Love and Advaita

[Gary]

Just missing Richard, so I thought that I would find his first post...
not a bad topic.

"Love is prominent in various religions. A follower of Ranjit Maharaj
(co-disciple of Nisargadatta) told me that too many Advaitins think
too much and don't love enough (all jnana and no bhakta). Ranjit
performed rituals as did Nisargadatta. My question is: how does love
fit into the Advaita equation?

[Kuber Technologies]

Replacing in the question...the term "love" with "compassion".....

....from another List.....

----------

Questioner: Is a person in the natural state compassionate?

U.G. Krishnamurti: That is your projection; they are callous, indifferent, unconcerned. 'Compassion' is one of the gimmicks of the 'holy business', sales talk. Do you think this individual is conscious that he is full of compassion? If he is, it is not compassion.

------------

UG  would not have know compassion even if it reared up and bit his natural ass.

The typical connotation of the term "compassion" is someone being
compassionate( in whatever manner) to someone who needs to be compassionated.

Whether the natural state or the unnatural state(there being really no such distinction)...

..there are no entities involved ......where...... as a nuance of
existing.... the flavour is of compassion, empathy, enmity or indifference.

That is to say......it is not that when some esoteric exalted state of sagacity has  happened...... only after that event.........there is no  entity involved, there is no separation involved.

Non-entitification, non-separation, is the case, whether in the particular milieu...

... a sage (as held by the audience to be a sage) speaks to a seeker......or two warring nations threaten to obliterate the other .....in the name of democracy or in the name of Allah.

Whether it is seen to be acts of compassion or genocide......

.....it is always the Duet of One.

In this Duet of One......compassion or empathy......is akin the rushing of the hand to cup the bleeding toe and ease the pain, when the toe got  stubbed.

The compassionate hand does not see itself separate to the bleeding/painful toe.

Nor does it see itself as the same.

The ideation of separation or the ideation of non-separation......

.....both are meaningless, irrelevant in the immediacy of the actioning.

Even the term "immediacy" is misleading for it suggests that there
are some actions which are spontaneous and some which are delayed in  time......being affected by deliberation, pondering, thinking etc etc.

The deliberation is immediate, the pondering is immediate, the reflection is immediate and the physical actualization of all these immediate  mentations......into an action or series of actions (if at all).......is also
immediate.

When there is nothing which is not immediate........the term immediacy becomes superfluous.

That is why the apperception of Advaita is the immediate primordial mirth at the concept of both Dvait as well as Advait.

 

 
 



 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdvaitaNow" group.
To post to this group, send email to advai...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/advaitanow?hl=en.

[empty2]

Thanks, Gary, for this post which prompted the following thoughts.

As Sandeep has pointed out, 'Advaita' has nothing to do with love or
any other concept or thing in this phenomenal existence. On the other
hand, love and everything else has everything to do with advaita!
Nevertheless, whatever we may have to say can only express the
perspective of dualistic existence alone, including any talk of
Advaita.

The apperception of enlightenment, as understood from the perception
of a returning consciousness of 'I', would hold little attraction,
methinks, if it were purely intellectual. There can be little doubt
that when the 'knots of the heart' are dissolved, it is the heart that
experiences freedom.

Sandeep has used the word compassion, so maybe I can be allowed to
similarly put forward an alternative definition of love, as sacrifice.

Not wishing to be over-dramatic here, but perhaps the most universally
esteemed examples of love involve instances of self-sacrifice........
in extreme cases, the sacrifice of one's own apparent existence in
favor of the continuance of another's.

So, dualistically speaking, if we assume that this I-consciousness has
some connection with or apparent origin in an ever-abiding Oneness, it
could perhaps be said that this existence, albeit illusory and
impermanent, is inevitably characterized by the absence of the
consciousness of that very Oneness. And yet that Oneness is the very
essence that provides any sense of reality at all, even the apparent
reality of this existence.

In a way, therefore, it could be said that it is only through the
'sacrifice' of the consciousness of Oneness, that duality appears to
be 'real'.

Now, equating the concept of love with sacrifice, could we say that
the genesis of existence, as we know it, is metaphorically, an act of
sacrifice, and therefore....... love? That this whole creation is the
manifestation and symbol of that supreme sacrifice and therefore,
supreme love.

"It could be said that the assumption of ego represents the supreme
sacrifice of freedom and unadulterated happiness, - and the acceptance
of the experience of sorrow. It is the great sacrifice whereby the
nameless takes a name, the needless needs, and the gameless plays a
game." (said I in Another Book of Nothing)

Out of the 'bliss' of Oneness, somehow appears 'this' and the
suffering and confusion of separation, yet how can it be different? It
wouldn't seem to be a matter of volition, rather a kind of expression
or reflection - of a Self that is truly, 100% 'self-less'........ and
seen/apperceived as such, not different at all.

So, in this way, it's all love......one love alone........Advaita.....
with 'love' being just another one of those names we give the nameless
in an attempt to define its non-identity in terms of the limited and
apparently separate perception and qualities of duality.



On Jul 2, 1:16 pm, Kuber Technologies <kubertechnolog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Replacing in the question...the term "love" with "compassion".....
>
> ....from another List.....
>
> ----------
>
> Questioner: Is a person in the natural state compassionate?
>
> U.G. Krishnamurti: That is your projection; they are callous, indifferent,
> unconcerned. 'Compassion' is one of the gimmicks of the 'holy business',
> sales talk. Do you think this individual is conscious that he is full of
> compassion? If he is, it is not compassion.
>
> ------------
>
> UG  would not have know compassion even if it reared up and bit his natural
> ass.
>
> The typical connotation of the term "compassion" is someone being
> compassionate( in whatever manner) to someone who needs to be
> compassionated.
>
> Whether the natural state or the unnatural state(there being really no
> suchdistinction)...
>
> ..there are no entities involved ......where...... as a nuance of
> existing.... the flavour is of compassion, empathy, enmity or indifference.
>
> That is to say......it is not that when some esoteric exalted state

> ofsagacity has  happened...... only after that event.........there is

> no
>   entity involved, there is no separation involved.
>
> Non-entitification, non-separation, is the case, whether in the
> particularmilieu...
>
> ... a sage (as held by the audience to be a sage) speaks to a seeker......or
> two warring nations threaten to obliterate the other .....in the name of
> democracy or in the name of Allah.
>
> Whether it is seen to be acts of compassion or genocide......
>
> .....it is always the Duet of One.
>
> In this Duet of One......compassion or empathy......is akin the rushing of
> the hand to cup the bleeding toe and ease the pain, when the toe got stubbed.
>
> The compassionate hand does not see itself separate to the bleeding/painfultoe.
>
> Nor does it see itself as the same.
>
> The ideation of separation or the ideation of non-separation......
>
> .....both are meaningless, irrelevant in the immediacy of the actioning.
>
> Even the term "immediacy" is misleading for it suggests that there
> are some actions which are spontaneous and some which are delayed in
> time......being affected by deliberation, pondering, thinking etc etc.
>
> The deliberation is immediate, the pondering is immediate, the

> reflection isimmediate and the physical actualization of all these

> immediate
>   mentations......into an action or series of actions (if at all).......is
> also
> immediate.
>
> When there is nothing which is not immediate........the term immediacy
> becomes superfluous.
>
> That is why the apperception of Advaita is the immediate primordial

> mirth atthe concept of both Dvait as well as Advait.

