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

Saturday, June 16

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    ED ARRONS What irony, the idea of thoughts arising in a non-local presence as being your idea. :) DAN BERKOW True. But then, who else s would they be? ;-p
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 17, 2001

      What irony, the idea of thoughts arising in a non-local
      presence as being "your" idea. :)


      But then, who else's would they be?





      The Dissolusion of the mind, comes release from limited views:

      It is not the universe and planes that dissolve, rather the
      use of attention to focus the Self effulgent "I" sense into a
      limited range of images appearing in the conscious field of
      the mind and assuming that one is these images, that these
      images and impressions make up and are one's identity.

      With the recollection of one's Self as the single "I",
      subject with no object, there is an inwardly pulling
      sensation that dissolves this use of the focusing power of
      the mind, as the "I" is drawn in Its ever abiding Singularity
      and the appearing images are outshined.

      Rather than contraction, there is release. The old mind and
      erroneous views simply cease, and we abide as simple
      pervasive Truth.

      "Emptiness here, Emptiness there, but the infinite universe
      stands always before your eyes.
      "Infinitely large and infinitely small: no difference,
      for definitions have vanished and no boundaries are seen."
            from Third Zen Patriarch "Faith Mind"



      I am the first one to admit that I am phisophically
      challenged, but if anyone can give me a better understanding
      it would be welcomed.

      Is Ramana only saying that all of mindville are concepts and
      therefore just imaginary? Does that not include the concept
      of the SELF?

      Yes I am your imagination. If you had opened the link I sent
      you about 5 times you wouldn't have to ask me that.

      Don't we have to differentiate here between a brick wall and
      a blue sky to function?

      Yes we do. You can imagine yourself as beeing a little
      cristal, (size doesn't matter) since YOU are the cristal,
      saidly enough you miss out on all the colors of the rainbow
      but get to see only the kind of like "center" of it, which
      is, not really there, since we live in eternety, again saidly
      enough all black. Well yes, I'm sorry to tell you but that's
      all you can see of yourself, it's just me, was never there.



      Alton wrote: "Is Ramana only saying that all of mindville are concepts and
      therefore just imaginary?"

      We must mind our concepts and keep them ordered.

      Human understanding (usually/statistically) proceeds by way
      of concepts, and your questions are not an exception. So into
      the realm of concepts we go, to parse the 'wheat from the

      " ... just imaginary?", as compared to what?

      If we say that there is an 'imaginary', we are also at the
      same time, saying that there is something which is other than
      imaginary. And in popular thought, the word 'imaginary'
      carries a certain impact, yet, the 'imaginary' is itself
      imaginary. In reality, there is no imaginary, there is only
      the display of analogical symbols, taken to be perception,
      reality, imaginary, dream, etc.

      Humans differentiate between agreed-upon categories of
      perception, and usually assign a value-judgement to each
      category. The "obviously" insane person perceives what are
      called by others, to be 'hallucinations' and 'delusions', and
      those words carry a certain value-judgement. The perceptions
      of the competent, or of super-competent persons, are deemed
      to be of greater value than those of the insane or the
      'ordinary' person.

      If we can for a moment, feel our way into the model of "all
      perceptions being a display of analogical symbols", we can
      see that all perceptions are actually equal; in other words,
      we can see that what we are reacting to, as we perceive (as
      you now perceive this letter) anything, is a neutral
      reportage, delivered to us for processing.

      The 'tragedy' of the usual way, is that all perceptions are
      filtered through value-judgements, thus converting neutral
      'information/sense-data' into emotion-evoking and thus
      action-evoking reaction.

      We humans are in constant communication with our surrounding
      environment, which is itself, as we perceive it, 'nothing
      but' a constant stream of language, presented as a display of
      analogical symbols. It is what we do with these symbols,
      which is the issue.

      Popular culture treats the display of analogical symbols as
      'external reality', and has built a veritable cult around
      this assumption. But ask yourself, "what if" there is no
      actual external reality, no sky or bricks or time or space?
      Inevitably, the question arises; "There must be something
      which is real, what is it?"

