Ramana's statement / Introduction

[Chuck Gafvert]

I thought to respond in the recent thread where Dana Lomas referenced Ramana Maharshi, but opted to create a new topic and also use that as a vehicle to introduce myself.

First, Ramana's statement:

The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world. 

I find it interesting to contemplate other paradoxes in this same format. For instance:

Form is illusory; emptiness alone is real; emptiness is form.

Samsara is illusory; Nirvana alone is real; Nirvana is Samsara.

Humanity is illusory; God alone is real; God is Humanity.

The flesh is illusory; Spirit alone is real; Spirit is the flesh. 

The finite is illusory; the infinite alone is real; the infinite is the finite.

Word containers that point towards that which is impossible to express.

A bit about me, I've been exploring concepts of non-duality and recently idealism over the past several years. My current interests include how idealism can be bridged to the masses, and Christian mysticism. Inspired by the recent published essay, MUSINGS ON IDEALISM, ADVAITA AND CHRISTIANITY, I'd like to post more thoughts on how non-duality can be found in Christianity.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

I think you can find the common truth in many words of great teachers. Do not go into stories woven around them which may or may not be true. But the teachings as they said will have defective link to the common truth. Because truth is never many. So if you can get to look at the teachings alone leaving the stories and anecdotes, you can get what you are looking for.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8e0fa731-0374-4c58-99cd-213baa7dd4be%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dana Lomas]

Hi Chuck ... I for one would be interested in those thoughts you would like to post. 

Regarding the use of the term 'illusory' in the context being used here, being equatable with maya, I take it to simply mean 'not what it appears to be'. As such 'the world' is not what it appears to be: i.e. a realm of objects 'out there' existing independent of consciousness. Rather it is the play of consciousness, and at no point ever other than consciousness, and thus 'real' in the analogous sense that waves are the real play of the ocean. So insofar as form, samsara, humanity, the flesh, and the finite are all aspects of 'the world', I can agree with your paraphrasings of the Ramana quote. Where many religious expressions of this have gone astray is to bring good and evil into it ... and then all heaven and hell can break loose, and heretics/infidels be damned. 

[Charles Coon]

Aurobind...Yes...you are referring to the Perennial Tradition (or Philosophy) which is often embellished by colorful

stories which sometimes explain, but most often veil the "common truth."

Thanks,

CharlesC

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <aurobind...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you can find the common truth in many words of great teachers. Do not go into stories woven around them which may or may not be true. But the teachings as they said will have defective link to the common truth. Because truth is never many. So if you can get to look at the teachings alone leaving the stories and anecdotes, you can get what you are looking for.

On Mon 9 Jul, 2018, 04:23 Chuck Gafvert, <cgaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought to respond in the recent thread where Dana Lomas referenced Ramana Maharshi, but opted to create a new topic and also use that as a vehicle to introduce myself.

First, Ramana's statement:

The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world. 

I find it interesting to contemplate other paradoxes in this same format. For instance:

Form is illusory; emptiness alone is real; emptiness is form.

Samsara is illusory; Nirvana alone is real; Nirvana is Samsara.

Humanity is illusory; God alone is real; God is Humanity.

The flesh is illusory; Spirit alone is real; Spirit is the flesh. 

The finite is illusory; the infinite alone is real; the infinite is the finite.

Word containers that point towards that which is impossible to express.

A bit about me, I've been exploring concepts of non-duality and recently idealism over the past several years. My current interests include how idealism can be bridged to the masses, and Christian mysticism. Inspired by the recent published essay, MUSINGS ON IDEALISM, ADVAITA AND CHRISTIANITY, I'd like to post more thoughts on how non-duality can be found in Christianity.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8e0fa731-0374-4c58-99cd-213baa7dd4be%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/CAP%3DXLmYhzqv_NsuLGf%2Bt9GSbAdRO98Z3tXpWPyh200uHits%3DtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chuck Gafvert]

Yes, for me it's especially noteworthy when teachers / mystics of vastly different backgrounds point toward that common truth: Sufi, Catholic, Protestant, Zen Buddhist, Hindu, etc.

On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 9:51:40 PM UTC-4, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:

I think you can find the common truth in many words of great teachers. Do not go into stories woven around them which may or may not be true. But the teachings as they said will have defective link to the common truth. Because truth is never many. So if you can get to look at the teachings alone leaving the stories and anecdotes, you can get what you are looking for.

On Mon 9 Jul, 2018, 04:23 Chuck Gafvert, <cgaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought to respond in the recent thread where Dana Lomas referenced Ramana Maharshi, but opted to create a new topic and also use that as a vehicle to introduce myself.

