what is enlightenment
Richard
state? Some or all or none of these?
Rodger
:)
Gooseone
The slightest notion of seeing through the illusion brings enlightment
in itself , how far is up to the observer.
Gary
It is another concept.
I agree with the "being without making an effort"
Of course, making an effort also comes without effort. Worry comes
without effort. So, one could almost say that there is enlightenment,
unless you dwell upon it, but it still remains.
The inference is that life is being lived through this body and a gut
level recognition of this is what might be referred to as
enlightenment.
Richard
Welcome to the group Gooseone. I like your answer and will make great
effort to be effortless. :)
When you say, "how far is up to the observer", does this mean there
are differing depths of enlightenment?
Gooseone
tool called a body,
By saying "how far is up to the observer" i could be interpretated as
"how for the deconditioning has gone".
One could have reached "Nirvana" conciously and try to be in that
state percieving as little as possible ,
one could also take the "knowing" and try to keep it in mind all the
time while playing the life game, although highly dualistic in nature
i am still convinced there is a reason we all have different means of
fooling ourself in perception.
Reason being learning offcourse.
Ow and btw , thx for the welcome :D.
I see you people have a nice thing going on in here.
Rodger
You see people because you see.
What is enlightenment? Seeing.
Further up is,not being deceived by the people you see.
Richard
Thanks for the reply, Gooseone. Since I know that isn't your real
name, I venture to point out it's an ironic coincidence that not too
long ago Rodger said his wife told him he doesn't have the brains God
gave a goose. And now a Gooseone posts here to prove the point.
Rodger, maybe you can ask the wife to tell you you don't have the
brains of a hot young nympho chick and see who next joins the group.
It's snowing again here in Virginia Beach and in the south as well.
Maybe delaying our migration to Florida. One year it was snow all the
way down to Jacksonville. Had to go 35 MPH all the way on I95. Many
cars were in ditches then. But the kids were young then, so their
bickering and carrying on helped to make the 1,000 mile trip to Ft.
Lauderdale so much more pleasant.
And you are That.
Mahakali
perspective. It has the impact of whatever happens to you and your
life when the brain is being bypassed i.e. by the suddeness of the
happening which may not allow the brain to give a meaning and provide
consolation for the shock being received. Hence, a direct impact to
your consciousness or enlightenment.
Kali
Rodger
Please venture to enlighten.
Richard
On Feb 14, 8:22 am, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see what you are saying here,Richard.
> Please venture to enlighten.
Just a joke. Cause and effect. If your wife talks of a goose and you
tell us, and soon someone called Gooseone joins us....why this could
lead to the fulfillment of all our fantasies. You two could talk about
hot women and they appear here. Or talk about generous multi-
millionaires, and they appear here. I can't think of other examples as
my fantasies are limited to hot women and rich people spreading the
wealth my way.
BTW Rodger, you've done it again. Another statement that throws me for
a loss. First it was whatever changes, etc.; then it was the whole has
parts; and now you write that you don't see what I'm saying. How can
you see what someone says? You can read what they write but as for
seeing what they say, unless it's cold and they are breathing out
vapors as they speak... :-)
Best wishes,
R.
Gooseone
When someone talks to you , do you envision an image or do you
envision
letters and words ?(which are still images)
The more one comprehends without the need to put it into words, the
better ;)
Rodger
if what is said isn't seen as the saider sees what was said.See?
It's all about language and its parts.Of course,parts may come and go
but language remains unchanged.
What's a hot woman? One with all her parts...and all the right parts?
:)
Richard
On Feb 14, 2:34 pm, Gooseone <koosjeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone sees what is spoken !
> When someone talks to you , do you envision an image or do you
> envision
> letters and words ?(which are still images)
> The more one comprehends without the need to put it into words, the
> better ;)
I stand (sit) corrected.
There are several modes of comprehension: visual, auditory, and
tactile. We all use each but are dominant in one of them. Those who
mainly use auditory will say things like, "I hear what you are saying"
or "I heard that". The mainly visual will say things like, "Do you see
what I mean" or "How does my idea look to you" or "I see what you are
saying". The mainly tactile might say, "Now let me get a handle on
what you said" or "It feels right to me".
To win friends and influence people one should talk to a person in the
language of his or her main mode of comprehension, otherwise they
won't get a handle on what you are trying to convey. See what I mean?