>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just missing Richard, so I thought that I would find his first post...
> > not a bad topic.
>
> > "Love is prominent in various religions. A follower of Ranjit Maharaj
> > (co-disciple of Nisargadatta) told me that too many Advaitins think
> > too much and don't love enough (all jnana and no bhakta). Ranjit
> > performed rituals as did Nisargadatta. My question is: how does love
> > fit into the Advaita equation?
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "AdvaitaNow" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to advai...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com<advaitanow%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Rodger]

If we replaced the word love with the word understanding,how does that
fit in?

> > > advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com<advaitanow%2Bunsubscribe@googlegrou ps.com>

[empty2]

Hi Rodger.

Well I reckon understanding is a very dual concept involving someone
to understand and something to be understood etc....... ie.
separation.

The aspiration of love, and perhaps its 'origin' (and that of
everything else), would seem to be unity....... ie. non-separation -
indeed, the impossibility of separation.

The point I'm trying to suggest through the imperfect medium of words,
is that creation/manifestation/existence or whatever is in essence a
total giving of Self - an act of total love in each and every moment.

This works both ways too, I believe. The surrender/sacrifice of self-
separation........ leaves self-less Self alone.

[Rodger]

Hi E2,
Isn't love a dual concept...someone to love and something to be loved
etc...i.e.,separation? And,compassion,too?

[empty2]

I'm saying that the dualistic concept/emotion of love aspires for
unity....... and perhaps 'achieves' it through the sacrifice of
'self'.

But I'm also suggesting, that dualistic existence is also the 'result'
or manifestation of the sacrifice of the awareness of Self or
Unity......... which is also an 'act' of supreme love.... that inheres
naturally as the self-less Self Itself.

[Mahakali]

It is easy to feel the Love of God when Reality is good or pleasant to
us. It is far more difficult to experience the Love of God when we do
not like the Reality which is presented to us.


Kali

[Rodger]

I'm trying to understand you but...

there is aspiration toward a unity which actually never was not?

[empty2]

Hi Kali,

Yes, I don't want to be flippant, but it is the drama of existence
that gives relevance to love and the glory of emancipation from all
that suffering as never having really been.

As suggested, it is the sacrifice of Self-ness that gives reality to
self-ness, including all its pain, yet moment to moment, it is the
same sacrifice and a 'function' we call love...... that enables this
existence to appear as real....... without there ever, in Reality,
being a disconnection from the selfless Self being its selfless Self.

[Rodger]

In other words,it is easy to feel good when things are good and not
when things are bad.?

[Rodger]

Could that guy be right...we think too much and don't love enough?
What is your understanding of the word love?
Can we talk about that without replacing the word for another?

[empty2]

Well yes, Rodger, exactly.

That's a good definition of love, I reckon.

:)

[Rodger]

When Richard asked his question,I wonder what his definition/
understanding of love was.

> > > > > > > > > For...
>
> read more »

[empty2]

The inception/appearance of anything and everything, including
thought, moment to moment, is love as unity

.....or in your language, Rodger, you.

The 'impermanent subject chasing impermanent object' love, or
bemoaning its absence, which perhaps we're more used to, is a journey
of both pleasure and pain.

[Gary]

Pulled this from one of his posts:

""About love, the Hsin Hsin Ming says, "The great way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised".

Of course when "love" is posited, it's opposite "hate" must also be
dragged into the conceptual mix. As it is with all verbiage.

Other than the obvious obscuration caused by all words, the English
word "love" is particularly tricky. One uses the same word to say "I
love my wife" as to say "I love pizza". In the Greek of the New
Testament, there were four different words to indicate what has been
translated into English by the one word "love".

Therefore there is love and there is love. There is brotherly love,
sexual love, love for object, and Holy love (in Greek represented by
the words philos, eros, ?, and agape). If the non-dualists wish, they
can think in terms of agape, i.e. Holy unconditional love, and recall
the Bible's "God is love" and "God is omnipresent"."

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mahakali]

I suppose that the sacrifice of the 'self' and what is commonly
referred to as 'unconditional love' is the same. Both are pointing to
the absence of an "I" which maintains a separation between "me" and
the "other".

I also agree with Mpt2 about Self sacrificing its inherent Love in
order to manifest itself as individual love rather then impersonal
Love (Consciousness). It is important to notice this as an expression
of Self too.

Kali

On 4 Lug, 14:08, empty2 <pldre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that the dualistic concept/emotion of love aspires for
> unity....... and perhaps 'achieves' it through the sacrifice of
> 'self'.
>
> But I'm also suggesting, that dualistic existence is also the 'result'
> or manifestation of the sacrifice of the awareness of Self or
> Unity......... which is also an 'act' of supreme love.... that inheres
> naturally as the self-less Self Itself.
>
> On Jul 4, 6:38 pm, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

[Mahakali]

Hi Rodger, I stick to the Nisargadatta saying "Love as the word is
generally understood, denotes separation, whereas in true non-
objective relationship we do not love others, we ARE others." (A Net
of Jewels, Nisargadatta)

Kali

[Rodger]

It is hard for me to get a handle on what you guys are saying.At the
risk of seeming to be offensive(which I don't mean to be),I think I am
with Gary...it's all BS.
:)

The word 'sacrifice' just doesn't work for me...if it is not a matter
of volition.

[Gary]

Another way to say that it is all B.S. is to state the obvious. The
mind organizes to create structure out of raw appearance. Truth,
reality and all of these concepts are all part of this organization.
Love is yet another building block that works like mortar filling the
spaces between life's masonry. The stories above are quite beautiful
and provide intellectual nourishment for the mind. It has be a few
years since stating this, but it seems to me that we are in a box of
the mind's making and what lies beyond that box is unknown and in fact
the answers to the questions that arises such as what is truth,
reality and the like are fantasy, or Maya. Somehow, we all seem to
fall prey to a belief system, where all this is Maya, but somehow we
can get outside "Maya" and describe what is. So, in my book, God must
be defined as the ultimate comedian and prankster.

[Gary]

ohhh.. and of course.. the mind is just another thought structure
appearing.. No firm ground to stand on.

[Rodger]

Takes longer to say it that way,but might not seem as offensive to
some.

[empty2]

Agreed, it's all names for the nameless. 'Sacrifice', I know has
somewhat gruesome connotations too. It is certainly the esoteric basis
of Christianity (God so loved the world, Jesus on the cross for our
sins, drinking 'blood' etc) and also of Bhakti Yoga (devotion).
From the BhagavadGita Ch.3:

"Man is bound by shackles of karma only when engaged in actions other
than work performed for the sake of sacrifice....

"..... the all-pervading Infinite is always present in Sacrifice"

Probably the English word is not a precise translation of the Sanskrit
meaning though.

Rodger said, "The word 'sacrifice' just doesn't work for me...if it is

not a matter
of volition."

How about something existing inherently in the 'nature' of everything-
in the very nature of existence? Is that volitional or divine? How
about calling it supreme selflessness?

