--- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Robert > > Gimbel" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -Maybe she meant, that when the ego self is > > transcended, > > > > Who transcends the ego? > > > > > and the Self is realized, > > > > Who realizes the Self? > > > > > than one begins to be more present, in the moment, > > > > > obviously... > > > > Who is this "one" that is more present in the moment > > ? > > Akasha, did you catch the advaita flu from me? :-)
Well Peter, I try not to be as obnoxious as you. :) I usually let such phrasing pass, knowing the confines of common english are not conducive to precise writing about Awareness. Somehow the wording of this post grabbed at my attention more than others in its apparent assumption of triplicity* -- that is, an assumption that there is a seeker who transcends his ego and a seeker who realizes his Self and a seeker who is more present. So no offense to the writer, it may just be the constraints of english and such assumptions were not implied. Which raises is a question to Peter, why do you use the term advaita in this context -- other than its trendy? :) Advaita, to my understanding, is total non-duality. The above questions are used to stimulate insight into the fundamental paradox of duality: that there is no "volitioner"**, that a seeker never gains "awakening", etc, and that Awareness is not of the realm of volition and seeking. However, this is still a Samkyan duality. Advaita addresses Awareness unfolded to its "core", stripped naked to encompass All, even objective phenomenon -- including, along the way, the processes of perception, thinking, deciding acting. Nothing but Awareness. No duality. * And thus my use of the term triplicity to categorize expressions that include or imply a volitoner, Awareness and the World. In contrast to a duality view of Awareness and the World. ** I have started to use the term non-volitioner (or non-controller), instead of "non-doer" because there actually is "doing being done" so using english constructs there must be a doer.IMV, the doing is passive, and the doer are the "apparatus" -- the mind, intellect, deep and surface memory, perception, physiology, etc, doing acccording to their natures / structures /functions -- without need of a controlling volitioner. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
