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

Re: Mixology

Expand Messages
  • jodyrrr
    ... It can be an expression of either. There are many who speak from speculation. Their mixology is an expression of confusion and ignorance. But those who
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jogeshwarmahanta"
      <jogeshwarmahanta@...> wrote:
      >
      > Is mixology a confuseology or claritology?
      >
      > regards,
      > Jogeshwar

      It can be an expression of either. There are many who speak from
      speculation. Their mixology is an expression of confusion and
      ignorance. But those who see things as they are and find themselves
      wanting to express it, their mixology is an attempt to express clarity.
      Unfortunately, clarity isn't expressible by language. But since language
      is all we have, some of us make the attempt nonetheless.

      --jody.

      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
      > <jeff@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Bruce raised an issue
      > > that clearly casts "light"
      > > on much of the difficulty
      > > in communications.
      > >
      > > In the great majority of
      > > debates or discussions
      > > that take on a lawerly
      > > tone, there is a mix of
      > > literal and figurative
      > > language. Beyond that,
      > > or exacerbating that,
      > > is a mix of relative and
      > > absolute expressions, used
      > > to negate (neti neti) the
      > > others point of view.
      > >
      > > A great ploy of the advaita
      > > speakers is to point out
      > > the necessarily dualistic
      > > error of relative language
      > > in the expression of absolute
      > > nondual perspective, in an
      > > attempt to win the point.
      > > Mega mixology!
      > >
      > > As a short aside:
      > > When Bruce wrote of never
      > > seeing a person "glow", he
      > > was purposely practicing
      > > mixology, yet, many of the
      > > past master artists incorporated
      > > a literal "halo" around the
      > > head of holy men in their work.
      > >
      > > "There is no one to be
      > > enlightened." True, in
      > > the absolute sense of
      > > nonduality. Yet, we are
      > > living, breathing, typing
      > > and communicating in the
      > > world of duality. Even
      > > attempting to express
      > > nonduality uses the tools
      > > (illusory as they may be)
      > > of duality.
      > >
      > > In my recent "beams" I
      > > mixed the use of light,
      > > to the point of being
      > > labeled "literal-minded".
      > > (Which brought a beaming
      > > smile). Yet, my intent
      > > was to use "infused with
      > > light", literally, because
      > > of my personal experience
      > > and the huge body of work
      > > that references a similar
      > > occurance...and, I used
      > > to be infused with light,
      > > as in enlightenment -
      > > removal of darkness
      > > (of understanding) in
      > > a manner of figurative
      > > expression.
      > >
      > > It's a crazy, mixed-up
      > > world.
      > >
      > > Your friendly neighborhood
      > > mixologist,
      > >
      > > Jeff
      > >
      >
    • Adam West
      Hi all, It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the everyday observation of genuine enlightened saints (what ever that
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all,
         
            It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the everyday observation of "genuine enlightened saints" (what ever that is? - at least humans in temporary or permanent spiritual states of Divine / Self-Realisation - very, very rare, not the multitude of wanabes and their lesser psychic states) by relatively unbiased, non-followers and every day folk from cultures all over the world; it seems clear that a halo of light does indeed emanate from such people, which is perceptible by the physical eyes - as distinct from the temporary or permanent psychic sight of the observer.
         
            So mine is a conclusion based on intuition, which is valueless to others, as it can be called into question by so many arguments, not least of all it is un-falsifiable; but also, it is a conclusion based on the meta-analysis of empirical observations.  Naturally, all of these premises can be called into questions, as can the validity and certainly the soundness of the argument; but, the documentation is out there if you bother to look. 
         
            I can think of plenty of documentation from everyday folks witnessing monks from the Eastern Orthodox Traditions, the Tibetan Rainbow Body of dying Rinpohes and practitioners, also the yogic and Hindu mystics; the list goes on and on :-)
        In kind regards,
         
        Adam.     
      • Jeff Belyea
        Thank you for your non-attempt to not add clarity. Got it. ... that ... omega. ... omega. ... speak)..... ... himself/herself...... ... taught, ...
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you for your non-attempt
          to not add clarity. Got it.

