Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 I would like to hear from the people here on this quote. Not anything to do with Bobby, but his subsequent explanation was not quite the way I first heard this. Just saying it's not the ego seems a bit too easy, an obvious fact. Okay, of course it's not in this way, then what is the identity implied? Thanks for your help, there is something I feel or intuit, but can't yet articulate well. But like there is nothing else to be (ego) because to be anything else would limit the infinite that is all. Yet this immanence is maya. Love, Gloria - bgbbyg NondualitySalon Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:16 PM [NDS] Re: suffering Hi: The following is from "Vivekachudamani" -Ramana Maharshi ....This infinity of Brahamn is my Self and yours and that of other individuals. Great texts such as 'That thou art' reveal the identity between the Brahman known as 'That' and the individual known as 'thou'. The identity is not shown by the literal meaning of 'that' and 'thou'. The literal meaning of 'that' is Ishvara's maya which is the cause of the universe, and the literal meaning of 'thou' is the five sheaths of the ego. These are non-existent superimpositions, the cause and efffect of non-existent phantoms. Their qualities are opposite to each other. like the sun and the glow-worm, the king and the slave, the ocean and the well, Mount Meru and the atom. There can be no identity between Brahman and the individual in the literal sense of 'that' and 'thou' , and it is not in this way that the scriptures postulate the identity... Now you guys straighten up!! :]] Love, Bobby G. > ..........excuse me but could you please repost this in english. > ........matthew Dear Matthew: I will state in English what I got out of this passage. I read it this morning. > > The following is from "Vivekachudamani" -Ramana Maharshi > > ...This infinity of Brahman is my Self and yours and that of other > individuals. Brahman is Consciousness and everyone who considers him/herself an individual is this consciousness. > Great texts such as 'That thou art' reveal the identity between the > Brahman known as 'That' and the individual known as 'thou'. The great texts of Advaita Vedanta tell us that Brahman and the individual are an identity (the same). [ref. Aiytreya Upanisad] >The identity is not shown by the literal meaning of 'that' and 'thou'. The literal meaning of "that" ( the perceived world) and "thou" ( the ego) is not the same. > The literal meaning of 'that' is Ishvara's maya which is the cause of the universe, and the literal meaning of 'thou' is the five sheaths > of the ego. These are non-existent superimpositions, the cause and > efffect of non-existent phantoms. >Their qualities are opposite to each other. like the sun and the glow-worm, the king and the slave, > the ocean and the well, Mount Meru and the atom. One is the observer and the other is the observed. They are fluctuations of consciousness (vrittis), more exactly, misconceptions. What they describe is merely another pair of opposites. I don't know why he referenced the large and small opposites to describe 'that' and 'thou' in the literal sense. >There can be no identity between Brahman and the individual in the lliteral sense > of 'that' and 'thou' , and it is not in this way that the scriptures postulate the identity... This indicates that the ego should not be confused with Consciousness (The Self). Love Bobby G. -- To from this mailing list, send email to: <NondualitySalon> Leave body of message blank. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 Hi Gloria, I think this is a lot less confusing in a translation straight from Sankara, especially if you read the whole section instead of stopping with Bobby's dot-dot-dots. If you want, I'll type the passage here from another translation. Basically the passage says that both the individual self and God are created by upadhis. If you take the upadhis away, the duality vanishes. I'm not sure what you're asking about so sorry if this misses the point. Love, Rob - "Gloria Lee" <glee "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:41 AM [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > I would like to hear from the people here on this quote. Not anything to do with Bobby, but his subsequent explanation was not quite the way I first heard this. Just saying it's not the ego seems a bit too easy, an obvious fact. Okay, of course it's not in this way, then what is the identity implied? > > Thanks for your help, there is something I feel or intuit, but can't yet articulate well. But like there is nothing else to be (ego) because to be anything else would limit the infinite that is all. Yet this immanence is maya. > > Love, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 P.S. > Okay, of course it's not in > this way, then what is the identity implied? There's no special identity for this pair of opposites. Sankara starts from the axiom that there is really only one thing in the universe, Brahman. Therefore all particular "things" (including little old you and God) are identical because they are really Brahman. Sankara's task as a philosopher is not to demonstrate that particular things have something in common. HIs task is to demonstrate why there is an illusion that makes them seem distinct. His explanation for this is upadhis. In this passage, he only has to give the upadhis that create the apparent objects "God" and "me." He says the upadhi for the first is maya and the upadhi for the second is the five sheaths. - "Rob Sacks" <editor <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:45 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > Hi Gloria, > > I think this is a lot less confusing in a translation > straight from Sankara, especially if you read the > whole section instead of stopping with Bobby's > dot-dot-dots. If you want, I'll type the passage > here from another translation. > > Basically the passage says that