jb-Worship

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> ºWhat is the coinciding between "the body is insentient" or "the

> body ºis an insentient log," and "body is Self too?" Could you

> explain ºthis apparent discrepancy?

>

> First, could you explain why that is a discrepancy?

 

i don't know, logically it seems to be. With the statement "body is

Self too," what then is the "point" of proclaiming "body is an

insentient log?" Maybe only to encourage "unattachment" to the body,

but i don't see any other reason for it.

 

In the case of Ramana, the statement "utterly neglected body"

couldn't apply, since 'that body' lived a fairly long life... utter

neglect suggests 'death' at a young age.

 

Joy & Happiness,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

On 7/1/01 at 2:54 AM Omkara wrote:

 

º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

º

º> Ramana repeatedly emphasized something like "I am not the body" -

º> aimed at some, only for reasons of detachment from it.

º> And because feelings can be quite overpowering, remarks like

º> "the body is an insentient log"... The NT uses the terminology of

º> dying - first death, there is no such "thing" as "I"

º> second death, that of the sentient entity, the potential to feel

º> and then, the phrase "the body is an insentient log" applies.

º

ºWhat is "NT" referring to? The memory does arise of a mention

ºabout "two deaths" -- seeming relating to the conceptual system

ºof "layers of an onion" also discussed. For some, it might help to

ºreplace 'old concepts' with 'new concepts', for others -- only

ºvasanas spontaneously (automatically) 'burning off' (relatively

ºspeaking, since " " is free of vasanas already).

 

The reason why the NT mentions a first and second death is

because it comes with a few observable symptoms/side-effects, the same

for all humans. Of course it doesn't violate statements like

"burning out of tendencies". But it is more accurate regarding

"what can be observed".

º

º> Yet it is the Self too and body, "feeling" as empty space,

º> that is quite impressive, to use an understatement, and beyond

º> imagination.

º

ºAnything 'real' is beyond imagination. To label

ºsomething 'impressive' however... despite the dictionary

ºdefinition, "impressive" suggests "mental impressions" or "making an

ºimpression."

 

Impressions are made in all matter - no matter how subtle.

In Advaitic terminology the body then is like a burnt cloth that still

resembles a cloth but on touch is just a heap of ash. In the sense that

a carefully burnt newspaper still carries all information but no longer

is paper in the proper sense.

 

And anything concerning matter is beyond imagination - a molecule

consists of atoms, consisting of elementary particles also acting as waves,

particles consisting of quarks and who can prove that is the end?

 

Joy and Light,

Jan

º

ºTim