Guest guest Posted February 11, 1999 Report Share Posted February 11, 1999 Harsha List, Here is an interesting post from the K list. I believe the original post was forwarded here before. One author takes the perspective of the individual teaching the individual. The other takes the perspective of the universal and critiques the first author. There appear many contradictions in the analysis, yet many things appear correct also. Would the list members like to comment? Both perspectives are somewhat correct, but only when one takes that particular perspective while viewing the other. It is the words which are limited and conditioned which create the apparent contradiction. That is the higher understanding. The higher truth is that they are both correct simultaneously from the larger 'matrix of objectivity' viewpoint. >>In a message dated 2/8/99 10:02:47 PM Central Standard Time, >>raventengu writes: >> >><Liberation, according to some masters, may be characterized as >> >'transformation of consciousness'. >> >>Steve, "transformation of consciousness" suggests that some "thing" >that is >>temporal and incomplete can somehow be cultivated into that which is >>nonchanging and whole. That "thing" of course is the ego -or finite >>consciousness- which is, in fact, completely notional, conceptual, >>nonexistent. That which is already nonexistent -maya- can never become >the >>Real. So there is no thing to transform. >> >> What form(s) does this take? Not >> >only one, I suppose. But one form that utilizes meditation as its >> >principle mechanism, suggests that 'arrival' at transformation, or >> >moksha, the aspirant has experienced the fourth state of >> >consciousness, in Hinduism called Turiya, and in time, found that he >> >is never without the awareness of this fourth state. >> >>There is -in fact- no place to arrive. Any "state", whether waking, >dreaming, >>sleeping, or turiya, necessarily suggests limits, boundaries. The >fourth >>state -or Turiya- subsides as soon as one returns to the "state" of >action. >>That which does not last cannot be the Real. Enlightenment is not a >state. It >>is simply the annihilation of the sense of personal doership, ie. ego. >>However, I understand the eastern emphasis on meditation as a way. Very >few >>seekers are able to go immediately into graduate studies. Thus, the >masters >>give certain beginning and intermediate instructions, usually involving >the >>quieting of the mind and the notion of progress along the path and >eventual >>"arrival" at the goal. A quiet mind does seem to be helpful in the >deepening >>of understanding. But the idea that one can arrive anywhere (the >annihilation >>of ego) through one's own efforts, is tantamount to the ego committing >>suicide. It is, after-all- the ego that makes the effort. Often >meditation, >>and other practices, simply end up strengthening the very thing that >they >>purport to reduce, ie. the ego. How long have you been meditating? >>Oh...TWENTY YEARS. Wow!! Really? >> >>Or, how long do you sit each day? Oh...I'm up to about 2 hours in the >>morning. Wow!! Really? >> >>In truth, doing happens, meditation happens, practice occurs, but there >is no >>individual entity behind it all. The entity, or ego, is merely a >bundle of >>thoughts or notions. So there is no question of "it" doing anything. >It has >>no volition. The ego is the illusion, or maya, or divine hypnosis, >whatever >>you want to call it. All practices are built upon the idea of an >individual >>"doing something" to eradicate itself. It may start here, but it must >end >>with the annihilation of the doer. As Ramana Maharshi expounded, true >>understanding alone removes the ego. >> >> >> >consciousness is structurally transformed such that recognition of >> >the non-temporal, undifferentiated state of consciousness is both >> >recognized and experienced perpetually. It is the realized 'source' >> >or ground of all consciousness. >> > >>No problem with this statement, except that there is no "one" present >to enjoy >>the source. How can the ego -which is merely a dreamed character- ever >>comprehend or experience that unbounded source which has in fact >dreamed it >>into existence. It would be like one of our own dreamed characters at >night >>reflecting on the consciousness behind its own imagined existence. Or >like a >>mirage reflecting on the sun. It simply doesn't happen that way. The >ego >>cannot comprehend its own source. It dies in the process. Source is >all there >>is! So no question of going anywhere for it. Enlightenment is a big >>disappointment for the ego. If you have the choice between receiving a >>million bucks and getting enlightened, by all means go for the $$$. >Because >>atleast there'll be someone around to enjoy it. With enlightenment the >>illusion of an actual experiencer is gone. >> >>>In terms of swallowing time, this means that one has so imbibed time >> >and all of its manifestations in