Welcome Anonymous !

This forum is intended to give the members of the ShiningWorld community a place to meet and discuss Vedanta among themselves. We do not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed here--unless they are made by one of our endorsed teachers--so please take advice and / or teaching from another member of the forum at your own risk. If you feel you have a question that is not being adequately answered in this forum, please contact one of our endorsed teachers directly.

CHAPTER II: KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

How Do I Get Free?, Definition of Duality – Subject and Object,
What Is Freedom?, Paths Don’t Work, I Want Self-Knowledge
Enlightenment Myths, No Mind, Blank Mind, Empty Mind, Stopped
Mind, No Ego, Ego Death, Nirvana, The Now, Experience of Oneness,Transcendental State, Fourth State, Enlightenment as Eternal Bliss,Enlightenment Is Not a Special Status.

Moderator: milarepa

CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:42 pm

Thanks for linking Chapter 2, Stan. I look forward to the discussion on this chapter.

I thought I might get it started since I know that Stan has limited time. I hope that is OK.

For me, the knowledge vs. experience teaching is one of the single most powerful teachings in Vedanta. Do you feel the same?

Everywhere you look in the spiritual world, people are chasing the experience of enlightenment. Were you one of them? If so, what enlightenment experiences did you try to chase? What made you stop?

Do you have any doubts/questions about the vedantic description of experience (e.g., like the location of objects theory or when vedanta says that the mind takes the shape of objects)?

Have the teachings presented in Chapter II, had any practical effects in your everyday life?

Finally, how do you resolve non-duality in everyday life? That is, all objects seem so distinct and separate from us. Yet, knowledge tells us that reality is non-dual. Does this ever cause cognitive dissonance?!

I know that Stan will come up with better questions and I look forward to them. But it would be great to hear about your thoughts until then. Please don't feel like you have to answer any of the questions specifically---just looking for your thoughts on any of the topics.

Also, I know how busy life is over the holiday season so don't feel compelled to write.

Mira
Last edited by Mira on Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Stan » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:36 am

Hi Mira,

Thanks for initiating a start to chapter 2 of our study group. I expect most of us will start into this chapter in the new year so as to make a clean start to the 1 month per chapter idea. it`s not written in stone of course and if we need to extend a month...so be it.

If you`re suggesting we all add our own questions to the pile and not rely on a `chapter leader per month` to do that, it`s cetainly ok by me. it certainly takes any pressure off someone having to think of a comprehensive list on their own. again, this is not written in stone so if anyone feels like taking a chapter by the scruff of the neck and running with it, that too is fine. whatever inspires us has got to be good . :-)

I doubt if `my` questions will be better than your`s or anybody else`s Mira. They`ve all been good so far as have been the responses. I for one am really pleased how things are going and am grateful that the idea of a study group was put foreward.

I would just like to remind followes of the study group that it is necessary to read the relevant chapter of the E of E book before posting on the study group.

Thanks again for getting the next chapter rolling Mira ...we`re a lucky lot to have you here. :-)
User avatar
Stan
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:15 am
Location: Lincolnshire, U.K.

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:00 pm

Thanks, Stan for your kind words, and for taking such good care of our forum :D.

I plan to answer the questions that I posed on Chapter II when I have some time. I'm glad we are taking the month of January for this chapter.
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:32 pm

Hi everyone,
Hope you are well! I thought I might take a stab at answering my own questions on Chapter 2 :lol:.

For me, the knowledge vs. experience teaching is one of the single most powerful teachings in Vedanta. Do you feel the same?

I just want to reiterate that I believe the knowledge vs. experience teaching is incredibly important. If knowledge removes ignorance, then as long as we are capable of logical thinking, we all have the chance of removing ignorance. These teachings serve to demystify enlightenment. It makes enlightenment accessible as opposed to an unreachable ideal state of experience.

I love Vedanta's description of the intellect and the critical role it plays in self-knowledge. Such a refreshing change from all the no-mind nonsense that is currently in spiritual circles.

I do believe that 'knowledge vs experience' is probably the most important part of Ramji's Vedanta legacy.

Everywhere you look in the spiritual world, people are chasing the experience of enlightenment. Were you one of them? If so, what enlightenment experiences did you try to chase? What made you stop?

