Why the same dream?

[Greg Goode]

At 08:33 PM 12/4/97 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

[...]

>Let´s re-start with the premises:
>
>1. We have only one God, the Absolute, per se pure contentless Awareness,
>who at the rising of the Content-Consciousness begins to function as the
>Witness of the manifestation. Then also starts the (apparent, not-real)
>duality Subject-Object, Self-World, and the sense I-Am, that is,
>Self-Consciousness.

Don't really agree, see below...
>
>2. ^ÓConsciousness [...] needs physical forms for its functioning^Ô (page
>183) and ^Óthere are millions of psychosomatic forms but no two exactly
>alike^Ô (p.182)

Don't know if I agree here, because I don't really agree that there really
are millions of psychosomatic forms.  I don't think there are any forms at
all, because ultimately I think the non-creation theory is the most sound
and the most appealing.

There are various theories of creation.  The one you are alluding to above
in paragraph (1) is called in Vedanta the Vivartavada theory, where the
effect is the APPARENT manifestation of its cause (as opposed to the
Satkaryavada theory, in which the effect pre-exists in seed form within the
cause, or the ajati-vada theory, in which there is no creation at all).  So
we won't be able to agree on (2).  But for argument's sake, I'll assume
both (1) and (2) along with the Vivartavada theory of creation.

>Ergo:
>
>3. The above appears to affect the One Consciousness in two ways:

NOTHING can affect or even appear to affect the One Consciousness.  How
could it?  But, the stuff you're saying below does happen.

>A) Self-identification with the body-minds, resulting in the appearance of
>pseudo-entities : the egos, which are doubly imaginary: because like
>everything else they are only objects in Consciousness, and because, on top
>of that, egos are erroneous concepts, silly mistakes, the false origin of
>the false bondage.

They aren't mistakes, they are part of how (in the Vivartavada theory)
Brahman apparently manifests as the effects.  Not the fault of any jiva.
But in this theory, there IS identification with various things in
phenomenality.  OK, I'm with you so far.


>B) Besides, as Consciousness ^Óacts through the physical bodies, each of
>which has its own temperament and character^Ô (p.182), the result is that
>the Self, the Subject of Consciousness, experiences the World in similar
>but different ways.

What it is that experiences the world is not the Self exactly.  Maybe you
can say that what experiences everything is Lower Brahman or Hiranyagarbha
(sum total of all subtle bodies), the Total Self of the Katha Upanishad.
But it would be overly anthropomorphic to say that Nisargadatta's
"Awareness" experiences anything.  It is the substratum of all experiences,
not an experiencer.  But the Total Self or the Cosmic Mind
(Hiranyagarbha)is the sum total of all experiencers, so nothing is beyond
it.  So it's not surprising that Hitler and Gandhi are different experiencers.

>Can you boil it down to 2 sentences, like (A) seems to contradict (B) or
>something like that...>
>
>Let´s do it.   (A) will be the no-responsibility, no-anything to do,
>teaching.  (B) will be the teachings and seeming evidence that do not quite
>to fit into the first.  I tend to align myself with (A). I wish there were
>no (B) on my way!

[... lots of quotes illustrating both A and B...]

>But if advice to do this or that is just playing along with the beginners^Ò
>restlessness, while the (A) position is meant for those who know better,
>why bother at all to say anything?

Part of the Lila!   That's the beauty of the whole thing!!!

Some are drawn to A-type explanations, some are drawn to B-type
explanations.  Traditionally, teachers have reserved A-type explanations
for the more mature students.  Why?  Look what happens in the hand of a
neophyte:  "Why did I cheat on my wife?  There is no responsibility, for
there is no ego, all is illusion.  It is all just happening, part of the
One Consciousness."  Now you know, that is insincere at best of this
person.  This person needs the strenuous training needed to perfect the
disciple, qualifications mentioned in Tattva Bodha and other places.

--Greg