|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2021 15:55:04 GMT -5
(** facepalm **)- modern interpretation of the entirety of the Diamond Sutra Oh shoot, now you've got me intrigued. What's the difference between the ancient and modern interpretations? (** prudently retreats into silence **) -- but not before smiling like a fortune cookie ...
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 3, 2021 11:33:58 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Twelve13. THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE, IS THE ONLY REALITY. KNOWLEDGE OF MULTIPLICITY IS FALSE KNOWLEDGE. THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS REALLY IGNORANCE, CANNOT EXIST APART FROM THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE-REALITY. THE VARIETY OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IS UNREAL, SINCE NONE OF THEM CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE GOLD OF WHICH THEY ARE ALL MADE. Commentary: Reality is what is unchanging. Objects of experience — thoughts, feelings, exceptions, the world — have boundaries that are subject to change. They seem to be independent, but they are all merely manifestations of the medium of which they are made, just as a golden ring is not independent of the gold of which it is made. Even that may be going too far, since even to say that they are manifestations of a medium requires the egoic perspective. The Self alone is true Knowledge, and the knowledge of objects, which assumes the reality of the ego, is therefore false. It’s false, not quite in the sense of being incorrect, but more in the sense of being meaningless. It appears to be meaningful, but it is only so if we assume the ego is true. But if the ego is investigated, it is seen to be untrue — or, to be precise, it is not what it seems to be. That means all the objects which are seen through it are also not what they seem to be. The meaning that comes from those objects is also not what it seems to be. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 3, 2021 12:02:26 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Twelve13. THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE, IS THE ONLY REALITY. KNOWLEDGE OF MULTIPLICITY IS FALSE KNOWLEDGE. THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS REALLY IGNORANCE, CANNOT EXIST APART FROM THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE-REALITY. THE VARIETY OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IS UNREAL, SINCE NONE OF THEM CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE GOLD OF WHICH THEY ARE ALL MADE. Commentary: Reality is what is unchanging. Objects of experience — thoughts, feelings, exceptions, the world — have boundaries that are subject to change. They seem to be independent, but they are all merely manifestations of the medium of which they are made, just as a golden ring is not independent of the gold of which it is made. Even that may be going too far, since even to say that they are manifestations of a medium requires the egoic perspective. The Self alone is true Knowledge, and the knowledge of objects, which assumes the reality of the ego, is therefore false. It’s false, not quite in the sense of being incorrect, but more in the sense of being meaningless. It appears to be meaningful, but it is only so if we assume the ego is true. But if the ego is investigated, it is seen to be untrue — or, to be precise, it is not what it seems to be. That means all the objects which are seen through it are also not what they seem to be. The meaning that comes from those objects is also not what it seems to be. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. It can't get any clearer than that. Nice interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 3, 2021 13:03:27 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Twelve13. THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE, IS THE ONLY REALITY. KNOWLEDGE OF MULTIPLICITY IS FALSE KNOWLEDGE. THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS REALLY IGNORANCE, CANNOT EXIST APART FROM THE SELF, WHICH IS KNOWLEDGE-REALITY. THE VARIETY OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IS UNREAL, SINCE NONE OF THEM CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE GOLD OF WHICH THEY ARE ALL MADE. Commentary: Reality is what is unchanging. Objects of experience — thoughts, feelings, exceptions, the world — have boundaries that are subject to change. They seem to be independent, but they are all merely manifestations of the medium of which they are made, just as a golden ring is not independent of the gold of which it is made. Even that may be going too far, since even to say that they are manifestations of a medium requires the egoic perspective. The Self alone is true Knowledge, and the knowledge of objects, which assumes the reality of the ego, is therefore false. It’s false, not quite in the sense of being incorrect, but more in the sense of being meaningless. It appears to be meaningful, but it is only so if we assume the ego is true. But if the ego is investigated, it is seen to be untrue — or, to be precise, it is not what it seems to be. That means all the objects which are seen through it are also not what they seem to be. The meaning that comes from those objects is also not what it seems to be. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. It can't get any clearer than that. Nice interpretation. Thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 23:49:52 GMT -5
Who did the translation?
