Shanmugam

Don't know much about Taoism.. Which verses do you find to be close to Taoism?

@Anna1 Not really apathy, just the exact opposite.. Whatever I do, I am able to do with full enthusiasm.. I get completely absorbed and become one with the task.. But I agree I lack many things: the ability to regret, ability to complain about what happens in life, ability to feel anxious about future, ability to feel the emotions the same way I did (weird, huh? ) etc... And I am not suffering from it, I am enjoying the freedom that comes with it.. If I suddenly come to know that all this has nothing to do with enlightenment that is talked about by gurus but it is seriously a mental disorder, that will make no difference to the peace... This reminds me of a popular quote: "I'm not suffering from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it" Let me be very honest with you.. I really know absolutely nothing about how an enlightened person's mind looks like. I don't know whether he experiences pain or pleasure etc.. All I know is about my own mind and the freedom and peace that came from my own practices... And I wouldn't know what happens in the future because no one can tell. But I have heard different things said by different people about how an enlightened person thinks and experiences life. There is a guru in India with millions of followers who claim that this guru has changed their lives. They are totally impressed by him! And the guru claims that he is in ecstatic bliss all the time, he doesn't have any thoughts at all except when he has to move around, if he wants he can simply close his eyes and just die by his will etc... And there are other people who claim that after enlightenment there is still suffering, still craving, still anger, etc. Finally there are people who claim that there is no suffering (the suffering which causes an individual to feel miserable , lost or diminished) but there is still pain and pleasure. This version actually is quite similar to the type of whatever disorder that I have. .. But this weird disorder also made me incapable of worrying about anything at all. But ultimately, enlightenment is just a word with many definitions that people have associated with some kind of liberation that happened for them, which can be verified only by them. After all, I can only know what happens in my own conscious field.. When others tell me about their field of consciousness, I don't really have any way to verify this. I just have their testimony poured into my ears... So, Let me repeat... I don't know anything about what happens after Moksha, what persists after moksha etc. But since you are certain about it and seem to know everything that happens after moksha, let me ask you this question: You say that pleasure and pain persist after moksha... may be.. I don't know.. I have only heard people saying so... But how do you know that for sure? Can you be absolutely certain and 100% sure about this? If yes, how? (I am not starting another debate with you.. I am only going to ask you questions.. In the further discussions about this topic with you, I am going to maintain that I don't know)

@Anna1 You probably misunderstood what I said... Let me add some annotations and formatting They don't really feel those emotions like others do...(they feel them quite differently) .. It only appears such for the people who are watching them.. All the liberated person feels is ups and downs in energy, and a little bit of subtle sensations.(which may be painful or pleasing).. In other words, their emotions are not really like the emotions of people who are unconscious. Emotions of people who are unconscious are very solid, opaque and they get powered by thoughts and emotions back and forth for a while.. Emotions of liberated ones are like tiny (painful or pleasant) bits of distant clouds which disappear without any effort. I would feel hesitant to even call them as emotions..

@Anna1 I didn't say pain and pleasure doesn't persist... Read my post again

No problem... But let me ask you onething... Unless you yourself are enlightened, how would you know how enlightened ones perceive emotions in a particular way? You may ask me the same question.. I don't really know how exactly the enlightened ones perceive the emotions, but what I stated was actually how I perceive those emotions... So, you can replace the word 'they' with 'I'... But I don't claim to be enlightened. All I know is I am free of the sense of separate identity....Since they should also be free of the sense of separate identity, I just infer that they should either perceive emotions the same way I do or not perceive them at all...But not perceiving any emotions at all seems to be something that is not in my understanding. So, I just said what is more likely based on my own experience. However, I know perfectly well and 100% sure that what I described in my previous post is possible. Because that is how I experience life. Does it make sense?

They don't really feel those emotions like others do... It only appears such for the people who are watching them.. All the liberated person feels is ups and downs in energy, and a little bit of subtle sensations... In other words, their emotions are not really like the emotions of people who are unconscious. Emotions of people who are unconscious are very solid, opaque and they get powered by thoughts and emotions back and forth for a while.. Emotions of liberated ones are like tiny bits of distant clouds which disappear without any effort. I would feel hesitant to even call them as emotions..

