Longevity or Immortality . . . But Not Both (?)

[Tibetan_Ice]

I don't see a significant difference between different types of energy. As for energy transmissions, in the Bible, the energy transmission is the second Baptism, or Baptism by fire (and with Holy Spirit). This is written about in Acts. Spirit is associated with both wind and breath, oddly enough, like prana and qi. Among certain Christian groups, this transmission is given through the laying on of hands, and many Pentecostals trace their source back to the original Apostles.

Are you saying that kinetic energy is no different from electrical energy or radiation?

The first one smashes your bones, the second one fries your cells and the third one, well just wear allot of sun screen.

 

The Holy Spirit is a pale white ball of light with two appendages that look like small wings. It floats in the air above congregations and shoot beams of pale white light down onto people's heads, whereupon the person whom has been anointed also looks like they have a small pair of wings on the top of their head. When you are anointed, there is first a loud popping sound and then there is the overwhelming sensation that a golden honey like liquid is slowly oozing down on the inside of your skull. It is very loving and peaceful and awesome. If you are blessed, you might even hear a voice telling you about a gift you've just received..

 

Kundalini is a pain in the ass. It hurts like hell when it breaks out of its shell at the base of the spine. This liquid light, as bright as an arc welder's torch is no laughing matter. Sure, it's ecstatic as hell, and burns you, leaves radiation burns and opens you up from the inside out. It cares not for you, and has a mind of its own. Best to have an authentic guru in your pocket when you activate it lest you fall victim to psychosis, mental disease or other catastrophe.

 

And, oh.. I'm speaking from experience in both aforementioned cases..

 

If all energy was the same, then why would daoists identify chi, jing and Shen?

 

Naw, it's all the same...

 

Apparently you've never seen a hypnotist give someone the great swoon by touching someone's third eye. Yup, in church they call that laying of hands, but that is not transmitting the Holy Ghost. Nobody controls the Holy Ghost except Grace.

 

There are many gradients of energy, from the coarse to the ultra fine. It is said that intuition is the doorway into the realm of non conceptual knowing. Imagine that, knowing something without thought. Something to strive for. Good luck.

[Jeff]

....

 

In stillness there is no movement.

 

And this simple statement sums up our difference of perspective. Two sides of the same coin.

 

Best wishes to you on your path.

[Karl]

Are you saying that kinetic energy is no different from electrical energy or radiation?

The first one smashes your bones, the second one fries your cells and the third one, well just wear allot of sun screen.

The Holy Spirit is a pale white ball of light with two appendages that look like small wings. It floats in the air above congregations and shoot beams of pale white light down onto people's heads, whereupon the person whom has been anointed also looks like they have a small pair of wings on the top of their head. When you are anointed, there is first a loud popping sound and then there is the overwhelming sensation that a golden honey like liquid is slowly oozing down on the inside of your skull. It is very loving and peaceful and awesome. If you are blessed, you might even hear a voice telling you about a gift you've just received..

Kundalini is a pain in the ass. It hurts like hell when it breaks out of its shell at the base of the spine. This liquid light, as bright as an arc welder's torch is no laughing matter. Sure, it's ecstatic as hell, and burns you, leaves radiation burns and opens you up from the inside out. It cares not for you, and has a mind of its own. Best to have an authentic guru in your pocket when you activate it lest you fall victim to psychosis, mental disease or other catastrophe.

And, oh.. I'm speaking from experience in both aforementioned cases..

If all energy was the same, then why would daoists identify chi, jing and Shen?

Naw, it's all the same...

Apparently you've never seen a hypnotist give someone the great swoon by touching someone's third eye. Yup, in church they call that laying of hands, but that is not transmitting the Holy Ghost. Nobody controls the Holy Ghost except Grace.

There are many gradients of energy, from the coarse to the ultra fine. It is said that intuition is the doorway into the realm of non conceptual knowing. Imagine that, knowing something without thought. Something to strive for. Good luck.

 

You are very interesting. I always thought that on the AYP forum, but more so now. You have the heart of a poet but your reasoning is all over the place. Its cantankerous, exciting, chaotic stuff and very passionate. Mostly wrong but flashes of insight like a lighthouse beaming across the water, or a pulsar beaming its signature. Bright then dark. What happens on the dark side of the moon TI - I see you live there. :-)

[forestofemptiness]

It is not that there is no difference, but I fail to see a significant difference. In essence, one can say that the different types of energies are different forms of a unified energy, or parts of a spectrum. This is fairly standard in the non-dual teachings I am familiar with. Perhaps you come from a different tradition, or a dualist tradition, and that's fine. 

 

One example I tend to think of is water. Ice chills, while steam burns. Yet both are different states of water.  This doesn't mean they cannot be distinguished, but it means they are simply different manifestations of the same thing.  Another example is white light. White light through a prism is refracted into many different colors. 

 

If all energy was the same, then why would daoists identify chi, jing and Shen?

