WEI WU WEI'S WAY

[Guest guest]

Greetings to all!

Love,

Ivan.

 

 

WEI WU WEI's WAY

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

by Ivan Frimmel

 

Wei Wu Wei is a pseudonym used by late Terence Gray, an Englishman of

Irish stock—a poet, philosopher and mystic, greatly influenced by Sri

Ramana Maharshi, Ch'an Buddhism and Taoist philosophy. He was a

brilliant intellectual—and one who could see clearly the trappings of

one's intellect. His major works include the Open Secret, Ask the

Awakened, All else is Bondage, The Tenth Man… His iconoclastic prose

is terse and precise, resembling the koans and word games of Zen

masters, skilfully designed to shake and destroy all dogmatic beliefs

and ideas—and to bring about an instant awakening in the reader's

mind.

 

Wei Wu Wei is also a Chinese expression for what can be loosely

translated as an "action without action", practice of "non-practice",

or as Krishnamurti called it "action without idea" or "an action

without actor", in other words: a spontaneous action, without the

interference of an individual ego (the idea we have about who we

are). It is not surprising at all that Wei Wu Wei used this Chinese

expression as his pseudonym. His writing seems to be a perfect

example of effortless writing about effortless living.

 

Wei Wu Wei likes to call living in this mode non-volitional, living .

Readers from a Christian background may understand this seemingly

strange notion better if they compare it with such admonitions of

Christian mystics as: "Let Thy Will Be Done, Not Mine" and "Be Still

and Know I am God".

 

The question of volition in our daily life is very closely related to

the one all-important question Who am I? that Sri Ramana Maharshi,

Krishnamurti, Alan watts and many other enlightened teachers,

including Wei Wu Wei, were so fond of asking in hundreds of different

ways their followers.

 

For example, in the Open Secret, Wei Wu Wei says:

 

Perhaps the question of volition may be most readily

understood just by asking who is there to exercise volition

and who is there to expe-

rience the results of it.

 

Noumenally there is no volition—because there is no I. Phenome

nally spontaneity alone is non-volitional.

 

Is this not what Buddha meant by his teaching about Anatta, no-self?

 

Does not Krishna talk in the Bhagavad Gita about performing any

action without expecting any fruits thereof?

 

Does not the Bible also admonish us to selfless action, urges us to

forget the self in the service to God?

Wei Wu Wei's opening statement in Ask the Awakened (The Negative Way)

is going straight to the heart of the matter:

 

Why are you so unhappy?

Because 99.9 percent of everything you think,

And of everything you do,

Is for yourself—

And there isn't one.

 

In this beautiful statement he expressed the essence of all Advaita

(non-duality) teachings, the teaching of Upanishads, Buddha, Sri

Ramana Maharshi, Alan Watts, Krishnamurti, Ramesh S. Balsekar,

Meister Eckhart, and many mystics in all religious traditions.

 

How much is our intellect going to struggle before we can understand

his koan-like statements (from the same book);

 

It is necessary to understand I Am,

In order that I may know that I Am Not,

So that, at least I may realise that

I Am Not, therefore I Am.

 

No wonder that the enlightened present-day Indian advaitin mystic and

philosopher, Ramesh S. Balsekar, jokingly admitted to his audience

that at one stage of his own development he found Wei Wu Wei's books

very fascinating and helpful, but also very frustrating and difficult

to understand—and that he almost drove himself insane before he could

fully understand them. Judging by Balsekar's obviously sharp

intellect and his very clear and helpful descriptions of his own

enlightened state, often using terminology similar to Wei Wu Wei's,

he is undoubtedly better off for Wei Wu Wei's influence and for being

exposed to his radical, nonsense-destroying ideas, such as these from

the Open Secret:

 

There is no such `thing' to aim at, seek or look for,

as what one is. On ceasing to look—one is present.

 

Everything is I, and I am no thing.

 

"I" am not conscious of anything: never.

"Consciousness" as such is all that I am.

 

After reading statements like these, how can one still carry on

frantically looking for himself or herself, for the answer to the

question Who am I? — like many people still do?

 

I believe that most of us can be enlightened in an instant by being

exposed to an iconoclast like Wei Wu Wei, and his "weird" ideas,

especially if we are a bit "weird" like him. Or, is this "weird" way

of seeing perhaps not the only sane way of looking at the way things

really are, or the way I really am? Who is there to see what, or to

tell what—and to whom, I ask?