the psyche that one has reached the >> place where one recognizes and experiences the non-dual equally >> >alongside the differentiated. >> >>No. Nondual means not two! There is no "one" to recognize the One. Nor >anyone >>to swallow time. In a sense the ego and time are one. The "illusion" >of time >>and space is the context or stage for the ego to exist. The ego can >never >>swallow up time anymore than it can eat itself. >> > >> >The challenge is the incredible tension and anxiety that we feel: the >> >inability to sit absolutely still, the avoidance of recognizing our >> >shadows, our deepest fears, our hopes, aspirations and fantasies. >> >>Actually, all we have to do is relax. Simple acceptance of our own >"God-given" >>natures does much to reduce the anxiety. Forcing ourselves to sit will >only >>strengthen the very ego that sitting is attempting to dissolve. It >doesn't >>work. It's just this notion that builds up the whole Mr. meditator >ego. Going >>with the flow eases the strain. >> >>>With all of this is the fact of our body/mind/spirit complex that >> >manifests itself with qualities similar to that of a machine, a >> >desiring, thinking, reflecting, emoting machine. How to turn the >> >machine off? The best way, by most accounts, and the quickest in the >> >long run, is to find a teacher that knows and has travelled the path >> >to Realization. >> >>(Yes! Absolutely) However, this machine can only function according to >its >>own God Given nature, exactly as it has been programmed to function >according >>to the Source, or God. Some are programmed to meditate. Some are not. >> >>>But the activity of meditation can take us a long >> >way along path. There are few substitutes for sitting still and >> >eating time--hour after hour after hour--sometimes blissful and >> >oftentimes painful. >> >>True. But what if your nature is not capable of sitting hour after >hour and >>"eating time", whatever the hell that means? The ego can never get >enough of >>this thing called time. >> > >> >Personally, I remain a great fan of 'do-nothing' meditation. Just >> >sit absolutely still and watch whatever comes. As one releases >> >tensions and experiences more profound states of relaxation, one is >> >confronted by deeper and more hidden manifestations of the shadow >> >self, the clinging, apperception-addicted self. As one acknowledges >> >and enters into a non-judgmental relationship with this deep, >> >repressed self, slowly but surely one is able to sit for longer >> >periods of time with less anxiety and restlessness. But then, one >> >must arrive at a place where one must sit and face the face, as it >> >were, of utter nothingness. This can be terrifying. And boring. >> >>Who is there left to be terrified!? Any notion of anybody still being >present >>indicates that one is still caught in time and the illusion of a >separate >>self. The absolute is indeed experienced, but with no experiencer >present. >>Where is boredom when there is nobody to be bored? These are both >tricks of >>the mind. One has not yet "arrived". >> >>>As one is swallowing the 'poison' of time--only the deeper and >> >freer one becomes, the more potent and pure becomes the poison. >> >>Again, just who is this individual to swallow time? This question >alone can >>be a more effective meditation than forcing oneself to sit when one >would >>actually rather be watching t.v. or cracking open a nice cold beer on a >hot >>afternoon. >> > >> >The 'just-sit-and-watch-meditation' is terrifying, but at least in my >> >experience, it must be supported by the kinds of work that has been >> >lately discussed by list-members--mantra, inner sounds and lights, >> >visualization, etc. Where one is using sacred, consecrated means for >> >concentration one may find additional blessings. >> >>Blessings for who? Now we're petitioning God for some kind of gifts! >The idea >>of practicing for some "personal" benefit amounts to building up the >very >>thing ie "personhood" the practice is attempting to dissolve. It just >adds up >>to more mental baggage. I know these practices have been given great >credence >>by many teachers. But often they end up burdening yet more the poor >seeker >>who already has more baggage than he knows what to do with. All >experiences >>involving an experiencer are still within the mind. In and of >themselves, >>they mean absolutely nothing. Such teachings often confuse more than >clarify, >>because they add yet more concepts to the shit pile of already existing >ones. >>What if I meditate for ten years and "don't" see any lights or hear any >>sounds? Does this mean I've failed in some way. Or my meditation is >not >>progressing properly? You see the potential for confusion, Steve. I >myself >>meditated for years and years and had no such experiences. Does this >mean >>anything? No, it does not. Anything experienced in time, must pass. >And thus >>is not It. >> >>>I believe that if one follows the directions of a living Teacher, one >may >>find the best >> >means. >> >>Again, I would agree here. Especially if the teacher is himself >free...and if >>the teachings are properly suited for the seeker and his level of >development. >> >>>But individual devotion and effort is, as most of us have >> >acknowledged, the most significant factor. >> >>Yes. But only if this is destined. You see, we don't have control over >the >>matter. There is nothing "you" as a separate entity can do to get free. >"You" >>are already free. In fact, there is no separate individual you to get >free. >>This notion of individuality is a fiction -a mirage-. Granted, a mirage >exists >>as a mirage. A fictional character exists within the context of the >story. >>But he is not real in terms of that which truly lasts. He is born. He >lives. >>And then he exits. He exits because he is only a dreamed character. >That >>which lasts is Source alone. We are all dreamed characters. Objects >on the >>screen of consciousness. With each part perfectly cast in the context >of the >>whole, which no individual actor can possibly comprehend. We enter. >We play >>our parts. And we exit. Impersonal consciousness is all that remains, >because >>It is all that is real. And yes...it is a difficult concept to >swallow. The >>idea that "we" or "I" do not exist as a separate independent entity. >Because >>once this trickles down from the head to the heart all notions of free >will >>and volition get flushed right down the toilet. We see that all there >is is >>God. All there is is Consciousness. And the individual is but a >dreamed >>character. Destined to play a certain part (right down to the color >cloths >>we'll have on at our funeral) before finally disappearing from the >imagined >>three dimensional scene. Even what kind of sadhana we'll supposedly do >is >>already determined, based upon our own God-Given programming and >conditioning. >>This is why there is no one sadhana for everybody. Sitting meditation >might >>be fine for one person. But not for another. >> >>Look at it this way. Did you or anyone decide to become a seeker? Did >you >>wake up on such and such a day and decide that today you were going to >start >>seeking? No. Of course not. That Force that started the seeking will >natural >>finish the seeking at the appropriate moment. This is guaranteed. And >>contrary to so much rubbish out there, there is not one thing "you" can >do >>about it. You can't speed it up...and you can't slow it down. Because >if you >>could, it would mean #1 that you exist as a separate ego entity from >the >>whole. And #2 that you therefore have control over your life. Both are >>fallacies that at the appropriate moment are seen for what they are. >In fact, >>the mind cannot even comprehend these ideas if it is not destined to do >so! >>That's how much control we have. > >> >>Read Ramesh Balsekar. Or Ramana Maharshi for greater clarification. >Swami >>Laxmanjoo himself bowed daily to a picture of Ramana Maharshi. Ramana >>understood the need that some seekers had for the traditional >practices. But >>he was absolutely clear that all such practices were but >prelimary...and that >>evenually the seeker would have to arrive at the simple and direct >process of >>self-enquiry. The question Who Am I? cuts through all the rubbish of >the mind >>and circumvents the need for any further sadhana. If you come up with >an >>answer to this question, you need to ponder it yet deeper. The >teaching is >>that by all means continue the practices you've learned. Just play >with the >>idea that you're not actually doing them at all. That maybe they're >just >>happening through you. Therefore, you can claim neither benefit nor >blame for >>whatever results might or might not happen. In time you will see that >you have >>never done a thing in your life. Nothing at all. Doing happens. But >there >>is no independent doer thereof. Now where dost any possibility of >anxiety >>reside? >> >>Also, notice how we turn enlightenment into an object to be obtained. >>Enlightenment is not an object. Therefore it must be....?.....?....? >Can the >>eye ever see itself directly? Can "we" as a we actually perceive our >own >>Source? Have we not heard the term "unknowable" to describe the >absolute? >>Ahhh! To think that little Mr. David here can ever do enough mantras, >>visualizations, hail Mary's etc. to understand the vastness of the >Absolute. >>Well, to learn calculus we have to start somewhere don't we? Just say >this >>little mantra, honey...Sri Ram...Sri Ram...Sri Ram. Now repeat after >me: 1 + >>2 = ___. Very good! Now let's try a little division. It all amounts >to horse >>shit in the end. But so what? We have to do something while we're >apparently >>here. >> >>The old Taoist teachings said it all about as clearly as anything I've >ever >>read. >>Love, >>David > > > > > > 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.