Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: devi: If there is a break, that is, speech is not part or emitting fromthe Absolute, then we have a conceptual duality, of the Absolute and speech acts (mouths words and all the rest), which just pop up like this. A common solution to such a division is to say there are no acts at all, nothing happens or happened, all is a dream, all is illusion, only the Self is real. devi: i have no idea what you mean by a break? Lewis: There are two issues devi. If the Self speaks, a significant conceptual problem emerges in Advaita Vedanta doctrine. To say that the Self speaks is akin to making the Self similar to the Christian God that speaks and has messengers and prophets and the like. So the Self speaking is a AV no no, at least on this account. So this is always denied and then the talk of the Self and promotion of the Self goes on. Second, if the Self does not speak how is speech produced? How is that the Self is thought of, or proclaimed? Why? How? Who proclaims? The Self? The I AM? The Witness? The realized Self? Maya? Are these not of Parabrahman? If yes, the issue moves to the question are the many appearances seen speaking - devi, Pete, etc.- expressions of the Self? Extensions of the Self? A local appearing Self expressing in language? How does all the talk of the Self and Self-Realization emerge? If not from the Self that cannot move or speak or animate, is all of it, Advaita Vedanta, simply from the imagination? Mere fabrications made from genuine individual experiences that have been turned into doctrine and beliefs, universalized and handed down? Since answers to these questions will be in the negative by many Advaita Vedantists, others convoluted explanations and evidences are variously provided as mentioned before. These intellectual issues are insurmountable and demonstrate belief and dogma. It all can be discarded without loss. The first step in the Patanjali Sutras, which you mentioned that you read, speaks of this in terms of specific vritti that impede - pramana and vikalpa. I use more common words but these may be closer to you. A conversation on pramana and vikalpa would be interesting. devi: and that common solution occured to me but then i remembered babajis poem and thought the poem was a better response... Lewis: Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna Brahaman i one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The poem speaks of it in the following words: > .....sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > ideas and > imaginations, > and divides in subject and object. > silence gives rise to non-duality by > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > Absolute. " > > So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, > speech and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - and > then a return, a going back to non-duality - silence the Absolute. > > From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. > But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. devi: i don't even know what the question is anymore.. ***Lewis: Does the Self speak? Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How language is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. devi: i tend not to ask him qusestions...so, maybe we can find out another way...:-) Lewis: Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 devi: have you ever read the book, " Autobiography of a Yogi " http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/43.asp this chapter explains some of the cosmic principles with manifestion. L. Second, if the Self does not speak how is speech produced? devi: this may be interesting toyou too.. ....from patanji yoga sutras commentary by baba hari dass.. Before understanding this concept of pramana (valid proof), it is first necessaary to understand how cognition occurs in the mind... The ability to perceive an object in the mind field is possible because the purusha (pure conscious principle) pervades the prakriti (matter principle). It is purusha, through its influence on prakriti, that transmits to the mind the ability to cognize. Samkhya philosophy proposes that when the consciousness principle (purusha) comes within the proximity of matter (prakriti),the universal sense of being, the " I-sense " (asmita) arises. Purusha is not a creator, even though this " I-sense " which is the source of all creation, arises from the reflection of the purusha on prakriti.. devi.in samkhaya philosophy there are an infinite numbers of purushas..atmans......in nirguna brahman i'll do more tomorrow...this is fun for me and if anyone thinks i'm wrong tell me... night night How is that the Self is thought of, or proclaimed? Why? How? Who proclaims? The Self? The I AM? The Witness? The realized Self? Maya? Are these not of Parabrahman? > If yes, the issue moves to the question are the many appearances seen speaking - devi, Pete, etc.