The Transition

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for the responses on the subject of Gods - I think the

discussion was useful and I feel I now understand their historical origin

and utility! Let's call a halt to that one. However... in response to Ram's

call to share interesting ideas:-

 

During the consideration of what has been said, the following question arose

and I thought it would be interesting to hear what the list has to say. At

some stage in our studies (and I feel that many must have reached such a

stage), there comes a point where there is a deep understanding and an

intellectual acceptance of the truth of the four mahaavaakya-s. And yet

there is still an ego to fall away; a clinging on to the sense that I am a

doer, enjoyer etc. What is the nature of the event that must occur before

the transition can be made from intellectual acceptance to full liberation?

Is there anything useful that can be said about it at all?

 

If I may pre-empt some of the possible responses to the question, I would

claim that it was a 'cop-out' to say that this event is 'grace', the 'will

of the absolute' or whatever - it seems that this would just be begging the

question. I am not asking 'what do I have to do' or anything similar - I

know that there is nothing that 'I' can do; indeed nothing that 'I' do at

all. Nor am I asking how people would describe the process itself - it has

been said that enlightenment is rather a 'non-event'. What I am interested

in is the 'lead up' for want of a better phrase to the 'paradigm-shift' of

realisation.

 

In connection with this, I have recently read an article by Nathan Gill that

claims that no 'event' need actually occur. He says 'there can be a gradual

understanding and relaxing into what is'. He believes that the

'transcendental' events typically related about the experiences of past

sages are not a sine qua non. Essentially, he says that the intellectual

understanding is 'the beginning of the end of the whole seeking drama. It is

a further small step to add, "So therefore I must also be that"'. He even

goes so far as to say, "Consciousness has absolutely no problem whatsoever

with a personal 'I' being present. Only Consciousness appearing as the

seeker, believes - or has been led to believe - that there is a problem with

the personal 'I', that non-doership or non-identification are important, but

the whole thing is Consciousness arising in and as your awareness now." He

claims (as indeed other, direct path adherents have claimed) that seeking is

part of the problem: - "Without the agitation of the spiritual seeking, a

deepening peace and contentment will gradually be noticed. This peace and

contentment is the core of our being, and although it is the goal of the

seeker, its permanent manifestation is actually prevented by the agitation

of the seeking itself."

 

Please do not take this post as an invitation to indulge in anti-direct path

criticism - I understand and sympathise with those objections. I would like

to concentrate just on this key issue of 'the transition'.

 

(Quotations are from an article 'Contentment' published in 'Self Enquiry'

Vol. 8 No. 2, Aug. 2000 - the periodical of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation,

UK.)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis-ji,

 

Great question and ruminations!

 

I apologize in advance for the lack of scriptural citations in what follows...

 

You ask about the leadup. Not, "what do the Upanishads say about the

lead-up?" About the lead-up -- it is quite often sort of a two-phase

process. The first phase is often a very strong desire to know the Truth,

to finally BE it. This desire is sweet and benevolent, not agitated. And

it is stronger than anything else, and it sort of places itself in the

background behind all other thoughts and feelings. Whenever you are not

thinking about the business of the day, you will think of getting at least

a tiny glimpse of this Truth. Your mind will just be there, aligned with

that desire to Know/Be. The strength will develop so that it's more

important than life itself. The second phase, closer to the "non-event,"

is often an indescribably sweet feeling of being summoned home. Of being

beckoned back to a place that you can't describe phenomenally, but which

feels soft and inviting and altogether familar nevertheless. And as time

goes on, there is a greater and greater feeling of confidence and

knowingness that this will happen. (From this perspective, it is probably

considered a real and quite momentous phenomenal event, but the feeling of

momentousness and reality attributed to this event also softens with time.)

 

About the seeking...

 

One thing that modern interpreters of advaita do is to attribute a lion's

share of suffering to the seeking itself. I've heard many spokespeople

say: "Enlightenment = the end of seeking!" This is quite a psychological

defintion of enlightenment, together with a personalized preoccupation with

one's feeling states and one's progress on the path. This kind of

seeking-based suffering is often a self-indulgent and

intellectually-acquired thing. There are lots of other kinds of suffering

that can remain even when seeking ends. E.g., I know one lady whose

seeking ended, but in despair. She even had a mild resentment towards what

she considered the charlatanry of some modern teachers, and went on to live

her life doing other things. No more seeking, but still various kinds of

suffering.

 

What about the average non-seeker's unhappiness, fear of death, disease,

angst, resentment, hatred, cruelty, etc.?