          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Sandeep
          <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > > > > "There is no one to be
          > > > > > enlightened."
          >
          > *And thus there is no one or nothing................. who or
          > what................. is not already enlightened.
          >
          > The apperception of reality(to use a phrase) is the apperception
          that
          > reality is not less somewhere or more somewhere else.
          >
          > There is no gradations, there are no levels, there are no
          > stages..................thus there is no alpha and there is no
          omega.
          >
          > And thus no movement from a non-existant alpha to a non-existant
          omega.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Which is why, for the enlightened (using the usual conventional
          speak).....
          >
          > ......if there is an an "other".............other than
          himself/herself......
          >
          > ......an other un-enlightened seeker.............. who has to be
          taught,
          > ............shown the path, corrected, given clarity
          to.........etc.....
          >
          > .....it is the same hoopla of any other gaming which dots that
          same reality.
          >
          >
          >
          > And yet, dialoguing, communicating, discourses take place, have
          taken
          > place and will take place.
          >
          > The Jnaneshwars, Tukarams, the Buddhas, the Ramanas, the
          Rinzais,the
          > Mansoods, the Arabis, the Nisargadattas...........and their
          specific
          > unique lives......... have all occurred.
          >
          > Is there a contradiction?
          >
          > No, ...........as soon as it is apperceived,.............. that
          there is
          > no investment, no baggage, no-to-be-achieved-agenda, with such a
          > communicating.
          >
          >
          >
          > There is no communicating taking place to achieve
          anything,...........
          > whether that be clarity or transmitting of Light, Sound,
          Enlightenment
          > or whatever
          >
          >
          > There is no communicating taking place between discrete, separated
          > "selfs", ........one at some higher level and the other at a lower
          > (which would mean that there are gradations, differential levels
          to
          > Reality).
          >
          >
          > And yet communicating happens.
          >
          > Happens as a nuance of the moment.
          >
          > Which needs a gestalt of dualistic poles, apparently separated.
          >
          > Thus, speaking happens apparently through the distinctive vehicle
          > labeled as the "Sage"......... to.......... the distinctive
          vehicle
          > assumed to be the "seeker".
          >
          > But there is no "to" in this event-ing, .............the event-ing
          in
          > which............ the speaking, the contents of the speech, the
          > consequences of such a speaking.............AND......... the two
          > apparently distinctive separated conditioned vehicles through
          which this
          > functioning is occuring .....
          >
          > ......are ALL nuances of the same eventing.
          >
          >
          >
          > In the apperception of this.............who is then to seek to
          express
          > clarity............... of what is already crystal clear?
          >
          > Who is to receive clarity.......... of what is already crystal
          clear?*
          >
          > *Thus the apperception................. that the
          > communicating........... whether through a "Sage" or a through a
          > "believing-himself-to-be a Sage", ..
          > ...along with the consequences of such a communicating....
          >
          > ...just like any example of ANY functioning............making up
          the
          > moment.......
          >
          > .......IS IN completion,........ in itself.
          >
          >
          > In completion.........moment to moment to moment.
          >
          >
          >
          > As an example............ the arising urge to "do" a meditation
          > technique............ the arising is already in completion.
          >
          > The external actualization of that urge into a specific physical
          action
          > ,........ or the dissipation of the urge into
          mentation.........is also
          > in completion.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > This entire phenomenal gestalt, .............which is an array of
          > perceivable objects, .......
          >
          > ......EACH existing as an mere image, as a reflection......... in
          each
          > other other.....
          >
          > .......the entire gestalt apparently made up of tremendous
          movement,
          > "becomings", change, .......
          >
          >
          > .......not a single aspect of it............... is not in
          > completion.......... already.*
          >
          >
          > *Tremendous journeys were undertaken by you...........within the
          > last-night-sleep-dream-drama.
          >
          > Without you moving an inch from that 6 X 4 cot.*
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > > True, in
          > > > > > the absolute sense of
          > > > > > nonduality. Yet, we are
          > > > > > living, breathing, typing
          > > > > > and communicating in the
          > > > > > world of duality.
          >
          >
          > *In the "Yet".............appears the sense of distinction.
          >
          > There is no "yet".
          >
          > The non-dual reality IS the apparent dualistic world of living,
          > breathing, typing,communicating,............ of cyber-space and
          Internet
          > Gurus and the whole debate on whether practice non-practice, neo-
          advaita
          > and classical-dirty-your-hand-approach,......
          >
          > ...... the world of Dubya Bush and Bird-Flu, ..............of
          > catastrophic genocide, ............and of romatic
          poetry, ..........
          >
          > ......of flitting butterflies basking in the sun-shine and of two
          Dark
          > Holes each of the size of 100 Million Stars, currently merging
          into one
          > another in deep-outer-space as reported by NASA recently.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Non-Duality is never not the case..........while ever being
          transcendent
          > to that very apparently dualistic expressing of itself.
          >
          > The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Just like the hoopla of the last-night-sleep-dream-drama,
          including all
          > the dreamt-up characters, including yourself,.......
          >
          > .......the pathos, the ethos, the seekings, the successes of those
          > seekings, the failures of the seekings, the loved ones and the
          unloved
          > ones, the relatings, the joys and sorrows, the agony and ecstasy
          > associated with each of those relatings, ........
          >
          > ........the experiences that you had which now define your own
          > self-identity to yourself,.............
          >
          > ..........the "Truths" that you have realized.......
          >
          > .....in essence the entire hoopla of the
          > last-night-sleep-dream-drama..............each and every nuance
          of that
          > hoopla....... was just you in expression.
          >
          >
          > While, ...........you ever transcendent to that
          hoopla, ...........being
          > the one sound asleep and snoring in a 6 X 4 cot.
          >
          > The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.*
          >
          >
          > >
          > > >
          > > > My point exactly. And when
          > > > the advaita-speakers speak
          > > > from the cloud of unknowing,
          > > > they are not adding clarity.
          >
          >
          > *The issue is not whether there is communicating which is adding
          to
          > clarity, or which is not adding to clarity.
          >
          > The issue is,................. for whom does it hold a
          > relevance,................... that clarity can be added, through
          expression.
          >
          > Or clarity can be subtracted, through expression.
          >
          > Clarity about that, ...........whose very
          expressing...................
          > is the expression in question.....
          >
          > which is believed to achieve clarity or cloud clarity.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > *
          >
          > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          -------
          >
        • jodyrrr
          ... You are expressing one of the most occluding beliefs there is about self-realization, that it s very, very rare and only the purview of the walking
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi all,
            >
            > It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the
            > everyday observation of "genuine enlightened saints" (what ever that is? - at least
            > humans in temporary or permanent spiritual states of Divine / Self-Realisation -
            > very, very rare

