Is Being ever formless?

[Ram]

Rodger asked:

Is Being ever formless?
Is consciousness ever formless?
Is not untaintedness form?


Rodger, I'm posting these questions here on AN instead of the
DigitalBlackboard. They are good questions, but I'm doing my darndest
to keep all of the posts there only related to the original topics. I
do not wish to see that group turn into a free-for-all type forum like
AN and AZ. These groups are the best place for volleying around these
types of advaitic prattlings.

:~)

Ram

[Ram]

Are these questions being asked because you want to know, or because
you know already?

Is Being ever formless?

- No and yes. It takes the form of "I Am" or "I," but what form is
that? The most subtle form in the form of a subtle concept. "I AM,"
but not "I am this" or "I am that"(any object).

Is consciousness ever formless?

- Same answer. It is in the form of Consciousness without objects.

Is not untaintedness form?

- The label "untainted" is a form, but what is it that is untainted by
any forms or labels? Only Being that is untainted by objectivity.

[Mahakali]

Hi Rodger, Being for me equals to that feeling/sense of existence
which is the common denominator among the human beings. It is the
feeling you get once you awake from deep sleep...

Kali

[Rodger]

Hi Kali,

'that sense of existence,once awakening from deep sleep'.

Yes.
But,even in deep sleep...I am.?

And,what is 'deep sleep'?
A form of Being...as Being.?

> > any forms or labels? Only Being that is untainted by objectivity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Rodger]

I think to say Being is formless - without form - is creating Being
apart,separated...duality.

I think there is no 'no and yes',only no.Being is,and never is not
without form.

Being is in,and is every form and there is no form which is not Being.

The best label I can come up with off the top of my head in regards to
'formless' would be Empty2's 'emptiness'.But,even that is within and
as Being is.Maybe,unexplainable is a better label?

Ram,you asked,what form is the form of 'I AM'? 'I AM' is the form of
Being.What else?

Only Being can say I am...I am this or I am that...and rightly so.For
what this or that,form or object is not Being?

Only Being can deny this is so.And that denial is only a form of
Being.

Being cannot be set apart from form.(God cannot escape God.)

The 'taintedness' of Being is the illusion of separation - the idea
that Being stands alone and apart from all objects.

Objectless Being is the object of Being's imagination.
Imagination a form of Being.

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

[Mahakali]

No, deep sleep is pure, unalduterated Self (Awareness) which remains
unchanged, unaltered by any kind or level of experiences.

Being or beingness arises, first thing in the morning, simultaneously
with the 'I Am'.

Kali

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

[Rodger]

Does Being arise?
From what would Being arise?
Or is Being just Being...without beginning,without end...without
creation,without destruction?

Does Being arise in the morning,or do I arise in the morning?
And,if it is I arising in the morning,is it not because I
am...awakening to my own beingness?
And,what is the difference between Being and I?
Am I not Being...pure and unadulterated...for what being can come from
the outside?
Where is any outside to Being except on the inside?

One cannot separate one's self from one's beingness for one's
beingness is one's self,being.

Being can never remain unchanged, yet can never change from not being
Being.Being is constant and constantly changing...moment to
moment...yet forever remains Being.The more things change the more
they stay the same.You only have to sit quietly and watch the ever
flowing change in/of Being to know this as so.Once known,this knowing
never changes.

Being cannot arise 'with' for there is no 'with' for Being to arise
with.If arising is the word we are to use,Being can only arise AS...as
itself...as Being.And,as Being arises,Being is every arising ever
arisen.Being cannot escape Being...God cannot escape God.Always and
ever it is itself...it's self.

Rodger

[MarkJ]

> Is Being ever formless?
> Is consciousness ever formless?
> Is not untaintedness form

When looking at these words I have no idea what they mean really.
I have to search through every mental dictionary and encyclopedia to
try and come with something that works within the parameters of this
way of thinking.

