Help calling people well read on Advaita Vedanta

If Brahman has no object (external object not in dream, external object and internal object not in dreamless sleep) and no subject (not in dreamless sleep) how can the waking life of subject-object duality be engaged with upon actually attaining Brahman in the Fourth which is like dreamless sleep (in that it is without internal/external object and subject)

So as I understand it if waking is like the top layer with external/internal object and a subject relating therewith, a layer beneath that is dream with internal object and a subject relating therewith, and behind that dreamless sleep which is without an external/internal object and without a subject, so then Brahman the Fourth is like the core which pervades all three, and is all that endures.

>So it seems there is a discontinuity between Brahman and engaging in waking life, if thinking about Dreamless sleep is anything to go by, or states of unconsciousness which fit the criteria as nondual? How could such a person interact with the world which presents the brute fact of an external object (not to mention the body itself being one) whether we like it or not?

So how does right perception operate in one who is in something like a dreamless sleep, yet going about in the world?

If the Fourth and dreamless sleep are only distinguished by misperception being absent from the formed yet present in the latter

This "Right Perception" seems to have to operate simultaneously with the Nondual Awareness, and if so we would be able to discuss it since people who have realized Brahman have been in the world and described that they have realized it.

Please people who know, elucidate upon this matter so I don't fall for "alternative hypotheses" like some innate embodied intelligence called "kundalini" taking the role of Right perception for a person who has realized the Fourth, or some power described like "Vimarsha shakti"

With gurus telling me you just have to "Get out of the way" and your doubts will fall away by the power of a descent of grace? Or is this actually the limit of intellectual reasoning that I have climbed to, and the only way to loosen the knot, or resolve the aporia is to now let love, light and nature take its course?

What medicine can I take to also assure myself on that I am not going to end up like that feared outcasted cataleptic puppet sunken, deaf, dumb and drowned in the undifferentiated chaos of the ocean, which I have become paranoid about after reading authors like Guenon talk about Quantity vs Quality or even Sankhyas and Yoga sutra inspired "citta vritti nirodha" stuff talking about Purusha vs. Prakriti, Seer vs Seen, and about there being a regression or inverted realization which is an inferior development bent to undifferentiated matter?

Help me see right and dare with courage, after dipping my toes, not knowing of my ability to swim in the water I have become paranoid about falling in and drowning! Set me right and show me the way to courage and daring.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I got you my man, give me about 30-40 minutes and I’ll answer everything.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also I have found a great comparison between the Vijñānākala's, Black Brothers and the spiritually bypassing "Pure consciousness" vedantins or sankhyans I described in OP

    Essentially crowley says the black Brothers do not fully cross the Void they get stuck in between so he calls them "failed adepts" they build up lonely towers, from which they chant "I am I" in reality the failure is that they haven't come under love, instead they are trying to establish themselves in Division. These "failed adepts" are very much like "yogis" or realigous dualists like sankhyas, who champion the supremacy of Ishvara or Purusha opposed to Prakriti (Seer over seen) though they haven't attained above this tattva to the Ishvara tattva. Whats stopping these adepts is clinging to the sense of seperate individuality, "anava mala" is blocking them still. This stuff I have read explains and gives context to this sort of thing. If anything these people are "counter initiation," think the religous egos who break people's spirit through emotional prostitutedom, crowley rightly calls these people "slaves of the slave-religions," if anything it seems these Black Brothers etc. Are actually the "counter initiation."
    Yet Guénon says that actually people like crowley were counter-initiation.

    >[Below the Pure Realm, but] above the level of Māyā, there are the Vijñānākalas, who are free of limitation due to their insight. Their nature is pure awareness without agency [or autonomy]. In accordance with their nature, they perceive the universe—the same one known to them in their previous state of being Sakalas or Pralayākalas [see below]—as essentially non-different from themselves.

    Crowley also explains the phenomenon of being a failed adept to be like being divided, and possesed by an entity he calls "choronzon" which is basically like a mythological characterisation of the ego and phantasy going out of control.

