Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 In GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote: > > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote: > > > > > > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Namaste, Durga, > > > snip > > > > > > > > There are different levels of Samdhi from 'With attributes' > > > > to 'without attributes'. Nirvikalpa is without attributes but > is > > > > still like putting a bucket in a pond, it is fully emersed but > > > when > > > > the bucket is pulled out it isn't immersed anymore. Sahaja or > > > > natural state the mind falls into the ocean without a bucket > sot > > > to > > > > speak. So in this state there is nothing to be aware of. For > as > > > > Gaudapada says Maya and Creation disappear, (for they never > > > existed > > > > in the first place). > > > > > > snip > > > ONS....Tony. > > > > > > Tony, on this point you are absolutely wrong. Sahaja samadhi > > > means the 'natural state,' and what that means is that > > > the jnani operates fully in 'duality,' is fully aware of > > > the creation, and is fully aware that whatever is 'happening' > > > in the creation does not touch the Self which the jnani is. > > > > > > Otherwise, the jnani would not be able to function, and > > > the jnani does function very well. > > > > > > I don't know how you have arrived at what you are saying. > > > > > > I think perhaps that you do not understand that the jnani's > > > mind does not disappear. The jnani has thoughts just > > > like everyone else. The jnani even has the 'I' thought, > > > but that thought resolves properly in Brahman, which > > > all 'I' thoughts actually label. > > > > > > But just because a thought resolves in Brahman, does > > > not mean that the jnani's mind does not continue > > > to operate. It certainly does. And this I have > > > seen with my own eyes, and I have 'quizzed a jnani' > > > on this point quite extensively. Thoughts arise > > > in the jnani's mind, but the jnani knows these thoughts > > > do not touch that Self which I am. Yet, a jnani still > > > sees a chair as a chair, a table as a table, and functions > > > fully in duality. Duality does not 'disappear.' However, > > > the jnani also knows the Self of these > > > objects (of this duality) and my Self are the same Self. > > > > > > Tony, I think you need to find a jnani, and have some > > > serious talks with that person. > > > > > > Durga > > > > > Namaste, > > > > I am fully aware the the Jnani operates in the appearance of > > creation, with the non dualistic view of all being the Self. Where > > did I say different? > > > > Moksha means losing the ego, or the Ahamkara, but it doesn't mean > > losing the kosas, obviously. The Vijnanamayakos mind is what > > operates as the Jnanis mind, and this is a purified Buddhi so it > > operates as the Universal. Of course a Jnani seem to think but > that > > is because even our minds are just whirlpools in the universal. > > > > Most of which I speak came is gleaned from Ramana, by the way. > > > > Again in Sahaja with the dropping of the body, it all disappears > as > > never having happened---Gaudapada says Maya disappears........ > > > > I don't think I need to search out a Jnani, there are only a > handful > > and hard to find.............ONS...Tony. > > They may not be as hard to find as you think > they are, and finding one as a reference IMO > is much more effective than making inferences > from things one has read in books, which things themselves > may have been mistranslated, or filtered through > the mind of the author, who does not have Self-knowledge. > > I do not think that you are correct > about vijnanamayakosha, and the jnani's mind. > > This is pretty technical stuff, so I will > ask someone who knows all about this, but > I think here you may be making a very common > mistake. > > The purified buddhi, (sometimes translated > as mind, or more specifically intellect) is > what is said to be required for recognition > of that Self which I always am. It is > said to be required for making the differentiation > between that which comes and goes (the creation), > and that which does not, (the Self). > > As nothing in the creation ever happens apart > from the Self, this differentiation is said to > be difficult to make, and a very sharp or pure > intellect is required in order to make it. > > Once that differentiation is clearly made, the > mind no longer superimposes that which changes > upon that which does not, no longer taking > the two to be one. Then that which underlies > the changing phenomena (the Self) is seen to > be the common thread of all. > > But what you are saying about a jnani's mind, > is, in my understanding, not correct. As long > as the body of the jnani continues, that body/mind > will be as subject as everyone else's mind is to the > individuating differences of operation. > > And furthermore, the jnani does not actually > loose the ahamkara, (depending on one's definition of > ahamkara.) If one says that the ahamakara is the 'I' > thought, which is taken by the mind of the ajnani (one who > does not have Self-knowledge) to be one with the changing > phenomena of the body/mind, then yes, that knot > of superimposition is cut. > > The jnani no longer takes the 'I' thought > to be a product of the body/mind, but now > knows the 'I' thought refers to the Self, > from which it arose, and from which the 'I' > thought of every mind arises. > > Since the technical definition of the 'I' > thought is the ahamkara, then one cannot > say that the jnani looses the ahamkara in > that sense, but rather that the 'I' thought, > which continues to arise in the mind of the jnani, > now properly labels the Self. > > Some people think that when one has Self-knowledge, > this means that all information is available to the > jnani. And I think you are thinking somewhere along > these lines. That somehow the limitations of an > individual mind no longer exist for a jnani, but > this is not true. > > This is one of the places where you are making > your mistake IMO: > > " The Vijnanamayakos mind is what > > operates as the Jnanis mind, and this is a purified Buddhi so it > > operates as the Universal. Of course a Jnani seem to think but > that > > is because even our minds are just whirlpools in the universal. " > > I will check on this when I have the opportunity. > > The jnani doesn't 'seem' to think, anymore than anyone > else 'seems' to think. The jnani just knows, " Oh, > the Self that I am, does not actually think. Thoughts > come and go in 'me.' > > Whereas an ajnani thinks " These thoughts define me. > These thoughts are me. These thoughts make me, me. " > > The mechanics of thinking do not change upon Self-knowledge, > rather what changes is the perception of what is actually > going on. The phenomena for an ajnani is exactly the same > as for a jnani. It is just that the ajnani has got the > wrong understanding of what is actually going on. > > Durga > Namaste, Very well done Durga. I doubt there are many Jnanis for it infers they are Muktas. Your premise re the ego is probably fallacious, although you have left enough loopholes to drive a bus through. Yes the Mukta realises that the small I or ego comes from without oneself and really doesn't exist; for the Mukta has realised the 'I- I', however there still needs to be a connection to the mukta's erstwhile body mind, hence the I-I uses the purified Buddhi or Vijnanamayakosa. The all seeing mind of Saguna is the Sakshin or witness to all things. One must also remember that the Mukta's erstwhile body has to go through the residual prarabda karma as any human body would do...ONS..Tony. 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.