David Goldman is in town at present. He did some translation whilst in India.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 8, 2021 9:51:55 GMT -5
Who did the translation? David Goldman is in town at present. He did some translation whilst in India. It's an anonymous translation, but Arthur Osborne is believed to be the translator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 20:09:29 GMT -5
Sorry, got it wrong; G o d m a n the surname, auto correct acting-out as thought Police.
Ty for answering.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 9, 2021 13:24:33 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Thirteen14. IF THE FIRST PERSON, I, EXISTS, THEN THE SECOND AND THIRD PERSONS, YOU AND HE, WILL ALSO EXIST. BY ENQUIRING INTO THE NATURE OF THE I, THE I PERISHES. WITH IT 'YOU' AND 'HE' ALSO PERISH. THE RESULTANT STATE, WHICH SHINES AS ABSOLUTE BEING, IS ONE'S OWN NATURAL STATE, THE SELF. Commentary: If I believe that I exist as an independent entity, then I can draw a boundary between I and the not-I. That not-I will include you, and will include he, she, and it. It’s all founded on the idea that I am a separate, doing, experiencing person. Otherwise none of these boundaries, none of these names and forms, could be created. But if we look into the nature of this seeming I, which is nothing other than the ego, it vanishes. When all the ‘not-I’ is cut away, what remains has no boundary. But the not-me was created by being contrasted by a bounded I. Other things can only exist against a background of a “me” that is solid, against which they can be contrasted. If that I with boundaries is actually something infinite, meaning non-bounded, everything else that is drawn with reference to it cannot be sustained. Without a solid, bounded I, the not-I cannot be sustained. That creates a kind of cascading black hole. All the objects, feelings, ideas, people, memories — in short, all experience, only makes sense if they occur to an I. If that I is not what it seems to be, then experience is not what it seems to be. What remains beyond boundaries is the natural state, the Self. This is the natural state because every other state is merely a thought, and so comes and goes. This natural state is unchanging. It is beyond concepts, indescribable. It is natural because it cannot be the product of any process and so cannot be altered by any process. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2021 7:28:44 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Thirteen14. IF THE FIRST PERSON, I, EXISTS, THEN THE SECOND AND THIRD PERSONS, YOU AND HE, WILL ALSO EXIST. BY ENQUIRING INTO THE NATURE OF THE I, THE I PERISHES. WITH IT 'YOU' AND 'HE' ALSO PERISH. THE RESULTANT STATE, WHICH SHINES AS ABSOLUTE BEING, IS ONE'S OWN NATURAL STATE, THE SELF. Commentary: If I believe that I exist as an independent entity, then I can draw a boundary between I and the not-I. That not-I will include you, and will include he, she, and it. It’s all founded on the idea that I am a separate, doing, experiencing person. Otherwise none of these boundaries, none of these names and forms, could be created. But if we look into the nature of this seeming I, which is nothing other than the ego, it vanishes. When all the ‘not-I’ is cut away, what remains has no boundary. But the not-me was created by being contrasted by a bounded I. Other things can only exist against a background of a “me” that is solid, against which they can be contrasted. If that I with boundaries is actually something infinite, meaning non-bounded, everything else that is drawn with reference to it cannot be sustained. Without a solid, bounded I, the not-I cannot be sustained. That creates a kind of cascading black hole. All the objects, feelings, ideas, people, memories — in short, all experience, only makes sense if they occur to an I. If that I is not what it seems to be, then experience is not what it seems to be. What remains beyond boundaries is the natural state, the Self. This is the natural state because every other state is merely a thought, and so comes and goes. This natural state is unchanging. It is beyond concepts, indescribable. It is natural because it cannot be the product of any process and so cannot be altered by any process. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. What Ramana says about " .. 