The Language of Paradox in Advaita - Swami Sarvapriyanada

Perhaps the most daunting aspect of non-duality is its use of language to express the inexpressible. This is a good primer.

This talk was given by Swami Sarvapriyananda at the Hollywood Temple on 15th May 2016. He discusses the apparent paradoxes in the language of nondualistic Advaita philosophy. https://youtu.be/eiP5OAvkNFc


An example from the Kena Upanishad: https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...arama/kena.asp

II. The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think that I do not know It. He among us who knows It truly, knows (what is meant by) "I know" and also what is meant by "I know It not."

"Know" has two different meanings.

"I do not think I know It well" refers to sense organs and that includes the internal organ (mind).

"nor do I think that I do not know It" refers to "Knowing", Gnosis or knowledge beyond mind.

Just had a thought out of the blue. If anyone watches and cares to discuss any of the video's content, post the video timestamp related to any comment or question related to the talk.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

"I do not think I know It well" refers to sense organs and that includes the internal organ (mind).

"nor do I think that I do not know It"

Both of those belong to the mind. Knowing it well means an amassing of knowledge and/or experience and using perceptions to know it or understand. For instance, you might think you know Advaita Vedanta well because you have amassed a large amount of knowledge. Not knowing it implies a perceptual lack.

Gnosis comes from the Greek word for knowledge, and was used widely in the Hellenistic religions. Later on the Gnostics and the Christians were uneasy bed-partners pre-Constantine but there it meant divine knowledge. Today's translation is "Knowing without how you know" or "Inner knowledge." It's on the same 'waveband' as intuition. Gnosis is "I know." Call it a slice of Home, that works too.

Here's commentary from Kena Upanishad, Part 2 Verse III: https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...arama/kena.asp

He who considers It beyond thought, beyond sense-perception, beyond mind and speech, he alone has a true understanding of Brahman. They who judge a living being from his external form and sense faculties, know him not; because the real Self of man is not manifested in his seeing, hearing, speaking. His real Self is that within by which he hears and speaks and sees.

An analogy is the eye doesn't need to see itself to know it exists by the very fact it sees. It cannot say it knows it exists as an object because it cannot be its own object, yet it cannot say that negates knowing it exists by the very fact it does see and that's self-evident and self-revealing of its existence.

[Still_Waters]

I am familiar with the Kena Upanishad, and the passage quoted below reminds me of a well-known passage from the Tao: "He who says he knows, knows not; he who says he knows not, knows." My sense is that this is a reference to the "not knowing" which was also voiced by the Zen Master Bodhidharma.

CORRESPONDING QUOTE FROM KENA UPANISHAD DOCUMENT:

III. He who thinks he knows It not, knows It. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not. The true knowers think they can never know It (because of Its infinitude), while the ignorant think they know It.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

An analogy is the eye doesn't need to see itself to know it exists by the very fact it sees. It cannot say it knows it exists as an object because it cannot be its own object, yet it cannot say that negates knowing it exists by the very fact it does see and that's self-evident and self-revealing of its existence.

This reminds me of what Rupert Spira says when he talks about 'being aware of being aware'.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I am familiar with the Kena Upanishad, and the passage quoted below reminds me of a well-known passage from the Tao: "He who says he knows, knows not; he who says he knows not, knows." My sense is that this is a reference to the "not knowing" which was also voiced by the Zen Master Bodhidharma.

Sounds identical. I have about as much chance of knowing It as software I code has of knowing me. LOL! One advantage I do have is I am conscious(ness) and that's a rather big one!

I'm reminded of the conscious/not conscious method of discernment. Which "side" is conscious.

You or a chair?
You or your hand?
You or your thoughts? Are you conscious of 2 + 2 = 4 or is 2 + 2 = 4 conscious of you? Sounds funny, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by A human Being

This reminds me of what Rupert Spira says when he talks about 'being aware of being aware'.

Yup. That's why I speak so highly of effortless meditation techniques. As Jon Kabat-Zinn says, and I'm paraphrasing "Resting in awareness is bringing awareness to awareness".

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

"Resting in awareness is bringing awareness to awareness".

Someone here said yesterday ...he is the same consciousness he was at 3 years old!!!!
That got my attention! I loved that, since I was 'made aware' at about 18 months in my play pen in the kitchen and again
at 5 yrs old of the consciousness 'within me' looking out of my eyes.
Brought me right back there!
Wonderful experience, then and now!

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup. That's why I speak so highly of effortless meditation techniques. As Jon Kabat-Zinn says, and I'm paraphrasing "Resting in awareness is bringing awareness to awareness".

Right, I like that whole notion of resting in awareness (Adyashanti suggests pretty much the same thing if I remember rightly, though he phrases it as 'resting AS awareness').

Just on what you said about effortless meditation techniques, could you expand a little on the relationship between said techniques and this notion of resting in awareness? What exactly constitutes an effortless meditation technique?