The Nature of Reality

MeAgain · Apr 3, 2021

XXVI

4. On Expressing the Inexpressible.
It is to prepare the reader for what is to follow that the above paragraphs have been written, for I am about to prove in different ways that, while consciousness and objectivity cannot be related as between two distinct entities, they are, in the final analysis, identical. Here also, no words can directly convey the truth that there is only non-duality. Nevertheless, if those who read on will have been enabled, however obscurely, to discern that which had hitherto eluded them, my attempt to express the inexpressible will not have been in vain.
Click to expand...

5. The Seer and the Seen.
When I speak of an object, I imply that something is present to me, the conscious subject. When I speak of myself as the conscious subject, I imply that something is perceived. The complementary character of these terms will be clearly brought out if we speak of the knower and the known, or the seer and the seen. This situates them both in duality; and because the one is never found, and cannot even be conceived of, without the other, they must be the two aspects of one original.
Click to expand...

Perceived and perceiver. One never exists without the other.
No object can be identified, or pointed to, or known, without an identifier, or pointer, or knower.

MeAgain · Apr 4, 2021

XXVI

6. Non-Duality.
If there were consciousness of something, there must then have been a change in consciousness, which is impossible. But since objectivity appears in consciousness, it cannot in reality be other than consciousness, whose immutable nature allows of no being other than its own. The oneness of consciousness and its seeming object is proven by the fact that before and after the appearance, or the cognition, of an object, that is to say, when there is no objective experience (as in the interval between two thoughts), the object is non-existent. If it had no existence before and will have none afterwards, it must be inexistent in the middle, for the appearance of something out of nothing, and its disappearance into nothing, are impossibilities. By its existence or its non-existence, however, I refer only to its objectivity. As we have seen, when no objective experience occurs, what remains is the principle of consciousness and not the nothingness we postulate from the standpoint of objective experience. Before and after it has appeared as an object, it cannot then be a mere nothing: rather, it is nothing but the principle of consciousness, that is to say, it is absolute existence. And so it must be, even when the illusion of objectivity arises. Now if consciousness never has an object, it is a word we can no longer take literally, for consciousness without an object transcends duality. It is the quiddity of all appearances, ubiquitous and unique, and we can only call it non-duality or the principle of consciousness. Why non-duality should seem to assume the duality of a knower and a known, and why the impersonal principle of consciousness should seem to become personified as the thinker, are indentical problems: they will be examined in the chapter on Absurd Questions. At present, we are concerned with nonduality, to which we shall now proceed by another approach.
Click to expand...

If we grant that we can become conscious of an object, then our consciousness must have changed. We were unconscious and now we are conscious. To be unconscious and then conscious would be impossible for if we are unconscious how can consciousness arise?
Now granted that an object appears, it must appear from consciousness. And appearing from consciousness it must in fact be a part of consciousness as nothing can arise from nothing. Consciousness in this regard refers to Ultimate Consciousness.

Being that the object must arise in consciousness we cannot say it has an independent existence and so the notion of subject and object are dispersed along with duality; and only non-duality, or Ultimate Consciousness, or the inexpressible oneness of being remains.

MeAgain · Apr 5, 2021

XXVI

7. Matter, Mind and Non-Duality.
All objective experience as such takes place in the brain and therefore the distinction between matter and mind is unreal: nevertheless, let us for the moment grant their existence on two distinct levels, since that is our relative experience. And then, since we are able to think about material objects, it would appear that matter is cognized by mind. But how can mind cognize matter? Mind could cognize matter only if it ceased to be itself and became material. If such a change of nature were feasible, it could not be said that matter had been cognized by mind. And how, in that case, could it be said that matter had been cognized at all? Even if it be true, from the standpoint of physics (and granting the independent existence of objects), that one piece of matter may be acted upon by another, matter, being devoid of consciousness, cannot form notions such as those of materiality in general and of material objects in particular. Thus matter has never been the object of consciousness and has never existed. What we call matter must therefore be mental; and the distinction between mind and matter is purely verbal.* Further, since material objects are nothing but notions, it would seem, could we still grant the existence of mind as an entity, that notions were the objects of mind. Mind itself, however, is nothing but a notion (XIX, 2), based on the memory of separate thoughts. And then, can one thought be conscious of another? We have seen that a thought appears to be a real entity only when there is identification with the body (XIX, 3), whereas it is simply the consciousness of something. Thus to suppose that one thought can cognize another is to suppose that there can be consciousness of the consciousness of something, which is absurd.** A new perception, moreover, implies a new thought, or a new thought a new perception; a thought and its object are therefore at one. This object cannot be material, as we saw just now, nor can it be mental, since one thought cannot cognize another. It follows that objectivity is an illusion. But we refer, in speaking of an object, to a modification that occurs in the brain, so that thought and mind express merely the ostensible relation between consciousness and cerebration. Can this relation exist? As in the case of mind and matter, the principle of consciousness could be related to the brain, that is to say, to objectivity, only if it ceased to be its non-dual self and became material. This is impossible, for even if it could change its nature and depart from its being the sole reality to become an illusion, it could not at the same time be a conscious principle and its own object, whether we take the object to be real or illusory. Nevertheless, we do have the experience of objectivity; and since it can only appear in consciousness, it cannot be other than consciousness.
8. Wave and Water.
Just as a wave consists of water, all things objective, no matter how they appear, consist of consciousness.