            You are expressing one of the most occluding beliefs there is about
            self-realization, that it's "very, very rare" and only the purview of
            the walking "divine". You believe such at the great peril to your own
            self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
            breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
          • Adam West
            You believe such at the great peril to your own self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
                    "You believe such at the great peril to your own
              self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
               
                  Yes I agree, it is my awareness itself, the very same of which I am aware of this act of typing - the pristine clarity and the vast space in which the fog of conditioned cognition and identifications exist!  But recognition of this self-liberating awareness comes in degrees, and it is those degrees of awakening which are appropriated by the ego to claim realization where little exists.
               
                  Rather, an intuitive realisation of truth / intrinsic nature is comprehended, yet it is clearly confused with absolute realisation. 
               
                  Let us test your theses; are you enlightened?  Naturally, one mouthes one particular metaphysical theory, and answers yes!  All are enlightened - there is none other than this singular non-dual awarness; thus am I!  Yet are you conscious of creating and sustaining the universes?  Are you conscious of the infinitude of the laws of nature, of the underlying principles of quantum theory - of mathematical precision?  Of course not!  Your consciousness in actuality retains its finite limitations, thus by definition, it has no access and realisation of its infinite potential - no realisation of the totality of Being - no actual enlightenment, merely metaphysical potential!
               
                  Naturally, you may -  thus I may accept you are one of the rare few! :-)
               
                  We may have a sophisticated discussion of these things, yet it is clear very, very few have "actualized" their intrinsic natures - while it remains metaphysically true, there is nothing to realise - a convenient appropriation by oh so many egos and charlatans :-)
               
                  As you are most likely aware, the Master Aziz has spoken of the difference and problems of which I am arguing and alluding to :-) 
               
              In kind regards,
               
              Adam. 
               
            • jodyrrr
              ... tip of your nose. ... It s not a space at all, and it comes all at once. A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the
                tip of your nose."
                >
                > Yes I agree, it is my awareness itself, the very same of which I am aware of
                > this act of typing - the pristine clarity and the vast space in which the fog of
                > conditioned cognition and identifications exist! But recognition of this self-
                > liberating awareness comes in degrees, and it is those degrees of awakening
                > which are appropriated by the ego to claim realization where little exists.

                It's not a space at all, and it comes all at once. A permanent rending of
                the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of the truth of your
                being.

