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

HIGHLIGHTS of Friday June 17, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    Rare books site: http://www.chapterandverseindia.com/cvrare.htm On REALIZATION ... Miguel-Angel: I don t think that it refutes Sankara. For him, realization
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 17, 2000
      Rare books site:

      http://www.chapterandverseindia.com/cvrare.htm


      On REALIZATION

      Jody:
      >I just got back from an evening with Swami
      >Bhaskarananda, who is visiting from the center in
      >Seattle. During his talk he spoke about a pure mind,
      >and how such was necessary for realization to
      >occur. Afterwards I mentioned that such an assertion
      >makes realization dependent on a condition, which
      >refutes Sankara.

      Miguel-Angel:
      I don't think that it refutes Sankara. For him,
      realization _is_ dependent on the removal of false
      beliefs (which he calls ignorance). And we could equate
      a pure mind with one without ignorance. Sankara:

      Through repeated practice, knowledge purifies the
      embodied soul stained by ignorance and then itself
      disappears. (Atmabodha 5)

      As the sun appears after the destruction of darkness by
      dawn, so Atman appears after the destruction of
      ignorance by knowledge. (Atmabodha 43)

      Though Atman is an ever-present reality, yet because of
      ignorance it is unrealized. On the destruction of
      ignorance, Atman is realized. (Atmabodha 44)

      The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
      purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
      what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
      the jiva or Atman?
      Another question I would have asked is How is it that
      the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
      superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
      the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?
      ~~~
      >M. A. [snip] :
      >I don't think that it refutes Sankara. For him,
      >realization _is_ dependent on the removal of false
      >beliefs (which he calls ignorance). And we could equate
      >a pure mind with one without ignorance. Sankara:
      >
      >Through repeated practice, knowledge purifies the
      >embodied soul stained by ignorance and then itself
      >disappears. (Atmabodha 5)
      ~~~~~
      jody answers:
      The Self certainly does not become pure through the
      practice of six-limbed yoga. It certainly is not
      purified by the destruction of the mind. It certainly
      is not made pure by the instructions of the teacher.
      It is Itself the Truth, It is Itself the illumined One.

      > The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
      > purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
      > what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
      > the jiva or Atman?

      I believe he would have replied that the jiva makes the
      effort, but Mother does the work.

      > Another question I would have asked is How is it that
      > the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
      > superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
      > the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?
      >
      > Miguel-Angel

      I'd say that it is Maya that veils. The mind is more like
      a filter, although the Self is present in all minds without
      restraint.

      --jody.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~
      Dan:
      D: Once it is believed that there is "had" an authority
      on reality, there is a belief to be maintained.
      There is also that authority's description of reality
      that is treated as if it were reality. Without
      taking a description for reality, no authority
      is necessary, and the duality of statement
      about reality (concept), and reality as is (nonconcept),
      can be released.

      >As the sun appears after the destruction of darkness by
      >dawn, so Atman appears after the destruction of
      >ignorance by knowledge. (Atmabodha 43)
      >
      >Though Atman is an ever-present reality, yet because of
      >ignorance it is unrealized. On the destruction of
      >ignorance, Atman is realized. (Atmabodha 44)
      >
      >M.A.: The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
      >purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
      >what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
      >the jiva or Atman?

      D: Here is an assumption that
      there is something called the mind that needs
      to be purified. Here is constructed the duality
      of mind and that which purifies mind, and the
      contrary states of ignorance and realization.
      Who is it that will move from ignorance to
      realization? Who is constructing these dualities
      and then trying to rectify them?
      If awareness is direct, there
      will be an ending of the dualistic assumptions
      that bring continuing perplexity and contradiction.

      >M.A.
      >Another question I would have asked is How is it that
      >the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
      >superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
      >the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?

      D: Brahman is simply a word denoting
      what is beyond a word: unsplit "here, now, this".
      Prior to a thought to get from here to there,
      where is the veil? Prior to a belief in
      an obstructing entity, where is the obstruction?
      Noticing carefully, the inference of an entity
      who can move from here to there, of an obstruction
      confronting a separable being - that inference
      is the only veil.
      ________________________________________

      on PROJECTING

      Michael:

      If there is a mind
      and if the mind is projecting images on a screen,
      where does the mind project from
      and to whom does it project to?

      Is there one mind or two minds, or many minds
      or am I just going out of my mind?

      Yeah, yeah, probably, most likely, the latter.

      A mind is a terrible thing to waste,
      so the TV ad says...who's mind are they referring to?

      Be still my mind and know and be and just experience the isness of what is,

      ~~~~

      Whose mind? Well, the "who" depends on the assumption of a mind, and the
      "mind" depends on the assumption of a who. Since neither one of these
      assumptions can stand on its own without the other, neither one is real.

      --Greg
      ______________________________________________

      Michael:

      >
      >How does one get to direct awareness?

      D: Without moving from here.

      >
      >How does one stop the nagging questions?

      D: By realizing there is no place
      for them to occur. They
      seem to attempt to exist,
      but never can. They seem
      to refer to something, but
      never do.

      >
      >Welcome Back,

      I never left you ;-)

      Blessed be,
      Dan

      ______________________________________________

      Melody posts from Osho's "In Search of the Miraculous"


      "If I stand on the top of the mountain and see the sea,
      I will definitely see the sea, but from a distance. I
      will not have stood at the shore; I will not have touched
      or tasted of its waters; I will not have dived into it or
      bathed in it. I have seen the sea from the top of the
      mountain. Would you call this experience partial?

      No. And in spite of the fact that I did not touch
      even a drop of the ocean, you cannot call my
      experience inauthentic. I have seen the ocean from
      the top of a mountain even though I have not become
      one with it. In the same way you can see the soul
      from the topmost peak of your body.

      The body too has its peak- its peak experiences.
      If you have a very deep experience of the body
      you can get a glimpse of the soul in it....."

      "......Many times such a man makes the mistake of
      thinking that this experience is enough. This experience
      can be had from music, from poetry, from natural
      beauty and from other such things. But all these are
      faraway peaks."

      "....All the same, it is not unauthentic; it is elementary.
      The elementary experience can take place either in
      the body or the mind. And it is not partial; it is complete,
      but it is confined to the realm of the mind. It is not the
      soul, because in the experience of the soul there is no
      coming back."

      "So Vivekananda's experience [of samadhi through
      contact with Ramakrishna] was an authentic
      experience, but its authenticity is psychic and
      not spiritual. This too, however, is not a small happening;
      it does not happen to all. It requires a very powerful
      and matured mind."


      Melody: I finally 'get' it. :-)

      ____________________________________________________________

      Larry offers:

      A new edition of "All Else Is Bondage" by Wei Wu Wei is available at
      your local book store, special order, or Amazon. Here's a piece.

      Nowhere, where I am an object, am I; nor where any part of "me" is an
      object is it part of me or is mine. Only here where I can see nothing
      (but the objective universe) am I--and I am only an absence objectively.

      When I realize that, I cease also to be an individual "I",
      _for_anything_individual_ is thereby an object.

      My objective absence is the presence of pure non-objectivity, which is
      just that.

      My only existence is non objective, as non-objectivity itself.

      I cannot be portrayed in any way, drawn, photographed or described. That
      which impersonally I am has no qualities or resemblance to an individual
      subject-object, which is purely conceptual.

      footnote: A "self", an "ego", any kind of separated personality or
      being, is an object. That is why nothing of the kind is--as the Diamond
      Sutra so repeatedly insists.

      My objective self only has a conceptual existence.

      Non-objectively I am the apparent universe.

      Identifying myself with my conceptual object is what constitutes
      bondage. Realizing that my conceptual object only exists in so far as it
      and its subject are this phenomenal absence here and now--constitutes
      liberation.

      I am my phenomenal absence.
      -------------------
      ____________________________________________________________

      Tim:


      Initially, a deep understanding of that nature would be on the level
      of thought... deep enough to affect both the "conscious" and
      the "unconscious" levels of thought.

      But it seems here that such an understanding can act as a bridge to
      something entirely beyond thought. An understanding of that nature
      would encourage thought to "see itself" as futile, and *poof*.

      That's what I meant when saying "the rest" comes of its own accord.
      No endless loop - simply come to the deep understanding or
      realization, and then drop it.

      __________________________________________________________________
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.