First, Ramana's statement:

The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world. 

I find it interesting to contemplate other paradoxes in this same format. For instance:

Form is illusory; emptiness alone is real; emptiness is form.

Samsara is illusory; Nirvana alone is real; Nirvana is Samsara.

Humanity is illusory; God alone is real; God is Humanity.

The flesh is illusory; Spirit alone is real; Spirit is the flesh. 

The finite is illusory; the infinite alone is real; the infinite is the finite.

Word containers that point towards that which is impossible to express.

A bit about me, I've been exploring concepts of non-duality and recently idealism over the past several years. My current interests include how idealism can be bridged to the masses, and Christian mysticism. Inspired by the recent published essay, MUSINGS ON IDEALISM, ADVAITA AND CHRISTIANITY, I'd like to post more thoughts on how non-duality can be found in Christianity.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Chuck Gafvert]

Thanks Dana, I'll be working on a summary of what I have in mind shortly.

Yes, the paradigm of good and evil. Western culture seems permeated with it. That's another area I've devoted some thought. My opinion is that being human means that each one of us can potentially represent the full spectrum of "good" and "evil." All human morality is humans judging humans which despite its relative value, is meaningless from the absolute perspective. Any point here is not to condone evil, but to understand what it means to be human and investigate what it is we believe that separates us from others.

I think honest inquiry eventually leads to questioning our most precious beliefs about life, like what is good and evil. Everything has to be dealt with, everything has to be seen through.

[Lou Gold]

Thanks for furthering this discussion Chuck.

I'd like to post more thoughts on how non-duality can be found in Christianity. 

I hope that you will reach back earlier to the pre-Christian culture through which Jesus expressed himself and to whom he spoke.

Firstly, the fundamental Hebrew prayer: "Hear O Israel. The Lord our God. The Lord is One", which means "Listen folks, we are devoted to Oneness Itself"-- not "the One among many or others" or "the only one" but "the One." 

Secondly, the great declaration of Jesus is pure Unity or Non-dual consciousness: "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30)

Finally, in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus poignantly and precisely describes the process of transcending duality to arrive at the Non-dual Paradise. 

See: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas22.html

However, what is today understood as Christianity are the emergent and still-emerging forms, which unfolded in the centuries after Jesus and reflected many cultural influences coalescing around the power and control needs of a growing church institution seeking to maintain and enhance itself. Many tensions between spirit and power thus came into play and remain to this day, including, I would argue, the consciousness vs matter debates that appear in this forum. 

I can easily imagine a contemporary university dean (perhaps, even of science) in the role of this cardinal:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om6HcUUa8DI

[Charles Coon]

Lou..you have summed up quite well the relationship between consciousness and the Christian tradition.

I would add the seven "I am" statements of Jesus, which are usually poorly interpreted. "I am" is simply the

experience of Awareness, which Jesus was inviting each of us to experience. He was speaking of an

experience available to all, including himself, but not only for himself..which is the root of the Christian errors

that followed, as you describe.

Thanks,

CharlesC

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8d308eef-499c-4531-82d6-1ea9f94d4d1b%40googlegroups.com.

[Lou Gold]

@Charles Coon

Thanks Charles. I am here responding intuitively and not as a student of philosophy or religion. Since my formal knowledge in such is quite thin, I really appreciate all that I'm learning in this forum. I'm not familiar with the collection of "I am" statements to which you refer. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could give a link or further explanation.

[Charles Coon]

Lou..below is a link to a listing of these I am statements.  Non-duality teachers like to change each of

them to I am...is the way, the truth, and the life.  The experience of I am is the source of what

follows.  A significant difference from conventional teaching.  Much on Google if you wish to

explore more...CharlesC

https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/chart_43_08/

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8d308eef-499c-4531-82d6-1ea9f94d4d1b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/169504c0-3067-4c1a-87bc-ebb09bf6b1e3%40googlegroups.com.

[Chuck Gafvert]

Some great references listed.

Also from the gospel of Thomas:

“The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth but men do not see it.”

A provocation to open our eyes to the transcendent that is right here and right now. To see the light of true reality shining through the illusory material world of space and time. And after making the transition from scientific materialism to Idealism, how I sometimes feel about those still in it :-)

Although I'm outfitted in Idealism, perhaps you can tell I'm non-dualist at heart. I consider Idealism as secular non-duality.