                > Rather, an intuitive realisation of truth / intrinsic nature is comprehended,
                > yet it is clearly confused with absolute realisation.

                That's not what I'm talking about.

                > Let us test your theses; are you enlightened?

                Would you be able to tell if I was?

                > Naturally, one mouthes one particular metaphysical theory, and answers yes!
                > All are enlightened - there is none other than this singular non-dual awarness;
                > thus am I! Yet are you conscious of creating and sustaining the universes?

                Such would not make me enlightened, as Brahman is only aware of
                Brahman and not of any of the particulars in the world of name and
                form, including the creation of such.

                > Are you conscious of the infinitude of the laws of nature, of the underlying
                > principles of quantum theory - of mathematical precision? Of course not! Y

                Neither is Brahman aware of any of the overlays we employ to help
                us "understand" the world of name and form.

                > our consciousness in actuality retains its finite limitations, thus by
                > definition, it has no access and realisation of its infinite potential -
                > no realisation of the totality of Being - no actual enlightenment,
                > merely metaphysical potential!

                You describe an idea you have about consciousness which I say
                occludes the truth.

                > Naturally, you may - thus I may accept you are one of the rare few! :-)

                These ideas you hold are preventing the truth from being known
                rather than assisting its establishment in your life.

                > We may have a sophisticated discussion of these things, yet it is
                > clear very, very few have "actualized" their intrinsic natures - while it remains
                > metaphysically true, there is nothing to realise - a convenient appropriation
                > by oh so many egos and charlatans :-)

                Your idea of "intrinsic nature" is like a fog which blocks the truth
                from your view.

                > As you are most likely aware, the Master Aziz has spoken of the
                > difference and problems of which I am arguing and alluding to :-)
                >
                > In kind regards,
                >
                > Adam.

                I don't know Aziz. But I do know that ANY idea you can think of
                about self-realization prevents your coming to recognize it yourself.

                Dump the ideas. It will be the best thing you've ever done
                for yourself.

                --jody.
              • Adam West
                You believe such at the great peril to your own self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                    "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                  self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                  breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
                   
                      Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak - for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)
                   
                      Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose, you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument would not seem to validly follow. 
                   
                  (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                   
                  (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of the truth of your being."
                   
                      Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is, awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly an ongoing realization remains. 
                   
                      I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which no one on this planet has achieved and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining as Self-Realization; the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.
                   
                      The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma; metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions without any argumentation to support them.  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are enlightened as it implies. :-)
                   
                      Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion; and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have to go to work right now :-)
                   
                      Until later!
                   
                  In kind regards,
                   
                  Adam.
                • jodyrrr
                  ... The moment when jnana comes to a life. Jnana is the ongoing experiential revelation that one s nature as being identical to Brahman. ... Who can say why
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                    > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                    > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
                    >
                    > Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                    > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                    The moment when jnana comes to a life. Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                    revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                    > Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                    > you must have attained it yourself. If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                    > would not seem to validly follow.

                    Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                    than our own beating heart?

                    > (1.) " it comes all at once."
                    >
                    > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                    > revelation of the truth of your being."
                    >
                    > Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                    > premises 1 and 2. Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                    > awakening comes in degrees. And it is these degrees of awakening that
                    > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                    > an ongoing realization remains.

                    The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                    over time. Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                    Brahman by Brahman. There are no degrees of Brahman.

                    > I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                    > no one on this planet has achieved

                    If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                    4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                    > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                    > as Self-Realization;

                    These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                    truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                    > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                    > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                    > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                    > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                    That's called being a human being. Your idea of realization is
                    not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                    the hagiographers.

                    > The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                    > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                    Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                    > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                    > without any argumentation to support them.

                    Yep. If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                    anything close to descriptive.

                    > Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                    > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                    > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                    Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                    the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                    that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                    holding the belief that it is illusory.

                    > Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                    > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                    > to go to work right now :-)
                    >
                    > Until later!
                    >
                    > In kind regards,
                    >
                    > Adam.