      Self is what is real, it is the only real thing, and "there
      is only self". One can tinker with the definitions of self,
      to create the 'Self vs self' duality, or one can proceed
      experimentally using 'there is only self'.

      Your realization of yourself as self, is the trans-personal
      moment of re-knowing, this time consciously,of what you have
      always known, since earliest childhood, and before.

      The final impact of this realization, puts directly into your
      hands, the ultimate responsibility of what you do with the
      'display of analogical symbols', appearing as external
      reality and 'other'.

      To have compassion for yourself in this moment, allows you to
      forgive yourself of the enormous blunder, which is to have
      marched to the tune of human assumptions, and to resume your
      blissful journey, which was somehow seemingly interrupted,
      but which is actually, still in progress.

      This concept of 'display of analogical symbols'deserves
      expansion and clarification.

      First, it may be apparent that any 'analogical symbol' which
      is true to its name, must by definition, be analogical to
      'something'. Analogical symbols, as I use the term, are
      analogous only to _other analogical symbols_.

      Thus, when we perceive, we perceive what we _make of the
      display_ of analogical symbols, and yet, each symbol is
      related only to other symbols, not to any supposed 'thing'.

      This above, is the hardest one to 'get', for if you follow
      the thread, it leads with great certainty to 'nothing'. That
      is to say, that if our reality is composed 'only of a display
      of analogical symbols' (meaning, words, concepts, and all
      unconsciously/transparently computed assumptions), and that
      each symbol is referenced only to other symbols, the entire
      shebang rests firmly on nothing; nothing is the origin of all
      that arises as meaning, whether taken as 'reality', 'dream',
      or 'illusion'.

      Now that we have arrived at 'nothing', or what is also called
      'emptiness', we can begin to see the entrancing power of the
      analogical display of symbols. As we understand that 'all of
      it rests on nothing', we can also see that we are either
      free, or entrained/entranced by the attention-grabbing
      display of analogical symbols.

      In this context, freedom means that a person is not obligated
      to treat the display itself as real; that the display is
      itself, en mass, like a big mouth constantly saying things,
      and we are free to pay attention, or not, and to react to
      what is being said, or not.

      Clearly then, what one chooses to 'do' in reaction to what is
      perceived, is the issue. It is permissible to do 'nothing',
      or anything, and certainly, anything can be done. Again, it
      is not what is being said which is the crux, and not even
      what is understood, or not, matters a great deal. It is what
      we do with what we perceive, which is the crucial point of
      the whole thing.

      "Doing" is said by some, to result in 'creation of Karma',
      and those same speakers also say that understanding itself is
      the rescue from constant rebirth in hell/Maya. Whatever one
      makes of such pronouncements, there is no doubt that 'doing'
      reinforces the impression that the 'doer' is a thing, among
      other things, like a planet is a body in space, among other

      To abide the constant apparent messages of the display of
      analogical symbols, is to allow the eventual arising of a
      perfect functional relationship between the observer and the
      observed; this is to say, an understanding that what is
      observed is the display of self, and none other.

      If one uses experimental tolerance in this approach to this
      union of self and other, one may perceive a glimmer of
      intuitive knowing, an issuing of deep confirming of abiding
      as self.

      We gladly share that it is fine to play the game of human
      reality, and that at any time, as this game is being played,
      it is appropriate to acknowledge to oneself the status of
      oneself as self. One is not beholden, as there is no other
      one to hold; there is only one, and that one is self.

      Enjoy the multitudes, for each one is and represents every
      possible facet of self. That is the way of self.


      To Alton: I've spent a lot of time over the years trying to
      understand utterances like the one you quote from Ramana
      Maharshi. Many, perhaps all, non-dualists present similar
      material...annoyingly interspersed with other quotes of a
      much less radical nature. One is unpleasently struck by the
      observation that if one set of assertions is true, the other
      set can't be as they appear to be mutually contradictory.

      This wouldn't be so serious, at least to me, if it weren't
      almost universal among modern Advaitic thinkers, from
      Nisargadatta Maharaj to Mucktananda, whose thinking was
      particularly applicable to my situation in his standing as he
      was my Guru.

      Here's what I came up with.

      First, that their are at least 2 seperate Advaitas. One of
      them could be thought of as the theoretical basis of the
      Sanatana Dharma, the basic ground for all conventional
      Buddhist and Hindu thought. It includes the law of Karma,
      re-incarnation with all it's variables, and the concept of
      the Self/not-Self to which all phenomena can be reduced.

      Second, there is the Advaita based on the central tenet that
      only what can be directly observed is admissable as evidence.
      This Advaita would allow re-incarnation to be admissable only
      if it could be directly and repeatedly experienced, which is
      how the enlightened commentator accounts for the Self/not
      self experience. He/She is the experiencer of the Self as
      his/her constant and singular immediacy. Of equal value to
      the perceiver is that he/she sees that mind, or more
      accurately, the objects of mind that arise in conciousness
      are dependent on...shot through with...this Self/not Self

      The problem with all this is that no teacher in my experience
      sticks entirely to either of these Advaitas, but frequently
      alternates from one to the other based on the preconceptions
      of his questioner. Nisargadatta Maharaj is probably as good
      an example as any as he derives a great deal of shock value
      from the alternation of his stance. Until one appreciates
      this radical alternation from what I think of as Radical
      Advaita to the more conventional Sanatana Dharma Advaita, the
      effect is a cognisant dissonance of alarming proportions.

      From the point of view of the 2nd Advaita, which the Maharshi
      is employing in your citation, anything which constantly
      changes (ie. which has no self nature) is unreal. By this
      line of reasoning at it's most extreme, even the Present is
      only a movement of mind and has no ultimate reality. Needless
      to say, no thoughts or mere theories, no matter how hallowed
      by conventional acceptance, can be thought of as anything but
      illusion. As far as I have been able to understand it, this
      notion of the non-reality of all thought constructs (ie.
      Everything)...in so far as everything that comprises
      conventional reality arises in the mind, can be traced
      specifically to the Buddha, particularly as his thought was
      interpreted by Nagarjuna and the Madhyamika School. Many
      Indian scholars think that even such a distinguished thinker
      as Shankara was building on Buddhist thought.

      The Maharshi, however, knows well that this "non-reality" is
      experienced in different but simultaneous ways by all of us,
      and is to the seeker, as the Buddha pointed out,
      Unsatisfactory or Painful. His comments are mean't to point
      to That...the Self in his philosophical experience...which is
      also Nirvana, or constant and eternal Bliss.

      I think one of the reasons Swamis Muktananda and Lachshman
      Joo have so successfully introduced Kashmir Saivism in the
      West is that this philosophy grants our perceptual world the
      status of Reality. Even here, however, it is clear that this
      status is only granted in so far as perceptual reality
      participates and is generated by the Supreme Reality of
      Shakti/Siva...which gets us right back to the Self.

      I think we are living in an era in which a Neo-Vedanta

      or Western Vedanta is being developed. It is worth noting
      that Buddha, as well as Shankara after him, developed their
      philosophies for the enlightenment of Monks, homeleavers as
      Buddha called them, full time religious professionals who had
      the will power and the motivation to pursue the the
      Realization of this philosophy through strict and unyielding
      methods; methods that exploited the "Unreality" of life in
      ways that are radically nonsupportive of Life as we know it.

      Alton, I hope these (all too) voluminous comments are helpful
      in some way.



      No, I've been ranting lately about how much energy we in the
      west use, and how the generation of that energy releases
      green house emissions, which is warming the planet, and may
      well become a serious problem. So, having harangued several
      lists about reducing the use of energy, I decided to do so
      myself, and it's not easy to break bad habits. I am
      continually walking out of rooms without turning off the

      "Put your money where your mouth is" is an expression meaning
      something like "walk the talk or shut up." It's so easy to
      ask others to do things that one is not doing oneself. Ah
      well, I see that the kitchen light is on again, while I am
      here in the living room. I think I'll go shut it off and shut
      my mouth off as well.

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