Judy, We agree. I use "sin" merely as a poetic term for "you're screwed, dude."
If the Absolute "level" is ignored, then one is, as if, committing suicide -- Ramana has definitely used the word "suicide" for this identification -- exclusively -- with amness/isness, since it "kills" the Self by misdirection. So, I feel like "sin" is poetically close enough for "un-enlightenment." Turq espouses amness is the Self, but if that concept is in actuality not one's living mindful experience (hopefully it is for Turq) and if that concept is merely dogma-believed, then calling amness the Self is egoic delusion-attachment despite it being a true statement. Until the Absolute is realized, the ego will indeed be evolving towards realization via the yagyas of normal life, and the ego will be found to say, "I'm evolving towards realizing the Absolute." But, though it is a correct statement, the ego can never reach the Absolute nor "see it" in order to target it, nor do anything at all but yet seemingly be sentient nonetheless. It can be discovered that the sentience behind ego resides solely in the Absolute, but only by a neti-neti-neti process whereby one finally says, "I've sought every WHERE, and none of this is the Absolute, and none of this is sentient, including the ego that is presently thinking it is sentient, and since only the Absolute remains unsearched, well, that's where real sentience must abide." That's amness being indirectly aware of the Absolute by a concluding process, not an experience of the Absolute which cannot be any quality ever. I think Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is on record as saying that the purpose of creation (amness) is the expansion of happiness. I'm comfortable with that as the primal intent of amness, but the connection between the Absolute and the arising of that primal intent to manifest can only be realized -- not understood via mechanical sense of being able to trace back to the source of amness -- Brahma failed the lotus stalk test after all. The mind-you cannot get there. Absolute-you cannot be anywhere else. If the mind is processing "looking for me," only the Absolute can be found, but only by the mind ceasing to exist for a moment. If the mind is looking for anything else, only amness can be found. The mantra is sought by the mind, so it is followed to amness, but inside amness, no mantra and no mind can be found, and thus no "leading to the Absolute" can happen. See Message #133187 for my tale of a geranium. http://tinyurl.com/2jn8yt I think Turq views every speck of life as being as valuable as that geranium. An atheist appreciating life as sacred, go figure. I think Turq is an angel -- deeply addicted to amness' offers. Just like me. '-) Judy, your reply will very interesting to me, since I think you've "got it" when it comes to using movement nomenclature. Perhaps a dictionary written by us can be a bridge between our worlds. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully > > admit to having read very little Advaita, where these > > ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM > > and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based > > philosophies 25 years ago, and wandered down paths > > more frequented by Buddhists. > > > > So when I first encountered, a few days ago, your use > > of the term "primal identification," and, even more > > shocking (to me), "sin" used with regard to manifestation, > > it kinda threw me for a loop. I must admit to having > > NEVER entertained such a concept as "sin" with regard > > to the manifest universe. > > I'd love to know where the notion that Advaita views > manifestation as "sin" came from. I've never > encountered that idea in any of the material I've > read on Advaita, and certainly not from Maharishi. > > If there is "sin," as I understand it, it's in > having "forgotten" one's unmanifest nature. > > Then there's this, two responses MMY has given (at > different times) to the question, "Why did the > Absolute manifest?" > > (1) Perhaps for the sake of variety? > > (2) It didn't. >
