Illusion and delusion

[Guest guest]

Hello Everyone,

 

Hope you are having fun. I am out of town and have not kept up with

the mail. Just checking in from the web after scanning a couple of

posts.

 

Maybe Greg can post an old favorite story about Poonjaji disciples

and the politically correct way of speaking.

 

Enjoying all your wisdom and humor and wit. Hey, this is the best

entertainment available.

 

I will be back by the middle or end of next week.

 

Wishing you joy and peace

 

God bless all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Tony said:

> and tell us all *what* a jivanmukti is...

 

A jivanmukti is not a "what", that is for sure...

 

And, Tony, if you really want to know 'such a one', just take the ferry to

Vancouver Island, you know by now where I live.

 

Still awaiting your visit...

Loving Tony, Wim

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > , jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> > > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > >

> > > [snip]

> > >

> > > > Namaste Jody,

> > > >

> > > > The definition isn't mine it is Vedanta's.

> > >

> > > No, it is your poor interpretation of Vedanta.

> > >

> > > [snip]

> >

> > Namaste Jody,

> >

> > Perhaps for the benefit of the list you could expand on your

> > statement and tell us all what a jivanmukti

is.......ONS......Tony.

>

> There's not much reason to expand my statement, but I will offer

> Ramakrishna's definition of a jivanmukta.

>

> From the Gospel of Ramakrishna:

>

> Jivanmukta: One liberated from Maya while living in the body.

>

> Ramakrisha said: "...after attaining Knowledge through the guru's

> grace, one can very well live in the world as a jivanmukta."

>

> He also tells us: "He who has attained this Knowledge of Brahman

> is a jivanmukta, liberated while living in a body. He rightly

> understands that the Atman and the body are two separate things.

> After realizing God one does not identify the Atman with the body.

> These two are separate, like the kernel and the shell of the coconut

> when it dries up. The Atman moves, as it were, within the

Knowledge."

 

Namase Jody,

 

I fail to see how that is different from my statement that a

jivanmukti is unified with Nirguna Brahman and yet the body is still

within the energy of Saguna Brahman.......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namase Jody,

>

> I fail to see how that is different from my statement that a

> jivanmukti is unified with Nirguna Brahman and yet the

> body is still within the energy of Saguna Brahman.

 

This is what you said:

 

Liberation is no mind at all, just Nirguna Brahman,

even if the residual body is part of universal energy.

 

You are incorrect in your assertion that the mind ceases

to be, as you have implied above. Ramakrishna and many

other jivanmuktas were certainly in possession of a mind

after they came to their realization. But, as Ramakrishna

points out with his coconut metaphor, for the jivanmukta

there is no confusion as to the nature of the Atman relvative

to the mind. That is, the jnani lives in the full awareness that

s/he is not the mind, even while the mind continues as a

navigation aid for the body in its journey through life.

 

Your statement belies a very common assumption made

by those who have yet to experience realization, which is,

that once realization has occurred, we will have no association

with anything resembling a personality. This is a false

assumption, and carrying it poses a danger to the sadhaka

(as does *every* assumption about realization.) The fact is

that the jnani retains a personality, and is still very much

the same person s/he was before realization, except for the

fact that there exists the clear, experiential knowledge that

s/he is Brahman and not the personality.

 

The personality is part and parcel with the mind, which is

part and parcel with the body. The difference between

the jnani and the aspirant is that the jnani lives with the

knowledge, directly and experientially, of who we all really

are, and the aspirant wishes for this knowledge. Other than

that, they are quite similar in every other way.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> I fail to see

 

That is the first time you have made a statement that is truly yours. :-)

Too bad you forgot to end it with a period. :-(

 

Love you, Wim

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

-

Wim Borsboom

Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:36 AM

RE: Re: Illusion and delusion

Dear Tony,You wrote:> I fail to seeThat is the first time you have

made a statement that is truly yours. :-) Too bad you forgot to end

it with a period. :-(Love you, Wim---

Am I mean for laughing at this?