Who is asking whom?

[Guest guest]

-

"Ivan Frimmel" <ivanf

 

Thursday, November 23, 2000 12:58 PM

WEI WU WEI'S WAY

 

 

edit>

Ivan:

I believe that most of us can be enlightened in an instant....

 

Jessica:

?

 

Ivan:

...Who is there to see what, or to

tell what-and to whom, I ask?

Who is asking whom?

 

Jessica:

Or Who is posting this post ~ and to whom ?

and Who is it that is responding?

 

: )

[Guest guest]

On 11/24/00 at 3:14 PM Jessica White wrote:

 

[...]

ºIvan:

º ...Who is there to see what, or to

ºtell what-and to whom, I ask?

ºWho is asking whom?

º

ºJessica:

ºOr Who is posting this post ~ and to whom ?

º and Who is it that is responding?

º

º: )

 

Great - that ties in with a comment I sent to NDS:

 

What has been my interest are (practical) questions like" what is the use of

classifying bodies into real or unreal?" Is anything solved by it? Denial of

body in a serious degree could be classified as behavioral disorder

Statements like "there are no others" and "body is illusion" show a certain

likeness with the statement "the earth is flat": suggesting a limitation where

there isn't one. The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only

Love, the mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in

essence is Love, so "you are Love". Of course, realizing that is also the

ultimate simplicity - unless in denial of the mind-body... The first and

foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has been, setting up

man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be manipulated - as recorded

history of this planet clearly shows... And then, the most complicated

philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and only those talented will

"get there", as can be observed.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Absolutely right on Jan.

Love,

Wim

What has been my interest are (practical) questions like" what is the

use of classifying bodies into real or unreal?" Is anything solved by

it? Denial of body in a serious degree could be classified as

behavioral disorder Statements like "there are no others" and

"body is illusion" show a certain likeness with the statement "the

earth is flat": suggesting a limitation where there isn't one. The

"ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only Love, the

mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in

essence is Love, so "you are Love". Of course, realizing that is also

the ultimate simplicity - unless in denial of the mind-body... The

first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always

has been, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can

be manipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows...

And then, the most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair

the damage and only those talented will "get there", as can be

observed.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/24/00 5:15:08 PM Mountain Standard Time,

kvy9 writes:

 

<< The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only Love, the

mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in essence

is Love, so "you are Love". >>

 

Beautiful and true post, Jan. Thanks! I often feel the human body is an

elegant and amazing spiritual energy receiver/transmitter. When I first

started to awaken, a friend of mine told me I was being "ampped up," and this

metaphor has always felt right. I know that when I was a dancer, long ago,

certain movements tuned me into a higher frequency. The body (especially

when it works well and doesn't hurt!) is a marvelous gift. Love, Holly

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/00 at 12:02 PM Hbarrett47 wrote:

 

ºIn a message dated 11/24/00 5:15:08 PM Mountain Standard Time,

ºkvy9 writes:

º

º<< The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there is only Love, the

ºmind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of love, which in essence

ºis Love, so "you are Love". >>

º

ºBeautiful and true post, Jan. Thanks! I often feel the human body is an

ºelegant and amazing spiritual energy receiver/transmitter. When I first

ºstarted to awaken, a friend of mine told me I was being "ampped up," and this

ºmetaphor has always felt right. I know that when I was a dancer, long ago,

ºcertain movements tuned me into a higher frequency. The body (especially

ºwhen it works well and doesn't hurt!) is a marvelous gift. Love, Holly

 

Thank you Holly - your response is music to the dance and made me muse:

 

It leaves no doubt that "Awareness, aware of itself" is the same, one

"experience", and what remains is to look at how this experience is expressed in

words and deeds. As there is nothing outside awareness, the number of

expressions is infinite. Wouldn't it be likely then, that the expressions used,

denote a specific, "personal" issue?

 

Looking at it that way, an ascetic invariably will say something like "neither

am I the mind nor the body nor the senses etc." as the ascetic way of life is in

accordance with the denial of the mind-body and its feelings... Negation (I am

not the body etc.) is the echo, heard from most ascetics.

 

So one might wonder, if not all expressions, used by ascetics, would have to be

translated or adapted for those, leading a life of a householder. Without a

commentary that "there are no others" translates into "there is no feeling of I

and mine, you and yours", it is likely to be interpreted in a reductionist way,

that all creatures are but images, only perceived from the simplistic view that

"when I close my eyes, they are gone", supposedly to be a great truth whereas it

is but a unfounded conclusion.