I am left with no real way to describe Being, Consciousness, Tainted/
untained without creating opposites which is misleading.
To describe these things I must use form which negates the idea that
they are formless but that is misleading.

Both Form and Formless? Movement in emptiness? A limitless formless
everything in which everything takes form? All misleading.

I come from nowhere but that nowhere is right here right now. When I
can see and know the word around I know I am awake. When I can't see
or know the world around I don't know whether I'm awake or not. I
don't know anything. When I can see and know the world around again,
I assume that I was always here because I was nowhere and that nowhere
is right here right now. Even this is misleading.

Whether that has form or not I don't really know.

[herenow]

On Sep 18, 11:08 pm, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> When looking at these words I have no idea what they mean really.

Yes, nor does anyone else except the meanings they create based on
their apparent remembered experience.

That is why this whole "eneterprise" is apparently a PRIVATE
INVESTIGATION.

Where else can each of us individually experience truth but within?
experience



btw
what is the digital blackboard....
could it be a distilation of ALL our wisdom?

[MarkJ]

what is the digital blackboard....
could it be a distilation of ALL our wisdom?

Or at least the findings of some involved in the private investigation
enterprise.

[Rodger]

Can Being be described,or is Being describing?

Already Being is,so is beyond description,'looking back'.
No back to look to...only an emptiness which is within,as Being
itself.

You do not come from 'nowhere' as there is nowhere to come from.Right
here right now is not nowhere...is right here right now.If you could
'come from' you would be already.

Being is,and always is right here right now.Never nowhere.Always every
where.

Every form comes and goes...is the constant flow that is Being.In and
as that constant flowing,Being remains the same but not unchanged.

The only misleading is self-misleading.
Self seems to think,somehow,it is not it's self.
But,what else to be?

What ideas do you need to know you are?
What dictionary or encyclopedia can explain this to you?

Though form may come and go,Being can never separate itself from
whatever form Being is.

Though you may come and go,you can never separate yourself from the
Being you are.

There's no looking back,so RE-flect,RE-create,etc.But,most of all,RE-
lax.

:)

(As for me,maybe it's time I crawled back into my cave and ratch a
wock hit me.?)

> > Ram- Hide quoted text -

[Richard]

Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. (And so it is with the other
aspects such as the mental aspects.) This is what the Heart Sutra
declares.

They are not 2. Not one imposed upon another. It is formed emptiness
or emptiness of form. Be informed that it is uniform.

I read that the term 'The Absolute Consciousness' is in error. It
should be 'The Conscious Absolute'. Here is emphasized the one
Absolute Being Who has consciousness, and Who comprises all, whether S/
HE is in formed or unformed appearance.

[MarkJ]

'You do not come from 'nowhere' as there is nowhere to come from.'

by'I come from nowhere' I mean to express the contradiction found in
language which is also saying 'I do not come from anywhere'.

'Can Being be described,or is Being describing?'
the effort to relate a description of what I am doing is the being
describing being.


'The only misleading is self-misleading. Self seems to

think,somehow,it is not it's self.

But,what else to be?'
The only relationship is in Self. The world is 'built' within self.
Self seems to be describing its parts. The parts are not the sum but
contain the sum. To say the part is the sum is misleading.

'What ideas do you need to know you are? What dictionary or
encyclopedia can explain this to you?'
I don't need any ideas or help to know who I am. There is nothing
lost to be found.

I need ideas, dictionaries and encyclopedias in order to use words
that will communicate a description in language that will be
understood by the culture that is holding these ideas. If I don't
speak your language you will probably misunderstand and believe that I
am looking for the explanation of myself in a dictionary.

I don't even want to put the energy out to RE-lax.

Why bother.

[Rodger]

I hear you,Mark.I use a dictionary,too.What with all these
intellectuals about,I need to.
Never thought for a minute that you were looking for yourself in a
dictionary,although you are in there.
Never thought for a minute that you needed help in any way to know who
you are.
I'm just talking.
That's alright,ain't it?

'The parts are not the sum but contain the sum.'

The whole contains whole parts.
Without whole parts where is the whole?
Within the whole parts the whole is a big hole.

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

[Rodger]

No appearance is without form i.e.,unformed i.e.,emptiness.

The emptiness of every appearance/form is the emptiness of Being
which,having no form to give it form can be said to be
unformed.But,just because Being is without form to give it form does
not mean Being is without form.For there is no form that Being is
without,except the form to give it form...there is no form outside
Being.

The Absolute Being Who has consciousness is the Absolute Being Who IS
conscious.

Sometimes I like to think of a sheet of shattered safety glass...all
those little,different shaped parts which could be thought to be
'separate' parts because they are whole unto themselves...as parts.

[Mahakali]

Oh I see! So, it is you who arises in the morning i.e. you tell your
body to wake up and get up...am I correct? Is it really so? Or does
waking up just happen?

All I know is that I can only relate to that experience (?!) before
the arising of the 'I Am' and that is the closest I can get to Self.
Only a few people can be in the state of Bliss most of the time but,
unfortunately, that is not my case.

Whatever is being described here relates only to those few instants
before waking up; the remaining twentyfour hours minus the two
instants of pure Self, are pratically worthless...really! ;-)

Kali

[Rodger]

'Oh I see!"
Oh I see? Is this I you refer to you?
Or,someone else?

Yes,it is you arising.
Yes,waking up just happens.

I don't know what bliss has to do with this,but you can't get any
closer to Self than I am.For if I am not Self,who is?You? Yes. :)

[MarkJ]

> I'm just talking.
> That's alright,ain't it?

Absolutely. And I believe we are speaking the same language.

>although you are in there.' my picture is above the definition for numbskull.

> Without whole parts where is the whole?

The parts contain the sum and the sum contains parts.

If we look up sum in the dictionary will whole be noted as a synonym?

[Mahakali]

Rodger wrote:
For if I am not Self,who is?

>>Rodger, there is an inherent contradiction in what you wrote as the Self cannot be preceded by an 'I' or an 'I Am'. Self simply is..there is not an I that objectifies the Self.

If you reduce the Self to the level of 'I Am',then, you will limit it
with the limitations that go with the idea of being an individual. The
same goes for 'I am Unborn' (the book)...there is not 'I' which can be
Unborn. The 'I' is always born and will die. The idea of Unborn cannot
be formulated in the context of the 'I Am'...

Best wishes..

Kali

[Rodger]

I'll have to look up synonym first.
Friggin intellectuals!

[MarkJ]

No intellectual here.

I had to use spell check to spell synonym correctly..........

[MarkJ]

I'm not Roger but I hope you don't mind.

> If you reduce the Self to the level of 'I Am',then, you will limit it
> with the limitations that go with the idea of being an individual.

When I thought I was an individual Self was unchanged and unlimited by
that thought. My thinking can not limit or extend Self. The only
thing that changes in not reducing the idea of self to the level of 'I
am' is my thinking and belief. Self remains the same. What have I
gained or lost by understanding Self? A disconnection from the very
thing I thought I was.

The I is born and dies but I have no way of experiencing 'not I' as
there is no experience there when I is gone.

[Rodger]

Ok,Rodger will write...if Self is not I,who am?

Who but Self could ever say,I am? And,call that a reduction?
If there is contradiction,it is in saying'I am not Self'.
Who but Self could ever deny being Self?
In the denial is the affirmation.

Self is limited,Kali.
Self is limited to not being no other.

I may be unborn,but I am not unawakened.
I am myself...now...awakened.
I did not tell myself to awaken,I just awakened.
For,to tell myself,'awaken',I would need to be awake already.
Prior to my awakening I was,and was in deep sleep.

Now,awakened,I say I am.
I say I am because I am,and because there is no other to say I am.

Although there is no other to say I am,I say I am via all others,as
all others.

Only I can say I am,Kali.


Compassionately,
Rodger

[Rodger]

It is all things and not a thing apart from all things.?

[MarkJ]

> It is all things and not a thing apart from all things.?

and yet all things are contained 'within' it?

[Rodger]

you can put water in a bucket,but what with can you put a thing in?

it is as all parts with not a part apart.?

[MarkJ]

and you can put a bucket in water and things in something.

God is in you, you are in God as someone once said.

The finger is a part of the body yet is not separate from the body or
the other parts of the body.

[Rodger]

and you can stick the finger in the ear but that doesn't make the
finger a part of the ear.

is the finger a part of the body,or the body a part of the finger?

i am in and with my whole self,as my whole self.

[Ram]

Beingness or "I Am" is the original duality. From there, everything
flows downward, or spins out, as manifest creation with extensive
multiplicity. All counting starts from One. You can only talk about
Being in the realm of duality and multipliciity. In other words, in
Illusion.

Everyone has the direct experience, every moment, that there is an
invisible unchanging sense of Existence that is not the same as the
changing transient appearances. Call it duality if you like, but when
looking at your actual experience, it sees the diversity in Unity.
Without movement, the stillnes would be not known, and without the
stillness, the moving (the entirety of the universal Illusion) would
not be known.

Unchanging stillness permeates everything and always remains unseen,
but its presence is always known, because it is the knower. It always
the same, permeating all appearances, yet it is at the same time
different from them. This is a subtle thought. Stillness is not
separate from the appearances, but its expanse is more vast (for lack
of a better term). "She looks like me, but she isn't me." (but she's
only me)


Prior to the motion, or the arising of "I Am" is "That" which is
changeless, invisible, and unmoving. Sometimes called the Absolute,
sometimes called Emptiness(sometimes called Brahman or Parabrahman).
But, it is not an emptiness in the sense of a state of mere
forgetfulness (from where remembrance arises, and to where forgotten
memories dissappear), which also has a quality of emptiness to it.

When the stirring of motion settles down and dissipates into
stillness, there is a "homogeneous mixture" (talk about an oxymoron)
that is of the nature of both untainted singularity, and of diversity
in Unity. This is not an intellectual construct that I'm talking about
but a subtle principle. There is a saying that "The sages and saints
are asleep to the world, while everyone else is awake to the world."
There is a subtle meaning to this. What a marvelous paradox, that the
Jnani sees no distinction between Jnana and Ajnana, yet is seen to be
appearing as both.

:~)


The motion of the stirring, or arising, of "I Am" is in itself the
inspiration or will of God, or of the Self, or of Being, or whatever
you want to call it. Its nature is Knowledge (Jnana); the knowledge "I
exist." It is only after this knowledge stirs and begins to make
distinctions that anything can be said, or done. Only what is
conceived of to be in the field of Illusion can be talked about. What
is not in the field of Illusion can only be indicated.

And, oh yeah, what the heck is meant by, "Illusion never existed"?

Oh well, Life goes on.... both with, and without objects.

What appearance has lasted forever? Even the "I Am-ness" or Being is
not eternal.

"Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner
feelings of emptiness. Be serene in the Oneness of things, and such
erroneous views disappear by themselves."

Pure Consciousness is of the nature of "Power." Its called pure Life-
Energy, Sada-Shiva, Chaitanya. Sorry, but there really are no good
English translations of these words that inticate subtle meaning. They
are concepts which take the Inner-mind beyond the appearance of
concepts, because even the subtlest form of mind cannot comprehend the
expanse of what is being indicated.

"When you wish upon a star.....your dreams come true"

:O)

Huh? whad he say?

[empty2]

Very nice, Ram,

>"But, it is not an emptiness in the sense of a state of mere forgetfulness (from where remembrance arises, and to where forgotten
memories dissappear), which also has a quality of emptiness to it."

Yes.......or no? Where there is no 'I', there can be no memory,
therefore no forgetfulness. But of course there are no words to reach
the emptiness which is not a 'quality', yet also the only real quality
of all, - abiding in, as, either with or without, all the illusion -
the "tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The most that
can be said, it seems, by you or anyone else, is that it is not-this,
but not not-this either.......without any contradiction...or non-
contradiction......a veritable Sandeep soup.......but no soup and no
not-soup either.

.......and speaking of Koans......'no form or formlessness', as
Dattatreya sings.

PS....for the sake of sheer nit-picking........'expanse' is a
concept. :)

I think I should shut up.......and be still. :)

[Rodger]

You can only talk about Being as you are being.
Talking about Being as if you are not Being is being in the realm of
illusion.

She isn't me,she doesn't even look like me,yet we are both of the
(same) body...the body that is Being,Existence,God,Brahman,the
Absolute,Bozo,etc.)

In the absence of separation,'stillness' is no more vast than the
presence,the knower knowing it.

In the absence of separation things still appear and still appear as
they are.

All things appear as if in separation,and all things appear as if in
Being but,really,all things(beings)appear as Being.

'Within Being' could be misleading,leading to a 'without Being',to
Being.

Being may have a sense of an emptiness about it,but that is just as
Being is...the sense of without is within...as.

Subtle is for intellectuals.

[MarkJ]

The finger and ear are connected as body no matter where you stick
it. They are a part of eachother but serve different functions.

The finger is part of the body, contains all the common elements of
the body, functions in service of the body yet could not be called 'a
body' by itself.

[Ram]

Knowledge has an end. Silent stillness only has an end in Knowledge or
Imagination. Otherwise, no concept or imagination applies. It all
falls away, without exception. Where Knowledge comes to rest, well,
nothing can be said about That. ....

The first word or concept that arises is the Oneness from which all
counting starts.

> > Huh? whad he say?- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

"PS....for the sake of sheer nit-picking........'expanse' is a
concept. :)

I think I should shut up.......and be still. :)"

- You have a nice way of overstating the obvious (ok, maybe not so
obvious in that it is not an appearance, yet is evident if seen from a
particular perspective.) A perspective that is a perspective, or
perhaps a non-perspective. A perspective from the point of view of
Knowledge, and when Knowledge falls away, even the label of "non-
perspective" is not there.

"Shut up and be still." - Sounds good to me. (who?)

Thanks for sharing MT.

:~)

> > Huh? whad he say?- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

"a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The Power of Silence" The emptiness it there, no doubt, but the Power
cannot/should not/must not, be ignored.

Ooooppppsss, threw in those "cannot/should not/mus"t not words.

What gives meaning to Life, to Power? Perhaps only a merely
spontaneous discernment appearing in knowledge, recognized by
intellect, that sees that indeed there are some more noble 'qualities'
to living the life of Illusion, and some qualities that are more of
the nature of persuing some desire for transient appereances.

Should I stop using the phrase 'sutble understanding?"

That same discernment that is an inherent aspect of the intellect, can
surely recognize the conceptual distinction between common thinking
and subtle observation. This is what Maharaj was referring to when He
used to say that meditation is an intial practice that was a tool to
make the mind more subtle. Once the mind becomes more sutle(i.e. not
giving the attention or any significance to the rising and falling of
appearances), then the mind is enabled with the capacity for more
subtle aspects of the timeless teachings.

OK, Be Still. Then motion or non-movement may be there in the mix or
not.

Yet... ~*~

[empty2]

.......the power to play?

>"What gives meaning to Life, to Power?"

......the idea that 'I am' a part to play in a great big magic show?

It may seem like overstating......but not overwriting. I am.....always
agreeing with you, Ram!

(:)

[empty2]

.......can't do much else, seeing what is...is, when it is, and isn't
when it isn't.....without any difference (or non-difference!)

> > Yet...  ~*~- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

right now, it's off on a shopping adventure. After that, back to this!

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

[Rodger]

'yet could not be called a body by itself'.

As far as I know this is correct.The finger does not speak.At
least,not any language I understand.

The finger,as a part,has a beginning and an end.From one end to the
other is the full body of the finger.

The finger and ear are a part of each other? I thought they were a
part of body.A particular but inseparable part.A distinction of same.

'The finger and ear are connected as body'.
Where is the disconnection?

The finger functions in service of the body,
the body in service of ___,
the ___ in service of...

[Rodger]

'Should I stop using the phrase 'subtle understanding''?

I don't know,obviously.

[empty2]

Hi Ram and all,

If you're looking for some bedtime reading.......

www.beempty.com/theavadhutagita160.htm

....an interpretation of the Avadhuta Gita, verses 1-60, by Tirtha Lal
Mahanandhar (Bed Crow)

(hardly edited/revised/corrected English-wise at all)

On Sep 21, 8:14 am, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[MarkJ]

> The finger,as a part,has a beginning and an end.From one end to the other is the full body of the finger.
The finger and ear are a part of each other? I thought they were a
part of body.A particular but inseparable part.A distinction of same.<

Only in appearance. The finger is 'felt' by the whole body and
responds to to the ear's stimulation as well. A loud noise in the
proximity of the hand will pull all fingers to a fist and the hand to
the body. In that way they are a part of each other and the body.

> Where is the disconnection?< just an idea. connected is only to describe relationship and unity. not to point out the opposite.

Service is just a term to describe an action. The word itself is not
the thing. There isn't any separation or true distinction other than
in appearance. Action is an appearance. I don't have any other way
to describe but through the use of language. What it is could be
described as what is in between these two quotes " ".

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to keep all of the posts there only related to the...
>
> read more »

[Mahakali]

Hi Mark, I agree with you that Self remains unchanged regardless of
how we speak or discuss about it.

However, in here, we have to point to the right direction and,
whenever that is possible, it is imperative not to create
contradictions. By the way, I am the number one culprit as I am the
one who is still trying to become Self Realized. Now, can you spot the
contradictions in what I've just written i.e. how can Self become
Realized and, since Self Realization equals the absence of a 'me',
how can a 'me' become realized?

All the best


Kali

[MarkJ]

Hi Kali

You are correct that when ever possible we should point in the right
direction.
I guess that direction will depend on where you are standing too.

Self realization seems to be an oxymoron like all the others in this
mystical game.
States, conditions, levels and what not seem silly if all is Self.
What is experiencing these ideas? To me it is mind and imagination.
Just as mind creates the world around you based on sensory stimulation
electricity and imagination.

There really isn't a me to realize anything but language doesn't work
any other way than to have an object that experiences something. How
else could it be described?

[Rodger]

Mark, I've just been funning with you...keeping a conversation going
because it was fun to do so.

Finger part of the ear,ear part of the nose...knee bone connected to
the shin bone...who cares.?

All is connected to the self,as the self...is the self.

what is could be described as what is in between these two quotes "
"...as well as the two quotes but nothing outside that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Form and Formless?  Movement in emptiness?  A limitless formless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

Kali,

Since you admit to still trying to become Self Realized,how is it that
you can state in such a positive way that Self Realization equals the
absence of 'me'?
If you are not Self Realized,how do you know what that equals or
doesn't equal?How can you say what is the right direction to point?

How do you know the Self remains unchanged regardless of how we speak
of it?If you do not know what Self Realization is then,for all you
know,the Self changes each and everytime you speak of it.Is this not
so?

Again,and with compassion...Self Realization does not equal the
absence of a 'me',only the absence of a separate me.Somewhere recently
you mentioned 'the absence of separation'.Hold to that.

Self is already realized,and is every me,every I,realized.
If Self were not realized,already,Self would not,could not realize
it's journey of Self-discovery.

Anyway...

Best wishes,
Rodger

[MarkJ]

> Mark, I've just been funning with you...keeping a conversation going
> because it was fun to do so.

Me too. It was fun while it lasted.

>who cares.?
Good question - I can't find anyone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When looking at these words I have no idea...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

> I can't find anyone.