*The brain itself is also merely a notion pertaining to duality.
**See, in this connection, XXV', 3, 'No Direct Interrelation of Percepts'.
Click to expand...

Everything we know, we know through the process of analysis by the workings of our brain. as all objects must be know, and can only be known by the workings of the brain; the two are inseparable. Without an analysis by our thinking brain, no object can be known.
Now, if we still hold that objects are separate from the thinking brain, how would the thinking brain come to know the object? If the two are completely separate no recognition of an object could occur. If the brain, which we will assume is composed of matter, has produced a mind which we assume is immaterial; how can an immaterial mind interact with a material object? For that matter, how can a material brain produce an immaterial mind?
Further if we grant that the material brain does exist apart from a material object, how can one material object become consciously aware of another material object unless some form of consciousness becomes involved, and then how and where did this consciousness arise? If we grant that consciousness arises from within the material brain, then we accept the fact that consciousness arises from non consciousness, or something which is different from matter arises from matter. If we say that consciousness is inherent in the material brain, then we are admitting that they are not separate, but are in fact the same. If they are the same why can we locate the brain in the physical universe but not the mind? It must be that one or the other is a mere notion and one is Ultimate Reality. Therefore as the brain, or physicality, changes but the mind, or consciousness, does not we must conclude that consciousness alone exists.
Now we must realize that consciousness itself is devoid of the seeming mind created by the brain. Mind itself is only a notion based on the memory of past thoughts. If our memory fails, so too our mind.
Our mind seems to be the consciousness of past thoughts. But can a present thought be conscious of a past thought as both thoughts would have to occur simultaneously? If they can occur simultaneously then we would have two minds, not one, as the mind is the consciousness of thought.

....I have to go. More later.

MeAgain · Apr 7, 2021

METAPHYSICAL REALIZATION AND THE NON-EXISTENCE OF MEMORY

1. Metaphysical Realisation.
While for plain men, the world is unquestionably real, and its appearance, for those who have looked into the nature of sensory perception, is unreal, it remains both real and unreal for one who has dissolved the illusion of a claiming ego and realized non-duality. It is unreal because its appearance depends wholly upon consciousness, and real because it is inseparable from that consciousness and cannot therefore be other than non-dual consciousness itself. The sage, in short, has transcended all opposites.*

*Reality and unreality, knowledge and ignorance, peace and agitation, pleasure and pain, etc.
Click to expand...

First there is a mountain,
Then there is no mountain,
Then there is.

2. Succession Never Experienced.
We experience duration only in states characterized by the succession of thoughts (XV', i). But we have found that consciousness and its object are inseparably one (XXl/I, 6). This indeed is the conclusion that springs of itself from the fact that the notions of thinker and thought are separate experiences, which implies that between consciousness and what we call its object, there is no intermediary. We are mistaken, therefore, when we speak of succession and divide the elements of that succession into so many present experiences: the consciousness in which thoughts seem to occur is a single, immutable and nontemporal perpetuity from which these apparently distinct events can in no way be different. Consequently, there is no experience outside non-duality. The illusion of a present time has as its necessary concomitants the recollection of past, and the expectation of future, events, together with the notion of a persistent individual consciousness. In so far as such events are experienced as real, they are reflections of the perenniality I have called the principle of consciousness: but since they are no more than reflections, they are in truth unreal.
Click to expand...

Between the thinker and thought no time elapses. Between mind and object no space exists. Between the past and future now never arrives.

Maya
If someone sees an elephant moving around in the air, it would be said that what he is seeing is an illusion or hallucination; but to him the perception is real. Maya is the mass hypnosis of God by which He makes every human being believe in the same illusory "reality" of creation as perceived by the senses; avidya gives individuality of form, experience, and expression (it supports the ego or I-consciousness).
~ Paramahansa Yogananda

MeAgain · Apr 7, 2021

XXVII

3. The Non-Existence of Memory.
As already stated, I can remember only what I have known. Not only do I remember my thoughts; I remember also my having thought. It follows that I, as the thinker or individual, am the object of consciousness: but as the knower of this and of all other objects, it follows that I am consciousness itself. It is in this way, through the appearance of memory, that the presence of an impersonal, witnessing consciousness has been established (XXII, i). Coming now to the very highest standpoint, we shall find that no experience can ever really recur. But it should not for a moment be thought that the witness is something to be discarded. Even for one who has realized non-duality, non-duality will continue to appear as the witness whenever objectivity seems to appear. In his case, objectivity will be like a mirage: since he knows it to be an illusion, it cannot deceive him. And for one who has not realized non-duality, the witness provides the sole means of attaining it (XXIII, 3 e^9 4). The words that follow must therefore be viewed as intended, my intention being to give the reader a taste of non-duality. The remembrance of a sensory object as such is an impossibility, for the object had no existence apart from the seeing, supposing the object to have been visual. (It makes no difference whether the object be experienced as 'physical' or 'mental'.) Nor is it possible to remember the seeing, for the process of seeing was ended when what we call the knowledge of the object dawned. But what is this knowledge? If it dawns only when the process of knowing has ended, it transcends the sensory domain and must therefore be devoid of attributes. It is non-duality. But non-duality cannot be its own object and cannot then be remembered. It follows that what appears as remembrance in terms of the senses is in reality the spontaneous self-expression of absolute knowledge. And in non-duality, there can be no question why, as we shall see in the next chapter on 'Absurd Questions'. Absolute knowledge seems to become manifest because it becomes manifest. This is the last word on appearance.
Click to expand...

We remember what we have known. And we remember having known.
But who or what remembers the known and the having known? It can only be something beyond the knower and known. What is beyond the knower and known is consciousness itself.
Thus consciousness is beyond duality and being beyond duality nothing can be said to have been witnessed by consciousness, as to witness something there must be something to witness, and that would be a duality.
Further the experience of non duality cannot be remembered as to remember would be to fall back into duality.

Knowing this one who has realized non-duality is not fooled by the illusion of everyday life.

Tyrsonswood · Apr 7, 2021

MeAgain said: ↑

METAPHYSICAL REALIZATION AND THE NON-EXISTENCE OF MEMORY

First there is a mountain,
Then there is no mountain,
Then there is.
Between the thinker and thought no time elapses. Between mind and object no space exists. Between the past and future now never arrives.

Maya
If someone sees an elephant moving around in the air, it would be said that what he is seeing is an illusion or hallucination; but to him the perception is real. Maya is the mass hypnosis of God by which He makes every human being believe in the same illusory "reality" of creation as perceived by the senses; avidya gives individuality of form, experience, and expression (it supports the ego or I-consciousness).
~ Paramahansa Yogananda
Click to expand...

non-ordinary reality

MeAgain · Apr 8, 2021

XXVIII
ABSURD QUESTIONS

1. The Origin of the World.
From time immemorial, people have been speculating about the origin of the world, making inquiries as to the place, the time and the cause of its inception. Even when the problem of origination is not discussed in these terms, the terms used, no matter what they may be, are always reducible to this formulation, since space, time and causality together constitute the world. But these questions are wholly illogical. If the world had its origin at any point in time, time already existed; if it had its origin at any point in space, space already existed; and if it was as the effect of some cause that it came into being, causality already existed. All such questions are therefore absurd. It would have been more profitable had the world's thinkers analysed the concepts of time, space and causality as we did in previous chapters (XI to XVI), according to the method used by Adwaita Vedanta.
Click to expand...

I was sitting, writing at my text-book; but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. This time the smaller groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation: long rows, sometimes more closely fitted together; all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis. ~ August Kekulé on the structure of benzene
Click to expand...

