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.
Arach, I am sorry I don't get at what you are asking or what you are saying.
There is a value in sticking to the terms the tradition uses. Already we lose a bit by translation from Sanskrit to english. In addition if you want to keep your terms for discussing Advaita I don't see an advantage but a lot of confusion because you need to define your terms which does not always seem to align with the meaning of the terms used by the tradition.
Brhman, the macro Cosmic Consciousness, is the source of all knowledge, it does not act, it simply is, in state of oneness, complete balance, in infinite silence.
The micro consciousness, Atma, is this same Brhman that is conditioned by the body and mind. The mind misidentifies the source of knowing as the world, which is unreal, a relative existence, projected by the mind itself. When the mind is silenced the atma is revealed as knowing, the realization of the self's true nature. When the body dies, the atma remains as Brhman.
All of which is completely pointless and meaningless since it accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and there seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever for any of it to happen or exist at all. That this does not bother your intellect is amazing.
All of which is completely pointless and meaningless since it accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and there seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever for any of it to happen or exist at all. That this does not bother your intellect is amazing.
All of which is completely pointless and meaningless since it accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and there seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever for any of it to happen or exist at all. That this does not bother your intellect is amazing.
I'm surprised as what you say as cb seems to be saying the same as you do.
Stilling the mind reveals the 'Reality' (Brhman of which the Self revealed as Atman is a part) and which unites with it after death.
That sounds just like what you preach, just with different words. You experienced God (Reality) in deep meditation. The Atman one could call the god -consciousness that is the consciousness of all uf us, but 'garbled' by the carnal mind so we think that it is all product of the individual human minds.
I'm surprised as what you say as cb seems to be saying the same as you do.
Stilling the mind reveals the 'Reality' (Brhman of which the Self revealed as Atman is a part) and which unites with it after death.
That sounds just like what you preach, just with different words. You experienced God (Reality) in deep meditation. The Atman one could call the god -consciousness that is the consciousness of all uf us, but 'garbled' by the carnal mind so we think that it is all product of the individual human minds.
Sounds basically the same to me. Don't you think?
Here's how I would word it. Bringing focus/clarity and purity to mind facilitates the potential of it realizing That which is ever-present and Self-revealing/evident. The problem with mind is one of its functions - Ahamkara (ego, I-maker, appropriating function) - appropriates That as its own, as in "I exist" and "I am conscious" vs. "I Am Existence Itself" and "I Am Consciousness Itself". It is loath to relinquish sovereignty.
Self = Atman = Brahman without a second on the level of Absolute (intrinsic) reality. Body, mind and everything else we experience are on the level of apparent/relative/transactional (extrinsic) reality and here ego is a nexus but only because it's illumined by That which Is.
All of objective reality possesses only extrinsic existence dependent on that which is intrinsic existence (not possesses but is existence itself). An extrinsic appearance of and within That which is intrinsic.
I'm surprised as what you say as cb seems to be saying the same as you do.
Stilling the mind reveals the 'Reality' (Brhman of which the Self revealed as Atman is a part) and which unites with it after death.
That sounds just like what you preach, just with different words. You experienced God (Reality) in deep meditation. The Atman one could call the god -consciousness that is the consciousness of all uf us, but 'garbled' by the carnal mind so we think that it is all product of the individual human minds.
Sounds basically the same to me. Don't you think?
Yes, until he brought up Jesus saves, the river of fire, the dross, and the reproductive cycle of god. I always thought Mystic is recycling Advaita with a Christian touch.
I'm surprised as what you say as cb seems to be saying the same as you do.
Stilling the mind reveals the 'Reality' (Brhman of which the Self revealed as Atman is a part) and which unites with it after death.
That sounds just like what you preach, just with different words. You experienced God (Reality) in deep meditation. The Atman one could call the god -consciousness that is the consciousness of all uf us, but 'garbled' by the carnal mind so we think that it is all product of the individual human minds.
Sounds basically the same to me. Don't you think?
Yes, we have the same concept of Oneness in mind. Where we differ is on the esoteric, meaningless, and silly explanations that are given about its attributes in the literature she reads and believes. Pretty much as I differ with the primitive dogma in the religions.
