Guest guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Share Posted June 5, 2002 advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Dear Advaitins: > > I have been following the thread about a primer for Advaita. The idea > of using the FAQ forum intrigued me and I have , in the spirit of > pitching in on a difficult but worthy task, compiled my idea of what > some of these questions might be. Namaste, At the risk of sounding naive and simplistic, I offer here some short answers to this interesting series of questions, each of which could be expanded into a thread, to correct my errors and to satisfy the questioners. 1. Advaita means not-two, implying One. Can this One be explained with concepts? Only to a limited extent. Reality, if defined as the the unchanging substratum, is beyond the concepts of duality - such as One and Many. The usual examples given are the waves and the sea, or the sparks and the fire, or the gold and ornaments, or clay and pots, etc. 2. Why does someone talk about something that is impossible to impart to another? The 'something' that is imparted is [in] 'silence' only! The person has to be 'ripe' to understand the silence. The talk is a necessity for most aspirants to show the path to the Immortal Bliss of Reality. 3. Is Advaita a religion? Is it a part of any religion? If defined etymologically, religion refers to the concept of 'binding together' [re-ligare], a method to bind one to God / Reality / Perfection / Ideal, etc. In the sociological context, it is an organised transmission of values promoting the welfare of a society through faith in the teachings God/Prophets, etc. 4. Is Advaita a philosophy? Advaita is the 'name' given to the 'Reality', defined as Consciousness. OM is the symbol of that Reality. The use of the word in the context of philosophy is later; and in the Sanskrit context it is known as 'darshana', meaning that which helps one 'see'/'experience' Reality. 5. Why is non-violence so important? One has to be familiar with the concepts of 'Gunas' to understand this. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas define the modes of activities in Nature. Sattva promotes holiness and is essential for understanding 'Reality', and is uniquely developed by the human being. The other two are closer to the 'animalistic' instinctual nature, and serve as obstacles in the understanding. Violence, himsA in Sanskrit, [non-violence = ahimsA] epitomises the latter two qualities. At the human level, through millenia of experience, the Golden Rule "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." The Gospel of Matthew Matt 7:12, has served as an ideal in all societies, and abjuring violence has become a spiritual value of utmost importance. 6. Does Advaita negate existence and see it as Illusion? Another synonym for Advaita is Sat [Existence], Chit [Consciousness/Energy], and Ananda [beatitude], which will explain the fallacy of negating Existence! Existence is not an Illusion, but to treat the limited and transient perceptual phenomena, divorced from its Infinite substratum of Consciousness, as the sole Reality, is Illusory. One who has realised the unity of one's own consciousness with the universal Consciousness, through the Illumined Intellect/Intuition, has no words to describe this mystery of Existence, which is the reason for the Silence to describe Reality. 7. How is one to view the idea that the world arises with the mind? Doesn't the world remain when I don't perceive it? The world remains even if one does not perceive it, but it never remains the same! Whatever remains in Time and Space changes, and by definition Reality has to be that which does not chage, in other words That has to be Transcendant. One perceives the world because of its Immanence; the world cannot exist without That. 8. If the Advaitist sees only one, and the observer, observing, and observed event are the same, then why do I feel like I am my body and not the things I see? The Advaitist sees only one, only in a manner of speaking. The real speech is Silence alone, but the Silence that holds within Itself the Infinite potential of manifestations [whether sensory or supra- sensory]. This feeling of 'I am the body', is what the Advaita philosophy calls as the fundamental Ignorance. This is like the cloud hiding the Sun. When the cloud of Ignorance is removed by the development of Sattvik Intellect, the Sun of Consciousness illumines all Existence. 9. In Advaita is individuality seen as an illusion? Please, explain! As stated earlier, individuality divorced from the Universal Consciousness, is the source of grief, misery, duality, etc. It is a mask that keeps one from recognising one's true nature of Immortality & Beatitude. 10. Would you explain about being and non-being. What is non-being? Being is ever-existent, unborn, immortal, Transcendent and Immanent, Conscious, etc. Non-being is the opposite of the above. 11. How does Jnana Yoga differ from Raja Yoga? Jnana Yoga relies on the method of Intellectual inquiry into the nature of Reality. The Self-understanding requires ripeness in several moral virtues and intellectual perspicacity, along with a determination to pursue dispassionately only what is non-transient, treating all transience as source of Ignorance. Raja Yoga relies on the control of the Mind's activities through special techniques of physical, mental, moral, purification, and faith. 12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the moment? 'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until this 'I' is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does not get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in the Eternal Moment, beond Time and Space. 13. Is Advaita gaining popularity worldwide? In terms of exposure to the word, yes! Being the most absruse, abstract, and rigorous discipline, it is probably on par with Quantum Physics! 14. Is dispassion seen as a virtue? If so, why? Absolutely. Attachment to anything transient only can re-inforce Ignorance. 15. Can anyone else cause this illusion to be dispelled in us? In Advaita there is no 'other'/'anyone else'! The same Reality dispels the Ignorance with or without the intervention of a manifest person. 