Questions about levels of consciousness

[WelcometoReality]

14 hours ago, Shambhu said:

jivo = you or self

brahmaiva = Brahma or reality

na  = not

parah = other

You are not different from Brahma.  This is your true identity.

I would say that there is no true identity since identity is clinging and clinging is ego.

14 hours ago, Shambhu said:

I brought this up above, but motion implies change, which implies time.  Time appears in Consciousness and not the other way around.

That's a logical conclusion that makes sense from your absolute POV and I agree that time is only in thought. There is no time because it's always now. But the now is always changing and this can be directly investigated.

Again you are separating consciousness with content of consciousness which is not oneness.

14 hours ago, Shambhu said:

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.

If there's only consciousness then the appearance is consciousness too. If it's truly is one we can't separate the two which you do. You can say that the appearance is within consciousness but you are basically saying that they're not equal. Appearances are only appearances and not consciousness. Which is why I don't resonate with what you're saying.

If they truly are one and consciousness is all there is then appearances are also consciousness.

14 hours ago, Shambhu said:

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.

This is a great point! I can see now why you are reluctant to say that appearances within consciousness are the same as consciousness. 

But what if nothing actually come and go? Like a tvscreen which is playing a movie, the appearances on the screen are in constant change but nothing ever leaves. What makes it seem to leave is the mind interpreting parts of the appearance as things which are separate from the other things on the screen.

 

[Shambhu]

20 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

I would say that there is no true identity since identity is clinging and clinging is ego.

Identity is "a = a."  It is simply saying this is this.  The ego only appears in that which you truly are.

22 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

If there's only consciousness then the appearance is consciousness too

Correct.

23 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

If it's truly is one we can't separate the two which you do.

I did not.  Making a distinction is not the same as separating.

23 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

You can say that the appearance is within consciousness but you are basically saying that they're not equal

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.

24 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Appearances are only appearances and not consciousness.

Not an accurate interpretation of what I have said.

25 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

If they truly are one and consciousness is all there is then appearances are also consciousness.

Correct.

11 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

But what if nothing actually come and go? Like a tvscreen which is playing a movie, the appearances on the screen are in constant change but nothing ever leaves. What makes it seem to leave is the mind interpreting parts of the appearance as things which are separate from the other things on the screen.

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. ?

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, Shambhu said:

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. ?

Too bad. I really enjoyed talking to you about this. ??

[ZzzleepingBear]

@Shambhu  I've been following your replys and clarification with great interest in this thread. And I must say that you made it very easy to follow your examples and explanations, so I don't think you can take on any part of failure in terms of communication. Everything you adressed hits home. The only issue I can see, is that not everyone may take a genuine interest in what is being said, or take their time to reflect. Not everyone, but alot of forum users seem to have their own interpretation or ideas of certain words, and that would makes it more or less impossible to go into any deeper understanding in a mutual way.

I'm no buddhist and are only somewhat familiar with vedantic teachings. But you made yourself very clear with everything said, with simple and coherent communication all the way. And it's also obvious that you found yourself a great teacher.

?

[Shambhu]

@WelcometoReality

10 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Too bad. I really enjoyed talking to you about this. ??

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

[Shambhu]

@ZzzleepingBear

7 minutes ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

@Shambhu  I've been following your replys and clarification with great interest in this thread. And I must say that you made it very easy to follow your examples and explanations, so I don't think you can take on any part of failure in terms of communication. Everything you adressed hits home. The only issue I can see, is that not everyone may take a genuine interest in what is being said, or take their time to reflect. Not everyone, but alot of forum users seem to have their own interpretation or ideas of certain words, and that would makes it more or less impossible to go into any deeper understanding in a mutual way.

I'm no buddhist and are only somewhat familiar with vedantic teachings. But you made yourself very clear with everything said, with simple and coherent communication all the way. And it's also obvious that you found yourself a great teacher.

?

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.

[bambi]

Consciousness itself is a construct..., its an infinitesimally small part of God, when you think you know Gods limitation (conciousness), times it by infinity and your in the right direction

[WelcometoReality]

41 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

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.  

 

42 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

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.

It wasn't a doomed endeavor at all. Perhaps it's those who engage in a discussion with you who learns the most?

I for one would gladly continue the discussion because I did gain clarity.

