Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 don't know if this will help and don't know abt its correctness. What do u think an empty glass vessel is full/empty ? On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Colette wrote: > Dearest friends so good to be amongst you again :-) > > Lately you know .. I have been continuing my studies into ... the structuring dynamics of the universe & our own Reality .. & what Is Brahman? > > And so I like to bounce off you all here .. especially my good buddy Frank ... (I hope using that term doesn't sound funny, for here in my countrt it means friend). > > So .. what have I come up with? I was at first wondering whether Brahman Is absolute OR relative OR BOTH .. and then .. to my surprise saw this quote from Maharishi Mahesh (Beloved) Yogi .. > > Maharishi has said ... > > "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > > Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > > Brahman is NOT the Absolute. > Brahman is NOT the relative. > Brahman is NOT both together. > Brahman is NOT neither." > > Brahman is The Knower. > > This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. > > So it may be a good topic to explore if anyone feels inclined ~ > > My other foray into subtler explorations is .. How can emptiness be full? How Buddhism I am told, says it is all empty yet advaita speaks of a fullness ... > > Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. I wonder? > > Peace, > > Col Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other contact, Email to <advaitins > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Dearest friends so good to be amongst you again :-) Lately you know .. I have been continuing my studies into ... the structuring dynamics of the universe & our own Reality .. & what Is Brahman? And so I like to bounce off you all here .. especially my good buddy Frank ... (I hope using that term doesn't sound funny, for here in my countrt it means friend). So .. what have I come up with? I was at first wondering whether Brahman Is absolute OR relative OR BOTH .. and then .. to my surprise saw this quote from Maharishi Mahesh (Beloved) Yogi .. Maharishi has said ... "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. Brahman is NOT the Absolute. Brahman is NOT the relative. Brahman is NOT both together. Brahman is NOT neither." Brahman is The Knower. This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. So it may be a good topic to explore if anyone feels inclined ~ My other foray into subtler explorations is .. How can emptiness be full? How Buddhism I am told, says it is all empty yet advaita speaks of a fullness ... Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. I wonder? Peace, Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Colette wrote: > This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. How about this anology: Brahman is the sleeping, dreaming person, while AtmA is the metaphorical pair of eyes witnessing everything impersonally in the dream that the dreaming person, Brahman is dreaming. The dream is our mAyic world. The dream is only taking place because the person is dreaming or because the AtmA is witnessing it. The normal meaning of "dream" is used here analogically. -- Warmest regards, Ruben rubenn _____________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Colette wrote: > I was at first wondering whether Brahman Is > absolute OR relative OR BOTH .. and then .. > to my surprise saw this quote from Maharishi > Mahesh (Beloved) Yogi .. > > Maharishi has said ... > > "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > > Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > > Brahman is NOT the Absolute. > Brahman is NOT the relative. > Brahman is NOT both together. > Brahman is NOT neither." > > Brahman is The Knower. > hi col, namaste. on one hand i might say i couldnt disagree more... on the other, it may be advantageous to look at it this way. depends on the mental conditioning of the individual involved. see what i'm getting at? these are just definitions, in turn representing constituents within spiritual philosophies that have the function of delivering us each to our destination: moksha. then they are thrown. they aren't needed anymore. (aside from showing others the way, they become burdensome to carry. but this is another matter.) we depend upon and even fiercely defend our ideas about this or that, especially when it comes to things that 'spiritually' resonate within us. but this is only, afterall, apparent. only mind stuff. not really spiritual. spiritual never formulates into ideas. it is strictly--for lack of a better word--experiential. it lives and breathes in the Heart, not the Mind. so ideas about it are only formulated for the purpose of removing ALL ideas about it! :-) no kidding. this is what our spiritual work comes down to. as ramakrishna tells us: "a thorn (sadhana) is used to pluck another thorn (avidya) from under the skin...and when it's dislodged, *both* are discarded." > My other foray into subtler explorations is > .. How can emptiness be full? How Buddhism I > am told, says it is all empty yet advaita > speaks of a fullness ... > > Are they speaking of two different stages of > conscious awareness .. I wonder? keeping in mind what i