Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2011 9:44:21 GMT -5
last verse via louis armstrong:
So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters, So all right no contest we'll order lobseter For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off, Let's call the whole thing off.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 24, 2011 13:20:34 GMT -5
Some quick notes on the case of "Sakshi vs RT":
1) "Self" is not the correct translation for the term "Atman" that is used in the hindu scriptures. In Buddhism the term "Atman" has a very negative meaning and is regarded as the source of samsara. (Wiki is your friend.) 2) You can find many passages in the ancient hindu texts that frown upon the use of the concept of "self" or even its association with the aim of their teachings. (Not gonna dig up the quotes, you seem to be an expert, so seek and ye shall find.) 3) What the common men refer to when they say "self" and what the child learns "self" to refer to is most certainly not awareness, universal awareness, God or whatever. You're the one who is trying to redefine the meaning of "self". I don't see how "self" has any place in non-duality, the most obvious reason being that self must imply not-self in order to be able to refer to itself (hence at least two). I can see how it is convenient to use the word "self" in nonduallity, but it's very misleading imho.
Essentially the subject is ever only aware of itself (by definition), so how can you claim that there is an unaware object out there in some empircal objective space?
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Jan 24, 2011 15:40:38 GMT -5
Are you saying i'm a replicant? I think we're moving off-topic a bit. God your posts are long Sakshi. LOL. Im suggesting that you may think you know who/what you are but that would be a mistake. I feel like a piece on a chess board (probably a pawn lol) and Im reading posts by the kings and queens but ultimately none of the pieces really knows what's going on. They just move and ponder. Often they think theyve moved themselves.
|
|
|
Post by m on Jan 24, 2011 15:52:06 GMT -5
Amazing !
|
|
enda
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by enda on Jan 24, 2011 17:01:50 GMT -5
This thread - I don't know whether to laugh or cry
|
|
|
Post by sakshi on Jan 24, 2011 17:33:06 GMT -5
Question,
'Self' is probably the most accurate word we can use in place of Atman. Earlier translations used either the word 'spirit' or 'soul' - but these words are not precise and have otherwordly or supernatural overtones to them which are not relevant to the vedantic conception of Atman.
A literal translation of Atman into english would be more like 'breath' but this also is imprecise as vedanta already has a word for breath ie lifeforce- 'prana', and prana is to be considered anatman (not-Self).
Self is accurate because Atman is the true or real nature of one's being, of one's existence, ie it's what one is.
This is a generalisation. The doctrine of no-self (anatman) is peculiar to the theravada buddhist schools in particular, and not to buddhism as a whole. All Buddhism teaches Anatta (not-Self), which is the teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them. Anatta is taught in Vedanta as a method of negation 'neti neti' whereby one is to regard all objects of knowledge as 'not I', 'not-Self'. Anatta is not the same as Anatman, and the doctrine of no-self as expounded by theravada buddhism is condemned outright by Mahāyāna buddhism texts as a form of nihilism and extremism.
Mahāyāna teaches that there is an Atman, a Self, which is called Tathāgatagarbha, buddha- nature which is eternal, all pervading existence that lives in at the core of all beings; it is directly equivalent to both the Atman and Brahman of Vedanta.
The earliest philosophical texts of hinduism, the Upanishads, uniformly affirm the existence of an eternal Atman. I provided several quotes from the Upanishads on the previous page, read them if you like. The concept of a self is central to vedanta, I haven't come across any ancient hindu text that denied the existence of the self, and certainly not in the Upanishads.
Precisely, what common men refer to is themselves as a body, a jiva- individual. We have different words for this, false self, ego, ahamkara ( I am the doer) etc. The jiva is the false sense of identity superimposed over the Atman, one's real being. One is the Atman but through ignorance says he is the jiva. Non-duality points out this ignorance, and points the way back to knowledge of the Self, of the Atman.
Everyone already knows he is the knower, the self which is the Subject. I don't need to redefine anything. This knowing Self is just confused with the things it knows, like the body. Pointing out this confusion, as nonduality does, is not redefining the meaning of the self.
In the same way that buddhists use the term Anatta, not-Self in order to discriminate between the five types of aggregates and know them as 'not I', Advaita uses the term not-Self to discriminate between objects of knowledge and the knower, viz the Subject awareness in order to get free from the delusory sense of bondage arising from attachment to those objects. The implied duality of Self and not-Self is for practical purposes only (discrimination) and is not a statement of absolute reality.
The empirical world exists, Advaita doesn't deny the reality of the world, it denies that the world has independent existence from the Self that knows it and objectifies it.
There are unaware objects out there, because it is the Subject alone that is aware and conscious. Is the difference between the Subject and the objects out there truly real? No- the essence of both Subject and object is one and the same ie awareness, there is only apparent differentiation between the two because of the presence of the body and its subjective experience.
