Why the same dream?

[Miguel Angel Carrasco]

>From my period as a Zen student, I remember reading that the famous koans
were meant for the only purpose of convincing the disciple of the
uselessness of employing his mind as an instrument of even starting to
advance on the Way. If that is also the goal of your (dear Greg) post, you
are on the verge of success. You are driving my mind crazy.  :-)

Perhaps what I lack is a bit more learning. I feel at a loss when you
resort to sanskrit labels. I reckon they may be quite useful as they cast
many insights into just a few words, which serve as landmarks. I am really
illiterate in this respect. I might as well shut up and either study more
or just confine myself to thoughtless meditation. As I am becoming lazier
with the decades, I tend to the latter. And even to the desire of death.

Don^Òt be alarm. It is but a wish of rest at long last. In the meantime, I
will have to put up with the koan.

What regards our current debate, I really do not understand anything. What
is really your position? Because first you say ^ÓI don^Òt think there are any
forms at all^Ô (in contradiction with Ramesh Balsekar, who you had advised
me to read), then you say there are various theories of creation (aren´t
theories forms too?), then you say my position is vivartavada (never heard
of) while yours is ajati-vada ^Óin which there is no creation at all^Ô. Maybe
I will have to follow the example of Muslims who start every writing with
the declaration ^ÓIn the name of God, the merciful, etc.^Ô In my case, It
would be the declaration I already made recently :

^ÓI never said I believed there ever was a creation. If by creation we mean
the production of something new, of a new being, then that is for me a
metaphysical impossibility. Not just a factual non-event, I go beyond that
: God just cannot create anything. Because there simply cannot be God plus
something else. I have said more than once that I think there is only The
One. Stop. And no other assertion I might make is to be understood as
contradicting this one fundamental idea. Ever. ^Ó (Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997).

You also say, dear Greg, that what experiences the world is not the Self
but the Total Self. Sorry, that is Chinese for me. I did not know I had a
rival.  Am I the Self or the Total Self? Which of us two is Brahman? I warn
you I will fight for my rights!   :-)

For me, there is only the One, the Absolute, MySelf. I am the only Subject
(when there is something in my Consciousness to be the Subject of, in which
case I am not only Pure Contentless Awareness but also the Witness of My
Manifestation onto Myself). How then can there be two Selves? Besides, if
they are not one, then they are different. In order to be different, they
(or at least one of them) must have forms, because it is forms that make
differences. But if they have forms how do you say that there are forms at
all?

Finally you say ^ÓSome 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.^Ó  But didn^Òt you say that there
were no forms at all? How are then some students different from others?

As you see, human language seems to be so confusing that I am much tempted
to shut up for ever. Rest, sweet peaceful rest of Nirguna.

-- A silly, stupid speaker

PS
Please don^Òt think I am in the least annoyed. Just bewildered. :-)