MeAgain · Apr 9, 2021

XXVIII

2. The Origin of Identification.
Let us now consider a parallel problem, one which invariably troubles seekers at the beginning of their search. If the self is by nature non-dual, an individual self must be both unreal and impossible. How then does it happen that we believe ourselves to be embodied? Otherwise put, how and why do we identify the self with a body, granting that a body exists? The question implies that before an ego existed as a result of identification, an ego existed in order to identify the self with a body! This question is no less illogical than the others.
Click to expand...

If there is no ego, then how can an ego come to distinguish itself from the body in order to recognize itself as a ego separate from the body?

3. The Fundamental Problem.
We have found already that the problem of a first cause is insoluble (7X, 2): what I have just said about the origin of the world confirms it. But since questions of this nature are bound to spring up sooner or later, the proper course is to demonstrate their absurdity, in order that the seeker may reject them and so remain free to devote himself with undivided attention to the fundamental problem, 'What am I?'. Once this has been solved, all lesser problems will also have been solved, not in the form of hypotheses which can always be disputed, but decisively, in terms of the consciousness without which no problem can arise. The nature of objectivity, in other words, will not have been understood until the nature of the subject who thinks he perceives it has been: then objectivity as such, with all its inherent and insoluble problems, will cease to be
Click to expand...

“If you really understand Zen… you can use any book. You could use the Bible. You could use Alice in Wonderland. You could use the dictionary, because… the sound of the rain needs no translation.” – Alan Watts

4. Absurd Prospects.
Persons wishing to enlarge their stock of worldly power and knowledge so as to rise in their own esteem, and in the esteem of others, will not find the smallest comfort in such a doctrine. It will suit those to whom the removal of darkness and incertitude alone counts.
Click to expand...

Amen.

MeAgain · Apr 10, 2021

PART FOUR SELF-LOVE
XXIX
DESIRES, FEELINGS AND THE WITNESS

1. The Objects of Desire.
By an object of desire, I mean anything whatsoever that can in any way satisfy appetence. It may be, for example, a sensory object, a particular chain or conflux of events, the solution to an intellectual problem,* or even the urge to realize nonduality. It may equally be the avoidance or the prevention of something that is feared or disliked: it is then called an object of aversion, but that is only the other side of the coin. And both kinds of object may be definable or indefinable.
Click to expand...

Kama tanha is the desire to satisfy the senses. "I am hungry."
Bhava tanha is the desire to become something. "I wish to improve my mind."
Vibhava tanha s the desire to get rid of something. "I wish to overcome my anger."

2. Peace the Ultimate Object of Every Desire.
Whenever we have the notion of an individual existence, there is always something we desire: and desire is attended by agitation. Being cerebral, this agitation prevents what is called peace of mind. But the moment we happen upon something at present desirable, the agitation (or the latent possiblity of agitation) subsides and we enjoy tranquillity. It follows that peace is the ultimate aim, though not always the apparent object, of every desire.
Click to expand...

Desire leads to an attempt to end desire. Attemption leads to turmoil as effort must be expended to attain the envisioned end. Once the desire is met the effort subsides and effortlessness entails. Without effort peace is found. Peace, and the ending of effort, is thus the ultimate end of any desire.

3.The Process of Enjoyment.
Suppose I experience the medley of sensations and feelings associated with the idea of hunger, suppose also that food is eaten and that this particular want is fulfilled: precisely at that moment, I am without desire. Next follows a feeling of satisfaction. And sooner or later, because of identification with the body, I shall attribute the cause of this feeling to the food. Now there is no denying that body and senses were gratified: but was I right in thinking that the feeling of satisfaction, as distinct from the sensory pleasure, was caused by what I ate? To make the question general, sometimes before and always after the happy or unhappy issue of a desire,* we have various feelings. What, if any, is the relation between these feelings and the desired object?

*It should not be forgotten that the dualism of mind and matter is unreal, excepting from the standpoint of one who is identified with the body.
** Unless, of course, we are so transported, either with joy or grief, as to 'lose consciousness', in which case the desireless state lasts longer than usual, the brain having become temporarily or fatally benumbed.
Click to expand...

The ending of desire, in this case Kama tanha, may seem to be gratification of the senses. But is it the senses that have been gratified or the effort of satisfaction?

