Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

#2181 - Thursday, June 24, 2005 - Editor: Jerry Katz

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    #2181 - Thursday, June 24, 2005 - Editor: Jerry Katz Highlights Home Page and Archive: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm Letter to the Editors: Click Reply on
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      #2181 - Thursday, June 24, 2005 - Editor: Jerry Katz
      Highlights Home Page and Archive: http://nonduality.com/hlhome.htm  
      Letter to the Editors: Click 'Reply' on your email program, compose your message, and 'Send'. All the editors will see your letter.

      This issue features a transcript of the teaching work of bindu: "The acceptance of the non-dual reality as reality connotes the complete refutation of ALL difference."
      Also there is a newspaper article about the political fallout from the new Tibetan exhibit at Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. "Presenting the show of objects that rightfully belong to the Dalai Lama, said Chris McKenna, executive director of the Tibet Justice Center in Berkeley, is akin to breaking into the inner sanctum of the Vatican, taking the holiest relics and then presenting them in a museum without acknowledging how they got there."
      I've been privileged to visit the Asian Art Museum. However, once is only a glimpse. Explore and absorb the museum whenever you are in San Francisco: http://www.asianart.org/


      The Teaching of Bindu



      Hello Dear Friends,

      bindu: i have something amazing for you today. about the nature of understanding and why we block out the direct realization of the truth.

      bindu: Today i wanted to do something a little different.........instead of expounding or answering questions on The Self ..

      i thought we might discuss the fact that in order for the mindto accept or understand some form of knowledge, the mind need so be able to confirm that knowledge as true.

      This means that recognition, acceptance, forgiveness, compassion and love are stymied by this need for confirmation because the mind (and hence the jiva also), will not accept anything until it is understood as ACCEPTABLE by that individual.

      bindu: However the ability of a given individual to understand a certain type, form or level of knowledge is directly related to what that individual will accept; which is of course obvious.

      This is due to the fact that the acceptance of a given peice of information
      requires that the peice of information not negate or alter the mental or emotional position of the one who understands it, too radically.

      The mental and emotional position one holds on any subject or ABOUT ANYTHING.... must be maintained as a matter of course so that the given individuals self-image remain intact, because this self-image is focused on by the INNER Self who is refering to that self-image as:

        "MYSELF" or "I - The One Who Knows this knowledge"....
      If on the other hand a given piece of knowledge has the potential to bring about the conscious transcendence of "My Self-Concept" or "Self-Image"; it must necessarily follow, that unless i accept this new piece of knowledge as valid, despite and in spite of what my mind might say to ensure its own longevity, (whose very existence lies in the maintenance of the previous, yet now untenable mental position)  then i; by my choice to ignore the truth in favour of delusion, have limited my own ability to understand who or what i am.

      The "i" --- The "ME", whom at a certain time is loved to a degree or is not loved to a degree at a given time, is The Individual "i", whose emotional existence is founded upon THAT DEGREE of love...

      This simly means that according to how i love, so is my perception of who i am; or conversely; as i accept. so do i understand.

      For example, imagine a computer trying to do an equation without all the information; it will fail miserably...

      So it is with realization; Unless we accept all the information supplied by the consciousness as simply more pieces of the jigsaw of knowledge, (whether or not that knowlege confirms the i-ness or not; it might further be added here that whatever one can say he or she is; is nothing more than a mental or emotional position on said knowledge)  we cannot ever arrive at the time of self-realization.

      Here we arrive at the point where the debate about the nature of the Cosmos might arise. Variously the Cosmos has been called the consciousness or a compound mass of knowledge bliss etc... Or it has been called a mass of matter etc. Many ideas about its origin have been
      imagined or put forward.

      It is said by some that it was created by god. Others say it came into being in big-bang, or via the mysterious Spanda Principal. It has also been called a dream had by some super-natural consciousness and so on.

      But if there were no individual to perceive it, would it exist?

      Above we have shown how the existence of the individual is directly related to the mental and emotional position, subscribed-to-AS-Self.
      so to extrapolate this; It will only be possible to comprehend the truth about the nature of reality if we take the yogic dictum of "The Self  As The Cosmos. Because all mental and emotional positions must be taken into account if we are going to answer the question of whether or not the existence exists if the individual did not exist to perceive it.

      For all the reason set out above, individual perception and opinion, is the root-cause of all pain, suffering, racism, cynicism, disagreement,  jealousy, fear, anger, violence and selfishness. It is the cause of ALL pain; both physical and emotional.

