PDA

View Full Version : other then 2...



yajvan
02 February 2014, 02:32 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita¹); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka¹ or the many?

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?

iti śivaṁ

words

dvaita - duality , duplicity , dualism ;
dvaita = dvi + tā = two + tā = tad = thus
some look at this as dvi + vāda or 'two + speaking about'
others say vāda is discussion , controversy , dispute , contest , quarrel , so then dvi + vāda becomes 'the discussion and dispute about two'
vāda is rooted (√) in 'vad' - speaking of or about
aneka - not one; many, much, separated

satay
02 February 2014, 02:59 PM
Namaste,
The two: atma and Param-atma; the controlled and the controller.

Sudas Paijavana
02 February 2014, 03:11 PM
When I look from my eyes I do not see two

I see the many forms of a multi-various universe.

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?

(emphasis mine)

Namaste,

Then, what's the logic of calling it one? For all we know, it takes two to tango.

Avyaydya
02 February 2014, 03:45 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita�); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka� or the many?

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?
Namaste Yajvan

I do not, i am a polytheist. I am very aware of the diversity in Nature. Also there are many more planes in consciousness than matter and spirit. In my opinion dual thinking is the result of the degeneration mankind has been undergoing for a long time. Today thinking has become binary, everything is being digitized. Why? That the the simplest way of thinking. It is so simple we can teach it to machines which have almost no intelligence at all.

In my view a developed mind does not think binary. it does not think in true or false, in good or bad, in win or lose, in accept or reject. That is not how nature presents itself to us. That is the product of an oversimplifying mind. That is why I think religion degraded with the mind into monotheism in which people are given the choice to be for or against a God. No more flavours/Gods, no more home cooking. No more Gods manifesting and interacting in numerous ways. No, we get nice structured organizational structures with the big boss at the top.

Even "the One" is described in duality. With qualities and without qualities, with form and without form. All nice and binary. That is why we are discussing, because modern man can only accept one idea at the time. If there are two different views he feels he has to choose between them. Which one is true? His mind can not cope with diversity and even less with contradictions. What people see as great thinking is poverty of the mind. These nice structured ideas with their schematic ordered world view are a denial of Nature. Nature is to complicated for modern man. His brains can no longer cope with nature. He wants order, certainty. No bending paths but straight roads. And he wants to know what to believe. He needs people to tell him what to believe.

In my opinion this is the way it is for most in Kali Yuga. We are not getting smarter because we drive a car and use technology products like cellphones or computers. We can do that mindlessly, It only dumbs us down. That is why "advanced" countries like the US have to get brains from other countries. Two is the utter simplicity, the lowest number you can use and still preserve some diversity. Yes or No. On or Off. We can describe reality with binaries, digits. But what we get is a reality that is devoid of subtle nuances. What we get is quarrel. I say red, you say blue, he says yellow, she says green. No quarrel, but taste, preference, diversity, colour. But when I say yes, you see no? That is conflict.

Some say, everything is One, no choice. Than thinking stops altogether. That is the ultimate degeneration of the mind. That is the ultimate simplicity. People saying things like: we are one. Or we are all the same. Than the senses and the brain are shut down entirely. That simply is the end of the world. Life haters, renunciates love that thought. Lets all merge into one. Let overcome all differences. They love the thought of oneness. They think it is the most perfect of all ideas. Lets make it mono. Monotheism: One God, nothing else.

Not for me. I am a polytheist. I love this world in all its wonder. I love Mother Nature. I love Ma Devi. I love it for its diversity, its richness, it continuously providing new experiences. If you do not like it, go kill yourself somewhere quietly. You want moksha, eternal life in heaven or whatever, just do it, I do not care. Nobody is forced to live here. What a silly idea that this world is holding you prison, because you long for it. Get real, this world is not to blame you want it. Do not blame it, then you behave like raper who says, this woman made me rape her. Then you are a thief that says, this money made me a thief. Then you are murderer that says, this victim made me murder him. Your mind is in denial of its own desires. It is silly to deny ones desires or blame them on something else.

I am here because I love it. I embrace it. It the full splendour of Brahman. There is no end to Brahmans creation, it is forever changing and it is beautiful. If you can not see that, your thinking is ugly. Your greed has made you into an addict and now you blame the thing you embraced. Now you want to kill yourself to become one.

Yes, you want to be Brahman...

but Brahman wants to be us
I am with Brahman

Mana
02 February 2014, 03:47 PM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,

A fascinating question and one that I dearly love to ponder.

Here are a few of my thought on this matter:

I like to use a mathematical model as a tool to contemplate these notions, it seems to me to represent most eloquently the 3; The joining of soul and body and infinite mind. To my mind, there is a coexistence of duality and non duality; this is found to be necessary when we consider any infinities containing geometry . One infinity must split in order for it to allow its own existence; thus the need for a second infinity to give the first any form or credibility, perhaps it is better said self conciousness of the first.
The instance of one singe infinity existing between two different infinite states can be beautifully demonstrated by the Mandelbrot set, in which we find an infinitely variable self repeating entity, existing between linear Cartesian coordinates of the real and complex plain.
In this space; all numbers either tend towards infinity, or they remain bound within the geometry of the initial set. The familiar black shape at the centre of the Mandelbrot set, a shape which self repeats infinitely, are numbers contained within the set (which form self repeating patterns or loops); the coloured exterior is made from numbers that tend towards infinity and have escaped the set; the colour gradient indicates the rate at which the number is tending towards infinity.
The shape and set are one infinity, yet contained within it are two differing states, both of which are themselves infinities. This infinite shape could not be without its own duality. Else it would be; literally nothing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Animation_of_the_growth_of_the_Mandelbrot_set_as_you_iterate_towards_infinity.gif/120px-Animation_of_the_growth_of_the_Mandelbrot_set_as_you_iterate_towards_infinity.gif The black shape at the centre of the set is roughly 1/8th of its enclosing circle (the circle is created by lower definition iterations) ...

This is obviously a mathematical model and as such is contained within its own axioms, but I feel that it demonstrates most eloquently how one infinity with self similar repeating forms, needs a duality in order to exist. If the complex plain seems to be a mystery, it can also be demonstrated as a very real tool, in its use in electronic engineering; as an example; the mapping of acoustic audio into a recorded re-playable electronic signal. This reflection between the sound wave and the electron wave, is mapped mathematically by the use of the number i. Indicating the imaginary number or complex plain.

Sorry to get quite so technical, but I feel it necessary in order to express this subject in any tangible way ...

Kind regards.

yajvan
02 February 2014, 05:29 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If there is two (dvaita), why then not 3 (tripuṭā) ? Even ādi śaṅkara-ji calls out 3 in his dṛgdṛśyaviveka (dṛg-dṛśya-viveka) some call vākya-sudhā; and he was a beacon of advaita ( non-dual) darśana¹.

iti śivaṁ

words

darśana - school, view; discernment , understanding
Ādi śaṅkara we know as śaṅkara bhagavatpāda.
ādi = first, beginning
Śaṅkara = śaṃkara = causing prosperity , auspicious , beneficent. This is another name for śiva or rudra.
bhagavatpāda = bhagavat+pāda bhagavat is glorious , illustrious , divine + pāda or pādāḥ is added to proper names or titles in token of respect.
With this case pāda it is then a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body).
Yet what is this 1st or beginning? He was the first Śaṅkarācārya, as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.

yajvan
03 February 2014, 04:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita¹); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka¹ or the many?
Here is one view...

On this earth we see the two's, the three's and for the evolved and the blessed, one.

The two's
If we are human (and many that read this will fit this category :) ) our experience is made of good, bad; of fast, slow; of more and less, etc. These are the two's that come to our experience. Yet with spiritual unfoldment it becomes Self and non-Self.
One gets anchored in the silence of the Self and everything that is not that perfect silence is non-Self. One's reference point, one's anchor is one's own Self-abidance.

The three's
The 3 (tripuṭā) we know as the guṇa-s. It is their play and display that make up this universe. Yet there is another set of 3 some call tapa-traya¹. It is the world of actions and results that occur from one's own selections (karta) , or natural events or those that come about from the intercourse of the universe with ourselves or with the collection of people & our surroundings of which we are a part.

Yet the other set of 3 that I suggested i.e. ādi śaṅkara-ji's 3 called out in his dṛgdṛśyaviveka (dṛg-dṛśya-viveka) which, as I see it, is a bit more profound. It is the notion of the seer (dṛg¹) and the seen (dṛśya). Yet too it includes the method of seeing. Some would say the ~organ~ of seeing, which we know as the eyes. Yet this ~seeing~ is also a generality for taking all things in. It means ~seeing~ with not only the eyes, but taking in with the organs of touch, taste, smell, and hearing. So now we have the seer , the method of seeing, and the seen ( or the object of experience).
The question to ponder is who is the ultimate seer, who is all the senses presenting the world to ? ... one says, well , to me !
In this case the person of ignorance gets mixed-up and thinks 'I am the individual , the final experiencer, of all this' . This is not the orientation of ādi śaṅkara-ji. The final seer is the Self.
Pending one's level of unfoldment the 3's are the interaction of the guṇa-s, within the world of the tapa-traya-s. Or for the evolved it is the universe being presented to the Self.

The one
We will address this in the next post.

iti śivaṁ

words

tapatraya =
tapa = consumed by heat, fire ; 'causing pain or trouble , distressing '
traya = triple , threefold
dṛg = dṛś = to see , but also means to 'see by divine intuition'

yajvan
03 February 2014, 08:02 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


The one
We will address this in the next post.


The ~one~ is quite interesting. We can agree that it is the absence of all 'two' , the absence of all diversity. Yet there are a few ways to look at this. Just like a diamond and a piece of coal both are made from the same material (carbon). Yet we can see by holding both in our hands that they are not the same but share the same molecular heritage. Like that, this one can take on different appearances.

Think of deep sleep - there is no two, there is no differences, yet we exist. If we did not we could not wake up once again and continue as the person we were before falling asleep.
Now think of samādhi. For some this samādhi may be foreign to them. And for those that are knowledgeable they will know that the wise classify this samādhi in different ways ( we can review this if there is interest). Overall though , samādhi can be objectless, seedless as it is sometimes called, with no differences, perfectly homogenous and pure. It therefore fits the bill of 'one' as there is no 'two' any where to be found.
Yet note the following - in deep sleep and in this experience of samādhi the eyes are closed, we are within. As long as the conditions support both deep sleep and samādhi, this one-ness remains. But upon the eyes opening, diversity springs forth and the 'two' and the 'threes' emerge/engage once more.

So, if we read our śāstra-s we are told that there is a condition that one does not lose this one-ness even when the eyes are open and engaged in activity. We are told by those that have this experience that it is the silence that is found within themselves also extends outside of themselves - there is no place it is not. There is no 'two' experienced. Just as the space in a pot is the same space that is all around when the pot is broken i.e. it is not contained, it is the same. Like that , one knows the one-ness because nothing is other then one's Self. This is their direct personal experience.
The dullness of sleep is that of the coal ; the clarity and brilliance of the diamond is experience when one experiences nothing other then themselves everywhere; there is no 'two'. Both (sleep and total awareness) share a common core origin - that of Being. This Being is so profound, so ubiquitous , that it is the core of the deepest of sleep or of the clarity of living one's pure Self.

iti śivaṁ

yajvan
03 February 2014, 09:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


This Being is so profound, so ubiquitous , that it is the core of the deepest of sleep or of the clarity of living one's pure Self.


