|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 19, 2021 12:27:29 GMT -5
The argument for monkhood is that it can be - in it's most extreme forms - the ultimate expression of simplification, of quieting the mind, and, as the debate you describe alludes, to Ramana's version of the pointer, "die before you die". The hustle and bustle of everyday life is the stuff of which the consensus trance is woven, after all. But, as with any other philosophical insight, there's another side to the coin: the potential of attachment to the culture and lifestyle of monking. The egoic identity, "I am a monk", and all that goes with that. Yup. Ramana mentions in various places both this potentially good and bad side of the monk choice. Yes, that's an interesting way of putting it, and I can certainly see that strain in your various of your dialogues. That is very much your style of pointing, if I may be so bold as to characterize it  Agree  |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 19, 2021 12:32:21 GMT -5
Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. I find it difficult to understand why someone would make the argument that Ramana is in any way suggesting renunciation in a literal sense when in so many instances he endorsed the opposite view. "Q: I am not learned in the scriptures and I find the method of self-enquiry too hard for me. I am a woman with seven children and a lot of household cares and it leaves me little time for meditation. I request Bhagavan to give me some simpler and easier method. A: No learning or knowledge of scriptures is necessary to know the Self, as no man requires a mirror to see himself. All knowledge is required only to be given up eventually as not-Self. Nor is household work or cares with children necessarily an obstacle. If you can do nothing more at least continue saying ‘I, I’ to yourself mentally as advised in Who am I?’... if one incessantly thinks ‘I, I’, it will lead to that state [the Self].’ Continue to repeat it whatever work you may be doing, whether you are sitting, standing or walking. ‘I’ is the name of God. It is the first and greatest of all mantras. Even om is second to it." Fully agreed. But some people's understanding (really, probably a misunderstanding) of the traditional advaita literature sees that literature as requiring physical renunciation. And they also see Ramana in that tradition, so he must have felt similarly, and they cherry pick one or two vaguely on point quotes to suggest he thought monkhood was required. The closest he gets to saying anything like that... and even here there are tons of caveats, is in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 829 & 830: Since it is impossible to know beforehand the last moment of one’s life, it is best for one who has a firm determination [to put an end to birth and death] to renounce at the very moment he gets disgust for the body and world.
Just as a fruit falls from the tree when ripe, so an aspirant will certainly renounce his family life like saltless gruel as soon as he becomes fully mature, unless his prarabdha interferes as an obstacle.
But notice he says "it is best," not that it is required. And he says someone will renounce family life unless prarabdha (that is, karma or fate basically) interferes. Which is like saying "Someone will renounce unless they don't." He also says later in GVK, verse 840: Know that, rather than one’s thinking in the heart ‘I have renounced everything’, one’s not thinking ‘I am limited to the measure of the body, and I am caught in the mean bondage of family life’, is a superior renunciation. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 19, 2021 12:42:59 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I remembered the story, thanks for taking the time to transcribe it here. Did Ramana relate any subsequent event(s) that happened later in life that could be characterized as a realization or experience with significant existential overtones? The only one that I'm aware of is when he found the cow in the ditch, and I can understand if other's don't see it that way, but I do. Not that I know of... As far as I know, he maintained that his underlying experience had not changed since that big realization at 17. With the cow in the ditch example, are you talking about Osho's story on this point? One thing very miraculous was watched by every comer: whenever he sat in the veranda of the temple, waiting for people who wanted to sit with him in silence, a cow used to come without fail, exactly at the right time. She would sit there, and people could not believe it: "What kind of cow is that?" And when Raman Maharshi moved inside his room, and everybody dispersed, the cow would come close to the window and put her head inside -- just to say goodbye, every day. And then she would go back. Then tomorrow she would come again.It went on continually for years. But one day she did not turn up, and Raman Maharshi said, "She must be either very ill or she must be dead. I must go in search of her."The people said, "It doesn't look right for a man of your heights to go in search of a cow." But Raman Maharshi did not listen to the people, he went. People followed, and the cow was found. She had fallen in a ditch.She had become old. She was coming, she was on the way, but she had slipped and had fallen into the ditch.But she was still alive, and as Raman Maharshi reached her, sat by her side, the cow had tears in her eyes. And she put her head into Raman Maharshi's lap and died.Raman Maharshi told his people, "A great temple should be made in her memory here, because she has died enlightened -- she will not be born even as a human being." And even today the temple stands there, with a statue of the cow inside.I believe this is referring to Lakshmi the cow, but I believe, forgive me, that Osho has a tendency to embellishment. Other stories of Lakshmi's death don't refer to any kind of ditch or anything like that. And Lakshmi wasn't some random cow who came visiting, but was very well known and well taken care of... Another account of the day of her death goes like this, and seems to be more credible: G. V. Subbaramayya, who was also present when Lakshmi passed away, has given important additional details of Bhagavan’s final meeting with Lakshmi. I will insert his comments here before continuing with Suri Nagamma's account of Lakshmi's final moments.
