Guest guest Posted March 31, 2003 Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 Visitor: To one who knows the Brahman state, does the world still appear? Maharaj: When it is a qualitative, "I am-ness" state, the world is. Once this state is transcended, there is no world. I the "I am-ness," in the consciousness, the manifest world is there. In the "No-I-am-ness" state there is no world. The Knower of this "I-am-ness" state and world ...within the "Knower State," there is no world. But in the "I-am-ness" state there is a world. Page 104 "The Experience Of Nothingness" Sri Nisargadatta Maharajs Talks on Realizing the Infinite Edited by Robert Powell Ph.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2003 Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 Namaste Shri Mike Carris. I am sure you quoted Maharaj with a purpose. However, I can't really understand what Maharaj meant in the quote. Do you think there are typing errors, like "I" for "In" etc. Please, therefore, clarify your understanding of Maharaj's statement. The things that disturbed me as an Advaitin are: 1. Maharaj hints at transcending something. So, there is a transcender. How is he disposed of ultimately? Is the implication that he disappears spontaneously? 2. Of course, in the "I-am-ness" state, there is a world, because that is a state. However, something should still exist in the "no-I- am-ness" state, if that is a state. So, the trick of the game should be to understand that this "I-am- ness" state itself is "No-I-am-ness" (not state). Then, whether the world appears or not becomes a matter of point of view. Am I right? PranAms. Madathil Nair __________________________ advaitin, "Mike Carris" <mike_carris> wrote: > Visitor: > > To one who knows the Brahman state, does the world still appear? > > Maharaj: > > When it is a qualitative, "I am-ness" state, the world is. Once this > state is transcended, there is no world. I the "I am-ness," in the > consciousness, the manifest world is there. In the "No-I-am-ness" > state there is no world. > > The Knower of this "I-am-ness" state and world ...within the "Knower > State," there is no world. But in the "I-am-ness" state there is a > world. > > Page 104 > "The Experience Of Nothingness" > Sri Nisargadatta Maharajs > Talks on Realizing the Infinite > Edited by Robert Powell Ph.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Namaste! Earlier I tried to argue that the denial of the self in Buddhism refers only to the empirical self, not the Vedantic Self. Therefore, I believe that it is false to maintain that Buddhism is incompatible with Vedanta, as some claim even today. But here is a far greater expert on Buddhism, specifically Zen Buddhism, named D.T. Suzuki, who is universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest authorities. These words from a book called 'Understanding Mysticism' by Richard Woods (1980) seem relevant to me: "The gahakAraka detected is our relative, empirical ego, and the mind freed from its binding conditions (sankhAra) is the absolute ego, Atman, as it is elucidated in the NirvAna SUtra. The denial of Atman as maintained by earlier Buddhists refers to Atman as the relative ego and not to the absolute ego, the ego after enlightenment-experience. Enlightenment consists in seeing into the meaning of life as the relative ego and not as the absolute ego, the ego after enlightenment-experience. Enlightenment consists in seeing into the meaning of life as the interplay of the relative ego with the absolute ego. In other words, enlightenment is seeing the absolute ego as reflected in the relative ego and acting through it." Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 At 03:12 PM 4/1/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >Namaste! > >Earlier I tried to argue that the denial of the self in Buddhism >refers only to the empirical self, not the Vedantic Self. Therefore, >I believe that it is false to maintain that Buddhism is incompatible >with Vedanta, as some claim even today. But here is a far greater >expert on Buddhism, specifically Zen Buddhism, named D.T. Suzuki, who >is universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest authorities. >These words from a book called 'Understanding Mysticism' by Richard >Woods (1980) seem relevant to me: One of the greatest popularizers ever, indeed. But not such an authority these days. He opened the door, and showed Buddhism to the West through through many influences, including the lens of Swedenborgianism and Theosophy, two very essentialist philosophies indeed! By now, the West has discovered many other sources for Buddhism. Without Suzuki, Buddhism wouldn't be what it is today in the West. But "Suzuki-Zen" is its own package. Check out this link, which gives further scholarly references. http://www.buddhanet.dk/zenorienteng.htm Later in Suzuki's life, he turned towards Pure Land Buddhism, one of the most devotional and essentialist of all Buddhist sects. Buddha nature there comes to resemble Brahman, and for that matter, Ishwara too. It actually combines bhakti and jnana in a very effective way! I haven't read every one of Suzuki's works available in English, but I don't count on saying that Madhyamika equates emptiness with the Self. Namu-Amida Butsu, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Greg Goode wrote: >One of the greatest popularizers ever, indeed. But not such >an authority these days. He opened the door, and showed Buddhism >to the West through many influences, including the lens of >Swedenborgianism and Theosophy, two very essentialist philosophies >indeed! By now, the West has discovered many other sources for >Buddhism. Without Suzuki, Buddhism wouldn't be what it is today >in the West. But "Suzuki-Zen" is its own package. True enough, his scholarship may be a bit dated in some respects. But then, today's scholarship may also have its own whims, fads, blind spots, and so forth. At any rate, I will take Suzuki's actual Zen training over that of almost any academic, especially the ones concerned with making a name for themselves and gasping the prize of tenure. (And which ones aren't?) Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 At 04:38 PM 4/1/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >in the West. But "Suzuki-Zen" is its own package. >True enough, his scholarship may be a bit dated in some respects. >But then, today's scholarship may also have its own whims, fads, >blind spots, and so forth. At any rate, I will take Suzuki's actual >Zen training over that of almost any academic, especially the ones >concerned with making a name for themselves and gasping the prize of >tenure. (And which ones aren't?) I'd much prefer to sit with Shunryu Suzuki.... --Greg 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.