Mystical experiences and Self-Realization

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

There must be a different way to deal with the issue that you are commenting on in your email.

If one has to mention that:

>>> ...All such things [mystical experiences] have the ego as their

base, which in essence is the root desire to hold on to identity or

body in subtle or gross form. *That is not a bad thing.* Desire is

not a bad thing in itself. *It is what it is*. <<<

Then Harsha, what is the meaning really of your message?

Also, if, as you mention:

>>> Certain things did happen and siddhis manifested even with Sri

Ramana. But these were *spontaneous* events. <<<

Then again what is the issue?

Is desire the issue?

That cannot be, as you say that that per se is not a bad thing,

Are the mystical experiences the issue?

Apparently not when they are... spontaneous as with Ramana (or me for

that matter)... when they don't even make a ripple.

Then what is the issue?

Keeping up the need for stating *the difference* between advaita and

yoga the usual way, seems to accomplish the following:

1. It negates the basic tenet behind advaita / non-duality by using

juxtaposition (to see a difference) which is the basis of dualism.

2. It misunderstands, denies and ignores the basic tenet behind yoga which is union.

Dear Harsha - and this I write, as you know, with all due respect - if

a post such as yours is warranted, than we need to find a different

way to discuss this topic. Do we need to use traditional means of

discussion that eventually lead to dis-enfranchisement?

We must find a different way to get together on this, this is a satsangh is it not?

1. This list is about "Who am I?" Are we not instead finding signs of

insidious solipsism in isolation or entrancement ?

2. Is a 'Satsangh' not about coming and being together in 'dynamic

mutuality and recognition'?

In your message you have used many different words that deal with

"mystical experience". When I go through the usual material that

deals in 'objective' ways with the mystical, there is a great

misunderstanding of what really takes place with the mystic.

In 1963, when I was 19 and self-realized, my friends called me a...

'mystic', I virtually spoke the same words as Ramana, albeit in Dutch

:-)

Hmm... interesting is it not?

What if labels such as 'mystical' and 'self-realised' point to the same reality?

This is no question for me, but I suggest that it is something to be

mindful about for those who somehow do not consider themselves to be

mystic or realized...

Wim.

Harsha [harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net]Sent:

Sunday, May 26, 2002 5:47 AMadvaitin;

Subject: Mystical

experiences and Self-Realization

Thank you for making this important point as it highlights the

difference in orientation between the Advaita path and Yoga, at least

in its initial stages. Although great sages such as Sri Ramana have

said many times that all mental and psychic experiences and phenomena

fall short of Self-Realization, people are attracted to such things

due to inherent and normal human tendencies (vasanas). The desire to

have mental and higher spiritual experiences and siddhis is

fundamentally no different than desire for wealth, sensuality, power,

etc. All such things have the ego as their base, which in essence is

the root desire to hold on to identity (or body in subtle or gross

form). That is not a bad thing. Desire is not a bad thing in itself.

It is what it is. All people who take up the spiritual path

experience a variety of things.

Sri Ramana used to say that in sages who have realized pure

consciousness as their nature, even the most intense spiritual and

psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a ripple. Whereas a

rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the same rock when

it falls into a small pond makes huge waves.

This should not be taken as criticism of those who pursue siddhis,

take delight in such experiences, and all such things. Why should

they not follow their own nature? People eat the food they wish,

pursue happiness in some form, and fulfill the desires they have

because that is the nature of things.

In the beginning (see Ganapati Muni’s statement), it is much easier to

visit all the celestial planes and have visionary experiences then to

simply abide in the Heart as Self. At the end, one does not wish to

go anywhere at all. I recall that Ramana Maharshi said one time that

he was curious about siddhis and other planes and such things, but

something in him always said, not there but “Here”, meaning the

Heart, where the consciousness abides in its own nature.

Certain things did happen and siddhis manifested even with Sri Ramana.

But these were spontaneous events.

Love to all

Harsha

Anand Natarajan

[harihara.geo ]Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:03

AMadvaitinSubject: Re: Burning

Triangle - An Experiment

In the book, "In days of Great Peace" written by awestern devotee of

Sri Ramana Maharshi, there areaccounts of mystical experiences the

author wentthrough in places such as you mentioned. However,

theauthor clearly says that none of these ever gave himany lasting

peace nor realization. He eventually wasdrawn towards Sri Ramana

Ashram where he spent 9months during the last mortal days of Sri

RamanaMaharshi where he realized the Advatic experiencefully.Regards,

Anand

/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]

David, I so concur...

 

You wrote:

>>> I'd expand on Mystical Experience (including samadhis) by saying this:

None of it is different from 'ordinary-waking-reality'. Any difference

perceived is truly delusional.<<<

 

Perceived difference is always delusional...

 

Wim (unable to see the difference :-)

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

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

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

[Guest guest]

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Thank you for making this important point as

it highlights the difference in orientation between the Advaita path and Yoga,

at least in its initial stages. Although great sages such as Sri Ramana have

said many times that all mental and psychic experiences and phenomena fall

short of Self-Realization, people are attracted to such things due to inherent

and normal human tendencies (vasanas). The desire to have mental and higher

spiritual experiences and siddhis is fundamentally no different than desire for

wealth, sensuality, power, etc. All such things have the ego as their base, which

in essence is the root desire to hold on to identity (or body in subtle or

gross form). That is not a bad thing. Desire is not a bad thing in itself. It

is what it is. All people who take up the spiritual path experience a variety

of things.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Sri Ramana used to say that in sages who

have realized pure consciousness as their nature, even the most intense

spiritual and psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a ripple. Whereas a

rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the same rock when it falls

into a small pond makes huge waves.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">This should not be taken as criticism of

those who pursue siddhis, take delight in such experiences, and all such

things. Why should they not follow their own nature? People eat the food they

wish, pursue happiness in some form, and fulfill the desires they have because

that is the nature of things.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">In the beginning (see Ganapati Muni’s

statement), it is much easier to visit all the celestial planes and have

visionary experiences then to simply abide in the Heart as Self. At the end,

one does not wish to go anywhere at all. I recall that Ramana Maharshi said one

time that he was curious about siddhis and other planes and such things, but

something in him always said, not there but “Here”, meaning the Heart, where

the consciousness abides in its own nature.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Certain things did happen and siddhis

manifested even with Sri Ramana. But these were spontaneous events.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Love to all

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Harsha

-----Original

Message-----

Anand Natarajan

[harihara.geo ]

Thursday, April 04, 2002

9:03 AM

advaitin

Re: Burning

Triangle - An Experiment

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">In the book, "In days of Great Peace"

written by a

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">western devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi, there are

"Courier New";color:black">accounts of mystical experiences the author went

"Courier New";color:black">through in places such as you mentioned. However,

the

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">author clearly says that none of these ever gave him

"Courier New";color:black">any lasting peace nor realization. He eventually was

"Courier New";color:black">drawn towards Sri Ramana Ashram where he spent 9

"Courier New";color:black">months during the last mortal days of Sri Ramana

"Courier New";color:black">Maharshi where he realized the Advatic experience

"Courier New";color:black">fully.

"Courier New";color:black">Regards,

"Courier New";color:black"> Anand

[Guest guest]

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

> Dear Harsha,

>

> There must be a different way to deal with the issue that you are

commenting

> on in your email.

>

> If one has to mention that:

> >>> ...All such things [mystical experiences] have the ego as their

base,

> which in essence is the root desire to hold on to identity or body

in subtle

> or gross form. *That is not a bad thing.* Desire is not a bad thing

in

> itself. *It is what it is*. <<<

> Then Harsha, what is the meaning really of your message?

 

 

I'll speak for Harsha, Wim;

(he'll correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Harsha's message

has been written with ego at it's base

(and Harsha, if truly honest will freely admit this)

and therefore written with a sense Desire.

(Harsha is well aware that his post eminated from Desire)

 

Personally,

I love the Hell out of Harsha,

so I feel comfortable speaking for him...

(we are not so far apart)

 

Samadhis fall into the realm of mystical experience

(at least so for me)

and so therefore have ego as their base.

 

I'd expand on Mystical Experience (including samadhis)

by saying this:

 

None of it is different

from 'ordinary-waking-reality'.

 

Any difference perceived

is truly delusional.

 

David

(loves the Hell out of Harsha & Wim & Anybody Else)

[Guest guest]

Dear Jody,

 

You wrote:

>>>A mystical experience is like any other experience, no different from

*walking the dog or sitting on the toilet*. I realize there are those who

cherish their experiences as indicating their closeness to God. <snips>

These folk go about believing themselves to be saints and godmen capable of

miraculous powers, etc. They are the first to bring our attention to their

"powers", but when asked to prove them you'll likely get an elaborate

rationization as to why a demonstration is beneath them.

It's called *the emperor's new clothes*.<<<

 

There has to be another way to talk about these issues, Jody. Your follow up

to Harsha's message is of the same nature as your somewhat uneven

interpretation of mystic reality.

Would it not be better to find out the 'mystique of being' by sticking to

Ramana's subjective self-inquiry "Who am I?"... rather than of asking

something like, "Who the heck does the emperor think he is?"

 

Wim

(:Trying to rebuke gently but not succeeding too well. I'd do better walking

the dog, having him go to the toilet and me picking up after him

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

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

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

[Guest guest]

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Thanks Wim for your thoughtful comments.

Have passed them on to Sahajman. For now, I will be channeling my answers

through David Bozzi periodically

12.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;mso-hansi-font-family:

Arial;color:blue;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Wingdings;

font-weight:bold">

Wingdings">J

color:blue;font-weight:bold">.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">You are the best Wim! Welcome back.

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Love

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Harsha

Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

-----Original

Message-----

Wim Borsboom [wim (AT) aurasphere (DOT) org]

Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:30

PM

RE:

Mystical experiences and Self-Realization

Dear Harsha,

There must be a different

way to deal with the issue that you are commenting on in your email.

If one has to mention

that:

windowtext">

>>> ...All

such things [mystical experiences] have the ego as their base, which in essence

is the root desire to hold on to identity or body in subtle or gross form.

*That is not a bad thing.* Desire is not a bad thing in itself. *It is

what it is*. <<<

Then Harsha, what is the

meaning really of your message?

Also, if, as you mention:

>>> Certain

things did happen and siddhis manifested even with Sri Ramana. But these

were *spontaneous* events. <<<

Then again what is the

issue?

windowtext">

Is desire the issue?

That cannot be, as you

say that that per se is not a bad thing,

Are the mystical

experiences the issue?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

Apparently not

when they are... spontaneous as with Ramana (or me for that

matter)... when they don't even make a ripple.

Then what is the issue?

Keeping up the need

for stating *the difference* between advaita and yoga the usual

way, seems to accomplish the following:

1. It negates the basic

tenet behind advaita / non-duality by using juxtaposition (to see a

difference) which is the basis of dualism.

2. It

misunderstands, denies and ignores the basic tenet behind yoga which is union.

Dear Harsha - and this I

write, as you know, with all due respect - if a post such as yours is

warranted, than we need to find a different way to discuss

this topic. Do we need to use traditional means of

discussion that eventually lead to dis-enfranchisement?

We must find a

different way to get together on this, this is a satsangh is it not?

1. This list is about

"Who am I?" Are we not instead finding signs of insidious

solipsism in isolation or entrancement ?

2. Is a 'Satsangh'

not about coming and being together in 'dynamic mutuality and

recognition'?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

In your message you have

used many different words that deal with "mystical experience". When

I go through the usual material that deals in 'objective' ways with

the mystical, there is a great misunderstanding of what really takes place with

the mystic.

windowtext">

In 1963, when I was

19 and self-realized, my friends called me a...

'mystic', I virtually spoke the same words as Ramana, albeit in Dutch :-)

Hmm... interesting

is it not?

windowtext">

What if labels such

as 'mystical' and 'self-realised' point to the same reality?

This is no question

for me, but I suggest that it is something to be mindful about for

those who somehow do not consider themselves to be mystic or

realized...

windowtext">

Wim.

12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">-----Original

Message-----

Harsha

[harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net]

Sunday, May 26, 2002 5:47 AM

advaitin;

Mystical

experiences and Self-Realization

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Thank you for making this

important point as it highlights the difference in orientation between the

Advaita path and Yoga, at least in its initial stages. Although great sages

such as Sri Ramana have said many times that all mental and psychic experiences

and phenomena fall short of Self-Realization, people are attracted to such

things due to inherent and normal human tendencies (vasanas). The desire to

have mental and higher spiritual experiences and siddhis is fundamentally no

different than desire for wealth, sensuality, power, etc. All such things have

the ego as their base, which in essence is the root desire to hold on to

identity (or body in subtle or gross form). That is not a bad thing. Desire is

not a bad thing in itself. It is what it is. All people who take up the spiritual

path experience a variety of things.

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Sri Ramana used to say

that in sages who have realized pure consciousness as their nature, even the

most intense spiritual and psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a

ripple. Whereas a rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the same

rock when it falls into a small pond makes huge waves.

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">This should not be taken

as criticism of those who pursue siddhis, take delight in such experiences, and

all such things. Why should they not follow their own nature? People eat the

food they wish, pursue happiness in some form, and fulfill the desires they

have because that is the nature of things.

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">In the beginning (see

Ganapati Muni’s statement), it is much easier to visit all the celestial planes

and have visionary experiences then to simply abide in the Heart as Self. At

the end, one does not wish to go anywhere at all. I recall that Ramana Maharshi

said one time that he was curious about siddhis and other planes and such

things, but something in him always said, not there but “Here”, meaning the

Heart, where the consciousness abides in its own nature.

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Certain things did happen

and siddhis manifested even with Sri Ramana. But these were spontaneous events.

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Love to all

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold">Harsha

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial"> 

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial"> 

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial">

0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

12.0pt;font-family:Arial">

0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">-----Original

Message-----

Anand Natarajan

[harihara.geo ]

Thursday, April 04, 2002

9:03 AM

advaitin

Re: Burning

Triangle - An Experiment

black;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">In the book, "In days of Great Peace"

written by a

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">western devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi, there are

"Courier New";color:black">accounts of mystical experiences the author went

"Courier New";color:black">through in places such as you mentioned. However,

the

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">author clearly says that none of these ever gave him

"Courier New";color:black">any lasting peace nor realization. He eventually was

"Courier New";color:black">drawn towards Sri Ramana Ashram where he spent 9

"Courier New";color:black">months during the last mortal days of Sri Ramana

"Courier New";color:black">Maharshi where he realized the Advatic experience

"Courier New";color:black">fully.

"Courier New";color:black">Regards,

"Courier New";color:black"> Anand

 

auto;margin-left:1.0in">

auto;margin-left:1.0in">

"Courier New";color:black">/join

mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black">

 

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.

"Courier New";color:black">

"Courier New";color:black">/join

mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black">

 

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.

"Courier New";color:black">

[Guest guest]

Jody wrote:

>>>Precisely. Go beyond your experiences and discover that there is nobody

to have any experiences, nobody to have any powers, nobody to be spiritually

advanced.<<<

 

Hehehe...

That is very humorous...

Hehehe...

 

So TWIMC (that is 'to whom it may concern', which obviously is 'nobody'):

 

Just as nothing cannot exist except conceptually, nobody cannot not exist

except conceptually.

 

Now, that is a sentence of great clarity.

 

Lets see who gets it...???

 

Somebody or nobody?

 

Still laughing, Wim.

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

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

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

[Guest guest]

>>>Just as nothing cannot exist except conceptually, nobody cannot not exist

except conceptually.<<<

 

Oops, one 'not' too many or... maybe not.

Who can tell?

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

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

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

[Guest guest]

, "Harsha" wrote:

 

[snip]

> Sri Ramana used to say that in sages who have realized pure

> consciousness as their nature, even the most intense spiritual

> and psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a ripple.

> Whereas a rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the

> same rock when it falls into a small pond makes huge waves.

 

A mystical experience is like any other experience, no different

from walking the dog or sitting on the toilet. I realize there

are those who cherish their experiences as indicating their

closeness to God, but the fact is that any experience, no matter

how high or low, has nothing to do with the Self or our being

the Self.

 

Our being the Self is always a constant before, during, and after

we pass on. Literally millions of experiences occur during a

lifetime. For the one who seeks to define themselves in terms

of their "higher" consciousness, mystical experiences come to form

the basis of their ego identification. Instead of helping them to

be free of identification, mystical experiences (as interpreted

by those who have them) become their bondage.

 

These folk go about believing themselves to be saints and godmen

capable of miraculous powers, etc. They are the first to bring our

attention to their "powers", but when asked to prove them you'll

likely get an elaborate rationization as to why a demonstration

is beneath them.

 

It's called the emperor's new clothes.

[Guest guest]

I can't make something high without making

something low.

 

If I claim an experience is a mystical experience, then

I also make a nonmystical experience out of something

else I've experienced, or I assume someone else to

be experiencing.

 

If I claim myself or someone else

as a "mystical experiencer" then yet someone

else must be a "worldly experiencer."

 

So it goes.

 

If I notice the above dynamic, the

question arises: what is this when

nothing is elevated over something else, and

nothing is made lower than something else?

 

What is this when no experiencer is being inferred

who could be given priority

over another experiencer --

if no experiencer is being assumed to exist apart --

who could be made into a "mystical experiencer"

or a "worldly experiencer?"

 

What is "this" when conceptual divisions aren't

used to know this in terms of that, and that in

terms of this?

 

Peace,

Dan

 

 

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

> [snip]

>

> > Sri Ramana used to say that in sages who have realized pure

> > consciousness as their nature, even the most intense spiritual

> > and psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a ripple.

> > Whereas a rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the

> > same rock when it falls into a small pond makes huge waves.

>

> A mystical experience is like any other experience, no different

> from walking the dog or sitting on the toilet. I realize there

> are those who cherish their experiences as indicating their

> closeness to God, but the fact is that any experience, no matter

> how high or low, has nothing to do with the Self or our being

> the Self.

>

> Our being the Self is always a constant before, during, and after

> we pass on. Literally millions of experiences occur during a

> lifetime. For the one who seeks to define themselves in terms

> of their "higher" consciousness, mystical experiences come to form

> the basis of their ego identification. Instead of helping them to

> be free of identification, mystical experiences (as interpreted

> by those who have them) become their bondage.

>

> These folk go about believing themselves to be saints and godmen

> capable of miraculous powers, etc. They are the first to bring our

> attention to their "powers", but when asked to prove them you'll

> likely get an elaborate rationization as to why a demonstration

> is beneath them.

>

> It's called the emperor's new clothes.

[Guest guest]

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

 

[snip]

> There has to be another way to talk about these issues, Jody.

> Your follow up to Harsha's message is of the same nature as

> your somewhat uneven interpretation of mystic reality.

 

"Mystic reality" is an oxymoron. We are the Self. There's

nothing mystical about it. Mysticism is the excuse the illusory

self uses to continue its existence under the auspices of

being "spiritual."

> Would it not be better to find out the 'mystique of being'

> by sticking to Ramana's subjective self-inquiry "Who am I?"...

> rather than of asking something like, "Who the heck does the

> emperor think he is?"

 

It's closer to "the emperor doesn't exist along with his

clothes." There is no one to have experiences, no one to have

"powers", no one to be a mystic.

> Wim

> (:Trying to rebuke gently but not succeeding too well. I'd do

> better walking the dog, having him go to the toilet and me

> picking up after him

 

Now you're talking true spirituality.

[Guest guest]

That's an interesting string about experiences and Self-Realization.

Recently I go through several things which may be perhaps

called "mystical experiences" or otherwise - and what I discover at

last ist: forget about! Find out the experiencer - whatever

experiences there are - of whatever quality they may be - whatever

powerfull they may be and showing themselves in their own dominance

ruling the body-mind - it is not worthy to cling too but only worthy

to find out who we really are. "Mystical experiences" and other

experiences happen - that belongs to life and the spiritual process -

but what is of real interest is the question: Who is the experiencer?

Who am I? and find out the one which never changes and is beyond all

experience. So Self-Enquiry is the final way and goal.

 

 

Besides, a welcome to Wim also from my side. Love

Gabriele

 

 

, "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote:

> I can't make something high without making

> something low.

>

> If I claim an experience is a mystical experience, then

> I also make a nonmystical experience out of something

> else I've experienced, or I assume someone else to

> be experiencing.

>

> If I claim myself or someone else

> as a "mystical experiencer" then yet someone

> else must be a "worldly experiencer."

>

> So it goes.

>

> If I notice the above dynamic, the

> question arises: what is this when

> nothing is elevated over something else, and

> nothing is made lower than something else?

>

> What is this when no experiencer is being inferred

> who could be given priority

> over another experiencer --

> if no experiencer is being assumed to exist apart --

> who could be made into a "mystical experiencer"

> or a "worldly experiencer?"

>

> What is "this" when conceptual divisions aren't

> used to know this in terms of that, and that in

> terms of this?

>

> Peace,

> Dan

>

>

> , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

>

> > [snip]

> >

> > > Sri Ramana used to say that in sages who have realized pure

> > > consciousness as their nature, even the most intense spiritual

> > > and psychic experiences and phenomena do not make a ripple.

> > > Whereas a rock dropped in the ocean has hardly any effect, the

> > > same rock when it falls into a small pond makes huge waves.

> >

> > A mystical experience is like any other experience, no different

> > from walking the dog or sitting on the toilet. I realize there

> > are those who cherish their experiences as indicating their

> > closeness to God, but the fact is that any experience, no matter

> > how high or low, has nothing to do with the Self or our being

> > the Self.

> >

> > Our being the Self is always a constant before, during, and after

> > we pass on. Literally millions of experiences occur during a

> > lifetime. For the one who seeks to define themselves in terms

> > of their "higher" consciousness, mystical experiences come to

form

> > the basis of their ego identification. Instead of helping them to

> > be free of identification, mystical experiences (as interpreted

> > by those who have them) become their bondage.

> >

> > These folk go about believing themselves to be saints and godmen

> > capable of miraculous powers, etc. They are the first to bring

our

> > attention to their "powers", but when asked to prove them you'll

> > likely get an elaborate rationization as to why a demonstration

> > is beneath them.

> >

> > It's called the emperor's new clothes.

[Guest guest]

, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> That's an interesting string about experiences and Self-Realization.

> Recently I go through several things which may be perhaps

> called "mystical experiences" or otherwise - and what I discover at

> last ist: forget about! Find out the experiencer - whatever

> experiences there are - of whatever quality they may be - whatever

> powerfull they may be and showing themselves in their own dominance

> ruling the body-mind - it is not worthy to cling too but only worthy

> to find out who we really are. "Mystical experiences" and other

> experiences happen - that belongs to life and the spiritual process -

> but what is of real interest is the question: Who is the experiencer?

> Who am I? and find out the one which never changes and is beyond all

> experience. So Self-Enquiry is the final way and goal.

 

Precisely. Go beyond your experiences and discover that

there is nobody to have any experiences, nobody to have

any powers, nobody to be spiritually advanced.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Usually this dynamic of elevating of some

experiences at the cost of others is a way

to elevate "this experiencER" over other

experiencers. To give priority to this

one here. "I'm better because my

experiences are better, loftier, holier."

 

As you ask, what is this when there is no

better-making, no elevation? One can also

ask, what is this when there is not even

an inference of an experiencer?

 

Dan said it in his signoff - Peace.

 

Not inferring an experiencer either

here or there is not only a matter

of declining to infer one, or deciding not

to, or of letting the impulse to infer an

experiencer fade peacefully away.

 

Inferring an experiencer is also something

that cannot sensibly be done. Such an

inference just doesn't make any sense.

 

Apart from experiences, no separate individual

experiencer can be found.

 

On the other hand, in the midst of experiences no

experiencer can be found either.

 

An experiencer is never experienced.

Everything that one would say goes into

the design and make up of an experiencer

is never anything more than a sight,

sound, feeling, thought. And even less

than a thought. This also goes for the

elevation of "self," the low-making of

others. And so it goes.

 

Going to lunch!

 

--Greg

 

At 03:00 PM 5/28/02 +0000, dan330033 wrote:

>I can't make something high without making

> something low.

>

>If I claim an experience is a mystical experience, then

> I also make a nonmystical experience out of something

> else I've experienced, or I assume someone else to

> be experiencing.

>

>If I claim myself or someone else

> as a "mystical experiencer" then yet someone

> else must be a "worldly experiencer."

>

>So it goes.

>

>If I notice the above dynamic, the

> question arises: what is this when

> nothing is elevated over something else, and

> nothing is made lower than something else?

>

>What is this when no experiencer is being inferred

> who could be given priority

> over another experiencer --

> if no experiencer is being assumed to exist apart --

> who could be made into a "mystical experiencer"

> or a "worldly experiencer?"

>

>What is "this" when conceptual divisions aren't

> used to know this in terms of that, and that in

> terms of this?

>

>Peace,

>Dan

[Guest guest]

> Going to lunch!

>

> --Greg

 

You go, dude!

 

And who says there's no such thing

as a free lunch?!

 

:-)

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

>>>Just as nothing cannot exist except conceptually, nobody cannot not exist

except conceptually.<<<

Oops, one 'not' too many or... maybe not.

Who can tell?

Not me, not me. Is there a me? Maybe... Maybe not. Then who is

sending this note? "Curioser and curioser," as Alice is said to have

remarked.

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Apart from experiences, no separate individual experiencer can be found.

On the other hand, in the midst of experiences no experiencer can be found either.

An experiencer is never experienced.

Everything that one would say goes into the design and make up of an

experiencer is never anything more than a sight, sound, feeling,

thought. And even less

than a thought. This also goes for the elevation of "self," the

low-making of others. And so it goes.

Maybe. I'd like to embrace this in its entirety, but somehow cannot.

I think language begins failing at this level of

description--reality.

I think experiencer is akin to observor--as in particle physics. And

from that position, the act of observation is both real and of

critical importance. Any two persons can observe the same "events"

or supposed realities, but their perspectives must always be slightly

or even widely different--never identical--as can also be stated about

their "histories" past experience or memory that is brought to bear.

We cannot imagine that if Sri Aurobindo and Adolf Hitler both

"observed" the same state of momentary Spiritual Attainment (I know,

I know, a far fetched extreme proposition), that they would then find

the same words or interpretations to describe the state. There might

be some common areas, but all else is filtered by individual

coloration. And that is the main point. Since the objective event

of "attainment" is posited as neutral from the observor ( an ongoing

event that not everyone sees at the same time, if at all) but that

the observor is altered by the event...which everyone says is

so...then clearly the observor is part of this event. In fact, in

physics, the act of observation can alter the outcome of the event.

Note that. Therefore, I think it important to say that not only does

the event alter the observor, but that the reverse is always true,

too.

This gives rise to a great deal more value to the concept that

individuals can shape the nature of the universe, rather than the

universe merely existing in a state of eternal fixed "eventness"

where it is just going on and on...and we just chance upon it from a

window seat.

Give it a bit more reflection...

I think you will find the concept has great merit.

But then again, I am just a humble meatball stewing in my own sauces...

Hugs,

Blessings,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Precisely. Go beyond your experiences and discover that

there is nobody to have any experiences, nobody to have

any powers, nobody to be spiritually advanced.

Especially in New Jersey...

Hugs,

Zenbob