Angela, Sorry, but I must dissent. And, since words are my tools, I'll be wrong, but dissent I must.
There is no "one" -- also no "non-one," and no "no's." That's three negations in a row, but it would take an infinite amount of them to even begin to cover what "THAT" isn't, and then all you'd be left with is a bunch of "wrong concepts that can be comfortably dismissed," and you'd still be bereft of any positive statement to make. Language fails us completely, and even a heartfelt dogma of neti neti neti is merely a technique for gaining intellectual clarity in the relative and not going beyond intellect -- and from this lesson we must surmise that the mind too will fail to encompass -- with the intellect -- "THAT." For this reason, no one -- including too: no "one" -- is at fault when erroneously speaking of Advaita -- everyone is necessarily wrong -- a great loop hole for neo-Ads, eh? To me the above "words schmords" is seldom consistently presented by neo-Ads, (nor would it increase the amounts in their collection plates to make such clear to the followers, eh?) The War Monger, below, shows clearly that he doesn't get it when he says, "The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality" -- as if he knew what even those words meant....or knew how to spell consciousness for that matter. The Absolute is not conscious or non-conscious. Consciousness is conscious, but note that it hasn't been conscious eternally, for that happy-pairing is not primal -- as we have been instructed in the SBAL wherein it advises us that at some point, "consciousness becomes conscious." What became conscious? We merely label it with the word consciousness or the phrase "universal consciousness," and that immediately asserts a "reality" to it that the Absolute is VASTLY BEYOND. After all, remember that Brahma could hardly be bothered to manifest creation -- that was a tell, eh? Must be something beyond creation that cannot be created, eh? Something that Brahma thought was "enough." Something that can't be "some thing," eh? It turns out that "someness" itself must be taken off the mind like shoes before entering a Japanese house. When Ramana speaks of silence, he's not talking about noise, he's talking about no-mind, or "consciousness before it bothered to be conscious;" silence is that which would be presented in George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form as prior to "null set." Nisargadatta always harped again and again about "what were you prior to consciousness?" Try answering that! And guess what, THAT'S THE TECHNIQUE! For any attempt to look at the self directly, immediately, now ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS finds: NOTHING. That is: no ego, no identity -- and wowwyzowwy, THAT'S THE SELF that passeth all understanding. Consciousness comes and goes with the life of the meat robot. When Ramana died, all his history and wisdom and memories STOPPED RIGHT THERE. He spoke about reincarnation, but if one does a more careful reading of his words one will understand that he knew that the astral and causal planes were as temporary as any corporeal life, and a deeper reading still will reveal that he thought that these realms too were mere addictions that would be best dropped along with the identification with meat. Enlightenment is a divorce. PERIOD. No more hanky panky between the Absolute and Amness. PERIOD....otherwise, a cheat's afoot! If you're in love with amness, forget ever becoming the Absolute. Residing in amness is "like" being in the Absolute, but Brahma didn't want it no matter how cool it was as an ersatz placebo, and in fact His first action was to eschew it and try to find out from whence it came. Prior to consciousness. After saying that aloud, add Emeril Lagasse's "BAM!" at the end of the phrase. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For once we agree on something, willitex. > The only complex thing about philosophical monism is > karma. > > > > --- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one > > > here has yet convinced me that they grok > > > Advaita enough to know what it is enough > > > to accept or reject it. > > > > > There's not much to grok - Adwaita is dirt > > simple: There is One only. It doesn't take a > > genius to understand that. It takes far more > > metaphysical mental gymnastics to understand > > dualism or qualified dualism. > > > > There are three issues that must be understood > > in order to understand Adwaita: The realization > > that there are *not two*, the realization that > > things and events are an *illusion*, and the > > *dispelling of illusion* by process of > > experiential pure conciousness. > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > There is One only. There is no creation; no > > destruction; no coming to be, and no ceasing > > to be. Things do not change, neither do they > > move about or stay the same. Things and events > > are an illusion, not real, yet not unreal. The > > Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality. > > Liberation is the way to avoid the results of > > actions and to be free. > > > > Simple. > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
