- ************************GARY MERRILLEgo definition:
Ego is the belief in division and has no substance apart from the
ego is made out of the same stuff as the entire universe
Loveya - MichaelYOGINI SAKTI on Advaita VedantaA persistant aspect of philosophy & religion is the causality of the
universe. Does the world have a cause? Is it a blind force or an
intelligent principle? Is there one cause, or many? Each school of
thought (Eastern) has a different responce.
Carvaka / materialism; contends that the merging of the four elements
are the cause of the world.
Nyaya-Vaisesika; contends that the natural world is composed of
atoms, & that the Prime Mover of these atoms is God.
Sankhya; contends that prakrti (Primal Matter) is in perpetual
motion, & the presence of a sentient soul (purusa) is the cause for
evolution to start.
Svabhavavada / naturalism; contends that the world is self-caused,
via the law of causation.
Yadrcchavada / accidentalism; contends that the world exists as mere
Advaita Vedanta falls under known of the above. The universe cannot
be the result of chance - for that would be the result of causation.
The world is not self-cause, because it is inert; therefore, it
cannot be its agent & patient in the same process. Nor can prakrti
account for the universe, for they are non-inteligent. The Absolute
cannot be the efficient cause .. for this would make the Absolute
conditioned by the same. Nor can the universe be a transformation of
the Absolute, for an Absolute that changes cannot be immutable.
So .. Advaita concludes that the universe is an illusory appearance /
vivarta of the Absolute Spirit. The world is a play of maya / maya-
It is the Self which is pure existence / sat that is the substrate of
the world-appearance. The world has no reality of its own; it is non-
real, or like unto that which is unreal. Meaning, the world is not
unreal like .. say, a jackalope; or is it real like the Self. The
world is anirvacaniya / indeterminable. It is what is illusorily
superimposed on the substrate Self. The world has no reality apart
from the Self; nor can it become manifest but for the consciousness
which is the Self.
Hymn to Daksinamurti
written by Sankara
verses 1 -3
I praise Daksinamurti, the handsome youth who has expounded the truth
of non-duality by eloquent silence, who is surrounded by a group of
disciples consisting of aged sages who are absorbed in the
contemlation of the supreme Self, who is the prince among Preceptors,
who by his hand (by the union of his thumb & fore-finger) shows the
sign indicating the identity of the individual soul & the supreme
Self, who is the embodiment of bliss, who delights in the Self, & who
has a charming face.
To Him who by maya as by dream, sees within Himself the universe
which is inside Him, like unto a city that is seen in a mirror, but
which is manifested as if without: to Him who apprehends, at the time
of awakening, His own non-dual Self: to Him, of the form of the
Preceptor, the blessed Daksinamurti may this obeisance be!
To Him who, like a magician or even like a great Yogin, displays, by
His own will, this universe which at the beginning is
undifferentiated like the sprout in the seed, but which is made again
differentiated under the varied conditions of space & time posited by
maya: to Him, of the form of the Preceptor, the blessed Daksinamurti
may this obeisance be!
Om Santi ...
Yogini SaktiJAN SULTANA viewpoint from a different perspective.
I have not seen the subconscious mind mentioned in any spiritual group or
Yet we are our subconscious minds! Our conscious mind is only an
afterthought. [Animals function very well without a conscious mind]. The
conscious mind has no direct access to the vast resources of our
subconscious minds. Most decisions are already made by our subconscious
minds thus the mistaken concept of non-doer ship. In fact scientists have
recently discovered that the decisions already made by our subconscious
minds appear 1/2 a second later in our conscious minds and are rightly
regarded by our conscious minds as our own decisions.
What we do, how we react in different circumstances depends on what is
stored in our subconscious minds. Our subconscious minds not only store raw
data but also sequences of script that could be played out in different
circumstances. That is the learned survival mechanisms passed down in our
genes from the time when life first appeared on earth.
In a set of circumstances we can guess how an Italian, a German and an
Englishman will react. [This is true all over the world with different
tribes, sub-tribes and even families.] In India different tribes do
different jobs. For example "Goldsmith" is a name of a tribe! Why are
groups predictable? It is because of their similar genetic make-up and
similar upbringing. Remember the subconscious mind is built on the
foundations of genes + environment.
I think perhaps the main reason for having a conscious mind is not to
rubber stamp the decisions made by the subconscious mind but to stay quiet
and experience the Ultimate Reality !? Thus in a person like Ramana the
subconscious mind was the sole 'doer' for the body/mind to survive. Whereas
the conscious mind had merged with the Greater Consciousness !? [To put it
in the non-dual way, our conscious mind is part of the Greater
Consciousness already. It just 'mistakenly' identifies with the
subconscious mind it is inhabiting !?]
````````````````````````````````````````JUNIAThis is true, unless the person is aware of this (that the subconscious mind
is making most decisions) and the person has decided to make more conscious
choices. Unfortunately, the unconcious mind stores everything (not just
possitive data) and makes choices based on that. This can cause the person
to react inappropiately to a current circumstance. The desire to respond
rather than react is a valid reason to make more conscious choices. I think
there is a difference between making a conscious choice (based on the data
the subconsious has stored) and making an unconscious reaction. In my
opinion, the conscious choice is healthier.
You may be your subconscious mind, but I am not. I am my conscious mind
which makes conscious choices. If I let my subconscious mind run my life
(which I have done in the past) I would be incapable of having relationships
and functioning in the world. I think the Conscious mind can merge with the
"Greater Consciousness" and still make choices without having to delegate
that to the confused and scrambled, yet well-meaning unconscious mind. You
may be comfortable with that, but I'll remain conscious thank you.
GLORIA LEESubject: [RamanaMaharshi] world - real and unreal
"As I recalled Bhagavan saying sometimes that unreal
[mithya , imaginary ] and real [ satyam] mean the same ,
but did not quite understand , I asked him about it.
He said , "Yes , I do sometimes say that .What do you mean
by real ? What is it that you call real ? "
I answered : "According to Vedanta , only that which is
permanent and unchanging can be called real . That is the
meaning of Reality."
"Then Bhagavan said :'The names and forms which constitute
the world continually change and perish and are therefore
called unreal. It is unreal [ imaginary ] to limit the Self
to these names and forms and real to regard all as the
Self. The nondualist says that the world is unreal ,
but he also says , "All this is Brahman."
So it is clear that what he condemns is regarding the world
as objectively real in itself , not regarding it as
Brahman. He who sees the Self sees the Self alone in the world
also. It is immaterial to the Enlightened whether the world
appears or not. In either case , his attention is turned to
the Self. It is like the letters and the paper on which they
are printed . You are so engrossed in the letters that you
forget about the paper , but the Enlightened sees the paper
as the substratum whether the letter appear on it
The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi
TONY O'CLERYNamaste All,
This is just the act of seeing by a body without an individual mind.
As is indicated by Ramana, Ramakrishna and others there is no world in
Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Indicating that it not just an appearance, but
doesn't exist and in fact never happened at all....ONS....Tony.
JODYTherefore, Tony's tiresome and wholly uninformed pontifications
Oh, if it were only true!JAN BWhat a great philosophy isn't it :)
Because, if nothing ever happened at all, crusades
against some gurus are utterly futile!
The gurus didn't even exist! lol
And who cares for samadhis?
What has a beginning has an end so is unreal - whether
deep dreamless sleep or nirvikalpa samadhi.
ºOh, if it were only true!
That will be "the" discovery :)TONY
Sankara said, 'It's real enough whilst one is in it'. Therefore I have
to deal with it. Helping to save people from molesting fraud gurus, is
part of my karma. Unlike yours which is mainly seeing your own obtuse
posts in print........ONS...Tony.JODYWho is the 'I' that deals with it? If this 'I' doesn't
exist, how can there be something to 'deal' with?
Once again, you're speaking from both sides of your mouth.
> Helping to save peoplemolesting fraud gurus, is part of my karma.
I'd say it's simply your grandiose vision of yourself.
We don't need your help. If it's our karma to get molested
by kinky gurus, then it's gonna happen regardless of your
> Unlikeown obtuse posts in
> yours which is mainly seeing your
> print........ONS...Tony.Now there's an example of the pot calling the kettle black!
Concerning your interpretation of Ramakrishna, I find it of
little worth as it is bent by your conceptual occlusion.
The point I was making with my little jibe was this: if we
don't exist at all, what are we doing here arguing about it?
Think about it Tony. It's as plain as the sun in the sky,
if you could just see beyond your mind's clouds.GRAY
Hullo Gene, (and All).
In your post (below) you wrote:
> Use 'ego' if the basic life-preserving aspect of the psycheis
> referred to.I cannot see the boundary between the 'basic life-preserving aspect'
and the 'identity'.
At one extreme I can see 'my identity' (and I can see that it is
expendable) and at the other I can see 'this body-mind's basic life-
preserving aspect (instinct?)'- and at times it is 'basic' - but
the 'cross-over'is not seen: hence I do not seem to be able to
clearly distinguish ego and identity.
My first post.
Best wishes, Gray.JERRY KATZgot a letter from someone writing an article on Suzanne Segal. Does
anyone have any obscure references to her or her work? Anyone who knew
her? Or do you know someone who knew her? Anyone ever date her? Just
kidding. Actually I think I may have! I don't think she liked me. I kept
trying out my comedy act on her. Anyway, she's dead and I'm still trying
out my act. So let me know. Thank you.