We really shouldn't be talking about this at all

[Govind Rengarajan]

While replying to specific mails, I request the list members to type
their message up front (before the original message) and not later,
particularly if their message is short. Of course, this need not be
followed when specific paragraphs are addressed, or if the attached
original mail is reasonably short. Thanks.

namo nArAyaNA,
govindarajan

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote:

> >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
>