      If we read the above carefully, we can easily see that the existence of the individual mind and hence Jiva also, is related to and founded in the individual need for understanding.

      The problem of self-recognition therefore lies in the structure that the mind demands, if it is going to understand and accept wisdom. It lies in the mechanics of understanding itself.

      balakrishnanpradeep: Hari Om! Hari Bole! Jai Shri Radhe! Please accept adiyens respectful pranams! Om Tat Sat.

      bindu: please tell me your thought on this

      caisuir: It sounds formal.

      bindu: Your thoughts ?

      balakrishnanpradeep: I do not agree with the concept mind. Mind is a vaccum with I basically dictating in the space. The vibrations or the requirements of "I in ME" are different, hence there is no definition to define mind. It differs from every jiva so the requirements of "I" in everyone of us are different

      bindu: yes you are right of course Bala. but this treatise is about those who will say they exist separatey from The Self. It shows how they are limited in their ability to understand by the very nature of understanding itself.

      balakrishnanpradeep: ahh! Hare Krishna!!! show them the way through the I in Bindauji!

      bindu: Read it again from that point of view bala. This today was prompted after reading a critique on The Movie called "What the Bleep Do We know " which was written by a very famous critic.

      balakrishnanpradeep: If everyone of the jiva pay attention to your words as Sri Krishna's then this will be a divine blessing for the "I's" in them. Jai Shri Radhe! OmNamaRudraya!

      caisuir: It makes sense to me.

      balakrishnanpradeep: But bhagvan after the *little chat* with the superior I me, the I in ME is now looking at everything as Sri Krishna, my wife, kids, neighbor, no color, creed, etc etc all are Sri Krishna roaming, doing karma as Per his wish.

      bindu: Yes.

      balakrishnanpradeep: Your Statement: "Accept or understand some form of knowledge, the mind needs to be able to confirm that knowledge as true." No I have a different perspective about this so-called mind, the mind so-called, tends to believe blindly if it visually witnesses it

      bindu: you are not correct bala. However i do realize that what i have given today is very hard to grasp from the point of view of the Jiva, as it refutes all mental positions it may hold and hence denies it the very understanding it seeks.

      You are not correct, because the mind WILL ONLY accept what it understands due to whether or not what it "MIGHT" accept effecting who it thinks it is.. "The MIND" exists to those who are not realized, yes... but in reality it does not exist.

      Sri Dattatreya says: In Avadhuta Gita: He says:

      "Indeed the mind is omnifaced...... "
      yet he says: "That in reality there is no mind."

      It means the mind IS the consciousness.... It means the distinction between  consciousness and mind does not exist .... so there can be no mind which is conscious AS CONSCIOUSNESS .... The Conscious Absolute is Conscious YES... but the consciousNESS is not Conscious without the Conscious ONE... who we call the ParaBrahman.

      bindu: to quote Sri Dattatreya"

      Advadhuta Gita Ch1-9
       The mind indeed is of the form of space.
       The mind indeed is omnifaced.
       The mind is the past.
       The mind is all.
       But in reality there is no mind.

      bindu: Now then, in the same way that starlight takes time to come to us (a star we see may be dead aeons ago, as the light took light years to arrive here) what we see is the past perception takes time

      balakrishnanpradeep: space or vaccum? meaning there is no way we can define that matterless ahead of time.

      bindu: Yes. Even the perception or consciousness "THAT I AM THINKING"
      takes time to travel from the percieved thing existing in the inner space .... to the one who watches the mind.

      This means the "UNSEEN ONE" who watches, is in the ABSOLUTE NOW!
      He is therefore before, duing, and after time; and all that exists is over and done with; as it is impossible to decern the "NOW" as it is the NOW that is ACTUALLY conscious of perception .... THAT NOW is then The ACTUAL self ITSELF.

      But the new age idea that the NOW is what exists NOW is totally erroneous due to perception TAKING TIME.

      bindu: think!!!!

      Here time and space merge into the Conscious Absolute
      bindu: Om Tat Sat. This is irrefutable.

      What say you ? The only way a distinction between mind and the Conscious Absolute can exist is in the very idea that it is understandable ..therefore knowledge is ignorance.

      balakrishnanpradeep: the "I in ME" humbly agrees to this.

      caisuir: *doesnt exist*

      bindu: Now then a great big fat secret is blatantly obvious now

      It is not possible to know The Self  - get realized - understand - get enlightened - get mukti etc.... unless there is total and absolute acceptance. "OF ALL MODES OF KNOWLEDGE." AS THE EXISTENCE OF THE JIVA LIES IN REJECTION OF A MODE OF KNOWING ..... I.E .... DUALITY CONSCIOUSNESS."

