--- qntmpkt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---This argument can easily lead to a Neo-Advaitin
> fallacy since
> the "ME" is not the sum total of an individual. The
> "I" that
> vanishes (or the "Me") is the delusion of
> misidentification; but not
> the body itself, nor "a mind", nor the skin, bones,
> hair;, etc;
> otherwise there would be no Enlightened Guru left to
> say anything or
> appear anywhere. What's left is everything that
> existed before
> Enlightenment, minus the false identity that in a
> delusional state,
> creates an "I" in a manner analogous to Kubrick's
> "HAL" computer. But
> the computer still exists; and likewise, the
> body/mind still exists.
Prior to realization, the above point is very
difficult to understand. In fact it can't be
understood IMHO. Prior to realization consciousness
and the sense of a psychological or private individual
are experienced as the same. So if somebody talks
about the experiential "I" or "me" vanishing in
enlightenment it seems to be annihilation of
consciousness itself. This seems to be the source of
much of the protests regarding this point (e.g.,
Bronte's recent posts). But this does not happen.
Prior to Realization consciousness is projected into
and identified with aspects of mind so consciousness,
phenomenologically, IS the mind. A powerful delusion
of individuality is created. The initial step of
Realization is consciousness "pulling out" of this
identification. When this occurs there is a clear
distinction between buddhi and purusha and a clear
recognition that "I" no longer exists as a private
psychological self, but is completely unbounded and
non-localized.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