Where can we find this knowledge ? For those looking , you will be well-served by the māṇḍūkya¹ upaniṣad :

sarvaṁ hy etad brahma
ayam ātmā brahma
so'yam ātmā catuṣpāt|| 1.2

This says,
All this (sarvaṁ) is brahman (brahma)
this here (ayam¹) Self (ātmā) is brahman
this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt¹)


We are told that within just 12 verses ( the total for this upaniṣad ) it contains the essence of all the upaniṣad-s.


So, here's the pickle. I just finished saying that with 'one' there is no sense of two or many, yet this most noble upaniṣad informs us that this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt). Obviously there is a deeper meaning offered for our understanding. How to reconcile and make sense to this?


iti śivaṁ

words

māṇḍūkya - this name māṇḍūkya is of great interest. We note that māṇḍa = of a man ; Hence there is a connection to the sage (ṛṣi) that is responsible for this upaniṣad. Yet too the word maṇḍūka = frog. Now why call this upaniṣad the ~frog~ upaniṣad ?
ayam = idam = this , this ere , referring to something near the speaker
catuṣpāt =catur+ pāda = 4 + quarters, feet, measure, rays

yajvan
05 February 2014, 12:59 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


So, here's the pickle. I just finished saying that with 'one' there is no sense of two or many, yet this most noble upaniṣad informs us that this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt). Obviously there is a deeper meaning offered for our understanding. How to reconcile and make sense to this?

One can begin to look at it this way... consider a tree. It has this beautiful trunk and from it springs 4 main limbs.
Yet this total tree's essence (sārāḥ¹) is the sap. It is the colorless sap that finds expression in the tree, the limbs,
the bark, the leaves and the flowers. Like that Self (ātmā) or brahman is the ~sap~ of all.

In the māṇḍūkya upaniṣad sloka that was offered Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~. What are they? I encourge the reader to pursue this upaniṣad as I find it quite rewarding.

The other question I proposed to the reader:


This name māṇḍūkya is of great interest. We note that māṇḍa = of a man ; Hence there is a connection to the sage (ṛṣi)
that is responsible for this upaniṣad. Yet too the word maṇḍūka = frog. Now why call this upaniṣad the ~frog~ upaniṣad ?

What is the reasoning or insight this upaniṣad may be called the ~frog~ upaniṣad ? Upon inspection the frog has 4 feet catuṣpāt,
and the most the notable characteristic of a frog is its ability to jump. It is here that one gets a clue - the ability to go a further distance
in one jump then perhaps walking the distance. Are we any closer to the answer ? I think so , if one knew that the
māṇḍūkya upaniṣad addresses some key ideas :

praṇava ( or om̐) which is the symbol for the ultimate reality, brahman
jāgarita or waking condition - the 1st quarter or foot in the 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
svarupa or dream condition - the 2nd quarter of foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
suṣupti or deep sleep conditon the 3nd quarter or foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
turīya ~officially~ the 4th by name¹, but many call the 'transcendental' - the 4th quarter or foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~. There are many that think ( as I too am of this opinion) the notion of maṇḍūka = frog is the insight of how one hops from the wake condition (jāgarita) to that of turīya or the transcendental ( code for pure awareness or brahman). So begins the march (the hop) from the waking to the 4th , or pure awareness.
iti śivaṁ

words

sārāḥ - the substance or essence or marrow or cream or heart or essential part of anything ; note that saraḥ (without the long ā) is defined as fluid/liquid also milk.
the 4th by name - we call turīya from the word caturtha which is defined as 'constituting the 4th part'. Now who says this caturtha could be known as turīya ? The bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad in the gāyatrī brāhmaṇa section. It too discusses quarters or pāda that are found in gāyatrī

Mana
05 February 2014, 01:18 PM
Namaste Yajvan,


We are told that within just 12 verses ( the total for this upaniṣad ) it contains the essence of all the upaniṣad-s.


How wonderful to reread this Upanishad for the first time in quite a while, to remark upon my perspective and understanding, and how it has changed; simply delightful ...

I thank you for your guidance in the unfurling of this beautiful knowledge.

Kind regards.

yajvan
05 February 2014, 07:50 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


If there is not two, how can ātmasamarpaṇaṃ¹ or Self-surrender be possible ?

iti śivaṁ

words


ātmasamarpaṇaṃ = ātma+samarpaṇaṃ
ātma - Self
samarpaṇaṃ - handing completely over , consigning , presenting , imparting , bestowing

yajvan
06 February 2014, 02:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté





If there is not two, how can ātmasamarpaṇaṃ¹ or Self-surrender be possible ?



...yajvan, I do not understand what you are saying.

In order to surrender there needs to be 'two' - he that is surrendering and that which is accepting the surrender.
This, in part, is the essence of duality.

Now the finer point to consider...

In duality (dvitīya) there is a Supreme Being;
In advitīya (without a second) , there is Supreme Being.

By saying there is a Supreme Being it infers there are others that are not this. By saying there is Supreme Being , it infers there is nothing other then this.

iti śivaṁ

words

ātmasamarpaṇaṃ = ātma+samarpaṇaṃ
ātma - Self
samarpaṇaṃ - handing completely over , consigning , presenting , imparting , bestowing

Kalicharan Tuvij
07 February 2014, 11:42 AM
Namaste.

Yes..there is One, only one..
There is only one "window" which, the same for us all, when opened to us brings Awareness- also called Sat. Indeed, Sat is One.

Yes, there is two..
When the window is shut to us, there is us and there is what lies beyond.

Then, there is many..
When the incoming Light, the Soma, brings to us many treasures through the open window.

So which one is true? One, Two, Many?

None. Because the words "One", "Two", "Many" have their birth in the Reality, they come from the Reality, therefore they cannot claim precedence over the Reality, they cannot define or confine it.

Yet everyone of them is true, as discussed in the start.

Let us talk about "the window", then. This is the only fruitful exercise.

A good start to it is, arguably, a rejection of "all this visible world" with the belief that there are truths beyond it, that there is a window, and there is a whole new world on the other side. As a teenager I remember having gone through this.

There is a time and space for everything.

