Maharshi-The Nature of The Self - [3]

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/29/2002 10:43:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

viorica writes:

 

> Q:

> If the Self is itself aware, why am I not aware of it even now?

>

> A:

> There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and is only

> relative.

> Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object, whereas the

> awareness of the

> Self is absolute and requires no object.

> Remembrance also is similarly relative, requiring an object to be

> remembered and

> a subject to remember. When there is no duality, who is to remember whom?

>

> The Self is ever present. Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of

> help does

> one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something

> new. But

> it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a

> blazing light

> etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness. It is only as it

> is. It cannot be defined.

> The best definition is ‘I am that I am’. The Srutis [scriptures] speak

of

> the Self as being

> the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast,

> subtler than the subtlest, etc.

> These descriptions have no foundation in fact. It is only being, but

> different from the real and the

> unreal; it is knowledge, but different from knowledge and ignorance. How

> can it be defined at all?

> It is simply being.

>

 

Above, "There is no duality." No, not so. There is a duality and there is a

non-duality, both, and they can be coincident simultaneously. "Self is

absolute and requires no object" may well by an expression of truth, but in

the context given above, it only glorifies that single aspect of Self which

is completely unaware of itself. Life is for the living also, both together,

the Self and the non-Self. The world of duality then becomes glorified by

the continually greater amounts of leakage of Self into the field of

activity. The field of activity becomes enlivened by this leakage of Self

into duality while simultaneously the glories of Self itself become witnessed

ever more lively within the personal experience. It is the personal

experiences which are the glories of all glories for adoration, that is, the

full glory of the Self superimposed onto the full glories of activity. The

two together make the story complete.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/30/2002 8:31:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

viorica writes:

 

> I understand from your answers that you love activity ,

> so if karma yoga is your path , alright , go for it,

> but why contradict Ramana Maharshi's teachings ?

> It is funny to me when people start contradicting

> his teachings ,

>

> vicki

>

 

Yes, I certainly do love activity, probably as much as I love going to

transcendental consciousness on a regular daily basis. However, there is no

contradiction here, just an observation of incompletion in emphasis, however,

which makes all the difference.

 

For instance, it is said that among the 8-limbs of yoga, expressed in the

Patanjali Yoga Sutras, that mastering one of the limbs sort of drags along

the other limbs, as the 8-limbs are more connected with one another than

might be normally obvious. The same argument might then also be used to

suggest that mastery over a mental 'jnani' focus would (might) drag along

some of the other facets like the bhakti and karma yogas, to emulate a more

complete and rounded living being. That also is undoubtedly the truth.

However, the basic tenets of the mental advaita perspectives do not seem to

admit or to want or to bring out any of these other linked facets, even

though individual personalities undoubtedly are involved in other quite

distinct karma and bhakti things simultaneously. It is the unification of

all of these qualities which is here of concern. Understanding Self to be

the remainder of what is left after the dissolution of innumerable sets of

intellectual logical sequences of nama-rupa is altogether different from the

sakti flowing dynamic emergence of Self while busy in activity. The point

is, it is not an either/or proposition, Self or Duality, but rather that

unity (yogastah) of the two, simultaneously. It is this 'yogastah' part of

the equation that I find lacking. Not being fully complete; it is not

contradiction.

 

Relative to your concern:

 

"I am a little surprized that on a list of advaitins

somebody might assign 'intellectual propositions'

to Sri Ramana"

 

 

This 'intellectual propositions' may have been an inappropriate choice of

words in the context used, but I do consider the content of all philosophies,

including my own especially revered philosophies, as 'intellectual

propositions', nothing more and nothing less. When I repeatedly experience

certain events surrounding particular 'intellectual propositions', then, and

only then, do I consider those propositions to be truth. Without

experiential verification, thought forms remain theoretical propositions.

There are many truths and many realities (Jesus's many mansions) depending

upon what levels of Self are seen pouring out along side of activities.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond