Not knowing & needing to Know

[Guest guest]

Greetings, dear Friends. I am replying using this address as my server is

down by email. It was lucky I was able to read Frank's replies at the

Advaitin Homepage.

 

Frank:

 

hi colette. namaste.

 

first of all, i should remind that a cursory overview of

the statements made by any metaphysical teacher as well

as a sage will appear to be fraught with contradictions.

simply because they are having to address many types

and temperaments of individuals at varying stages of

their soul's so-called 'path of return.'

 

 

*This is fine Frank. It is not an issue for me of finding One unvarying

expression, for in expression we are everchanging. In Oneness unexpressed,

we are not.

 

 

for this

reason, contradictions can are also found texts such

as the upanishads, bhagavad gita and yoga vasishtha.

therefore the different views being expressed on the

List are valid within each parameter of understanding.

 

*Of course. I am not here to contradict anyone. I am unravelling myself,

that's all.

 

this always has to be borne in mind--for almost any

topic in philosophy.

 

having said that...

 

in response to your questions:

 

sunyata may be equated to the nirguna (attributeless)

state of brahman; while moksha is, within this purview,

the nonduality between the nirguna and saguna states

of brahman.

 

*Ok. So I presume saguna is the something (personal), expressing from the

Nothing (Impersonal Being). It is a new term for me. I have read the advice

to be free of the 3 Gunas.

 

in light of the above, i quite agree with the sufi

mystic, in that sunyata alone falls short of the

Totality in moksha.

 

*This to me hearkens to what we were discussing before about we are not just

unmanifest. We are also manifest. Both states are paradoxical. Both states

may be marrying, to become One Being aware of ItSelf, whilst dancing in an

everchanging landscape. It is All, which may seem to be Nothing (non

experience), yet It Is whatever it is expressing As, also. So in this way

two become One. Absorption. It is no use resisting That. That stillness is

on the move as well, (constantly evolving).

 

however, moksha embraces not

only the fusion or nonduality of nirguna and saguna

brhaman, it also transcends even this [what is thus

merely a concept!]. therefore it is unknowable in

its ultimate essence. therefore the sage is finally

silent in the face of the question "what is moksha?"

 

*Ok.

 

as for the question, "what is soul?" the answer has

to be from the vyavaharika (relative plane)...since

soul is itself a product thereof. and within this

relative plane, various answers could be valid in

trying to render a suitable definition. the most

definitive is: the soul is the mediary between the

spirit and ego [atman and jiva], termed 'jivatman.'

 

*Ok. To me now I guess I am now embracing that Soul is the One. Maybe what

some call an OverSoul (Being). One supreme Being ~ Consciousness. And that

we are personalisations of That Impersonal One.

 

further light on this can be shed by the following:

 

the popluar or exoteric view of vedanta claims that

upon the mahasamadhi (death of the body), the soul

is utterly absorbed into brahman, to never return.

whereas esoteric vedanta, from what i understand, is

suggesting something else:

 

*Well here I guess I wonder if you mean death to attachment 'I am body'

whilst living.

 

according to the rig veda, the interlude of brahman

(pralaya), where there is nothing manifest, brahman

becomes somehow desirous to experience Itself and so

projects Its leela through maya (leela = the Sport or

Play of brahman).

 

*This I relate to.

 

the upanishads tell us also that

maya is without beginning or end.

 

*Aha. Ok.

 

therefore, it's my

belief that the soul, since it gets absorbed into its

Source in brahman, will also undergo the same experience

as did the nirguna state of brahman [in pralaya]...thus

Itself be an eternal recurrence.

 

*Ok. I'm with you here :-)

 

thus the jivatman (soul)

will *eventually* make its return. the metaphysics involved

here, however, is very complex; and from what i can see

is ultimately shrouded in pure mystery. this in fact

relates to what has to be regarded as the unknowable

nature of not only brahman, but also the maya of brahman,

as Its leela manifestation.