Who cares...who is looking?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lax.- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

The same one I didn't find.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though form may...
>
> read more »

[Mahakali]

Hi Rodger, you are perfectly correct in saying that Self Realization

does not equal the absence of a 'me',only the absence of a separate

me. I also had recently mentioned 'the absence of separation' but I
did not want to repeat the spiel again as I would have seemed I was
doing the broken record...ok? Thank you for correcting me.

Whatever I know about Self Realization, I know it because I've read it
from other writers/teachers.

Btw, there are some nice interviews under the tab non-duality :

http://www.conscious.tv/consciousness.html

Kali

[Rodger]

Kali, thanks for the tip.I'll check it out.

[Richard]

On Sep 18, 8:00 am, Mahakali <Maha.Ka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> No,  deep sleep is pure, unalduterated  Self (Awareness) which remains
> unchanged, unaltered by any kind or level of experiences.
>
> Being or beingness arises, first thing in the morning,  simultaneously
> with the 'I Am'.
>
> Kali

I'm not sure that there is awareness (with or without capital A)in
deep sleep, either unadulterated or adulterated. Deep sleep is pure,
unadulterated ignorance.

Pure unadulterated Self is awake awareness without ego. To me this
seems more plausible.

[Richard]

On Sep 18, 11:42 am, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> what is the digital blackboard....
> could it be a distilation of ALL our wisdom?
>
> Or at least the findings of some involved in the private investigation
> enterprise.

Have you not been to Ram's e-group, Digital Blackboard?

[empty2]

>"Deep sleep is pure, unadulterated ignorance."

Who's to say? Ignorance of the dream and waking states, perhaps. But
does total unawareness/unconsciousness of 'this' automatically mean
unawareness of That? Being 'this', we are hardly likely to know the
answer, - however it does seem plausible that 'pure unadulterated Self-
awareness' could be minus any concept of 'this state of I'- it's
dreaming, waking or whatever. Who's to know what, if anything,
remains in deep sleep in the absence of this consciousness with which
we guess? It could, for all we know, be awareness aware of itself
alone, with no idea of manifestation. It could be pure
emptiness........I guess.

From another angle.........is it plausible for there to be anywhere, -
any state or statelessness, - in which awareness-as-itself is non-
existent?

[Richard]

Hi MT,

And from the other angle, here's something I just read, and have seen
such before:

"In Yoga Nidra, you leave the Waking state of consciousness, and go to
the Deep Sleep state of consciousness, yet, paradoxically, remain
fully awake."

Often this is followed by "When you wake up you know you have slept
well. This is proof that you were aware during deep sleep".

To that I would say, when you wake up you know in the waking state
that the body feels well rested.

Anyway, there is that which is never born, never dies, is beyond the
varied states of the body-mind. The body-mind is always changing so
why be concerned with the temporary body or mind or world? This would
be like trying to grab the flowing stream of imagination. They are not
your permanent unchanging self. "Be in the world but not of the
world."

Is this what you refer to by pure emptiness or awareness aware of
itself alone? The latter brings up the usual question, how can
awareness step out of itself to be aware of itself?

Maybe awareness, peace, effortlessness, silence, emptiness, just is.
With no activity, knowledge, or experience.

[empty2]

>"The latter brings up the usual question, how can
awareness step out of itself to be aware of itself?"

Yes, damn figure of speech for dualistic comprehension!

>"Maybe awareness, peace, effortlessness, silence, emptiness, just is.
With no activity, knowledge, or experience."

" "!

[herenow]

Thanks Richard

i hadn't but now have.

[Richard]

As I have been to yours, Keith. And enjoyed it except for the hard
parts.

I too have been with Gangaji and have read, seen, and heard Papaji
materials.

Gangaji made a distinction that stayed with me. She said it's not that
we must remain silent, but we are silence itself (only she said it
better).

Our raison d'etre in this dream is to live for others who are better
off by our presence.

All the best,
Richard