Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm eminently comfortable in both domains but out of respect for the OP and in the spirit of the thread I'll keep it to the spiritual from here on out in this thread. Plus as I said I don't think it helpful hijacking science in advancement of the spiritual. As far as I'll go is to say there are signposts, however they are open to interpretation and refutation too and the domain of science is the effable, not the Ineffable.
again, that's close, almost exactly, to how I see it. We are leaning on the same fence, just on opposite sides. I don't call them sign post tho, I call them anchors. Let me apologize for my very poor writing. I just want you to know its not intentional and I mean no disrespect to you. And yes, everything can be refuted.
For me, it sometimes looks like people avoid the sign post because it forces them to evaluate what they are saying. "hijacking", that is an interesting term. I layout all the data and see if there is a unifying theory that links all the pieces of information. Like evolution and plate tectonics. Is that hijacking?
I would apply the term hijacking if we omit, obscure, and shun some information while allowing other information. That would seem like a hijack to me. People that are trying to maintain a seemly less reliable statement of belief about god definitely hijack.
Science, in relation to talking about non duality, keeps the ineffable from becoming a fairytale. To me, fairytales are not what advaita speaks too. In fact, I would say that effable aids in advaita in that it shows how non duality fits in a pluralistic world that we experience everyday. How pluralism and monoism can actually lead to the same place ... this advaita thing.
The sound of one hand clapping. effable clapping with ineffable is the sound of life. lol, I know I know, that was bad.
So, what then is Changeless?
Knowing is. Knowing that I know is changeless.
What I know may change: it is not the sun that goes around, it is the earth which is not flat.
The knowing does not change.
All beings know. And they know that they know.
Everyone is a buddha.
That may be true. It seems like a leap to me tho. The downside to the traditions to me is that there is too much framework with them. It seems to me the same as reading the last page of a book before you start reading the book. It probably works better with someone like yourself that already had the experience to try and explain it than trying to get the experience that way. That's where I think science has the upper hand. If we know what mechanisms cause the experience we can recreate it.
again, that's close, almost exactly, to how I see it. We are leaning on the same fence, just on opposite sides. I don't call them sign post tho, I call them anchors. Let me apologize for my very poor writing. I just want you to know its not intentional and I mean no disrespect to you. And yes, everything can be refuted.
For me, it sometimes looks like people avoid the sign post because it forces them to evaluate what they are saying. "hijacking", that is an interesting term. I layout all the data and see if there is a unifying theory that links all the pieces of information. Like evolution and plate tectonics. Is that hijacking?
I would apply the term hijacking if we omit, obscure, and shun some information while allowing other information. That would seem like a hijack to me. People that are trying to maintain a seemly less reliable statement of belief about god definitely hijack.
Science, in relation to talking about non duality, keeps the ineffable from becoming a fairytale. To me, fairytales are not what advaita speaks too. In fact, I would say that effable aids in advaita in that it shows how non duality fits in a pluralistic world that we experience everyday. How pluralism and monoism can actually lead to the same place ... this advaita thing.
The sound of one hand clapping. effable clapping with ineffable is the sound of life. lol, I know I know, that was bad.
I don’t mind the science that parallels Advaita, something all the swamis do as well. For me Advaita stands on its own merit - a deeply contemplated, meticulously analyzed body-mind-conciousness connection that yields a unique knowledge of the self.
The rest of the science that is supposed to produce any kind of evidence for any supposed claim to satisfy those who are not convinced of the teachings - meh. It is irrelevant for me. Advaita is the moon, not the finger. It is the hole that holds the doghnut together.
I don’t mind the science that parallels Advaita, something all the swamis do as well. For me Advaita stands on its own merit - a deeply contemplated, meticulously analyzed body-mind-conciousness connection that yields a unique knowledge of the self.
The rest of the science that is supposed to produce any kind of evidence for any supposed claim to satisfy those who are not convinced of the teachings - meh. It is irrelevant for me. Advaita is the moon, not the finger. It is the hole that holds the doghnut together.
That's where I disagree. slightly. It does not stand on its own merit. Its stands on the merit of the one teaching to it. I question the p[person presenting it, not the notion itself.
