Skip to main content

View Diary: Atman is Brahman (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When we die? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EricAllenBell, Ooooh

    Death only exists when you are thinking dualistically. The idea that "I" am an entity that exists regardless of the conditions that create and sustain it, is the heart of dualistic thinking. Preoccupation with what happens after the body dies lies at the heart of dualism. You say Atman is Brahman? Then there is no death. There is no soul to survive after death. There is no journey. Mind is the only thing that creates a concept of "I." Without a physical mind to create it, there is no "I." Nothing is a thing unto itself, everything that exists does so only because the conditions that create and sustain it exist. When those conditions cease, the thing ceases.

    Words are funny things. Religion, it means re-linking or reconnecting, as one would connect an ox to a cart, perhaps using a yoke (yoga.) Divine comes from the same root as divide, as that is the purpose of the divine: to divide this from that, to create duality out of the true void, which is Source, that which contains all definitions (define, divine, same root.) but has no definition, no divisions. But of course, "has no definition" is a definition,  isn't it?

    It's very hard to talk about all this without walking straight into paradox and contradiction, isn't it? :)

    Non-duality isn't that hard to "get," but considering that we all started there, it could be a little easier. Try looking at a word and seeing just shapes, not letters and meaning. Almost impossible, isn't it? Mind creates meaning automatically, which is why it takes practice to stop it. That's all meditation really is, practicing non-dualistic thinking.

    Very nice diary, I always enjoy reading about your philosophy.

    •  Divine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      comes from the latin root "divinus",which means "to discover" or coming from a god or deity. the word divide comes from the latin word "dividere",which means "to separate". they do not come from the same root.the purpose of the divine is not to divide.                               i do agree that our conception of ourselves as being separate and being an what divides and separates us and creates duality,which ultimately does not exist....all is One. ....and actually it is not that we are separate that makes for sin....we are Not separate...Sin is that we "Imagine" ourselves separate,and act like we are separate, and that is where the problems begin. We can act or function in Duality from a non-dual Consciousness, if we Realize that. Sin is thinking ourselves separate from God or All that Is and the Source.

      •  To discover the difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was playing a little loose with roots there, admittedly. Call it poetic license. To create "things," one needs to separate them from the things they are not, thus, creation is division. A thing can not exist without its opposite, and it is the division that defines the difference between thing and not-thing. It is the purpose of the divine to divide, for without that division, the line separating thing from not-thing, we would have only the nameless and formless void.

        I don't believe there is any real thing called "sin." There is harming others unnecessarily, which is bad by definition. As you say, sin is an illusion. Imagine you are separate, or imagine that "it is all one" and you are still just imagining things. It is not really possible to use words to describe non-dualism, except poetically, as words and ideas are inherently dualistic models of the universe. Thus, saying "All is One" is inherently dualistic. "All" is on one side of the equation, "one" is on the other side: dualism. Words are funny that way.

        Dualism exists in the same sense that love and freedom and the soul exist, as ideas in the mind of sentient beings. Are those things illusion? Yes and no. They are as real as any other concepts. And mental formations such as thoughts are as real as anything else we experience.

        Discovery is all about finding boundaries, the imaginary lines that separate one thing from another. When you were an infant there were no clear lines separating things from other things, or even self from non-self. You had to discover those dividing lines yourself. Sentient beings create models of the universe. A model is a simplification, comprised of individual parts that have certain defined characteristics and behaviors. Thus, "a tree" the concept, exists only in the human mind. Things that we name "trees" exist outside of the human mind, but they are not really trees. "Tree" is a model, and the thing that you call a tree will not fit that model in all ways for all times. It may become a table, or a forest fire, or a tree-eating elephant, in time.

        We try to freeze the universe with our models, but it never ceases moving for even a split second, in reality things are always changing, so how can we give them fixed and unchanging names? That is the real illusion: that the universe will hold still long enough for us to grasp it in our minds, and that it will respect our boundaries. It won't.

        •  Imagining and Perceiving (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          are very different. Yes , to our normal eyesight and mind's conceptions,Creation is divided by lines and differences,and opposites.(duality) By "All is One"( non-duality) i was not speaking of "Imagining" but of Perceiving....we can see with Direct Perception that All is different by shape and form and Yet Full of Light and all the little specks or pin points of Light of all sentient and not sentient are connected and One Effulgent Light. Creation flows out and back in One Effulgent Light with No separation...exccept in our minds...which is an Illusion...and even the Creating and flowing forth and changing and Transforming and going back to source.. is also nothing really happens....or has happened...time is a Construct of the mind. there is only Light...however until we Realize that by Direct Perceiving and not just by Imagining we best operate within Duality and Time or the results would be disasterous.Yet, we can Realize and Perceive that Light  

          •  Direct perception, of what, by whom? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bette Kibble, Ooooh

            I just love to quibble. :) My point is only that it is easy to confuse perceiving with imagining, and language tends to just confuse things more for those who believe their map of Reality IS Reality. It sounds kind of cheeky to say it, but if one comprehends direct perception, then everything you've written makes perfect sense, otherwise it's gibberish. Personally, I'm fairly sure I know exactly what you mean. ;)  

            •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              those that have seen Efflugent Light know exactly what i am sahring...and it is hard to explain a Direct is like describing the taste of a fruit without ever eating it..and yet  by sharing our Direct perceptions, we can share Awareness maps with others ...even though it is uncharted territory as such.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (61)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (24)
  • Environment (22)
  • Law (20)
  • Science (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site