|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 4, 2021 10:14:00 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Five6. THE WORLD IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EMBODIMENT OF THE OBJECTS PERCEIVED BY THE FIVE SENSE-ORGANS. SINCE, THROUGH THESE FIVE SENSE-ORGANS, A SINGLE MIND PERCEIVES THE WORLD, THE WORLD IS NOTHING BUT THE MIND. APART FROM THE MIND CAN THERE BE A WORLD? Commentary: The world is what perceived by the senses, but the senses are themselves cognized by the mind (the deeper sheaths within that five-sheathed body/mind). The world is, as we know it, put together, organized, synthesized by the mind. The raw sense data are put together into this thing we call experience only because of the mind. We cannot imagine a world without a body-mind there to perceive it. Everything we know about the world comes through our senses brought together through the mind. The idea of a world apart from our ideas about it, that is, apart from the organizing function of the mind, is literally inconceivable. Every possible idea of what the world could be like without the mind would have to first be filtered through the mind’s categories. In other words, we have no evidence, capacity, or justification for believing in a world that is entirely independent of mind. This is not necessarily to say that any one individual mind creates all of reality. There may be a global mind which integrates all the individual minds into a common reality. We can call that global mind God. Regardless, the point is that one way or another, the world is always mind-dependent. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 7, 2021 8:45:57 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Six7. ALTHOUGH THE WORLD AND KNOWLEDGE THEREOF RISE AND SET TOGETHER, IT IS BY KNOWLEDGE ALONE THAT THE WORLD IS MADE APPARENT. THAT PERFECTION WHEREIN THE WORLD AND KNOWLEDGE THEREOF RISE AND SET, AND WHICH SHINES WITHOUT RISING AND SETTING, IS ALONE THE REALITY. Commentary: So we have this twin idea of the world and the knowledge of the world. This knowledge comes through the mind. The mind is what we use to perceive the world; there is no other access to the world. Where there is a world, there is a mind which says that is the case. And where there is a mind, there has to be a world, since what it means to be a mind is to have knowledge of something. That something is simply what we call the world. Even someone hallucinating sees the world — it may be a distorted vision of the world from someone else’s perspective, but it is the world for the hallucinator. In a dream it’s a dream world. The idea of a mind requires the experience of thought. Thought is always of things, and things have boundaries: this is an apple because it is not an orange or a giraffe or anything else. Its limits make it what it is. Without a something ‘out there’ there could be no perception of a something ‘in here,’ and vice-versa. That something ‘in here’ is the ego. So the mind is rooted in egoic identification, which is the sense that “I am a thinking, doing, experiencing entity.” Without that sense, you couldn’t have a world. Without the world, however, you couldn’t have that sense either. Ego & world are like the two ends of a pole. When one comes, they both must come. They imply and require each other. The egoic mind is what seems to know the world. Both the egoic mind and the world are established in something superior to them both, which does not come and go. The mind and the world are both just objects. Neither are really aware. They are, rather, in truth known by something else. They are both merely modifications of or forms of that something else. That something else in which they are both rooted, and by which they are both known, and which unlike them does not come and go, is deemed Perfection, the Self, Truth, Awareness, or Reality. It has many names. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2021 8:49:09 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Four5. The body is a form composed of the five-fold sheath; therefore, all the five sheaths are implied in the term, body. Apart from the body does the world exist? Has anyone seen the world without the body? Commentary: The five-fold sheath is a Vedantic idea that understands the body-mind to be a complex which includes five layers, like an onion. Each layer in some sense is the product of the layers within it, and in some sense produces the layers outside it. The outer-most layer is the physical organs. Then comes the prana, or physiological energy. Then is said to be the seat of the emotions. Then, within that is our ability to reason and to decide. And finally within that is the ego, the sense that “I am.” Note that this sense, too, is actually just a layer, just as insentient as all the other layers. It claims to be conscious, claims to be deciding and feeling and all the other layers, but it can no more do those things than a piece of paper can actually think and feel. It is only when the light of consciousness hits that insentient “I am” thought that the reflected consciousness appears to experience the world. The body, however, is a kind of instrument for seeing the world, much like a novel is an instrument for experiencing a fictional universe. When readers read a book, they project an imaginary landscape peopled by imaginary people. Both the reader and the book are required for this to happen. So the body establishes boundaries and mental concepts