A Discussion Of Non Dual "adviata" Philosophy.

Hmm, interesting take on that.

I actually could never get into this thread. Didn't have the time before and probably still don't. I could see it taking hours digging through this...not uninteresting though.

I apologize. I'm drifting right now, not just from reading but because it's late here. I may try to explain myself better next time. If not, well all the best sorting out the mysteries!

 

No problem.

 

Thing is Meagain, this is a somewhat obscure topic, at least outside of India, or the small numbers of westerners who take an interest in such things. I think the interest in eastern religions and spirituality that was emergent a few years ago has declined somewhat, especially among the younger generation. And even where people do have some interest, often it's in some kind of 'packaged' form. Also Buddhism seems much more appealing to many westerners than any Hindu based system. It's quite a rarity to encounter anyone who has a general knowledge of such systems. At least that's my own experience. Not that my own knowledge is that great, but I'm familiar with the general lines, and I've tried to respond based on that.

I think you've done a good job here in laying out what Levy has to say and commenting on it. I've advanced a few thoughts on it all, and will probably continue with that. Trouble is, I've been unwell for about 3 weeks, and on meds that affect my energy levels both physical and mental, and somehow, I don't fully trust myself at the moment to give it my best shot. Hopefully, I'm now gradually getting back to normal, but today I feel tired and unlike the effort to construct anything worthwhile in the way of arguments on such fine points.

 

Advaita and Buddhism deals with the natural state of man, which is obscured by belief systems, and their resultant thought and emotional patterns. Man moves along these habitual mental-emotional patterns as in a groove of a phonographic record, dominated by their superficial sensational content, and hence suffers due to its unnatural state.

This knowledge is there within each human being, as it deals with his or her own natural state. It is not something outside of yourself. And one doesn't need these philosophies to understand one's own true nature and end suffering. Belief systems are the compensation for lack of knowingness, and knowingness is enough to understand the natural state.

Just as a good teacher makes things easier to learn, similarly these philosophies can speed up the learning curve, but that is all there is to it. There is even the danger that these philosophies themselves can become belief systems and obscure the knowingness that reveals the natural state.

It is my observation that ultimately, it is the quality of one's own study and work habits, along with courage that determines success in the material or spiritual plane.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'natural' state of man. Do you mean as in hunter gatherer type cultures, or on a purely abstract level?

If enlightenment or realization is the natural state, how come we deviated from it?

 

Thanks for the good wishes. Still got problems, and even more medications.

I agree that new age type teachers have done a lot of damage. But I suppose that's the result of mixing up spirituality and consumerism. And on the topic of consumerism, more gods = more choice in the spiritual supermarket - so one might suppose

'Hinduism' though is a very diverse thing as I'm sure you are aware. Everything there from superstitions of the worst kind to some very interesting philosophy and methodologies for self development. I went quite deep into some aspects at one time. The problem is that as a western person I found that after a while it tends to spit one out. Still I think I learned a certain amount, and don't regret my investment of time. On the other hand I know of cases where I feel people have been messed up by involvement with gurus.

 

There's a parallel to this in the philosophy of Purusha and Prakriti. developed first by the Sanhkya school, and later expanded in the Bhagavad Gita. Purusha is the fixed and immovable consciousness,the self. Prakriti is nature, all that moves. In the normal state of the human being, Purusha is lost in identity wth the movements of Prakriti, and identifies with those movements. Thoughts and all mental acivity are seen as movements of Prakriti. Only when Purusha draws back from Prakriti can the self be known.

In the orgiinal Sankhya form, this led to a dualistic philosophy. Later, when it was combined with yoga teachings in the Gita, Purusha was identified as the source of Prakriti, and oneness thus restored. In effect Purusha is the Self. However, unlike Advaita, the Gita sees the existence of Purusha at different levels, So there is according to that teaching, a kind of individual Purusha, or even a series of them that know different levels of nature. Mainly though, there are said to be 3. The lower kshara or 'moving' Purusha - consciousness identified with its objects (including thoughts), akshara, unmoving - the Purusha drawn back into a pure self knowledge of sheer existence, and Purushottama, a third and inconceivable state which transcends both these two. The 3 are actually one, but apear different due to our ignorance of the reality.

The 2 lower aspects - kshara and akshara are indicated in the Mundaka Unpanishad, where it is said:

"Two birds, fast bound companions
Clasp close the self-same tree.
Of these two, one eats the sweet fruit
The other looks on without eating."

'Eating the sweet fruit' means being identified with, and thus caught up in, or bound to the movements of cosmic nature. 'Looking on without eating' represents the stage at which Purusha or self is no longer identified with these movements.

Only a brief outline, as there are other aspects of that particular philosophy. But perhaps it gives a similar view from a slightly different perspective.

 

It comes right at the start of part 3 of Mundaka Upanishad. Many different translations, but all come to the same thing. The one I quoted is from a book club edition I've had for a long time - it doesn't actually say who translated it, but its got quite a nice poetic quality.

It would make a nice ceramic plaque......

 

Are you trying to say that thoughts are objects in that they occur on a cellular level and cells are objects?

What's really weird is that our imaginations spread like, well, a virus. What we see depends on what the first guy conjured up. It's hard to erase former memories, but it is possible. I'm not sure that I have a brain or cells as such.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but objects are abstract from thoughts of them. A chair isn't a chair, per se. There is no inherent meaning in the word. Chair doesn't imply that you can stand on it, break it with a baseball bat, throw it away, etc.

I'm really confused though, because you're saying "the thought of an object" as if objects have thoughts. I think they could. To me a thought is just a sort of whimsical feeling that occurs based upon any given situation. It's like a loose connection, but it's very real and very accurate. You may be in the library as I am and be slightly aware that the librarians are stacking books, for instance, but actually there is a very profound truth in your awareness, even though you aren't examining closely all of the individual intricacies involved in the exact process that is going on. Well I've said too much I'm leaving.

 

I beg to differ. Anything can be a chair, really. A giant could sit on the top of a tree and call it a chair. Why not? Designers make chairs with trunks and tops. They're similar enough in concept to a regular old tree. And who are they to say anyway? I could sit on a sheet of paper and call it a chair. Who are you to tell me any differently?