Atmik sukh v Vahjik sukh
##############
ADB-
“You normally have to be bashed about a bit by life to see the point of daffodils, sunsets and uneventful nice days.”
###################
Friday, 31 December 2021
MIL ILL CRSS
SRK
So Krishna and Krishna's representatives come to invite the fallen, forgetful souls back to Home, back to Godhead. Krishna does not force anyone to come as a prisoner. He gives everyone to free choice of either remaining here to rot in in this material world in the cycle of birth, death, old age, and disease or to return to His association in the spiritual world in which he lives eternally as youth full of knowledge and full of bliss
###########
[Post # 1,476] Reminiscence of Ramlal Chattopadhyay:
One morning the Master asked someone to cut a twig for him so that he could clean his teeth. The person brought three twigs. The Master took one and said to him: "Rascal! I asked you to bring one twig. Why did you bring three? However, save those two." The next morning the Master asked the same person for another twig. When he was about to go to the garden, the Master said: "Where are you going? Why don't you give me one of those that you brought yesterday?" Then the Master continued: "Without checking the stock, why are you running to get a new one? Have you created that tree? You are about to break its branches at your own whim! Only the Creator knows how difficult it is to create. You are dullheaded. Learn how to work methodically. Do not waste anything.
N
Consciousness is full and uninterrupted, that is, everything is good. The primordial wisdom is perfect and unobstructed. Everything is perfect as it is.
N
ABDPHNY22
N
A.
N
Something that goes hand in hand with
learning social skills is rapport building,
which opens the door for better opportun-
ities in terms of your job or career life. An
interviewer is much likelier to choose the
candidate who sends the right impression
and who they feel good about, and you
have a better chance of fitting this profile
when you are smart with reading non-
verbal cues and accurately judging or as-
sessing the body language of others.
N
###########
##############
#################
Eating healthy plant-based foods will reduce the risk of COVID infection and its severity, a study finds.
The protective effect of a healthy plant-based diet against COVID appears to be even greater for those living in deprived areas.
###############
AB-CDS-M2- DP HNY 2022
EMAN -HNY 22- ENTROPY MAYA ANITTA
#################
Like a parrot waiting patiently for silk-cotton fruit to ripen, you persist in your suffering. - Ramana Maharshi, Guruvachaka Kovai
Silk-cotton tree fruit doesn’t change color when it ripens.
When perfectly ripe, it’s green.
A parrot waiting for this fruit to ripen will be disappointed - the fruit will fall off the tree while he waits.
When we meditate to attain enlightenment, we wait for fruit to ripen that is already ripe.
Existence-consciousness-bliss is always present, but we won't accept it.
Working toward it is another form of resistance.
The world itself is an illusory distraction from infinite reality.
An imaginary ladder can’t get you back to the place you never left!
Only be as you are - the ever-present reality, pure consciousness, simple existence.
#######################
E n my opinion enlightment is progressive but not conscient. IT BECOMES CONSCIENT when the realization of something that was there already becomes evident. I am 82 and all my life I have tried to understand what was enlightment. I FOUND A DEGREE OF Enlightment by reflexion and self examination. I could already establish a spiritual contact with nature, then I felt that it was my ego stopping my evolution. One morning I found that the most different thing to me and my body was a stone Ora rock, but when I thought of my ones made with the same material, something opened in my mind and in my heart, I could feel through my pores the whole universe.
######################
Thank you, Ayush. This is a wonderful question for advanced meditators, referring back to Patanjali’s very first sutra: “Yogas chitta vrittti nirodaha,” Yoga (union, is-ness, wholeness) is the cessation of the vrittis - ripples in the mind-stuff. It is often translated as cessation of ‘thoughts,’ but as Ayush notes here, resting in the Witness behind the thoughts, judgments, emotions and desires, we soon see all of them as nothing but mere sensations - rising & passing phenomena that have no intrinsic meaning or ‘need to respond’ of their own. Indeed, at one point this one started to see them as empty ripples…nothing more.
Yes, there may appear to be something still ‘aware’ of the base sensation and the gaps.
No, it’s not important to label it (mind,) or isolate it.
Whether “we” call it ‘mind,’ ‘another latent part of my mind,’ ‘pure awareness,’ the Witness, or one of the many Buddhist terms for levels of mind observation (Dhammānupassanā, Cittānupassanā, Sattipathana) or whatever, is not important.
What can be important for the advanced meditator, is the realization that what still appears to be present at that point is subject-object. “Something (subject) remains aware of those sensations/gaps (objects.) So there is still duality and a sense, albeit more subtle, of a ‘separate entity,’ an “I,” perceiving objects outside or inside of “itself.”
Which instantly makes your last question, “How should I proceed further?” into an oxymoron. It is the very remaining perception of “yourself” as a separate “I” and the desire for that “I” to go ‘further’….that is preventing you from proceeding further :-)
Obviously, that desire is for the “personal I” to reach a ‘higher state,’ it’s own “personal enlightenment or bliss.” And obviously, any “personal” desire can only inflate and perpetuate the ego-sense. “You” cannot proceed any further. “You” must die, must be willing to totally dissolve (which is an illusion because ”you” never existed as a separate entity with it’s own free will in the first place.:-)
And paradoxically, “you” cannot cause that. Anything “you” would attempt would only reinforce the illusion of a separate “you.”
So what can “you” do?
Just let go…
###############################
ZEN witnessing the mind’s content objectively” cool, can you bite your own teeth too?
#####################
If “I” let go of “you”, it is the “I” that still remains. Then you will tell me to let go of that “I” and it will again be that “I” that still remains,….ad infinitum. So, “letting go” won’t do.
####################
Because you insist that whatever we do, you say, here is the “me”, here is the “I”, so it isn’t gonna work. So when you say, “ you will have to let go as the “final straw”, then I will have to bring up “who is letting go?” So, it itself says “ somebody will be letting go”, so I will say, “T, you’re still having “somebody” in there and it can’t be right”. So since it goes “ad infinitum” maybe that is the way to follow through until the intensity of the “somebodiness” gradually diminishes until it is no more and there is no more of an argument to continue on.
#####################
t’s all ‘poetic pointing,’ non-teachers doing the best they can with human language to counsel non-students. God talking to God about things God already knows and needs no reminding. Why so literal, Swami?
But this is a golden opportunity for “you,” S, to examine your addiction to mind, to breaking things down through that deductive mind, and how this addiction-to-mind causes you to waste a lot of time debating a totally moot point on Quora instead of just…letting go’:-)
Is not letting go another doing? This is where my struggle is. I know that I am the Awareness through actual experience. But there are lots of life situations where emotions like anger just take over. It’s just like a kid who has learnt biking and is able to handle heavy traffic but when traffic becomes overwhelming, the balance is lost.
N
Rinpoche explains that having this one-time opportunity makes us unbelievably fortunate—a perfect human rebirth is more precious than the whole sky filled with wish-granting jewels. This is because even skies of wish-granting jewels don’t have the power to purify our negative karma and save us from the lower realms, nor can they give us liberation from samsara and enlightenment, but having a perfect human rebirth can do this.
We have been creating negative karma from beginningless rebirths, which is why it is so important to do purification practices in this life—before our negative karma ripens. Once it ripens, there’s nothing we can do; we must experience the result. Therefore, we need to do a purification practice every day. There are many practices we can do for purification, including Vajrasattva practice, prostrations to the Thirty-Five Confession Buddhas, and others. Although these formal purification practices are extremely effective in purifying our negative karma, Rinpoche explains that the most powerful thing we can do to purify our negative karma is to follow our guru’s advice and please our guru. But if we don’t realize how valuable and important these practices are and that having a perfect human rebirth gives us the perfect opportunity to do them, we might think it is better to spend our time at the beach swimming in the water like a fish!