As I have tried to suggest, 'sacrifice' either way - in the negation
or surrender of individual self to a supreme 'impersonal Self, or the
negation of Self in the assumption of an individual self......... is
the action of a selfless love that is one and the same.

With my limited and as yet, intermittent capacity, it does seem that
seeing the existence/creation of each and every thing as the 'result'
of supreme sacrifice/love of the Self...... has a sense of
connectivity to it and engenders a reciprocal feeling of
'love'......and unity with the uncreated.

Just fishing perhaps, perhaps not. What else to do to pass the time?

[Rodger]

Sacrifice as I understand it is volitional,is all I'm saying.

[Mahakali]

Hi Gary

so, in which way is your experience of knowing that it is all B.S. or
that the mind is just another thought structure so different from
knowing that you are conscious?

Warm regards


Kali

[Gary]

If I used the word know, then I have changed that opinion. I believe
that much that I previous thought that I knew has, upon further
ruminating, been seen as opinion... a part of a belief system. I
don't know anything. I simply feel more secure in the thought that I
know something, because seeming security comes from absolutes. I
recognize...know..(really it is a belief) that all this is
delusional. There is consciousness, because the mind, which claims
knowledge of things and pretends to understand all things, believes
that it is conscious, but the "it" may just be delusional...another
thought. The localized you that is conscious is but a thought.. My
mind says there must be an "I".. a thinker.. but.. there it is
again..another thought. Sorry, not much use to you in answering the
question. The more I think I know, the less I realize that I know and
then the I that is central to that whole line of logic comes into
question.

[Mahakali]

Hi Gary

I have enjoyed your reply.

It looks like you are being identified with your opinions (i.e. about
using the word know and the fact you do not know anything) and
thoughts about delusions or illusions.

And, if you know that you are not a self identified with opinions or
mindgames, then, by default, you can recognize your Real, true Self
(which cannot be logically explained, because the eye cannot see the
eye).

What is it that is conscious of the mind believing it is conscious?
There must be something there which prompts you to say that. I might
not have the correct word for it, but that does not mean that I do not
"know".

And, I do not believe that I can go "beyond" this realization. I
cannot believe that there can be anything more than this type of
apperception (for want of a better word). So, I do not have much to
say about enlightenment, Self Realization (a bit of a contradiction
here!) etc etc. All there is is an apperception (!?) which has brought
more clarity and wholeness in my being.

Cheers!


Kali

[empty2]

At the risk of becoming a bit tedious....... and you know I don't like
being prescriptive..... if you look at the next person you see as
something that has come into being (in this very moment, if you like)
as a result of the 'giving up of Itself by the Supreme Self' (or the
existence of anything enabled thereby)..... it can feel momentarily
very sweet and beautiful.......

Just a different perspective perhaps.

Sorry I can't find better words to describe this idea.

(oh, and love to all, by the way!)

[Rodger]

I can see how that might work.And love right back atcha!
:)

[Gary]

Kali:

It is really a joy to see your clarity. The identifying is simply a
convention used for the sake of conversation.

[Gary]

Yes.. well stated. You might even say that enlightenment might be
such a spontaneous approach to the mind itself... poor choice of
words.

[Mark Carpenter]

Hey Guys,

I recently finished going over the topics I found interesting from
Advaita Now, another quote I liked from Richard is (paraphrase)
"spiritual teachers are great for leading you to the river, just watch
out if they try to sell it to you by the cup".

Love; I had a mini epiphany several years ago that Love was being.
Being creates all these creatures, nourishes them and then gently
accepts them back into itself. This sort of happend while looking at a
dead animal in the back yard, it is kind of a stark image by one point
of view but then again 'Being' was also cradleing it.

Being is also infintely creative and fascinating, the source of the
most beautiful image you can imagine.

Being however is ultimately unreal, however, so love is also
ultimately unreal.

How is love useful on the spiritual path? Love opens a channel between
the teacher and the one who is trying to 'sync' with the teaching.

[godszen]

Mark Carpenter wrote:
> Love; I had a mini epiphany several years ago that Love was being.
> Being creates all these creatures, nourishes them and then gently
> accepts them back into itself.

yes, that seems to be profoundly true

[empty2]

>You might even say that enlightenment might be
such a spontaneous approach to the mind itself

yes indeed Gary - it certainly leaves nowhere else to go.

[empty2]

>Being however is ultimately unreal, however, so love is also
ultimately unreal.

....though it may be the selfless Self ever shining - as seen through
the dark glass of 'illusion'.

[Rodger]

'leaves nowhere else to go'...

Cool!

[empty2]

>How is love useful on the spiritual path? Love opens a channel between
the teacher and the one who is trying to 'sync' with the teaching.

It may be the only function and purpose of existence, (ie. of selfless
all-giving love) naturally remaining for the real teacher regarding
his/her devotees in the form of teaching.

On Jul 6, 10:43 am, Mark Carpenter <carpenter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[empty2]

:)

[Rodger]

I just don't get that 'ultimately unreal' thing.

[empty2]

yes, Rodger. Everything changing, nothing changes at all.

On Jul 6, 6:08 pm, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Rodger]

The more things change the more they stay the same. :)

Changing things...does not equate to unreal things,for me.

RE: Love

Is as real as the changes it goes through.

[empty2]

such is love's 'appearance'.

[Rodger]

I was left with nowhere else to go.

[empty2]

'I was left with nowhere else to go'...

Cool!

:)

[Gary]

"How is love useful on the spiritual path? Love opens a channel
between the teacher and the one who is trying to 'sync' with the
teaching.

Ahhh, lots there. How can there be a path? How can one be off the
path, when there is only this? How can there be a teacher, teaching,
or syncing? What the heck is trying?

What are these separations?

[Rodger]

How can there not be a path etc.?

Maybe these separations are not separations. ?

[Mahakali]

Hi Mark

the think the river Richard was pointing to was the river of "direct
experience". You can only take the horse to the water but you cannot
make it drink...

How much direct experience one wants to try out for oneself is a
matter of personal choice and committement. I only know that the more
I investigate and apply to the external world and to the day-to-day
situations, the more I gather evidence that the two i.e. Consciousness
and the world are not separate.

Is what you experience as love or beingness separate from
Consciousness? I do not think so. And, if they are not separate, can
they possibly be different? Obviously, no.

And, yes, in life, I'll find always its opposites i.e. death and
birth, beingness and not beingness, a beautiful flower or straw.



Kali

[Gary]

Rodger... just asking the questions. Maybe..

[Rodger]

Gary...me,too...just asking questions.

[empty2]

>....though it may be the selfless Self ever shining - as seen through
> the dark glass of 'illusion'.

.....in a world of nothing but 'taste' - the flavor of the flavorless.

[Mark Carpenter]

Hey MahaKali,

> the think the river Richard was pointing to was the river of "direct
> experience". You can only take the horse to the water but you cannot
> make it drink...

I see what your saying and it is true in some cases but what Richard-
ji was refering to was how some Guru's give some knowledge on the one
hand but also create an infinite gap between you and himself while
selling you a thousand books and retreats.


Hi Gary,

>Ahhh, lots there. How can there be a path? How can one be off the
path, when there is only this? How can there be a teacher, teaching,
or syncing? What the heck is trying? What are these separations?

