Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 hariH OM! dear List- namaskaaram to all. hariH OM! sri sandeep- namaskaaram. first of all, we are ONE Self playing our game of leela [that necessitates multiple egos operative through Relativity].. thus [from the maya of our apparent plurality] our common denominator, THAT I AM, willed It into manifestation. this Life is vital entertainment! (sounds base/trivial to state it thus; nevertheless it boils down to being so.) ........ It's a sacred masterpiece of Existential Being thronged with Creative Lightning of the Unexpected bursting out of anywhere at once with any magnitude of force beyond the human mind's wildest rides into the Imagination of its most lucid moments. to consider it a joke without purpose is to limit it in a mind construct. to attempt to state unreservedly exactly *what it is or isn't* is folly! if we hypothetically *could say*, the fun will die. the toltec shaman don juan matus, said: "Life is a pure Mystery; anything we think we know of it is sheer folly." there's truth to the statement, "The mind is the slayer of the Real." and the mind invents concepts that become jails if we let them. this is why we have to either destroy the ones that trap us, or effectively ignore them. __________________ it's true that the message is the thing. but the [credibility of the] messenger can give pause to the listener enough to shake the habit-fixed tendency to rigidly interpret the message through their *own* preconditioned patterns of reasoning--which has invariably become their agenda. so....like in JAWS..when quince asked to see hooper's hands...and said, "city boy's hands.." he meant, what was his experience: books or field. _______________ this relates: in another post you asked a physicist: > As I keep asking, at the Big Bang, what exploded, > or who banged whom?<g> the meta-symbolism for this is truly majestic: OM MANI PADME HUM (OM the jewel [vibrant-reposing] in the lotus.) (OM the Thunderbolt piercing the dark Void.) what 'exploded' was brahman's desire projected into the sivalingam (thunderbolt) piercing the shakthiyoni (dark Void) once and forever as the eternal Now of the Manifest/Unmanifest Ineffable. nataraja doing the intergalactic mambo from the center of every quark to the spherical boundless Beyond of the breathing-bellows' Life-conception of our godhead Mind. sacred ageless Dance, in and out of Time, pregnant with Wonder and Beauty and Mystery *without end*. (this is what i believe. yet it has an equally balanced meaningless counterpart. *however*, its meaningful component, if we ignore *it*, has consequences as real as we think we are...which realness seems to fluctuate but is *ultimately* a mirage. which is what you've been alluding to, that saves us regardless of our thoughts or actions concerning it...the Substratum. and of course, i concur. *and yet*....!) re the "*and yet*....!": yes, advaita tells us, and i believe, we have no volition. no free will.....no choice in what comes through [our] respective jivas, since there's no *separative* doer. however, and as sri ramana has said, we do have one choice: whether we want to associate ourselves with the works of the [separative] ego or the reality of our substratum Self. and it follows on this, that the Substratum brahman's projection [as the leela], is equally sacred because inhering in the primal essence of brahman. therefore it's far from being rank pretense, where we can adopt the *attitude* to give ourselves license to treat it recklessly. on the contrary, the right attitude (ahimsa) is the natural outgrowth that develops as one approaches the *holistic* realization of satchidananda (atmasakshat), which is *NOT EXCLUSIVE* of this Divine leela! OM ramanarpanamasthu! OM namah arunachala sivaya! OM shaanthi shaanthi shaanthiH. regards, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > I hope you realize Frank, that the phenomenal context, itself is a concept. > > [...] > > Why do I say, Noumenon or that pervading substratum is a concept. > Because it cannot be validated, cognized. ________________________ howdy sandeep.. :-) ok, last question, then i'll rest my case. is your conclusion that the leela is a pretense without purpose somehow beyond merely a concept? regardless of your answer, i'll declare you the victor. namaste. frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Hiya Frank, - f maiello advaitin Sunday, March 25, 2001 01:43 PM divine leela hariH OM! dear List- namaskaaram to all. hariH OM! sri sandeep- namaskaaram. first of all, we are ONE Self playing our game of leela [that necessitates multiple egos operative through Relativity].. San: Indeed. And for the leela to come to be,unicty (a conceptual term) notionally has to become multiplicity so that this leela, which we call Life, which is essentially a mosaic of relationships, can come to be. Relationship being only possible in duality, in multiplicity. ------------------------- thus [from the maya of our apparent plurality] our common denominator, THAT I AM, willed It into manifestation. San: Yes that's a good concept from within