N
Wednesday, 29 December 2021
KY - RZLG LINE
According to experts, doing daily exercise can help your body’s natural defence system to fight infections.
####################
SCI AND HIM SCIAM LINE - DUST PLUS
#######################
###############################
Wearing headphones for just an hour will increase the bacteria in your ear by 700 times.
####################
Being appears to be having a dream of ‘separateness.’
(“Our” dream-minds exist only inside Being’s dream of separateness, so ‘mind’ can never step outside and ‘witness’ Being dreaming it, nor comprehend ‘why,’ any ‘purpose’ or ‘cause’ for Being dreaming this. So don’t try to get this with “your” mind.:-) 🤔
Obviously, a successful dream of ‘separateness’ would not work without awareness appearing to be located in ‘each’ of the ten-trillion ‘separate entities.’ If “dream-I” thought its awareness was not only in “me,” but in you and you and “you” and this tree and that Sun…oops, the dream-illusion of ‘separateness collapses instantly.😍
Back into just Oneness, Being.
Which is precisely what happens (appears to happen) in ‘liberation.’
Collapsing back into the natural reality, What Is, it’s not that “my self” awareness is now experienceable in ‘other’ locations as well as my own body-mind.
It’s that there is no “self” awareness is happening to.
The dreamer awakens, and everything looks the same, except there is no longer a “self” to whom it looks that way. Just what’s happening. All at once. To no one.
#######################
Let’s try to understand whether or not Self is an illusion
Someone can tell you that The Self, The Ego, The Mind are all illusions, but it is quite unlikely that a rational mind be a able to accept that. You can believe them, but I strongly suggest not to believe anything that’s not your experience. When you go for a morning walk, go close to a gum tree, touch it , it will touch you back, your brain will know that you are touching the tree. Touch a flower, you will sense it’s touch, smell it you will feel pleasant. Climb up a wall and jump, the gravity will tell you your reality by pulling you back towards it, thereby proving that you belong to the earth. Every thing around you that you can see, touch, feel is declaring loud and clear that you are there. So how are you an illusion ?
Let me try to explain what people mean when they say Self is an illusion. I will then let you decide whether Self is an illusion or not -
Take are rope and tie a knot in it. Look closely at the knot. Does the knot exist ? Yeah it does, Does the knot have any existence of it’s own, separate from the rope ? Can it exist without the rope ?
This is the reality of Human Ego, this is the reality of mind. The human mind is a knot in the Universe, It’s just the Universe, just a quaint twist in time and space. Just like you can feel the knot in the rope, you can sense your mind. Once the knot is untied all that remains is the rope. When the mind vanishes, whether by death or by Enlightenment, the cosmos remains in it purity.
On a windy day, go to a beach and watch the waves rising in the sea. What is a wave ? Does a wave really exist ? The wind makes a wave rise it lives for a short moment , the sea then pulls it back into itself. Does the wave exist ? Well, it does, it sure does. A wave is a structure on the surface of the sea, it rises, lives for sometime and then falls, goes back into the sea. It has a life, probably a few moments then it becomes the sea again. A wave does exist, a strong, a Tsunami is powerful enough to destroy a city, kill people. Go deep down into the sea, What do you find there ? Just the vastness, just water, depth, is there any wave there ? Nah, there’s nothing, just depth, deep silence. Would you say a wave is illusion? This is the mind, the Self, the Ego. It’s a wave on the surface of the vast cosmos and small disturbance is the silence of eternity.
You fill the ice tray with water and put it in the freezer, a few hours later it becomes ice. The form changes, water crystallizes into ice. What is ice ? Essentially it is water in it’s deeper reality but it has crystallized due to a change of it’s environment.
Human body is just crystallized God. Two people are making love and their love, by some mystery of nature becomes a conducive environment for the the vast consciousness to crystallize into a new body. Human body is just like ice, While ice is solidification of water, Body is the solidification of God, body is the God crystallized in flesh and blood, body is Frozen God. It will remain body for a life time and then go back to being eternity again.
