Nondual Teachings of Christ

[Ariaecheflame]

haha... yeh well I too was stumped by that phrasing - my brain was trying to convey a vision but was stuck on the words - in the end I just gave up and wrote the not so ideal phrase!

I had all these visions of bible stories flash back from childhood from my less than traditional church upbringing - I think at the time they were the cause of much boredom lol - now days though they pop in every now and then offering wisdom or something.
Ah well - As for heaven and hell - I'll just do my best to enjoy all of it all in all its strangeness - no harm in trying anyway. lol.
Rinse - repeat.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Mikaela Kurahla

I just read a series of booklets on this topic and I found it resonating with me. I like a lot of what the gnostic gospels teach and this author tied other belief paths into his interpretations as well (Zen Buddhism for example). Anyway, if anyone is interested, it is a great topic to research. :) Blessed be.

I've had an interesting thought about Jesus surrounding the apparent contradictory things that he said. Even when I was young I heard teachers at school allude to this and when I got older I came across the same idea is various places. I'm not going to list these contradictions as I'm not that familiar with them but I believe there are quite a few. What I want to say is that Jesus used language even in the NT, let alone the gnostic gospels which present even more of these koan like parables etc., in a way which attempted to confute and coral the linear thinking mind into a leap or realisation that, this type of thinking, is not the be all and end all of everything. It seems sad then, in this light, that alot of his so called followers have really shackled themselves to the apparent even superficial language of the bible, nobody can be saved etc.

I think NT is a great story and you couldn't failed to be moved by the story itself of Jesus but to hang your hat onto the language as a pure and damning diabolical exhortation is as I say sad in itself. So sayings ascribed to Jesus which seem contradictory are not so at all but yet the mainstream Christian pedagogy in education etc. will tell you it its so. What they are saying is that within our linguistic, cultural, religious framework etc. Jesus' pithy sayings are not congruent with how we have to see him as a teacher (of non duality) ?

advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namaste

[iamthat]

Regarding advaita, the simple fact is that duality and non-duality co-exist.

The nature of form is duality. For those who only know form, then duality is their reality.

The nature of formlessness is non-duality. Those who identify with formlessness know that the duality of form is pervaded throughout by the non-duality of formlessness. This is pure Being, or as some would call it, the Self.

If we do not know formlessness then advaita may make little sense. When we realise the formlessness of our own nature then advaita makes perfect sense.

Peace.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by sakredkow

advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namaste

Hello sakredkow

Nonduality (with a small ’n’) simply means not-two/not multiple or one without a second. People (understandably) often assume that nonduality and advaita are synonyms. And although advaita certainly is nonduality, nonduality is not necessarily advaita.

This sense/understanding points to the fact that even now as you read this there is nothing other than an ‘ineffable source’ or Oneness at play. That there can be separation or otherness from this is a delusion.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t distinctions and contrasts (as is another sense of the word duality.) After nondual realisation those relative ‘dualities’ remain in place.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Hello sakredkow

People (understandably) often assume that nonduality and advaita are synonyms. And although advaita certainly is nonduality, nonduality is not necessarily advaita.

This sense/understanding points to the fact that even now as you read this there is nothing other than an ‘ineffable source’ or Oneness at play. That there can be separation or otherness from this is a delusion.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t distinctions and contrasts (as is another sense of the word duality.) After nondual realisation those relative ‘dualities’ remain in place.

Exactly, Moondance,

And this is something the hard-core (especially so-called Neo-Advaitins) often fail to recognize, or adamantly (and incorrectly) reject. That the delusion or illusion is that of 'separation' within existence, from God, etc., as there is only One Self. However...

That Oneness has full essential inalienable equality both within Being AND becoming, which are simply differentiations (not separation) e.g., different aspects or statuses of that One Self experienced variously.


~ J

[Shivani Devi]

Namaste.

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by sakredkow

advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namaste

Please refer to my reply above, but I am totally with you on this!