16. Is a guru necessary? The Reality Itself is the Guru, but serves that function in many different ways, depending on the individual's readiness, efforts, sincerity, etc. 17. If Consciousness is the underlying nature of mind then how is the mind to perceive it? Consciousness is the underlying nature of all Existence. The mind does not perceive it, so much as its darkness [ignorance] is dipelled. 18. What is the "Aham Vritti"? 'vritti'-s refers to the thoughts that constantly arise in the field of awareness. The root of all these is the 'self-hood'[ego]. The first aphorism in Raja Yoga is that of elimination of all vrittis of 'idam' [everything separate from oneself.] In Jnana Yoga, the Aham vritti is realised as non-different from Brahmaakaara vritti. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2002 Report Share Posted June 7, 2002 Dear Sunderh: I am of course new to this list and I do appreciate your replying to my post. You are most eloquent and thorough in the context you were given. The references and language in most of the posts I read here are beyond my education. I thought perhaps I would be a good person to present some questions that someone new to Advaita might appreciate having answered in a straightforward and relatively simple way. I do not want to abuse your good will or treat you as a reference source but I thought I would comment on one thing. It has to do with my own experience. It is down at number 12. -- advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote: > advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > Dear Advaitins: > > > > I have been following the thread about a primer for Advaita. The > idea > > of using the FAQ forum intrigued me and I have , in the spirit of > > pitching in on a difficult but worthy task, compiled my idea of > what > > some of these questions might be. > > Namaste, > > At the risk of sounding naive and simplistic, I offer here some > short answers to this interesting series of questions, each of which > could be expanded into a thread, to correct my errors and to satisfy > the questioners. > > 1. Advaita means not-two, implying One. Can this One be explained > with concepts? > > Only to a limited extent. Reality, if defined as the the unchanging > substratum, is beyond the concepts of duality - such as One and Many. > The usual examples given are the waves and the sea, or the sparks and > the fire, or the gold and ornaments, or clay and pots, etc. > > 2. Why does someone talk about something that is impossible to > impart to another? > > The 'something' that is imparted is [in] 'silence' only! The person > has to be 'ripe' to understand the silence. The talk is a necessity > for most aspirants to show the path to the Immortal Bliss of Reality. > > 3. Is Advaita a religion? Is it a part of any religion? > > If defined etymologically, religion refers to the concept of 'binding > together' [re-ligare], a method to bind one to God / Reality / > Perfection / Ideal, etc. In the sociological context, it is an > organised transmission of values promoting the welfare of a society > through faith in the teachings God/Prophets, etc. > > 4. Is Advaita a philosophy? > > Advaita is the 'name' given to the 'Reality', defined as > Consciousness. > OM is the symbol of that Reality. The use of the word in the context > of philosophy is later; and in the Sanskrit context it is known as > 'darshana', meaning that which helps one 'see'/'experience' Reality. > > 5. Why is non-violence so important? > > One has to be familiar with the concepts of 'Gunas' to understand > this. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas define the modes of activities in > Nature. Sattva promotes holiness and is essential for > understanding 'Reality', and is uniquely developed by the human > being. The other two are closer to the 'animalistic' > instinctual nature, and serve as obstacles in the understanding. > Violence, himsA in Sanskrit, [non-violence = ahimsA] epitomises > the latter two qualities. At the human level, through millenia of > experience, the Golden Rule "All things whatsoever ye would that men > should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the > prophets." The Gospel of Matthew Matt 7:12, has served > as an ideal in all societies, and abjuring violence has become a > spiritual value of utmost importance. > > 6. Does Advaita negate existence and see it as Illusion? > > Another synonym for Advaita is Sat [Existence], Chit > [Consciousness/Energy], and Ananda [beatitude], which will explain > the fallacy of negating Existence! > Existence is not an Illusion, but to treat the limited and transient > perceptual phenomena, divorced from its Infinite substratum of > Consciousness, as the sole Reality, is Illusory. One who has realised > the unity of one's own consciousness with the universal > Consciousness, through the Illumined Intellect/Intuition, has > no words to describe this mystery of Existence, which is the reason > for the Silence to describe Reality. > > 7. How is one to view the idea that the world arises with the mind? > Doesn't the world remain when I don't perceive it? > > The world remains even if one does not perceive it, but it never > remains the same! > Whatever remains in Time and Space changes, and by definition > Reality has to be that which does not chage, in other words That has > to be Transcendant. One perceives the world because of its Immanence; > the world cannot exist without That. > > 8. If the Advaitist sees only one, and the observer, observing, and > observed event are the same, then why do I feel like I am my body and > not the things I see? > > The Advaitist sees only one, only in a manner of speaking. The real > speech is Silence alone, but the Silence that holds within Itself the > Infinite potential of manifestations [whether sensory or supra- > sensory]. > This feeling of 'I am the body', is what the Advaita philosophy > calls as the fundamental Ignorance. This is like the cloud hiding the > Sun. When the cloud of Ignorance is removed by the development of > Sattvik Intellect, the Sun of Consciousness