- expressions of the Self? Extensions of > the Self? A local appearing Self expressing in language? How does all > the talk of the Self and Self-Realization emerge? > > If not from the Self that cannot move or speak or animate, is all of > it, Advaita Vedanta, simply from the imagination? Mere fabrications > made from genuine individual experiences that have been turned into > doctrine and beliefs, universalized and handed down? > > Since answers to these questions will be in the negative by many > Advaita Vedantists, others convoluted explanations and evidences are > variously provided as mentioned before. These intellectual issues are > insurmountable and demonstrate belief and dogma. It all can be > discarded without loss. The first step in the Patanjali Sutras, which > you mentioned that you read, speaks of this in terms of specific > vritti that impede - pramana and vikalpa. I use more common words but > these may be closer to you. A conversation on pramana and vikalpa > would be interesting. > > devi: and that common solution occured to me but then i remembered > babajis poem and thought the poem was a better response... > > Lewis: Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna > Brahaman i one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The > poem speaks of it in the following words: > > > > .....sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > ideas and > > imaginations, > > and divides in subject and object. > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > Absolute. " > > > > So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, > > speech and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - and > > then a return, a going back to non-duality - silence the Absolute. > > > > From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. > > But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. > > devi: i don't even know what the question is anymore.. > > ***Lewis: Does the Self speak? > > Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How language > is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. > > devi: i tend not to ask him qusestions...so, maybe we can find out > another way...:-) > > Lewis: Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > devi: have you ever read the book, " Autobiography of a Yogi " ****Lewis: Yes, I have read it and am familiar with Kriya yoga. > http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/43.asp > devi:this chapter explains some of the cosmic principles with > manifestion. ****Lewis: Yes. Kriya yoga incorporates " independent astral bodies " in their conceptual and experiential worlds. > Lewis. Second, if the Self does not speak how is speech produced? > > devi: this may be interesting to you too.. > > > ...from patanji yoga sutras commentary by baba hari dass.. > > Before understanding this concept of pramana (valid proof), it is > first necessaary to understand how cognition occurs in the mind... > The ability to perceive an object in the mind field is possible > because the purusha (pure conscious principle) pervades the prakriti > (matter principle). It is purusha, through its influence on > prakriti, that transmits to the mind the ability to cognize. > > Samkhya philosophy proposes that when the consciousness principle > (purusha) comes within the proximity of matter (prakriti),the > universal sense of being, the " I-sense " (asmita) arises. Purusha is > not a creator, even though this " I-sense " which is the source of all > creation, arises from the reflection of the purusha on prakriti.. > ****Lewis: Pramana in the Patanjali Sutras is one of five vrittis that impede " spiritual development " when their attachment to them. It has been inaccurately portrayed as " right or correct knowledge " as something to develop by many. The sutras instruct that such logico-deductive knowledge, inference, evidence, theory... that is , constructed by the buddhi or intellect, which is akin to " scientific knowledge, " and the fanciful creations of imagination called vikapala (i.e. turtle feathers) and the other three, are all to be treated with detachment. > > devi.in samkhaya philosophy there are an infinite numbers of > purushas..atmans......in nirguna brahman ****Lewis: Samkhya yoga is not Advaita Vedanta. Samkhya yoga constructs two independent realities, purusha (eternal sentient awareness) and prakriti (eternal primal energy/matter/substance). A " mind " composed of subtle matter and three gunas and the sensory organs allows interaction between the two eternalities which manifests in an infinite numbers of sentient and unmodifiable eternal purushas. The purushas have awareness and are unchanging and unaffected and silent to the changes brought up by mind's contact with the prakriti. Advaita Vedantists reject this construction and construct a less intuitive world. Vedantist construct Parabrahman, the Absolute, the non-material sentient existence/awareness that is the one and only all pervading reality. There is nothing else. The Vedanatist explain the diversity in the appearances as Maya, ParaBrahman's " will " to become many, which amount to a cosmic illusion, a dream world, that veils the Absolute. This forum and all in it is classified as Maya. The Vedantan Absolute, like most other but all other Absolutes constructed, was never created, never modified, unmodifiable, attributeless...Nirguna. So nothing has happened, there is no one or no thing; only the Absolute. In Nirguna Brahman, devi, there are no purushas. That would amount to a syncretic philosophy. Tony O'Clery may appear. This is his territory. > i'll do more tomorrow...this is fun for me and if anyone thinks i'm > wrong tell me... > night night Good night. Sleep well, Lewis > How is that the Self is thought of, or proclaimed? Why? How? Who > proclaims? > The Self? > The I AM? > The Witness? > The realized Self? > Maya? > Are these not of Parabrahman? > > If yes, the issue moves to the question are the many appearances > seen speaking - devi, Pete, etc.- expressions of the Self? > Extensions of the Self? A local appearing Self expressing in > language? How does all the talk of the Self and Self-Realization > emerge? > If not from the Self that cannot move or speak or animate, is > all off it, Advaita Vedanta, simply from the imagination? Mere > fabrications made from genuine individual experiences that have been > turned into doctrine and beliefs, universalized and handed down? > Since answers to these questions will be in the negative by many > Advaita Vedantists, others convoluted explanations and evidences > are variously provided as mentioned before. These intellectual > issues are insurmountable and demonstrate belief and dogma. It all > can be discarded without loss. The first step in the Patanjali > Sutras, which you mentioned that you read, speaks of this in terms > > of specific vritti that impede - pramana and vikalpa. I use more > common words but these may be closer to you. A conversation on > pramana and vikalpa would be interesting. > > devi: and that common solution occured to me but then i remembered > > babajis poem and thought the poem was a better response... > > > > Lewis: Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna > > Brahaman i one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The > > poem speaks of it in the following words: > > > > > > > .....sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > > ideas and > > > imaginations, > > > and divides in subject and object. > > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > > Absolute. " > > > > > > So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, > > > speech and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - > > > and then a return, a going back to non-duality - silence the > > > Absolute. > > > > > > From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. > > > But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. > > > > devi: i don't even know what the question is anymore.. > > > > ***Lewis: Does the Self speak? > > > > Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How > > language is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. > > > > devi: i tend not to ask him qusestions...so, maybe we can find out > > another way...:-) > > > > ***Lewis: Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 ****Lewis: Pramana in the Patanjali Sutras is one of five vrittis that impede " spiritual development " when their attachment to them. It has been inaccurately portrayed as " right or correct knowledge " as something to develop by many. The sutras instruct that such logico-deductive knowledge, inference, evidence, theory... that is , constructed by the buddhi or intellect, which is akin to " scientific knowledge, " and the fanciful creations of imagination called vikapala (i.e. turtle feathers) and the other three, are all to be treated with detachment. devi: wow, i had no idea you were so spiritual... --devi.in samkhaya philosophy there are an infinite numbers of purushas..atmans......in nirguna brahman ****Lewis: Samkhya yoga is not Advaita Vedanta. devi: yes, i know that much....i feel quite the outsider... lewis: Samkhya yoga constructs two independent realities, purusha (eternal sentient awareness) and prakriti (eternal primal energy/matter/substance). A " mind " composed of subtle matter and three gunas and the sensory organs allows interaction between the two eternalities which manifests in an infinite numbers of sentient and unmodifiable eternal purushas. The purushas have awareness and are unchanging and unaffected and silent to the changes brought up by mind's contact with the prakriti. devi: right...its so much more simple that way..at least to my mind...but what i do is i take the word nirguna and can interchange it with unmanifest prakritit and take the word saguna and interchange it with the words manifest prakriti...and take the word purusha and interchange it with atman or Self lewis: Advaita Vedantists reject this construction and construct a less intuitive world. Vedantist construct Parabrahman, the Absolute, the non-material sentient existence/awareness that is the one and only all pervading reality. There is nothing else. The Vedanatist explain the diversity in the appearances as Maya, ParaBrahman's " will " to become many, which amount to a cosmic illusion, a dream world, that veils the Absolute. This forum and all in it is classified as Maya. The Vedantan Absolute, like most other but all other Absolutes constructed, was never created, never modified, unmodifiable, attributeless...Nirguna. So nothing has happened, there is no one or no thing; only the Absolute. devi: everything that your saying here fits very well with Prakriti/Purusha.....in the samadhi state of asamprjnata samadhi there is no mind field..the Self dwells in the Self...so nothing has happened, there is no one or no thing only the Absolute/SelfdwellingintheSelf........ the point is is that there is no mind field.....its only in the mind field that there can be any saguna-creation-thought...I am is the first vritti even that is gone.... lewis: In Nirguna Brahman, devi, there are no purushas. That would amount to a syncretic philosophy. Tony O'Clery may appear. This is his territory. devi: i guess you'll have to see for yourself....:-) i don't think i can continue with the conversation here...its to serious for gary and he's starting to call me names.. maybe we can continue in e-mail...ok? How is that the Self is thought of, or proclaimed? Why? How? Who proclaims? The Self? The I AM? The Witness? The realized Self? Maya? Are these not of Parabrahman? > > > > If yes, the issue moves to the question are the many appearances > > seen speaking - devi, Pete, etc.