No objects exist apart from the one, universal, secondless Subject- and that Subject is awareness. Reality is awareness only, the difference between Subject and object is relative and not absolute. Vedanta uses the term paramarthika (supreme truth) and prathibasika (apparent truth) to distinguish between these two levels of reality, the latter abiding in the former like a snake seen in a rope, a city seen in a mirror and ornaments seen in gold.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 24, 2011 17:44:46 GMT -5
Another accurate post. I find no fault at all with Sakshi knowledge in this post. Anyone that has studied Hinduism knows what he has posted is true.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 24, 2011 23:11:11 GMT -5
Breath, soul, spirit are in my book words that are pretty far away from the definition of "self" in any language I know of. Other words that are supposed to refer to the "supreme reality" are God, That, "____" etc, all of which still have nothing to do with how we define "self". You're obviously entitled to call Atman "self", but calling your definition "most accurate" is far fetched.
Non-sequitur.
Body has nothing to do with this problem. Fact is that you've never experienced "an object out there". And since you've never experienced one, how can you claim that objects are and that they are actually exactly awareness?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 24, 2011 23:32:13 GMT -5
Atman,self,soul are all equal with Hindu thought. If Yogananda (SRF) was still alive he would tell you the same as he used these words interchangeably.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by sakshi on Jan 25, 2011 4:29:21 GMT -5
As I have already said, the words 'spirit' and 'soul' in western thought have supernatural or ghostly connotations which are not relevant to the vedanta term Atman. Atman is not an otherwordly glowing little spirit somewhere inside the body, it is a person's essential nature or being, his own Self. If you want an accurate comparison with something like the Atman then compare it to the buddha-nature of mahayana, it is very similar.
Breath (prana), again, already is spoken of as anatman in the vedanta texts, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use the english word 'breath' for Atman when it is already being used as the translation of the word prana.
The vast majority of all modern translations of Vedanta and hinduism texts use the word 'Self' in place of Atman and distinguish this true Self of one's nature with the jiva or ahankara (ego) which is superimposed onto it like an eclipse..
How is it a non-sequitur? Is your leg aware of you? No, you are aware of it. Are your thoughts aware of you? No, you are aware of your thoughts. Is space aware of you? No, you are aware of space. The knower, the Subject is aware of objects, things known.
It is the body through which we experience the variegated names and forms of the world and through which the apparent sense of duality arises.
If by 'out there' you mean in space then of course you experience objects 'out there'. Is space separate from awareness? Does it exist independently of the Self? No, not according to advaita.
Everything that is experienced is experienced within awareness. Objects 'are' be because you know things, you know what you experience. The triad of Knower, knowing and known ie Subject, means and object, appears within awareness during the waking and dream states of experience but resolve completely back into the Self in deep sleep, death, and samadhi.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 25, 2011 11:32:50 GMT -5
No. I'm not aware of anything outside the scope of my awareness. There is nothing at all in actual experience that necessitates the existence of unaware objects. Leg, thoughts, space are ideas superimposed on actual experience. The ideas themselves (while they obviously don't exhaust the subject) are identical with the subject. The objects that the ideas are trying to refer to are insofar as they are supposedly seperated from the subject, fundamentally unverifiable to the subject. This is the first and most basic conclusion drawn from the cartesian meditation.
You could be a brain in a vat. Your actual experience could be literally the only thing existing. When talking about nonduality we're talking about what can be known with certainty, I'm not interested in your or anyone else's theories. Even if the theories of the smartest man in history are irrelevant in our discussion. We're talking about "what is".
I'm not saying that the objective world exists or not. (In real life I employ Occam's Razor, but beyond that, I simply don't know.) I'm saying that it's completely irrelevant when we're talking about "what is" or "awareness", because objective space it per definitionem unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It's a waste of my and your time for you to throw theories at me that neither you nor I can verify or falsify. The starting point of nonduality is the cartesian meditation.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 25, 2011 12:36:28 GMT -5
I'm liking your direction Question; kicking as$ for truth here.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Jan 25, 2011 17:48:58 GMT -5
Hi Sakshi,
Are you saying that Subject is the ultimate reality?
It seems that a few teachers I'm familiar with, like Richard Rose and Franklin Merrell Wolff, considered Subject to be still inferior to What Is. They considered Subject the opposite polarity to Object and thus still a part of duality.
I can dig up some quotes if you like.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Jan 25, 2011 19:48:46 GMT -5
Wow question, you blew my mind a little bit with this post. It exists empirically but has no awareness, so it cannot be considered a Subject, only an object. An object to what? I think what Frank is saying is whether it is possible to artificially create consciousness. Let's say we make an exact replica of Sakshi. Is it conscious? If it is, then consciousness is dependant on a configuration of something that is not consciousness. If it's not conscious , then consicousness is some kind of "gift from God" and such again different from the "creator". Yes and no answers are equivalent in that they assume the self/consciousness to be only an appearance of "what is".
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Jan 26, 2011 8:27:49 GMT -5
Re-read what you have written here. You are using word games to justify this. As long as you simply assume the subject is the self all your arguments are built on flawed foundations.
|
|