Adyathmic discussion-355 (Miracles)

Dear Santhosh.

It seems that "A Course In Miracles" backs up everything you say. You may be right and I may be wrong.? Sorry I was so argumentative. Lots of love to you.

Dearest Trev ,

As per my conviction:

Only on dualistic point of view the arguments are possible.  In non- dual reality there is no second thing exists other than the formless soul, which is present in the form of consciousness. That is:  I & you and the world are one in essence. Thus there is no second thing exists other than the essence, which is present in the form of consciousness.

Miracles are mere Ideas. And ideas are Illusory in their nature. These ideas too are consciousness, (the soul, the innermost self is present in the form of consciousness) and hence no miracle really occurs. Only when one sees all individuals, especially himself as imagined ideas, can he rise to see them later as consciousness. Thus there are two stages. One must first see himself as illusory before he sees others and the world as illusory.

Miracles deals within the duality. It is concerned with objective reality. It is not concerned with subjective reality. The miracles do not exist outside the self (soul) but they have a psychological existence and that psychological existence. The psychological existence is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman. So the first thing to be understood is that are part of the illusory existence where man and his experience of the world are reality.

The miracles happen within the duality. Without the duality there is no miracle. The miracles and the performer of the miracle, and the one who is watching the miracle and the world were the miracles takes place are one in essence.   That essence is consciousness.  The consciousness (soul) is the innermost self.

Just as (the delusion) of the serpent does not exist in the rope in all the three periods of time (past, present, and future), so the universe (waking experience) does not exist in the formless soul, the innermost self, which is the non-dual One.

Being of the nature of awareness alone, there is not inertness in the formless soul, the innermost self. Being of the nature of Truth, there is not a non-truth to the formless soul, the innermost self. Being of the nature of awareness, there is no ignorance in the formless soul, the innermost self.

It is through ignorance that the universe (waking) shines as reality .Whoever acquires Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana is free from experiencing the birth, life, death and the world as reality.

The Advaitic formula, to be successively realized, is: “the world is unreal; Brahman is real; the world is Brahman.” This is the vision of non-duality. Sage Sri, Sankara affirmed a progression of points of view depending on the stage of one’s practice.

“From the standpoint of the waking entity the universe is a reality from the standpoint of the soul, the innermost self, the universe is mere illusion created out of consciousness. When wisdom dawns then one realizes the whole universe is consciousness. The dualistic view is possible only in ignorance. At the dawn of Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana there is only non-dualistic view in the midst of duality because the whole universe is consciousness. Thus all the contents of the universe are also consciousness. Thus form, time and space are mere illusion created out of consciousness. If the form time and space are consciousness than the experience birth, life and death also consciousness. 

Thus one has to make duality into Nonduality by a perfect understanding of ‘what is truth’ and ‘what is untruth’ in order realized the ultimate truth or Brahman or Christ.   

That is why:

Gospel Thomas logian 22:- Jesus saw infants being suckled.  He said to his disciples, “These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.”

They said to him, “Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?”

Jesus said to them,  “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside  and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female is female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,  and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom.”

With lots of love

Santthosh.  

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason***

Everything is consciousness, which Sage Sri Sankara declared 1200 years back –everything is Atman because Atman is present in the form of the consciousness. 

Sage Sri Goudpada says that: - The merciful Veda teaches karma and Upasana to people of lower and middling intellect, while Jnana is taught to those of higher intellect.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Non-duality.  There is no doubt Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world. He told people they were foolish to cling to it. But he stopped there. He came nearest to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully.

The distinction between Sage Sri, Sankara’s Advaita and Vijnanavadin Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. Advaitins follow the former.

Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its failure to affect society in Asia.

Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sri Sage Sri, Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as Bhakti, worship etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as wisdom to those of higher intellect.

The Advaita Sage, Sri, Sankara gave religious, ritual or dogmatic instruction to the populace, but pure philosophy only to the few who could rise to it. Hence, the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.

Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belong to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it.

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterwards throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced, how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being or has it come out of nothing.

The world is both real and unreal. It is real because it is a manifestation of the consciousness but is unreal, in the sense, that it is not absolute and eternal like consciousness itself.

People's approach is more practical, and they stuck with the reality of the world, they take it as real. That is why all the confusion.