Why the Ramana Maharshi model for humanity is flawed.

[seeds]

Many times Ramana stated that this realm is not fundamental, but is dependent upon Self. That is, worlds arise and pass within Awareness, not the other way around.

Many of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics came to similar conclusions.

Yes, and therein lies a problem.

Now I am well aware of the implications of quantum mechanics and of the theorized fact that without the presence of consciousness and awareness, phenomenal reality will not take form.

However, to interpret that to mean that the small “s” self or the small “a” awareness of a human consciousness is somehow responsible for the creation of the hundred-billion+ galaxies of the universe...

(i.e., the worlds that “arise and pass within Awareness”)

...is utter nonsense.

So that brings us to the large “S” Self and the large “A” Awareness mentioned in your reply regarding Ramana’s statements.

In which case, what exactly was he referring to?

Was he implying that this so-called “Self” is some kind of “Borg-like” amalgamation of all of our individual consciousnesses that somehow blend together into some kind of homogenous cloud of shared Awareness?

If so, then I challenge you to imagine and describe what aspect of this “cloud of Awareness” (this ambiguous “Self”) is responsible for grasping the fabric of reality and shaping it into the vast and intricate features of this fantastic flying orb we are standing on.

So, again, what exactly was Ramana referring to in his alleged usage of the large “S” Self and the large “A” Awareness?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

All species go extinct. Fact. Now would you rather die peacefully or kicking and screaming?

You keep ignoring the possibility that the human brain...

(something that took billions of years to arrive at via what I believe were the “guided” processes of evolution)

...might possibly be the one and only means through-which a new eternal soul is created (at least in our neck of the universe).

Think of the human brain as being the only thing that can focus and trigger the essence of life into awakening into a new individualization of personal consciousness that not only holds the potential for complete self-awareness...

...but is also capable of willfully shaping the subjective fabric of its inner-being (its mind) into absolutely anything imaginable -- (both of which are what I believe to be the basic qualifiers for the title of “soul”).

Now it is needless to say that I could be wrong about this, but I believe that each human mind/soul...

(i.e., the thing that will survive the death of the body)

...is a “familial” replication of the SOUL of the universe (as in the literal progeny of God).

And as silly as this may sound, I suggest that the extinction of the human race would be the metaphorical equivalent of giving God a “hysterectomy.”

Now, of course, God could simply reach back down into the lower apes, or any other species of being (reptilian? avian?) and begin the slow and tedious process anew.

However, for now, I believe that the present state of the human brain...

(i.e., the ultimate goal to which the processes of evolution were teleologically aimed)

...represents the ultimate “seedpod,” so to speak, through-which God (the Ultimate Lifeform) conceives its own personal offspring.

And that is something that is depicted in one of my shamelessly overused personal illustrations:



Again, I openly admit that I could be wrong, but at least you can understand why I give you such a hard time about your cavalier attitude toward the extinction of humanity.
_______

[Belinda]

But, Seeds, the brain pertains to the body. Human minds are shaped by the specific cultures in which they are nurtured. If human bodies become extinct there would be no vehicles to carry human cultures.

BTW it's worth reflecting on the difference between eternal and everlasting.

Your picture, above, portrays the Eye as a fixed central point. If you believe in the old pre-Newtonian doctrine of centrality, you are behind the times. This is not bad in itself, of course, but you need also to take account of the huge leap in understanding which is relativity.

[Dontaskme]

All species go extinct. Fact. Now would you rather die peacefully or kicking and screaming? If peace is what one seeks then one must abide in stillness (of mind especially).

You nailed it!

.

[Dontaskme]

Again, I openly admit that I could be wrong, but at least you can understand why I give you such a hard time about your cavalier attitude toward the extinction of humanity.

There is no such thing as a human being - being humanity.

No thing is being a human being...a human being is a dreamt imagined thing dreamt by no thing/ one.

A human being is an experience no thing or one is experiencing. A human is an imagined thing, it's a mirage an appearance appearing out and from no thing.

.

[Dontaskme]

All species go extinct. Fact. Now would you rather die peacefully or kicking and screaming? If peace is what one seeks then one must abide in stillness (of mind especially).

Another way to conquer the imaginary fear of death is to realise that you are already dead even while you appear to live... and that nothing is happening or going to happen to you...because you are just a bunch of sensations, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and experiences arising from the great void of nothingness. The womb of all uncreated creation...aka pure potential popped aware.

The living conscious aware state of living is identical to the non-living state of unconscious awareness, they are just flip sides of the same coin. Both sides alternate in appearance that's all...it's like a now you see me ..now you don't kind of experiencing.

Being alive is no different to being dead, it's the same one seamless reality...where death and birth are mere dreamscape concepts, purely fictional, aka imagination.



.

[seeds]

But, Seeds, the brain pertains to the body. Human minds are shaped by the specific cultures in which they are nurtured. If human bodies become extinct there would be no vehicles to carry human cultures.

Tell that to roydop. He’s the one that thinks it would be a good thing if humans go extinct.

Your picture, above, portrays the Eye as a fixed central point.

Unfortunately, B, I am unable to create a static illustration that can show the dynamic relationship that the Eye of God’s mind has to the multifarious features of the universe...

...(I leave that to the imagination of the viewer).

If you believe in the old pre-Newtonian doctrine of centrality, you are behind the times. This is not bad in itself, of course, but you need also to take account of the huge leap in understanding which is relativity.

Come on now, Belinda, the picture...



...is just an extremely fanciful metaphor that tries to depict the human body (more specifically, the human brain) as being a “seed-like” phenomenon that is momentarily held within the fully-fruitioned (adult version) of that which it is the seed of (God).

It is derived from my own personal perspective of a Berkeleyan-ish form of idealism that sees the universe as being the mind of God, with the human mind being its inwardly conceived embryo...

...(as you should well know by now based on our numerous discussions).

Nevertheless, for the sake of clarification,...

...to understand the point of the illustration, you need to view the “potential” held within the human brain in kind of the same way that you view the potential held within an acorn...



However, instead of being limited to producing just one measly oak tree, the potential held within the human brain can eventually yield a full-blown universe (just like its progenitor has done).

Now, of course, just as the metaphor implies, for any of that to take place, the seed...

(or, in this case, the seed’s inner-potential in the form of the human mind and its conscious agent, aka the “soul”)...



...must be delivered (as in birthed) from the confines of its “husk” and out into the openness of the “garden” where it can then blossom into the full “image and likeness” of its parental entity.

(By “garden” I am, of course, referring to the transcendent context of “true reality” that allegedly exists above and outside of the corporeal bounds of the universe.)

Once again, Belinda, we have discussed this many times over the years.

And it’s not that I expect you to accept my wild ideas, but more of me being gobsmacked as to why you would try to associate them with some silly nonsense about a pre-Newtonian doctrine of centrality.
_______

[Walker]

All species go extinct. Fact. Now would you rather die peacefully or kicking and screaming? If peace is what one seeks then one must abide in stillness (of mind especially).

“When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car. - Will Rogers, Oklahoma sage.

[PeteJ]

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death.

Tell that to a mother who just lost her child.
_______

I understand this point but it is a misunderstanding. A mother who has some comprehension of death and its meaning will be a lot less upset than otherwise.

I think it was Al-Halaj who was famously told off by his wife for not being sufficiently upset when his son died. His reply was that he was still with his son.

[Dontaskme]

It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death.

Tell that to a mother who just lost her child.
_______

I understand this point but it is a misunderstanding. A mother who has some comprehension of death and its meaning will be a lot less upset than otherwise.

I think it was Al-Halaj who was famously told off by his wife for not being sufficiently upset when his son died. His reply was that he was still with his son.

Knowing there is no birth or death of an individual separate person is the end of suffering.

Grief still arises..but you are not consumed or overwhelmed by it because who you really are can take it.

Every transient feeling will pass away .. you won’t..don’t..can’t..

[PeteJ]

Knowing there is no birth or death of an individual separate person is the end of suffering.

Grief still arises..but you are not consumed or overwhelmed by it because who you really are can take it.

Every transient feeling will pass away .. you won’t..don’t..can’t..

Right on. I would rather say, 'knowing there is no individual person', but it's the same thing.

The difficulty is presenting this idea in a way that makes sense to sceptical scholastic philosophers, and for this I feel metaphysical analysis is the only way. It's persuading folk to take metaphysics seriously that is so difficult. Most people are taught it is useless and incomprehensible.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:34 pm
It's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death.
Tell that to a mother who just lost her child.

I missed that until Pete copied it.

I wrote my bit clumsily I admit.

The fact of death as a general state of non-being is not sad. Of course you are right Seeds, there is bereavement and terrible loss. It's silly to deny that we experience what we do experience in our natural lives. From the perspective of eternity there is no loss and no sadness but we don't live there.

[Dontaskme]

From the perspective of eternity there is no loss and no sadness but we don't live there.

Eternity / Infinity doesn't have a perspective, perspectives are relative to the Absolute...aka infinity for eternity.

No one lives in eternity/infinity - no one knows the Absolute...the absolute is not a ''someone''
You are the Absolute knowing that cannot be known.

Arisings of sadness, loss and grief are appearances, as sensation, idea, concept sensed by the Absolute knowing, known in the instant a sensation/feeling arises one with the knowing.

Sensations / feelings are empty of substance, so too is the matter to which feelings and sensation are known.

.

[Dontaskme]

The difficulty is presenting this idea in a way that makes sense to sceptical scholastic philosophers, and for this I feel metaphysical analysis is the only way. It's persuading folk to take metaphysics seriously that is so difficult. Most people are taught it is useless and incomprehensible.

I agree, simply because attention is usually focused on an object which then gives rise to the sense of a 'me' being aware of that object. The sense triggers an idea that I exist here and an object exists there separate from me here. When in truth, there is no separation except what concept/mind puts there...from always here.

Very few ever question the fact that the seer awareness is not separate from the object it is seeing..so the focus is primarily always on the object as being the self..while the real self that is awareness space in which the object is appearing goes un-noticed. The mind doesn't register with the imageless mind because the imageless mind's focus is always on the object...which is being projected from the empty void which is mind, so it's like what can the mind do with formless nothing? ..so it identifies itself as a conceptually formed object which is actually empty too. For the formless and form are the same ONE Reality...appearing as two, object and subject.

.

Mind Awareness and Consciousness are different words for the same nondual reality. They are used in inter-changeable way.

[PeteJ]

Hi Dontaskme - Nicely put and I can agree with your analysis. The trouble is that it is very difficult to get from our everyday notion of subject and object to the view you describe. Hence my promotion of metaphysical analysis as away to bridge the gap and open the way for the intellect. Once one sees the need for a theory such as the one you describe then it becomes easier to take it seriously and examine it carefully.

Ramana Maharshi's teachings will most likely seem 'off the wall' until one sees that it is endorsed by logic and reason.