PDA

View Full Version : Evolution and Enlightenment



booduhklr
28 December 2010, 01:25 PM
It just might be that enlightenment is not scientific at all. It has come to my attention recently that that is in fact the case. Liberation is possible through a simple realization of verifiable truth. I am here to share what I have found in the hope that it could help someone who is really serious about this and really wants THE answer. This is not for recreation, this is for those who want truth at all costs.There is an easy way to realize truth. Look at the following statement and see if it is true: You do not exist. The you that you think you are is not real. There is no owner of life, there is just life. There is a body and a mind, but it does not belong to you. This is TRUE. Don't believe it, test it. See for yourself. Seeing for yourself is the only way. Do not believe anyone, do not trust anyone to give you the answers. Seeing the truth of this is liberation.

sanjaya
30 December 2010, 07:00 PM
Can't speak for others, but I never was under the impression that there's any scientific basis for enlightenment. It seems to me to be a spiritual state that doesn't reveal itself to any scientific test. As far as these ideas go about whether or not the individual exists, perhaps you could state your point of view more clearly. I've found that it is seldom helpful to veil a statement in so much complexity that it is not comprehensible. Or to put it more simply (and don't take this the wrong way): I would appreciate if you could speak in plain English.

On a sidenote, I noticed that this is your first post. Welcome!

Believer
30 December 2010, 10:34 PM
Do not believe anyone, do not trust anyone to give you the answers.

So why should I believe/trust you for anything?
What are your credentials?
Haven't you been here before under a different Username?
Didn't you get tired of this forum in your previous journey through here?

booduhklr
31 December 2010, 08:08 AM
Can't speak for others, but I never was under the impression that there's any scientific basis for enlightenment. It seems to me to be a spiritual state that doesn't reveal itself to any scientific test. As far as these ideas go about whether or not the individual exists, perhaps you could state your point of view more clearly. I've found that it is seldom helpful to veil a statement in so much complexity that it is not comprehensible. Or to put it more simply (and don't take this the wrong way): I would appreciate if you could speak in plain English.

On a sidenote, I noticed that this is your first post. Welcome!

I completely mis-spoke in my first post. I meant to say that enlightenment IS more of just a verifiable scientific fact then a spiritual, special, magical thing. If you are truly interested in investigating my claim, I will provide another pointer for you. However, saying "YOU DO NOT EXIST" could not be more simple or straightforward. It just appears incomprehensible because the belief in a you as a separate self is so ingrained in the minds of most people on the planet. In actuality, it is simply an unchallenged assumption.Here is the pointer:Is there a self?This is an investigation so you need a question so you know what direction you are going.The best question for this is, "Is there a self?" because it's unbiased. It doesn't presume anything so it doesn't require require any belief.So number one, is to start with the question "is there a self?"Step number two is to answer that question by investigation. You have to know where you are carrying out the investigation though, and the scene of the crime (ugghhhhh awful corny analogy) is experience.Answer the question by investigating your experience right now. Not your memories, or your stored up knowledge on the subject.Investigate your experience right now. You do this by taking some act that you attribute to the self. Like told this guy, something like opening your hand can work. Just an act that you attribute to your self. "I open my hand" or "I take three steps forward". Take one that works for you.Investigate thoroughly the opening of that hand. This part is subtle but straight forward. You just need to observe what is going on. Take a look at every step of the process from where the idea to open your hand came from all the way through to the tendons in the finger contracting. Take a step back and observe what's actually going on.Where did the thought to open your hand come from?It came from this blog, which is a part of your environment.WHAT made the choice to open the hand?The brain.-The question "who made the choice to open the hand" can not be investigated. It assumes without prior proof that there is a "who". -It's the equivalent of asking which enormous-green-scaled-lizard-woman opened the hand. It's just assuming there is an enormous reptilian woman in the equation. There's not. -"Ego" and "who" are both stupid words and should be jettisoned from the nomenclature.What happened next to make the hand open?the brain interacted with the body to open the handThe environment interacts with the brain, which in turn interacts with the body, which interacts with the environment which interacts with the brain.All the while the brain, being powerful and all as it is, is watching all of this unfold and attributing the influence of reality/environment over the brain to a "self".The part played by reality or the environment is totally glossed over and replaced with purely imagined fantasy in the mind of the human. the mind imagines some thing that stands outside of experience and outside of reality that imposes it's will over the body and mind. Thinks it's thoughts and moves it's limbs. Stupid. nothing exists outside of reality, **** sake. Anything outside reality is not real.... Yeah. It sounds simple when you put it like this, and once you see this. It becomes frustratingly simple.there is no self, no ****ing"ego". It's just not there.Thats all it takes a little bit of honest investigation. This isn't magical in any way. In fact it's the last nail in the magical coffin. There is no excuse for anyone who reads this article and does not see this. It's laid out here step by step. It's simple. Its rewarding. It's the death of you, but no one one ever liked you anyway, they just used you to help them define themselves. And you liked yourself least of all, because you were powerless to ever do anything about yourself. Of course you were. There was no self.I don't think this can be put much more simply and to be honest, this is all you need. Ever. This article is the end for you if you will but put it t the test. Test what I say here. Challenge it and investigate for yourself. There is no worthwhile substitute for thinking for yourself. Post your findings underneath if you like just be sure to engage with this. You've got your starting point. Is there a self? go.

booduhklr
31 December 2010, 08:14 AM
So why should I believe/trust you for anything?
What are your credentials?
Haven't you been here before under a different Username?
Didn't you get tired of this forum in your previous journey through here?

I am not asking you to believe me or trust me, I am asking you to look at something for yourself. No one can liberate you. It is something that you must see for yourself.And, no, I have never been to this site before in my life. If someone else saw this and tried to share it, looks like you did not benefit from that at that time. Perhaps this time you will let those defenses and beliefs down a bit and give this an honest look, yeah?

sanjaya
31 December 2010, 10:59 AM
Oh...I see. This is starting to make sense now.

Ganeshprasad
31 December 2010, 05:03 PM
Pranam

None off it make sense to me.

if i do not exist,if i am not real , how would i See for myself ?

better still if i am not to trust anyone why should i trust you?

Jai Shree Krishna

Believer
01 January 2011, 10:30 AM
I completely mis-spoke in my first post.
Looks like you have perfected the art of mis-speaking.
Convoluted ramblings reflect your state of mind!

Sahasranama
01 January 2011, 11:28 AM
Are you a buddhist?

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 11:46 AM
Pranam

None off it make sense to me.

if i do not exist,if i am not real , how would i See for myself ?

better still if i am not to trust anyone why should i trust you?

Jai Shree Krishna

I am not asking you to trust me, I am presenting you with information that you can test for yourself for truth. This information is useless if it is just believed or understood intellectually, it must be seen.

As for there being no you to see...there is a body and a brain, they just don't belong to you. Whatever it is that experiences life and thoughts and feelings can see this, but that is not a YOU. You are just an assumption with no real world counterpart. Basically, your mind made you up.

No thinker, just thoughts.
No feeler, just feelings.
No actor, just actions.

You are just a concept, LOOK, is there a you anywhere to be found?

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 11:55 AM
Looks like you have perfected the art of mis-speaking.
Convoluted ramblings reflect your state of mind!

Looks like you have not read a word I have said. This is not complicated, it simply goes against pretty much everything people believe about life and the way it works so it sounds a little crazy at first.

The truth of the statement YOU DO NOT EXIST can be seen. Test it for yourself. Look, imagine how it was when you were a newborn baby. Was there a you, or was there just pure experience without a you there claiming and labeling everything?

Life is not yours, it was not given to you. At a certain point in the body/minds development, the brain made up the idea of YOU. There is a real world counterpart to all other concepts except for YOU. Check this out, it is amazing when you see this.

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 12:05 PM
Are you a buddhist?

No, I am not, Advaita actually comes closest to what I am trying to show you. Advaita says conscious is all there is, I am turning that understanding on it's head and stating that the world is real, but you are not. Both of statements lead to the same realization, just the way I put it is much easier to see.

By stating that you are conscious or you are all that is and the world is illusion, the you is left in the picture. People get confused and think that false concept of you is all there is and the world springs forth from them. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no you, there is just life and it is not owned by anyone.

Tapasya
01 January 2011, 01:00 PM
Namaste booduhklr,

"Anything outside reality is not real"

May I ask what you mean by this? What is your definition of "reality"?

"...there is no self"

What do you define as "Self"?

As regards "ego", I should think that it is the ultimate objective of all Hindus, regardless of sampradaya, to destroy ahamkara (ego) and thus achieve atma-jnana.

Sahasranama
01 January 2011, 01:25 PM
"Anything outside reality is not real"
Isn't this a tautology?


"...there is no self"

Seems like you are speaking of anatma vada which is buddhist

Believer
01 January 2011, 05:00 PM
You are just a concept, LOOK, is there a you anywhere to be found?

I just looked in the mirror and I am REAL, not a concept.

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 08:14 PM
Namaste booduhklr,

"Anything outside reality is not real"

May I ask what you mean by this? What is your definition of "reality"?

"...there is no self"

What do you define as "Self"?

As regards "ego", I should think that it is the ultimate objective of all Hindus, regardless of sampradaya, to destroy ahamkara (ego) and thus achieve atma-jnana.

Reality=What Is, prior to any interpretation, concept or label being attached to it.

Self=Ego, the you that you think you are.

There is a misconception that the ego must be eliminated. In truth, there is no self, no ego. It is an illusion. There is just life, the self or ego or sense of being a doer in charge of an individual life is a complete lie. It is something that the brain made up because of the way that the brain works. There is no real world counterpart to you. You are just a thought, your brain made you up.

Look! Can you find you? Or, do you just find thoughts about a you that in actuality point to NOTHING?

No thinker, just thoughts.

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 08:29 PM
Isn't this a tautology?



Seems like you are speaking of anatma vada which is buddhist


No, it is not a tautology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

Anatma Vada = no soul, impermanence, no separation

Advaita = non-duality Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah

I see no contradiction between the two, only agreement.

There is life, but it is not your life. You do not exist, there is just existence.

LOOK AND YOU CAN SEE THIS FOR YOURSELF!! This is it folks, what you are all here to realize.

booduhklr
01 January 2011, 08:35 PM
I just looked in the mirror and I am REAL, not a concept.

What you saw in the mirror is a body. It is not your body. You do not exist. You do you own the life or body you claim as yours.

There is just life and body and thought and experience and action. No you required in the equation. Your brain jumps in and claims all of these things as belonging to a you that just isn't there. LOOK AND YOU CAN SEE THIS HAPPENING!!

sanjaya
01 January 2011, 10:23 PM
Pranam

None off it make sense to me.

if i do not exist,if i am not real , how would i See for myself ?

better still if i am not to trust anyone why should i trust you?

Jai Shree Krishna

Sorry, I should know better than to use sarcasm on an Internet forum (I keep forgetting that it doesn't carry over well in the written word). I agree with you, none of this makes sense to me either.

Tapasya
02 January 2011, 04:09 AM
[quote=booduhklr;56139]Reality=What Is, prior to any interpretation, concept or label being attached to it.

Self=Ego, the you that you think you are.

There is a misconception that the ego must be eliminated. In truth, there is no self, no ego. It is an illusion. There is just life, the self or ego or sense of being a doer in charge of an individual life is a complete lie. It is something that the brain made up because of the way that the brain works. There is no real world counterpart to you. You are just a thought, your brain made you up.

Look! Can you find you? Or, do you just find thoughts about a you that in actuality point to NOTHING?

Namaste,

You appear to be suggesting absolute solipsism. I accept that reality is the true a priori state. However, I do not accept that there is no atma. In any case, I should like to raise a few questions:
(i) Where does ego arise from?
(ii) If there is no underlying substratum, where does illusion arise from?
(iii) Is illusion then also an illusion?

Sahasranama
02 January 2011, 04:19 AM
No, it is not a tautology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric))



You are linking to the rhetoric meaning of the word tautology. I was using it in the logical sense of the word: In logic, a statement that is unconditionally true by virtue of its form alone, is called a tautology. I think the proper rhetoric expression would be "no shi.t."

NayaSurya
02 January 2011, 04:45 AM
There are many mysteries to this realm, more than I even care to uncover. But, thankfully, this is one I do not fear, nor struggle to understand.

This being, wrapped inside a rotting, flesh covered vehicle is real enough to come here and post this...

Even when this organic vessel ceases to exist, I will remain.

As my own Mother who stood before me dying, witnessed the movement of that Divine energy on that fateful day and was prescient enough to describe it....I remain.

As her own fading image came before me in a twilight vision cutting two strawberries, one tiny, bitter and green...the other as big as her hand, sweet, ripe and brilliantly red. She said...."The one's from India are better."

I was still young and did not understand this moment, until I began to dig deeper. Then this thing written down to remember was read again with the eyes of a more enlightened being and you know it made perfect sense.

Two other beings, Descartes and Kant had a portion of this same argument, albeit at different times. Descartes says I think therefore I am....and so are you because I am...I can validate you by my own existence.