which are the tools by which everything else seems to be experienced. The world as we know it is always the world as perceived and cognized by the body (where the body is understood to include all the mental and emotional instruments together). At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. One thing that you and other's repeat sometimes is the distinction between realization and experience, and how - in my words - there is no experience of the existential truth. I see the value in that pointing. Quite deeply. On the other hand, what Ramana is saying here implicates what I refer to as altered states of consciousness. States where the sense of personal boundary has disappeared. ZD - as one example, there are other's, many that have nothing to do with nonduality - has written in depth and quite well on this topic, and allows for how these are states that come and go, so, not necessarily to be confused with the finality and timelessness and formlessness of realization. But, still. There is a significance here, but it's very difficult to say anything universal about it, especially given the level of subjectivity involved. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2021 9:04:09 GMT -5
Isn't what you describe a "woo-woo" experience? And for some folks here, I think Reefs included, "woo-woo" is an SR no-no. Yes, it is what some of us have called a "woo-woo" experience, but that type of experience (or event) is quite common in Zen, and I can think of numerous Zen Masters who have described them. They almost always result in what Zen people call "passing through the gateless gate." Reefs has written about kensho events, and, like me, he thinks that they add something extra to one's insight into the true nature of reality. In fact, I think kensho is defined in the Rinzai tradition as "seeing into one's true nature." Unfortunately, Zen writers have not adequately described the difference between satori and kensho. Reefs and I both assumed that satori is seeing through the illusion of selfhood and kensho is the equivalent of a CC. Hakuin claimed in his autobiography that he had had more than a hundred kenshos, some big and some small, but he and other ZM's have, to the best of my knowledge, never clearly delineated, or made the distinction that we often make between realizations and experiences. Hakuin also claimed to have had two satoris, the second of which was the most powerful event in his life. If seeing through the illusion of selfhood is equivalent to satori, then how could there be a second satori? His claim about two satoris makes me think that he was describing kenshos, or that his definition of satori is NOT equivalent to seeing through the illusion of selfhood. A kensho event is usually triggered by some sensory event. In the Buddha's case it was seeing the planet Venus rise in the morning sky. One ZM got the whole shebang when he heard a pebble strike a bamboo fence. ZM Seung Sahn had a huge kensho upon hearing a temple gong reverberate in a valley below him. One ZM had a big kensho when he smelled peach blossoms. The kensho I had was triggered by the ringing of a telephone. Katsuki Sekida's kensho was triggered when he repeated a passage from a book he had read the day before. Helen Courtois's kensho began while staring at a small desk in her bedroom. After Hakuin's first kensho, he thought that he had become enlightened, but his master just laughed at him. After a second kensho, his master kicked him off the porch of the monastery into the mud and laughed at him again. After his third kensho, his master no longer made fun of him, but it was something like ten more years before Hakuin attained what he called "the essence of Zen." It's unfortunate that most ZM's have not described in detail exactly what happened to them along the pathless path. The experiential facets are all ultimately subjective. This isn't the detract from their potential transformative value, but it does limit the extent they can be shared. The kensho/satori model is ultimately as potentially limited/limiting as any other conception - like, say a trinity  - which doesn't detract from it's meaning, especially if one is willing to open their minds about what they might not yet have realized/experience, and to what other's might have. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2021 9:09:36 GMT -5
Indeed, it can be quite funny, but in the Zen tradition it's considered very bad form to say anything about yourself that might make you seem "special," so this is a limiting factor in that tradition as far as writing about what happened to oneself. Fortunately, on this forum, and in the TAT organization, there is no such limiting factor, so one can talk about many things that Zen people might consider off limits. Some personal accounts are far more descriptive than others, and because I like stories, I'm totally down with those kinds of accounts. I'd say that the point of calling it "pathless path" is to emphasize that there is "no one-size-fits-all path" to follow, so describing one's experience in anyway would become a hindrance for those who would learn about it, and be thrown off their own paths. The only source of knowledge and guidance, beyond some early initiation, should be looked for only inwards: no description, nor teaching from external sources, beyond the early steps. This kind of formulations, like "pathless path" may be misleading to the honest ignorant seeker, and a signal of pretension from the stupid seeker. There are people who learn a jargon and parrot it, carelessly misleading others. Someone as described is looking for the commonality in experience to relate to, and those descriptions of experience can be as much of a catalytic initial invitation as hindrance, or, (probably most commonly), an initial catalyst which may or may not become a hindrance. For instance, what led you to pursue your practice of self-hypnosis? At the very least, it took some sort of cultural cue for you to be able to describe the practice with that term. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2021 10:21:23 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Four5. The body is a form composed of the five-fold sheath; therefore, all the five sheaths are implied in the term, body. Apart from the body does the world exist? Has anyone seen the world without the body? Commentary: The five-fold sheath is a Vedantic idea that understands the body-mind to be a complex which includes five layers, like an onion. Each layer in some sense is the product of the layers within it, and in some sense produces the layers outside it. The outer-most layer is the physical organs. Then comes the prana, or physiological energy. Then is said to be the seat of the emotions. Then, within that is our ability to reason and to decide. And finally within that is the ego, the sense that “I am.” Note that this sense, too, is actually just a layer, just as insentient as all the other layers. It claims to be conscious, claims to be deciding and feeling and all the other layers, but it can no more do those things than a piece of paper can actually think and feel. It is only when the light of consciousness hits that insentient “I am” thought that the reflected consciousness appears to experience the world. The body, however, is a kind of instrument for seeing the world, much like a novel is an instrument for experiencing a fictional universe. When readers read a book, they project an imaginary landscape peopled by imaginary people. Both the reader and the book are required for this to happen. So the body establishes boundaries and mental concepts which are the tools by which everything else seems to be experienced. The world as we know it is always the world as perceived and cognized by the body (where the body is understood to include all the mental and emotional instruments together). At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. One thing that you and other's repeat sometimes is the distinction between realization and experience, and how - in my words - there is no experience of the existential truth. I see the value in that pointing. Quite deeply. On the other hand, what Ramana is saying here implicates what I refer to as altered states of consciousness. States where the sense of personal boundary has disappeared. ZD - as one example, there are other's, many that have nothing to do with nonduality - has written in depth and quite well on this topic, and allows for how these are states that come and go, so, not necessarily to be confused with the finality and timelessness and formlessness of realization. But, still. There is a significance here, but it's very difficult to say anything universal about it, especially given the level of subjectivity involved. Yes, I think I agree with you. I often talk about "glimpses" and their importance in the search... they are experiences when recollected by the mind, but, in themselves, could be considered simply the Truth. So the experience-realization distinction is not absolute.
It's something along the lines of a debate in Vedanta as to whether Self-Knowledge happens in the mind or it doesn't... the answer is, there are arguments either way, but the final answer is simply beyond language. The Self may be said to be an experience of the subtlest of the subtlest, or the pure light of the intellect in itself. It may be said to be that... or it may be said to be beyond that. Distinctions without a difference, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 10, 2021 13:10:30 GMT -5
I'd say that the point of calling it "pathless path" is to emphasize that there is "no one-size-fits-all path" to follow, so describing one's experience in anyway would become a hindrance for those who would learn about it, and be thrown off their own paths. The only source of knowledge and guidance, beyond some early initiation, should be looked for only inwards: no description, nor teaching from external sources, beyond the early steps. This kind of formulations, like "pathless path" may be misleading to the honest ignorant seeker, and a signal of pretension from the stupid seeker. There are people who learn a jargon and parrot it, carelessly misleading others. Someone as described is looking for the commonality in experience to relate to, and those descriptions of experience can be as much of a catalytic initial invitation as hindrance, or, (probably most commonly), an initial catalyst which may or may not become a hindrance. For instance, what led you to pursue your practice of self-hypnosis? At the very least, it took some sort of cultural cue for you to be able to describe the practice with that term. To some extent my point is to show a man your way of fishing, not to give him fish, or tell him your way is the only way. What I call self-hypnosis is a tool, not a way, even less a goal or an experience. I keep reading and browsing a lot, but I'm not looking for "what it is", but for stimulative ideas. I don't advocate against intelligence or reasoning, but for synergistically using them with intuition. The kind of truth we try to glimpse is beyond reasoning. Even if somebody shows it to us, we aren't able to discern if that's true or not. I believe that practically all the claimants of realization fool themselves to some degree; most are way off. Even those who glimpse some aspect of the truth distort it. People die believing fabulations, then experience them as reality for awhile. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 11, 2021 13:26:10 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Seven8. UNDER WHATEVER NAME AND FORM ONE MAY WORSHIP THE ABSOLUTE REALITY, IT IS ONLY A MEANS FOR REALIZING IT WITHOUT NAME AND FORM. THAT ALONE IS TRUE REALIZATION WHEREIN ONE KNOWS ONESELF IN RELATION TO THAT REALITY, ATTAINS PEACE AND REALIZES ONE'S IDENTITY WITH IT. Commentary: Reality or Perfection can be known under many names and forms, but these are only tools for getting beyond those names and forms. We’re looking for a perfection beyond limits, and names and forms are inevitably limits and boundaries. The only spiritual realization worth having is to pass beyond the prison of name and form and recognize your identity with the formless, into which your identity dissolves like a drop of water into the ocean. Or, to be more precise, where you recognize that you never were that drop of water in the first place. This alone brings real, lasting peace. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 11, 2021 23:21:56 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? To understand what I meant by a sense of integration, consider the lessening of internal conflict one might experience during therapy. Every now and then, the question presents - quite naturally - in a dialog .. "how many people are there in your head, anyway?  ". For me, as I recall, this was a visceral felt sense that sort of settling happened in waves during my life. Interesting bringing up the Janus character as a metaphor for that bi-directionaly. He gets a bad rap in our culture. I think because the ambiguity makes people anxious as to the absence of relative foundation it suggests. Patrick Stewart played a character named "Sir Janus" in the '70's PBS production of I, Claudius that's worth a peek. As far as the provisional distinctions, my casual Advaita reads suggest that's a method, and I see the value in it. For me, personally, many of these distinctions didn't even occur to me until after they were long past of any use. So, that's another perspective on them: the boat on the far shore after you've left it. It's still a boat, you just don't need it anymore. Maybe someone else can use it, maybe not. Seems to me that being able to discern that case as it happens is what distinguishes a solitary "sage" from a "teacher". It occurs to me that the most secular version of a trinity I can conceive of would be: (1) Observer (personal subjective) (2) Observed (perceived) (3) Totality (impersonal perspective) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 11, 2021 23:31:54 GMT -5
Yes, that seems to be the consensus view in most ND circles, but my point, and that of Reefs, is that it's not an experience in any ordinary sense because there is no separate identifiable experiencer present, no time, no space, and no separation. Most importantly, such "events" (which I prefer to call them), can often result in numerous major realizations, and the infinite nature of THIS is directly apprehensible. Apparently, judging by what the Buddha told his followers, his awakening was a single CC, and it's probable that this was true for Ramana as well as a few others. Unlike most people who have CC's, the Buddha, Ramana, and a few others did not come away from those events thinking that they were SVP's who had had a CC. The CC's were so complete that they eliminated the illusion of the SVP as well as revealing the infinite nature and mind-bogglingness of THIS. Isn't what you describe a "woo-woo" experience? And for some folks here, I think Reefs included, "woo-woo" is an SR no-no. woo-woo's that involve a radical shift in perspective can have value for relating to others in a number of contexts and this value has the potential to outweigh the potential for attachment to the experience or the impetus to either chase or avoid a similar experience. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 15, 2021 19:41:58 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Eight9. THE DUALITY OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT AND TRINITY OF SEER, SIGHT, AND SEEN CAN EXIST ONLY IF SUPPORTED BY THE ONE. IF ONE TURNS INWARD IN SEARCH OF THAT ONE REALITY THEY FALL AWAY. THOSE WHO SEE THIS ARE THOSE WHO SEE WISDOM. THEY ARE NEVER IN DOUBT. Commentary: Experiencing the outside world, thoughts, feelings, or anything at all always happens by a division between the seer, the seen, and the actual act of seeing. This trio, which comes and goes, and which has no life of its own, can only exist if supported by something which does not come and go, and which is fundamentally aware and alive, though in a profoundly different way in which we might normally understand those terms. The One seems to cover itself up with thought and then it becomes these three instruments. But in fact these instruments are changing, transient, and therefore impermanent. They depend on not noticing the One that supports them. If that One