How can we be separate and one at the same time?!

Originally Posted by Viswa

There is difference between Realization and Enlightenment.

Isn't Self-Realization realizing Self and since Self = Atman = Brahman also Realizing Brahman? If Self-Realization is simply intellectual than why not just use "understanding", "getting it" (but not living it!)? Ramana Maharshi uses Self-realization the same way I'm using it. Isn't his "Who Am I" Self-inquiry nididhyasana, meaning it comes after manana meaning Self-realization comes after manana?

https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp...2/who_am_I.pdf By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization.

The other thing to realize is the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and associated commentaries form the core of many Hindu traditions, dual, non-dual and qualified monism. As far as I'm concerned they're all internally consistent and useful for the ultimate purpose, whatever you want to call it.

Are you familiar with The Second Arrow parable? If there's a perceived mess "out there" who does it really belong to? That's simple mindfulness.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Viswa

Knowledge of Self/Atman/Purusha, that's the thing. Knowing water is the matter, but not the ocean. One never thinks about Ocean itself.

Only Advaita made a mess....

And also Duality means "Two self". BG/Upanishads/Ashtavakra won't say it. There is only "One SELF"(Purusha), and there is "Not-self"(Prakriti). It's not duality.

First Advaita is not denial /rejection of duality but its simultaneous vehement affirmative acceptance and celebration of non-duality. So by very nature Sankhya philosophy is part of Advaita and hence it has been accepted and described in Gita and Mahabharat with firm acceptance of God/Brahman .

All your descriptions and talk match the talk of original Sankhya as described by Kanad rishi . But that is non-theistic . Still he is accepted as Rishi because of his sincerity and the his life work field of theory of atoms . While you talk of brahman and God, your orientation is non-theistic suited to Sakhya Darshan . And that's ok . Belief /disbelief in God does not matter much so long as you live up a life people / world respect .

Yogshashtra as described by patanjali and krishna is theistic - talking of Ishwar Pranidhan as the foundation of it .

Advaita has not made mess . Advaita as propounded by Krishna , Shankaracharya , Vallabhaacharya , Ramanujacharya is crystal clear . There is absolutely no mess . If at all there is mess its elsewhere which you need to make out.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Viswa

Wherever one/philosophy says "I Know Brahman" "Brahman IS this" - it is Ignorance and who tries to know "what/how Brahman IS" a total mess, trying to know which is beyond the known and the unknown...

First No philosopher worth his/her salt ever claims to know God FULLY . So forget that great philosopher really have meant anything of that sort.

Another thing , when we say we know infinite brahman , it simply means we - the finite people- know the infinity (nature, characteristic , attribute) of God which simply means we do not know God fully . Absolutely there is no confusion and there is no mess .

At times people say they know God sheer out of love & awe for Him/Her . That too may be taken with a pinch of salt (not to be taken literally) and they really dont know God fully.

Thanks to you for being open and receptive on this .

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 297 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Have you ever noticed how easily everyday conversation cones when you talk to people? It's as though the words just come flowing out on their own and you're not conscious of any of the process until you're said it.

... the intellectual process takes so much more effort. And it feels different, there's a resonance to it.

Sometimes for me, knowledge and thinking just gets in the way.

That's exactly it --- the "knowing without thinking" -- when the words (and actions as well) "just come flowing out on their own".

You seem very aware of that process. The challenging part, as you pointed out, is when the intellect decides to assert itself and say (or do) something at which point "knowledge and thinking just gets in the way".

I understand completely. My Phi Beta Kappa intellectualism took over many times in the past (and still wants to assert itself occasionally ) until I realized more and more that life seems so much better (at least IMHO) when one trusts and surrenders to the "knowing without thinking".

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Another thing , when we say we know infinite brahman , it simply means we - the finite people- know the infinity (nature, characteristic , attribute) of God which simply means we do not know God fully . Absolutely there is no confusion and there is no mess .

Very well said Hitesh! We can't know infinite brahman fully because infinite brahman is infinite natures, characteristics, attributes etc etc.

Originally Posted by Viswa

If one says "Brahman IS Formless" for sure, it truly means "they know" "Brahman FULLY" of it's nature. Why would one claim such if it cannot be known FULLY??

Consciousness/Awareness is formless...

Originally Posted by Viswa

What do you mean by Consciousness??

Consciousness as in Chit of SatChitAnanda. We experience it as "I am conscious" which is the error. It's the nearest and the farthest depending on perspective.

It's what's left after even the "I" thought dissipates in Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I" Self-inquiry. After all has been eliminated by Neti Neti It's still there. It's all that's there. It's you.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Viswa

Got it Hitesh. I don't know whether all Advaitins take this way. They say "Brahman IS Formless". This means, "they know Brahman". Isn't it?? Nowhere it is said, "Brahman IS Formless". If it is Formless, there wouldn't be Maya - there won't be forms. Also Brahman cannot be said "Brahman IS Formfull". Whether it IS in form or formless, no one can know. This what I try to say. If one says "Brahman IS Formless" for sure, it truly means "they know" "Brahman FULLY" of it's nature. Why would one claim such if it cannot be known FULLY?? It's all Ignorance, and started from Shankara. This what I try to say.

I dont read or remember anybody saying brahman is formless. Yes people do say brahman pervades/permeates/encompass everything -material n spiritual (ie with or without form/shape). So that's absolutely correct. Pls quote verse scripture text of shankaracharya if u r still confused.

Consciousness energy /power that empowers/energizes/illuminate everything.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Viswa

Got it Hitesh. I don't know whether all Advaitins take this way. They say "Brahman IS Formless". This means, "they know Brahman". Isn't it?? Nowhere it is said, "Brahman IS Formless". If it is Formless, there wouldn't be Maya - there won't be forms. Also Brahman cannot be said "Brahman IS Formfull". Whether it IS in form or formless, no one can know. This what I try to say. If one says "Brahman IS Formless" for sure, it truly means "they know" "Brahman FULLY" of it's nature. Why would one claim such if it cannot be known FULLY?? It's all Ignorance, and started from Shankara. This what I try to say.

I dont read or remember anybody saying brahman is formless. Yes people do say brahman pervades/permeates/encompass everything -material n spiritual (ie with or without form/shape). So that's absolutely correct. Pls quote verse scripture text of shankaracharya if u r still confused.

Consciousness is energy /power that empowers/energizes/illuminate everything.

[HITESH SHAH]

Not able to delete extra post. Pls delete if possible.