Gurchuran/Question

[Guest guest]

HS

 

Re: Gurchuran/Question

 

Greetings, Gurchuran, and welcome. You requested...

> Sun, 13 Jun 1999

> "Gurcharan" <gurcharan Question from new member

>

> Hari Om !

> I apologize for such a silly question, but I am fairly new to the concept

>of non-dualism and can't

> seem to Þnd the answer.

 

Can you find the question? The answer is not the opposite of the question.

> Can it be said that once one realizes the Self and sees only reality,

> that not only the world disappears but also karma , rebirth and even

>dharma ? So would it

> be correct to say that in reality there is no rebirth or karma because

>there is only one Self ?

 

I can supply only my own perspective. I refer you to Jan's reply to put

the perspective issue in perspective.

>From one point of view, the Universe is a 'Karma Machine', which is

operated by Self (to use the capitalization conventions which are popular

'here'). As the operator, Self is in charge; Self is creator, as well as

recipient. Anyone may 'realize' this simultanaeity of 'subject' and

'object', which is 'apparently a paradox'. How one (you or I) may create a

universe and at the same time, live in it, is perfectly explained by the

'miracle' of your very and undeniable existence. You are 'proof to

yourself' and resolution of this 'apparent paradox'. Thus is the concept of

'Karma' resolved.

 

It is easy to become 'lost' in the forest of particulars... of terminology,

values, opinions, etc. But one need only (like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz)

'realize' their own existence to accept one's status as both 'machine' and

'operator' of that/this machine.

 

It is easy to realize one's own existence, as easy as recognizing that one

is wearing or not wearing shoes. It is also easy to abstract existence.

Neither existence nor abstraction is 'to be' devalued or disregarded. Both

occur; both must be honored, to have either. To understand this is to see

oneself seeing oneself as the seer; that is "Self-Realization".

 

'Nonduality' describes an abstracted experience of existence; this label

(nonduality) is not nonduality, it is instead abstraction of existence.

Existence without abstraction is theorized to 'occur', as the

'disappearance' to which you allude, above. But to say that it occurs,

requires 'having that experience' of the 'observer' being self-aware, while

at the same time, having no (or all) referants. Only later are the

referants 'filled in' as words. Such experience may be very intrusive or it

may be very gentle.

 

Many have fallen into the trap of attempting to force themselves into the

'finished mold' of the 'realizer', based upon statements of 'fact'

delivered by 'realizers'.

 

Ask the 'realizer' just what was 'necessary' and is 'necessary' for the

realization and the living of the life of the realizer. All abstractions

pale in comparison to the answers you may receive; that is to say that

experience devours truth, in the same way that some assume that truth

devours experience.

> Again I apologize for my lack of understanding and improper use of

>terminology. Please

> forgive my ignorance.

> Om Shanti Shanti Shanti !

 

If apolgies are required, it is I who will spend eternity apologizing.

 

As to ignorance, it is my greatest treasure. I wallow in it like a

contended pig in a warm mudbath. I appreciate yours, through which I

realize my own.

 

Hari Oink,

 

 

==Gene Poole==