What is Real? Everything

[Ian Goddard]

  At 08:44 PM 6/23/96 GMT, egodust wrote:
  >
  > Samadhi is the annihilation (temporary or permanent) of the
  > ego-Mind.  This, by definition, includes all relative values.


IAN: If we say that state X is absolute and contains no relative attributes,
we've just identified attributes that are unique to X, and that define X as
" X ". As this unique identity of X is unique only * relative * to all
those states that do posses relative attributes, state X is relative.
In this way, the absolute (A) is shown to be relative (~A)
and relativity per se, is show to be absolute;
ergo, A = ~A.


  > Based on what I've discovered, as well as what the sastras
  > overwhelmingly confirm: there is no room for compromise in this.
  > This indicates that ALL concepts and precepts are incapable of
  > [isolated] assertion, including ideas of logic, truth, love,
  > goodness, satva or even samadhi or moksha.  These are all
  > relative values.  Like waves on the ocean or jewelry made of
  > gold, they are polarized concepts unique to the power structure
  > of the phenomenal world.


IAN: There is no data contrary to the Self, thus no quantity
of data represents a departure from the self. Due to the
mechanics of relational identity, the arising of
thoughts is the nonarising of thoughts,
precisely because each concept A is
"A" only relative to a polar -A,
ergo A = A + -A = 0.

Why draw a false division between the Self and the mind?
That assumed division is the only 'mind trap.'


  > Here's a sample from what the sastras tell us:  RIBHU GITA, ch43
  > v29, "The jnani is ... devoid of any thought of bondage or
  > freedom."

IAN: Exactly: if bondage is freedom, if A is ~A, there is no distinction.


  > And TRIPURA RAHASYA, ch18 v156, "The greatest of all
  > delusions is the conviction that knowledge is not a delusion.";

IAN: Knowledge is not other than the Self. If the experience that
the Self contains all things is a delusion, then I am a delusion.


  > IBID, ch22 v14, "There is no doubt that a man realizes the Self
  > only after purging himself of all thoughts."; IBID, ch14 v18,
  > "Samadhi is simply the absence of thoughts."

IAN: To know the nature of thoughts, one must know not-thought.
Knowing not-thought, one perceives that thought and
not-thought are not-two.

Not-thought is not-thought relative to thought, therefore
T is the origin of not-T and vice verse, thus the two
are not-two. Nothing is external to the Self.


  > ... where do the sastras support the
  > claim that the Absolute Reality upholds attributes (thoughts) of
  > any conceivable quality or import, be they thoughts of logic,
  > truth, freedom, or ANY other relative value?!)

IAN: When they observe that the two are not-two.
How about a little noduality here?!  |^)


  >                Nothing knowable shall remain;
  >                For, whatever does,
  >                Then and there
  >                Becomes our ball and chain.

IAN: The Self is never bound. The Self is ever free.
Why all this oppressive and fearful ideation?



Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = {A, ~A}

Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A

absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html

>From  Thu Jun 27 15:55:28 1996
Message-Id: <THU.27.JUN.1996.155528.GMT.>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:55:28 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: The dvaita/advaita debate revisited!
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <M.062696.193525.15 at ddi.digital.net>

Hello,

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:35:25 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:

>Greetings Friends.  Namaste.
>
>I was surprised the other day to find an adherent of dvaita write
>a favorable note to me.  In fact, he's the webmaster for THE DVAITA
>HOME PAGE (http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html), Shrisha Rao,
>who also informed me that he already included a link to my site
>(obviously dedicated to advaita: http://ddi.digital.net/~egodust).
>Quite interesting, no?
>
>At any rate, I just finished scribing a letter to him, offering
>my opinion on the need to transcend not only the dvaitic but
>the advaitic approach as well.
>
>For anyone interested, here's a copy of the letter:
>

And I'm sure his reply will be:

" The states you talk about are only a small part of the glorious being of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead.

To merge into Brahman is to lose the opportunity of becoming something far
more and far better - the eternal servant, devotee, and lover of the Lord,
Narayana. "

etc. etc.

------------------

It's not something that one can determine for sure, until one has been both
Sri Radha and Ramana Maharshi.  :-)

Actually, probably the only person who has done so, and has written about it,
is Sri Ramakrishna, and his writings on Personal God vs. Advaita are of
interest [ and can be obtained at vedanta at aol.com (to whom I have no
connection) ].


Namaskar,

Ken
kstuart at mail.telis.org

"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self.  Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski