"I am That" by Nisargadatta Maharaj

[landyaBhai]

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to be a commoner running a paan-beedi shop in Mumbai before he attained to Self-Realization. Initially he worked as a junior
clerk at an office, but quickly he opened a small, goods store, mainly selling bidis – leaf-rolled cigarettes, and soon owned a string of eight retail shops

Here is link on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj

"That in whom reside all beings and who
resides in all beings, who is the giver of
grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the
universe, the limitless being — I am that.
--Amritbindu Upanishad


That which permeates all, which
nothing transcends and which, like the
universal space around us, fills
everything completely from within and
without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman
— that thou art.
--Sankaracharya"



I am currently reading a book that is based on the talks with Nisargadatta Maharaj ...A very interesting read, though not easy to understand at times ...

His approach or technique for attaining to non-duality is very simple although as Dhurs mentioned in another thread ... It requires earnestness and dedication at all times ... I wonder how that will happen ...

The seeker is he who is in search of himself.

Give up all questions except one: ‘Who am
I?’ After all, the only fact you are sure of is that
you are. The ‘I am’ is certain. The ‘I am this’ is
not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality.

To know what you are, you must first
investigate and know what you are not.

Discover all that you are not — body,
feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that —
nothing, concrete or abstract, which you
perceive can be you. The very act of
perceiving shows that you are not what you
perceive.

The clearer you understand that on the level
of mind you can be described in negative
terms only, the quicker will you come to the
end of your search and realize that you are the
limitless being.
--Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


Will post my comments later ...

[dhurandhar]

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to be a commoner running a paan-beedi shop in Mumbai before he attained to Self-Realization. Initially he worked as a junior
clerk at an office, but quickly he opened a small, goods store, mainly selling bidis – leaf-rolled cigarettes, and soon owned a string of eight retail shops

Here is link on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj






I am currently reading a book that is based on the talks with Nisargadatta Maharaj ...A very interesting read, though not easy to understand at times ...

His approach or technique for attaining to non-duality is very simple although as Dhurs mentioned in another thread ... It requires earnestness and dedication at all times ... I wonder how that will happen ...



Will post my comments later ...

Haven't we suffered enough:D:D (just keeding)

[krantikari]

I am that


Really... isn't it easy to realise that he who we seek is I ?

For me the realisation that comes natural is :

I am not God !!

Why should I accept the interpretation of that above phrase that has been put forth by a handful of philosophers?

Landyabhai... the actual phrase is : tat tvam asi !! meaning - that is you !

Please elaborate your views... infact... please elaborte on whose views you subscribe to.

[landyaBhai]

I am that


Really... isn't it easy to realise that he who we seek is I ?

For me the realisation that comes natural is :

I am not God !!

Why should I accept the interpretation of that above phrase that has been put forth by a handful of philosophers?

Landyabhai... the actual phrase is : tat tvam asi !! meaning - that is you !

Please elaborate your views... infact... please elaborte on whose views you subscribe to.

KrantiPai, still reading what Nisargadatta maharaj has to say ... to subscribe to something is not what I want to achieve ... infact, I am trying to unsubscribe myself from what I have subscribed for unknowingly or knowingly ...

but then again, it is the like the dog trying to catch its tail ... to unsubscribe means "to subsrcibe to the idea of unsubscribing" ...

Will wait for my own realizations to happen naturally and that is what would be my own, I guess ...

[krantikari]

KrantiPai, still reading what Nisargadatta maharaj has to say ... to subscribe to something is not what I want to achieve ... infact, I am trying to unsubscribe myself from what I have subscribed for unknowingly or knowingly ...

but then again, it is the like the dog trying to catch its tail ... to unsubscribe means "to subsrcibe to the idea of unsubscribing" ...

Will wait for my own realizations to happen naturally and that is what would be my own, I guess ...

meaning... you are ready to reprogram.... well... let us start with the biggest Pramana that is possible.... Pratyaksha. Now why would one start to want to reject this pramana?

[landyaBhai]

meaning... you are ready to reprogram.... well... let us start with the biggest Pramana that is possible.... Pratyaksha. Now why would one start to want to reject this pramana?

I wouldnt like to accept and I wouldnt like to reject any pramana ... pratyaksha or un-pratakshya ... describable or undescribable ...

[landyaBhai]

I wouldnt like to accept and I wouldnt like to reject any pramana ... pratyaksha or un-pratakshya ... describable or undescribable ...

something like this mirror ... the mirror is clean ... whatever comes in front of the mirror is reflected "as it is" ... mind like a mirror

[krantikari]

Surely you jest !! Prmana are the greatest source of information till today. So many instruments to probe into the body and into the universe just to gather evidence. Visual (or otherwise) evidence. If one doesn't accept it in first place there can be no next step.

[landyaBhai]

Surely you jest !! Prmana are the greatest source of information till today. So many instruments to probe into the body and into the universe just to gather evidence. Visual (or otherwise) evidence. If one doesn't accept it in first place there can e next step.

Probably I missed your earlier question in the first place ... can you elaborate a little more?

[JaiSpeaks]

His approach or technique for attaining to non-duality is very simple although as Dhurs mentioned in another thread ... It requires earnestness and dedication at all times ... I wonder how that will happen ...



I think the answer to the question you will find in the movie "The End of Days".

[dhurandhar]

I wouldnt like to accept and I wouldnt like to reject any pramana ... pratyaksha or un-pratakshya ... describable or undescribable ...

the antonym of pratyaksh is paroksh

[landyaBhai]

the antonym of pratyaksh is paroksh

Thanks :D :rotfl: :rotfl:

[tantric_yogi]

Surely you jest !! Prmana are the greatest source of information till today. So many instruments to probe into the body and into the universe just to gather evidence. Visual (or otherwise) evidence. If one doesn't accept it in first place there can e next step.

What are you talking about? You confuse me, Krantikaribhai. Are you talking about Pramana as in Indian Physics Journal or are you referring to some Buddhist school of thought related to knowledge ... verbal, logical and couple of other bull and buknors?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[JaiSpeaks]

KrantiPai, still reading what Nisargadatta maharaj has to say ... to subscribe to something is not what I want to achieve ... infact, I am trying to unsubscribe myself from what I have subscribed for unknowingly or knowingly ...

but then again, it is the like the dog trying to catch its tail ... to unsubscribe means "to subsrcibe to the idea of unsubscribing" ...

Will wait for my own realizations to happen naturally and that is what would be my own, I guess ...

Just dont get this comment ..

do you mean here that you want to keep your mind in a constant state of chaos ?

[28virgo]

meaning... you are ready to reprogram.... well... let us start with the biggest Pramana that is possible.... Pratyaksha. Now why would one start to want to reject this pramana?


But why would anything that is Pratyaksha need any Pramana?

or do you mean that something which is in front of the eyes (pratyaksha) does not need any Pramana i.e "Pratyaksha ko pramana kaisa?"

The fact that "it" is there is the biggest proof that "it" exists...

[krantikari]

What are you talking about? You confuse me, Krantikaribhai. Are you talking about Pramana as in Indian Physics Journal or are you referring to some Buddhist school of thought related to knowledge ... verbal, logical and couple of other bull and buknors?

:confused: :confused: :confused:


It is neither. But closer to the later than the former. Only Bhuddism does not accept the Hinduism type of "Pramana Tark" (arguments based on evidence).

I was refering to Pratyaksha .... the source of the absolute feeling and knowledge that I do NOT possess the great powers of the almighty. The final inference of the first interpretation of what Landyabhai posted ... it totally opposes the evidence... hence I am unable to accept it. I will never accept it. Hence non-duality is incorrect. I and almighty are different. And that is the truth.

[krantikari]

But why would anything that is Pratyaksha need any Pramana?

or do you mean that something which is in front of the eyes (pratyaksha) does not need any Pramana i.e "Pratyaksha ko pramana kaisa?"

The fact that "it" is there is the biggest proof that "it" exists...

Hmm... I refer to Pratyaksh as the highest source of Pramana as accepted universally by ALL sects/schools of thought in Hinduism.

The popular phrase "Pratyaksham kim pramanam ?" is slightly flawed... yet completely acceptable as Pratyaksh is the prime source of Pramana. If the prime source does not exist, then they look for "Anumaana" and "Aagama"... the other source of Pramanas. :)


Man it is looog I have discussed these things. Not in the company of the same people anymore.

[dhurandhar]

Hmm... I refer to Pratyaksh as the highest source of Pramana as accepted universally by ALL sects/schools of thought in Hinduism.

The popular phrase "Pratyaksham kim pramanam ?" is slightly flawed... yet completely acceptable as Pratyaksh is the prime source of Pramana. If the prime source does not exist, then they look for "Anumaana" and "Aagama"... the other source of Pramanas. :)


Man it is looog I have discussed these things. Not in the company of the same people anymore.

Pratyaksh means "direct" or in other words "open to perception by five senses..but mostly used for perception by vision". Antonym being Paroksh meaning "indirect".

Pramana means Proof.

Anumaan means Assumption. Assumption can never be a source of Proof. Axiom can be.

Kanti...I am afraid your usage of these terms is adding to more confusion:D..For example, mirage is Pratyaksh yet Meetthya (Meethya meaning false):D

[krantikari]

Pratyaksh means "direct" or in other words "open to perception by five senses..but mostly used for perception by vision". Antonym being Paroksh meaning "indirect".

Pramana means Proof.

Anumaan means Assumption. Assumption can never be a source of Proof. Axiom can be.

Kanti...I am afraid your usage of these terms is adding to more confusion:D..For example, mirage is Pratyaksh yet Meetthya (Meethya meaning false):D


Hmmm Yes and No.

Anumaan - Is not assumption. It is interpretation based on some pramanas that are pratyaksha. Like for example, distance between earth and sun has been calculated, and not assumed.

What is Axiom ? Another game in the market? kidding ;)

[landyaBhai]

It is neither. But closer to the later than the former. Only Bhuddism does not except the Hinduism type of "Pramana Tark" (arguments based on evidence).

I was refering to Pratyaksha .... the source of the absolute feeling and knowledge that I do NOT possess the great powers of the almighty. The final inference of the first interpretation of what Landyabhai posted ... it totally opposes the evidence... hence I am unable to accept it. I will never accept it. Hence non-duality is incorrect. I and almighty are different. And that is the truth.

duality or non-duality necessiates the understanding about the position of "I" ... where is this "I"? and then if you can find the "I", then one can use that as a reference to find the "thou" ...

The one thing, I dont understand is that "non-duality" takes it beyond the time-space understanding of "I" ... i.e. not even this simple system can serve as the reference when it comes to looking for the "I" ... Einstein may have found something but did not disclose?

[landyaBhai]

Kanti...I am afraid your usage of these terms is adding to more confusion:D..For example, mirage is Pratyaksh yet Meetthya (Meethya meaning false):D

adding twist to the whole discussion? arent you Dhurfucious? :D :D questioning the five senses for prataskhya

[krantikari]

duality or non-duality necessiates the understanding about the position of "I" ... where is this "I"? and then if you can find the "I", then one can use that as a reference to find the "thou" ...

The one thing, I dont understand is that "non-duality" takes it beyond the time-space understanding of "I" ... i.e. not even this simple system can serve as the reference when it comes to looking for the "I" ... Einstein may have found something but did not disclose?

Well... Einstien was a good scientist a very good one indeed. Whether he found something or now only he can tell and he never said anything about spirituality in his works. So his works are not spiritual. Period. All Pramans say that.

What is beyond time and space... Well in the vedic texts... they do not go out of time... even Brahma time is defined as one brahma day equals several human years. But never went out of time. It never becomes Shunya.... as described bu Bhuddhism.

Only when Advaita started to become popular, there was this situation of out of time and space created to explain the hypothysis.

[krantikari]

duality or non-duality necessiates the understanding about the position of "I" ... where is this "I"? and then if you can find the "I", then one can use that as a reference to find the "thou" ...


This thing about where 'I' is ... I am not sure what all this means. It totally is going over my head.

[landyaBhai]

Well... Einstien was a good scientist a very good one indeed. Whether he found something or now only he can tell and he never said anything about spirituality in his works. So his works are not spiritual. Period. All Pramans say that.


Most of the intellectual decisions about Advaita have used Einstein's example of relativity to locate the "I am"-ness beyond time & space ... I just wonder if Einstein's who himself had claimed that he was sometimes an athiest and sometimes a theist could understand the implications of his research in the "otherworld" domains

What is beyond time and space... Well in the vedic texts... they do not go out of time... even Brahma time is defined as one brahma day equals several human years. But never went out of time.


This is all hypothesis as there is no pratakshya pramana for this ... I wonder whether this comes under anumana?


It never becomes Shunya.... as described bu Bhuddhism.
Only when Advaita started to become popular, there was this situation of out of time and space created to explain the hypothysis.

The concept of Shunya implies nothing and everything ... an emptiness that has capacity to absorb the fullness ... yes Shunyata again provides the relative reference to understand the fullness or the vastness of the universe and may be in that case, one can say that "one is nothing as compared to the vastness and hence the duality OR one can say that one is nothing and the other is also not there ...", this is the theoretical idea that I got from advait and not my personal experience ...

[landyaBhai]

This thing about where 'I' is ... I am not sure what all this means. It totally is going over my head.

Here is the link to the pdf book about this discussion of "I am" by Nisargadatta (http://avaxsphere.com/ebooks/theology_occultism/nisargadatta_maharaj_complete_works.html)Maharaj ... I am too naive to expound on this ... my ignorance (in these matters) is what I am aware of ...

[tantric_yogi]

It is neither. But closer to the later than the former. Only Bhuddism does not except the Hinduism type of "Pramana Tark" (arguments based on evidence).

I was refering to Pratyaksha .... the source of the absolute feeling and knowledge that I do NOT possess the great powers of the almighty. The final inference of the first interpretation of what Landyabhai posted ... it totally opposes the evidence... hence I am unable to accept it. I will never accept it. Hence non-duality is incorrect. I and almighty are different. And that is the truth.



Prmana are the greatest source of information till today. So many instruments to probe into the body and into the universe just to gather evidence. Visual (or otherwise) evidence.


Ok ... I thought you were referring to the mass of physical body ... got it. I should be the last person to complain but your improper usage of English words leaves a lot left to be desired. :D

Sorry Landyabhai for momentarily derailment ... please continue.

[dhurandhar]

Hmmm Yes and No.

Anumaan - Is not assumption. It is interpretation based on some pramanas that are pratyaksha. Like for example, distance between earth and sun has been calculated, and not assumed.

What is Axiom ? Another game in the market? kidding ;)

Pray tell me what is the Sanskrit term for assumption:D

At best, Anumaan is calculation (i still believe that it is assumption). Anuvaad is interpretation:D

Here's a link to English to Sanskrit/Hindi dictionary:D

http://sanskritdocuments.org/hindi/dict/eng-hin-itrans.html

(Use Find tool to find anumAn)

[krantikari]

Ok ... I thought you were referring to the mass of physical body ... got it. I should be the last person to complain but your improper usage of English words leaves a lot left to be desired. :D

Sorry Landyabhai for momentarily derailment ... please continue.

:D :D :D :rotfl: .........................

[krantikari]

Pray tell me what is the Sanskrit term for assumption:D

At best, Anumaan is calculation (i still believe that it is assumption). Anuvaad is interpretation:D

Here's a link to English to Sanskrit/Hindi dictionary:D

http://sanskritdocuments.org/hindi/dict/eng-hin-itrans.html

(Use Find tool to find anumAn)


I am no Sanskrit Pundit but I guess

assume = vaajch
estimate = anumaan

If you feel you can believe otherwise.

[krantikari]

Pray tell me what is the Sanskrit term for assumption:D

At best, Anumaan is calculation (i still believe that it is assumption). Anuvaad is interpretation:D

Here's a link to English to Sanskrit/Hindi dictionary:D

http://sanskritdocuments.org/hindi/dict/eng-hin-itrans.html

(Use Find tool to find anumAn)

Interpretation is not the word you have to look for. I used the word calculate.

Aap mahan ho... Kahan hai aapke charan...

[krantikari]

Most of the intellectual decisions about Advaita have used Einstein's example of relativity to locate the "I am"-ness beyond time & space ... I just wonder if Einstein's who himself had claimed that he was sometimes an athiest and sometimes a theist could understand the implications of his research in the "otherworld" domains


Einstien is used in those texts to give some kind of importance to the hypothysis ... to pass it as something highly intellectual and correct beyond all doubts... Somewhat like product endorsements... only Einstien never really endorsed this doctrene himself.


This is all hypothesis as there is no pratakshya pramana for this ... I wonder whether this comes under anumana?


No.. the anumana has to be derived from some or other Pratyaksha.. Somewhat like proving a new theorm based on already established theorm.


The concept of Shunya implies nothing and everything ... an emptiness that has capacity to absorb the fullness ... yes Shunyata again provides the relative reference to understand the fullness or the vastness of the universe and may be in that case, one can say that "one is nothing as compared to the vastness and hence the duality OR one can say that one is nothing and the other is also not there ...", this is the theoretical idea that I got from advait and not my personal experience ...


Bouncerrrrrr ! Whythese things do not make sense to me? Is it something with me ? Do I have a company ?

[Sane Less]

...


Bouncerrrrrr ! Whythese things do not make sense to me? Is it something with me ? Do I have a company ?


Nahi bhaya... nahi... you are not alone. Have you ever seen my post anything in of Landadada pai's thread:confused:... well, except for this one, i.e.:D

[landyaBhai]

Einstien is used in those texts to give some kind of importance to the hypothysis ... to pass it as something highly intellectual and correct beyond all doubts... Somewhat like product endorsements... only Einstien never really endorsed this doctrene himself.



No.. the anumana has to be derived from some or other Pratyaksha.. Somewhat like proving a new theorm based on already established theorm.



Bouncerrrrrr ! Whythese things do not make sense to me? Is it something with me ? Do I have a company ?

For me too this is theoretical (borrowed knowledge), still trying to figure it out myself ...

[krantikari]

For me too this is theoretical (borrowed knowledge), still trying to figure it out myself ...


Trust me there is nothing to understand there. Advaita says it in plenty of words one straight thing. "I am God". Every one is. Every one together is one God. I never got convinced... now after going through whatever texts... I feel Advaita is highly misleading text. They will tell you ... you will experience this feeling when you come out of time and space... if you ask questions... they will bring Einstien in. Ask them.. they do not know a thing about relativity.

[landyaBhai]

Trust me there is nothing to understand there. Advaita says it in plenty of words one straight thing. "I am God". Every one is. Every one together is one God. I never got convinced... now after going through whatever texts... I feel Advaita is highly misleading text. They will tell you ... you will experience this feeling when you come out of time and space... if you ask questions... they will bring Einstien in. Ask them.. they do not know a thing about relativity.

but then how about answering a simple question? "Who Am I?" ... Try answering it ... I have tried and I am still not convinced that I will be able to answer it very decisively ... adwaita or dweta ... it does not matter?

[krantikari]

but then how about answering a simple question? "Who Am I?" ... Try answering it ... I have tried and I am still not convinced that I will be able to answer it very decisively ... adwaita or dweta ... it does not matter?

Gita answers that question pretty clearly.
You are not the body.... You were not born and will never die. You cannot be burnt, cannot be cut... and a lot of other things described there.

Karmayoga clearly states the difference between the God and the human.
What other confusion you have? What is it that you want the answer to be? I am god ? Aham Bhramasmi ? One of the most wrongly interpreted phrase ?

[landyaBhai]

Gita answers that question pretty clearly.
You are not the body.... You were not born and will never die. You cannot be burnt, cannot be cut... and a lot of other things described there.

Karmayoga clearly states the difference between the God and the human.
What other confusion you have? What is it that you want the answer to be? I am god ? Aham Bhramasmi ? One of the most wrongly interpreted phrase ?

but that's a theoretical understanding ... I am not saying that I want the answer of "Who Am I?" to converge to something like "Aham Bhramasmi" or to "God, The Almighty" ... I dont want to have a theoretical understanding that it is something that cannot be burnt or cut ... it is known as a soul or something ...

I am trying to say: is it possible for someone to answer this question on the basis of his/her experience?

[tantric_yogi]

I am trying to say: is it possible for someone to answer this question on the basis of his/her experience?

Yes ... it is and the answer is so simply that it will blow your type writer away. But its difficult to explain intrinsically to the people who cannot even write the definition of the word enlightenment in any unit of language without having to rely on thousand year old authors and or current set of dictionaries. I will not even mention millionaires who fill volume of books trying to explain few words so simple. ;) Landyabhai ... I did in other thread (?) ... you have yet to. Me nobody ... you somebody. Me in basement ... you pissing upon me from penthouse. Me ganwad ... you a PhD. Why can't you if I can?



:D

[landyaBhai]

Yes ... it is and the answer is so simply that it will blow your type writer away. But its difficult to explain intrinsically to the people who cannot even write the definition of the word enlightenment in any unit of language without having to rely on thousand year old authors and or current set of dictionaries. I will not even mention millionaires who fill volume of books trying to explain few words so simple. ;) Landyabhai ... I did in other thread (?) ... you have yet to. Me nobody ... you somebody. Me in basement ... you pissing upon me from penthouse. Me ganwad ... you a PhD. Why can't you if I can?



:D

Yeh sab kya yaar ... Ghareeb is confused ... the answer for which I have a theoretical understanding and mental acceptance is that there is absolutely no goal to life ... no aim ... everything here is moving aimlessly without any prejudice ...

and you are talking about

me ... you ...
ganwad ... PhD
basement ... penthouse

I am trying an experiment ... the first step of "Atisha's Seven Points to Mind Training" ... the first step is so easy ... "Imagine every phenomenon to be a dream" ... I see myself in a dream "typing this answer ... coding ... working ..." and I see myself in a sort of detachment yet serious ... no sadness and absolutely no happiness either ... it's looks all silent ... the trees look silent ... the road and the cars ... everything ...

[landyaBhai]

Trust me there is nothing to understand there. Advaita says it in plenty of words one straight thing. "I am God". Every one is. Every one together is one God. I never got convinced... now after going through whatever texts... I feel Advaita is highly misleading text. They will tell you ... you will experience this feeling when you come out of time and space... if you ask questions... they will bring Einstien in. Ask them.. they do not know a thing about relativity.

Advaita says, hum sab bhagwaan hai ... Adwaita doesnt acknowledge the concept of a creator (or Vidhata) ... the world is uncreated ... it is eternal ... never created and never will die ... since there is no creator, it talks about the potentiality of the person as being the master (Waan) of its fate (Bhagya) i.e. Bhagya-Waan i.e. Bhagwaan ...

[krantikari]

Advaita says, hum sab bhagwaan hai ... Adwaita doesnt acknowledge the concept of a creator (or Vidhata) ... the world is uncreated ... it is eternal ... never created and never will die ... since there is no creator, it talks about the potentiality of the person as being the master (Waan) of its fate (Bhagya) i.e. Bhagya-Waan i.e. Bhagwaan ...

:clap: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
ROTFLMAO

Man this is the craziest interpretation of Advaita I have ever heard/read. Advaita's first postulate is "Jagat Mithya" meaning "This world is unreal". When you interpret it as .... it is eternal .... never creted and will never die.... Well I really am spellbound... how on earth this was concluded ? Man this I got to hear. All Advaita theories I heard so far said one common thing... the world in "Mithya" .... a dream... And they add... when you are realised or enlightened... this dream is shattered and you see the truth... that you are none other than God himself. But this interpretation.... man hilarious.

[landyaBhai]

:clap: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
ROTFLMAO

Man this is the craziest interpretation of Advaita I have ever heard/read. Advaita's first postulate is "Jagat Mithya" meaning "This world is unreal".

