Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc] - sunderh That which knows the paths of work and renunciation, right and wrong action, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation, that intellect, O Partha, is Sattvika [pure]. I am loath to disagree with Frankji on the 'award of the month' in this instance! San: Ooooooh, what a loss! <s> Just when I was preeening myself. LOL. Cheers Sandeep Well, there is no harm in Sri Sandeepji's preening himself. Frankji's Award of the month may not have general consensus but Sandeepji's preening stands independently on its own ground! Ha, Ha, Ha! Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hiya Manya, - softbit advaitin Friday, March 23, 2001 06:41 PM Re: Release from bondage 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!!!. San: Or to expand your theme, some manifested body-mind complexes have the quality of sentience, (both human beings and animals) and a further quality of a sense of discrimination, the intellect, which is absent in the animal.(The later research findings are questioning even this absence) ---------------- 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. ----------- San: Who is the "we" of the "whole". This is not a dialectic question, but an existential one. Find out, who or where is the entity that you are so convinced about? A hint to do that. Take any "doing" that "you" are absolutely convinced, it was "your" action and unravel it. That is, go to the immediate preceding action/thought, to the next preceding one to that and so on. If you are brutally honest and go deep enough (and this doing also is not in your volition) you will find, in each and every action, both profane and profound, which you thought was 'your" action of "doing", it was actually the "mosiac" ( a conceptual term) which acted, not an individual entity. If no doing(whether as action or as thought) can be attributed to an "entity", (and this you have to arrive yourself), not accept my prattlings, then is there any "entity" at all? After all, it is the sense of volition (either in the form of actions or thoughts, the famous dictum, I think , therefore I am, which is one of the most hilarious statements ever made) that defines the "entity". ------------ 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. San; My dearest friend, does the heart beat, because of a "you" instructing it to do so? Does the pancreas secrete enzymes, becuase of a "you" instructing it to do so? Does breathing take place, because there is a "you" breathing? The entire body-mind complex works in perfect harmony with billions of reactions, chnages, movements, and there is no evidence of a "you" being required to run the show. If there was needed a "you" to remember to breath or to accry on the billion "movements" within a simple body-mind complex like a human being, the body-mind complex would be "dead" as soon as it is "born". ---------------------- 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. San: Yes, there are Yogic states, where metabolism state can be increased decreased. "Astral flying", "wave of the hand, miracles". All part of the phenomenal circus and finally worth nothing. Even Samadhee is worth nothing, for you have to retun back to "non-Samadhee". There was this sage who went into Samadhi just before lunch time. His disciples had got his frugal meal, but did not feel like serving it cold. Seeing the MAster gone into Samadhi, they took teh food to heat up. By this time the Master "returned" and asked where is his food? Do you get the point? Finally it is only apperception without a "perceiver", an understanding without an "understander", that IS. Does this indicate that there must be some thing more than quantum physics,a biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus. ---------- San: There has to be a "conceiver" of the "conceived". Other wise as Science has discovered, what the mystics discovered eons ago, there is no "conceived". In deep sleep where is " Manya" and where is "Manya's world"? >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.) San: The attempt to be free, or to give up the whole crap of spiritual doing, both, and I repeat both, are strictly the actualization of the operative conditioning of the moment. Any conclusion, that you think you have arrived at, is the "operative conditioning in the moment", concluding. That was precisely what Impersonal Consciousness (again a conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) wished to bring about in that moment, through "you as an instrument" and hence the need for the appropriate conditioning to enable such an "event" (conclusion is a thought which is an event) to come about in the moment. Not-Two, as this List is named after. Cheers Sandeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Hi GM, I think let's not subject the audience to these long dialogues. May I summarize? Is your position that in the body-mind complex which society has labeled a name as "GM", there is a self which is deluded and thus this deluded self needs to achieve moksha , in the process becoming de-deluded, achieving this, through whichever means , X, Y Z? Is this a correct summation of your belief? If yes, then here is my money back offer, even though no moolah is being exchanged. Produce this deluded entity, and I will hand over moksha to this entity, in this moment. And this deluded entity don't even have to be in my physical presence, to be "mokshed" Guaranteed money back offer. Cheers Sandeep - Gummuluru Murthy advaitin Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:03 AM Re: Release from bondage 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. <SNIP> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 24032001 Hi San > Or to expand your theme, some manifested body-mind complexes have the >quality of sentience, (both human beings and animals) and a further quality >of a sense of discrimination, the intellect, which is absent in the >animal.