    I see parralel between choronzon and Ai, in that it is "thought serving thought" self-perpetuating.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The black Brothers are defective in their courage, and it seems those pure-consciousness "spiritual bypsssers" are very similar,

      I realized I didn't allude to those people in OP directly, but I thought I'd add some insight into my questions about advaita, and why maybe I am still ignorant. There is an element of spiritual bypassing this "Clinging to individuality" which I think I myself am getting stuck at which is stopping me from going all the way. These seven perceivers are actually described as states we all have within us potentially so it follows that I am perhaps stuck at this state.

      I am just trying to rationalise why I think there may be a missing ingredient, and I think it lies between this problem I highlighted about there having to be a type of right-perception contrary to the "non-perception" in dreamless sleep which is also like or identical to nondual awareness and active even during waking, for this to be possible, for Brahman to even be attainable.

      It could be a type of "will" or it could be described perfectly well in advaita in more implicit terms, "love under will," innate embodied intelligence, willing the infinite expansion of nuit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The black Brothers are defective in their courage, and it seems those pure-consciousness "spiritual bypsssers" are very similar,

      I realized I didn't allude to those people in OP directly, but I thought I'd add some insight into my questions about advaita, and why maybe I am still ignorant. There is an element of spiritual bypassing this "Clinging to individuality" which I think I myself am getting stuck at which is stopping me from going all the way. These seven perceivers are actually described as states we all have within us potentially so it follows that I am perhaps stuck at this state.

      I am just trying to rationalise why I think there may be a missing ingredient, and I think it lies between this problem I highlighted about there having to be a type of right-perception contrary to the "non-perception" in dreamless sleep which is also like or identical to nondual awareness and active even during waking, for this to be possible, for Brahman to even be attainable.

      It could be a type of "will" or it could be described perfectly well in advaita in more implicit terms, "love under will," innate embodied intelligence, willing the infinite expansion of nuit.

      See how the verse says they are "without agency" this is the main distinction between tantra and advaita, somehow it is in refusal of the self as agent, that advaita can breed these people who use it to just deny and dissociate, somehow I think

      There is probably some validity in describing the Self to also consist of "Pure Action," this "Pure action" aspect when said actually makes it clear that we can speak of "vimarsha-shaktis" or "innate intelligence," will, and so on.

      I want to see it shown that advaita actually accounted for all this or refuted it in the sense of bringing this point of view to higher realization apart from those "alternative hypotheses" I mentioned in OP.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Part of me thinks Shankara was a figure of such immense inner courage, that he didn't even need to reason this stuff out.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >So how does right perception operate in one who is in something like a dreamless sleep, yet going about in the world?

      >If the Fourth and dreamless sleep are only distinguished by misperception being absent from the formed yet present in the latter
      The state of dreamless sleep (likened to the natural state of consciousness of the causal body or a higher/subtler ‘sheath’/kosha of the Self in other formulations, as dreaming is for the subtle body and waking life is the standard consciousness for the gross body) is LIKENED to turiya samadhi, the fourth state-of-consciousness, or conscious unity with Brahman. Namely because all anxieties and troubles fade away in the state of deep sleep. However, I do not believe it is IDENTICAL with it. There is still a conscious lively awareness possible in the state of turiya samadhi, clearly distinguishing it from the blank voidness of dreamless deep sleep. As another poster intelligently explained, it doesn’t literally ‘wipe out’ one’s conscious awareness and sense-perceptions, we continue to have those so long as incarnate in a healthy living physical body.

      The black Brothers are defective in their courage, and it seems those pure-consciousness "spiritual bypsssers" are very similar,

      I realized I didn't allude to those people in OP directly, but I thought I'd add some insight into my questions about advaita, and why maybe I am still ignorant. There is an element of spiritual bypassing this "Clinging to individuality" which I think I myself am getting stuck at which is stopping me from going all the way. These seven perceivers are actually described as states we all have within us potentially so it follows that I am perhaps stuck at this state.

      I am just trying to rationalise why I think there may be a missing ingredient, and I think it lies between this problem I highlighted about there having to be a type of right-perception contrary to the "non-perception" in dreamless sleep which is also like or identical to nondual awareness and active even during waking, for this to be possible, for Brahman to even be attainable.