illumines all Existence. > > 9. In Advaita is individuality seen as an illusion? Please, explain! > > As stated earlier, individuality divorced from the Universal > Consciousness, is the source of grief, misery, duality, etc. It is a > mask that keeps one from recognising one's true nature of Immortality > & Beatitude. > > 10. Would you explain about being and non-being. What is non-being? > > Being is ever-existent, unborn, immortal, Transcendent and Immanent, > Conscious, etc. Non-being is the opposite of the above. > > 11. How does Jnana Yoga differ from Raja Yoga? > > Jnana Yoga relies on the method of Intellectual inquiry into the > nature of Reality. The Self-understanding requires ripeness in > several moral virtues and intellectual perspicacity, along with a > determination to pursue dispassionately only what is non-transient, > treating all transience as source of Ignorance. > Raja Yoga relies on the control of the Mind's activities through > special techniques of physical, mental, moral, purification, and > faith. > > 12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the moment? > > 'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu > psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until this 'I' > is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does not > get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in the > Eternal Moment, beond Time and Space. --- I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me" does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make me the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an intellectual context. I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad. If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any comments will be appreciated. ---- > 13. Is Advaita gaining popularity worldwide? > > In terms of exposure to the word, yes! Being the most absruse, > abstract, and rigorous discipline, it is probably on par with Quantum > Physics! > > 14. Is dispassion seen as a virtue? If so, why? > > Absolutely. Attachment to anything transient only can re-inforce > Ignorance. > > 15. Can anyone else cause this illusion to be dispelled in us? > > In Advaita there is no 'other'/'anyone else'! The same Reality > dispels the Ignorance with or without the intervention of a manifest > person. > > 16. Is a guru necessary? > > The Reality Itself is the Guru, but serves that function in many > different ways, depending on the individual's readiness, efforts, > sincerity, etc. > > 17. If Consciousness is the underlying nature of mind then how is > the mind to perceive it? > > Consciousness is the underlying nature of all Existence. The mind > does not perceive it, so much as its darkness [ignorance] is dipelled. > > 18. What is the "Aham Vritti"? > > 'vritti'-s refers to the thoughts that constantly arise in the field > of awareness. The root of all these is the 'self-hood'[ego]. > The first aphorism in Raja Yoga is that of elimination of all > vrittis of 'idam' [everything separate from oneself.] > In Jnana Yoga, the Aham vritti is realised as non-different from > Brahmaakaara vritti. > > > Regards, > > Sunder Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: I thought I would comment on one thing. It has to do with > my own experience. > > It is down at number 12. > -- > > 12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the moment? > > > > 'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu > > psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until this 'I' > > is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does > not > > get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in > the > > Eternal Moment, beyond Time and Space. > > > -- - > I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me" > does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make me > the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an > intellectual context. > > I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my > relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I > believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the > knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad. > If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any > comments will be appreciated. > -- Namaste Bobby, This, for me, is like swimming in deep waters ! You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The 12th verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream states! When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi'; when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of individuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it is termed 'jIva buddhi'; when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma buddhi'. The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound; they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] cannot do it justice! I hope expert 'swimmers' in this ocean will explain it better than I can. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Namaste Bobby & Sunder, there is one verse which speaks to me in such times. advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote: > advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not > > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most > > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me" > > does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make > me > > the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an > > intellectual context. > > > Namaste Bobby, > > This, for me, is like swimming in deep waters ! > > You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The 12th > verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream > states! > > When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi'; > when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of > individuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it is > termed 'jIva buddhi'; > when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma > buddhi'. > > The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound; > they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be > expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] > cannot do it justice! > > I hope expert 'swimmers' in this ocean will explain it better than I > can. Here's a very expert swimmer! 'There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present. Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and tomorrow will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience, nothing exists.' Ramana Maharshi I also equate this verse by Dogen as daintily pointing to this as well. It also speaks to the experience of beauty of experiencing life fully, that Frankji spoke of .. 'When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body & mind, you grasp things directly. Unlike things & their reflections in the mirror, & unlike the moon & its reflection in the water, when one side is illuminated the other side is dark.' Dogen This is when duality & unity celebrate life as is (without any interference with interpretation). Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Dear Sunderh and Colette: I will try to clarify my meaning and ask another question. >I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me" > does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make me > the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an > intellectual context. > > I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my > relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I > believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the > knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad. > If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any > comments will be appreciated. >>Namaste Bobby, >You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The 12th >verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream >states! >When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi'; >when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of i>ndividuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it is termed 'jIva buddhi'; when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma >buddhi'. -----Actually i looked up the passage that I was referring to and copied it below . When I read the text a few years ago it seemed that this was the central theme. Aitareya Upanisad with commentary by Shankaracharya-Translated by Swami Gambhirananda Part III Chapter 1, 1. What is It that we worship as this Self? Which of the two is the Self? Is It that by which one sees, or that by which one hears, or that by which one smells odour, or that by which one utters speech, or that by which one tastes the sweet of the sour? --At the end of Shankara's commentary on this verse he says: ......Which, again is that one organ that has become diversely differentiated? That is being answered: 2. It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of mind retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion, and such others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness. 3. This One is (the inferior) Brahman: this is Indra, this is prajapati: this is all these gods:.... All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality: all these are impelled by Consciousness: the universe has Consciousness as its eye, and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.> ----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it is just me. The set of likes and dislikes, the will to live, all ignorance, and the sense or manifestation of I amness (What Patanjali called the afflictions) are this smaller not-me or Indra. Consciousness of the "I am" must be Brahman musn't it? That is my question. My thoughts are that as long as the now is experienced in a sustained fashion (dhyana)the feeling of "I" is superfluous, but may recur as a thought to be ignored. By this reasoning Saying 'I AM the now' would be better than saying 'I am IN the now' which reinforces the actually illusion of separation. At the beginning of Drik Drisya Viveka -- "The world we see, being seen by the eye, is drisya (object); the eye which sees it is drik (subject). But the eye, being perceived by the mind is drisya (object) and the mind which sees it is drik (subject). The mind, with its thoughts peceived by the Self, is drisya (object), and the Self is drik (subject). The Self cannot be drisya (object), not being perceived by anything else. >The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound; >they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be >expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] > >cannot do it justice!......... <Here's a very expert swimmer! '<There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present. Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and tomorrow will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience, nothing exists.' <Ramana Maharshi> ----Yes, Colette, an expert unsurpassed. I was hoping to use the word "now' as a referent to reality. The way I see it, now is the timeless moment. I experience no other. The concept is not, but what it refers to is. What is a tree without the concept of a tree? What am I without the concept of I? What is now without the concept of now? <I also equate this verse by Dogen as daintily pointing to this as well. It also speaks to the experience of beauty of experiencing life fully, that Frankji spoke of .. <'When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body & mind, you grasp things directly. Unlike things & their reflections in the mirror, & unlike the moon & its reflection in the water, when one side is illuminated the other side is dark.' Dogen This is when duality & unity celebrate life as is (without any interference with interpretation). <Colette Many thanks for the opportunity to address you. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Dear Bobby, The most important ingredient that can be missed in the discussion of Upanishads is that of a 'pure mind'. The utterances of the Sages came out of pure ['sAtvik'] nature, they having gone even beyond that ['triguNatIta']. 