Guest guest Posted April 5, 2000 Report Share Posted April 5, 2000 Self-Knowledge - a short essay ------------------------------ Self-knowledge does not consist of knowing what you are. What you are, you are already. Rather, it consists of *knowing what you are not*. Eliminating self-delusion clears the way for *what you are* to manifest. In other words, if you know what you are not, you are free to *be what you are*. There is no way to state what you are in positive terms, except perhaps as simple Being: " I Am. " The fact that you *are* is obvious. What you are cannot be known - you can only *be it*. And until all mental confusion is undone, until you know what you are not, you cannot really be what you are (please excuse the implied paradox). You are caught in a mental trap, a trap of delusive ideas about yourself. There can be no quality of genuineness in life until you know all that you are not. This process of elimination, often termed " discrimination " or " self-enquiry " (sanskrit: viveka) clears the way for vidya (often translated as " knowledge, " but not really translatable into English) to manifest. It is the spiritual practice recommended by both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, in the form of the question " Who am I? " RM states that it is best to put the question only once, and then begin to enquire. NM states that to turn the focus of attention to the " I AM, " the pure and simple state of being, is also a method of enquiry. The discovery is that the question " Who am I? " has no answer except in the negative. One can *know* only what one is not... and this knowledge is imperative. What one knows, one is free of. When you know what you are not, you are free of what you are not... and what remains is simply what you are. At the same time, to constantly dwell on the temporality and impermanence of all perceivables and conceivables is vairagya (dispassion). Viveka and vairagya go hand-in-hand. When the body, the mind and the world are known deeply to be temporal, impermanent, momentary and dreamlike, there is no longer any need to either do or not do anything. In other words, there is (at first) freedom from the compulsion to satisfy desires, and finally freedom from desire itself. The deeper the realization of impermanence goes, the more it can be seen that there is nothing to build, nothing to do, nowhere to go. Nothing lasts. The death of the body/mind is an absolute guarantee. Without viveka, this could result in a nihilistic viewpoint, but when combined with viveka, it can easily result in what is often called self-realization or enlightenment (a couple of really lousy terms that mean something different to everyone). To conclude, there is really nothing that can be known about oneself. The reality of what we are is mystery beyond mystery to the mind. The mind can only progressively eliminate confusion and incorrect views, until it becomes utterly still in complete bafflement, and the mind is at last transcended. What is it that transcends the mind? How could the mind possibly know? .... Tim ----- The past is memory, the future imaginary. Be Here Now. Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at: http://core.vdirect.net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 At 04:50 PM 4/6/00 -0700, you wrote: >At 08:58 AM 4/6/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >>>OK, I'll accept that it's an inference, but one that seems valid enough. >>>How to explain the apparent " world? " >> >>There is no need to explain it. >>Unless established as a self that requires knowledge, >> what is the need for an explanation. > >OK, admittedly there is some entity or identity here still separating >reality from unreality, working ceaselessly at un-doing confusion. This > " work " goes on constantly at a " subconscious " level, often surfacing on >the conscious level. > >>If established as a self requiring knowledge, >> no explanation will suffice. > >It suffices this " self " to say that there is a mind, and the mind creates >pictures (dreaming or waking) which are confused with awareness. Awareness >is contained within the pictures, but the pictures depend entirely on >awareness... awareness stands free, undisturbed and untouched by the >pictures taking place on the screen, as the sky is unaffected by clouds >passing through, or the sea is unaffected by surface waves. Awareness >gives apparent light and life to the pictures, but the pictures themselves >arise from only one source - the mind. This explanation suffices >perfectly, despite what you may claim. D: You mistake me for someone making claims. I'm simply engaged in a dialogue. These words are like leaves blowing in the breeze. I speak only of opening to the breeze. I let the words blow away. >>The moving and the not-moving are not-two. > >Absolutely! This does not by *any* means block the sensations or >perception of movement, and I don't believe it does so in " your " case >either. I don't believe that in " your " case, only utter stillness is seen >with open eyes while watching a hurricane or waves crashing on a beach. >I'm talking here of perception as provided by the five senses, nothing more. D: You may seek to define " my " case from " your " perspective. In so doing, you will always be left with separation, a you defining me, and a me defining you. >>>Something disappears in sleep and reappears upon awakening. It seems there >>>are only two choices: Consider the