Guest guest Posted August 4, 1999 Report Share Posted August 4, 1999 Namaste, You might discard the following from Ramesh Balsekar because he may not be considered an exponent of true Advaita but it sounds like he too is saying Krishnamurthy, Sadananda and I are all being dreamed. Not that this necessarily proves anything -- I just include it to "sweeten the pot" ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "... the fundamental fact of Advaita, [is] that a sentient being, like any other phenomenal object in manifestation, has no independent nature of its own because it is only an appearance. This means, therefore, that there are no 'perceivers' as factual entities - and most important, it means that what perceives is a SINGLE SOURCE OF ENERGY, pereiving through millions of physical forms. What then really is each of us, who is conditioned to think of himself as the perceiver? The answer must be repeated again: as objects we are not perceivers; as objects we are what are perceived by that single source of energy through one another. If this single fact is deeply apperceived, nothing further need be understood." - p.59 "Experience of Immortality" by Ramesh Balsekar being a commentary on Jnaneshwar's Anuhavamrita (or Amritanubhava as it is better known). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If God is producing the dream and perceiving it as well there would be no one left to surrender!!! :-)) If there is any real "us" how could we ever unite ourselves with God? I think this is why other traditions say union is entirely the result of grace because they believed in the reality of the separate person in the first place! But if separate persons have been 100% produced all along there would never have actually been any separate persons and there would therefore be no real separation to overcome. Our relation to God would be exactly like that of a dreamed man to the dreamer. There would simply be no man in and of himself apart from the dreaming and in the entire dream world there would be nothing but the mind of the dreamer!!! What do Advaitins say now ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 1999 Report Share Posted August 4, 1999 Just for your information, I have enclosed the extract of Item number one from FAQ of Advaitin: 1. The subject matter shall focus on Advaita Vedanta of Saint Shankaracharya. The list welcomes members to discuss any subject matter that is closely related within the scope of non-dual philosophies that emerged before and after Shankara. I want you and other members to note that this forum is open for any spiritual discussion directly or indirectly associated with the Advaita Philosophy of Shankaracharya. Shankara belongs to the same category of saints and sages of Vedic times. Shankara represents the Vedic spirit which is summarized by this famous verse in Rig Veda - "a no bhadra krutavo yantu vishvatah" which means - "Let blissful thoughts come to us from every source." Nothing should be rejected for being foreign, and at the same time, untruths must be exposed and uprooted. Ram Chandran a c wrote: > a c <ac > > Namaste, > > You might discard the following from Ramesh Balsekar because he may not be > considered an exponent of true Advaita but it sounds like he too is saying > Krishnamurthy, Sadananda and I are all being dreamed. Not that this > necessarily proves anything -- I just include it to "sweeten the pot" ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 1999 Report Share Posted August 4, 1999 On 8/4/99 at 3:58 PM a c wrote: >a c <ac > >Namaste, [...] >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >If God is producing the dream and perceiving it as well there would be no >one left to surrender!!! :-)) If there is any real "us" how could we >ever unite ourselves with God? I think this is why other traditions say >union is entirely the result of grace because they believed in the reality >of the separate person in the first place! But if separate persons have >been 100% produced all along there would never have actually been any >separate persons and there would therefore be no real separation to >overcome. Our relation to God would be exactly like that of a dreamed man >to the dreamer. There would simply be no man in and of himself apart from >the dreaming and in the entire dream world there would be nothing but the >mind of the dreamer!!! > >What do Advaitins say now ??? The analogy with a dream has a solid reason: when thinking stops, the dream will end immediately. Because, all objects appearing in the dream plus the script are the result of a continuous thought process. So any thinking, while being immersed in the dream, is subjected to the limitations of dreaming and one is that thinking objects and script into existence will make it unlikely, the dream will stop spontaneously: not thinking is beyond imagination, because the conditioning of the dream is (a product of) thought, the dreamer isn't conscious of. Strictly speaking there is no uniting with God; if the spontaneously arising dream-activity is stopped, the union will be recognized as something that was never absent. Likewise, it will be impossible to imagine the conditioning of the dream that was causing the limitation of separateness; it will be as if the dream never existed. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 1999 Report Share Posted August 4, 1999 a c wrote: >If God is producing the dream and perceiving it as well there would be no >one left to surrender!!! :-)) If there is any real "us" how could we >ever unite ourselves with God? I think this is why other traditions say >union is entirely the result of grace because they believed in the reality >of the separate person in the first place! But if separate persons have >been 100% produced all along there would never have actually been any >separate persons and there would therefore be no real separation to >overcome. Our relation to God would be exactly like that of a dreamed man >to the dreamer. There would simply be no man in and of himself apart from >the dreaming and in the entire dream world there would be nothing but the >mind of the dreamer!!! > >What do Advaitins say now ??? aaHA! nothing! beautiful, allan. and hi. (should've figured it was you all along.. hahaha!) anyway, this illustrates so poetically clearly the fact that all this is merely and wonderfully the sport of brahman! what else could it possibly be? if we postulate anything apart from brahman-- anything at all, including abysmal-dense ignorance-- we're postulating duality. which is dangerous only because it sustains the trap for us to dwell in! and, again, this is the whole point: these ideas, in the end, *are* arbitrary--as ajatavada testifies with resounding blinding brilliance--simply because their only real value is to enable us to dissolve the compulsive infliction of philosophic meddling! this is called ku-tarka: the dis-ease of thinking likened to a dog chasing its tail in a pitch black cave of anxiety...where it's time to gently say enough to the weary traveler ego-Mind thirsting for something to know and behold. where, in fact, it's already and *ever been* here [beyond the sterile subject/object breeder of relentless comparisons racing toward nowhere...] OM that Thunderbolt piercing the silent Void! OM svaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 1999 Report Share Posted August 5, 1999 At 12:56 AM 8/5/99 , Jan Barendrecht wrote: >Strictly speaking there is no uniting with God; if the spontaneously >arising dream-activity is stopped, the union will be recognized as >something that was never absent. Likewise, it will be impossible to >imagine the conditioning of the dream that was causing the limitation >of separateness; it will be as if the dream never existed. Impossible to imagine? Then why do teachers say so much to aspirants on the mechanism of the dream, the conditioning, etc.? If they are not talking from their own experience (or someone's) then what good is model, this teaching (the one about conditioning and the dream)? And if they ARE talking from their own experience, then it seems as though they can imagine the conditioning of the dream. With Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 1999 Report Share Posted August 5, 1999 On 8/5/99 at 12:38 PM Greg Goode wrote: >Greg Goode <goode > >At 12:56 AM 8/5/99 , Jan Barendrecht wrote: > > >Strictly speaking there is no uniting with God; if the spontaneously > >arising dream-activity is stopped, the union will be recognized as > >something that was never absent. Likewise, it will be impossible to > >imagine the conditioning of the dream that was causing the limitation > >of separateness; it will be as if the dream never existed. > >Impossible to imagine? Then why do teachers say so much to aspirants on >the mechanism of the dream, the conditioning, etc.? If they are not >talking from their own experience (or someone's) then what good is model, >this teaching (the one about conditioning and the dream)? And if they ARE >talking from their own experience, then it seems as though they can imagine >the conditioning of the dream. > >With Love, > >--Greg Some sixty years ago one still could imagine the existence of Martians; knowledge has made this impossible. One doesn't have to continue dreaming in order to teach stopping from dreaming. When the snake appears to have been a rope all the time, one cannot imagine it is a snake again. But regarding verbal teaching, would it make any difference if the rope still appears as a snake for the teacher? Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 1999 Report Share Posted August 6, 1999 At 10:11 PM 8/5/99 , Jan Barendrecht wrote: Greg: >Impossible to imagine? Then why do teachers say so much to aspirants on > >the mechanism of the dream, the conditioning, etc.? If they are not > >talking from their own experience (or someone's) then what good is model, > >this teaching (the one about conditioning and the dream)? And if they ARE > >talking from their own experience, then it seems as though they can imagine > >the conditioning of the dream. Jan: >Some sixty years ago one still could imagine the existence of Martians; >knowledge has made this impossible. One doesn't have to continue dreaming >in order to teach stopping from dreaming. When the snake appears to have >been a rope all the time, one cannot imagine it is a snake again. But >regarding verbal teaching, would it make any difference if the rope still >appears as a snake for the teacher? I see what you mean now. You're talking about imagination as being under the spell of the dream, taking the rope for the snake. I was interpreting it as merely knowing or remembering that the rope used to appear as the snake, though it doesn't any longer. Fine. --Greg 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.