On that day [18th June 1948] early in the morning Jagadiswara Sastri informed Bhagavan that Lakshmi was seriously ill. After breakfast Sri Bhagavan went to the cowshed and saw her lying prostrate and breathing hard. Sri Bhagavan sat beside her, took her head into his arms, and gently stroked her neck. He fixed his gracious gaze on her eyes. At once Lakshmi’s breathing became steady and harmonious. As their eyes met tears trickled from both. Those of us who stood close by could not contain our emotions. Nearly half an hour passed this way. It was indeed a sight for the gods.
Note, of course: cowshed, not ditch. And Ramana wasn't informed by noting her sudden absence but by a person. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2021 21:00:36 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I remembered the story, thanks for taking the time to transcribe it here. Did Ramana relate any subsequent event(s) that happened later in life that could be characterized as a realization or experience with significant existential overtones? The only one that I'm aware of is when he found the cow in the ditch, and I can understand if other's don't see it that way, but I do. Not that I know of... As far as I know, he maintained that his underlying experience had not changed since that big realization at 17. With the cow in the ditch example, are you talking about Osho's story on this point? One thing very miraculous was watched by every comer: whenever he sat in the veranda of the temple, waiting for people who wanted to sit with him in silence, a cow used to come without fail, exactly at the right time. She would sit there, and people could not believe it: "What kind of cow is that?" And when Raman Maharshi moved inside his room, and everybody dispersed, the cow would come close to the window and put her head inside -- just to say goodbye, every day. And then she would go back. Then tomorrow she would come again.It went on continually for years. But one day she did not turn up, and Raman Maharshi said, "She must be either very ill or she must be dead. I must go in search of her."The people said, "It doesn't look right for a man of your heights to go in search of a cow." But Raman Maharshi did not listen to the people, he went. People followed, and the cow was found. She had fallen in a ditch.She had become old. She was coming, she was on the way, but she had slipped and had fallen into the ditch.But she was still alive, and as Raman Maharshi reached her, sat by her side, the cow had tears in her eyes. And she put her head into Raman Maharshi's lap and died.Raman Maharshi told his people, "A great temple should be made in her memory here, because she has died enlightened -- she will not be born even as a human being." And even today the temple stands there, with a statue of the cow inside.I believe this is referring to Lakshmi the cow, but I believe, forgive me, that Osho has a tendency to embellishment. Other stories of Lakshmi's death don't refer to any kind of ditch or anything like that. And Lakshmi wasn't some random cow who came visiting, but was very well known and well taken care of... Another account of the day of her death goes like this, and seems to be more credible: G. V. Subbaramayya, who was also present when Lakshmi passed away, has given important additional details of Bhagavan’s final meeting with Lakshmi. I will insert his comments here before continuing with Suri Nagamma's account of Lakshmi's final moments.
On that day [18th June 1948] early in the morning Jagadiswara Sastri informed Bhagavan that Lakshmi was seriously ill. After breakfast Sri Bhagavan went to the cowshed and saw her lying prostrate and breathing hard. Sri Bhagavan sat beside her, took her head into his arms, and gently stroked her neck. He fixed his gracious gaze on her eyes. At once Lakshmi’s breathing became steady and harmonious. As their eyes met tears trickled from both. Those of us who stood close by could not contain our emotions. Nearly half an hour passed this way. It was indeed a sight for the gods.
