By self-realisation is meant the realisation of the higher self or Enlightenment as the yogis call it.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
