Most Advaita, as presented, is contaminated by the suppositions of yoga.
This has been true since a 15th century Shankaracharya fused/confused
the practices.

The best intro to authentic advaita understanding/realization  is here:\

--- In, "Lorenzo"  wrote:
> what would recommend as a good list of books re Advaita?   I did find
this list
> Thanks
> --- In, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Xeno,
> >
> > I was expecting to be blown away by "discovered complexity I knew
not of," but strangely, the talk was "lite," and I, well, sue me, but I
kinda felt smugly sorry for Searle.  As wonderful as his "sermon" was,
it seemed strangely hollow -- not shallow -- but hollow.  It seemed
absent the "heartwood" core axioms of spirituality that can be found
across cultures throughout time.  I wanted to grab him by the shirt
collar and say, "You need to read some Advaita books."  And if he'd done
so, THEN READ THEM AGAIN until he grew the nervous system that could
grok it.
> >
> > The talk's heft was that it was "positively impacting on almost any
audience," but it lacked hard science examples that I thought would be
coming at me like Gatling bullets.  But nope.
> >
> > The one thing he tried to ram home was that consciousness was purely
a physical phenomenon without any unexplainable or scientifically
non-approachable ugga-bugga.  And that definition of "consciousness" I
> >
> > The biggest failure of the talk was that the concept of "the
Witness" of consciousness was not mentioned -- although perhaps alluded
to briefly as he batted aside the traditional POVs on consciousness.
> >
> > Advaita would definitely give him the intellectual tools with which
to see if "the Witness" could also be delineated such that it, too,
might be sought in experiments.  I think it could.
> >
> > But, of course, I'd want to WARN Searle that understanding Advaita
was merely and only a secondary goal -- like knowing a map -- and that
"realization" would come to him only if and when his ADDICTION to
conceptual experiences were ended -- and THEN the territory of that map
would be revealed as the only actuality beyond BOTH existence and
> >
> > And that requires building a nervous system that knows how to dwell
in "a close to silence" state of biology  - a state that is so
non-stimulating of consciousness' "thought production clockworks" that
identity could slip off of it and be realized as, IDENTITY, the source
of every form of identification seen in the actions of consciousness.
> >
> > And, yeah, I'd like to chide him a bit about being a scientist and
prideful that all of "THIS" can be grasped.  I guess he needs to read
some Godel, too, if only to show the limitations of logic.
> >
> > To me, "the Witness" is to be but halfly measured when it's targeted
as part of the grand illusion, but in order to talk about it, one finds
that language, as if, forces the word to seem to refer to a full
manifestation instead of the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't hyperbolic
entity that is but "half" observed -- not unlike as today's science now
looks an electron with its two states -- wave/particle.
> >
> > I call the observable part of "the Witness," ego.  The unmanifest
"part" I call awareness, absolute, sentience, identity -- recognizing
that all those words are qualities and therefore, hee hee, an especial
kind of ersatz non-thing-a-ma-jigger
> >
> > Science needs to humble itself and admit that the embodiment of "the
Witness" in materiality is one in which "the Witness" pokes its head
above the "ritam line" as much as "it" dwells below that line and "is"
then beyond any of science's instrumentality's metrics.  Good luck on
that happening.
> >
> > And, by the way, thanks for all your posts.  I always scan to see
what you're writing about, and have read your posts enough to know that
if I do enter a thread, your stuff is the get-to-the-heart-of-it stuff,
so good on ya.
> >
> > Edg
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > >
> > > John Searle at CERN (TEDxTalks)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [ ]
> > >
> >

Reply via email to