tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post9014304300735215681..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Jivanmukta and the Mind of the RealizerBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-24060023098834962542009-12-02T00:18:44.521-08:002009-12-02T00:18:44.521-08:00It's been said by several jnanis that the expe...It's been said by several jnanis that the experience of jivanmukti and videhamukti are the same, that once mukti is attained, the body is irrelvent alive or dead. So in that sense the jivanmukti is immortal I suppose. not his body. But even the body of a jnani is not separate I believe from his/her presence as the Self. When we refer to Maharshi and his teachings, I don't believe we are referring to Venkataraman, but we are referring to the Self, Brahman alone, because that is what Maharshi was and still is. It's weird to talk about his teachings as if they are a philosophy or that he had influences, or that he thought about it in those terms.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-32218588721992643502009-12-01T17:21:48.855-08:002009-12-01T17:21:48.855-08:00Reading further, I see you agree with all I just s...Reading further, I see you agree with all I just said, and even have some really unique and interesting analysis. I do understand though that the perfection or immortality referred to is because of abiding as that one Self, which is immortal and perfect. I question whether the subtle body of a jnani survives? I don't know. Interesting thing to bring up.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-24232862124880902212009-12-01T17:16:02.891-08:002009-12-01T17:16:02.891-08:00"""The use of the word "mind&q..."""The use of the word "mind" in the spiritual traditions, and even by Ramana himself, is often imprecise, and is frequently used to refer to distinct elements. At times it merely means the brain and its various neural impulses that we identify with on the level of the physical organism of our own bodies. At times it refers to the subtle awareness that we, as functionally reincarnate entities, identify with the deeper elements of the mind."""<br /><br />I would I think disagree, that I don't think Ramana's use of mind is imprecise, he just doesn't mean it in the normal way. I don't believe he ever uses mind in the Western neurophysiology sense, brain and it's various neural impulses. When Ramana are other spiritual masters refer to mind, I believe they are referring to the entire experience of the illusory individual, inclusive of the whole 3D panorama universe, to verbal thoughts, to memories, pretty much everything "this" in mye xperience is just as Krishnamurti said, and Maharshi agreed, a bundle of thoughts. Whether a brain is invovled in that process, is irrelevent I think, because they are entirely dealing with it from the subjective experience, not as an objective phenomenon. And that mind I believe is according to Ramana and other spiritual masters false and unnecessary. The mental activity involved in living the life of the body and it's prarabdha in the world has nothing to do with this mind I believe. That's all considered the work of the Supreme Power. From Who am I? how Ramana compared it to a magnet and a compass. The activities of all the bodies in the world are directed by the Supreme Power, the "mind", which is the same as "ego, or "jiva", or "individual" has no part in those activities. Thus the questioning or negating of the "I am the doer" notion that Ramana advocated.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-41039682662606338892009-12-01T17:05:57.451-08:002009-12-01T17:05:57.451-08:00Of course I suppose with non-doership, the inclina...Of course I suppose with non-doership, the inclination that makes mental activity occur to get a needed thing done, would not as it normally seems to us arising from my individiual sense of self, which so I hear is an illusion. (the false Super-ego) It would seem to happen of it's own accord, in response to the circumstnaces that required some kind of action that required mental activity. This kind of feed back into an individual "me" that obsesses about things would be completely dissolved and whatever power is already directing things would have free reign to respond far better to the things tha tneed to get done. I'm kind of learning taht what they call the "I" or ego in Hinduism, in Ramana's teachings is nothing but obsessive thoughts that get in the way of that power responding correctly and omnipresently to the situations taht arise. Of course the notion that there is a body here, and a world out there, I guess that notion or mirage would also go. Because even experientially that's kind of illusory. I'm learning that maybe when things seem O.K, peaceful or blissful that power can be allowed to direct the mind and body or dissolve it, I don't need to do something, but if there is some kind of suffering based on thoguhts those thoughts must eb considered delusion and ignored.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-46229753747970813292009-12-01T17:00:08.429-08:002009-12-01T17:00:08.429-08:00Well written, I read alot of it. My understanding ...Well written, I read alot of it. My understanding and I think you covered it pretty well is that when they say "no mind", they are not referring to the functional mind. In the jnani the functional mind is working fully. One of the ways my teacher described it though he was referring to other historical Hindu sources is that the pure mind or sattvic mind is no mind at all. On Michael James site, he said that we have all the thoughts necessary to carry out our prarabdha karma, but most of our thinking is vasanas which are not necessary. Annamalai Swami said that in the sattvic state, mental activity arises when something is necessary to get done, but otherwise there is mental silence. My understanding is that maybe it's kind of like the jnani is permanently in the "zone", laugh, as they say. For instance, I initially misunderstood that inactivity (or giving up, lethargy) had anything to do with surrender or non-doership and was corrected by my teacher taht they didn't. And that really called attention to how highly functional jnanis actually are, even Ramana was highly active and involved in all sorts of projects for most of his life. So now, I sometimes I think understand a little deeper. I have to say, if my practice is concentration, then it is hard to do that practice and something else. So what is inquiry? And how to do it (correctly) so it doesn't interfere with other activities? Well, I guess really the way I took it, is that do other activities, live life what have you. Evidently the state of abiding as the Self has nothing to do with the inactivity of the body, the mental functioning of the mind. Eckhart Tolle was saying and this resonated with everything I've heard Ramana and co. say, that awakening is awakening from taking our thoughts to be me. So, it really is an issue it seems of identification with the thoughts that constitute the mind, as opposed to how I initially and I think wrongly took it, taht supression of thoughts, or redirection of attention woudl ever be fruitful. Both those can interfere with pristine functioning. I was looking up super ego today, and it seemed to me that what is absent in Self-REalization is not the Freudian ego, but the super-ego and the id. The ego in Freudian terms was just the functional mind it seemed which is working in a jnani. The super-ego and the id, gross identification as an individual entity and intense desires and fears rooted in that are what I think are absent in Self-Realization.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.com