusha", i.e....that which is not Prakriti in and of Itself, yet gives rise to it and also exists AS it!

Through Shakti (Prakriti), Shiva (Purusha) can be known, so it's a juxtaposition and a balancing act either way it goes.

Many of these schools also overlap, like Bhakti Yogis believe in One Reality (God of their choice) and everything else is only an emanation or effulgence of it - His/Her "Divine Energies as represented by Maya/Shakti" but that's only a part of the Reality, not the absolute reality in and of Itself.

They call this one, the SAGUNA aspect of Brahman which is the FORM of Brahman (Prakriti AND Purusha) as opposed to the NIRGUNA aspect of Brahman (formless Purusha only) which also includes the Saguna aspect, but it isn't that in totality.

It's like when we pray to a statue/murthy...we're not praying to a lump of die-cast metal or clay....when we pray to the Shiva Lingam, we're not praying to a rock, but what it only represents! - the formless, all pervading energy behind it, that actually gives rise TO the existence of it...and yet, it's also of itself, the very essence of that existence.

This is the philosophy of Sankya.

....and we are half-way there.

[Gem]

When I was on the ND threads in this section I saw the argument was petty, so I became curious about the bigger picture in which such argument was a small fractional part. Now I wonder if the bigger picture of Vedanta is merely a collage of petty parts, because the imaginary personal Gods being construed as the Brahman seems completely ludicrous to me. Chanting also seems mindnumbingly inane, but the other 4 aspects of yoga are probably meritorious in dealing with the body, mind, devotion and action. I fear though, the deeper discourse on these will quickly start to sound like a fairy tale.

I went to sit with different Buddhist sectarian groups, and was surprised when they instructed deity meditations, like visualise a rinpoche and all the lights coming out if him. My meditation process involved throwing out anything unnecessary, which is anything I have to produce intentionally, so although I appreciate the colourful ideas, it is counterproductive to my mediditative process. I can gel with the four aspects of yoga (apart from mantra), as the physical aspect is beneficial, the mental aspect could deal with distraction and reaction, the devotion aspect could deal with purposeful diligence (but not in dedication to an icon), and the karma aspect encourage a kinder disposition (but not in terms of punishment or reward). Those 4 are interrelated so they fit quite well.

[Shivani Devi]

When I was on the ND threads in this section I saw the argument was petty, so I became curious about the bigger picture in which such argument was a small fractional part. Now I wonder if the bigger picture of Vedanta is merely a collage of petty parts, because the imaginary personal Gods being construed as the Brahman seems completely ludicrous to me. Chanting also seems mindnumbingly inane, but the other 4 aspects of yoga are probably meritorious in dealing with the body, mind, devotion and action. I fear though, the deeper discourse on these will quickly start to sound like a fairy tale.

I went to sit with different Buddhist sectarian groups, and was surprised when they instructed deity meditations, like visualise a rinpoche and all the lights coming out if him. My meditation process involved throwing out anything unnecessary, which is anything I have to produce intentionally, so although I appreciate the colourful ideas, it is counterproductive to my mediditative process. I can gel with the four aspects of yoga (apart from mantra), as the physical aspect is beneficial, the mental aspect could deal with distraction and reaction, the devotion aspect could deal with purposeful diligence (but not in dedication to an icon), and the karma aspect encourage a kinder disposition (but not in terms of punishment or reward). Those 4 are interrelated so they fit quite well.It is all about intent, focus and being in that space according to persuasion and temperament.

For some, the mind needs just one concept as opposed to many as a form of 'God mindfulness' and yes, you can realise Brahman by loving and focusing on a chair or a pile of manure or a particular Deity that resonates with what you feel in the heart space...it is an acknowledgment of the essence within and without, comprising, yet transcending as the existential awareness within itself and realised through the medium of love's own expression.

However, I'm giving this thread a break for a while, my brain is totally numb after doing this...and also the recent contributions I made in the Hindu forum on that thread, which addresses basically this very point you are making now:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118919

I'm not trying to preach or convert, just sharing what I know, have learned...have personally felt and experienced which either may/not apply in any case.

However, I note what you are saying and so next topic will be about the Nyaya philosophy, which also addresses this point, as it corresponds almost directly to Buddhism and Buddhist thought.

I also thought I lost you for a minute there, mate. lol

[Shivani Devi]

Also, as an aside...besides "No1wakesup"...and I am very appreciative and thankful for his kind comment, have you noticed how other threads are being responded to, yet it's only myself responding to this one?

Sit back for a moment and think why you believe that may be so.

Surely, if there were any counter-argument it would have been hitherto expressed by at least one other?

That often has me quite bamboozled as to why is it, that whatever I say basically goes unchallenged and is left to let stand, just as it is. Meditate on that one for a while...I know that I have, countless times.

[Gem]

Also, as an aside...besides "No1wakesup"...and I am very appreciative and thankful for his kind comment, have you noticed how other threads are being responded to, yet it's only myself responding to this one?

Sit back for a moment and think why you believe that may be so.

Surely, if there were any counter-argument it would have been hitherto expressed by at least one other?

That often has me quite bamboozled as to why is it, that whatever I say basically goes unchallenged and is left to let stand, just as it is. Meditate on that one for a while...I know that I have, countless times.

People aren't interested in the discussion. They are entertained by the competition. If there is no argument to win there is nothing to agitate the mind, and that agitation is what people want.

I have said often, but I don't mind repeating it, the right/wrong two sided debate will never address the spiritual subject. One has to listen to what is being said and check in against themselves to see the meaning according to the insight. However, that requires the attention of a quiet inquiring mind.

Lastly, people become lost without their knowledge, so if I say one thing, it's not a thing I learned to know per-se, there is no actual knowledge in it at all - it's just something said in the endless discourse which never arrives at a conclusion.

The purpose of the discourse is to elicit the exploration so people look into what is true of themselves, and unless that is what is going on, we can't reasonably call it a 'spiritual conversation'.

[Shivani Devi]

People aren't interested in the discussion. They are entertained by the competition. If there is no argument to win there is nothing to agitate the mind, and that agitation is what people want.

I have said often, but I don't mind repeating it, the right/wrong two sided debate will never address the spiritual subject. One has to listen to what is being said and check in against themselves to see the meaning according to the insight. However, that requires the attention of a quiet inquiring mind.

Lastly, people become lost without their knowledge, so if I say one thing, it's not a thing I learned to know per-se, there is no actual knowledge in it at all - it's just something said in the endless discourse which never arrives at a conclusion.

The purpose of the discourse is to elicit the exploration so people look into what is true of themselves, and unless that is what is going on, we can't reasonably call it a 'spiritual conversation'.Yes, it's just the way the mind works.

Mine tends to work just a tad differently to others, in that I interpose and intermarry each thread I am involved in on here, as they relate to a concept or concepts I'm acknowledging internally...in that whole space of being aware of 'what's going on' as a whole...and not on an individual thread-by-thread basis, according to the actual premise OF that thread.

For a beautiful example and illustration of it, Iamit and myself have been at loggerheads lately, getting bogged down in TA 'this' and NA 'that' and being entertained by the whole competition until I was just about to place him on my 'ignore list' because it was getting us both nowhere.

Then, after saying everything I have been saying in this thread and in the Hindu thread, today I decided to read one more by him...just to make up my mind about whether to ignore him or not...and I come across this:

A Pilgrim travelled to the temple and stood before the statue of Shiva. The Warden came and said "It is our tradition that we do not point our feet towards Shiva". The Pilgrim replied "Certainly Sir if you will point to where Shiva is not".


That had the effect of immediately booting me out of my mind and back into my heart and follows on from what I was saying before in the Spiritual Development Forum about being prompted by others to actually recall/remember this when I am 'thinking too much'.

It all fits together....see?

[Gem]

Yes, it's just the way the mind works.

Mine tends to work just a tad differently to others, in that I interpose and intermarry each thread I am involved in on here, as they relate to a concept or concepts I'm acknowledging internally...in that whole space of being aware of 'what's going on' as a whole...and not on an individual thread-by-thread basis, according to the actual premise OF that thread.

For a beautiful example and illustration of it, Iamit and myself have been at loggerheads lately, getting bogged down in TA 'this' and NA 'that' and being entertained by the whole competition until I was just about to place him on my 'ignore list' because it was getting us both nowhere.

Then, after saying everything I have been saying in this thread and in the Hindu thread, today I decided to read one more by him...just to make up my mind about whether to ignore him or not...and I come across this:



That had the effect of immediately booting me out of my mind and back into my heart and follows on from what I was saying before in the Spiritual Development Forum about being prompted by others to actually recall/remember this when I am 'thinking too much'.

It all fits together....see?
I think Iamit gets to the point where if anyone can go with TA or NA, and there's no point using one the shoot the other down - really, these things allude what Christians call 'the peace that passeth all understanding'. Some were trying to paint an ugly picture of NA cults and so forth, which is pretty lame as I'm sure there are cultish aspects to TA just as much, and perhaps more. If people accuse the Buddhist school I'm associated with of being a cult, then I could explain how it does have cultish aspects, but people aren;t interested in that - they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

[Jyotir]

[...] they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

Exactly Gem,

However it is important in the spiritual context (unlike purely social or political dynamics) in which different principles, orientation, and emphasis apply regarding sadhana (practice) which requires the conscious deliberate application of spiritual means, that an inwardly directed self-examination and transformation must displace the outward projection of un-regenerated traumas, imperfections, and ignorant orientations of the past, as the substantial life process.

Simply put, your quoted passage also aptly describes an internalization of these inapt processes which take the form of anger, bitterness, remorse, resentment, etc. - also counterproductive emotional reactions/karma/samskara - all perpetuated indefinitely by their misapplied projection at others (society, or components thereof, including other religious 'factions') while disregarding the salient intention of spiritual practice for transformation of self, which is available, accessible, and significantly, now awakened.

In other words, a large part of this phenomenon (per your passage) is self-perpetuated, self-directed, and has nothing to do with these oft imagined bogeymen, feared and loathed as the rationale or excuse - no matter how reasoned or justified - who are supposedly oppressively preventing someone from engaging their own practice, when the internal availability of that practice is actually being obviated by the very outwardly projected blaming of these so-called agencies of oppression.

It's a clever substitution, borrowed or carried over from phases of life where these energetics were perhaps more appropriate at one time - but ultimately are not effective in the newly awakened context of spirituality.

It is effective however, for creating that continued emotional reaction within oneself, the continuous reliving of the unsatisfying past, which means perpetual dissatisfaction - involving the incessant reactivity that is born of that very process of a misdirected outward projection of blame/fault-finding, and false self-defence for the real abrogation of one's own responsibility regarding the opportunity offered by a spiritual awakening.

This is not to deny the existence of, justify or excuse actual regimes that are truly and pervasively oppressive, including physically - who's purpose and deliberate intention is substantially that very oppression - but to suggest that the process so described in your passage is often unnecessarily ascribed to external 'forces', when in fact it is a largely internal dynamic.


~ J

[blossomingtree]

I think Iamit gets to the point where if anyone can go with TA or NA, and there's no point using one the shoot the other down - really, these things allude what Christians call 'the peace that passeth all understanding'. Some were trying to paint an ugly picture of NA cults and so forth, which is pretty lame as I'm sure there are cultish aspects to TA just as much, and perhaps more. If people accuse the Buddhist school I'm associated with of being a cult, then I could explain how it does have cultish aspects, but people aren;t interested in that - they are interested in using the accusations to illicit emotional reactions, which is essentially cruel or ill-intended, as each reaction is the kamma which produces sankara - which is completely counterproductive in terms of the purification process.

Hi Gem

As you are again targeting me in your comments, I'd like to respond.


Definition of cult

1 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2); also : its body of adherents

Definition of spurious

1 : of illegitimate birth : *******
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
b : of a deceitful nature or quality

First of all, you speak incorrectly - I didn't use the word cult; I found first hand accounts of people who have dabbled in NA/Parsons (at Iamit's request) and this is where the word came from: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554&page=3

If you want to attack someone (not directly of course, but indirectly as usual) I suggest you stick to facts :smile:

Secondly, that having transpired, and in researching the exact meaning of the word, it appears that the word cult has some merit. Here (without utilizing or thinking of the word "cult") it seems the definition of cult above does actually apply: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1672441#post1672441

The other definitions of cult are perhaps how you are referring to "your Buddhist tradition"

3 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
4 : formal religious veneration : worship

Also you presuppose knowing intent and malign others in the process. All I can say is "sad!" 'Purification' does work fortunately, but honesty is helpful - very useful, in my opinion.

Be well :wink: :smile:

BT

[Gem]

Exactly Gem,

However it is important in the spiritual context (unlike purely social or political dynamics) in which different principles, orientation, and emphasis apply regarding sadhana (practice) which requires the conscious deliberate application of spiritual means, that an inwardly directed self-examination and transformation must displace the outward projection of un-regenerated traumas, imperfections, and ignorant orientations of the past, as the substantial life process.

I personally advocate spiritual practice that enables the purification of the lifeform, so the practice itself is a higher spiritual way, and purification of mere consequence to it. Mine is not a practice for any desired ends, as the truth is regarless of anyone's desires. Hence, ardancy for the truth can not be the pursuit of personal desires. People want pleasure, desire, they do not want pain, aversion, but truth has no concern for what people want.

Simply put, your quoted passage also aptly describes an internalization of these inapt processes which take the form of anger, bitterness, remorse, resentment, etc. - also counterproductive emotional reactions/karma/samskara - all perpetuated indefinitely by their misapplied projection at others (society, or components thereof, including other religious 'factions') while disregarding the salient intention of spiritual practice for transformation of self, which is available, accessible, and significantly, now awakened.
Indeed, all the reactivity is stuck as attached to 'me', yet I am aware of it all, and If I am the one aware of reactions, then it isn't I who reacts.

In other words, a large part of this phenomenon (per your passage) is self-perpetuated, self-directed, and has nothing to do with these oft imagined bogeymen, feared and loathed as the rationale or excuse - no matter how reasoned or justified - who are supposedly oppressively preventing someone from engaging their own practice, when the internal availability of that practice is actually being obviated by the very outwardly projected blaming of these so-called agencies of oppression.

Well, in the context of the ND TA NA discussions, I like all those speakers and teachers, so there's nothing in me that goes against. Not that I agree with said teachers, I don't agree or disagree with it at all - I just see of myself what meaning they point to - and sometimes I can see the meaning. If I can't see the meaning it doesn't matter, so I don't mind.

I could only suggest listening to the teachers without agreeing and disagreeing and trying to discern if its true or false. Without making it wrong because another teacher said something which contradicts it. I would suggest disbanding all knowledge taken on authority, and just listen to what they have to say. The clinging to the known is really at the crux of all these thread's animosities, after all, and we aren't supposed to play knowledge, we're supposed be of the heart rather than the mind - so 'information' with which we may agree or disagree, be right about or wrong about... the argument is futility.

It's a clever substitution, borrowed or carried over from phases of life where these energetics were perhaps more appropriate at one time - but ultimately are not effective in the newly awakened context of spirituality.

It is effective however, for creating that continued emotional reaction within oneself, the continuous reliving of the unsatisfying past, which means perpetual dissatisfaction - involving the incessant reactivity that is born of that very process of a misdirected outward projection of blame/fault-finding, and false self-defence for the real abrogation of one's own responsibility regarding the opportunity offered by a spiritual awakening.
Yes, people are generally habitualised in asserting positions to create the defensive position of 'the other'. It's a basic facet of self-definition to imagine an 'other' against which to define oneself. I guess that's the basic operation of separation, which is conflict - which requires the knowledge of 'right vs wrong' - as the Adam and Eve legend alludes to, I suppose.