a phenomenal context. I hope you realize Frank, that the phenomenal context, itself is a concept. And that, all that can be prattled, can only be done within this conceptual construct of phenomenality. And hence what gets prattled within phenomenality about what has conceived phenomenality, can only be conceptual. Noumenon, Awareness not aware of itself, Consciousness -in-repose, Substratum Self are all concepts. And Noumenon or the Unmanifest stirring into action, willing into manifestation, is also a concept. Why do I say, Noumenon or that pervading substratum is a concept. Because it cannot be validated, cognized. For all validation, all cognition is only relevant, possible within phenomenality. And it is only the absence of phenomenon which is the presence of noumenon. When you know about Truth, you know nothing about Truth, except as a concept. When Truth Is and you are not, there is "none" left to confirm, affirm, validate cognize or conceptualize anything, about that state. In fact the end of conceptualization (and all "doings" is nothing but externally actualized conceptualization,) is awakening. --------------------- this Life is vital entertainment! (sounds base/trivial to state it thus; nevertheless it boils down to being so.) ....... It's a sacred masterpiece of Existential Being thronged with Creative Lightning of the Unexpected bursting out of anywhere at once with any magnitude of force beyond the human mind's wildest rides into the Imagination of its most lucid moments. to consider it a joke without purpose is to limit it in a mind construct. San: And I say to attribute it a purpose is to attribute it , "incompletion". When an act has a purpose, the act is not a completion in itself. Purpose necessitates "becoming", and "becoming" requires an "entity" to become and cognition of this entity and it's so called becoming, needs the conceptual construct of space and time. When the total Picture already IS, what becoming is possible? Thus what entity is possible? And there is a notional sense of time and space. How does this come to be? Imagine a Picture 20 mile long by 20 mile high. Viewing this picture, as you are currently "wired", you can only see this Picture, frame by frame, to the extent of your vision. To see the picture , as we are "wired", is to move from one frame to another, and thus a notional sense of time and space is born. A term has been used for this-Maya. But this notional time and space and hence "becoming" and hence an attributed purpose (whatever you choose that to be) are all a consequence of the way you are "wired". Thus the dictum the "cognized" depends for it's existence on the "cognizer" and thus not having an independent existence, is not real. Whereas, really the total Picture already IS. A sage which is just a body-mind complex in which apperception has acausally, non-volitionally "occurred", the Isness of the Total Picture is apperceived. ------------------ to attempt to state unreservedly exactly *what it is or isn't* is folly! if we hypothetically *could say*, the fun will die. San: One cannot say anything about it, which is also saying something about it, hence is also a corruption. One can be it. (which is also a corrupted statement). And Frank, beingness does not in any way intefere with the fun and games.<s> ----------------------- the toltec shaman don juan matus, said: "Life is a pure Mystery; anything we think we know of it is sheer folly." there's truth to the statement, "The mind is the slayer of the Real." and the mind invents concepts that become jails if we let them. this is why we have to either destroy the ones that trap us, or effectively ignore them. San: The one who tries to destroy or ignore, in your above statement, is itself a concept, Frank. __________________ it's true that the message is the thing. but the [credibility of the] messenger can give pause to the listener enough to shake the habit-fixed tendency to rigidly interpret the message through their *own* preconditioned patterns of reasoning--which has invariably become their agenda. so....like in JAWS..when quince asked to see hooper's hands...and said, "city boy's hands.." he meant, what was his experience: books or field. San: Or in other words, is there only talking or is there walking of the talking? Right Frank? I am saying both are "events" within phenomenality. As to which applies to the entity Sandeep, you decide.<s> _______________ this relates: in another post you asked a physicist: > As I keep asking, at the Big Bang, what exploded, > or who banged whom?