'chitta-shuddhi' is a concept that is fundamental to the understanding of spiritual 'truths'. One's understanding of these is in direct proportion to the purity of mind, whether it is through the 'yamas and niyamas' of Raja Yoga, or the 'sadhana-chatushtaya' of Vedanta. It is this that gives universality to the utterances of pure souls. The purity can be pursued only in the waking stage; dream and deep sleep are marooned in much less purity, in fact quite tamasic. The Bhagavadgita explains in great depth at least 12 areas of purification: AhAra [food, or in general all sensory intake] kartA [doer] karma [deeds] yajna [sacrifice] dAna [charity] tapa [austerities]- of body, mind, speech dhriti [perseverance] tyAga [renunciation] shraddhA[faith] buddhI [intellect] jnAna [knowledge] sukha [happiness] Gita 3:38 [and to 43] gives the metaphor of how knowledge of the spirit is masked - like the smoke of a fire, like the dirt on a mirror, and like the amniotic sac over the embryo! If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates end in the adoration of the Silence. Regards, Sunder advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Aitareya Upanisad with commentary by Shankaracharya-Translated by > Swami Gambhirananda > Part III Chapter 1, > 1. What is It that we worship as this Self? Which of the two is the > Self? Is It that by which one sees, or that by which one hears, or > that by which one smells odour, or that by which one utters speech, > or that by which one tastes the sweet of the sour? > > --At the end of Shankara's commentary on this verse he says: > .....Which, again is that one organ that has become diversely > differentiated? That is being answered: > > 2. It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated > earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of > mind retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, > mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life- activities, > hankering, passion, and such others. All these verily are the names > of Consciousness. > > 3. This One is (the inferior) Brahman: this is Indra, this is > prajapati: this is all these gods:.... > All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality: all these > are impelled by Consciousness: the universe has Consciousness as its > eye, and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.> > > > ----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it is > just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > Dear Sunderh and Colette: Hello Bobby:-) my first disclaimer ~ anything I say is just my colouring on That. Ok? I am not trying to seek a truth I can capture in words. > > I will try to clarify my meaning and ask another question. > > > >I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not > > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most > > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me" > > does not. Hi again. I am reminded here of Ramana's term 'II' Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make > me > > the 'now'? I like your conclusion. I like the way Ramana uses the word Present for the Here & Now. Presence is another word I find meaningful. > ----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it is > just me. The set of likes and dislikes, the will to live, all > ignorance, and the sense or manifestation of I amness (What Patanjali > called the afflictions) are this smaller not-me or Indra. > Consciousness of the "I am" must be Brahman musn't it? That is my > question. I like the way you have worded It. I myself do not say that one is, & one is not. I include both as That. For discussion purposes I use this & That .. Using these words Here & Now, I might play, & say that awareness is Here, & Now (includes It as Its forms). > > My thoughts are that as long as the now is experienced in a sustained > fashion (dhyana)the feeling of "I" is superfluous, but may recur as a > thought to be ignored. By this reasoning Saying 'I AM the now' would > be better than saying 'I am IN the now' which reinforces the actually > illusion of separation. Well I fully support how you see it & speak it as perfect for you right now. I have nothing better to offer you. > > At the beginning of Drik Drisya Viveka -- > "The world we see, being seen by the eye, is drisya (object); the eye > which sees it is drik (subject). But the eye, being perceived by the > mind is drisya (object) and the mind which sees it is drik > (subject). The mind, with its thoughts peceived by the Self, is > drisya (object), and the Self is drik (subject). The Self cannot be > drisya (object), not being perceived by anything else. > > > >The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time- bound; > >they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be > >expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] > > >cannot do it justice!......... Yes, that's why I'm avoiding speaking as if I know. I cannot give you a tidbit encompassing It. You are Here anyway:-)) Hi ya! > > <Here's a very expert swimmer! > > '<There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present. > Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and tomorrow > will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore > experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience, > nothing exists.' > > <Ramana Maharshi> > > ----Yes, Colette, an expert unsurpassed. I was hoping to use the > word "now' as a referent to reality. Me too. I find the term the Now fullsome. The way I see it, now is the > timeless moment. I experience no other. The concept is not, but > what it refers to is. > What is a tree without the concept of a tree? > What am I without the concept of I? > What is now without the concept of now? Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you are. 'One should get the essence out of things and let the things themselves alone' Meister Eckhart In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would carry around us which we project upon forms of Being. > Many thanks for the opportunity to address you. > Love > Bobby G. It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby. Yours, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Hi Bobby, your words have inspired me to look inside Rumi. There is a particular poem I am seeking ~ but along the way I have found something else to share of his ... 