Reply to b

[Guest guest]

>I try to keep the frame of reference in either the relative or the

absolute sense, one or the other. I realize there are many ways of

understanding this distinction. I do not know if I could relate mine

without great difficulty.

....Nevertheless, Dear Bobby, i appreciate you taking the effort to

try, as much as i enjoy considering these things with you.

we always hear the so-called absolute being distinguished from the so-

called relative, as if there were two realities. doesn't that strike

anybody as odd, or is it just me? conceptually, of course, we can

imagine all sorts of things, but is it true?

i suppose this is what i have been trying to get at in this

conversation -- the way belief actually superimposes an "extra head"

on the one we've already got.

------------

Dear Robert:

The relative-absolute issue is an issue of concepts. Mistaking that

issue for one reality (or two) is confounding the abstract with the

concrete (confounding the idea for that which it represents).

Another common referent switch which is difficult to catch when not

looking for it is the switch between the general and the specific. (

Race hatred and prejudice of all sorts is the result) All of these

are taught in an effort to shed light on sophistry in the hopes of

getting closer to having one head.-bg

------------

In other words, if we believe there is

some kind of distinction or differentiation, then Voila! -- heaven &

earth are split asunder. now, are they actually asunder, except in

the imagination? can "what is" be divided?

-----------

The distinction is not in the belief but the conviction that the

universe is split. I am me and I see the Universe out there.

Dualism begins with the split between "I" and the universe, the

observer and the observed. Once this split is made any thought

implies the thinker. Any observation implies a split between the

observer and the observed. One can't just say or think everything is

one and eradicate dualism. It is dualism to think the thought. -bg

-----------

just so, it seems perception is referenced to some center, or sense

of self. we develop an image of ourselves, as well as conditioned

beliefs about the way things work, and then we spend our life trying

to manipulate this image to arrive at an ideal of happiness, such as

moving to Kuaui, or becoming a Bodhisattva and saving more images of

ourself, or whatever we arbitrarily accept as the dues we must pay to

be happy. we develop expectations, imagine we are "supplicants"

pursuing some holy grail of ideal love, and of course we have so many

variations, which usually start with an innocent misunderstanding

about identity, about who we are (as if we are some independent

doer),

--------

The self image of the supplicant is one of love for the perineal

virtues. It is no more imaginary than believing you are sitting

before that monitor.-bg

--------

and then we are off and running with relatives and absolutes

flying all over the place! what a pain in the ass it all turns out to

be!

-------

This is an indictment of an attempt to organize thoughts and maintain

referents. Perhaps you will explain why that is a good thing.-bg

------

>Ramana wrote devotional songs as if he were a devotee. He took, in

my terminology, the relative viewpoint in doing that.

..... the expression of Truth in the form of Ramana is seamless, as It

is in all. we add something extra -- some distinction where none

actually exists. it is like trying to draw a line in the ocean to

divide one nation's domain from another's. the so-called absolute is

writing the devotional songs to itself, for there is only God.

----------

No boundaries is a significant contribution to understanding Advaita.

I reccommend anyone to read the book by that name by Ken Wilber. You

say again that one cannot make a distinction between relative and

absolute ideas, that they are 'so-called' distinctions, by saying

"there is only God". Why is this distinction not God also? Why is

only the idea of indivisibilty the only one worthy of discussion.

You must remember that I was trying to describe my distinguishing the

relative from the absolute with the use of the example of Ramana

writing from the supplicant's view. I don't disagree about God

writing devotional songs to him\her self. He deliberately took the

relative viewpoint for the sake of his devotees.-bg

----------

"The present difficulty is that man thinks that he is the doer. But

it is a mistake. It is Self which does everything and man is only a

tool. If he accepts that position he is free from troubles; otherwise

he courts them." RM

>About the 'instrument of seeing' being the Self also. The definition

of either of these within the framework of seeking liberation

(regardless of how much that seeking may hinder one)has no meaning

without the other. One would not speak of the Self if one did not

feel it lost. It would not occur to one. To say they are the same

would be an error in that relative framework.

.....Ramana spoke of the Self, and yet he didn't seem to feel it lost,

anymore than i feel the need to go looking for my head. it would not

occur to me. to say that i am separate from my head would be quite

humorous, unless of course i was Marie Antoinette.

----------------------

It is well known that Ramana never spoke of the Self except when

brought up by the supplicant. -bg

----------------------

>Now, they are obviously the same if seen in the 'absolute' sense.

For instance, one sees a snake that turns out to be a rope. The

tendency to see a snake is still there the next time one comes on

that rope, only probably lessened by experience. Therefore one can

say the snake, although imaginary by comparison to the rope in the

relative sense, still exists in the same way the rope exists in the

absolute sense. The potential for the rope being snake is always

there just as is the potential for any illusion. Therefore the

illusion exists in the absolute sense.

..... Curious about spiritual things, a greeb once asked Ixnay

what was really meant by the words:

"We are all immersed in an illusion here on this earth, and in truth

nothing has ever really happened".

Ixnay threw a finger ring into a nearby river and said:

"Bring the ring back to me and then you will know."

So the greeb dived into the river. The instant he entered the water,

he lost all consciousness of who he really was. He surfaced, got out

and wandered around the area. Eventually, he found a small town and

got himself a few acres and took up farming. He was intelligent, and

over the next year or so, he thought of many ways to farm better and

eventually he became the best farmer in the county and was very

prosperous.

He married the Mahub's daughter and they had many children. He

traveled far and learned even more and became a great expert on

agricultural methods throughout the country. When the country went to

war, he joined the army and became an officer. His children grew, and

though they had the usual ups and downs and one died while still a

child - the others did well and prospered.

One day, he was walking beside the river thinking about his

interesting life. Although he was successful and had everything life

could offer, he still was not completely happy or satisfied.

Something was tugging at him, just below consciousness, and it

continued to bother him, but he had no idea what it was.

It had been raining a great deal in the last week and suddenly the

bank gave way under his feet. He became submerged in the swollen

rushing river. His eyes spied something gold in the bed of the river

and he was drawn to it. He grabbed the shiny ring and surfaced. For

what seemed ages, he battled the surging waters and eventually heaved

himself from the water with tremendous difficulty onto the bank.

The instant his feet touched the land, he remembered with crystal

clarity who he really was. He remembered asking Ixnay the question

about all that seems to happen being only an illusion, and then

diving into the water. He also remembered all his years as a farmer,

soldier, father, husband and successful greeb. But even as he thought

of those experiences, they began to fade, just as a dream fades when

one awakens.

He turned and there was Ixnay smiling at him.

Handing the ring over to Ixnay, the greeb smiled back and said,

"That was an excellent answer."

LoveAlways,

b

---------

Your stance on the principles of Advaita as far as I can tell are

entirely appropriate for you. You are free to challenge my ideas on

it as much as you like.

I regret my pedantic style of writing. It is the best I can do. I

mainly try to be succinct and present the idea quickly.

I can't write harmonically the way you and Mazie and Eric A. and Al

and David and ZB and Harsha and Jan and White Wolf and just about

everybody but me can. (and Hafiz and Lalla) So I will post some

colors in a painting I finished today that hopefully will imply the

harmony I have with your ideas wherever my inept writing may have

indicated otherwise.

Love

Bobby G.

Attachment: (image/jpeg) Early Hollyhocks.jpg [not stored]

[Guest guest]

, Bigbobgraham@a... wrote:

>So I will post some colors in a painting I finished today that

hopefully will imply the harmony....

 

 

.....Dear Bobby,

 

your artistry is harmony beyond words!

 

Thank God for you!

 

as for absolutes and relatives, let's let others

chew those jaw breakers, while we stroll off down that

path of hollyhocks and your effulgent sunshine.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

, "mazie_l" <sraddha54@h...> wrote:

> , Bigbobgraham@a... wrote:

>

> >So I will post some colors in a painting I finished today that

> hopefully will imply the harmony....

>

>

> ....Dear Bobby,

>

> your artistry is harmony beyond words!

>

> Thank God for you!

>

> as for absolutes and relatives, let's let others

> chew those jaw breakers, while we stroll off down that

> path of hollyhocks and your effulgent sunshine.

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

 

Good idea b