Gooseone
Uhm , not to come over negative but uhm ..do you really "Want to win
friends and influence people" ?
Dan
defined.
If you define enlightenment, this contrasts with whatever is supposed
not to be enlightenment.
So, to have any dialogue, there is a definition depending on a
previous definition, and there is someone who uses the defined terms,
and expresses to someone else who also agrees to use these terms.
Yet, what is truly so, is not contrasted against something else, has
no being outside of it to define it or express it, has no other to
whom it can be expressed.
One understanding is free to discuss enlightenment, or cheesecake, or
anything else - understanding how dialogues form, the assumptions
involved, and what the "knowers" are who state that they know
something to be expressed, or who say they benefit from the exchange
because they learned something from what the other expressed ...
- Dan -
Rodger
In doing so,consciousness does not contrast itself against
itself...does not define something outside itself that is not itself.
'What is truly so' is/has defined itself as consciousness...as having
no being outside itself to define or express itself.
As itself,and as what is truly so,it now defines itself as
consciousness.Now...
as consciousness,what is enlightenment?
Enlightenment is seeing...is seeing that no other sees other than what
is truly so,which is/has defined itself as consciousness,seeing that
no other outside that has any being to do so.
Richard
On Feb 15, 1:10 pm, Gooseone <koosjeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see it very clearly :D
> Uhm , not to come over negative but uhm ..do you really "Want to win
> friends and influence people" ?
I don't even care what *I* think about me.
But wouldn't it be great if everyone loved everyone? (I used to be a
weekend hippie in the 1960's.)
Gooseone
The need to point something out might say more about myself then
anything else.
Dan
definitions.
It has no division from anything that would enable the position of
doer.
Definitions can't fit "awareness" because there is no way to be aware
of awareness, without being it.
There is no distance apart in order to make a definition, nor is there
anyone apart to whom a definition would be given.
There is no "itself" - except to the extent that words can make it
seem so.
No need for an "itself" to be.
Just freely being all that is.
In a sense, you could say "awareness is everything else" ... and is
the only thing that isn't.
I would say that anything defined is not what awareness is, including
"awareness" and including "nothing."
Is and isn't don't pertain.
There isn't any need for enlightenment, nor to define enlightenment.
But once you define enlightenment, it's just one more word.
Words are always defined against other words.
Yes is defined in contrast with no.
Is is defined in contrast with not.
Feelings are defined in contrast.
The sense of existing or being is defined in contrast.
I agree with you that there's something that has nothing to contrast
against.
And to say this is one's own awareness probably comes as close as
anything else that can be said.
One gets an equation like awareness = nothing = everything = each
thing = awareness
But such an equation is only useful temporarily.
One understands that definition is its own limitation.
Well, we do like to babble on in here.
Does that mean we is babble-on-ians.
Welcome all you Babble Onians.
This is the fall of Babble On.
- D -
Rodger
Rodger
Consciousness/Awareness itself doesn't do anything,including make
definitions,except for making the definition that it,itself,doesn't do
anything like make definitions.
The definition,'definitions can't fit 'awareness',because there is no
way to be aware of awareness,without being it',seems to fit.With no
distance apart from it,one's self seems to be it...awareness...itself.
The question of any need for itself only arises when/as it is already
itself.When is/was it ever not itself?Even that question cannot arise
without it already being it,itself.
I would say that everything defined is what it is as itself.To define
everything defined as not being what awareness is,is awareness being
aware of itself,defining itself.To define itself as not what it is, is
what it is,is what it is doing, which creates a distance apart from
itself,or so it would seem.
On Feb 17, 1:46 pm, Dan <daniel.ber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marcus
When you realise you spent a lot of your life wanting illusions.
When you realise illusions are the nearest conceptualisation you can
experience as a sentient being. When your futility is known as your
true reality. When you stop judging the creation with words like
Enlightenment. You stop challenging the way it is. When you know
in your heart everything, absolutely everything is okay.
Then you arrive at the emotional condition best known as awake.
It’s been happening to humans for a very long time. Some call it a
journey. Some call it all sorts of things. But really it is to
awaken to your true realness in the now-ness, No illusions or
reality, just now.
I am that I am. Best defines it.
.
> > > > > state? Some or all or none of these?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard
Enlightenment is a mind game. That is, it is only mind that minds.
Self is complelete and completely disinterested. IT does not do
anything. From that viewpoint, there is no one to surrender, no one to
surrender to, no one to get outside its totality to get a good peek.
