mok.sa

[Guest guest]

Dear Alex,

 

Here are my thoughts.

First of all, concepts like "conscious", "objects of consciousness",

"empty" are usually highly technical. So, a lot of confusion arises

when they are used in a wide sense instead of a narrow sense intended

in a phylosophical system. A good example of such confusion is use of

nirodha as equivalent of naza. nirodha of cittavRtti would mean only

confinement, restriction of cittavRtti, where as naza of cittavRtti

would mean that "stream of consciousness actually ceases to exist".

 

Second, the goal of liberation is neither 'empty', nor cognitionless,

nor sleep-like, nor is the state of complete unconsciousness. It is

rather a state when one have complete control of all faculties

(izvarata). So one is free shape the stream of consciousness to be

either "empty" and "still" or to be traversing parA, parApara, parA

stages of expression of vAk (as in Kashmiri Shaiva system).

 

The state of liberation is feared (and not only in the West) because

it leads to, or requires dissolution of ego, thus going against

built-in attachment to survival and physical body.

My guess is that a lot of misinterpretations arise because of this fear.

 

Regards, Dmitri.