We have to go past this competitive paradigm, really, be on that feel level, where I can't call my sensation nor yours either right nor wrong.

This is not to deny the existence of, justify or excuse actual regimes that are truly and pervasively oppressive, including physically - who's purpose and deliberate intention is substantially that very oppression - but to suggest that the process so described in your passage is often unnecessarily ascribed to external 'forces', when in fact it is a largely internal dynamic. Yes, it is the intent/volition/motive, completely an 'internal dynamic'.

Well said J, I appreciate your comments.

~G

[Shivani Devi]

Thank you for my daily dose of sardonic, colourful humour, Gem. :)

As for the whole TA vs NA bit. I'll throw my hat in to the ring.

Some people do not care about what others have to say about the path they follow, as they have their own traditions within that path to back them up and can also fall back on it if need be. The number of times Shiva has caught me in His 'cosmic arms' is too numerous to mention...and so now, they wrap around me and shield me from all that stuff.

Other people are quite sensitive to being told their path is a 'cult' or 'criminal' or whatever, despite saying 'there is room for all under the sun' and while we all have our own paths and ways, some things are better left unsaid, even though we personally know them to be 'true' according to us (and maybe our own 'traditions').

Those who are sensitive, are often prone to spiritual 'knee jerk reactions' which can be blown out of all proportion into sheer and utter absurdity - as we have witnessed, but it's just a cry to "stop doing this please..just let me be and stop picking on me".

Nobody can be responsible for the path and choices of another, we can outline the shortcomings of the philosophy of NA itself, if it has due merit (what I have been doing myself), but often, the practitioner will also see that as an attack on his persons in ad-hominem fashion, instead of an attack on the critique itself...and from ad-hominem, many straw men are thus built.

All we can do/say after the fact is "if it floats your boat" and leave it there. We may think/believe that what the other is doing is 'wrong'...or 'a waste of time' or even grab their hand and go 'enlightenment is thaddaway, mate' but in the end, if they want to just dig a hole and say "go away" then, we have no choice but to let them sort their own karma out their way and then all we can do is a 'Dr.Phil' and say "so, how's that working out for you?"

I'll get into more Vedanta philosophy soon, but my brain still doesn't wanna go there currently.

[Gem]

Hi Gem

As you are again targeting me in your comments, I'd like to respond.


Definition of cult

1 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2); also : its body of adherents

Definition of spurious

1 : of illegitimate birth : *******
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
b : of a deceitful nature or quality

First of all, you speak incorrectly - I didn't use the word cult; I found first hand accounts of people who have dabbled in NA/Parsons (at Iamit's request) and this is where the word came from: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554&page=3

If you want to attack someone (not directly of course, but indirectly as usual) I suggest you stick to facts :smile:

Secondly, that having transpired, and in researching the exact meaning of the word, it appears that the word cult has some merit. Here (without utilizing or thinking of the word "cult") it seems the definition of cult above does actually apply: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1672441#post1672441

The other definitions of cult are perhaps how you are referring to "your Buddhist tradition"

3 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
4 : formal religious veneration : worship

Also you presuppose knowing intent and malign others in the process. All I can say is "sad!" 'Purification' does work fortunately, but honesty is helpful - very useful, in my opinion.

Be well :wink: :smile:

BT
Spiritual organisations and followings typically have a cultish aspect. The same is true of the school I am associated with. There are many publishing online who claim to be victims of this 'cult' as well, and in my time at the ashram I have seen people come to harm due to inadequate attention of care to them. The rigour of practice is such that there is a risk of opening doors that the individual is not stable enough to cope with, and it takes quite a deft skill and sensitivity to monitor the signs of more than 50 individuals' psychological well-being.

I made fair and balanced comments regarding the cult like aspects of following NA or TA or indeed my own school, and I have no interest whatsoever in creating a defensive position for you.

[Shivani Devi]

Cult [kuhlt]

NOUN
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

In light and view of these definitions, every religion and sacred tradition is a cult.

[Gem]

Cult [kuhlt]

NOUN
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

In light and view of these definitions, every religion and sacred tradition is a cult.

Well, 'cult' usually implies something insidious, typically a form of brainwashing, and I can only suggest don't follow anything. Everyone who follows is being mislead.

[Shivani Devi]

Well, 'cult' usually implies something insidious, typically a form of brainwashing, and I can only suggest don't follow anything. Everyone who follows is being mislead.Yes Gem, but who is to be the judge of it? yourself? a few people? society at large?

Usually those who label something as a 'cult' have their own reasons and agendas for doing so, or it is simply viewed as being something outside the 'standardised norm'.

In regards, society at large is being 'brainwashed' by the media, business conglomerates and all with their vested interests in the name of capital gain, notoriety and social support, but many are happy being 'brainwashed' or else, they know no different due to their own cultural conditioning process.

It is also a very subjective issue. I follow the path of Hinduism, as you know...maybe I am being 'brainwashed' and 'mislead'...but that is Gem saying it, not Shivani saying it...and Gem may think Shivani is being 'brainwashed' and 'misled' and all Shivani can do is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNxeovdN5U

[Gem]

Yes Gem, but who is to be the judge of it? yourself? a few people? society at large?

Usually those who label something as a 'cult' have their own reasons and agendas for doing so, or it is simply viewed as being something outside the 'standardised norm'.

In regards, society at large is being 'brainwashed' by the media, business conglomerates and all with their vested interests in the name of capital gain, notoriety and social support, but many are happy being 'brainwashed' or else, they know no different due to their own cultural conditioning process.

It is also a very subjective issue. I follow the path of Hinduism, as you know...maybe I am being 'brainwashed' and 'mislead'...but that is Gem saying it, not Shivani saying it...and Gem may think Shivani is being 'brainwashed' and 'misled' and all Shivani can do is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNxeovdN5U
Well I merely suggest not following anything, and I don't advocate any religions, not even Buddhism, but at least in the school I know of, they tell us not to follow anything, not to believe anything, and only accept things according to our own insight.

[Shivani Devi]

Well I merely suggest not following anything, and I don't advocate any religions, not even Buddhism, but at least in the school I know of, they tell us not to follow anything, not to believe anything, and only accept things according to your our insight.If you accept things according to your own insight, then you are following your insight, isn't it?

About Nyaya philosophy - not much to say about it. Wanted to launch into a whole treatise, but it's not worth it because it can be summarised in a few short sentences.

Nyaya means 'rule' or 'law' as there are 'right ways' of living which roughly corresponds to the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.

It is a very heavily Karmic-based philosophy, which basically says, as per Buddhism, you're either suffering or in Para Nirvana (Moksha) and then outlines ways to stop suffering so you can obtain Moksha.

I'll just be lazy and drop a Wikilink:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya

The only real difference between Nyaya and Buddhism is that while both are Atheistic traditions, Nyaya believes in a soul/atman whilst Buddhism believes in anatta or 'no soul' apart from that, they are basically identical in almost every way, shape and form.

[Shivani Devi]

at least in the school I know of, they tell us not to follow anything, not to believe anything, and only accept things according to our own insight.Philosoraptor just emerged from the cupboard. :biggrin:

If you belong to a school which tells you not to follow anything and so you don't follow anything, aren't you just following them by not following anything?

[Gem]

Philosoraptor just emerged from the cupboard. :biggrin:

If you belong to a school which tells you not to follow anything and so you don't follow anything, aren't you just following them by not following anything?

The school teaches that in an attempt to prevent any blind faith. Otherwise we'd become petty and obedient in following the rote of Dhamma discourses.

[Shivani Devi]

The school teaches that in an attempt to prevent any blind faith. Otherwise we'd become petty and obedient in following the rote of Dhamma discourses.*chases philosoraptor around...tries to put him back in his box*

So, blind faith as opposed to sighted faith then?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/60/e9/0760e93beb1943ebcb833e688c575e07.jpg

[Gem]

*chases philosoraptor around...tries to put him back in his box*

So, blind faith as opposed to sighted faith then?

Different to insight.