I don't recall having transcendental experiences. And I used to be very skeptical of when people reported what I called woo-woo experiences. Oddly enough, after self-knowledge, on occasions when my mind got very sattvic, I actually had a couple of 'extraordinary' experiences which I enjoyed :lol:.

Do you have any doubts/questions about the vedantic description of experience (e.g., like the location of objects theory or when vedanta says that the mind takes the shape of objects)?

This is the part of Vedantic teachings that I love :D. I love how these ancient teachings resonate perfectly with our current scientific world-view. Science tells us that all sensory experiences are simply neurons firing in our brains. This is so similar to the Vedantic 'location of objects theory' which says that all objects are experienced in the mind! So non-duality appears to have a neurobiological basis :D.

Have the teachings presented in Chapter II, had any practical effects in your everyday life?

The practical benefits of self-knowledge are wonderful indeed. Less stress, more peace of mind, enjoying the 'ananda' that comes with self-knowledge, better relationships, 'witnessing' the life of the jiva as it unfolds, a deep sense of devotion and love.

Finally, how do you resolve non-duality in everyday life? That is, all objects seem so distinct and separate from us. Yet, knowledge tells us that reality is non-dual. Does this ever cause cognitive dissonance?!

Not sure why I added this question! No I never have issues of cognitive dissonance since I understand non-duality using inference and knowledge. I fully comprehend that reality is non-dual. But I also appreciate that I experience it as a duality. And that is just fine with me.
When the mind is sattvic, I 'see' the self as the essence of everything. However, because my understanding is knowledge-based, I am not dependent on experiences of 'oneness' to realize non-duality.

Coming back to the first question, I have such immense gratitude to Ramji for delineating the 'knowledge vs. experience' teachings. Without them, self-knowledge would have been impossible for me.
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Andrew » Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:58 pm

Time to jump in for 2017 and chapter 2 :)

I think in my post for chapter 1, I said that the teaching of knowledge vs. experiential enlightenment was the best news I heard and came as a great relief. It saved me from wasting any more time in certain pursuits and immediately resolved doubts that I had at that time about experiences, teachers and the practices they might recommend. This teaching was a big deal for me because it said "whether you have some mind blowing cosmic event or not, it really doesnt matter" and that lead me to conclude that regular, average Joes such as myself could realize self-knowledge.

It was also satisfying to hear of a teaching tradition that did not disparage the intellect. I have had my fill of people who were desperate to have me "not think" or that the spiritual life was all emotionally based and about having groovy feelings and intuitions.

Did I chase experiential enlightenment? Absolutely because that is 99% of the 'spiritual world' as James calls it. There was (pre Vedanta) no alternative. It was all "Want this? Then do X". I tried meditation practices (Japanese & Tibetan buddhist), Qabbalistic rituals, spirit contact, chakra openings, sound healing, qigong techniques, ceremonial initiations, techniques to enhance psychic perception...etc.

Why stop? Because after a protracted period under one teacher, I realized that while I certainly acquired some weird experiences and odd stories, I was fundamentally the same. That is, I was still identified as being a Jiva operating under the impression that some special, non-specific, ill defined event would transform me into some super-cool new form.

Will answer rest of questions in a bit. Gotta go for now!


Andrew
Andrew
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 10:50 am

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Andrew » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:16 pm

Continuation :)

To return to my previous post...

Did I have doubts about Vedanta's description of experience? Well, I must have had some because I was not one of those uber-qualified types who hear the teachings at one satsang and said "Oh hey...guess that's enlightenment. Cool!" I had questions/concerns about free will and 'saintliness' notions of enlightenment that both James & Sundari helped me to resolve.

As for the location of objects teachings specifically, that wasn't too hard to grasp. I had already read & contemplated other things that pointed in that direction even if they didn't present the fullest picture.

The practical effects of chapter 2? I would say that aside from the relief mentioned previously (though mine came from reading How to Attain Enlightenment before 'Essence' came out) I think that James' books made me a lot more fussy and discerning as to what kind of teachers/teachings I would lend an ear to. I think the combination of his 'enlightenment myths' writings and his 'if your guru/church/club does any of the following things LEAVE' list - has provided an inoculation against getting sucked into situations, people & places that I would rather not be. The effect it had on me was that realization that if I ignored 98% of what was available in the 'spiritual world', I wouldn't actually be missing out on much.