Rodger
Is the instrument having no interest,and not doing anything...anything
of its own.Interest arises from/in,as Self.This arising interest
arises when/as seeing arises.This seeing which arises is Self-
arising...doesn't do anything in order to arise...is neither
interested or disinterested in
arising.Arisen,seeing,interest,etc.arises.
Enlightenment is seeing.
And,as Self is complete, and alone is,Self alone is this enlightenment/
seeing.
It is not completely accurate to say Self is completely
disinterested,since you were interested enough to chime in.Disinterest
may be one part of the equation,but interest is another part.
:)
Dan
It seems that it would seem.
The seeming is amazing.
The not-seeming is ... amazing.
"Well, what do you do when you're not being amazed?"
"Hiccup, belch, and fart."
Well, okay, then ... carry on ...
- D -
Rodger
:)
Darren
the differences between one thing and another, or in my case being
aware of the possibility of another perspective. So, once the
awareness of enlightenment has been obtained and the differences known
between enlightenment and non-enlightenment the suggestion I have
gained from this philosophy seems to be that the enlightened perceiver
sees
no differences between things. Everything would appear as one and also
the same as was previously imagined. Thus, the original perceiver
would not be conflicted, they would of assimilated the world and see
themselves in everything.
Rodger
Sounds good to me,Darren.
Marcus
Yep, yep ……
"No conflict in awareness."
A wise man once said :
“the highest form of wisdom is supreme inner peace”
Enlightenment is when you no longer require wisdom.
Because you have it. With supreme inner peace you have no judgement
to conflict with. With supreme inner peace you choose attitude rather
than allow circumstance to dictate.
Enlightenment, Awareness, Consciousness, Reality, illusion,
Slavery or Freedom are accepted as simple human choices.
Free to be miserable some might say …………..
.
Rodger
Richard
On Feb 25, 9:30 am, Marcus <marcus.hug...@tubelines.com> wrote:
>
> Enlightenment, Awareness, Consciousness, Reality, illusion,
> Slavery or Freedom are accepted as simple human choices.
>
> Free to be miserable some might say …………..
....aka, I'm not happy unless I'm unhappy.
What is enlightenment? It is the cessation of asking what is
enlightenment? There are no more questions because there are no more
desires.
Rodger
Gooseone
being
Everything one percieves is not it.
One can be "lighter" then before feeling relief from suffering but
true enlightment seems not possible as long as one percieves
themselves as the balance of al paradoxes. The final paradox for this
illusion seems to not be anymore.
I myself am not gonna strive for that one ;)
Rodger
Richard
On Feb 25, 4:04 pm, Gooseone <koosjeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The final paradox for this
> illusion seems to not be anymore.
> I myself am not gonna strive for that one ;)
Striving or not, you be. You cannot not be.
Marcus
.
Gooseone said,
“The final paradox for this illusion seems to not be anymore.”
Is this the lonely monk living in total isolation?
Because it does sound like one way of detaching from most of the
physical distractions of this Urban life. To live in total
meditation. Closer to the pure self untainted by any outside
influences. I often wonder if that type of life-style is a more
natural way. I have only ever known Urban materialistic culture and
it is very anal. I feel sure the ancient principles of slavery are
very much alive today. It’s just the slave traders are now call
themselves banks.
Sorry, appoligies did not mean to get political ………… please
forgive ...
Lets just say I agree, The final paradox is total freedom and inner
peace.
As a friend keeps asking …………………….. yes but what do you do with it.
Never give up ............
.
Richard
"Enlightenment is the unassailable understanding that because you are
eternal, you are completely secure." James Swartz
Using the above definition, which seems in line with the Advaita view,
we can infer that endarkenment (ignorance) is the supposition that we
are only a body among other bodies and will cease to be, after bodily
death.
I've met plenty of folks who have had NDE's and they have in common
that aura of security Swartz refers to.
Marcus
.
The immortal soul.
This label comes from an esoteric concept that some part of us lives
for ever. Sounds very good but of course it is base on the premises
that “you” as a you-ness is only a temporary vessel for the immortal
soul. Which I think fits in nicely with so much of the eastern
philosophies which support eternal life.
In brief …. It’s not you that is eternal. But the energy which makes
you conscious in this moment is. That energy which is the difference
between being alive or dead. This energy was never born or died.