 

Yes, I agree the body is a marvelous gift, not something that has to be

discarded - in the course of events, it will subside on its own...

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Dear JB, Ivan & All,

 

In response to your (JB's) post I would like to preface with a quote from an

earlier forwarded post, F. Maiello wrote :

 

"something we all tend to forget now and again is the fact that each of us

is at a different stage in development and understanding, and therefore

whatever we ascribe to or give advice on is not applicable to all."

 

To clarify, it seems the intent of my post was misunderstood. When I

responded to Ivan's post, I was just having some

fun. In all honesty, in this seeming journey & having been deeply impacted

by Advaita Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi, but more directly by Robert

Adams, I am finding it increasingly difficult to be 'involved' in

discussions, and sometimes even to talk at all, or for that matter, even be

involved in an egroup, but at times, I feel very isolated and I long for

resonance in form. I did understand and had no conflict with what Ivan was

posting.

 

Having gone through what has appeared to be various stages in 'my own

journey', and to remark

about what you have posted, I remember Robert sharing about how

easy it would be for someone coming to satsang to hear him speak, (just once

or even several times; not being a devotee) how easy it would be to

misunderstand what he said when it came to the Absolute.

 

People asked Robert what he saw when he looked at them; "Did he see their

bodies (or his)?". He would respond yes and then go on to say (I am

paraphrasing) ~ to the ajnani it is seen as a body, to the Jnani, it is seen

as the Self. What I have learned from my exposure to Advaita/Robert is that

it is not a matter of denying the existence of the body but rather a matter

of not identifying with it.

 

So of what value is it to classify bodies into real or unreal? Speaking for

myself, it has been invaluable. Is anything solved by it? Solved no,

(suffering, pain, anguish) dissolved or dissolving, yes.

 

As I have posted here before, it seems as though I am straddling two worlds

~ so I can understand that at a certain level ( taken out of context) denial

of the body could be, as you say, classified as a behavioural disorder. But

then again, in 'my own' journey, letting go of what was once a way I viewed

this world is now appropriate.

 

So in your above post, when statements like "there are no others" come from

a certain state of (realized) consciousness, there is no suggestion of any

limitation whatsoever ~ and to your statement:

 

"The first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has

been, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be

manipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows... And then,

the most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and

only those talented will "get there", as can be observed.

 

This way of viewing the 'world' and 'others' is coming from the ajnani.

 

And to end in a quote from Robert...

 

" You have absolutely nothing to do with this world, this universe, or

others, yet, at the same time, you are this universe, you are places and

things and others... Ponder this."

 

Love,

~jessica

 

****************************************************************

 

 

Jan:

Great - that ties in with a comment I sent to NDS:

 

What has been my interest are (practical) questions like" what is the use of

classifying bodies into real or unreal?" Is anything solved by it? Denial of

body in a serious degree could be classified as behavioral disorder

Statements like "there are no others" and "body is illusion" show a certain

likeness with the statement "the earth is flat": suggesting a limitation

where there isn't one.

 

 

The "ancient message" was of great simplicity: there

is only Love, the mind-body is a temporary manifestation, a "product" of

love, which in essence is Love, so "you are Love". Of course, realizing that

is also the ultimate simplicity - unless in denial of the mind-body... The

first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has

been, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be

manipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows... And then,

the most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and

only those talented will "get there", as can be observed.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/00 at 7:43 PM Jessica White wrote:

 

ºDear JB, Ivan & All,

º

ºIn response to your (JB's) post I would like to preface with a quote from an

ºearlier forwarded post, F. Maiello wrote :

º

º"something we all tend to forget now and again is the fact that each of us

ºis at a different stage in development and understanding, and therefore

ºwhatever we ascribe to or give advice on is not applicable to all."

 

"Stages in development" ignores the fact that "the issue" is beyond

understanding from any stage

º

ºTo clarify, it seems the intent of my post was misunderstood. When I

ºresponded to Ivan's post, I was just having some

ºfun. In all honesty, in this seeming journey & having been deeply impacted

ºby Advaita Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi, but more directly by Robert

ºAdams, I am finding it increasingly difficult to be 'involved' in

ºdiscussions, and sometimes even to talk at all, or for that matter, even be

ºinvolved in an egroup, but at times, I feel very isolated and I long for

ºresonance in form. I did understand and had no conflict with what Ivan was

ºposting.