- expressions of the Self? > > Extensions of the Self? A local appearing Self expressing in > > language? How does all the talk of the Self and Self-Realization > > emerge? > > > If not from the Self that cannot move or speak or animate, is > > all off it, Advaita Vedanta, simply from the imagination? Mere > > fabrications made from genuine individual experiences that have been > > turned into doctrine and beliefs, universalized and handed down? > > Since answers to these questions will be in the negative by many > > Advaita Vedantists, others convoluted explanations and evidences > > are variously provided as mentioned before. These intellectual > > issues are insurmountable and demonstrate belief and dogma. It all > > can be discarded without loss. The first step in the Patanjali > > Sutras, which you mentioned that you read, speaks of this in terms > > > of specific vritti that impede - pramana and vikalpa. I use more > > common words but these may be closer to you. A conversation on > > pramana and vikalpa would be interesting. > > > > devi: and that common solution occured to me but then i remembered > > > babajis poem and thought the poem was a better response... > > > > > > Lewis: Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna > > > Brahaman i one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The > > > poem speaks of it in the following words: > > > > > > > > > > .....sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > > > ideas and > > > > imaginations, > > > > and divides in subject and object. > > > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > > > Absolute. " > > > > > > > > So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, > > > > speech and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - > > > > and then a return, a going back to non-duality - silence the > > > > Absolute. > > > > > > > > From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. > > > > But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. > > > > > > devi: i don't even know what the question is anymore.. > > > > > > ***Lewis: Does the Self speak? > > > > > > Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How > > > language is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. > > > > > > devi: i tend not to ask him qusestions...so, maybe we can find out > > > another way...:-) > > > > > > ***Lewis: Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...> wrote: > >Judi: Yes, deceitfully violent men are obsessed with non-violence. Underneath all that sugar and spice, passive agressiveness, lurks a monster with sharp teeth. sam: and conversely, christ spewing religious bible thumping men often wear two masks: the top one is righteous and god preaching and the real one underneath; the one that comes out to play with the world is the violent, gun slinger. Some people like to cover their shit with sugar and some like to cover their sugar with shit. Either way, it's really all the same. Oh happy days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: ****Lewis: Pramana in the Patanjali Sutras is one of five vrittis that impede " spiritual development " when their attachment to them. It has been inaccurately portrayed as " right or correct knowledge " as something to develop by many. The sutras instruct that such logico-deductive knowledge, inference, evidence, theory... that is , constructed by the buddhi or intellect, which is akin to " scientific knowledge, " and the fanciful creations of imagination called vikapala (i.e. turtle feathers) and the other three, are all to be treated with detachment. devi: wow, i had no idea you were so spiritual... --devi.in samkhaya philosophy there are an infinite numbers of purushas..atmans......in nirguna brahman ****Lewis: Samkhya yoga is not Advaita Vedanta. devi: yes, i know that much....i feel quite the outsider... lewis: Samkhya yoga constructs two independent realities, purusha (eternal sentient awareness) and prakriti (eternal primal energy/matter/substance). A " mind " composed of subtle matter and three gunas and the sensory organs allows interaction between the two eternalities which manifests in an infinite numbers of sentient and unmodifiable eternal purushas. The purushas have awareness and are unchanging and unaffected and silent to the changes brought up by mind's contact with the prakriti. devi: right...its so much more simple that way..at least to my mind...but what i do is i take the word nirguna and can interchange it with unmanifest prakritit and take the word saguna and interchange it with the words manifest prakriti...and take the word purusha and interchange it with atman or Self *****Lewis: Some people may take you task for such equating but it can work conceptually after all Sankara modified Samkhya's conceptions to form Advaita Vedanta reducing the two realities to one using the concept of Maya as an explanatory device to account for the many appearances and the diversity of those appearances. lewis: Advaita Vedantists reject this construction and construct a less intuitive world. Vedantist construct Parabrahman, the Absolute, the non-material sentient existence/awareness that is the one and only all pervading reality. There is nothing else. The Vedanatist explain the diversity in the appearances as Maya, ParaBrahman's " will " to become many, which amount to a cosmic illusion, a dream world, that veils the Absolute. This forum and all in it is classified as Maya. The Vedantan Absolute, like most other but all other Absolutes constructed, was never created, never modified, unmodifiable, attributeless...Nirguna. So nothing has happened, there is no one or no thing; only the Absolute. devi: everything that your saying here fits very well with Prakriti/Purusha.....in the samadhi state of asamprjnata samadhi there is no mind field..the Self dwells in the Self...so nothing has happened, there is no one or no thing only the Absolute/SelfdwellingintheSelf........ *****Lewis: Yes and that would be a syncretism since purushas are infinite and identifiable yet one can easily say assume it is all one in the umanifested. Instead of the " pantheism " of Advaita Vedanta, there is the " panENtheism " of Samkhya. the point is is that there is no mind field.....its only in the mind field that there can be any saguna-creation-thought...I am is the first vritti even that is gone.... *****Lewis: Yes. Ideally so. lewis: In Nirguna Brahman, devi, there are no purushas. That would amount to a syncretic philosophy. Tony O'Clery may appear. This is his territory. devi: i guess you'll have to see for yourself....:-) *****Lewis: Indeed. Bodily death will do us part (as purushas, and I will visit or haunt as needed ) or not (transmuted into indefinable energy or some thing or no thing or other). Either way or neither way or some other way is da bomb. :-D Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > ****Lewis: Pramana in the Patanjali Sutras is one of five vrittis > that impede " spiritual development " when their attachment to them. > It has been inaccurately portrayed as " right or correct knowledge " as > something to develop by many. The sutras instruct that such > logico-deductive knowledge, inference, evidence, theory... that is , > constructed by the buddhi or intellect, which is akin to " scientific > knowledge, " and the fanciful creations of imagination called > vikapala (i.e. turtle feathers) and the other three, are all to be > treated with detachment. > > devi: wow, i had no idea you were so spiritual... > > --devi.in samkhaya philosophy there are an infinite numbers of > purushas..atmans......in nirguna brahman > > > ****Lewis: Samkhya yoga is not Advaita Vedanta. > > > devi: yes, i know that much....i feel quite the outsider... > > lewis: Samkhya yoga constructs two independent realities, purusha > (eternal sentient awareness) and prakriti (eternal primal > energy/matter/substance). A " mind " composed of subtle matter and > three gunas and the sensory organs allows interaction between the > two eternalities which manifests in an infinite numbers of sentient > and unmodifiable eternal purushas. The purushas have awareness and > are unchanging and unaffected and silent to the changes brought up > by mind's contact with the prakriti. > > > devi: right...its so much more simple that way..at least to my > mind...but what i do is i take the word nirguna and can interchange > it with unmanifest prakritit and take the word saguna and > interchange it with the words manifest prakriti...and take the word > purusha and interchange it with atman or Self > > *****Lewis: Some people may take you task for such equating but it can > work conceptually after all Sankara modified Samkhya's conceptions to > form Advaita Vedanta reducing the two realities to one using the > concept of Maya as an explanatory device to account for the many > appearances and the diversity of those appearances. > > lewis: Advaita Vedantists reject this construction and construct a > less intuitive world. > > Vedantist construct Parabrahman, the Absolute, the non-material > sentient existence/awareness that is the one and only all pervading > reality. There is nothing else. The Vedanatist explain the diversity > in the appearances as Maya, ParaBrahman's " will " to become many, > which amount to a cosmic illusion, a dream world, that veils the > Absolute. This forum and all in it is classified as Maya. The > Vedantan Absolute, like most other but all other Absolutes > constructed, was never created, never modified, unmodifiable, > attributeless...Nirguna. So nothing has happened, there is no one or > no thing; only the Absolute. > > devi: everything that your saying here fits very well with > Prakriti/Purusha.....in the samadhi state of asamprjnata samadhi > there is no mind field..the Self dwells in the Self...so nothing has > happened, there is no one or no thing only the > Absolute/SelfdwellingintheSelf........ > > *****Lewis: Yes and that would be a syncretism since purushas are > infinite and identifiable yet one can easily say assume it is all one > in the umanifested. Instead of the " pantheism " of Advaita Vedanta, > there is the " panENtheism " of Samkhya. > > > the point is is that there is no mind field.....its only in the mind > field that there can be any saguna-creation-thought...I am is the > first vritti even that is gone.... > > *****Lewis: Yes. Ideally so. > > lewis: In Nirguna Brahman, devi, there are no purushas. That would > amount to a syncretic philosophy. Tony O'Clery may appear. This is > his territory. > > devi: i guess you'll have to see for yourself....:-) > > *****Lewis: Indeed. Bodily death will do us part (as purushas, and I > will visit or haunt as needed ) or not (transmuted into indefinable > energy or some thing or no thing