both the > individual self and God are created by > upadhis. If you take the upadhis away, > the duality vanishes. I'm not sure what you're > asking about so sorry if this misses the point. > > Love, > > Rob > > > > - > "Gloria Lee" <glee > "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> > Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:41 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > > > I would like to hear from the people here on this quote. Not anything to do with Bobby, but his subsequent explanation was not > quite the way I first heard this. Just saying it's not the ego seems a bit too easy, an obvious fact. Okay, of course it's not in > this way, then what is the identity implied? > > > > Thanks for your help, there is something I feel or intuit, but can't yet articulate well. But like there is nothing else to be > (ego) because to be anything else would limit the infinite that is all. Yet this immanence is maya. > > > > Love, Gloria > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 Rob, Yes, you are getting closer to my question, because I do already understand Bobby's conclusion about how ego is not identical. My focus is more on how maya can be illusion, yet Brahman is all there is. Now it's always dangerous, but let me think some before I get back to you. I have to go paint my mother's entryway right now. Glo Rob Sacks RamanaMaharshi Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:06 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering P.S. > Okay, of course it's not in > this way, then what is the identity implied? There's no special identity for this pair of opposites. Sankara starts from the axiom that there is really only one thing in the universe, Brahman. Therefore all particular "things" (including little old you and God) are identical because they are really Brahman. Sankara's task as a philosopher is not to demonstrate that particular things have something in common. HIs task is to demonstrate why there is an illusion that makes them seem distinct. His explanation for this is upadhis. In this passage, he only has to give the upadhis that create the apparent objects "God" and "me." He says the upadhi for the first is maya and the upadhi for the second is the five sheaths. - "Rob Sacks" <editor <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:45 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > Hi Gloria, > > I think this is a lot less confusing in a translation > straight from Sankara, especially if you read the > whole section instead of stopping with Bobby's > dot-dot-dots. If you want, I'll type the passage > here from another translation. > > Basically the passage says that both the > individual self and God are created by > upadhis. If you take the upadhis away, > the duality vanishes. I'm not sure what you're > asking about so sorry if this misses the point. > > Love, > > Rob > > > > - > "Gloria Lee" <glee > "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> > Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:41 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > > > I would like to hear from the people here on this quote. Not anything to do with Bobby, but his subsequent explanation was not > quite the way I first heard this. Just saying it's not the ego seems a bit too easy, an obvious fact. Okay, of course it's not in > this way, then what is the identity implied? > > > > Thanks for your help, there is something I feel or intuit, but can't yet articulate well. But like there is nothing else to be > (ego) because to be anything else would limit the infinite that is all. Yet this immanence is maya. > > > > Love, Gloria > > Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 Gloria, > My focus is more on how maya can be illusion, yet Brahman is all there is. It's kind of like calling one end of a street by one name and the other end by another. The names are merely superimpositions. The street is all there is. "All transformation has speech as its basis, it is name only." Chapter 6 of the Chandogya Upanishad discusses this in great detail. This is where the 'tattvamasi' mahAvAkya is to be found in all its glory. Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 Gloria. A couple of points about your posting: First, _any_ idea or thought about Brahman is an error, since Brahman is what "contains" and "illuminates" thought. So, however one does it, one is not going to "figure out" nondual Reality by thinking about it. Second, maya is illusion. The basis for maya is the erroronius idea of a separate being (ego). From this first error of idea of separate being, comes the next error of separate world. The metaphor for removal of maya is lighting a darkened room. Where did the darkness go? Or in the metaphor or rope and snake, when the snake is recognized as just rope, where did the snake go? Maya is like the snake. Just an idea, which turned out not to be the way things really are. Does this make sense? Is my posting useful as you reflect and meditate on this? > Yes, you are getting closer to my question, because I do already understand Bobby's conclusion about how ego is not identical. My focus is more on how maya can be illusion, yet Brahman is all there is. Now it's always dangerous, but let me think some before I get back to you. I have to go paint my mother's entryway right now. < Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Hi Glo, > My focus is more on how maya can be illusion, > yet Brahman is all there is. Well that's the hundred million dollar question in Advaita Vedanta. And it's pretty much left hanging. It's supposed to be inexplicable. Here's what Radhakrishnan says about it in his wonderful 2-volume classic work, "Indian Philosophy": "What is the relation between the real Brahman and the unreal world? For Samkara [sankara] the question is an illegitimate one, and so impossible to answer. When we intuit the absolute Brahman, the question of the nature of the world and its relation to Brahman does not arise, for the truth which disarms all discussion is seen as fact. If we take our stand on logic, there is no pure Brahman which requires to be related to the world. It is because we shift our standpoint in the course of the argument that the problem arises. For an imaginary difficulty there cannot be any real solution..... "Samkara asserts that it is impossible to explain through logical categories the relation of Brahman and the world. 