'You' and 'He' also perishes .." seems to me at the root of many of the more involved dialogs and sustained objections on this forum over the years. For one example, "there is no 'I'" or "your sense of personal 'I' is the basis of an illusion" often elicits contempt, a sort of fear-based knee-jerk reaction. As another (on the opposite end of the spectrum) it's the way that reefs tries to resolve the apparent conundrum of "not knowing if other people are real" - by challenging the notion with the pointer that "there are no others". For me, personally, the crescendo of questioning was instead focused on "physical" perception, on "me", and "the world". I mean .. the hell with other people, right? .. but seriously, this is always going to be the crux of the seeking (done consciously, or not), some form of a refined, distilled duality/dichotomy, and there's no denying the convincing nature of the unique, sensory perspective centered on the individual. As you say, it's not what people think it is, and I appreciate your focus in the commentary on guiding the seeker in how to proceed with confronting what I think of as the existential dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 11, 2021 10:05:26 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Thirteen14. IF THE FIRST PERSON, I, EXISTS, THEN THE SECOND AND THIRD PERSONS, YOU AND HE, WILL ALSO EXIST. BY ENQUIRING INTO THE NATURE OF THE I, THE I PERISHES. WITH IT 'YOU' AND 'HE' ALSO PERISH. THE RESULTANT STATE, WHICH SHINES AS ABSOLUTE BEING, IS ONE'S OWN NATURAL STATE, THE SELF. Commentary: If I believe that I exist as an independent entity, then I can draw a boundary between I and the not-I. That not-I will include you, and will include he, she, and it. It’s all founded on the idea that I am a separate, doing, experiencing person. Otherwise none of these boundaries, none of these names and forms, could be created. But if we look into the nature of this seeming I, which is nothing other than the ego, it vanishes. When all the ‘not-I’ is cut away, what remains has no boundary. But the not-me was created by being contrasted by a bounded I. Other things can only exist against a background of a “me” that is solid, against which they can be contrasted. If that I with boundaries is actually something infinite, meaning non-bounded, everything else that is drawn with reference to it cannot be sustained. Without a solid, bounded I, the not-I cannot be sustained. That creates a kind of cascading black hole. All the objects, feelings, ideas, people, memories — in short, all experience, only makes sense if they occur to an I. If that I is not what it seems to be, then experience is not what it seems to be. What remains beyond boundaries is the natural state, the Self. This is the natural state because every other state is merely a thought, and so comes and goes. This natural state is unchanging. It is beyond concepts, indescribable. It is natural because it cannot be the product of any process and so cannot be altered by any process. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here. What Ramana says about " .. 'You' and 'He' also perishes .." seems to me at the root of many of the more involved dialogs and sustained objections on this forum over the years. For one example, "there is no 'I'" or "your sense of personal 'I' is the basis of an illusion" often elicits contempt, a sort of fear-based knee-jerk reaction. As another (on the opposite end of the spectrum) it's the way that reefs tries to resolve the apparent conundrum of "not knowing if other people are real" - by challenging the notion with the pointer that "there are no others". For me, personally, the crescendo of questioning was instead focused on "physical" perception, on "me", and "the world". I mean .. the hell with other people, right? .. but seriously, this is always going to be the crux of the seeking (done consciously, or not), some form of a refined, distilled duality/dichotomy, and there's no denying the convincing nature of the unique, sensory perspective centered on the individual. As you say, it's not what people think it is, and I appreciate your focus in the commentary on guiding the seeker in how to proceed with confronting what I think of as the existential dilemma. Yeah, that's why Ramana sometimes recommended to seekers that they provisionally adopt "eka jiva vada" -- the belief that there is only one perceiver.
As far as the unique, sensory perspective, all we can say about it is that it is what it is what it is, whatever that is. It's so beyond words we cannot even refer to it.
