Turq, excellent points (below) and I feel that both Edg and you are
both following Basho's point of seeking what the "men of old" sought.
What makes both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta different (IMO) from
other teachers, Maharishi included, is that they both emphasize the
seeker's own immediacy and self-sufficiency in sadhana as opposed to
intermediaries (either by technique, teacher, or ritual). Essentially
they both say "you've got two good legs right underneath you; now walk
over in that direction and you'll find what you'll find", whereas
other teachings (just to arbitrarily over-generalize) emphasize the
"follow me and walk this way" approach, ("mind the thornbushes over
there; nice view right about here, etc.").
It's my feeling, congruent with whatever experience I've had, that
either approach *does* lead to the same place (as Doctor Bronner says,
"All One") but I'm not really concerned whether or not that's true or
real or universal, and I'm certainly not concerned in convincing
anyone of that either. Similarly, it doesn't seem to me that you and
Edg are on different sides of the issue; or if you are, it's the two
sides of the same coin.
The great majority of folks who post on FFL (and I suspect those who
lurk here, as well), are Westerners who, despite our stints as
disciples in the Eastern tradition, are just too steeped in the
Western *ideals* of individualism and eclecticism to remain lockstep
followers of any teaching or teacher forever, even though we may have
developed a lasting taste for Indian food and/or Hindu Gods. That's
neither a good thing or a bad thing; just is what it is. For whatever
reason we were tinderbox-dry proto-seekers when we first heard of
Maharishi or Yogananda or Krishnamurti or meditation or yoga or
whatever the spark was that ignited the wildfire of interest in and
dedication to the idea of self-realization that we all succumbed to in
our youth.
This phase of the world meditation movement, however, strikes me as
being far more interesting (and substantial) than the heady time of
World Plans and Merv Griffin mass initiations. There are so many
people living in the world right now, going about their everyday
lives, who have been lastingly infected with not only the *idea* of
self-realization, but actually have had first-hand experience with
techniques that, at the very least, facilitate self-inquiry and
self-exploration. Regardless of how long or how well they meditated,
millions and tens of millions of people have purposefully sat down,
closed their eyes, and looked into the self at some point in their
lives. That's just way cool. And important, too, or so I feel.
Really appreciate the dialoque, thanks.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just to finish up from last week, just for the fun
> of playing with ideas, *not* to argue or claim the
> "rightness" or "superiority" of those ideas or
> anything like that. The "short version" is:
>
> Thanks but no thanks on Ramana, Edg. I've read him
> before, and there was no strong resonance for me
> there. For one reason, I'm more into saturating my
> self with its *own* ideas (poor as they may be)
> these days than with other people's, and second
> because I honestly believe that most Advaita I have
> read's ideas are based on an unchallenged basic
> assumption that, in my opinion, renders anything
> based upon that assumption suspect. But thanks for
> the suggestion, and for the fervor of your post.
>
> Longer version below, just for fun...
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Turq,
> >
> > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in
> > this post.
> >
> > But, NO ONE has such skills.
>
> I'm not convinced it's even *about* writing skills.
>
> > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest
> > folks possible...
>
> That's an issue on which we shall have to agree to
> disagree. I find that many of them were written by
> uptight, life-averse recluses who wanted to convince
> others to live just like them, terrified of the world
> in which they dwelled. :-)
>
> > ...and none of them ever produced anything in text that would,
> > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just
> > with a whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER.
>
> I would go so far as to say that the same is true of
> spiritual teachers. IMO not one of them in history has
> ever had that power, or that effect. Realization
> happens on its own, and those to whom it happens may
> *attribute* it to the particular spiritual teacher
> they work with, but I'm not convinced it happens that
> way. It's like the olde Indian metaphor of the crow
> and the coconut. The crow lands on a branch of the
> palm tree and a coconut falls from another branch
> of the same tree. Is there a cause-and-effect
> relationship between the two events? Well, the answer
> is "not necessarily." There is, for you, if you imagine
> one. But that doesn't mean that one ever existed on
> any objective level.
>
> > Not that they didn't try. Not that scholars were duffers.
>
> Here again we must agree to disagree. Some of them *were*
> duffers IMO. The guy who wrote Ecclesiastes certainly
> seems to have been sorely in need of antidepressants. :-)
>
> You may begin to suspect that I have very little de facto
> respect for what others call "scriptures." You would be
> correct in this suspicion. I don't care *who* wrote it,
> or how many people on the planet consider it scripture
> or valuable spiritual teaching. Either it "speaks" to me
> or it does not. End of story. If it does, cool. If it does
> not, the "scripture" has no value for me whatsoever, except
> possibly as entertainment.
>
> > I believe in saturation now -- a simple running of concepts
> > over and over again is found to breed, grow, do-whatever-is-
> > needed, for a brain to finally have what it PHYSICALLY takes
> > to have the clarity about identification that I believe I have.
>
> With all due respect, it seems that the overall message
> of this post is that you run the *same* concepts over and
> over again, concepts (as I suggested earlier) that are
> based on acceptance of a Creation myth that postulates
> that there was once a time when the Absolute was not
> manifest. I was merely trying to suggest another concept,
> that this is NOT a given. If one takes that "given" away,
> then from my perspective the whole idea of "primal iden-
> tification" is meaningless, because there has never been
> a moment in the history of the universe that one could
> deem "primal."
>
> I still feel that way. Reading a buncha Ramana or Nisarg-
> adatta ain't gonna change that for me, if they assume
> that there *was* such a "primal" moment. For me, right
> now, the notion of an eternal universe, one that has
> never seen a moment in which the relative aspect of
> creation was not manifest has an intuitive resonance.
> It "feels" correct. Therefore any idea that is *dependent*
> on the notion of a "standalone" Absolute, one that has
> no manifest side, is rather suspect.
>
> I *understand* that many, if not most, people might have
> a bit of a problem conceiving of an eternal universe,
> one that never began and will never end. Humans tend
> to anthropomorphize. They have a hard time with the
> concept of eternity. Because *they* have a beginning
> (birth) and an end (death), they tend to project that
> outwards at the manifest universe, imagining *it* to
> have a birth and a death as well. This anthropomorphizing
> is reinforced, of course, by the Creation myths of most
> religions, almost all of which contain a verse that
> starts with, "In the beginning..."
>
> All I'm suggesting is that a *great deal* of philosophy
> and religion is based upon accepting Creation myths --
> and the notion of Creation itself -- as a given. If you
> do not, all of the sub-philosophies that were based upon
> the notion that there was a first Creation...and thus a
> time before that first Creation during which God/the
> Absolute/Whatever *could* have existed without a manifest
> aspect...become suspect.
>
> . . .
>
> > Saturation. Priceless.
>
> Perhaps. I'm not knockin' it, if you enjoyed both the
> process and the result.
>
> To me, the result seems to be somewhat dependent upon
> what one chooses to saturate oneself *with*. If it's
> the same old same old, then what is going to be the
> result of that saturation? More same old same old.
>
> . . .
>
> > Ramana's words just kept exercising my neurons until I could
> > finally pick up the barbells he had in his gym. Something
> > like that.
>
> Cool, I guess. Now you can think like Ramana, and appreciate
> what he had to say. No offense, but I'd rather read what
> *you* have to say. And I'm not convinced that that's going
> to come out in your writing as a result of saturating your-
> self with others' thoughts and words.
>
> > I wish I could just say, read my posts, but it's really a
> > case of read my posts a thousand times, or better yet, read
> > Ramana three times.
>
> And all that would happen in either case is being able to
> "get" more of *someone else's* thoughts and words. You'll
> have to forgive me if that's not of terribly much interest
> to me at this stage in my life. I spent far too much of
> my life pondering the thoughts and ideas of others who
> were held up as "authorities," as "knowledgeable" about
> the world and How It Works. I'm gettin' old. I'm drawing
> closer to the end of my life. I think it's about time that
> I stopped beliving in the supposed "authority" of others
> and came to a few of my *own* conclusions about the world
> and How It Works.