Here's how I would word it. Bringing focus/clarity and purity to mind facilitates the potential of it realizing That which is ever-present and Self-revealing/evident. The problem with mind is one of its functions - Ahamkara (ego, I-maker, appropriating function) - appropriates That as its own, as in "I exist" and "I am conscious" vs. "I Am Existence Itself" and "I Am Consciousness Itself". It is loath to relinquish sovereignty.
Self = Atman = Brahman without a second on the level of Absolute (intrinsic) reality. Body, mind and everything else we experience are on the level of apparent/relative/transactional (extrinsic) reality and here ego is a nexus but only because it's illumined by That which Is.
All of objective reality possesses only extrinsic existence dependent on that which is intrinsic existence (not possesses but is existence itself). An extrinsic appearance of and within That which is intrinsic.
That just seems to be pointing up one of the ways the Carnal mind garbles the 'Radio message' (in your analogy) which is clear contact with Bhrman/"God" - the cosmic mind, as i put it. Personal/cultural idiosyncrasies aside plus of course different language terms used to describe the same thing - it sounds to me the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Yes, until he brought up Jesus saves, the river of fire, the dross, and the reproductive cycle of god. I always thought Mystic is recycling Advaita with a Christian touch.
That's how I see it, too. It is 'agnostic -god' or Deist -god with a Christian slant to it. I still can't see why Mystic thinks it is something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Yes, we have the same concept of Oneness in mind. Where we differ is on the esoteric, meaningless, and silly explanations that are given about its attributes in the literature she reads and believes. Pretty much as I differ with the primitive dogma in the religions.
Progress. But just why you think her idiosyncrasies are 'esoteric, meaningless, and silly ' and your Christian - derived ones are not, escapes me.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-24-2021 at 04:32 PM..
Yes, we have the same concept of Oneness in mind. Where we differ is on the esoteric, meaningless, and silly explanations that are given about its attributes in the literature she reads and believes. Pretty much as I differ with the primitive dogma in the religions.
Problem is science isn't going to cut it because anything science can investigate just isn't It. Science deals with the material, not the Immaterial, the effable, not the Ineffable. Honestly, it's a disservice to both science and spirituality to apply one in an attempt to explain the other.
Advaita is a far cry from dogma because it insists one not believe but explore and discover for one's self. It just provides a framework, tools and pointers for the exploration and they've been perfected over thousands of years.
There's no reason why one cannot embrace both science and a spiritual tradition so long as both sets of tools are deployed in the right context. Actually it's quite beautiful.
That just seems to be pointing up one of the ways the Carnal mind garbles the 'Radio message' (in your analogy) which is clear contact with Bhrman/"God" - the cosmic mind, as i put it. Personal/cultural idiosyncrasies aside plus of course different language terms used to describe the same thing - it sounds to me the same thing.
Yup, pretty much. I also like the way the Kena Upanishad expresses it. Mind of the mind. Eye of the eye. Ear of the ear.
The disciple asked: Om. By whose will directed does the mind proceed to its object? At whose command does the prana, the foremost, do its duty? At whose will do men utter speech? Who is the god that directs the eyes and ears?
The teacher replied: It is the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, the Speech of speech, the Life of life, and the Eye of the eye. Having detached the Self [from the sense-organs] and renounced the world, the wise attain to Immortality.
Problem is science isn't going to cut it because anything science can investigate just isn't It. Science deals with the material, not the Immaterial, the effable, not the Ineffable. Honestly, it's a disservice to both science and spirituality to apply one in an attempt to explain the other.
Advaita is a far cry from dogma because it insists one not believe but explore and discover for one's self. It just provides a framework, tools and pointers for the exploration and they've been perfected over thousands of years.
There's no reason why one cannot embrace both science and a spiritual tradition so long as both sets of tools are deployed in the right context. Actually it's quite beautiful.
I not only agree with this characterization of science and experience of Oneness, I embraced it when I tried to explain how what I experienced could conceivably be true using science (and succeeded). The difference is that the meaningless explanations and mumbo jumbo in the esoteric explanations were not enlightening. It was the opposite because I could not see or imagine ANY rationale for WHY ANY of it exists at all under the unchanging timeless nonsense in esoteric literature.
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.