Mind has a peculiar property, it can and does think itself as separate from the Being, separate from the whole existence, just like the Knot on the rope saying, I am and the rope is naught, the wave saying I am and the sea is naught, Ice saying I am and the water is naught.
To an enlightened person your question would seem something like this -
If the knot in the rope is an illusion, is there any explanation as to why rope is localized in the knot ?
If the wave in the sea is an illusion, is there any explanation as to why there’s sea in the wave ?
If a crystal of ice is an illusion, is there any explanation as to why there’s water in the ice crystal ?
This is how an enlightened person will perceive your question. You can probably have an idea of the difficulty of how a person who has realized the truth, who has attained enlightenment will try to answer your question ? Think about it, think deeply, Contemplate on these question and see how much sense they make to you.
If self is an illusion, is there an explanation as to why awareness is localized in the body
Yes here’s the explanation - self is a knot in the consciousness, self is a wave in the sea of consciousness, body is solidified awareness, that’s why there’s awareness in the self, in the body.
Mind is an Illusion, but Cant deny itself , Mind is already Enlightened but not quite yet
Mind follows an intellectual approach to understand things. Intellect has to break things into parts, intellect cuts. Intellect is narrow, it has difficulty in understanding something that is not divisible. But in reality there’s only oneness, there’s no separation. There’s no Duality, there’s no two, there’s only oneness. Even Oneness indicates the possibility of a second that’s why the wise people have come up with this term - Non Duality - “no two ness” no separation.
I fully appreciate that mind has questions, a lot of question, mind has curiosity, it wants to know more, it wants to grow, it wants to expand and deep down it wants to become the universe - what it originally is. The knot is troublesome, it wants to untie itself and become the rope again, the wave wants to become the vastness of the see, Ice has a deep desire to melt to be able to flow like water again.
Non Duality, Oneness, Enlightenment are all about, untying the knot, becoming the sea and allowing oneself to melt, become one.
Monday, 27 December 2021
LM KY
####################
######################
"What is the center around which the vortex of our life exists? It is the soul." Daaji
#######################
##########################
Some fools declare that God created the universe. if God created the universe, where was He before creation? Did God create the universe out of something? if He did, who created the material out of which He created the universe?...
- Mahapurana (c. 9th century) - Jain sacred text
#################################
MIL OPN HI BM
Spending time outside in green spaces reduces stress, improves sleep and has a host of health benefits, research finds.
##############
SLF RUQ PAIN
#################
BOONE Nature was here a series of wonders, and a fund of delight."
###############
PSY Being nice is a sign that your IQ is high, research reveals.
#################
Reclaim your curiosity, your sense of adventure, and have some fun. Don't take every moment of your life so seriously. Allow yourself to enjoy life."
-- Akiroq Brost
######################
Many of life’s failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. - Thomas Edison
###############
dwm
Eating berries, nuts, cocoa products, apples, and drinking tea have been found to improve blood circulation and vascular health
##################
Neutral Monism: A Saner Solution to the Mind/Body Problem
Sam Coleman seeks a balance between two extreme views of consciousness.
The mind-body problem is that it is difficult to see how the mental and the physical fit together within one world. Part of the difficulty is the unsatisfactoriness of trying to explain either side of the mental/physical duality in terms of the other. Purported physical explanations of consciousness inevitably fall short of their target. They seem about as suitable as a plan to build a skyscraper out of marshmallows, or an attempt to recreate the sensuous colour and curves of a Cezanne painting using only a pencil and set square – the materials are simply not up to the job. Physical objects and properties just do not seem the right kind of ingredients with which to create experiences. And although the failure of physical explanations might make panpsychism seem an appealing option (see Philip Goff’s seductive article), seeking to capture the physical in terms of the mental is equally inappropriate, albeit for the opposite reason: this manoeuvre is so overblown, it’s metaphysical overkill. The panpsychist claim that everything physical has a degree of consciousness seems an almost wholly gratuitous addition to the properties physics assigns electrons and their microphysical kin. And if there’s one thing that perturbs physicists and metaphysicists in equal measure, it’s gratuitous additions. Although we certainly need more than the mere tendencies or behaviour physics ascribes – as Goff says, we require an account of what matter, for example, an electron, is in itself, not just of what it does – to plug this gap with prefab minds is too much. True, nothing physics says positively rules out that electrons behave as they do because they literally have minds and feelings – Schrödinger’s equation works even if electrons repel one another due to mutual resentment. But nature favours economy, and economy counts against spreading consciousness all over nature. That would be decadent.
