Dan/Harsha/ self-surrender/The bargain of a life time

[Guest guest]

Daniel Berkow

[berkowd (AT) uncwil (DOT) edu]Monday, July 23, 2001 8:55 AMTo:

Subject: Re:Harsha/

self-surrender/The bargain of a life time

Others can speak to that. I am sure in the western traditions (Greg or

Gloria would know for Christianity and perhaps Bruce and Dan for

Judaism and Ed - Lobster for Sufism) there is probably the notion of

and examples of complete surrender. Love to all Harsha

Hi Harsha --As seen here, "complete surrender" can't be dependent on

a tradition or the past -- the past is what is surrendered; that

is, the past no longer contains identity.Love to you, too --DanHi

Dan,

Thanks for your comments. Agreed on the first point and that is what

was meant.There are examples of surrender to God, or the "divine

will" in many traditions. That itself indicates that surrender of

identity is not dependent on any particular tradition or culture.

Your second point that "past is what is surrendered and the past no

longer contains identity" deserves an additional comment. The "Past"

cannot exist separately from the individual identity to be

surrendered. In fact, it is the individual identity that perceives a

past and future.

The notion of the "past" (in terms of memories and impressions) and

"future" (in terms of hope, desires, and dreams) can only exist in

relationship to the individual identity. Upon the individual identity

disappearing in the Self, the questions of past and future become

moot.

Hope it makes sense!

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

The notion of the "past" (in terms of memories and impressions) and

"future" (in terms of hope, desires, and dreams) can only exist in

relationship to the individual identity. Upon the individual identity

disappearing in the Self, the questions of past and future become

moot.

 

Hope it makes sense!

 

Love

Harsha

--------

 

SO

 

It might be called a MU point!

 

 

Gloria

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha

 

Makes sense as all is nothing and am

injoying your moot list. :-)

 

Lv. papa swan

 

> The notion of the "past" (in terms of memories and impressions) and

> "future" (in terms of hope, desires, and dreams) can only exist in

> relationship to the individual identity. Upon the individual identity

> disappearing in the Self, the questions of past and future become moot.

>

> Hope it makes sense!

>

> Love

> Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hi Gloria :-)

> SO

> It might be called a MU point!

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha --

Thanks

for your comments. Agreed on the first point and that is what was

meant.There are examples of surrender to God, or the "divine

will" in many traditions. That itself indicates that surrender of

identity is not dependent on any particular tradition or culture.

And thanks for yours. The surrendering

of identity implies that there is

someone who can turn over an identity to someone. Maybe that

is

where the idea about a surrender to God developed. However,

if

we look into this "surrendering", we find that even the

thought of someone

handing something over is an identity idea, as is the thought

that

someone (a big Self, a clear light, a guy with a white beard,

etc.) is there for us to

give our identity to, or to take it from us.

So, for me, the surrender of identity can only be the "seeing

through" of

identity. I agree that such seeing through is implied in

different

cultures. However, cultures also seem to get caught in their

own

metaphors, so that whatever the God concept (or enlightenment

concept) is, they start to take it very seriously in different

ways.

So, the God concept seems as

much of a hindrance as a help to "surrender of

identity", since it

is a form of identity, which is to be surrendered.

Thus, surrender of identity is also surrender of culture, and

surrender

of God. Of course "surrendering" surrenders its

own presumed

activity as well!

Your

second point that "past is what is surrendered and the past no

longer contains identity" deserves an additional comment. The

"Past" cannot exist separately from the individual identity to

be surrendered. In fact, it is the individual identity that perceives a

past and future.

Agreed. What is the future but the

past projected? And it seems so real, apparently, to many who

"live for what they will have in the future" ...

Perhaps here we can differentiate the identity seemingly embedded in the

past (personal history) from the past when it simply functions as memory

arising presently. Just to point out that memory and thought can

function without the sense of identity necessarily being contained

there. (Otherwise, people could become

very wise by getting an extensive lobotomy!). A great deal of what

culture and religion do, as I see it, is reinforce the tendency of

thought and perception to structure around a "me" of the past,

which can be the "individualist 'me' " that is so prominent in

Western cultures, but which also can be the "group 'me'" of

more tradition-focused cultures ("my group that shares the same

symbols, expectations, etc."). So, cultures and

religions tend to stress how you are to be understood in terms of your

past actions, the beliefs and expectations you share with others, the

rituals that connect you to others, and so on. There is a sense of

individual and shared time and space, that is surrendered when identity

is surrendered. There is no longer an individual or group who can

claim to belong to a place and time, or to be going through time to get

someplace.