Of course the unpopular element of this is it pays no respect to the
individual. It being the collective of all consciousness.
I’ am convinced that we have these illusionary egos. To ride out the
freaky experience of being apparently separated from the whole. To
see if we can make beauty, joy and love independently.
A bit like an apprentice, learning how master those ultimate supreme
riches of the universe, we learn how to champion beauty, joy and
love. Individual’s experiences become irrelevant. Only that skill
mastered in each moment benefits the whole.
Why else would a life be lived ........... ????
.
Rodger
But,does this more continue after the discontinuation of the body?
Is there a more continuing to recognize itself as once having this
body...maybe other bodies prior to this body?
I have no solid conviction either way.Don't know.
It is more like what your wife said,and what Marcus said...'wait and
see'.
But,based on my (limited) reading of NDE's and my own personal
experiences,that possibility is there for me.
I can make either perspective make sense to me.
What makes most sense to me is...wait and see.If there is something to
be seen,and a me to see...cool.If not,cool.
Also,we tend to wake up to/with what we go to sleep with.Simple
example...lie down with a worried mind,rise with one.If this is
true,as the body dies and this more of us rises away from or out of
the body,would it not rise with/as it is(was)while with the body?
If there is a later,here and now takes care of any later now which
will get here?
Richard
We are that knowing-energy that is playing as Marcus, Rodger, and
Richard.
Advaita, religions, philosophies, experiences, introspection, inquiry,
may supply answers to the basic question of "Who am I?" Seeing,
knowing, and consciously being who we are (knowing-energy) makes for a
more relaxed, blissful life in the natural state. THAT being out of
time, therefore there is no aging, death, or afterlife to be concerned
about. This Is It! here and now. What is left but to enjoy and be of
use in this dream of materiality?
We are what we are, knowingly or unknowingly. In reffering to the
dream-play of consciousness we conclude with the words of that great
philosopher, Doris Day: "Que sera sera".
Dan
So is the sense that it is enlightenment.
You are not eternal, nor is anything protecting you.
Whatever insight you've managed, is gone when your brain decomposes.
NDE's are bullshit, and please be aware: the person didn't die.
You can't be near death and come back any more than you can be a
little pregnant.
Sheesh!
One with eyes to see clearly notices the setting of what is wanted
against what isn't wanted.
What is wanted is security, peace, safety, being eternal, being
enlightened.
What isn't wanted is insecurity, vulnerability, not getting to be
eternal, not being special or having a significant state, not being
enlightened nor enlighten-able.
So sad.
Not.
- Dan -
Gary
so very much associated with what passes out of the hind quarters in
the West.
Well stated Dan.
Ram
It is said that the cow is sacred because of four reasons:
1. For Milk which nourishes
2. For Ghee for cooking and lamps
3. For the manure which is burned for heating and cooking
4. As a beast of burden
These are very practical things in village life which are worth much
more than the limited number of meals that its flesh would provide.
Contrary to ignorant beliefs in the west, cows are not condsidered to
be gods, at least not any more than anything else is (perhaps with the
exception of Nandi, and maybe some other 'cow gods' I haven't heard
of). It's a foreign notion to us, I guess because most of us wouldn't
kill our tractors and eat them.
"You are not eternal"
- Speak for yourself.
:O)
> > > that aura of security Swartz refers to.- Hide quoted text -
Richard
Au contraire Dan. I Am eternal. What is not eternal is identification
with the apparent jeeva that wants to maintain its individual sense
of, as you so well stated, "security, peace, safety, being eternal,
being enlightened".
As the Eternal Whole, there would be no need nor activity to maintain
these or any other experiential crutches. All such experiences are
nothing but the appearance/reflection of the Eternal Whole that Is.
Rodger
Brilliant!Great insight!
I was thinking that one of the reasons they are called NEAR death
experiences is just because of that...the person didn't die.
Ram
One man's bullshit is another's fine cuisine.
> > > that aura of security Swartz refers to.- Hide quoted text -
Richard
On Mar 2, 2:53 pm, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> NDE's are bullshit because the person didn't die.
> Brilliant!Great insight!
>
> I was thinking that one of the reasons they are called NEAR death
> experiences is just because of that...the person didn't die.
LOL
Marcus
Yes ……. That’s it …………
The real problem with enlightenment is that we are not dead.
We can only guess what consciousness is, if it had no body.
Or maybe true enlightenment is to see the futility in such guesses.