(some time goes by)

Maybe I'm still mean, cause I'm still laughing.

(some time goes by)

I read it again and I started laughing again.

I am having trouble typing...

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 -

Release Date:

8/7/2001/join

All paths go

somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions,

and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back

into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It

is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self.

Welcome all to a.Your use of is subject

to the

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namase Jody,

> >

> > I fail to see how that is different from my statement that a

> > jivanmukti is unified with Nirguna Brahman and yet the

> > body is still within the energy of Saguna Brahman.

>

> This is what you said:

>

> Liberation is no mind at all, just Nirguna Brahman,

> even if the residual body is part of universal energy.

>

> You are incorrect in your assertion that the mind ceases

> to be, as you have implied above. Ramakrishna and many

> other jivanmuktas were certainly in possession of a mind

> after they came to their realization. But, as Ramakrishna

> points out with his coconut metaphor, for the jivanmukta

> there is no confusion as to the nature of the Atman relvative

> to the mind. That is, the jnani lives in the full awareness that

> s/he is not the mind, even while the mind continues as a

> navigation aid for the body in its journey through life.

>

> Your statement belies a very common assumption made

> by those who have yet to experience realization, which is,

> that once realization has occurred, we will have no association

> with anything resembling a personality. This is a false

> assumption, and carrying it poses a danger to the sadhaka

> (as does *every* assumption about realization.) The fact is

> that the jnani retains a personality, and is still very much

> the same person s/he was before realization, except for the

> fact that there exists the clear, experiential knowledge that

> s/he is Brahman and not the personality.

>

> The personality is part and parcel with the mind, which is

> part and parcel with the body. The difference between

> the jnani and the aspirant is that the jnani lives with the

> knowledge, directly and experientially, of who we all really

> are, and the aspirant wishes for this knowledge. Other than

> that, they are quite similar in every other way.

 

Namaste Jody,IMO.

 

There only is mind in illusion, it is the sense of the 'I' that is

lost, the Jnani continues on as Saguna Brahman doing the work. This is

talking of the higher sheaths of course for the pranamayakosa and

immediaate body mind are necessary as a mechanical function of the

body.

 

The individual mind is only a bunch of thoughts, with no I there is no

start to the string........ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Kheyala" <kheyala@n...> wrote:

>

> -

> Wim Borsboom

>

> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:36 AM

> RE: Re: Illusion and delusion

>

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> You wrote:

> > I fail to see

>

> That is the first time you have made a statement that is truly

yours. :-)

> Too bad you forgot to end it with a period. :-(

>

> Love you, Wim

>

> ---

>

> Am I mean for laughing at this?

>

> (some time goes by)

>

> Maybe I'm still mean, cause I'm still laughing.

> (some time goes by)

>

> I read it again and I started laughing again.

> I am having trouble typing...

s are of

 

 

Namaste All,

 

Of course I fail to see. Who am I? It is not I that does the seeing,

it is my father that is in me that does the work........ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> Namaste Jody,IMO.

>

> There only is mind in illusion, it is the sense of the 'I' that is

> lost, the Jnani continues on as Saguna Brahman doing the work. This

is

> talking of the higher sheaths of course for the pranamayakosa and

> immediaate body mind are necessary as a mechanical function of the

> body.

>

> The individual mind is only a bunch of thoughts, with no I there is

no

> start to the string........ONS......Tony.

 

Dearest Tony,

 

For you today, I send you beautiful and wise Kabir.

 

Hang up the swing of love to-day!

Hang the body and the mind between

the arms of the Beloved, in the

ecstasy of love's joy:

Bring the tearful streams of the rainy

heart with the shadow of darkness:

Bring your face nearer to His ear, and

speak of the deepest longings of

your heart.

Kabir says: 'Listen to me, brother!

bring the vision of the Beloved in

your heart.'

 

Love to You Tony,

Mazie

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,IMO.

 

Opinions about jnana are worthless without jnana as

their basis.

