Arugoel

@WelcometoReality Yup, that's it. And if we want to add further clarity, we can say that not only is the spider and the spot the same thing perceived in different ways, but that one way is correct perception, and the other is false. Furthermore, we can specify that although the mirage is not independent from consciousness, consciousness is never limited by any particular mirage. The appearances come and go, but consciousness remains unchanged.

@WelcometoReality I can't speak for @Shambhu, and I can't be certain that he'd agree with the assertion I made in that quote. However, I'm interested in taking a stab at your question. Sorry if this is an indirect way of answering, but consider the following: When walking between rooms at your home, has the form of a spider (or some other bug) ever caught your attention, but when you focused your gaze you came to realize that it was in fact just a natural dark spot on your wooden floor? If you can't experientially relate to the above scenario, I'm sure at least you can imagine this happening to someone. Now the question is, would you consider the false appearance of the spider to be "essentially the same" as the natural dark spot? Advaita Vedanta would suggest that there is no ontological separation, after all the false spider is non-other than the dark spot. However, clearly there is an important distinction to be made between the two. One has genuine realness, the other merely a mirage.

@RMQualtrough Nicely put. Thanks for speaking with me, I enjoyed it.

@RMQualtrough Nicely stated. I get where you're coming from. I have a few thoughts as I consider your words. I see that you're referring to a past experience and then suggesting that inherent in the experience was the understanding that you now speak of. But would you not agree that your experience simply was what it was? And your words that now describe the insight you gained could be tweaked depending on the nature of your intellectual state at any given moment? Would you speak of it in the exact same way had you not been literate? What I'm getting at is, it's possible to distinguish between the experience and the way in which you choose to speak about the experience. What makes this all so tricky is that we can't be absolutely sure of what each other has experienced, we can only feel into the words one chooses to use, and it seems worth recognizing that our narratives can come in many forms while referring to the same target. So when I said "That's one way of putting it and perfectly valid if it's what resonates for you," I was referring to the words you are choosing to use in your current state. Of course, your experience happened first hand and cannot be denied. But is the linguistic interpretation not up for negotiation? The "other idea" you say would not be accurate, but you may consider if that is only the case because the words don't resonate with your particular disposition, for they may refer back to the same first hand happening. Here's an example. You mention the blankness of anesthesia. In Advaita Vedanta the blankness of anesthesia is considered the veiling power of Maya and therefore deemed a form, the form of blankness. It seems blank because the projecting power of Maya is absent, but ignorance of one's true nature remains. For them, when all forms are removed, you don't end up in anesthesia, but rather Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Instead of labeling this formless state as shunyam (emptiness), some call it purnam (completely full). Different words but perhaps valid descriptors of the same target.

@RMQualtrough That's one way of putting it and perfectly valid if it's what resonates for you, but @GreenWoods intuitions are also valid. By your own logic, the most you can definitively say is that you aren't an object, because as you so nicely explained, you'll never find yourself as an object. However, whether or not you therefore conclude yourself to be nothingness is another matter.

@WelcometoReality Yes, I read your posts and respect your position. Thank you for offering your view, I felt you were clear and articulate. It's worth considering what Shambhu was saying too. When understood correctly, there is no subtle separation, or any separation for that matter. Similar to how a pot cannot be separated from the clay that was used to form the pot. Nonetheless, a distinction can be made in one's understanding between the form and the substance that pervades the form. As such, non-duality insofar as it pertains to Advaita Vedanta is with regard to ontology, but this doesn't mean that it's invalid or without reason to draw certain distinctions in one's understanding.

@Leo Gura In all honestly Leo I don't mind that answer, and I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I acknowledge that there is significant depth to what you have to teach, that's why I'm participating on your forum and asking you questions. I'm not trying to bother you. If I didn't have respect for you, I wouldn't be here. Despite what you may think, I bet I've spent as much time listening to and contemplating your videos (at least within the time since I discovered you) as anyone else here. But, you must admit that what you've said thus far doesn't demonstrate that you have a superior understanding of Advaita Vedanta, or any understanding whatsoever. Nor does it settle precisely how you think I'm misrepresenting the teachings. My questions to you are not rhetorical, and they are not presented in bad faith. I'm a genuine person asking you genuine questions, and although you make it unbelievably difficult to have a mature/productive conversation, I'm willing to put that aside to see what I might learn. I'm more open-minded than you may think. You must at minimum concede that you know very little about me, and yet assume so much. Aren't you the guy with the video on how assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups? So, if you're unwilling to address my questions then so be it, but if you change your mind and feel up for the challenge of actually bringing some rigor to your criticisms of how I and/or Shambhu have misunderstood the true Advaita Vedanta, then I'm all ears, and I'll gladly open my mind to what you have to say. That is a promise. Furthermore, it's not like Vedanta is just one teaching. There are many schools, many ways of thought, many lines of argumentation, and many interpretations. The notion of immutability comes from the Vivartavada and Ajatavada theories. Not all schools of Vedanta adhere to this way of thought, and although there are many schools of Advaita Vedanta, you will typically find agreement amongst Advaitins regarding Brahman as immutable. It sounds to me that you may resonate more with the Parinamavada, which is the notion that the world is a real transformation (Parinama) of Brahman. Where as in contrast, Vivartavata is the notion that the world is merely an unreal manifestation (Vivarta) of Brahman. Vivartavada states that although Brahman appears to undergo a transformation, no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are unreal manifestation, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts. Ajatavada is similar but slightly more radical, and is favored by the Neo-Advaitins. This is where they get the idea that nothing ever happened. It was famously expounded by Gaudapada (Shankara's guru's guru) in his Karika on Mandukya Upanishad. Ok, will you consider a healthy discussion with me? I'd be very grateful. I assure you, I'm not looking for an argument here. I have no interest in lecturing you, on the contrary, I'm asking you to lecture me. What is your precise understanding of Advaita Vedanta? And how does it relate and/or contrast to what you've discovered directly via awakening? This is what I want to ask you. Thanks for your consideration.

@Leo Gura Ok, that could be. But, why are you being so vague? So, now you're implying that you do recognize the validity of Advaita Vedanta? If that's the case, then can you please explain your understanding of Satya and Mithya as it pertains to Advaita Vedanta? Teach us the correct understanding then. You can't simply dodge the question here with your usual antics (i.e., "you're not awake" etc.), because Advaita Vedanta doesn't do that kind of non-sense, they actually teach students correct understanding in language and allow questions until all misunderstandings are resolved. So, go ahead, demonstrate your superior understanding, and show precisely how I (and @Shambhu) misrepresented the teachings. Anything short of that will only reveal that it is you that does not understand Advaita Vedanta. I call your bluff.

@RMQualtrough Cool, thanks for the clarification.

@Leo Gura Ok, so then you do in fact deny the validity of Advaita Vedanta. Very good, that's all I wanted to clarify. Personally I don't care either which way, I'm not advocating for a particular view here. I'm just wondering why you use their terminology if you don't recognize their teachings as credible. Seems to me an odd way of going about things, but so be it.

@Leo Gura Fair enough, but for clarity sake, you may consider avoiding the term Brahman, for you aren't using it in line with the traditional meaning. In order to use it authentically you have to specify that form/experience is an illusory appearance and thus does not receive the same ontological merit as Brahman. This is a distinction without a separation, just as you can distinguish a pot from the clay used to form the pot. However, the distinction is important, because the form called "pot" doesn't have the same ontological merit as the clay that pervades the form (as in you can smash the pot but the clay remains). You don't find this distinction important? Again, I'm not making any claim as to what is true, nor am I suggesting you're wrong. I'm simply asking you about the language you choose to use. Given the fact that you speak regularly on these topics, surely it's not ridiculous to occasionally ask you for clarification. Regardless, I do appreciate whatever response you're willing to offer. Thanks.

@RMQualtrough Would you not find it more clearly stated to simply say you are "that which isn't an object?" As opposed to saying you are "literal nothingness." Because literal nothingness wouldn't allow for the consciousness you later stated was undeniable, would it? Is it not reasonable to say that the very fact that we are having an experience is proof that reality is not literally nothing? Appearances may be illusory, but if reality were literally nothing, then appearances wouldn't appear, no?

@RMQualtrough Thanks for responding. I hear what you're saying, and I'm not arguing, but just to offer an alternative perspective on that: technically, whatever you're able to "find" must by definition have a form, even if that form is described as blankness/voidness. In other words, if you can become aware of it as an object, then it isn't formless. From a Vedantic perspective, you can't find yourself as an object/form, but rather you can realize yourself to be the formless subject within which all objects/forms appear. Appearances can be extremely subtle, even the blankness of deep sleep is a kind of subtle form recognized in Vedanta. From this stance, all states, including the most radical mystical states are a particular appearing form. So, if by "finding yourself" you mean you realized the true nature of what you are, then fair enough, but if you mean that you found an object which you are calling "I" then Vedanta would suggest you only found another appearance, and appearances are "not I." Maybe I could ask you, would you not prefer the language of saying: in these heightened states, you realized your true nature to be formless. As opposed to you found something which is formless?

@Leo Gura I’ve been following your conversation with @Shambhu and it seems that your core disagreement is about whether or not the Absolute is immutable. As you know, Shambhu is taking the traditional Advaita Vedantic perspective in which Brahman alone exists and all aspects of experience (i.e., changing form) are considered an appearance (including the highest, most profound mystical experiences). As a quick aside, several people seem to be wondering how this view doesn’t imply a duality. The answer is easy to understand though. From the Vedantic stance, appearances do not have ontological merit (which essentially means they aren’t real). However, in Vedanta, appearances are referred to as Mithya which is a term indicating a special classification which is neither real nor unreal. It may sound confusing at first, but actually it’s fairly simple. Appearances aren’t real in the sense that they don’t have stand-alone, independent existence. But they are real in the sense that they are experienced (obviously no one can deny that forms are experienced). This is similar to waking from a dream and declaring the dream appearance as unreal despite having been experienced. Therefore, the seeming duality falls away when you consider form to be an illusory appearance. Also, since the only changes available for inspection are the changing forms, then the entire notion of change (including time and causation) are declared illusory right along with the appearing changing forms themselves. Although it may seem ridiculously counterintuitive, from a Vedantic perspective, nothing has ever truly happened (appearances notwithstanding). I’m not claiming the above to be true, I have no claim to awakening, and I don’t claim to have any knowledge of anything. I have no dog in this fight, I’m just asking the following with curiosity: Regardless of whether or not you feel my above explanation is accurate, is it the case that you deny the validity of Advaita Vedanta as expounded by Adi Shankaracharya? You think the notion of the Absolute (or any aspect of reality for that matter) as immutable is mistaken? Rather, is your understanding that the Absolute “shape-shifts” into the form of experiential qualities, and therefore because the experience of form changes, you then tie this change to the Absolute, is that correct? In other words, you would perhaps metaphorically see the Absolute as a field, and experiential forms as the excitations of that field, thus giving equal ontological status to both the formless substratum and the appearing forms? Thanks.

Just a few thoughts for those that are triggered by Leo’s style: In my opinion, Leo’s gift is his arrogance and lack of humility. The reason I say this is, that without his level of arrogance, how he speaks about awakening/spirituality would be impossible. So just consider, if Leo didn’t think of himself as the greatest, most extraordinary explorer of consciousness, then what would his videos look like? Probably pretty dull, ordinary, and uncontroversial, not to mention useless for the rest of us. Does anyone want that here? The beauty is that Leo couldn’t care less about how he’s being perceived, what impact he’s having on viewers, or how ludicrous people take him to be. This goes hand in hand with the radical content he puts out, and I don’t think you can get one without the other. So if you’re bothered by what’s happening here, my advice would be, to stop taking Leo so seriously and simply use his content as a source of contemplation and reference. I think it’s worth recognizing that Leo is still very young. He’d never admit it, but he’s (I think it’s fair to say) reasonably immature and socially underdeveloped (at least as far as the character he portrays publicly, which I think he does on purpose just for the sake of being a provocateur). I wouldn’t expect much improvement from him in that regard, but when it comes to his ability to break down complex issues and coherently discuss them, I don’t think anyone is doing it better. For anyone new here, please look through the catalog of video content available on Leo’s Youtube. Look at the immense scope of material he’s covered and notice the degree of depth he captures on each topic. It’s truly impressive and I have to say thanks to Leo for keeping it up. Lastly, although Leo probably won’t agree, in my estimation, he uses the term solipsism in an unconventional way. When he speaks of solipsism he’s speaking from God’s perspective. As God, reality is solipsistic. However, you’ll see in many videos (and I could cite specifically) where Leo explicitly discusses God fragmenting into discrete centers of awareness. Leo says idealism doesn’t go far enough, but if you pay attention to the details, it’s clear as day that Leo is describing reality more in line with idealism than solipsism (at least regarding how these terms are conventionally used in philosophy).