                    Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                    --jody.
                  • suman sk
                    Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul development that takes over years and years and not in one birth but over many many
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul development that takes over years and years and not in one birth but over many many births. Because for some a single birth is not enough. So in essence we are all evolving with our own speed and that is what happens as a natural law which pervades the entire universe. So thinking that in the past we were not spiritually developed would not be correct. Because ultimately is a development in circular fashion which means everything is although changing but still constant. So this maya makes us feel that everything is changing but it is not. It the play of the Lord himself.
                      Point is due to this development when we are close to that level where instrisically we start to ourselves get the drive to move into the direction of spirituality and level and start to get over the evil forces within, and then starts the process of becoming pure and slowly gaining the power of miracles which Christ and Buddha had. So if someoe is at a lower level of spiritual development it may not even strike to him what people at a higher level are telling and discussing.Argueing about anything would therefore be redundant. With time such souls would learn there share of knowledge which comes from within and is develped by scriptures develpoved by great spiritual souls.
                      So everyhting is simple and not complex that may be made by millions of people.
                      It is just pure and simple truth that karma we do are just the reflections of seeds in our soul that are at a level of spiritual development.
                       
                      OM
                       
                      Surendra


                      jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      >   "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                      > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                      > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."

                      >     Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                      > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                      The moment when jnana comes to a life.  Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                      revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                      >     Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                      > you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                      > would not seem to validly follow.

                      Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                      than our own beating heart?

                      > (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                      >
                      > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                      >  revelation of the truth of your being."
                      >
                      >     Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                      > premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                      > awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that
                      > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                      > an ongoing realization remains. 

                      The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                      over time.  Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                      Brahman by Brahman.  There are no degrees of Brahman.

                      >     I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                      > no one on this planet has achieved

                      If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                      4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                      > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                      > as Self-Realization;

                      These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                      truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                      > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                      > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                      > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                      > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                      That's called being a human being.  Your idea of realization is
                      not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                      the hagiographers.

                      >     The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                      > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                      Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                      > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                      > without any argumentation to support them.

                      Yep.  If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                      anything close to descriptive.

                      >  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                      > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                      > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                      Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                      the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                      that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                      holding the belief that it is illusory.

                      >     Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                      > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                      > to go to work right now :-)
                      >
                      >     Until later!
                      >
                      > In kind regards,
                      >
                      > Adam.

                      Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                      --jody.






                      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






                      Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

                    • arun kumar
                      jodyrrr wrote: --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Adam West ... The moment when jnana comes to a life.
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        >   "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                        > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                        > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."

                        >     Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                        > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                        The moment when jnana comes to a life.  Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                        revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                        >     Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                        > you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                        > would not seem to validly follow.

                        Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                        than our own beating heart?

                        > (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                        >
                        > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                        >  revelation of the truth of your being."
                        >
                        >     Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                        > premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                        > awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that
                        > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                        > an ongoing realization remains. 

                        The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                        over time.  Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                        Brahman by Brahman.  There are no degrees of Brahman.

                        >     I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                        > no one on this planet has achieved

                        If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                        4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                        > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                        > as Self-Realization;

                        These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                        truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                        > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                        > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                        > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                        > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                        That's called being a human being.  Your idea of realization is
                        not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                        the hagiographers.

                        >     The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                        > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                        Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                        > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                        > without any argumentation to support them.

                        Yep.  If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                        anything close to descriptive.

                        >  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                        > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                        > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                        Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                        the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                        that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                        holding the belief that it is illusory.

                        >     Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                        > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                        > to go to work right now :-)
                        >
                        >     Until later!
                        >
                        > In kind regards,
                        >
                        > Adam.

                        Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                        --jody.





                        Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

                      • jodyrrr
                        ... What soul? There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman. We develop as individuals,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul
                          > development [snip]

                          What soul?

                          There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our
                          conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman.

                          We develop as individuals, but that has absolutely nothing to
                          do with the Atman, which is eternal and changeless. Where is
                          there a soul between the two and why would such a thing be
                          necessary?
                        • suman sk
                          if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so.. It depends on
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so..
                             
                            It depends on the ondividual's level of soul development.
                            SK

                            jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul
                            > development [snip]

                            What soul?

                            There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our
                            conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman.

                            We develop as individuals, but that has absolutely nothing to
                            do with the Atman, which is eternal and changeless.  Where is
                            there a soul between the two and why would such a thing be
                            necessary?





                            Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                          • jodyrrr
                            ... That makes sense. But what if character is a function of biological and genetic factors as well as being influenced by life conditions. So, someone
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:

                              > if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn
                              > out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so..
                              >
                              > It depends on the ondividual's level of soul development.
                              > SK

                              That makes sense. But what if character is a function of biological and genetic
                              factors as well as being influenced by life conditions. So, someone blessed
                              with good character traits can turn out ok despite bad conditions, and someone
                              in great conditions can turn out a wreck. No soul is necessary for any of that.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.