(The later research findings are questioning even this absence) > The entire body-mind complex works in perfect harmony with billions of >reactions, chnages, >movements, and there is no evidence of a "you" being >required to run the show. So it is aggreed that some of the relative electrons at relative time and relative space relatively combine to have relatively more sense of discremination. why? Your elevated senses of body-mind complex works in perfect harmoney with billions of reactions,changes and movements but come down little-bit and you may see that your physical frame will undergo all these changes atleast for some Time, even when declared dead by the doctors. This means to an Unbaised creature changes in a physical frame and deadness have no relation. A dead physical frame will have all those things which it had when it was not dead but for one good 'thing' . That is the evidence that some thing is requried other than mere relative dance of electrons. When physical frame does not accept this, it becomes Buddha or Sandeep and to prove that all jugglery of words begins. > If no doing(whether as action or as thought) can be attributed to an "entity", (and this you have to arrive yourself), not accept my prattlings, then is there any "entity" at all? > > After all, it is the sense of volition (either in the form of actions or thoughts, the famous dictum, I think , therefore I am, which is one of the most hilarious statements ever made) that defines the "entity". forget all about doing and nondoing. Physical frame should decide, senses are required for it to perform and to think or not and senses are there because of physical frame or not. Presence of it makes physical frame acceptable in the society where as absence of it good for earthly residence. > Yes, there are Yogic states, where metabolism state can be increased decreased. > "Astral flying", "wave of the hand, miracles". > All part of the phenomenal circus and finally worth nothing. How a physical frame can talk about presence of "Worth" and absence of "Worth"? > There has to be a "conceiver" of the "conceived". > Other wise as Science has discovered, what the mystics discovered eons >ago, there is no "conceived". This "conceiver" and "Conceived" is not for physical frame . > >What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the > >perpetuation of the bondage. Physical frame does not reauire freeing. It requires destructions that happens every moment. Destruction is perpetuate. Every moment every physical body (living,non-living) is in the process of destruction. So merely considering everything is physical frame and there is no Jivatma does not require any understanding of freeness and bondage. First decide about physical frame and its association with Jivatma then indulge in the freeing. > Not-Two, as this List is named after. Not -Two that is One. That Oneness is not indivual physical frameness but that what keeps this dance of universe inspite of "Conceiver" and "Conceived". Phaedrus once talked about davis humes hypothetical sitiuation: Suppose a child is born devoid of all senses; he has no sight,no hearing,no touch,no smell,no teste-Nothing. There's no way whatsoever for him to receive any sensations from the external world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence. The question is then asked: Does this eighteen year old physical frame have a thought in its any of the organ(head)? Now before answering, without wandaring like anything, remember the famous dictum "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) Manya Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc advaitin <advaitin> Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:53 PM Re: Release from bondage >Hiya Manya, > > - > softbit > advaitin > Friday, March 23, 2001 06:41 PM > Re: Release from bondage > > > 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!!!. > > > San: > > Or to expand your theme, some manifested body-mind complexes have the quality of sentience, (both human beings and animals) and a further quality of a sense of discrimination, the intellect, which is absent in the animal.