Kant is a bit more particular...

He says I think...there for I am...but as for you? You're on your own. I am not egotistical enough to validate your existence. I think he almost had it. Because truly, We are not because We think. We are...and because of this... We think.

So, Boo...I can not say if you are here or not....you have to dig deep and work that out on your own.

I promise you, if you bang against the wall of your confinement cell enough....someone will come to check the lock and verify this for you. But you have to bang rather hard...:p

As for me? This being plunders through this realm, a portion of everything rests inside of this despicable, wretched vessel. I am a billion stories and histories. I am every name, every story, every child, every mother...every father even.

I am this and it is me and I exist enough, that I rose from sleep with the inclination to come tell you so.:p

One blessed, blessed, wonderful day...I will return to that greater portion, leaving this place behind. Hopefully given the chance to simply sing there at His feet for eternity.

This place is so thick with misinformation. Confused beings, in an attempt to be mentally at ease, come from all sides trying to discourage any forward movement by the portions around them. As this disturbs them greatly.

It's as if there were two great bodies of water. One higher and one lower. This lower, is a great sea of ignorance. The ones who can not swim to this higher one, grab onto the ones who can swim and try to drag them both down. Not out of malice, mostly. But, out of a desire to avoid being disturbed by witnessing this movement upward to an area they do not understand.

There's many things, such as cell phones, televisions and mortgages to make this even more difficult.

It's as if this whole world were simply hell(ignorance). Designed to keep the truth well hidden. A place where the Truth(SD) is scattered so far from this home that I have to use the internet to locate it. A place where most of what I wrote above would be considered insane by the culture around me.

I think a part of understanding this all and accepting it, is the ability to know that, to the others, we may look completely crazy and yet we still do not care.

You have to be brave and strong to release yourself from humanity's strangle hold.

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 09:19 AM
Namaste,

You appear to be suggesting absolute solipsism. I accept that reality is the true a priori state. However, I do not accept that there is no atma. In any case, I should like to raise a few questions:
(i) Where does ego arise from?
(ii) If there is no underlying substratum, where does illusion arise from?
(iii) Is illusion then also an illusion?

Solipsism?! You obviously have not read a word that I have written. I am stating that I have seen that I do not exist. I am saying you can see that you do not exist if you look.

Atman=-Brahman It can be seen that this is indeed a true statement. There is only an assumption of separation.

The way the brain works, it labels and looks at small chunks of stimuli ignoring the vast majority of stimuli. It creates an illusion of separation in order to interpret and label the stimuli it senses.

If you actually look, you can see that you are nothing more than a thought in your brain. The brain actually made you up. There is no real world counterpart to you. YOU are just a thought, there is no owner of the thoughts and experiences and body that you think belongs to you. LOOK! Just look already, please?!

As for the questions about illusion, etc. First things first, look to see if there is a you, once it is seen that YOU DO NOT EXIST, you can answer these questions for yourself. Again, I am not here to get you to believe me, I am here to point to truth in the hopes that you will look for yourself.

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 09:26 AM
You are linking to the rhetoric meaning of the word tautology. I was using it in the logical sense of the word: In logic, a statement that is unconditionally true by virtue of its form alone, is called a tautology. I think the proper rhetoric expression would be "no shi.t."

I am not here to debate anyone. I am here to point at truth. You seem to consider yourself a philosopher of some sort. Philosophy is, or at least should be the search for truth.

I am saying it is true that YOU DO NOT EXIST. Look at this statement, tear it apart. Do your best to prove to yourself that it is false. This statement is true any way you look at it.

There is experience and thought and action, but no self that owns these things. You are a thought in your head, there is no real world counterpart to you. Your brain made you up.

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 09:30 AM
There are many mysteries to this realm, more than I even care to uncover. But, thankfully, this is one I do not fear, nor struggle to understand.

This being, wrapped inside a rotting, flesh covered vehicle is real enough to come here and post this...

Even when this organic vessel ceases to exist, I will remain.

As my own Mother who stood before me dying, witnessed the movement of that Divine energy on that fateful day and was prescient enough to describe it....I remain.

As her own fading image came before me in a twilight vision cutting two strawberries, one tiny, bitter and green...the other as big as her hand, sweet, ripe and brilliantly red. She said...."The one's from India are better."

I was still young and did not understand this moment, until I began to dig deeper. Then this thing written down to remember was read again with the eyes of a more enlightened being and you know it made perfect sense.

Two other beings, Descartes and Kant had a portion of this same argument, albeit at different times. Descartes says I think therefore I am....and so are you because I am...I can validate you by my own existence.

Kant is a bit more particular...

He says I think...there for I am...but as for you? You're on your own. I am not egotistical enough to validate your existence. I think he almost had it. Because truly, We are not because We think. We are...and because of this... We think.

So, Boo...I can not say if you are here or not....you have to dig deep and work that out on your own.

I promise you, if you bang against the wall of your confinement cell enough....someone will come to check the lock and verify this for you. But you have to bang rather hard...:p

As for me? This being plunders through this realm, a portion of everything rests inside of this despicable, wretched vessel. I am a billion stories and histories. I am every name, every story, every child, every mother...every father even.

I am this and it is me and I exist enough, that I rose from sleep with the inclination to come tell you so.:p

One blessed, blessed, wonderful day...I will return to that greater portion, leaving this place behind. Hopefully given the chance to simply sing there at His feet for eternity.

This place is so thick with misinformation. Confused beings, in an attempt to be mentally at ease, come from all sides trying to discourage any forward movement by the portions around them. As this disturbs them greatly.

It's as if there were two great bodies of water. One higher and one lower. This lower, is a great sea of ignorance. The ones who can not swim to this higher one, grab onto the ones who can swim and try to drag them both down. Not out of malice, mostly. But, out of a desire to avoid being disturbed by witnessing this movement upward to an area they do not understand.

There's many things, such as cell phones, televisions and mortgages to make this even more difficult.

It's as if this whole world were simply hell(ignorance). Designed to keep the truth well hidden. A place where the Truth(SD) is scattered so far from this home that I have to use the internet to locate it. A place where most of what I wrote above would be considered insane by the culture around me.

I think a part of understanding this all and accepting it, is the ability to know that, to the others, we may look completely crazy and yet we still do not care.

You have to be brave and strong to release yourself from humanity's strangle hold.

You caught in a tangled web of stories and beliefs.

The truth could not be more simple. You do not exist. Let go of your beliefs and stories and LOOK!