 

Who is feeling isolated?

 

ºHaving gone through what has appeared to be various stages in 'my own

ºjourney', and to remark

ºabout what you have posted, I remember Robert sharing about how

ºeasy it would be for someone coming to satsang to hear him speak, (just once

ºor even several times; not being a devotee) how easy it would be to

ºmisunderstand what he said when it came to the Absolute.

 

Quite so - it would be easy to make a compilation of Advaitic statements and use

them in the same sense as the bible was used to justify slavery.

º

ºPeople asked Robert what he saw when he looked at them; "Did he see their

ºbodies (or his)?". He would respond yes and then go on to say (I am

ºparaphrasing) ~ to the ajnani it is seen as a body, to the Jnani, it is seen

ºas the Self. What I have learned from my exposure to Advaita/Robert is that

ºit is not a matter of denying the existence of the body but rather a matter

ºof not identifying with it.

 

That is an answer still denoting the dualistic mental function of interpretation

and identification. As the Self is undivided, thoughts like "that is a body" or

"the body is the Self" shouldn't arise at all.

º

ºSo of what value is it to classify bodies into real or unreal? Speaking for

ºmyself, it has been invaluable. Is anything solved by it? Solved no,

º(suffering, pain, anguish) dissolved or dissolving, yes.

 

When invaluable, that is another indication of the deplorable state society is

in: when happy, the issue of "body real or unreal" wouldn't arise, yet the

demise of the body would be accepted as a "normal" fact of nature as it always

has been in so called "primitive" societies, familiar with "enlightenment".

º

ºAs I have posted here before, it seems as though I am straddling two worlds

º~ so I can understand that at a certain level ( taken out of context) denial

ºof the body could be, as you say, classified as a behavioural disorder. But

ºthen again, in 'my own' journey, letting go of what was once a way I viewed

ºthis world is now appropriate.

 

Sadhana could be defined as to restore what shouldn't have been lost in the

first place. "Letting go" will continue until the entire subconscious is emptied

from impressions. The hidden suggestion was the possibility that sadhana can add

impressions and I can assure you it will.

º

ºSo in your above post, when statements like "there are no others" come from

ºa certain state of (realized) consciousness, there is no suggestion of any

ºlimitation whatsoever

 

Then such a statement is only valid for the experiencer so why utter it?

 

~ and to your statement:

º

º"The first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always has

ºbeen, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be

ºmanipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows... And then,

ºthe most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and

ºonly those talented will "get there", as can be observed.

º

ºThis way of viewing the 'world' and 'others' is coming from the ajnani.

 

Yes, there are no others, there is no suffering, nothing is happening - that

lingo sounds familiar. There is no world, there is no universe, it's all in the

mind - absolutely true. But oh God, why am I so lonely (LOL).

º

ºAnd to end in a quote from Robert...

º

º " You have absolutely nothing to do with this world, this universe, or

ºothers, yet, at the same time, you are this universe, you are places and

ºthings and others... Ponder this."

 

There is no such thing as "I or you" - it is not existing, a mirage only. There

is no universe, no sadhana, no journey as nothing ever happened - it is all

imagery concocted by the mind. An echo that sound familiar.

 

Peace,

Jan

 

 

º

ºLove,

º~jessica

[Guest guest]

Not trying to be clever JB, just sharing from my heart. I can cleverly pick

apart words and spout Advaita, but I have no interest. As I said, I find

myself between two worlds. This post reminds me of the story of the Tower of

Babel.

-

"jb" <janb

 

 

Jan:

"Stages in development" ignores the fact that "the issue" is beyond

understanding from any stage

edit

Who is feeling isolated?

 

Jess:

"i" is (at times)

edit

 

Jan:

- it would be easy to make a compilation of Advaitic statements and use

them in the same sense as the bible was used to justify slavery.

º

ºWhat I have learned from my exposure to Advaita/Robert is that

ºit is not a matter of denying the existence of the body but rather a matter

ºof not identifying with it.

 

That is an answer still denoting the dualistic mental function of

interpretation and identification. As the Self is undivided, thoughts like

"that is a body" or "the body is the Self" shouldn't arise at all.

 

Jess:

shouldn't ???

 

ºSo of what value is it to classify bodies into real or unreal? Speaking

for

ºmyself, it has been invaluable. Is anything solved by it? Solved no,

º(suffering, pain, anguish) dissolved or dissolving, yes.

 

When invaluable, that is another indication of the deplorable state society

is in: when happy, the issue of "body real or unreal" wouldn't arise, yet

the demise of the body would be accepted as a "normal" fact of nature as it

always has been in so called "primitive" societies, familiar with

"enlightenment".

º

Jess:

I'm not here to agree or disagree with concepts Jan or to hold onto any for

that matter.

 

ºAs I have posted here before, it seems as though I am straddling two worlds

º~ so I can understand that at a certain level ( taken out of context)

denial

ºof the body could be, as you say, classified as a behavioural disorder. But

ºthen again, in 'my own' journey, letting go of what was once a way I

viewed

ºthis world is now appropriate.

 

Sadhana could be defined as to restore what shouldn't have been lost in the

first place. "Letting go" will continue until the entire subconscious is

emptied from impressions. The hidden suggestion was the possibility that

sadhana can add impressions and I can assure you it will.

º

 

Jess:

What was lost? in the first place??? and I don't understand what you mean by

the hidden suggestion and it's not clear to me what you say about sadhana

after that.

 

ºSo in your above post, when statements like "there are no others" come from

ºa certain state of (realized) consciousness, there is no suggestion of any

ºlimitation whatsoever

 

Then such a statement is only valid for the experiencer so why utter it?

 

Jess:

Robert was a Jnani, Jan. But he didn't claim to be a Jnani, and he didn't

regard himself a teacher. He preferred to remain alone, in Silence, but

wherever he went, whether in India or the US, people would find him and want

to hang around him. He was Love.

 

~ and to your statement:

º

º"The first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always

has

ºbeen, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be

ºmanipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows... And then,

ºthe most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and

ºonly those talented will "get there", as can be observed.

º

ºThis way of viewing the 'world' and 'others' is coming from the ajnani.

 

Yes, there are no others, there is no suffering, nothing is happening - that

lingo sounds familiar. There is no world, there is no universe, it's all in

the mind - absolutely true. But oh God, why am I so lonely (LOL).

º

Jess:

Are u being sarcastic Jan? I am not pretending to be realized but was merely

trying to share. There is indeed a difference between an intellectual

understanding of concepts and ........

 

 

Jan:

There is no such thing as "I or you" - it is not existing, a mirage only.

There is no universe, no sadhana, no journey as nothing ever happened - it

is all imagery concocted by the mind. An echo that sound familiar.

 

Peace,

Jan

 

Jess:

Go your way in peace Jan, I'll go mine.

º

ºLove,

º~jessica

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/00 at 9:50 PM Jessica White wrote:

 

ºNot trying to be clever JB, just sharing from my heart. I can cleverly pick

ºapart words and spout Advaita, but I have no interest. As I said, I find

ºmyself between two worlds. This post reminds me of the story of the Tower of

ºBabel.

 

Advaita tends to be rather impersonal - that it need not be so is demonstrated

for instance by Ramakrishna.

 

º-

º"jb" <janb

º

º

ºJan:

º"Stages in development" ignores the fact that "the issue" is beyond

ºunderstanding from any stage

ºedit

ºWho is feeling isolated?

º

ºJess:

º"i" is (at times)

ºedit

º

ºJan:

º - it would be easy to make a compilation of Advaitic statements and use

ºthem in the same sense as the bible was used to justify slavery.

ºº

ººWhat I have learned from my exposure to Advaita/Robert is that

ººit is not a matter of denying the existence of the body but rather a matter

ººof not identifying with it.

 

How would you discriminate between non-identifying and denial?

º

ºThat is an answer still denoting the dualistic mental function of

ºinterpretation and identification. As the Self is undivided, thoughts like

º"that is a body" or "the body is the Self" shouldn't arise at all.

º

ºJess:

ºshouldn't ???

 

Oh yes - stating "that is a body" is putting a label on a perception as is

stating "a body is the self". The labels are communicated, not the experience.

º

ººSo of what value is it to classify bodies into real or unreal? Speaking

ºfor

ººmyself, it has been invaluable. Is anything solved by it? Solved no,

ºº(suffering, pain, anguish) dissolved or dissolving, yes.

º

ºWhen invaluable, that is another indication of the deplorable state society

ºis in: when happy, the issue of "body real or unreal" wouldn't arise, yet

ºthe demise of the body would be accepted as a "normal" fact of nature as it

ºalways has been in so called "primitive" societies, familiar with

º"enlightenment".

ºº

ºJess:

ºI'm not here to agree or disagree with concepts Jan or to hold onto any for

ºthat matter.

 

In that case, why bother with concepts "body is real", "body is unreal" at all.

Another case of discrimination - this concept is useful, that one isn't? Advaita

is about getting rid of labels and concepts, not substituting one by another or

showing preference.

º

ººAs I have posted here before, it seems as though I am straddling two worlds

ºº~ so I can understand that at a certain level ( taken out of context)

ºdenial

ººof the body could be, as you say, classified as a behavioural disorder. But

ººthen again, in 'my own' journey, letting go of what was once a way I

ºviewed

ººthis world is now appropriate.

º

ºSadhana could be defined as to restore what shouldn't have been lost in the

ºfirst place. "Letting go" will continue until the entire subconscious is

ºemptied from impressions. The hidden suggestion was the possibility that

ºsadhana can add impressions and I can assure you it will.

ºº

º

ºJess:

ºWhat was lost? in the first place??? and I don't understand what you mean by

ºthe hidden suggestion and it's not clear to me what you say about sadhana

ºafter that.

 

If "enlightenment" has a beginning, it must have an end. If sadhana doesn't

serve to purpose to "attain", what is its use? But what can be attained unless

lost? So think about how one can "get" enlightened...

º

ººSo in your above post, when statements like "there are no others" come from

ººa certain state of (realized) consciousness, there is no suggestion of any

ººlimitation whatsoever

º

ºThen such a statement is only valid for the experiencer so why utter it?

º

ºJess:

ºRobert was a Jnani, Jan. But he didn't claim to be a Jnani, and he didn't

ºregard himself a teacher. He preferred to remain alone, in Silence, but

ºwherever he went, whether in India or the US, people would find him and want

ºto hang around him. He was Love.

 

If someone doesn't claim to be a jnani, why would such a label be attached at

all? Can you understand that attaching such a label to every appearance or

sensation is what constitutes "avidya", preventing to see "what is", the

undivided Self?

º

º ~ and to your statement:

ºº

ºº"The first and foremost goal of institutionalized religion is and always

ºhas

ººbeen, setting up man in denial of the mind-body, so that man can be

ººmanipulated - as recorded history of this planet clearly shows... And then,

ººthe most complicated philosophies won't be able to repair the damage and

ººonly those talented will "get there", as can be observed.

ºº

ººThis way of viewing the 'world' and 'others' is coming from the ajnani.

º

ºYes, there are no others, there is no suffering, nothing is happening - that

ºlingo sounds familiar. There is no world, there is no universe, it's all in

ºthe mind - absolutely true. But oh God, why am I so lonely (LOL).

ºº

ºJess:

ºAre u being sarcastic Jan? I am not pretending to be realized but was merely

ºtrying to share. There is indeed a difference between an intellectual

ºunderstanding of concepts and ........

 

No sarcasm intended but when holding a poll, the feeling of loneliness would

peek in students of advaita using the neti-neti doctrine or similar techniques.

º

º

ºJan:

ºThere is no such thing as "I or you" - it is not existing, a mirage only.

ºThere is no universe, no sadhana, no journey as nothing ever happened - it

ºis all imagery concocted by the mind. An echo that sound familiar.

º

ºPeace,

ºJan

º

ºJess:

ºGo your way in peace Jan, I'll go mine.

 

No going whatsoever. Pleasant journey to you though.

ºº

ººLove,

ºº~jessica

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

 

You wrote:

> Advaita tends to be rather impersonal - that it need

> not be so is demonstrated for instance by Ramakrishna.

 

Advaita is sometimes abused to impersonalize, imhumanize.

Puns?

 

Wim

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/00 at 11:10 PM Wim Borsboom wrote:

 

ºHi Jan,

º

ºYou wrote:

º> Advaita tends to be rather impersonal - that it need

º> not be so is demonstrated for instance by Ramakrishna.

º

ºAdvaita is sometimes abused to impersonalize, imhumanize.

ºPuns?

º

ºWim

 

The very idea of "witness to whatever is occurring" is conveying the impersonal.

In that respect, advaita can be abused easily. Inhumanization, too, when

considering statements like "not being subjected to karma". Explaining how the

personal can be the impersonal can only occur at an intellectual level: those

"familiar" with the above witness don't need the explanation and those needing

the explanation are missing the experience so will interpret the statement. With

the karma issue, the same. So it doesn't come as a surprise that there are some,

saying that advaita is an artificial escape from suffering.

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Jan:

How would you discriminate between non-identifying and denial?

º

Jess:

I do not deny that I have a body, but I appear to be learning not to

identify with it; what it goes through.

 

edit

ºJess:

ºshouldn't ???

 

Jan:

Oh yes - stating "that is a body" is putting a label on a perception as is

stating "a body is the self". The labels are communicated, not the

experience.

º

Jess:

I do not go around stating concepts "about Truth". In sharing previously it

was from what was shared in satsang and as I said before, taking things out

of context (said in satsang randomly) it is easy to misunderstand.

 

editºº

ºJess:

ºI'm not here to agree or disagree with concepts Jan or to hold onto any for

ºthat matter.

 

Jan:

In that case, why bother with concepts "body is real", "body is unreal" at

all. Another case of discrimination - this concept is useful, that one

isn't?

Advaita is about getting rid of labels and concepts, not substituting one by

another or showing preference.

º

Jess:

Not bothering with concepts "body is real", "body is unreal" or

"holding on"

to preferences. As i said before just sharing here. And as you say, as

Advaita is about getting rid of concepts ??? or is it in Awareness, concepts

melt.

 

editº

 

Jan:

If "enlightenment" has a beginning, it must have an end. If sadhana doesn't

serve to purpose to "attain", what is its use? But what can be attained

unless lost? So think about how one can "get" enlightened...

º

ºJess:

Sadhana serves the purpose to ultimately realize there is nothing to be

attained. I don't relate to one can "get" enlightened .

 

Jan:

If someone doesn't claim to be a jnani, why would such a label be attached

at all? Can you understand that attaching such a label to every appearance

or sensation is what constitutes "avidya", preventing to see "what is", the

undivided Self?

º

ºJess:

Sure, and u 'seem' to be inconsistent in that here, you are speaking of an

undivided Self and elsewhere, you are talking about the "deplorable state of

society".

º

Jan:

No sarcasm intended but when holding a poll, the feeling of loneliness would

peek in students of advaita using the neti-neti doctrine or similar

techniques.

º

ºJess:

No interest in going from technique to technique. No interest in seeking or

attaining.

 

Have fun.

 

ºLove,

ºº~jessica

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/00 at 11:55 PM Jessica White wrote:

 

º[...]

º

ºJan:

ºIf "enlightenment" has a beginning, it must have an end. If sadhana doesn't

ºserve to purpose to "attain", what is its use? But what can be attained

ºunless lost? So think about how one can "get" enlightened...

ºº

ººJess:

ºSadhana serves the purpose to ultimately realize there is nothing to be

ºattained. I don't relate to one can "get" enlightened .

 

True, and that is why some will never know sadhana or journey and it is narrated

like this:

 

"to wake up from.... yes, from what? It cannot be remembered anymore, yet

something very nice did happen one cannot convey in words as it appears nothing

did happen after all, but a sweetheart would see it immediately".

 

º

ºJan:

ºIf someone doesn't claim to be a jnani, why would such a label be attached

ºat all? Can you understand that attaching such a label to every appearance

ºor sensation is what constitutes "avidya", preventing to see "what is", the

ºundivided Self?

ºº

ººJess:

ºSure, and u 'seem' to be inconsistent in that here, you are speaking of an

ºundivided Self and elsewhere, you are talking about the "deplorable state of

ºsociety".

 

Whatever I say is from memory and in that respect, there is no differentiation -

just concepts from memory. Verbal or written communication requires the use of

concepts and labels. These labels and concepts are communicated and what can't

be referred to as "personal experience" by the recipient is interpreted within

the extremes of "ignorance" and "wisdom". And if someone would conclude from

this that there is no such thing as teaching, I would neither admit nor deny but

laugh.

 

ºº

ºJan:

ºNo sarcasm intended but when holding a poll, the feeling of loneliness would

ºpeek in students of advaita using the neti-neti doctrine or similar

ºtechniques.

ºº

ººJess:

ºNo interest in going from technique to technique. No interest in seeking or

ºattaining.

 

Right, there is nothing to attain nor to realize nor to wake up from.

º

ºHave fun.

 

Leisure for ever.

 

º

ººLove,

ººº~jessica