My heart tells me something great and glorious is happening right in
front of me, right now. I choose to join-in with the good stuff.
I can only hear my heart. All the other hearts remain silent.
Except for that lady who smiled at me on the train this morning.
Just for a second I could hear her heart. She was in a happy
place.
Who said “as above so below” ????
.
Dan
Dan
What speaks, and that to which it speaks, are not eternal.
What is eternal, doesn't need to speak, and hasn't.
- D -
Dan
Death is greedy.
- D -
Dan
- D -
Dan
but my reports about what happens after you die,
were even more nonsensical.
Dan
into promoting make-believe "what if's" ...
And yes, that which is beating your heart is closer to you than your
skin, has no name, and can't be spoken about.
- D -
Rodger
Ram
LOL!
I hadn't heard that term before. Had to look it up.
Unfortunately, in order to cure it, you'd probably have to convince
them that they were dis-eased. Sounds like more trouble than it's
worth. Those afflicted seem obliviously happy as pigs in shite.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ram
Where would they go anyway? Who?
From here to here in "no time" flat(-lined).
From where? Oh yeah, the place that they (who?) might have died, if
such a place were ever to be.
%~P
Ram
"What speaks, and that to which it speaks, are not eternal.
What is eternal, doesn't need to speak, and hasn't."
Yes, nicely said,
All in the world is what is not eternal and really already dead, and
the eternal is always alone and alive. The clear brilliance
illuminates the ephemeral transparent shadows. Hmmm....
Marcus
.
Ommmmmmmmmmm ………….
“Those afflicted seem obliviously happy”
I rest my case your honour.
Those afflicted with illusion appear to be happy.
But are they. How can you tell.
From what I’ve seem. They appear happy so long as the money and the
looks hold out. If either of these delusions is doubted. Which it
is very easily done by the slight of hand, one can overlay new
delusion into the old. The delusion association with image for
example. Ageing men should use anti wrinkle cream. There is a global
advertising campaign costing millions of dollars to convince elderly
men to purchase anti wrinkle cream. Pure Iullusion. Please agree.
This is the inherent problem with the afflicted. As soon as you
create peace and harmony they will work very heard to manufacture a
new illusion.
It’s about this point that one comes to see how being afflicted in
reality is no different to being enlightened. That both conditions
suffer from the individual’s ability to sustain the preferred
affliction.
Mother nature is in perfect balance. The creation is in perfect
balance. Only we humans struggle against balance. We try to create
that which already exists in all things. Including ourselves. We
create money to compete. We create God to excuse our stupidity. We
create love to qualify attachment.
Here now, rules apply ………………………………………… Rrainbows are always round.
Water is always wet. The speed of light is always around 300,000
miles per second. Something always ensures these rules.
That something is ensuring these rules today.
Rules indicate intelligence in the creation. Non-human.
.
Ram
Yes, there is intelligence in the universe. As above, so below as the
saying goes. There is Power, and intelligence, and the elements at the
level of the universe and at the level of the living being.
And agreed, there is balance, even in the apparent inbalance. The
infinity symbol ∞, and the yin/yang
symbol are both good examples of balance in the whole, but as I said
before, the whole is really a whole lot of nothing.
Speaking of which, I would be remiss to not publically apologize to
Richard for my comments directed towards him that were inappropriately
posted in this forum and awkwardly communicated. No offense was
intended, but nonetheless, I should have used better judgement in what
was trying to be communicated. Ya knowz I luvz ya!
What about rules, huh?
“Nothing travels faster than light, with the possible exception of bad
news, which follows its own rules”
“The young man knows the rules but the old man knows the exceptions”
And from big Al Einstein:
“Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; From discord
find harmony; In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”
Are you concerned with wrinkles Marcus. Yes, agreed, all Illusion. But
if you get tempted to buy some wrinkle cream, just remember it could
be worse.
Richard
On Mar 8, 12:21 pm, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you concerned with wrinkles Marcus. Yes, agreed, all Illusion. But
> if you get tempted to buy some wrinkle cream, just remember it could
> be worse.
>
> http://media.bigoo.ws/content/image/funny/funny_335.jpg
Now you really owe me an apology, posting a link to a picture of me
without permission.
This has been my type of humor. Now I read one shouldn't lie, even in
jest. Gotta change my style?
Richard
What is enlightenment?
It is the realization of the falsity of ego and therefore no longer
living from it.