What you are saying may be just the right medicine for some people, on
the other hand if someone is still desiring and suffering, thinking
they are an individual and taking the false as the true, then they
have more work to do. You can live and die in the Matrix, or take the
leap, you are ultimately That either way. Rumi has a story of a man
who was going hungery but used to wipe his lips and beard with the fat
from the inside of an animal skin making it look like he just ate and
then would tell everyone what a great feast he just had. While the
Saints could have fed him had he asked and made his need known.

Hi Empty,

>It may be the only function and purpose of existence, (ie. of selfless
all-giving love) naturally remaining for the real teacher regarding
his/her devotees in the form of teaching.

This does seem to be one of the repeating themes.

[Gary]

Mark:

Yes, very good reply.. thanks.

I have noticed a major change in the nature of this forum over the
last number of years. The early days were full of conflict and
intensity. There was a lot of I haven't got it but I must get it and
I've got it.. oh, no I don't have it. There were many personal
attacks and battles of all sorts. Many have gone their own way. Now
there is an ease and realization that this is it and that all plays
out as it must. We each have our own role and our own tendencies, but
there seems to be a recognition that goes beyond words that lends
peace and camaraderie in contrast to those early years. Again, it
reminds me of Richard. He always played the peace keeper and when I
was about to walk away from this group he took up most of the
management tasks and kept it going. We can only hope that this same
peace can play out in his own life and the lives of those around him.

[Marcus]

.

I sense inner peace in these words.

There are many paths to inner peace.
As many as, those who walk them.
Although they appear different their demise is the same.
Truth remains.

Truth is inevitable. Seek and you shall find.

You have all acted out your roles perfectly.

Thank you.

Long live the illusion.


.

> > This does seem to be one of the repeating themes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Rodger]

Marcus,

'You have all acted out your roles perfectly'.

How could it be...how could it not be?

[Mahakali]

Mark wrote:
...
> I see what your saying and it is true in some cases but what Richard-
> ji was refering to was how some Guru's give some knowledge on the one
> hand but also create an infinite gap between you and himself while
> selling you a thousand books and retreats.

Hi Mark

I think there in a problem with buying books and retreats only if the
guru is not genuinely interested in seeing you are "understanding" the
teaching. Unfortunately, the guru's understanding is not necessarily
the same understanding which would click for you. The job of the guru
is to tailor the teaching to your type of personality, so that, you
can "see" the main building "blocks" of Advaita or non-duality.

However, essentially, trying to get "enlightenment" from a teacher is
a lost cause. He has "his" understanding and the teaching he
teaches,being "his" teaching, is essentailly useful to him and not so
much to the devotee who needs to find his "own" teaching and his "own"
teacher (inside him and NOT outside of him).

Kali

[Rodger]

That sounds about right to me,Kali.It's an inside job,as you've said
before.Or,God gives the nuts...you have to crack them.Or,the teachers
ultimate goal/hope is to get rid of you...out of love.

Nice post.Hope you are well.

[Marcus]

.

Thanks Rodger,

This statement acknowledges how you/me/us act out a role within the
divine motions of the whole. Our arrogance and delusions trick us
into believing we are separate and thereby exercise free will. It's
just a trick. And it is true to say, that all the while we manifest
in this here-now we are the delusion of reality. This apparent
contradiction enables you/me/us to superficially choose between
giving or taking. This may be in words, actions, or thoughts.
Because you all here display a distant preference to give. It
reassure me how the Scared Laws are still very much the active in this
moment.

The Sacred law I refer to is the one that goes “To give, is to
receive” the logica of “virtue is it’s own reward”.

In short – the ability to continuously give unselfishly is the reward.

Selflessness ………….

You/me/us act out our roles within this “delusion” in preferance of
Selflessness.

Each with a role to play ………….. The whole is perfect. It has to
be.

There is no other perfect.


.

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

[Rodger]

Thank you back,Marcus.
:)

[godszen]

Mahakali wrote:
> However, essentially, trying to get "enlightenment" from a teacher is
> a lost cause. He has "his" understanding and the teaching he
> teaches,being "his" teaching, is essentailly useful to him and not so
> much to the devotee who needs to find his "own" teaching and his "own"
> teacher (inside him and NOT outside of him).

not true, a REAL SATGURU literally imparts their
realization upon you, baptizing you in their
Divine Presence

if you have never experienced this, I understand
but you need to understand, this is the Ancient Way
of Guru/Disciple relationship and how it really works

[Mahakali]

Hi Godszen

you are correct. I have never been imparted with anyone realization. I
took the direct path and I had to investigate and tried out things for
myself and to myself. No third parties involved.

I am glad to hear that one can become "enlightened" simply by being in
his guru's presence. However, this can work for some and not for
others. And, as long as the radical shift of paradigm occur, who is to
deny the validity of some practices in favour of some other paths?

Kali

[Gary]

Some sit at the feet of a guru and others read books, or go for
walks. You have got to be doing something.. or sitting quietly..which
is doing something.. The point being that people attribute doing 'x'
as being necessary to achieve this thing 'enlightenment'. The guru
industry is built upon selling someone the idea that 'x' must involve
a guru..teacher. The Catholic church, among many, have in past year,
convinced the poor suckers that it is only through the church that one
can reach 'heaven'. Thanks to Martin Luther and that nut job, Henry
VIII, that business model had to change.

[Rodger]

Who can argue with success? :)

[godszen]

Mahakali wrote:
> you are correct. I have never been imparted with anyone realization

you are missing a real treat

a realization without intense bliss/love/joy
is where the term "emptiness" comes from

[Mark Carpenter]

I agree in the sense that there are a lot of metaphors and religious
imagery that needs to be dissected and things to be trudged through
before you can get to the point of 'hearing' pure teaching and then
acting upon it.

But the final understanding is like mathematics in a sense that it is
a clear definite thing. It is not like a parliament of world religions
where we all stand around patting each other on the back and say "we
are all right in our own way".

I'm sure this point can be gotten to by an honest determined person
following the Sadguru who is in your own self but the most effective
and easy way is to follow a clear seeing master. Without a guide a 2
day journey takes 2 years, this ain't just a saying, we start out with
our heads so far up our ass we will be lucky to even get a vague idea
of truth.

If you look into the traditional literature you see phrases like
"praise to the Sadguru who makes me like himself" and "and by
concentrating on a bee, an ant learned to fly!" This knowledge
expounded in just the right way by someone who has actually realized
it is extremely rare.

Saying we are all 'Guru's' and it isnt a big deal is like saying we
are all brain surgeons. 

[Rodger]

I am a little bit with all of you.
I'll suggest that Kali has been imparted more than she realizes.
I agree with Gary...you've got to be doing something,but it doesn't
have to be x.
And I go along with Mark...honesty and determination.
And I think Godszen is right about bliss/love/joy.

I am also with Balsekar who said the final understanding is Unicity.

On Jul 9, 10:10 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[godszen]

a great post mark,
you've been doing your homework

[Gary]

Mark:

You see a beautiful sunset and describe this experience as the
ultimate visual feast. I see a flower and claim the same. Another
sits in silence with eyes closed and professes a more profound
experience. We are not all brain surgeons, but we all have nervous
systems and express through our minds/senses. Each, according to his/
her nature responds to different environments. I've known hundreds of
people to sit at the feet of this, or that guru over the last forty
years. Realization happens.. cause and effect are illusion. This
doesn't in anyway lesson the greatness of your Sadguru, nor does it
put this person above anyone else. All and everyone in their own
place and seemingly going and benefiting, or not .. along their path.
All manifesting in each moment. Mistaking mind, memory and time/
causality for simple creation appearing, now and now again is just
another story. All playing out. Again, many paths and no path. No
individual and no separate teacher.

On Jul 9, 5:07 pm, Mark Carpenter <carpenter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mahakali]

godszen wrote:

> a realization without intense bliss/love/joy
> is where the term "emptiness" comes from

Hi Godszen, it looks like to me that your mind is telling you that
realization has got to come with some sense of intense bliss/love and/
or joy. This is still the mind dictating you what is and what isn't.
In my books, this is not direct experience.

Warm regards

Kali

[Mahakali]

Hi Mark

once it is realized that "realization" has nothing to do with how many
books you've studied and how many years you've spent at the famous
guru's feet, then, "realization" may or might not come. It is a total
impersonal happening that can happen to anyone (devotee or non
devotee, male or female, etc etc) in any place (railway station, bus
stop or in the park). The central element of it is that there is not a
"you" to have any realization. It simply is.

About teachers/gurus: the most they can really do is to dismantle the
person's conditioning so that s/he can be open to receive and perceive
clear seeing. And religion is a different kettle of fish altogether.
It is about placing responsibility for my own spiritual being to
someone else (the Church). The Church denies to the devotee direct
access to God for wanting to keep that power to herself (if each one
of us would have direct access to God, who would need the Church?).
"Power" is the key word and the main interest to protect.

All the best

Kali

[Mark Carpenter]

Hi Godzen,

Thanks for the kudo's, I always feel like an idiot after I hit then
send button.

Hi Gary,

I see what your saying, I would never send anyone out to find a Guru,
the whole thing is fraught with huge pitfalls. The real Guru, in my
oppinion, emphasizes from the beginning your equality with him in the
sense of being That, and your own real worth and does not start an
unhealthy relationship of worship and one upmanship. Where worship
does come in stems from the profound sense of gratitude.

I can see how everything from weight lifting, music, to sex can be
spiritually enlightening. But for the end game, this tradition which
Bob and Nisargadatta belonged to they say "ignorance comes on by
hearing and goes off by hearing" so having a person speak incisively
from a place of realization is very important.

If someone does has a realization of whatever and he does not have the
teaching to fall back on and work with he is generally going to be
drawn back into conceptual thought because he does not know any
better.

In the end "nothing really happened" and all that other stuff
ofcourse.

[Mark Carpenter]

Hi Kali,

> once it is realized that "realization" has nothing to do with how many
> books you've studied and how many years you've spent at the famous
> guru's feet, then, "realization" may or might not come. It is a total
> impersonal happening that can happen to anyone (devotee or non
> devotee, male or female, etc etc) in any place (railway station, bus
> stop or in the park). The central element of it is that there is not a
> "you" to have any realization. It simply is.

Where did you hear this? This sounds like Balkesar talk. I do not put
much stock in enlightenment and happenings anymore, if you have an
impersonal happening you still have to have to have it happen to
someone. Then suddenly you are the special 'happend to' person, who
isn't a person. What is at the base of reality is more interesting to
me and this can be found by gradually chipping away. Reality is, I
agree with that.

> About teachers/gurus: the most they can really do is to dismantle the
> person's conditioning so that s/he can be open to receive and perceive
> clear seeing.

They say the Guru gives you address and it is your resposibilty to
enter the house.

>And religion is a different kettle of fish altogether.
> It is about placing responsibility for my own spiritual being to
> someone else (the Church). The Church denies to the devotee direct
> access to God for wanting to keep that power to herself (if each one
> of us would have direct access to God, who would need the Church?).
> "Power" is the key word and the main interest to protect.

At one point I thought it would be GREAT to be a spiritual teacher
with a title. Over time, coming to this teaching, understanding the
world does not exist, much less yourself, I don't think there would be
a bigger chore than being a Guru. You have to deal with annoying
retards like myself who are told one thing but constantly do the
other, forget 5 seconds later what you told them, bug you with their
problems and life story and at best their heart is a quarter into the
whole project.

So anyone who would want to take this one as a power trip really isn't
someone you want to be asscoiated with in the long run because they
have some major flaws in their fundemental understanding. I agree
religions are corrupt, if you get more than 5-10 people together you
have corruption. Religions do do a lot of good though in some cases,
print books, keep traditions, feed people, build tourist attractions.
Some honest people can come out of there i'm sure. It is nice to have
a place to go with like minded people, if there was a not too creeey
advaita church i might go.

Have a good day

[godszen]

Mark Carpenter wrote:
> At one point I thought it would be GREAT to be a spiritual teacher
> with a title. Over time, coming to this teaching, understanding the
> world does not exist, much less yourself, I don't think there would be
> a bigger chore than being a Guru. You have to deal with annoying
> retards like myself who are told one thing but constantly do the
> other, forget 5 seconds later what you told them, bug you with their
> problems and life story and at best their heart is a quarter into the
> whole project.

funny and so true!

[godszen]

realization without bliss, love/joy, is empty

[Rodger]

Mark: 'the real guru emphasizes your equality'

Think so,too.Only,might say,the liberated guru emphasizes that.The
liberated guru has no real interest in followers...hanger-oners.I
think it was Nisargadatta that said he was out to make gurus,not
disciples.

[Rodger]

Kali: the central element is that there is not a you'

There is not a independent you,I would say.

[Rodger]

Gary, can you try to clarify please...


how is cause and effect illusion? Isn't a response an effect? What
causes the response?

[Rodger]

Godszen, sounds about right to me.

If...if...realization is about liberation,who wouldn't experience
these things you speak of?

[Mahakali]

Mark Carpenter

> Where did you hear this? This sounds like Balkesar talk. I do not put much stock in enlightenment and happenings anymore, if you have an impersonal happening you still have to have to have it happen to someone. Then suddenly you are the special 'happend to' person, who isn't a person. What is at the base of reality is more interesting to me and this can be found by gradually chipping away. Reality is, I agree with that.

Kali: no,it is not a Ramesh talk, It is more of a Tony Parsons talk.
He clearly tells that "realization" is more of an opening to be
understood as a release of internal energy which, for some time, we
have not been aware of and had caused tension. The reason why we do
not notice it is because we have got used to it. Once that energy has
been released outwards, rather than inwards, then, the conditioning/
constriction/limitation of the condition called "me" (ego) is seen
through. R Sylvester, one of his followers, compares this to the
release of a hand with a tight fist being opened up with energy being
released to the outside through it.

The actual release does not happen to "you", it is impersonal. The
mind, then, comes back and makes a story out of it.


Mark:They say the Guru gives you address and it is your resposibilty
to enter the house.

Kali: correct!
>

Mark: At one point I thought it would be GREAT to be a spiritual

teacher with a title. Over time, coming to this teaching,
understanding the world does not exist, much less yourself, I don't
think there would be a bigger chore than being a Guru. You have to
deal with annoying retards like myself who are told one thing but
constantly do the other, forget 5 seconds later what you told them,
bug you with their problems and life story and at best their heart is
a quarter into the whole project.

Kali: "Self Realization" comes with the responsibility of having to
transmit and help other devotees who are now in your own shoes. I
agree with you that I would not want to be a teacher of some retarded
minds, but this is more of a duty rather than a choice. Unfortunately,
it comes with the package!

Mark: So anyone who would want to take this one as a power trip really

isn't someone you want to be asscoiated with in the long run because
they have some major flaws in their fundemental understanding.

Kali: not necessarily all of teachers are corrupt. Some might start
off by being sincerely involved and genuinely being interested in
their devotees' welfare, but, then, at some point, they might turn
corrupt. See Osho as an example.

Mark:... if there was a not too creeey advaita church i might go.

Kali: at times, I have the impression there is more of an Advaita
police going on rather than a Church...:-)

Have a nice day.

Kali




>
> Have a good day

[Mahakali]

Hi Rodger

yes. There is no independent "me" to do or think anything. This is
what I tried to say. Whatever happens, does not happen to "me".

Have a nice weekend


Kali

[Mahakali]

Hi Godszen

forgive me if I am not reading you correctly.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like to me that your
mind has decided that "realization" without bliss/love and/or joy is
empty. This is a mind decision i.e. it is your interpretation of
things on how they should happen.

Have a nice day

Kali

PS: over here in Italy is very hot indeed.Today is 93F or 34C.

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Mark Carpenter wrote:

Hi Kali,

  

once it is realized that "realization" has nothing to do with how many
books you've studied and how many years you've spent at the famous
guru's feet, then, "realization" may or might not come. It is a total
impersonal happening that can happen to anyone (devotee or non
devotee, male or female, etc etc) in any place (railway station, bus
stop or in the park). The central element of it is that there is not a
"you" to have any realization. It simply is.
    

Where did you hear this? This sounds like Balkesar talk. I do not put
much stock in enlightenment and happenings anymore, if you have an
impersonal happening you still have to have to have it happen to
someone.

That a happening is personal or impersonal.....that sense of distinction.... is the sense of the person.

Despite seeming so......happenings(no matter what is the associated story around it)....

...does not happen to a person.

No happening has a loci for it to be isolated-able, no matter how distinctive it may appear to be for it to occur to
or attributed to.

 Then suddenly you are the special 'happend to' person, who
isn't a person.

The sense that such and such other is an exalted special "happened to" person.....is the sense of a person..
... for whom an other exists.

It is the sense of  me-disciple which co-creates the you -Guru.

 What is at the base of reality is more interesting to
me and this can be found by gradually chipping away. Reality is, I
agree with that.

  

That there is a chipping taking place ....is the un-chippable reality.

The frenzy of a home run within first base.

About teachers/gurus: the most they can really do is to dismantle the
person's conditioning so that s/he can be open to receive and perceive
clear seeing.
    

They say the Guru gives you address and it is your resposibilty to
enter the house.

  

In the milieu of a Guru-shishya(disciple/seeker).....there is the demolishing of (non-existing) identities.

(Non-existing)Identity  as a seeker, which is really the identity of a sense of self-for whom-is-there-has-to-be-something better-than-this.

And for which, exists the identity of an other-as-the-Guru, who will make it better....etc


The primordial mystery and hilarity of the awakening of that-which-was-never-unawakened
and the putting away of that-which-never-was.




Sure, there are milieus, where walking gets taught, destinations get proscribed.

And religion is a different kettle of fish altogether.
It is about placing responsibility for my own spiritual being to
someone else (the Church). The Church denies to the devotee direct
access to God for wanting to keep that power to herself (if each one
of us would have direct access to God, who would need the Church?).
"Power" is the key word and the main interest to protect.
    

At one point I thought it would be GREAT to be a spiritual teacher
with a title. Over time, coming to this teaching, understanding the
world does not exist, much less yourself, I don't think there would be
a bigger chore than being a Guru.

Chore for a non-existent "much less yourself"?

 You have to deal with annoying
retards like myself who are told one thing but constantly do the
other, forget 5 seconds later what you told them, bug you with their
problems and life story and at best their heart is a quarter into the
whole project.
  

What's annoying with that?:-)

Sure, it's been done a zillion times.

So anyone who would want to take this one as a power trip really isn't
someone you want to be asscoiated with in the long run because they
have some major flaws in their fundemental understanding.

Yes.

Replacing one sense of an identity with another.......is round and round a new mulberry bush.

But so what?

All part of the grandeur of the absurd.

 I agree
religions are corrupt, if you get more than 5-10 people together you
have corruption. Religions do do a lot of good though in some cases,
print books, keep traditions, feed people, build tourist attractions.
Some honest people can come out of there i'm sure. It is nice to have
a place to go with like minded people, if there was a not too creeey
advaita church i might go.

  

A bordello would serve very well for an advaita church.

The term religion emanates for the root term "religare", which connotes...

..to re-connect, to re-join, to repent(which does not mean any guilt-laden-trips but to re-turn).


Thought falling back on itself as an implosion.

[Gary]

Rodger:

All manifest anew. The mind seemingly connects and establishes cause
and effect. Here is another angle... Time is created by mind. Both
of these statements are saying the same thing. and..what is mind?
What part of illusion isn't.

[godszen]

Rodger wrote:
> If...if...realization is about liberation,who wouldn't experience
> these things you speak of?

shakti vibration, intense bliss/love/joy

these are qualities of awareness

[godszen]

it's not just my interpretation of

things on how they should happen

it's my ongoing experience

[Rodger]

93F or 34C....two ways to state same. :)

[Rodger]

'All manifest anew'

Sure feels like the same old bs. :)

[Mahakali]

What is the starting point of your experience? How do you get to the
conclusion that what you are experiencing is an ongoing experience and
not a fruit of what you think it is?


Kali

[Mahakali]

:-)

[Ram]

The "True Guru" or Sadguru is not a person but is the Reality itself
which manifest in myriad ways and forms to illumine consciousness with
knowledge and dispell the darkness of ignorance. The Self is none
other than the Sadguru, yet the Self is but a fraction of the Sadguru.

All of the assertions and denials for the need of the Sadguru only
appear in Illusion. Ego is mind, and the entire world appearance is
mind, along with and conjecture and even consciousness. The Sadguru is
the only One that stands beyond both knowledge and ignorance which
makes up Illusion in its entirety. One who says that they don't need a
Sadguru says this only within Illusion from an ego stance. Outside of
Illusion, it is not possible to make such a statement. The same is
true for saying that there is the need for a Sadguru, but the
significance of the statements are not the same. Both statements are
said within Illusion, but the meaning is not the same.

The mind is limited by its own concepts. Without the exposure to non-
conceptual pointers from whatever form the Sadguru may take, the Self
is not and cannot be aware of Reality beyond Illusion. How silly is it
that neo-advaitans claim no need for a guru while playing the role of
guru? It's ridiculous on the face of it. Their use of metaphors and
similes are like conceptual tinker toys constructing ephemeral castles
in the sky, and calling them Reality. When all such claims are merely
fleeting pointers to consciousness which is itself not permanent, how
can such talk reveal Reality? If looked into, it can be seen that all
such talk is based upon identification with bodies, be it gross,
subtle, causal, or the consciousness body.

