Fundamental Point of Nonduality

[alwayson2]

An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror.  A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.  

The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.  

Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by alwayson2

An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror.  A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.  

The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.  

Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.

I'm fairly familiar w/Ramana's teachings ... along with other non-duality teachings, ancient and modern, and can also compare these teachings with non-fluctuating experience of wholeness.

How do you see Ramana's teachings, and other non-duality teachings as confusing, with respect to what you have written above?

I don't disagree with what you've written ... it's just that, as far as I know, all non-dual philosophy has, as a primary aspect of its teachings, some form of teaching and illustration which highlights what you've written above.

Namely that true nature consists of the changeless, the whole (aka non-dual reality), which is ever unaffected by the vacillations of consciousness and manifestation, which are but momentary display -- whereas the pure awareness we actually are, is ever-free from these vacillations -- hence the illustrations that you just posted, and others like them.

I've recently re-read Be As You Are by Ramana Maharshi (or, rather, compiled around spoken instruction of his), and I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj ...  and they both emphasize the changelessness of awareness/self/true nature/ whatever else we might call it, and the fact that it is not affected by mind, or anything else  ..... throughout both books.

And so, again:

Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman



PS- The changelessness of true nature is reality; this is my experience - I agree with that aspect 100% ... I'm just curious as to where/why/how you see any potential confusion?

[alwayson2]

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?

Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding  self-inquiry?

To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position

The whole notion of self-inquiry is not necessary nor conducive to understanding nonduality.  Self-inquiry is simply a weak basic Madhyamaka analysis.

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?

Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding  self-inquiry?

Yes, I've seen a few.



Trying to understand self-inquiry with thinking mind is obviously an unworkable endeavor, but people still try.

quote:
To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position

Maybe not; I literally experience him as crystal-clear now, but that certainly wasn't always the case.

quote:
The whole notion of self-inquiry is not necessary nor conducive to understanding nonduality.  

Well, true -- but the whole notion of understanding is equally problematic.



The reality of non-duality cannot be understood, nor experienced - because both of these conditions imply duality.

We can only be the wholeness we actually are.

Non-duality as a philosophy can't help but be affected by duality, because philosophy and language are both manifestations of, and within, duality.

Only the pure being, the pure changeless awareness (clarity, wholeness, etc.) stands alone, unaffected -- "I am taintless, immovable, completely pure, I am Shiva" as Shankara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta wrote, speaking as Shiva, the wholeness.

And I recall that you don't care for English translations; I have the Sanskrit for the quote above, if you want to see it (it's pretty simple; I can vouch for and verify the translation myself).

quote:
Self-inquiry is simply a weak basic Madhyamaka analysis.

What's weak about it?

Or basic?

What do the more advanced tools or approaches of Madhyamaka offer that self-inquiry doesn't?

Why does it always come back to touting Buddhism, within a post or two, with you, regardless of the topic?



That's a sincere question, by the way; I'm genuinely interested. Do you feel you have verified Buddhism experientially to that extent? If so, how can you feel that Buddhism is so superior? (A high-level of experiential verification of non-duality usually creates open-mindedness regarding effective systems, in my experience).  If you haven't experientially verified the non-dual teachings of (presumably) Madhyamaka, why are you so (seemingly) closed off to anything but Buddhism?

I just don't get it -- and am interested, if you care to discuss.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[alwayson2]

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
Non-duality as a philosophy can't help but be affected by duality, because philosophy and language are both manifestations of, and within, duality.

Only the pure being, the pure changeless awareness (clarity, wholeness, etc.) stands alone, unaffected -- "I am taintless, immovable, completely pure, I am Shiva" as Shankara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta wrote, speaking as Shiva, the wholeness.

Yes its all about purity versus mind.  

Purity is the mirror.  The mind is the image in the mirror.

If modern nondualism teaching substituted the word purity for every instance they use the word awareness, they would be a lot closer to the truth.

Awareness means you are contriving mindfullness on the level of impure mind.

[manigma]

quote:Originally posted by alwayson2

An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror.  A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.  

The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.  

Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.

At one time you are saying "The primordial purity of That is unaffected from the impure mind."

And yet again you are saying "Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings."



If the primordial is unaffected... then what is bothering you?

Just enjoy your purity and let reflect other impure minds.

[Kirtanman]

Hi Alwayson,

quote:Originally posted by alwayson2


Awareness means you are contriving mindfullness on the level of impure mind.

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

This is just a guess, but I'm guessing you may not have experienced the primordial purity, or whatever you prefer to call it?

The reason I ask, is: those of us who have, and/or who live from/as This - know that there are very few terms that can even remotely indicate it; it is entirely without form or limits or distinctions of any kind; it is actually wholeness.

It is this that experiences all.

Just notice any thought, feeling or perception ... no matter how subtle; something experiences it; something is aware of it.

In actuality, this formless, unbound clarity has a single quality in experience.

That quality?

Awareness.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[alwayson2]

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
This is just a guess, but I'm guessing you may not have experienced the primordial purity, or whatever you prefer to call it?

I try not to talk about my personal experiences with nonduality.  