      It could be a type of "will" or it could be described perfectly well in advaita in more implicit terms, "love under will," innate embodied intelligence, willing the infinite expansion of nuit.

      [...]
      See how the verse says they are "without agency" this is the main distinction between tantra and advaita, somehow it is in refusal of the self as agent, that advaita can breed these people who use it to just deny and dissociate, somehow I think

      There is probably some validity in describing the Self to also consist of "Pure Action," this "Pure action" aspect when said actually makes it clear that we can speak of "vimarsha-shaktis" or "innate intelligence," will, and so on.

      I want to see it shown that advaita actually accounted for all this or refuted it in the sense of bringing this point of view to higher realization apart from those "alternative hypotheses" I mentioned in OP.

      Yes, you’re bringing up a known distinction between Tantric paths and more ascetic Vedantic paths. Some of the Tantric paths or overlapping schools like Shaiva-Shakta traditions (like Kashmir Shaivism) seem to hold that one can experience the equivalent of what’s variously called Moksha, Turiya Samadhi, realization of the Self or Pratyabhijna, “re-cognition” of the Self as it’s also called in Kashmir Shaivism, in a life as a ‘householder.’ This does not necessarily mean wild hedonism and excess bringing harm to oneself and others (that aspect of Tantra — that it sometimes allows for or makes rituals/teachings around sense-pleasures and their possible utility on the path — is sometimes grossly exaggerated). Basically, while having a career, seeking wealth, having sex-partners, etc. It’s like taking these gross pleasures (not gross as in disgusting, but physical/material) as something like little mirrors off which transcendental bliss is being reflected, as well as bringing Divinity even into the physical body and its doings.

      [...]
      See how the verse says they are "without agency" this is the main distinction between tantra and advaita, somehow it is in refusal of the self as agent, that advaita can breed these people who use it to just deny and dissociate, somehow I think

      There is probably some validity in describing the Self to also consist of "Pure Action," this "Pure action" aspect when said actually makes it clear that we can speak of "vimarsha-shaktis" or "innate intelligence," will, and so on.

      I want to see it shown that advaita actually accounted for all this or refuted it in the sense of bringing this point of view to higher realization apart from those "alternative hypotheses" I mentioned in OP.

      >There is probably some validity in describing the Self to also consist of "Pure Action," this "Pure action" aspect when said actually makes it clear that we can speak of "vimarsha-shaktis" or "innate intelligence," will, and so on.
      Right, that’s Kriya-Shakti, one of the three aspects of the Divine in yogic philosophy, with Iccha-Shakti and Jnana-Shakti. Shakti = roughly Power, or Intelligent Energy. Kriya = Action, Doing. Iccha = Will, Willpower, Desire. Jnana = Knowledge. So Action-Power, Will-Power (neat overlap in translation), and Knowledge-Power.

      In Shaivite teachings, this is expanded to the five Shaktis of Shiva (which are also inherent in our own innermost Self): adi-shakti, parama-shakti, kriya-shakti, iccha-shakti, and jnana-shakti.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There is a book I want to point attention to, God-Realization through Reason, he explains that samadhi (which yogis experience) and sushupti are actually identical, only samadhi is like the Active form for in that the yogi has a controlled mind going in and out, ordinary people go through samadhi
        Everyday in the form of sushupti in a way, but a fool who goes to sleep comes out a fool, he says why then are we not all liberated? Because the ordinary person cannot employ reason in relation to the deep sleep, to reach the reasons limit and end - the beginning of wisdom which is the realization of the self but essentially Sushupti or Moksha (the fourth) are the same

        How we go through that experience yet still experience the reemergence of the world, after experiencing dissolution in deep sleep, is the reason it's called casual, because it seems like deep sleep is like the seed of the other two states. Or this is what is invoked to better explain how the world undergoeth dissolution and remergence time and time again, and even in dissolution there seems to be regulation of that. So that's why its as if c turiya is made distinct, the author makes clear that other systems which take it "firther" and say well there's turiya and then turiyitta fall into the fallacy of an infinite regress, and then elaborate on the notion of this bija shakti, miss the point and fall short.