KT

ShivaFan
07 February 2014, 09:34 PM
Namaste.

Yes..there is One, only one..
There is only one "window" which, the same for us all, when opened to us brings Awareness- also called Sat. Indeed, Sat is One.

Yes, there is two..
When the window is shut to us, there is us and there is what lies beyond.

Then, there is many..
When the incoming Light, the Soma, brings to us many treasures through the open window.

So which one is true? One, Two, Many?

None. Because the words "One", "Two", "Many" have their birth in the Reality, they come from the Reality, therefore they cannot claim precedence over the Reality, they cannot define or confine it.

Yet everyone of them is true, as discussed in the start.

Let us talk about "the window", then. This is the only fruitful exercise.

A good start to it is, arguably, a rejection of "all this visible world" with the belief that there are truths beyond it, that there is a window, and there is a whole new world on the other side. As a teenager I remember having gone through this.

There is a time and space for everything.

KT

KT this is truly an enlightened and almost divine sent response! Please bring this to others, you are truly very much appreciated by seekers, thank you!

devotee
08 February 2014, 02:45 AM
Namaste Yajvan,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



...yajvan, I do not understand what you are saying.

In order to surrender there needs to be 'two' - he that is surrendering and that which is accepting the surrender.
This, in part, is the essence of duality.

Now the finer point to consider...

In duality (dvitīya) there is a Supreme Being;
In advitīya (without a second) , there is Supreme Being.

By saying there is a Supreme Being it infers there are others that are not this. By saying there is Supreme Being , it infers there is nothing other then this.

iti śivaṁ

words

ātmasamarpaṇaṃ = ātma+samarpaṇaṃ
ātma - Self
samarpaṇaṃ - handing completely over , consigning , presenting , imparting , bestowing


My take on this issue :

Any question which has arisen here in this thread or any doubt can arise when Duality exists. So, when the question is there, Duality is also there. When Duality ceases, the questions too cease to exist.

Upanishads tell us that Duality is due to delusion of wrongly perceiving the non-existent multitude. It is like dreaming.

It is One which appears as Many. Why do we say, TWO and not three or many ? Because of clubbing together and making two sub-sets of all that is. In one sub-set there is the Creator and in the other sub-set it is the Creation (which comprises everything which is created).

Any thought / concept of "Atmasamarpan" can be only in Duality as correctly described above. However, when the "samparpan" is complete, the delusion of being different from the source is removed and what remains is One Reality.

OM

Mana
08 February 2014, 03:26 AM
Namaste Kalicharan Tuvij,


... There is only one "window" which, the same for us all, when opened to us brings Awareness- also called Sat. Indeed, Sat is One.

Dear Kalicharan Tuvij Ji, If I might interject, as personally I find your description not in fitting with my experience.

Might I refer to the quantum slit experiment in comparison to your window, I think this most relevant to the topic at hand as a depiction of reality our brains do function at this scale or level; how can we be certain that there is only one window? In my experience there are many billions, a population count will confirm this; how then can we be certain that this is indeed the same for us all, we accept that there are different loka don't we?

If then there are two adjacent windows, this would quite feasibly cause quantum interference; physically changing that which is on the other side of the aperture ...

That there is time and space:

Delusion is arguably found in the assumption that we are all the same, that in our interactions we do not experience quantum effect caused by our temporal origin; The mind smooths this over for us, as we can see in the revelation of Bhagavad Gita chapter 11, from what might be otherwise be, quite a terrifying vision.
We are the result of flourishing Karmic banks and experience reality upon such basis. Those who are caught up in tighter vritti will experience this much more servilely. The same underlying fabric of reality, but the experience its self is very different. Rather like karmic geometry; some of us are born on the planes and others in the mountains, consequently life is very different.


Any thought / concept of "Atmasamarpan" can be only in Duality as correctly described above. However, when the "samparpan" is complete, the delusion of being different from the source is removed and what remains is One Reality.[/font][/color]

Dear Devotee Ji, if this were to happen would we not be then in KRta Yuga?

Kind regards.

Kalicharan Tuvij
08 February 2014, 09:23 AM
"There is a time and space for everything"

So if there is: "There is One which appears as Many",
There is: "There is Many which appears as One".
-- depending upon which side of the "window" we take our standpoint on.

How to say one is true and another is false?

Even what is false is true. Like, in a cheap Bollywood cinema the dude with the unpleasant features playing clinically ("truthfully") the role of the villain (the "false"). (In yet another cheap twist the bad turns out to be the good and vice versa in the end, and guess what, angry public demands their money back:mad:)

And what is true is false. Because the so called "truth" has moved on..it is not there at all anymore where it was one moment ago.

So this "window" belongs to action, it is moving very fast. Let us talk about the window.

But, is this knowledge literal? Can any string of words describe it? No.
Can it be described by any string of words? Yes.

Dear Mana,
I appreciate your bringing in the material perspective into this. Yet, it (its vocab) is just another set of string of words, so nothing changes.
Yet, the window is not the literal window ("slits").

The window here is the discontinuous continuity of the photon: from being a particle to being a field (electromagnetic in this case). In the light of the above discussion, we can say, both states are simultaneously true. Yet on the surface of it, one seems to negate the other: creations and annihilations for instance, of the particle to and fro from the field. It is happening all the time, and very fast.

It is happening now. Care to catch the bullet train? Remember there is no platforms at your luxury. Yet people are rushing..with plenty excitement in the air- knowing, once on board, we can be at many places simultaneously..even make friends and grow families simultaneously..grow.


P.S.: thank you SF so much, always.

Sudas Paijavana
08 February 2014, 10:42 AM
Namaste Kalicharan Tuvij,



Dear Kalicharan Tuvij Ji, If I might interject, as personally I find your description not in fitting with my experience.

Might I refer to the quantum slit experiment in comparison to your window, I think this most relevant to the topic at hand as a depiction of reality our brains do function at this scale or level; how can we be certain that there is only one window? In my experience there are many billions, a population count will confirm this; how then can we be certain that this is indeed the same for us all, we accept that there are different loka don't we?