'The real is never known to have any relation with the unreal.' [s.B. on Mand. Up., ii. 7]. The world somehow exists and its relation to Brahman is undefinable (anirvancaniya). Samkara then takes up the different attempts at explanation and finds them all unsatisfactory..." (Vol. 2, pp 565-66.) At the same time there is an enormous amount of discussion by Sankara about the mechanics of the generation of illusion and much of this discussion is specific to the illusion of the individual self. But that's all on the maya side of the line, so to speak. Pedantically, Rob - "Gloria Lee" <glee "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:36 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > Rob, > > Yes, you are getting closer to my question, because I do already understand Bobby's conclusion about how ego is not identical. My focus is more on how maya can be illusion, yet Brahman is all there is. Now it's always dangerous, but let me think some before I get back to you. I have to go paint my mother's entryway right now. > > Glo > > Rob Sacks > RamanaMaharshi > Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:06 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > > P.S. > > > Okay, of course it's not in > > this way, then what is the identity implied? > > There's no special identity for this pair > of opposites. Sankara starts from the > axiom that there is really only one thing > in the universe, Brahman. Therefore > all particular "things" (including little old > you and God) are identical because they are > really Brahman. Sankara's task as a > philosopher is not to demonstrate that > particular things have something in common. > HIs task is to demonstrate why there is an > illusion that makes them seem distinct. > His explanation for this is upadhis. In this > passage, he only has to give the upadhis that > create the apparent objects "God" and "me." > He says the upadhi for the first is maya and > the upadhi for the second is the five sheaths. > > > > - > "Rob Sacks" <editor > <RamanaMaharshi> > Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:45 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > > > Hi Gloria, > > > > I think this is a lot less confusing in a translation > > straight from Sankara, especially if you read the > > whole section instead of stopping with Bobby's > > dot-dot-dots. If you want, I'll type the passage > > here from another translation. > > > > Basically the passage says that both the > > individual self and God are created by > > upadhis. If you take the upadhis away, > > the duality vanishes. I'm not sure what you're > > asking about so sorry if this misses the point. > > > > Love, > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > - > > "Gloria Lee" <glee > > "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> > > Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:41 AM > > [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > > > > > > I would like to hear from the people here on this quote. Not anything to do with Bobby, but his subsequent explanation was not > > quite the way I first heard this. Just saying it's not the ego seems a bit too easy, an obvious fact. Okay, of course it's not in > > this way, then what is the identity implied? > > > > > > Thanks for your help, there is something I feel or intuit, but can't yet articulate well. But like there is nothing else to be > > (ego) because to be anything else would limit the infinite that is all. Yet this immanence is maya. > > > > > > Love, Gloria > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Thank you Rob, Miles,& Richard... you all had helpful ideas. As a topic for a philosophical discussion, a lot can be said and you were all quite to the main point. Let me just describe what happened when I first read the passage. I confess that I have usually had a somewhat negative reaction to hearing statements about how the world is an illusion and does not exist, simply because I find life, people and nature so beautiful, despite all the suffering that happens. So I heard maya statements as similar to God fooling us, like a magician's trick. I couldn't possibly fathom what motive God might have for doing that, it seemed mean. Even tho the fooling actually happens on our end, as the "error" is really our mistaken perceptions of dualistic differences, just the way our mind conceptualizes the raw sense data coming in, into percievable differences. What is more clear to me now is that when reading the passage, my usual resistance somehow went away, and it was more of a felt intuition, a seeing that of course "this" is how it must be, any identity can only be with what is real. But like a scientist who needs a proof of his hunch, I couldn't 'do the math' to find a logical explanation, nor put words to "this". All I can come up with logically is that for "All, the Absolute, God" - for all to be the totality and infinite, anything "else" actually existing would limit infinity and create some "other" reality, so it can't be true. But I myself have read far better 'explanations' of maya before this. What happened wasn't a philosophical moment, it was more just a feeling of understanding. So it felt more important that what was actually said in the quote. Some piece of a larger puzzle clicked in place, yet it was the effect that was felt. Looking in the words is looking in the wrong place, as Richard said so well. Thank you all for your patience with me. With love, Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Hi Gloria, The fooling is a