as per hosts request...

[Guest guest]

Madhya,

Without reading too much into it, I believe my statements are pretty sef

explanatory, But I will help you out.

 

 

 

 

Gemini remarks,

 

Both perspectives are somewhat correct, but only when one

takes that particular perspective while viewing the other.

 

This means, Madhya, that when a person takes the view of a particular

person(in this case David) thet see the fault in your post, and vice-versa. I am

not sure how else to explain it to you.

 

(Gemini)

 

It is the words which are limited and conditioned which create the apparent

contradiction. That is the higher understanding.

 

Here again Madhya, I am at pains to make this any simpler. Words, with

their associated cultural, social, economic, geographic, and religious

influences, are not universal, and as such are limited by nature. Understanding

this fact is the higher understanding.

(G:)

 

The higher truth is that they are both correct simultaneously from the

larger 'matrix of objectivity' viewpoint.

 

You will notice the previous post. Now we are talking about a broader

perspective. From the universal perspective of Self, it is clear that when the

sphere of influence pertaining to these two individuals are realized, then each

set of statements are true relative to the individuals sphere of influence. In

other words Madhya, one mans trash is another man's riches--an understanding

that is more universal, and that rises above both viewpoints is necessary to see

that neither are right or wrong, they simply are. When this is done, both

viewpoints are understood simultaneously and fused into a universal

understanding. You should know that.

 

Love,

Marcus

[Guest guest]

List-members;

 

Harsha asked if I would post the following:

 

 

Barry and others:

 

Because the sequence of events surrounding the list to list passage

of posts, I am responding to Barry's post thinking that perhaps it is

a response to...a bunch of other posts...that got tangled, somehow so

that even the author and the original list were lost from sight...

You know, there is an interesting philosophical dilemma in all

this--if you are into Philosophical Hermeneutics, and that sort o'

esoterica...

 

Anyway, with that qualification I will print my reply to David's

response to "Steve"--the person that David thought was offering the

post...

 

pre-post-script: I believe that I still have my original post.

David pretty much cut it up, and a lot of pieces were ignored. I

would be happy to forward this to anyone who has the compulsion to

want to read it. David's complete response was posted on the

Harshasatsangh list--and, I guess, the Kundalini list. Maybe it

wasn't even David? Hell, could be anyone at this point.

 

 

Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:20:30 -0800

Madhya Nandi <madhya (AT) mail (DOT) aracnet.com>

Re: Fw: har har

Cc:

Bcc:

X-Attachments:

 

"Gemini" <currwamp

 

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?

 

Friends;

 

Madhya, here. As the author of the original material, it will be

interesting to examine this post. I find it rather humorous that

this post came to be here now in this context. I should mention that

the original post was to the Shaivism list. The topic was concerned

with the first three sutras of the Shiva Sutras and was submitted for

discussion in connection with an on-going discussion regarding these

Sutras.

 

It is unfortunate, then, that the author of the ensuing analysis

apparently had no knowledge of this, since the gyst of his comments

appear to utilize the advaita vedanta philosophy to critique the

Shaivite approach.

 

It is interesting to note the rhetoric used by the commentator.

David's use of argument suggests less argumentation (or philosophy)

and more the perspective of one who is really "telling it like it

is," setting me straight about the reflections that I am offering.

He does not account for the original intention of the post, nor the

context of discussion in which it appeared. I might also add that

David is unfamiliar to me. I am a member of the K-list, but I have

not come across the post that Marcus forwarded David's analysis from.

David, I admire your love of philosophy. Please write me care of my

personal address and we can talk further.

 

 

 

Gemini remarks,

 

Both perspectives are somewhat correct, but only when one

takes that particular perspective while viewing the other.

 

(Me) I am unclear about this statement. Gemini makes no attempt

to explain this observation. It is only an assertion without any

supporting statements.

 

(Gemini)

 

It is the words which are limited and conditioned which create the apparent

contradiction. That is the higher understanding.

 

(Me) Again, the meaning here is unclear. This is a pronouncement.

Where is this 'higher understanding'? What is it?

 

(G:)

 

The higher truth is that they are both correct simultaneously from the

larger 'matrix of objectivity' viewpoint.

 

Once more, this is a pronouncement without any supporting argument.

What is the 'higher truth'; and what is this "larger matrix of

objectivity'?

 

 

 

and from "David";

>>

>><Liberation, according to some masters, may be characterized as

>> >'transformation of consciousness'.

>>

>>Steve (actually Madhya), "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.

 

 

 

We would be hard-pressed to analyze all of David's comments. The

post is quite lengthy. A key point here is David's assertion

regarding Maya. It is made from a classical vedantin perspective,

one which is often termed, 'qualified non-dualism'. The essence of

this debate centers around answering the following question: " How

can the Absolute and the relative, or Unity and difference, or the

Indeterminate and the determinate, be related?" (pgs. 102-103, from

Kashmir Shaivism: The Central Philosophy of Tantrism, Kamalakar

Mishra.) Mishra lays out the difference between the vedantin

position and the K-S position quite admirably:

 

Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism answer the question in

one way, and Kashmir Shaivism does so in a slightly different way.

....they maintain that the world of duality is illusion, a

superimposition of Reality, caused by ignorance, like the

'rope-snake'. In the rope-snake illusion, we 'see' the snake, but it

is really a rope; the so-called snake is a product of ignorance. The

'snake' has only epistemic reality; it has no ontological status.

Similarly, what we see as the world is really Brahman, or sunya, (or

Nirvana), and what appears as the world is just an illusion like the

"snake." Thus Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism protect the

unity of Reality by depriving the world of its independent and

separate reality: the reality of samsara, (the world), is nirvana or

Brahman, just as the reality of the illusory snake is the rope.

 

The problem with this analogy, Mishra goes on to say is:

 

In the rope snake analogy, the rope lies neutral and passive and the

snake is superimposed on it from outside. The rope itself does not

create the illusory snake; the 'snake' is created by something or

somebody else. This means there is a reality other than the rope,

and this leads to the acceptance of a duality. Given this, can the

analogy of the rope-snake be fully applied to Brahman? ...if Brahman

is conceived of as inactive, lying passive and neutral like the rope,

and the illusion of the world is superimposed on it, then this means

there is a machinery or agency other than Brahman, and this other

agency is responsible for the creation and superimposition on Brahman

of the illusion of the world. This clearly means there are two

realities-- Reality is not non-dual. This creates grave

inconsistencies.... and hits at the very backbone of Advaita Vedanta.

 

Kashmir Shaivism, Mishra continues, steers clear of the above

difficulty by maintaining that the world, although an abhasa, or

appearance, of Siva, is not a superimposition on Siva from ouside but

a self-creation or self-projection of Siva. Siva is not inactive;

unlike the Brahman...Siva is vibrant with spontaneous activity,

technically called kriya, spanda, or vimarsa. This dynamism of Siva

is also called Sakti. Thus the world is a spontaneous creation of

Siva Himself. If the Advaitin retorts that the superimposition on

Brahman is not from outside but from within, as there is no reality

other than Brahman, then K-S says that this implies dynamism, or

activity in Brahman and that Brahman therefore cannot be accepted as

niskriya (inactive).

 

This cuts at the heart of David's comments. Self-recognition is not

a recognition that our consciousness is sterile and passive but that

it includes the "personality" of Shiva, which is Shakti, and that

Shakti is equally as 'real' as Shiva because Shiva is also immanent.

That is the beauty of Saivism. All is real, nothing is an illusion.

And the activity of Siva is characterized as absolutely free, and

also characterized by the terms, knowledge, will and activity.

 

The point to all of this is that self-recognition can never occur in

a single moment, because just as one says that time is One, (which it

is), one must also say that time is equally flowing and mutable.

Recognition then means that self-realization must a.) include

timeless transcendence; and b) include timeless transcendence through

time. Thus we may speak of the meeting of determinate and

indeterminate in the same Moment, and the 'state' or event of this

meeting flows through time and manifests itself simply as the

"personality" of Shiva.

 

 

>>

>> 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.

 

"In fact?" Is the writer suggesting that only a single understanding

exists, and that he is making this pronouncement, despite what

Shaivites, Jains, Buddhists and many other traditions use as the

means or guide toward their paths toward "enlightenment" or

"spiritual realization?" Is Ramana Maharshi's approach towards

Self-realization the only one?

 

Unfortunately, David's comment is a misinterpretation of my own.

Shaivism--and other traditions, talk about waking consciousness,

sleep and deep sleep as three varieties of how consciousness

manifests Herself. But the glue that both undergirds and holds all

three aspects of consciousness together, the 'state' in fact that is,

as David says, not a state at all, is Turiya, (acc to Shaivism).

Turiya is the 'transcendental' ground, the 'mirror' that

Abhinavagupta refers to in the Tantraloka, Shiva, the unmanifest

principle of consciousness.

>>sleeping, or turiya, necessarily suggests limits, boundaries. The

>fourth

>>state -or Turiya- subsides as soon as one returns to the "state" of

>action.

 

This is a misunderstanding of the term "Turiya." Turiya does not

mean sleep. Rather, turiya indicates the 'event', or 'arrival' at

that place where Shiva recognizes Herself, in time, through time and

change, as Shiva. When the aspirant experiences turiya, she

recognizes the union--the essential unity-- of Her manifest and

unmanifest Self, for He is, as I have said, at once Shiva and Shakti,

transcendent and immanent.

 

>>That which does not last cannot be the Real.

 

The 'Real', according to Shaivism, is both: changeless and timeless

AND changeful and timeful. The play that is Shiva and Shakti making

love, or manifest existence, will never be capable of being

absolutely anything. Everything changes. Everything dies and is

reborn. The greatest Masters sometimes fall, the anonymous saints

are enlightened while never being recognized as such.

 

 

 

Enlightenment is not a

>state. It

>>is simply the annihilation of the sense of personal doership, ie. ego.

 

In contrast, the Shaivite would claim that there is no annihilation

of anything. One simply 'recognizes' that one is the doer of all

doings. In contrast to notions of "doerless doers," K-S speaks of

"doingful doers."

 

>>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.

 

This is a very important sequence. Clearly, the writer

misunderstands the nature and essence of meditation. Meditation, and

other spiritual disciplines used by the majority of Eastern

traditions, are not only used to still the mind or to release

tensions in the body. These are very significant objectives, but

only preparatory ones. The true function of meditation is to

discover the Self by looking within. This is often done by peeling

back the layers of mind to see clearly what was indeed Present all

the while: one's own timeless Self. This is what many who use the

term 'transformation' mean. The transformation is not really a

transformation, but yet it is--and this because one passes from a

condition of not seeing, not realizing, to a condition of being

"awake" as the Buddha said. One awakens to what was always already

there. Meditation is one very effective means for this realization.

 

It is true that in extremely rare cases an aspirant can spontaneously

realize the Self without receiving the Grace of practice. Is the

former 'way' a qualitatively superior means to realize the Self? I

believe that dedicated aspirants will seek according to their

natures. When a path, a Teacher, or a system of teachings resonates

with them, the measure of their success will then be equal to the

measure of their personal dedication.

 

There are many ways and means to reach the 'state' of being where one

realizes one's Eternally unmanifest Self. The teachings of no single

teacher are right for all persons.

 

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?

 

David does not understand how meditation works. The principle of

meditation is quite simple and contrary to this misleading dialogue.

 

As one peels back the layers of the mind, emotions, judgements,

opinions and so forth, the meditator begins to encounter her Self.

He begins to recognize this Self. This recognition that occurs in

meditation transforms the meditator. The above dialogue is very

unrealistic. It does not account for the powerful function of

meditation. The more the meditator recognizes himself, the less

inclined she will be to brag or boast. That is how behavior is

transformed by nondual recognition. If a person says, I have been

meditating for five hours a day for five years, wow, isn't that

great? then honestly, I would have to question the truthfulness of

his claim. If a person says, I haven't done any meditation ever, I

just "know" that I am the Universal Self, is this somehow more valid?

While there may be a time and place for sharing one's spiritual

experience, in general, the person who is living a life dedicated to

self-realization will experience little need to tell anyone about

this. Most Hindu, Buddhist and other spiritual traditions will claim

that it is impossible to truly practice meditation without being

truly changed by the practicing.

 

I'm sorry, but nearly all of the lengthy section that followed the

above would be impossible to comment on without my picking apart

David's picking apart Madhya. It seemed quite emotionally charged.

David, what is your agenda here?

 

Meditation and Sadhana are great traditions that support the vast

majority of Eastern spiritual traditions. While Buddha may have

experienced "enlightenment" lying beneath a tree in Bihar, India, He

spent many years practicing to receive this Grace.

 

If the tone and quality of analysis of this section of your remarks,

David, can be understood to reflect the character of your own

realization, I must apologize to you, because, with all due respect,

I do not see it. The tone of your rhetoric is at times jeering and

jibing. This does not seem the kind of behavior of a person who is

living in the light of the realization that we are all one Self.

Where is love, compassion, grace?

Philosophy is wonderful. I love philosophy. It was my undergraduate

work. I enjoy a good argument, but why couch an argument in such

sarcastic terms?

 

Devotees have been arguing philosophy for thousands of years. They

always will. I don't mind someone offering me a better argument. Or

pointing out some important thing that may assist me on my own life's

journey.

>Swami

>>Laxmanjoo himself bowed daily to a picture of Ramana Maharshi.

 

This is an unverified assertion. Where did you hear this? Yes, Sw.

L did visit, in his youth, Ramana Maharshi. He expressed positive

feelings toward Ramana. You can read about this in John Hughes' book

Self-Realization in Kashmir Shaivism: The Oral Teachings of Swami

Lakshmanjoo. However, Swamiji had a guru. He did not follow, nor

did he advocate the teachings of Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

 

>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.

 

These comments are little more than a diatribe. They seem to carry

the burden of a strong emotional need for the writer to justify his

positions.

 

 

With any luck, this post has been useful to any who may have had the

sticktoitiveness to get through the whole thing.

 

In devotion,

 

Madhya Nandi

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

------

To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription

to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and

select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.