Can an Experience take us beyond Exper...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/8/2006 5:42:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

alan (AT) ferryfee (DOT) com writes:

 

 

>Namaste Harsha-ji,

 

>Yes you and I have had this discussion on an off for years. I still opine

that Bliss is Saguna and not >full realisation. I will admit that the

realisation is only one and that Saguna and Nirguna are >realised

simultaneously. However Bliss is of the mind and experience and may exist as

long as there is >a body/mind complex of some kind.

>However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having happened at

all not even the illusion >itself happened.....Ajativada.........ONS...Tony.

 

A question

 

A snip with >>

 

"1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient

Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

>> the world never happened at all.

It is a complete denial of all causality in the

physical world. Sri Ramana endorsed this view by saying that it is

the jnani's experience that nothing ever comes into existence or

ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging

reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and

effect, essential components of all creation theories, exist only in

the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the Self reveals

their non-existence. "

 

Is this statement originally David Godman's, or is there another specific

source?

Could it be a reference to a big bang theory?

Personally I believe, to make it appear not to be a remark at closing time

in a bar, more information is needed, like, what is following in 'be as you

are'.

 

Here is another statement:

 

"This is supported by the great Sage Nisargadatta Maharaj who indicated that

we start out by; first believing we are making things happen, then we move

to realising things are in fact happening to us and finally that nothing is

happening at all."

 

 

Now it does look better, but using 'happened' to me there is a 'twist' only

being set straight with words like this, (actually if not said as a

repetition, but as a honest presentation, ommitting them does not make

sense)

 

"This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the

creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his

own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the

world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy,

but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by

saying that because the real nature or substratum of this appearance

is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of

its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply

because it appears, but only because the real nature of the

appearance is inseparable from the Self.

The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary

nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind

constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by

persistently misinterpreting the senseimpressions it receives. Sri

Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no more reality

than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the

reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between the

jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is

unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete

objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in

the Self."

 

As both Ramana and Nisargadatta are in the present as far as I can see.

What is actually being said, when presented as 'looking back'?

 

 

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Alan

 

 

I understand the quotes but I'm having trouble understanding your questions.

Time is as much illusion as everything else, and so a big bang theory is

just mind's way of trying to understand something that is just happening Now and

has no beginning or ending in reality.

 

Phil