is seen, it’s like a magician whose trick is seen through, or the cartoon coyote who, having walked over a cliff and gone 100 steps, suddenly looks down and falls. Instantly the suspension of disbelief is gone. Again, this is because the seeing and the seen depend on there being a boundary between the me (the seer) and not-me. If there was no boundary, or distance, between me and something else, I could never say I saw it. But the me that this depends on is itself an ‘in here,’ me, small, atomic, indivisible — the ego. It assumes to itself the glory of the light of the One which it merely reflects. Like a candle next to the Sun, as soon as we see the Sun, the candle becomes invisible. Once the me cannot stand, the not-me (the seen and the act of seeing) cannot stand either. They exist only if the seer exists. So if we turn attention inward away from the changing objects looking for the One, the usual trio of division falls away. Those who see and understand this are the ones who are truly realized. They are never in doubt, because the mind is the instrument of doubt, and that instrument is only credited if the One is not seen. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 20, 2021 21:23:05 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Nine10. ORDINARY KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY IGNORANCE, AND IGNORANCE BY KNOWLEDGE; THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE IS THAT BY WHICH ONE KNOWS THE SELF THROUGH ENQUIRING WHOSE IS THE KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE. Commentary: Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of things. Knowledge of anything rests on innumerable assumptions about logic, about the reliability of the instruments of perception, about the interpretation of what is perceived, about how the laws of nature work, and so on. The more you know of the world, the more questions there are, as each fresh new piece of knowledge brings questions about how it relates to the rest. And these doubts and problems multiply, so that our current state of knowledge of the world, while quite sophisticated, also admits an enormous amount of ignorance. Ordinary knowledge requires making assumptions and simplifying the world, and continuously raises doubts. This is because the instruments of that knowledge are imperfect. The only knowledge beyond doubt, therefore, cannot be that ordinary knowledge of objects. This ordinary knowledge and the ordinary world of objects is sustained by the assumption that there is an I “in here” which observes the world “out there.” It is this I which supposedly possesses this ordinary knowledge. But if we look into who this I is, it suddenly becomes elusive, and if this elusiveness is pursued, it turns out to be an artifact of the movement of thought. The I that we think we are, we are not. And if we chase that I with sufficient intention, attention, and concentration, we will eventually slow the illusion-promoting dance of desire and thought long enough to see through it. And in seeing through it, the Self we actually are will shine. That shining will destroy the illusion that there is an I “in here” as opposed to the world “out there.” That shining, then, will be beyond boundaries, and being beyond boundaries, is beyond time, space, and change — and therefore beyond doubt. This is not a knowledge “of” something. This is not a knowledge “that” something is the case. This is simply Knowledge per se, the pure light of knowing itself. That Knowledge alone is true, pure, absolute, and beyond doubt, because it is that medium within which the very instrument of doubt, which is the mind, operates. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2021 10:08:29 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Nine10. ORDINARY KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY IGNORANCE, AND IGNORANCE BY KNOWLEDGE; THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE IS THAT BY WHICH ONE KNOWS THE SELF THROUGH ENQUIRING WHOSE IS THE KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE. Commentary: Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of things. Knowledge of anything rests on innumerable assumptions about logic, about the reliability of the instruments of perception, about the interpretation of what is perceived, about how the laws of nature work, and so on. The more you know of the world, the more questions there are, as each fresh new piece of knowledge brings questions about how it relates to the rest. And these doubts and problems multiply, so that our current state of knowledge of the world, while quite sophisticated, also admits an enormous amount of ignorance. Ordinary knowledge requires making assumptions and simplifying the world, and continuously raises doubts. This is because the instruments of that knowledge are imperfect. The only knowledge beyond doubt, therefore, cannot be that ordinary knowledge of objects. This ordinary knowledge and the ordinary world of objects is sustained by the assumption that there is an I “in here” which observes the world “out there.” It is this I which supposedly possesses this ordinary knowledge. But if we look into who this I is, it suddenly becomes elusive, and if this elusiveness is pursued, it turns out to be an artifact of the movement of thought. The I that we think we are, we are not. And if we chase that I with sufficient intention, attention, and concentration, we will eventually slow the illusion-promoting dance of desire and thought long enough to see through it. And in seeing through it, the Self we actually are will shine. That shining will destroy the illusion that there is an I “in here” as opposed to the world “out there.” That shining, then, will be beyond boundaries, and being beyond boundaries, is beyond time, space, and change — and therefore beyond doubt. This is not a knowledge “of” something. This is not a knowledge “that” something is the case. This is simply Knowledge per se, the pure light of knowing itself. That Knowledge alone is true, pure, absolute, and beyond doubt, because it is that medium within which the very instrument of doubt, which is the mind, operates. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. Great comments sifty .. thoughtful, deep, with a deliberate feel to them. I have to opine though, that it seems to me quite common that someone might inquire as to the nature of "I" and find it anything but elusive. In Zen the seeker has to see the bulls tail, and Christians have to open themselves to God's love. I'd guess an effective initial inquiry is, for many, a major shift in perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 24, 2021 2:24:01 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Nine10. ORDINARY KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY IGNORANCE, AND IGNORANCE BY KNOWLEDGE; THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE IS THAT BY WHICH ONE KNOWS THE SELF THROUGH ENQUIRING WHOSE IS THE KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE. Commentary: Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of things. Knowledge of anything rests on innumerable assumptions about logic, about the reliability of the instruments of perception, about the interpretation of what is perceived, about how the laws of nature work, and so on. The more you know of the world, the more questions there are, as each fresh new piece of knowledge brings questions about how it relates to the rest. And these doubts and problems multiply, so that our current state of knowledge of the world, while quite sophisticated, also admits an enormous amount of ignorance. Ordinary knowledge requires making assumptions and simplifying the world, and continuously raises doubts. This is because the instruments of that knowledge are imperfect. The only knowledge beyond doubt, therefore, cannot be that ordinary knowledge of objects. This ordinary knowledge and the ordinary world of objects is sustained by the assumption that there is an I “in here” which observes the world “out there.” It is this I which supposedly possesses this ordinary knowledge. But if we look into who this I is, it suddenly becomes elusive, and if this elusiveness is pursued, it turns out to be an artifact of the movement of thought. The I that we think we are, we are not. And if we chase that I with sufficient intention, attention, and concentration, we will eventually slow the illusion-promoting dance of desire and thought long enough to see through it. And in seeing through it, the Self we actually are will shine. That shining will destroy the illusion that there is an I “in here” as opposed to the world “out there.” That shining, then, will be beyond boundaries, and being beyond boundaries, is beyond time, space, and change — and therefore beyond doubt. This is not a knowledge “of” something. This is not a knowledge “that” something is the case. This is simply Knowledge per se, the pure light of knowing itself. That Knowledge alone is true, pure, absolute, and beyond doubt, because it is that medium within which the very instrument of doubt, which is the mind, operates. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. Great comments sifty .. thoughtful, deep, with a deliberate feel to them. I have to opine though, t hat it seems to me quite common that someone might inquire as to the nature of "I" and find it anything but elusive. In Zen the seeker has to see the bulls tail, and Christians have to open themselves to God's love. I'd guess an effective initial inquiry is, for many, a major shift in perspective. Thanks! And, well, it's interesting. There's two ways in which the above might be true, and both speak to your point. One way is what I'd call the relative -- but still crucial -- understanding of the I as the individual waking witness. For some people, simply seeing this to be the case is already a big deal, and there's a recognition even there that even as the storm of life events happens, something, namely that witness, remains unruffled. The recognition and falling back upon this relatively-continuous witness can already produce a powerful peace, at least for a while, in many people. And there is a second way, which is what I think you are really alluding to... which is a glimpse of Truth. And absolutely, that sighting of the bull's tail can certainly effect a profound a shift in perspective, and is usually a necessary (if not always sufficient) motivation to take the spiritual search seriously... One taste of that honey can drive a person mad with longing for more  |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jul 25, 2021 0:26:53 GMT -5
Seems like forty verses too many by Ramana lol
To much yapping and to much commentary ABOUT the yapping haha
Unless of course, you enjoy it :-)
|
|
- which doesn't detract from it's meaning, especially if one is willing to open their minds about what they might not yet have realized/experience, and to what other's might have. 