Click here to go to the next issue.

On REALIZATION

Jody:
>I just got back from an evening with Swami
>Bhaskarananda, who is visiting from the center in
>Seattle. During his talk he spoke about a pure mind,
>and how such was necessary for realization to
>occur. Afterwards I mentioned that such an assertion
>makes realization dependent on a condition, which
>refutes Sankara.

Miguel-Angel:
I don't think that it refutes Sankara. For him,
realization _is_ dependent on the removal of false
beliefs (which he calls ignorance). And we could equate
a pure mind with one without ignorance. Sankara:

Through repeated practice, knowledge purifies the
embodied soul stained by ignorance and then itself
disappears. (Atmabodha 5)

As the sun appears after the destruction of darkness by
dawn, so Atman appears after the destruction of
ignorance by knowledge. (Atmabodha 43)

Though Atman is an ever-present reality, yet because of
ignorance it is unrealized. On the destruction of
ignorance, Atman is realized. (Atmabodha 44)

The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
the jiva or Atman?
Another question I would have asked is How is it that
the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?
~~~
>M. A. [snip] :
>I don't think that it refutes Sankara. For him,
>realization _is_ dependent on the removal of false
>beliefs (which he calls ignorance). And we could equate
>a pure mind with one without ignorance. Sankara:
>
>Through repeated practice, knowledge purifies the
>embodied soul stained by ignorance and then itself
>disappears. (Atmabodha 5)
~~~~~
jody answers:
The Self certainly does not become pure through the
practice of six-limbed yoga. It certainly is not
purified by the destruction of the mind. It certainly
is not made pure by the instructions of the teacher.
It is Itself the Truth, It is Itself the illumined One.

> The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
> purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
> what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
> the jiva or Atman?

I believe he would have replied that the jiva makes the
effort, but Mother does the work.

> Another question I would have asked is How is it that
> the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
> superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
> the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?
>
> Miguel-Angel

I'd say that it is Maya that veils. The mind is more like
a filter, although the Self is present in all minds without
restraint.

--jody.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan:
D: Once it is believed that there is "had" an authority
on reality, there is a belief to be maintained.
There is also that authority's description of reality
that is treated as if it were reality. Without
taking a description for reality, no authority
is necessary, and the duality of statement
about reality (concept), and reality as is (nonconcept),
can be released.

>As the sun appears after the destruction of darkness by
>dawn, so Atman appears after the destruction of
>ignorance by knowledge. (Atmabodha 43)
>
>Though Atman is an ever-present reality, yet because of
>ignorance it is unrealized. On the destruction of
>ignorance, Atman is realized. (Atmabodha 44)
>
>M.A.: The question I would have asked is Does the mind get
>purified by itself, by experience, by chance, or by
>what? In other words, who is it that purifies the mind,
>the jiva or Atman?

D: Here is an assumption that
there is something called the mind that needs
to be purified. Here is constructed the duality
of mind and that which purifies mind, and the
contrary states of ignorance and realization.
Who is it that will move from ignorance to
realization? Who is constructing these dualities
and then trying to rectify them?
If awareness is direct, there
will be an ending of the dualistic assumptions
that bring continuing perplexity and contradiction.

>M.A.
>Another question I would have asked is How is it that
>the mind, which according to Sankara is an imaginary
>superimposition on the Brahman substratum, yet can have
>the power to veil the reality of Atman-Brahman?

D: Brahman is simply a word denoting
what is beyond a word: unsplit "here, now, this".
Prior to a thought to get from here to there,
where is the veil? Prior to a belief in
an obstructing entity, where is the obstruction?
Noticing carefully, the inference of an entity
who can move from here to there, of an obstruction
confronting a separable being - that inference
is the only veil.
________________________________________

on PROJECTING

Michael:

If there is a mind
and if the mind is projecting images on a screen,
where does the mind project from
and to whom does it project to?

Is there one mind or two minds, or many minds
or am I just going out of my mind?

Yeah, yeah, probably, most likely, the latter.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste,
so the TV ad says...who's mind are they referring to?

Be still my mind and know and be and just experience the isness of what is,

~~~~

Whose mind? Well, the "who" depends on the assumption of a mind, and the
"mind" depends on the assumption of a who. Since neither one of these
assumptions can stand on its own without the other, neither one is real.

--Greg
______________________________________________

Michael:

>
>How does one get to direct awareness?

D: Without moving from here.

>
>How does one stop the nagging questions?

D: By realizing there is no place
for them to occur. They
seem to attempt to exist,
but never can. They seem
to refer to something, but
never do.

>
>Welcome Back,

I never left you ;-)

Blessed be,
Dan

______________________________________________

Melody posts from Osho's "In Search of the Miraculous"


"If I stand on the top of the mountain and see the sea,
I will definitely see the sea, but from a distance. I
will not have stood at the shore; I will not have touched
or tasted of its waters; I will not have dived into it or
bathed in it. I have seen the sea from the top of the
mountain. Would you call this experience partial?

No. And in spite of the fact that I did not touch
even a drop of the ocean, you cannot call my
experience inauthentic. I have seen the ocean from
the top of a mountain even though I have not become
one with it. In the same way you can see the soul
from the topmost peak of your body.

The body too has its peak- its peak experiences.
If you have a very deep experience of the body
you can get a glimpse of the soul in it....."

"......Many times such a man makes the mistake of
thinking that this experience is enough. This experience
can be had from music, from poetry, from natural
beauty and from other such things. But all these are
faraway peaks."

"....All the same, it is not unauthentic; it is elementary.
The elementary experience can take place either in
the body or the mind. And it is not partial; it is complete,
but it is confined to the realm of the mind. It is not the
soul, because in the experience of the soul there is no
coming back."

"So Vivekananda's experience [of samadhi through
contact with Ramakrishna] was an authentic
experience, but its authenticity is psychic and
not spiritual. This too, however, is not a small happening;
it does not happen to all. It requires a very powerful
and matured mind."


Melody: I finally 'get' it. :-)

____________________________________________________________

Larry offers:

A new edition of "All Else Is Bondage" by Wei Wu Wei is available at
your local book store, special order, or Amazon. Here's a piece.

Nowhere, where I am an object, am I; nor where any part of "me" is an
object is it part of me or is mine. Only here where I can see nothing
(but the objective universe) am I--and I am only an absence objectively.

When I realize that, I cease also to be an individual "I",
_for_anything_individual_ is thereby an object.

My objective absence is the presence of pure non-objectivity, which is
just that.

My only existence is non objective, as non-objectivity itself.

I cannot be portrayed in any way, drawn, photographed or described. That
which impersonally I am has no qualities or resemblance to an individual
subject-object, which is purely conceptual.

footnote: A "self", an "ego", any kind of separated personality or
being, is an object. That is why nothing of the kind is--as the Diamond
Sutra so repeatedly insists.

My objective self only has a conceptual existence.

Non-objectively I am the apparent universe.

Identifying myself with my conceptual object is what constitutes
bondage. Realizing that my conceptual object only exists in so far as it
and its subject are this phenomenal absence here and now--constitutes
liberation.

I am my phenomenal absence.
-------------------
____________________________________________________________

Tim:


Initially, a deep understanding of that nature would be on the level
of thought... deep enough to affect both the "conscious" and
the "unconscious" levels of thought.

But it seems here that such an understanding can act as a bridge to
something entirely beyond thought. An understanding of that nature
would encourage thought to "see itself" as futile, and *poof*.

That's what I meant when saying "the rest" comes of its own accord.
No endless loop - simply come to the deep understanding or
realization, and then drop it.

top of page