[Shivani Devi]

Different to insight.
Just as belief is different to experience.

I agree though, I have no faith because it is not necessary. I have no belief because that too, is not necessary.

Seeing as how we are in the Advaita forum...it is only the mind and heart which identifies as a Hindu, for all intents and purposes of relative and mutual understanding of the concepts I present...and now, in true Shivani (which ain't me either) style:

मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं
न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥

Mano-Buddhy-Ahangkaara Cittaani Naaham
Na Ca Shrotra-Jihve Na Ca Ghraanna-Netre |
Na Ca Vyoma Bhuumir-Na Tejo Na Vaayuh
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||1||

Meaning:
1.1: Neither am I the Mind, nor the Intelligence or Ego,
1.2: Neither am I the organs of Hearing (Ears), nor that of Tasting (Tongue), Smelling (Nose) or Seeing (Eyes),
1.3: Neither am I the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air,
1.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः
न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥

Na Ca Praanna-Samjnyo Na Vai Pan.ca-Vaayuh
Na Vaa Sapta-Dhaatuh Na Vaa Pan.ca-Koshah |
Na Vaak-Paanni-Paadam Na Copastha-Paayu
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||2||

Meaning:
2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Airs,
2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion,
2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ
मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः ।
न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥३॥

Na Me Dvessa-Raagau Na Me Lobha-Mohau
Mado Naiva Me Naiva Maatsarya-Bhaavah |
Na Dharmo Na Ca-Artho Na Kaamo Na Mokssah
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||3||

Meaning:
3.1: Neither do I have Hatred, nor Attachment, Neither Greed nor Infatuation,
3.2: Neither do I have Pride, nor Feelings of Envy and Jealousy,
3.3 I am Not within the bounds of Dharma (Righteousness), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desire) and Moksha (Liberation) (the four Purusarthas of life),
3.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थं न वेदा न यज्ञाः ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥

Na Punnyam Na Paapam Na Saukhyam Na Duhkham
Na Mantro Na Tiirtham Na Vedaa Na Yajnyaah |
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||4||

Meaning:
4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न मृत्युर्न शङ्का न मे जातिभेदः
पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः ।
न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरुर्नैव शिष्यं
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥५॥

Na Mrtyur-Na Shangkaa Na Me Jaati-Bhedah
Pitaa Naiva Me Naiva Maataa Na Janmah |
Na Bandhurna Mitram Gurur-Na-Iva Shissyam
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||5||

Meaning:
5.1: Neither am I bound by Death and its Fear, nor by the rules of Caste and its Distinctions,
5.2: Neither do I have Father and Mother, nor do I have Birth,
5.3: Neither do I have Relations nor Friends, neither Spiritual Teacher nor Disciple,
5.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो
विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥

Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaara-Ruupo
Vibhu-Tvaacca Sarvatra Sarve[a-I]ndriyaannaam |
Na Caa-Sanggatam Naiva Muktirna Meyah
Cid-aananda-ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||6||

Meaning:
6.1: I am Without any Variation, and Without any Form,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) ,
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite).
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

That is the whole essence of Advaita Vedanta.

[Shivani Devi]

Tantra Yoga and the Samkya Philosophy

Before we jump into the next school of orthodox Hinduism, Mimamsa we shall take a little side-step detour into a concept of Hindu esoterica (and because I'm being totally SELF indulgent now). lol

I mentioned before, how I follow the path of Bhakti Yoga, worshiping Lord Shiva in full-on Qualified Monistic expression...in both Saguna (Puranic) and Nirguna (Brahman/SadaShiva) manifestation.

I also mentioned previously about Prakriti (Shakti) and Purusha (Shiva) as being two aspects of the one Reality inclusive of the other (Ardhanarishwara) and yet existing separately on the material plane and also on the cognitive level of awareness.

This is how it is in the macrocosm...in the universal function of form and matter as our perception dictates that it becomes displayed to us until subjectively experienced.

When the whole concept is brought into the microcosm and internalised through pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses) and dhyana (meditation), Prakriti or Shakti being the will of Purusha/Shiva becomes manifest as a store of potential energy, located at the base of the spine. This has been given the term Kundalini - which you may or may not have heard of.

So, the Shakti/Prakriti is Kundalini, representing will or potential impetus and resides in the lowermost Chakra known as Muladhara, whilst in dual space/time and in diametric juxtaposition, Shiva/Purusha resides in the uppermost Chakra known as Sahasrara (thousand-petalled lotus).

Shiva is the 'vessel' for the kundalini...the 'Holy Grail' to be filled with the nectar of existence and when the cycle is complete, Shiva and Shakti merge, become one and duality is totally transcended back into pure non-duality through this merging.

As a result of different practices of Yoga, meditation, pranayama (breathing exercises) and over the course of years (lifetimes in some cases), the internal energy...the kundalini, which is the will of Shiva awakens and begins the ascent upwards, through all the chakras, to unite with Shiva at the crown in an act of cosmic love-making explosion which brings about a state called Samadhi, a total absorption within Brahman or Non-Duality itself, creating endless bliss, joy, love...and then there's no differentiation...no subject/object...no experience or experiencer and all the words of Adi Shankaracharya start personally ringing true.

This is my own path.

[Gem]

Just as belief is different to experience.

I agree though, I have no faith because it is not necessary. I have no belief because that too, is not necessary.

Seeing as how we are in the Advaita forum...it is only the mind and heart which identifies as a Hindu, for all intents and purposes of relative and mutual understanding of the concepts I present...and now, in true Shivani (which ain't me either) style:

मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं
न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥

Mano-Buddhy-Ahangkaara Cittaani Naaham
Na Ca Shrotra-Jihve Na Ca Ghraanna-Netre |
Na Ca Vyoma Bhuumir-Na Tejo Na Vaayuh
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||1||

Meaning:
1.1: Neither am I the Mind, nor the Intelligence or Ego,
1.2: Neither am I the organs of Hearing (Ears), nor that of Tasting (Tongue), Smelling (Nose) or Seeing (Eyes),
1.3: Neither am I the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air,
1.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः
न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥

Na Ca Praanna-Samjnyo Na Vai Pan.ca-Vaayuh
Na Vaa Sapta-Dhaatuh Na Vaa Pan.ca-Koshah |
Na Vaak-Paanni-Paadam Na Copastha-Paayu
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||2||

Meaning:
2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Airs,
2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion,
2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ
मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः ।
न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥३॥

Na Me Dvessa-Raagau Na Me Lobha-Mohau
Mado Naiva Me Naiva Maatsarya-Bhaavah |
Na Dharmo Na Ca-Artho Na Kaamo Na Mokssah
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||3||

Meaning:
3.1: Neither do I have Hatred, nor Attachment, Neither Greed nor Infatuation,
3.2: Neither do I have Pride, nor Feelings of Envy and Jealousy,
3.3 I am Not within the bounds of Dharma (Righteousness), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desire) and Moksha (Liberation) (the four Purusarthas of life),
3.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थं न वेदा न यज्ञाः ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥

Na Punnyam Na Paapam Na Saukhyam Na Duhkham
Na Mantro Na Tiirtham Na Vedaa Na Yajnyaah |
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||4||

Meaning:
4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

न मृत्युर्न शङ्का न मे जातिभेदः
पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः ।
न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरुर्नैव शिष्यं
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥५॥

Na Mrtyur-Na Shangkaa Na Me Jaati-Bhedah
Pitaa Naiva Me Naiva Maataa Na Janmah |
Na Bandhurna Mitram Gurur-Na-Iva Shissyam
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||5||

Meaning:
5.1: Neither am I bound by Death and its Fear, nor by the rules of Caste and its Distinctions,
5.2: Neither do I have Father and Mother, nor do I have Birth,
5.3: Neither do I have Relations nor Friends, neither Spiritual Teacher nor Disciple,
5.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो
विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥

Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaara-Ruupo
Vibhu-Tvaacca Sarvatra Sarve[a-I]ndriyaannaam |
Na Caa-Sanggatam Naiva Muktirna Meyah
Cid-aananda-ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||6||

Meaning:
6.1: I am Without any Variation, and Without any Form,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) ,
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite).
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

That is the whole essence of Advaita Vedanta.

I like it because it's rebellious to everything.

[Shivani Devi]

I like it because it's rebellious to everything.
Yep, the actual term is called 'neti neti' (not this) which basically even rebels to the rebellion itself. :D

Right down your alley.

[Gem]

Tantra Yoga and the Samkya Philosophy

Before we jump into the next school of orthodox Hinduism, Mimamsa we shall take a little side-step detour into a concept of Hindu esoterica (and because I'm being totally SELF indulgent now). lol

I mentioned before, how I follow the path of Bhakti Yoga, worshiping Lord Shiva in full-on Qualified Monistic expression...in both Saguna (Puranic) and Nirguna (Brahman/SadaShiva) manifestation.

I also mentioned previously about Prakriti (Shakti) and Purusha (Shiva) as being two aspects of the one Reality inclusive of the other (Ardhanarishwara) and yet existing separately on the material plane and also on the cognitive level of awareness.

This is how it is in the macrocosm...in the universal function of form and matter as our perception dictates that it becomes displayed to us until subjectively experienced.

When the whole concept is brought into the microcosm and internalised through pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses) and dhyana (meditation), Prakriti or Shakti being the will of Purusha/Shiva becomes manifest as a store of potential energy, located at the base of the spine. This has been given the term Kundalini - which you may or may not have heard of.

So, the Shakti/Prakriti is Kundalini, representing will or potential impetus and resides in the lowermost Chakra known as Muladhara, whilst in dual space/time and in diametric juxtaposition, Shiva/Purusha resides in the uppermost Chakra known as Sahasrara (thousand-petalled lotus).

Shiva is the 'vessel' for the kundalini...the 'Holy Grail' to be filled with the nectar of existence and when the cycle is complete, Shiva and Shakti merge, become one and duality is totally transcended back into pure non-duality through this merging.

As a result of different practices of Yoga, meditation, pranayama (breathing exercises) and over the course of years (lifetimes in some cases), the internal energy...the kundalini, which is the will of Shiva awakens and begins the ascent upwards, through all the chakras, to unite with Shiva at the crown in an act of cosmic love-making explosion which brings about a state called Samadhi, a total absorption within Brahman or Non-Duality itself, creating endless bliss, joy, love...and then there's no differentiation...no subject/object...no experience or experiencer and all the words of Adi Shankaracharya start personally ringing true.

This is my own path.
Ok, that makes far more sense than the 'tantra' conversations on Buddhist forums ever have. I think it's quite similar to what I call 'the purification'. Much more appealing than my version, though, I must admit.

[Gem]

Yep, the actual term is called 'neti neti' (not this) which basically even rebels to the rebellion itself. :D

Right down your alley.
Yes, indeedy, because I'll be like screw your teachers and religions and all that menial nonsense - you're alive, godammit, who needs that to live? So, I like these Indian advaita attitudes which are so FTW.

[blossomingtree]

Cult [kuhlt]

NOUN
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

In light and view of these definitions, every religion and sacred tradition is a cult.

One word can be used in many different ways - that is one of my points, dear one.

Example: the word cool. It can be used to indicate temperature "It's cool in here", a feeling/sense of favorability/trend/being liked "That's cool!", can be used to indicate acceptance "It's cool"

My message above was in fact pointing this out (although clearly not clearly enough :D )

BT

[blossomingtree]

Yes Gem, but who is to be the judge of it? yourself? a few people? society at large?

Usually those who label something as a 'cult' have their own reasons and agendas for doing so, or it is simply viewed as being something outside the 'standardised norm'.


Hi,

Joining in on this discussion:

I believe that the fact is that anyone can call anything a cult. For example, from the perspective of modern day Christianity (orthodox in today's standards) perhaps Buddhism or Hinduisim would be called a cult ("worshipping false Gods"). Or perhaps someone might label Neo-Advaita and the Church of Scientology as a cult.

i.e. Yes it is very much in the eye of the beholder :smile:

Having said that, from my vantage point, and the one I utilized in the vein of Neo-Advaita (above) is precisely because it is a forgery/imitation of sorts in my opinion. i.e. :smile: an imitation is not a real thing. Also if we assume (as I believe it is) that traditions such as Buddhism, teachers such as Sri Aurinbindo, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc. are valid and respected, then I would say you are getting something different - and I've outlined my rationale in many posts on this forum for that precise reason.

When Gem asserted that calling out NA as a cult was "lame" https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,115222 he was again voicing out his preference/bias towards "anything goes". I (from where I sit and many would perhaps disagree) also would consider the Church of Scientology a cult, but agree, it's all about the vantage point.

I do not believe that the "anything goes" route leads us all to the same spiritual destiny however, if that is what people are interested in.

FWIW

BT

[blossomingtree]

Spiritual organisations and followings typically have a cultish aspect. The same is true of the school I am associated with. There are many publishing online who claim to be victims of this 'cult' as well, and in my time at the ashram I have seen people come to harm due to inadequate attention of care to them. The rigour of practice is such that there is a risk of opening doors that the individual is not stable enough to cope with, and it takes quite a deft skill and sensitivity to monitor the signs of more than 50 individuals' psychological well-being.

I made fair and balanced comments regarding the cult like aspects of following NA or TA or indeed my own school, and I have no interest whatsoever in creating a defensive position for you.

First to clarify - as it's important to distinguish how the term is applied - you are using "cultish", I presume, in a way that means there are some ceremonies and methods that appear odd/unorthodox and where some people may have disagreements.

That is different to how I utilize the term above.

When you say that it is "lame" to try to attribute cultish to NA, well :smile: I've made my points above. Feel free to communicate directly in future.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Well I merely suggest not following anything, and I don't advocate any religions, not even Buddhism, but at least in the school I know of, they tell us not to follow anything, not to believe anything, and only accept things according to our own insight.

In my experience, faith and insight follow each other. When you have known for yourself, and you see the path laid bare and the indomitable truths in the teachings - revealed in your own path step by step, it is natural to have faith.

It is like getting to Rome. At first you have the intention/desire. Then you follow a map from a world renowned traveller who has been there. At first you are careful, maybe suspicious (it appears many on these forums are :D ). But as you follow the map, path after path becomes clearer and clearer. The map is accurate. In this path, you don't lose your ability to discern (read road signs, watch for traffic, pay attention), but you are now faithfully grateful for the kind pointers left by those that came before. Now I understand why you think that Nibbana is a myth perhaps.

Suspicious? Only those with fears of their own are so continually suspicious - an open mind doesn't discount possibilities of falsity and truth and is joyful in its discoveries :smile:

BT

[Gem]

Hi,

Joining in on this discussion:

I believe that the fact is that anyone can call anything a cult. For example, from the perspective of modern day Christianity (orthodox in today's standards) perhaps Buddhism or Hinduisim would be called a cult ("worshipping false Gods"). Or perhaps someone might label Neo-Advaita and the Church of Scientology as a cult.

i.e. Yes it is very much in the eye of the beholder :smile:

Having said that, from my vantage point, and the one I utilized in the vein of Neo-Advaita (above) is precisely because it is a forgery/imitation of sorts in my opinion. i.e. :smile: an imitation is not a real thing. Also if we assume (as I believe it is) that traditions such as Buddhism, teachers such as Sri Aurinbindo, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc. are valid and respected, then I would say you are getting something different - and I've outlined my rationale in many posts on this forum for that precise reason.

When Gem asserted that calling out NA as a cult was "lame" https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,115222 he was again voicing out his preference/bias towards "anything goes". I (from where I sit and many would perhaps disagree) also would consider the Church of Scientology a cult, but agree, it's all about the vantage point.

I do not believe that the "anything goes" route leads us all to the same spiritual destiny however, if that is what people are interested in.

FWIW

BT

In quotation marks, but I didn't say it.

[Gem]

In my experience, faith and insight follow each other. When you have known for yourself, and you see the path laid bare and the indomitable truths in the teachings - revealed in your own path step by step, it is natural to have faith.

It is like getting to Rome. At first you have the intention/desire. Then you follow a map from a world renowned traveller who has been there. At first you are careful, maybe suspicious (it appears many on these forums are :D ). But as you follow the map, path after path becomes clearer and clearer. The map is accurate. In this path, you don't lose your ability to discern (read road signs, watch for traffic, pay attention), but you are now faithfully grateful for the kind pointers left by those that came before. Now I understand why you think that Nibbana is a myth perhaps.

Suspicious? Only those with fears of their own are so continually suspicious - an open mind doesn't discount possibilities of falsity and truth and is joyful in its discoveries :smile:

BT

As I say, just listen to the teachers without need for agreement or disagreement or becoming a minion to a master. Rather, just check in yourself if what is said is true of yourself.


,

[Shivani Devi]

Yes, indeedy, because I'll be like screw your teachers and religions and all that menial nonsense - you're alive, godammit, who needs that to live? So, I like these Indian advaita attitudes which are so FTW.
Neti Neti and Iti Iti

According to Hindu Advaita Vedanta, there are two ways to approach and realise the Absolute Brahman.

Eventually they are both the same and lead to the same ultimate subjective experience and eventually, they are combined as one, so either/or doesn't matter.

The first is called "Neti Neti" (Not THIS! Not THIS!) and that involves mentally negating all into empirical reductionism and solipsism, in that whatever can be thought about or experienced as Brahman, simply is not Brahman and it must be tossed aside so we can keep moving on from there...until we experience that sublime state in which "Neti Neti" can be said no more.

I recall, during times of meditation under the tutelage of my teacher...describing all the bright, colourful lights, the experiences of my chakras opening, getting certain mystical insights and siddhis (intuitive powers) and then my teacher taught me about 'Neti Neti'...just to let it all go with love and to keep on moving beyond all that, so that I don't allow myself to get caught up in it and become stuck there.

"Neti Neti" takes the philosophy of there's always something more out there until there IS no more and we become totally lost within the whole sphere of existence itself, by mentally negating every thought and experience that comes our way.

It is/was a favourite technique of all the great Advaita Vedanta teachers in the past, including Shankara.

On the flip side of Neti Neti is what is called Iti Iti or (THIS! THIS!) and it seeks to include anything and everything as an expression of Oneness or Brahman itself...even Brahman!

When Brahman is experientially realised as the Atman (indwelling Consciousness), there isn't much that stands in the way of experiencing PARAbrahman (the totality within the totality) as PARAtman (the Consciousness both within AND without simultaneously), then one obtains Moksha - the liberation of being from the Kalachkara - the wheel of birth, death and time.

Iti Iti is wholly inclusive in it's approach, stating that there is nothing which isn't Brahman, whilst Neti Neti is wholly exclusive, saying that anything that exists isn't Brahman.

In the end though, 'Neti Neti' and 'Iti Iti' are interchangeable, being that Schrodinger's Cat can be both dead and/or alive until the box is opened...until Brahman is experientially realised and then all matter, form, cognition and perception is transcended through the whole process...until that happens, "Neti Neti" and/or "Iti Iti" still relatively applies.

That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed—That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.

That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended—That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.

That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is perceived—That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.

That which cannot he heard by the ear, but by which the hearing is perceived—That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship. - Kena Upanishad Ch1 Vs 5-8

[Gem]

Neti Neti and Iti Iti

According to Hindu Advaita Vedanta, there are two ways to approach and realise the Absolute Brahman.

Eventually they are both the same and lead to the same ultimate subjective experience and eventually, they are combined as one, so either/or doesn't matter.
Yes, I was impressed with 'the not' revealing the nature of what I am.

The first is called "Neti Neti" (Not THIS! Not THIS!) and that involves mentally negating all into empirical reductionism and solipsism, in that whatever can be thought about or experienced AS Brahman, simply is not Brahman and it must be tossed aside so we can move on from there...until we experience that sublime state in which "Neti Neti" can be said no more.

I recall, during times of meditation under the tutelage of my teacher...describing all the bright, colourful lights, the experiences of my chakras opening, getting certain mystical insights and siddhis (intuitive powers) and my teacher taught me about Neti Neti...to let it all go with love and move beyond all that, so I don't allow myself to get caught up in it.
I consider that to be a sound teaching, and well said.

"Neti Neti" takes the philosophy of there's always something more out there until there IS no more and we become totally lost within the whole sphere of existence itself, by mentally negating every thought and experience that comes our way.

It is/was a favourite technique of all the great Advaita Vedanta teachers in the past, including Shankara.

On the flip side of Neti Neti is what is called Iti Iti or (THIS! THIS!) and it seeks to include anything and everything as an expression of Oneness or Brahman itself...even Brahman!

When Brahman is experientially realised as the Atman (indwelling Consciousness), there isn't much that stands in the way of experiencing PARAbrahman (the totality within the totality) as PARAtman (the Consciousness both within AND without simultaneously). then one obtains Moksha - the liberation of being from the Kalachkara - the wheel of birth, death and time.

Iti Iti is wholly inclusive in it's approach, stating that there is nothing which ISN'T Brahman, whilst Neti Neti is wholly exclusive, saying that anything that exists ISN'T Brahman.

In the end though, 'Neti Neti' and 'Iti iti' are interchangeable, being that Schrodinger's Cat can be both dead or alive until the box is opened...until Brahman is experientially realised and all matter, form, cognition and perception is transcended through that whole process...until that happens, "Neti Neti" and/or "Iti Iti" still relatively applies.
It seems so common across cultures to utilise neti to eliminate all the sensory in order to find out 'what exists' prior to any sensory perception. Descartes' meditations followed the same procedure, but I think the downfall in Descartes' philosophy is his arriving at a conclusion, an answer - that he is a 'thinking thing', though his conclusion in that regard is quite subtle in that he says 'That I am, I exist is true each time I express myself or conceive of myself in the mind'.

This Vedanta philosophy seems to be fundamentally different in that neti (am not) and 'iti' (am) never arrive at the conclusion of knowing either or.

[no1wakesup]

"In the end though, 'Neti Neti' and 'Iti iti' are interchangeable, being that Schrodinger's Cat can be both dead or alive until the box is opened...until Brahman is experientially realised and all matter, form, cognition and perception is transcended through that whole process...until that happens, "Neti Neti" and/or "Iti Iti" still relatively applies."

Beautiful.

[Shivani Devi]

Yes, I was impressed with 'the not' revealing the nature of what I am.


I consider that to be a sound teaching, and well said.


It seems so common across cultures to utilise neti to eliminate all the sensory in order to find out 'what exists' prior to any sensory perception. Descartes' meditations followed the same procedure, but I think the downfall in Descartes' philosophy is his arriving at a conclusion, an answer - that he is a 'thinking thing', though his conclusion in that regard is quite subtle in that he says 'That I am, I exist is true each time I express myself or conceive of myself in the mind'.

This Vedanta philosophy seems to be fundamentally different in that neti (am not) and 'iti' (am) never arrive at the conclusion of knowing either or.Rene Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" whilst Vedanta teaches "I am, therefore I think".

However, that which is Brahman, the Absolute Reality is beyond all process of 'thinking'...beyond all process of even 'knowing' and this is the whole 'sticking point' between the teachings of Neo Advaita and Traditional Advaitic philosophy.

Like you have said previously, it can only be 'intuited' by it's own nature and requires a mind that is beyond the limitation of mind...a 'higher awareness' in a sense, that takes us beyond whatever can be known, understood, cognitively recognised and rationalised, into a direct experience of that, in which even no sense of the "I" as being either a differentiated or undifferentiated aspect of Self remains!

It is accompanied by an expression of the totality of existence both in and of itself, which is called "Sat"....an expression of a 'universal mind' or the totality of uninhibited consciousness known as 'Chid" and the living experience of unqualified and unimaginable bliss called "Ananda" thus when all matter, form, thoughts, experiences etc have been transcended, the metaphors all conjoin into one overriding and wholly encompassing state called Satchidananda.

[Shivani Devi]

"In the end though, 'Neti Neti' and 'Iti iti' are interchangeable, being that Schrodinger's Cat can be both dead or alive until the box is opened...until Brahman is experientially realised and all matter, form, cognition and perception is transcended through that whole process...until that happens, "Neti Neti" and/or "Iti Iti" still relatively applies."

Beautiful.Thank you, my dear. I appreciate both your responses here.

[blossomingtree]

In quotation marks, but I didn't say it.

I don't advocate tradition, posit one tradition above an other, or concern myself with it at all. To me it's like, tradition is part of life, a necessary component of culture, and it can be here, go away, change, for all the difference it makes.

Sure, people can go along with whatever they want, but the ingredient of truthfulness is required.

As I said before, if all teachings of all religions were suddenly gone, I wouldn't worry about it at all.

"Figure of speech" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech)

[Shivani Devi]

Ok, that makes far more sense than the 'tantra' conversations on Buddhist forums ever have. I think it's quite similar to what I call 'the purification'. Much more appealing than my version, though, I must admit.
As you may or may not be aware, Buddha himself was born into the whole Hindu aristocracy and was a Brahmin in his own right.

During the 14th century, the Vaishnava (Vishnu-loving) Hindus of the time, sought to unify both Hinduism and Buddhism under a common denominator, apart from the mere philosophy contained within each religion, to appeal to the illiterate and uneducated masses...and thus, Buddha sorta 'became' an incarnation/avatar of Lord Vishnu.

That being said, Buddhism is also a Vedic and a Dharmic religion, as per Hinduism with the only differences being, of course, that Buddhists don't believe in the concept of "Ishwara" (God) or "Atman" (Soul) and pretty much had to laugh at all the 'God-loving' Vaishnavites who sought to place Buddha under the auspices OF a Deity.

Apart from the Vedas during that time, there were also the Agamas - a theistic philosophy which basically governed everything from temple design, ritualistic worship, sacred geometry, right conduct for living...so on and so forth. The Agamas formed the very basis of Tantra in essence and this form of Buddhism incorporating the Agamas and Tantras are still seen in the Vajrayana Traditions of Tibet and also on the Indonesian island of Bali who still kept to their Theistic roots.

I had the beautiful experience of spending a lot of my childhood in Bali, where the lines between Agama Hindu Dharma and Vajrayana Buddhism became almost interchangeable and blurred...I worshiped Shiva as Mahakala, which is a deity common to both religions!

As Buddhism became refined after the 12th Century AD, all notions of "God" was replaced by "Sunyata" (emptiness) and all notions of "Soul" was replaced by "Buddha-Nature" to denote the importance of looking within as opposed to looking without for salvation or Nirvana (Nibbana).

Thus, the Pali Canon was officially canonised as being apart from the Devanagari (Sanskrit) teachings, the Hinayana gave way to the Mahayana through the Tripitaka (three baskets of sacred teachings) carried from China to Tibet along the Silk Road trading route...and modern Buddhism was born and Tantra became filtered down with regards to historical reference and significance.

...and as I result, I now have this playing through my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-SUoHmpRdM

Oh the memories...lol

[blossomingtree]

As I say, just listen to the teachers without need for agreement or disagreement or becoming a minion to a master. Rather, just check in yourself if what is said is true of yourself.

,

Yes I see that is your teacher's teaching:

in the school I know of, they tell us not to follow anything, not to believe anything, and only accept things according to our own insight.

Faith is natural once one has seen enough for oneself. As to utilizing only yourself as the benchmark for "truth", I can see why that is appealing for you. Your points about minion, agreement, and disagreement are not relevant to what I posted, but I can see these are top of mind in your own thought processes.

BT

[Shivani Devi]

Mimamsa

Previously, we touched upon the six basic ethical views called the Pramanas and to recap:

Pratyakasha (direct perception), Upamana (comparative analogy), Arthapatti (effect arising from cause), anupalabdhi (non-perception and negation) and Shabda (words, teachings and grace from the Guru).

The Mimamsa school of orthodoxy is a totally realist one.

Some sects of it believe in a God and some do not, but they basically all believe that by following these Pramanas and performing meritous deeds, altruistic and charitable works, living their life to the fullest capacity, their soul may either ascend to heaven...if not, they either just perish or go to hell.

They do not believe in reincarnation or in liberation/moksha.

The Mimamsa Philosophy says that realisation of Brahman is possible only in THIS lifetime and through material effort only.

It's very much akin to what the Christians believe; "good guys go to heaven, bad dudes go to hell" etc.

The school was based upon teachings of Rishi Jaimini who was a disciple of Veda Vyasa who composed the Hindu epic called Mahabharata. These teachings were called the Purva Mimamsa Sutras .

[Jyotir]

Hi Gem,

Pursuant to your interest, offering here selections from this (imo excellent) resource.
There are a number of references to Vedanta in this particular text, available here as Vol. 21-22 ( http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/writings.php )

Recommend opening the PDF file and do an advanced search (in ‘edit’ menu), for the term “Vedanta”, which will bring up all instances within captured sentences with page #'s, linkable by clicking on them. A very quick way to review.

Examples: The Unknowable knowing itself as Sachchidananda is the one supreme affirmation of Vedanta; it contains all the others or on it they depend.

The ancient Vedanta presents us with such a solution in the conception and experience of Brahman as the one universal and essential fact and of the nature of Brahman as Sachchidananda. In this view the essence of all life is the movement of a universal and immortal existence, the essence of all sensation and emotion is the play of a universal and self-existent delight in being, the essence of all thought and perception is the radiation of a universal and all-pervading truth, the essence of all activity is the progression of a universal and self-effecting good. […]

Into later Vedanta there crept and arrived at fixity the idea that the limited ego is not only the cause of the dualities, but the essential condition for the existence of the universe. By getting rid of the ignorance of the ego and its resultant limitations we do indeed eliminate the dualities, but we eliminate along with them our existence in the cosmic movement. Thus we return to the essentially evil and illusory nature of human existence and the vanity of all effort after perfection in the life of the world. A relative good linked always to its opposite is all that here we can seek. But if we adhere to the larger and profounder idea that the ego is only an intermediate representation of something beyond itself, we escape from this consequence and are able to apply Vedanta to fulfilment of life and not only to the escape from life.
- Sri Aurobindo; “The Life Divine”;
Omnipresent reality and the Universe;
Chapter VII, The Ego and the Dualities, pg. 63 The absolutist view of reality, consciousness and knowledge is founded on one side of the earliest Vedantic thought, but it is not the whole of that thinking. In the Upanishads, in the inspired scripture of the most ancient Vedanta, we find the affirmation of the Absolute, the experience-concept of the utter and ineffable Transcendence; but we find also, not in contradiction to it but as its corollary, an affirmation of the cosmic Divinity, an experience-concept of the cosmic Self and the becoming of Brahman in the universe. Equally, we find the affirmation of the Divine Reality in the individual: this too is an experience-concept; it is seized upon not as an appearance, but as an actual becoming. In place of a sole supreme exclusive affirmation negating all else than the transcendent Absolute we find a comprehensive affirmation carried to its farthest conclusion: this concept of Reality and of Knowledge enveloping in one view the cosmic and the Absolute coincides fundamentally with our own; for it implies that the Ignorance too is a half-veiled part of the Knowledge and world-knowledge a part of self-knowledge.

- Sri Aurobindo; The Life Divine;
The Knowledge and the Spiritual Evolution
Chapter XV Reality and the Integral Knowledge, pg. 662



Hope this is helpful.