Wanted: A New Middle Way
Physicalism and panpsychism sit either end of a metaphysical seesaw, and when one is in the ascendancy it is only by bringing the other unduly low. The austerity of the physical account should not be privileged at the cost of mentality’s richness; but neither ought the otherwise elegant and parsimonious microphysical world to be stuffed to the gills with consciousness. A saner view would achieve a balance between the two poles of the mental-physical duality. Perhaps the lesson to draw from the failure of both of those unilateral solutions, which attempt to frame the mind/body conundrum in terms of only one side of the equation, is that we are in need of something new: a third, middle way.
What then if the mental and the physical, quite irreconcilable when taken as independent natures, are really the common offspring of another sort of nature, something in-between the two? This something would be an essence neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and physical. Theories that propose this are called ‘neutral monist’: ‘monist’ because, unlike dualism, they envisage only one fundamental kind of stuff in the world; ‘neutral’ because this unifying nature is hypothesised to lie betwixt mentality and physicality, equidistant from each, distinct from either, and ultimately responsible for both.
The Nature of the Neutral
What special sort of nature might this neutral basis be? We already have a conception of it, in terms of the role neutral properties are to play in our worldview. Neither mental nor physical, they must be capable of producing mental and physical properties through their interactions – perhaps analogously to how subatomic particles produce atoms of all sorts with radically different properties, merely by combining in various ways. Some neutral monists stop there, from a belief that a more fleshed-out description of the neutral nature is beyond us. But this is not a comfortable resting place. This skeletal specification of the nature of the neutral amounts only to a job description. We might dearly wish there to exist properties that could play this dual and in-between role: that would solve the whole mind-body problem! But the job description, for all we know, may be a description of the impossible. To make sure that this isn’t the case – that we aren’t investing our hopes in a metaphysical chimera – we need to offer a more positive conception of the neutral properties. The closer to home the suggested candidate properties are – the more familiar, and the less abstrusely theoretical – the better, for we desire a conception that matches panpsychism and physicalism in their clarity and concreteness. We feel we know what their proponents mean when they say, respectively, that the physical is fundamentally conscious or that the mental is nothing but machinations of the physical. We must aim to make the neutral monist proposal, unfamiliar as it is, equally intelligible.
Two Conceptions of Colours
Are there any familiar properties that might offer a suitable analogy? Colours might be the very sort of ambivalent properties we seek. That is because although two opposing conceptions of colour exist, colours seem to elude being completely characterised by either, just as our neutral properties are hypothesised to evade the categories of the physical and the mental.
On a commonsense conception, colours are resolutely non-mental properties that reside on the surfaces and also permeate the hidden insides of physical objects – like red apples with white interiors. Although the colours of objects are perceivable by minds, common sense does not make it a condition of an object’s being coloured that someone be currently experiencing it, nor that anyone ever will. Colours, on this view, do not depend on conscious awareness, or mentality of any sort. Quite the contrary: if we inquire further into the nature of colours under the commonsense conception, we are most likely to equate them with objectively measurable physical properties – wavelengths, for example. Conceived of in this way, colours exist whether anyone is looking or not. Your favourite shirt is no less loud for being in the wardrobe.