'There is an original inside me. What's here is a mirror for that, for you.' Rumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 I couldn't resist, here's another 'My soul, don't try to answer now! Find a friend & hide. But what can stay hidden? Love's secret is always lifting its head out from under the covers, "Here I am!" Rumi For the child at play :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Hi Colette: Communication is a wonderful part of reality. It is a true blessing. That you respond and I respond brings me a great joy. Thank you for this. Love Bobby G. advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote: > Hi Bobby, your words have inspired me to look inside Rumi. There is a > particular poem I am seeking ~ but along the way I have found > something else to share of his ... > > 'There is an original inside me. > What's here is a mirror for that, for you.' > > Rumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Hi: > Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you are. I am going to venture a guess that the trees etc. are not confused about this issue. > 'One should get the essence out of things and let the things > themselves alone' > > Meister Eckhart > > In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would carry > around us which we project upon forms of Being. Well said! > > > > Many thanks for the opportunity to address you. > > Love > > Bobby G. > > It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby. Yes there is an atachments for growing thinsg, things not fully developed, a good vibe that is pulled from us when we see babies and puppies. Truly everything is developing and pulls from from people their love. Maybe I am just resisting it too often. (I am pretty sure I do that too often) > > Yours, > > Colette Love, Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Hi Bobby, nice to hear from you again. I am struck by the synchronicity of Frank's use of the same words you found so compelling (here & now). advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Hi: > > > Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you > are. > > I am going to venture a guess that the trees etc. are not confused > about this issue. Doubts do not grow Branches & leaves Zen Master Dogen ~~~<~<@) Trunk & branches Share the same essence Zen Master Sekito Kisen ~ The Sandokai Oh! You give me the opportunity to share all my favourite quotes! Bless you! :-) Col > > > 'One should get the essence out of things and let the things > > themselves alone' > > > > Meister Eckhart > > > > > In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would > carry > > around us which we project upon forms of Being. > > Well said! > > > > > > > > Many thanks for the opportunity to address you. > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby. > > Yes there is an atachments for growing thinsg, things not fully > developed, a good vibe that is pulled from us when we see babies and > puppies. Truly everything is developing and pulls from from people > their love. Maybe I am just resisting it too often. (I am pretty > sure I do that too often) > > > > > Yours, > > > > Colette > > Love, > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Dear Bobby, The most important ingredient that can be missed in the discussion of Upanishads is that of a 'pure mind'. The utterances of the Sages came out of pure ['sAtvik'] nature, they having gone even beyond that ['triguNatIta']. 'chitta-shuddhi' is a concept that is fundamental to the understanding of spiritual 'truths'. One's understanding of these is in direct proportion to the purity of mind, whether it is through the 'yamas and niyamas' of Raja Yoga, or the 'sadhana-chatushtaya' of Vedanta. It is this that gives universality to the utterances of pure souls. The purity can be pursued only in the waking stage; dream and deep sleep are marooned in much less purity, in fact quite tamasic. The Bhagavadgita explains in great depth at least 12 areas of purification: AhAra [food, or in general all sensory intake] kartA [doer] karma [deeds] yajna [sacrifice] dAna [charity] tapa [austerities]- of body, mind, speech dhriti [perseverance] tyAga [renunciation] shraddhA[faith] buddhI [intellect] jnAna [knowledge] sukha [happiness] Gita 3:38 [and to 43] gives the metaphor of how knowledge of the spirit is masked - like the smoke of a fire, like the dirt on a mirror, and like the amniotic sac over the embryo! If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates end in the adoration of the Silence. Regards, Sunder Dear Sunder: Thank you for this. I was not aware of these 12 areas of purification. I know little of the Upanishads. That is one reason I am here, to learn. The lives and words of the sages are intended for consumption. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. Love, Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 > Bless you! Bless you too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 In a message dated 6/9/2002 8:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sunderh writes: > If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the > upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates > end in the adoration of the Silence. > I quote here a beautiful wall plaque given to me by Brahma Kumaris, a warm dynamic peaceful international yoga group based out of Athens and London. Silence is spirituality Silence is simplicity Silence brings satisfaction Silence makes you smile Silence is sweetness Silence makes you sensible Silence is sincerity Silence is stability Silence creates solutions Silence makes you strong Silence removes all selfishness Silence makes you a self-sovereign Silence makes you stress-free Silence puts a full stop to worries Silence makes you sing in happiness Silence creates your inner strength Silence makes you serviceable Silence makes you sacred Silence is having sympathy Silence brings safety Silence is solitude Silence is serenity Silence is stillness of mind Silence is having self-respect Silence makes you spontaneous Silence enables you to know all secrets of life jai guru dev, Edmond 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.