 

Definitions such as "Enlightenment = the end of seeking!" are a logical

misunderstanding, and even a trivialization of enlightenment, compared to

its articulation in the great traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

 

The logical misunderstanding consists partly in confusing something like

(A) with (B) below. According to most time-honored definitions of

enlightenment, something like (A) would be true, whereas (B) would be false:

 

(A) If Enlightenment, then no seeking.

(B) If no seeking, then Enlightenment.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 09:17 PM 3/22/01 -0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>>>>

Thank you all for the responses on the subject of Gods - I think the

discussion was useful and I feel I now understand their historical origin

and utility! Let's call a halt to that one. However... in response to Ram's

call to share interesting ideas:-

 

During the consideration of what has been said, the following question arose

and I thought it would be interesting to hear what the list has to say. At

some stage in our studies (and I feel that many must have reached such a

stage), there comes a point where there is a deep understanding and an

intellectual acceptance of the truth of the four mahaavaakya-s. And yet

there is still an ego to fall away; a clinging on to the sense that I am a

doer, enjoyer etc. What is the nature of the event that must occur before

the transition can be made from intellectual acceptance to full liberation?

Is there anything useful that can be said about it at all?

 

If I may pre-empt some of the possible responses to the question, I would

claim that it was a 'cop-out' to say that this event is 'grace', the 'will

of the absolute' or whatever - it seems that this would just be begging the

question. I am not asking 'what do I have to do' or anything similar - I

know that there is nothing that 'I' can do; indeed nothing that 'I' do at

all. Nor am I asking how people would describe the process itself - it has

been said that enlightenment is rather a 'non-event'. What I am interested

in is the 'lead up' for want of a better phrase to the 'paradigm-shift' of

realisation.

 

In connection with this, I have recently read an article by Nathan Gill that

claims that no 'event' need actually occur. He says 'there can be a gradual

understanding and relaxing into what is'. He believes that the

'transcendental' events typically related about the experiences of past

sages are not a sine qua non. Essentially, he says that the intellectual

understanding is 'the beginning of the end of the whole seeking drama. It is

a further small step to add, "So therefore I must also be that"'. He even

goes so far as to say, "Consciousness has absolutely no problem whatsoever

with a personal 'I' being present. Only Consciousness appearing as the

seeker, believes - or has been led to believe - that there is a problem with

the personal 'I', that non-doership or non-identification are important, but

the whole thing is Consciousness arising in and as your awareness now." He

claims (as indeed other, direct path adherents have claimed) that seeking is

part of the problem: - "Without the agitation of the spiritual seeking, a

deepening peace and contentment will gradually be noticed. This peace and

contentment is the core of our being, and although it is the goal of the

seeker, its permanent manifestation is actually prevented by the agitation

of the seeking itself."

 

Please do not take this post as an invitation to indulge in anti-direct path

criticism - I understand and sympathise with those objections. I would like

to concentrate just on this key issue of 'the transition'.

 

(Quotations are from an article 'Contentment' published in 'Self Enquiry'

Vol. 8 No. 2, Aug. 2000 - the periodical of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation,

UK.)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

And a great response by Greg-ji.

 

Scriptural citations are just affirmations of the sages past,

present, and future. In fact, scriptures themselves are infinite,

and sages and saints who have experienced the transition have a

common thread in their descriptions.

 

The Bhagavadgita is the essence of all the scriptures, and very often

in an aphoristic style it suggests what the transition is like.

 

It describes 12 areas of existence that require 'purity' [saatvika

nature]- namely: karma, kartaa, aahaara, yaj~na, daana, tapa [kaaya,

vaachaa, manas], dhR^iti, shraddhaa, tyaaga, buddhi, j~naana, sukha.

 

To the extent that these areas become 'pure', the mind settles into a

tranquil mould. Reality seems to shine through these. Actions become

spontaneous, compassionate, unpremeditated, without a trace of the

'impure' qualities [rajasic and tamasic].

 

There is an equanimity and empathy, almost an active trasmission of a

fearless 'soul-force' of peace into everything surrounding such a

person.

 

The person, overfilled with the sweet joy of existence, feels obliged

to share that joy with others, even in the midst of apparent

catastrophes.

 

Scriptures are just a reminder for most of us who are not fortunate

enough to share the constant companionship of sages.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hi Dennis-ji,

>

> Great question and ruminations!

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Gregory,

 

Have we met over cyber-space, somewhere?

 

May I hop onto the band-wagon with my two bits.........