>
> > Boy does this sound like cult oogabooga or what? Another
> > promise by another deluded proselyte.
>
> Not really. It sounds like a great formula for following in the
> mindsteps of someone you consider a knowledgeable spiritual
> teacher. I guess the only thing I have to offer in response
> to such a formula being presented to me are the words of the
> Japanese poet Basho: "I do not seek to follow in the footsteps
> of the men of old; I seek what they sought."
>
> I *don't* "saturate" myself in the thoughts and words of the
> men of old. Been there, done that, have no interest in doing
> much of it in the future. I'd rather just make my Way through
> the world and come up with some of my *own* thoughts and words.
> They may not be as valuable or "right" as the thoughts and
> words of the men of old. That doesn't bother me a bit. At
> least they'll be mine. I won't be working from a "borrowed"
> description of the world in which I live; I'll have invented
> my own. My form of saturation is to immerse myself in the
> world as I perceive it -- both inner (in meditation) and
> outer (in the world) -- and draw conclusions from that, not
> from anything that men of old who are...uh...dead have said
> about *their* world and how *they* perceived it, and the
> conclusions *they* drew from those perceptions.
>
> > To me, any thought is an action of the body, and paying attention
> > to it instead of EVERYTHING/NONTHING is the biting of the apple.
>
> Cool. I guess.
>
> All I'm saying is that this is based on an *assumption*,
> that the thought is NOT the Self, NOT everything/nothing.
> I honestly don't believe that's true.
>
> You're postulating a dualistic universe, one in which
> nirvana is not samsara. Cool, I guess. I just don't see
> the universe that way, sorry. So pondering the impli-
> cations of living in a dualistic universe doesn't
> really float my boat.
>
> > Sin is: not paying attention to silence. TM gets the mind to pay
> > attention to the state of least excitation...
>
> Here we would again disagree. All that TM (or any other
> form of meditation) does is point out what is *already
> going on*. The silence was always already present; paying
> attention to it was always already present, on a non-
> realized level; the only thing that TM or any other form
> of meditation has done is facilitate a realization of
> what has always already been going on. IMO, of course.
>
> > ...but that's still an action of the body...
>
> You say that as if you believe (to invoke Seinfeld) that
> that's a bad thing. :-) Really. You do.
>
> I don't believe that "action of the body" is a bad thing.
> End of story. You won't ever be able to convince me that
> it is, no matter how much saturation you toss my way.
>
> > ...a fitting symbol in that it is as close as we can get
> > to embodying silence, but it's still noise.
>
> Edg, we're talking apples and oranges here. Your "saturation"
> has somehow convinced you that thoughts are not the Self,
> that action is not the Self, that noise is not silence. I
> really don't see things that way. No appeal you or Ramana
> or Nisargadatta can make on the basis of trying to *claim*
> that the world works that way is going to resonate with me.
>
> > The white stuff in chicken shit is more chicken shit. Amness
> > is pure white. See?
>
> What I was trying to say in my previous post, the thing
> that you seem to have missed completely (and didn't deal
> with or even *mention* in your response), is that if
> there was never a moment in time in which the universe
> was *not* manifest (as I tend to believe), then there
> has never been a moment in time in which Amness WAS
> "pure white." It has *always* been white, and black,
> and every hue in between, Amness Plus Manifestation.
> There has *never* been a moment in which Amness
> Alone existed.
>
> Your whole position seems to be postulated on believing
> that such a moment existed. That's cool, if you believe
> that. I do not. Therefore, any appeal to "pure Amness"
> or claim of what color it might be in its "pure" form,
> non-tainted by the "sin of manifestation," is, to me,
> irrelevant. See?