If then there are two adjacent windows, this would quite feasibly cause quantum interference; physically changing that which is on the other side of the aperture ...

That there is time and space:

Delusion is arguably found in the assumption that we are all the same, that in our interactions we do not experience quantum effect caused by our temporal origin; The mind smooths this over for us, as we can see in the revelation of Bhagavad Gita chapter 11, from what might be otherwise be, quite a terrifying vision.
We are the result of flourishing Karmic banks and experience reality upon such basis. Those who are caught up in tighter vritti will experience this much more servilely. The same underlying fabric of reality, but the experience its self is very different. Rather like karmic geometry; some of us are born on the planes and others in the mountains, consequently life is very different.


He's talking about Satya & Rta.

yajvan
08 February 2014, 02:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Any question which has arisen here in this thread or any doubt can arise when Duality exists. So, when the question is there, Duality is also there. When Duality ceases, the questions too cease to exist.


From the bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad - puruṣavidha-brāhmaṇa, 2nd śloka.
Any time there is a sense of 2, fear arises i.e. dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati¹ - Fear is born of duality.

iti śivaṁ

words

dvitiyad or dvitīya - 2nd or two , couple,
bhayam or bhaya - fear , alarm dread apprehension
( rooted in bhī to fear for , be anxious about )
vai an emphasis and affirmation , generally placed after a word
and laying stress on it (it is usually translatable by 'indeed' ,
'truly' , 'certainly' )
bhavati or bhava - arising or produced from , being in

chandu_69
14 February 2014, 11:05 AM
Namaste,
The two: atma and Param-atma; the controlled and the controller.

namasthe, satay.I missed reading simple and effective content of your posts .

chandu_69
14 February 2014, 11:29 AM
In duality (dvitīya) there is a Supreme Being;
In advitīya (without a second) , there is Supreme Being.

By saying there is a Supreme Being it infers there are others that are not this. By saying there is Supreme Being , it infers there is nothing other then this.
..

My simple mind says that other are not supreme.Here is the logic.

If every one is supreme there is no need to do anything.No need to put efforts to achieve samadhi .No need to understand what the upanishad says.

The manduka says about Moksha.If I am supreme (if there is no duality; the way it is portrayed by advaitans) there is no need for me to achieve moksha .

Manduka upanishad says the seeker has to do Upasana to achieve the target (Supreme). If I am supreme there is no need for me to do anything to achieve supreme or oneness with supreme.

The very fact the seeker NEEDS to do Upasana tells clearly that they (The seekers and the ignorant) are not supreme.

yajvan
14 February 2014, 07:44 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


My simple mind says that other are not supreme.Here is the logic.

If every one is supreme there is no need to do anything.No need to put efforts to achieve samadhi .No need to understand what the upanishad says.

The maduka says about Moksha.If I am supreme (if there is no duality; the way it is portrayed by advaitans) there is no need for me to achieve moksha .

Manduka upanishad says the seeker has to do Upasana to achieve the target (Supreme). If I am supreme there is no need for me to do anything to achieve supreme or oneness with supreme.

The very fact the seeker NEEDS to do Upasana tells clearly that they (The seekers and the ignorant) are not supreme.

Your logic makes sense - yet consider this. If the Supreme is something to gain, then by this logic it is something that can be lost. This does not pass the common sense test - how can you lose Being ?

By being something to attain, one needs to go outside one's Self. Yet we are told in the upaniṣad-s this Self is none other then brahman. We are informed that there is no place this brahman does not reside. Hence by this wisdom , brahman is here now in all of us, surrounds all of us. There is nothing to acquire only to re-recognize.

This is the crux of one's upāsana. If we look to this word upāsana we know it has the notion of homage , adoration , practice. Yet upāsana also means the act of throwing off. What is there to throw off? Every-thing that is non-Self and what remains is Self/brahman.

This is the wisdom found in the chandogya upaniṣad in the 7th khaṇḍa ( or section) where nārada-ji is being instructed by sanatjumāra.
Look to 7.24.1 where nārada-ji asks, where can this bhūmā ( fullness/brahman) be found ? Sanatjumāra-ji says, bhūmā (brahman) being such is the Reality below, above, behind, before , on the left and on the right ( this is code for being ubiquitius or the fancy word called satatoditam¹) . Bhūmā indeed is all the worlds , says sanatjumāra-ji . Then he says - Now the same (is) taught regarding oneself. I am the Reality below, above, behind, before. to the right and to the left. I am indeed all these worlds.

See the point ? There is no difference between me and brahman. I only need to re-recognize this truth. I do not need to attain something that is already me. This as aforementioned is the crux of one's upāsana or sādhana.

iti śivaṁ

1. satatoditam, without break or pause; 'without break or pause' is some times called avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ, uninterrupted, yet the word I often use is satatoditam (satata + udita)

chandu_69
14 February 2014, 08:33 PM
namasthe,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast



Your logic makes sense - yet consider this. If the Supreme is something to gain, then by this logic it is something that can be lost. This does not pass the common sense test - how can you lose Being ?

Let us dwell on this logic and common sense a bit .The appropriate wording, I think would be ,Realising the supreme.Either you realize the supreme (By identifying your self with (supreme)self ) or you don't. The question of losing, Logically speaking , doesn't arise unless you realize identification with supreme.realization that everything comes from supreme self .

This explanation doesn't contradict what the upanishad says.everything is self because everything came from self.There is supreme self(In the beginning) from which everything emanates.


By being something to attain, one needs to go outside one's Self. Yet we are told in the upaniṣad-s this Self is none other then brahman. We are informed that there is no place this brahman does not reside. Hence by this wisdom , brahman is here now in all of us, surrounds all of us. There is nothing to acquire only to re-recognize.