Believer
02 January 2011, 12:28 PM
The truth could not be more simple. You do not exist.
And neither do you!

yajvan
02 January 2011, 12:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

What ever has been said above could be an interesting approach to lead to the truth. Yet ( and without using the śāstra-s as a guide)
it seems to me existence (sat) has gone though a whole lot of effort to produce the human-being for it (the human) not to exist.

It has produced a being that can sense the world around it, to contemplate it, to appreciate it, and for some, to realize that it
( this human experience) is an extension and exponent of It ( sat, existence itself).

That said, I look to the exponents of Reality ( of this sat) for them to inform me of the truth of this existence. Yet how can this be
if I follow and accept the premises I have read above? It is the wise that tell us of the nature of existence, and our experience to-and-with it.

So if one wishes to get tangled-up with various views that is fine. Yet the upaniṣad-s are quite clear about this sat and my relationship to It,
As are the āgama-s.

So, what do I think ? I take my direction from the following. To know the truth of existence we need to elevate our level of
understanding , our perception to see the truth. This is not a metaphor for changing ones idea or concept ( albiet it is part of it).
It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) this Supreme independent (svātantrya¹) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what?
Here is the wisdom offered and what I hope to add to the conversation. It is the 'form' of everything. This implies that solid ( body)
or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this
is the Supreme, brahman.

Now one may ask does Brahman then have a body? Does brahman have a non-body? To this I say yes. Someone tell me what
brahman is not? Could it be śūnyatā (void, emptiness) ? To this I say that śūnyatā is ākāśa (pure space) and is the element that
allows all things to exist. The upaniṣad-s call this tattva out as a key mahābhūta. Hence brahman is not even contained by this.

praṇām

words

1. svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य- the following one's own will , freedom of the will , independence

NayaSurya
02 January 2011, 01:50 PM
So, what do I think ? I take my direction from the following. To know the truth of existence we need to elevate our level of
understanding , our perception to see the truth. This is not a metaphor for changing ones idea or concept ( albiet it is part of it).
It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) this Supreme independent (svātantrya¹) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what?
Here is the wisdom offered and what I hope to add to the conversation. It is the 'form' of everything. This implies that solid ( body)
or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this
is the Supreme, brahman.

Now one may ask does Brahman then have a body? Does brahman have a non-body? To this I say yes. Someone tell me what
brahman is not? Could it be śūnyatā (void, emptiness) ? To this I say that śūnyatā is ākāśa (pure space) and is the element that
allows all things to exist. The upaniṣad-s call this tattva out as a key mahābhūta. Hence brahman is not even contained by this.


So perfectly written that I come to repeat it.

The word tangled makes me giggle when used by the OP.:p

What of this tool called the mind, by whom is it utilized? Who drives this car if not Beloved?

If this being was created by this functioning group of cells...then what of previous times? Before and after this existence when I was also present.

LOOK! With eyes...another grouping of cells?

As you can not "teach" this thing you speak of, I too can not show you of what I know to be true. But, I can leave you with IS UP 6-7 which says...

6- He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7- When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?


If even one exists...then we do exist...because one is truly what we are.

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 01:53 PM
And neither do you!

Yep! So, have you looked at tis and found it to be true?

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 01:59 PM
So perfectly written that I come to repeat it.

The word tangled makes me giggle when used by the OP.:p

What of this tool called the mind, by whom is it utilized? Who drives this car if not Beloved?

If this being was created by this functioning group of cells...then what of previous times? Before and after this existence when I was also present.

LOOK! With eyes...another grouping of cells?

As you can not "teach" this thing you speak of, I too can not show you of what I know to be true. But, I can leave you with IS UP 6-7 which says...

6- He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7- When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?


If even one exists...then we do exist...because one is truly what we are.

Yeah, keep patting each other on the back and stroking each other's egos. You are both so mired in delusion, it is sad.

Truth is not spiritual, special or pretty. It is just true. Stop looking at other's description of the state and reach it for yourself. Here, I'll show you how, look at this:

YOU DO NOT EXIST, IS THIS TRUE?

Look and find out for yourself, quite looking to others to spoon feed their realizations to you. It is useless and pathetic.

NayaSurya
02 January 2011, 02:02 PM
Yeah, keep patting each other on the back and stroking each other's egos. You are both so mired in delusion, it is sad.

Truth is not spiritual, special or pretty. It is just true. Stop looking at other's description of the state and reach it for yourself. Here, I'll show you how, look at this:

YOU DO NOT EXIST, IS THIS TRUE?

Look and find out for yourself, quite looking to others to spoon feed their realizations to you. It is useless and pathetic.

Hugs to you...Beloved. May what ever you are seeking..you recieve.<3

yajvan
02 January 2011, 03:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté booduhklr,




Look and find out for yourself, quite looking to others to spoon feed their realizations to you. It is useless and pathetic.

You are assuming much, no? That we have not looked perhaps? That your ideas have not occurred to us (me) before and we have not pondered this? That what you offer is net-new thinking or a revelation to first appear on this good earth via your words?


Just maybe we see something that you may not. That we do have ( or had) realized teachers and these teachers had realized teachers that have instructed them & us accordingly. But what did they teach ? The truth is Self-proven. This is svatāsiddha the notion of being self-revealed, self-known on a personal -subjective -intimate level.

svatāsiddha = svatā +siddha

svatā = the state of belonging to one's self , ownership as sva स्व = one's own , my own.
siddha = accomplished , fulfilled , effected , gained , acquired, well-known Yet that said, when you offer 'you do not exist', please set your defintions so we can comprehend your offer:

you = who or what ? Are you suggesting a total sum of an individual; or a part ( ego, self, mind, body, etc) ?
do not = as in total negation ? without cause purpose?
'do' is an action + not = no , so is this a state of being without action?
exist = sat or asat? Being or non-being?So, what is my point? If 'I' do not exist that infers asat ( non-existence) is now prevelent and Being (sat) is not present. If this is true it is incongruent with my experience. How so? I am typing, seeing; I am experiencing pure consciousness ( perfect stillness of Being) when in meditation; I perceive space. If asat was in play, then no-thing would be in play. Hence I reject the notion that I do not exist.

But what can I possibly base this conviction on? The bhāgavad gītā , chapter 2 , 12th śloka, kṛṣṇa informs us:
There never was a time when I was not, nor you nor these rulers of men; nor will there ever be a time when all of us cease to be.

praṇām

booduhklr
02 January 2011, 08:44 PM
[QUOTE=yajvan;56195]hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté booduhklr,




You are assuming much, no? That we have not looked perhaps? That your ideas have not occurred to us (me) before and we have not pondered this? That what you offer is net-new thinking or a revelation to first appear on this good earth via your words?


Just maybe we see something that you may not. That we do have ( or had) realized teachers and these teachers had realized teachers that have instructed them & us accordingly. But what did they teach ? The truth is Self-proven. This is svatāsiddha the notion of being self-revealed, self-known on a personal -subjective -intimate level.

svatāsiddha = svatā +siddha

svatā = the state of belonging to one's self , ownership as sva स्व = one's own , my own.
siddha = accomplished , fulfilled , effected , gained , acquired, well-known Yet that said, when you offer 'you do not exist', please set your defintions so we can comprehend your offer:

you = who or what ? Are you suggesting a total sum of an individual; or a part ( ego, self, mind, body, etc) ?
do not = as in total negation ? without cause purpose?
'do' is an action + not = no , so is this a state of being without action?
exist = sat or asat? Being or non-being?So, what is my point? If 'I' do not exist that infers asat ( non-existence) is now prevelent and Being (sat) is not present. If this is true it is incongruent with my experience. How so? I am typing, seeing; I am experiencing pure consciousness ( perfect stillness of Being) when in meditation; I perceive space. If asat was in play, then no-thing would be in play. Hence I reject the notion that I do not exist.

But what can I possibly base this conviction on? The bhāgavad gītā , chapter 2 , 12th śloka, kṛṣṇa informs us:
There never was a time when I was not, nor you nor these rulers of men; nor will there ever be a time when all of us cease to be.

praṇām[/QUOTE

Maybe you do see this, but I would never know because of the way you express it. We may very well be talking about the same thing.

When I say self or you, I mean it in the way you use it in everyday conversation. For example, "You ate an apple." You did not eat the apple. You do not exist. A body ate an apple. You are just a thought in your brain, a concept, that kinda jumps in after the fact and claims ownership. There is just action and emotion and thought, you do not own those things.

The statement YOU DO NOT EXIST can be looked at and tested and seen to be true from any angle.

You are not doing any of the things you listed above such as typing and experiencing. No typer, just typing. No experiencer, just experience. In truth, there is no you. "I" does not exist.

Believer
02 January 2011, 09:02 PM
Maybe you do see this, but I would never know because of the way you express it.

We have the same problem with your write-ups - because of the way you express it.
And we had this problem when you were here before under a different UserID.

Tapasya
03 January 2011, 05:00 AM
Namaste Booduhklr,

Let me summarise, my understanding of some of, what you have said:

a) Self = Ego.


b) There is no self
i. => there is no egoc) Atman = Brahman


d) Anatma = no atma
i. Anatma=> no Brahman e) “Can you find you? Or, do you just find thoughts about a you that in actuality point to NOTHING?”

f) “If you actually look, you can see that you are nothing more than a thought in your brain”.


1. The self is not necessarily defined as ego. Most here would define the Self as Atman. Once again, regardless of sampradaya, the objective for all Hindus is to eliminate ego (Ahamkara). The advaitin then further states that the sublimation of Ahamkara destroys Avidya (Nescience) and that this process leads to absolute reality – i.e. Brahman alone exists.

2. Statements a and b implies Statement b(i).

3. As regards statement (c) a number of persons in this forum may believe that, at the point of atma-bodha, Brahman alone exists. Thus, many will accept the sentiment behind statement 3 though there will be many others here who will not. Of course, at the level of Advaita paramarthika, the equality sign is inappropriate (by definition).

4. Statement c and d implies d(i).

5. Statement (e) perhaps suggests shunyata and hence my point about absolute solipsism.

6. The preception of the physical body (sthula sharira), governed by the senses, reflect a temporal reality. The spatial and other attributes of the sthula sharira are undoubtedly falsified by the limitations of the indriyas (senses), but, from the Advaita persective, the projections have an adhistanam (substratum).

devotee
03 January 2011, 09:10 AM
Namaste booduhklr,


There is an easy way to realize truth. Look at the following statement and see if it is true: You do not exist. The you that you think you are is not real. There is no owner of life, there is just life. There is a body and a mind, but it does not belong to you. This is TRUE. Don't believe it, test it. See for yourself. Seeing for yourself is the only way. Do not believe anyone, do not trust anyone to give you the answers. Seeing the truth of this is liberation.

Let me try to understand your proposition and your understanding, if you don't mind by answering these questions please :

You say :


I am here to share what I have found in the hope that it could help someone who is really serious about this and really wants THE answer.

As self doesn't exist, as "you" don't exist and no one else too exist, who is claiming to have come to share this knowledge. If in the above statement, "I" is what doesn't exist then can we reframe the statement like one below ?

One Non-existent is here to share what the non-existent has found in the hope that it could help another non-existent (this non-existent should be "really" serious about this and really wanted The answer !).

Can two non-existent beings differentiate between each other as has been stated above ? One non-existent being claims in front of other non-existent beings something ? How two non-existent beings behave differently and as two different individuals ? "One" is wise and the "other" is not when both are equally non-existent ?


This is not for recreation, this is for those who want truth at all costs.

Recreation for the non-existents ? How can an non-existent being want truth at any cost or otherwise ? Who are non-existent "those" who are different from "you" who has come to wake them up to the reality ?


There is an easy way to realize truth. Look at the following statement and see if it is true: You do not exist. The you that you think you are is not real. There is no owner of life, there is just life. There is a body and a mind, but it does not belong to you. This is TRUE. Don't believe it, test it. See for yourself. Seeing for yourself is the only way. Do not believe anyone, do not trust anyone to give you the answers. Seeing the truth of this is liberation.

OK, no arguments over this thing. I accept your statement that "I" and "you" both don' exist. Both are unreal. So, two unreal non-existent beings are talking and listening to each other ? You say "see for yourself" ? Who are you persuading to look for itself when the being that you are talking to is non-existent ? If "I" is simply a thought without an owner then who will listen to "you" to see for itself ?

What you are saying is right, but please forgive me, I see some flaws. May be I am unable to understand you correctly. Will you please help me by answering those questions above for a better understanding ?

OM

yajvan
03 January 2011, 12:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

With this conversation we have run into bādha बाध a contradiction. It is via this approach that many test for error. When there is a contradiction with one's experience compared to what is suggested or offered then the possibility for error arises. We can see many have done this test themselves as the posts indicate this.


Devotee puts it succinctly - if we do not exist, then who is having this conversation? I offered ' who then is typing ?'.

These points can be superseded by a higher notion of abādha-tattva (some write abādhitattva) - thatness that is above contradiction. Then one is talking/acting from the level of the Self (ātman, brahman). Then there is no bādha for that person yet others that remain bound to the lower self still struggle with bādha as their direct personal experience.