The merit of "the connection to the universe around us" is valid. Gravity waves sealed the deal for me. The next observation is to prove that information can travel through spacetime. The problem, for some atheist claims of anti-spirituality to stop religion, is me typing this message already proves information does travel through spacetime.
"self" is definitely important. But if we stay "self", then we are like a seed that doesn't open in a rain forrest.
this caught my eye also, bold above.
after it happened a couple times spontaneously i became interested in cultivating it intentionally (trying to anyway). the feeling of it the few times it happened (not when i was trying to; the times it just happened) was the sensation of the physical border of my body disappeared and i just got really really big expanding outward. "trying to have it happen" i have not been able to. which makes me think of something you have mentioned a few times about not seeking. that seeking itself can be a barrier or an obstacle.
so instead more recently i have been setting intention. instead of trying to make something happen. setting the intention "pointing myself in that direction" and then just going about my day. when i did that i came across an exercise in a book i am reading so now i am playing with this exercise just to see what happens. (without trying to make something happen).
..
..
i quite like this so far. and will continue to see where this leads. without striving or seeking. it is a way of expanding my awareness of me beyond the physical borders of my body. which relates to bold above.
Interesting. I too have experienced the bolded a few times and and it was very weird, thrilling, awe inspiring experience like I was all lit up, other imageries, intense sensations, even tears. I have come to the conclusion that this might be an auto suggestive mechanic that i can repeat if I want to, so i no longer try it. I focus on gathering my thoughts in concentration and sink into the silence of OM and lose body awareness.
I also believe the practice is simpler than what we, or I, speaking for myself, imagined. It is no longer the experience that I seek, it is the pleasure of being grounded in a way that my mind, if disturbed, can come back to the resting awareness position of peace.
And i do believe in prayer.
That's where I disagree. slightly. It does not stand on its own merit. Its stands on the merit of the one teaching to it. I question the p[person presenting it, not the notion itself.
The merit of "the connection to the universe around us" is valid. Gravity waves sealed the deal for me. The next observation is to prove that information can travel through spacetime. The problem, for some atheist claims of anti-spirituality to stop religion, is me typing this message already proves information does travel through spacetime.
"self" is definitely important. But if we stay "self", then we are like a seed that doesn't open in a rain forrest.
That is a good statement Arach. The self is the Consciousness. It is the forest, the universe. I have no response for the atheist, he has to figure this out himself, like Arach does, whatever it is the drives him to do so.
again, that's close, almost exactly, to how I see it. We are leaning on the same fence, just on opposite sides. I don't call them sign post tho, I call them anchors. Let me apologize for my very poor writing. I just want you to know its not intentional and I mean no disrespect to you. And yes, everything can be refuted.
For me, it sometimes looks like people avoid the sign post because it forces them to evaluate what they are saying. "hijacking", that is an interesting term. I layout all the data and see if there is a unifying theory that links all the pieces of information. Like evolution and plate tectonics. Is that hijacking?
I would apply the term hijacking if we omit, obscure, and shun some information while allowing other information. That would seem like a hijack to me. People that are trying to maintain a seemly less reliable statement of belief about god definitely hijack.
Science, in relation to talking about non duality, keeps the ineffable from becoming a fairytale. To me, fairytales are not what advaita speaks too. In fact, I would say that effable aids in advaita in that it shows how non duality fits in a pluralistic world that we experience everyday. How pluralism and monoism can actually lead to the same place ... this advaita thing.
The sound of one hand clapping. effable clapping with ineffable is the sound of life. lol, I know I know, that was bad.
If anything Advaita is an ancient and very precise and insightful exploration of subjective reality (i.e. experience) whereas physics, chemistry, biology, etc... explore objective reality. Objective science would say consciousness is a product of biological mechanisms within objective reality whereas Advaita would say objective reality, all of it including Advaita, is of and within Consciousness, that there's only Consciousness.
The other thing to keep in mind about Advaita is it's not really about experience per se, but what experience points to. For instance the face cannot see itself but its reflection in a mirror implies itself which can never be directly experienced.
If we consider the practices of Advaita - Raja Yoga (meditation), Karma Yoga (action), Bhakti Yoga (devotion) and Jnana Yoga (knowledge) - one might come to the conclusion why waste time with meditation, action, devotion and instead dive right into knowledge. That's the position of Neo-Advaita - which only really focuses on a very narrow interpretation of the Mandukya Upanishad - but as far as I can determine for the vast majority that only results in an intellectual knowing which is nothing more than belief. The baggage of a lifetime's conditioning of mind (or many if one subscribes to that) must first be addressed in order for true realization imparted by the knowledge.