said above, yes i'd say this pertains to stages of the individual's understanding capacity, as well as temperament. again only in the name of methodology and means. at the higher level or later stages of training-- which ideology may or may not be necessary for the aspirant to embrace--they *both* speak in terms of an 'emptiness in fullness'; and a 'fullness in emptiness.' you see, moksha can happen anytime anywhere! regardless of what the heck the mind is holding as a philosophic parameter. the most powerful parameter is one that can suddenly and out of nowhere come and *blank* the mind! then some burst of light floods the Heart and the mind is somehow suddenly reduced to merely witnessing. peacelove in OM, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Namaste, Beautifully put! Another of Sri Ramakrishna's favorite sayings: The Bhagavan of devotees, Atman of Yogis, and Brahman of Vedantins, refers to the SAME: eka.n sadvipraa bahudhaa vadanti . Regards, s. >"f. maiello" <egodust >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Brahman Who?:-) >Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:06:22 -0400 > >these are just definitions, in turn representing >constituents within spiritual philosophies that have >the function of delivering us each to our destination: >moksha. then they are thrown. they aren't needed >anymore. (aside from showing others the way, they >become burdensome to carry. but this is another >matter.) > >we depend upon and even fiercely defend our ideas >about this or that, especially when it comes to >things that 'spiritually' resonate within us. >but this is only, afterall, apparent. only mind >stuff. not really spiritual. spiritual never >formulates into ideas. it is strictly--for lack >of a better word--experiential. it lives and >breathes in the Heart, not the Mind. so ideas >about it are only formulated for the purpose of >removing ALL ideas about it! :-) no kidding. >this is what our spiritual work comes down to. >as ramakrishna tells us: "a thorn (sadhana) is >used to pluck another thorn (avidya) from under >the skin...and when it's dislodged, *both* are >discarded." > > > > My other foray into subtler explorations is > > .. How can emptiness be full? How Buddhism I > > am told, says it is all empty yet advaita > > speaks of a fullness ... > > > > Are they speaking of two different stages of > > conscious awareness .. I wonder? > >keeping in mind what i said above, yes i'd say >this pertains to stages of the individual's >understanding capacity, as well as temperament. >again only in the name of methodology and means. > >at the higher level or later stages of training-- >which ideology may or may not be necessary for >the aspirant to embrace--they *both* speak in >terms of an 'emptiness in fullness'; and a >'fullness in emptiness.' > >peacelove in OM, >frank ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Please forgive if this is a duplicate posting - I got an error message first time. --Greg =================== Welcome back Colette, These are very interesting investigations you are making! I'd like to talk about a couple of questions you ask: 1. Is Brahman absolute or relative, or both? Brahman is all there is. There is nothing outside, or beyond, or other than Brahman. Absolute or relative? The difference between the absolute and the relative is this -- the relative thinks there's a difference between the absolute and the relative. 2. Buddhist emptiness and Advaitic fullness. What's the difference? Are they two different stages of consciousness? Writing this from NYC in 2000, I can say that here in the West and now in the 21st century, we choose paths more than they did in ancient India and Asia. Sometimes the choice is a matter of temperament, what appeals, what resonates deeply. Between the two you mention, Buddhist emptiness and Advaitic fullness, there are several crucial things in common. In both, there's nothing lacking and nothing obstructing. Nothing missing, and nothing in the way. If the "nothing lacking" side appeals more to a person, then there might be a temperamental affinity towards the "fullness" or advaitic kinds of description. On the other hand, if the "nothing obstructing" side appeals more, there might be a temperamental affinity towards an "emptiness" kinds of Buddhist description. The choice of path might relate to this. If Ramana and Buddha were to meet each other on the street in a modern city, might they not just give each other the high five? But ultimate purpose of all these inquiries is not to land on the best theory or the final true statement. Rather, it is to end all reliance and dependence on a view or frame of mind - indeed to result in the end of all grasping at anything phenomenal whatsoever. Om/Amituofo, --Greg At 07:09 PM 8/3/00 +1000, Colette wrote: >Dearest friends so good to be amongst you again :-) > >Lately you know .. I have been continuing my studies into ... the structuring dynamics of the universe & our own Reality .. & what Is Brahman? > >And so I like to bounce off you all here .. especially my good buddy Frank .... (I hope using that term doesn't sound funny, for here in my countrt it means friend). > >So .. what have I come up with? I was at first wondering whether Brahman Is absolute OR relative OR