Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Advaita Tao

Thanks to Tawan for writing the following article:

Advaita, all that can be, and yet, what every I can not see. Unless you have directly burned through and detached from I-in-the-world then you’ll find this next statement seems to be conceptual, far-fetched, meaningless nonsense.

'I can not die, I have lived every life, I have been the environment in which that life was lived and I have been that living natural world.'

You are nothing but what I am also, except for group reinforced mistaken identity. A clothes line is no longer a clothes line when the string is cut. 48 strings and a stick are 48 strings and a stick but using one string to tie 47 to the stick it is a mop. One piece of string and a stick could be a fishing pole, bow, whip, or a way to hang a basket. A heap of sheet metal and rivets could be made to float you over the ocean. The arrangement of parts calls for a name. Disassembled or reassembled the name must be changed.

No matter your view or understanding of science, even if you deem it fanciful guesswork or if you are sold down the line as to how it holds the answer to every question, then either way or any other way you say: “The universe is made of parts”. The arrangement of parts would have you say that you are you and a tree is a tree. Why not indeed? This forms a very practical situation.

Given your own version of science, the universe will be constructed of anything from the five elements to the 7 flavours of Quark or some other similar or far-fetched theory. Analyzing these parts then you or the scientists you depend upon will find parts, they will do this ad infinitum but convinced at each step they have reached the indivisible atom. Of course the atom was only literally atomic, indivisible, until it was divided. Then the mop became a stick and string theory.

Science aims to prove and some people agree without looking that there will eventually be a true atom, a point where division is impossible. How their logic allows for this I have no idea as 1) If unsplittable, then what is it made from? 2) Where is it? ‘Where’ is very important a question when you are looking at ‘what’ as the ‘what’ and the ‘where’ seem to be two things and thus disproving that the ‘what’ is elementary. This is saying nothing even of what is observing the what.

Besides the actual searching and various descriptions we have come up with for ‘what stuff is made of’ the generally held idea is that arrangements of this ‘what’ goes to make the independent separate entities, person and tree.

You will be in one of many schools of thought then but clustered into one of only two groups; They who see that one elementary part arranged in various ways forms the world described by language, and They who see that language induces the very idea that there must be some base part.

Those who say that the universe is merely arrangements of one core part -must- now see that there is no true division one thing to another, and those who see that language infers parts from what is truly One, have already seen this. A consensus. Now that all parties hold a similar consensus, that the universe is One but for labels, then we have what Advaita says. One, not Two. Tao.

The Two that is so strongly denied by Advaita is rendered in so many ways from Me and You, to Friend and Foe, Life and Death, Good and Bad, Heaven and Hell, God and Devil, object and subject, thing and observer, to any duality and any entry into the world of conceptual thought and labels, life as we “know” it.

Advaita is not though to deny life as we know it, but to affirm it, just as it IS and not as it seems to be. When you can exist with a consistent background of peace, you can see all life as is, living forever deathless, then you are being what you truly are. When you question or compare this to that, affirm or deny, seek, think, then you are pretending to be a conceptual part 'I-separate'.

15 comments:

dublyn said...

So interesting...but it makes my brain hurt. I either got smarter or dumber, but who am "I"? what the shit is going on????? Brown and my big blue has a small kiss.
Peace

Druv said...

I hope you dont mind if i add the flaw of the logic produced here.

Advaita itself is a Sanskrit word, which would mean non-duality.

But if we are talking about Non - duality then how does Sanatan Dharma, Tao , Buddhism come into the picture?

But, yes the word "Advaita" alone tells me the origins of Tao.

The world seems a lot more boring to me now.

Druv said...

Advaita actually makes things a lot more easier for me.

If you are talking about Non- duality then is Tao the original source of this piece of knowledge?

Or is it a split version of the source?

Non - Duality would mean reintegration with the source, so your duality disappears.

The original source of "Advaita" would be Sanatan Dharma, and the original source of every thing would be God.

Advaita makes things so much easier that its boring yet answers are so easy!

Druv said...

Makes me wonder, if the creator of Tao really understood the meaning of the word "Advaita".

If they are talking about non -duality then why present the ancient knowledge under a different name?

Creating a different name itself, shows the action of the Ego and hence the creator of Tao was not free from his Ego. Hence he did not understand the message of Advaita.

The answer is clear as daylight.

Snooze~

Druv said...

hmm, may be to explain to the people who did not have this knowledge - it had to be created under a different brand name and hence the split.

Hence to teach the concept of non-duality, duality had to be created.

hmm, this is nice juice for me blogs.

Eric Dubay said...

If they are talking about non-duality then why present the ancient knowledge under a different name? Creating a different name itself, shows the action of the Ego and hence the creator of Tao was not free from his Ego. Hence he did not understand the message of Advaita.

This is a good point. But God, Tao, Advaita, or whatever you term the One, is still the same One thing regardless of what or how many different names we call it. So it's not wrong, egoistic, or necessarily purposefully manipulative to say the same thing in different ways. Especially when you're considering the evolution of different peoples, languages, cultures over thousands of years.

Druv said...

ya, waves eventually dissipate. We do have over 28 languages in India alone.

They have a saying in Hindi that every 300 meters the language changes.

Annoying wave dissipation.

Druv said...

I think its necessary to understand both Dvaita and Advaita at the same time.

Advaita shows us our source which is a point of non-duality, where every thing in the world meets.

However, we live in the world of Duality/Dvaita - like i am not you and you are not me but we have the same purpose.

Druv said...

Ah i understand the ultimate flaw of Tao and Buddhism now.

They say that everything goes into nothingness, which basically means that they reject the concept of the universe Vishnu from whom the universe originates.

This is the ultimate flaw of Duality because they are incomplete. Complete knowledge remains with the source, hence it remains unsurpassed.

Eric Dubay said...

Again, if you just replace your word "Vishnu" with the word "void," then you're both talking about the same thing just using different terminology. We don't need to be pointing out our differences, but rather finding the similarities. Remember the true lesson of Advaita is that everything is ONE, even what you call the "echo religions" of Taoism, Buddhism etc.

Instead of creating division and hierarchy by claiming that Hindu/Sanatana Dharma is the original, is the best etc. it's certainly more productive and conducive of peace to find points of agreement and expound upon them. You weren't alive 10,000 years ago either (at least not in this body), so perhaps Hindu/Sanatana Dharma isn't the "original wave" either, but an echo from an even earlier source.

I've noticed that you come across to many as a religious fundamentalist convinced that your religion is better or more accurate than everyone elses. Don't get me wrong, I think you make some excellent points, but your approach often alienates instead of winning understanding. Peace

Druv said...

That is the biggest problem here, it is the ultimate paradox which does not allow people to see the truth.

If they think if i am talking about "Religion" and who is better than who, then they never understood the concept of non-duality to begin with and their perception has not transformed.

Because i never said they are separate from me, it isn't about "Religion" it is about understanding the universe.

"Religion" is a warped concept to begin with, incomplete.

How can some thing come out of nothing?

That is the problem here, This is a whole living universe and calling the source a "Void" makes the whole point "Void".

The void needs to be replaced with the true understanding of the universe, but i suppose it wont happen until the complete cyclical nature of the universe is understood.

Its not about fundamentalism, because Advaita is related to the birth and the end of the universe.

There is a much deeper reality which exists beyond the universe which goes beyond the concepts of Advaita.

I suppose i am taking 10 steps ahead too far.

But my point is the "Void" part is
not correct.

Druv said...

http://www.gurusfeet.com/forum/wrong-understanding-term-advaita

There are many people saying the same thing from the "European or Western world".

Like i said, it is not about "Religion", it is understanding the universe which the people of Buddhism or Tao do not have. Hence they deviated, it is only the lack of knowledge that creates division. And to remove "Division" or duality, you need the knowledge of the source( not religion ).

The source is a living immortal being, Vishnu - when he breaths out -- multiple universes are liberated from him. When he breaths in -- all the universes dissolve and go back into him.

I showed you a video of Vedic cosmology which shows the "Dreaming state" of Vishnu. We are just a dream of Vishnu, and it is his dream that gave us form.

Eric Dubay said...

All good points. Thanks for the response. Peace

Augadha said...

Instead of creating division and hierarchy by claiming that Hindu/Sanatana Dharma is the original, is the best etc.

I did not create the division, they already exist and was created by the "Grand Architect of the Universe" Brahma -- The "G" Sign of the Freemasons.

Hence, the God of the Masons is "Brahma" who helps create "Division" in the universe.

But the great Ultimate God -- God Shiva Cuts off the 5th head of Brahma as the Kal Bhairava (fearsome god of time).

The Freemasons tried to make their fear "God Shiva" into "goyims" fear by using the triangle and the third eye of Shiva.

I use the symbology of Shiva to put fear back into the "Masons".

Not only i can help you destroy them but help you understand the original roots of Vedanta.

"You weren't alive 10,000 years ago either (at least not in this body), so perhaps Hindu/Sanatana Dharma isn't the "original wave" either, but an echo from an even earlier source."

Of course, You are correct -- that is what the cycle of rebirth is all about.

We are nothing but waves echoing through time, i said it before.

We are in the seventh universal cycle, hence the Sanatan Dharma of this universal cycle is the 7th in succession to the original in the first universal cycle.

And this can only be understood if i show u complete map of time -- ill do that soon.

Druv said...

I am sorry, if i come off offensive but if Tao was built separately and without any connection with us, i would not have bothered commenting on it.

But unfortunately we are all connected, arnt we ?

With the Celtic Knot and Sanskrit sutras.

I chose Shiva because he is the furious aspect of God, which is the only way i could have switched on my "fighting" mode to fight the monstrous Freemasons.

I am sorry if i have hurt people, but i can only calm down when the Freemasons are dead and buried.