@Joseph Maynor When it comes to non dual experience, there is no question that there is oneness in your perception... When your perception of reality is non-dual, you won't really feel that there are others. But I can understand your question... We know that there are many conscious beings all around us, and each of their field of consciousness is actually distinct. So, the nondual oneness that someone feels through his experience cannot be really shared with your consciousness.No one can deny this because everyone experiences his life through his own independent field of consciousness. At the same time, my intuition tells me that there is one primordial source, which is the essence of everything; There cannot be two. It is quite possible that after the death of a liberated person, his consciousness merges with that one primordial source. There is no agreement on this topic even when it comes to the great enlightened souls. Let me introduce Ramanuja to you. Here is the source document for the below excerpt: http://www.cronksite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RamanujaGC.pdf Ramanuja, like Shankara, is a "non-dualist." He too believes that Brahman alone is ultimately and independently real. However, Ramanuja is a non-dualist with a difference: He holds that, within the one Brahman, there exist many individual material entities as well as many individual conscious selves, and he regards these individual things and selves as ontologically real. It is not that material things and conscious selves exist independently of Brahman, as certain dualistic or pluralistic metaphysicians claim. For Ramanuja, material things and conscious selves are real, but not independently or ultimately real; their existence is grounded firmly in the unity of Brahman, "in whom they live, and move, and have their being." Ramanuja's version of Vedanta is therefore known as "qualified non-dualism" (vishishtadvaita). Here is an excerpt from Ramanuja's commentary on Brahman Sutras, where he refutes Shankara's views: Shankara: Brahman — a single, undifferentiated, and pure intelligence — is the only true reality. All other things (knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, all distinctions and differences between things, and individual things themselves) are illusory and unreal. The "Pure Being" of Brahman alone is "really real." Ramanuja: This view (metaphysical non-dualism) cannot be proved. All objects that can be known are things that are distinct and different from other such things. Acts of consciousness reveal metaphysical distinctions Shankara: The theory of a supreme reality devoid of all distinction and difference is immediately established by one's own consciousness. The various individual objects of consciousness such as jars, pieces of cloth, etc., and the distinctions and differences between them, come and go in our experience (that is, they are impermanent); but the being of such objects (Pure Being, Being-as-Being) persists in all states of consciousness. The one permanent and therefore really fundamental feature of all individual objects of consciousness is Pure Being itself (which is the same as Brahman). Distinctions and differences between things — and the things themselves — are appearances only, not realities. Ramanuja: This view is refuted by the fact that all consciousness implies difference. All states of consciousness have for their objects things marked by some difference, as appears in the case of judgments like "I saw this" [where the "I" is different from the "this" and vice versa, and where both the "I" and the "this" are different from other things] . . . . Moreover, consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness, etc. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. Also, we observe that [in philosophy and other fields] there takes place a discussion of different views, and the proponents of non-dualism themselves attempt to prove their theory by means of the differences between other views and their own. It therefore must be admitted that reality is full of distinctions and differences . . . . ............................ You can read the rest of it in the source. However, you can adopt either of these views and become enlightened. I don't see why there is going to be a problem. Don't engage too much into this type of thinking, because you will get nowhere.. We can only make speculations about the ultimate but there is a deep mystery in the universe which can never be resolved by logic. Our existence is a mystery. The best we can do is to get rid of our own suffering.

How can you deny the existence of the true self? It is the very basis of your existence.. No one can say ' I don't exist'.. But I know that the word 'self' is usually connected to the egoic self, so can be misleading. The word 'Self' is actually a translation of the word 'Atman' which literally means 'essence' or 'breath'.