MeAgain · Apr 11, 2021

XXIX

4. The Analysis of Feeling.
In our examination of dreamless sleep (I/I, 2, b and c)we saw that its characteristic peace or happiness in no way depends upon the enjoyment of objects, for in dreamless sleep, there is no objective experience and we are merged in non-duality. Whenever we happen upon a desired object, it is the same. Precisely at the moment of its attainment, the agitation (or the potential agitation) caused by desire is stilled, and we are resorbed in the self whose very nature is happiness or peace: and the object vanishes. This immediate apprehension of non-duality becomes manifest just afterwards in the agreeable feelings we experience: they cannot have been caused by the object, for there was no object in that non-dual state. If plain men do not recognize this immediate apprehension of non-duality, it is for the same reason that they do not recognize the interval between two thoughts(III, 7). When, on the contrary a desired object has failed to appear, or its appearance has failed to satisfy, we have disagreeable feelings. We have them because desire was not appeased according to custom or promise and the agitation continued, making the direct apprehension of non-duality impossible. It is this want of fulfilment that becomes expressed in grief, anger, frustration and the like.
Click to expand...

Objects never bring peace, only the attainment of desire leads to non agitation and when non agitation is found there is no discriminating mind being agitated by an object nor the arousal of any desire.
The feeling of satisfaction that results from attaining the desire does not arise from attaining an object, it arises from the ending of the agitation that caused the desire.

MeAgain · Apr 12, 2021

XXIX

5. Feelings and the Witness.
Even though feelings may coincide with the actual or probable outcome of a desire, they point to the ever-present, desireless self and not to any object. Feelings are the objects of consciousness and I am their witness. The senses, in accordance with their own laws and my particular temperament, will continue to seek pleasure and avoid pain, so long as the body continues. But knowing myself to be the witness of feelings as of percepts, I shall no longer have any attachment to desire and aversion. I shall be with myself at peace.
Click to expand...

Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose.

6. Realisation and Renunciation.
Only when a seeker is endowed with the one-pointed, all-absorbing desire for realization of the ultimate truth can he overcome all obstacles, whatever their nature. Desire and aversion are rightly thought to be at the bottom of every obstacle on the path of spiritual realization. This often leads misguided or intellectually feeble persons into suppressing them. But no attempt to smother desire and aversion by restraining the senses can, by itself, lead to realization. Realization dawns as the result of replacing ignorance with knowledge and not by substituting one mode of living for another.
Nevertheless, most seekers do exercise restraint, each in his own way and spontaneously: the cultivation of sensory and intellectual pleasure will be found to impede the cultivation of metaphysical knowledge. This answers the likely criticism, that what has been said may prove dangerous to aspirants who are weakminded or immature. The danger consists in the attitude, "I am a conscious principle having nothing in common with the senses: I am their witness, so let them rip!" No one who thought thus would be fit to follow this method which, as already observed, is intended for those mature souls whose exclusive aim is the removal of darkness and incertitude.
Click to expand...

Rejecting the senses doesn't lead to enlightenment. Retiring to a mountain top doesn't guarantee wisdom. Only knowledge of the true nature of Ultimate Reality leads to salvation.
Nevertheless, restraint follows from knowledge as a natural consequence.
Knowledgeable restraint keeps desire in check.

MeAgain · Apr 13, 2021

XXIX

7. Conclusion: The Yearning for Happiness.
All want happiness. Happiness is ever-present as the self. Being ignorant of this, plain men seek happiness through objects. Whatever peace they enjoy must depend upon chance, excepting when it comes passively as in slumber. In any case, it cannot endure. Well-meaning persons, moreover, who have nothing but an inkling of the truth, are often inclined to renounce the world in the hope of finding the unconditioned happiness they aspire to: and they too will never find it lastingly, for so long as they have not renounced the body by ceasing to identify themselves with it, they cannot rise above desire and aversion. Lasting peace is to be found only when desire and aversion have been properly situated, that is to say, when it is known that they pertain to the ego and not to the self. The ego, as we have seen, is the outcome of the mistaken identification of self and body. There can be no irreversible peace until the ego, or I-thought, is seen for what it is, namely, a mere notion, a bad habit, and the object of consciousness. Thus felicity and self-knowledge go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Happiness is not something to chase after, it is something to find within, not without. Acquiring or renouncing things will only bring temporary happiness. True happiness can only be found by overcoming the limits of the ego and moving beyond.
The science of the self.

