[NDS] Clear explanation

[Guest guest]

Victor Torrico wrote:

>

> Hi all,

>

> One of the most clear and straightforward explanations of enlightenment

> and liberation can be found at:

>

> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/1000nit.htm

>

> It is so good that I printed it out for use in contemplation.

>

> Love,

>

> Victor

 

Victor,

 

Thank you for mentioning the excerpt from Nonduality Salon Magazine. It

is taken from Dr. Trasi's book, with his permission, and is not found

elsewhere on the internet, as far as I know. At the bottom of the

article is a link for those who want to learn more about his book.

 

Jerry

 

//nondualitysalon

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,Victor,

 

That typically fits into the NDS description of liberation, which is

based on psychology, but is not the absolute truth, for it is

intellectually worked out not realised as in the Indian Masters. For

example consciousness is said not to be illusion, when in fact

consciousness of an illusion or any view is illusion. Why? For it

never happened and so called consciousness based on Saguna which is an

illusion in itself can be none other than illusion. There is only

Nirguna.

 

The problem I found with NDS is that their descriptions of 'realised',

and 'enlightened', are varied and not based on the descriptions of

those that have 'Realised', the rememberence of Mukti.

 

That is why I find it simpler to use the Sanskrit as it is the only

language that seems to describe things of a spiritual nature aptly.

 

For example people claim realisation, in English, and then come on

here and elswhere and write. A highly unlikely pastime for those that

have remembered Moksha, Moha Kshya, or Mukti, or Ultimate permanent

Samadhi.

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

, umbada@n... wrote:

>

>

> Victor Torrico wrote:

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > One of the most clear and straightforward explanations of

enlightenment

> > and liberation can be found at:

> >

> > http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/umbada/1000nit.htm

> >

> > It is so good that I printed it out for use in contemplation.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Victor

>

> Victor,

>

> Thank you for mentioning the excerpt from Nonduality Salon Magazine.

It

> is taken from Dr. Trasi's book, with his permission, and is not

found

> elsewhere on the internet, as far as I know. At the bottom of the

> article is a link for those who want to learn more about his book.

>

> Jerry

>

> //nondualitysalon

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

 

The following is rather personal and direct to Tony. But I invite you to

listen in. It may at some point seem heartless, the way I write to him.

Email-wise I know him quite well, I love him dearly. You have to believe me.

He may be a "guru hopper" because of his strong insecurity, which causes his

tendency to dogmatism. He is just so lovingly objectionate and resistant.

Well you know him well enough already.

Oh, am I judging? No... Nope!

 

 

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> That is why I find it simpler to use the Sanskrit as it is the only

> language that seems to describe things of a spiritual nature aptly.

 

Surrender Tony!

Surrender to Tony!

 

Be (Sat)

Truth (Chit)

Love (Ananda)

Be truly in love,

Be loving truthfully

Sat Chit Ananda

 

What language do you want?

Why needing words at all?

You only have to be truly in love (sat chit ananda).

Do not have difficulty with words, translations, interpretations or language

use.

Using words is what we humans (yes, humans) playfully do... , can do..., are

allowed to do. It is just a verbal and fun attempt at communication. Some

bodhisattvas are good at words, some are not, but fun they have. Do you

think we could have a group or list without words or in Sanskrit perhaps?

No, I am not sarcastic.

 

Surrender to YOUR answer to YOUR question: "Who am I?"

The only 'LOGOS', your OWN word, your SELF.

 

The answer to the question "who am I?" is (shall I give it away?):

 

I

I

I

 

It cannot get any simpler.

Now just stop the question!

Stop questioning your self!

Be the answer!

Be

 

In any shape or form, be Tony, you are who you are. Relax, give up, give in,

surrender.

 

Why putting conditions of eventual moksha on yourself?

Like: "how, who, when and where you would be if 'liberated'."

Moksha? Do not think you know what moksha is? Apparently, as you said:

>I haven't reached moksha myself of course...<

If you never had spinach, how can you expect yourself to know what spinach

is?

You are being impossible to yourself! You are expecting the impossible. Of

course moksha won't happen if you think it is impossible. Who told you a

long time ago "You are impossible"?

Who prevented you from knowing yourself, being yourself?

 

You think Ramana Maharshi would like you to answer him? He did not pass on

for nothing. That is what bodhisattvas do. (Yes, there are also hindi

bodhisattvas, luckily for you it is a Sanskrit word! OK, I am a bit

fascetious, but I mean it well!)

 

He wants you to be you, that is why he is asking...

 

Oh yes, and Brahman just pops in when you have unconditionally surrendered

to yourself.

 

You wrote before:

> I haven't reached moksha myself of course but my experience is that

> the ego is replaced by an expansive feeling. Which no doubt has to be

> worked on and developed, for this is the energy of Maya.

 

Obviously you are using some impossible concepts otherwise you would be

free.

> For example people claim realisation...

 

You are exactly right, "one claims realization". It is one's birthright.

> ... in English, and then come on here and elsewhere and write.

> A highly unlikely pastime for those that have remembered

> Moksha, Moha Kshya, or Mukti, or Ultimate permanent Samadhi.

 

What do you know, I like this pastime. Moksha is not the way you think it

is. If you did you would claim it as well! It is that simple. It not

impossible. You just liberate yourself.

That what prevents you from liberation are the illusions that expectation,

fear, desire and their conditionalities brought to you. (if... then). You

are confusing two meanings of the concept 'illusion'. Find out what the

Buddha meant.

 

Love,

Wim

 

Shall I send this... OK there it goes, click that SEND button.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All, Wim,

 

Well well well. First I am not dogmatic, I am quoting my opinion, I

state so on most postings, and what I have gleaned from various

readings. I thought I was having a discussion with some people.

 

Ramana says that 'Creation never happened'. Ajata vada, It is the

jnanis experience that nothing ever comes into experience or ceases to

be because the Self alone exists, as the sole unchanging reality. It

is a corollary of this theory that time space cause and effect,

essential components of creation theories, exist only in the minds of

ajnanis and the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence.'p

181/2 'Be as you are'--David Godman.

 

It is an appearance only to those who 'realised', in the body,

jivanmuktis. Once the mind is dropped there is nothing to appear in. I

don't know whether Ramana was a bhodisattva, according to his story,

he had reached a ripe point in a previous life and finished it off in

this one. My understanding of a bhodisattva is someone like Jesus, or

Kwan Yin, who put off liberation at the point of moksha in order to

come back and help in some way. This seems different to Ramana's case.

 

With regard to me being a guru hopper, I only ever had two, Sai Baba

in the flesh and Ramana's through his teachings. I moved from Sai Baba

after I found he had been involved in pedophilia, rape, accessory to

murder, embezzlement, deceiving with false materialisations and so

called miracles. His writings were ghosted and most were lifted from

other teachers like Vivekananda etc. That is hardly guru hopping, I

left one!!!

 

At present it is not even safe for me to go to India and this has

been relayed to me several times. I don't need to post all that stuff

here. I have written enough articles on this on Icke's e-mag and other

outlets. The UK Daily Telegraph has a good article on the 28 the Oct

by another writer.

 

With regard to Sanskrit, it is not just my humble opinion but also

people like Feuerstein, Isherwood, and others, the language contains

specific words that are really not transferable in one word into other

languages.

 

I don't know what the Buddha meant, we only have writings after the

fact, I am safer with Ramana etc. The only thing I am sure of is that

he talked of cessation, and extinguishing the mind Nirvana.

 

Lastly Wim, are you saying that you are a realised person, who has

achieved or remembered moksha or liberation, just like Ramana. Is my

understanding of what you are saying right? Is this your claim?

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

, "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...>

wrote:

> Dear List,

>

> The following is rather personal and direct to Tony. But I invite

you to

> listen in. It may at some point seem heartless, the way I write to

him.

> Email-wise I know him quite well, I love him dearly. You have to

believe me.

> He may be a "guru hopper" because of his strong insecurity, which

causes his

> tendency to dogmatism. He is just so lovingly objectionate and

resistant.

> Well you know him well enough already.

> Oh, am I judging? No... Nope!

>

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> You wrote:

> > That is why I find it simpler to use the Sanskrit as it is the

only

> > language that seems to describe things of a spiritual nature

aptly.

>

> Surrender Tony!

> Surrender to Tony!

>

> Be (Sat)

> Truth (Chit)

> Love (Ananda)

> Be truly in love,

> Be loving truthfully

> Sat Chit Ananda

>

> What language do you want?

> Why needing words at all?

> You only have to be truly in love (sat chit ananda).

> Do not have difficulty with words, translations, interpretations or

language

> use.

> Using words is what we humans (yes, humans) playfully do... , can

do..., are

> allowed to do. It is just a verbal and fun attempt at communication.

Some

> bodhisattvas are good at words, some are not, but fun they have. Do

you

> think we could have a group or list without words or in Sanskrit

perhaps?

> No, I am not sarcastic.

>

> Surrender to YOUR answer to YOUR question: "Who am I?"

> The only 'LOGOS', your OWN word, your SELF.

>

> The answer to the question "who am I?" is (shall I give it away?):

>

> I

> I

> I

>

> It cannot get any simpler.

> Now just stop the question!

> Stop questioning your self!

> Be the answer!

> Be

>

> In any shape or form, be Tony, you are who you are. Relax, give up,

give in,

> surrender.

>

> Why putting conditions of eventual moksha on yourself?

> Like: "how, who, when and where you would be if 'liberated'."

> Moksha? Do not think you know what moksha is? Apparently, as you

said:

> >I haven't reached moksha myself of course...<

> If you never had spinach, how can you expect yourself to know what

spinach

> is?

> You are being impossible to yourself! You are expecting the

impossible. Of

> course moksha won't happen if you think it is impossible. Who told

you a

> long time ago "You are impossible"?

> Who prevented you from knowing yourself, being yourself?

>

> You think Ramana Maharshi would like you to answer him? He did not

pass on

> for nothing. That is what bodhisattvas do. (Yes, there are also

hindi

> bodhisattvas, luckily for you it is a Sanskrit word! OK, I am a bit

> fascetious, but I mean it well!)

>

> He wants you to be you, that is why he is asking...

>

> Oh yes, and Brahman just pops in when you have unconditionally

surrendered

> to yourself.

>

> You wrote before:

> > I haven't reached moksha myself of course but my experience is

that

> > the ego is replaced by an expansive feeling. Which no doubt has to

be

> > worked on and developed, for this is the energy of Maya.

>

> Obviously you are using some impossible concepts otherwise you would

be

> free.

>

> > For example people claim realisation...

>

> You are exactly right, "one claims realization". It is one's

birthright.

>

> > ... in English, and then come on here and elsewhere and write.

> > A highly unlikely pastime for those that have remembered

> > Moksha, Moha Kshya, or Mukti, or Ultimate permanent Samadhi.

>

> What do you know, I like this pastime. Moksha is not the way you

think it

> is. If you did you would claim it as well! It is that simple. It not

> impossible. You just liberate yourself.

> That what prevents you from liberation are the illusions that

expectation,

> fear, desire and their conditionalities brought to you. (if...

then). You

> are confusing two meanings of the concept 'illusion'. Find out what

the

> Buddha meant.

>

> Love,

> Wim

>

> Shall I send this... OK there it goes, click that SEND button.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

Ah finally a response. Thank You! I have been trying to needle you often

enough. So here you are

Tony, do not take me wrong, I see you as a person who is really trying to

get it, you do hard work, you are daring. I appreciate you a lot. I love

your endeavour and energy.

But do you know that on the K. list I named a certain pathology after you:

'The Tony Syndrome.' ?You are suffering less from it now. :-) I mean this in

a humorous as well as serious way.

 

You wrote:

>First I am not dogmatic...

 

Somebody who does not quote from personal experience but quotes from sources

other than him/herself is in priciple dogmatic. To say "IMO" does not make

it undogmatic, as your opinion often sides with authorities other than you.

Even if Ramana is such a wonderful being, you peruse his opinion as more

important than your realization of self. You want to be what he is, attain

what he attained. That is not the same as self realization. At some point I

hope you won't give a hoot about Ramana. That is what he hoped too whenever

he asked, "Who is asking?"

 

Merriam-Webster's

"Dogma": Something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite

authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet

put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

> I thought I was having a discussion with some people.

 

You thought so, but were you reading, absorbing, digesting what they meant?