People babble on endlessly about enlightenment and Reality and the
significance of a guru, while never taking the initiative to shut off
the conceptual jibberish and rest as non-conceptual eternal peace. Any
conceptual assertion for or against the need of a Sadguru is merely
that, transient conceptual nothingness which is of the nature of
Illusion, that is meaningless. The Sadguru meets himself in the form
of the Shisha which is in turn seen to be nothing other than That.
People talk without listening, reflecting, and verifying in one's own
experience, and the because of this, Illusion and confusion is
perpetuated in the minds of 'advaitans.' Most people in this age are
too lazy to study the books of Jnana and reflect on the meaning
contained therein and realize it for themselves. Instead they would
rather be spoon-fed some neo-advaitic rubbish that they take to be
gourmet meals, and wander about spouting out the same, taking
themselves to be wise in so doing. Oh well, one man's rubbish is
another's delicacy, and one man's Illusion is another's reality.

While trying to praise the Sadguru with the help of Illusion, even
Illusion itself became quiet because of its inability to speak of Him.
Consciousness is itself Illusion, and it is only the Sadguru which
alone stands beyond it and can reveal this fact. All other so-called
gurus can take one up to consciousness only, and keep one in Illusion
because they themselves have not taken the step beyond consciousness.
Even taking oneself to be "only consciousness" is an identity or a
sense of individuality still intact.

Consciousness is merely an adornment on Reality (Granted a very
expansive and wondrous one, but fleeting nonetheless). Nisargadatta
has said "This consciousness has come upon me uninvited like a disease
and will also disappear." He is not talking about 'me' being the body,
but the Absolute, Parabrahman.

He also used to frequently say "Jai Sadguru Parabrahmma!" which means
that the Sadguru is Parabrahman beyond the appearance and
disappearance of consciousness. Realization without the Sadguru is
literally impossible as nothing other exists besides the Sadguru,
Parabrahman. Any statements or conjecture to the contrary are mere
conceptual nonsense based in ignorance. Yet, even these words are not
true and nothing to hold on to.

[Rodger]

Hi Ram! Traveling,hey? I've not even been outside the house much these
days.Mostly traveling from fridge to tv,to computer. :)

"The mind is limited by it's own concepts".

Does the mind really have 'it's own' concepts?


You still traveling or are you back at 'home base',wherever that is?

[Gary]

Ram:

You weave such exotic conceptual threads. Nobody knows these things.
Nobody can see outside of the box that we are in. You see ego in
others that express differently, but then you can be viewed in the
same light. I make statements such as "Nobody knows these things" and
in doing so my ego projects a sort of knowing that allows this
statement. After thousands of years of pondering these things,
nothing has been resolved. Perhaps there is no high ground. This
begs the question, what part of 'illusion'...isn't?

[Ram]

Yeah Rodger, basically drove the equivelent of from FL to CA and back
twice in the past two weeks. Now in KC Misery resting and hoping not
to get back in the car for awhile. Looking for work that actually
pays, but it's not so easy to come by in this economy.

Exotic concepts? Don't know about that one. As far as I can tell a
concept is a concept. Gary, how do you know that nobody knows these
things? You don't. Because you firmly believe it you think its so.
From the perspective of a body, yes, no "body" knows such things. If
you believe that only Illusion is true, then unfortunately that will
be your experience, so long as that belief is held. Some have indeed
seen and do recognize that their true nature or true form is beyond
appearances and concepts. This is actually your own experience in the
moment, but it is veiled by limiting beliefs. Once experience is
gained, that "knowledge" is reflected in/as consciousness, and can be
expressed in Illusion, but never experienced there.

You say that after thousands of years of pondering these things
nothing has been resolved. I say that this is an incorrect view. It
has been resolved long before thousands of years, as well as
currently, out of time. It is resolved prior to the concept of time,
eternally non-conceptual(ok, maybe that could be considered and exotic
concept to some, to which I say, "the moon, not the finger"). Your
saying that nobody knows these things is not a knowing, it is an
unexamined belief. OK, so you know the belief, but that does not mean
that it is true. Somewhere you picked up the belief, and it fit into
your world view, and maybe some day you will find that it no longer
holds any value or validity. Perhaps there is a lack of exposure to a
certain kind of knowledge, or maybe the exposure has appeared and
there is just a lack of willingness to suspend currently held beliefs
long enough to explore the validity of such extra-ordinary knowledge.
Such knowledge as I am speaking of is designed to remove these very
types of beliefs and then be discarded as also being illusory in
nature.

People tend to accumulate beliefs that are to their liking and are
consistent with their world view and which let them continue to
treasure the things and people that they are fond of in the world.
There's really no harm in believing in such a conceptual reality, but
it has no substance. Such a conceptual reality is like a castle made
of sand yet more ephemeral. How can that be real? Is it such an exotic
concept to say that the background is permanent while all appearances
come and go? Or that some have realized their identity as such? The
appearances are never separate from the background, yet do not last
while the background always is as it is, unaffected by what has come
and gone. That is the essence of advaita. The real limiting factor is
attachment to things in Illusion. This is what keeps the mind fixed on
beliefs about things it values in the world, be it a conceptual
reality, or a thing or a person or an emotion, or any appearance.
Attachment is a funny thing. An appearance trying to hold on to an
appearance, like water in a mirage slipping through the fingers of a
dream character.

If there is a high ground, it is part of Illusion. My words are also
only part of Illusion, but what I speak of is not Illusion. I am not
talking about mere concepts or a belief system, but if there is no
willingness to explore beyond one's beliefs, what is being said will
always remain enigmatic, and appear to be only conceptual. So, why
speak at all? Sometimes the example is used of if you saw a drowning
man would you throw him a life preserver, even though you are pretty
sure he won't use it, as he doesn't know that he is drowning. And I
have to say yes, as there is a chance he will use it(perhaps after
repeated tosses), and if not, perhaps someone else will recognize it,
and use it. And perhaps not. What have I to lose? At best, the Self
will further delight in itself, and at worst the dream character Ram
will be called some names which do not apply to who he really is.
Nothing really lost, nothing really gained.

Many people don't like the idea of a guru being able to help them.
Mainly this is because of some conditioning in the mind. The mind
doesn't like the idea that it isn't the absolute authority on
everything. It's primary premise is that whatever it believes is real
or true, and it often has great difficulty accepting that it is not
the king. Well, it is not the king. It is the servant. A good one if
properly disciplined, and a poor one if let to believe that whatever
it imagines is true. The true guru tells you that whatever your mind
says is not true, so the mind rejects the guru, and Self which is the
master, becomes the slave. The mouse rides upon the elephant.

Similarly, your mind doesn't agree with what I say, so I don't post
much anymore. However, it's enjoyable to speak freely once in awhile
anyway, even if no 'body' agrees, or thinks it is possible to know
such things.

Bozo out.

:O)

[Rodger]

Ram, you will never get rest if you keep going on like this. :)

"Is it such an exotic concept to say that the background is permanent
while all appearances come and go"?