      The acceptance of the non-dual reality as reality connotes the complete refutation of ALL difference.

      Hence there is the non-definition of the Jiva as anything limited because he does not cling to any mental or emotional positions or refer to any a definition of who he is.. "AS HIMSELF."

       In short : "The Self  recognizes The Self  ...... "
      Jiva CANNOT recognize him, because his existence depends upon definition, which is ignorance.

       with love and respect



      "Exhibit seen in context of Tibet-China politics"
      The Sacramento Bee[Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:23] story By Victoria Dalkey

      The Tibetan exhibit at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco does not take place in a political vacuum.

      The objects on display in San Francisco were brought here under the auspices of the Chinese government's Bureau of Cultural Relics from the Tibet Autonomous Region. Rinchin Tsereng, director of the bureau, spoke at the exhibit's press preview of the "peaceful liberation" of Tibet by his government.

      However, the museum's catalog for "Tibet: Treasures From the Roof of the World" tells a different story.

      For the first half of the 20th century, writes Robert Warren Clark, a former translator for the current Dalai Lama, "Tibet remained what it had been since the dawn of history: a unique civilization in a high, remote land largely untouched by the conflicts of the outside world, possessing its own distinctive language, culture, and religious government."

      All that changed in 1950, when the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet.
      China annexed Tibet the following year, Clark writes, sending soldiers, bureaucrats and workers to remake Tibet into a province of China.

      A popular uprising in Tibet was crushed by Chinese troops in 1959, forcing the current Dalai Lama to flee to India, where he established a government in exile. The Dalai Lama remains today the symbol of Tibetan resistance to Chinese rule.

      Clark writes: "Over the next ten years, over one million two hundred thousand Tibetans, one fifth of the population, would die at the hands of the invader. Only thirteen of the six thousand two hundred and fifty four Buddhist monasteries of Tibet would escape systematic destruction."

      Not surprisingly, for those who oppose what they view as the brutal Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Chinese government's involvement in this exhibition is the height of hubris.

      Presenting the show of objects that rightfully belong to the Dalai Lama, said Chris McKenna, executive director of the Tibet Justice Center in Berkeley, is akin to breaking into the inner sanctum of the Vatican, taking the holiest relics and then presenting them in a museum without acknowledging how they got there.

      Giovanni Vassallo, president of Bay Area Friends of Tibet, echoed that sentiment.

      "We believe the show is being used by the Chinese as propaganda to show that religion is alive and well in Tibet under Chinese rule, while its policies are aimed at suppressing religion, which is aligned with Tibetan nationalism," Vassallo said.

      Several groups held peaceful informational pickets outside the museum on the evening of its private gala June 10 and also June 12, when the exhibit was opened to the public. McKenna said his group and others will continue to picket on weekends, handing out pamphlets with information about the plight of the Tibetan people.

      But the protesters are not asking the public to avoid going to the exhibit.

      "This is not a boycott," said McKenna. "No members of any groups involved are saying, 'Don't go to the show.'

      "Our goal," McKenna said, "is to give people the information they need to see these objects in the context of the recent political history of Tibet.

      We want people to know that Tibet is a culture under threat."

      The Asian Art Museum was prepared for the possibility of controversy over the exhibit.

      "I think we're all aware of the complications and sensitivities surrounding the current political situation in Tibet," says Tim Hallman, the museum's associate director of marketing and communications. "But museum-goers understand that our mission as an art museum is to showcase important artworks. When faced with the decision to bow to complex issues or forge ahead to show the art, we choose to focus on fulfilling our mission and show the art.

      "We believe the beauty and spiritual nature of these art objects transcends the obstacles to presenting the exhibition," Hallman says. "We educate global audiences about art; as art historians and arts administrators, we don't have the expertise to comment on politics. Other organizations and individuals are much more qualified to elaborate on those topics."

      The museum also has attempted to reach out to the protesters by co-sponsoring a film series that will present different perspectives on Tibetan life. Many of these films, such as "Compassion in Exile," "Tibet:

      Cry of the Snow Lion" and Martin Scorsese's "Kundun," are harshly critical of Chinese policies.

      For information about the film series and other programs the museum has organized around this exhibition: (415) 581-3500, www.asianart.org.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.