BOTH .. and then .. to my surprise saw this quote from Maharishi Mahesh (Beloved) Yogi .. > >Maharishi has said ... > >"The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > >Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > >Brahman is NOT the Absolute. >Brahman is NOT the relative. >Brahman is NOT both together. >Brahman is NOT neither." > >Brahman is The Knower. > >This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. > >So it may be a good topic to explore if anyone feels inclined ~ > >My other foray into subtler explorations is .. How can emptiness be full? How Buddhism I am told, says it is all empty yet advaita speaks of a fullness ... > >Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. I wonder? > >Peace, > >Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 advaitin , Colette <colette@b...> wrote: [snip] > Maharishi has said ... > > "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > > Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > > Brahman is NOT the Absolute. > Brahman is NOT the relative. > Brahman is NOT both together. > Brahman is NOT neither." > > Brahman is The Knower. I'm not too sure about this. Who is there to "know?" While there appears to be a "knower," this "knowledge" only exists in relation to the individual. That is, "I" as Jody can know something relative to the existence of "Jody." However, the knowledge of the Absolute in the context of an individual life is a different kind of knowledge, one that does not depend on an individual "knower," even while this knowledge can exist within the context of individual knowledge. That is, while the blessing of moksha brings to the life of the one so blessed a special kind of experiential knowledge--that of the Absolute knowing Itself as the Absolute--this knowledge "belongs" to the Absolute. The mind is merely present as a recorder of the ongoing "event" of this knowledge. To put it another way, the Absolute recognizes the Absolute in the context of an individual's life, and the mind of said individual acts as a detector/recorder of this. > This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is > Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or > relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. There can be no separation between Brahman and Atman and the Absolute. There is only one. For the sake of discussion, Atman refers to the directly experienced Brahman in the life of an individual, but they are one and the same, and they are Absolute. > So it may be a good topic to explore if anyone feels inclined ~ > > My other foray into subtler explorations is .. How can emptiness be > full? How Buddhism I am told, says it is all empty yet advaita > speaks of a fullness ... > > Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. > I wonder? > > Peace, > > Col The Absolute cannot be "known" by the mind, but It knows of Itself, and when an individual is blessed with the existence of this knowledge, the mind is present as a recorder. However, what the mind "records" is an experience of "No-thing." This No-thing appears to be an "emptiness" that is "full." You can say it is like a "Nothing" you can take a bite out of. The emptiness is not one of being "empty," but one of being undiscernable. It's like a "blank" that is nonetheless full of "Self," and one has a "knowledge" that this is the basis of his/her/all existence. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Namaste, Saint Jnaneshvara [circa 1300 AD] used a metaphor in this context of two mirrors facing each other; it cannot be determined which one reflects the other! Regards, s. >"jody " <jodyr >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Brahman Who?:-) >Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:41:20 -0000 > > > > > Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. > > I wonder? > > > > Peace, > > > > Col > >The Absolute cannot be "known" by the mind, but It knows of Itself, >and when an individual is blessed with the existence of this >knowledge, the mind is present as a recorder. However, what the mind >"records" is an experience of "No-thing." This No-thing appears to be >an "emptiness" that is "full." You can say it is like a "Nothing" >you can take a bite out of. The emptiness is not one of being >"empty," but one of being undiscernable. It's like a "blank" that is >nonetheless full of "Self," and one has a "knowledge" that this is the >basis of his/her/all existence. > >--jody. > > ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 I enjoyed reading this Jody. jody wrote: > advaitin , Colette <colette@b...