“between the expereincer and the expereinced, you are the experiencing ?”
Where does this quote come from ? I can’t find it anywhere.
[QUOTE=Hubert;72023]“between the expereincer and the expereinced, you are the experiencing ?”
Where does this quote come from ? I can’t find it anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like it might be a Jed McKenna quote but I?m not sure?
Maharaj: Call it silence, or void, or abeyance, the fact is that the three – experiencer, experiencing, experience – are not. In witnessing, in awareness, self-consciousness, the sense of being this or that, is not. Unidentified being remains.
Maharaj: Since you admit that as a person you have only intermittent existence, can you tell me what are you in the intervals in between experiencing yourself as a person?
Maharaj: I am experiencing these in consciousness, but I am neither consciousness, nor its content.
Maharaj: The experience may be incommunicable. Can one communicate an experience?
Maharaj: The word ‘remain’ does not apply. ‘I am’ is ever afresh. You do not need to remember in order to be. As a matter of fact, before you can experience anything, there must be the sense of being. At present your being is mixed up with experiencing. All you need is to unravel being from the tangle of experiences. Once you have known pure being, without being this or that, you will discern it among experiences and you will no longer be misled by names and forms.
Maharaj: A state of non-experiencing. In it all experience is included
Maharaj: There can be no experience of the Absolute as it is beyond all experience. On the other hand, the self is the experiencing factor in every experience and thus, in a way, validates the multiplicity of experiences. The world may be full of things of great value, but if there is nobody to buy them, they have no price. The Absolute contains everything experienceable, but without the experience they are as nothing. That which makes the experience possible is the Absolute. That which makes it actual is the Self.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;72039]Sounds like it might be a Jed McKenna quote but I’m not sure?
Maharaj: Since you admit that as a person you have only intermittent existence, can you tell me what are you in the intervals in between experiencing yourself as a person?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, somehow I remembered either the Gita, or lord Krishna, and I am almost sure this has been discussed on this forum, yet may search did not return any relevant information. I have used this quote on another forum, and I was unable to back it up …
Oh, the part I quoted from the Maharaj … I always liked that. It kinda sobers one up about his self.
Another thing, the Maharaj says experiencing we are not. Maybe my memory played me a rick, and that noone has ever said what I regarded as a quote ?
The demons of the past.
Hello, Hubert. It’s good to see you posting here once in a while. I thought your quote sounded a little bit like something from the yoga sutras. I found in sutra 1.41 a reference to grasper, grasping, and grasped. There are also some references to ‘seer’ and ‘seen’ in chapter 2, 17 - 21. Here the ‘seen’ is described as being embodied in elements (grasped) and sense organs (grasping). I hope that helps.
Yoga Sutra uses the terms in sutra I.41 to explain how they merge into one in the end, like this:
In a no-mind state in pure consciousness, the processes of cognition and perception do not change; only awareness does. Now, the omnipresent Universal Mind constitutes the field of knowledge (experienced) to which all the objects of matter belong and now Universal Mind itself flows undiminished through the bodies. Since there is nothing to color, condition or corrupt the brain’s processes of cognition, the resulting knowledge is the same as the field of knowledge. And since a yogī’s three bodies co-vibrate with the corresponding three bodies of the object, the bodies (the “matter”) collectively balance and withdraw from awareness to bring you directly in touch with the life within, the knower (the real Perceiver) itself.
Thus, in the no-mind state where mind modifications are completely stilled, the field of knowledge (the experienced), the knowledge (the experience), and the experiencer become one. There eventuates a state of identity with and similarity to Īśvara as that which is so realized. That’s considered a pinnacle of Yoga.
“between the experiencer and the experienced, you are the experiencing ?”
My initial reaction to this was to ‘you are the experiencing’. Right away I want to say, no that’s not right, ‘I Am’ is the experiencer. But the quote also places experiencing squarely between the experienced and the experiencer, which is where it belongs. If you are the experiencing, then you have misidentified the self with the body and the senses, which many people do.
Being an intelligent and educated person, I’m sure Hubert already knows that. I don’t know where it comes from, but it is very much relevant to what yoga is all about.
@Suhas Tambe
That’s quite a bit of hindu interpretation that I don’t necessarily agree with or accept.
