Answers vs Conclusions (from File - )

[Guest guest]

Hi,

In private discussion with another discussion group member he made an

interesting remark to me:

 

When seeking and practicing, and in studying the experiences of

others in the sutras and writing and in even records of current

experiences and teaching it is important to recognize the difference

between "answers" and "conclusions".

 

As I have thought about that remark, I have realized that "answers"

are the direct results of practice, and may be uniquely personal for

the practitioner. "Conclusions" would seem to be the principles or

statements DERIVED from the "answers". It is easy for these two

things to be confused.

 

As I have searched for "Who am I?" and waited in silence for the

answer, many realizations have occurred. The most recent of which was

a strange sort of awareness in which "I" was part (not separate) of a

sea of molecules and atoms. There were no objects to be

distinguished. Jus a sea of molecular energies, none more important

or valuable than another; it was all pulsing and vibrating with

an "awareness-identity" of all-together-oneness. The best analogy I

have for this is poor but will have to do: In English the words are

separate and strung together to make sentences and meanings. We hear

the words basically one at a time. I am in a place where I need to

learn Spanish and have had much trouble because of the rapidity of

native Spanish speakers -- and then I got it -- it sounds fast to my

ears conditioned for separateness -- the native speakers run their

words all together with little or no separation between the words.

Their speech is like a running river, slow speech is for emphasis

only. Well, the point is that this molecular field feeling awareness

was like that kind of a flowing (sort of).

 

Now for me at that time, the awareness WAS the answer.

For me to take the next step and "conclude" that what I was aware of

was one of the views of Brahman, the Infinite All, the Absolute, and

to further conclude that therefore there is no "self", is not an

answer but is a conclusion -- subject to belief and faith.

 

The "conclusions" become "doctrine" and "dogma" eventually. To be

a "good" Buddhist one must absolutely agree with the three or

four "Dharma Seals". To be a "Non-Dualist" one must agree with the

whole view of Brahman-Atman, and reading the writings or the

teachings tends to "freeze" conclusions for those who have not gotten

the answers yet.

 

Reading Poonja's teachings, in THE TRUTH IS, he attempts to keep the

practice separate from beliefs or conclusions, yet the cultural

context from which he come requires a constant use of the glossary,

or the learning of much of the "jargon" he uses. Reading Ramana

Maharshi's teaching is very confusing in that in one moment he is

focussed on the practice, and yet he is clearly coming out of the

Shivite context of Advaita Vedanta including the need to not only

handle "conclusions" passed down for hundreds, maybe thousands, of

years, and therefore the jargon coming from the Sanskrit but also the

Tamil. The follower is pointed into the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga

Sutras, and other works such as the Ribhu Gita.

 

So much time is spent on just learning the words and the maps that

one is busy learning about the "conclusions" of the "masters" and

measuring one's own "answers" and "experiences" by the "conclusions"

of others. If I don't "get" it the same way the "master" did, then I

am not on the "right", "correct" path and practice. So I go to

the "guru" and have to measure up to his/her "answers"

and "conclusions" till I find my own somehow in the midst of all that.

 

The best I can get for now is

 

Conclusion = a definition or a stated principle, a quotation from

another

 

Answer = an experience, or description of a direct awareness, or an

expression of what is "found" such as a poem or song or an artwork.

 

Kheyala, for instance, is giving us her experiences without telling

us what to do with them.

Mazie, for instance, is giving us her experiences as poetry in wild

abandonment, clearly from the heart.

 

I see these as answers. They make a statement, ask a question, and

issue an invitation:

 

"This is what I have found. What have you found? Come let us share."

 

And this is what Harsha has just said in another way.

 

Thanks for listening. I would be interested in response to what I

have just shared. Does this distinction make sense? Or am I just

babbling again?

 

John L.

 

, wrote:

>

> This spiritual discussion group is an open Satsang and is blessed

by Sri Ramana Maharshi, the great Jnani Sage of Arunachala.

a is in the best tradition of a joyous spiritual

fellowship for facilitating the Recognition of the Eternal Reality

that is One's Own Self. "I Am That!" This is the uncompromising,

simple, and yet Radical Truth proclaimed in a variety of ways by the

ancient and modern Sages of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

In Advaita Vedanta, the highest teaching emphasizes the complete

identity of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul. In Tibetan

Buddhism, Dzogchen is considered the supreme teaching and represents

the nondual focus on one's innate wakefulness. How beautiful the

variety of expressions in so many different traditions! We embrace

this variety with great joy and in fellowship in a.

>

> No religion or teacher or tradition has a monopoly on the Essential

Truth of Reality which is Our Own Nature. In this context,

a focuses on the aspirations and experiences of

individuals on the spiritual path. Everyone interested in any of the

Shiva and Shakti traditions, and the related yogic and tantric paths

as well as those practicing primarily the cognitive methods of the

pure nondual teachings of great Jnanis such as Ramana Maharshi are

welcome to join. The discussions are typically expected to focus on

Self-Realization, Kundalini Shakti and Its Manifestations, God-

Realization, the Goddess, Enlightenment, and various types of

Samadhis (Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa). Discussion of various teachers

and teachings can also be enriching as long as there is mutual

respect and a feeling of amity in the conversation. Humor and poetry

and other artistic expressions of the spiritual life are encouraged

and supported. May God Bless everyone with Peace, Joy, and

Understanding. May we all nourish and heal each other in the spirit

of Compassion, Wisdom and Love. OM Shanti, Shanti, Shanti. Peace to

all living beings.

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

The phrase "it is cold" is an example of an implicit conclusion:

Here, it means a temperature of 17C or less whereas in Siberia,

the same temperature causes natives to remark "it is hot".

 

Photons can act as particles or waves but not simultaneously.

That is an observation and the remark "photons are neither particles

nor waves" a conclusion, be it a logical one, and the label "energy" doesn't

change that. The observation that no thing can be truly known, only

properties and behavior can be observed, could be called a fundamental

property of all manifestation. A conclusion, be it a logical one

(observations do not leave an alternative).

If the above holds for what can be observed,

how about what can't be observed, "you"?

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hi,

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

They suggest that an "observation" requires an "observation realm";

that is, a "fact" depends on its environment and the observer must

also exist in that same factual realm.

The "material" fact requires a material "observer", a "self";

a "dream" fact requires a "dreamer", a "dream self".

 

Do "facts", "observations" and "observers" exist in the absolute, in

Brahman?

And is the answer to that question a "fact", an "observation", or

a "conclusion"?

Further, does the answer have any meaning in/to a Samsaric observer?

If not, for whom or what does it have meaning?

 

Geez, there goes that white rabbit down that rabbit hole again!

 

John L.

 

, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

> Hi John,

>

> The phrase "it is cold" is an example of an implicit conclusion:

> Here, it means a temperature of 17C or less whereas in Siberia,

> the same temperature causes natives to remark "it is hot".

>

> Photons can act as particles or waves but not simultaneously.

> That is an observation and the remark "photons are neither particles

> nor waves" a conclusion, be it a logical one, and the

label "energy" doesn't

> change that. The observation that no thing can be truly known,

only

> properties and behavior can be observed, could be called a

fundamental

> property of all manifestation. A conclusion, be it a logical one

> (observations do not leave an alternative).

> If the above holds for what can be observed,

> how about what can't be observed, "you"?

>

> Jan

[Guest guest]

on 8/8/02 3:12 PM, johnrloganis at johnrloganis wrote:

> Hi,

> Thank you for your thoughts.

>

> They suggest that an "observation" requires an "observation realm";

> that is, a "fact" depends on its environment and the observer must

> also exist in that same factual realm.

> The "material" fact requires a material "observer", a "self";

> a "dream" fact requires a "dreamer", a "dream self".

>

> Do "facts", "observations" and "observers" exist in the absolute, in

> Brahman?

> And is the answer to that question a "fact", an "observation", or

> a "conclusion"?

> Further, does the answer have any meaning in/to a Samsaric observer?

> If not, for whom or what does it have meaning?

>

> Geez, there goes that white rabbit down that rabbit hole again!

>

> John L.

=============

 

Yes, and we must all agree on what the rules are...but first can we agree on

what we are? We are....oh shit , I lost it...what is it we are again? Love?

 

What *is* that?

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

On 8/9/02 at 1:12 AM johnrloganis wrote:

 

ºHi,

ºThank you for your thoughts.

º

ºThey suggest that an "observation" requires an "observation realm";

ºthat is, a "fact" depends on its environment and the observer must

ºalso exist in that same factual realm.

ºThe "material" fact requires a material "observer", a "self";

ºa "dream" fact requires a "dreamer", a "dream self".

 

In nirvikalpa samadhi, human functioning (including observation) is suspended

hence when returning to the senses again, knowledge is about that suspension.

It is analogous to the situation that energy and space aren't separated (one

can't be without the other) yet aren't the same.

º

ºDo "facts", "observations" and "observers" exist in the absolute, in

ºBrahman?

 

The absolute isn't a container - it is at the core of all observation,

yet neither is the process of observation nor is separated from it.

Manifested life is continuous movement (change) - whether concerning

birth & death of mind-bodies or thermal vibration of molecules.

Change can only be observed when "something" is unchanging.

 

ºAnd is the answer to that question a "fact", an "observation", or

ºa "conclusion"?

ºFurther, does the answer have any meaning in/to a Samsaric observer?

ºIf not, for whom or what does it have meaning?

 

An answer can be a description based on observation.

The Samsaric observer doesn't have a meaning: matter

is partaking in a play of stimulus and response, irrespective

the degree of organization, whether a hydrogen atom or a horse.

Any meaning is given and as such is utilitarian, it won't change

the color of the sun or the distance to the moon. Given meaning

for instance shows through adjectives :-)

º

ºGeez, there goes that white rabbit down that rabbit hole again!

º

ºJohn L.

 

The mind's equivalent of Brownian movement, a play of tendencies.

The term "nirvana" often gets translated with "making cool by blowing".

Cooling improves functioning of the Hubble telescope too, an increase

in temperature corresponds to more noise.

 

Out of nothing came a spider, gobbling up this tread, then disappeared into the

void again,

 

Jan

º

º, "ecirada" <janb@a...> wrote:

º> Hi John,

º>

º> The phrase "it is cold" is an example of an implicit conclusion:

º> Here, it means a temperature of 17C or less whereas in Siberia,

º> the same temperature causes natives to remark "it is hot".

º>

º> Photons can act as particles or waves but not simultaneously.

º> That is an observation and the remark "photons are neither particles

º> nor waves" a conclusion, be it a logical one, and the

ºlabel "energy" doesn't

º> change that. The observation that no thing can be truly known,

ºonly

º> properties and behavior can be observed, could be called a

ºfundamental

º> property of all manifestation. A conclusion, be it a logical one

º> (observations do not leave an alternative).

º> If the above holds for what can be observed,

º> how about what can't be observed, "you"?

º>

º> Jan

º

º

º

º/join

º

º

º

º

º

ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

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

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

ºSelf-Knowledge, spont

ºaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

º

º

º

ºYour use of is subject to