On a second conception, which we might call more philosophically informed (or misinformed, depending on your perspective – for there are philosophers who vigorously defend the commonsense conception), colours are paradigmatically mental properties. After all, we dream, and can hallucinate, colours just like those we see. People with Charles Bonnet Syndrome experience especially vivid colour hallucinations. For homemade colour hallucinations rub your eyelids for ten seconds, or stare at a bright light for half a minute and look around. When dreaming of an apple, no light rays are hitting your retinas, nor are you in sight of a real apple. So whatever is red and white about a dream apple is only within your mind. Colours under this second conception do require the touch of consciousness. This would mean that there can be no such thing as an unexperienced colour; colours exist only when some mind’s eye sees them. And what goes for the colours of sleep is also true of the colours we experience when awake: right now the colours you are seeing are in your mind (so waves of light are not intrinsically coloured, since light waves evidently exist when no-one sees them). We could label this the ‘Cartesian’ conception of colours, since René Descartes is usually blamed for this line of thought, although (like every other Western philosopher) he’s only following Plato, who forcefully chipped away at the objectivity of colours.
The debate rages on, among philosophers anyway, as to which of these contrasting conceptions of colours is correct. It is even possible to combine the two: while dreamt or hallucinated colours may be the mind’s products (perhaps they are stored ‘templates’ of waking colour), the seen colours of daily life could still belong to external physical things, such as light waves or objects. The combined view would then be that colours are sometimes internal/mental, and sometimes external/physical.
Colours as a Pointer to the Neutral Properties
This controversy just goes to show how perfectly colours might fit the neutral monist’s bill. Any properties that can be construed so easily now as physical, now as mental, would seem to have precisely what it takes to be judged as being ultimately – that is, in themselves – of neither category. Colours might well show up in the world doing here a mental job, there a physical job, but like a construction worker who moonlights as a cabaret star, be intrinsically defined by neither of these very different occupations.
The conspicuous and persistent ambiguity in our conception of colours provides serious evidence that in their own nature they elude classification as either mental or physical. We might choose to follow Bertrand Russell (himself following William James and Ernst Mach) in counting a colour as ‘mental’ when it is something in or to a mind, but as ‘physical’ when it belongs to an external physical thing. That is, colours are mental when they play mind-related roles, like being in present sensation, being remembered, or being dreamt, and physical when they play physical roles – like obeying the equations of physics. But these are just roles, and colours, as neutral properties, are no more defined by them than an actress is defined by the roles she takes on. It’s a hard thought to get one’s teeth into, but perhaps colours are just… colours.
So whereas the panpsychist fills quarks and electrons with conscious minds, the neutral monist constructs the universe from neither-mental-nor-physical qualities, of which colours might be said to provide the exemplar. Far from panpsychism, this is a ‘panqualityism’ (that sleek name is thanks to S.C. Pepper, via Herbert Feigl). It should be noted however that colours ultimately offer us only a conception of the kind of properties we seek. The panqualityist neutral monist is committed to them as a placeholder for the neutral properties, nothing more. That is, colours demonstrate that there could be such natures. Still, the neutral natures that actually underlie the world may be quite alien to us. But then again, perhaps not: it might even be that those colourful plastic models of atoms, familiar from school, are remarkably close to the deep truth about matter: it is nothing more nor less than ‘colour-stuff’ (think of squeezing out a tube of red paint into a heap).
Are colours in the world or in the mind?
The Payoff
Our brains consist of matter, of course. So panpsychism builds the conscious cortex out of tiny conscious minds, giving nary a thought to how this crowd of trillions combines into you: do you feel a vast population teeming in your head? The neutral monist, by contrast, makes brains from neutral qualities. Such qualities are physical when they play physical/chemical/biological roles in the brain, and mental when they provide the content that appears in consciousness. But in themselves the qualities are neither mental nor physical. So when you are conscious of a colour that is also playing a physical role (as, say, a constituent of a physical object), the colour counts as simultaneously physical and mental. In this way, the whole difficulty of the mind/body problem – a blockage in the metaphysical pipeworks caused by the congealing of the centuries-old opposition of mental and physical – is simply flushed away.
Whence Consciousness?
But, take an assortment of these colours, or other kinds of sense-related qualities, or indeed any properties of this broad ‘qualitative’ sort, however exotic, and let them be oh-so-cleverly arranged in a brain: since these qualities themselves avowedly lack consciousness, how can they give rise to a genuine sensation, a feeling? Would not the panqualityist world, including panqualityist brains, be one of dead colours, in fact seen and experienced by nobody? It would be celluloid film without the projector’s beam. How, in a word, does neutral monism actually propose to give us consciousness?
Those who make this objection place consciousness upon too lofty a pedestal. It stands to reason that any genuine explanation of how consciousness arises must be in non-conscious terms, because you cannot explain something in terms of itself. So the objector’s real protest appears to be that experience cannot be explained at all, which seems a protest too far. A panpsychist of course feels that consciousness cannot be manufactured: rather, consciousness must be taken for granted in the world. Consciousness! Taken for granted! (Exclamation is warranted here.) Physicalism is, as noted, too impoverished to explain experience. What puts panqualityist neutral monism a rung higher on the ladder of explanations than physicalism is the metaphysical boost provided by qualitative properties such as colours. In fact, when a normal person (hence a non-philosopher) reports on her conscious experience, all she ever mentions are the qualities of which she is aware and the things to which they seem to belong: like pains in toes, or red buses. She never mentions her consciousness of these properties in addition. Search for it: consciousness itself seems rather a flimsy thing, hard – possibly impossible – to glimpse, as G.E. Moore noted a century ago. Perhaps the most we can say about it is that qualities, such as colours, are apparent to us. And when we aren’t conscious of them, well, they aren’t apparent. But if consciousness is no more than a quality’s being apparent, or appearing, to one, then consciousness might be considerably more mundane a property than our objector reckons. Perhaps then a metaphysical system built of nothing but qualities could capture consciousness, after all. Consciousness would be a certain special kind of connection holding between a quality and a person’s brain. Special, yes; but it would be nothing like the magical glow that has blinded philosophers for so long.COLEMAN
###################
#####################
#################
#################
#################
#################
###########################
#########################
NON DUAL EX
Exercise #1: Drawing An Imaginary Line
Sit comfortably and quietly, still your mind, and become aware of direct experience.
Locate a distant object in your visual field. Any object will do, like a tree, a car, a sofa, a lamp, a book.
Now, take your index finger and try to draw an imaginary line from that object to "you".
Draw this line using your finger, but go very slowly. Move backward from the object to "you".
Pay extra-careful attention to exactly when and where your finger reaches "you".
Notice that it never actually reaches "you", because there's no you there!
The line always terminates at nothingness.
Become deeply conscious of this until your identity as a self starts to break down.
If you think the finger reaches you at the skin threshold, look more closely. In your direct experience do you actually perceive skin between the object and "you"? Be very careful here. There is no skin between object and eyeball. For that matter, there is no eyeball
#####################
The human brain has a memory capacity which is the equivalent of more than four terabytes on a hard drive
4 X TRANSCENDS
##################
NDEX
################
Your skull is made up of 29 different bones
##################
####################
###########################
###################
####################
#####################
######################
The Tantrasara begins by stating that perfect knowledge (pflr~iapratha) is the cause of liberation. It is the revelation of Siva-nature in one's own Self. Siva, who by His power of freedom (svatantrya sakti) appears to be limited in knowledge and action, removes all veils by the same power. As a result of this, He shines in His pristine, self-refulgent, pure consciousness. On the dawn of supreme knowledge of the nature of light (prakasa), marked by reflective self-knowledge (vimarsa), everything shines nondifferently in the mirror of consciousness. While describing the nature of mok~a, Abhinavagupta writes in the Paramartha-sara that there is no separate region of it, nor is one to proceed toward it, but it is to be realized by piercing the knots of ignorance by virtue of the full development of one's own power of freedom. However. mok~a should not be taken as the effect of knowledge (j1za11a) and the latter the cause of it, but as the manifestation of the real nature of the Self (atman).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)