Swami Satchidanandendra saraswathi explains what is nididhyasana and also quotes verses from Shankara, Gaudapa Karika and Gita which give instructions on how to practice nididhyasana.. And this differs from what is being taught by other teachers. By Nididhyasana, he means actual meditation (similar to yogic and jhana meditations). But this is usually mentioned as a purification method by other Vedanta teachers (as a means of achieving the four fold qualifications). Here is Swami's explanation: "The aim of the one practicing sustained meditation (nididhyasana) is different. He tries to attain direct vision of reality (here in this very world) by turning his mind away from all else. And there is the difference — as against upasana — that after the rise of knowledge nothing further remains to be done. It is this sustained meditation that is referred to at Katha Upanishad I.ii.13 by the name 'Adhyatma Yoga'. In the Gita it is sometimes called 'Dhyana Yoga' (e.g. XVIII. 52). In the Mandukya Karikas it is called 'restraint of the mind' (G.K.III.41, etc.). Its nature is described there in that latter work. Everywhere its result is described in the same way as right metaphysical knowledge, and from this comes immediate liberation. And here are the citations provided 1. The wise man comes to know God through mastering Adhyatma Yoga, and gives up joy and sorrow. (Katha I.ii.12) Sankara's Commentary: Mastering Adhyatma Yoga: Adhyatma Yoga means withdrawing the mind from objects and concentrating it on the Self. Having meditated on the deity, the Self, through attainment of Adhyatma Yoga, the wise man gives up joy and sorrow because there are no gradations of value in the Self. 2. 'He is seen by those of subtle vision through their subtle minds' says the Veda (Katha I.iii.12), pointing out that the highest state of Vi§nu is difficult to attain. Then the same text goes on to teach yoga as the means to attain it, in the words 'The wise man should dissolve the senses into the mind and should dissolve the mind into the intellect. He should dissolve the soul into the great self and he should dissolve that into the Self that is pure peace' (Katha I.iii. 13). That is, he should first give up the use of speech and the other organs of action and perception and should remain iden tified with the lower aspect of the mind alone. He should then note that the lower aspect of the mind, too, has defects such as an inclination towards the sense objects and unsteadiness in its decisions, and he should dissolve it into that higher aspect of mind (buddhi) which has fixed determination for its nature and is sometimes known by the technical term 'intellect' (vijnana). He should refine the intellect and resolve it into 'the great self, the experiencer or apex of the intellect. The 'great self, however, must be dissolved in the 'Self that is pure peace', the supreme Spirit that is the subject of the section, the summit of human experience. - Shankara (Brahma Sutra Bhasya I.iv.l (the whole second point above is Shankara's commentary on Brahma sutras) 3. Resorting to dispassion, always intent on the Yoga of Meditation (Dhyana Yoga). (Bh.G. XVIII. 52) Sankara's Commentary: Meditation means dwelling on the true nature of the Self. Yoga means one-pointed concentration on the Self. He who is intent on 'Dhyana' and 'Yoga' thus defined is the one 'intent on the Yoga of Meditation'. The use of the word 'always' is to show that he has no other duties, such as daily repetition of the Vedic verses. 4. That yoga should certainly be practiced with resolute mind. Giving up without exception all desires that come from individual will, restraining the sense-organs on every side through the mind, one should gradually withdraw from all activity, with will and intellect firmly controlled; keeping the mind fixed on the Self, one should not think of anything. Wherever the fickle mind wanders , one should bring it back and fix it on the Self alone, under firm control. Supreme joy comes to such a yogi, whose mind is at perfect peace, whose lusts have subsided, who is sinless and who has become the Ab solute. Such a yogi, free from all sin, always controlling his mind in this way, easily attains the supreme joy of con tact with the Absolute. With his mind controlled through yoga, he sees himself in all beings and all beings in his own Self, seeing the same everywhere. (Bh.G. VI. 23-9) Sankara' s Commentary: ' Seeing the same everywhere' is said of one who has the same undifferentiated vision or knowledge of unity and identity with the Absolute and the Self in regard to all things of different grades, from Brahma to the beings of the vegetable and mineral realms. (Bh.G.Bh.VI.29) 5. The mind must be restrained tirelessly, as if one were emptying the sea with the tip of a blade of grass. One must resort to special means to restrain the mind when it is dispersed amid desires and enjoyments. The mind must also be awakened and held in restraint even when it is perfectly calm in the dissolution of dreamless sleep. Mere dissolution in dreamless sleep is no better than desire (since it is also the seed of future worldly experience). One restrains the mind from desires and enjoyments by remembering 'All is pain'. When one remembers 'All is the Unborn (the Absolute)', one does not even see what is born. When the mind is drowsy in its practice of yoga one should arouse it, and when it is distracted one should again calm it down. One should know that the mind is soiled with latent impressions, and should not allow it to move when it has attained the state of equilibrium, free from the tendency either to dissolution or distraction. Even there, one should not savour the joy. One should acquire non-attachment through the discriminative wisdom that sees all joy as born of Ignorance. When the mind, although at first motionless, moves out once more, one should again carefully bring it back to unity. When the mind no longer either undergoes dissolution in dreamless sleep or distraction amidst desires and enjoyments, and it is motionless and without manifestation, then it has reached its state of perfection. It (has reached the state of 'no-mind', G.K.III. 32, and) is the Absolute. (G.K.III. 1-6) (G.K means Gaudapada karika.. It was written by Gaudapada, who was Shankara's guru's guru)

