Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 dear advaitins, One of my long-term goals in joining this list was going to be the comparison of the teachings of shankara with those of nisargadatta/ramesh balsekar. I hadn't planned to bring the subject up for a few months, until I knew more of Shankara's teaching, but since the subject has already been broached I would like to go ahead and pursue it. I met Ramesh in 1987 and spent 10 plus days with him at a retreat in the desert in California. I then met him again two years later for another retreat. I have profound respect for him and his teaching. Nisargadatta was no fool and he left his mantle to Ramesh for very good reason. I really had no doubt about his (Ramesh's) being a gnani but he had other qualities as well. For one thing, he had about as brilliant a mind as you'd ever want to meet in this life. ( As was learned to the dismay of any and all who came to cross swords with him). At that time you could interact with him informally and I found him, when not teaching, to be the embodiment of kindness and compassion. I thought he looked like a retired neurosurgeon, a combination of intelligence and indefinable will power. He was a very considerate grandfatherly figure but, upon taking his seat as teacher, transformed into an extremely stern philosopher who wouldn't hesitate to put you through the meat grinder if you chose to debate him. All that said, his teaching disturbed and depressed me (which may not be a bad thing). His teaching on reincarnation was really just the tip of the iceberg. I will now state the basic tenets of his teachings (as I understand them) and would like for people well versed in Shankara's teaching to respond. First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. Secondly, after the death of the physical organism there is no awareness or consciousness for that being of ANY KIND. And this applies to gnanis, ordinary people, and all other sentient beings equally. As Ramesh put it, "Not only will I not know, I will not even know that I don't know." Consequently, there is no rebirth because there is nothing to be reborn. After death there is only not knowingness. Rebirth is just a doctrine invented by the mind or ego, for the masses, and no one who is really realised believes it because the very fact of realisation makes it clear (to the realiser) that nothing COULD BE reborn. All the reports of people like Buddha, Shankara etc. believing in rebirth were doctrines invented to comfort those who weren't realised. The apparent ease with which some people gain realisation was explained in this way, "When evolution has evolved an organism that is capable of apprehending enlightenment, then enlightenment MUST take place." And until that point (and he was very adamant about this) THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO BRING IT ABOUT. No sadhanas etc. will really do anything. "It's like wanting to be Albert Einstein," he said. He then went on to say that "Conciousness" itself contains the innate urge towards realisation and that it does manifest in some people as a longing for realisation. It's a force analogous to evolution and drives people to do things like...join this list! Anyway, that's the gist of it as I understood it. He made it clear his enlightenment had taken place at a particular moment in time and was complete and permanent. One morning at sunup I saw him walking by himself and joined him. He said he'd just been watching the sunrise. I asked him what it was like (for a gnani). He said it was like, "I am watching (the sun come up), then I am the sun, then I'm watching again, then I am the sun--the sun is watching itself." A couple of times he tried to read aloud a poem written by Sri Ramana about his longing for enlightenment but would begin to cry and was forced to have someone else read it. I thought it was like a great bhakti--in this way it's clear what is meant when it's said bhakti and gnana become one at the end of the pathway. He also urged people to keep doing any sadhana they were already doing. As i said, this doctrine disturbed me and has haunted me ever since. Is it possible that it is overly influenced by the materialism of the modern age? Also, Ramesh expressed great respect for Jiddu Krishnamurti and I wondered if it (this teaching) could have been influenced by Krishnamurti's stance as the arch debunker and burster of sacred balloons. Once a seeker came to Nisargadatta and told him that at a 3-week retreat with some swamis he (the seeker) had experienced an "out-of-body experience." I waited with baited breath to hear what the response would be, since this seems to refute the idea that consciousness is totally dependent on a physical body--but his answer seemed evasive and unsatisfactory. Anyway, this e-mail is long enough. I would be interested in knowing what students of Shankara's classical works made of this. Best wishes, kc P.S. One peculiar afterthought. this is fairly personal, for what that's worth. Years after meeting Ramesh Belsekar I read a quote from Bhagavad Gita that said, "Hard to find is that Mahatma who says that all is Vasudev--" and, with that, Ramesh Balsekar's face came into my mind with jarring force! Having met him my instincts seem convinced he is a great soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 chaffin [chaffin] Tuesday, March 09, 1999 11:36 AM advaitin shankara and nisargadatta chaffin already been broached I would like to go ahead and pursue it. I met Ramesh in 1987 and spent 10 plus days with him at a retreat in the desert in California. ..........I will now state the basic tenets of his teachings (as I understand them) and would like for people well versed in Shankara's teaching to respond. First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. Harsha: Respectfully, this is plain wrong or very misleading regardless of who said it and how exhalted that person is. Based on my own experience and the testimony of other sages such as Sri Shankra and Ramana Maharshi, the Self is indeed Self-Aware Only. It cannot be self-aware in a logical, linguistic sense because awareness is not an object of awareness. However, it is not unconscious of itself either. The inherent nature of Awareness is to Be Aware of It Self. It does not know that it knows, except in the presence of the instrument of the mind, allowing for that subtle duality. Absent the mind, when the mind is absorbed in Nirvikalpa, it is Pure Knowing It Self. It is Fullness of Being and Awareness and not Full Unconsciousness. This is why the ancient Sages used the term Sat-Chit-Ananda to describe it. Self is Nirvikalpa or beyond imagination. But going Beyond imagination, it is found to be Only One's Own Self that is Nityam (Eternal) and Poornum (Whole or Complete). It shines through the mind as Awareness and not Unconsciousness. Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the complete opposite of deep sleep. Deep sleep implies total unconsciousness. Nirvikalpa Samadhi implies Total Awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 namaste. I cannot claim to be a Shankaraite scholar, but I am certainly a follower of advaita as interpreted by Shri Shankara. With my very limited knowledge, let me respond to your post (in bits and pieces). About re-incarnation and re-birth: Just like any good teacher, Shri Shankara also taught disciples at various levels of knowledge and His writings catered to jIvAs at various levels of spiritual development and SELF-unfoldment. For example, while in advaita, saguNa Brahman is only a superimposition on the Absolute the nirguNa Brahman, Shri Shankara wrote stOtrAs in praise of various personal Gods. At the same time, He wrote bhAshhyAs on VishNu sahasranAma and Shri LalitA trishatI, giving a pure advaitic interpretation of the stOtrAs. His writings and views on re-incarnation and re-birth are the same. Re-incarnation is there if the jIvA is there and if creation is there. If you do not see jIvA and creation, there is no re-incarnation and no re-birth. Shri shankara's interpretation is quite simple and straight. The whole jagat is inside us. As the individual evolves spiritually, or as the SELF unfolds with removal of mAyA, the whole jagat becomes part of you, and you the SELF is the all-encompassing one. The SELF here is not bounded by the body or the mind or the intellect and is quite apart from it. As Shri V. Krishnamurthy recently wrote of Shri Shankara's bhAshhya on BG18.50, it is only the removal of ajnAna that is required. There is nothing new to be acquired, only the ajnAna to be removed. Shri Shankara stated this in so many places and in so many writings. Yet, it is nothing new. It is all there in the ShrutI, the upanishads. Proper interpretation and feel is all that is required. HOw do we remove this ajnAna? Here comes the jIvA aspect. Intellectual knowledge of the SELF is neither sufficient nor even required. A pure and disciplined manas, completely victorious over the ari-shaDvargAs, is a fertile ground for Brahma vidyA. The jIvA has to go through millions of lives of refinement before the jIvA has that pure and disciplined manas. So, the answer to your question, and as per my understanding of Shri Shankara's teachings is: Q: Is there re-incarnation and re-birth? A: Yes, if you have the jIvA concept. No, if you know the Absolute that you are (not intellectually knowing, but if the knowledge is you, i.e. if there is no difference between the knower and the knowledge) ----------------- I will touch on your other sub-questions in a latter post. I am sure there are, on this list, many learned scholars of Shri Shankara's teachings, who will answer your queries more thoroughly. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 At 04:36 PM 3/9/99 -0000, you wrote: >chaffin <snip> Much of the below sounds to me somewhat similar to the teachings of U.G. Krishnamurti (and quite dissimilar to Sri Sankara's teachings). There are several "forms" of nondualism as outlined in Jerry Katz's FAQ at: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/faq.htm It sounds to me that Sri Ramesh Balsekar might be considered an "Absolute Nondualist" by the definitions given in the above URL. Followers of this form of nondualism always seem to have some kind of dramatic, sudden experience of enlightenment, and to hold that this method is the only way available. This has never been a form of nondualism that has "worked for me." I've always believed that Standing Free/Standing Alone is the key to Realization, and that there are as many different paths to Nirvikalpa Samadhi as there are those who are "walking paths." I find Sri Ramesh's words disturbing as well, especially his implied assertions that there is only one path to Realization (the one HE found valid for Himself) - the rest doesn't particularly concern me. Such sages who cannot see beyond their own means to Realization, I have always distrusted. A true Sage will instruct, but will also release the student to follow His/Her own way when it is time, for this is a path that can ultimately be walked only through the Grace of Brahman and the ability of an "individual" to discriminate between Truth and Falsehood, not through the constant lifelong direction of a Human teacher. There comes a time when the guru must release the student to walk alone and in silence and solitude. Let's just say I would not become a follower of Sri Ramesh :-) Nor do I have any further interest in reading his words. Intelligent and kind He may be, but I would not approach Him for teaching, based on the words you presented. Tim >First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. > >Secondly, after the death of the physical organism there is no awareness or consciousness for that being of ANY KIND. And this applies to gnanis, ordinary people, and all other sentient beings equally. As Ramesh put it, "Not only will I not know, I will not even know that I don't know." > >Consequently, there is no rebirth because there is nothing to be reborn. After death there is only not knowingness. Rebirth is just a doctrine invented by the mind or ego, for the masses, and no one who is really realised believes it because the very fact of realisation makes it clear (to the realiser) that nothing COULD BE reborn. All the reports of people like Buddha, Shankara etc. believing in rebirth were doctrines invented to comfort those who weren't realised. > >The apparent ease with which some people gain realisation was explained in this way, "When evolution has evolved an organism that is capable of apprehending enlightenment, then enlightenment MUST take place." And until that point (and he was very adamant about this) THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO BRING IT ABOUT. No sadhanas etc. will really do anything. "It's like wanting to be Albert Einstein," he said. He then went on to say that "Conciousness" itself contains the innate urge towards realisation and that it does manifest in some people as a longing for realisation. It's a force analogous to evolution and drives people to do things like...join this list! > >Anyway, that's the gist of it as I understood it. > >He made it clear his enlightenment had taken place at a particular moment in time and was complete and permanent. > >One morning at sunup I saw him walking by himself and joined him. He said he'd just been watching the sunrise. I asked him what it was like (for a gnani). He said it was like, "I am watching (the sun come up), then I am the sun, then I'm watching again, then I am the sun--the sun is watching itself." > >A couple of times he tried to read aloud a poem written by Sri Ramana about his longing for enlightenment but would begin to cry and was forced to have someone else read it. I thought it was like a great bhakti--in this way it's clear what is meant when it's said bhakti and gnana become one at the end of the pathway. > >He also urged people to keep doing any sadhana they were already doing. > >As i said, this doctrine disturbed me and has haunted me ever since. Is it possible that it is overly influenced by the materialism of the modern age? > >Also, Ramesh expressed great respect for Jiddu Krishnamurti and I wondered if it (this teaching) could have been influenced by Krishnamurti's stance as the arch debunker and burster of sacred balloons. > >Once a seeker came to Nisargadatta and told him that at a 3-week retreat with some swamis he (the seeker) had experienced an "out-of-body experience." I waited with baited breath to hear what the response would be, since this seems to refute the idea that consciousness is totally dependent on a physical body--but his answer seemed evasive and unsatisfactory. > >Anyway, this e-mail is long enough. I would be interested in knowing what students of Shankara's classical works made of this. > >Best wishes, > >kc > >P.S. >One peculiar afterthought. this is fairly personal, for what that's worth. Years after meeting Ramesh Belsekar I read a quote from Bhagavad Gita that said, "Hard to find is that Mahatma who says that all is Vasudev--" and, with that, Ramesh Balsekar's face came into my mind with jarring force! Having met him my instincts seem convinced he is a great soul. ----- The CORE of Reality awaits you at: http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html - Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 namaste. SELF in its natural state is vijnAna-ghanam, a mass of Consciousness. In its natural state, it is only ONE. Nothing else. It is still in its natural state and will always be in its natural state. No disturbance is made to It and no disturbance *can* be made to It. The way the creation started is described in Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad (I.4). In the beginning, there was only the SELF in the shape of a person. Looking around, He saw nothing else than the SELF. He first said "I am". Therefore arose the name of I. He was afraid. Therefore one who is alone is afraid. This one then thought to himself, 'since there is nothing else than myself, of what am I afraid?'. Thereupon, his fear passed away. Assuredly, it is from a second that fear arises. He had no delight. Therefore he who is alone has no delight. He desired a second. He (HiraNyagarbha or PrajApati) became as large as a woman and man in close embrace. He caused that SELF to fall into two parts. From that arose husband and wife. He became united with her. From that human beings were produced. Then the upanishad describes how other species are produced. On 9 Mar 1999 chaffin wrote: > chaffin > > First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is > completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware > through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only > self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. > The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only > really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self > consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. > By saying the above, the means of consciousness is shifted to the physical mind-body apparatus. You may mean by this cognitive consciousness. But the SELF, the Consciousness is beyond that. It (the Consciousness with upper case C) is the one that powers this physical body-mind apparatus. Without that Consciousness, the physical body-mind apparatus does not exist. It is that Consciousness which allows our eyes to see, our ears to hear ..... (Kena upanishad). That Consciousness does not depend on the physical body-mind apparatus for awareness. It is the other way around. This physical body-mind apparatus owes its very existence to that Consciousness. > Secondly, after the death of the physical organism there is no > awareness or consciousness for that being of ANY KIND. And this > applies to gnanis, ordinary people, and all other sentient beings > equally. As Ramesh put it, "Not only will I not know, I will not > even know that I don't know." > Cognitive consciousness may go with the death of the physical organism, but the Consciousness is always there, irrespective of the birth or death of the physical body-mind apparatus. Yes, it applies to jnAnis, ordinary people and all other beings equally. The only difference is jnAni knows He/She is Consciousness, the ordinary people do not know it. In the last sentence of the above quote attributed to Ramesh "Not only will I not know, I will not even know that I don't know", surely, the I there refers to the body-mind apparatus and not to Consciousness. I do not know much about Ramesh Balsekar or his teachings, but that quote, if attributed correctly, does not convey the meaning of advaita (as per my understanding). Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > namaste. > > SELF in its natural state is vijnAna-ghanam, a mass of Consciousness. > In its natural state, it is only ONE. Nothing else. It is still in > its natural state and will always be in its natural state. > No disturbance is made to It and no disturbance *can* be made to It. > > The way the creation started is described in Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad > (I.4). In the beginning, there was only the SELF in the shape of a > person. Looking around, He saw nothing else than the SELF. He first > said "I am". Therefore arose the name of I. > > He was afraid. Therefore one who is alone is afraid. This one then > thought to himself, 'since there is nothing else than myself, of what > am I afraid?'. Thereupon, his fear passed away. Assuredly, it is from > a second that fear arises. > > He had no delight. Therefore he who is alone has no delight. He desired > a second. He (HiraNyagarbha or PrajApati) became as large as a woman and > man in close embrace. He caused that SELF to fall into two parts. From > that arose husband and wife. He became united with her. From that human > beings were produced. > > Then the upanishad describes how other species are produced. > > On 9 Mar 1999 chaffin wrote: > > > chaffin > > > > First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is > > completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware > > through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only > > self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. > > The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only > > really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self > > consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. > > > > By saying the above, the means of consciousness is shifted to the > physical mind-body apparatus. You may mean by this cognitive consciousness. > But the SELF, the Consciousness is beyond that. It (the Consciousness with > upper case C) is the one that powers this physical body-mind apparatus. > Without that Consciousness, the physical body-mind apparatus does not > exist. It is that Consciousness which allows our eyes to see, our ears > to hear ..... (Kena upanishad). That Consciousness does not depend on the > physical body-mind apparatus for awareness. It is the other way around. > This physical body-mind apparatus owes its very existence to that > Consciousness. > concur. i haven't read much of Ramesh's teachings. what i did read, i agreed with, generally. however, this seems erroneous. perhaps he was curbing [this] short dissertation with respect to some individual, for a unique purpose. to say that the Self is wholly unconscious is tantamount to Its being nescient, no? this contradicts the substrate idea of satchidananda. beyond even this, ultimately saying *anything* about the Self is technically erroneous. the more effective way of alluding to satchidananda is to yet apply the 'neti, neti' principle (viz. the jnanaswaroop isn't without pure Being, isn't without pure Consciousness, isn't without pure Bliss.) this is the ajatavada doctrine of advaita, availing the highest method for the purposes of achieving the purification of Mind, readying it for absorption into its source: the Self. > > > Secondly, after the death of the physical organism there is no > > awareness or consciousness for that being of ANY KIND. And this > > applies to gnanis, ordinary people, and all other sentient beings > > equally. As Ramesh put it, "Not only will I not know, I will not > > even know that I don't know." > > > > Cognitive consciousness may go with the death of the physical organism, > but the Consciousness is always there, irrespective of the birth or death > of the physical body-mind apparatus. Yes, it applies to jnAnis, ordinary > people and all other beings equally. The only difference is jnAni knows > He/She is Consciousness, the ordinary people do not know it. > > In the last sentence of the above quote attributed to Ramesh "Not only > will I not know, I will not even know that I don't know", surely, the > I there refers to the body-mind apparatus and not to Consciousness. > I do not know much about Ramesh Balsekar or his teachings, but that > quote, if attributed correctly, does not convey the meaning of advaita > (as per my understanding). > again, i agree wholeheartedly with Murthigaru. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 9 Mar 1999 16:36:01 -0000 chaffin shankara and nisargadatta Chaffin wrote: (deletions) All that said, his (Ramesh's) teaching disturbed and depressed me (which may not be a bad thing). His teaching on reincarnation was really just the tip of the iceberg. I will now state the basic tenets of his teachings (as I understand them) and would like for people well versed in Shankara's teaching to respond. First, "The Self" is in no way, shape or form self aware. It is completely unconscious in its natural state and ONLY becomes aware through the mind of a sentient (embodied) being. The Self is only self-aware at all through the mind of a PHYSICAL MIND-BODY APPARATUS. The epitome of this, of course, is the human being. And The Self only really knows Itself completely through a gnani. In other words, self consciousness is strictly tied to a physical body. Secondly, after the death of the physical organism there is no awareness or consciousness for that being of ANY KIND. And this applies to gnanis, ordinary people, and all other sentient beings equally. As Ramesh put it, "Not only will I not know, I will not even know that I don't know." Consequently, there is no rebirth because there is nothing to be reborn. After death there is only not knowingness. Rebirth is just a doctrine invented by the mind or ego, for the masses, and no one who is really realised believes it because the very fact of realisation makes it clear (to the realiser) that nothing COULD BE reborn. All the reports of people like Buddha, Shankara etc. believing in rebirth were doctrines invented to comfort those who weren't realised. The apparent ease with which some people gain realisation was explained in this way, "When evolution has evolved an organism that is capable of apprehending enlightenment, then enlightenment MUST take place." And until that point (and he was very adamant about this) THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO BRING IT ABOUT. No sadhanas etc. will really do anything. "It's like wanting to be Albert Einstein," he said. He then went on to say that "Conciousness" itself contains the innate urge towards realisation and that it does manifest in some people as a longing for realisation. It's a force analogous to evolution and drives people to do things like...join this list! Anyway, that's the gist of it as I understood it. ___________________ Jerry responds: The Self as Reality is neither aware nor not aware. There is nothing after this life. How can there be, when there is not this life? Death, is extremely deep. Don't pause for a second to think death is anything like deep sleep or general anesthesia. Those are a rave compared to death. Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 ___________________ The Self as Reality is neither aware nor not aware. There is nothing after this life. How can there be, when there is not this life? Death, is extremely deep. Don't pause for a second to think death is anything like deep sleep or general anesthesia. Those are a rave compared to death. Jerry Harsha: Jerryji, anything at all can be said about the Self and its nature. To say that Self as Reality is neither aware nor not aware is not saying much at all. This is why looking at sayings of the Sages like Sri Shankra and reading their words is important. Ramana Maharshi, although spontaneously Realized, always pointed to Sri Shankra's works or other Upanishads to help people understand. You say Death is extremely deep. Compared to what Jerryji? General Anesthesia and deep sleep? I could just as easily say that Life is very deep! Why make all these distinctions? What do all these words, like "deep" mean. Sages have taught that Self, which is the Reality, permeates all other states of consciousness, regardless of the label you put on them. So we are not interested in making distinctions, but seeing that background on which all distinctions are perceived. Self Realization is not a trick or an accomplishment. It is not indicated by a play on words or with words. It is One's True Eternal and Natural State. That is All. Sages have said many times that the spiritual practice is not meant to give anything new or add anything to us. It is needed to remove the barrier to Seeing What Is - That which You Truly Are. Spiritual practice means making "effort" to remove the fog so the Sight is Clear. When the Sight is clear, no differences will be seen between life, death, sleep, dreamless sleep, superconscious states, etc. /.cgi/ ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > You say Death is extremely deep. Compared to > what Jerryji? General Anesthesia and deep sleep? > I could just as easily say that Life is very deep! > Why make all these distinctions? i quite agree. the idea that there can be any component in existence that is apart from brahman, is immediately dualistic and thus illusory. this avails an excellent opportunity to have an insight into the essentail implication of advaitam. the naive relative perspective that assumes that the realm of so-called physical existence supports components that can be pinned down insofar as being intrinsically 'known,' and in this sense 'de-mystified,' is the product of the Mind's capacity to perceive [its projected phenomena] in exclusively concrete reasonable terms, effectively thus ignoring its buddhic faculty. conversely, if such matters are properly investigated, i.e utilizing the whole of the antahkarana, such relative conclusions [re that components of manifestation are in fact knowable and circumscribable in essence, and thus shallow or theoretically inferior to their source in spirit] would be clearly exposed as forgone and erroneous. the emphasis should be placed on the fact that brahman's lila is saguna brahman itself. no component within it can be therefore intrinsically knowable. the new physics also reveals the fact that matter is itself energy-- parallel to the metaphysical axiom that matter is spirit--and thereof just as ineffable and inscrutable as spirit. such insight can serve to reveal the essential unity in fact of nirguna and saguna brahman. the is the real and wide import of advaita vedanta. as the toltec shaman, don Juan Matus (Carlos Castaneda's teacher) once said, "We are surrounded by pure mystery; anything we think we know of it is pure folly." namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 "f. maiello" <egodust writes: << the idea that there can be any component in existence that is apart from brahman, is immediately dualistic >> this should be agreeable to everyone on the list. << this avails an excellent opportunity to have an insight into the essentail implication of advaitam. the naive relative perspective that assumes that the realm of so-called physical existence supports components that can be pinned down insofar as being intrinsically 'known,' and in this sense 'de-mystified,' is the product of the Mind's capacity to perceive [its projected phenomena] in exclusively concrete reasonable terms, effectively thus ignoring its buddhic faculty. conversely, if such matters are properly investigated, i.e utilizing the whole of the antahkarana, such relative conclusions [re that components of manifestation are in fact knowable and circumscribable in essence, and thus shallow or theoretically inferior to their source in spirit] would be clearly exposed as forgone and erroneous. the emphasis should be placed on the fact that brahman's lila is saguna brahman itself. no component within it can be therefore intrinsically knowable. >> i want to use this chance to ask a question but feel awkwardly unable to do it adequately. i see why physical existence can't be known intrinsically. this was largely the issue in the gender discussion. however, i'm unsure what it means, the mind's "projected phenomena." to me, this assigns physical and mental existence, things and thoughts, to individual mental epiphenomenon, as if they were byproducts of an idiosyncratic and distinct mind. is it accurate to call any mental experience or physical thing a projected phenomenon? my understanding is that such experiences may be partly projections, but that these projections are concomitant with some prescribed, pre-existing system (of language or thought) and with the relative, but not intrinsic, reality of the corporeal state in which we unavoidably find ourselves. i don't think this view is dualistic since dualism belongs to the first part (projection and prescription) while what is essential about corporeality (ie, its nondifference) is merely unrecognized and seen through those relative lenses. my question is this, why is physical existence a "so-called" realm? or, in what sense is its reality or unreality relevant to someone who finds himself or herself in it at a particular moment? thanks for listening. thanks for listening. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 <mpw01 i want to use this chance to ask a question but feel awkwardly unable to do it adequately...................snip Harsha: I want to use this chance to answer your question but also feel awkwardly unable to do it adequately. MPW: my question is this, why is physical existence a "so-called" realm? or, in what sense is its reality or unreality relevant to someone who finds himself or herself in it at a particular moment? Harsha: May I respectfully ask how the answer to your question would be of value to you and/or further your understanding of the nature of the Self? Perhaps that is not what the question is intended to do. My apologies if I have misunderstood. But it seems to me that most people are able to get on with their lives adequately without having to think about questions like these; perhaps demonstrating the irrelevance of any answers to such contrived issues at any particular moment in any realm, physical or otherwise. And Self lies beyond all questions and answers and all realms. What is the use of torturing one's intellect in these matters that appear to be so forced and labored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 mpw01 wrote: > > i want to use this chance to ask a question but feel > awkwardly unable to do it adequately. i see why > physical existence can't be known intrinsically. > this was largely the issue in the gender discussion. > however, i'm unsure what it means, the mind's > "projected phenomena." to me, this assigns physical > and mental existence, things and thoughts, to > individual mental epiphenomenon, as if they were > byproducts of an idiosyncratic and distinct mind. is > it accurate to call any mental experience or physical > thing a projected phenomenon? it depends on the individual's understanding, whether one ascribes to gradual creation where perception follows creation (sristhi-dristhi); spontaneous or instant creation where creation follows perception (drishti-sristhi); or the concept of no-creation at all (ajatavada doctrine). dristhi-sristhi ascribes to the idea that phenomena is projected from the Mind--being itself a blend of the universal and individual Mind. my understanding is > that such experiences may be partly projections, but > that these projections are concomitant with some > prescribed, pre-existing system (of language or > thought) and with the relative, but not intrinsic, > reality of the corporeal state in which we > unavoidably find ourselves. i don't think this view > is dualistic since dualism belongs to the first part > (projection and prescription) while what is essential > about corporeality (ie, its nondifference) is merely > unrecognized and seen through those relative lenses. > my question is this, why is physical existence a > "so-called" realm? or, in what sense is its reality > or unreality relevant to someone who finds himself or > herself in it at a particular moment? i mentioned--in passing--"so-called," due to the fact that there really isn't physicality the way we've come to believe and assume. that what we regard as physical is in fact spiritual. Harsha raised a good point--relevant to the higher turn of insight--that such questions have in fact naught to do with the Self, and needn't be entertained. in fact, the entire pursuit of speculative philosophy falls into this extraneous category. such scholarly preoccupations become like a dog chasing its tail, and are discouraged on the path of jnana. ku-tarka is this circular obsessing with the nature of manifestation: its origin, sustenance and dissolution...and should be avoided at the appropriate time. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 1999 Report Share Posted March 13, 1999 << Harsha: May I respectfully ask how the answer to your question would be of value to you and/or further your understanding of the nature of the Self? Perhaps that is not what the question is intended to do. . . .. And Self lies beyond all questions and answers and all realms. What is the use of torturing one's intellect in these matters that appear to be so forced and labored? >> if there aren't questions and answers that are relevant to the self and if most people get on with their lives even without considering the self or nonduality, then i agree that philosophy, theology, and any other constructed system (ie, advaita) that concerns existence or the self hold no relevance to life's immediate conditions which unavoidably involve physical and mental exigencies. to me, the self itself then should hold no relevance to jiva's unavoidable conditions, and the question should not be whether questions are of value but rather whether the ideas of nonduality and the self are of value. no one would tell me to avoid scratching an itch because it holds no relevance to the self. then why should i resist asking questions that seem to be an inevitable part of my existence at this moment? the whole notion of being trapped in thoughts, of going beyond thoughts, assumes that the mind is different in kind from the body and that thoughts are different in kind from other corporeal effects. it assumes that thoughts should be gotten rid of. i realize that entanglement in speculation is inimical to advaita, but such a precept begs the question, is advaita inimical to my condition as compulsorily alive? there's no doubt: i feel like i've just played a word game. thanks for listening. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement 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.