“Jnana Yoga,
Or the science of the Self,
Is not a subject that can be understood and realized through mere intellectual study,
Reasoning,
Discussion or arguments.
It is the most difficult of all sciences.”
– Swami Sivananda

MeAgain · Apr 14, 2021

XXX
SELF-LOVE

I. Self-Love the Spring of all Actions.
The aim of all human activity is happiness, and happiness is the very nature of the self. Thus all actions are the expression of self-love. This will be obvious in so far as our private activities are concerned: it may not be obvious when we act to help others. The difficulty, if any, is either verbal or conventional: by self-love we refer normally to self-interest, or selfishness, whereas I use the expression to denote our innate desire for lasting peace and happiness. From the standpoint of ethics, the desire to help others is certainly less selfish than the desire to please our own small selves. From the standpoint of truth, both the desire to please ourselves and the desire to help others, even at the cost of personal sacrifice, proceed from a common motive, regardless of the greater or lesser virtue involved. The motive behind both lines of conduct is the prospect of happiness. It follows that self-love is the sole spring of all action, amongst which must be counted voluntary inaction.
Click to expand...

Love of self is the love of the divine, as the self is divine. Realizing the self we realize the divine and find happiness, as true happiness is knowing the divine.
As the divine is the self and as all selves are the divine, helping others is merely another form of self love, or love of the divine.

MeAgain · Apr 14, 2021

XXX

2. On Helping Others.
Anyone who aims at spiritual realization must be prepared to give up all systematic attempts to help others, even at the risk of being called selfish. To exceed voluntarily the social and personal responsibilities required by civilized standards of behaviour could only be a dissipation in the case of one whose goal is the realization of truth. On attaining his end, however, he cannot but help spontaneously all those with whom he comes into contact, either socially or spiritually, or both together, and these two either actively or passively, according to his temperament.* But "there is no definite law as to how a person should act when he comes down from the state of transcendental existence, for his conduct is directed by the natural bent of his mind and the forces of his environment". It is, of course, only from the standpoint of onlookers that such a being 'comes down': from his own, there cannot be any departure from non-duality.

*In this connection, I take the liberty of quoting a verse from The Pleasaunce of the Self by the venerable person Sri Atmananda to whom the author of this work owes everything, translated from the Malayalam by the late Lewis Thomson and existing only in manuscript:

'In my desire to please others I lost my centre.
Having found it again by losing myself in the nectar-ocean of the Master's grace, I am established in pleasing others.
So have I gained flawless tranquillity."
(From the poem, 'Recollections of the Freeman'.)
Click to expand...

And so ends our journey into the Nature of Man According to the Vedanta by John Levy

I leave the last to each you to consider at your leisure.
Thanks for your attention and please, if you desire, take the time to offer your own responses, questions or insights!

Candy Gal · Jul 17, 2021

Wow it will take me a week to read all this.
But I will. x
Thanks for the link

Deidre · Jul 17, 2021

MeAgain said: ↑

Here's where we are going to jump in...

1. There are only three possible ways to experience reality: waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep.
2. We will consider the experience of waking from the waking state.
3. Dreaming from the dreaming state.
4. Dreamless sleep from the state of no dreaming.
5. And a state which transcends all three.

So, the first question:
Are there any other states we can experience?
Click to expand...

How about spirituality? Where does that fall do you think in terms of one’s reality?

MeAgain · Jul 17, 2021

How are you defining spirituality?

In Advaita Vedanta there is only one. Spirituality is not different from the rest of reality, from everyday life, from the profane.

Spirituality would probably be an interpretation of the dreaming or glimpses of the non dreaming state by the rational mind while in the waking state.

Deidre · Jul 17, 2021

MeAgain said: ↑

How are you defining spirituality?

In Advaita Vedanta there is only one. Spirituality is not different from the rest of reality, from everyday life, from the profane.

Spirituality would probably be an interpretation of the dreaming or glimpses of the non dreaming state by the rational mind while in the waking state.
Click to expand...

Good points! Agree. Spirituality imo is part of one’s reality, even if it’s subjective.

Log in or Sign up

The Nature of Reality

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Candy Gal Lifetime Supporter

Deidre Follow thy heart

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Deidre Follow thy heart

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Nature of Reality

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Candy Gal Lifetime Supporter

Deidre Follow thy heart

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

Deidre Follow thy heart

Share This Page

Useful Searches