        Still that this casual seed is logically invoked such that deep sleep is distinct from turiya samadhi, I think shankara calls it bija shakti doesnt change the concrete perception of nonduality during deep sleep, therefore deep sleep is rightly the experience of moksha I think in the upanishads it is called such at times. The problem lies in this "likening" to, it invokes similarity and comparison, and divides what is all and equal, so I see it as pointless to talk about a "turiya samadhi" distinct from deep sleep, because turiya samadhi opposed to deep sleep does not come into experience and counters the method of reasoning, it is abstract and therefore not concrete.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > I think shankara calls it bija shakti doesnt change the concrete perception of nonduality during deep sleep, therefore deep sleep is rightly the experience of moksha
          Shankara says otherwise, i.e. that Prajna is characterized by the non-apprehension of reality:

          Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prājña (dreamless sleep) is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prājña. Therefore these two, cause and effect, i.e., non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality, do not exist, i.e., are not possible in Turīya.
          - Mandukya Karika Bhashya 1.11

          https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143608.html

          It seems the author of “God Realization Through Reason” was under the influence of a certain notorious modernist neovedantist…

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think Recognition or Pratyabhijna is probably the right word for what I am terming Right Perception, I think the Recognition philosophy with it's explanation of pedgagocial techniques like the twelve Kalis, the three Malas, five Kanchukas, and the Seven perceivers is apt,

          Though I think one can only go so far so in his recognition of the absolute being the performer and experient of the five acts

          That one is to through them recognize oneself as the center of the wheel of the twelve, free of the malas, and armours, as shiva which freely ascends and descends the seven perceivers, I think this has some value. It's probably as far as one can go with systematization.

          When it says the self is an agent and possesed of power, will, autonomy and so on, it obviously does not mean the limited agent which is the mind in an ordinary sense.

          Thank you for this, you have even more learning on this than I do and I believe you got it more correct and even changed some of my conceptions on it. I was just spitballing from a little that I know of some Hindu teachings.

          https://mahanaya.org/en/scriptures/pratyabhijnahrdayam/
          This site is a gem

          Also yes thanks, in fact the Pratyabhijnahrdayam, translated and with commentary by I.K. Taimni (an early Indian Theosophist in the 20th-century) is what I got that term from. Kashmir Shaivism is an awe-inspiring tradition from what little I know of it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think Recognition or Pratyabhijna is probably the right word for what I am terming Right Perception, I think the Recognition philosophy with it's explanation of pedgagocial techniques like the twelve Kalis, the three Malas, five Kanchukas, and the Seven perceivers is apt,

        Though I think one can only go so far so in his recognition of the absolute being the performer and experient of the five acts

        That one is to through them recognize oneself as the center of the wheel of the twelve, free of the malas, and armours, as shiva which freely ascends and descends the seven perceivers, I think this has some value. It's probably as far as one can go with systematization.

        When it says the self is an agent and possesed of power, will, autonomy and so on, it obviously does not mean the limited agent which is the mind in an ordinary sense.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://mahanaya.org/en/scriptures/pratyabhijnahrdayam/
          This site is a gem

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Though I think one can only go so far so in his recognition of the absolute being the performer and experient of the five acts
          By this I don't mean to say that one has to shift from the known to an imagined unknown, or is limited by his knowledge so that the limit must be destroyed and surpassed, this erroneous. Since the universe is only the extant of our knowledge, what is known, and what is known is not seperate from awareness, it follows that it is not by destruction of the known but rather by its completion through expansion, of that point where all knowledge rests, through self-knowing which is when known is the rest or "peace that passeth all understanding" of the all, so it is know thyself, which is to will the infinite. The vision must embrace all virtue and vice. By letting go of consciousness which doesn't mean dissolving into unawareness, all that is meant is assurance of indestructible being, and so willing the infinite embracing all.

          >This is what we were generated by nature and the god in order to do. [7] So what is this thing? [8] When Pythagoras was asked, he said, ‘to be an observer of the sky,’ and he used to claim that he himself was an observer of nature, and it was for the sake of this that he had passed into his way of life. [10|11] And they say that when someone asked Anaxagoras for what reason anyone might choose to come to be born and to live, he replied to the question by saying that it was ‘to be an observer of the sky and the stars around it, as well as moon and sun,’ since everything else at any rate is worth nothing. [51.15|16]

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how can the waking life of subject-object duality be engaged with upon actually attaining Brahman in the Fourth which is like dreamless sleep (in that it is without internal/external object and subject)
    If I understand your post correctly you appear to have the mistaken idea that the fourth is "attained" in a way that negates and annuls waking experience, but this isn't correct since the 4th (Turiya) is the true nature of the Self and is already always 'attained' by everyone without beginning, even in the ignorant. Turiya is not a "state of mind" or "state of consciousness" but is the true way in which consciousness always abides, even in the waking state (Vaishvanara) or dream (Taijasa), consciousness (Atman) still remains Turiya. Realizing Turiya doesn't mean that waking experience is obliterated, it has to do with the intellect correctly realizes the true nature of one's Self and the way it always abides as Turiya. When this happens, the perception of duality as existing "as duality" ends, because duality is understand as an appearance (so you don't see duality as existing duality anymore like the ignorant do), but the empirical perception of duality in the form of colors and shapes by the mind isn't ended, but rather the mind is just adopting the correct metaphysical understanding of that duality and ending its prior wrong view. So, realizing Turiya doesn't negate mundane empirical experiences or prevent you from engaging with the world.

    >So how does right perception operate in one who is in something like a dreamless sleep, yet going about in the world?
    By recognizing all plurality, all gunas, all change etc as being merely an appearance of the formless immutable Reality and as lacking any independent existence of their own.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      to add further:

      >If the Fourth and dreamless sleep are only distinguished by misperception being absent from the formed yet present in the latter
      You could also further distinguish them with the observation that Turiya is the essential or basic nature of the Brahman-Atman while the Vaishvanara-Taijasa-Prajna triad is something that pertains to the jiva or the psycho-physical aggregate.

      Turiya is NOT devoid of misperception because it's a "state" or "accomplishment" of being freed of illusion, Turiya is free of ALL perceptions (mis or otherwise) because the Atman doesn't ever perceive anything, the intellect (buddhi) being the faculty of perception and discrimination. The Atman merely illuminates and lends its light to the Buddhi, thereby allowing the Buddhi to have perceptions and misperceptions.

      In this way, when the mind/intellect/jiva is said by Shankara to "no longer perceive duality", Shankara is using that concept/phrase in a dual sense, i.e. the mind/intellect is becoming more like or mimicking the Atman inasmuch as the mind/intellect is no longer perceiving duality, but in a different way than the Atman, since the Atman never perceived duality to begin with (It being free of Buddhi, unbound, unaffected by the illusion etc), while the manas/buddhi has the prior erroneous perception of duality as existent/real, which is then subsequently corrected by the realization of plurality as illusory, which still allows for empirical knowledge to happen but absent the delusionary beliefs about that empirical knowledge.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Turiya is NOT devoid of misperception because it's a "state" or "accomplishment" of being freed of illusion, Turiya is free of ALL perceptions (mis or otherwise) because the Atman doesn't ever perceive anything, the intellect (buddhi) being the faculty of perception and discrimination. The Atman merely illuminates and lends its light to the Buddhi, thereby allowing the Buddhi to have perceptions and misperceptions.
        In an upanishad commentary I read shankara says something about a transcendent eternal perception of everything satisfaction in simultaneity, elaborating on all being Known by a Knower. This omniscient Enjoyer is an Aspect of Brahman so to speak, it follows that you would genuinely enjoy totally your life, when I started having experiences two years ago know, I characterized it as ecstasy or orgasm, I figured there must be some organ in the body responsible for that discharge, crowley uses this term Orgasm, he likens it to the electricial discharge of a cloud to earth, free conduction, the conjunction of hot and cold straining, releasing its potential. So he says there is a strain the dyad, and the duty of nature is to release that potential to zero, equilibrium.

