NIRVANASHATKAM

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste,

Egodust writes:

>>From the vyavaharika (relative) perspective, it seems when attempting
>the best interpretation of the [real] parabrahman sthiti, the closest
>one can get to describing it is through satchidananda, which is really
>stipulated/asserted via the double negative: viz. not non-being, not
>non-consciousness, not non-bliss.  Being yet an attribute, it defies
>positive assertion, like any other concept.  This is extremely subtle
>and if one catches the drift of this dynamic: ie how virtually *all*
>concepts (vritti-s) require complete integration into the Whole of
>the Absolute, the source of sathya must be delivered like a current
>dissolving the fallacy of the *separative* jiva--which exists nowhere
>in space-time except as a dream-dance of maya.
>

What exactly do you mean "...defies positive assertion, like any other
concept"? Are you saying that all concepts "defy positive assertion"?
What "dynamic" are you talking about? What do you mean by saying "concepts
(vritti-s) require complete integration into the Whole of the Absolute"?
          ^^^^^^^^^
This whole thing reminds me of a statement I recently read in a book called
"Understanding Zen" by Benjamin Radcliff, which goes... "Maya is the
universe of conceptual abstractions, the mind's attempt to fit experience
into a set of fixed categories."  In this view, a "tree" is such an
abstraction, while the "real" thing in-itself is simply inconceivable.
Abandoning unnecessary and impossible attempts to "model" reality leaves
the primordial oneness of consciousness/world intact, and that is the true
self  (... I suppose :-)

If you're wondering what this has to do with Advaita, you may want to
reconsider Ramana's assertions that "I am" is the Self, while "I am
so-and-so" is the ego. This is an example of the self-concept being
mistaken for the self. Might the same mistake occur with every other
concept? (ie. "tree" mistaken for the inconceivable, etc.)  Might Benjamin
Radcliff be correct in asserting that the projective power of our own
concepts *is* maya?

bye for now,

Allan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "Intellect is not the Self nor apart from the Self." - Ramana Maharshi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~