I dont know the source, but the world is not unreal, it is as real as your presence ... the only problem is the presence is yet to be identified because the person that is observing the world is so self-absorbed in his/her own thoughts that the world is not seen "as it is" ... it is seen as the projection of one's own mental state and that changes every moment ... and hence one keeps on missing the real world ... and hence the "mithya" ...

You yourself gave an example of "plucking the gauvas while walking on hot-tin roof ... the hotness is real ... it is felt ... it's repercussions will also be real as well ... you cannot say that it is mithya ... the body of the person will still get hurt ... however the mithya will be there when S/he tastes the gauvas at the same time when he is worried about the wounds on his soles ...

[krantikari]

I dont know the source, but the world is not unreal, it is as real as your presence ... the only problem is the presence is yet to be identified because the person that is observing the world is so self-absorbed in his/her own thoughts that the world is not seen "as it is" ... it is seen as the projection of one's own mental state and that changes every moment ... and hence one keeps on missing the real world ... and hence the "mithya" ...

You yourself gave an example of "plucking the gauvas while walking on hot-tin roof ... the hotness is real ... it is felt ... it's repercussions will also be real as well ... you cannot say that it is mithya ... the body of the person will still get hurt ... however the mithya will be there when S/he tastes the gauvas at the same time when he is worried about the wounds on his soles ...

Dude .... first you put all the Advaita quotes in your first post... then you write this.... The world is real. What is it you want to do? Start your own school of thought? Are ou looking for your followers at echarcha ? What you say is neither a part of Dvaita, Advaita or Vishisthadvaita philosophy.

Dvaita says the world is absolutely real and is exactly as you see and experience it. Advaita, as Adi Shankaracharya put forth, says that the world is unreal and is not at all what you see and experience.... it is a matrix pulled n front of your eyes. Those are the first part of the philosophies.... then they go on to tell you what happens in the life and death cycle. Now Vishisthadvaita accepts first part of advaita and accepts Dvaita to explain birth and death cycle. Now your theory don't fit an any three. So it gotta be fourth. Good luck.

[dhurandhar]

Dude .... first you put all the Advaita quotes in your first post... then you write this.... The world is real. What is it you want to do? Start your own school of thought? Are ou looking for your followers at echarcha ? What you say is neither a part of Dvaita, Advaita or Vishisthadvaita philosophy.

Dvaita says the world is absolutely real and is exactly as you see and experience it. Advaita, as Adi Shankaracharya put forth, says that the world is unreal and is not at all what you see and experience.... it is a matrix pulled n front of your eyes. Those are the first part of the philosophies.... then they go on to tell you what happens in the life and death cycle. Now Vishisthadvaita accepts first part of advaita and accepts Dvaita to explain birth and death cycle. Now your theory don't fit an any three. So it gotta be fourth. Good luck.

Chill Kanti:D

Dvait is a Sanskrit term meaning Dual or Two. In accordance with the meaning of this term, Dvait philosophy indicates there is a soul/atman or an entity that is eternally different from SuperSoul called Paramatman/Brahman (Super Soul term is mine, but you get the idea). Soul and Supersoul can unite but soul cannot merge into SuperSoul:D

On the other hand

Advait means one that is not Dual or essentially ONE. In accordance with this term, Advait philosophy emphasizes that the perception of soul is a Bhram(illusion) and there is only the SuperSoul (Brahm Satya, Jagat Mithya). The Moksha is when one realizes this truth:D. This philosophy is analogous to Buddhist philosophy except that Buddhist philosophy does not subscribe to SuperSoul but rather to Void (for lack of better term):D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

[landyaBhai]

I dont know the source, but the world is not unreal

Just realized, Buddhism & Jainism do NOT believe that there is a creator or GOD and yes they do realize the potential of every atman to realize its own self-nature as timeless ... as Bhagwaan (not GOD) ...

[krantikari]

Chill Kanti:D

Dvait is a Sanskrit term meaning Dual or Two. In accordance with the meaning of this term, Dvait philosophy indicates there is a soul/atman or an entity that is eternally different from SuperSoul called Paramatman/Brahman (Super Soul term is mine, but you get the idea). Soul and Supersoul can unite but soul cannot merge into SuperSoul:D

On the other hand

Advait means one that is not Dual or essentially ONE. In accordance with this term, Advait philosophy emphasizes that the perception of soul is a Bhram(illusion) and there is only the SuperSoul (Brahm Satya, Jagat Mithya). The Moksha is when one realizes this truth:D. This philosophy is analogous to Buddhist philosophy except that Buddhist philosophy does not subscribe to SuperSoul but rather to Void (for lack of better term):D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

Yes ... and I do not need wiki to know that sir. But what I said is from the details from the philosophies. What I said about Advaita and Dvaita and Vishisthadvaita are not incorrect.

[landyaBhai]

Chill Kanti:D

Dvait is a Sanskrit term meaning Dual or Two. In accordance with the meaning of this term, Dvait philosophy indicates there is a soul/atman or an entity that is eternally different from SuperSoul called Paramatman/Brahman (Super Soul term is mine, but you get the idea). Soul and Supersoul can unite but soul cannot merge into SuperSoul:D

On the other hand

Advait means one that is not Dual or essentially ONE. In accordance with this term, Advait philosophy emphasizes that the perception of soul is a Bhram(illusion) and there is only the SuperSoul (Brahm Satya, Jagat Mithya). The Moksha is when one realizes this truth:D. This philosophy is analogous to Buddhist philosophy except that Buddhist philosophy does not subscribe to SuperSoul but rather to Void (for lack of better term):D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

exactly! thanks for the links ... Buddhism thus talks about the idea of "no-mind" where one sees everything "as it is" and that is what is real ... if the mind is absorbed in thoughts and ideas then the world seen from this state is definetly not "as it is" or it is unreal ... Please give me some time, I can look for some references ...

and by the way KantiPai, I am not looking for followers ...

[krantikari]

When there is nothing. sunya, who sees what and which reality? Crazy !!

[krantikari]

This thread is hilarious !!

[krantikari]

As per Dvaita Tattvavada there are 5 types of differences :
1. Ishvar-jeeva bheda (God and jeeva are different)
2. Mat-jeeva bheda (all jeeva's are different from each other)
3. Jeeva-jada bheda (all jeeva and jada (insantients - without consciousness) are different from each other)
4. Ishvar-Jada bheda (God is not rock, God is different from insantients)
5. Mat-Jada bheda (insantients are different from each other)

Advaita says all are one and that is God.

So there !!

Bhuddhism and Jainism are not Vedic religions and hence cannot be argued under the postulates of Ved.

[landyaBhai]

When there is nothing. sunya, who sees what and which reality? Crazy !!

When there is nothing i.e Sunya ... there is no seer ... there is no knower ... there is no observer ... and hence there is no difference between what is seen ... I havent yet reached that stage ... but that is what non-Vedic philosophies propound ...

I dont want to talk about philosophies or systems of philosophies ... because there could be a fourth :D Just because Vedas stopped at discussing (or we havent found one such Veda or dont know about it) one system of belief doesnt mean that the other systems dont exist ... Plus, you will agree that most of the interpretations are limited to the words used by the interpreter and then re-interpreted by the reader ...

What I am trying is by direct experience ... dont know where it will lead ...

[krantikari]

What I am trying is by direct experience ... dont know where it will lead ...

Sir with all due respects ... nowhere. Don't waste time. Keep doing your thing. A friendly advice. What's more... a friends request... don't fall into the trap of a spiritual guru or someone. Unless...... you verified the teacher possess magical powers to demonstrate his/her worth. Don't fall into the trap of verbal gobbledegook by those morning tv artists.

[tantric_yogi]

When there is nothing. sunya, who sees what and which reality? Crazy !!

Why you think it crazy when truth and according to my little knowledge is that all the authors and great people you guys quote reach the same conclusion (that's if you were to scratch the surface just a bit deeper) ... SHUNIYA or SUNIYA as you word it ... bottom line.

You must remember ... you guys receive the nourishment ... all Yogi does is live off of the scraps.

So ... what happens when you get your mokhsha and reach stage of Nirvana or the enlightened one? I use words loosely ;).

Here is what happens ... the ultimate ... the mokhsha ... the nirvana ... the enlightenment ... the graduation ... joining the ranks of the alumni of the great ones and the Buddhas! S/he will not know the words nor the meaning of the words hate and anger ... s/he will no longer know the pangs of pain nor suffering associated ... no hunger and thirst … how can s/he know or feel anything ... his/her mind is blank ... clear ... all bright … free of all and any kind of human afflictions and defilements ... not human but god like state ... shit nor bucknor.

So what does out hero or heroine now do ... this our enlightened Buddha won’t stop to feed a hungry beggar dying on street ... s/he won't … how can s/he ... s/he don’t know what is bloody hunger or pain or suffering ... own or of others.

If an old women stood at street corner waiting for someone to help her cross the road ... our hero won't give no shit ... why would s/he ... s/he no longer knows nor fears the death ... he has arrived at the ultimate destination.

Now ... in other thread Dhurendherbhai expected this our hero to get in to a laboratory to find a cure for Aids? What the fo(k does our hero care ... s/he don't know no joy of sex.

Our hero is Sgt. Hans Schultz re-incarnated (Hogan's Heroes) ... I know noting. I peel noting. I do noting.

And these are the very people who wrote books to educate us mere earth dwelling humans ... and you quote their words ... as if they gave a shit.

Do you see my problem?

[landyaBhai]

Sir with all due respects ... nowhere. Don't waste time. Keep doing your thing. A friendly advice. What's more... a friends request... don't fall into the trap of a spiritual guru or someone. Unless...... you verified the teacher possess magical powers to demonstrate his/her worth. Don't fall into the trap of verbal gobbledegook by those morning tv artists.

direct experience is what becomes vedas ... It is not like Koran falling down upon earth and Mohammedji catching it like Jonty Rhodes ...

Meditation, witnessing is what even Patanjali talks about ... I feel that you think I will fall for some set of words ... Well I have in the past followed many things blindly ... for example Jainism & Vaishnavism (ISKCON types) ... and now I am following nothing ... just trying to meditate ... just trying to figure "Who Am I?" I have benefitted immensely just by simple observations and dwellings on personal experiences than by some prayer to a diety on a random visit to a temple

[krantikari]

direct experience is what becomes vedas ... It is not like Koran falling down upon earth and Mohammedji catching it like Jonty Rhodes ...

Meditation, witnessing is what even Patanjali talks about ... I feel that you think I will fall for some set of words ... Well I have in the past followed many things blindly ... for example Jainism & Vaishnavism (ISKCON types) ... and now I am following nothing ... just trying to meditate ... just trying to figure "Who Am I?" I have benefitted immensely just by simple observations and dwellings on personal experiences than by some prayer to a diety on a random visit to a temple

What you call direct experences are nothing but your likings to feelings you get out of acceptance of a certain thought that crosses your mind. This may also be influenced by som of the other things others would have said on the matter. In Dvaita and Adaita both the philosophies, it is believed that God can not be known by Pratyaksha. What are you ... usually this question is asked by arguing advaities to let ou know the answer they have. You are he.

Anyways, good luck on your quest.

[landyaBhai]

What you call direct experences are nothing but your likings to feelings you get out of acceptance of a certain thought that crosses your mind. This may also be influenced by som of the other things others would have said on the matter. In Dvaita and Adaita both the philosophies, it is believed that God can not be known by Pratyaksha. What are you ... usually this question is asked by arguing advaities to let ou know the answer they have. You are he.

Anyways, good luck on your quest.

I am not in any hurry to conclude anything ... to take someother person's observations as conclusions irrespective of whether they come from Vedas or elsewhere ...

I seem to like the idea of independence/freedom in one's search for the truth ... The first step is to clear one's mind and then see the world as it is ... what the mind (as a clean mirror) would reflect ... meditation should help me with that ...

rest is all written ... and when any such observation/experience that I cannot describe comes around, at that time, observations from seekers expressed in scriptures may help ...

thanks!

[Sane Less]

...


Our hero is Sgt. Hans Schultz re-incarnated (Hogan's Heroes) ... I know noting. I peel noting. I do noting.

...


Taniyogiantara pai, so what you are saying is that an enlightened one is a top-class LLKC... the very ultimate of LLKC. Guess what, looks like we are on the right path... LLKC zindabad:up:

In the current list of LLKC members, looks like, Tantricpaaji pai is the most enlightened one... oh guru, where are your legs:confused:

[landyaBhai]

[Quoting from Osho's discourse on Vigyan Bhairav Tantra's Meditation Techniques]



Some VBT methods are advaita-mantras. You hold a consciousness, 24 hours per
day, that a certain way of dividing the world is just psychological, unreal.
Like this;

110. Since, in truth, bondage and freedom are relative, these words are only
for those terrified with the universe. This universe is a reflection of
minds. As you see many suns in water from one sun, so see bondage and
liberation.

101. When a mood against someone or for someone arises, do not place it on
the person in question, but remain centered.

98. The purity of other teachings is as impurity to us. In reality know
nothing as pure or impure.

36. Sweet-hearted one, meditate on knowing and not knowing, existing and not
existing. Then leave both aside that you may be.

111. Each thing is perceived through knowing. The self shines in space
through knowing. Perceive one being as knower and known.

”THE PURITY OF OTHER TEACHINGS IS AN IMPURITY TO US. IN REALITY, KNOW
NOTHING AS PURE OR IMPURE.

This is one of the basic messages of tantra. It is very difficult to
conceive of it because it is absolutely non-ethical, non-moral. I will not
say immoral because tantra is not concerned with morality or immorality.
Tantra says it is irrelevant. This message is to help you to grow beyond
purity and impurity, beyond division really, beyond dichotomy, duality.
Tantra says, existence is non-dual, it is one, and all distinctions are
man-created—all distinctions, remember. Distinctions as such are
man-created. Good-bad, pure-impure, moral-immoral, virtue-sin: all these
concepts are man-created. They are attitudes of man; they are not real. What
is impure and what is pure? It depends on your interpretation. What is
immoral and what is moral? It depends on your interpretation.

Nietzsche has said somewhere that all morality is interpretation. So
something can be moral in this country and immoral in the neighboring
country, something can be moral to a Mohammedan and immoral to a Hindu,
moral to a Christian and immoral to a Jaina. Or something can even be moral
to the older generation and immoral to the younger generation. It depends;
it is an attitude. Basically, it is a fiction. The fact is simply the fact.
The naked fact is simply the fact; it is neither moral nor immoral, pure nor
impure.

Think of the earth without human beings. Then what will be pure and what
will be impure? Everything will be—simply “be.” Nothing will be pure and
nothing will be impure; nothing will be good and nothing will be bad. With
man, mind comes in. Mind divides. It says “this” is good and “that” is bad.
This division not only creates a division in the world; this division
creates a division in the divider also. If you divide, you are also divided
in that division, and you cannot transcend your inner division unless you
forget outer divisions. Whatsoever you do to the world, you have done to
yourself also.

Naropa, one of the greatest masters of Siddha Yoga, says, “An inch division,
and hell and heaven are set apart”—an inch division! But we go on
dividing; we go on labeling, condemning, justifying. Look at the bare fact
of existence and don’t label it. Only then can tantra’s teachings be
understood. Don’t say good or bad; don’t bring your mind to the fact. The
moment you bring your mind to the fact, you have created a fiction. Now it
is not a fact, it is not a reality: it is your projection. This sutra says,
”THE PURITY OF OTHER TEACHINGS IS AN IMPURITY TO US. IN REALITY, KNOW
NOTHING AS PURE OR IMPURE.”

”THE PURITY OF OTHER TEACHINGS IS AN IMPURITY TO US:” Tantra says, “What is
very pure for other teachings, a virtue, is a sin for us, because their
concept of purity divides. For them something becomes impure.”

If you call a man a saint, you have created the sinner. Now you will have to
condemn someone somewhere because the saint cannot exist without the sinner.
And look now at the absurdity of our efforts: we go on trying to destroy
sinners, and we conceive of and hope for a world where there will be no
sinners—only saints. This is nonsense because saints cannot exist without
sinners. They are the other aspect of the same coin. You cannot destroy one
aspect of the coin, they both will exist. Sinners and saints are both part
and parcel of one thing. If you destroy the sinners, saints will disappear
from the world. But don’t be afraid; let them disappear because they have
not proved to be of any worth.

Sinners and saints are both part of one interpretation, of one attitude
towards the world, in which one says, “This is good and that is bad.” And
you cannot say that “This is good” unless you say that “That is bad.” The
bad is needed to define the good. So the good depends on the bad, your
virtue depends on sin, and your saints are impossible; they cannot exist
without the sinners. So they must be grateful to the sinners; they cannot
exist without them. In relation to them, in comparison to them, howsoever
much they condemn the sinners, they are part and parcel of the same
phenomenon. Sinners can disappear from the world only when saints
disappear—not before that; and sin will not be there when there is no
concept of virtue.

Tantra says that the fact is real and the interpretation is unreal. Don’t
interpret. “IN REALITY, KNOW NOTHING AS PURE OR IMPURE.” Why? Because purity
and impurity are OUR attitudes imposed on reality. Try this. This technique
is arduous, not simple—because we are so much oriented towards dual
thinking, based, rooted in dual thinking, that we are not even aware of our
condemnations and justifications. If someone starts smoking here, you may
not have consciously felt anything, but you have condemned. Deep down within
you, you have condemned. Your look may have condemned or no look may have
condemned. You may not have looked at the person, and you have condemned.

This is going to be difficult because the habit has become so deep-rooted.
You go on—just by your gestures, your sitting, your standing—you go on
condemning, justifying, not even aware of what you are doing. When you smile
at a person or when you don’t smile at a person, when you look at someone or
you don’t look, you just ignore someone, what are you doing? You are
imposing your attitudes. You say something is beautiful; then you will have
to condemn something as ugly. And this dual attitude is simultaneously
dividing you, so within you there will be two persons.

If you say that someone is angry and anger is bad, what will you do when you
will feel angry? You will say that this is bad, then there will be problems
because you say that “This is bad: this anger in me is bad.” Then you have
started to divide yourself into two persons—a bad person, an evil person
within, and a good person, a saint. Of course, you are bound to be
identified with the saint within, so the devil, Satan, the evil within you
is to be condemned. You are divided in two. Now there will be a constant
fight, a conflict. Now you cannot be an individual; you will be a crowd, a
house divided against itself. Now there will be no peace, no silence. You
will feel only tensions and anguish. This is what you are feeling, but you
don’t know why.

A divided person cannot be at peace. How can he be? Where to put your devil?
You have to destroy it, and it is you; you cannot destroy it. You are not
two. The reality is one, but because of your divisive attitude you have
divided the outer reality. Now the inner is also divided accordingly—so
everyone is fighting with himself. It is as if you are fighting against one
hand—fighting the right hand with the left hand—and the energy is one.
In my right hand and left hand, I am; I am flowing in both. But I can oppose
one against the other, my right hand against my left hand, and I can create
a conflict, a bogus fight. Sometimes I can deceive myself that the right
hand has won, and now the left is down. But this is a deception, because I
know that it is me in both and any moment I can put the left up and the
right down. I am in both; both the hands are mine.

So howsoever much you think you have put your saint above and crushed the
devil down, know that at any moment you can change the positions, and the
saint will be down and the devil will be up. That creates fear, insecurity,
because you know that nothing is certain. You know you are so loving this
moment and you have crushed your hatred down, but you are afraid because at
any moment the hatred can come up and the love will be just crushed down.
And it can happen at any moment because you are within both.

Tantra says don’t divide, be undivided; only then will you be victorious.
How to be undivided? You don’t condemn, don’t say “this” is good and “that”
is bad. Just withdraw all conceptions of purity and impurity. Look at the
world, but don’t say what it is. Be ignorant, don’t be too much wise. Don’t
label, remain silent, non-condemnatory, non-justifying. If you can remain
silent about the world, by and by this silence will penetrate within. And if
the division is not there outwardly, the division will disappear from the
inner consciousness, because both CAN exist together.

But this is dangerous for society. That is why tantra was suppressed. This
is dangerous! Nothing is immoral, nothing is moral; nothing is pure, nothing
is impure. Things are as they are. A real tantric will not say that a thief
is bad; he will say that he is a thief; that is all. And by using the word
‘thief’ there is no condemnation in his mind. This “thief” is just a fact,
not a condemnation. If someone says that “Here is a man who is a great
saint,” he will say, “Okay! He is a saint.” But there is no evaluation in
it. He will not say, “He is good”, he will say, “Okay! He is a saint and
that man is a thief,” just like this is a rose and that is not a rose, this
tree is high and that tree is low, night is dark and day is light—but
without comparison.

But this is dangerous. Society cannot exist without condemning one thing and
without appreciating the other—society cannot exist! Society exists on
duality. That is why tantra was suppressed. It was thought to be
anti-social, but it is not. It is not! But that very attitude of non-duality
is transcendental. It is not anti-society, it is transcendental; it is
beyond society.
Try this. Just move in the world without any values, just with natural
facts: someone is this, someone is that. And then, by and by, you will feel
a non-division within yourself. Your polarities will be coming together,
your “bad” and your “good” will be coming together. They will merge into
one, and you will become one unity. There will be nothing as pure, nothing
as impure. Know the reality.

”THE PURITY OF OTHER TEACHINGS IS AN IMPURITY TO US:” Tantra says that “What
is basic for others is poisonous for us.” For example, there are teachings
which are based on non-violence. They say violence is bad, non-violence is
good. Tantra says that non-violence is non-violence, violence is violence;
nothing is good and nothing is bad.
There are teachings which are based on celibacy—BRAHMACHARYA. They say
that BRAHMACHARYA is good, sex is bad. Tantra says sex is sex, BRAHMACHARYA
is BRAHMACHARYA. One is a BRAHMACHARI and one is not. But these are simple
facts, no values are attached to them. And tantra will never say that
BRAHMACHARYA is good—the celibate is good—and that the one who is in
sex is bad. Tantra will not say that. Tantra accepts things as they are. And
why? Just to create a unity within you.

This is a technique to create a unity within you, to have a total existence
within, undivided, non-conflicting, not opposed. Only then is silence
possible. One who is trying to move to some place against something can
never be at peace. How can he be? And one who is divided within himself,
fighting with himself, how can he win? It is impossible. You are both, so
who is going to win? No one is going to win, and you will be at loss because
you will dissipate your energy in fighting unnecessarily. This is a
technique to create a unity in yourself. Allow valleys to disappear; don’t
judge.

Jesus says somewhere, “Judge ye not so that ye may not be judged.” But this
was impossible for the Jews to understand, because the whole Jewish
conception is morality oriented: “This is good and that is not good.” Jesus
in his teaching, “Judge ye not,” is talking in terms of tantra. If he was
murdered, crucified, it is because of this. He had a tantra attitude --
”Judge ye not.”

So don’t say that a prostitute is bad—who knows? and don’t say that a
puritan is good. Who knows? And ultimately they both are part of one game.
They are based on each other—on a mutual existence. So Jesus says, “Judge
ye not,” and this is what this sutra means: “Judge ye not so that ye may not
be judged.”

If you are non-judging, not taking any moral standpoint, simply observing
facts as they are, not interpreting them according to yourself, then you
cannot be judged. You are transformed completely. Now there is no need for
YOU to be judged by any divine power—there is no need! You have become
divine yourself; you have become God yourself. Be a witness, not a judge.

[dhurandhar]

I am not in any hurry to conclude anything ... to take someother person's observations as conclusions irrespective of whether they come from Vedas or elsewhere ...

I seem to like the idea of independence/freedom in one's search for the truth ... The first step is to clear one's mind and then see the world as it is ... what the mind (as a clean mirror) would reflect ... meditation should help me with that ...

rest is all written ... and when any such observation/experience that I cannot describe comes around, at that time, observations from seekers expressed in scriptures may help ...

thanks!

bon voyage:up: :D

[landyaBhai]

bon voyage:up: :D

Thanks! :rotfl: :D