There are NT references to a great mystery, that I also think are relevant here.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8d308eef-499c-4531-82d6-1ea9f94d4d1b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Aditya Prasad]

Glad to have you aboard, Chuck :)

From my own understanding of Buddhism, this would not be a precise characterization of emptiness:

> Form is illusory; emptiness alone is real; emptiness is form.

Emptiness is the lack of intrinsic reality, and emptiness itself is empty (i.e., lacks intrinsic reality).

Some relevant quotes to contrast Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism:

Swami Abhayananda:

This, of course, is why the Self is so hard to get a handle on; we are used to tackling the task of “knowing” by focusing on the object to be known, but, in this case, it is the knowing Subject, which we are attempting to know. It is the Ground, the very Consciousness that is the background of knowing, the Screen, as it were, on which the thought-images appear.

In Buddhism there is no ultimate background, substrate, or subject "left over." Trungpa Rinpoche:

The bad news is you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground.

https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html

"There are different theories of causality described by advaita vedAntins, but they are all agreed that brahman is the sole cause of the universe"

A random blogger whose writing I like:

Realization of the Fourth Time at buddhahood means no less than realization that causality is the big lie. Think on it. Think long and hard on it. Understand, at least conceptually, that the causal model collapses the instant agency does, all other criteria for fourth path being met. Dzogchen view is that the Unbounded Whole is uncaused, that it spontaneously manifests transient-instant-by-transient-instant. Taking the ultimate fruit as path view, there is not even any karma to purify.

Cheers,

Aditya

On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 5:53:11 PM UTC-5, Chuck Gafvert wrote:

[Chuck Gafvert]

Aditya,

Thanks for the clarification on emptiness from a Buddhist perspective.
For me, the juxtaposition of these paradoxical terms all point to the integration of the human and divine, the relative and absolute. Rather then wallow in human imperfection (which I did for many years), or be stuck in divine absolutism (which I did for a while), these pointers speak of the integration of both, right now: this is it.

I found that quote from Jhāna Jenny. I have conceptually accepted agencylessness but have not experienced it as such. Have you tried Daniel's technique of trying to do something other than what happens?

[Dana Lomas]

Certainly, 'emptiness' or 'sunyata' has varied and nuanced meanings. I do appreciate this take on it from Thich Nhat Hanh ... Empitiness is NOT nothing.

[Aditya Prasad]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chuck Gafvert <cgaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Aditya,

Thanks for the clarification on emptiness from a Buddhist perspective.
For me, the juxtaposition of these paradoxical terms all point to the integration of the human and divine, the relative and absolute. Rather then wallow in human imperfection (which I did for many years), or be stuck in divine absolutism (which I did for a while), these pointers speak of the integration of both, right now: this is it.

I found that quote from Jhāna Jenny. I have conceptually accepted agencylessness but have not experienced it as such. Have you tried Daniel's technique of trying to do something other than what happens?

I have not. Various bits of this are conceptual to me as well, and other parts there may be some recognition. 

Here are a couple of quotes from the practice perspective that have clarified for me some subtle differences between the models:

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/bernadette-roberts-interview/

(Bernadette is a Christian mystic)

Stephan: How did you discover the further stage, which you call the experience of no-self?

Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center – the coin, or “true self” – suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine. Our subjective life of experience is over – the passage is finished. I had never heard of such a possibility or happening. Obviously there is far more to the elusive experience we call self than just the ego. The paradox of our passage is that we really do not know what self or consciousness is, so long as we are living it, or are it. The true nature of self can only be fully disclosed when it is gone, when there is no self.
...
Actually, I met up with Buddhism only at the end of my journey, after the no-self experience. Since I knew that this experience was not articulated in our contemplative literature, I went to the library to see if it could be found in the Eastern Religions. It did not take me long to realize that I would not find it in the Hindu tradition, where, as I see it, the final state is equivalent to the Christian experience of oneness or transforming union. If a Hindu had what I call the no-self experience, it would be the sudden, unexpected disappearance of the Atman-Brahman, the divine Self in the “cave of the heart”, and the disappearance of the cave as well. It would be the ending of God-consciousness, or transcendental consciousness – that seemingly bottomless experience of “being”, “consciousness”, and “bliss” that articulates the state of oneness. To regard this ending as the falling away of the ego is a grave error; ego must fall away before the state of oneness can be realized. The no-self experience is the falling away of this previously realized transcendent state.

Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist’s insistence on no eternal Self – be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman. Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the “no-self experience”; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, “All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed.” And there it was – the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

Adyashanti:

https://marillesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/experiencing-no-self_qanda.pdf

“Oneness is experienced at the level that I call the heart. While the experience of oneness is transformational and profound, it is not itself the experience of no-self, it is the experience of unified, or universal self—self as everything and everyone. The falling away of self is a falling away of even oneness into what is prior to unity. The trajectory is from self experiencing itself as ego, to self experiencing itself as oneness, to self dropping away altogether. What is left cannot be described, because all descriptions are only relevant in terms of their opposites. And beyond self there is no opposite, not even unity or oneness, silence or presence. There is nothing that can be said about it, not even that it is freedom. Where all words fail, that’s where it exists. It is the Pearl beyond price, and it is the only thing that is ever happening or ever could happen. I am not being purposely obscure, I am actually being as direct and concrete as I can.”

“The falling away of self means both the falling away of self and Self, as in True Self. It is beyond both individual self and universal self. And yes, it is beyond all distinctions, categorizations, and descriptions. One cannot open the door to no-self by any means, but one can stop holding the door closed. That is all that is required.”

“It probably sounds pretty bad to have the divine state fall away, and it can be experienced as quite a profound loss. But such a loss is necessary in order for self to fall away and what is beyond self to reveal itself. The problem with the word “self ” is that it is often associated with ego, which it is not. Self as I am using the term is not the ego at all. Self is what enables you to experience the ego state, and the non-ego state alike—as well as divinity, inwardness, outwardness, separation, and unity. All of these experiences happen within, to, and because of self. Self can go from being experienced as profound separation to being experienced as the universal “I am.” It can experience itself as either a separate ego or as God. So self is quite an amazing function. But self does have its limits and it does come to an end. What comes after self is what I am attempting to clarify through this course. Not in order to set up something more to chase, but because more people will be going through this transition in the near future. No-self is not simply an insight after all, and my hope is that this course will be a helpful companion along the way.”

“Self-consciousness is the last form of identity to go, and what goes with it is all the spiritual states of consciousness as well. One of the main reasons why so few people fully make this transition is that they will not let go of all forms of self consciousness and the wonderful forms of expanded experience and identity that go with them. When the “divine within” falls away forever, the movement toward the permanent falling away of self has begun. We only let go completely when we are completely ready to, with no qualifications”

“The question here for you is, what exists in the absence of self ? Not simply in the conceptual absence, as we hear so much silly talk about in modern spirituality, but in the actual lived absence. The absence or emptiness of literally everything reveals the true nature of everything. And the true nature of everything is not only its emptiness but also the true nature of its form, of its existence. From eternity’s point of view, everything is itself; nothing is perceived as either emptiness or form, as existing or not existing. Each moment IS eternity, each thing IS eternity. From the human point of view, this may sound nice but it can in fact be quite stark and shocking. But seen from eternity’s eyes, it all looks quite different.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/3BMKrFSg-uU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/032dc381-d17b-4ed1-a13b-4ef2fe4db3df%40googlegroups.com.

[lou gold]

Thanks Dana for bringing forth Thich Nhat Hanh, whose engaged Buddhism sees relationship as a more central focus than individual liberation, although both are obviously connected co-created inter-being. 

[lou gold]

Great stuff Aditya,

I reminds me that in the Christian-based spiritual technology of forgiveness (Course on Miracles, for example) the end-state is the realization that there was nothing to forgive. It also reminds me that in the biblical accounts of the forgiveness of Jesus, there are always two parts: 1) you are forgiven and 2) don't do it again. The second is the rub and fall, which can be forgiven ad infinitum. Perhaps someday we'll get it right unless the ridgepole of our earthly home ends the experiment.

[Chuck Gafvert]

Aditya, so what I think the voices in the quotes are pointing to is the difference between an expanded liberated self, and the no-self. Life without a center. The falling away of both ego and self. 

"If the self fundamentally drops away, ego drops away, too. But you can have ego fall away and still have self." ~Adya

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Aditya Prasad]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:56 PM Chuck Gafvert <cgaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Aditya, so what I think the voices in the quotes are pointing to is the difference between an expanded liberated self, and the no-self. Life without a center. The falling away of both ego and self. 

"If the self fundamentally drops away, ego drops away, too. But you can have ego fall away and still have self." ~Adya

Yeah, I agree. And Brahman is Self; what's ultimately Real; the permanent background. Emptiness is the realization that this, too, is a (very subtle) conditioned phenomenon.

Again, just my 2c!

 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/032dc381-d17b-4ed1-a13b-4ef2fe4db3df%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/3BMKrFSg-uU/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/315caf86-ce83-454e-8bea-44888328b242%40googlegroups.com.