We really shouldn't be talking about this at all

[Maadhavan Srinivasan]

>From owner-advaita-l at tamu.edu Fri Nov 14 09:56:41 1997
>Received: from postal (postal.tamu.edu [128.194.103.24])
>       by postal.tamu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11479;
>       Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:43:53 -0600 (CST)
>Received: from LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU by LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP
release
>          1.8c) with spool id 4211048 for ADVAITA-L at LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU;
Fri, 14
>          Nov 1997 11:43:52 -0600
>Received: from mail.tamu.edu (mail.tamu.edu [128.194.103.38]) by
>          postal.tamu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11447 for
>          <advaita-l at listserv.tamu.edu>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:43:43
-0600 (CST)
>Received: (from daemon at localhost) by mail.tamu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id
LAA28381
>          for advaita-l at listserv.tamu.edu; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:43:41
-0600 (CST)
>Received: from planet.earthcom.net (root@[206.26.134.1]) by
mail.tamu.edu
>          (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28370 for
<ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>; Fri,
>          14 Nov 1997 11:43:39 -0600 (CST)
>Received: from default (orbital31.earthcom.net [206.26.134.80]) by
>          planet.earthcom.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08270 for
>          <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:19:01 -0500 (EST)
>X-PH: V4.4 at mail.tamu.edu
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Priority: 3
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Message-ID:  <199711141819.NAA08270 at planet.earthcom.net>
>Date:         Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:41:52 -0800
>Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>Sender: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>From: Jonathan Bricklin <brickmar at EARTHCOM.NET>
>Subject:      We really shouldn't be talking about this at all
>Comments: To: Advaita <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
>
>Greg Goode writes:
>
>>Ramesh Balsekar gives a hierarchy of consciousness which goes like
this:
>
>  (1) Consciousness at rest -- Nirguna Brahman
>  (2) Consciousness in movement -- Non-localized consciousness, the
Witness
>alone
>  (3) Embodied consciousness -- I am
>  (4) Attached consciousness -- I am this body, mind, etc.
>
>Though Ramesh adheres to the ajata-vada theory of creation (i.e.,
>non-creation), he interprets creation stories of the jiva as an
evolution
>from (1) to (4).  And the reverse process is the road to enlightenment.
>Once a person gets a taste of (3), they are a seeker, and the process
of
>enlightnment is the successive dis-identification and non-localization
of
>consciousness.  That which is at stage (2) is witnessing stage (3).
>
>Enlightenment is staying at (3), sometimes (2) if there's nothing to
>witness.  (1) can not be described, because there are no appearances,
no
>world at all.>
>
>
>
>Balsekar, from what I've read, is very good on stages 3-4.  He knows
the
>wisdom Suresvara speaks of:
>
>"Wheresoever there is doubt, there, the wise should know, the Self is
not.
>For no doubts can arise in relation to the Self, since its nature is
pure
>immediate consciousness."
>
>
>My problem is with (1) and (2).  The less said about Nirguna Brahman
the
>better, I suppose.  Indeed, as Deutsch says:  "whatever is expressed is
>ultimately non-Brahman, is ultimately untrue."  But "I" (stages 1-4
>inclusive) believe it is untrue because, like infinity--the one concept
it
>may most resemble--Nirguna Brahman is to *full* to comprehend not too
>empty.   "At rest" sounds like a nice starting/stopping place
(depending on
>whether you are counting forward or backward) but "at rest" cannot
exist
>unless "in motion" exists as well.  You cannot make sense of one
without
>the other.  I'm all for an ultimate "at rest" peace as the most
>transcendent value imaginable, but as you approach it (coming at it
from
>the direction of  1 and 2, you are, as you have presented it, forming a
>concept of nothingness, which, as Parmenides tried so hard to alert his
>fellow Greeks (alas, to little avail), is the source of all fear and
>anxiety.
>
>
>Could learned list members offer any Sruti quotes (as closely
translated as
>possible) that refer to Nirguna Brahman?  I have trouble accepting
"without
>qualities" as being an invitation to create concepts that rely on an
>unrelativzed  "nothingness"--something Parmenides, quite rightly,
forbids
>as absolutely unconceptualizable (unlike infinity, which is only
relatively
> unconceptualizable).  At any rate, does Sruti, anywhere, speak of
>content-less consciousness, as opposed to, simply, unlocalized
>consciousness?  For that matter, Greg, does Balsekar?  Do you?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jonathan
>

It is a very good analysis. Appreciated.

Madhavan.




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com