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
That's a sincere question, by the way; I'm genuinely interested. Do you feel you have verified Buddhism experientially to that extent? If so, how can you feel that Buddhism is so superior? (A high-level of experiential verification of non-duality usually creates open-mindedness regarding effective systems, in my experience).  If you haven't experientially verified the non-dual teachings of (presumably) Madhyamaka, why are you so (seemingly) closed off to anything but Buddhism?

I just don't get it -- and am interested, if you care to discuss.

Because advaita vedanta was developed directly from Madhyamaka.  Even some of the Upanishads were essentially buddhist.  


Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.

"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126

"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157

Gaudapada was the guru of Sankara's guru.  You can do more research on your own.  

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman

Just notice any thought, feeling or perception ... no matter how subtle; something experiences it; something is aware of it.

In actuality, this formless, unbound clarity has a single quality in experience.

That quality?

Awareness.

Maybe.  You can have unbounded clarity without having distinguished primordial purity (the mirror) from the impure mind (the image in the mirror), but that is not correct.  You must distinguish the two.

Using the word awareness, you had to explain your position a lot more, than if you had used purity.

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by alwayson2

Originally posted by Kirtanman

Maybe.  You can have unbounded clarity without having distinguished primordial purity (the mirror) from the impure mind (the image in the mirror), but that is not correct.  You must distinguish the two.

Using the word awareness, you had to explain your position a lot more, than if you had used purity.

Who said anything about them not being distinguished? I've had extensive conversations about this here at the forum, including fairly recently.

Ultimately, the distinguishing is an orientation -- realizing that true nature is the aspect that is ever-free, unmoving, etc. .... with all that moves, moving within it (aka This, aka Clarity, etc.).

Shiva & Shakti - Shivashakti.

The basic model --- which emphasizes the very point you emphasized at the beginning of this thread, with the illustrations you cited --- is articulated in many traditions; Dzogchen, Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita, etc.

I just don't get what you see the issue as being; you may not like the term "awareness" for primordial clarity, but it's pretty well locked-in, I'd say, including in Dzogchen, as the English term for primordial clarity/ground of being/true nature.

I agree with your fundamental premise and emphasis -- yes -- primordial clarity must be distinguished from impure mind; without this clarity/realization, unenlightenment can (and will) continue unnecessarily.

What I'm still not seeing is why or how you see Ramana as not teaching this same thing clearly? How are his teachings on inquiry deceptive?

The reality of infinite, unbound clarity (or purity) cannot be conceived - we can only be it (and we all ever are; it's living every moment now -- unenlightenment is just a disproportionate focus on the forms of mind, and mistaking them for reality).

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[Christi]

Hi Alwayson,

 

quote:An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.

The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.

Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.

 

quote:
Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding self-inquiry?

To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position

Yes, you are right. Direct self-inquiry teachings such as those offered by Ramana Maharshi can be confusing for many, and even dangerous, spinning people in circles that they may otherwise have avoided. In fact Yogani dedicated a large part of his book on Self-inquiry to just this aspect of the teaching, pointing out the dangers involved and how to avoid them.

Unfortunately, these days there are a rising number of teachers touting pure self-inquiry, without any understanding of these dangers. When a practitioner is ready, self-inquiry can be a useful practice, but only for those who are ripe. It is spiritual practice which makes the fruit ripe and ready to fall from the tree. Self inquiry is the falling from the tree.

Ultimately there is no such thing as impure mind and pure mind, for everything is seen in it's prestine purity. With self-inquiry, at first the distinction is made between what is pure and what is impure, then there is a resting in the original purity of mind to the exclusion of all else. Eventually, even that distinction is seen to be duality, and it falls away too.

Christi

[manigma]

quote:Originally posted by Christi
Eventually, even that distinction is seen to be duality, and it falls away too.

Marvelous!!

Where had you been Christi? Long time![]

[Christi]

Hi Manigma,

I've been away working. Back now for a short while.

[alwayson2]

I was reading the self-enquiry entry on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry

If wikipedia is accurate, than self-inquiry is simply buddhist style analysis of I.  This is found in 70% of Dalai Lama's books.  

But even according to buddhism, this is not the ultimate point of view.  Ultimate point of view is Dzogchen.

[manigma]

The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', Kunjed Gyalpo ... The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of 'one and two', otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also, the concept of 'individual' presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this....

... cause and effect, sentient beings and Buddhas, subjects and objects, path and goal are ultimately revealed to be of one taste: movement from one to the other is no movement at all, really, but a dynamic stillness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

B E A U T I F U L ! ! !

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by manigma

The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', Kunjed Gyalpo ... The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of 'one and two', otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also, the concept of 'individual' presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this....

... cause and effect, sentient beings and Buddhas, subjects and objects, path and goal are ultimately revealed to be of one taste: movement from one to the other is no movement at all, really, but a dynamic stillness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

B E A U T I F U L ! ! !

Yes, Indeed.

True, too.

It's (the dynamic stillness, moving within our absolute true nature) called Spanda in Sanskrit, per the Yoga Spandakarika (Kashmir Shaivism yoga text).

Awareness of being clarity itself (aka awareness that is not aware of itself), and its movement, known as consciousness (awareness aware of itself, aka self-awareness) is how all this apparent diversity can be occurring within wholeness now - and is.



Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman