Self-Realization

[Guest guest]

Recent postings by Tony and others on the nature of Realization prompt me to

restate the following.

 

 

"Any statement about the experience of the Self or Reality can only be from

the point of view of the individual and implies duality. Some point of

reference is implicit in any such perspective out of sheer necessity due to

the mode of communication using language. Heart seems to be often mentioned

as a point of reference for the "experience" of Self-Realization. Sahasarara

is as well. Ramana Maharshi often talked about the Spiritual Heart on the

right and carefully distinguished it from Anahata (The Kundalini Heart

Center). That is my experience as well. My feeling is that the Upanishads

are referring to the Spiritual Heart as everything else including Anahata,

Sahasarara, etc., exist in That only. But regardless of the location

emphasized in various traditions, it should be clear that Self-Recognition

It Self (Original Nature or Reality) admits of no point of reference and

cannot have a locus. It might be viewed as an experience and as a

non-experience and as that which forms the foundation of such."

>From a practical point of view, any meditative or yogic practice that does

not injure oneself and others, and brings calm and peace to the self-aware

mind is helpful on the path.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

Thank you for your usual simple clarity on these matters.

 

Perhaps you may just explain what you mean by the following:

>"Any statement about the experience of the Self or Reality can only be from

>the point of view of the individual and implies duality. Some point of

>reference is implicit in any such perspective out of sheer necessity due to

>the mode of communication using language.

 

~~(M) My question here refers to your use of the word 'individual'. I can

understand that if an 'unrealised' individual should make statements about

the 'experience of the Self' etc, that such statements would most probably

reflect a fragmented, and therefore non-whole view. However, if the

realised individual gives a DESCRIPTION of his/her actual experience, would

you still say that such statements are by nature dualistic? Could one not

draw a line between DESCRIPTION and SPECULATION? Or are you perhaps trying

to point to the general impossibility of words to describe accurately and

non-dually the full content and experience of the Self?

 

Just wondered.

 

 

Something else. In this I need your help.

 

In a current posting to Roger, (reply addiction etc) I have tried to

explain a kind of process which may lead to to sense of the non-dual. If

you have a moment, would you kindly look at it, and give your kind thoughts

on the jubject under discussion. This of course is open territory to

everyone. Please give your kind feedback on what we are discussing there.

 

Love,

Moller.