 

-

Gregory Goode

advaitin

Friday, March 23, 2001 05:32 AM

Re: The Transition

 

 

Hi Dennis-ji,

 

Great question and ruminations!

 

I apologize in advance for the lack of scriptural citations in what follows...

 

You ask about the leadup. Not, "what do the Upanishads say about the

lead-up?" About the lead-up -- it is quite often sort of a two-phase

process. The first phase is often a very strong desire to know the Truth,

to finally BE it. This desire is sweet and benevolent, not agitated. And

it is stronger than anything else, and it sort of places itself in the

background behind all other thoughts and feelings. Whenever you are not

thinking about the business of the day, you will think of getting at least

a tiny glimpse of this Truth. Your mind will just be there, aligned with

that desire to Know/Be. The strength will develop so that it's more

important than life itself. The second phase, closer to the "non-event,"

is often an indescribably sweet feeling of being summoned home. Of being

beckoned back to a place that you can't describe phenomenally, but which

feels soft and inviting and altogether familar nevertheless. And as time

goes on, there is a greater and greater feeling of confidence and

knowingness that this will happen. (From this perspective, it is probably

considered a real and quite momentous phenomenal event, but the feeling of

momentousness and reality attributed to this event also softens with time.)

 

San:

 

A bow Gregory.

 

------------

 

 

About the seeking...

 

One thing that modern interpreters of advaita do is to attribute a lion's

share of suffering to the seeking itself. I've heard many spokespeople

say: "Enlightenment = the end of seeking!"

 

San:

 

The end of the "seeker".

 

Now who is left to describe the existence of that state of beingness as

enlightened, un-enlightened, joyous, sad, completed, fullfilled, end of seeking,

incomplete seeking, whatever?

 

To whom, will even the question arise "Is this IT?"

 

To whom, will the need to describe, be any more relevant ?

 

Who "other" will exist for such a body-mind complex, to whom, a relating would

be needed?

 

 

This is quite a psychological

defintion of enlightenment, together with a personalized preoccupation with

one's feeling states and one's progress on the path. This kind of

seeking-based suffering is often a self-indulgent and

intellectually-acquired thing.

 

 

San:

Indeed.

 

Who is left to say "seeking has ended"?

 

Yes in the milieu of such a being, another deluded seeker entering that

milieu, may experience that milieu as one where there is no seeking left

anymore.

 

Just like a flavour, the scent of a flower, the eyes of a sage.

 

 

There are lots of other kinds of suffering

that can remain even when seeking ends. E.g., I know one lady whose

seeking ended, but in despair.

 

 

San:

 

Seeking may or may not have ended.

 

The despair shows, that validation of what she expected to find, that did not

forthcome.

That's all.

 

She even had a mild resentment towards what

she considered the charlatanry of some modern teachers, and went on to live

her life doing other things.

 

 

San:

That is fine.

That is exactly what the Impersonal functioning wished to achieve through that

precisely appropriately conditioned body-mind complex.

 

After all if everybody became a sage, sitting on his/her illusory ass, with a

beautific smile on his/her illusory face, who is going to do the laundry?

 

 

 

No more seeking, but still various kinds of

suffering.

 

San:

 

The presence of suffering can only connote the presence of the "sufferer".

 

The body-mind complex may give up, with a conclusion that all this spritual

mumbo-jumbo sucks and so do the peddlers of the quick-fixes, but the moot point

is that apperception has yet to occur.

 

With apperception there cannot be suffering.

 

Yes subsequently, physical, mental, emotional "pain" may exist/ occur, in the

body-mind complex as per the innate conditioning, which continues till the

body-mind complex is 'alive", whether it is the body-mind complex of a sage or a

clown.

 

Ramana wept copious tears on hearing the narration of the suffering of

seekers.

 

He wrote several treatises on the suffering of the seeker, after the

realizatioin that there was none to suffer.

 

His, as well Nisargadatta's body developed the acute pain of cancer.

 

(The final validation of your sagicity seems to be whethere you finally get

cancer or not.

Anything less will not do<LOL>)

 

Suffering on the other hand is the unacceptance of pain, or what is happeing

in the moment.

 

That is a sure sign, you are still playing games.

No problem, just know that Consciosuness is playing and is still interested to

keep playing through "you".

 

What about the average non-seeker's unhappiness, fear of death, disease,

angst, resentment, hatred, cruelty, etc.?

 

San;

What about them?

 

 

Definitions such as "Enlightenment = the end of seeking!" are a logical

misunderstanding, and even a trivialization of enlightenment, compared to

its articulation in the great traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

 

San:

 

What is the meaning of the term Advait?

Not-Two.

If it is not-Two, who can seek whom, or what?

Can seeking take place, or an illusion of seeking is taking place?

 

 

The logical misunderstanding consists partly in confusing something like

(A) with (B) below. According to most time-honored definitions of

enlightenment, something like (A) would be true, whereas (B) would be false:

 

(A) If Enlightenment, then no seeking.

(B) If no seeking, then Enlightenment.

 

San:

 

Indeed.

Seemingly, there is no difference between the village idiot and the

enlightened sage.

 

In one the seeking has not yet started, in another the seeking has dropped.

 

That is why, for me a sage is no "higher" than a village idiot.

 

In a village idiot, Consciousness or Micky Mouse or whatever term you wish to

use, has not initiated the seeking, for no "fault" of the village idiot.

 

And in the sage it is Consciousness which has erased the sense of entity

(which seeks) and thus there is no kudos for the sage, for this non-volitional,

acausal grace to occur.

 

 

Mis dos conceptual centavos.

 

Cheers

 

Sandeep

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Greg for his insightful explanation of what the lead-up 'feels

like'. However, to attempt to clarify what I was getting at (I knew there

were going to be problems!): -

 

Clearly the transition is not a physical event - matter is only a

manifestation, names and forms attributed in ignorance to parts of the

unity; nothing essential changes when the name or form changes. Similarly,

it cannot be an emotional, mental or intellectual event - the apperception

of reality is beyond these mechanical functions. Although it involves the

loss of avidya, the transition cannot be brought about by the imparting of

any specific knowledge.

 

The question only has meaning at the relative level, of course. After the

transition, Reality (the Self, Consciousness, X) is the same as it always

was so any explanation for what is happening cannot be found here. In fact,

there can be absolutely no difference between Brahman as it is 'before' and

as it is 'after'. There can never be any change in the Absolute (and, in a

paaramaarthika sense there is no time anyway).

 

I mentioned, before, the idea of a paradigm shift. I suppose it must be

something like the change that came about when man, originally believing

that the earth was the centre of the universe, suddenly understood the

implications of Copernicus. And yet there, the event that tipped the balance

was the assimilation of new knowledge. Is this all (!) that is happening

here? In fact, could it happen without the knowledge of the shruti (direct

or indirect)?

 

Sorry, I am rambling into contradictions here, but I think my question has

perhaps now been clarified. What 'sort of' event is it, in vyaavahhaarika

terms? Is the elusiveness caused by trying to describe the indescribable

again, because the 'event' is a sort of intersection of noumenal and

phenomenal?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

Yes, your first question sounded sort of like a search for a kind of

road-map or progress indicator. But I know you weren't asking for that!

What terms of explanation seem OK?

 

In the same terms as your question -- It's the transition between seeing it

as an event, and not seeing it as an event. It's the transition between

seeming to experience a real difference between the noumenal and the

phenomenal, and not.

 

As seen from "before," there's a before and after, and an imagined

phenomenal distinction. As seen from "after," there is not.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 05:27 PM 3/23/01 -0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

 

Sorry, I am rambling into contradictions here, but I think my question has

perhaps now been clarified. What 'sort of' event is it, in vyaavahhaarika

terms? Is the elusiveness caused by trying to describe the indescribable

again, because the 'event' is a sort of intersection of noumenal and

phenomenal?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

I always find myself in difficult situations in understanding English :-)

Of late, I have been reading new greetings and new words on this Advaitin

list. I would like to know their definite usage before I start using them.

Please let me know the meanings of these following words.

 

1. "Jnaneswar is a cool dude" : I am curious, what does it mean?

2. What is the difference between "Hi" and "Hiya"?

 

Thank you once again.

 

Yours,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhava,

This is the "hip" language, not English, used by some seemingly intellectual

personalities to mock! You don't need that.

-- Vis

----------------------------

-

"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

<advaitin>

Friday, March 23, 2001 11:33 PM

RE: Re: The Transition

 

> I always find myself in difficult situations in understanding English :-)

> Of late, I have been reading new greetings and new words on this Advaitin

> list. I would like to know their definite usage before I start using

them.

> Please let me know the meanings of these following words.

>

> 1. "Jnaneswar is a cool dude" : I am curious, what does it mean?

> 2. What is the difference between "Hi" and "Hiya"?

>

> Thank you once again.

>

> Yours,

> Madhava

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>