I realize for some people that might sound like a very provocative, horrifying, close minded statement, probably quite arrogant to boot. But I have done the casting the net widely for spiritual teachings and have fed at the metaphysical buffet for decades and Vedanta was the big frying pan in the face I needed that said "So...what has all this been doing for you?" And it was a fair question because I asked it of myself before I came across the teachings.

As for resolving non-duality? I listen to teachings and read them and review them constantly in my own mind. Maybe if I am walking to work I might think to myself "Ok...go through the 'there is no joy in objects' teaching" and as I am plodding along will examine the thread of logic there. Or the times when I had written to James and I would be thinking over the suggestions he had made to help resolve my questions. Stuff like that.

One exercise that, while not actually about Vedanta, is actually quite useful and relevant is this. (This came from a book written by a friend of mine). He suggests that you make time to go for a walk. As you walking around, just slowly glance around at your surroundings until your attention alights upon something. Whatever catches your interest. Observe whatever it is, pause momentarily and remind yourself that 'this is consciousness'. If what you looked at was a living thing (say a tree), then maybe next time scan about for an inanimate object. Do the same thing and do this gently, but periodically throughout the duration of the walk. I found that doing something as simple as this softens the sense of 'me vs. objects' experience.

Ok, hopefully that covers it for now.

Andrew
Andrew
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 10:50 am

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:18 pm

Hi Andrew,
Great read, as usual!

I wanted to emphasize this:
Andrew wrote:
I think that James' books made me a lot more fussy and discerning as to what kind of teachers/teachings I would lend an ear to. I think the combination of his 'enlightenment myths' writings and his 'if your guru/church/club does any of the following things LEAVE' list - has provided an inoculation against getting sucked into situations, people & places that I would rather not be. The effect it had on me was that realization that if I ignored 98% of what was available in the 'spiritual world', I wouldn't actually be missing out on much.

Thanks for saying it so well. Amen :D.
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby georgschiller » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:32 am

An interesting question to me is: do we need direct experience as taught in the direct path, asthanga yoga, etc?
Or is pure intellectual knowledge enough as taught in our lineage?

I personally would not be able to say but I certainly don't want to miss the direct experiences I received.
georgschiller
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:38 pm
Location: Bamberg, Germany

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:14 pm

Hi Georg,
Another nice topic!
My personal opinion is (and I am no expert), that with just yoga you typically cannot get to enlightenment or self-knowledge (since self-knowledge is simply an understanding that you are the self and this removes ignorance).

However, once you have self-knowledge, then yoga practices are very helpful in dealing with binding vasanas and getting a sattvic mind which allows you to enjoy the fruits of self-knowledge :D.

I don't know anything about the Direct Path, but I do Ashtanga yoga (mainly pranayama and asanas). I also have karma yoga and bhakti yoga practices. I also have my own sadhanas (as I have described here and there on the forum).
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:05 pm

georgschiller wrote:An interesting question to me is: do we need direct experience as taught in the direct path, asthanga yoga, etc?
Or is pure intellectual knowledge enough as taught in our lineage?

I personally would not be able to say but I certainly don't want to miss the direct experiences I received.


Thanks for asking this question...

In my opinion, direct experience is essential in the assimilation of self knowledge in the respect that a specific teaching must be seriously contemplated on and confirmed as the truth via our direct understanding [remembering] of how experience is actually structured, as opposed to how the mind imagines it to be structured.

This kind of serious contemplation can only really be achieved through an indirect path of managing as well as stilling the mind, for example, ashtanga yoga for the purposes of the contemplator to achieve a full integration of what they have learned.

Without direct experience of what the scriptures are pointing to, and without a dedicated formal daily practice using the tools of ashtanga yoga, it is my opinion that it would be more or less impossible to obtain hard and fast direct knowledge of reality.

For anybody who is interested, the source of my information comes from a course in ashtanga yoga meditation, recorded by a teacher in the Dayananda Lineage, Swami Advayatmananda Saraswati :ugeek:

Which can be found here: http://arshadrishti.org/meditation-audio/
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Arlindo Nagar » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:32 am

Hi everyone, India and Tiruvannamalai is a lovely place to visit/stay? After 20+ years away I am back here to realize that if there is a location in the planet that makes me feel at home, this place is India. The thought of spending 3 or 4 months a year in here keeps popping up in my mind. :)

On another note, I read the questions and discussions on Chapter two, and would like to add a few more questions for our contemplation;

If Vedanta is indeed the path of listening, contemplation, understanding and knowing, rather than the path of action to produce an experience – If Self-knowledge is the hard and fast knowledge; I, the Jiva-atma, in my essential nature beyond time and space, AM the limitless, non-dual self – And since Vedanta says that all knowledge including self-knowledge can only take place in the intellect – what then is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?
Arlindo Nagar
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 11:14 am

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Mira » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:26 pm

Hi Arlindo,
Thanks for adding such depth to our discussions.
Arlindo wrote: What then is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?