Here's the pertinent part and from my own experience. From 2008 to summer of 2019 I was engaging meditation and consciousness studies and literally invested thousands of hours on consciousness studies. It wasn't until one simple phrase from Sadhguru (open up a small space between mind and consciousness) and then more importantly Advaita teachings that the floodgates opened wide and I realized what was always there and had been becoming more and more familiar via practice of effortless meditation. It's what I refer to as "knowing" vs. intellectual knowing. I wish I could explain "knowing" better but I can't. It's beyond explanation.
Did all that time invested in consciousness studies play a part? Most certainly - There were some weak and indirect parallels to Jnana Yoga. Let's say it set the stage. - but I'm also sure I was stuck at a certain point and never would have advanced.
As an aside I was very enamored with Orch-OR (Penrose & Hameroff) but now my perspective is even if it's an accurate model of what we perceive as consciousness it's only that and not an accurate description of Consciousness Itself. It's just a reflection, an illumination of and by Consciousness. In other words Maya.
If anything Advaita is an ancient and very precise and insightful exploration of subjective reality (i.e. experience) whereas physics, chemistry, biology, etc... explore objective reality. Objective science would say consciousness is a product of biological mechanisms within objective reality whereas Advaita would say objective reality, all of it including Advaita, is of and within Consciousness, that there's only Consciousness.
The other thing to keep in mind about Advaita is it's not really about experience per se, but what experience points to. For instance the face cannot see itself but its reflection in a mirror implies itself which can never be directly experienced.
If we consider the practices of Advaita - Raja Yoga (meditation), Karma Yoga (action), Bhakti Yoga (devotion) and Jnana Yoga (knowledge) - one might come to the conclusion why waste time with meditation, action, devotion and instead dive right into knowledge. That's the position of Neo-Advaita - which only really focuses on a very narrow interpretation of the Mandukya Upanishad - but as far as I can determine for the vast majority that only results in an intellectual knowing which is nothing more than belief. The baggage of a lifetime's conditioning of mind (or many if one subscribes to that) must first be addressed in order for true realization imparted by the knowledge.
Here's the pertinent part and from my own experience. From 2008 to summer of 2019 I was engaging meditation and consciousness studies and literally invested thousands of hours on consciousness studies. It wasn't until one simple phrase from Sadhguru (open up a small space between mind and consciousness) and then more importantly Advaita teachings that the floodgates opened wide and I realized what was always there and had been becoming more and more familiar via practice of effortless meditation. It's what I refer to as "knowing" vs. intellectual knowing. I wish I could explain "knowing" better but I can't. It's beyond explanation.
Did all that time invested in consciousness studies play a part? Most certainly - There were some weak and indirect parallels to Jnana Yoga. Let's say it set the stage. - but I'm also sure I was stuck at a certain point and never would have advanced.
As an aside I was very enamored with Orch-OR (Penrose & Hameroff) but now my perspective is even if it's an accurate model of what we perceive as consciousness it's only that and not an accurate description of Consciousness Itself. It's just a reflection, an illumination of and by Consciousness. In other words Maya.
I didn’t know about this that the Mandukya Upanishad is the text book for neo advaita It is my first foray into the study of Upanishads, my first one. I was drawn into it through my attraction to Ishvara\ Shiva and the association with Uma, OM, Maya. It is an abiding interest for me. The Mandukya is actually all about the expansion of the syllable OM and Turiya, the Atama that is also Ishvara, the 4 th aspect of the consciousness in deep sleep state, sushupti.
We need to talk about Maya and Ishvara! Maya is not mere illusion, a misrepresentation and error in the way it is commonly understood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is my first foray into the study of Upanishads, my first one. I was drawn into it through my attraction to Ishvara\ Shiva and the association with Uma, OM, Maya. It is an abiding interest for me. The Mandukya is actually all about the expansion of the syllable OM and Turiya, the Atama that is also Ishvara, the 4 th aspect of the consciousness in deep sleep state, sushupti.
