Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Hiya Gummuluru, <SNIP> namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. It is customary on this List to send a short note introducing yourself to the List so that all the members are aware of the perspectives behind the post. San: A gentleman of leisure. ------------- I concede that recalling the background itself is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, it is unavoidable. San: If the background is not the message, then it's not worth a fig. -------------- Your comments are well-taken and are full of wisdom. You ask who is to be "mokshed". It is certainly *theoretically* correct to ask that question and certainly a neauveau trendy one too. My response to that would be: the jIvA, the deluded Atman that is to be freed from the shackles of bondage. San: Indeed, it would be so, if the individual Jiva, who assumes the burden of thr shackles of bondage, existed in the first place. What do we truly have. A body-mind complex, a biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus, with a characteristic of sentience and with an innate conditioning, through which, Impersonal functioning keeps occurring, moment after moment after moment. This conditioning in turn is the basic DNA-gene structure inhertited, non-volitionally from your parents and which has been subsequently "impacted" by inputs from the environ, through parents, friends, society, education, value-systems, experiences, Gurus, Mahatamas, charismatic leaders etc etc, which have resulted in it being altered, amended, edited, changed, moment to moment to moment. Hence the term "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) It is this "operative conditioning of the moment" which enables the functioning to take place in the moment, precisely in the manner and form, as it occurs in the moment. The neuro surgeon Dr Benjamin Libet's experiments validate this process. And thus for such functioning to take place, appropriate body-mind complex with appropriate conditionings are manifested. It is precisely such a process occurring through the billions and billions of "conditioned" body-mind complexes, which makes up the mosaic of Life as we know it. Coming back to the body-mind complex, it is essentially the product of a sperm and an ovum, which in turn is the essence of the food ingested and thus comes into the play the 5 basic elements, making up phenomenality. The body-mind complex, after it's allotted life-span will return back to the five basic elements. Where in all this, is the "Jiva" bounded and which needs liberation? Yes there is an illusory sense of personal volition, of doership (whatever be the doing, profane or profound) and this brings about a sense of separation. This sense of separation in turn brings a sense of insecurity, a sense of suffering. But all this an illusion. There is no "individual entity" in the first place either bound or liberated, for which the very question can have a relevance. But an illusion is needed, for the play, the leela to get enacted and hence this illusory sense of entitification appears to come into existence and the Maya seems so real that it seems the whole circus has come to town. But only "seems", not "IS". ---------------- This jIvA feels him/herself to be limited, although he/she is infinite. This jIvA signs the names as Gummuluru, or Sandeep or X although he/she is beyond the names and forms. San: Indeed, Jiva, or Consciousness or Micky Mouse or whatever term you wish to use, seems to undergo an entitification moving from Oneness (again a conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) into multiplicity. Life needs the gestalt of duality to be cognized. This very dialogue as an infinitely small part of Life itself, needs an apparent "Sandeep" to be separate from an apparent "Gummuluru". And now a dialogue is possible, between these two separate entities. But really it is only Consciousness frolicking with itself through this very dialogue. Playing this particular game. ------------- Liberation is the treatment and cure for this delusion. San: There can be a treatment and a cure if there is a "disease" separate from "health". If I am the "diseased" , I am the disease, I am the cure and I am the "cured", then what treatment, what cure? A simple question will clarify. In Oneness, who is to liberate whom from what? What is not-Oneness, that can be termed "un-liberated", and hence apart from itself, so that Oneness, needs to move towards that? ------------------ We can say we are that unlimited SELF only when we do not put our names to our posts and when we are at a stage in our spiritual evolution when we do not claim this is my house, this is my family, this is my bank-account, this is my sannyAsi-ashrama name, etc. San: Oh by all means do all of them. To function in society, you need not go nuts<s> Just smile internally at the role, the body-mind complex, the conceptual entity, has been allotted to play and is playing by taking on all these "masks" , whether they are profane ones or profound ones. This has been the problem with our Hindu interpreters. They moved into "doing" versus "non-doing" and the whole crap of what type of "doing" being suitable for what goals etc etc. Doing or non-doing (which is also a doing) per se is not the issue at all. What is important is the presence or absence of the sense of personal doer-ship that gets attached to the "doing" which anyway takes place, irrespectively, moment after moment after moment. It is the presence or absence of the sense of personal doer-ship which creates our Personal Hells and Personal Heavens. It would not be thus too difficult to apperceive then, that the absence of the sense of personal doer-ship cannot be brought about by the entity (which is nothing but the illusory sense of personal doership), but can only be non-volitional, acausal "occurrence". ---------------------------- As long as we see ourselves as the limited self, we cannot really say that moksha has no meaning. We cannot claim both ways. San: Very true. Assume the bondage and liberation is indeed a cherished goal. What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the perpetuation