Christiana / death

[Guest guest]

Hey Christiana and David and Jerry and others,

 

Here's some more story-lines about nonduality and death!

 

In Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism as well as the motley non-dualist teachings

in the West, there are both progressive teachings and a "direct" teaching.

Which teaching applies? Depends on the question, since all questions have

built within them the seed of their own answer. In the progressive

teachings, there are stories, sometimes elaborate, as to what happens to

things after the death of the physical body.

 

Very generally, Hinduism and Buddhism sort of agree that the subtle body,

which is the repository of karma, leaves the physical body through one of

the apertures and proceeds to the celestial or subtle regions. It remains

there, in a locus determined by its karma. It might be a divine region,

and the subtle body might even take the position of a god such as Shiva.

But sooner or later, the accumulated weight of the karma will cause a

return to the earthly realm. In Buddhism it is said to be possible to

regress to animal forms where there is more suffering and less chance to

come into concact with liberational teachings. Many advaita teachings say

that one cannot regress "lower" than human forms.

 

Only in the earthly realm can progress be made. Gods and other kinds of

astral entities just expend karma, they never create or dissolve karma and

so never cause regress or progress. This cycle continues until liberation

is gained.

 

That is the broad outline of the progressive teaching.

 

The direct teaching, when done well, doesn't immediately just pooh-pooh the

progressive teaching. It encompasses and accounts for it in a gentle,

organic way. Speaking of death, on the advaita side, there can be inquiry

such as, "Whose subtle body is it?" "What makes it *my* subtle body?" On

the Buddhist side, there is a remarkable set of reasonings that do the same

thing, with great precision. Called Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning,

and taught also by the Dalai Lama, it examines the relationship between an

individual, personal, inherently existing permanent "I", and my parts,

which are the body/mind/volitonal/thinking factors, etc. It's usually

stated in terms of the relationship between a chariot and its parts,

because in Buddhism one also investigates the "self" of non-person things.

The following steps are meditated on over and over until there is no

cognitive pull to think in terms of an inherently existing, permanent "I".

 

(1) There is no other "I" other than my parts.

(2) There is no "I" which is the same as its parts.

(3) There is no "I" which inherently possesses its parts.

(4) There is no "I" which inherently depends on its parts.

(5) There is no "I" upon which its parts are inherently dependent.

(6) There is no "I" which is the mere collection of its parts.

(7) There is no "I" which is the shape of its parts.

 

Of course in Buddhism and Advaita, there are differences between what the

true "I" is thought to be, but they do mostly agree that it isn't in the

parts.

 

In Westernized advaita teachings, the "I" is taught not to be in the will

or sense of doership, and not in the feelings. These tend to be the focal

points for the Westernized teachings, based on the issues and questions

people bring to satsangs. In these teachings as far as I know (Petros, any

ideas here??), the notion of reincarnation is tread very lightly upon, and

mostly not emphasized. Sometimes Gangaji speaks of the "lifestream" and

sometimes multiple past lives are mentioned as the reasons for states of

affairs right now. But future incarnations are not really part of the

teaching. Nisargadatta says it doesn't matter what happens because it's

not You or Your life anyway; Ramesh says that the parts all go to "the pool

of consciousness" where they get re-combined into other body/mind organisms.

 

Hi Christiana!

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 07:19 AM 7/20/00 -0400, David Hodges wrote:

>At 12:50 AM 7/20/00 -0700, Christiana wrote:

>><snip>

>>So, while most traditions have some teachings about the transition of

>>soul beyond the body, I don't know what an Advaitan understanding of

>>this is. Is death merely a return of form to the Void? Is there any

>>essential soulness of being which remains within Consciousness?

>

>Hi Christiana.

> I don't know what the Advaitan line is, but I did happen to be reading

>the following in Ramesh Balsekar's "Pointers from Nisargadatta Maharaj":

>

>"When the body 'dies', consciousness disappears like a flame when the fuel

>is exhausted. Indeed, consciousness is duration, without which an object

>would not last long enough to be manifested and perceived. What then, are

>'you'? So long as the body exists, you are this conscious presence within,

>the perceiving principle; when the body dies, 'you' are the Absolute

>Awareness into which the temporary consciousness merges. And there is no

>longer the sense of being present. Remember, therefore, that no 'one' is

>born and no 'one' dies, because all the forms (that appear, remain for the

>duration, and then disappear) are your expression, your mirrorization."

>

>Love,

>David

>

>

>

>

>//

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is

Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality

of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

a.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>

>

>