Don't know.. But I think this wrong idea is popular in English speaking world only, and the idea probably came from India. Buddhism disappeared in India because Buddha rejected Vedas. .Most of the Buddhists live in China, Japan, Tibet Burma, Thailand and other South Asian countries. Buddha was born sometime during 600 BC and Upanishads were composed about the same time (probably between 800 BC - 600 BC). Many people don't know that even upanishads were rebellion against vedas. Vedas which existed during Buddha's time only covered ritualistic portion. Later on Upanishads were also added as a part of Vedas, because the Upanishads conveyed the teachings in the disguise of vedic terms.. If you read the Upanishads you will notice this. The authors were very clever. Those days no one can say anything against Vedas. It was similar to the situation that was faced by Jesus. ( He said things like 'kingdom of god is within you', 'I am (brahman) the truth, the way and life" etc while at the same time conforming all he said by citing verses from Torah. He was crucified in spite of this). Read this verse from Vedas: "To the Gandhâris, the Mâgavants, the Angas, and the Magadhas, we deliver over the takman, like a servant, like a treasure!" Full text here: http://www.adishakti.org/pdf_files/atharva_veda_(sacred-texts.com).pdf The above hymn from Atharva veda is addressed to diseases.. They are asking diseases to go to the people living in regions like Gandhâris, the Mâgavants, the Angas, and the Magadhas etc... These are names of individual kingdoms. Magadha was the kingdom where Buddha preached his entire life. And since people lived in those areas were skeptical about vedas, the whole hymn was composed to show the hatred. Here is the map of Vedic India: Vedas are neither infallible nor eternal. But I think Shankara was in the same situation to present his ideas in accordance to Vedas. That is why I think he based his whole commentaries on the premise that Vedas are infallible. You will notice this stated by Shankara a lot in his commentaries. Of course, no one can be exactly sure about the past, but this is my best guess based on what I studied so far about the history of Indian philosophy,

Actually, Buddhist term Sunyata (translated as emptiness but it is actually intended to mean 'devoid of attributes') is same as Nirguna Brahman (Brahman devoid of attributes).. Buddha was not preaching any kind of nihilism, but it is just people's misunderstanding. Here is a beautiful piece by Osho, who elaborates it here: "For centuries emptiness has been condemned. "Emptiness is beautiful. "And the foolish people have been telling you. "The empty mind is the devil's workshop." The empty mind is God's workshop! The occupiedmind is the devil's workshop. "But one has to be truly empty. Just being lazy does not mean that you are empty; not doing anything does not mean that you are empty. Thousands of thoughts are clamoring inside. You may be lazy on the outside, but inside much work is going on. Many walls are being created, new prisons are being prepared, so that when you get fed up with the old you can enter into the new. Old chains may break any time so you are creating new chains in case the old chains break; then you will feel very empty. "Once in a while it happens naturally – because it is your very nature to be free. So once in a while, in spite of you... seeing a sunset, suddenly you forget all your desires. You forget all lust, all hankering for pleasure. The sunset is so beautiful so overwhelming, that you forget the past and the future; only the present remains. You are so one with the moment, there is no observer and no observed. The observer becomes the observed. You are not separate from the sunset. "You are bridged; in such a communion you come into a clearing, and because of the clearing you feel joyous . But again you are back into the black hole for the simple reason that coming out into the clearing you need courage to remain in the empty sky. "That's what I call sannyas. "This courage I call sannyas – not escaping but coming into the clearing, seeing the sky unclouded, listening to the songs of the birds without distorting. And then again and again you are becoming more and more attuned with the emptiness and the joy of being empty. Slowly slowly, you see that emptiness is not just emptiness; it is fullness, but a fullness of which you have never been aware, a fullness of which you have never tasted. "So in the beginning it looks empty; in the end it is full, totally full, overflowingly full. It is full of peace, it is full of silence, it is full of light." - The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol. 10, Talk #1

Vedanta "It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), O Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it." - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3-8-8. ............................................................................. Buddhism “There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.” - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1))

I just replied to your question, since you said you wanted to hear from me what I wanted to say... I started this thread with an intention to show everyone how Vedanta and Buddhism are not contradictory to each other.. They are essentially the same and lead to the same goal.

1) Absolute cannot be described in words. Hence, there is no way to impart the knowledge of it without the teaching method called 'adhyaropa apavada'. 2) All the concepts, words, ideas that are used are deliberately superimposed in self to make people understand, then even those attributes are also negated. 3) The purpose of the whole teaching method is to culminate in the direct experience.

I accidentally submitted the prior message while I didnt complete it.. The purpose of the excerpts above and the ones below is to show the purpose of all the teaching... Here is the full post: Known technically as 'the Absolute' (brahman), it is of the nature of immediate experience, void of all the attributes of transmigratory life. This is the meaning of the word 'that' (in the phrase 'That thou art'), familiar to the experts in the Upanishads. - Shankara (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) In the case of enquiry into the Vedic ritual, the Vedic and other traditional texts alone are the criterion. But this is not so in the case of the enquiry into the Absolute. Here it is the same texts that are the authority, but with immediate experience (and firm remembrance, etc.) added in the case of the purely metaphysical texts . For knowledge of the Absolute requires to culminate in immediate experience (anubhava), and (unlike the part of the Veda dealing with commands and prohibitions) has an already-existent reality for its object. - Shankara (B.S. Bh.I.i.2) Repeated resort to the appropriate means of knowledge is indeed useless in the case of the person who can attain immediate experience of the fact that his true Self is the Absolute merely from hearing the text 'That thou art' spoken once. But for him who is not able to do so, repetition is the proper means. - Shankara in (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) True, it has been said that the Veda itself proclaims that reason must be respected, as it enjoins pondering as well as hearing. But this should not be used as a pretext for allowing empty hypothetical reasoning to gain entry. For in the present context only those arguments that are sanctioned by the Veda may be resorted to, and that only as an auxiliary to the attainment of direct experience. - Shankara in (B.S.Bh. II. i. 6)

@Anna1 no, not related to what you said just now... I was typing a post but accidentally submitted before completing.. I am completing it now

Known technically as 'the Absolute' (brahman), it is of the nature of immediate experience, void of all the attributes of transmigratory life. This is the meaning of the word 'that' (in the phrase 'That thou art'), familiar to the experts in the Upanishads. - Shankara (B.S.Bh.IV.i .2) In the case of enquiry into the Vedic ritual, the Vedic and other traditional texts alone are the criterion. But this is not so in the case of the enquiry into the Absolute. Here it is the same texts that are the authority, but with immediate experience (and firm remembrance, etc.) added in the case of the purely metaphysical texts . For knowledge of the Absolute requires to culminate in immediate experience (anubhava), and (unlike the part of the Veda dealing with commands and prohibitions) has an already-existent reality for its object. - Shankara (B.S. Bh.I.i.2)

Not saying that words should not be used... The point of the whole discussion is to say that words are only pointers.. They are just teaching devices. I thought it may be helpful for people who cling to ideologies and concepts..

@Anna1 Yes, but not just cosmology alone; The teaching method followed by Shankara finally negates all words that was deliberately used in the first place, including the words like 'consciousness' (or awareness), being,knowledge etc...

@Joseph Maynor Here is a very important point to understand why Buddha said there is no Atman. It is also from Shankara's commentary: "Objection : "Is not even Atman denoted by the word 'Atman' ? Reply: No. for there are Srutis like 'From which words fall back', 'That in which one sees nothing else'. Question: How then do texts like 'Atman alone is below ... .' and 'It is Atman' reveal Atman ? Reply: This is no fault. For, the word (Atman), primarily used in the world of differences to denote individual soul as distinct from the body it possesses, is extended to indicate the entity which remains after the rejection of body and other not-selfs as not deserving that appellation, and is used to reveal what is really inexpressible by words". - Shankara - Ch. Bh. 7-1-3, p. 542. ................................................. Buddha directly denied Atman as it is used by the people in the world (an individual soul existing in the body) . Upanishads extended the word Atman to mean the absolute (and changing the meaning of the word Atman).. Read the following Buddhist Sutta, it looks like the neti-neti method: "So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.' "Any kind of feeling whatever... "Any kind of perception whatever... "Any kind of determination whatever... "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

Didn't get it.. Can you elaborate?

@Joseph Maynor (more excerpts, especially for you, because I noticed that you started a few threads about definitions of the absolute) "Hence that Brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet 'jnanam' (knowledge) either. Nevertheless, it is indicated though not expressed, by the word ''jnanam' denoting the semblance of consciousness which is really a modification of the mind. It is not directly denoted by that term because Brahman is devoid of genus and other specific features which alone are the occasion for the application of words to a thing. So is it with regard to the term 'Satyam' (truth). For Brahman is by its very nature devoid of all specific features. The term Satyam really refers to the genus 'being' inhering in external objects, and when Brahman is described as 'Sat yam' (Real), it is only indicated by that term. But Brahman is not actually expressed by the term 'Satyam'. Shankara - Tai. Bh. 2-1, p. 285.

@Joseph Maynor Read these excerpts of various commentaries by Shankara: "The Absolute is that in which there is no particularity. There is no name, no form, no action, no distinction, no universal, no attribute. It is through these determinations alone that speech proceeds, and not one of them belongs to the Absolute. So the latter cannot be taught by sentences of the pattern 'This is so-and-so'. In such upanishadic phrases and words as "The Absolute is Consciousness-Bliss' (Brhad.III.ix.28.7) . 'A mere mass of Consciousness' (Brhad.II.iv.12) , 'Brahman', 'Atman', the Absolute is artificially referred to with the help of superimposed name, form and action, and spoken of exactly in the way we refer to objects of perception, as when we say 'That white cow with horns is twitching'. But if the desire is to express the true nature of the Absolute, void of all conditioning adjuncts and particularity, then it cannot be described by any positive means whatever. The only ' possible method then is to refer to it through a comprehensive denial of whatever positive characteristics have been attributed to it in previous teachings, and to say 'neither this nor that'. - (Brhad.Bh.II.iii.6) - Shankara "Nor can the Absolute be properly referred to by any such terms as Being or non-being. For all words are used to convey a meaning, and when heard by their hearers convey the meaning the speaker had in mind. But communicable meaning is restricted without exception to universal, action, attribute and relation.... The Absolute, however, does not belong to any universal (genus), so it cannot be expressed by a noun such as 'Being' or 'non-being'. Being without attributes, it cannot be described by any adjective denoting an attribute. And being actionless, it cannot be expressed by any verb denoting activity. For the Upanishad speaks of it as 'Without parts, without activity, at rest' (Svet .VI.19) . Nor has it any relation with anything. For it is 'One', 'without a second', 'not an object' and 'the Self. Hence it cannot be expressed by any word. And the upanishadic texts themselves confirm this when they say 'That from which words fall back' (Taitt .ll.9) , and in other passages." - (Bh.G.Bh.XIII.12) - Shankara And because the Absolute has no particular characteristics, the Veda indicates its nature by denying of it the forms of all other things, as is shown, for instance, in the following pa sages: 'And so, therefore, the teaching is "neither this nor that"' (Brhad.II.iii.6) , 'It is other than what is known, and above the unknown' (Kena I.U), 'That from which words fall back without obtaining access, together with the mind' (Taitt .II.9) . And the Vedic texts also relate how when Badhva was questioned by Baskalin he gave his answer merely by not speaking. 'Sir, teach me in words', Ba§kalin said. But the Teacher remained silent. Finally, at the second or third time of asking, Badhva replied, 'I am telling you, but you do not understand. This Self is utter silence' - (B.S.Bh.III.ii.17) - Shankara ........................................................ This teaching method 'Adhyaropa apavada' is not properly followed by many modern teachers who teach Vedanta today. That is why people get stuck in all kinds of concepts..I recently came across books by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi, who was a Sanskrit scholar and vedantic monk. He dedicated his whole life in bringing out the kind of teaching method that was actually adopted by Shankara. He lived up to the age 94 and has written over 200 books. In fact, he rediscovered this teaching method again. Here is how he describes in short, in one of his books: (a) In order to disclose the nature of the self as Brahman in itself Srutis like the following negate all specific features superimposed on it by the unenlightened common mind :- "It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), 0 Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it." - Br.3-8-8. (b) Lest, by this strict denial of all properties it may be taken to be absolute nothing (s'unya), it is taught by means of illusory attributes seemingly pertaining to it owing to Upadhis (apparently conditioning factors). (c) At the close of the teaching the rescission of even the imputed attributes used as a device for purposes of teaching, lest it should be regarded as actually belonging to it. (modern teachers stop with (a) and (b) ) ...................... And Buddhism has a different teaching model, uses different kinds of concepts but ultimately the goal is the same. All theories in traditions are only teachings devices, they are not the truth themselves. For example, many people don't know that Vedanta itself is an intentional superimposition to remove superimposition on Self.