The simple explanation is the upanishad is telling the seeker to identify with supreme self and proceed to achieve unity with supreme self.The means for attaining the Supreme is upasana.Upasana always was used to mean worship or a set of activities involving worship.Upasana is sadhana.Mere thinking is not sadhana or Upasana.One needs sadhana or Upasana to reach the goal of Brahman.identifying with supreme self makes you do upasana to reach the target.

There is the seeker and there is the target.And there is effort(sadhana) involved .

There is still a difference because the seeker has to do upasana (sadhana, an effort) to identify with supreme.If there is no effort (sadhana/ Upasana) involved and mere identification with supreme is adequate then the explanation that we are nothing but supreme would make sense.

Since effort is involved to realize supreme, the self is definitely different from, self(Supreme).



This is the crux of one's upāsana. If we look to this word upāsana we know it has the notion of homage , adoration , practice. Yet upāsana also means the act of throwing off. What is there to throw off? Every-thing that is non-Self and what remains is Self/brahman.

This is the wisdom found in the chandogya upaniṣad in the 7th khaṇḍa ( or section) where nārada-ji is being instructed by sanatjumāra.
Look to 7.24.1 where nārada-ji asks, where can this bhūmā ( fullness/brahman) be found ? Sanatjumāra-ji says, bhūmā (brahman) being such is the Reality below, above, behind, before , on the left and on the right ( this is code for being ubiquitius or the fancy word called satatoditam) . Bhūmā indeed is all the worlds , says sanatjumāra-ji . Then he says - Now the same (is) taught regarding oneself. I am the Reality below, above, behind, before. to the right and to the left. I am indeed all these worlds.

See the point ? There is no difference between me and brahman. I only need to re-recognize this truth. I do not need to attain something that is already me. This as aforementioned is the crux of one's upāsana or sādhana.

iti śivaṁ

1. satatoditam, without break or pause; 'without break or pause' is some times called avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ, uninterrupted, yet the word I often use is satatoditam (satata + udita)

chandu_69
14 February 2014, 09:53 PM
As mentioned by satay there is controller.

Mandukya (verse 6) says the controller is source of All.Is the origin of every being. In to which everything dissolve .

As long as there is a controller there is the controlled.

Everything is self means everything comes from self(Supreme).The alternative explanation (of the the advaitan kind) would mean there is no controller.

chandu_69
14 February 2014, 09:56 PM
I am joining with sivafan in applauding this post.


Namaste.

Yes..there is One, only one..
There is only one "window" which, the same for us all, when opened to us brings Awareness- also called Sat. Indeed, Sat is One.

Yes, there is two..
When the window is shut to us, there is us and there is what lies beyond.

Then, there is many..
When the incoming Light, the Soma, brings to us many treasures through the open window.

So which one is true? One, Two, Many?

None. Because the words "One", "Two", "Many" have their birth in the Reality, they come from the Reality, therefore they cannot claim precedence over the Reality, they cannot define or confine it.

Yet everyone of them is true, as discussed in the start.

Let us talk about "the window", then. This is the only fruitful exercise.

A good start to it is, arguably, a rejection of "all this visible world" with the belief that there are truths beyond it, that there is a window, and there is a whole new world on the other side. As a teenager I remember having gone through this.

There is a time and space for everything.

KT

yajvan
14 February 2014, 11:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



The simple explanation is the upanishad is telling the seeker to identify with supreme self and proceed to achieve unity with supreme self.The means for attaining the Supreme is upasana.Upasana always was used to mean worship or a set of activities involving worship.Upasana is sadhana.Mere thinking is not sadhana or Upasana.One needs sadhana or Upasana to reach the goal of Brahman.identifying with supreme self makes you do upasana to reach the target.

This is where we differ... yet I wish not to convince. The notion to identify suggests two. Me and the Supreme. In ignorance this is perfectly reasonable.

One need / uses upāsana or sādhana not to do more, but to do less. If one does less perfectly , to the point of doing nothing perfectly one arrives at the conclusion that they have always been and always will be brahman.

I will leave it there for now. Thank you again for your points of view and for the time to post your ideas.

iti śivaṁ

Mana
15 February 2014, 01:32 AM
Namaste,

Thank you Yajvan Ji for this thought provoking thread.


...

Dear Mana,
I appreciate your bringing in the material perspective into this. Yet, it (its vocab) is just another set of string of words, so nothing changes.
Yet, the window is not the literal window ("slits").

The window here is the discontinuous continuity of the photon: from being a particle to being a field (electromagnetic in this case). In the light of the above discussion, we can say, both states are simultaneously true. Yet on the surface of it, one seems to negate the other: creations and annihilations for instance, of the particle to and fro from the field. It is happening all the time, and very fast.

Dear Kalicharan Tuvij,

I was referring to particle wave interference which appears only in the presence of two apertures (observers) and in my mind comparing this effect to human interaction; as such the effect is seen between two jiva; rather like the learning effect of Guru & śiṣya; it can only be perceived in this way. As such, singularity collapse this wave form, this sound.
Far from being material, yet this exists as sound in the material world.


He's talking about Satya & Rta.

Thank you Sudas, from a three fold symmetry, six ṛta and consequently koṣa emerge ...
All is still one infinity in its course, but time differentiates and makes this most difficult to perceive. Rather like looking for the separation between musical notes; some will hear the difference others will not; together we dance:

Kind regards.

Iain

Kalicharan Tuvij
15 February 2014, 09:56 AM
I was referring to particle wave interference which appears only in the presence of two apertures (observers) and in my mind comparing this effect to human interaction; as such the effect is seen between two jiva; rather like the learning effect of Guru & śiṣya; it can only be perceived in this way. As such, singularity collapse this wave form, this sound.
namaste Mana.
The observer here is the the screen that receives the interference pattern. The slits are not what is causing the interference--rather it is them what reduces the normal interference (present as a patternless noise in mundane life) to an extent that we are able to see the wave pattern by the screen.
To paraphrase what a poster already said in this thread: "Less Action is More Action".


He's talking about Satya & Rta.
No dear. I am talking about Yagya. This is what 99% of my time I do.

jai Ram ji ki.


P.S.: :mad: another word from Mana, and..

Mana
17 February 2014, 01:09 AM
Namaste,

I forgot to add:

Some can smell the flowers, some can not.

Kind regards.

Mana
23 February 2014, 07:39 AM
om gurave namah

Namaste,

If some can smell the flowers, yet others blankly not.
Then might for some pleasure be found, in the banging of a drum;
If so, then just how many colours need be rendered; to write an eternal song?
With all these things considered I think it fair only now to ask:
What indeed would happen, if the music were to stop?


That was several words; No harm or insult intended.

trikāla fun!



:)

Kind regards.

Kalicharan Tuvij
23 February 2014, 09:23 AM
Namaste Mana



That was several words; No harm or insult intended.
None taken. Lowlifes ain't in bizness of taking offense. Hehe.


trikāla fun!
Makes me remember of an old friend, an internet rock star, named "MV", I've heard he's devoted himself to kavitā and kavi-s, sure he could appreciate this much better than me lowlife. Hehe.


Kind regards.
Hehe.

P.S.: I got it. M smells flowers, K doesn't. Hehe.

yajvan
07 June 2014, 07:21 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Within dvaita, one may say - oh yes, I feel one with you, and with you, and you. It is one person's "I-feeling' saying they feel one with another 'I' person ( or individual). There is nothing wrong with this, in fact I am sure it is a very nice feeling.

Yet the fullness that the wise discuss (pūrṇapātrapratibhaṭa -fullness or a full vessel i.e. overflowing , supreme) when fully blossomed it not the collective individual 'I-feeling' togetherness. It is something much more profound. It is when there are no other 'I's that are seen, not even one's own 'I' ( individuality) . It has melted away or cannot be found, tagged or located. No boundary exists ( the boundary of individualism is no longer). There is just Being, fullness, wholeness every were.

But yajvan, what happens to people ? What does this person who perceives only Being and homogeneous Self everywhere, what happens to the containers of being we call a person ?

The wise say that people become the ~fragrance ~ of the Self. They are expressions of this Being.

The principle offered here is this: The world is as you are. If you live in diversity then the world is filled with the multitude of differences. Yet if one resides with one's on Being (Self) then the world is none other then this extension... pure homogenous being. In a previous post above it was called satatoditam¹.


iti śivaṁ
1. satatoditam, without break or pause; 'without break or pause' is some times called avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ, uninterrupted, yet the word I often use is satatoditam (satata + udita)

Kalicharan Tuvij
09 June 2014, 10:23 AM
Namaste,

"Advaita" is inadequate in correctly conveying what "Adititva" means, if a case for equivalence among these is indeed made.

1. Aditi (http://sanskritdictionary.com/scans/?col=1&img=mw0018.jpg):
f. boundlessness, immensity, inexhaustible abundance, unimpaired condition, perfection, creative power, Name of one of the most ancient of the Indian goddesses ("Infinity"or the"Eternal and Infinite Expanse").

2. Adititva: (ref: RV, BrArUp)
adititva n. the state of the goddess aditi.

adititva n. the condition of aditi - , or of freedom, unbrokenness.

yajvan
11 June 2014, 01:56 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Aditi (http://sanskritdictionary.com/scans/?col=1&img=mw0018.jpg):
f. boundlessness, immensity, inexhaustible abundance, unimpaired condition, perfection, creative power, Name of one of the most ancient of the Indian goddesses ("Infinity"or the"Eternal and Infinite Expanse").



The beauty of this word comes to us from its component form: a + didi


a (3rd derivative) = not ; or a contrary sense like a-sat which would be 'not good'
didi = cutting , splitting , dividinga + didi therefore is not + cut or divided ; therefore we get whole, uncut, undivided, unbounded.

A very beautiful term ,which IMHO aligns nicely with advaita but directly in line with satatoditam, without break or pause.

iti śivaṁ

grames
06 August 2014, 12:45 PM
Dear Yajavan Ji.,

Very interesting question.... in the entire chain this particular idea is not yet expressed.. so adding my two cents...

DviTaTwo -

Two Subjects as in "Dependent" and "Independent" if it is about categories of Vastu! ( Controlled, Controller comes in to this as one aspect called "Control", Changing and unchanging is also under the same category just for the info)
Two as Source and reflection - Bimba and PratiBimba

Everything else then springs out from the concept of "Two" - in to three, four and to infinite! ( This is the reason why the school which details the reality should not be misunderstood as mere "Dualism" - Dvaita Vada is a wrong notion)

yajvan
30 September 2015, 05:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Within the trika¹ view of reality all and everything that exists, or did not exist is none other than śiva – a very full and encompassing view no doubt.
This is implied in the term trika or 3 made of these 3 terms / notions :


parā – whole, full, Supreme – complete unity, paripūrṅānuttara = pari+pūrṅā+anuttara totally full where nothing can suppress it in being stainless, unbounded and pure.
parāpara – unity in diversity – there’s differences yet there is an underlying unity.
aparā – there is diversity and multiplicity of every thing, idea, place, etc. – some call this out as diversity in unity, but that tends to cause some people consternation.


Because the notion that śiva is all inclusive it is the opinion from a trika view , that all-and-everything ( and no-thing) comes from this source.
In fact the term śiva is rooted in the term śī , ‘in whom all things lie’ ; This Presence, Being, plenum, sattā , contains everything within its Self. Nothing exists outside
of this plenum. Hence of all the offers, views, śastra-s, āgama-s, etc. have descended down by this totally full presence of Being – so says trika darśana ( others may vary).

Pending one’s ~wiring~ people and aspirants are attracted to one view or other in terms of understanding their world, themselves, and the universe about them ( and through them).
Now what does this have to do with this string?

The bhāgavad gītā is one of the best resources for insight that sanātana dharma has to offer. My teacher has informed us many times that this śastra is so whole & complete
that it includes all 6 (classical) schools¹ of Indian thought in every word and śloka that is offered within the 700 verses . In kaśmir śaivism this book is called gitārtha saṁgraha, authored
by abhinavagupta-ji; he took the 700 verses and expanded them to 716. His orientation was to unveil in full parāmādvaita or supreme nonduality. Another was śrī jñānadev and his writings
called bhāvārtha dīpkā. Hence great luminaries looked to this śastra as a storehouse of knowledge on Reality itself.

My point to offer is, within the bhāgavad gītā is seems obvious (to me) that duality (aparā) and parāpara or unity in diversity, as subject matter is apparent.
That is, many talk of arjuna and kṛṣṇa-jī’s discussions (this can be considered ‘two’), and many talk of kṛṣṇa-jī showing arjuna his universal form – this
would be an example of unity in diversity. But where is the indication of parā , of this total wholeness ?

It is my opinion it can be found several places, but the one that is most interesting and perhaps esoteric (rahasya or concealed, secret)
Is the following statement from there kṛṣṇa-jī:
ye caiva sāttvikā bhāvā rājasāstāmasāśca ye|
mattaḥ eveti tānviddhi na tvahaṁ teṣu te mayi||12

This says,
All those states of being, states of existence (bhāvā) ( the 3 guṇa-s) sāttvikā, rājasās & tāmasāśca
know that (tānviddhi¹) they truly, in this manner (eveti) come from me (mattaḥ);
they are in me but I not in them (na tvahaṁ teṣu te mayi).

At the very heart of duality is the notion of ‘me’ and everything that is not ‘me’ i.e. everything else.
With this one verse kṛṣṇa-jī is quite clear on this matter. Everything is contained within Him. Nothing is outside of Him.
If all is He, where can there be duality ? What can be outside of Him, or other then Him ? In one stoke ( one verse) is the core of advaita ( not two).

For many , this view may cause some consternation. It is not meant to do so. It is just an extension of the conversation that began with post 1 above.

iti śivaṁ

words




tānviddhi - viddhi is ‘the act of piercing ‘, vid is to know + tān = tāt = in this way
mattaḥ - from me; mat = mad – to animate, exhilarate; also some may look at it as ma = measure out ( like saying measured out from me)
tva = several
trika consists of 4 schools offered in 92 āgama-s some may call śastra-s

pratyabhijñā
kula
krama
spanda






6 Schools of thought (saḍ darśana)

For the ṣaḍ-darśana one could in general group the 6 into 3 pairs :
yoga & sāṁkhya
mimāṁsā & vedānta as vedānta is also known as uttara mimāṁsā a.k.a. the brahma-sūtra-s
Also some distingush mimāṁsā as pūrva ( former , prior ) to that of uttara ( later , following , subsequent ) mimāṁsā
nyāya & vaiśeṣika - logic and cosmology - Here we find the 'atom eater' or kaṇāda-muni the author of the vaiśeṣika branch. And we have akṣapāda-muni (akṣapāda = having his eyes fixed on his feet ) of the nyāya philosophy.
parārtha - the highest advantage or interest ~ meant to prove or demonstrate some truth~.

yajvan
01 October 2015, 12:32 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Let’s look to another śloka that gives us ( perhaps me) some pause on how profound the bhāgavad gītā’s offering is and its ability to talk on mutliple levels.

Our orientation has been on duality and the various ways the bhāgavad gītā works within these confines of two, but when looked at from a different angle ( POV)
there is another offer that brings out more knowledge.

There is little doubt that the yoga & sāṁkhya darśana’s appear within the gita, not to mention vedānta. In these schools there are ‘2’, even in vedānta, there is brahman
that is perfectly still, pure, silent, ubiquitous. Yet ‘manifestation’ occurs by something called māyā that is not a part of brahman. We are told by ādi śaṅkara¹
that this māyā in śāntabrahmavāda ( another name for advaita vedānta) is neither real or unreal. Due to this real and unreal status one needs to re-examine the
world around them for its true nature and its ~real-ness~. I take no issue with this view. Yet there is another consideration to keep in mind.

If we look to the last post above kṛṣṇa-jī was quite clear that everything resides inside of Him. So, if this brahman is perfectly still , without movement, how then
does this universe come about ? Kṛṣṇa-jī answers this for us in chapter 9 , 8th śloka:

prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||8

This says curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).

This clearly suggests that brahman is in fact active within ItSelf. The term used in kaśmir śaivism is spanda. This means a slight quiver, a vibration. When the common person ( sometimes called kalā śarīra or body of actions) thinks of vibration, they think of a beginning and ending oscillation ( could be sound related, or wave or etc); yet this spanda is different. If it was
the ‘traditional’ vibration, then it is the unstruck sound anāhata nāda¹. Yet it is more profound than this.
This spanda as mentioned is vimarśa. This in common terms means examination, consideration. It is the Supreme aware of itself. It is the Supreme ‘as if’ examining itSelf ,
and this term is then vimarśana – intuitive awareness of one’s own Being, the Supreme's awareness of Itself all the time, without break or pause ( no time off, no vacations, no lunch breaks)
and this is called satatoditam.

Hence from these few sloka-s of the bhāgavad gītā we find some of the qualities of the Supreme:

yatsaḥ sarvam - from whom proceeds all

yasmin sarvam - in whom resides all

satatoditam - This ( anuttara or unpassable) Presence, Being, sattā is continuous , without break-or-pause



We now perhaps see the beauty in kṛṣṇa-jī’s own words: curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām).
This is none other than His own innate nature to be Self-aware all the time without beginning-or-end (ananta – boundless) and unstruck (anāhata).

iti śivaṁ

words



Ādi Śaṅkara we also know as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda.
anāhata nāda - anāhata = unstuck, unbeaten + nāda = sound. Within the human experience one can find about 10 of these sounds resonating. One upanisad calls them out: haṁsa-upaniṣad