Don't know about the exotic but,a concept is a concept,as you say.And
we let it go,as you also say,as what is being spoken of is seen as not
illusion.(Like Alan Watts said,if the message has been received,hang
up the phone.)

As far as being unresolved,I can agree with Gary.Yet,with
you,too.Remains unresolved with the same that resolves
it.Consciousness can't be defined...does the defining.

As background and foreground are seen as one,one can only
conceptualize permanency of background...and while,or only as long as
foreground is present...or active,or awake,or whatever.

One can believe background is permanent but,given that one and belief
are impermanent...appearances coming and going...what really,actually
happens when/as one and ones beliefs have come and gone?

What is being spoken of here is what is speaking.And what is speaking
is real...whether what is speaking conceptualizes permanency or
temporariness.

If there is anything to be said about after I have come and
gone...chances are good I am still going.
:)

[Ram]

"As background and foreground are seen as one,one can only
conceptualize permanency of background"

-This is your concept, not mine. Foreground and background are one,
agreed, and both are concepts, agreed as well. I actually don't
believe in foreground, yet cannot deny that when appearances
disappear, I am still there with any concept of me, and as no
appearances are there, there is no concept of background.

"One can believe background is permanent but,given that one and belief
are impermanent...appearances coming and going...what really,actually
happens when/as one and ones beliefs have come and gone?"

-This premise is based upon the assumption that the permanent is a
belief. Nothing has actually happened. Oneness is homogenous, beliefs
that something has happened is conceptual. What has happened in
oneness?

"What is being spoken of here is what is speaking.And what is speaking
is real...whether what is speaking conceptualizes permanency or
temporariness."

- Again this is your concept, not mine. What is speaking and what is
spoken are both not real. But what does it really matter one way or
the other.

All concepts aside, investigation reveals that there is something
permanent in your experience while all else perishes. To say that this
is conceptual, is not clear seeing. Oneness is one whether appearances
are there or not there. The concept background is just a pointer to
the changeless.

Yes, time for some rest now. Nice exchanging thoughts with you.

[Rodger]

What has happened in oneness?

What has happened in oneness has never happened outside oneness.
Your disbelief in foreground is foreground which is inseparable from
your belief in background.

If nothing has ever happened how is it that appearances happen to come
and go,beliefs and concepts abound? Has anything ever happened outside
what is being spoken of,which is what is speaking?

In Advaita-Zen what is currently happening is a discussion about what
came first,the chicken or the egg?You may consider that only a
concept,a belief,but I swear to you it's really,really
happening.But,no need to believe me.You can investigate for yourself.

Ah well.Maybe it is as you say...what does it really matter one way or
the other.Now,if the question was,which came first,the rooster or the
egg...
But that is another story.
:)

Rest easy,buddy

[Mark Carpenter]

Ram said: "Even taking oneself to be "only consciousness" is an

identity or a
sense of individuality still intact."

One of the books being recommended to me on Amazon is called 'Standing
As Awareness' this stuck out to me as taking to yourself to be a
quantifiable, conceptual attribute and reinventing your identity
around it. (Not having read the book however, who knows, it could be
good).

"All concepts aside, investigation reveals that there is something
permanent in your experience while all else perishes."

This is what trips me up, what are you refering to as something in
your experience if not consciousness? Isn't parabrahman
unexperiencable? Or is that which is aware of awareness parabrahman?
...

On a different note I think a lot of the miscomunication on here is
from not coming from a common point of reference. It is sort of like
baptists argueing with greek orthodox argueing with coptics. Allan
watts and Tony Parsons and Ramana and Nisargadatta and Bankei and
whoever were not all neccicarily talking about the same thing, they
are not an interchangable authority (not that they don't have their
value). I think the root of the group took Nisargadatta as enlightened
so it would be helpfull to look at he actually studied and realized.

I think 90% of people essentially think the quote in I AM THAT where
he is said to have dwelled on "I AM" for 3 years and then got zapped
is what he was all about.

[Rodger]

Or is it,that which is aware of parabrahman is parabrahman?

The most ultimate,most high of highest states is aware.
To be aware is to be identified.
The identified stands as the highest state.Is inseparable from the
highest state...is the highest state.

After three years of dwelling Nisargadatta finally concluded he
was.And,so he said...I am.Is that similar to the Buddhas,I am awake/
aware?Or,Alan Watts',you're it?Or Tony Parsons,just this?

What can the parabrahman 'unexperience'? Beyond 'I am' what can be
said?

This is it...I am awake...I am that.

[Ram]

Yes, many people have in effect made a religion around that one quote
of Nis and taken it to be the entirety of his teaching.

I don't think Rodger and I am miscommunicating. He likes to take the
contrarian position no matter what is said. I think we have come to
understand each other over the years. At least that is my feeling.

I can't really say anything about Parabrahman, or the Absolute (for
those who detest foreign words), except to say that words come back
from there. Like Rodger said, what can be said from beyond "I Am."

The whole thing about Nis's master telling him to stay with the "I Am"
has to do with becoming established in Consciousness, as Consciousness
or Knowledge (Jnana), but his teaching did not end with that. He said
that only after becoming established as that can it be left off.
Maharaj used to use the example of you have to get to the fourth floor
before you reach the rooftop. If the mind cannot apperceive the being-
consciousness-bliss of the Consciousness body, how can it ever
understand the Absolute? It can't. Trying to understand the changeless
with the changing mind cannot happen, nonetheless, it can be realized.
To say it is experienced is also only a pointer as there is no
experiencer there. Thus it is called "the great experience," or
MahaAnubhava. Still just a concept to point to the non-conceptual
changelessness. You can discover the changeless in your own
experience, but you are not taking the stand as the mind when you do.
Everything passes away except the changeless. Coming to abide in that
is staying with the "I Am" that Nis spoke about. Beyond that "I Am"
nothing can be said, yet it can be realized, by itself alone. People
want to be given the answer to this in a way that suits the mind, yet
rarely is there found someone who goes beyond the conceptual merry-go-
round of spiritual concepts in order to realize the truth.

I am That, but this is not That. All this is only That, yet That is
not this.

Awareness is aware of awareness. Awareness by definition has a subject
object relationship. The word Parabrahman is only a pointer. What is
the experience of no experiencer? With the initial assertion of "I
Am," everything else follows. Thus it is said that Consciousness, or
Knowledge (I Am) is a temporary adornment on the Absolute. Awareness
is Consciousness. As a pointer it can be said that the Absolute is
aware of awareness, but really It is only aware of itself. Not two.

What happens in Oneness? Nothing. To say that some thing has happened
is only a dualistic concept. Oneness does not make such distinctions,
and even if it is said to, still, nothing has happened, there is only
oneness. If AZ chicken and egg debating is what is happening in
oneness, I can only quote Mr. T and say "I pity the poor fool."

:O)

[Rodger]

Ram, I do not always take the contraian position...contrary to what
you think.And,I'm not sure if I understand you or not but,if you
subscribe to the 'Buffalo Theory' as I do,we do have something in
common.

I Am is the highest realization.

Words come back from that,or words come forth from that...as that.In
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was
God.
I Am,the word of God.

Beyond that...I think I'll have another beer.Striving for genius
tonight.Which is about 6 beers these days.


(Pointers point to what points.Pointing done with a straight finger is
misdirecting.)