Note, of course: cowshed, not ditch. And Ramana wasn't informed by noting her sudden absence but by a person. Ah thanks - both for answer the question about his realizations and the more credible version of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 20, 2021 11:46:59 GMT -5
Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse One
1. FROM OUR PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD THERE FOLLOWS ACCEPTANCE OF A UNIQUE FIRST PRINCIPLE POSSESSING VARIOUS POWERS. PICTURES OF NAME AND FORM, THE PERSON WHO SEES, THE SCREEN ON WHICH ONE SEES, AND THE LIGHT BY WHICH ONE SEES: ONE ONESELF IS ALL OF THESE.
Commentary: When we see the world, logic dictates that the world itself arises from something which possesses the power to create that seeming seeing. That power itself appears to be split into the various objects of the world, the seer, the act of seeing, awareness itself, and so on. These are all nothing other than Reality, however, and Reality is what you actually are — not any of these divisions. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 22, 2021 11:26:51 GMT -5
Continued from Verse One2. ALL RELIGIONS POSTULATE THE THREE FUNDAMENTALS: THE WORLD, THE SOUL, AND GOD, BUT IT IS ONLY THE ONE REALITY THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS THESE THREE. ONE CAN SAY, 'THE THREE ARE REALLY THREE' ONLY SO LONG AS THE EGO LASTS. THEREFORE, TO INHERE IN ONE'S OWN BEING, WHERE THE 'I', OR EGO, IS DEAD, IS THE PERFECT STATE. Commentary: Religions tend to assume three basic divisions. First there’s the world of objects, then ones who see them (those are individual souls), and finally there’s the God who creates, maintains, and destroys the whole system. But this is all only from the standpoint of thought — which is the standpoint of the ego. The ego is that which says “I am in here, separate from out there. I experience the world and my thoughts and feelings.” The ego is that sense of distinction that arises from and is mixed with the body and mind. It’s only when the light of Reality appears to be split through the prism of ego that there seems to be this thing called the experience of changing objects, and it’s only from that experience that religions then put forth the self-world-God system. But this ego is a kind of illusion. It is the thought that says that “I am a thought.” But that thought is wrong. The true I — Reality — is not a thought. The egoic I is a kind of illusion that drives and is driven by a cycle of identification with the body and mind, and the actions based on desires and fears that come from that identification. When we feel that “I am” — that’s the ego at work. And this ego is what enables normal perception. Without the sense that “I am,” we cannot have the sense “out there are the things I experience, which I am not.” If that ego is dead and we are without that sense of differentiation, of ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ — that’s the perfect State. That’s the contemplation of Reality. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 24, 2021 16:17:04 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Two3. 'THE WORLD IS REAL.' 'NO, IT IS A MERE ILLUSORY APPEARANCE.' 'THE WORLD IS CONSCIOUS.' 'NO.' 'THE WORLD IS HAPPINESS.' 'NO.' WHAT USE IS IT TO ARGUE THUS? THAT STATE IS AGREEABLE TO ALL, WHEREIN, HAVING GIVEN UP THE OBJECTIVE OUTLOOK, ONE KNOWS ONE'S SELF AND LOSES ALL NOTIONS EITHER OF UNITY OR DUALITY, OF ONESELF AND THE EGO. Commentary: The questions of philosophy about the exact relationship of the world to consciousness are impossible to answer in language. That’s because language & concepts are themselves based on the idea that the ego is real, that is, that the sense that “I am separate” is true. Only when you say “I am in here and separate” can you look out at the world and say “out there is is not me,” and then divide the not-me into names and forms. From these names and forms we get language, and from language we get philosophical debates about the nature of the world. It all starts with that me/not-me distinction. But the problem is that the very base assumption of the ego that “I am in here and separate” is incorrect. That is merely a thought, whereas what you actually are is beyond thought; you are the unthinkable Reality. That Reality is cannot be said to be in here, cannot be said to be separate, cannot be said to create any kind of boundary by which names and forms may be drawn. Since the base assumption of the ego is incorrect, then “I am not in here and separate.” So all the stuff out there is not the not-me, and so all the names and forms based on those assumptions are in some profound sense incorrect — or, more accurately, meaningless. This is because names and forms are based on boundaries, but the original boundary that would allow them — again, the me/not-me boundary — is invalid. This makes language, in a very certain and deep sense, meaningless, and that then makes philosophical debate about these concepts ultimately meaningless as well. Even ‘meaningless’ is too meaningful a word to be used, technically. It too is a child of language. A philosophical framework can be useful provisionally for a seeker, but ultimately it has to be realized that Reality cannot be proven in language one way or another, since what is being indicated is beyond language. From a practical standpoint, it’s wise not to get too bogged down in philosophical debates about the exact status of the world. The key point is that if there is abidance without the ego — that is, without the “objective outlook” to which Ramana refers, since the ego enables us to experience objects by assuming it is itself the subject — that is happiness. That state is beyond concepts of either unity or duality, beyond the concepts of the self and ego. All that vanishes, or rather, more than vanishes: whether it is there or it isn’t there is itself seen to be a meaningless point. “Ego” and “existence,” are themselves concepts, and saying that they are false is also a concept. There is something beyond concepts, which can only be pointed to by language, but not actually described. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2021 15:59:38 GMT -5
Continued from Verse One2. ALL RELIGIONS POSTULATE THE THREE FUNDAMENTALS: THE WORLD, THE SOUL, AND GOD, BUT IT IS ONLY THE ONE REALITY THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS THESE THREE. ONE CAN SAY, 'THE THREE ARE REALLY THREE' ONLY SO LONG AS THE EGO LASTS. THEREFORE, TO INHERE IN ONE'S OWN BEING, WHERE THE 'I', OR EGO, IS DEAD, IS THE PERFECT STATE. Commentary: Religions tend to assume three basic divisions. First there’s the world of objects, then ones who see them (those are individual souls), and finally there’s the God who creates, maintains, and destroys the whole system. But this is all only from the standpoint of thought — which is the standpoint of the ego. The ego is that which says “I am in here, separate from out there. I experience the world and my thoughts and feelings.” The ego is that sense of distinction that arises from and is mixed with the body and mind. It’s only when the light of Reality appears to be split through the prism of ego that there seems to be this thing called the experience of changing objects, and it’s only from that experience that religions then put forth the self-world-God system. But this ego is a kind of illusion. It is the thought that says that “I am a thought.” But that thought is wrong. The true I — Reality — is not a thought. The egoic I is a kind of illusion that drives and is driven by a cycle of identification with the body and mind, and the actions based on desires and fears that come from that identification. When we feel that “I am” — that’s the ego at work. And this ego is what enables normal perception. Without the sense that “I am,” we cannot have the sense “out there are the things I experience, which I am not.” If that ego is dead and we are without that sense of differentiation, of ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ — that’s the perfect State. That’s the contemplation of Reality. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. The "ego death" pointer was a major source of megathread controversy, and I can see both sides of it. One way to bridge Christianity and Advaita is to recognize that "original sin" is another way of stating what you have here about the existential illusion. How would you relate - if at all - the Catholic trinity to the triad you describe? The way I see it, I have no argument with either Ramana's pointing or your commentary. But there is another side to the coin. Niz, for example, would say things that some people might find contradictory about "I AM". It depended on which direction he was pointing. He'd describe the thought "I AM" here as you have -- essentially, the "original sin". But, then again, he'd also say it was the " key which can open the door of the world", and recommended attending it as a method. I know we've had a different version of this dialog at least once before. Also, sensation and attention on the body can be characterized by the notion of "thought", but I see a value in making a distinction between thought and sensation. Not to posit some ultimate material/sensational reality, but because a process that can seem to a seeker as a sort of "re-integration" has the potential to put them on notice of "what you are pointing to". Finally, coming back to the trinity: the central act of the Catholic mass is communion, and in this context, Christ, is not-two. It's possible for this to be a meditative experience, where the duality between God and man collapses for a time, by and through the agency of Jesus, the Christ - which is why they use that odd turn of phrase, as well as "Christ, Jesus". While I don't disagree with Ramana's point about these divisions, the vector of attention, is a two-way street, and the signpost of the trinity stands at a particular static point, so it can be encountered by those moving in either direction. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 26, 2021 23:04:46 GMT -5
