Knowledge, Experience and fear

[Ms. Aikya Param]

Namaste Sadananda

----------
You wirte:
Please refer to my comment on the who or what is
the locus of avidya.

Avidya is opposite of Jnaanam.h.  For the individual, these are in the
mind.  Sometimes you see the terms used in a universal sense as
synonyms for mayaa and satyam.h  or the paramaatmaa respectively.

And again you write:

No from the Sat chit Ananda state

It is NOT A STATE.  It is NOT AN EXPERIENCE, which would make it an
object of awareness, cit.h.  It IS THE SUBJECT, YOURSELF..

And then also:

No from the Sat chit Ananda state there is no avidya nor suffering - in
fact there is  nothing (no-thing!) - neither jeeva nor Brahman, nor avidya
nor jagat nor any thing - no sat chit ananda either - just I am

I reply that, if jeeva and avidya and jagat.h and all other "things" are
only apparently "real" and I (anyone) know(s) that, there is no need for
the appearances to go away.  When a child realizes that he cannot
but a toy with play money, the play money does not need to disappear.
The child may still play games with it all the time knowing it isn't real.

You continue:
there is no avidya nor suffering

The mind and the body are part of the apparently real which need not
disappear upon the dawn of knowledge.  We hope they do not because
we want to find a qualified teacher somewhere who still has both.  If
the body and mind still appear then that person can still experience the
ups and downs, the joys and pains of both.

When there is physical pain
on the part of either the guru or the seeker, it is foolishness to say it is
not and definitely confuses people who have no idea about all this.  Then
they think "Oh I get headache.  Then I can't really know."  Whatever the
experience in the praarabdhaH bank will spend itself.  Some will be good;
some will be painful.

Maybe by understanding that there never was a
doer, the Master can change the course if he/she thinks of doing that.  I
don't know but many Dear Wise Ones have suffered physical illness and
have died.  In the transactional, apparently real point of view, those things
happened even though the person may have been perfectly clear
that he/she was Paramaatma and no less.

You say:

Once the advaitic concepts are clear, one can relish JK's analysis and
revel in it.

My teacher used to remark that Krishnamuurti expressed only half the
teaching.  He was very good at the negating half, the "neti neti" but he
didn't tell the positive.  Maybe he couldn't explain it, although he was
a great man.

Aikya