Preetom

Yes similarly Brahman is also another name, an empty idea used as a helpful pointer in the path for communication of the teachings. But the words do point to 'something' and That is worth investigating.

Beautiful track. Thanks!

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this, "Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?" The search for that golden thread, the thread that connected the entire set of beads began. That is what Absolute Truth refers to. It was in fact found and turned out that you can frame that golden thread in many different ways. The idea of Absolute Consciousness(Brahman) is one such way to frame it. In this sense, 'dependent origination' is another great way to frame that exact thread. This idea coherently explains all of phenomenal reality. Now that's all well and good but the danger lies in taking the interpretations of Truth as the real deal. Which explains the endless debate and fight over religions. Is Truth ever reached that way? No!

So it turns out that Absolute Relativity is the Truth, in the way you explained things. But notice that, this notion of 'Absolute Relativity' is a thought/idea, a 'formulation' of Truth. Exactly in the same way, Brahman is an idea or a 'formulation' of Truth. I think Winterknight said it more accurately. Non dual truth goes beyond words but can be formulated in many different ways. So is it possible that Hinduism and Buddhism both have formulated the Same Truth in 2 technically sounding different ways, but many people got lost with the formulations(aka taking the map for the territory)?

@Sockrattes I never claimed to be Enlightened. And sorry if I sounded condescending. It was a way of speaking. By 'you' I didn't mean you personally. That's why I used 'we' a few times if I remember. And yes you're right that Truth is 'not two'. But see the twist here? It never says what the Truth actually is. it relies heavily on negative terms so that Truth can't be formulated in anyway. Saying Truth is one, is saying one thing too many If you recognize the validity of objects, then of course it comes with all its relative explanations and workings. But on nondual level, how can you explain objects? Objects, as opposed to what? We are back in duality again. That was another post but you can intellectually derive that how there can't be more than one Absolute Truth(Jed mckenna did it, and it was a fun thought experiment). The bottom line is, The thought or idea of Absolute is Not the Absolute. A claim about Absolute is not the Absolute. But still, there is 'something' there worth looking into. (Again, we are discussing scriptures and foundational theory which anyone can research and share; not measuring who is enlightened or not. Sorry if I sounded otherwise!)

Brahman is Existence itself. So there can be no whole or part or absolute or relative when it comes to Brahman. That's why it is incommunicable and unbelievable. Anyone pushing you to believe what Brahman actually IS, is trying to sell his/her pitch to you. You can never 'know' what Brahman is, because you are it! But you can intellectually know what Brahman is not (neti neti). That's just another pointer in the path and ultimately a misconception. There is not a thing called Atman to be dissolved into a 2nd thing called Brahman. Through Enlightenment, both ignorance and enlightenment are recognized as non-existent. It was a helpful pointer on the path, but was never the Truth.

Have you been doing self-inquiry like ''Day and night work intently at it''? This is fundamentally a game of attention. If attention is ceaselessly cultivated without letting it go waste in thoughts and imaginations, the mind is bound to collapse. I think that's what is meant by this 'internal pressure' until it is resolved

That brings up a question. Is the Absolute Truth one or many? It is logically impossible to have more than one Absolute Truth. So if Hinduism and Buddhism don't recognize this, are they prescribing 2 different Absolute Truths? That's just not right..

That's a very good question actually which I myself was seeking intellectually for a while and as you rightfully pointed out that those playful explanations weren't that satisfying either. I think I already touched upon this on another post in this thread. What you are calling the ''witness consciousness'' is not actually Brahmanic Consciousness. The ''witness consciousness'' is a knowing subject/field that knows all other objects. It is a subject-object dual knowing. One can't stand without the other. But that 'knowing' element with which you know, does not belong to you as a human mind. That 'knowing' is infinite and you can't ever know that 'knowing' like you know an object; Because you ARE it! You can't know yourself in subject-object relationship. The very fact you are asking about the objects of Consciousness, shows that you are not Enlightened yet. That means back to self-inquiry salt mines If you were Enlightened, you wouldn't see 'objects'. You'd only be the presence of knowing/being. Now that's why it is incommunicable and we have to actually get enlightened to 'experience' what's that like. All objects and things are categories in the mind. And the mind itself is found non-existent. I'll quote Ramana Maharshi to support this claim, ''Q: How long should Inquiry be continued? A: As long as there are impressions of objects in mind, inquiry must go on ceaselessly'' It shows that the very appearance of 'objects' is due to delusion. So ultimately, there is no objects of consciousness and their workings. But we have to realize that directly through Enlightenment. These all feel like noob, childish explanations to me. These are all human thought biased explanations. I'm grateful that you brought up this topic. It takes up to the very limit of thoughts and motivates us to go to that placeless 'place' and see for ourselves through self-inquiry No thought or explanation will ever satisfy or replace Truth.

Hinduism and Buddhism (or any legit spiritual path) must be one and the same in it's essential message. If that wasn't the case, then none of it would be worth pursuing. The debate and shit slinging contests we see over different religions through ages are differences of language and superficiality; Not the difference of essence. It was/is mostly done by pundits and intellectual scholars who have fallen into the trap of taking scriptures as the Absolute Truth. They have taken the map as the territory. What else can we expect. Of course, they are gonna fight and bicker with each others. Their very identity, livelihood and intellectual security is on the line! No Truth was ever on the line in any debate

I'll try my best to answer your question. But I need further clarification please. Are you asking about the origin and the workings of the contents(or objects) that you witness as the witnessing consciousness?

@Emanyalpsid The bottom line is, if we rely on language or a thought form as irrefutable Truth, then that can always be challenged. No claim can ever stand on itself. It will inevitably collapse. I'll pose some questions. 1) What are we defending when we argue in the name of 'Truth'? 2) That which is actually True, does that need any defending? Does Truth care if it is defended or not? 3) What is Truth

Do you seriously consider that as the 'Truth'? If so, then your explanation is very anthropomorphic(human thought biased). There is actually no such thing as a 'flower'. You see a batch of colors through your human lens and name that a 'flower'. Go ask a dog or fish what a flower is. They don't see a 'flower' like you do. Same thing with time, space, gravity and anything you can perceive or conceive. When Hindus say that there is no Universe, they mean that there is no Universe as you think it is. But there is definitely 'something'. This 'something' is perceived one way through our human lens, different ways through a dogs lens, a bee's lens, a fish's lens etc. There is no objective physical universe with soil, water, air, humans, objects etc as we assume. It only appears like that to our human lens. Now what is that 'something'? Beneath any illusion or appearance, there must be a Reality. For example, the mirage in the desert appears like a 'pond', but it's Reality is ''a play of light''. The TV screen appears like the Breaking Bad show, but it's Reality is a flat, contentless screen. That 'something' is Brahman/Absolute Consciousness. Brahman alone appears as the shared physical Universe and the multifarious lenses(subjects) simultaneously. This Subject-Object relationship is dual and one can't legitimately exist without the other. But none of that affects Brahman. You can't legitimately claim the existence of an object(universe) unless you(as a knowing subject) is present. Vice versa, you can't have your 'human consciousness' stand alone without the perception of an object(just like your human consciousness collapses in deep sleep). Only Brahmanic Consciousness alone exists and can stand on it's own ground; thus it is called the Absolute. Note that, this Consciousness is NOT human consciousness, or subject-object dual consciousness. Vedanta gives a straightforward definition of Brahman Consciousness. Anything you can be aware of, is NOT it. Any consciousness you think about, is NOT it.

I have a question. How do you know this or make this claim? Do you see that in order to make any claim whatsoever, there has to be a 'knowing' of it. Or else you're just spreading gibberish. This knowing itself is Brahman/Buddha mind/infinite that no space, time, object can bound and which alone exists. Actually it's factually wrong to say Brahman exists, is conscious, is blissful. Brahman is existence itself, consciousness/knowing itself, bliss itself. That is not Advaita Vedanta. That is pretty much all religious philosophy. This is just a fancy way of saying that ''God created the Universe'. If you say that 'something' appears in Consciousness, then how will you explain that something? Advaita Vedanta says that Brahman itself 'appears' as the multifarious subjects (all sentient creatures) and Objects (The common, physical universe). But none of it can ever stain or bind Brahman. There is nothing else other than Brahman. And you mention that Atman is the soul. But that is not the case. The soul is called Jeeva. Jeeva is the person we take ourselves to be with all our conditioning. With the death of the body, Jeeva does not die. It keeps on moving from body to body until it's karma gets burnt and thus get liberated. But the whole purpose of Spiritual paths is to directly realize that Jeeva is ultimately non-existent and it never existed. Atman was wrongly identified with Jeeva by imagining itself as Jeeva(like a dream). Once this realization dawns(Enlightenment), the Jeeva nature vanishes once and for all and the equation becomes like this, Atman=Brahman There were never 2 things(atman and brahman) in the first place.

@Emanyalpsid Hell...I thought about quoting parts of your post and replying, but it sounds way too contradicting. Some parts are just factually wrong as far as I've researched. I'll just leave it here...before it turns into another religion war

@winterknight As I've been doing self inquiry for a while now, I notice some side effects A recurring fear of 'forgetting' stuff. There pops up thoughts like I might forget very basic stuff like not recognizing my parent's faces, forget everything I learnt in school, forget how to talk etc. I get that these are all egoic defense mechanisms to make me stop inquiry and I tend to keep dis-identifying from these contents. Maybe at night in bed, I'll have a thought that I might forget how to operate my computer but next morning, I do it just fine. I can see this is groundless fear but it has huge potential to trap me big time if they are not checked immediately. I guess the ego is freaking out from the progressive loss of 'doership'. My question is, did you have to deal with this issue as well? Is it kind of normal in this path?

@SoonHei Maybe ego backlash made it 12 hours late

My Shiddhi: Realizing that all shiddhis are inside dream as well. Method: Intellectual inquiry

Would the Absolute Infinite still remain 'infinite' without a peanut?

More inclined towards inquiry, insight and jnana yoga approaches. I can't seem to work with energy, power, conditioning approaches for too long. Feels too tedious and more work(which I feel my life already so full with)

If being enlightened means getting triggered by others and always being anxious about comparing my metaphysical dick size, then I'd rather stay a kid

You're welcome Peanut

The point is to see the utter dryness, limit and circular nature of intellectual labeling and discussion. Once you see that there is nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will ever satisfy you completely on the body-mind level and there is really no other way; then and MAYBE then you'll bite the bullet and go balls deep with self-inquiry all the way. But first the body, mind, intellect need to exhaust itself through it's own folly

1) Do not judge a book by it's cover 2) The more puffed up it is, the less essence there is (usually)