@Joseph Maynor Actually, they only appear to be contradictory... Both Buddhism and Vedanta have their unique teaching methods...The concepts they use in such teaching methods are only devises for the cessation of suffering. There is a point when all such concepts are to be dropped. For example, In Vedanta there is a method called Adhyaropa apavada "Who so knows the Self, thus described, as the fearless Absolute (brahman), himself becomes the Absolute, beyond fear. This is a brief statement of the meaning of the entire Upanishad. And in order to convey this meaning rightly, the fanciful alternatives of production, maintenance and withdrawal, and the false notion of action, its factors and results, are deliberately attributed to the Self as a first step. And then later the final metaphysical truth is inculcated by negating these characteristics through a comprehensive denial of all particular superimpositions on the Absolute, expressed in the phrase 'neither this nor that'. Just as a man, wishing to explain numbers from one to a hundred thousand billion (points to figures that he has drawn and) says, 'This figure is one, this figure is ten, this figure is a hundred, this figure is a thousand' , and all the time his only purpose is to explain numbers, and not to affirm that the figures are numbers; or just as one wishing to explain the sounds of speech as repre sented by the written letters of the alphabet resorts to a device in the form of a palm-leaf on which he makes incisions which he later fills with ink to form letters, and all the while, (even though he point to a letter and say "This is the sound "so and so"') his only purpose is to explain the nature of the sounds referred to by each letter, and not to affirm that the leaf, incisions and ink are sounds; in just the same way, the one real metaphysical principle, the Absolute, is taught by resort to many devices, such as attributing to it production (of the world) and other powers. And then after wards the nature of the Absolute is restated, through the concluding formula 'neither this nor that', so as to purify it of all particular notions accruing to it from the various devices used to explain its nature in the first place'. - Brhad. Bh.IV.iv.25 by Shankara Not only that.. any term that is used to define the absolute is only a teaching device. They are not ultimately real.

@ajasatya If that happens, that would be great... But I posted this for people who cling to a certain school that holds scriptures as authority.. I posted this for people who consider that their ideology or school alone is superior, to show them that all these different schools, all these different scriptures are pointing out to the same truth... I know that there are a lot of confusions which have arisen because of interpretation of scriptures, and people fight with each other saying that their interpretation is correct.. So, there are only two options: either burn them all or show them that all point to the same thing.