Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Dearest Lady Joy, Do yu have further comments on the following question and answer? ##### D.: How can the seer be the origin? M.: In all cases of illusion, only the seer is found to be the cause of all of them. When nacre is seen to be silver, the material cause is no other than the seer; the same is the case with all dream-visions for they have their origin in the dreamer only. Similarly with the illusion of the world of the waking state, the seer must be the cause. ###### All the seers living in the world who know English will read your post as it is even though they may interpret it differently according to the state of their knowledge, emotional state, etc. In that case, it means that all the people in the world have the same state of cognition of the post as it is in English. Here, every one agrees and so there is a common cognition but when it comes to interpreting the world , they differ. Why? How is this congruence and difference manipulated in creation? On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 Lady Joyce wrote : > >End of last post #16 > >54. D.: Do these three - Being, Knowledge and Bliss >form the qualities or the nature of the Self? >M.: These are not qualities but the very Self. Just as heat, >light, and redness form the nature of fire and are not its qualities, >so also Being, Knowledge and Bliss are the nature of the Self. > >================================================= > >55. D.: If the Self has three forms as Being, Knowledge > and Bliss, are there then three selves? > M.: No. It is only one. Just as the fire showing forth as heat, > light and redness, is not three but only one, or water appearing as > coldness, fluidity and taste is only one, so also the Self shining > forth as Being-Knowledge-Bliss is not three but only one. > >56-58. D.: If the Self is only one, how can It be said to be >'all permeating'? >M.: It is correct to say that the Self, being only One, is all >permeating, because It is all knowing, It, as Knowledge, can >permeate all. > >D.: Being the inmost Self aware of the five sheaths of the >body, can It be all knowing? >M.: Yes. It can. The whole universe made up of the five >elements, their combinations and mutations is seen by Itself >and by no other. Being insentient, the others cannot know. >Otherwise the insentient like a pot etc., should be knowing. >But it is not so. Only It knows all of them but they do not >know It. It is the All knower. > >D.: The Self perceives only such things as are within the >ken of the senses and not those beyond. Where does It perceive >Mt. Meru or Heaven? >M.: It knows all. In the Self which is but the Ether of >Knowledge, all that is non-self i.e., insentient, appears in both >manners, as perceived or unperceived. Just as in the Ether of >Knowledge and not elsewhere, the home, lands, village, town and >country seem perceived by the senses, so also things beyond the >senses such as Mt. Meru or heaven appear as unperceived by them. > >D.: Can anything unperceived by the senses appear at all? >M.: Yes, it can. Though non-existent like the son of a barren >woman, yet in the Ether of Knowledge, the home etc., appear >as objects of perception, because the latencies of the mind present >themselves so. In the same manner, though unreal and >unperceived, Meru etc., are fancied by the mind and appear in >the Ether of Knowledge. > >D.: How? >M.: Before the witnessing consciousness in dreams the >mental phenomena present themselves as objects of perception >such as the home etc., and also others beyond perception like >heaven etc. In the same way they do so in the waking state too. >Otherwise one cannot say "I do not know heaven, Meru etc." >However one says "I do not know heaven, Meru etc." This >means that heaven, Meru etc., appear as objects unperceived by >the senses. Thus the Self which knows all the insentient nonself, >like Mt. Meru etc., is this Self only. >If not found in all (everywhere) but seen only within, as >the inner Self witnessing the five sheaths, how can It know all? >Certainly It cannot do so. In itself the mind fancies things far >and near, perceptible and imperceptible, known and unknown. >As their substratum the Self runs through and knows them all. >The Self is thus all-pervading. Therefore the same Self only is >in all and there can be no doubt of this. > >59. D.: Should the Self be all-pervading, It must be >associated with all and therefore tainted. >M.: No. Like the all-permeating ether, It is impartite and >therefore unassociated. Not only untainted like the ether, but >also surpassing it, the Self remains as the Ether of Consciousness. >Therefore the srutis say "This Purusha is certainly untainted." > >60. D.: Being unassociated and thus untainted, beyond >all, separate and indifferent, the Self must be imperfect. >M.: No. There exists nothing different nor similar to It; >there are no parts in It. It remains undifferentiated externally >and internally. It is Perfection. Though all-filling yet It remains >unassociated like the ether. > >D.: How can It be all-permeating and yet impartite? >M.: Not here nor there, but all-pervading, It is undivided >in space. Not now, nor then, but ever-present, It is undivided >in time. There is nothing beside the Self, It is the All-Self or the >very being of everything; therefore It is undivided by anything. >It remains thus undivided by any or all these three, all-filling >and perfect. Thus Its Perfection is proved. > >61. D.: Because, all-pervading like the ether, the Self fills >all, It must be changeful. >M.: No. Being the witness of all created elements, ether >etc., that undergo changes, such as existence, birth, growth, >transformation, decay and death, the Self cannot Itself be >changeful. Otherwise like the other things It would be >changing; then It must be born, grow and die away. Thus It >must fall into the category of insentient things. If insentient, >It cannot at all be aware. On the contrary, It is known always >to remain as the witness of the birth, growth and decay of all >the universe. It is also impartite. Therefore It must be free > from changes. > >62-63. D.: To say that the Self is free from changes implies >the existence of non-self which is changing. Then the Self cannot >be 'non-dual' and duality must result. >M.: No. There exists nothing besides the Self. It is 'nondual'. >If the non-self is not different from the Self, there cannot >be duality. > >D.: How can the non-self be the Self and not separate > from the Self? >M.: The Self is the origin of all. The effect cannot be >different from its cause. We do not see them totally different > from each other. Being the cause of all, the Self is identical with >all. There can be nothing different from It. > >64-66. D.: How can the Self be the origin of all? >M.: Being the seer of all, It is the origin of all. > >D.: How can the seer be the origin? >M.: In all cases of illusion, only the seer is found to be the >cause of all of them. When nacre is seen to be silver, the material >cause is no other than the seer; the same is the case with all >dream-visions for they have their origin in the dreamer only. >Similarly with the illusion of the world of the waking state, the >seer must be the cause. > >============================= >Taken from Advaita Bhoda Deepika >as published by Sri Ramanasramam >Tiruvannamalai 2002. > >To be continued... > >You can download at >http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/downloads/downloads.htm > >Read postings to date on >http://www.love-yoga.com/Ramana/Advaita_Bhoda/Index.htm > > > > > > >/join > > > > > >"Love itself is the actual form of God." > >Sri Ramana > >In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > ><*> > / > ><*> > > ><*> Your > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.