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Maharishi has said ... > > > > "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > > > > Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > > > > Brahman is NOT the Absolute. > > Brahman is NOT the relative. > > Brahman is NOT both together. > > Brahman is NOT neither." > > > > Brahman is The Knower. > > I'm not too sure about this. Who is there to "know?" Knower knows Self .. consciousness conscious of itself .. yet as this is a unified Self then one cannot experience oneself as that needs 'something' different from self 'to' experience. In that state only subject remains .. Knower ~ Rishi ~ Seer .. the Eye of Being. > While there > appears to be a "knower," this "knowledge" only exists in relation > to the individual. That is, "I" as Jody can know something relative > to the existence of "Jody." However, the knowledge of the Absolute > in the context of an individual life is a different kind of knowledge, That is why Osho & others call it 'not knowing' :-) just Being .. Is ness. > one that does not depend on an individual "knower," even while this > knowledge can exist within the context of individual knowledge. > That is, while the blessing of moksha brings to the life of the one > so blessed a special kind of experiential knowledge--that of the > Absolute knowing Itself as the Absolute--this knowledge "belongs" to > the Absolute. The mind is merely present as a recorder of the ongoing > "event" of this knowledge. To put it another way, the Absolute > recognizes the Absolute in the context of an individual's life, > and the mind of said individual acts as a detector/recorder of this. > > > This is what a friend told me. And now I think maybe the absolute is > > Atma. And Brahman is That which is able to see absolute and/or > > relative ~ Seer ~ Knower .. > > There can be no separation between Brahman and Atman and the Absolute. > There is only one. For the sake of discussion, Atman refers to the > directly experienced Brahman in the life of an individual, but they > are one and the same, and they are Absolute. I see it may be like this Jody .. it could be said that sunya is an experience of Atma. Quite one extreme of consiousness ~ Source ItSelf. In breath of God union leads to That. But is that full enlightenment? No. Next comes the out breath of God .. where Self is unifying the relative in activity .. meditation now is active. Some say this .. In breath to learn I Am God .. Out breath to experience Thou Art God. And towards unity consciousness ~ All This is My Self ~ Brahman ... > > > > So it may be a good topic to explore if anyone feels inclined ~ > > > > My other foray into subtler explorations is .. How can emptiness be > > full? How Buddhism I am told, says it is all empty yet advaita > > speaks of a fullness ... > > > > Are they speaking of two different stages of conscious awareness .. > > I wonder? > > > > Peace, > > > > Col > > The Absolute cannot be "known" by the mind, but It knows of Itself, > and when an individual is blessed with the existence of this > knowledge, the mind is present as a recorder. Mind by that stage is Cosmic. > However, what the mind > "records" is an experience of "No-thing." This No-thing appears to be > an "emptiness" that is "full." You can say it is like a "Nothing" > you can take a bite out of. ? a bite? I wonder what you mean here. > The emptiness is not one of being > "empty," but one of being undiscernable. To discern means some thing separate 'to' discern .. yes. > It's like a "blank" that is > nonetheless full of "Self," and one has a "knowledge" that this is the > basis of his/her/all existence. Thanks Jody. Good fun chatting, Col > --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 Two announcements: 1. A new e-mail forum called NoDoer, inspired by the teaching of the late Jean Klein, has just been formed. Go to NoDoer 2. A new group called Advaita Satsang will begin having monthly meetings in the Seattle (USA) area. Again, Jean Klein is the chief inspiration for forming this group. For more information contact mark. Mark Hovila http://hovila.com/klein.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 Colette wrote: > [...] The only way you get to see your Self at all > is in the play of absolute & relative. IMO. i absolutely relatively agree with you! hahaha! no, really, i do...and it's an especially important point. that's the whole reason for the manifestation or projection of brahman into Life (the leela). this relates to what is said in rig veda, re brahman's 'desire' to experience Itself--the whole reason for Its relative creation! (which was why i mentioned that i was anxious to see H.B. Dave's interpretation of that part of RigVeda.) really, this hinges on so much, can clarify so much of our bewilderment re the nature of maya and why it exists...which acknowledgment will enable us [by coming to terms with it] to live in peace within [what we have to admit is] Its awesome nature! i'm sounding like a broken record with this point but i feel it's vital/pivotal to recognize--all for expediting and making possible the very shift into moksha itself. OM shaanthi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 Peace, all. f. maiello wrote: > Colette wrote: > > I was at first wondering whether Brahman Is > > absolute OR relative OR BOTH .. and then .. > > to my surprise saw this quote from Maharishi > > Mahesh (Beloved) Yogi .. > > > > Maharishi has said ... > > > > "The Absolute is pure existence, pure Isness. > > > > Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is not. > > > > Brahman is NOT the Absolute. > > Brahman is NOT the relative. > > Brahman is NOT both together. > > Brahman is NOT neither." > > > > Brahman is The Knower. > > > > hi col, > namaste. > > on one hand i might say i couldnt disagree more... > on the other, it may be advantageous to look at > it this way. depends on the mental conditioning > of the individual involved. > > see what i'm getting at? Frank I see that what Maharishi has said is the same as your .. 