~ J

[Shivani Devi]

I think we have finally worn Gem out. lol

I could also provide a link to book(s) and articles written by numerous past Gurus and teachers, like this one, which is very comprehensive on the topic of interest and will only take 10 minutes to read:

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_145.html

With all due respect to the past masters, the saints and sages of yore, who have composed many tomes on Vedanta and the nature of Consciousness which an online search will reveal such to any seeker's delight.

Whatever I type here, on this forum is not copied from any book or online source. It is an amalgamation of many books and teachings on these issues, combined with a lived, practical experience over a lifetime.

I like to take my time to think about the subject matter, reach inside to find all that information buried within me which has been part of my upbringing and heritage and then spend an hour or so putting it together in essay form which I would find easiest and most comprehensive for the reader to understand.

It's easy to just drop a link, quote a paragraph or two and say 'here ya go, mate' but I guess I like doing things the hard way. lol

[Gem]

As you may or may not be aware, Buddha himself was born into the whole Hindu aristocracy and was a Brahmin in his own right.

Yes.

During the 14th century, the Vaishnava (Vishnu-loving) Hindus of the time, sought to unify both Hinduism and Buddhism under a common denominator, apart from the mere philosophy contained within each religion, to appeal to the illiterate and uneducated masses...and thus, Buddha sorta 'became' an incarnation/avatar of Lord Vishnu.

Yes, I was taught that on retreat as well.

That being said, Buddhism is also a Vedic and a Dharmic religion, as per Hinduism with the only differences being, of course, that Buddhists don't believe in the concept of "Ishwara" (God) or "Atman" (Soul) and pretty much had to laugh at all the 'God-loving' Vaishnavites who sought to place Buddha under the auspices OF a Deity.

Quite, although the Buddhist teaching on anatta is similar in process to the one you have described - especially in the sense that anatta doesn't provide an answer.

Apart from the Vedas during that time, there were also the Agamas - a theistic philosophy which basically governed everything from temple design, ritualistic worship, sacred geometry, right conduct for living...so on and so forth. The Agamas formed the very basis of Tantra in essence and this form of Buddhism incorporating the Agamas and Tantras are still seen in the Vajrayana Traditions of Tibet and also on the Indonesian island of Bali who still kept to their Theistic roots.

Indeed there is a merging of cultural paradigms in that regard.

I had the beautiful experience of spending a lot of my childhood in Bali, where the lines between Agama Hindu Dharma and Vajrayana Buddhism became almost interchangeable and blurred...I worshiped Shiva as Mahakala, which is a deity common to both religions!

Wonderful. I am also a third culture kid raised in Papua New Guinea, which is an ancient, magical place of diverse cultures. In my Jungle forays I sat with elders, worked alongside chieftans, and received a precursory education in the jungle lore... etc. Sure broadens the perspective growing up within two concurrent cultures. Little wonder we don't 'fit in' ay.

As Buddhism became refined after the 12th Century AD, all notions of "God" was replaced by "Sunyata" (emptiness) and all notions of "Soul" was replaced by "Buddha-Nature" to denote the importance of looking within as opposed to looking without for salvation or Nirvana (Nibbana).

Yes, there is no denial of Buddha Nature/Nibbana.

Thus, the Pali Canon was officially canonised as being apart from the Devanagari (Sanskrit) teachings, the Hinayana gave way to the Mahayana through the Tripitaka (three baskets of sacred teachings) carried from China to Tibet along the Silk Road trading route...and modern Buddhism was born and Tantra became filtered down with regards to historical reference and significance.

...and as I result, I now have this playing through my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-SUoHmpRdM

Oh the memories...lol

Excellent.

[Gem]

I appreciate the imput, guys. I'll peruse the links later on and no doubt be inspired to comment afterward.

[sentient]

I am also a third culture kid raised in Papua New Guinea, which is an ancient, magical place of diverse cultures. In my Jungle forays I sat with elders, worked alongside chieftans, and received a precursory education in the jungle lore... etc. Sure broadens the perspective growing up within two concurrent cultures. Little wonder we don't 'fit in' ay.


Sorry, off topic a bit here, but howww interesting! (since I do know a tiny little bit about PNG myself. Not because I have been there, which I haven’t, but because of some PNG’s I have known).

And sorry to go on a kindergarten level here again: (Wikipedia)
Papua New Guinea is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. There are 852 known languages in the country, of which 12 now have no known living speakers.[10] Most of the population of more than 7 million people live in customary communities, which are as diverse as the languages.[11] It is also one of the most rural, as only 18 percent of its people live in urban centres. etc. etc.etc.


^ That is the data map of the place, but not the territory (though it doesn’t mean that the map and the perceived territory irl could not be a match).

It just frustrates me to no end, when people think they can know something about PNG just by accumulating data knowledge, and then even make judgement calls based on the mere map.

Imo. to say that one knows anything at all about PNG, the “territory” of it - it is absolutely essential for one to travel there or at least meet some Papuans irl.
PNG is so immensely diverse that the mentality and the outlook of each Papuan you meet is so very different that they might just as well have come from entirely different countries (here the map & perceived territory without the projected map = match so far).

Another match (map has described as a common denominator) is what one can experience/witness with most Papuans one meets, even with the most highly educated, Christianised and westernized persons:
“It is a country ruled and fuelled and subconsciously governed by the belief in magic.”

“Papua New Guineans believe in the spiritual, supernatural, or non-empirical realm. Some would call it a magical worldview.”

This is what is so awesome and fascinating about PNG, but now when the traditional social structures and the country’s infrastructure is breaking down – PNG seems to be a humanity in crises.
I do hope PNG gets its act together and moves on with much of its “magical worldview” intact.

Westerners in turn seem to have a (superstitious) fear barrier about perceiving the territory without the map, which is a kind of “mind protection/sorcery” in itself, because the projected map (arrogant, assumed superior overlay upon the territory) does filter out extrasensory input and prevents one from partaking in the magic.

And if one doesn't partake in the Magic - one will never know PNG.

PNG = Magic.

[Gem]

Hi Gem,

Pursuant to your interest, offering here selections from this (imo excellent) resource.
There are a number of references to Vedanta in this particular text, available here as Vol. 21-22 (http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/writings.php)

Recommend opening the PDF file and do an advanced search (in ‘edit’ menu), for the term “Vedanta”, which will bring up all instances within captured sentences with page #'s, linkable by clicking on them. A very quick way to review.

Examples:

Hope this is helpful.

~ J

That is beautifully written piece of work. I only scanned over it, but if I were inclined to reading in general, I would go over this word for word as I'm sure it's the sort of work that just keeps revealing. Alas, to read isn't my forte, but I extracted this little tit bit which I thought quite striking

"But where all is self-determined
by truth of consciousness and truth of being, there can be no
standard, no struggle to observe it, no virtue or merit, no sin or
demerit of the nature. The power of love, of truth, of right will
be there, not as a law mentally constructed but as the very substance
and constitution of the nature"

[Gem]

I think we have finally worn Gem out. lol

I could also provide a link to book(s) and articles written by numerous past Gurus and teachers, like this one, which is very comprehensive on the topic of interest and will only take 10 minutes to read:

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_145.html

With all due respect to the past masters, the saints and sages of yore, who have composed many tomes on Vedanta and the nature of Consciousness which an online search will reveal such to any seeker's delight.

Whatever I type here, on this forum is not copied from any book or online source. It is an amalgamation of many books and teachings on these issues, combined with a lived, practical experience over a lifetime.

I like to take my time to think about the subject matter, reach inside to find all that information buried within me which has been part of my upbringing and heritage and then spend an hour or so putting it together in essay form which I would find easiest and most comprehensive for the reader to understand.

It's easy to just drop a link, quote a paragraph or two and say 'here ya go, mate' but I guess I like doing things the hard way. lol
In knowing what to say it may come as necessary, and the article was good to read. I noticed similarities between this discourse on individual rebirth and the essence of desire and the Buddhist narrative on the santana and rebirth processes.

It is refreshing, because when I make mention of these sorts of things, I am often chided by 'the experts', and then I read this passage which reiterates it, but from a Hindu orientation.