        Shankaras commentary:

        >he who has Known Brahman thus — what does he do? The answer is he enjoys all without any exception; desires, I.e. all enjoyable things. Does he enjoy sons, heavens, etc. in sequence as we do? The text says: No, he enjoys all the desirable things, which get focussed into a single moment, simultaneously - through a single perception which is eternal like the light of the sun, which is non-different from Brahman Itself, and which we called "truth, knowledge, infinite." That very fact is described here as Brahmana saha, in identification with Brahman. The man of knowledge, having become Brahman, enjoys as Brahman, all the desirable things simultaneously; and he does not enjoy in sequence as the desirable things that are dependent on such causes as merit etc. and such sense-organs as the eyes etc., as does an ordinary man identified with the worldly self which is conditioned by limiting adjuncts, and which is a reflection (of the the supreme Self) like that of the sun on water. How then does he enjoy? As identified with the eternal Brahman which is omniscient, all pervasive, and the Self of all, he enjoys simultaneously in the manner described above, all the desirable things that are not independent of the organs like the eyes etc. This is the idea. Vipascita means "with the intelligent one, ie with the Omniscient; for, that indeed is the true intelligence which is omniscience. The idea is that, he enjoys identity with that all Knowing Brahman.
        >the entire purport is summed up by, "the knower of Brahman attains the highest," occurring in the Brahmana portion.

        So right perception of turiya may mean just proper reflection of Atman in the buddhi, this brightness though it dawns does it not? You said waking is not obliterated, but

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Though it's not "obliterated" in a way one can speak about a "destruction of the dyad" a lysis or dissolution, in a certain sense id think

          This is how crowley puts it, honestly so O find his style quite amusing

          >my Son, how wonderful is the Wisdom of this Law of Love! How vast are the Oceans of uncharted Joy that lie before the Keel of thy Ship! Yet know this, that every Opposition is in its Nature named Sorrow, and the Joy lieth in the Destruction of the Dyad. Therefore, must thou seek ever those Things which are to thee poisonous, and that in the highest Degree, and make them thine by Love. That which repels, that which disgusts, must thou assimilate in this Way of Wholeness. Yet rest not in the Joy of the Destruction of each complex in thy Nature, but press on to that ultimate Marriage with the Universe whose Consummation shall destroy thee utterly, leaving only that Nothingness which was before the Beginning.

          >Of the Way of the T A O I have already written to thee, o my Son, but I further instruct thee in this Doctrine of doing everything by doing nothing. I will first have thee to understand that the Universe being as above said an Expression of Zero under the Figure of the Dyad, its Tendency is continually to release itself from that strain by the Marriage of Opposites whenever they are brought into Contact. Thus thy true Nature is a Will to Zero, or an Inertia, or Doing Nothing; and the Way of Doing Nothing is to oppose no Obstacle to the free Function of that true Nature. Consider the Electrical Charge of a Cloud, whose Will is to discharge itself in Earth, and so release the Strain of its Potential. Do this by free conduction, there is Silence and Darkness; oppose it, there is Heat and Light, and the Rending asunder of that which will not permit free Passage to the Current.

          >Learn moreover that thy Self includeth the whole Universe of thy Knowledge, so that every increase upon every Plane is an Aggrandizement of that Self. Yet the greater Part of this Universe is common Knowledge, so that thy Self is interwoven with other Selves, save for that Part peculiar to thy Self. And as thou growest, so also this peculiar Part is ever of less Proportion to the Whole, until when thou becomest infinite, it is a Quantity infinitesimal and to be neglected. Lo! When the All is absorbed within the I, it is as if the I were absorbed within the All; for if two Things become wholly and indissolubly One Thing, there is no more Reason for Names, since Names are given to mark off one Thing from another. And this is that which is written in The Book of the Law: "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt. But whoso availeth in this, let him be the chief of all!"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Say not then that this Way is contrary to Nature, and that in Simplicity of Satisfaction of thy Needs is perfection of thy Path. For to thee, who hast aspired, it is thy Nature to perform the Great Work, and this is the final Dissolution of the Cosmos. For though a Stone seem to lie still on a Mountain Top, and have no care, yet hath it an hidden Nature, a Task Ineffable and Stupendous; namely, to force its Way to the Centre of Gravity of the Universe, and also to burn up its Elements into the final Homogeneity of Matter. Therefore the Way of Quiet is but an Illusion of Ignorance. Whoever thou mayst be now, thy Destiny is that which I have declared unto thee; and thou art most fixed in the true Way when, accepting this consciously as thy Will, thou gathereth up thy Powers to move thy Self mightily within it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I recognize that commentary from the Taittirya-Bhashya, its talking about realizing that all objects of desire are none other than the Self (or more specifically, they are the Self appearing as X, Y, Z etc), this relates to the passages in the Chandogya talking about how "by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known".

