"Unless you don't realize the Atma, according to Vedanta, there will not be any realization."
Radhakrishnan states: Sha.mkara argues that it is impossible for us to know the self (Atman) by means of thought, since thought itself is a part of the flux belonging to the region of the non-self. If we grasp it by inducing a sort of sleep on all our critical and interpretive powers, then we do fail to have knowledge of the type we desire. Yet we cannot think away the self, for there is no consciousness or experience apart from it. Though it escapes our knowledge, it does not entirely escapes us. It is the knowledge of the notion of self and is known to exist on account of its immediate presentation. It cannot be proved, since it is the basis of all proof and is established prior to all proof. Logically it is a postulate. We have to take it for granted. Indian Philosophy (Vol.II, pp.476-477) [my emphasis] **************************************************** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2011, at 5:11 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > >> > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>> On the face of it, it isn't at all impossible that you > > >>> simply didn't reach that depth and clarity and length > > >>> of time of transcending when you were practicing TM. > > >>> But that doesn't mean, as you keep claiming, that TM > > >>> *cannot* lead to such experience. > > >> > > >> Whoops, incomplete edit. Let me try that again: > > >> > > >> That you didn't reach that depth and clarity and length > > >> of time of transcending when you were practicing TM > > >> doesn't mean, as you keep claiming, that TM *cannot* > > >> lead to such experience. > > >> > > > > > > Nor does it need to. > > > > > > My transcending time is better than yours is not integral to TM-theory in the first place. > > > > Well it would mean some are reaching the "bottom" of the ocean (TC) in the bubble diagram, and others are only 'blanking out' at one of the subtle waves towards the bottom, in a laya (Non-TC). > > This is my opinion as well: Much of what is described in TM transcending is only laya. Think of the sleeping elephants. They are blockages you haven't dealt with. You are only partly awake. Some of these blockages are the so-called knots associated with different chakras, so called granthis. > > So actually only part of the system is 'awake', the other part sleeps. The crucial difference is, that this partial transcending, mental laya, is not the awakening of the Atma, the soul. > > Chakras, Soul, are not mentioned in the argumentation of Lawson and Judy. If you mention them, they ignore it as if you have never said anything. Ramana Maharshi says, that in awakening, there is a very fine nadi between Sahasrara and heart, which gets activated, the socalled atma-nadi. Shankara speaks of the same in his Brahma Sutra commentary. As long as the Atma is not awakened, your transcendence will only be laya. You could go on with laya forever, it doesn't lead to the Atma. Unless you don't realize the Atma, according to Vedanta, there will not be any realization. > > > > > If you think "that's OK" that seems like a pretty bad rationalization to accept. It's effectively resigning yourself to a limbo. > > >