For me, self-knowledge is the knowledge that cannot be negated. The one thing that you for sure is that you exist (and that this existence is conscious). That you exist means you are existence itself. This knowledge cannot be negated. Everything else can be negated (all objects, all phenomena) but your fundamental existence cannot be negated.

Great topic for discussion. I will contemplate more too.

I wanted to also ask you what is it about Arunachala that makes it so special? What kind of energy does it have? I've never been there so I am curious :D.
Mira
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby Andrew » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:54 pm

Arlindo Nagar wrote:If Vedanta is indeed the path of listening, contemplation, understanding and knowing, rather than the path of action to produce an experience – If Self-knowledge is the hard and fast knowledge; I, the Jiva-atma, in my essential nature beyond time and space, AM the limitless, non-dual self – And since Vedanta says that all knowledge including self-knowledge can only take place in the intellect – what then is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?


Hi Arlindo,

Thank you for joining in :)

I would like to answer your question, but I was wondering if I could take a side step and ask: "When 'spiritual people' talk about 'direct experience', how do they define & use the term?"

It's a phrase that I have encountered in both its Eastern (non-dual/yogic) and Western (gnostic) forms and have yet to have seen or heard a satisfactory definition.

To call an experience 'direct' is to suggest that there is such a thing as 'indirect experiences'. My understanding is that any information coming to us via the senses is 'indirect'. My senses apprehend only a limited range of phenomena which are then, in turn, interpreted by my limited mind. And though it seems instantaneous, it occurs in time and there is therefore a lag. It is a ridiculously small lag but it exists nonetheless. As such, I am always a number of degrees of separation away. If I look at a tree, I get only a partial image and not its totality. (And while it is fast, it still takes time!)

Is 'direct experience' one that occurs outside the senses? I can have an experience without my senses because that occurs while I dream. The external senses are in abeyance but I still 'see', 'hear', 'touch' things etc. Those sensory events are still subject to interpretation within the dream state. (If I dream about sticking my hand in what appears to be hot water, I may or may not experience the sensation of heat. If I do, I might think 'that's hot! or I may, equivalently ask 'why am I not scolded by this hot water?')

Is 'direct experience' one that occurs outside of the mind? My mind is limited. It cycles through phases of wakefulness, deep sleep and dreams. Vedanta teaches that even in deep sleep there is an experience of the 'bliss of the absence of the senses & mind.' (I think of James' example of the drunk kids next door waking you up at 3am with their loud music.) An experience is had (bliss) without the apparatus of the mind but I only know about it after the fact in the wakeful state when the mind is active.

This suggests to me that to have 'knowledge of experience' the mind needs to be present. There are all sorts of things happening to me right now but, if my mind is not an appropriate means to connect to these events (like cosmic particles passing through space and into my body at insane speeds without a care in the world)then I cannot know about them. I don't have any sensation of this event, I only know about it indirectly by believing what cosmologists and physicists tell me is happening. (They have the appropriate means of high technology like particle accelerators et al). I have a certain amount of shraddha (faith) in them.

'Spiritual people' talk about 'direct experiences' of 'God' or 'oneness' or 'the divine'. This is especially problematic. Most people who know me assume that I am either an atheist or at very least, agnostic. Why? Because if someone were to ask me about 'God' I want to (but don't) reply "What do you mean when you say God?". I don't say it because I don't need the aggravation in my life, but if their notion of God is anthropomorphic deity(ies) messing around with human life, then yes I am most avowedly atheist, in that I am not inclined towards that particular 'theism'.

How does one have this 'direct experience of God'? As described in the Bible for example? (Burning bushes, scary angels that tell you be to not be afraid etc). Those descriptions often , but not always, tend to take the form of an awake person being confronted visually (even physically) with 'God' or one of his/her/its agents. So that's the senses and the mind. I think I can discount that as 'direct'. Weird certainly, but direct no.

That leaves having some type of internal encounter perhaps in a dream, meditation or perhaps even hallucination whereby the ordinary operation of the senses are altered or inhibited. But even to have a hallucination (whether through drugs or psychosis), I still need a mind. If God visits me in deep sleep I won't know about it.

If a person's notion of 'God' is more abstract, then again I am confronted with something less tangible than a 'Jesus spoke to me at the DMV' experience. Instead there is a more, vague sense of 'something strange or awesome' (in the original meaning of the word)occurred. But I still need my little ole mind.

I can have experiences but have no knowledge of them. This is because the mind is either not present or not capable of registering the experience. I can have experience and knowledge of same when the mind is present and able to form a representation.

Thus remains - can I have knowledge without an experience? I believe that Vedanta would say yes. Self knowledge that arises when ignorance is removed. If I am looking for my glasses and my friend tells me they are sitting on top of my head instead of on my nose, it means I have acquired knowledge of the glasses' location. I have not had an experience of acquiring an object because it was already present. (If I recall correctly this is what Krishna was talking about in the Gita re: the royal secret that is 'immediate'?)

Is the 'direct experience' of God/Self/whatever a red herring? If I need my limited mind to form a representation so that knowledge of the experience is available to me, then it's a reflection whether that is a God experience or a more mundane dog experience.

Anyways...lol....when I started this a few hours ago I thought I knew where I was going with this :lol:

I think what I am saying is that I don't buy into the idea that aside from knowledge, that I need some kind of special 'direct experience' of Self in order to 'get it'. I understand that certain practices can enhance the sattvic qualities thereby improving clarity, contemplation and concentration in the mind. Obviously that's helpful but it doesn't 'pull the trigger' as it were.

I'll shut up now. Maybe some one else here can organize this better?

Andrew
Andrew
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 10:50 am

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:42 pm

The "experience" of God is always available. Swami Advayatmananda says the knowledge just reveals what already is. For me this means that knowledge points us to look from a specific perspective that reveals what was hidden all the while. The misleading notions of experiential-lightenment suggest that one has to experience a "state", which is a confusing notion because states come and go, they are not "ever-present", they exist and are born and die within the ever-present. Once the ever-present is revealed then every state that appears in it does not take away from the fact that there is obvious knowledge of the ever-present ground of being. This is why self knowledge can never be forgotten, it is not an "experience" nor can any experience alter it or cover it once it has been revealed. It's like when you discovered that santa clause wasn't really real. You still see Santa clause all over the place at Christmas, but you're not fooled by the appearance of Santa clause anymore. You know that it's some guy dressed up in a Santa costume and not the real Santa that you used to believe in. :D

Unless of course anybody here does still believe in Santa, I apologize and must remember not to assume, damn it!

Sorry :oops:

Thanks!
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:12 pm

Oh,

And to the people who still believed, Im sorry to be the bearer of the bad news...

You will get over it I promise. :)
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby kpitsim » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:14 pm

Arlindo:

You wrote:
If Vedanta is indeed the path of listening, contemplation, understanding and knowing, rather than the path of action to produce an experience – If Self-knowledge is the hard and fast knowledge; I, the Jiva-atma, in my essential nature beyond time and space, AM the limitless, non-dual self – And since Vedanta says that all knowledge including self-knowledge can only take place in the intellect – what then is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?

Bob's response:

The different assertions in your query:

1. Vedanta says that all knowledge including self-knowledge can only take place in the intellect.

2. Vedanta says that Self-knowledge is called direct knowledge.

3. There is a difference between theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge "of the logic presented by the scriptures", and self-knowledge.

I thought that Self-knowledge can be "had" either directly or indirectly. As I wrote in my last post (and not clearly upon re-reading) my idea (happy to be corrected if wrong) is that direct knowing meant that there was no logic or reasoning-inference involved, but somehow there is a knowingness beyond the mind, made possible when the mind is dissolved, i.e. thoughts are totally gone, but nonetheless marked by peace and absolute certainty. Beyond space and time and objectless. This is the self-luminous aspect of pure consciousness. Not sure whether this squares with assertion #1 above. The question is semantic perhaps, turning on how we define knowledge. Are we saying that knowledge can only be of objects and an intellect is required to recognize that? Is "Self-knowledge" any different from "Knowing there Self"? Am I wrong to think that direct knowledge by passes thought, and indirect knowledge uses thought?