'we are mystery' ...Can you see yourself? Can you see the absolute to comment on it after? If you see it to talk about it then is it who you are? Who sees it? Do we see the relative to talk about it too? Can we see our Self .. or is Self this play that we do see of the absolute& relative? Yes this quite plays into what Gregory has said too in that there are no concepts there. I see that this quote actually agrees with what you are all saying. Just change your angle of viewing. The only way you get to see your Self at all is in the play of absolute & relative. IMO. Yes it's All Self all brahman but who is this One? Peace, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 The question, ‘Who is Brahman?' is quite fundamental and the mahAvAkyas (Great Revelations) contain the answers. The mahAvAkyas just confirm why Brahman is non-definable. tat tvam asi - That thou art Chandogya 6.8.7 (Rig Veda) aham brahmAsmi - I am Brahman brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 (Yajur Veda) praGYAnaM brahma - Brahman is consciousness Aitreya 5.3 (Sama Veda) ayamAtma brahma - The Atman is Brahman mandukya 1.2 (Atharva Veda) The mahAvAkyas are part of the four Vedas and this not just by coincidence. All declarations in the Vedas are ‘Self-revelations.' during deep meditation and they represent the Truth and nothing but the Truth. If we try to say anything more than the mahAvAkyas we end up introducing concepts and definitions that become intellectually appealing. Then the same intellect will come back and haunt us and bring confusions and will sure trap with an endless loop! regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 advaitin , Colette <colette@b...> wrote: > I enjoyed reading this Jody. [snip] > > > Brahman is The Knower. > > > > I'm not too sure about this. Who is there to "know?" > > Knower knows Self .. consciousness conscious of itself .. yet as > this is a unified Self then one cannot experience oneself as that > needs 'something' different from self 'to' experience. In that state > only subject remains .. Knower ~ Rishi ~ Seer .. the Eye of Being. Knowledge requires the sub/obj thing. Awareness of Pure Being isn't a sub/obj thing. It just IS. It doesn't require a knower to be known. Everyone is realized right now because we are all the Self right now. The Self knows Itself in the context of *all* of our lives. However, the recognition that imparts an individual life with jnana appears in only a few. That's pretty perplexing. It would appear to have something to do with attachment, tension, and turbulence in the mind, but it remains a mystery to me as these qualities can be shown to exist in the lives of many acknowledged saints. [snip] > > There can be no separation between Brahman and Atman and the > > Absolute. There is only one. For the sake of discussion, Atman > > refers to the directly experienced Brahman in the life of an > > individual, but they are one and the same, and they are Absolute. > > I see it may be like this Jody .. it could be said that sunya is an > experience of Atma. Quite one extreme of consiousness ~ Source > ItSelf. In breath of God union leads to That. But is that full > enlightenment? No. Full enlightenment is a funny term. It means different things to different people. There are plenty of folk that assume they will experience themselves as depersonalized beings upon their enlightenment, that their idea of themselves as individual beings will go away. Yeah right! Try putting potatos in your mouth that way. There certainly appear to be degrees of enlightenment, but I would contend that they all start in realization of the Self, which many would hold to be full enlightenment. Those I've met who are realized are still quite capable of exhibiting "personal" characteristics. [snip] > > However, what the mind "records" is an experience of "No-thing." > > This No-thing appears to be an "emptiness" that is "full." You > > can say it is like a "Nothing" you can take a bite out of. > > ? a bite? I wonder what you mean here. Imagine air. You cannot see it. Sure, we can feel it with our hands, but ignore that for a sec. The air is like nothing. Now imagine that you could literally bite into the air, and get a hold of something. You wouldn't be able to eat it, but you could hold on to it. There is a kind of experience that exists in the mind that the mind is powerless to express, yet because the experience occurs the mind tries anyway, coming up with statements like "an emptiness that is full" or "a silence that is deafening". It is a description of the mind's attempt to describe the indescribable to itself. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 Brahman who? Brahman *I* am :-) Brahman why? Because *I* am :-) Brahman How? To be as *I* am :-) LOL - Do you know which makes you laugh when you stand in the absolute awareness? Looking at the stupidity of this experiencing brahman :-) Acting Brahman is very easy Understanding Brahman is as difficult as reading a scripture written on the surface of the water Explaining Brahman is cheating only one thing is true, which is --- Being Brahman, because it is impromptu.... Stay there, no need to explain, when you know about yourself, who else could you explain but to yourself.... Hari Om! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2000 Report Share Posted August 8, 2000 On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Madhava K Turumella wrote: > [...] > > LOL - Do you know which makes you laugh when you stand in the absolute > awareness? Looking at the stupidity of this experiencing brahman :-) > > Acting Brahman is very easy > Understanding Brahman is as difficult as reading a scripture written on the > surface of the water > Explaining Brahman is cheating > only one thing is true, which is --- > Being Brahman, because it is impromptu.... > Stay there, no need to explain, when you know about yourself, who else could > you explain but to yourself.... > > Hari Om! > namaste shri Madhava, The following is my understanding. "Acting Brahman is very easy": In my view, Acting Brahman is the most difficult as long as we are in avidyA. I am taking by 'Acting Brahman', Act as if you are brahman; or give the impression to the audience that you are brahman (that is what acting is all about). This, I think, is the most difficult. Good acting is one where the actor merges in the role assigned. Of course, if we get rid of avidyA, acting brahman is easy, because we are in that natural state. "Explaing Brahman is cheating": In my view, explaining brahman is difficult because you are explaining the unexplainable. May be the word "cheating" is harsh. If there were no attempts at explanations by the upanishadic sages and by acAryAs like shri shankara, we will not be even in the position of contemplation. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2000 Report Share Posted August 8, 2000 Dear Murthygaru, namastE! Thank you. An article, which I have read, on the in-famous indian gurus who have taken their disciples for a ride, has prompted me to write that "Acting brahman is easy". I felt pity for those disciples who have blindly believed that their teacher is indeed Brahman (guru brahma) finally after realizing the reality, it seems some of them committed suicide! In that context I thought "Acting Brahman is easy" if it were not easy how is it possible for some people to self proclaim! If you think that the word "cheating" is harsh, then I take it back. However, they tried to explain the inexplicable even in upanishads saying "that moves and that doesn't move (tadEjati tannaijati)..." they used these kind of counter statements in order to explain the highest. Arjuna was confused in Gita while Krishna employed these words and said "vyAmiShENEva vAkyEna buddhiM mOhayaseevamE" --- I am getting deluded by your confusing statements.... How will one escape from getting cheated? By being more cautious, and by rejecting the applied term. Finally we reach a place where no terms are possible, it is absolute. I couldn't find another word, anyway, as I said I take back the word, sorry about that. Thank you for your kind advise once again. I remain yours, Madhava Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy] Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:09 PM advaitin Re: Brahman Who?:-) On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Madhava K Turumella wrote: > [...] > > LOL - Do you know which makes you laugh when you stand in the absolute > awareness? Looking at the stupidity of this experiencing brahman :-) > > Acting Brahman is very easy > Understanding Brahman is as difficult as reading a scripture written on the > surface of the water > Explaining Brahman is cheating > only one thing is true, which is --- > Being Brahman, because it is impromptu.... > Stay there, no need to explain, when you know about yourself, who else could > you explain but to yourself.... > > Hari Om! > namaste shri Madhava, The following is my understanding. "Acting Brahman is very easy": In my view, Acting Brahman is the most difficult as long as we are in avidyA. I am taking by 'Acting Brahman', Act as if you are brahman; or give the impression to the audience that you are brahman (that is what acting is all about). This, I think, is the most difficult. Good acting is one where the actor merges in the role assigned. Of course, if we get rid of avidyA, acting brahman is easy, because we are in that natural state. "Explaing Brahman is cheating": In my view, explaining brahman is difficult because you are explaining the unexplainable. May be the word "cheating" is harsh. If there were no attempts at explanations by the upanishadic sages and by acAryAs like shri shankara, we will not be even in the position of contemplation. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other contact, Email to <advaitins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2000 Report Share Posted August 8, 2000 Hari Om: we are in a dream and it looks real, our drama of life has acts and actors, we play diverse roles without grasping, our drama continues along with the dream. questions belong to the same dream, answers are also part of the dream, the dream entertains us with new thoughts, neither the thoughts nor the dreams stop. Brahman who pertains to the same dream, Brahman who is the cause of the dream, the dreamer has to wake up from the dream, to realize that Brahman who is the dreamer! 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.