          I'm not aware of Shankara explicitly positing a supramundane means of perception whereby all gross objects are known in detail, but I think he is referring to the understanding someone reaches that all possible objects of desire are none other than one's Self, which effectively uproots any deep longing for them, since what constitutes their being or reality is already attained and identical with one's Self. This is why IMO he concludes that part by writing "the idea is that, he enjoys identity with that all knowing Brahman", that is to say the "enjoyment of all desirable things" is figurative and takes place through the "enjoyment" of the knowledge of oneself as Brahman, which entails the understanding of identity with the reality of or underlying those desirable things, which is a figurative way of 'enjoying' them.

          tbh I don't have much interest in Crowley and don't have much to say about him. Some of his ideas seem anti-traditional although there are nuggets of his thought that seem to at least partially agree with traditional wisdom/doctrines, but you can say the same of Jung, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Rudolf Steiner even Serrano etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >tbh I don't have much interest in Crowley and don't have much to say about him. Some of his ideas seem anti-traditional although there are nuggets of his thought that seem to at least partially agree with traditional wisdom/doctrines, but you can say the same of Jung, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Rudolf Steiner even Serrano etc.
            I think thelema has alot in common with advaita he uses these two Hadit and Nuit like Shiva and Shakti, he also uses True will like Atman-Brahman, he also establishes a "moral ethical" world-view which really resonates with me.

            I recommend you take a closer look here if you're curious, crowley honestly was pretty impressive

            I absolutely think the sus stuff is like eroto-comatose lucidity and the actual sex magic techniques, but I can't help but relate to crowleys use of terms and so on here:
            https://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/
            It's really straightforward

            There's also this interesting qa I found here where ramana maharshi talked to a crowleyite supposedly https://johndavidsatsang.international/ramana-maharshi-aham-sphurana-the-count-a-selection-of-teachings/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for sharing, it's not high on my to-do list and I have other things to do today but I bookmarked those links and I may check their contents out at a later time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you read those writings by Erwin hessle specifically True Will, Method of Love, Kabs and Khu, Let there be no difference be made, I think you will get it straight away

            I think it is fundamentally traditional.

            I have also traced a couple strands of modern though specifically "anxiety" literature it has a lot in common with advaita, in some books about recovery they suppose that a person should shift to what they call "metacognitive awareness," and they give a practical rundown on this, yet they don't take a dualistic observer approach like shankya, they encourage you to accept emotions and so on, that's the only way the negative symptoms like anxiety go away it seems,

            Interesting to he honest this parralel I am seeing, for example even anxiety symptoms "churning stomach" "heart palpitations," etc. What goes on in the nervous system seems to parralel some esoteric systems, and it seems "anxiety" is just the other side of "ecstasy" or "excitement," it seems to be the same mechanism underlying some spiritual experiences, the anxiety recovery books specifically by people like Dr. Claire weekes even approve religion, it seems faith can also cure and sublimate anxiety. For example a technique they use is discriminating between "first fear" and second fear, which corresponds to "what is," and "what if"

            I think these modern psychological systems are actually catching up to the phenomenology of advaita