Arlindo, or anyone else, please comment to further clarify. Thanks.

Bob
kpitsim
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:02 am

Dude,

Indirect knowledge is when you walk out of Moojiji feeling all resolved in bliss, wondering what happened, the mind stopped for a while because you took your focus off meditating on your finances, or how every time you look in the mirror you notice another grey hair, or whats going to happen wnext year when the farmer in the field across from your house sells his plot of land to the developer. Yeah? You feel all fuzzy and enlightened and full of beans for a day then the habit thoughts pull you back into the same stories. These are called binding vasanas. Or thoughts that bind you (like I said before).

But direct knowledge is when swamiji Vedanta proper says "hey, look, is that really Santa clause? Or is it just some dude dressed up in a red costume with a fake fluffy beard pretending to be a character we collectively call Santa clause? " Then you're like "oh @£&!, yeah, of course Santa is not real!!!" (direct experience). You see clearly that Santa is just some random dude, swamiji then gives you the practices to stop your brain keep automatically relapsing into thinking (which are called BINDING vasanas/thoughts) that Santa clause is some real dude from Lapland who delivers presents to well behaved children on Christmas day so you don't confuse the myth with the reality ever again. It's not that all Chitti vrittis are resolved, it's just that enough chittis are resolved to stop you keep on believing in the real Santa over an over again. You can have a million chitti vrittis and be free bacause the ones that bound you are gone. Conversely you can have one chitti vritti and still be bound, because it's a binding thought that keeps you thinking Santa is a real person.

That's what it boils down to, yeah? Not sure myself !
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:36 am

Just to be clear, the chitti vrittis that keeps us seeking for completeness are just desires from past conditioning, they are not real desires, just conditioned habits founded on "ignorance" that were not already whole and complete. That's what binding chitti vrittis are, just those based on ignorance that overlooks the reality that indeed there is nothing that can be added or taken away from "me". When that is realized proper then seeking based on that ignorant assumption stops, but thinking continues, it's just not thinking anymore based on ignorance of our compete wholeness.

I would now call this non seeking thinking "functional" thinking rather than the old "deficiency" based thinking that was born from the pillars of ignorance of said completeness.
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby calonxy98 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:02 am

With indirect knowledge you're asked to turn up every Sunday morning at namaste mass to bow in the presence of Shree namaste bhagavan Moojiji and let go of your "mind" enough times that one day you will just "get it", the mind will somehow "go away" like an unwanted bad smell around the house and all will be perfect. Something like that... :lol:
calonxy98
 

Re: CHAPTER 2 . KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE STUDY GROUP.

Postby kpitsim » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:08 am

Calon (Hope I can call you that for short):

Thanks for the responses, really enjoy your writing style. So for you, when the Mooji folks have their regular conditioned thought patterns stopped by the energy of Mooji, and they temporarily marinate in the bliss of their essential nature, that is an example of indirect knowledge. In my interpretation which I am not claiming is correct, that would be an example of direct knowledge, because reasoning or inference is not present.

That's why I wrote two posts earlier that from my perspective here, direct knowledge is not constant because the directness is a matter of experience which is not constant. However indirect knowledge, based on reasoning and inference, can be constant because it is not based on experience. Another way of talking about this is in terms of pure consciousness and the reflection of pure consciousness in the intellect of the sattvic mind. While the pure consciousness is beyond the mind, in the sattvic mind, its reflection can be caught or recognized, which is a subtle object. In that sense this knowledge can also said to be indirect, i.e.. an experience of a reflection.

Your direct knowledge example of Santa Claus being an unexamined and untrue belief, again in my perspective, would be an example of direct knowledge of a false belief, and not direct knowledge of the Self. You might say, hat as long as you no longer are susceptible to believing any thought about being a body or mind ,i.e.. thought or feeling object appearing in your awareness, then that is equivalent to direct knowledge of the Self.

Anyway these are different ways of talking, and for the sake of purity of the teaching, I need some guidance as to what the proper perspective is. Your might be the more correct way of speaking about knowledge, experience, and the difference between direct knowledge and experience.

Thanks for sharing your understanding.

Bob
kpitsim
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:55 pm

Next

Return to CHAPTER II: KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

Login

User Menu