What if you were to Drop the Sanskrit

[rawgod]

As I read a bit about Advaita, and the utterings of the teachers, I
ask myself, what would they be saying if the only language they had
was English? I'm not an expert in Sanskrit, nor do I personally know
any. Here in this group I see a lot of people using Sanskrit, so maybe
one of you can tell me, what would be the pure English meanings of the
words I am reading on this blog?

I await enlightenment...

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Enlightenment of which specific word ........are you seeking ?

[godszen]

give up now before it's too late!

[Gary]

rawgod:

Welcome.

I share your desire for some straight talk meant to communicate.

Luckily, there is very little to what gets said around here. Most of
the banter is all in fun.

Advaita: Not Two

All words simply point to a non-conceptual sense of things. The more
you demand clarity here the less clear things get, because this isn't
of the mind.

You might start with the float at the top of the group threads.

Next, try a few key searches on terms.

Otherwise, direct questions might help to provide more pointed
answers.

Best,
Gary

On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, rawgod <gewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rawgod]

Thank you for sharing that you want more direct communication. I don't
mean to be playing games, but the question was a test to see if people
on this site are willing to communicate, or whether they just want to
wallow in their own navels. I think I have my answer.

I apologize for any ill feelings I may cause/have caused by my
intrusion into your lives.

> > I await enlightenment...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I like navels.

Wallowing in one would be a trip.

Intruding into lives. What an odd concept. Life forcing its way into
life.

What was your answer?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[godszen]

thanks for the games!

On Aug 16, 7:00 am, rawgod <gewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rawgod]

My answer, to my own question, is that by changing the language away
from the Sanskrit you allow the ideas propounded by Advaita (or any
other thought system) to move beyond themselves, and be open to their
own evolution (evolution of the spirit). I find that most if not all
religions, philosophies, moral codes, etc., are all bounded/limited by
their own language. Therefore, in order to let those ideas grow into
something else, it becomes necessary to change the language.
Obviously, seeing as I am discussing this, my spirit feels the need to
evolve, to grow beyond what has been pronounced for the past 6,000
years. And, hopefully as obviously, I am more than willing to talk
about that evolution.

Which is why I chose the word "intrusion." I'm not the type of person
to sit and discuss what has been discussed for 6000 years by persons
more knowledgeable and wise than myself. Therefore, when I bring a new
idea with me to a discussion, I feel I am intruding. I am not asking
anyone at all to listen to me, or believe what I have to say. All I'm
asking for is a chance to share my thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, and
see how others react to them. But I am asking this be done with an
open mind.

The one thing I do not want is to be bogged down by definitions, or
get involved in word games. I want to discuss content, not form.
Whether anyone here is willing to have such a discussion with me only
time will tell. By your answers, Mark, I feel there may be such a
willingness in you. Now I am opening up the doors and inviting you or
anyone else who desires to enter. Do you feel like coming in?

[MarkJ]

Let's do it.

Adventure is me.

Put it out there.

What ever you say will be assaulted but it doesn't matter because what
you convey is what you know and see and the essence of that cannot be
touched, only the packaging is damaged.

Mark

[Gary]

rawgod:

Please search this forum for a number of discussions related to the
use of Sanskrit, Pali...etc. We have protested the use of other
languages prior to your arrival. We are always bogged down by
definitions. It may be that you haven't examined your own concepts
surrounding the verbage, or perhaps the same could be said of me, but
words are always limiting. They are trying to take some abstract
thing called reality, or truth and closely define them and as such
truth/reality is lost. Of course, that assumes that there was some
veracity prior to being lost. Now, taking a clear intent and using
some obscure interpretation of your words is of no value and should we
do this, please let us know. I now must admit that I'm not Mark and I
don't play Mark on the large, or small screen.

On Aug 17, 12:08 pm, rawgod <gewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Anandanand]

Welcome rawgod,

What you say is certainly true, any language has its own limitations.
But in my opinion those limitations are put by the users, any word is
just a bunch of lines or sequence of sounds, it is we who give it
meaning.

The more we debate the more refined meanings become. Of what use is a
language if we are unable to pass on/exchange knowledge/ information.

[godszen]

rawgod wrote:
> My answer, to my own question, is that by changing the language away
> from the Sanskrit you allow the ideas propounded by Advaita (or any
> other thought system) to move beyond themselves, and be open to their
> own evolution (evolution of the spirit).

ok, has their been any evolution of your spirit?

[Ram]

Welcome rawgod, I hope my directness doesn't scare you off as it seems
to have done with Jonatan in the past. (I know, what a way to start
off.) You said you want to talk about evolution, so I will attempt to
keep on that topic for the most part. I agree that talking about
evolution, as you mentioned, indicates open-minded exploration.

I tend to agree with AnandX2 that the imagined limitations imposed
upon certain words, be they 6000 years old or a few decades old, are
an attribute of the experience of the users of the words and not
inherent in words themselves. Words are words, and as such, an
expression of knowledge, and sometimes pointers to that which cannot
be grasped by knowledge in the conventional sense.

Actually, there are very few Sanskrit words that are used by this
group. (I actually even think that a thread on the definitions of
various Sanskrit words could be quite meaningful and enlightening, but
I resisted Sandeep's invitation to enlighten, as I didn't want to put
Gary to sleep) Self-realization is not dependent upon using or not
using specific words. It is the meaning or essence of what is being
indicated by the words that are used in spiritual discourse that needs
to be grasped/understood/gained (for lack of a better English
word ;~). It has been my observation that in the modern "literate"
world, the resistance to incorporating foreign words into one's
vocabulary tends to be fairly typical among English speaking people
(in my experience rivaled most closely by the French, and then German
speaking people) which is quite ironic seeing how the vast majority of
the English vocabulary has evolved by incorporating words from other
languages. Even Sanskrit words are finding their way into English
dictionaries these days. What's the rule for entry of a new word into
the English dictionary? I believe it is if it's used by three or more
people, it's considered a valid word in the English language.

While my knowledge of the Sanskrit language is very limited, my
exposure to it is probably somewhat more extensive than the average
westerner. That being said, I can say with a fair a amount of
certainty that there are many Sanskrit words that simply do not have
any English equivelant as far as word for word translation. Many of
the Sanskrit words used to express concepts in spiritual dialogue
simply have no English counterpart as English is not particularly
tailored to the communication about subtle states of consciousness or
subtle experience. Yes, the meanings of the concepts can still be
conveyed, but it can sometimes take a paragraph or two to get the
meaning across where a single Sanskrit word can much more easily and
effectively be used. One example of a fairly commonly used Sanskrit
word that does not really have an English counterpart is the word
"Samadhi." To translate it as "trance," which is often seen in English
translations, does not really convey the significance of samadhi.
While I agree there are some similarties between the two states
(mainly in the similar connotations of the word rather than in what is
actually being denoted by the word samadhi), a seeker could
potentially be greatly confused unnecessarily by trying to go into
some sort of trance without much hope of actually understanding the
significance of samadhi in spiritual aspiration. With the case of the
word samadhi, as well as with many other Sanskrit words, if one does
not want to explore outside the box of their current vocabulary and
perspective, it seems that it is really more of a loss on their part
than any kind of real evolution.

When we speak of evolution, this fundamentally points to the expanding
nature of knowledge/consciousness (some may use the word spirit). Part
of this expansion of knowledge has to do with expansion of vocabulary,
along with the expansion and exploration of perspective/s and states
of consciousness. This evolution of knowledge is all about
exploration. Exploration is stunted when one tries to fit alternativie
perspectives and newly introduced concepts into the framework of one's
currently held belief system, which basically consists of one's
current, yet ever-changing, conceptual framework and psychological
conditioning. From my own experience in the past and from ongoing
observations of others, I would say that resistance to adding foreign
words to one's vocabulary and understanding their meaning really has
to do with laziness in the mind (no offense intended to anyone), and
nothing to do with actual evolution of knowledge and perspective, let
alone self-realization. It actually seems that to some degree, it is
actually counter-evolutionary.

If the evolution of knowledge (spirit if you like) is acknowledged to
be about exploration and investigation, then no stones should be left
unturned, no concept so sacred that it can't be explored and discarded
when deemed fitting or necessary for further evolution or spiritual
growth. This even applies to the concept about what evolution is.
Holding to a set idea of what evolution is and the form it should
take, again seems to be counter-evolutionary. This is where some
'basic agreement' as to the meanings of words that are used in common
parlance between parties is essential for effective communication and
provides much more significance to the conversants, than what the
actual word is that is being used. For example, the word bozo is one
word that seems to have been generally accepted among members of this
group as an ok word for That which cannot be captured in words. A
newcomer to this group would likely have no clue what was trying to be
communicated without knowing the commonly accepted use of the word.

Many so-called "spiritual aspirants" say that they want to expand
their consciousnes/knowledge and gain a deeper understanding as to
their true nature, but when presented with the opportunity to examine
their own unnecessarily held limiting beliefs, they usually try to
understand what is being presented to them from within their current
rigidly held conceptual framework, and instead of exploring the
validity, usefulness, or necessity of currently held concepts, tend to
merely try to justify the need for them and that they are "TRUE." Of
course they are true, otherwise "I" wouldn't believe them! This is
where earnestness comes into play. Without earnestness and the
willingness to sacrifice any belief, one simply remains stagnant in
one's own beliefs, and often just ends up frustrated in their attempts
to proselytize to others who don't see things in the same way that
they do.

While I do not think that Sanskrit words are necessary for self-
realization, I do experience for myself that even the small attempt
that has been made to understand the meaning of a few concepts
presented by some Sanskrit words, rather than having limited my
perspective, has greatly enhanced as well as enriched my life in ways
that were unimaginable when my vocabulary was limited to good ole
"American." Much moreso than having gained some conversational
vocabulary in say French, Italian, or Spanish has done. I'm fairly
well travelled and the running joke that I come across around the
globe is "What do you call someone who speaks two languages? Bi-
lingual. Someone who speaks three languages? Tri-lingual. Someone who
speaks one language? American!" (I put the French and many older
generation Germans into the same category. I guess maybe the Chinese
as well, but these days many of them seem to at least be trying not to
be linguistically challenged.~) - the sound of one eye not winking.
Fortunately, the English language is in many ways suited to
intellectual communication and contains within it the ability to
express abstract ideas through various ways and means, exhausting as
it sometimes may be to accurately do so. In Thailand by contrast, the
language and mentality of the people, for the most part, is
fundamentally existential and they do not have the means to express
abstract concepts without the incorporation of various Pali or
Sanskrit (or English, French, and German, as the case may be)words and
phrases. This is a clear case where language and the mentality, and
yes, even their consciousness/knowledge has not evolved for the vast
majority of people because of their unwillingness, or perhaps
perceived (apperceived?) lack of necessity to adopt foreign words into
their vocabulary. So basically, outside of the buddhist monasteries,
you have a culture steeped in superstition, ancestor worship, and
animism/paganism. Very strange evolution indeed (if you can call it
that) of a culture whose early founders were Hindu. Evolution or
devolution? I would say it has been a devolution of mass consciousness
rooted in the abandonment of Pali and Sanskrit languages, and the
adoption of a language based almost solely on the capacity to express
one's daily existential needs and wants. What the heck is up with that
funny monkey with the long tail carrying around a mountain? Nobody
here seems to have a clue. Maybe the patron saint of sex tourists.

I don't mean to pick on rawgod, or unduly criticize (really), but I
found several of the comments and choice of words in the original
question and subsequent post quite interesting. For example, I find it
difficult to see how changing language away from Sanskrit actually
does allow ideas propounded by advaita (which is not really a thought
system) to move beyond themselves, or that it can conclusively be said
that doing so allows one to move beyond oneself in the evolution of
spirit. I've tried to see how this is possible or even feasible, but
honestly these comments really make no sense to me. So it seems much
like idle speculation to assert this as being true. However, sometimes
I'm not too quick on the uptake. And at times, I've even found it
productive to wallow in my own navel. Now if someone can come up with
a use for recycled belly-button lint, that would be even more
productive. :O)

Even the word spirit which has pretty much evolved(?) into
predominantly a Judeo-christian word in modern times has so many
different connotations that it seems to be of questionable value or
significance in meaningful "spiritual" dialoge. The comment "My spirit
feels the need to evolve..." seems even more enigmatic. I seem to
recall that a few threads back, even the regular posters here couldn't
come to a common agreement on what the word spirit means. Rawgood said
that he or she wants to discuss content and not form, but the whole
topic of this thread seems to be about form and not content (which
seems perfectly ok to me). Content is about meaning and Self
discovery, not about how long a word has been in use. It seems
somewhat difficult to evolve one's knowledge/consciousness if the
energy of the mind is spent on resistence to learning the subtle
signicance of old OR new words. It seems to actually be restrictive
rather than evolutionary.

I think that the most fundamental question that everyone needs to ask
is "What am I looking for in life?" Many "spiritual aspirants" that I
have come across over the years say that they are looking for
enlightenment when they are really looking for something else. Many
are looking for confirmation of their beliefs, some are looking for
approval, some authority figures to tell them what's what, some for a
sense of community. The list goes on and on. The point being, that
perhaps the question "What does spiritual evolution mean to you?"
would be a good topic for a new thread. At minimum, it might ensure
that you don't get unwanted comments about your posts, or mindless
belly-button twiddling. I'm afraid the word games are going to be
found to be unavoidable round these parts.

Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking thread. I have enjoyed
exploring my own thoughts about the topic, even though I suspect many
here may not agree with what's been said. Sorry about the long
rambling on folks.

:O)

[Rodger]

Very nice,Ram.I have some questions...

what's an open mind?
is bozo a sanskrit word?

> read more »...

[Ram]

Mornin Rodger.

Open mind? Hmmm. Off the top of my head a few things come to mind.

Fertile ground. The qualities of inquisitiveness and receptivity. An
ocean without shores, both still and with ripples. An uneclipsed Sun
Shining Presence. The mind which recognizes and excercises preferences
without any real investment in them. Perhaps even the mind that
embraces everything including Sanskrit words and the resistance to
them.

C'mon now, bozo is bozo which can't be named (or it can be named, but
both ends of that dead horse have already been whipped to life on this
board).

:O)

> > system) to move- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

And such a beautiful morning it is!
Open mind,full heart...
horses out of the gate and running.

> > > animism/paganism.- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

> Fertile ground. The qualities of inquisitiveness and receptivity. An
> ocean without shores, both still and with ripples. An uneclipsed Sun
> Shining Presence. The mind which recognizes and excercises preferences
> without any real investment in them. Perhaps even the mind that
> embraces everything including Sanskrit words and the resistance to
> them.

Ram - While I enjoyed reading the 'long' post, the essence of these
words above is the middle way and bring balance. I see the value in
Sanskrit, Hebrew, Pali and many other scriptural languages in
deepening an understanding of what the authors wanted to convey. I
also see that it is another task to accomplish in learning the
scriptural language meaning of a concept that you already know in your
current dialect. Long division is the classical method and the
calculator is the contemporary and there are teachers deeply upset at
the disintegration of a method they find so valuable. Soon the
calculator will be classical and the 'whatever it's called' will be
the contemporary. I don't see a loss or gaining of value of using
either classical or contemporary. It's just culture to me. Eastern/
Western - Oriental/Occidental languages and expressions have always
been different but complimentary. Every culture, religious or
secular, has this 'turmoil'. The old guard doesn't want to lose the
thing they see great value in and the new guard wants to establish
their own. Funny thing is that eventually the new guard becomes the
old guard and often times adapts many if not most of the traditions of
the former old guard while still establishing a new hybrid progeny.

I echo your 'open mind' definition. I find classical eastern language
beautiful and deep and have seen some things clearer through it but it
is held loosely in hand and would be dropped in an instant. No
clinging and no rejecting necessary.

Mark

> > > animism/paganism.- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

Nicely said.

> > > > one's own beliefs, and often just ends- Hide quoted text -

[Gary]

Ram:

So many words and so well chosen. In the end, it seems that we are
all doomed, or saved. All this is beyond the mind, but we search
frantically for a way to communicate that which can't be conveyed.
'Oxymoron' is a word that comes to this mind. "Oxy", or course means
bull like, or bull shit, whereas "moron" is a descriptive term used to
describe my basic state of mental acumen. We toss the dung back and
forth. Your version is rather beautiful and appreciated on this end.
We hope that some of it sticks and the mind gives up.

> productive to wallow in my own navel. Now if...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

So it all comes down...or comes out...as shit,only some shit smells
better than other shit? I thought Mark's shit smelled beautiful,too.

That some shit could actually smell good is really beyond the mind!

Do you know why turds are tapered? They are tapered so your asshole
won't slam shut.But,it wasn't always so.It took ages for this
evolutionary event to complete itself.And,it was a real spiritual
relief,to say the least.

> > funny monkey with the long tail carrying around a mountain?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Ram]

If the mind gives up, one is both through with the need to grapple
with the meaning of words and what is being said, and then the use of
words takes on an entirely new dynamic spontaneously arising from an
ever fresh perspective, that can perhaps be best characterized as
having the perspective of having no fixed perspective while taking in
all perspectives.

> > funny monkey with the long tail carrying around a mountain?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Gary]

Ram:

Well said.. I would appreciate your comments regarding the new/old
topic...just posted.

Gary

> > > majority of people because of their unwillingness, or perhaps...
>
> read more »

[rawgod]

I would like to begin by saying I do not profess to be an expert in
things Sanskrit, or Pali, or Buddhist, etc. I studied under a Tibetan
rinpoche for a period of time, but then moved on. That is my
experience, my curriculum vitae, so-to-speak.
Today I would like to start with the Wheel of Life, and the veil of
reality. There is no doubt in my mind that we move through a series of
incarnations, and that this physical plane is not the only reality
life has to offer. But that life is suffering, or that we are here to
learn how to escape this reality, those I dispute.
That life is often filled with pains and troubles is obvious, without
them there would be little motivation to move away from them. My pains
and my troubles are a springboard to learning. This physical realm
exists for a reason, and in my mind to live to escape from it is
counter-productive. I immerse myself in my so-called suffering until I
can understand it, and learn how to overcome it. All my so-called
emotions are uncontrolled reactions to internal or external stimuli.
Learning to control those emotions was not easy work, nor is it a
finished work, but it is my work, and the more I learn the easier it
becomes. For me this is the purpose of reincarnation on this plane of
realty. It is not possible to learn all there is too much to learn in
one lifetime, especially when for most of those lifetimes I did not
know I was here to learn. Ignorance was bliss, but it certainly was
not useful.
Which brings us to the veil of reality that supposedly hides from us
the truth of life. If this is not reality, what is it? We are born to
this plane, we exist on it for a time, and then we leave it. If it
were not a necessary step why do we bother taking it? Why do we allow
ourselves to be born to this plane if our only goal is escape it? This
makes no sense to me. My goal, as far as I can understand it at this
moment in my life, is to become one with life, and to learn how to let
life become one with me.
Understanding that there is more than one level of reality is not
enough for me. Been there, done that, as the saying goes. Now I am
here to use this reality in order to prepare for the next one,
whatever it might be. There is a place beyond this reality where a
life awaits the return of the spirit that I presently call rawgod, but
that place is no more or no less reality than is this place. It is a
part of reality, and for my experience that is where my veil lies,
between that place and whatever comes after it, not between this level
and the next one. And that suggests to me that there is no end as we
understand an end, but that there are more and more steps, and they
are steps I know will be taken in their own time, when life is ready
to take them (whatever ready means).
This plane of reality is not a place I want to escape from, though
once upon a time I thought it was. Now I want to use it for the
purpose I see it has for me and my spirit, and that purpose is working
together to learn about life, relationships, and self. (These are
concepts for possible future discussions.)

Thank you for being willing to read what I have to say.

[Rodger]

As I understand...

if there is no doubt in the mind,can the mind be 'open'?

if a single living thing suffers,life suffers.as you said,life is
filled with pain and troubles.

there may be many realities...all based in/on Reality.We all live in
our own little worlds,you might say.

isn't 'learning to overcome' (your so-called suffering) same as
learning to escape?

'so-called emotions': if the thought isn't there,will the
'uncontrolled reaction' be there?

i don't if i am 'here to learn',but i am here,learning.

i don't know 'all there is to know',so don't know if learning all
there is to know is possible or impossible.i do the best i can.

the 'truth of life' seems life itself,beyond which no truth lies.

hey,that's pretty cool...'no truth lies'. :)

nuff for now.

welcome to the show,rawgod.

[rawgod]

My compliments to everyone who has taken part in this discussion so
far. Wherever it goes, I'm glad I started it. Certainly, I did not put
enough time into a concentrated reading of everything that has gone on
before my arrival here, and while that would be fruitful, and would
also mean you folks might not have to rehash subjects already
discussed, I personally find that the more I rehash old conversations,
the better I say them. Whether that is true for anyone else, I will
not try to say.

Nor do I necessarily want to lose all the ideas and concepts that are
based in words from other languages. Certainly, when it comes to
spiritual matters, Sanskrit and Pali are venerable, while English is
but a babe, yet in having the babe learned from the venerated, as Mark
suggested, totally new things may be learned, and new directions
taken.

Evolution, as I understand it, is a series of changes that work in
some way (untapered to tapered shit, Rodger?) and for some length of
time. What is hard to look at in evolution is all the paths that led
to dead ends. We know they are there, most paths dead-end, but why
they dead-ended is not always obvious. Whetrher the path I am on right
now will become a dead-end at some point in the future I cannot say,
and I don't particularly care. One cannot discover where one is going
unless one tries. Taking the known path is not an option for me,
though I do acknowledge that to get to where I am I have to have been
where I was. And so I move on...

So, when I talk about evolution, what I am aiming at is those making
the changes cannot see the results. If we could, that would mean there
is destiny, and I firmly believe (at this time in my life) there is no
room for destiny in life. Evolution is something that cannot be
controlled, not by anyone. It goes where it will, and it goes willy-
nilly. For every "advance" up the evotionary ladder there are probably
thousands of false steps. Are we afraid to take false steps? Are we
afraid to step at all? Or do we move forward, hoping we are on a
viable path, unable to see even with eyes wide open. I hope my eyes
are wide open, though I will never be able to see all there is to see.
But isn't that the purpose of group effort? And, if life is not group
effort, then it is doomed to find its own dead end, which I do not
believe for a millisecond.

Ram spoke about a lot of things, but in particular how a whole culture
can be bounded by its own language. This is so true, but it also shows
up the problem with "dead languages." Dead languages cannot evolve
(though there is no reason they cannot help living languages to
evolve). English, with its ability to adapt, to swallow words from
other languages to enrich and renew itself, is a language that can
live for a long time. I'm no expert, but since English is the language
I know best, I choose to use it. I may not be bilingual (though I have
played at learning others, my mind just doesn't make the necessary
leap to "grok" them), but that does not mean I cannot communicate
well. And communication is what I cherish (damn, an emotional word) so
I try, and try again. How long I will remain on this website I have no
idea, but I will stay awhile longer, and see where I think it is
going. If I can play a part in its advancement, I will do so. If I
cannot, at least I can say I tried...

[godszen]

rawgod wrote:
> I would like to begin by saying I do not profess to be an expert in
> things Sanskrit, or Pali, or Buddhist, etc.

good

> I studied under a Tibetan rinpoche for a period of time

what did you get from that?

> It is not possible to learn all there is too much to learn in
> one lifetime, especially when for most of those lifetimes I did not
> know I was here to learn.

what are you supposed to learn?

> Which brings us to the veil of reality that supposedly hides from us
> the truth of life.

yes, there is a veil that needs to be burned off
and that's not easy, but not impossible either

> were not a necessary step why do we bother taking it? Why do we allow
> ourselves to be born to this plane if our only goal is escape it?

you will escape it when it is no longer neccesary

> My goal, as far as I can understand it at this
> moment in my life, is to become one with life, and to learn how to let
> life become one with me.

yes

> Understanding that there is more than one level of reality is not
> enough for me. Been there, done that, as the saying goes. Now I am
> here to use this reality in order to prepare for the next one,
> whatever it might be. There is a place beyond this reality where a
> life awaits the return of the spirit that I presently call rawgod, but
> that place is no more or no less reality than is this place.

exactly, so forget it for now and concentrate your efforts on this
lifetime

> This plane of reality is not a place I want to escape from, though
> once upon a time I thought it was. Now I want to use it for the
> purpose I see it has for me and my spirit,

you are your spirit

> and that purpose is .......to learn about life, relationships,

a waiste of time

> and self.

yes

[Rodger]

'My goal,as far as I can understand it at this moment in my life,is to
become one with life,and to learn how to let life become one with me'.

Since living cannot be separated from life,and since you cannot be
separated from the life you live,there is no becoming 'one with'.You
already are one with...one as...life.Life is life,and you are living
it.Or,to take from Alan Watts...the living It.

Yes,concentrate on this lifetime.More precisely,this moment...herenow.

(That's not advice,Jonathan,only point of view.)

[rawgod]

The only waste of time is "not learning," I cannot wasse time ss long
I am progressing, and learning is progressing.

I could, Godszen, say I lot about the way you word your answers, but I
will not. What is right for me is right for me, what is right for you
is right for you. I can only speak for me. I cannot speak for you.

From studying with the rinpoche I got to a higher spiritual level
through the use of mantras. Had anyone asked me beforehand, I would
have said that was impossible. But it happened. What I did not get was
the modernity that I was in need of. It was nice, existing on a higher
spiritual plane, but it wasn't me. I needed my nose in the dirt, my
hands in the sand, seeking that which had not been seen before. I
learned I had to continue on my journey, not follow anyone else's.

And I guess that is what I needed to learn. I am not supposed to learn
anything, though earlier in my life I thought I was. In my belief
system, there is no "supposed to" anything. What is is (for me);
everything else isn't (for me, though it might be for someone else).
That is how I see life progressing, each of us doing our part, bot
worrying about how others are doing their parts. How else can
evolution work?

I have no desire to "escape this plane when it no longer becomes
necessary." For me, as long as this plane exists, it will be necessary
for life to be here. When life no longer exists on this plane, this
plane will no longer exist, it will not be necessary.

And, yes, I am my spirit, but my spirit is much more than me. So very
much more. But I am learning...

[rawgod]

Thank you for the welcome Rodger.
I only want to reply to one of your points at this time, that I do not
see "learning to overcome" as being the same as "learning to escape."
As you know from previous conversations in different places, I don't
like to play word games. Equating escape to overcoming is, for me, a
word game (though this may be entirely my perspective and no one
else's). Escaping means leaving behind, overcoming means conquering a
barrier. One need not escape a comquered barrier, one can transform
the barrier, or make use of the barrier, or ignore its existence
(those not being the only choices). Again, as I said elsewhere, escape
is not my goal. Everything on this plane is useful in some way, and
everything is open to being used in new ways. (Which defeats my whole
argument to drop the Sanskrit, but that was just an opening volley
anyway.) Nope, no escape for this being, just reusing, recycling, etc.

On Aug 20, 8:14 am, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

rawgod wrote:

I would like to begin by saying I do not profess to be an expert in
things Sanskrit, or Pali, or Buddhist, etc. I studied under a Tibetan
rinpoche for a period of time, but then moved on. That is my
experience, my curriculum vitae, so-to-speak.
Today I would like to start with the Wheel of Life, and the veil of
reality. There is no doubt in my mind that we move through a series of
incarnations, and that this physical plane is not the only reality
life has to offer.

Curious, in the usage of the term "we" in the last statement........what is being referred to?

 

 But that life is suffering, or that we are here to
learn how to escape this reality, those I dispute.
That life is often filled with pains and troubles is obvious, without
them there would be little motivation to move away from them. My pains
and my troubles are a springboard to learning. This physical realm
exists for a reason, and in my mind to live to escape from it is
counter-productive.

Not counter-productive but an oxymoron.

For is not the attempt to escape , part of the same living, from which a escape is sought.

 I immerse myself in my so-called suffering until I
can understand it, and learn how to overcome it. All my so-called
emotions are uncontrolled reactions to internal or external stimuli.
Learning to control those emotions was not easy work, nor is it a
finished work, but it is my work, and the more I learn the easier it
becomes.

"Suffering", the "need to overcome suffering", "emotions" whether uncontrolled or controlled....

...that "I have now learned enough to make things easier"...

are these anything but arising thoughts, prevailing for a duration and subsiding?

Rather than the content of thought which is infinite in its variety...........to whom is thought arising to?

Where is the delivery of thought taking place?

 For me this is the purpose of reincarnation on this plane of
realty.

Has there been an incarnation is the first place for a re-incarnation to ever be possible?

 It is not possible to learn all there is too much to learn in
one lifetime, especially when for most of those lifetimes I did not
know I was here to learn. Ignorance was bliss, but it certainly was
not useful.
Which brings us to the veil of reality that supposedly hides from us
the truth of life. If this is not reality, what is it?

It is reality.............while not be real whatsoever.

The nature of infinite potentiality of every possible possibility.. is to potentialize.

But since there is nothing apart from potentiality, no separable location for the potential to be expressed....

....what get to be expressed.........to use a term ....

..is akin an arising of an appearance.

 
The term appearance is used because nothing ever comes to exist....

....but there is an expressing of what would be there if something could be there.


The expressing of what can never be expressed......

....the manifesting of what which can never be manifested.



Thus the saying........that  there is actually neither a creation which destructs in time.

Nor a destruction of........ which never got created in the first place.

Which sort of wipes all notions including notions of incarnation, re-incarnation, planes, realms et al.


And that saying........ just like this prattling …..never took place.



But the expressing.........of what would have been the response.....

.... should the question "what is it?"........ever get posed.

 We are born to
this plane, we exist on it for a time, and then we leave it. If it
were not a necessary step why do we bother taking it?

Indeed.
However the basic question would be..... did a step ever take place in the first place.

 Why do we allow
ourselves to be born to this plane if our only goal is escape it?

Fun and games.

I am all that there is.

To know that I am all that there is, I must pretend that I am not all that there is.

And then after a twinkle in the eye (which could be eternity in another time scale)...

...I realize my pretense for what it is.

And boooom, Bozo is back .......after never having left.

 

 This
makes no sense to me.

That is the first frontier.........i.e. the assumption that what is..........should make sense.

Which does not make what is..........a non-sense.

 My goal, as far as I can understand it at this
moment in my life, is to become one with life, and to learn how to let
life become one with me.
  

Who is this "I" and "me" being much bandied about?

Is there an "I" or a "me" apart or separate from life, such that life can be understood as an external object under investigation?

Is there an "I" or a "me" apart or separate from life, such that this separated "I" can allow life to do this or that, become this or that?

 

Understanding that there is more than one level of reality is not
enough for me. Been there, done that, as the saying goes. Now I am
here to use this reality in order to prepare for the next one,
whatever it might be. There is a place beyond this reality where a
life awaits the return of the spirit that I presently call rawgod, but
that place is no more or no less reality than is this place. It is a
part of reality, and for my experience that is where my veil lies,
between that place and whatever comes after it, not between this level
and the next one. And that suggests to me that there is no end as we
understand an end, but that there are more and more steps, and they
are steps I know will be taken in their own time, when life is ready
to take them (whatever ready means).
  

I am the alpha and simultaneously I am the omega.

And simultaneously I am all the steps form alpha to omega.

What can I become?

Where can I reach?

Where could I have gone such that a return is ever possible

What distinction can exist for I, between material and spirit?

This plane of reality is not a place I want to escape from, though
once upon a time I thought it was. Now I want to use it for the
purpose I see it has for me and my spirit, and that purpose is working
together to learn about life, relationships, and self. (These are
concepts for possible future discussions.)
  

In the acorn is the cosmos.

Apperceive the reality of the individuated self............and all it's projections are apperceived.

Thank you for being willing to read what I have to say.
  

:-)

Welcome.

[Ram]

"there is no room for destiny in life. Evolution is something that
cannot be controlled, not by anyone."

- Sounds a lot like the definition of destiny.

:O)

And bozo is back, not that he ever really went anywhere.

[Ram]

Hi rawgod,

I think that a knee-jerk reaction to Sandeep's post might be that he
is playing word games. On one level it is word games, cuz words is all
we've got to play with here, but beneath that veil of dancing words
lies the spirit of enquiry, examination of beliefs, and self
discovery.

Ram

[godszen]

rawgod wrote:
> I could, Godszen, say I lot about the way you word your answers, but I
> will not.

why not? my replies are as simple and straight forward as they can be,
aren't they?

> What is right for me is right for me, what is right for you
> is right for you. I can only speak for me. I cannot speak for you.

that's all I've asked to hear about

> From studying with the rinpoche I got to a higher spiritual level
> through the use of mantras.

could you talk about this? (I did mantras too)

> That is how I see life progressing, each of us doing our part, bot
> worrying about how others are doing their parts. How else can
> evolution work?

agreed

> And, yes, I am my spirit, but my spirit is much more than me. So very
> much more. But I am learning...

good

[Rodger]

rawgod,

Refer you to Ram's post regarding Sandeep's post...'word games'.

Thanks for the clarification.
We all live in our own little worlds...have different perspectives.I
suppose that as long as a suffering is left behind,once it's been
dropped, it doesn't really matter if it was escaped or overcome...we
are out of it,beyond it,passed it...out in the open,so to speak.

Out in the open...a place mind can never reach.Not really.Not even the
open mind.

A friend once told me...'open mind'? Sure. But,don't be so open minded
that your brains fall out.Not sure what he was trying to tell me.Just
playing word games,maybe.He was like that.

> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Marcus]

.

Welcome Rawgod,
Very please to make your acquaintance. So good to share.

Your words seem perfectly adequate to me. Making the same points, but
in your way.
From them, I sense many similarities to the general interpretations of
this, most beautiful global village discussion group. That’s the
first point. Global discussion groups are a new step of the
evolutional ladder. The intonation of any words is benign. Unless
someone of a similar mind plugs-into them. Without you they are just
another tree which fell in the forest and no-one noticed. We-you
share these words in hope they may reassure that inner knowing which
whispers your truth. Jesus and the Buddha where no different in this
hope. Human nature is such that eventually deep and profound
questions emerge. History repeatedly proves humans throughout time
have pondered these three big ones.

Why am I here.
Where did I come from.
Where do I go too.

These form the original motivation of all theologies. Still do. We
are bound by a human psychology which is not of our making. Our minds
and bodies are restricted by a predefined perception of self. Our
gift of awareness is tainted by a belief in it’s absence at, pre-
birth and post- death. Futility of self. We are all subservient to
our predefined perception.

Trust me, in this we are all and the same. Jesus, Buddha, Michael
Jackson and Adolf Hilter.

Our journeys only appear to be different.

Yes, expressing emotions always gives a sense of vulnerability.
But get this. We all love you. Always will.

Rawgod. Honestly, sincerely, you are the truth………… it’s a tuff
one, but it will set you free.


.

> > > > > willingness in you. Now I am opening up the doors and inviting you or- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[MarkJ]

enjoyed your comments.

'This plane of reality is not a place I want to escape from, though

once upon a time I thought it was. Now I want to use it for the
purpose I see it has for me and my spirit, and that purpose is
working

together to learn about life, relationships, and self.'

Just for the exercise of clarification.

Do you see that you and your spirit are two different things?

'this plane of reality'
Is there a higher or lower plane of reality to be experienced?

Why is a purpose necessary?

Mark

[rawgod]

If I say there has been some evolution, am I being egotistical? If I
say there has not been, I am saying I am stagnant. Who is to judge?
What I can say is I certainly feel different than I did even 5 years
ago, and way more different than I did 40 years ago. Is this
evolution, is it understanding, or is it self-delusion? And does it
matter?

Evolution is not generally a noticeable thing. It occurs over time
(eras, when we are speaking physical evolution, certainly at least
lifetimes when we are speaking spiritual evolution. Honestly, rawgod
will never know, and my next incarnation will not know the
difference.

But am I more spiritually oriented than earlier in my life? Yes and
no. Yes, I can see further than before; no, I have always been a
seeker once I rediscovered my spiritual nature.

In other words, your question is meaningless at this time and in this
place. But at the same time it is an important question, even if it
cannot be answered.

Is it still evolution if I am on a dead-end path? If the path I am on
ultimately leads nowhere, but it takes several lifetimes to discover
that, was it worth taking the journey?

Fortunately, if there is any validity to my belief system, spiritual
evolution has one great advantage over physical evolution: we can make
mistakes, but still recover from them. Being that our spirits are
immortal as far as we can understand immortality on this plane of
existence, we can take dead-end paths, and still learn from them.

In that respect, yes, my spirit is evolving--it is learning, and it is
learning to understand...

[rawgod]

A purpose is not necessary, no, but a purpose can give one the
motivation to go on, to progress, to evolve. Part of that evolution is
seeing that while self and spirit are one, they are at the same time
different. As I said in an earlier post, I am my spirit, but my spirit
is more than me. I will try to expand on that, speaking through and
with my own belief system.

(Knowing that words are all I have to communicate with online:) Before
birth is spirit. Spirit seeks and chooses a womb to grow in. Spirit is
trememdously large. Womb is relatively small. Spirit cannot fit in
womb, to do so would overwhelm both fetus and mother. Spirit puts
forth a small part of itself, to all intents and purposes itself,
except in its totality. Spirit stays and waits for the part's return.
The part changes planes, and is born to the physical plane.

The part sleeps, but the self, the "I" cpmes into being. The I grows
and strengthens, and when it is strong enough the part awakens.
Sometimes the I recognizes the part, and melds with it. Sometimes the
I recognizes the part, but rejects it, and stays as I. Sometimes the I
does not recognize the part, and this creates conflict, as the part is
impotent without the I. Sometimes the part never awakens, and the I
goes on without it, not knowing it is incomplete. (Other
possibilities, but hopefully you are seeing the picture my I is trying
to draw.)

Life is lived. The I dies. The part returms to the waiting spirit. All
that is in the part is downloaded into spirit. Spirit changes as it
imtegrates part. Part disappears as it is absorbed by spirit. Spirit
seeks and chooses a womb...

A simple and simplified description, but how I understand life to
work.

I reiterate: I am my spirit, but my spirit is more than me...

Reality is reality. Planes are planes, neither higher nor lower, all
necessary to reality, or reality would not be reality.

The roads are not the same, yet the journey takes place. Does this
make any one road more important than another? In the end, all roads
lead to life, and one cannot get there without life. Therefore all
roads are life, and there is nothing but life. Yet, one road alone is
not all life. I don't think the difference can be denied... (But
that's just me.)

[rawgod]

Hi Marcus, and thank you. I am free in my own way, and I am happy.
What more can I ask right now. Yes, it is nice to talk with like-
minded people, and talking to you is certainly something that was not
possible before the internet. But I am being mistaken if I am being
seen as coming to this website for reassurance. There is strength in
numbers, yes, and I mean no offence to anyone anywhere, but I do not
need numbers to find my strength (though this may be my ultimate
downfall, lol). Meeting fellow journeyers is always exciting, and
exchanging thoughts, ideas, and beliefs make the journeying more
interesting. One never knows what word or turn of phrase will become
meaningful, or when.

Just happy to be going for the ride...

rg

> > > > > What ever you- Hide quoted text -

[rawgod]

Sorry, Sandeep, because you took the time to write so much, and I will
be responding to none of it, only to you. Your writings are
overwhelming, and do not inspire a line of response, only many
thoughts going in many differeent directions. But I do not want you to
think I am ignoring you. Thus this response...

On Aug 20, 11:14 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

> And that saying........ just like this prattling .....never took place.

[rawgod]

I apologize, Ram, I misspoke. I should have said predestiny.

[rawgod]

You are right, Ram, but to try to answer him would take the rest of my
life, and about three volumes of writing. Tonight I am too tired to
attempt that.

[Ram]

Yes, perhaps just thinking it over is enough.

> > Ram- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

>Spirit puts
> forth a small part of itself, to all intents and purposes itself,
> except in its totality. Spirit stays and waits for the part's return.
> The part changes planes, and is born to the physical plane.
> The part sleeps, but the self, the "I" cpmes into being. The I grows
> and strengthens, and when it is strong enough the part awakens.
> Sometimes the I recognizes the part, and melds with it. Sometimes the
> I recognizes the part, but rejects it, and stays as I. Sometimes the I
> does not recognize the part, and this creates conflict, as the part is
> impotent without the I. Sometimes the part never awakens, and the I
> goes on without it, not knowing it is incomplete. (Other
> possibilities, but hopefully you are seeing the picture my I is trying
> to draw.)

I like this story. It is pretty and nice to read. I do see the
picture you are trying to draw.

You spoke of motivation in regards to purpose and I think that ties
into the picture you drew.

From your perspective what controls the end result of the different
options in the rejoining or not rejoining of the sleeping spirit part
and the I. What motivates the I to find the spirit part in some and
not in others? (not that there are truly others)

Mark

> > > > > > > > you demand clarity here the less clear things get, because this isn't- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[godszen]

omg that's complicated

On Aug 21, 10:25 pm, rawgod <gewc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > you demand clarity here the less clear things get, because this isn't- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Ram]

When "Changeless Existence" is recognized, the whole topic of
evolution becomes moot. Evolution by its very nature is transient and
ephemeral which happens only in the realm of the conceptual (even the
word evolution itself denotes its changing nature). What has evolved
up to today will be different tomorrow. There really is no continuity
of the the transient. The sense of continuity is rooted in one's
existence and not in the imagined continuity of the assumed
individual. If subtlely look into, the sense of continuity of the
individual is a multiplicity of concepts or imaginings that are
seemingly held together by a few key concepts, such as "I am the
body," or "I am a person," or "I need to evolve," etc. Life quite
naturally and spontaneously lives itself without the need of such
concepts.

It can easily be seen that the destiny, and yes, even the predestiny,
of all appearances is that they are destined to disappear. That's not
to say that there is not value and benefit to personal growth or
evolution of knowledge. However, personal growth and accumulation of
knowledge, as beneficial as they may be on a relative level, are not
the same as self-realization. All accumulated knowledge will disappear
when the body falls lifeless.

Rebirth is based in the volition or momentum of desires, which if not
abandoned during one's life, persist in a very subtle form riding on
the breath as it leaves the body, seeking another medium(body) in
which to express/satisfy themselves. (Thus it is said that the subtle
body is the seed of birth and death) If the desire to be an
"experiencer" or for rebirth remain intact, the momentum of the
desires will surely take the form of another body, however it may not
necessarily be a human body depending upon the nature of the
experiences desired. The notions of past lives and future lives may be
there in imagination and as a part of the universal Illusion, but
really the LIFE is only One, in all its seeming multiplicity. All of
this can only be known and verified through subtle observation leading
to experiential understanding, and cannot be gleaned through
intellectual debate.

[MarkJ]

Eloquent, gentle and beautiful. It made me smile.

While reading I felt like I was drifting down a slow moving river.

[Ram]

You're the wellspring, not the drifter, drifting, or driftwood(inert
lifeless appearances).

Catch my drift? ;O)

Not being contradictory, just playing with words.

> > intellectual debate.- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I am drifting once imagining I was a drifter appearing as driftwood.

No contradiction. No contrary. No two.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

:~)

"I Am" - the drifting

[Jerry Miller]

Hi Mark,

 

I don't know that I like the word "controls," but I believe I know what you are asking, and I will try to speak to that:

 

While I hate to use the phrase "less evolved" I think it comes in handy here. Our spirits are all on a journey, each journey separate and at its own speed. (Please accept that I am speaking in terms of this plane of existence and the next immediate plane, as I see them. We are all life, one being, I am not trying to dispute that, yet on some level we are disconnected in time and space, maybe because we are in time and space, and so our journeys become separate.) An I that is (dare I say it) more evolved will be more susceptible to the waking spirit, whereas the less evolved will be less noticing of it.

 

(Here I take a leap back in the evolutionary process, so beware, lol.) A spirit coming into the human phase of this plane from whatever phase it comes into the human phase from may be closer to spirit then than later in its journey) but at the same time it is less understanding of that closeness. In order to understand and accept that the I and spirit are one and the same the general process is moving away from spirit in order to get back to spirit. Thus the I that does not realize the part is one that is moving away, or is at its furthest movement away, like a comet moving away from the sun. At this nadir the I tries to live without the part, (imagine an alcoholic hitting rock bottom, so out of touch with life that he/she does not even know they are alive). A sociopath may be the best example of an I at this nadir (but this is speculation on my part). This is no concept of "other," and it is a concept of other that comes from the part that is awake with the I.

 

How many lifetimes does it take for the I to allow the part to awaken? I don't know (if this is even the case, but it works for me, and explains a lot about the way humans act), but the journey of the comet back towards the sun signifies the part awakening, though it will likely take many lifetimes before the I and the part connect and interconnect and find a place they can work together.

 

Does this explanation make sense to you? (I am not asking whether you think my description is "right," or anything like that, just does it follow any kind of spiritual logic you can conceive of?)

 

So, I don't think it is any kind of motivation, or control, that precipitates the joining/rejoining of the I and the part, I believe it is just part of the process. Nor am I trying to say this is the only process. As far as I can tell, it is the process my part/spirit went through to get me to where I am today. I would suspect that there are as many processes as there are spirits, parts, and I's. This is just the one this I/part combination is familiar enough with to be able to envision and understand.

 

Enough for now.

 

rawgod

[MarkJ]

I understand the words and descriptions you are using and interpreting
them with the knowledge I have.

Thanks for answering.

Mark

> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Jerry Miller]

Hi Ram,

 

I just want to state that when I speak of learning, I am not speaking of knowledge. I am speaking of wisdom, that level of understanding that may come from having knowledge, but exists without knowledge. Wisdom is what allows us to understand "other," to accept and to love other. Wisdom is that which does not need thought, but allows action and thought that enlightens the relationship of being to other. I know you said in an earlier post that learning about relationships is not important, and depending on how you understand the word "relationships" you may be right. But the way I speak of relationships is that there is no other way to learn except through relationships. You speak of "experiential understanding as opposed to intellectual debate," and I think by this you are saying exactly the same thing I am saying but with different words. A baby that has no relationship with anything cannot learn. In its own head, there is nothing to stimulate learning. When it first feels its mother's touch, learning begins. This is its first relationship. All else progresses from there. One cannot have experience without experiencing relationship.

 

People on this website seem to shy away from the word purpose, as in life purpose. I embrace this word, because for me that is what LIFE (as you signify it) is all about: relationships. One life, or ONE LIFE, cannot learn without other, with a relationship with other, at least not as I understand and speak of learning. If we are but ONE LIFE (and I would have a hard time debating the con side of that statement) why are we seperate upon this plane? Why would LIFE allow itself to be divided into "lifes"? The answer that I have to that question is purpose, and that purpose is learning, what you call experiencial understanding.

 

I hope this helps.

 

rg

[Kuber Technologies]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Jerry Miller <gew...@gmail.com> wrote:

<SNIP>
 

 Why would LIFE allow itself to be divided into "lifes"?

Does it?

Is there any division taking place?

Anywhere?

Ever?

Or is the seemingly divisive appearance of Life .......akin the seemingly divisiveness of the multitude waves of the Ocean, washing up to the shore.

Pick up any one of the thousand waves......... pick up any one of the thousand waves in the last million years....

.....and all that you will have in the cup of your palm is the same waters of the same ocean.



 

The answer that I have to that question is purpose, and that purpose is learning, what you call experiencial understanding.

 

In the apperception of the lack of any divisiveness.... is the apperception that there is nothing as an individuated discreteness.

Anywhere.

At any time.

The absence of any individuated discreteness..... is the absence of the presence of any learning, absence of the presence of any experience, absence of the presence of any understanding, intellectual or experiential.



There has never  been any learning, never  been any experience, never  been  any understanding, whatsoever.

Ever.




On the issue of purpose........

Something can have a purpose(however that purpose is defined) only when something is not in completion.

That which is completion .......moment to moment to moment .....can never have a purpose.

The essential quality of the appearance of phenomenality .....

.....an appearance which includes the sentience of that very appearance...

...is indeed change.

Change.........while ever remaining in completion.

Akin the thousand miles journey that you took last night in your sleep-dream-drama, while being still and stationary in a 6 X 4 cot.

Akin the thousand miles journey you took in your awake-dream-drama.......which is not a whit different.





The apperception of  changing gestalt while ever remaining in completion.........erases even the concepts of change and completion.


I am all that there is........in any change....... I still am all that there is.

Then what change has ever occurred?



I am all that there is.........can I ever be in in-completion.

If I can never be in incompletion, can  there ever be a state of completion for I?

If both incompletion and completion are meaningless......the movement  from incompletion to completion is meaningless.

In the absence of any movement, ...........can I ever have any purpose in being all that there is.



I am all that there is...............can " I am all that there is".........itself hold a meaning?

To....... whom-apart-from-I ...........will I mutter to....... that " I am all that there is"?

I am Brahman.

Who is not-Brahman, whom I can shake by his shoulders and scream "Listen you son-of a bitch know that I am Brahman, DO YE COPY ME.........DO YE?








I am the all.......can "all" have a meaning for I?




I am all that there is............can I ever be even aware of the isness of all that there is?

 

[empty2]

Lo!

On Aug 25, 3:23 am, "Kuber Technologies" <kubertechnolog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Jerry Miller]

I'm happy for you that you have it all figured out. I don't, which is why I am still learning. Your answers and statements are all meaningless to me, but there is no need to try to say differently what you have already said. We are on different planes. Mayhaps one day we shall share the same plane. I await that day...

[Jerry Miller]

Hi KT,

 

1) You asked "Why would LIFE allow itself to be divided into "lifes"?"

 

I do not believe Life allowed itself to be divided into lives, Life did that by design. Life was aware that it was alive, but also it was aware that awareness is not everything. Life, as demonstrated by our own lives, is curious, but how does one learn when there is nothing to relate to. (Forgive me if I am making assumptions, such as the assumption Life is/was alone in the existence into which it came into being, but it an assumption that works for me.)

 

Somehow (and this time I will not make any assumptions on how), Life came up with the solution of dividing itself into smaller bits, each one still Life, but seperated from itself, so that relationships became possible. This made learning possible. And this made growth possible, and growth is what happens in Life. Evolution is growth. Spiritual evolution is growth. And hopefully we are growing...

 

2) You concluded ".....and all that you will have in the cup of your palm is the same waters of the same ocean."

 

Maybe the same water, but is the water not changed by everything that has happened to it? All the little microscopic floaty bits in the water are different, any bacteria or other organisms in the water are different, basically everything is different. Like the water, every experience in life makes Life different. The essence of life, is, and always will be, life. The substance of Life can and never will be the same, it changes with every moment. Life grows. You can deny it, or you can debate it, or you can accept it. No matter what anyone does or does not do, nothing can change the fact Life grows. We see the evidence of that all around us every moment of our lives. Humans love evidence,  they cherish evidence, they use evidence to prove their theories. What this particular human (me) is doing is looking at the evidence, and accepting what it tells me. No matter what the very same evidence tells anyone else does not matter to me, they are each (as you are) on your own journey, and though we may all be headed in the same direction (or not) still we must make our journeys ourselves. This is where my journey is taking me. My water is changing even while it is remaining water. My life is changing, even while I am remaining Life. This is my conclusion, and until I expereince something different, it is a conclusion that will remain with me. No words can change that. Only experience...

 

3) You began: "In the apperception of the lack of any divisiveness.... is the apperception that there is nothing as an individuated discreteness."

 

This apperception is your apperception. It is not right. It is not wrong. It is your apperception. My apperception is different from yours. It is mot right. It is not wrong. It is my apperception. And it is different. Thus life grows...

 

4) You stated: "I am all that there is.........can I ever be in in-completion."

 

I am always in a state of incompletion. For me this is my state of being. I make no assumptions about this. My ego is such that it does not need to be "all that there is." My ego is but a tool I use to get my spirit through this plane of existemce, and it knows it is nothing more than a tool. It does not cry out "I am everything!" It whispers "I am what I am," and it works as the tool it is meant to be...

 

5) You finish: "can I ever be even aware of the isness of all that there is?"

 

Who knows? Who cares? The key is being aware. This is the gift of life, this is the curse of life. This is the tool of Life... I am...

 

Sorry it took so long to address your concerns, but you now have my answers, as you have your answers. Enjoy...

[Rodger]

(Barging in...playfully,of course)

The question is...does life allow itself to be divided(into 'lifes')?

Is there any division taking place...anywhere...ever?

The response is: I do not believe...
life allowed itself to be divided into lives.Life did that by design.
(????)

The question marks(in brackets)are put there to indicate my confusion
as to the difference between 'did that by design',and 'allow'.I am not
seeing any real division,but apparently there is division seen by
Jerry.If so,where is this division taking place?

> > kubertechnolog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> of all that there is?- Hide quoted text -

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Jerry Miller wrote:

Hi KT,

:-)

One label is as good  as any, however they do call me Sandeep.

Kuber Technologies(which I assume you allude to, by "KT") is a company I run in the arena of global finance.

 

 

1) You asked "Why would LIFE allow itself to be divided into "lifes"?"

No.

You asked that question.

The response was "Does it?"

 

I do not believe Life allowed itself to be divided into lives, Life did that by design. Life was aware that it was alive, but also it was aware that awareness is not everything. Life, as demonstrated by our own lives, is curious, but how does one learn when there is nothing to relate to. (Forgive me if I am making assumptions, such as the assumption Life is/was alone in the existence into which it came into being, but it an assumption that works for me.)

 

Somehow (and this time I will not make any assumptions on how), Life came up with the solution of dividing itself into smaller bits, each one still Life, but seperated from itself, so that relationships became possible. This made learning possible. And this made growth possible, and growth is what happens in Life. Evolution is growth. Spiritual evolution is growth. And hopefully we are growing...

All this rests on one single premise.

That there is a discrete individuated separated entity being referred to as "we".

Issues of learning, relationship, growth, evolution,spiritual or material...... hope..........et al are moot.....
...in the absence of  any "we".

Rather than the secondary hoopla.......the invitation to discern  the primary hoopla.

Immediately mind/thought will come up.........if there is no "we"/"me".......

.....who is being invited? :-)

 

 

2) You concluded ".....and all that you will have in the cup of your palm is the same waters of the same ocean."

 

Maybe the same water, but is the water not changed by everything that has happened to it? All the little microscopic floaty bits in the water are different, any bacteria or other organisms in the water are different, basically everything is different. Like the water, every experience in life makes Life different.

So what?

The essential nature of gestalt of phenomenality is change.

Sure.

The essential nature of your last night sleep dream drama......was the same....where everything/everyone,including the dreamt-up characters named "Jerry Miller" ....was changing.

Every moment of that sleep-dream hoopla was different, moment to moment to moment.

Awake today morning sipping for a hot cup of tea.........what is the existence reality of that changing hoopla of the last night sleep dream drama.

Awake today morning, if you go around searching for that lost love, so sensual , so complete so fulfilling in that last night sleep dream drama...

...has waking taken place as yet.

 

The essence of life, is, and always will be, life. The substance of Life can and never will be the same, it changes with every moment. Life grows. You can deny it, or you can debate it, or you can accept it. No matter what anyone does or does not do, nothing can change the fact Life grows. We see the evidence of that all around us every moment of our lives.

Ahaa.

So evidence is...... what is perceived?

Perception fashioned through a conditioned sensory apparatus is taken to be objective factual evidence?

 

Humans love evidence,  they cherish evidence, they use evidence to prove their theories. What this particular human (me) is doing is looking at the evidence, and accepting what it tells me. No matter what the very same evidence tells anyone else does not matter to me, they are each (as you are) on your own journey, and though we may all be headed in the same direction (or not) still we must make our journeys ourselves. This is where my journey is taking me. My water is changing even while it is remaining water. My life is changing, even while I am remaining Life. This is my conclusion, and until I expereince something different, it is a conclusion that will remain with me. No words can change that. Only experience...

An experience........is evidence?

Differing levels of serotonin and dopamine and the other 100 odd neuro-chemicals in the billion synaptic gaps in the neuron matrix..........will produce differing experience, while cognizing the same event.

 

3) You began: "In the apperception of the lack of any divisiveness.... is the apperception that there is nothing as an individuated discreteness."

 

This apperception is your apperception. It is not right. It is not wrong. It is your apperception. My apperception is different from yours.

Apperception is never "my" or "your".

Incidentally, Life, understanding, realization, experience...........is also never "my" or "your".

It is mot right. It is not wrong. It is my apperception. And it is different. Thus life grows...

 

4) You stated: "I am all that there is.........can I ever be in in-completion."

 

I am always in a state of incompletion. For me this is my state of being. I make no assumptions about this. My ego is such that it does not need to be "all that there is." My ego is but a tool I use to get my spirit through this plane of existemce, and it knows it is nothing more than a tool. It does not cry out "I am everything!" It whispers "I am what I am," and it works as the tool it is meant to be...

 

5) You finish: "can I ever be even aware of the isness of all that there is?"

 

Who knows? Who cares? The key is being aware. This is the gift of life, this is the curse of life. This is the tool of Life... I am...

Is there a courage to drop all that baloney and breathe for the first time ?

If yes, invite a visit  and a playfully wandering about at the Covenant sited at:

http://www.the-covenant.net

If not, that is perfectly fine.


And no, I do not own that site(conventionally speaking)

[Ram]

I for One am glad that you decided to hang around Kuberdeo.


On Aug 30, 10:46 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

> And no, I do not own that site(conventionally speaking)- Hide quoted text -

[Jerry Miller]

Whether the site or sight is yours or not, it is not mine at this time. As I said: different journeys, different directions. Why cannot you just accept this, rather than trying to point out directions I am not going in? If I go a different direction, this does not change the direction of Life. Life has its own direction, and nothing you or I or anyone else does is going to change that direction. My own acceptance of this is to celebrate the diversity of directions we are all going in. Like evolution teaches us, it takes millions of trials to find a mutation that works. Are we any different? Should we be any different? Should we? What's should...

 

Should is that which stands as a barrier to maybe. The known path creates the should, the wandering contains the maybe.

 

I have to admit I somehow enjoy conversing with the people at AdvaitaNow, but it is a perverse enjoyment. It is not playing the devil's advocate, but it is being the devil, and in Life no devil exists but Life itself.

 

In truth, though, I think it is best that Godzen remove me from this blog. I now know it is here, and I know where to find it should I ever feel the urge to return. For now, other paths call to me, and I choose to follow those calls...

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Hi Jerry,



Cool.

The singing that goes by the label "Jerry Miller" could not have been an iota different to what it was.

And is right now.

So Jerry Miller.......mill away, merrily.


All the premises, all the projections , all the conjectures on directions, journeys, diversities, the process of evolution, devils, devil's advocate ...are secondary co-dependencies of a primary assumption/belief/held premise.

The primary notion....... that there is some individuated separated volitional entity known as "Jerry Miller" which has the independent ability...

-to think the thought that has arisen in the moment
-to chose from among the thoughts making up the mental canvas, to arrive at a decision,
-to act on that decision to enact an action,
-to experience the consequence of that action(aka learn, evolve, change, understand..enjoy, suffer....et al)



Each and every issue, each and every sense of an anguish, each and every question, each and every quest...
...is a co-dependent consequence of that basis notion, that primary premise.


Unravel that primary premise and the whole structure comes down as a house of cards.


Which does not mean that the gestalt of phenomenality is not made up of thoughts, not made up of choices being chosen, not made up of differentiated occurring actions as events, not made up of consequences which are more events etc.

Not made up of a sense of an individual which  believes that it is it that creates, learns from  its creation and re-creates.

The clown is a much needed component to complete the circus show.

 



Different directions!!

There is really nothing as a direction.

For a direction comes to exist only as a co-dependency on the assumption of another direction.

Aka there is nothing as "North" unless something is held to be "South".

In deep outer space, no such assumptions can be constructed.

And there is nothing which is not the deep outer space.(the deep and outer being once again held premises)



So why leave a List which is only the same as a deep outer space........

a List .......where the spot light does not shift away from exposing the basic premise, the essential notion.

And thus does not usually get diffused into the secondary hoopla. :-)

And leave to where?





Have fun, Jerry Miller.

Seriousness is a dis-ease, the mother of all diseases.

Makes no difference, whether the subject of your seriousness, has profane spiritual overtones
or a profound mundane hue to it.


Little Joe goes with his parents to a nudist beach for the first time. After looking around for a few minutes,
Joe asks his father why some men have big ones and some have small ones.
Rather than go into a long explanation his father replies, "The men with the big ones are smart and the men
that have small ones are stupid."

Accepting this explanation , Joe wanders off to explore the beach.
Time passes and he finally comes across his father again.
"Have you seen your mother, son?" asks his dad.
"Yes" says Joe, she is behind the bushes talking to some stupid guy who is getting smarter by the minute.



The Lucknow Disease.


Papaji was a contemporary Guru, based in Lucknow, India.

What was noticed the extreme avoidance of the "I" word in some of the satsang community around Papaji,
and has been dubbed "The Lucknow Disease."

The story, goes..



It was a summer afternoon at Papaji's house in Lucknow, India.
Satsang would start soon. Devotees were scattered around the house.
Bill and Stan had placed their meditation cushions up front claiming a spot close to Papaji for when he came in.
They went to the kitchen to kill some time.

Bill was at the stove and asked Stan, "Would you like a cup of tea or coffee?"

Stan's eyes went big, his voice went deep and profound, "There's no one here to choose."



Bill was very impressed with Stan's state, and humbly served them both tea.
They sat at the kitchen table, waiting for the satsang to start.

In a few moments, one of the other devotees came into the kitchen.

"People are gathering for satsang," she said. "Oh, and Stan, someone seems to be sitting on your cushion."

"That so-and-so &%!#@ How dare they!?" Stan fumed. "That's MY cushion, MY spot!"






-Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

-Anything good in life is either illegal, immoral, fattening or married.

-If you don't care where you are, you ain't never lost.

-Fact is solidified opinion.







Zip -a-dee-dah-doo-phaaat-eeeek.

[Ram]

LOL

"Fact is solidified opinion."

- is that a fact or opinion?

:O)

[Rodger]

solidified,that is fact.

until then,opinion.

[Rodger]

'If you don't care where you're at,you ain't never lost'.

if you don't care that you're lost,it don't matter where you're at.

> > :O)- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

I can only say, again, is that really fact or opinion?

What is solidified or solid?

> > :O)- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

What is solidified or solid?

THAT.

(Depending on your opinion/definition of solidified or solid)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

:~)

[Rodger]

talk about the unchanging or changelessness or whatever...you still
have a crooked nose,and i still don't even have a nose. :)

yes,that is solid.
and,that is this.
that this is any other than that is opinion.
a mistaken one at that,this is.
(notice i didn't say an empty one?)

[MarkJ]

-If you don't care where you are, you ain't never lost.

Nice!

On Aug 30, 11:45 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

> > to follow those calls...- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

If two or more agree what is it?