Shambhu

@ZzzleepingBear I appreciate your kind words, and I am happy to hear that there may be others who have silently gained some benefit from my words. I know that to some, what I have written may seem overly analytical, but this is a traditional method of studying non-duality. There are other methods of course, but they are not suited for an online forum. We can hardly have initiations or meditations or things such as that in this type of format lol This was never meant to be an quarrel, but an opportunity to hear and contemplate what has been recorded by the maharishis in the Upanishads and other texts. It was meant to be an opportunity to ask questions about the logic of the arguments being presented and to clear away any doubts about what was being said. I should have realized earlier that his would be a doomed endeavor from the start, but I had hope that there were ripe listeners. Usually, for anyone to gain benefit from these teachings, a certain degree of trust or faith is required, either in the teachings or in the teacher, not that I am claiming to be a teacher. This is all completely understandable. No one here knows me, my experience, or the source of what I have to say. Why should they trust me or what I have written? This is Leo's forum, and everyone is here for his brand of spirituality. Everyone is familiar with him through his videos, and he is a voice that they trust. So, I will conclude that this is a failed experiment, and be grateful for any small benefit others have gleaned. I am happy to return to obscurity, where I have spent over a decade, devoting my time to my practice. Again, I wish everyone here peace, happiness, and success, for my first teacher told me that whatever progress is made benefits us all, since we are all one.

@WelcometoReality I have enjoyed talking with you as well. I wish you nothing but happiness and success.

Identity is "a = a." It is simply saying this is this. The ego only appears in that which you truly are. Correct. I did not. Making a distinction is not the same as separating. They are not. I've explained why before. We can use the law of identity mentioned above, which is "a = a." If the two are equal, when the appearance vanished, so would consciousness. If the two were equal, it would be impossible to recognize change, which you have admitted to occurring. Or take the example I've used before of the gold ring. If you melt the ring, does the gold disappear? No. "Gold" and "ring" are not identical, since one was destroyed while the other remained, yet the ring was nothing other than gold all along. There is no separation between the two. You cannot give me the gold and you keep the ring. They are one, but they are not the same. In that example only gold is real. Similarly, only Consciousness is real, and all appearances are only an illusion. I have given many more examples above, you refer to them if you like. Not an accurate interpretation of what I have said. Correct. What do you think I have been saying for 6 pages now? Use your own analogy. Is the tv screen the image of a horse riding across it? No. If it were, the screen would disappear when the horse disappears. At the same time, there is no separation from the image of the horse and the screen. The image is the screen, but the screen is not (limited) to the image. There is only the screen. The screen is prior to and necessary for all images that appear. I am going to decline making any further comments. Unfortunately, what I am writing is not being understood, and I'll accept that as my own failure. Now, let me bow away graceful while wishing you all the best. ?

@PedroCedro I am familiar with serious work. My teachers spent decades meditating 10-14 hours a day. That is serious work. It seems to me that most people cannot recognize what serious work even looks like. Regretfully, I do not feel that my words are being very helpful here, so perhaps this is my time to depart. I don't want to be just another voice adding to the confusion, and my time would be better spent in practice. I sincerely wish everyone the best, and may you all find what you are looking for.

@Leo Gura No, I see forms too ;-) Is that your catch phrase? Pure Consciousness, which is formless, is Absolute Truth. Form is relative truth, which actually is not truth at all. Maybe I am biased to the Truth ;-) Change isn't even comprehensible without time. The two are practically synonymous. I'm guessing it only seems obvious to you because you are confused about the true nature of Consciousness. It's cool; nothing to be ashamed of. Takes one to know one lol Quitter ? I probably am stubborn, but you kind of stink at arguing. It's just as well that you give up :-P

@WelcometoReality jivo = you or self brahmaiva = Brahma or reality na = not parah = other You are not different from Brahma. This is your true identity. I brought this up above, but motion implies change, which implies time. Time appears in Consciousness and not the other way around. No, there is no separation, nor could there be. You cannot take Consciousness and give me the appearance. They cannot be separated since there is only Consciousness. I say "appears within" to denote that Consciousness is not limited to appearances, but it's not like a sack filled with some second thing called appearances. If Consciousness is an appearance, it would have to come and go, which is not even our direct experience. It is always there, regardless if an appearance is or not. Consciousness is always present, unchanging, and whose existence is necessary for appearances to be apparent.

@Leo Gura I'm not assuming. I see it clearly and with complete certainty. It's plainly available any time I choose to look. There is no duality. It is not that there is Consciousness and form as two things. I cannot keep Consciousness and give you form; its not like that. Form is nothing other than Consciousness, but Consciousness is not limited to any form. The Absolute does include all things, of which there is only one...Itself, and it does not change. Change implies time, and time is another appearance within Consciousness. Consciousness is prior to and unconditioned by time. To say that it changes is to say it is subject to time, which would put time outside of Consciousness, which makes no sense. There is some truth to this. Everything is Consciousness, which is Absolute Truth, but Consciousness is not limited to any form. In fact, it ultimately has no form at all. When you dream at night, your mind is not transformed into a starry sky, or a race car, or Bozo the clown, but all those things can appear in the space of the mind. That's an analogy, of course, so don't bend it too far ;-) The dog that barks the loudest... ?

@Consilience Awww, shucks. You're making me blush ? Seriously, I am humbled by your graciousness ?

Now why didn't I think of that ;-)

@GreenWoods Yes, I agree. ?

@PedroCedro If you have a greater understanding, I'm all ears :-)

@GreenWoods There are no two consciousnesses, just the one. The ego appears in it. This is like saying there is no difference in gold and a ring. In reality, there is no difference, the form "ring" is only gold. However, gold is not a ring. If that were the case, if you melted the ring, the gold would disappear. No, Brahman is what always exists, regardless if the ego appearance is present or not. Brahman is existence or "Sat" in sanskrit. It is absurd to say that existence doesn't exist. The ego is never perfectly happy! Even if it get's what it wants, it become afraid of losing it, which it will, and then the cycle repeats. Sure, blame God lol It's closer to the truth anyways :-) There is some truth to this, but you then you lose the ability to say that there are infinite states. If you only know the present state, then how can you claim there are others? :-( That's me being sad for you hahaha Even in dreamless sleep? I can't completely blame you for this conclusion, if you either lack faith or experience. If existence equals form, then how do you account for space? This is like saying because you have never seen God, that God doesn't exist. You might be correct, but your argument is not based on either evidence or sound logic. Anything with form is limited. The form is literally created by its limitations. Consciousness is unlimited, and therefore it must be formless.

@Consilience This.

@GreenWoods Not just differing opinion, but differing understanding. I would define this as ignorance. I mean that in the nicest way possible :-) Agreed, and if fully grasp your own statement, you will agree with me too lol That which is formless is not a state, but the substratum of all states. The substratum is changeless, while states never remain the same. The substratum is real, the states are only appearances. Your ego does not exist, it only appears to. This is the meaning of no-self. The mistake here is thinking that the conclusion naturally arises from the premise. This is the error in your logic. Relative to anything really. No, that is not correct. Brahman is always present, always the same, and it not relative to anything. This is absurd. I mean that in the nicest way possible :-) More special? If suffering is just as preferable to happiness, then sure lol Maybe it's just as easy to say, but it's not correct haha. It would sound good on a bumper sticker though. If that were true, you would never know that a state has come and gone. This is a fundamentally error. The ultimate conclusion of non-duality as espoused by Advaita Vedanta, the 5,000 year old tradition of non-dual philosophy, is not that Consciousness is an infinite number of changing states, it is that only unchanging Consciousness is. States are not at all. This is the meaning of Advaita (a = not, dvaita = two). But before you can reach that ultimate conclusion, you must first have the ability to distinguish between pure Consciousness and changing mental states. It may seem like a subtle duality in the middle of the process, but it is resolved in the end. Your version is very much a duality, since it admits to a multitude of differing states.

@GreenWoods I would use the traditional Vedantan definition of real. That which does not change is real. I would disagree with this statement for a couple of reason. The first of which I stated above; that which is real does not change. The second of which is that the Infinite is not infinite because it contains an infinite set; it is infinite because it is without limits. My third objection would be that Consciousness has states, which have already discussed at lenght. I would agree that one state is not more real than another. All states are equally unreal (or illusionary). That to which states appear alone is real. So, there is some merit in this argument, and some traditions do interpret Consciousness in this way. In the end you still have to concede that Consciousness is not a state though; otherwise, if it changed states, the prior Consciousness would no longer exist. In your statement above, Consciousness would be the substance, and states would equate to modes, similar to the Spinozian model, which I do kind of like ;-) Yes, that would bring us closer to agreement Almost 100% :-)