 

*To me it's more like individual soul (or personality), dies to

(surrenders), its individuality into the Ocean (it's own Source). No one

dies in essence, cause one was never that personality! If we look at how

personality is constructed through indoctrinations we can see it was never

who we were. It is the maya we overidentify, as. (Just me playing words

here.)

 

and it is this unknowable factor that in fact ushers

the soul into moksha (liberation through freedom!).

one is thus released from philosophical speculation

itself, representing the dissolution of the central

obstacle to freedom: the infliction of the endless

obsession commonly inhering in the inquiring mind.

 

 

*Ok. Except for one more enquiry. I get what you mean about the blessedness

of never knowing :-) I don't think there is an I Am, to know. Nothing there

to grab. (No concept can hold OneSelf). That is why I Am is seen by many to

be the simplest state of awareness; simply Existence ItSelf. More like an

Eye.

 

therefore, it finally doesn't matter whether there

is in fact a continuence in manifestation or not.

simply because all questions and inquiries have

become themselves irrelevant. the soul is free

and requires nothing--at least nothing that can be

discernable in relative terms. in this regard, it's

quite impossible to convey in words, or even conceive

what it is in truth *within one's own mind* (since

any such conception is necessarily relative in the

face of that which is Absolute!), exactly how and

what manner of such dynamic can possibly register

the primal essence of the moksha 'state.' it is in

light of this it's referred to as the 'stateless state.'

....i.e. it is essentially a *pure mystery*.

 

*That is lovely Frank. I guess I am getting at that absorption can be at a

certain stage .. embracing not knowing as well As the need to know. Hence

the paradox of coexisting unmanifest manifestation ~ Self.

 

love ONE.

as ever,

as ever,

frank

 

*Yes One Being, expressing as our many personalities. Then becoming aware of

Its own Purity ~ Consciousness conscious of It Self. Then still evolving

into ever larger expressions through each personalised being. That's how I

see It lately. Impersonal Is personal too.

 

Andrew Cohen calls the need to know, the evolutionary imperative. Not

knowing & needing to know may coexist in harmony. In my opinion.

 

To the One,

 

Love,

 

Col

:-)

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

dear colette-

 

if i may say,

beautifully clear/accurate...

 

 

Colette T wrote:

> *Ok. So I presume saguna is the something (personal), expressing from the

> Nothing (Impersonal Being). It is a new term for me.

 

the popular definition is saguna brahman = nirguna

brahman with attributes expressly in the form of the

God of the world (viz. isvara). however, esoterically

saguna brahman is considered the whole of manifestation

as God, world, souls (termed sohamidam)...since the

foundational idea is that "all this is brahman," and

therefore the projection of brahman into manifestation

is really [the whole of] saguna brahman.

 

> the popluar or exoteric view of vedanta claims that

> upon the mahasamadhi (death of the body), the soul

> is utterly absorbed into brahman, to never return.

> whereas esoteric vedanta, from what i understand, is

> suggesting something else:

>

> *Well here I guess I wonder if you mean death to attachment 'I am body'

> whilst living.

>

 

yes, mahasamadhi is the release of the dehatmabuddhi

(i am-the-body-idea) which is jivanmukthi *followed by*

the release of the mortal coil termed thus videhamukthi.

videhamukthi then implies the idea of never returning.

which i believe--as i explained--is either false or,

at least, unknowable.

 

> *I guess I am getting at that absorption can be at a

> certain stage .. embracing not knowing as well As the need to know. Hence

> the paradox of coexisting unmanifest manifestation ~ Self.

> Andrew Cohen calls the need to know, the evolutionary imperative. Not

> knowing & needing to know may coexist in harmony. In my opinion.

 

yes, great! as long as we remember that the "need

to know" aspect is only ever a means without an end.

it is, again, playing. no goals or spiritual eurekas.

on the other hand, if it's taken seriously with the

expectation that it will "solve our problems," it will

become the proverbial dog chasing its tail. truly a

side-splitting vision! :-)

 

om shaanthi