of the bondage. It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-straps. Can it ever be done? You, the attempter, is the very weight that you are trying to lift. The effort is the weight. The goose was never in the bottle in the first place, so the question of wring it's neck and bringing it out of the bottle was never relevant. ---------------- Only if we can walk away (manasA, vAcA, kAyA) from the world without even feeling a pinch, and only if we are not dragged back into what we call worldly commitments by people around, and only if we walk away the world does not feel it and we do not feel it, then only we can say that we do not need liberation. San: Where is the world not, to which you can walk to? In the "we do not need liberation", the "we" is very much present isn't it? Rather when there is no "entity" to which the entire question of bondage or liberation is no longer relevant, the entity is close to being in the "tiger's mouth". Remember, the dude who sang, some 3,000 years back "No answers received All questions dropped" All question dropped, because the "questioner" has dropped. And the "questioner" cannot drop itself, for in the very act of dropping (through whatever means is the latest "fad") is it's continued existence. Mis conceptual dos centavos. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hi San >Coming back to the body-mind complex, it is essentially the product of a >sperm and an ovum, which in turn is the essence of the food ingested and >thus comes into the play the 5 basic elements, making up phenomenality. > >The body-mind complex, after it's allotted life-span will return back to the >five basic elements. > >Where in all this, is the "Jiva" bounded and which needs liberation? What do we truly have. Relative electrons at relative time and relative space relatively combine, to corporate into various atoms which, in their turn, combine into molecules. These molecules, in their turn, again combine into various compounds compounding into the visible world we perceive and feel. Thoery of Relativity says it. Some of the relative electrons can write whereas some of them can not!!!. We get feeling as a whole of the body-mind although our body is combination of so many parts. We have feeling of a whole not as a individual organ of a body. Does that mean there should be some separate entity to corporate the working of the whole physical frame in order to keep the same intact. The dead body if left intact, still works in the form of metabolism, the beard, the moustaches and the nails are all the while incresing in a dead body which works for some time even after physical death. The Samadhee Avastha of a Yogi overcomes all such metabolism in the physical body.That is the difference in a physical death and body in a Samadhee stage. Does this indicate that there must be some thing more than quantum physics,a biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus. >What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the >perpetuation of the bondage. Does that prove "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) Manya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 namaste. (GM's earlier post is prefixed with >> . SC's comments on that are prefixed with > .) On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > [...] >> Your comments are well-taken and are full of wisdom. >> You ask who is to be "mokshed". It is certainly *theoretically* >> correct to ask that question and certainly a neauveau trendy >> one too. My response to that would be: the jIvA, the deluded >> Atman that is to be freed from the shackles of bondage. > > San: > > Indeed, it would be so, if the individual Jiva, who assumes the burden of > thr shackles of bondage, existed in the first place. > > What do we truly have. > > A body-mind complex, a biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus, with > a characteristic of sentience and with an innate conditioning, through > which, Impersonal functioning keeps occurring, moment after moment after > moment. > > This conditioning in turn is the basic DNA-gene structure inhertited, > non-volitionally from your parents and which has been subsequently > "impacted" by inputs from the environ, through parents, friends, society, > education, value-systems, experiences, Gurus, Mahatamas, charismatic leaders > etc etc, which have resulted in it being altered, amended, edited, changed, > moment to moment to moment. > > Hence the term "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have > noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) > > It is this "operative conditioning of the moment" which enables the > functioning to take place in the moment, precisely in the manner and form, > as it occurs in the moment. > > The neuro surgeon Dr Benjamin Libet's experiments validate this process. > > And thus for such functioning to take place, appropriate body-mind complex > with appropriate conditionings are manifested. > > It is precisely such a process occurring through the billions and billions > of "conditioned" body-mind complexes, which makes up the mosaic of Life as > we know it. > > Coming back to the body-mind complex, it is essentially the product of a > sperm and an ovum, which in turn is the essence of the food ingested and > thus comes into the play the 5 basic elements, making up phenomenality. > > The body-mind complex, after it's allotted life-span will return back to the > five basic elements. > > Where in all this, is the "Jiva" bounded and which needs liberation? > You have forgotten to describe above what makes the above body-mind complex to function. The thing that makes the above to function is the Atman and the whole (body-mind)complex along with Atman in its deluded state of feeling of individuality is the jIvA. > Yes there is an illusory sense of personal volition, of doership (whatever > be the doing, profane or profound) and this brings about a sense of > separation. > > This sense of separation in turn brings a sense of insecurity, a sense of > suffering. > What you have described above is the avidyA, the delusion that i am the doer and i am the enjoyer. And it is for this delusion that i am