 

Note that there is a conversion between jing, qi, shen, and Void. If you look at the traditional Chinese elements, they are not atomic the way they are often presented in the West. Rather, they way I have heard them explained is that they can represent different stages of an ongoing process. 

 

I have my own experiences but I don't present them as the "way it is." I have noticed that different people experience phenomenon differently, even physical phenomenon. 

[Tibetan_Ice]

It is not that there is no difference, but I fail to see a significant difference. In essence, one can say that the different types of energies are different forms of a unified energy, or parts of a spectrum. This is fairly standard in the non-dual teachings I am familiar with. Perhaps you come from a different tradition, or a dualist tradition, and that's fine. 

 

One example I tend to think of is water. Ice chills, while steam burns. Yet both are different states of water.  This doesn't mean they cannot be distinguished, but it means they are simply different manifestations of the same thing.  Another example is white light. White light through a prism is refracted into many different colors. 

 

 

 

Note that there is a conversion between jing, qi, shen, and Void. If you look at the traditional Chinese elements, they are not atomic the way they are often presented in the West. Rather, they way I have heard them explained is that they can represent different stages of an ongoing process. 

 

I have my own experiences but I don't present them as the "way it is." I have noticed that different people experience phenomenon differently, even physical phenomenon. 

 

I thought you were into kriya yoga but now I see that you are into Rupert Spira and Greg Goode, Neo Advaitists.

 

Direct Path and Nonduality

 

The Direct Path is a term used by nondual philosopher Greg Goode. Greg traces his teaching through modern nondualists such as Atmananda, Jean Klein, Francis Lucille, and Rupert Spira.

 

Did you write that?

 

What I have found with Neo Advaitists is that the first thing they do is lower the bar by enforcing the idea that realization is not accompanied by any siddhis or mystical powers. Then they have no practices to follow except philosophizing.

 

It is a top down approach which leaves the seeker without a ladder to climb up.

 

Stephen Wingate, John Wheeler, Rodney Stevens, Greg Goode, Rupert Spira.... What a waste of time.

 

No thanks, not for me.

 

If a spiritual teacher/master cannot appear to me on the astral plane nor demonstrate any abilities, I pass them by.

 

from The Yeshe Lama:

The six states ofclairvoyance wIll arise for those who are fortunate ones. They willl become aware of the immediate past life- time. where death occurred, and where the next place of rebirth will be. They will acquire the abIlity to know what is in the minds of others, to understand all mysterious appearances. and to see the six realms of samsara. These six states of clairvoyance will arise with all faculties perfectly pure.

 

That is what the Buddha taught. Why settle for anything less?

[Tibetan_Ice]

And this simple statement sums up our difference of perspective. Two sides of the same coin.

 

Best wishes to you on your path.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=19231&hilit=Jeff&start=200

 

 

This isn't taobums.com, you can't just make stuff up and pass it off as legitimate here.

 

You are giving TTB a bad name...

Edited August 1, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[3bob]

I have not read the entire string, thus I'm kind of dropping in with my take on the subject...
 
   Anyway:  since "The One" is born (per the T.T.C.) The One shall also die - thus it is not immortal...(although repeating eternally in its birth and death)  having said that all beings existing in and self-identified as a particular someone, somewhere within the One will also die, whether they last for 115 years,  many millions of years or even if they maintain godlike for an entire cosmic life cycle... they would still "die" so to speak along with the One since they are limited under the realm of the One... (which includes all realms of all time, all space and all form which may not sound very limited but such is still not final return or freedom) 

   Btw, the historic Buddha pointed this out in well known Buddhist doctrine with him saying (paraphrased) that he could have remained (as a particular being) for the entire or great cosmic cycle, although that didn't happen for certain reasons.
 
....to go beyond that a soul can no longer keep identification as a particular being or form (including a pure light form) since only the "Tao" exists as the deepest identity then and that realization of Tao by Tao has no problems with same.

Edited August 2, 2015 by 3bob

[Infolad1]

I have not read the entire string, thus I'm kind of dropping in with my take on the subject...

 

   Anyway:  since "The One" is born (per the T.T.C.) The One shall also die - thus it is not immortal...(although repeating eternally in its birth and death)  having said that all beings existing in and self-identified as a particular someone, somewhere within the One will also die, whether they last for 115 years,  many millions of years or even if they maintain godlike for an entire cosmic life cycle... they would still "die" so to speak along with the One since they are limited under the realm of the One... (which includes all realms of all time, all space and all form which may not sound very limited but such is still not final return or freedom) 

   Btw, the historic Buddha pointed this out in well known Buddhist doctrine with him saying (paraphrased) that he could have remained (as a particular being) for the entire or great cosmic cycle, although that didn't happen for certain reasons.

 

....to go beyond that a soul can no longer keep identification as a particular being or form (including a pure light form) since only the "Tao" exists then and that realization of Tao by Tao has no problems with same.

Exactly!

 

When the game is over, it's over, regardless of how long it takes to play it...

 

...And then you eventually start ANOTHER game.

 

After all, what else DO you do with forever? 

 

Cheers!

[3bob]

I'm not used to straight up agreement Infolad1 so thanks, I think !  

 

(btw, some of the terms and placement of same in my text above could be better or changed but I think the drift of it is there)

[Tibetan_Ice]

Transmission is a component of many traditions, but it a major component of the inner (or mystical) aspects of the gnostic Christian tradition. Transmissions can be "sent" by divine beings and also masters or adepts of the tradition. There are two main types of transmission. The lower form is at the level of the "mind" and is often called a mind transmission. The higher form is at the level of the heart (or inner heart) and is often called a "light" transmission. A mind level transmission is commonly associated with the 3rd eye (mind) and is at the astral level. Energy is sent in a directed way to another being, and this energy is translated by the mind into some sort of vision (or healing). The experience (and power) of the transmission is highly dependent on both the clarity of the sender and receiver beings. Depending on the "frequency range" of the transmission, issues and fears in the subconscious mind may be hit. The resulting mind translation can create a very wild perception/experience. This is also why astral travel/mediumship is not recommended in many traditions, as it is possible for the mind to be "fooled" or for negative beings to hide behind deep subconscious issues and fears. Finally, this type of transmission is still at the level of duality, as the mind still believes there are two beings (sender and receiver) and hence is subject to things like the perception of "shielding". A light level transmission is very rare and at the level of the "inner heart" or soul. To send such a transmission, one must have realized oneness, or in Christian terms be at least a highly developed "saint" (or master of the tradition). To even notice/receive such a transmission one must have an open heart (open 4th chakra). A light transmission is beyond the local mind and is a communication directly at the soul level. Depending on one's integration at the soul level, the information is then sort of "decompressed" into components that can be understood by the mind. Those with a developed third eye and the capacity to receive a light transmission will often "see" the transmitting soul which can look like a multicolored burning bush at the level of conscious mind. In a light transmission, the sender has realized oneness and sort of "overlays" their aspect of consciousness on the person, then the natural "light" that they are flows through. In a light transmission, everything that is the sending "being" is included/given to the person. In the process, it is more about the persons ability to "receive". To the receiving person it can feel like "being in a bubble" or like their body pressure has dramatically increased/gotten heavy. Additionally, a divine being/master can share/extend mind clarity (peace that passes human understanding) and the Holy Spirit (Kundalini) in the process. Transmissions are normally at the "grace" of the divine beings. Mental clarity and an open heart are the key in contacting divine beings. Once one realizes oneness, you can directly overlay/merge with divine beings up to your relative clarity.

What you claim about transmission is denied by Malcolm.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=19231&hilit=Jeff&start=60

 

Jeff wrote:

I guess that I have my answer. Thanks.

 

Malcolm wrote:

 

We have three dimensions, body, voice and mind. The Buddha's have three kāyas. The nirmanakāya exist because ordinary sentient beings cannot have contact with the sambgogakāya at all because of the afflictions they possess. When they remove those afflictions, then they can see the Sambhogakāya, but this takes many countless eons lifetimes of practice. Finally, when they become a Buddha, they can see the dharmakāya.

 

Therefore, all transmissions for ordinary people like ourselves occur on an external physical way, through speech and symbols. If we happen to realize the meaning of what is being taught, this is referred to a "mind transmission", but it is not really a transmission in the sense of a message communicated and a message received mentally. It is more in the sense of a message communicated through words and symbols whose inner significance is then realized directly. Anyone who tells you that there is some actually mind to mind transmission in Buddhadharma at the level of our impure perception is either lying or they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Buddhas cannot communicate liberation into the minds of others. If they could, there would be no sentient beings left. The Buddha said famously, we cannot wash away suffering, he cannot remove it with his hand, nor can he make us liberated, but he can teach us a path.

 

So if Buddhas can't do it, I seriously doubt that you can do it. You have been deceiving people. Edited August 2, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[3bob]

TI, I'd say the sentence, "Buddhas cannot communicate liberation into the minds of others" at least has term problems being that liberation will never be had or possible in the "mind" as known from certain realizations anyway... thus differences in the meaning of the term mind need to be agreed upon for the sake of a clear argument..

[Karl]

TI, I'd say the sentence, "Buddhas cannot communicate liberation into the minds of others" at least has term problems being that liberation will never be had or possible in the "mind" as known from certain realizations anyway... thus differences in the meaning of the term mind need to be agreed upon for the sake of a clear argument..

 

And 'liberation' is also undefined. I suspect everyone has a concept of liberation, be it running up a beach, living in a state of blissful ignorance, or just avoiding some pain of some type.

 

Now, I would say that within the ability to accurately define 'liberation' lies liberation itself :-) of course that's an objectivist speaking. If we are talking 'of the mind' and not some other place, then does it not seem rational that we should first define what we believe to be liberty in order to know if we don't already have it ?

 

I say we do. We just don't accept that to be true because it gives us a degree of excusable flexibility for not living freely. If we can believe we are not at liberty, we can avoid reality. It is reality that is feared most and Liberty is the key to realities door. Therefore begin with thoughts of how to 'get liberation' presupposes that we are trapped in some sense.