> There only is mind in illusion, it is the sense of the 'I' that is

> lost, the Jnani continues on as Saguna Brahman doing the

> work.

 

Once again, you offer speculation based on poorly understood

scripture and faulty reasoning.

 

The jnani continues to exist within Maya. A jnani lives in full

recognition of the fact that if s/he jumps off the bridge, the

body will get hit by a car and perish, even while the jnani knows

with certainty that s/he will continue after the body dies.

> This is talking of the higher sheaths of course for the

> pranamayakosa and immediaate body mind are necessary

> as a mechanical function of the body.

 

Usage of sanskrit is no indicator of understanding. We're

not talking about sheaths. We're talking about the mind and

its continued existence and functioning in the lives of the

jivanmuktas, as Ramakrishna has explained to us.

> The individual mind is only a bunch of thoughts, with no I

> there is no start to the string........ONS......Tony.

 

Once again you offer your poorly rendered speculation. It's

an expecatation (along with all the others you hold, including

your idea of yourself as knowing what you are talking about)

that will keep you from coming to jnana.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:> > work.

>

> Once again, you offer speculation based on poorly understood

> scripture and faulty reasoning.

>

> The jnani continues to exist within Maya. A jnani lives in full

> recognition of the fact that if s/he jumps off the bridge, the

> body will get hit by a car and perish, even while the jnani knows

> with certainty that s/he will continue after the body dies.

>

> > This is talking of the higher sheaths of course for the

> > pranamayakosa and immediaate body mind are necessary

> > as a mechanical function of the body.

>

> Usage of sanskrit is no indicator of understanding. We're

> not talking about sheaths. We're talking about the mind and

> its continued existence and functioning in the lives of the

> jivanmuktas, as Ramakrishna has explained to us.

>

> > The individual mind is only a bunch of thoughts, with no I

> > there is no start to the string........ONS......Tony.

>

> Once again you offer your poorly rendered speculation. It's

> an expecatation (along with all the others you hold, including

> your idea of yourself as knowing what you are talking about)

> that will keep you from coming to jnana.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

I must be really thick, or you are answering questions I haven't

asked.

 

Again IMO, a jivanmukti loses the 'I', thought therefore unravelling

the sutra or string of thoughts called the mind. There is

however obviously some lower mind operating mechanically in the body,

so that it walks and talks etc.

 

However as all energy or creation is the 'Mind', it is the Universal

Mind that is now the mind of the body of the jivanmukti as there is no

entity present anymore. Just as a baby in the last term of pregnancy,

before the entity enters, is operating as part of the universal mind.

>From my reading of the descriptions of 'realised ones', there is in

many cases an appearance of a certain madness. For there is no past or

present or future for that body, everything is now, so there is no

memory. The Universal manifests through the body in localisation and

this again gives the appearance of an individual mind. This is an

illusion, there is only the universal the particular has gone.

 

Just as the Mahat or Universal is the total mind and runs the

universe, it has no difficulty running a body of a jivanmukti that has

given up the 'I'. For that is the reality anyway. All is the Sakti or

Saguna, and that ultimately is an illusion also. As is proved at

Pralaya.

 

So your opinion that there is a retained individual mind is in error.

 

 

The sheaths are just a construct to discuss different levels of mind,

that's all.........ONS.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,

>

> I must be really thick, or you are answering questions I haven't

> asked.

 

You are asking questions which have answers you cannot understand.

> Again IMO, a jivanmukti loses the 'I', thought therefore unravelling

> the sutra or string of thoughts called the mind. There is

> however obviously some lower mind operating mechanically in the body,

> so that it walks and talks etc.

 

You really don't know that the jivanmukta loses. The 'I' thought

you refer to is what Ramakrishna called the 'idea of me.' This

doesn't refer to the jnani's idea of him/herself as an individual,

it refers to the exclusive *attachment* to the idea of being an

individual. A jnani knows that s/he exists as an individual, at

least from the regard of other individuals, and s/he understands

their existence in the context of name and form.

> However as all energy or creation is the 'Mind', it is the Universal

> Mind that is now the mind of the body of the jivanmukti as there is no

> entity present anymore. Just as a baby in the last term of pregnancy,

> before the entity enters, is operating as part of the universal mind.

 

Again, speculation coming from poor understanding and faulty reasoning.

When Ramakrishna came to realization, he was still Ramakrishna and

knew himself as Ramakrishna as well as understanding himself as

Brahman.

> From my reading of the descriptions of 'realised ones', there is in

> many cases an appearance of a certain madness. For there is no past or

> present or future for that body, everything is now, so there is no

> memory. The Universal manifests through the body in localisation and

> this again gives the appearance of an individual mind. This is an

> illusion, there is only the universal the particular has gone.

 

Pure speculative fantasy. You really don't have a clue.

> Just as the Mahat or Universal is the total mind and runs the

> universe, it has no difficulty running a body of a jivanmukti that has

> given up the 'I'. For that is the reality anyway. All is the Sakti or

> Saguna, and that ultimately is an illusion also. As is proved at

> Pralaya.

>

> So your opinion that there is a retained individual mind is in error.

 

I'm afraid you lack all capacity for understanding as your head is

so full of this kind of reasoning.

> The sheaths are just a construct to discuss different levels of mind,

> that's all.........ONS.....Tony.

 

There is no need to discuss any level of mind. Mind exists in the

context of Maya, and as such is just mind.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namaste Jody,

> >

> > I must be really thick, or you are answering questions I haven't

> > asked.

>

> You are asking questions which have answers you cannot understand.

>

> > Again IMO, a jivanmukti loses the 'I', thought therefore

unravelling

> > the sutra or string of thoughts called the mind. There is

> > however obviously some lower mind operating mechanically in the

body,

> > so that it walks and talks etc.

>

> You really don't know that the jivanmukta loses. The 'I' thought

> you refer to is what Ramakrishna called the 'idea of me.' This

> doesn't refer to the jnani's idea of him/herself as an individual,

> it refers to the exclusive *attachment* to the idea of being an

> individual. A jnani knows that s/he exists as an individual, at

> least from the regard of other individuals, and s/he understands

> their existence in the context of name and form.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

The jivanmukti loses the 'I' thought there is no individual mind at

all. The appearance of a mind is given by the fact that the karma

already attributed to the body is served out before the body is

dropped.

 

In Vedantic literature this is compared to the motor of a wheel being

turned off but yet the wheel still turns until the force is spent. So

it is with a jivanmukti, there is no mind other than the Universal,

which knows all anyway.

 

I don't know about Ramakrishna but I am basing my thoughts on the

stories of Ramana, and others.

 

There is no mind, I am the Self. The 'I' and the individual mind are

one and the same thing.

 

I know this is hard for Vndists to accept for their whole basis is

treated on the state of the mind.........ONS.......Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote:

> I must be really thick, <snip>

 

Remember your punctuation, Tony. :-) A period behind that sentence - instead

of a comma - would have been in order. But... why must you be thick at all?

> <snip> or you are answering questions I haven't asked.

 

What is holding you back from asking those questions?

> Again IMO, a jivanmukti loses the 'I', thought

> therefore unravelling the sutra or string of thoughts called the mind.

 

You know Tony, rather than doing opinionated guess work, you could just ask.

There are plenty of living jivanmuktis around. In any case, a jivanmukti who

has passed on is jivanmukti no more. If you have to get any answers at all,

it is better to get them directly from the horse's mouth than to get them

from your own with your foot stuck in it.

> From my reading of the descriptions of 'realised ones',

> there is in many cases an appearance of a certain madness.

 

Exactly so!

That is the case with me as well, you are reading me well. What's happening

Tony? I notice the appearance of a certain lucidity in you. Good for you!

 

Lovingly, your Wim.

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> So-Ham is actually He-I am

 

Wim wrote:

>What is holding you back from asking <...> questions?

 

Not to lead you astray, Tony, I am actually not suggesting that you should

be asking questions.

When the need to question has gone, the evidence of being is clear.

 

Instead of,

"Ko ham, "

"Who am I?"

one gets,

"So ham,"

"I am the proof in the pudding."

Or, to get it exactly right,

"The proof in the pudding I am"

 

Yummily loving you, Wim

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,

>

> The jivanmukti loses the 'I' thought there is no individual mind at

> all. The appearance of a mind is given by the fact that the karma

> already attributed to the body is served out before the body is

> dropped.

 

If there is a body, there is a mind to run it. If there is a mind,

there is at least the understanding that a body exists. While the

'I' thought (the exclusive attachment to individuality) might be

gone, the idea that there is an individual body that exists along

with other bodies remains.

> In Vedantic literature this is compared to the motor of a wheel

> being turned off but yet the wheel still turns until the force

> is spent. So it is with a jivanmukti, there is no mind other than

> the Universal, which knows all anyway.

 

You were doing just fine until you started up with the speculation.

It is true that karma keeps the jivanmukta in the body. However,

the idea that there is no mind other than the universal is false.

Jivanmuktas don't know all. They know what they knew before they

became jivanmukti, and what they've learned since. Your 'universal

mind' is a figment of your own mind, a device you employ to prop

up your reasoning about realization.

> I don't know about Ramakrishna but I am basing my thoughts on the

> stories of Ramana, and others.

 

That's your whole problem, basing thoughts on what you've interpreted

rather than understanding from the inside of the experience. It's

as if you are trying to describe the interior decor of a house when

all you have is a photograph of its front yard.

> There is no mind, I am the Self. The 'I' and the individual mind are

> one and the same thing.

 

Wait a minute. First you say there is no mind and that "I" am the

Self, then you say the 'I' and mind are the same thing. Are you

catching the contradiction in that?

 

Perhaps our issue is semantic. I'm calling mind the vessel of

thought and feeling that exists in the context of an individual life.

What you are calling the 'I' or mind I would call the 'idea of me'

or ego. When jnana dawns, the ego is torn asunder, allowing one to

understand their true nature as the atman. This doesn't mean they

lose their minds, just that their sense of identification with it

has been dissolved.

> I know this is hard for Vndists to accept for their whole basis is

> treated on the state of the mind.........ONS.......Tony.

 

Unfortunately for the members of this list, you know very little

about Vedanta or jivanmuktas.

 

Swami Turiyananda on jivanmuktas:

 

"They are called jivanmukta, or the knowers of Brahman, who have

attained unitive knowledge while living and are not bound by past,

present, or future. Due to prarabdha [the result of past karma],

a jivanmukta lives in the body and experiences the functions of

the body. In other words, he may look happy or unhappy because

of the contact of good or bad things; but he never loses his

even-mindedness because he has the knowledge of his true nature

[that is, he is Brahman -- beyond the pairs of opposites]."

 

How can someone who is mindless be evenminded?

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:>

>

> Unfortunately for the members of this list, you know very little

> about Vedanta or jivanmuktas.

>

> Swami Turiyananda on jivanmuktas:

>

> "They are called jivanmukta, or the knowers of Brahman, who have

> attained unitive knowledge while living and are not bound by past,

> present, or future. Due to prarabdha [the result of past karma],

> a jivanmukta lives in the body and experiences the functions of

> the body. In other words, he may look happy or unhappy because

> of the contact of good or bad things; but he never loses his

> even-mindedness because he has the knowledge of his true nature

> [that is, he is Brahman -- beyond the pairs of opposites]."

>

> How can someone who is mindless be evenminded?

 

Namaste Jody,

 

I don't know Turiyananda's writings, but it depends on the level of

his audience at the time of that statement. I also don't know whether

he is a jivanmukti.

 

However he does say unitive knowledge, and indicates a non connection

with joy and grief. He also says Brahman---beyond the opposites. So he

is saying the same thing that I am. The difference is that you are

attributing reality to the body shell of the mukti. There is no ego

therefore the only mind that can be there must only be the

'Universal', Mahat, Goddess, Saguna or whatever.

 

Either he is a jivanmukti or not, one cannot be a little bit

pregnant.

 

However I will repeat again the Vedanta, gleaned from Lakshmana Swamy,

Ramana, Buddha, Ammachi etc.

 

The Jnani has no mind he is Nirguna. For the jnani there is no 'I', no

world, no creation. It all disappears as the illusion it is.

 

It can only exist with the 'I', or jiva. No ego--No world.

However for us we still see the body of the jivanmukti, egoless and

playing out its karma.

 

I thought I would check a Bhakti Goddess worshipper on this, so I

checked Ammachi.

 

" The mind is a big lie, and the world is a projection of that lie.

Both are unreal. The world only exists because the mind exists."

 

" The ego is a product of the mind, therefore the ego is also a lie."

 

'Awaken Children'. VOL VII, p 47 etc, Mata Amritanandamayi.

She goes on into much detail about this.

 

Therefore it follows from the above that at moksha the world ceases to

exist, for the jivanmukti. Therefore what is left is a shell, playing

out its karma, like a baby that automatically suckles its mother's

breast without thinking. Or a foetus exists, before the entity enters,

about the fourth month, but that is another subject.

 

Finally again there is no entity there at moksha to have an ego mind.

 

ONS........Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,

>

> I don't know Turiyananda's writings, but it depends on the level of

> his audience at the time of that statement. I also don't know whether

> he is a jivanmukti.

>

> However he does say unitive knowledge, and indicates a non connection

> with joy and grief. He also says Brahman---beyond the opposites. So he

> is saying the same thing that I am. The difference is that you are

> attributing reality to the body shell of the mukti. There is no ego

> therefore the only mind that can be there must only be the

> 'Universal', Mahat, Goddess, Saguna or whatever.

 

Bad logic. Mind can exist without ego, but your universal mind

does not exist at all.

> Either he is a jivanmukti or not, one cannot be a little bit

> pregnant.

 

Here we agree.

> However I will repeat again the Vedanta, gleaned from Lakshmana Swamy,

> Ramana, Buddha, Ammachi etc.

 

That's the whole problem here. You glean instead of understand.

> The Jnani has no mind he is Nirguna. For the jnani there is no 'I', no

> world, no creation. It all disappears as the illusion it is.

 

Incorrect. The world is *seen* as it really is, illusion, but it

does not disappear, as you are assuming. You know what they say

about assumptions, don't you?

> It can only exist with the 'I', or jiva. No ego--No world.

> However for us we still see the body of the jivanmukti, egoless and

> playing out its karma.

 

Again, you clearly don't have a clue. You have a rotten string

of logic, based on erroneous assumptions and a desire to appear

wise, that's all.

> I thought I would check a Bhakti Goddess worshipper on this, so I

> checked Ammachi.

>

> " The mind is a big lie, and the world is a projection of that lie.

> Both are unreal. The world only exists because the mind exists."

 

This is true. However, when this is realized, neither the world

or the mind go away. They are simply seen for what they are.

> " The ego is a product of the mind, therefore the ego is also a lie."

 

Again, this is true. However, it does not make your case.

> 'Awaken Children'. VOL VII, p 47 etc, Mata Amritanandamayi.

> She goes on into much detail about this.

>

> Therefore it follows from the above that at moksha the world ceases to

> exist, for the jivanmukti. Therefore what is left is a shell, playing

> out its karma, like a baby that automatically suckles its mother's

> breast without thinking. Or a foetus exists, before the entity enters,

> about the fourth month, but that is another subject.

 

"Therefore it follows...," you cannot deduce these things without

having firsthand knowledge. Your facile rendering, while common

among those who speculate about these things, is the greatest

hindrance to those folks (and you) coming to a real understanding

about them.

> Finally again there is no entity there at moksha to have an ego mind.

>

> ONS........Tony.

 

But there is a body with a navigation system (which I'm terming mind,)

and it is by its activity that we can communicate with jivanmuktas.

 

Ramana lived to tell the tale of realization. He could not have done

so without the employ of the mind, despite the fact he was fully

aware of its illusoriness. Just because something is illusory doesn't

mean it doesn't exist. It exists as illusion. If you jump off the

bridge you cannot tell me the ground doesn't exist, despite your

fervent *belief* to the contrary.

 

Realization does not fit any expectation of it. Your mind is infected

with a particularly virulent strain of expectation. It appears to be

deeply imbedded. Only Shakti can save you from this nasty case of

pseudo sagacity. I recommend unrelenting devotion to Her if you want

to be cured of it.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:> > ONS........Tony.

>

> But there is a body with a navigation system (which I'm terming

mind,)

> and it is by its activity that we can communicate with jivanmuktas.

>

> Ramana lived to tell the tale of realization. He could not have

done

> so without the employ of the mind, despite the fact he was fully

> aware of its illusoriness. Just because something is illusory

doesn't

> mean it doesn't exist. It exists as illusion. If you jump off the

> bridge you cannot tell me the ground doesn't exist, despite your

> fervent *belief* to the contrary.

>

> Realization does not fit any expectation of it. Your mind is

infected

> with a particularly virulent strain of expectation. It appears to

be

> deeply imbedded. Only Shakti can save you from this nasty case of

> pseudo sagacity. I recommend unrelenting devotion to Her if you

want

> to be cured of it.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

Ramana says the 'I', thought and ego mind are the same thing. There

really being no individual mind apart from that.

 

Hence if one is in the unitive state, of Swami Turiyananda, one

cannot be partly individual. Therefore there is no individual mind at

liberation. Only the universal mind and the karma burning itself out.

 

The mind that talks through the body of the jivanmukti is that of

Iswara, the Goddess, Mahat, Universal Mind or whatever term you may

wish to use.

 

I will say it again one cannot be a little bit pregnant, or a little

bit of a jivanmukti...ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> The mind that talks through the body of the jivanmukti is that of

> Iswara, the Goddess, Mahat, Universal Mind or whatever term

> you may wish to use.

 

A ridiculous statement, but not surprising coming from you.

[Guest guest]

Dear Jody,

 

I commend you for your fine understanding and clarity.

 

There is some advantage to having Tony and his obfuscations on the list. It

allows others to recognize the simplicity of it all... to hone reality to

its finest shine. Of course we wish Tony to surrender his mentalizing, but

it seems that 'he ain't gonna make that happen soon.'

 

Being is so simple... Once the mind returns to its original functioning -

its original design, so to say - once the mind has been halted to force its

designs on reality, the self-evidence of THIS is so uncomplicated...

The need to recognize beings other then oneself as jnani, jivanmukti,

enlightened or realized as Tony does (or rather, 'does not'), makes it hard

on "Tony" personalities themselves.

 

Throwing themselves loop balls...

the 'Tonys' are very skilled.

Catching their own balls...

the Tonys are not.

Bouncing 'them balls' off to others...

the Tonys excel.

 

So agonizingly tedious this must be...

It seems though that their own obsessiveness

makes the Tonys quite acceptable to themselves.

 

Thank you Jody, for being with us...

 

Love, Wim.

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > The mind that talks through the body of the jivanmukti is that of

> > Iswara, the Goddess, Mahat, Universal Mind or whatever term

> > you may wish to use.

>

> A ridiculous statement, but not surprising coming from you.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

I think the problem that you have is letting go of the idea of mind.

You wish to be non dual but operating, so retaining a connection. I

call it the fear of extinction. However that is what happens the mind

and ego are extinguished totally and permanently.

 

Let me try and draw an anology for you. If a 'walk-in', took over your

mind, you would not be aware of it, but other people would still think

it was you. The walk in would use the mind and all its attributes as

if they were its own, the difference being the new samskaras would be

no doubt somewhat different.

 

It is not exactly the same but the Universal could be looked on as the

'Walk-In', using the attributes, constructs and karma of the former

personality until the body drops........ONS.......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> , jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> >

> > [snip]

> >

> > > The mind that talks through the body of the jivanmukti is that of

> > > Iswara, the Goddess, Mahat, Universal Mind or whatever term

> > > you may wish to use.

> >

> > A ridiculous statement, but not surprising coming from you.

>

> Namaste Jody,

>

> I think the problem that you have is letting go of the idea of mind.

> You wish to be non dual but operating, so retaining a connection. I

> call it the fear of extinction. However that is what happens the mind

> and ego are extinguished totally and permanently.

>

> Let me try and draw an anology for you. If a 'walk-in', took over your

> mind, you would not be aware of it, but other people would still think

> it was you. The walk in would use the mind and all its attributes as

> if they were its own, the difference being the new samskaras would be

> no doubt somewhat different.

>

> It is not exactly the same but the Universal could be looked on as the

> 'Walk-In', using the attributes, constructs and karma of the former

> personality until the body drops........ONS.......Tony.

 

Tony, your reasoning is devoid of experience, and as such is worthless.

It makes a pretty picture in your head, allowing you to believe you

understand. As I've said a few times already, this picture prevents

the true understanding from dawning. You're shooting yourself in the

foot time and time again. I realize you don't have the ears to hear

it, but you are your own worst enemy in this regard.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > , jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> > > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > >

> > > [snip]

> > >

> > > > The mind that talks through the body of the jivanmukti is that

of

> > > > Iswara, the Goddess, Mahat, Universal Mind or whatever term

> > > > you may wish to use.

> > >

> > > A ridiculous statement, but not surprising coming from you.

> >

 

 

> Tony, your reasoning is devoid of experience, and as such is

worthless.

> It makes a pretty picture in your head, allowing you to believe you

> understand. As I've said a few times already, this picture prevents

> the true understanding from dawning. You're shooting yourself in

the

> foot time and time again. I realize you don't have the ears to hear

> it, but you are your own worst enemy in this regard.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

I'm afraid as I am not a jivanmukti, I can only rely on their

statements and my own ego mind to make sense of them.

 

However as Ramana says the 'I' thought and mind are one and the same,

I have to rely on that.

 

Merging with Nirguna permanently leaves no room for speculation on an

individual mind for the jivanmukti.

 

So no 'I', = no individual mind. It is simply that. As the body and

its karma are still around it can only be the universal that motivates

it.

 

In fact for the jivanmukti the truth has dawned, there never was an

'I', a creation or anything, only nirguna. It never happened at all.

ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Wim Borsboom" <wim@a...> wrote:

>

> > Dear Jody,

> >

> > I commend you for your fine understanding and clarity.

>

> Thanks Wim, I appreciate your appreciation.

>

> I suppose I'm hitting my head against a wall, but I was once

> very much a Tony. Then Kali kicked my ass up and down the block

> for a few years, and finally some Truth seeped in the cracks

> She left in my skull.

>

> Maybe our Tony will be fortunate enough to be blessed this way.

> It's gonna take one hell of a beating to dislodge the crap he

> has floating around in that nonexistent mind of his.

 

Namaste,

 

Actually I have been through my purely bhakti stage sometime ago. I

have had all my kickings I hope. AS a result I now hold to the fact

that all creation is a projected illusion in physics and in

spirituality.

 

Brahman+mind=Man, Man-Mind= Brahman.

 

It is really that simple, plus it is completely illogical to talk of

dissolving the ego mind and then retaining it somehow as well.

 

So my mind holds to its premise that all is illusion, an unreal dream,

that never happened and when I eventually become liberated from this

illusion, it will all disappear, only Nirguna Brahman will remain.

 

There are different states of unity and samadhi though, which still

retain the ego mind, as I have posted before.

 

In the meantime, 'Somewhere there is a dream, dreaming us.' Ko San

Bushman saying of the Kalahari Desert in S. Africa.....ONS...Tony.