You are obviously a Gaudiya Vaishnava, whilst I am a Shaivite Bhakta, but if there's anything that both of us have in common, it is the concept of Vishishtadvaita:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

One day, I decided to fully tear apart the Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta when I was bored and had nothing else to do and posted it on here somewhere...ah..here it is:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...69&postcount=4

I have also read Gaudapadacharya's Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad and studied it in regards to all this.

For a very long time I was an Advaita Vedantin, going 'Neti Neti' as Sruti says..that got me absolutely nowhere, until I decided to turn all that around and go "Iti Iti".

This is something that only you will be able to understand on here though, as it all flies over everybody else's head because they don't have the same background in Sanskrit terms and Vedic philosophy that we share...and it's nice to finally have somebody on SF who could possibly relate to me in this way. :)

[Shivani Devi]

Qualified Monism assumes the position of "I am also That", and not "I am That" exclusively.

Jiva/Atman is Brahman but Chit is Parabrahman.

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/diff...an-parabrahman

Any association between Self and Brahman, is still within the confines of the Saguna awareness or the whole association between the Manomaya Kosha and the Anandamaya Kosha. It is the realisation of one's inherent divinity leading to the state of Samprajnata Samadhi.

When the association dissolves into Laya, the Self becomes totally lost in Brahman and there is nothing Brahman is not i.e. Parabrahman. It means to transcend the awareness of Jiva and Atman, but fully resting within Paramatman and achieving Satchitananda. The pancha kosha are also transcended in the process and one attains moksha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

The way I have explained it quite simply before is to just say "God is Brahman and I am Brahman but I am not God" and the Gaudiya Vaishnavas also put it quite nicely "I am only 'part and parcel' of God".

Like stated before, Ishwara has two characteristics; the indwelling soul which is known to the devotee and the devotee which is known to Ishwara. Parabrahman is therefore simultaneously inclusive and exclusive and this knowledge is gleaned through direct experience and not just 'theoryoga'.

In the Vedas, Ishwara is said to be both Sat (existing) and Asat (non-existing).

It is even stated in the Bhagavad Gita:

kleśo ’dhika-taras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate

Translation:

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

- Bhagavad Gita 12.5

iti Shivam.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Namaste.

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

Hi Necromancer,

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

Non-dual (Transcendent) precedes Creation of dual. Dual is a conditional aspect of Existence. The Transcendent is not dependent on the conditional, but the reverse is true. ("I pervade the entire Creation with a fragment of Myself, and yet I remain", etc.)

However, since All is One, any formal conditional differentiation of Self may realize Self because it essentially is That Self. This is why the physical is so significant - but especially a self-conscious human life is even more so.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

“I” is the differentiated individual. “That” is the undifferentiated/Transcendent”. See previous

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Yes, but those doing the praying are usually those who have not realized who they are. Therefore they are praying to a
‘form’-al representation of the 'ideal' (realized) status e.g., the fully conscious Self, as represented by ______________which they have not as yet realized as instruments, even though they are ‘That’ ideal in essence. Therefore praying to oneself, who has yet not realized Self, could be a bit confusing since ignorance justmight be present in the unrealized being as a means of cognition thereby creating the confusion of what constitutes 'self'. This is why there is yogic efficacy in so-called ideal forms/chosen ideal/nishtha, etc.

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

Brahman sez, because Brahman is. Since All is One how could it NOT be the case? Therefore form not only represents the formless, it IS essentially the formless. This is the basis of Realization.

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

Then you didn’t stop it.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Maybe you are not yet realized.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

In the plant kingdom, a flower/blossom represents realization. In the human kingdom we have far less flowers, a notable rarity of blooms, but an increasing number of buds.

I suggest reading Sri Aurobindo's “Synthesis of Yoga”, and in particular, Part 2, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge” which deals specifically with Jnana and non-dual issues; also many chapters in “The Life Divine” which is also recommended.


~ J