or other). Either way or neither way > or some other way is da bomb. > > :-D > > Love, > > Lewis anyway,,to just finish up..this is more what i think.there are an infinite number of purushas/atmans, if you know this atman you'd know the best and closest description is that it is a pure energy essence and each one is unique in its vibration that doesnt really vibrate...it is what gives saguna brahmans its sentience....its seeming consciousness...aliveness nirguna brahman which seems like the void actually has the whole as potential in it..its like a seed...but has no form..when it manifests as saguna brahman it manifests as the various forms the i am experiences all the way from the densest rock to the Supreme Personality...... some people pray to this brahman as if there is some Super Soul, but i don't think there is....i think that an i am can pray to this brahman and the brahman can make a form, like that Isvara in patanjilis yoga sutras, but like patanjili says, that isvara has no atman... anyway..thats what i've recently come up with... have you read god speaks by meher baba? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > Dear Lewis, > > I don't what to say. I am not sure I know exactly what you are saying. > Maybe I could figure it out but it would take some energy and my > energy does not go into directions of figuring things out. I am sorry > to disappoint you because you seem very sincere. Probably you need to > have dialogues with people of high intellectual stature and with > Ph.D.s in Philosophy because you have a brilliant analytical mind. I > would not be the right conversation partner for you. What is your > academic discipline. Just curious. Thanks. > > Love, > Harsha > > > > Hi Harsha, > > There is no disappointment. Intellectual stature and degrees are not > significant factors for having dialogue. As you said " readiness to > embrace " is important. My academic training was in social anthropology. > > Love, > > Lewis >>Probably you need to > have dialogues with people of high intellectual stature and with > Ph.D.s in Philosophy because you have a brilliant analytical mind. Who is this man, " Harsh K. Luthar, Ph.D. " ? Not only he is a Ph.D., he 'feels' it necessary / good / essential / useful to put it to next to his name !!! Such a 'humble', true, soft, ...'no- violent' man ! ---------------------------- from / Finding the Heart of the Light: Asking the Right Questions by Harsh K. Luthar, Ph.D. ---------------------------- If you look little deeply, it is not much different than. " ......... " by, Ravin, Millionaire ! Such 'humbleness', such 'non-violence' ! Or " what is realization ? " by Saket, Self-Realized ! All great marks of `greatly' `humble' and `non violent' men !!! > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > The request was to have dialogue about the mentioned topics or > others selected with Harsha as Self, not to " Harsha presenting " Self > as a universalized thought object. This is " natural and good " as it > goes at the moment. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > More complications below. > > > > The request was to engage in a discourse without objectifying the > > Self, speaking of the Self as object. The Self spoken of in Advaita > > Vedanta is not an object of thought. Yet it is spoken of, referred to > > in that way. The Self is....., realize the Self, and so on. > > > > I assume that Harsha is Self and capable of speaking, writing without > > referring to a thought object that cannot equal that capacity to > > write. It is similar to assuming that a typed word - " me " - is > > equivalent to that which writes the word " me, " which is clearly not > > the case. The word " me " is not " me, " the capacity to write. Anything > > may be done to that word or any word written and it does not change in > > any way the capacity to write the word. > > > > For example, there is an indescribable undergoing /in/are/of X (i.e. > > Self-Realization). > > > > In in trying to explain the indescribable undergoing X, there is a the > > turning of " it " into an " experience " (an abstraction). Then there is an > > extraction out of that " experience " certain thoughts and concepts - X1 > > X2 X3 Xn.. These are then formed and further refined and expressed as > > " universalized thought objects " used in discourse, for example, > > " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /Heart /I > > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/ " and " processes and stages of > > realization " of these. There is a great deal of abstraction and > > conceptualizing that is far removed for the indescribable undergoing > > as it was/is. There is enormous energy put into realizing " empty " > > concepts whose content is imagined. > > > > Also, such metaphors are employed in various ways trying to convey at > > great remove the indescribable undergoing X. As this is done, a > > universalization occurs. A specific individualis undergoing X in a > > specific uphadi/mind/body complex/appearance in a certain cultural > > milieu and this individual undergoing X is then universalized, made > > generally understandable and in most cases absolutely vague or > > enormously complex. So in the end it is usually imagination that takes > > over in the play with these " thought objects. " Ramana becomes > > something completely imagined. > > > > Is this necessary? One way to avoid this is to move steps backwards in > > this production of thought objects, moving back to the individual > > appearance and away from univeral objectification and then to > communicate. > > > > If objectivication of Self and similar universalized or complicated > > thought objects are not presented in communication can proceed perhaps > > more fruitfully, less abstractly. > > > > Perhaps, the simple sentences - I AM. and I am Self-Realized. - are > > perhaps the most complicated statements one can make in a forum like > > this because of the enormous and oftimes hidden load of conceptual > > baggage that is necessary to sustain it. > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > > > > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > Lewis > > anyway,,to just finish up..this is more what i think.there are an > infinite number of purushas/atmans, if you know this atman you'd > know the best and closest description is that it is a pure energy > essence and each one is unique in its vibration that doesnt really > vibrate...it is what gives saguna brahmans its sentience....its > seeming consciousness...aliveness > > > nirguna brahman which seems like the void actually has the whole as > potential in it..its like a seed...but has no form..when it > manifests as saguna brahman it manifests as the various forms the i > am experiences all the way from the densest rock to the Supreme > Personality...... > > some people pray to this brahman as if there is some Super Soul, but > i don't think there is....i think that an i am can pray to this > brahman and the brahman can make a form, like that Isvara in > patanjilis yoga sutras, but like patanjili says, that isvara has no > atman... > > anyway..thats what i've recently come up with... > > have you read god speaks by meher baba? Namaste Devi, Nirguna Brahman doesn't manifest as Saguna or have any seed forms. It is a void but it its not a void, and as it is beyond the mind, it cannot be understood but in the negative. This is why it is so hard to accept for the mind cannot imagine it.......One doesn't have to understand the molecular structure of water to climb out of the swimming pool....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Thank you Adithya for the many compliments. I appreciate your eagerness to have a dialog. Lack of time does not permit me to respond to every post. You can go to HS website and look at the third section " Shakti as the Goddess " . The third article in that section is called, " You take my breath away. " I believe that will answer most of your questions. / Nonviolence is a beautiful and a high ideal. In Patanjali's yoga sutras, Ahimsa is mentioned as the first principle. Practice and knowledge of the nature of Ahimsa leads to Self-Realization. Sri Ramana used to say Ahimsa Param Dharma. If you have a better way, follow it please and be happy. My teacher used to say, " Live and let live. " Live so that your life is a blessing to others. Best wishes Harsha adithya_comming wrote: > Such a 'humble', true, soft, ...'no- > violent' man ! > > > ---------------------------- > > from / > > > > All great marks of `greatly' `humble' and > `non violent' men !!! > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > Thank you Adithya for the many compliments. I appreciate your eagerness > to have a dialog. Lack of time does not permit me to respond to every post. > You can go to HS website and look at the third section " Shakti as the > Goddess " . The third article in that section is called, " You take my > breath away. " > I believe that will answer most of your questions. > > / > > Nonviolence is a beautiful and a high ideal. In Patanjali's yoga sutras, > Ahimsa is mentioned as the first principle. Practice and knowledge of > the nature of Ahimsa leads to Self-Realization. Sri Ramana used to say > Ahimsa Param Dharma. If you have a better way, follow it please and be > happy. My teacher used to say, " Live and let live. " > > Live so that your life is a blessing to others. > > Best wishes > Harsha Thank you, Harsha ! Please don't make excuse of 'lack of time' for 'escaping' ! I asked few very simple, directly and straight-forward question that could be answered directly and quickly. ----- Why is " HarshaSatnsang " called so, Harsha ? i.e. Why is it called HARSHA 'satsang'. ----- Who is this man, " Harsh K. Luthar, Ph.D. " ? Why he feels necessary to write 'Ph. D.' next to his name ? ****************** What kind of 'image' of `what kind of a person' you get, if you look little DEEPLY and combine the Above two ? ****************** ------ Why you have me 'banned from posting' on your site, Harsha ? I have heard others like Sandeep have met with similar fate ... and, lastly WHY you SNIPED this post, Harsha ? Especially, the parts that might have been little UNCOMFORTABLE considering that this post was not that long and you hadn't snipped many other posts including that from Lewis ... love to all, ac. > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > Such a 'humble', true, soft, ...'no- > > violent' man ! > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > from / > > > > > > > > All great marks of `greatly' `humble' and > > `non violent' men !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemant bhai " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > >Hey Harsha, why is it you think you're so obsessed with nonviolence? > maybe because nonviolence is not an important teaching. Huh? Not an important teaching? C'mon... Blessings sai 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.