 

[3bob]

it is well that liberation/enlightenment (in a Buddhist, Taoist or Hindu context) can not really be defined like a seemingly solid thing can, although same can also and more or less be pointed towards along the lines of what it is not...

[Tibetan_Ice]

TI, I'd say the sentence, "Buddhas cannot communicate liberation into the minds of others" at least has term problems being that liberation will never be had or possible in the "mind" as known from certain realizations anyway... thus differences in the meaning of the term mind need to be agreed upon for the sake of a clear argument..

I agree. In Jeff's conglomerate of nonsense, the definition of mind is severely lacking, as is the context, architecture of realization, path, purpose... Well it is just a mishmash of home made terms that do not conform to any cogent body of teachings. Even Jeff's concepts of "local mind" and "universal mind" were disputed as having no basis in Buddhism. I doubt if you will find those terms in any other authentic teaching either.

 

How nice it is to have the teachings of Ramana, so clear and precise!

 

Self-Enquiry – The nature of the mind

That which rises in this body as “I” is the mind. (Ramana Maharshi, WHO, 13.)

[The] mind is but an aggregate of thoughts. (Ramana Maharshi, CI, n.p.)

 

Thoughts alone constitute the mind; and for all thoughts the base or source is the “I” thought. “I” is the mind. (Ramana Maharshi, GFB, chapter 4.)

 

Thoughts alone make up the mind;

And of all thoughts the “I” thought is the root.

What is called mind is but the notion “I.”

(Ramana Maharshi, CW, Chapter 5.)

 

The mind is a bundle of thoughts. The thoughts arise because there is the thinker. The thinker is the ego. The ego, if sought, will automatically vanish. The ego and the mind are the same. (Ramana Maharshi, TWSRM, Question 347.)

 

God illumines the mind and shines within it. One cannot know God by means of the mind. One can but turn the mind inwards and merge it in God. (Ramana Maharshi, GFB, chapter 3.)

 

No attempt should be made to destroy [the mind]. To think or wish is in itself a thought. If the thinker is sought, the thoughts will disappear. (Ramana Maharshi, CI, n.p.)

 

[Thoughts] will disappear because they are unreal. The idea of difficulty is itself an obstacle to realization. It must be overcome. To remain as the Self is not difficult. This thought of difficulty is the chief obstacle. A little practice in discovering the source of “I” will make you think differently. Absolute freedom from thoughts is the state conducive to such recognition of the Self. (Ramana Maharshi, CI, n.p.)

 

What is called “mind” is a wondrous power residing in the Self. It causes all thoughts to arise. Apart from thoughts, there is no such thing as mind. Therefore, thought is the nature of mind. Apart from thoughts, there is no independent entity called the world. In deep sleep there are no thoughts, and there is no world. In the states of waking and dream, there are thoughts, and there is a world also. Just as the spider emits the thread (of the web) out of itself and again withdraws it into itself, likewise the mind projects the world out of itself and again resolves it into itself. When the mind comes out of the Self, the world appears. Therefore, when the world appears (to be real), the Self does not appear; and when the Self appears (shines) the world does not appear. When one persistently inquires into the nature of the mind, the mind will end leaving the Self (as the residue). What is referred to as the Self is the Atman. The mind always exists only in dependence on something gross; it cannot stay alone. It is the mind that is called the subtle body or the soul (jiva). (Ramana Maharshi, WHO, 13.)

 

 

[3bob]

ok on the quote which is in line with Vedic descriptions - and which is obviously not Buddhist or what many profess what Buddhism points to - as it seems you meant to reference ?  - 

Edited August 2, 2015 by 3bob

[Bindi]

 

The mind always exists only in dependence on something gross; it cannot stay alone. It is the mind that is called the subtle body or the soul (jiva).

 

 

This last bit doesn't fully make sense to me.

 

I can see that "The mind always exists only in dependence on something gross" whether that be the physical or subtle body, but I am lost when he says that "mind is called the subtle body or the soul". Is there some way of looking at this that I can't see?

 

Would 'mind' be equivalent to 'consciousness'?

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

This last bit doesn't fully make sense to me.

 

I can see that "The mind always exists only in dependence on something gross" whether that be the physical or subtle body, but I am lost when he says that "mind is called the subtle body or the soul". Is there some way of looking at this that I can't see?

 

Would 'mind' be equivalent to 'consciousness'?

 

Hi Bindi,

 

Here are some quotes from Ramana concerning your questions.

 

In the books explaining the nature of the mind, it is thus stated: "The mind is formed by the concretion of the subtle portion of the food we eat; it grows with the passions such as attachment and aversion, desire and anger; being the aggregate of mind, intellect, memory and egoity, it receives the collective singular name ‘mind,’ the characteristics that it bears are thinking, determining, etc.; since it is an object of consciousness (the self), it is what is seen, inert; even though inert, it appears as if conscious because of association with consciousness (like a red-hot iron ball); it is limited, non-eternal, partite, and changing like wax, gold, candle, etc.; it is of the nature of all elements (of phenomenal existence); its locus is the heart-lotus even as the loci of the sense of sight, etc., are the eyes, etc.; it is the adjunct of the individual soul thinking of an object; it transforms itself into a mode, and along with the knowledge that is in the brain, it flows through the five sense-channels, gets joined to objects by the brain (that is associated with knowledge), and thus knows and experiences objects and gains satisfaction. That substance is the mind."

 

Even as one and the same person is called by different names according to the different functions he performs, so also one and the same mind is called by the different names: mind, intellect, memory, and egoity, on account of the difference in the modes -- and not because of any real difference. The mind itself is of the form of all, i.e. of soul, God and world; when it becomes of the form of the Self through knowledge there is release, which is of the nature of Brahman: this is the teaching. (Ramana Maharshi, SE, answer to question 6.)

 

...

 

From the functional point of view the form, activity or whatever else you may call it (it is immaterial, since it is evanescent), the ego has one and only one characteristic. The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is the pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the Chit-jada granthi.In your investigation into the Source of Aham-vritti, you take the essential Chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure Consciousness of the Self. (Ramana Maharshi, MG, 85.)

 

...

The Real is ever-present, like the screen on which all the pictures move. While the pictures appear on it, it remains invisible. Stop the pictures, and the screen, which has all along been present, in fact the only object that has existed throughout, will become clear. All these universes, humans, objects, thoughts and events are merely pictures moving on the screen of Pure Consciousness, which alone is real. Shapes and phenomena pass away, but Consciounsess remains ever. (Ramana Maharshi, GR, 46.)

 

...

 

Self-Enquiry – Turn the mind inward

”Whence does this “I” arise?” Seek for it within; it then vanishes. This is the pursuit of Wisdom. (Ramana Maharshi, WHO, 24.)

God illumines the mind and shines within it. One cannot know God by means of the mind. One can but turn the mind inwards and merge it in God. (Ramana Maharshi, GFB, chapter 3.)

 

The Divine gives light to the mind and shines within it. Except by turning the mind inward and fixing it in the Divine, there is no other way to know Him through the mind. (Ramana Maharshi, FVR, verse 22.)

 

[Turning the mind inward] is done by practice and dispassion and that succeeds only gradually. The mind, having been so long a cow accustomed to graze stealthily on others' estates, is not easily confined to her stall. However much her keeper tempts her with luscious grass and fine fodder, she refuses the first time; then she takes a bit; but her innate tendency to stray away asserts itself; and she slips away; on being repeatedly tempted by the owner, she accustoms herself to the stall; finally even if let loose she would not stray away. Similarly with the mind. If once it finds its inner happiness it will not wander outward. (Ramana Maharshi, TWSRM, Question 213.)

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Karl]

Q So the world is not really illusory

A at the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say the world is an illusion. There is no other way...

There is no universe without the self. So long as man does not see the self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that this external universe is an illusion.

 

Sankara:

 

Brahman is real

The universe is unreal, and

The universe is Brahman.

 

Q so the world is real when it is experienced as the self and unreal when it is seen as separate names and form.

A just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms the world. When by compassionate divine grace the mind becomes clear , the nature of the world will be known to be not the illusory forms, but on the reality.

 

Q I cannot say this is all clear to me. Is the world that is seen, felt and sensed by U.S. In so many ways something like a dream, an illusion.

A there is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal if you are seeking the truth and truth alone.

Q why so?

A for the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real then your mind will always be after it.if you take the appearance to be real you will never know the real itself, although it is the real alone that exists.The point is illustrated by the analogy of the snake in the rope. You may be deceived into believing that the piece of rope is the snake. While you imagine the rope is the snake you cannot see the rope as a rope . The non existent snake becomes real to you , while the real rope seems wholly non existent as such.

 

Excerpts from 'be as you are' the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi p187/188

Edited August 3, 2015 by Karl

[3bob]

Similar problem there Karl for a definition of "real"... and there is more than one way to look at it:

 

Btw, Vedic teachings or Vedic related type teachings have a lot of variations in interpretation, thus the several main branches and all sorts of  different schools - a pattern which one can also see in the different schools of Taoism and Buddhism.

 

Further, in the Upanishads we hear how all things "spring from the Self", which brings up the very obvious question, if something springs from the real then how can it be unreal?  And instead of using the words spring from what if we used the words 'connected to',  then the obvious question would be, how can the unreal be connected to the real?  Also in considering such connections one could ask how can the Absolute be transformed into the non-absolute?  Or how can the Silent Om be transformed into sound/vibration that is throughout and at every level of the cosmos?

 

...or how can we be in direct contact if we are just out of reach, which in a way could be reverse correlated to a finger trap where the harder one tries to loosen it the harder it tightens up.

