Dense no longer!

[Guest guest]

--- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

> Hi Ken!

>

> May I address you so?

 

Namaste,

You are welcome to use any form of address except

Kenneth as that was used when I was young and in

trouble with parents or teachers.

> Have you ever been attentive? I mean when you

> do something,

> have you ever been attentive to details? Have you

> really got into

> details? Have you ever been the thing that you are

> doing? Then,

> have you experienced that something, that lighting

> up, that thrill (I

> don't have a proper word for it), that condenseed

> happiness

 

Yes indeed, in sports which I had taken to a high

level and as a teacher there are many opportunities to

be alive to or in the moment. When these moments

occur, although 'I' may have done some work prior to

the moment, knowledge flows. This knowledge is precise

to the needs of the moment and the 'I' is subsumed in

the flow of knowledge. 'Manas kshipta' and 'Manas

ekAgra' are possibly the correct descriptions for

this.

>It is ever there. It has always been

> there. We never

> noticed It because we were busy being other than

> ourselves. That is

> the problem. I hope you are getting me.

 

To be somewhat trite, we step out of being 'human

doings' and become 'human beings'. Whether as a

single point of concentration or expanded, unlimited

open attention, there is no place for 'I' in That

although 'I' may try to claim a role for itself later

when there comes a need to report the event or dwell

on it. Chapter 2 of the Gita explains what happens

when we dwell on things and create the attachments

which make up out common state.

The event, experience, transcends words because 'Mind

and words fall away from the Self'. Our discussion of

ghanam was a useful preparation for centring upon that

which transcends words and may we all be blessed in

our understanding.

Thank you for pointing the way.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Then the

> purpose of this

> post is served. May I again say Aum

> Thripurasundaryai Namaha, for

> She is my deity and I have nobody else to call out

> to!?

>

> Thank you for this thrill. I have nothing more to

> say. I abide in

> Her, Ken. So long then.

>

> Madathilnair

> _________________

>

> advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...>

> wrote:

> >

> > --- madathilnair <madathilnair> wrote:

> > >

> > > 4. sphuTaM vaktyeva tadrUpaM vareNyaM teja

> uttamaM /

> > > JAnAnandaghanaM

> > > nityaM vyApakaM svetarAsahaM //

> > >

> > > That Infinite Glory of His pervades everything

> as

> > > dense Consciousness

> > > and thus speaks volumes of the non-existence of

> > > anything else other

> > > than the Self.

> > >

> > > UNQUOTE

> > >

> > > Here again Consciousness is described as dense

> and

> > > the Sanskrit word

> > > used is "ghanam". Thought this may be of

> interest

> > > to you. You (also

> > > me) may also like to clarify with the Professor

> as

> > > to why the

> > > adjective "dense" is used when the subject of

> > > discussion

> > > is "vyapakam" (all-pervading). I am sure, as I

> > > anticipated before,

> > > Mother Thripurasundari is showering her grace on

> us

> > > through Prof.

> > > Krishnamoorthy.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > There does indeed seem to be some guidance going

> on

> > here. A number of different threads seem to be

> coming

> > together to eradicate the coarseness and to refine

> > some old 'knowledge' that I had wanted to put out

> into

> > the light.

> > Even a weekend discussion on some verses of the

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad came to join in the

> churning.

> > Harsha has joined us with his own insight on

> 'dense'

> > and although I agree with his underlying

> understanding

> > of the nature of consciousness being illustrated,

> I

> > still feel that 'dense' does not do 'ghanam'

> justice

> > when we look at vyapakam. 'Dense' implies a

> compact of

> > matter whereas 'all-pervading' and 'impenetrable'

> > transcend matter. I cannot think of an

> appropriate

> > English word.

> > I am reminded of some verses from the Bhagavad

> Gita

> > that presented me with a paradox and some study a

> few

> > years ago.

> > 9.4

> > 'All this universe is pervaded by Me in My

> > unmanifested form; all beings exist in Me, but I

> do

> > not abide in them.'

> > This makes complete sense in relation to

> > 'all-pervading'.

> > 9.5

> > 'Nor do beings dwell in Me, behold My divine yoga!

>

> > Bringing forth and supporting the beings, My Self

> does

> > not dwell in them.'

> > 9.6

> > 'As the mighty wind moving everywhere ever rests

> in

> > the AkAsha, know you that so do all beings rest in

> > Me.'

> >

> > My original question was on the word matsthAni

> being

> > differently translated in the three verses and

> upon

> > the obvious contradiction which is heightened when

> we

> > look at:

> > 9.29

> > 'I am the same to all beings; to Me there is none

> > hateful, none dear. But those who worship Me with

> > devotion, they are in Me and I am in them.'

> >

> > I approached this with a word by word parsing and

> > learned much but maybe it is coming back now to

> have

> > removed a few stale ideas. At that time of study

> > Shankara's commentary was very useful.

> >

> > Thank you for diecting me to Professor

> Krishnamurthy's

> > work as I had filed it for later study.

> >

> > Om sri ram

> >

> > Ken Knight

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sports - live college hoops coverage

> > http://sports./

>

>

 

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./