<g> the meta-symbolism for this is truly majestic: OM MANI PADME HUM (OM the jewel [vibrant-reposing] in the lotus.) (OM the Thunderbolt piercing the dark Void.) what 'exploded' was brahman's desire projected into the sivalingam (thunderbolt) piercing the shakthiyoni (dark Void) once and forever as the eternal Now of the Manifest/Unmanifest Ineffable. nataraja doing the intergalactic mambo from the center of every quark to the spherical boundless Beyond of the breathing-bellows' Life-conception of our godhead Mind. sacred ageless Dance, in and out of Time, pregnant with Wonder and Beauty and Mystery *without end*. (this is what i believe. San: Yes, that is why it is a concept. yet it has an equally balanced meaningless counterpart. *however*, its meaningful component, if we ignore *it*, has consequences as real as we think we are...which realness seems to fluctuate but is *ultimately* a mirage. which is what you've been alluding to, that saves us regardless of our thoughts or actions concerning it...the Substratum. and of course, i concur. *and yet*....!) re the "*and yet*....!": San: I can understand the confusion in the dichotomy. Here's a way out. Use the dream model. Noumenon, unicty exploding into multiplicity, is also a dream of the Noumenon. Akin to how you create in your night-sleep dream, the multitude of dream-characters and their profound ethos and pathos. To you, while dreaming , the characters and the song and dance they get into in the dream, are all very real. Next morning, waking from the sleep dream, sipping a hot cup of tea, what happened to all those dream characters and all the ethos and pathos? Consciousness-in-movement which is phenomenality, is the dream of Consciousness-in-repose, conceptually speaking and using conceptual terms. Hence real and unreal , simultaneously. ------------------------ yes, advaita tells us, and i believe, we have no volition. no free will.....no choice in what comes through [our] respective jivas, since there's no *separative* doer. San: And Frank, how have you come to this conclusion? And who is it that has come to that conclusion? ------------------- however, and as sri ramana has said, we do have one choice: whether we want to associate ourselves with the works of the [separative] ego or the reality of our substratum Self. San: I am aware of this dialogue which took place with Ramana. And again I repeat, faced with the misery of a seeker, the arising compassion in the body-mind complex of a sage, "births", "throws out" a life-line to the seeker and hence that suggestion from Ramana. Akin a toy prattle handed to a wailing child. For who is it, that is considering the choice to associate itself between with the ego or with the reality of the substratum Self? And what substratum Self can "you" conceive of, cognise, with which, you can then associate with? Would not the cognition of the term, the word, the symbol of substratum Self, be just a product of your conditioning? Would not such attempts of association be, like going round and round the mulberry bush? Conceptually speaking, yes substratum Self which entitified itself with a particular identity , can dis-entitify in a particular body-mind complex. There is none other to, either entitify or dis-entitify, which is what is denoted by non-volitionality. Yes Ramana handed over a toy to a wailing child.And it is very portent toy to stop the wailing and get you occupied. But that's about it. ---------------------------- and it follows on this, that the Substratum brahman's projection [as the leela], is equally sacred because inhering in the primal essence of brahman. therefore it's far from being rank pretense, where we can adopt the *attitude* to give ourselves license to treat it recklessly. San: You say you know there is no "doer" (above) and yet here you are worried about an attitude being adopted which gives license to treat recklessly (or whatever you meant here) That is why I asked you, how you have concluded on the non-volitionality of the body-mind complex? For if there is an apperception of non-volitionality, who is to be concerned with what attitude and what recklessness? Reckless treatment , if it is to be, will by itself, of itself, for itself. on the contrary, the right attitude (ahimsa) is the natural outgrowth that develops as one approaches the *holistic* realization of satchidananda (atmasakshat), which is *NOT EXCLUSIVE* of this Divine leela! San: The true ahimsa is a consequence of the apperception that there is no "other" and any himsa, is a himsa by myself on myself. With apperception, ahimsa or himsa, both are thus no longer relevant. If either occur, either is seen as nuances of the leela. That is true ahimsa. Mis conceptual dos centavos. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 Hi Sandeep/f maiello, One who wins also loses. That is the beauty and Truth. -- Vis -------------------- - "f maiello" <egodust <advaitin> Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:07 AM Re: divine leela > Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > > > I hope you realize Frank, that the phenomenal context, itself is a concept. > > > > [...] > > > > Why do I say, Noumenon or that pervading substratum is a concept. > > Because it cannot be validated, cognized. > > ________________________ > > > howdy sandeep.. :-) > > ok, last question, then i'll rest my case. > > is your conclusion that the leela is a pretense > without purpose somehow beyond merely a concept? > > regardless of your answer, i'll declare you the victor. > > namaste. > frank > > > 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...
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.