acceptance

[Guest guest]

Tony replied in a way that raises my second key concern about mystical

teachings: ontology (the assumed structure of reality). In my original email, I

mentioned that my first key concern was ambiguity of language. The two concerns

are complementary. More below.

>

> Namaste G,IMO,

>

> This is a short interim answer, I will try

and respond in more

> detail tomorrow. The confusion arises in

mixing apples and

oranges.

> Living completely in the 'Now' is ony

possible if one

is 'Realised'

> so to speak and lost the Ego.

 

I’m guessing that the apples and oranges are the realms of NOW and

of Ego. The problem that I have with Tony’s ontology in this distinction

and in his subsequent remarks is that it distinguishes different levels of

reality among which the seeker flits back and forth without explaining how the

levels are related and therefore how the seeker can flit from one to another. I

believe this is a weakness of religious systems generally. In my reading of

Eastern religious systems, they are even more prone to disjointed,

non-systematic ontologies than are Western religious systems. However, the

Eastern religious systems are more clearly related to religious EXPERIENCE,

which I think is their big advantage. What I am trying to do is understand

religious experience in terms of Western, systematic science. The advantage of

this approach, if it can be successful, is that it avoids pseudo-explanations

by requiring that explanations be grounded in identifiable experience. It also

is able to relate religious experience to all other human experience. I’ll

give a brief example of how this works.

 

Tony says, if I understand him correctly, that the realms of NOW and Ego

are apples and oranges. But in Western science, apples and oranges are both

fruit. That is, they have a common principle that makes them both fruit and a

differentiating explanation of how they have evolved as different forms of

fruit. What I tried to do in my earlier email was explain how NOW and ego are

different and how they are related through the individual mind-body. In my

Western scientific ontology, NOW is anchored in somatic feeling and ego (the

executive function that thinks, decides, and acts) involves somatic feeling

along with cognitive reference to past and present. The unifying explanation is

in the body that supports these various activities.

 

In contrast, Tony identifies various “levels” in which the

individual finds himself. The levels correspond to different kinds of

experience. But he offers no identifiable explanation of how these different

experiences are related and how and why the individual goes from one experience

to the other. I say “no identifiable

explanation” because Tony does say that to become Realized we must lose

the Ego. This is the rudimentary beginning of an explanation, but to be useful

it needs to be developed. What is the Ego and what does losing it entail? For

me, ego is, as I said, the executive function that thinks, decides, and acts.

To lose that, one would stop engaging in the ordinary world altogether and

Realization would be a pure conscious experience apart. But in my reading of

many of the spiritual masters, such a state or realization is at best only an

early phase of spiritual progress, whose most mature manifestation is an

enlightened engagement with the ordinary world. Therefore, either Tony’s

Ego is not my ego or he is talking about an early phase of spiritual progress,

not the most mature.

 

In sum, I’ve tried to identify differences between Tony’s

view and my own, noting that doing so requires reducing ambiguities in our

language. I’ve also briefly indicated the advantages of Western

scientific ontology over religious ontologies, Tony’s in particular. My

intent is to begin a constructive dialogue where we can build common ground

through being increasingly precise in our language and in identifying the

ontologies underlying our language so we can compare their relative strengths

and weaknesses.

 

Gary

 

Of course Ramana has stated that he

> felt pain when an ant bit him etc. Obviously

until the body drops

> the illusion of body carries with it the

bodymind's illusion or

> experience of pain. He does say that the

Mukta sees the world but

> sees it as an integral part of 'God' or

Saguna Brahman, as opposed

> to a separate illusion. The fact that the

illusion itself doesn't

> exist he didn't go too much into. So I

suppose a Mukta feels pain

at

> the mind level but is in Bliss at a higher

level. The difference

> being the Mukta notices the pain and observes

it but is not

attached

> or averse to it. Everybody suffers even the

animals suffer and

they

> have no bad karma so to speak. So it is a

plane of Dukkha or

> suffering.

>

> This is why in Yoga there are different

stages and exercises to do

> etc. Sankara said it is real whilst one is in

it. The Buddha said

> there is suffering but there is an end to

it........ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste,

Yama consists of five parts, viz., Ahimsa

(non-injury), Satyam

(truthfulness), Asteya (non-stealing),

Brahmacharya (celibacy), and

Aparigraha (non-covetousness).

I can only add the yamas, for they do come close

to a joining of the

apples and oranges so to

speak...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Gary Schouborg " <gary@s...>

wrote:

> Tony replied in a way that raises my second key concern about

mystical

> teachings: ontology (the assumed structure of reality). In my

original

> email, I mentioned that my first key concern was ambiguity of

language. The

> two concerns are complementary. More below.

> >

> > Namaste G,IMO,

> >

> > This is a short interim answer, I will try and respond in more

> > detail tomorrow. The confusion arises in mixing apples and

> oranges.

> > Living completely in the 'Now' is ony possible if one

> is 'Realised'

> > so to speak and lost the Ego.

 

Namaste G,IMO,

 

I should have a little clearer. Apples is relativity/duality and

oranges are absolute/non duality. The Ego essentially comes from

outside of oneself as a child doesn't really have a strong one.

However it is the identification of something other than the

Universal. It is the first thought or string upon which are all the

other thoughts.

Losing the personal ego doesn't mean the working mind isn't there

anymore, it just means there is an expansion into Universality.

The Advaita Jnana ultimately posits that nothing ever happened and

that when one wakes up from this dream, the realisation of Nirguna

Brahman occurs. God without attributes.

Ramana posits that there is the 'I' 'I' or Universal Mind of which

the EGo is just a false part. Kind of like a whirlpool in the ocean

so to speak. So once it is gone there is only the Truth the Ocean

not the illusion of separation or the Ego.

So as material or mind we are the mind, which in itself is

ultimately an illusion on Moksha or Liberation.

 

So really even if we give it some validity, creation isn't in levels

unless you regard the personal ego as a level.

 

It is a dream this is also indicated by quantum mechanics which show

that particle can go back in time, and are affected by our

observation etc. Without getting to far into

Heisenberg.........ONS..Tony.