(The later research findings are questioning even this absence) > ---------------- > > 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. > > ----------- > > San: > Who is the "we" of the "whole". > This is not a dialectic question, but an existential one. > Find out, who or where is the entity that you are so convinced about? > A hint to do that. > > Take any "doing" that "you" are absolutely convinced, it was "your" action and unravel it. > That is, go to the immediate preceding action/thought, to the next preceding one to that and so on. > > If you are brutally honest and go deep enough (and this doing also is not in your volition) you will find, in each and every action, both profane and profound, which you thought was 'your" action of "doing", it was actually the "mosiac" ( a conceptual term) which acted, not an individual entity. > > If no doing(whether as action or as thought) can be attributed to an "entity", (and this you have to arrive yourself), not accept my prattlings, then is there any "entity" at all? > > After all, it is the sense of volition (either in the form of actions or thoughts, the famous dictum, I think , therefore I am, which is one of the most hilarious statements ever made) that defines the "entity". > ------------ > > 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. > > San; > My dearest friend, does the heart beat, because of a "you" instructing it to do so? > Does the pancreas secrete enzymes, becuase of a "you" instructing it to do so? > Does breathing take place, because there is a "you" breathing? > > The entire body-mind complex works in perfect harmony with billions of reactions, chnages, movements, and there is no evidence of a "you" being required to run the show. > > If there was needed a "you" to remember to breath or to accry on the billion "movements" within a simple body-mind complex like a human being, the body-mind complex would be "dead" as soon as it is "born". > > ---------------------- > > 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. > > San: > > Yes, there are Yogic states, where metabolism state can be increased decreased. > "Astral flying", "wave of the hand, miracles". > All part of the phenomenal circus and finally worth nothing. > > Even Samadhee is worth nothing, for you have to retun back to "non-Samadhee". > > There was this sage who went into Samadhi just before lunch time. His disciples had got his frugal meal, but did not feel like serving it cold. Seeing the MAster gone into Samadhi, they took teh food to heat up. > By this time the Master "returned" and asked where is his food? > > Do you get the point? > > Finally it is only apperception without a "perceiver", an understanding without an "understander", that IS. > > Does this > indicate that there must be some thing more than quantum physics,a > biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus. > ---------- > > San: > > There has to be a "conceiver" of the "conceived". > Other wise as Science has discovered, what the mystics discovered eons ago, there is no "conceived". > In deep sleep where is " Manya" and where is "Manya's world"? > > > >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.) > > San: > > The attempt to be free, or to give up the whole crap of spiritual doing, >both, and I repeat both, are strictly the actualization of the operative >conditioning of the moment. > > Any conclusion, that you think you have arrived at, is the "operative conditioning in the moment", concluding. > > > That was precisely what Impersonal Consciousness (again a conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) wished to bring about in that moment, through "you as an instrument" and hence the need for the appropriate conditioning to enable such an "event" (conclusion is a thought which is an event) to come about in the moment. > Not-Two, as this List is named after. > > > Cheers > > > Sandeep. > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Hi Manya, - softbit advaitin Saturday, March 24, 2001 06:50 PM Re: Release from bondage 24032001 Hi San > Or to expand your theme, some manifested body-mind complexes have the >quality of sentience, (both human beings and animals) and a further quality >of a sense of discrimination, the intellect, which is absent in the >animal.(The later research findings are questioning even this absence) > The entire body-mind complex works in perfect harmony with billions of >reactions, chnages, >movements, and there is no evidence of a "you" being >required to run the show. So it is aggreed that some of the relative electrons at relative time and relative space relatively combine to have relatively more sense of discremination. why? San; Let me try to re-phrase your question, so that I "get" it.<s> Why are human beings with an some added qualities compared to non-sentinet beings, manifested? Is that your question? Why not? How else to make the leela more interesting, without the diversity? How to "thicken the plot" as prattled by Ramana, when asked why is there so much suffering and grief in the world? Your elevated senses of body-mind complex works in perfect harmoney with billions of reactions,changes and movements but come down little-bit and you may see that your physical frame will undergo all these changes atleast for some Time, even when declared dead by the doctors. San: Maybe. This means to an Unbaised creature changes in a physical frame and deadness have no relation. A dead physical frame will have all those things which it had when it was not dead but for one good 'thing' . That is the evidence that some thing is requried other than mere relative dance of electrons. San Oh now I get it what you are driving at. If you are saying the quality of sentience which allows the senses of a body-mind complex to cognise, is essentially Consciousness at work, I am totally with you. All I am saying is that it is the same Impersonal Consciousness-in-movement, (to differentiate from a Noumenon or Consciousness in repose), which ends the entitification with an individual identity, in some rare few body-mind complexes. And even this is a concept. When physical frame does not accept this, it becomes Buddha or Sandeep and to prove that all jugglery of words begins. San: For the physical frame, the psycho-somatic apparatus, enlightenement, awakening, Buddhahood is of no relevance. And the physical frame never awakens. It is an inert apparatus and remains inert, till it merges from where it emanated. All that is relevant to it, is it's operative conditioning, which continues even after "awakening" happens. That is why you have the huge variety of sages, going around and the sheer diversity of theri expressions of what is the same stuff.