suggesting the treatment of jnAnam which is moksha. > But all this an illusion. > There is no "individual entity" in the first place either bound or > liberated, for which the very question can have a relevance. > > But an illusion is needed, for the play, the leela to get enacted and hence > this illusory sense of entitification appears to come into existence and > the Maya seems so real that it seems the whole circus has come to town. > It is not an illusion, it is a delusion. If it is an illusion, you see it separate from yourself. But that is not the case here. You are undergoing this; hence it is a delusion. If that delusion is cured, that is moksha. > But only "seems", not "IS". > ---------------- > >> This jIvA feels him/herself to be limited, although he/she >> is infinite. This jIvA signs the names as Gummuluru, or Sandeep >> or X although he/she is beyond the names and forms. >> > > San: > Indeed, Jiva, or Consciousness or Micky Mouse or whatever term you wish to > use, seems to undergo an entitification moving from Oneness (again a > conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) into multiplicity. > > Life needs the gestalt of duality to be cognized. > > This very dialogue as an infinitely small part of Life itself, needs an > apparent "Sandeep" to be separate from an apparent "Gummuluru". > > And now a dialogue is possible, between these two separate entities. > > But really it is only Consciousness frolicking with itself through this very > dialogue. > Playing this particular game. > I have no difficulty with what you said here. But the delusion comes in when one considers this to be real. > ------------- > > Liberation > is the treatment and cure for this delusion. > > San: > > There can be a treatment and a cure if there is a "disease" separate from > "health". > > If I am the "diseased" , I am the disease, I am the cure and I am the > "cured", then what treatment, what cure? > i is the diseased, the disease is the delusion, liberation (moksha) is the cure, and I (note the upper case) is the cured i. > A simple question will clarify. > > In Oneness, who is to liberate whom from what? > > What is not-Oneness, that can be termed "un-liberated", and hence apart from > itself, so that Oneness, needs to move towards that? > > ------------------ > >> We can say we are that unlimited SELF only when we do not >> put our names to our posts and when we are at a stage in our >> spiritual evolution when we do not claim this is my house, >> this is my family, this is my bank-account, this is my >> sannyAsi-ashrama name, etc. > > > San: > Oh by all means do all of them. > > To function in society, you need not go nuts<s> > > Just smile internally at the role, the body-mind complex, the conceptual > entity, has been allotted to play and is playing by taking on all these > "masks" , whether they are profane ones or profound ones. > > This has been the problem with our Hindu interpreters. > They moved into "doing" versus "non-doing" and the whole crap of what type > of "doing" being suitable for what goals etc etc. > > Doing or non-doing (which is also a doing) per se is not the issue at all. > > What is important is the presence or absence of the sense of personal > doer-ship that gets attached to the "doing" which anyway takes place, > irrespectively, moment after moment after moment. > > It is the presence or absence of the sense of personal doer-ship which > creates our Personal Hells and Personal Heavens. > > It would not be thus too difficult to apperceive then, that the absence of > the sense of personal doer-ship cannot be brought about by the entity (which > is nothing but the illusory sense of personal doership), but can only be > non-volitional, acausal "occurrence". > This is what the upanishads, the bhagavadgItA and the bhAShyA-s say; the 'Hindu interpreters' which you so scornfully (regrettably) rejected. > ---------------------------- >> As long as we see ourselves >> as the limited self, we cannot really say that moksha has >> no meaning. We cannot claim both ways. > > San: > > Very true. > Assume the bondage and liberation is indeed a cherished goal. > > What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the > perpetuation of the bondage. > > It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-straps. > Can it ever be done? > You, the attempter, is the very weight that you are trying to lift. > The effort is the weight. > > The goose was never in the bottle in the first place, so the question of > wring it's neck and bringing it out of the bottle was never relevant. > Only if you think you are in bondage, then only you need liberation. You may indeed be a realized soul and I bow to you for that. But quite often I hear that people can be in a state of denial. In that case, accepting that one has a disease (of delusion) is half the cure. > ---------------- > >> Only if we can walk away (manasA, vAcA, kAyA) from the world >> without even feeling a pinch, and only if we are not dragged >> back into what we call worldly commitments by people around, >> and only if we walk away the world does not feel it and we do >> not feel it, then only we can say that we do not need liberation. > > San: > Where is the world not, to which you can walk to? > When I say walk away, I mean not physical walk away but I mean: do not create the pairs of opposites which are the result of ignorance. What is the world made up of , except the pairs of opposites? > In the "we do not need liberation", the "we" is very much present isn't it? > Rather when there is no "entity" to which the entire question of bondage or > liberation is no longer relevant, the entity is close to being in the > "tiger's mouth". > > Remember, the dude who sang, some 3,000 years back > > "No answers received > All questions dropped" > > All question dropped, because the "questioner" has dropped. > And the "questioner" cannot drop itself, for in the very act of dropping > (through whatever means is the latest "fad") is it's continued existence. > > > Mis conceptual dos centavos. > > Cheers > > Sandeep > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ----------- 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.