The

notion of the "past" (in terms of memories and impressions) and

"future" (in terms of hope, desires, and dreams) can only exist

in relationship to the individual identity. Upon the individual identity

disappearing in the Self, the questions of past and future become

moot.

Indeed! And if the individual

disappears in the Self, along with past and future,

the Self and the present disappear in

"

" ....

Now, where was I? I seem to have lost my place. I can't even

find a beginning at which to start over ...

Oh well, life goes on, or so they say ;-)

Hope

it makes sense!

Sure do!

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Daniel Berkow

[berkowd (AT) uncwil (DOT) edu]Monday, July 23, 2001 3:39 PMTo:

Subject: Re:

Dan/Harsha/ self-surrender/The bargain of a life time

Dear Harsha --

Thanks for your comments. Agreed on the first point and that is what

was meant.There are examples of surrender to God, or the "divine

will" in many traditions. That itself indicates that surrender of

identity is not dependent on any particular tradition or culture. And

thanks for yours. The surrendering of identity implies that there is

someone who can turn over an identity to someone. Maybe that is

where the idea about a surrender to God developed. However, if we

look into this "surrendering", we find that even the thought of

someone handing something over is an identity idea, as is the

thought that someone (a big Self, a clear light, a guy with a white

beard, etc.) is there for us to give our identity to, or to take it

from us.So, for me, the surrender of identity can only be the "seeing

through" of identity. I agree that such seeing through is implied in

different cultures. However, cultures also seem to get caught in

their own metaphors, so that whatever the God concept (or

enlightenment concept) is, they start to take it very seriously in

different ways. So, the God concept seems as much of a hindrance

as a help to "surrender of identity", since it is a form of

identity, which is to be surrendered.Thus, surrender of identity is

also surrender of culture, and surrender of God. Of course

"surrendering" surrenders its own presumed activity as well!

Your second point that "past is what is surrendered and the past no

longer contains identity" deserves an additional comment. The "Past"

cannot exist separately from the individual identity to be

surrendered. In fact, it is the individual identity that perceives a

past and future. Agreed. What is the future but the past projected?

And it seems so real, apparently, to many who "live for what they will

have in the future" ... Perhaps here we can differentiate the

identity seemingly embedded in the past (personal history) from the

past when it simply functions as memory arising presently. Just to

point out that memory and thought can function without the sense of

identity necessarily being contained there. (Otherwise, people could

becomevery wise by getting an extensive lobotomy!). A great deal of

what culture and religion do, as I see it, is reinforce the tendency

of thought and perception to structure around a "me" of the past,

which can be the "individualist 'me' " that is so prominent in

Western cultures, but which also can be the "group 'me'" of more

tradition-focused cultures ("my group that shares the same symbols,

expectations, etc."). So, cultures and religions tend to stress how

you are to be understood in terms of your past actions, the beliefs

and expectations you share with others, the rituals that connect you

to others, and so on. There is a sense of individual and shared time

and space, that is surrendered when identity is surrendered. There is

no longer an individual or group who can claim to belong to a place

and time, or to be going through time to get someplace.

The notion of the "past" (in terms of memories and impressions) and

"future" (in terms of hope, desires, and dreams) can only exist in

relationship to the individual identity. Upon the individual identity

disappearing in the Self, the questions of past and future become

moot.Indeed! And if the individual disappears in the Self, along

with past and future, the Self and the present disappear in "

" ....Now, where was I? I seem to have lost my place. I can't

even find a beginning at which to start over ...Oh well, life goes

on, or so they say ;-)

Hope it makes sense!

Sure do!Love,DanDear Dan,

Hey, I am glad it makes sense! Although making sense may not mean

much at the point that this stuff starts making sense! :-).

Dan, you stated or rhetorically asked,

"Indeed! And if the individual disappears in the Self, along with

past and future, the Self and the present disappear in "

" ....

They must disappear in the Individual! The essential Individual

Identity is the same as Self or Divine Identity (Sat-Chit-Ananda).

This is why Advaita Vedanta takes the radical position that there is

no difference between the Individual Soul and the Supreme Soul (God

or ParamAtama) as there is Whole Consciousness Only, transcending

concepts of boundaries and limitations.

The ancients called it, "The One without a Second." The One for whom

there are no "others".

Hence the Impersonal (God) truly turns out to be very Personal!

Most Personal!

Personally, I love my answer!

Personally Dan, you are pretty smart too!

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote:

>

>

> So, for me, the surrender of identity can only be the "seeing

through" of

> identity. I agree that such seeing through is implied in

different

> cultures. However, cultures also seem to get caught in their own

> metaphors, so that whatever the God concept (or enlightenment

> concept) is, they start to take it very seriously in different

ways.

 

 

................does this include the "seeing through" concept?

 

> So, the God concept seems as

> much of a hindrance as a help to "surrender of identity",since it

> is a form of identity, which is to be surrendered.

 

................a hinderance to some, a help to others, thus we have

so many ways of looking at and describing the undescribable.

 

>

> Thus, surrender of identity is also surrender of culture, and

surrender

> of God.

 

..........well, the concept of god anyway.

 

Of course "surrendering" surrenders its own presumed

> activity as well!

 

.................everything must go!!

>

>

..

>

A great deal of what culture

> and religion do, as I see it, is reinforce the tendency of thought

and

> perception to structure around a "me" of the past, which can be the

> "individualist 'me' " that is so prominent in Western cultures, but

which

> also can be the "group 'me'" of more tradition-focused cultures

("my group

> that shares the same symbols, expectations, etc."). So, cultures

and

> religions tend to stress how you are to be understood in terms of

your past

> actions, the beliefs and expectations you share with others, the

rituals

> that connect you to others, and so on. There is a sense of

individual and

> shared time and space, that is surrendered when identity is

> surrendered. There is no longer an individual or group who can

claim to

> belong to a place and time, or to be going through time to get

someplace.

 

............i agree dan and there is no getting away from it since any

where you turn there is going to be a culture doing that very thing.

There is no place to go where that cultural reinforcement of the

individuated "i" isn't happening. Only in a culture where "seeing

through" of identity is "lived" could there begin to be a reversal in

the way culture reinforces self- referencing.

 

 

 

........matthew

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha!

Dan, you stated or rhetorically

asked,

 

"Indeed! And if the

individual disappears in the Self, along with past and future,

the Self and the present disappear in

"

" ....

 

 

They must disappear in the Individual! The essential Individual

Identity is the same as Self or Divine Identity (Sat-Chit-Ananda). This

is why Advaita Vedanta takes the radical position that there is no

difference between the Individual Soul and the Supreme Soul (God or

ParamAtama) as there is Whole Consciousness Only, transcending concepts

of boundaries and limitations.

Indeed.

The ultimate whole, being unsplit, can't be separated from anything.

So, it's not separated from what we call "separatations"

"thingsevents"

"peopleself" or other sorts of

"differentiations" ...

The whole which can split itself infinitely, while remaining itself, is

truly whole. The words we come up with for this whole, such as

whole, totality, consciousness, being, identity of self and Self, God,

and so on, are always partial. They can never give what *it* actually

is. One reason for this is that any word involves a preference for

a certain concept (e.g. "God") over another concept (e.g.

"gasoline"). So, we say, "God is my being", but

we don't say "gasoline is my being". However, the

totality to which we are vainly trying to point, involves no preferring

of one thing over another. This is where "mind" and

"culture" get caught -- they are structures, and the structures

involve forming preferences and valuations. Again -- nothing wrong

with structures functioning as structures -- and yes, these structures

are *it* as well. However, as long as there is a center for knowing

assumed to be comprehending within the "universe" that the

structure forms for itself, there isn't the knowing that doesn't depend

on structure, which isn't imbedded, which doesn't need to assert,

continue or replicate itself in some way.

As far as I am concerned, Harsha, all our words are only useful if they

assist "mind" or "culture" to undo the conceptual web

that seems to separate totality from itself, in any way. As long as

conceptuality remains the means for comprehending truth, there is

valuation and preference taken as reality. There is nothing wrong

with this. But, there comes a time when conceptuality no longer

suffices to offer "what is", and instead, "what is"

offers itself to itself, directly. That can't possibly come through

a particular usage of words, thoughts, or images. Yet, it is what

we write all these words for (presumably). Can ideas be followed so

carefully and clearly that they undo themselves while they are being

dealt with? If so, "what is" is present "as is"

....

 

The ancients called it, "The One without a Second."

The One for whom there are no "others".

 

Hence the Impersonal (God) truly turns out to be very Personal!

 

Most Personal!

 

Personally, I love my answer!

 

Personally Dan, you are pretty smart too!

Whatever intelligence "Dan" is capable of, is nothing compared with

the incomparable-- the intelligence that structures all structures

simultaneously, yet remains structureless in and of itself. Which

intelligence is also the love that gave the universe itself, in order

that the universe could be, while *it* alone never took form, yet

"entered" as all forms.

*This* alone is, and our *knowing* is this. Yet, we can never speak a

true word about it. The "personal structures" and "the impersonal

reality" aren't what it is, in and of itself. Yet, we must resort to

saying it is personally impersonal, and impersonally personal, and

neither personal nor impersonal. Then, words drop away!

Love,

Dan

 

 

Love

Harsha