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The positions, i.e., the fixed doctrines, of all the philosophical Views—from the Materialists on—are the crafted roles that ‘It’, i.e., this Self [= nondual Awareness], freely adopts, like an actor.
    >To explain: The Materialists (Cārvākas) say: “The self is just this body, qualified by [the accidental fact of] consciousness.”
    >The Logicians (Naiyāyikas) and Atomists (Vaiśeṣikas) hold that the self as it exists in the course of mundane existence (saṃsṛti) is [nothing more than]the substrate of the collection of the nine qualities of cognition, etc.—this is synonymous with [what we call] the principle of the mind (buddhi-tattva). But in the state of [what they call] liberation, when those qualities have been cut away, the self is synonymous with [what we call] the Void.
    >The Exegetes (Mīmāṃsakas) are also stuck in the mind alone, believing that the self, inferable on the basis of the ‘I’-cognition, is concealed by limiting factors & adventitious conditions such as pleasure and pain.
    >The Buddhists only reach up to the activities of the mind, holding as they do that the sequential stream of cognitions are the only reality[that compares to the notion of self].
    >Some Vedāntins say that it is just prāṇa that is the self.
    >Those [Vedāntins] who claim that brahman is nonexistence, citing the [Upaniṣadic]passage “In the beginning, all this was nonexistence”, immerse themselves in the level of the Void and remain there.
    >The Mādhyamika [Buddhists] are just the same.
    >The [Vaiṣṇava] Pāñcarātrikas are stuck solely on the level of Physical Nature (prakṛti), because they accept that everything [including the self] is a material transformation of Supreme Nature (parā prakṛti), saying, “Supreme Nature is the Lord Vāsudeva, and souls are exactly like sparks of that [‘fire’].”
    >The Sāṅkhyas and Pātañjala Yogins cling to a level equivalent to that of the Vijñānākalas[above Māyā but still outside the Pure Realm].
    >The Sāṅkhyas and Pātañjala Yogins cling to a level equivalent to that of the Vijñānākalas[above Māyā but still outside the Pure Realm].
    >The Grammarians have settled upon the level of revered Sadāśiva, for they hold that the reality of the Self consists of the Word-absolute (śabda-brahman), which has the Visionary level of Speech (paśyantī) as its nature.
    >Thus the position of other[Views]may be inferred as well. This is taught in scripture with such verses as:
    >The Buddhists remain in Buddhi-tattva; the Jains remain in the three guṇas [of Prakṛti], the Vedāntins remain in Puruṣa-tattva, and the Pāñcarātrikas in Formless Nature (Prakṛti). ||

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Tāntrikas [e.g., the Saiddhāntikas and others] hold that the reality of the Self (ātma-tattva) transcends all. Those devoted to the traditions (āmnāyas) of the Kula and [Kaula] say it is immanent in all. The knowers of the View of the Trika and [the Krama] hold that it is simultaneously all-transcending and all-embodying.
      >Thus, all these levels or roles of the Blessed Lord—i.e., the singular Awareness-Self—manifested through His autonomy (svātantrya) are differentiated by degrees of revelation or concealment of that autonomy. Hence, there is only One Self that pervades all of this.
      >Thus, all these levels or roles of the Blessed Lord—i.e., the singular Awareness-Self—manifested through His autonomy (svātantrya) are differentiated by degrees of revelation or concealment of that autonomy. Hence, there is only One Self that pervades all of this.
      >As for those of limited Views, they have been caused to adopt egoic identification with various limited aspects [of that One]through the spontaneous play that expresses its Will (icchā).
      >As for those of limited Views, they have been caused to adopt egoic identification with various limited aspects [of that One]through the spontaneous play that expresses its Will (icchā).
      >As it is said [in the Pauṣkara-Pārameśvara]:
      But some, stained by attachment (rāga) to their[incomplete] knowledge, do not[yet] know the omniscient supreme Divinity
      >Similarly [in the Svacchanda-tantra]: Though those addicted to dry, fruitless argument wish to gain liberation, Māyā [dualistic perception] causes them to wander in non-liberation [for what they think is liberation is not].
      >And [in the Netra-tantra]: They who are worshippers [only] of the self[i.e., individuated consciousness]do not go to the highest state spoken of in the scriptures of Śiva.

      >The positions of all ‘views’ are opportunities for That. ||
      >The ‘landing-points’ of all cognitions are opportunities for That. ||

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Forthcoming what one would have sood’ in-criminally
    >I am

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *