Reply to Greg

[Guest guest]

At 10:10 AM 7/30/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Greg Goode <goode

>

>I know you giving your opinion - but let's say you DID find and meet

>someone who had the siddhis you speak of. Would that be all you'd need to

>think they are enlightened? I can think of one famous teacher widely

>thought to have just the miraculous powers you speak of. But he is ALSO

>thought to have some downright scandalous, immoral and harmful character

>attributes, things that would get him put behind bars for years if it

>happened in the U.S., with proof, etc.

>

>So are the siddhis sufficient or just necessary?

>

Just necessary but not sufficient. I think I know who you are referring

to. Yes, he's a fraud and a dangerous one (in my opinion) -- but as the

Sufis say -- "there is only counterfeit because true gold exists".

 

You also mentioned anyone can truthfully claim to be Consciousness whether

or not they actually realize it. That may be true but my concern was with

false claims to the realization of truth. When such claims come from

sincerely deluded but well intentioned people it poses a different problem

from the criminal pretender.

[Guest guest]

Greg wrote:

>So are the siddhis sufficient or just necessary?

 

a c wrote:

>Just necessary but not sufficient. I think I know who you are referring

>to. Yes, he's a fraud and a dangerous one (in my opinion) -- but as the

>Sufis say -- "there is only counterfeit because true gold exists".

 

Probably the same person, yes.

 

About conditions -- you have come up with something you see as a necessary

condition. To avoid letting scoundrels into the jivamukti class, you can

probably come up with what seem to be other necessary conditions too, the

sum of which might entail sufficiency. Let's say you come up with a list

(L) which you see as a definition of jivamukti. You then have a sentence:

 

(D) "List (L) is the actual definition of a jivamukti."

 

What makes this sentence (D) true? Are you going by faith in the Vedas or

other scriptures? Did you ever consider that sentences like (D) are

conventional, and that the substance of list (L) will differ from tradition

to tradition?

 

a c wrote:

>You also mentioned anyone can truthfully claim to be Consciousness whether

>or not they actually realize it. That may be true but my concern was with

>false claims to the realization of truth. When such claims come from

>sincerely deluded but well intentioned people it poses a different problem

>from the criminal pretender.

 

OK, the realization of truth. Just what that is, is the subject of this

thread. I agree with you that there has been lots and lots of abuse, even

in the last several years, when many people have already heard the

stories. I myself have seen blackmail from teachers, all manner of

psychological and sexual repression and manipulation, not to mention rude

and disrespectful treatment of people -- all under the guise of helping the

poor aspirant gain the blessed state the teacher claims to be in.

 

But -- back to your topic. Let me ask you a question. What/who exactly IS

it that realizes truth? Just what do you point to that is the jivamukti in

a real metaphysical sense? The physical body? One of the koshas:

annamayakosha, manomayakosa, pranamayakosha, vijnanamayakosa,

anandamayakosa? The mind? This is another way to ask the Who am I

question. The answer to both is the same.

 

--Greg

 

 

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

 

Show your ONElist SPIRIT!

/store/tshirts.html

With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website.

 

------

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

[Guest guest]

At 04:26 PM 7/30/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Greg Goode <goode

>

>Greg wrote:

>

> (D) "List (L) is the actual definition of a jivamukti."

>

>What makes this sentence (D) true? Are you going by faith in the Vedas or

>other scriptures? Did you ever consider that sentences like (D) are

>conventional, and that the substance of list (L) will differ from tradition

>to tradition?

>

Well, one could do worse than "going by faith in the Vedas or other

scriptures" but that's not all I'm going by in this instance. I know mukti

is defined differently in different traditions and I'm leaning toward the

Visistadvaita interpretation at the moment. It doesn't offend my respect

for God as much as what I hear from some Advaitins (not necessarily anyone

here). In my opinion, many mere "friends of God" have exhibited more

power, love, and knowledge than a whole room full of intellectually

oriented minor mystics who have a little attainment and a LOT of gall. It

seems some Advaitins imagine God is imaginary but they themselves are

Brahman (beyond Isvara). In my opinion, this is a huge overestimation of

their own attainment and an equally huge underestimation of the reality and

power of God. God makes the universe and they gainsay its existence. I'm

embarassed for them and concerned for anyone who takes them at their word.

>

>But -- back to your topic. Let me ask you a question. What/who exactly IS

>it that realizes truth?

>

My current opinion is that truth (which is God, Brahman, etc.) is realized

by a multiplicity of qualitatively identical but numerically multiple

Atmans who experience a God-like joy deriving from their fundamental

inseparability from God. In this view, Atmans are neither separate from

God nor identical to Him. While Atmans can share God's joy and knowledge

they do not share God's power except by the special favor of God in unique

circumstances. This suits the facts as they appear to me far better than

Advaita (as far as I'm concerned).