a
Unblending
The idea of unblending (or detaching) is a very important one, both in yoga in IFS. To begin the healing process, we first must experience the distinction between our unchanging True Self and other parts that carry the burdens of our past (seeds of suffering or klesha-s). “I am not my pain / my anger / my diagnosed condition; it’s a part of me that experiences pain/anger/symptoms because it is either burdened with something or is trying to protect a burdened part .” That’s where the language of “parts” is so useful; it immediately signals to the client that only a part of them is affected, not their whole Self.
a
Kastrup makes a similar case to Albahari: the hard problem will never be answered if we try to explain how consciousness fi ts into a materialist universe. Th e only credible solution, says Kastrup, is to pursue an idealist solution.
A
a
Unburdening
Unburdening allows the client to release the weight of emotion, perception, or belief that is causing mental and physical suffering. In yoga, Sutra 2.2 calls it klesha tanu karana, which can be translated as “minimizing the seeds of suffering.”
a
JM
Ramana Maharshi’s father died when he was 12.
He heard people crying and talking about his father having passed.
The death was recent and the corpse well-preserved, so he thought his father was sleeping.
He pointed to the corpse and said:
My father is sleeping over there.
His relatives explained that his father is gone and only his body is there.
Most of us would just accept this self-contradictory statement.
But Sri Ramana had a logical mind.
He thought:
All this time, I thought my father was that body.
When a loved one dies, we believe they’re an astral body that left the material plane.
But Sri Ramana realized:
What ‘leaves’ the body was never there to begin with.
When you break a bowl, the space ‘inside’ isn’t liberated.
It’s seen to be identical with the surrounding space.
At age 16, he completely abandoned the ‘I am the body’ idea.
He didn’t say he was liberated because he was never trapped.
No one attains enlightenment - infinite Spirit simply is.
A
When you break a bowl, the space ‘inside‘ Isn’t liberated. - the entire essence of Advaita in one line. Beautiful!
A
What I conclude is that we all have a natural urge to experience eternal happiness and ‘experience’ happens only through the mind.
Scriptures and practice are needed to tame the mind to experience the eternal happiness that can be earned through spirituality only. Sri Ramana is a rare being who did not need it because he stumbled upon it by God’s grace. Everyone cannot be like him and hence need scriptures and practice (Sadhana) to make us worthy of God’s grace
A
As Bhagavad Gita says, we all exist at different levels of understanding -that doesn’t mean we stop trying to seek the eternal. When the time comes, the destination will be visible.
A
But the “bowl needs to be broken” before the “inner space can connect with the outer space,” and become one with it again.
Otherwise, it cannot realize its oneness with the outer space if it is cut-off from it, just as we can't realize our oneness with our Greater Self if we're cut off from it by the falseness of mind-ego.
OR WAVE TO OCEAN
A
PJ
My own experience with astral travel has me believing that the astral body is a perfectly amalgamated fit with the physical body. However there was no feeling of mass or weight. Its like a a breath that fills a space. Apart from the feeling of floating, everything else felt the same. You don't feel your body when you drop back in, but you are fully aware you have merged with it again
A
The mystery of consciousness has taken us further than we could ever have imagined. If Albahari is right, we no longer face the problem of explaining how minds can exist in a non-mental, material world. The world, says Miri – following the mystics – unfolds on a great cosmic stage: the stage of pure, perspective-less consciousness. There is no material world. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is no mind–body problem. Not if we see the world for what it really is. Not if we are aware of the world as consciousness. For many of us, the question is whether or not this answer comes at too high a price. Are we prepared to renounce the mind-independent material world in the name of consciousness? Maybe that’s what it will take. However, in the West, I think most people would rather follow in Descartes’s footsteps than Berkeley’s. They want the external material world and consciousness – they want to have their cake and to eat it too. If there’s a lesson to this book, it’s that – on our present understanding – we just can’t have both. Maybe we need to deny the existence of one. So, which is it going to be?
a
a
No comments:
Post a Comment