What is ego?
It is the attachment of consciousness to an individual body/mind.
empty2
Ego = 'I am something'
Consciousness = I am (something..... even 'I am consciousness')
Ergo, consciousness = ego.
'I am' is a thought.
Thought requires/indicates a thinker.
'Consciousness' is apprehended only via the separation between thought
and thinker, seer and seen, perceiver and perceived.
Yet consciousness is both perceiver and perceived - without any
separation......
No separation = no thought, no thinker = no consciousness!
Ego/consciousness, understanding thus its real nature...... its lack
of intrinsic existence, the snake being a burnt-out piece of rope
having no essential value....
= enlightenment
empty2
http://www.beempty.com/teachingsoftl8.htm
Rodger
empty2
as such, but in taking 'ownership' of them..... solely in relationship
to a 'personality', an 'I-dentity' determined by its isolated location
in time and space, and, if you like, trapped in its habitual and
accumulated reactions according to how it has been affected by the
appearances it perceives - as a 'separated' and therefore seemingly
vulnerable slice of consciousness.
But as you say, Rodger, (however you slice and dice it) even in the
appearance of separation there is no separation in consciousness
itself.
But then, where is consciousness without separation?
So 'enlightenment' also only exists in terms of separation.
Richard
When the rope is seen as a rope, this is enlightenment. When seen as a
snake this is not the enlightened or correct view. When Brahman is
seen as Brahman, this is enlightenment. When seen as a tree or a
person, this is not the enlightened or correct view. It is ignorance
of (ignoring) Brahman. Yet even the wrong seeing, seer, and seen, are
nothing but the one Brahman.
empty2
something other than an object? If so, whatever it may be, there would
still be a seer and a seen, ie. duality.
However, what else can Brahman be *seen* as other than a tree or a
person etc.?
What, for example, would you say a tree looks like when it is 'seen as
Brahman'?
And who is then 'seeing'?
As you say, "even the wrong seeing, seer, and seen, are
nothing but the one Brahman."
Then where does 'wrong' belong? And how can Brahman be something
'other'?
I would venture to ask, what is this Brahman you speak of? Though I
suspect it is not a 'what' but rather an 'is'...... or 'isn't, as the
case may be....... and the non-difference between them.
Richard
On Mar 22, 9:12 am, empty2 <pldre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> For the sake of conversation, Richard, can Brahman be *seen* as
> something other than an object? If so, whatever it may be, there would
> still be a seer and a seen, ie. duality.
Brahman is Subject without object. Any "seeing" to the contrary, is
imaginary, a dream. There is only Brahman. This is what you, Patrick
(and modern scientists and Buddha), might call emptiness, and which is
imagined into holographic forms.
Brahman is self effulgent. Any division into seeing and seen is
viewing things from the provisional temporal dualistic samsaric level.
Aka, taking the dream to be real. It is all emptiness, all actually
not really real, as only Brahman is.
> However, what else can Brahman be *seen* as other than a tree or a
> person etc.?
This "seeing" is on the gross level. If "seen" through an electron
microscope and not by the deceiving body/mind/senses/intellect there
would be a different view completely. One of everything being atomic
particles, which are further composed of energy.
>
> What, for example, would you say a tree looks like when it is 'seen as
> Brahman'?
See above answer.
> And who is then 'seeing'?
There is only Brahman. That there is anything to see or anyone to do
the seeing....this is the delusion.
>
> As you say, "even the wrong seeing, seer, and seen, are
> nothing but the one Brahman."
The dream contents are only the dreamer.
> Then where does 'wrong' belong? And how can Brahman be something
> 'other'?
Taking the rope to be a snake, is incorrect perception. Dividing into
"other" is mind under the influence of Maya.
> I would venture to ask, what is this Brahman you speak of? Though I
> suspect it is not a 'what' but rather an 'is'...... or 'isn't, as the
> case may be....... and the non-difference between them.
Sounds good to this "other".
Any corrections appreciated as I have learned much from you and the
others here.
As you say, "for the sake of conversation", and not to be tried at
home. I enjoy reading what your teacher had to say. How did he learn
what he teaches?
empty2
>I enjoy reading what your teacher had to say. How did he learn
what he teaches?
Experience alone. Though he often lamented the fact he never had a
guru to explain things and make his way easier. But then he also often
said it was his father, Lord Shiva, who showed him everything.