The "ego death" pointer was a major source of megathread controversy, and I can see both sides of it. One way to bridge Christianity and Advaita is to recognize that "original sin" is another way of stating what you have here about the existential illusion. How would you relate - if at all - the Catholic trinity to the triad you describe? Interesting question. I make no claim to any real knowledge of Christian theology, but it seems to me that one way of answering might be: the Son represents the soul-in-the-world -- thus potentially soul + objects, that the Father represents the traditional omnipotent omniscent God, and the Holy Ghost represents the formlessness that is Undergirds Them Both. I'm sure we have, though I can't recall off-hand. I certainly agree that the ego is the key to the door... There's no doubt that the I is Janus-faced:  On the one side it is the ego -- that is, when it is conditioned by objects... but that very same thing, when 'purified' is nothing other than the Self. So another take on the Catholic trinity is that they represent the unity of "That Thou Art," where the superficial differences between the Thou (the Son as representing the individual soul) and the That (the Father as representing the perfection of God), are illusory; the Son and the Father are Identical -- as expressed in the pure Beingness of the Holy Ghost. Ego death is really more about the recognition of the fundamental misconception that underwrites all our truth claims... claims which include the simple idea that "I experience things at all" -- or "The ego has been killed" or "there is such a thing as an ego in the first place which even could be killed." To paraphrase what Ramana once said, if asked whether the ego exists or not, he'd rather be in the position where that question simply doesn't arise. Hrm. The distinction between thought and sensation can be valuable in some contexts, agreed, but can you elaborate on the re-integration point? Well, certainly the divisions are required provisionally in order for the divisions to eventually collapse (or rather be seen as never having existed in the first place, to be persnickety). Certainly the divine as one of those divisions can be crucial in that process... is that what you're getting at? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 27, 2021 8:39:38 GMT -5
The "ego death" pointer was a major source of megathread controversy, and I can see both sides of it. One way to bridge Christianity and Advaita is to recognize that "original sin" is another way of stating what you have here about the existential illusion. How would you relate - if at all - the Catholic trinity to the triad you describe? Interesting question. I make no claim to any real knowledge of Christian theology, but it seems to me that one way of answering might be: the Son represents the soul-in-the-world -- thus potentially soul + objects, that the Father represents the traditional omnipotent omniscent God, and the Holy Ghost represents the formlessness that is Undergirds Them Both. The Holy Ghost is sometimes called "The Holy Spirit," and I suspect that various biblical writers were referring to something apprehensible in that regard rather than something representative. During a CC this character, in a state of wonderment and unknowingness," apprehended something intangible but noticeable in some strange way that was like a moving wispy something-or-other that can't really be described. It was as if an intelligent but non-visual smoke-like spirit was moving/curling around and over everything. I didn't think about it immediately after I returned to "normal" (haha! nothing was ever fully normal after that) because there was so much other stuff that had happened and been seen, but later I remembered that aspect of what happened, and I wondered if what had been apprehended was what Christian mystics called "the Holy Spirit." It certainly seems possible from what I remember of that aspect of the event. Suzanne Segal speculated that "the Vastness" (her word) has an unknown organ of perception through which it can apprehend Itself more directly, and that's as accurate a statement as I've ever read that points to what happened during the CC. It was like some other mode or center of awareness replaced the usual human perspective, and it was that "unknown organ of perception" that seemed to have been activated. This character became aware of things through some other mode of perception than usual. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 27, 2021 8:48:54 GMT -5
Interesting question. I make no claim to any real knowledge of Christian theology, but it seems to me that one way of answering might be: the Son represents the soul-in-the-world -- thus potentially soul + objects, that the Father represents the traditional omnipotent omniscent God, and the Holy Ghost represents the formlessness that is Undergirds Them Both. The Holy Ghost is sometimes called "The Holy Spirit," and I suspect that various biblical writers were referring to something apprehensible in that regard rather than something representative. During a CC this character, in a state of wonderment and unknowingness," apprehended something intangible but noticeable in some strange way that was like a moving wispy something-or-other that can't really be described. It was as if an intelligent but non-visual smoke-like spirit was moving/curling around and over everything. I didn't think about it immediately after I returned to "normal" (haha! nothing was ever fully normal after that) because there was so much other stuff that had happened and been seen, but later I remembered that aspect of what happened, and I wondered if what had been apprehended was what Christian mystics called "the Holy Spirit." It certainly seems possible from what I remember of that aspect of the event. Suzanne Segal speculated that "the Vastness" (her word) has an unknown organ of perception through which it can apprehend Itself more directly, and that's as accurate a statement as I've ever read that points to what happened during the