I think the quote sound like something from a Vedanta text.
It basically means that you are pure experience. You neither are experiencer of something and nor are you the experienced, but you are simply pure experience. This is really saying you are sat and chit; existence and consciousness. The experiencer and the experienced occur within you.
Nice to see you here again 
[QUOTE=Asuri;72059]@Suhas Tambe
That’s quite a bit of hindu interpretation that I don’t necessarily agree with or accept.[/QUOTE]
There is no one “Hindu” interpretation. All the classical commentaries on the yoga sutra, from vyasa to bhoja, vacaspati mishra, shankara, vijnanabhikshu etc are Hindu interpretations. What you mean to say is that this is a neo-vedantic interpretation (similar to Taimni etc). Recently, a few buddhist appropiations of the yoga sutras have come out, but all in all, the yoga sutras deal with a Hindu subject.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72066]… but all in all, the yoga sutras deal with a Hindu subject.[/QUOTE]
Yoga Sutras deal with body-mind-spirit interplay rather than a “Hindu subject”. That means, most probably, Yoga sutras deal with “human beings” on this planet.
If some interpretation of Yoga sutras says that they are “Hindu” interpretations, then most probably they are interpretations of a Hindu(Converse may not be true).
[QUOTE=yaram;72070]Yoga Sutras deal with body-mind-spirit interplay rather than a “Hindu subject”. That means, most probably, Yoga sutras deal with “human beings” on this planet.
If some interpretation of Yoga sutras says that they are “Hindu” interpretations, then most probably they are interpretations of a Hindu(Converse may not be true).[/QUOTE]
The whole objective, methodology and philosophy of the yoga sutras is distinctively Hindu.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72071]The whole objective, methodology and philosophy of the yoga sutras is distinctively Hindu.[/QUOTE]
Yes…this was one of the hot topics on this forum and so many posts are full of it. Anyone can debate on this and come to the same conclusion as the one before the debate started.
Unfortunately, there is no one definition of Hindu/Vedic/India etc. They are (like any other) terms to associate some concepts/terms.
In short, to circularly define Hindu/Hinduism, it would go like this:
[B]“There is not much Hinduism in Hinduism”[/B]
P.S: I wrote an essay about Hinduism in school and defined Hinduism and its peculiar universal appeal in this way…and to my surprise, I won the first prize…!!! And, the sponsorers of that competition are the best beneficiaries of Hinduism in India.
[QUOTE=Asuri;72059]Being an intelligent and educated person, I’m sure Hubert already knows that.[/QUOTE]
Hubert?s intelligence and education fail in comparison to the clarity that comes from his direct experience of deeper understanding.
I agree with you Yaram. Hinduism does not really refer to a religion, but rather a certain attitude to the world and life. In my understanding they are:
- Knowledge approach: As early as the Rig Veda we find a constant emphasis on the need to know the ultimate reality. There is also a very striking humility we find in some of the Suktams like the Nasadiya Suktam ending with “That ONE in the highest heavens, surely he knows the origin of this world, or maybe he does not” It is this temper that leads to the Upanishads, Gita and the all the philosophical schools in India. This strong passion for the ultimate knowledge is very unique to the Vedic tradition.
Today, in the scientific age, we share the same attitude. Somebody like Einstein, who wanted to know the ultimate reality of the universe would have been considered Vedic by the Risis of India.
- Humanism and ecology: Again, we find throughout the Rig Veda several suktas that talk about the entire world as a global family: Vasudeva Kutumbukm. We are all breathing the same air, under the same sky, standing on the same earth, taking the rays of the same sun. The Vedas constantly enjoin us to learn to cooperate. This is why we find that India was one of the few societies in the world in earlier times(it got worse over time) that had human rights, civil rights, animal rights and women rights and the emphasis on protecting the environment.
Such universal humanism is taken for granted in the advanced world today. We are living in a world where human rights, civil rights, animal rights, women rights and the ecological awareness of protecting the environment(rain forests etc) is the most strongest yet.