 

...and why not include a correlation with the Buddhist Jhanas  while we are at it?  For instance per Buddhist doctrine the jhanas are all connected (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8..) and from the last of them the historic Buddha then made the leap so to speak and or I'd say the connection to, "beyond the beyond" - so in a way that shoots the often common hang-up about illusion being something in particular all to hell since where does such illusion really begin and end being that the Buddha did not reject any of the jhanas, along with them being directly spoken of and in important detail as he was passing...   There is also that saying along the lines of, samsara correctly understood is nirvana.

 

Note: all attempted correlations here are mine, and not from any school.

Edited August 3, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

This is how SRM replied to direct questions. I have seen many variations and conflicts in his replies. That means that either:

 

1) His philosophy was inconsistent.

2) He did not really know what he was saying.

3) He told every seeker what he thought they needed to hear.

 

I have come across many philosophical conflicts within interpretations and in direct quotes from a single guru.

 

This is how I interpret FWIW.

 

There is a universe of things- objects which are real. They are only objects and exist without the need for labels or concepts- these include our own bodies. They simply are.

 

When we arise, we become conscious and then we identify. This is our 'world'. It is an illusion only as far as the identities we give the objects on which our gaze settles. So there are impersonal objects and a halo of personality as we ascribe to them. In time we are wedded to the idea that this world is the universe and it is a personal universe in which separation exists.

 

It is this inability to understand the impersonal that brings suffering.

 

Into this mix we can throw immortality. There is then impersonal immortality (the universe of objects) and personal mortality (the personal world as it is revealed by senses). One isn't the other.

 

SRM told those who asked about reincarnation, life after death etc not to trouble themselves with it.

 

This is how I see it. I've said in previous posts that after death there is no floating consciousness and that the universe exists independently from our conscious awareness of it. Impersonal consciousness is immortal, it is not apart from the universe. Personal consciousness and our experienced world view are mortal. Death is the end for our personal worlds, but not for everything within the universe which continues.

 

Our consciousness reaches out to our bodies and the universe they are part and parcel of. We cloth the universe of things with the model we have of the world. Our consciousness does not create the universe, it creates our world.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Karl

[3bob]

as long as we are barking up trees I'd say the impartial but not indifferent and if you will supreme consciousness  is not limited to any particular identity or form and that is the most true consciousness of ourselves which is also the common denominator to all selves, thus in that identity there can be no death, for it is then death that dies.  (the tough old curmudgeon )

Edited August 3, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

I'm completely clear on what I know, however, I think what we are discussing is what SRM meant by those comments.

He seems to suggest you will have to accept a lie in order to discover the true or real. I concur, if that is what he was indicating.

[3bob]

"I'm completely clear on what I know", if so then you are most likely a nut although I'm not completely sure of that.  

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Ramana Maharshi – Be As You Are – by David Godman

 

Chapter 18 - Reincarnation

Most religions have constructed elaborate theories which purport to explain what happens to the individual soul after the death of the body. Some claim that the soul goes to heaven or hell while others claim that it is reincarnated in a new body.

Sri Ramana taught that all such theories are based on the false assumption that the individual self or soul is real; once this illusion is seen through, the whole superstructure of after-life theories collapses. From the standpoint of the Self, there is no birth or death, no heaven or hell, and no reincarnation.

As a concession to those who were unable to assimilate the implications of this truth, Sri Ramana would sometimes admit that reincarnation existed. In replying to such people he would say that if one imagined that the individual self was real, then that imaginary self would persist after death and that eventually it would identify with a new body and a new life. The whole process, he said, is sustained by the tendency of the mind to identify itself with a body. Once the limiting illusion of mind is transcended, identification with the body ceases, and all theories about death and reincarnation are found to be inapplicable.

Q: Is reincarnation true?

A: Reincarnation exists only so long as there is ignorance. There is really no reincarnation at all, either now or before.

Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth.

Q: Can a yogi know his past lives?

A: Do you know the present life that you wish to know the past? Find the present, then the rest will follow. Even with our present limited knowledge, you suffer so much. Why should you burden yourself with more knowledge? Is it to suffer more? When seen through the sight of the supreme space of Self, the illusion of taking birth in this mirage-like false world is found to be nothing but the egotistical ignorance of identifying a body as ‘I’. Among those whose minds are possessed with forgetfulness of Self, those who are born will die and those who die will be born again. But know that those whose minds are dead, having known the glorious supreme reality, will remain only there in that elevated state of reality, devoid of both birth and death. Forgetting Self, mistaking the body for Self, taking innumerable births, and at last knowing Self and being Self is just like waking from a dream of wandering all over the world.

Q: How long does it take a man to be reborn after death? Is it immediately after death or some time after?

A: You do not know what you were before birth, yet you want to know what you will be after death. Do you know

what you are now?

Birth and rebirth pertain to the body. You are identifying the Self with the body. It is a wrong identification. You believe that the body has been born and will die, and confound the phenomena relating to the body with the Self. Know your real being and these questions will not arise.

Birth and rebirth are mentioned only to make you investigate the question and find out that there are neither births nor rebirths. They relate to the body and not to the Self. Know the Self and don’t be perturbed by doubts.

Q: Do not one’s actions affect the person in later births?

A: Are you born now? Why do you think of other births? The fact is that there is neither birth nor death. Let him who

is born think of death and palliatives for it. Q: What happens to a person after death?

A: Engage yourself in the living present. The future will take care of itself. Do not worry about the future. The state before creation and the process of creation are dealt with in the scriptures in order that you may know the present. Because you say you are born, therefore they say, yes, and add that God created you.

But do you see God or anything else in your sleep? If God is real, why does he not shine forth in your sleep also? You

always are, you are the same now as you were in sleep. You are not different from that one in sleep. But why should there be differences in the feelings or experiences of the two states?

Did you ask, while asleep, questions regarding your birth? Did you then ask ‘Where do I go after death?’ Why think of all these questions now in the waking state? Let what is born think of its birth and the remedy, its cause and ultimate results.

Q: What becomes of the jiva [individual] after death?

A: The question is not appropriate for a jiva now living. A dead jiva may ask me, if he wishes to. In the meantime let

the embodied jiva solve its present problem and find who he is. Then there will be an end of such doubts.

Q: Is the Buddhist view, that there is no continuous entity answering to the ideas of the individual soul, correct or not? Is this consistent with the Hindu notion of a reincarnating ego? Is the soul a continuous entity which reincarnates again and again, according to the Hindu doctrine, or is it a mere mass of mental tendencies – samskaras?

A: The real Self is continuous and unaffected. The reincarnating ego belongs to the lower plane, namely, thought. It is transcended by Self-realization.

Reincarnations are due to a spurious offshoot. Therefore they are denied by the Buddhists. The present state of ignorance is due to the identification of consciousness [chit] with the insentient [jada] body.

Q: Do not we go to heaven [svarga] as the result of our actions?

A: That is as true as the present existence. But if we enquire who we are and discover the Self, what need is there to

think of heaven?

Q: Should I not try to escape rebirth?

A: Yes. Find out who is born and who now has the trouble of existence. When you are asleep do you think of rebirths or even the present existence? So find out from where the present problem arises and in that place you will find the solution. You will discover that there is no birth, no present trouble or unhappiness. The Self is all and all is bliss. Even now we are free from rebirth so why fret over the misery of it?

Q: Is there rebirth?

A: Do you know what birth is?

Q: Oh yes, I know that I exist now, but I want to know if I’ll exist in the future.

A: Past!.. . Present!... Future!...

Q: Yes, today is the result of yesterday, the past, and tomorrow, the future, will be the result of today, the present. Am I right?

A: There is neither past nor future. There is only the present. Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it, and tomorrow will be also the present when you experience it. Therefore, experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience nothing exists.

Q: Are then past and future mere imagination?

A: Yes, even the present is mere imagination, for the sense of time is purely mental. Space is similarly mental.

Therefore birth and rebirth, which take place in time and space, cannot be other than imagination. Q: What is the cause of tanha, the thirst for life and the thirst for rebirth?

A: Real rebirth is dying from the ego into the spirit. This is the significance of the crucifixion of Jesus. Whenever identification with the body exists, a body is always available, whether this or any other one, till the body-sense disappears by merging into the source – the spirit, or Self. The stone which is projected upwards remains in constant motion till it returns to its source, the earth, and rests. Headache continues to give trouble, till the pre-headache state is regained.

Thirst for life is inherent in the very nature of life, which is absolute existence – sat. Although indestructible by nature, by false identification with its destructible instrument, the body, consciousness imbibes a false apprehension of its destructibility. Because of that false identification it tries to perpetuate the body, and that results in a succession of births. But however long these bodies may last, they eventually come to an end and yield to the Self, which alone eternally exists.

Q: Yes, ‘Give up thy life if thou wouldst live’, says the Voice of the Silence of H.’I’. Blavatsky.

A: Give up the false identification and remember, the body cannot exist without the Self, whereas the Self can exist

without the body. In fact it is always without it.

Q: A doubt has just now arisen in a friend of mine’s mind. She has just heard that a human being may take an animal birth in some other life, which is contrary to what Theosophy has taught her.

A: Let him who takes birth ask this question. Find out first who it is that is born, and whether there is actual birth and death. You will find that birth pertains to the ego, which is an illusion of the mind.

Q: Is it possible for a man to be reborn as a lower animal?

A: Yes. It is possible, as illustrated by Jada Bharata – the scriptural anecdote of a royal sage having been reborn as a

deer.

Q: Is the individual capable of spiritual progress in an animal body?

A: Not impossible, though it is exceedingly rare. It is not true that birth as a man is necessarily the highest, and that one must attain realization only from being a man. Even an animal can attain Self-realization.

Q: Theosophy speaks of fifty to 10,000 year intervals between death and rebirth. Why is this so?