When ppl. write to you, they want to convince you of something they found

from personal inner experience. Something that they figure, would be good

for you to have personal inner insight in, so that self transformation or

realization may indeed be realized. They would like you to participate in

that same experience, that is communication, surrender into love. 'Dialogue'

is to be used not 'discussion'. Discussion is not necessarily dialogue.

Now you may think that that is the same as what you do... but you are not

witnessing from yourself. You are telling others that someone else (some

teacher or teaching) is important... But who cares? You are important! A far

as I am concerned you are more important than Sai Baba, or Ramana or me.

Thus paraphrasing Ramana's question, "What about your SELF?"

 

This is not primarily a quote forum, this is about who we are.

> Ramana says that 'Creation never happened'. Ajata vada, It is the

> jnanis experience that nothing ever comes into experience or ceases to

> be because the Self alone exists, as the sole unchanging reality. It

> is a corollary of this theory that time space cause and effect,

> essential components of creation theories, exist only in the minds of

> ajnanis and the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence.

>'p 181/2 'Be as you are'--David Godman.

 

So who cares? Unless you really take to heart, digest and absorb that last

line:

>'p 181/2 'Be as you are'--David Godman.

> I don't know whether Ramana was a bhodisattva, according to his story,

> he had reached a ripe point in a previous life and finished it off in

this one.

 

Anybody who does Ramana type work is bodhisattvic. You will too do that

work...

>My understanding of a bhodisattva is someone like Jesus, or

> Kwan Yin, who put off liberation at the point of moksha

 

'Nirvana' actually.

Moksha or liberation is a simple thing, one cannot really put that off, it

is one's eternal birthright, stronger even than the need for physical

survival. That is why you are so hard working at it. A real sadakha, you,

Tony you.

> With regard to me being a guru hopper, I only ever had two, Sai Baba

> in the flesh and Ramana's through his teachings.

 

That is two too many, you know that most of these guys always talk about the

inner guru.

I was a guru once. Hoppingly busy with guru hoppers, that is why I stopped.

> His writings were ghosted and most were lifted from

> other teachers like Vivekananda etc.

 

Maybe Sai Baba was a hopper himself.

> With regard to Sanskrit, it is not just my humble opinion but also

> people like Feuerstein, Isherwood, and others, the language contains

> specific words that are really not transferable in one word into other

> languages.

 

Who cares about Feuerstein and Isherwood. Opinions opinions. When it is

about your loving and lovable 'you', you will find common day-to-day english

language to express it. Just imagine yourself talking to you grandmother or

aunt about all this. When you are inspired you will transmit your truth in

easily absorbable words and appreciated loving actions. And you will not be

questioned!

I read Sanskrit as well, I have no trouble with it. But when possible I

would like to use mostly contemporary english words with some Dutch thrown

in (for my mother you see:). True, some Sanskrit words are already engrained

into our contemporary vocabulary, like Maya, Karma, Shakti, Bodhisatva,

Samadhi, Yoga, Sadhana. But don't we also notice that those words have

collected contemporary meanings that do not necessarily convey what they

originally meant. So I am a bit worried about the use of these words.

> I don't know what the Buddha meant, we only have writings after the

> fact, I am safer with Ramana etc.

 

I met the Buddha personally in some epiphany. Like you, I also I did not

want to depend on his editors. Epiphanies may not happen to many, but when

one surrenders to love and life unconditionally, these guys will pop in at

some point. (All of them in fact, through one and the same energy, the I

energy of SELF and ONE, the non separate and common I.)

> Lastly Wim, are you saying that you are a realised person, who has

> achieved or remembered moksha or liberation, just like Ramana. Is my

> understanding of what you are saying right? Is this your claim?

 

Yep!

But why do you care?

And who cares?

 

Anyway, yes. But I have something special... I am so free as to allow error

and stumbling,

admit to judgment and self judgement and other silly things.

Who cares though?

Who is caring?

 

You see I have nothing to lose.

And I do not care.

Who am I, as not to care?!

Who am I?

 

Do you care who I am or what or how or where or when?

Who am I?

Ask for yourself.

 

Love,

Wim

[Guest guest]

Namaste Wim,

 

You will notice that my posting leading up to the latest in this

series, didn't include any heavy quotes. I talked from my own

experience. Which is in two forms, that which has developed in my

Vijnanamayakosa or intuition and that which I have experienced.