universe as objectively real, or >>>consider it a product of the mind. >> >>Or consider it as not something to be considered :-) > >It is " my " sadhana or spiritual practice to sort out confusion... >therefore, consideration of these things is imperative here. I ask for >some respect - the practices of vairagya and viveka are " jnana yoga, " and >this is a " time-honored " technique espoused by Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, >Nisargadatta Maharaj and others. As long as there is still some imperative >here to see through delusion, I ask only respect for these practices (which >will eventually also be discarded as useless and unreal). D: I am not in a position to give or take away respect from you. I'm simply engaging in a discussion with you, in which perspectives are presented. The " who " that is having this discussion is not split into a one who seeks respect and another who gives or doesn't give it. >>That's exactly my point regarding 'mind'. >>Why talk about things that can't be measured >>as if they were real entities? > >Why not? :-) :-) Can you honestly give a valid reason for either doing or >not doing something? Actually, there is no choice in the matter. Do you >think " I " am doing these things, that there is something like " free will " >involved? D: This is funny, Tim. If there isn't, then you had no choice but to say that, and I had no choice but to say this. At the same time, if there is a reality to Love, we are more than machines, not mere automatons. Thus, I would say we are neither free nor unfree - although we don't choose, we are chosen. That which chooses us is freedom itself, so our choicelessness is itself freedom. >You're asking the All: Why talk about things that can't be measured? Who >asks who? The talking occurs. Questions as to " why " are utterly meaningless. D: Thus, the statement that it is meaningless is also meaningless. By the way, what you're saying here is itself an answer to your previous message requesting an explanation about ultimate reality. >>>Something has to explain the world-appearance. >> >>Nothing can be explained. There is no explaining entity. >>There is no position apart from which to gather explanation. > >Dan... I see you attempting to articulate things with one leg on either >side of a wall, so to speak. Call the " wall " the " self. " Your words are >not heard clearly on " this side. " Enter " my dream " and speak to me in my >dreamland language, or go back to where words cannot reach and have no >meaning... this is not helpful as far as clarity is concerned. Clarity is from oneself. No outside source will clarify. >>Why establish nonentities as existent, then question what denies >> reality to those nonentities???????????????? > >I do not establish nonentities as existent, only *APPARENT*. Can't you see >the difference? Have you ever hallucinated? During the hallucination, do >you deny the apparentness of it, even while knowing it as hallucination? >As long as something is apparent, it has conditional existence, and can be >dealt with on that level. Why can't you see that? Because my awareness is where the appearance and the reality are not-two. >>The contradiction occurs the instant you believe >> that I've spoken my name. >> >>Love, >>Dan > >The words appear above. The eyes see: > >Love, >Dan > >Perhaps they see a dream, but to deny apparent (or dependent) existence to >the dream is just stupid. I know you are not stupid. > >One thing's for sure... you'd make a hell of a lousy " Guru " due to your >lack of ability to " come down to the level " of those who temporarily see >the truth with less clarity. D: Your judments about your self-created image of me are just that - judgments about your own self-constructed image. Transcendence does not mean destruction. You >are free to move in dream as well as in reality, to express yourself in > " common language, " yet you refuse to do so. Common language is for common things. Addressing the pure Unknown, the Truth beyond truths, requires uncommon language. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 On 7 Apr 00 > Clarity is from oneself. > No outside source will clarify. I learnt so much by what others said. But openness was the condition. Adrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 At 04:48 PM 4/8/00 +0100, you wrote: >On 7 Apr 00 > >> Clarity is from oneself. >> No outside source will clarify. > >I learnt so much by what others said. But openness was the >condition. > >Adrian Openness and who one is are not-two. The learning is being itself. Learning and being are not-two. Nothing outside of you has ever instructed you. The appearance of others saying things changes this reality not one whit. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 On 8 Apr 00, at 15:37, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > Openness and who one is are not-two. > The learning is being itself. > Learning and being are not-two. > Nothing outside of you has ever > instructed you. > The appearance of others saying things > changes this reality not one whit. Dan, You may be right. On a certain level, the only unconditioned level, you are right. But I have a difficulty with denying the separatenes of my fingers, when I play the game of typing you this message. I fully agree, that the game is an illusion, but it is playing this illusion that enables us be One in consciousness. Adrian 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.