CC. It was like some other mode or center of awareness replaced the usual human perspective, and it was that "unknown organ of perception" that seemed to have been activated. This character became aware of things through some other mode of perception than usual. Interesting! Thanks for the perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 27, 2021 9:03:54 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Three: 4. IF ONE HAS FORM ONESELF, THE WORLD AND GOD ALSO WILL APPEAR TO HAVE FORM, BUT IF ONE IS FORMLESS, WHO IS IT THAT SEES THOSE FORMS, AND HOW? WITHOUT THE EYE CAN ANY OBJECT BE SEEN? THE SEEING SELF IS THE EYE, AND THAT EYE IS THE EYE OF INFINITY. Commentary: A form is a boundary. If you have a form, it means that you have a boundary. Other things, like the world and God, are contrasted to that boundary. They are the not-you. It is by the creation of mental boundaries that we have experiences. Without a form, without those boundaries, there is no way to differentiate self and other. There is therefore no way to use concepts, no way to use language, no way to say “individual,” “world,” “God.” The eye is the form of the instrument of knowing, and it differentiates things into forms with boundaries. This eye can be regarded both as physical or as metaphorical — i.e. as the egoic mind, the mind which says “I” and “not-I.” But in reality what sees is no physical or even mental I. Rather, the Self sees, and that Self is infinite — meaning boundless, meaning formless. There is no actual space in it for I and not-I. For that Eye, the true Eye, its Seeing is no seeing. Ordinary seeing can be understood. But the Seeing of that Eye, when inquired into, leads straight into the silence of the incomprehensible. It stuns the mind into silence. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 27, 2021 13:28:39 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Three: 4. IF ONE HAS FORM ONESELF, THE WORLD AND GOD ALSO WILL APPEAR TO HAVE FORM, BUT IF ONE IS FORMLESS, WHO IS IT THAT SEES THOSE FORMS, AND HOW? WITHOUT THE EYE CAN ANY OBJECT BE SEEN? THE SEEING SELF IS THE EYE, AND THAT EYE IS THE EYE OF INFINITY. Commentary: A form is a boundary. If you have a form, it means that you have a boundary. Other things, like the world and God, are contrasted to that boundary. They are the not-you. It is by the creation of mental boundaries that we have experiences. Without a form, without those boundaries, there is no way to differentiate self and other. There is therefore no way to use concepts, no way to use language, no way to say “individual,” “world,” “God.” The eye is the form of the instrument of knowing, and it differentiates things into forms with boundaries. This eye can be regarded both as physical or as metaphorical — i.e. as the egoic mind, the mind which says “I” and “not-I.”But in reality what sees is no physical or even mental I. Rather, the Self sees, and that Self is infinite — meaning boundless, meaning formless. There is no actual space in it for I and not-I. For that Eye, the true Eye, its Seeing is no seeing. Ordinary seeing can be understood. But the Seeing of that Eye, when inquired into, leads straight into the silence of the incomprehensible. It stuns the mind into silence. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. I would claim that the instrument of knowing is not the eye but the intellect. If one is simply aware, and the intellect is quiescent, there is seeing without intellectual knowing. That which is seen is known directly (gnosis) but without boundaries or ideas about what is known. As you note in the last paragraph, it is the Self that sees because Self is all there is. Any object that is seen as an object is actually a cartoon generated and known (epistime) by the intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 27, 2021 13:45:51 GMT -5
Continued from Verse One2. ALL RELIGIONS POSTULATE THE THREE FUNDAMENTALS: THE WORLD, THE SOUL, AND GOD, BUT IT IS ONLY THE ONE REALITY THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS THESE THREE. ONE CAN SAY, 'THE THREE ARE REALLY THREE' ONLY SO LONG AS THE EGO LASTS. THEREFORE, TO INHERE IN ONE'S OWN BEING, WHERE THE 'I', OR EGO, IS DEAD, IS THE PERFECT STATE. Commentary: Religions tend to assume three basic divisions. First there’s the world of objects, then ones who see them (those are individual souls), and finally there’s the God who creates, maintains, and destroys the whole system. But this is all only from the standpoint of thought — which is the standpoint of the ego. The ego is that which says “I am in here, separate from out there. I experience the world and my thoughts and feelings.” The ego is that sense of distinction that arises from and is mixed with the body and mind. It’s only when the light of Reality appears to be split through the prism of ego that there seems to be this thing called the experience of changing objects, and it’s only from that experience that religions then put forth the self-world-God system. But this ego is a kind of illusion. It is the thought that says that “I am a thought.” But that thought is wrong. The true I — Reality — is not a thought. The egoic I is a kind of illusion that drives and is driven by a cycle of identification with the body and mind, and the actions based on desires and fears that come from that identification. When we feel that “I am” — that’s the ego at work. And this ego is what enables normal perception. Without the sense that “I am,” we cannot have the sense “out there are the things I experience, which I am not.” If that ego is dead and we are without that sense of differentiation, of ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ — that’s the perfect State. That’s the contemplation of Reality. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. The "ego death" pointer was a major source of megathread controversy, and I can see both sides of it. One way to bridge Christianity and Advaita is to recognize that "original sin" is another way of stating what you have here about the existential illusion. How would you relate - if at all - the Catholic trinity to the triad you describe? The way I see it, I have no argument with either Ramana's pointing or your commentary. But there is another side to the coin. Niz, for example, would say things that some people might find contradictory about "I AM". It depended on which direction he was pointing. He'd describe the thought "I AM" here as you have -- essentially, the "original sin". But, then again, he'd also say it was the " key which can open the door of the world", and recommended attending it as a method. I know we've had a different version of this dialog at least once before. Also, sensation and attention on the body can be characterized by the notion of "thought", but I see a value in making a distinction between thought and sensation. Not to posit some ultimate material/sensational reality, but because a process that can seem to a seeker as a sort of "re-integration" has the potential to put them on notice of "what you are pointing to". Finally, coming back to the trinity: the central act of the Catholic mass is communion, and in this context, Christ, is not-two. It's possible for this to be a meditative experience, where the duality between God and man collapses for a time, by and through the agency of Jesus, the Christ - which is why they use that odd turn of phrase, as well as "Christ, Jesus". While I don't disagree with Ramana's point about these divisions, the vector of attention, is a two-way street, and the signpost of the trinity stands at a particular static point, so it can be encountered by those moving in either direction. I swear every day, you sound more and more like a Jesuit. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 27, 2021 13:52:42 GMT -5
The Holy Ghost is sometimes called "The Holy Spirit," and I suspect that various biblical writers were referring to something apprehensible in that regard rather than something representative. During a CC this character, in a state of wonderment and unknowingness," apprehended something intangible but noticeable in some strange way that was like a moving wispy something-or-other that can't really be described. It was as if an intelligent but non-visual smoke-like spirit was moving/curling around and over everything. I didn't think about it immediately after I returned to "normal" (haha! nothing was ever fully normal after that) because there was so much other stuff that had happened and been seen, but later I remembered that aspect of what happened, and I wondered if what had been apprehended was what Christian mystics called "the Holy Spirit." It certainly seems possible from what I remember of that aspect of the event. Suzanne Segal speculated that "the Vastness" (her word) has an unknown organ of perception through which it can apprehend Itself more directly, and that's as accurate a statement as I've ever read that points to what happened during the CC. It was like some other mode or center of awareness replaced the usual human perspective, and it was that "unknown organ of perception" that seemed to have been activated. This character became aware of things through some other mode of perception than usual. Interesting! Thanks for the perspective. The idea of a trinity makes no particular sense to me. The Infinite (Self) can somehow apprehend its own infiniteness, and what I referred to as a "Holy Spirit" is apparently an aspect of that same formless attributeless field of being. I suspect that the "Holy Spirit" was simply a distinction that past mystics made based upon something intellectually unknowable that they apprehended during CC's. In the Christian tradition I'm pretty sure that the idea of a trinity is based primarily upon the idea of a father and son and secondarily upon whatever the spirit thingy is. Jesus supposedly told his disciples, "Ye are all gods," and that statement would indicate that he saw everyone as one-with the Absolute whether other people realized their oneness or not. Again, just speculating. Reefs and I have both made this same point in the past, but a CC adds a dimension to one's understanding that seems to be absent if one only has realizations. Clearly, waking up, seeing through the illusion of selfhood, and becoming free and at peace can occur without the occurrence of a CC, but, if nothing else, a CC automatically and spontaneously creates a lasting sense of awe, humility, and reverence that realizations, alone, do not always seem to foster. One of these days it would be interesting to learn what the Advaita tradition has to say about this. Kabir wrote that seeing the truth for fifteen seconds "made him a servant for life." That statement, alone, made it obvious to me that he was referring to a CC. |
|