When one is fully established in the Supreme (pāramārthikasattā&#185;) there is never a contridiction; Why so ? because everything is and of one's own Self - where can there then be an opposite or contradiction if everything is an extention of one's Self? There must be two for contradiction to arise.

praṇām

words
pāramārthikasattā = pārama+ārthika + sattā

pārama - chief , highest , primary , most prominent or conspicuous
ārthika - pertaining to the true substance of a thing ; real
sattā - Being, existence; note that satta ( without ā ) means seatedHence - (seated) in the highest being, existence ~brahman~

booduhklr
04 January 2011, 10:04 AM
Ok, one more time. I am speaking in plain 21st Century English here to be as clear as possible. The terms I use are defined in their everyday way. Conversational English. English may not be the first language of the posters on this forum, but I am pretty darn sure that neither is Sanskrit so why not just talk plain here so as not to complicate things.This is simple and it is true. It is the same exact realization that you are all here to have. But, it is worded in the simplest way possible so that people can actually see it quickly and easily if they just take the time to test it and look at it to see if it is true.I am not here to argue, all arguing will do is possibly convince someone that what I am saying is true and that is not the goal. The goal is to have people see it for themselves. That is the way this works.I does not exist. The you that you think you are does not exist. There is a body and brain and thoughts and emotions and actions but you do not own any of them. This one truth, if seen, smashes all illusion and lie.LOOK!

devotee
04 January 2011, 10:14 AM
Why did you evade answering the questions ?

OM

Ganeshprasad
04 January 2011, 10:18 AM
Pranam


what I am saying is true and that is not the goal. The goal is to have people see it for themselves.

That is the way this works.I does not exist. The you that you think you are does not exist. There is a body and brain and thoughts and emotions and actions but you do not own any of them. This one truth, if seen, smashes all illusion and lie.LOOK!

i try to be as simple as possible using your own words, i do not exist yet you want me to see, how is that possible?

Jai Shree Krishna

booduhklr
04 January 2011, 11:27 AM
Pranam



i try to be as simple as possible using your own words, i do not exist yet you want me to see, how is that possible?

Jai Shree Krishna

There is a body/brain that interacts with stimuli. The body/brain can read these words and look at what is presented to test it for truth. Once seen, the body/brain functions from that new information. Basically, it recognizes the pattern of thought to attribute thoughts, actions, emotions and the like to a you.

Using the words I, you, me,. mine, etc., that is just how things are communicated. They point at nothing in reality. Just a concept in a brain.

Ganeshprasad
04 January 2011, 11:41 AM
Pranam


There is a body/brain that interacts with stimuli. The body/brain can read these words and look at what is presented to test it for truth. Once seen, the body/brain functions from that new information. Basically, it recognizes the pattern of thought to attribute thoughts, actions, emotions and the like to a you.

Using the words I, you, me,. mine, etc., that is just how things are communicated. They point at nothing in reality. Just a concept in a brain.

Oh really, body/ brain is nothing but material, it is dead just like the computer that i am using, it only comes alive when there is intelligent behind it, how difficult is it to understand this?

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
04 January 2011, 08:03 PM
Namaste,


There is a body/brain that interacts with stimuli. The body/brain can read these words and look at what is presented to test it for truth. Once seen, the body/brain functions from that new information. Basically, it recognizes the pattern of thought to attribute thoughts, actions, emotions and the like to a you.

Using the words I, you, me,. mine, etc., that is just how things are communicated. They point at nothing in reality. Just a concept in a brain.

If body/brain were capable of behaving in this manner then it should have been possible even after "death" but that doesn't happen.

What I have been trying to point is the fallacy in this theory which is borrowed from Theravada Buddhism and mixed with Advaita to get a cocktail of a philosophy which I call Internet-Adavita !

Things are simple but not really that much what you are proposing here. Let me tell you what is happening when you are trying to see if "you exist or not".

The seer is trying to be seen :

It is a simple game of mind. Who is trying to see ? Mind ! What is trying to see ? Mind i.e. itself. Now instead of going any deeper let's try to see our eyes. Can we see them ? No, because they are the seer & so cannot see themselves. Mind needs something to reflect upon to cognise it. So, when you put your mind on the job of finding your "self" you can never find it as the thief is acting as police out to catch itself.

"I" is just a thought :

Yes, "I" is just a thought but just because it is "just" a thought, can we say that it doesn't exist ? How does it logically follow ? It doesn't. "I" may be thought or whatever but it does is something ... how putting it in a category of thought makes it non-existent ? Do you propose to say that a thought is non-existent ? It is not !

The Reality as It is :

You have to go much deeper to realise the Truth. The ego-self doesn't exist the way we perceive because it has relative existence ... but there is something which is the substratum of that ego-self ... It is not nothing. The Reality, the way it is, is best explained in Vedanta & I would recommend Maandukya Upanishad read with Gaudapad Kaarika. The Reality which is the Self has four parts/states of existence. The first state is the Waking State i.e. this world, "I", "You", "He", "She" etc.. This state is relative state of existence within mental realm. In this state, the things appear to exist in a particular way which is quite different from reality. Second state of Self is Taijasa state which is the realm of mind-waves ... the luminous relative existence of things in subtle forms (i.e. in dreams, thoughts, before birth and after death). The third state is the God-state, the Prajnaa which is the controller of all beings and also the origin and end of all beings. The pure unconditioned state of the Self is called the Turiya or the fourth state because it cannot be described by concepts of mental realms & is therefore "nameless".

********************************

The enquiry can lead you to the Reality but you have stopped going just skin-deep. There is something from which this "I" thought arises ... what is that ? Look for that. This "I" is the scent of the Master which the "dog" has to find. This "I" is the thought of the Thinker and that has to be known.

OM

Kumar_Das
05 January 2011, 05:55 AM
So why should I believe/trust you for anything?
What are your credentials?
Haven't you been here before under a different Username?
Didn't you get tired of this forum in your previous journey through here?

What I want to know is why you specifically are suspicious of him?

Is your agenda to raise the level of paranoia?

Or make false wolf cries so that no one can weed out a real troll?

Kumar_Das
05 January 2011, 06:02 AM
Looks like you have perfected the art of mis-speaking.
Convoluted ramblings reflect your state of mind!

Why so harsh?

Regardless of what this person might be saying. Whether or not he is a troll. This was his first post.

I wouldn't make such a quick judgement considering we don't have a history of previous posts from different posters with a similar content of posting.