That being yoga nidras, which is quite often, almost at will, and

what I call the 'feeling', which is when I am aware of the enquiry

"Who am I?', I seem to go beyond the small ego to just a feeling. That

is as far as I have got, I have had no conscious samadhi to date.

 

I only resorted to the quotes to avoid heavy argumentation, for who

the hell am I?

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

, "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...>

wrote:

> Dear Tony,

>

> Ah finally a response. Thank You! I have been trying to needle you

often

> enough. So here you are

> Tony, do not take me wrong, I see you as a person who is really

trying to

> get it, you do hard work, you are daring. I appreciate you a lot. I

love

> your endeavour and energy.

> But do you know that on the K. list I named a certain pathology

after you:

> 'The Tony Syndrome.' ?You are suffering less from it now. :-) I mean

this in

> a humorous as well as serious way.

>

> You wrote:

> >First I am not dogmatic...

>

> Somebody who does not quote from personal experience but quotes from

sources

> other than him/herself is in priciple dogmatic. To say "IMO" does

not make

> it undogmatic, as your opinion often sides with authorities other

than you.

> Even if Ramana is such a wonderful being, you peruse his opinion as

more

> important than your realization of self. You want to be what he is,

attain

> what he attained. That is not the same as self realization. At some

point I

> hope you won't give a hoot about Ramana. That is what he hoped too

whenever

> he asked, "Who is asking?"

>

> Merriam-Webster's

> "Dogma": Something held as an established opinion; especially : a

definite

> authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or

tenet

> put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

>

> > I thought I was having a discussion with some people.

>

> You thought so, but were you reading, absorbing, digesting what they

meant?

> When ppl. write to you, they want to convince you of something they

found

> from personal inner experience. Something that they figure, would be

good

> for you to have personal inner insight in, so that self

transformation or

> realization may indeed be realized. They would like you to

participate in

> that same experience, that is communication, surrender into love.

'Dialogue'

> is to be used not 'discussion'. Discussion is not necessarily

dialogue.

> Now you may think that that is the same as what you do... but you

are not

> witnessing from yourself. You are telling others that someone else

(some

> teacher or teaching) is important... But who cares? You are

important! A far

> as I am concerned you are more important than Sai Baba, or Ramana or

me.

> Thus paraphrasing Ramana's question, "What about your SELF?"

>

> This is not primarily a quote forum, this is about who we are.

>

> > Ramana says that 'Creation never happened'. Ajata vada, It is the

> > jnanis experience that nothing ever comes into experience or

ceases to

> > be because the Self alone exists, as the sole unchanging reality.

It

> > is a corollary of this theory that time space cause and effect,

> > essential components of creation theories, exist only in the minds

of

> > ajnanis and the experience of the Self reveals their

non-existence.

> >'p 181/2 'Be as you are'--David Godman.

>

> So who cares? Unless you really take to heart, digest and absorb

that last

> line:

> >'p 181/2 'Be as you are'--David Godman.

>

> > I don't know whether Ramana was a bhodisattva, according to his

story,

> > he had reached a ripe point in a previous life and finished it off

in

> this one.

>

> Anybody who does Ramana type work is bodhisattvic. You will too do

that

> work...

>

> >My understanding of a bhodisattva is someone like Jesus, or

> > Kwan Yin, who put off liberation at the point of moksha

>

> 'Nirvana' actually.

> Moksha or liberation is a simple thing, one cannot really put that

off, it

> is one's eternal birthright, stronger even than the need for

physical

> survival. That is why you are so hard working at it. A real sadakha,

you,

> Tony you.

>

> > With regard to me being a guru hopper, I only ever had two, Sai

Baba

> > in the flesh and Ramana's through his teachings.

>

> That is two too many, you know that most of these guys always talk

about the

> inner guru.

> I was a guru once. Hoppingly busy with guru hoppers, that is why I

stopped.

>

> > His writings were ghosted and most were lifted from

> > other teachers like Vivekananda etc.

>

> Maybe Sai Baba was a hopper himself.

>

> > With regard to Sanskrit, it is not just my humble opinion but also

> > people like Feuerstein, Isherwood, and others, the language

contains

> > specific words that are really not transferable in one word into

other

> > languages.