[Breakingthewall]

On 20/5/2022 at 0:49 PM, Shambhu said:

The ultimate truth is that there is no wave, only Consciousness.  Consciousness is not "waving" or in motion, which implies change.  Since Consciousness is Absolute, it must be changeless

Well, what is changeless? I would say it means that it includes all changes and all forms. immutability=total change. no form = total form. in totality everything is the same as nothing. but it cannot be said that brahman does not change, it will be rather that the meaning of change is irrelevant. they are drawings in nothing made in eternity. Everything=nothing 

understanding that is simple. What doesn't seem so simple to me is... why is it apparently happening that I am now being me?

Edited May 21, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[michaelcycle00]

1 hour ago, bambi said:

Consciousness itself is a construct..., its an infinitesimally small part of God, when you think you know Gods limitation (conciousness), times it by infinity and your in the right direction

Can you expand? I’ve also thought that consciousness couldn’t be the ending point of Infinity, although perhaps it has to be that way (or not). I’ve noticed that people in this forum put all sorts of caps on God. That creation can only be this way. That you need suffering to contrast it with the good, etc. However, existence itself is literally ridden with all sorts of paradoxes. Knowing this, how could there be any sort of limit unless it was imposed by the Godhead? I see an existence that is only good entirely plausible. I mean, hasn’t God been pure infinite love for an eternity?

In the same way, why would consciousness be the ending point? Since God doesn’t need anything or any type of mechanism to do anything at all… you’d think consciousness is just an aspect of it, not the totality. I’d love it if you shared what you know though.

[RMQualtrough]

I think it's bullshit.

Breaking through didn't to me feel like becoming "more conscious". It had more of a sense of being very pulled into the present moment, and obviously the melting of the perceived boundary of awareness (happens automatically when you're high enough to have an OBE - which is NOTHING like the type of OBE described in near death experiences).

Maybe the dude should switch to saying something like "levels of knowing".

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, michaelcycle00 said:

Can you expand? I’ve also thought that consciousness couldn’t be the ending point of Infinity, although perhaps it has to be that way (or not). I’ve noticed that people in this forum put all sorts of caps on God. That creation can only be this way. That you need suffering to contrast it with the good, etc. However, existence itself is literally ridden with all sorts of paradoxes. Knowing this, how could there be any sort of limit unless it was imposed by the Godhead? I see an existence that is only good entirely plausible. I mean, hasn’t God been pure infinite love for an eternity?

In the same way, why would consciousness be the ending point? Since God doesn’t need anything or any type of mechanism to do anything at all… you’d think consciousness is just an aspect of it, not the totality. I’d love it if you shared what you know though.

Consciousness is nothing.

There is nothing outside nothing.

[GreenWoods]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness is nothing.

There is nothing outside nothing.

That could be taken to argue there is more consciousness outside 

[Naturalist]

Consciousness is a label.  Energy is a label.  Space is a label.  The ultimate truth arises beyond labels and concepts.  In the end, there is only the deepest fact of all things, namely emptiness.  To put it bluntly, it means nothing...

[michaelcycle00]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness is nothing.

There is nothing outside nothing.

Yeah... I was more so referring to nothing as infinite possibilities beyond our comprehension. Of course, we could just flip any and everything and just end it with "it's just nothing", but then what would be the point of discussion? 

[RMQualtrough]

6 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

That could be taken to argue there is more consciousness outside 

Well if you didn't know that it's literally nothing and not something. If the word awareness was literally just referred to as nothing, people might not apply substance to it.

You can't have something outside anything with no limit whatsoever, it's not possible, and the only thing without limit is nothingness. Actual. Legit. Nothingness. Not "no-thing" I dno why they do that... Just nothing.

[WelcometoReality]

I just want to add one final thing and that is that all distinctions is separation. If it's truly is ONE then no more distinctions is needed. Nothing more needs to be said.

Of course we need to go our direct experience and see if there seem to be duality within it. If there is then more work needs to be done.

[Arugoel]

@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.

[RMQualtrough]

@Arugoel The thing is, in heightened states, you can find something which is literally nothing and has no form or property whatsoever. And it's the thing we usually refer to when saying "I"... Which obv we know is there, but probably don't realize is literally nothingness... That can't be an appearance of course, as it doesn't have an appearance.

[Arugoel]

@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?