Guest guest Posted July 31, 1999 Report Share Posted July 31, 1999 Warren says... > > I've often felt exactly as you do. [...] On the mental / emotional > level,Visishtadvaita (or panentheism) is much more readily > comprehensible (to me, anyway), and seems a much > "healthier" doctrine. > yup... > >Maybe you could think of Atman as a One-Many. Don't limit it to just a Many. >Beyond the One-Many is the One. And beyond that is something which can't be >talked about - as Meister Eckhart pointed out, anything you can say about it >is untrue. > well... I think I described Atmans as being inseparable from Brahman so I don't consider them to be a mere multiplicity. I frequently enjoy a kind of non-dual merging with what appears (in retrospect) to be an indeterminate unbounded space which is joyful, peaceful and apparently self cognizing with a distinct absence of the sense of any person being there. In retrospect it appears reasonable to assume this space is the ground of being in which all experience is occuring -- so there is no question of losing it or gaining it. I have perfect certainty it is always already the case as I can enjoy it as I wish but as much as I am inseparable from it, I am not it. My relation to "it" may be like that of a fish (made of water) swimming in the sea -- but still I am not it -- nor do I think I will ever be it -- which is very fine and OK with me. The joy of the fish belongs to the sea and the fish shares something of the sea's joy but there is a *big* difference between the two. Only Brahman is Brahman -- people who say they are Brahman (or allude to it) make me laugh... I don't think Advaitins have experiences which are categorically different from my own. As a matter of fact -- I've not encountered a single Advaitin who experiences the reality of their much vaunted consciousness throughout all 3 states (waking, sleeping, dreaming) although I have encountered 2 Buddhists who do! :-)) And yet, both I and the Buddhists (obviously) come to different interpretations of things -- but it's not for lack of some *big* experience. P.S. I recall one Advaita guru (who has the imprimatur to teach Advaita from perhaps the most famous Advaita guru) who was directly questioned about whether they witnessed the sleep state. They didn't and they didn't think anyone else did either. I guess that Advaita guru *is* Brahman until he gets sleepy and then "poof" -- out go the lights! "...shhhhh.....Brahman is napping..." :-)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 1999 Report Share Posted July 31, 1999 "a c" wrote: >.... I frequently enjoy a kind >of non-dual merging with what appears (in retrospect) to be an >indeterminate unbounded space which is joyful, peaceful and apparently self >cognizing with a distinct absence of the sense of any person being there. >In retrospect it appears reasonable to assume this space is the ground of >being in which all experience is occuring -- so there is no question of >losing it or gaining it. I have perfect certainty it is always already the >case as I can enjoy it as I wish but as much as I am inseparable from it, I >am not it. Then what are you? >My relation to "it" may be like that of a fish (made of water) >swimming in the sea -- but still I am not it -- nor do I think I will ever >be it -- which is very fine and OK with me. The joy of the fish belongs to >the sea and the fish shares something of the sea's joy but there is a *big* >difference between the two. Ever read Paul Brunton? You might appreciate him. A student of "advaita" who frequently criticized the statements made by "advaitins" in much the same way as you are. I'm not exactly an orthodox "advaitin" myself (whatever that is). Philosophically, I'm more in tune with Kashmir Shaivism. I don't think they're actually saying anything fundamentally different from Advaita, but their terminology and attitude towards the subject is different. (Any thoughts from you on Kashmir Shaivism?) >Only Brahman is Brahman -- people who say >they are Brahman (or allude to it) make me laugh... See my previous post about people who make such statements. >I don't think Advaitins have experiences which are categorically different >from my own. As a matter of fact -- I've not encountered a single Advaitin >who experiences the reality of their much vaunted consciousness throughout >all 3 states (waking, sleeping, dreaming) although I have encountered 2 >Buddhists who do! :-)) And yet, both I and the Buddhists (obviously) >come to different interpretations of things -- but it's not for lack of >some *big* experience. Brahman cannot be experienced. Experience of any kind whatsoever presupposes duality. Anyone who says they have "experienced" Brahman is talking nonsense. >P.S. I recall one Advaita guru (who has the imprimatur to teach Advaita >from perhaps the most famous Advaita guru) who was directly questioned >about whether they witnessed the sleep state. They didn't and they didn't >think anyone else did either. Everyone witnesses the sleep state. Whether you remember it or not is irrelevant. >I guess that Advaita guru *is* Brahman until >he gets sleepy and then "poof" -- out go the lights! >"...shhhhh.....Brahman is napping..." :-)) You're still presupposing a duality between Brahman and phenomena (in this case, sleep), and there ain't no such animal. :-) (BTW, I don't mean to pick on you - plenty of "advaitins" do the same thing all the time). Warren 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.