A: There is no relation between the standard of measurements of one state of consciousness and another. All such measurements are hypothetical. It is true that some individuals take more time and some less. But it must be distinctly understood that it is no soul which comes and goes, but only the thinking mind of the individual, which makes it appear to do so. On whatever plane the mind happens to act, it creates a body for itself; in the physical world a physical body and in the dream world a dream body which becomes wet with dream rain and sick with dream disease. After the death of the physical body, the mind remains inactive for some time, as in dreamless sleep when it remains worldless and therefore bodiless. But soon it becomes active again in a new world and a new body – the astral – till it assumes another body in what is called a ‘rebirth’. But the jnani, the Self-realized man, whose mind has already ceased to act, remains unaffected by death. The mind of the jnani has ceased to exist; it has dropped never to rise again to cause births and deaths. The chain of illusions has snapped for ever for him.

It should now be clear that there is neither real birth, nor real death. It is the mind which creates and maintains the illusion of reality in this process, till it is destroyed by Self-realization.

Q: Does not death dissolve the individuality of a person, so that there can be no rebirth, just as the rivers discharged into the ocean lose their individualities?

A: But when the waters evaporate and return as rain on the hills, they once more flow in the form of rivers and fall into the ocean. So also the individualities during sleep lose their separate- ness and yet return as individuals according to their samskaras or past tendencies. It is the same after death – the individuality of the person with samskaras is not lost.

Q: How can that be?

A: See how a tree whose branches have been cut grows again. So long as the roots of the tree remain unimpaired, the tree will continue to grow. Similarly, the samskaras which have merely sunk in the Heart on death, but have not perished for that reason, occasion rebirth at the right time.

That is how jivas [individuals] are reborn.

Q: How could the innumerable jivas and the wide universe which they produce sprout up from such subtle samskaras

sunk in the Heart?

A: Just as the big banyan tree sprouts from a tiny seed, so do the jivas and the whole universe with name and form sprout up from the subtle samskaras.

Q: How does the jiva transfer from one body to another?

A: When one begins to die, hard breathing sets in; that means that one has become unconscious of the dying body. The mind at once takes hold of another body, and it swings to and fro between the two, until attachment is fully transferred to the new body. Meanwhile there are occasional violent breaths, and that means that the mind swings back to the dying body. The transitional state of the mind is somewhat like a dream.

Q: How long is the interval between one’s death and reincarnation?

A: It may be long or short. But a jnani does not undergo any such changes; he merges into the universal being.

Some say that those who after death pass into the path of light are not reborn, whereas those who after death take the path of darkness are reborn after they have enjoyed the fruits of karma in their subtle bodies.

Some say that if one’s merits and demerits are equal, they are directly reborn here. Merits outweighing demerits, the subtle bodies go to heaven and are then reborn here; demerits out- weighing merits, they go to hells and are afterwards reborn here.

A: Yogabrashta [one who has slipped from the path of yoga] is said to fare in the same manner.

All these are described in the sastras. But in fact, there is neither birth nor death. One remains only as what one really

is. This is the only truth.

Q: I find this very confusing. Are both births and rebirths ultimately unreal?

A: If there is birth there must be not only one rebirth but a whole succession of births. Why and how did you get this birth? For the same reason and in the same manner you must have succeeding births. But if you ask who has the birth and whether birth and death are for you or for somebody distinct from you, then you realize the truth and the truth burns up all karmas and frees you from all births. The books graphically describe how all sanchita karma [karma accumulated from previous births], which would take countless lives to exhaust, is burnt up by one little spark of jnana, just as a mountain of gunpowder will be blown up by a single spark of fire. It is the ego that is the cause of all the world and of the countless sciences whose researches are so great as to baffle description, and if the ego is dissolved by enquiry all this immediately crumbles and the reality or Self alone remains.

Q: Do you mean to say that I was never even bom?

A: Yes, you are now thinking that you are the body and therefore confuse yourself with its birth and death. But you

are not the body and you have no birth and death.

Q: So you do not uphold the theory of rebirth?

A: No. On the other hand I want to remove your confusion that you will be reborn. It is you who think that you will be reborn.

See for whom the question arises. Unless the questioner is found, such questions can never finally be answered.

 

[Karl]

I've read that passage many times and come to the same conclusion each time. Ramana is talking about here and now and not any other time. The body dies to the self whilst we are alive and not after death. There is a passage in the bible that says similar and baptism indicates rebirth in a living person.

 

That is how I understand it. We find that we are not the body and dis-identify with it. The body is part of the universe of things within the grasp of conscious awareness. When this is known we can stop the habit of identification with the universe of things because they are base, only necessary to the survival of the body when desired. There is no requirement for base things beyond survival of the body. Once that habit is stopped then there are no more worries because we are not desiring-'after the world we think we create internally'-in order to improve the body in some sense. This, it should be seen, is equally applicable to reincarnation, immortality and other methods to prolong the life of the body beyond its time. This does not mean we should not eat, think, excersise to maintain health, but we should not be actively desiring prolonging, or in some way extending life-even, as an 'after life'.

 

We get busy with today, stay in self, forget yesterday/tommorow beyond what is necessary to survive.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Karl