Who Is Superimposing? (was: Purnamadah Purnamidam ....revisited (April4))

[Guest guest]

>

> Namaste, All

>

> Sri Stigi and Sri Nairji wrote "

>

> What is the ontological status of the world (jagat)?

> <<<Stigji: From Shankara´s preamble to his bhashya on the

> Brahma Sutras it is perfectly clear that the world is

> superimposed upon Brahman in the same sense as the snake

> is superimposed upon the rope. Hence,

>

> the appearance of the world is due to ignorance of Brahman

> in the same sense as the appearance of the snake is due to

> ignorance of the rope. In other words, the world is

> Brahman misconceived just as the snake is the rope

> misconceived.

>

> [Nairji: That exactly is what I have been trying to

> elucidate this long.]

>

> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE,

>

> 1) WHO IS SUPERIMPOSING, I.E. WHO HAS THE IGNORANCE

> FOR THIS SUPERIMPOSITION, i.e. FOR SUPERIMPOSING A WORLD

> ON BRAHMAN?

 

[Note: What I will say here is simply an unfolding.

It is my gift to myself to speak freely and openly,

without restraint. Take what is said as you will.

If it speaks to you, then it speaks to you. -Bill ]

 

In the primal unknown there is a spontaneous arising. It is

causeless. It is a spark, a shining, a light. Out of the

light unfolds pattern. The patterning has *no meaning in

itself* [sTRONG EMPHASIS!]. It simply is. In the unfolding of

patterning there is the *appearance* of movement. In the

appearance of movement a *sense of being* is manifest. In

the appearance of movement/sense of being a "coursing in

being" is made apparent.

 

Note that at this point we have the appearance of an

independent entity or being. Nevertheless it is only

*apparent* as a consequence of patterning that is in

itself of no inherent meaning.

 

Note: We can call the apparent "coursing in being" the

"sense *I am*". The sense "I am" appears (arises

spontaneously). There is no subject for the feeling "I

am" [which will seem ironic, as "I am" seems the ultimate

assertion of a subject].

 

Hence we have from the spontaneous arising of light

an unfolding of patterning in which there is the

appearance of movement. In the appearance of movement

there is a sense of "coursing" which gives rise to

a sense of "beingness". [Note: The sense of patterning also

inherently gives rise to a sense of multiplicity/diversity

of patterning.]

 

Yet all the "arising senses" of one kind or another

are themselves patterning. The antipodes here are patterning

and disorder. But even the antipodal diametric is

a manifestation of patterning. Indeed, disorder is a

form of patterning.

 

Hence we have that:

 

Appearance *appears as* patterning.

 

Without patterning there would be no appearance.

Light = appearance = patterning are of one and the

same cloth.

 

The essential thing to realize is that all patterning

*has no meaning in itself*.

 

On aspect of the above described unfolding is that

there is an apparent "tendency" for the "coursing"

to "follow in a course" as indicated by some (arbitrary)

patterning. What is the nature of such tendency?

Actually it is only apparent. But there does seem to

by a kind of "hypnosis" by the patterning, or an

obsessive compulsion to adhere to/course in a

patterning.

 

Freedom is in the realization that the patterning is

inherently meaningless. There are *no true essential

forms* (all dharmas are empty).

 

So then one may ask "what/who realizes" such? Isn't that

just putting off the question of "Who is superimposing"

to be tucked in at a later stage of the account?

But no "who" need be presupposed for the "realization".

The "realization" is just a term to refer to an apparent

fundamental shift in the "coursing" to where the

hypnotic adherence to the patterning -- as an induction of

the coursing -- has been broken.

 

So then, in summary:

1. In the beginning there was/is the "primal unknown".

2. There was/is the spontaneous emergence of

light/appearance.

3. In appearance as such appears the appearance of

"patterning".

4. In the appearance of patterning appears the appearance

of movement.

5. In the appearance of movement appears the appearance of

a sense "coursing".

6. In the appearance of a sense of "coursing" appears the

appearance of a sense of beingness.

7. In the unfolding of a sense of beingness eventually

there appears an apparent "realization" as the apparent

hypnotic sense of adherence to patterning is broken.

 

Note: It may seem awkward to say:

"In the appearance of a sense of 'coursing' appears the

appearance of a sense of beingness."

Why not say simply:

"In the appearance of a sense of 'coursing' appears

a sense of beingness"?

Because the former statement makes clear that

no new ontological "something" is being supposed

("a sense of beingness" in this case). Note that all

through the evolution described above there are only

"appearances".

 

Note: One might say: In the beginning was appearance,

and appearance effectively was/is God, and from

appearance all has been/is being conjured.

 

Bill

 

 

 

>

> 2) A SNAKE WAS SEEN EARLIER OR SNAKE-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY

> WAS THERE FOR ONE TO SUPERIMPOSE A SNAKE ON A ROPE DUE TO

> IGNORANCE. IS THERE A WORLD SEEN EARLIER OR THAT WORLD-

> KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY ON THE PART OF THE SUPERIMPOSER WHO

> SUPERIMPOOSES THE WORLD ON BRAHMAN? IF SO, WHAT WAS THAT

> WORLD, WAS IT ALSO A SUPERIMPOSITION ON BRAHMAN AT THAT

> TIME?

>

> My above questions are based on the pre-requisites for a

> superimposition to take place, i.e. (1) superimposer (a

> sentient entity), (2) ignorance on the part of that entity

> (3) an object on which superimposition is made (4) memory

> of an object seen earlier at some other place/some other

> time so that, that object is superimposed on the object on

> which superimposition is made. The object seen earlier

> must have some attributes similar to the attributes of the

> object appearing before one and on which superimposition

> is made. For example, a pot is not superimposed on a rope,

> it can be a snake or a stick or a garland, i.e. there must

> be similarities in the attributes of both superimposed and

> on which superimposition is made, say just like rope and

> snake.

>

> THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN OCCUPYING MY MIND FOR A LONG

> TIME.

>

> I HOPE OUR LEARNED MEMBERS CAN HELP.

>

> WITH WARM REGRDS AND HARI OM

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sri Billji. (Hope it is okay to address that way)

 

I got what you wanted to convey, particularly

 

<<<<freedom is in the realization that the patterning is inherently meaningless.

There are *no true essential forms* (all dharmas are empty).>>>>

 

Yes indeed, All Forms are Just Appearances, i.e. Mithya. We should appreciate

what is inherent. Let us not be fooled by the wraps, however colorful and

attractive they may be, let us rather enjoy the chocolate.

 

Warm regards

 

 

Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: [Note: What I will say here is

simply an unfolding.

It is my gift to myself to speak freely and openly,

without restraint. Take what is said as you will.

If it speaks to you, then it speaks to you. -Bill ]

 

In the primal unknown there is a spontaneous arising. It is

causeless. It is a spark, a shining, a light. Out of the

 

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

 

 

[Guest guest]

Let us not be fooled by the wraps, however colorful and

attractive they may be, let us rather enjoy the chocolate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Marvelous!

Thank you.

 

Bill

 

 

> Thank you Sri Billji. (Hope it is okay to address that way)

Is fine