Guest guest Posted December 24, 1998 Report Share Posted December 24, 1998 Namaste. Some random thoughts as I sit down and reflect on and contemplate on Brahman. Brahman pervades all, from the most inanimate rock kingdom to the progressively most caitanya, the plant, the animal and human kingdoms. Brahman pervades, not only what we see, but what we perceive from the other sense organs, what we hear, what we smell, touch, feel, think. Thus, it is all Brahman, without doubt. Brahman is nishcala, no movement, no change hence no reference point about which we can define "other" things relatively. Coming to the relative world, and trying to define the relative world, Brahman being nishcala, it is only natural to conclude that the more turbulent the entity is, the farther away from the Reality it is. The most turbulent of all in the relative world, is the human mind. The most steady of what we see is the rock. Sometime I wonder if we have our closeness to Brahman the other way round (putting the rocks farthest away from Brahman and the humans as the closest to realization). Anything that is pervaded by Brahman is caitanyaghana, full of caitanya. If we do not see caitanya in a rock, it reflects more on our inability and our ignorance rather than the Reality. Our body is a corpse. Not only the body, everything is a corpse without invasion by Brahman. The body is a corpse even when there is life in us, or even when life has departed. In both cases, Brahman still pervades the body. So, what is the difference between a "dead" and a "live" person? In my view, nothing. Brahman still pervades the body in both cases. So, where is the feeling coming from, that the live entity is full of caitanya, the dead is inert and ready to be cremated and the rock kingdom is the most caitanya-rahita? This can be traced back again to our ignorance and our perception of the relative world. But if we know everything to be Brahman "sarvam khalv idam Brahma", the classification of kingdoms (based on caitanya) and classification of life and death will cease. We see a permanent time-less nishcalatvam. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14 When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here. ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 1998 Report Share Posted December 24, 1998 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > Namaste. Some random thoughts as I sit down and reflect on and > contemplate on Brahman. > > Brahman pervades all, from the most inanimate rock kingdom to the > progressively most caitanya, the plant, the animal and human kingdoms. > Brahman pervades, not only what we see, but what we perceive from the > other sense organs, what we hear, what we smell, touch, feel, think. > Thus, it is all Brahman, without doubt. > > Brahman is nishcala, no movement, no change hence no reference point > about which we can define "other" things relatively. Coming to the > relative world, and trying to define the relative world, Brahman being > nishcala, it is only natural to conclude that the more turbulent the > entity is, the farther away from the Reality it is. The most turbulent > of all in the relative world, is the human mind. The most steady of what > we see is the rock. Sometime I wonder if we have our closeness to Brahman > the other way round (putting the rocks farthest away from Brahman and > the humans as the closest to realization). > > Anything that is pervaded by Brahman is caitanyaghana, full of caitanya. > If we do not see caitanya in a rock, it reflects more on our inability > and our ignorance rather than the Reality. > > Our body is a corpse. Not only the body, everything is a corpse without > invasion by Brahman. The body is a corpse even when there is life in us, > or even when life has departed. In both cases, Brahman still pervades the > body. So, what is the difference between a "dead" and a "live" person? > In my view, nothing. Brahman still pervades the body in both cases. So, > where is the feeling coming from, that the live entity is full of caitanya, > the dead is inert and ready to be cremated and the rock kingdom is the > most caitanya-rahita? This can be traced back again to our ignorance and > our perception of the relative world. But if we know everything to be > Brahman "sarvam khalv idam Brahma", the classification of kingdoms (based > on caitanya) and classification of life and death will cease. We see a > permanent time-less nishcalatvam. > i would say the criteria for atmasakshatkara (thus securing sahaja samadhi in turiya), is twofold: being empty and awake. it has been described as sushupti-jagrat. the rock, likened to dreamless sleep, is the [non-awake] prajna state, likened thus to the nirguna brahman. the [guna-ridden] human mind is the wakeful or jagrat state, likened thus to saguna brahman. both states have to be integrated in order to achive atmasakshatkara, which only the human is capable of. the human has, within its totality, also the jada or inert body, likened to the rock. the rock does not have the capacity to be awake, however, despite representing the nirguna brahamn. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 1998 Report Share Posted December 24, 1998 On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, f. maiello wrote: > "f. maiello" <egodust > > > i would say the criteria for atmasakshatkara > (thus securing sahaja samadhi in turiya), > is twofold: being empty and awake. it > has been described as sushupti-jagrat. > > the rock, likened to dreamless sleep, is > the [non-awake] prajna state, likened thus > to the nirguna brahman. > > the [guna-ridden] human mind is the wakeful or > jagrat state, likened thus to saguna brahman. > > both states have to be integrated in order > to achive atmasakshatkara, which only the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > human is capable of. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How can we say this? What evidence is there to say so affirmatively? > the human has, within > its totality, also the jada or inert body, > likened to the rock. the rock does not have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the capacity to be awake, however, despite ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > representing the nirguna brahamn. > > namaste > The above comment is well taken and may very well be correct. But, how do we know that the rock does not have the capacity to be awake? Or in which state it is in (if we can ascribe the same states to the other kingdoms as the humans)? Further, is it not the human that is saying this from its own perspective ? Can the time scales and the response phenomenon be on a different scale so that we may be missing the point altogether? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 1998 Report Share Posted December 26, 1998 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, f. maiello wrote: > > > the human has, within > > its totality, also the jada or inert body, > > likened to the rock. the rock does not have > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > the capacity to be awake, however, despite > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > representing the nirguna brahamn. > > > > namaste > > > > The above comment is well taken and may very well be > correct. But, how do we know that the rock does not > have the capacity to be awake? Or in which state it > is in (if we can ascribe the same states to the other > kingdoms as the humans)? Further, is it not the human > that is saying this from its own perspective ? Can the > time scales and the response phenomenon be on a different > scale so that we may be missing the point altogether? > of course i agree. the matter concerns whether one is referencing the relative or absolute state. the former speaks of paths, karma, bondage and liberation, jivas and mukthas. the latter speaks of anirvachaniya, where not only answers have no relevance, neither do questions. satchidananda is. nothing more need be said about it. if we can agree on this, then no further qualifications are necessary as to what Self-realization is or implies, or who or what has it or gets it. further, this goes to show how utterly thin is the line that separates one from what one automatically already is. more: how amazing is the creative generator of the relentless diversionary mind...that it could fabricate such a colossal dark veil out of sheer nothingness! it's not a matter of our fighting our way out of a paper mind-bag, it's a matter of finding out such a bag never really existed in the first place! therefore, what am i talking for? why does this need to be said at all? here illustrates the closed loop of the vyavaharika. it has no end...until it is seen for what it really is: brahman's lila. let us therefore *play* the witness. for, we may allude to its purpose thus. how else to effectively meet its manifestation (which is only mind-stuff)? so, we can say, another word for vyavaharika is mind. or leela. or saguna brahman. yet, its master trick in avarana or vikshepa deals with any pull toward exclusivity, as being anything separate and apart from its substrate brahman. shaanthiprem 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.