Frank/The four states

[Guest guest]

advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote:

>

> hariH OM! murthyji, nandaji-

>

> i don't disagree with this observation; but the turiya

> is also considered the 'fourth state.' and then we have

> the turiyatika, which is god knows what? :-) (actually

> the latter term is postulated the same as the subtle

> difference between brahman and parabrahman.)

>

> not to sound cynical, but these kinds of observations:

> phases of the mind with the sakshi [as atman] watching

> them from the impersonal, silent 'hill' of the turiya,

> are merely semantical terms that boil down to being the

> relative Mind's attempts at organizing the Ineffable

> (being brahman not only in Its absolute condition, but

> also in Its relative condition!).

>

> and it's this relative condition that we tend to think

> or believe we can formulate an organized system of

> understanding around or about. yet we find, that the

> more we seem to succeed in doing so, the Mind pokes

> new holes in what we believed was a working philosophy.

>

> what i'm trying to say here is, that deriving such ways of

> observing the matrix of our consciousness in manifestation,

> are really only methods for appeasing the obsessive Mind

> in its thirst to know and commandeer our awareness.

> we have to be able to recognize the inherent limitations

> in all these [what amounts to being *tentative*] systems

> of understanding. we have to remember, as dennis recently

> pointed out, these relative philosophies are at best only

> fingers pointing to the moon, and aren't needed--in fact

> become treacherous obstacles!--once the moon itself is

> beheld in the awareness.

>

> namaste,

> frank

 

Frank I don't know what I'm talking about here but anyway here goes ..

 

The moon never enters into the relative does it?

 

Yet the relative is, just as the moon is. They both complement each

other.

 

It seems to me the moon wants the relative to know it is moon! It can

even direct the mind how to help.

 

Now the way you speak of Mind (& even with a capital M) ...

Capital M is cosmic Mind. Of course it wants to direct.

It is the Director!

 

How long do we distrust mind for? Even when it has become One? I

don't get ya why.

 

Peace;-)

 

Col

[Guest guest]

colette wrote:

>

> The moon never enters into the relative does it?

>

> Yet the relative is, just as the moon is. They both complement each

> other.

>

> It seems to me the moon wants the relative to know it is moon! It can

> even direct the mind how to help.

>

> Now the way you speak of Mind (& even with a capital M) ...

> Capital M is cosmic Mind. Of course it wants to direct.

> It is the Director!

>

> How long do we distrust mind for? Even when it has become One? I

> don't get ya why.

>

 

dear col-

 

in the popular metaphor, "mistake not the finger

pointing to the moon for the moon itself," the moon

of course represents moksha (Self-realization), which

is anirvachaniya--beyond description. so there's no

pat logical answer to this question. the whole idea

implies a state within yet beyond the Relative and

Absolute. the 'design' of moksha or Liberation is

the liberation of speculation and doubt created by

and through the obsessive need to know and behold in

the Mind. (i capitalize 'm' in Mind not to signify

the cosmic mind, but to signify the mind we typically

**worship** [in/of the relative spectrum].) the Mind

here represents the higher portion of manas (the

reasoning mind) which is where is located the attempt

to understand that which is ineffable: the existential

brahman. whereas, it's the buddhi (intuitive mind)

that recognizes the impossibility to do so. while it

is in the chitta (or primal consciousness, being the

central sentient essence of sat-chit-ananda) where

Self-realization automatically *is*. as such, there's

nothing that needs to be *done* to have Self-realization.

this is why, for example, sri ramana didn't like the

term atmasakshatkara, since there is no 'kara' or doing

involved, but preferred atmasakshat (innate, inherent

Self-realization...viz. it's already, naturally within

one's midst...nothing positive needs to be done to

achieve it; rather something negative: the *removal*

of vrittis and samskaras (thoughts and ideas pertaining

here to contrived notions of things metaphysical).

 

so the Mind is a circular trap. it cannot hope to

behold the Absolute brahman. all it can do is finally

acknowledge that it cannot! ...and defer its command

over to our innate and *everpresent* chitta. as such,

we are *naturally*, innately Self-realized. it's our

Mind that's telling us--tricking us every which way

into believing--we're *not*!! thus we swear to it.

it's a hypnosis! a rank lie.

 

the mind, with a small 'm' is the only useful mechanism

we really have, which gets us through the practical world.

as the zens say, 'when i eat i eat,' 'when i walk i walk,'

etc. what they mean is using the mind to accomplish

ordinary tasks, and not engage speculative philosophy.

now, if it's philosophy one enjoys, fine. but one should

be aware that such is for entertainment purposes only...

there can be no logical resolution to the mystery of Being.

or one can use the mind to solve the problems in social,

political, ethical, judicial or even psychological matters.

not spiritual!...except *en route* to the threshold of what

is spiritual. *at* the threshold, however, it [the Mind]

is recognized to be in fact something *hyper-critical* to

be sacrificed!

 

this is what the vedantins refer to as manonasa (destroyed

or extinct Mind...and the stipulation has to be made that

it is the *philosophical Mind* that is destroyed...at least

insofar as something to be seriously relied upon, rather

than for purely entertainment purposes).

 

all these ideas to me represent a methodology for an undoing.

they're simply a way out of the quagmire. and if they become

some higher system of knowledge, then this system also needs

to be abandoned just as radically, quickly and thoroughly.

 

what remains over is what has ever been in our midst:

satchidananda. no aftermath reflections allowed! :-)

 

peace in OM

frank