- Self-development: Another very common theme we find the Vedas is the need for self development, refinement of character, cultivation of intellect. This is in total contrast to Abahamic religion where the emphasis lies on obedience to law, acceptance of relgious authority, worship of the only and one true god. Hence why India is the only civilization in the history of world that developed the Samkhya-Yoga system(which is also shared by Buddhism and Jainism) which is basically the first scientific practical psychological system in the history of the world. It is simply the best method of self development, body-mind training out there, even today.
Today, self-development is pervasive in the world modern world, and is actually taken for granted. Never ever in the history of the world have people been so obsessed with their health and career for example. Today people work very hard in making sure they are fit and healthy and progressing their careers. There is a much larger number of people today in the world actively pursuing spirituality, self-realization, self-actualization.
In other words the Vedic way of life is already what we are living. If that means being Hindu, most of us are Hindu’s today without even realizing it. This is why I have found that getting rid of the meaningless label of ‘Hindu’ and replacing it with the more modern and universal label ‘spiritual’ serves me a lot better in identifying exactly what my attitude and approach to life is.
A true Hindu would support scientific progress and not oppose it. Hindus have never historically been ambivalent to science, as you find modern Hindus like Sarva are. Rather than celebrating, and encouraging scientific research into spirituality today, he is opposing it, like any Abrahamic religionist does. Hindus have never considered spirituality to be outside of the reach of science, but Sarva strictly enforces a divide between religion and science.
A true Hindu would encourage universal humanism, globalization and not support nationalism. Hinduism has never identified itself as being bound by any time or place(hence why it is called santana) but modern Hindus like Sarva assert Hinduism as an Indian religion. They insist on worshiping Indian gods and goddesses. Following Indian customs and rituals. Speaking Indian languages. Some even go as far as to say that one must be born in India. They may not admit to it directly, but go to Hindu Dharma forums for example, in the thread, “Non-religious Hindus” you have a few Hindus who say that some Hindus do not go to temples, worship idols, but are only interested in the philosophical part of Hinduism. Notice how most of the Hindus pounce on the OP, even going as far to saying they are not really Hindu, because they don’t practice Hindu rituals. In the same thread I share my own Hinduism(Jnana-marga) and I get asked who is my Ishta Devta(the god I worship) what is my caste.
I got the same nationalist views from Hindu pandits in India. I was told that for me to be Hindu I must first learn to read and write in Hindi, I must Indian clothes(dhoti) I must practice my caste obligations. It was like this across the board in all Hindu institutions. At the Vedanta ashram I was asked I must formally take renunciation with them and never to contact my parents and friends again. Then I would have to abide by their strict dress code and lifestyle code. A Siddha Yoga I met only agreed to initiate me if I shaved my head, cooked and cleaned for him, and begged on the street for my alms.
None of this nationalist quackery is Hinduism. This is why after coming back from India I was disillusioned with my status as ‘Hindu’ If Hinduism meant worshiping idols and other bizarre rituals, following dead traditions, and believing in mythological nonsense, I would rather not identify as ‘Hindu’
A true Hindu would support scientific progress and not oppose it. Hindus have never historically been ambivalent to science, as you find modern Hindus like Sarva are. Rather than celebrating, and encouraging scientific research into spirituality today, he is opposing it, like any Abrahamic religionist does. Hindus have never considered spirituality to be outside of the reach of science, but Sarva strictly enforces a divide between religion and science.
I am not going to respond to your endless rhetoric, but just to be clear, I never said I oppose scientific research in spirituality. This is another instance of you putting words in someone’s mouth.
Amused. The intellectualization returns to every thread on this forum sooner or later to drown the simple words of experience. I think, that’s human.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;72095]Amused. The intellectualization returns to every thread on this forum sooner or later to drown the simple words of experience. I think, that’s human.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it certainly seems the nature of Jnana yoga usually begins with arguing for the sake of argument.
Exactly right.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72094]I am not going to respond to your endless rhetoric, but just to be clear, I never said I oppose scientific research in spirituality. This is another instance of you putting words in someone’s mouth.[/QUOTE]
You do not oppose it, yet you consider the only area of science today which does scientific research into the spiritual - transpersonal psychology(including the subset of parapsychology) - as voodo?
psychology is always created by the interpretation of psychologists… and psychology has mostly to do with the mind, spirituality has to do with not just the mind.