tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post8817123842341824245..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Ruminations on Self-Enquiry and PranayamaBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-8035465513506563862008-01-10T20:53:00.000-08:002008-01-10T20:53:00.000-08:00Hi BY. I'm glad you're open to this little bit of ...Hi BY. I'm glad you're open to this little bit of conversation here. I was about to say that we are in agreement on what you wrote, but I'll modify that to say - in part.<BR/><BR/>It's all about clarification, isn't it? Specifically here about the character of maya and Brahman. Some apparent disagreements are only linguistic, but others may be substantive.<BR/><BR/>I don't know about this "turning attention upon itself." I'm inclined to say that phrase has no actual meaning. If attention becomes the object of attention, what has occurred? Can attention be its own object? What does attention look like?<BR/><BR/>The phrase Krishnamurti used (I know you may object to the source) was <I>"The content of consciousness IS consciousness."</I> Translating that to the present case, <I>"The object of attention IS attention."</I> Apart from its objects there is no such thing as attention, so attention cannot be its own object, or "turned upon itself." I'd consider that to be linguistic spaghetti.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, you are still in maya with such notions. Another indication of this is the use of relative terminology, such as "greater and greater depth."<BR/><BR/>From the old forum, it was sometimes said that maya is "measurement," so such relativisms are all maya, considered illusory or "manufactured knowledge" as opposed to Truth or absolute knowledge. An example of manufactured knowledge that always comes to my mind is when I have two sticks. I lay one against the other and say, "That stick is two sticks long." Essentially, this is all measurement/maya amounts to, and it is, classically, empty of meaning.<BR/><BR/>Brahman cannot actually be thought to have depth, being immeasurable (not maya), so certainly anything greater or less cannot refer to it. I might anticipate you saying "infinite depth," but infinite means not finite, immeasurable, and depth must imply some measure. Brahman has no dimensions.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, in general, when you speak in such terms as greater or lesser or deeper or all such comparative, relative qualities, it is not something that an enquirer after Brahman finds at all interesting. It is maya. There is no happiness in maya considering that all qualities are temporary, limited, and cyclical and in those respects are forever unsatisfactory and disappointing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com