So, even more accurately:
In the end, that's what we're pushed to if accuracy if of first importance.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 16, 2021 14:58:34 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Fourteen15. ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT CAN THE PAST AND THE FUTURE EXIST. THEY TOO, WHILE CURRENT, ARE THE PRESENT. TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE PAST AND THE FUTURE WHILE IGNORING THE PRESENT IS LIKE TRYING TO COUNT WITHOUT THE UNIT. Commentary: It’s only the now that gives meaning to the past and the future, and when we think of the past and future, it’s always in the present that we seem to do it. Our minds are often absorbed in what has been and what is yet to come while we fail to examine the mystery of which they are made: the right now. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 22, 2021 14:39:07 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Fifteen16. APART FROM US, WHERE IS TIME AND WHERE IS SPACE? IF WE ARE BODIES, WE ARE INVOLVED IN TIME AND SPACE, BUT ARE WE? WE ARE ONE AND IDENTICAL NOW, THEN, AND FOREVER, HERE, AND EVERYWHERE. THEREFORE WE, TIMELESS, AND SPACELESS BEING, ALONE ARE. Commentary: Time and space are only seem to exist through the lens of the mind. The essence of that lens is a sense of individuality that splits things into a me and a not-me. Without these boundaries, the mind could not make its distinctions, including the distinctions of time and space. Time is a product of memory. Space is a way of organizing physical objects. Both are products of thought, which depends upon the notion of the thinker, the doer — the egoic I. If the egoic sense is right, then we are bodies and minds, and caught up in time and space. But if the ego is examined carefully, the mind is reduced to silence. It then becomes clear that there is no one to say that we are thinking, that we are in space, or that there is a past, a present, or a future. This is in fact the eternal truth, that seems merely to be obscured at various times by the thoughts of individuality. We are not really bodies caught up in space and time. Those are merely categories dependent on the illusory ego. That ego penetrated — or more accurately, revealed never to have existed in the way that it seemed to exist — what remains is beyond time and space — and always has been. That we are. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 27, 2021 23:42:23 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Sixteen17. TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT REALIZED THE SELF, AS WELL AS TO THOSE WHO HAVE, THE WORD 'I' REFERS TO THE BODY, BUT WITH THIS DIFFERENCE, THAT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT REALIZED, THE 'I' IS CONFINED TO THE BODY WHEREAS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE REALIZED THE SELF WITHIN THE BODY THE 'I' SHINES AS THE LIMITLESS SELF. Commentary: For those who have not realized the Self, the I is basically founded in the body (which includes the mind) and its attachments and linkages. For those who have, so to say, realized the Self, the I is not grounded in the body. The body is seen as merely a mirror for something which is not actually in the body — any more than the Sun reflected in a puddle is actually in the puddle. The I can refer to the body, as a convenient way of naming a limited entity. But that limited entity is seen as nothing other than a reflection of the Self, which has no limits. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 3, 2021 23:18:18 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Seventeen18. TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT REALIZED (THE SELF) AS WELL AS TO THOSE WHO HAVE, THE WORLD IS REAL. BUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT REALIZED, TRUTH IS ADAPTED TO THE MEASURE OF THE WORLD, WHEREAS TO THOSE THAT HAVE, TRUTH SHINES AS THE FORMLESS PERFECTION, AND AS THE SUBSTRATUM OF THE WORLD. THIS IS ALL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. Commentary: The phenomenon called the world might be said to appear to both the realized and the non-realized. But the realized view it as nothing other than a modification of the Self, which alone is considered the real truth. The only actual truth is known to be formless and beyond the mind. The world is real only as the Self, but the Self is beyond the egoic thought that says “I am, and therefore the world is.” So the world is real only as the Self, but the Self does not think the thought that acknowledges the existence of the world. For the realized ones, then, what appears to be thinking, feeling, perceiving and acting are nothing but the Self that does not admit any of those activities. In other words, thinking is not thinking, feeling is not feeling, perceiving is not perceiving, and acting is not acting. These are not real in themselves; they are all only the Self. They are not what they seem to be. They are semblances. Whereas for the so-called ones who have not realized, the world is taken to be independently real, and there is thought to be actual truth in it. “This is all the difference between them” — but what a difference! At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 13, 2021 8:52:44 GMT -5
Continued from Verse Eighteen19. ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SOURCE OF DESTINY AND FREE-WILL DISPUTE AS TO WHICH OF THEM PREVAILS. THEY THAT KNOW THE SELF AS THE ONE SOURCE OF DESTINY AND FREE-WILL ARE FREE FROM BOTH. WILL THEY AGAIN GET ENTANGLED IN THEM? Commentary: Free will and destiny are concepts based on the idea that there are real individual minds which could either be free or bound. But when the source of this assumption is investigated, it falls apart. That’s the end of viewing the ego as real. Only if the ego is real — that is, only if there really is a separate, individual, doing, experiencing self — can that self be assessed as either free or bound. Since upon investigation such a self dissolves into the Self, the questions of free will or predetermination are falsely posed. Are the actions of a character in a novel free or bound? Neither, since there is no character, really — there’s merely a set of words on a page which become a hypothetical person in the mind of the reader. Is an elephant you see in a cloud free to wander where it wants? There is no elephant, actually. It is merely the projection of an imagination. Freedom and destiny cannot apply to creatures who are only pretended to exist. At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.
|
|