<s> > If no doing(whether as action or as thought) can be attributed to an "entity", (and this you have to arrive yourself), not accept my prattlings, then is there any "entity" at all? > > After all, it is the sense of volition (either in the form of actions or thoughts, the famous dictum, I think , therefore I am, which is one of the most hilarious statements ever made) that defines the "entity". forget all about doing and nondoing. San: LOL Why? Why are you hesitant to expose the reality of all doing and non-doing? I say, forget everything, all your questions and go into this reality and then subsequently posit your questions. Physical frame should decide, senses are required for it to perform and to think or not and senses are there because of physical frame or not. San: Sorry come again. Are you saying the body-mind complex is to decide? Presence of it makes physical frame acceptable in the society where as absence of it good for earthly residence. San: Sorry Manya, can't get you. > Yes, there are Yogic states, where metabolism state can be increased decreased. > "Astral flying", "wave of the hand, miracles". > All part of the phenomenal circus and finally worth nothing. How a physical frame can talk about presence of "Worth" and absence of "Worth"? San: It is your assumption that a physical frame is talking in the first place. > There has to be a "conceiver" of the "conceived". > Other wise as Science has discovered, what the mystics discovered eons >ago, there is no "conceived". This "conceiver" and "Conceived" is not for physical frame . San: At last something which I understand from you. Yes, it is a mere instrument through which cognition takes place. > >What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the > >perpetuation of the bondage. Physical frame does not reauire freeing. San: Correct. And I was not saying that it is the physical frame which is trying to be free. The physical frame, the body-mind complex has no issue whatsoever. Neither freedom, neither bondage. Neither when there arises a sense of pleasure or a sense of pain. It requires destructions that happens every moment. Destruction is perpetuate. Every moment every physical body (living,non-living) is in the process of destruction. San: Destruction AND creation. Again only if one is speaking in the phenomenal context which itself is conceptual. Otherwise there is and has been, no creation, there is and has been , no destruction. So merely considering everything is physical frame and there is no Jivatma does not require any understanding of freeness and bondage. San; You misunderstand me. Neither doI I talk about the body-mind complex, neither do I talk about Jivatma (which can only be a product of your conditioning). First decide about physical frame and its association with Jivatma then indulge in the freeing. San: See above. > Not-Two, as this List is named after. Not -Two that is One. San: LOL Not-Two is not saying it is One. To say it is only One, that makes sense only in the background of Two. Not-Two only infers Not-Two. And finally even this is an absurd statement. That Oneness is not indivual physical frameness but that what keeps this dance of universe inspite of "Conceiver" and "Conceived". San: That (to use a conceptual term for this dialogue) is all the "conceivers" and all the "conceived" and all the conceiving. Phaedrus once talked about davis humes hypothetical sitiuation: Suppose a child is born devoid of all senses; he has no sight,no hearing,no touch,no smell,no teste-Nothing. There's no way whatsoever for him to receive any sensations from the external world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence. The question is then asked: Does this eighteen year old physical frame have a thought in its any of the organ(head)? Now before answering, without wandaring like anything, remember the famous dictum "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) San: Let me first reiterate what I mean by operative conditiong in the moment. The operative coinditioning of the moment, is the basic DNA-gene structure inherited from your parents, over which you had no contro. Did you decide which sperm of your father with it's unique characteristics would get together with which ovum of your mother with it's unique characteristics? Even they did not have the volition over the selection. This basic gene-structure at birth, further has been "impacted" moment after moment after moment by inputs from the external environ, through out your life-span to form what is the operative conditioning of the moment. In the case you describe, the original DNA-gene structure is present (you say this is a child is "existing" for 18 years) which may had very little impact from the external environ. I will not say nil impact because there is an intravenous impacting taking place, as you describe the scenario. Further, the Human Genome Project shows that todays human genome is carrying elements of Millions of years ago, microbes. So a more less non-sentient body-mind complex which is still alive as you describe, need not have an operative conditioing impacted by the enovirn of only this life-time. There may not be any articulation in language as thoughts but there will still be an operative conditioning which responds to the intravenous "food", and undergoes as response, the entire metabolism, to keep the body-mind complex "alive". There may not be any thought but there will still be a sense of 'amness". The only thing, in phenomenality, which is not a concept , is this "amness", which is beyond sentience. Cheers Sandeep Cheers Sandeep Manya Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc advaitin <advaitin> Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:53 PM Re: Release from bondage >Hiya Manya, > > - > softbit > advaitin > Friday, March 23, 2001 06:41 PM > Re: Release from bondage > > > 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!!!. > > > San: > > Or to expand your theme, some manifested body-mind complexes have the quality of sentience, (both human beings and animals) and a further quality of a sense of discrimination, the intellect, which is absent in the animal.(The later research findings are questioning even this absence) > ---------------- > > 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. > > ----------- > > San: > Who is the "we" of the "whole". > This is not a dialectic question, but an existential one. > Find out, who or where is the entity that you are so convinced about? > A hint to do that. > > Take any "doing" that "you" are absolutely convinced, it was "your" action and unravel it. > That is, go to the immediate preceding action/thought, to the next preceding one to that and so on. > > If you are brutally honest and go deep enough (and this doing also is not in your volition) you will find, in each and every action, both profane and profound, which you thought was 'your" action of "doing", it was actually the "mosiac" ( a conceptual term) which acted, not an individual entity. > > If no doing(whether as action or as thought) can be attributed to an "entity", (and this you have to arrive yourself), not accept my prattlings, then is there any "entity" at all? > > After all, it is the sense of volition (either in the form of actions or thoughts, the famous dictum, I think , therefore I am, which is one of the most hilarious statements ever made) that defines the "entity". > ------------ > > 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. > > San; > My dearest friend, does the heart beat, because of a "you" instructing it to do so? > Does the pancreas secrete enzymes, becuase of a "you" instructing it to do so? > Does breathing take place, because there is a "you" breathing? > > The entire body-mind complex works in perfect harmony with billions of reactions, chnages, movements, and there is no evidence of a "you" being required to run the show. > > If there was needed a "you" to remember to breath or to accry on the billion "movements" within a simple body-mind complex like a human being, the body-mind complex would be "dead" as soon as it is "born". > > ---------------------- > > 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. > > San: > > Yes, there are Yogic states, where metabolism state can be increased decreased. > "Astral flying", "wave of the hand, miracles". > All part of the phenomenal circus and finally worth nothing. > > Even Samadhee is worth nothing, for you have to retun back to "non-Samadhee". > > There was this sage who went into Samadhi just before lunch time. His disciples had got his frugal meal, but did not feel like serving it cold. Seeing the MAster gone into Samadhi, they took teh food to heat up. > By this time the Master "returned" and asked where is his food? > > Do you get the point? > > Finally it is only apperception without a "perceiver", an understanding without an "understander", that IS. > > Does this > indicate that there must be some thing more than quantum physics,a > biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus. > ---------- > > San: > > There has to be a "conceiver" of the "conceived". > Other wise as Science has discovered, what the mystics discovered eons ago, there is no "conceived". > In deep sleep where is " Manya" and where is "Manya's world"? > > > >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.) > > San: > > The attempt to be free, or to give up the whole crap of spiritual doing, >both, and I repeat both, are strictly the actualization of the operative >conditioning of the moment. > > Any conclusion, that you think you have arrived at, is the "operative conditioning in the moment", concluding. > > > That was precisely what Impersonal Consciousness (again a conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) wished to bring about in that moment, through "you as an instrument" and hence the need for the appropriate conditioning to enable such an "event" (conclusion is a thought which is an event) to come about in the moment. > Not-Two, as this List is named after. > > > Cheers > > > Sandeep. > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > Sponsor 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 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.