To experience the enlivening power of the transformational field firsthand, and have your questions answered by a spiritual adept, join us for one of our upcoming live events. La Buena Vibra, Mexico - January 22 - January 31, 2025: igorkufayev.org/product/10-day-immersion-january-2025-in-mexico-la-buena-vibra/ Vienna, Austria, April 18 - 21, 2025: igorkufayev.org/product/vienna-easter-immersion-2025/
This is an awesome discourse, worth listening to at least a 2nd time. Meantime, with all due respect, and referring to KS - Secret Supreme by Lakshmajoo academy, some reflections which might be different from what has been shared in this discourse. Maya = illusion of individuality Purusha is the first tattva where individuality appears (not Ahamkara, under Prakriti). Limited individuality. Unrealized soul. (Also, per Sankhya, each one of us has a separate individual soul, ie multiplicity of Pursha tattva, one per living being). Purusha = ego connected with Subjectivity Ahamkara = ego connected with objectivity Western teachers when they talk about 'killing the ego' cause further confusion because of a lack of framework of these Tattvas. In the mind-intellect, we all create a self-image, which is even more pronounced in the social media age as a digital world self-image with a large audience. I think it is perfectly fine to say 'kill this self-image' which is just a mind made construction, and different from Ahamkara or Purusha versions of ego. Problem resolved. I also like Ramesh Balsekar's model of: Thinking/Psychological mind vs. Working/Operational mind. The former is the problem with it's focus on I-me (self image) always going into past, future. The latter is not a problem as the thoughts generated here are in the present moment dealing with the problem at hand, without triggering the I-me thought. For me, the problem of 'killing the ego' while respecting the sanctity of Ahamkara is resolved by bringing in the 'self-image' fabricated entity. (Now where does Ramana's I-thought belong ... Purusha?)
The world is real if brahman is real. As brahman is in the world brahman is real in and as the world. Its called Saguna amd nirguna brahman. The two in one can be synonymous and interchangeable. Mind you: a rope is somerimes a real snake and not just a rope. You just imagined it was a rope. So It works both ways. Maya has teeth and can be poisonous and life threatening. As for the world, it maybe ' transien't, but its not a dream. Its as real as it gets. However its certainly got a dreamlike quality.. Nevertheless not to be joked or messed with.
Yes. From Unmanifest Godhead to the most fleeting experience, it's all real. Yet with profound spiritual maturity, the human life becomes smooth and easier to handle, despite whatever may arise pleasant or unpleasant, wanted or unwanted. Between spirit and physical/mental forms only difference is that one is permanent and the rest are transient, but that doesn't make the forms fake or unreal. My humble view, just felt to add to your comment.
@Alex722 I hear "eternity is in love with the productions of time. " And I love the poetic description of that inference. . I don't know about 'permanent'. Is that the right word. Everlasting ? Even then it's a misnomer. Words like absolute are also ambiguous. That's the thing with trying to describe an apprehension, because it's an art and a pointer to the transcendent. Being 'Post corporeal, as in dying, or passing away, this is also rocky ground as we do not know what's after. We don't even know what our next dream will be, so how can we know what is to be, If and when. So permanent is also a a felt projection of '' I am'. But it is stil an intuitive calculation. If l will also Be. And as we ,don't know that how can we predict a future. I mean we don't even know our past. This is why, a reference is made in view of permanency to what was said by this and that scripture of master, in good faith. Because the teacher in the chair does not know for sure. The collapse of thought 'permanently" is also an interesting intuitive notion that it can be permanent. As the I reference or reference to I, does rather pop up like a jack in the box. And here I am. Again.
To experience the enlivening power of the transformational field firsthand, and have your questions answered by a spiritual adept, join us for one of our upcoming live events.
La Buena Vibra, Mexico - January 22 - January 31, 2025: igorkufayev.org/product/10-day-immersion-january-2025-in-mexico-la-buena-vibra/
Vienna, Austria, April 18 - 21, 2025: igorkufayev.org/product/vienna-easter-immersion-2025/
love you sir
Great talk which, among other things, lays out a core difference between Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta-
love
Wow well said
“…Kashmir Shaivism is Shakti thru and thru.” 🙏
This is an awesome discourse, worth listening to at least a 2nd time.
Meantime, with all due respect, and referring to KS - Secret Supreme by Lakshmajoo academy, some reflections which might be different from what has been shared in this discourse.
Maya = illusion of individuality
Purusha is the first tattva where individuality appears (not Ahamkara, under Prakriti). Limited individuality. Unrealized soul.
(Also, per Sankhya, each one of us has a separate individual soul, ie multiplicity of Pursha tattva, one per living being).
Purusha = ego connected with Subjectivity
Ahamkara = ego connected with objectivity
Western teachers when they talk about 'killing the ego' cause further confusion because of a lack of framework of these Tattvas. In the mind-intellect, we all create a self-image, which is even more pronounced in the social media age as a digital world self-image with a large audience. I think it is perfectly fine to say 'kill this self-image' which is just a mind made construction, and different from Ahamkara or Purusha versions of ego. Problem resolved.
I also like Ramesh Balsekar's model of:
Thinking/Psychological mind vs. Working/Operational mind. The former is the problem with it's focus on I-me (self image) always going into past, future. The latter is not a problem as the thoughts generated here are in the present moment dealing with the problem at hand, without triggering the I-me thought.
For me, the problem of 'killing the ego' while respecting the sanctity of Ahamkara is resolved by bringing in the 'self-image' fabricated entity.
(Now where does Ramana's I-thought belong ... Purusha?)
Great reflection 🙏
Thanks! Namaste! Om Namah Shivaya! Let's Connect ect 😉🌈🕉️🌻
Re. non-dual dharma quest/I/on,
I like the Buddhas answer:
He held up a flower 🌸
Very complex
Buddhi, Ahamkar, Manas…
Is Buddhi the same as Mahat? And would this be equivalent to Aham or Amness? Jai Guru🙏
What is Chambabupaya (or at least the real word so I can google) @ 26:47
The world is real if brahman is real. As brahman is in the world brahman is real in and as the world. Its called Saguna amd nirguna brahman. The two in one can be synonymous and interchangeable. Mind you: a rope is somerimes a real snake and not just a rope. You just imagined it was a rope. So It works both ways. Maya has teeth and can be poisonous and life threatening. As for the world, it maybe ' transien't, but its not a dream. Its as real as it gets. However its certainly got a dreamlike quality.. Nevertheless not to be joked or messed with.
Yes. From Unmanifest Godhead to the most fleeting experience, it's all real. Yet with profound spiritual maturity, the human life becomes smooth and easier to handle, despite whatever may arise pleasant or unpleasant, wanted or unwanted.
Between spirit and physical/mental forms only difference is that one is permanent and the rest are transient, but that doesn't make the forms fake or unreal.
My humble view, just felt to add to your comment.
@Alex722 I hear "eternity is in love with the productions of time. " And I love the poetic description of that inference. . I don't know about 'permanent'. Is that the right word. Everlasting ? Even then it's a misnomer. Words like absolute are also ambiguous. That's the thing with trying to describe an apprehension, because it's an art and a pointer to the transcendent. Being 'Post corporeal, as in dying, or passing away, this is also rocky ground as we do not know what's after. We don't even know what our next dream will be, so how can we know what is to be, If and when. So permanent is also a a felt projection of '' I am'. But it is stil an intuitive calculation. If l will also Be. And as we ,don't know that how can we predict a future. I mean we don't even know our past. This is why, a reference is made in view of permanency to what was said by this and that scripture of master, in good faith. Because the teacher in the chair does not know for sure. The collapse of thought 'permanently" is also an interesting intuitive notion that it can be permanent. As the I reference or reference to I, does rather pop up like a jack in the box. And here I am. Again.