gift. "Fooling" is Sankara's synonym for "creating." Fooling is what gives us the world including our individual selves. Sankara doesn't deny the existence of the world. But he thinks it is caused by Brahman and made out of Brahman. And compared to Brahman (which is what it really is), it's not real because it's always in the process of becoming. But let's not take this too seriously. This is just philosophy. It's just a theory to attempt to explain the experiences of the rishis who composed the Upanishads. There are other competing explanations in Indian philosophy. Rob - "Gloria Lee" <glee "RM" <RamanaMaharshi> Friday, October 26, 2001 11:09 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] wondering > > Thank you Rob, Miles,& Richard... you all had helpful ideas. As a topic for a philosophical discussion, a lot can be said and you were all quite to the main point. > > Let me just describe what happened when I first read the passage. I confess that I have usually had a somewhat negative reaction to hearing statements about how the world is an illusion and does not exist, simply because I find life, people and nature so beautiful, despite all the suffering that happens. So I heard maya statements as similar to God fooling us, like a magician's trick. I couldn't possibly fathom what motive God might have for doing that, it seemed mean. Even tho the fooling actually happens on our end, as the "error" is really our mistaken perceptions of dualistic differences, just the way our mind conceptualizes the raw sense data coming in, into percievable differences. > > What is more clear to me now is that when reading the passage, my usual resistance somehow went away, and it was more of a felt intuition, a seeing that of course "this" is how it must be, any identity can only be with what is real. But like a scientist who needs a proof of his hunch, I couldn't 'do the math' to find a logical explanation, nor put words to "this". All I can come up with logically is that for "All, the Absolute, God" - for all to be the totality and infinite, anything "else" actually existing would limit infinity and create some "other" reality, so it can't be true. > > But I myself have read far better 'explanations' of maya before this. What happened wasn't a philosophical moment, it was more just a feeling of understanding. So it felt more important that what was actually said in the quote. Some piece of a larger puzzle clicked in place, yet it was the effect that was felt. Looking in the words is looking in the wrong place, as Richard said so well. Thank you all for your patience with me. > > With love, > Gloria > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Gloria, You seem on the right track. One other way to look at it is to ask yourself, "Who knows all this?" The knower is NOT the known. You can see this foryourself if you look deeply enough. Then look in your own awareness and ask, "What is known?," and "Who knows this?" then finally "Who am I?" These questions can lead you to a knowledge that is not merely mental or cognative. These can lead you from the focus on the "known" to a focus on who you (really) are. You are She who knows ALL of your mind, body, world and different mental states (including waking, dreaming and deep sleep). In deep sleep, when your main is not active, you know that you exist. If your knowning was just from mental activity, how could you know of this existance? A philosophical discussion may be interesting and can help a seeker focus on Truth. To experience yourself as the Truth, however is not something that arises from ANY mental process, though. Acorind to a sutra, the Buddha once said, "Stop. Stop. Do not talk. The highest Truth is not even to think!" Alas, that's the rub. You can think about enlightenment all you want, but that is not going to bring you to it. What is needed is your own practice and effort, directed in a way that can move your focus past your own mind and ego. Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote: > > Thank you Rob, Miles,& Richard... you all had helpful ideas. As a topic for a philosophical discussion, a lot can be said and you were all quite to the main point. > > Let me just describe what happened when I first read the passage. I confess that I have usually had a somewhat negative reaction to hearing statements about how the world is an illusion and does not exist, simply because I find life, people and nature so beautiful, despite all the suffering that happens. So I heard maya statements as similar to God fooling us, like a magician's trick. I couldn't possibly fathom what motive God might have for doing that, it seemed mean. Even tho the fooling actually happens on our end, as the "error" is really our mistaken perceptions of dualistic differences, just the way our mind conceptualizes the raw sense data coming in, into percievable differences. > > What is more clear to me now is that when reading the passage, my usual resistance somehow went away, and it was more of a felt intuition, a seeing that of course "this" is how it must be, any identity can only be with what is real. But like a scientist who needs a proof of his hunch, I couldn't 'do the math' to find a logical explanation, nor put words to "this". All I can come up with logically is that for "All, the Absolute, God" - for all to be the totality and infinite, anything "else" actually existing would limit infinity and create some "other" reality, so it can't be true. > > But I myself have read far better 'explanations' of maya before this. What happened wasn't a philosophical moment, it was more just a feeling of understanding. So it felt more important that what was actually said in the quote. Some piece of a larger puzzle clicked in place, yet it was the effect that was felt. Looking in the words is looking in the wrong place, as Richard said so well. Thank you all for your patience with me. > > With love, > Gloria > > > 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.