John Reply to statements made by members of the group 3

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

 

Now that you have destroyed the dualistic models with your formidable

logic, all I can think of is a quote from " I am That " . Please

forgive me if it sounds didactic:

 

" You have answered your own question. Why play with ideas? Be content

with what you are sure of. And the only thing you can be sure of

is " I am " . Stay with it, and reject everything else. This is Yoga. "

- Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

P.S. I saw this quote the other day on the Advaita.org board posted

by Alan.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " john ward " <thejohnward@h...> wrote:

> Reply to Hur Guler 16 January 2001

>

> " There is a difference between awareness as reflected in

> consciousness and pure awareness beyond consciousness.

> Reflected awareness, the sense of 'I Am', is the witness,

> while the pure awareness is the essence of reality.

> Reflection of the sun in a drop of water is a reflection

> of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun itself.

>

> Nisargadatta pointed an ego-less level, a state of pure

> awareness that cannot be described. How can the dualistic

> mind describe the pure awareness of no thing while

> no-i present "

>

> Is it being stated that the Witness is a reflection of the

> Absolute Self? If the Absolute Self is unknown and unknowable

> and without form, and the Witness is known and has an

> appearance or form how can the two be compared?

> Something unobservable cannot be compared with anything else?

> If the Absolute Self is unobservable and unknowable

> who is able to compare the two in order to say that the one

> is a reflection of the other?

> If it is not possible to observe the Absolute Self but it is

> possible to be the Absolute, which is devoid of duality,

> then only the Absolute is able to know that the reflected

> awareness is different from itself, but to observe any difference

> compromises the zero or oneness of the Absolute?

> Does the Absolute see anything as being different from itself?

>

> Observing my own reflection in water I notice that the medium

> of the water changes and distorts the image reflected in it.

> If the Absolute wishes to know itself, the use of any reflection

> to achieve such a purpose seems relatively flawed?

> If reflected awareness is the sense of 'I Am' and the Witness,

> can the Absolute be completely without 'I'?

> Why does 'I Am' appear in the reflection but is not in the Absolute

> which is the source of the reflection? If no-I is present in the

Absolute

> how does it appear in the reflection?

> The word 'ego' is of recent etymology, apparently derived from

Freud, is it

> wise to introduce such a term into ancient Vedanta?

> Does Vedanta need a word or concept like 'ego' to compliment

> its philosophy? Is the phraze 'an ego-less level' being used to

indicate

> absence of 'I' or 'I Am' at a certain level of the Self?

> Is it possible for the Self, or any self, to have no compliment

> of 'I' present in it? Is the Self synonymous with 'I'?

> Does the One have an 'I'? Does the zero have an 'I'?

>

> The dualistic mind does describe the pure awareness of no thing.

> It describes it as: " the pure awareness of no thing " . The mind can

> glimpse the Truth but cannot comprehend it. Later it will make

> an attempt to describe what it glimpsed. Whether anyone has

> ever understood anyone else through the use of words formed at

> the surface vibrations of the mind is highly unlikely. Words bear

> random, almost no, correspondence with what is being described.

> Nevertheless these words are offered for entertainment to the group.

>

>

____________________

___

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

http://www.hotmail.com.