Differences Between Moksha And Nirvana

[Bhaktajan II]

Abandon logic, commonsense, believe in woo. I would not advice that.

It is not psycho-babble if it is classified under the heading of:

Stream-of-consciousness-writting.

Ecumenist excells at this ---but even he post-edits his typos etc--- as a courtesy to the reader.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}​

PS:
BIG BROTHER KNOWS WHEN AN ADOLESCENT IS IN THE ROOM.

 

[radarmark]

I think the "abandon truth and logic" is in a mythical-mythic-metaphysical sense true.

Not in the same sense as we use true in empirical statements (things we perceive via our senses). That is the very hard problem of "woo"... trying to make sense of what is not strictly logical or provable. Hence the need for guides, gurus, and gentle guidance (in Quakerism the group guidance of what is valid spirit).

Again, it is somewhat easier for me to think this way because of my extreme notion of the Copenhagen Interpretation ("if you do not think quantum flies in the face of the commonsense, you do not understand it", "if one proclaims one understands the quantum, you are admitting you do not").

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Knowledge and logic are useful tools, but at the end of the day they are mental tools, what we are seeking on the spiritual path is beyond mind, the mind exists in time and what is sought is timeless, eternal.

It becomes difficult for many to accept, that their basic foundation of identification is exactly the problem, that it is the very clinging to the mind stream that is stopping them finding what they seek. It isn't to say though that mind shouldn't continue to be used, it is not to become a mindless drone, it is only to show we are not the mind or body which are both subject to decay and death. It isn't to reject either though, it is to find our true position, so we can more effectively utilize these tools when they are actually needed instead of being ran by them.

All suffering begins with these identifications, all fear is founded in the fear of death, to understand fully that you are not that which is subject to death, suffering is no more. Of course, intellectually knowing these things isn't enough, hence the many devices to show us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. we are not the mind or body which are both subject to decay and death.

.. all fear is founded in the fear of death, to understand fully that you are not that which is subject to death, suffering is no more.

Atheists should not have a fear of death, it is a routine thing that happens to living beings. We are none other than 'star material', Brahman, which constitutes the universe and all things contained in it, which perhaps is not bounded by even existence and non-existence. .

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Atheists should not have a fear of death, it is a routine thing that happens to living beings. We are none other than 'star material', Brahman, which constitutes the universe and all things contained in it, which perhaps is not bounded by even existence and non-existence. .

The fear stems from identification with the temporal.

It has nothing to do with atheism or theism, indeed theists should fear death less for they think they know what happens beyond death.

It is the identification which must be overcome if suffering is to cease. It is mind which creates the difficulty, in its need to be something, it realizes all it incorporates towards this will cease eventually. It becomes panicked in this realization, yet what we actually are simply watches this. We can choose whether to go into the panic, if we don't then it is clear we are beyond the mind, witnessing happens and the mind ceases to be given energy.

Then though, what are we? What is seen, which I have called the witness, is beyond all existential phenomenon, yet is not non-existent. It is simply beyond all categories, for the very categorizing mechanism is another mental process appearing within this space, this Brahman or void, this Sunyata or emptiness. Like an empty room, it is merely potentiality itself, and the force used to decorate, that which creates what we call life, is love itself.

This is why all the scriptures say God is love, the energy which creates om is love, but without it, still there is Brahman or sunyata, what we call darkness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not know any God. Did love cause the Big-Bang?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I do not know any God. Did love cause the Big-Bang?

Love corresponds to a particular frequency of atoms, experienced subjectively.

Fear is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

As we move further towards love, we open more and more to the world, and we can come to state where the world seems to be within what we are. We realize we are the totality of consciousness, and that all things arise out of and consist of consciousness.

This experience is what is pointed at by God.

The world arose because consciousness wanted to know itself, the initial splitting into duality is what has caused what is called the Big Bang.

Division is only an illusion though, religion is consciousness coming full circle, rediscovering its totality.

 

[radarmark]

AZ, good point! How Process Theology Can Affirm Creation Ex Nihilo is a good reference in this area (see " "Process Theology" Cosmology "Big Bang" " on Google Scholar). The argument is a continuation of the "Unmoved Mover" of Aristotle as the primordial cause and a living, caring creativity (if the divine concrescence is imprehensible, then God is a pure subjectivity which cannot also be objectified. Buber and others have proclaimed God to be such a pure Thou; only Whitehead has proven it).

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...the initial splitting into duality is what has caused what is called the Big Bang."

--> This is very well-said. I especially like the idea that the initial splitting into a duality was not the Big Bang itself, but was the action that ultimately caused the Big Bang to occur.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

AZ, good point! How Process Theology Can Affirm Creation Ex Nihilo is a good reference in this area (see " "Process Theology" Cosmology "Big Bang" " on Google Scholar). The argument is a continuation of the "Unmoved Mover" of Aristotle as the primordial cause and a living, caring creativity (if the divine concrescence is imprehensible, then God is a pure subjectivity which cannot also be objectified. Buber and others have proclaimed God to be such a pure Thou; only Whitehead has proven it).

I am not sure who Whitehead is, but the oldest texts in existence speak of this very realization. It is nothing but a correct understanding of Vedic literature. All of the religious disciplines are nothing but an attempt to prove it within each of us.

Looking up this name, it appears they are a psychologist, it seems to me psychologists try too much to explain the phenomenon of the mind and not enough highlighting the root of it, the very source of subjectivity. Meditation is nothing but this, it is a retraction of attention back towards awareness itself, in this the pure awareness is known, but subjectivity means something within us. In meditation, we come to a point where even the subject falls. If there is no more us, how can something happen inside us?

Here is true nonduality, transcendent being.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

"...the initial splitting into duality is what has caused what is called the Big Bang."

--> This is very well-said. I especially like the idea that the initial splitting into a duality was not the Big Bang itself, but was the action that ultimately caused the Big Bang to occur.

The Big Bang necessitates a starting point of very dense energy to form the initial particle that split. This particle must have been what we call hydrogen, since we know all things are created by different configurations of it. Our own galaxy is formed by the forces emanating from our black hole, and no less energy is necessary to form the density we call matter.

It cannot be that all began with the Big Bang, for the Big Bang necessitates something prior to cause the conditions present at that time. Even if we say there is actually a Multiverse something still has to have been present to cause the first of them, and indeed the space they exist in must have began somehow. We begin to see why Buddha disputes God, it is as problematic as the Big Bang, and thus Dependent Origination.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

To bring it back to topic, seeing that we are consciousness itself, rather than the objects arising in it, is moksha/mukti - or liberation.

Seeing that consciousness itself has no existential reality is nibbana - literally 'no-thing'.

Can these be made distinct? That very distinction would merely be another object in consciousness. Nothing can really be said further, all you can do is enjoy this beautiful miracle, the diversity of pure possibility, all of it remaining existentially false - as quantum mechanics is finding objectively - and yet still apparently so.

The ultimate paradox, everything consists of exactly nothing.

Exactly as impossible as life itself.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

This particle must have been what we call hydrogen, since we know all things are created by different configurations of it.

Hydrogen is one of 118 elements that make up the matter around us.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Hydrogen is one of 118 elements that make up the matter around us.

Yet what I said remains true.

Most everything else was formed through fusion in stars.

Helium is one exception, it was formed very early in the formation of the universe, yet probably still from hydrogen.

Similarly, all forces stem from a single original super-force, then later split into weak and strong nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetic forces. Science can't help confirming the oneness of existence, because it is fact, soon enough science will be a religion of its own - it is already producing mystics, or are mystics getting involved in science?

I can't say it enough, this is the future, well, and conferences like it.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I especially like their about page, and they have some insightful videos too.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Yet what I said remains true.

The Big Bang necessitates a starting point of very dense energy to form the initial particle that split.

This might be true but I don't understand it. No need to explain, your physics often slip into your own world view which I don't share.

This particle must have been what we call hydrogen, since we know all things are created by different configurations of it.

The other elements are not configurations of hydrogen. The atom are configurations of electrons, protons and neutrons. All the elements might have, at one point, been a hydrogen atom (this I know nothing about) but that form was dissolved and it's parts put into one or more new forms.

All the elements are NOT configurations of hydrogen.
All the elements ARE configurations of electrons, protons and neutrons.

I am often wrong so feel free to challenge me.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

This might be true but I don't understand it. No need to explain, your physics often slip into your own world view which I don't share.


The other elements are not configurations of hydrogen. The atom are configurations of electrons, protons and neutrons. All the elements might have, at one point, been a hydrogen atom (this I know nothing about) but that form was dissolved and it's parts put into one or more new forms.

All the elements are NOT configurations of hydrogen.
All the elements ARE configurations of electrons, protons and neutrons.

I am often wrong so feel free to challenge me.

We are called star dust for a reason.

Every other kind of element is formed in stars, which are formed from hydrogen.

Here it gives some info about how hydrogen formed. Again we learn that the first atoms were hydrogen.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Big Bang necessitates a starting point of very dense energy to form the initial particle that split.

At this moment the information is available from the time of Inflation. Big-bang is supposed to be earlier than Inflation. Science does not know anything earlier than Inflation. It is Inflation that wiped out any information prior to it. If science is able to break this barrier, then only we would come to know if there was a Big-Bang and what it was like. At the moment, it is the best guess.

This particle must have been what we call hydrogen, since we know all things are created by different configurations of it.

Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in mass abundances of about 75% of H-1, about 25% helium-4, about 0.01% of deuterium, trace (on the order of 10−10) amounts of lithium and beryllium, and no other heavy elements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis#Characteristics

To bring it back to topic, seeing that we are consciousness itself, rather than the objects arising in it, is moksha/mukti - or liberation.

Now what is that .. consciousness? What is the sub-atomic configuration of consciousness?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Now what is that .. consciousness? What is the sub-atomic configuration of consciousness?

I would say consciousness is the very nature of the energy all particles have arisen out of, known from a subjective perspective. We think intelligence is unique to us, we think energy isn't intelligent, but it is the striving of energy - in the process called evolution - which has caused us. Further, every other creature has adapted perfectly to its environment or ceased, everything is the play of energy, and that energy is pure consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, energy may have its properties, you may term it as being conscious (double-slit experiment) but kindly acknowledge that this consciousness is totally different from human consciousness.