Dispassion

[egodust]

> At 03:47 PM 6/7/96 GMT, egodust wrote:
>
>  > Agree wholeheartedly.  Well put, too. However, from the naive mundane
>  > standpoint (which is where the [impossible dream of] ego operates)
>  > the implication is "how attached we THINK we are..."
>
>
> IAN: This, I believe, brings up the matter of levels in nondualist
> teachings. Is it proper to tailor statements about the absolute
> truth to accommodate different "levels"? If so why?
>

Any statement regarding Parabrahmam (Absolute Being) is necessarily
false; because the Limitless cannot be circumscribed by any thought, word or
deed.  Yet, the 'tailoring of statements about the absolute' is necessary
as a means to pull the Mind out of its relativity trap.  Once that's
accomplished, such concepts become obsolete.

>  >Ian:
>  >> The attachment of internal mind (A) to external world (~A) is
>  >> a logical expression of their inherent unity. Thus attachment
>  >> is liberation, samsara is nirvana, the light is the dark.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Here again is revealed the silliness of the mind's Commander-in-Chief:
>  > Reason.
>
>
> IAN: Reason is logical thinking. I define logic as simply "that which is
> true." Accordingly, logical thinking is thought that leads to or defines
> the truth. Logic -- i.e., the truth -- is the instantaneous reality that
> is the I am-here-now reality free-base. Logical thinking is not a curse
> to be feared but a celebration of the truth. Thought binds no one.
>

As I stated in an earlier post:
Samadhi is allergic to thought.  Thought fractures it like lightning!

Whether it's logical or not, thought, per se, is useful as a *means* to
the end: which is best described as Sat-Chit-Ananda (pure Being; pure
Consciousness; pure Bliss).  Nowhere in the EXPERIENCE ITSELF is thought
upheld as any *active* dynamic *creating* the experience.  Thought (for
example, in the form of a philosophy such as advaita or zen or the tao
or gnostic christianity or kabala, etc.) performs the *vital* function
of hopefully liberating the bound ego from its delusion. Again, when its
mission is accomplished, what the value to preserve it?

>
>  > Of course we're not expected to carry around the information that 1 = 0
>  > or A = ~A.  These are tools devised by mind to dissolve mind.  When the
>  > job is done--like cannon fodder--they're thrown away.
>
>
> IAN: Can we destroy or throw away that which is null and void?
> What is "away" ?
>
> As we know: Atman (I am part) and Brahman (I am whole) are not
> two, (part = whole). Mind and I Am are not two. Everything is
> in I Am, nothing deviates or leads away from I Am. There is
> not two; there is no division, no duality, thus no levels.
>

Yes.  The ajata doctrine of advaita in plain english.

I wrote something last night, and was going to add it to the post before this
one, as an elaboration to what I was trying [and failing] to convey:

The most accurate thing we can say about the nature of sohamidam (God, the Ego,
and the World-appearance) is to say nothing at all.  Silence "outer and inner"
is the supreme answer to the riddle of Life.

HARI OM NAMAH SRI DAKSHINAMOORTHI.
OM SHAANTIH SHAANTIH SHAANTIH.