So... are you two in this together? Or is this your account?

Kumar_Das
05 January 2011, 06:27 AM
There is a body/brain that interacts with stimuli. The body/brain can read these words and look at what is presented to test it for truth. Once seen, the body/brain functions from that new information. Basically, it recognizes the pattern of thought to attribute thoughts, actions, emotions and the like to a you.

Using the words I, you, me,. mine, etc., that is just how things are communicated. They point at nothing in reality. Just a concept in a brain.

These words that are typed.(as quoted)

They are now present here(referring to the original post that I quoted), prior to not before being so.

How come they have made themselves here? Something was responsible for it.

Whichever can give an explanation which it is most satisfied with. That is to say, without responding to, to correct others.

That is...



YOU!

Kumar_Das
05 January 2011, 07:07 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

What ever has been said above could be an interesting approach to lead to the truth. Yet ( and without using the śāstra-s as a guide)
it seems to me existence (sat) has gone though a whole lot of effort to produce the human-being for it (the human) not to exist.

It has produced a being that can sense the world around it, to contemplate it, to appreciate it, and for some, to realize that it
( this human experience) is an extension and exponent of It ( sat, existence itself).

That said, I look to the exponents of Reality ( of this sat) for them to inform me of the truth of this existence. Yet how can this be
if I follow and accept the premises I have read above? It is the wise that tell us of the nature of existence, and our experience to-and-with it.

So if one wishes to get tangled-up with various views that is fine. Yet the upaniṣad-s are quite clear about this sat and my relationship to It,
As are the āgama-s.

So, what do I think ? I take my direction from the following. To know the truth of existence we need to elevate our level of
understanding , our perception to see the truth. This is not a metaphor for changing ones idea or concept ( albiet it is part of it).
It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) this Supreme independent (svātantrya¹) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what?
Here is the wisdom offered and what I hope to add to the conversation. It is the 'form' of everything. This implies that solid ( body)
or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this
is the Supreme, brahman.

Now one may ask does Brahman then have a body? Does brahman have a non-body? To this I say yes. Someone tell me what
brahman is not? Could it be śūnyatā (void, emptiness) ? To this I say that śūnyatā is ākāśa (pure space) and is the element that
allows all things to exist. The upaniṣad-s call this tattva out as a key mahābhūta. Hence brahman is not even contained by this.

praṇām

words

1. svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य- the following one's own will , freedom of the will , independence

yajvanji you are wasting effort in sharing your honest opinions with this troll.



the username "booduhklr" appears to be derived from the offensive American slang "bootycall"


he comes here to tell us that "You" does not exist.






The truth could not be more simple. You do not exist.And neither do you! Yep! So, have you looked at tis and found it to be true?

Why is there an agreement in the negation of you being "You"?

This can only be so if there was an acceptance of the reference being aimed at the person who accepts this reference, thereby accepting that there is a "you".



As I already said some time ago...


Funny how the same asura pretends to be against himself.



My advice to people is that don't respond to such threads. The intention is to evoke responses. I think the troll's intention here is to see how intelligent and well-versed in philosophy Hindus are.

Because;...

I made a post stating that "Atheists respect Hinduism because of our robust philosophy" and also ones older than that on a thread regarding the "Self" according to Dvaita, where I mentioned about psyches and evolution and Rishis.


...

In Vedic tradition, the Rishis did spend time off to develop themselves.

For me this is an evolutionary component. Wherein our primitive traits are tamed through focusing on the Divine, and physical-psychological endurance is improved. Its overcoming hardships, struggling by taking only the Divine as one's strength.

Evolution is advancement and survival. I think the way of the Sages is to gear towards a certain type of evolution.

...




The mischief makers only agenda is to lead you astray... if you are not with them, they will be against you...

NayaSurya
05 January 2011, 08:14 AM
Moving from observer to participant with some enlightenment for you this morning-

http://www.nexuscafe.com/bin/bbs.cgi/ShowMessages/reiki/6/17372

For one to be truly nonexistant, they sure do get around.

It will move on, they always do.

Kumar_Das
05 January 2011, 12:49 PM
I know, I know, I try to control myself from posting but stuff like this needs to be addressed. All this talk about "you" exist or don't exist is really dangerous. Imagine someone getting his mind confused pondering over this and doubts himself and convinces that there is something wrong in how he percieved himself all along, resulting in a drastic change from what they normally otherwise are like. You can even lose your mind and go nuts. Things like this do happen...

In philosophy ideas are playfully debated over with the aim of reducing their proponents and showing how they are logically invalid or absurd.

I saw many flaws... but I wasn't bothered in dragging this topic further.

To sum it...

He says how the brain is responsible for the concept of the individual indentifying himself as what he is, as an existent entity.

And yet here he is using reason to explain this "enlightenment"...

He can't be an Advaitin because Advaitin's do hold a personal pronoun just that they refer to it in second-person.

To say there is no "You" would render it impossible for a person to be a devotee, because there needs to be an existent devotee in order for the deity to be worshipped. So this "enlightenment" is counter-productive to much of Hinduism, Hindus see themselves as devotees of a particular deity and derive much of their psycho-spiritual identity from this.

booduhklr
05 January 2011, 08:51 PM
Namaste,



If body/brain were capable of behaving in this manner then it should have been possible even after "death" but that doesn't happen.

I am not denying that there is life. I am just stating that that life does not belong to you. Yes there is a life force or whatever you want to call it, but it is not the property of an individual.[/SIZE]

What I have been trying to point is the fallacy in this theory which is borrowed from Theravada Buddhism and mixed with Advaita to get a cocktail of a philosophy which I call Internet-Adavita !

Things are simple but not really that much what you are proposing here. Let me tell you what is happening when you are trying to see if "you exist or not".

[COLOR=black]The seer is trying to be seen :

It is a simple game of mind. Who is trying to see ? Mind ! What is trying to see ? Mind i.e. itself. Now instead of going any deeper let's try to see our eyes. Can we see them ? No, because they are the seer & so cannot see themselves. Mind needs something to reflect upon to cognise it. So, when you put your mind on the job of finding your "self" you can never find it as the thief is acting as police out to catch itself.

I am stating that it can be seen that the you that you thinks owns the life that is lived, the decision maker, the thinker, is just a thought and nothing more. This separate entity does not exist. You is just a thought, it is a product of the way the brain processes information and it is a lie.

"I" is just a thought :

Yes, "I" is just a thought but just because it is "just" a thought, can we say that it doesn't exist ? How does it logically follow ? It doesn't. "I" may be thought or whatever but it does is something ... how putting it in a category of thought makes it non-existent ? Do you propose to say that a thought is non-existent ? It is not !

Thoughts exist, you do not. If you would just look at this you would see what I am saying is true.

The Reality as It is :

You have to go much deeper to realise the Truth. The ego-self doesn't exist the way we perceive because it has relative existence ... but there is something which is the substratum of that ego-self ... It is not nothing. The Reality, the way it is, is best explained in Vedanta & I would recommend Maandukya Upanishad read with Gaudapad Kaarika. The Reality which is the Self has four parts/states of existence. The first state is the Waking State i.e. this world, "I", "You", "He", "She" etc.. This state is relative state of existence within mental realm. In this state, the things appear to exist in a particular way which is quite different from reality. Second state of Self is Taijasa state which is the realm of mind-waves ... the luminous relative existence of things in subtle forms (i.e. in dreams, thoughts, before birth and after death). The third state is the God-state, the Prajnaa which is the controller of all beings and also the origin and end of all beings. The pure unconditioned state of the Self is called the Turiya or the fourth state because it cannot be described by concepts of mental realms & is therefore "nameless".

All those states and realms you refer to are concepts, ideas trying to describe, for the sake of discussion, something that is beyond description. Seeing that you do not exist leads into the exact deeper seeing that you are pointing to. Seeing the truth of no self shatters all lies. Everything you believe is a lie. Everything. That is a fact. It is a fact, because the conceptual is not the actual. Understanding something does nothing but add to the millions of your current beliefs, the truth must be seen for oneself. I am pointing at truth, it is completely outside the realm of belief or understanding, it is up to you to look.

********************************

The enquiry can lead you to the Reality but you have stopped going just skin-deep. There is something from which this "I" thought arises ... what is that ? Look for that. This "I" is the scent of the Master which the "dog" has to find. This "I" is the thought of the Thinker and that has to be known.

Seeing the truth that there is no you leads into all of the other realizations that you are looking for. You ask, what is it from which the I thought arises, I found out, your turn. No you, look!

OM

*******Oh, and as for my username. Buddha Killer, it's a reference to a quote. Basically means you have to look for yourself and not just blindly accept others beliefs and ideas without investigating them.

devotee
07 January 2011, 09:56 PM
Namaste,


You ask, what is it from which the I thought arises, I found out, your turn. No you, look!

Oh, yet another Internet-self-declared-Buddha ! :)

I have met a few earlier & there is absolutely no harm in having one on this forum. Glad to meet you, "Buddha-killer" (borrowed this id from saying, "if you see Buddha, kill Buddha", right ??) !

However, as per my own policy decision, I am not authorised to speak to Buddhas under my present capacity !

OM

booduhklr
08 January 2011, 07:40 AM
Namaste,



Oh, yet another Internet-self-declared-Buddha ! :)

I have met a few earlier & there is absolutely no harm in having one on this forum. Glad to meet you, "Buddha-killer" (borrowed this id from saying, "if you see Buddha, kill Buddha", right ??) !

However, as per my own policy decision, I am not authorised to speak to Buddhas under my present capacity !

OM

Just came here to offer something for people to look at for themselves. Obviously no one is interested in anything but holding on to and defending their current beliefs.

I have nothing more to offer than this one pointer. It is all that is required.

No you, look!

satay
08 January 2011, 12:20 PM
namaste,


Obviously no one is interested in anything

It took six pages and 52 posts to figure this out? Today's buddha seems to be a bit rusty.

Ganeshprasad
08 January 2011, 03:29 PM
Pranam


Obviously no one is interested in anything


No you, look!

I wonder why that should bother you, since according to 'you' no one exists, why expect any interest?

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
09 January 2011, 07:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;


Obviously no one is interested in anything but holding on to and defending their current beliefs.

Some beliefs are time-tested and hold true for eternity - with or without human intervention.

And this whole idea of of one being unreal or non-existent. An interesting perplexity that I think many have addressed above.

Yet that said if I am unreal then the world is unreal - this is a common argument we find in vedānta darśana , the world being ~unreal~.
The prābhākara school of the mimāṁsaka-s raises such a point - how can the world be unreal or non-existent?

If we spend some time with ādi śaṅkara's&#185; adhyāsa of the brahma-sūtras , he addresses this conundrum. He says non-existence
is not a category onto itself ( this makes perfect sense to me). Non-existence can only be an idea when compared to existence, to something real. So we speak of something unreal when compared to real. He uses the example of a pot and cloth. When we think of a pot as if it were a cloth then we can say the cloth is unreal. We can see why - because the pot has existence. It is that simple.

And śaṅkara-ji says that is what is meant by non-existence. Like that, if you contend that I am unreal it must only be to the backdrop of what I really am ( ultimately). So, following this argument, I do exist. Yet the qualification of 'I' is of great import and has been addressed in several posts above.


praṇām


words

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&#185; , as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.
Why so ? To preserve and perpetuate knowledge of the Supreme. There are 4 +1 maţha-s. Some think more, some stick to 4 ( north, South,
East and West). The +1 that I recognize is kanchipuram - Tamil Nadu.


darśana - seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines; a school of belief

booduhklr
11 January 2011, 08:23 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



Some beliefs are time-tested and hold true for eternity - with or without human intervention.

And this whole idea of of one being unreal or non-existent. An interesting perplexity that I think many have addressed above.

Yet that said if I am unreal then the world is unreal - this is a common argument we find in vedānta darśana , the world being ~unreal~.
The prābhākara school of the mimāṁsaka-s raises such a point - how can the world be unreal or non-existent?

If we spend some time with ādi śaṅkara's&#185; adhyāsa of the brahma-sūtras , he addresses this conundrum. He says non-existence
is not a category onto itself ( this makes perfect sense to me). Non-existence can only be an idea when compared to existence, to something real. So we speak of something unreal when compared to real. He uses the example of a pot and cloth. When we think of a pot as if it were a cloth then we can say the cloth is unreal. We can see why - because the pot has existence. It is that simple.

And śaṅkara-ji says that is what is meant by non-existence. Like that, if you contend that I am unreal it must only be to the backdrop of what I really am ( ultimately). So, following this argument, I do exist. Yet the qualification of 'I' is of great import and has been addressed in several posts above.


praṇām


words
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&#185; , as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.
Why so ? To preserve and perpetuate knowledge of the Supreme. There are 4 +1 maţha-s. Some think more, some stick to 4 ( north, South,
East and West). The +1 that I recognize is kanchipuram - Tamil Nadu.
darśana - seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines; a school of belief

Beliefs and ideas about what is. All part of the indivisible whole.