>

> Who cares about Feuerstein and Isherwood. Opinions opinions. When it

is

> about your loving and lovable 'you', you will find common day-to-day

english

> language to express it. Just imagine yourself talking to you

grandmother or

> aunt about all this. When you are inspired you will transmit your

truth in

> easily absorbable words and appreciated loving actions. And you will

not be

> questioned!

> I read Sanskrit as well, I have no trouble with it. But when

possible I

> would like to use mostly contemporary english words with some Dutch

thrown

> in (for my mother you see:). True, some Sanskrit words are already

engrained

> into our contemporary vocabulary, like Maya, Karma, Shakti,

Bodhisatva,

> Samadhi, Yoga, Sadhana. But don't we also notice that those words

have

> collected contemporary meanings that do not necessarily convey what

they

> originally meant. So I am a bit worried about the use of these

words.

>

> > I don't know what the Buddha meant, we only have writings after

the

> > fact, I am safer with Ramana etc.

>

> I met the Buddha personally in some epiphany. Like you, I also I did

not

> want to depend on his editors. Epiphanies may not happen to many,

but when

> one surrenders to love and life unconditionally, these guys will pop

in at

> some point. (All of them in fact, through one and the same energy,

the I

> energy of SELF and ONE, the non separate and common I.)

>

> > Lastly Wim, are you saying that you are a realised person, who has

> > achieved or remembered moksha or liberation, just like Ramana. Is

my

> > understanding of what you are saying right? Is this your claim?

>

> Yep!

> But why do you care?

> And who cares?

>

> Anyway, yes. But I have something special... I am so free as to

allow error

> and stumbling,

> admit to judgment and self judgement and other silly things.

> Who cares though?

> Who is caring?

>

> You see I have nothing to lose.

> And I do not care.

> Who am I, as not to care?!

> Who am I?

>

> Do you care who I am or what or how or where or when?

> Who am I?

> Ask for yourself.

>

> Love,

> Wim

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery>

wrote:

> Namaste All,Victor,

>

> That typically fits into the NDS description of liberation, which is

> based on psychology, but is not the absolute truth, for it is

> intellectually worked out not realised as in the Indian Masters. For

> example consciousness is said not to be illusion, when in fact

> consciousness of an illusion or any view is illusion. Why? For it

> never happened and so called consciousness based on Saguna which is

an

> illusion in itself can be none other than illusion. There is only

> Nirguna.

>

> The problem I found with NDS is that their descriptions of

'realised',

> and 'enlightened', are varied and not based on the descriptions of

> those that have 'Realised', the rememberence of Mukti.

>

> That is why I find it simpler to use the Sanskrit as it is the only

> language that seems to describe things of a spiritual nature aptly.

>

> For example people claim realisation, in English, and then come on

> here and elswhere and write. A highly unlikely pastime for those

that

> have remembered Moksha, Moha Kshya, or Mukti, or Ultimate permanent

> Samadhi.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

>

 

Hiya Tony,

 

Greetings. I only know that my experience has been along the lines

that my psychological pain and suffering has been completely

unnecessary and has only occured because of not realizing that the

"me" is illusory and only lives in the thought processes. It's so

easy to split hairs and misunderstand one another.

 

Love, Victor

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

> You will notice that my posting leading up to the latest in this

> series, didn't include any heavy quotes.

 

I did. (made me so happy)

> I talked from my own experience.

 

You did. (same)

> what I call the 'feeling'

 

You do feel. (I felt it)

 

I noticed in one of you latest posts:

> but my experience is that the ego is replaced by

> an expansive feeling.

 

Right on.

> Which no doubt has to be

> worked on and developed, for this is the energy of Maya

 

That's what I love so much about you. There are not many men with your

history, who get this far. Start noticing some sweetnes around this

expansive feeling.

Do you weep, are you sad sometimes, can you tell me about your sorrow?

 

You are so gracious in your reply to me, I know I sometimes hit you hard?

You are indeed not arguing.

> is as far as I have got, I have had no conscious samadhi to date.

OK, discover that sweetness... it is indeed a feeling...

> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

Yes, Om Namah Sivaya

 

Love, Wim

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

HAHAHA... HOHOHO... :-):-):-)

( Is it Micahel's fav words? 'cuse me then )

Somebody give me a drink please... :-)

 

Amituofo,

Nasir

 

I can't restrain to not respond to this post. :-)

 

> ----------

> Wim Borsboom[sMTP:aurasphere]

> Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:46 AM

>

> Re: Re: [NDS] Clear explanation

>

> Dear List,

>

> The following is rather personal and direct to Tony. But I invite you to

> listen in. It may at some point seem heartless, the way I write to him.

> Email-wise I know him quite well, I love him dearly. You have to believe

> me.

> He may be a "guru hopper" because of his strong insecurity, which causes

> his

> tendency to dogmatism. He is just so lovingly objectionate and resistant.

> Well you know him well enough already.

> Oh, am I judging? No... Nope!

>

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> You wrote:

> > That is why I find it simpler to use the Sanskrit as it is the only

> > language that seems to describe things of a spiritual nature aptly.

>

> Surrender Tony!

> Surrender to Tony!

>

> Be (Sat)

> Truth (Chit)

> Love (Ananda)

> Be truly in love,

> Be loving truthfully

> Sat Chit Ananda

>

> What language do you want?

> Why needing words at all?

> You only have to be truly in love (sat chit ananda).

> Do not have difficulty with words, translations, interpretations or

> language

> use.

> Using words is what we humans (yes, humans) playfully do... , can do...,

> are

> allowed to do. It is just a verbal and fun attempt at communication. Some

> bodhisattvas are good at words, some are not, but fun they have. Do you

> think we could have a group or list without words or in Sanskrit perhaps?

> No, I am not sarcastic.

>

> Surrender to YOUR answer to YOUR question: "Who am I?"

> The only 'LOGOS', your OWN word, your SELF.

>

> The answer to the question "who am I?" is (shall I give it away?):

>

> I

> I

> I

>

> It cannot get any simpler.

> Now just stop the question!

> Stop questioning your self!

> Be the answer!

> Be

>

> In any shape or form, be Tony, you are who you are. Relax, give up, give

> in,

> surrender.

>

> Why putting conditions of eventual moksha on yourself?

> Like: "how, who, when and where you would be if 'liberated'."

> Moksha? Do not think you know what moksha is? Apparently, as you said:

> >I haven't reached moksha myself of course...<

> If you never had spinach, how can you expect yourself to know what spinach

> is?

> You are being impossible to yourself! You are expecting the impossible. Of

> course moksha won't happen if you think it is impossible. Who told you a

> long time ago "You are impossible"?

> Who prevented you from knowing yourself, being yourself?

>

> You think Ramana Maharshi would like you to answer him? He did not pass on

> for nothing. That is what bodhisattvas do. (Yes, there are also hindi

> bodhisattvas, luckily for you it is a Sanskrit word! OK, I am a bit

> fascetious, but I mean it well!)

>

> He wants you to be you, that is why he is asking...

>

> Oh yes, and Brahman just pops in when you have unconditionally surrendered

> to yourself.

>

> You wrote before:

> > I haven't reached moksha myself of course but my experience is that

> > the ego is replaced by an expansive feeling. Which no doubt has to be

> > worked on and developed, for this is the energy of Maya.

>

> Obviously you are using some impossible concepts otherwise you would be

> free.

>

> > For example people claim realisation...

>

> You are exactly right, "one claims realization". It is one's birthright.

>

> > ... in English, and then come on here and elsewhere and write.

> > A highly unlikely pastime for those that have remembered

> > Moksha, Moha Kshya, or Mukti, or Ultimate permanent Samadhi.

>

> What do you know, I like this pastime. Moksha is not the way you think it

> is. If you did you would claim it as well! It is that simple. It not

> impossible. You just liberate yourself.

> That what prevents you from liberation are the illusions that expectation,

> fear, desire and their conditionalities brought to you. (if... then). You

> are confusing two meanings of the concept 'illusion'. Find out what the

> Buddha meant.

>

> Love,

> Wim

>

> Shall I send this... OK there it goes, click that SEND button.

>

>

>

> //

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

> subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

> different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

> nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

> It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

> Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

> Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome

> all to a.

>

> To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

> the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

> subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>