Absolute truth versus Relative truth (was Re: Guru-disciple

[M Suresh]

> From owner-advaita-l at TAMU.EDU Fri Nov  1 20:01:52 1996
> X-PH: V4.1 at mail
> X-Mailer: Quarterdeck Message Center [1.0]
> Date:         Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:49:08 GMT
> Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
> Sender: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
> From: egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Absolute truth versus Relative truth (was Re: Guru-disciple
> Comments: To: Multiple recipients of list ADVAITA-L <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ADVAITA-L <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
> Content-Length: 4097

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Sri egodust wrote:

> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:09:07 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
[...]
> > If "realization" is already present, then it cannot "begin to dawn".
>
>
> It "begins to dawn" on the investigating jiva (ego-Mind) that underneath
> its limited body parameter is an everpresent and unchanging Being-ness.
> Then the jiva is engulfed by its own dream.  Somehow the conclusion is
> that it never was.  Who can understand this?  No one.
>
> >
> > I think that you are confusing two things, the "Self", ie
> > Atman/Brahman, and "Self-realization".
> >
> > Here is Ramana Maharshi speaking on this subject from the book "The
> > Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi",  page 73:
> >
> > "You are the Self, you are already That.
> > The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance
> > supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self which is Bliss.
> > Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance which is
> > merely wrong knowledge.  The wrong knowledge is the false
> > identification of the self with the body, mind etc.  This False
> > identification must go, and then the Self alone remains. "
> >
> > ====
> >
> > This false identification IS the state of non-realization or
> > non-enlightenment.
>
> If "non-realization" were a "state," it would imply that it's real.
> Is it real?  Or is it just--as Bhagavan says--"wrong knowledge."
> This is the significance of being pulled by something that isn't
> there.  How can it be possible?  It's an incredibly cunning,
> deceptive Mind game.  It's just the way it all *appears*. Verily,
> this is maya!

  What is not real should not need to be defined or mentioned at all.
  The very mention of the word ignorance gives it an existence. When
  we talk of the absolute truth nothing can be left out. This is unlike
  the non-reality of a mirage, wherein there is an objective
  reality and an *external* unreality superimposed on it.

  However nothing can be *external* to the Self, even if it is ignorance.

  This seems to be the reason why Shankara has termed maya as
  anirvachaniya, since it needs to be brought in at the vyavaharika level
  and denied at the paramarthika level.

[....]

> > Namaskar,
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > kstuart at mail.telis.org
>
>
> namaskar.
>

-Suresh.