Re: A dialogue
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Sandeep"
> While this is not a Ramana List,<snip>
> forwarding a dialogue elsewhere in
> cyber-space which may have an interest.
> Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based
> on scientific explanation to the formation
> of life( forming from elements and again
> merging in elements ).But this formation
> is limited to the body only.
> That was because, the question, if I
> recall correctly was on the issue of death.
> It does not explain the logic with which
> the accumulated vasanaas are carried from
> birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated
> by Greats like Sri Ramana is required to
> eliminate those vasanaas to be free from the habit of
> identification with the body( Realization ?).
> Who is identified with the body?
> Who is that, which thus then needs
> to dis-identify with the body?
> Do you know the body-mind organism will
> not survive for a moment, without this
> identification, and thus, in order to
> continue to be 'alive", needs this
> identification to continue.
Thanks, Sandeep, it was of interest.
I have a particular interest in how
the body is treated in light of 'enlightenment',
and this forwarded dialogue was good to read.
One comes across a lot of denial and denigration
of the body on the online spiritual lists.
It may be a reflection of the primarily western
membership, and the conditioned sense of the body
as impure as developed by growing up in a western
religious background. It seems that the nondual
attitude of 'no body' easily translates into
'bad body' in the west, particularly when one
is inclined through cultural Samskara to think
of it that way anyway.
I am finding that work in the body leads to a
great neutrality of body. The body, which can be so
solidified around identification with gender,
age, health, effort, etc., is androgynous in the
deepest sense. It is a lens, a great transparency,
through which information flows. It is also transient,
malleable, and no more solid than a thought.
I find that having an understanding of how this
works, even if it is an ongoing string of understandings,
sometimes seemingly conflicting, does not null the
possibility of experiencing the workings. In other words,
experience of the deepest sense does not preclude the
ability to have and enjoy a developing understanding
of the deepest sense.
Deduction and intuition are unitive functions,
two sides of the same coin, to deny one is to
emphasize the primacy of the other, is to tip