>
> > TM says, "hang out with amness, and the next thing you know,
> > you'll toggle onto 'true silence, the Absolute." One goes
> > from saint to enlightened saint.
> >
> > Ramana says the mind must "die." That means it loses its
> > taste for noise.
>
> There IS no noise. It's all silence. :-)
>
> > The noise will still be there if the body still lives, but
> > the mind has no thirst for anything that can spring forth
> > from amness.
>
> Nothing has ever "sprung forth" from Amness. Amness
> has always coexisted with the "sprung forth," the
> relative world, because it IS that relative world.
> They are the same. There has never been a moment in
> which Amness existed "on its own."
>
> See? If one changes the "background assumption" that
> one has about the universe, it changes all of the
> theories that one might ponder in the foreground.
>
> If you have a "background" that *assumes* that there
> was a first Creation, then you need to ponder the
> existence or non-existence of a Creator. If you do
> not, no such pondering is necessary. Similarly, if
> your "background" assumption is that the universe is
> eternal, never-created, then there was never a time
> in which its unmanifest aspect did not coexist with
> its manifest aspect. The whole question of "stand-
> alone Amness" being "better" than Amness Plus Mani-
> festation is irrelevant, because there has never
> been such a moment, and never will be.
>
> I'm not saying that my "background" is better than any-
> one else's, just that it's mine, and I kinda like it.
>
> No amount of writing about or explanation about theories
> that are *based upon* the assumption that Amness and the
> world of manifestation are "separate" is ever going to
> appeal to me.
>
> > That's a whole nother thingy indeed from "merely transcending
> > most noise and listening to one pure note of OMMMMMMMM."
>
> There is no noise. See?
>
> . . .
>
> > "First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then
> > there is," and to me, the "there is no mountain" part of the
> > song has to be known, before the mountain can be properly
> > entertained. Turq, I'm telling you that my credo is the same
> > as yours, but I think that Ramana "got to me" about silence
> > beyond amness having to be "owned" before one can relish a
> > true enjoyment of relativity. Ask yourself as a musician
> > what is prevented if one is not allowed to use silence --
> > noise is only made into music if silence is added.
>
> There is no noise. It is all silence.
>
> > Now, just because I have a saturated belief about the above,
> > doesn't mean I've stopped slurping noise.
>
> There is no noise. It is all silence.
>
> Do you "get" what I'm doing by repeating these phrases? I'm
> trying to make the point that your "saturation" theory Just
> Doesn't Work if one doesn't have an inherent, intuitive feel
> for what one is being saturated WITH.
>
> You are firmly convinced that the world is divided into
> silence and noise, and that there is a difference between
> the two. I am firmly convinced of the opposite, that there
> is only silence, and that what one perceives sometimes as
> "noise" is all silence, all the time.
>
> No matter how long either of us "saturates" the other with
> theories based on our respective assumptions, no change is
> going to take place as long as our inner being remains true
> to its *own* vision of How The World Works.
>
> Based on your writings here, t'would seem that your inner
> being is comfortable with duality, at least theoretically.
> Mine sees the world as a field of unity, at least theoret-
> ically. I'm just not gonna groove behind any theory of
> spiritual development that tries to convince me that the
> cacophony of the world I hear about me is not silence. See? :-)
>
> > Ok, now it's your turn to make the next word balloon -- in
> > this case tune.
>
> This was it. If you listen closely to it -- maybe on head-
> phones -- you might be able to hear that it's really silence.
> Or, even when wearing the best super-duper studio headphones
> on the market, it might still sound like noise to you.
>
> Doesn't bother me either way. It's still my song, and I'm
> happy singing it. Softly. :-)
>
> Unc
>
>
> The conditions of a solitary bird are five:
> The first, that it flies to the highest point;
> The second, that it does not suffer for company,
> not even of its own kind;
> The third, that it aims its beak to the skies;
> The fourth, that it does not have a definite color;
> The fifth, that it sings very softly.
>
> -- Saint John of the Cross
>
