When are we not realizing self?
On Jul 9, 2:13 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Most of the people who claim to have attained Self-realisation are either > madmen or frauds. > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > If there is Self-awareness or enlightenment or God-state then that > > awareness would open a new meaning to life. > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> In my experience awareness is the beginning of a process not an end in > >> itself. Awareness leads to selection among raw data of experience which is > >> then imputed with meaning. No? > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: RP Singh <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 6:51 am > >> Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > >> The state of enlightenment or self-realisation is called Turiya-avastha by > >> yogis. > > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:16 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The so-called state of enlightenment or self-realisation is simply a > >>> state of awareness of the organism like deep-sleep state, dream-state, > >>> awaken state. Equating the individual self or ahamkara to the Self or > >>> Truth, > >>> God , Atma is just human egoism and a desire of man to be supreme or God. > > >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> So I would be interested in how you shifted your attitude from a > >>>> relativistic subjective position like mine to what I imagined you > >>>> believe is > >>>> an objective enlightened one? I am truly interested in the steps you > >>>> took to > >>>> get there. I also appreciate the fact that beyond a certain point you > >>>> will > >>>> probably say that words are inadequate to describe the process. However > >>>> some > >>>> of the process is probably describable. No? > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: ashok tewari <[email protected]> > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:25 am > >>>> Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > >>>> Cannot say much about your chain of thoughts, though commonplace ( for > >>>> they're the very same that held sway over me not so long ago ), because > >>>> they > >>>> have roots and causes within you. > > >>>> The self is not negated but known. Which isn't being superior - inferior > >>>> but being true, without the least psychology we are all caught up in. > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> You are apparently saying that awareness can be pure (free from > >>>>> contaminating subjectivity hence by passing interpretation). Further > >>>>> that > >>>>> the experience of 'pure' awareness enables the experiencer to obtain an > >>>>> assumed pre existing knowledge of everything. In that case I am doomed > >>>>> to > >>>>> experience impure awareness as it makes absolutely no sense to me that > >>>>> what > >>>>> ever I perceive does not necessarily involve something of my personal > >>>>> self > >>>>> added to whatever awareness I have. Further if such pure awareness you > >>>>> claim > >>>>> exists which I think equals the claims of the mystic's assertions of > >>>>> ineffability of such pure direct awareness - then to speak of the > >>>>> unspeakable seems to me to be little more than an expression of > >>>>> spiritual > >>>>> narcissism. To me at my age of 73 - this talk translated into human > >>>>> talk is > >>>>> really saying something like: I know something you don't know and what > >>>>> I > >>>>> know is vastly superior to what you know and don't play word games with > >>>>> me > >>>>> when I say no words can describe it because that is the truth and too > >>>>> bad > >>>>> you don't know it. > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Molly <[email protected]> > >>>>> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > >>>>> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 7:48 am > >>>>> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > >>>>> Very good! > > >>>>> On Jul 7, 3:58 am, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > Telling doesn't help, as in wouldn't communicate. > > >>>>> > Try being without the relatedness you feel for things you know, even > >>>>> > for a > > >>>>> > moment, as you do in the state of deep sleep, without actually > >>>>> > falling deep > > >>>>> > asleep ! > > >>>>> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:47 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > Pray tell. > > >>>>> > > -----Original Message----- > > >>>>> > > From: ashok tewari <[email protected]> > > >>>>> > > To: [email protected] > > >>>>> > > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:12 am > > >>>>> > > Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > >>>>> > > " Or do you somehow have special knowledge?" > > >>>>> > > I do. > > >>>>> > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > >> Assuming you are a human and not the "God" you are describing - > >>>>> > >> then you > > >>>>> > >> can not be certain that > > >>>>> > >> the assertions you are making about absolute reality are accurate. > >>>>> > >> So we > > >>>>> > >> are back to the position of Aquinas re > > >>>>> > >> faith and reason. As a man of faith you can believe whatever you > >>>>> > >> wish and > > >>>>> > >> obviously do - but in terms of > > >>>>> > >> reason you apparently know as little for certain as the rest of > >>>>> > >> us. Or do > > >>>>> > >> you somehow have special knowledge? > > >>>>> > >> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>> > >> From: vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > >>>>> > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > >>>>> > >> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:25 am > > >>>>> > >> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
