Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Namaste All, I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. Of course I know that I am realised but don't operate on it, due to samskaras etc. Everyone is realised because all are Nirguna Brahman there isn't even a Saguna Brahman. Most of us haven't awoke completely from the dream thats all. With regard to Ramana, I stick to him as Wim put it, because he is the truth and it emanates from his words. He is not my guru per se, I have no bodied guru. The only sadhana needed is 'Who am I?'. Speaking about the relative world; it is all an illusion in our minds, which in turn are also illusions. EVen hypnosis can make a hot iron cold or vice versa or change the texture and colours of what we perceive. Even remove entire parts of the picture or put things in. And that is just the lower mind!!!!!!Why be attached to that? I know from experience and the teachings that indulging the senses is like pouring oil on a fire. Detachment and Love and Surrender are the only way to go. Again we have to withdraw the senses ruling our dream. Ultimately again there is this; Brahman plus thought=Man/Creatino. Man/Creation minus thought=Brahman. Thought is the illusion it consists of everything we perceive or can think about. Stop thought===Be still and know that 'I Am', is God. Actually some of you are right when you say you are ahead of me, for I have gone back to the basic truths to examine them and found them not lacking. Ramana, Nisargadatta Maharaj, the Vedanta is all so simple. In the meantime like you I amuse myself here with reactions and semantics for it helps to keep one's mind on the general subject at least. So thanks for all your help and suggestions but I will stick to my sadhana of 'Who am I', and purifying my awareness sheath or diamond body. Om Namah Sivaya......Tony. Om Namah Sivaya......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Hi Tony! >I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a >good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! >Of course I know that I am realised but don't operate on it, due to >samskaras etc. >snip< >I amuse myself here with reactions and >semantics for it helps to keep one's mind on the general subject at >least. I see... So would you like to give us a definition of a realised person? (Somehow this doesn't sound quite like it.) >Speaking about the relative world; it is all an illusion in our minds, >which in turn are also illusions. EVen hypnosis can make a hot iron >cold or vice versa Actually, hypnosis can't change the iron at all. It can make you react to a cold iron _as though_ it is hot, but the iron won't change. It isn't THAT illusory. ) >snip< >Ultimately >again there is this; Brahman plus thought=Man/Creatino. Man/Creation >minus thought=Brahman. Thought is the illusion So there is Brahman, and then there is thought, which is illusion. So there are TWO, not one? > it consists of >everything we perceive or can think about. But obviously you were just thinking about Brahman, since you wrote about Brahman... therefore Brahman is illusion? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Tony: > >I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. Dharma: > Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! LOLOLOL! Absolutely!! Mira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 >Tony: >> >I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a >good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. > >Dharma: >> Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! > > >LOLOLOL! Absolutely!! >Mira Yes! They would be absolutely appalled relatives. Or relatives absolutely appalled... I think I'll go back to bed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Tony: >>>>I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. Dharma: >>>Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! Mira: >>LOLOLOL! Absolutely!! Dharma: > Yes! They would be absolutely appalled relatives. Or relatives absolutely appalled... I think I'll go back to bed... Yes that might be an absolutely good idea since it is still relatively early... I wonder if the Absolute is Relatively appalled too? Mira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 nothing is absolutely relative and something is relatively absolute....but what i want to know is....if i am only one....where are my relatives....oh yeah....here, there and everywhere but especially in holland....^^~~~~~ further up and further in, white wolfe - Mirror <mirror <> Monday, May 21, 2001 12:45 PM Re: Saturday morning confusion > Tony: > >>>>I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a > good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. > > Dharma: > >>>Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! > > Mira: > >>LOLOLOL! Absolutely!! > > Dharma: > > Yes! They would be absolutely appalled relatives. Or relatives > absolutely appalled... > I think I'll go > back to bed... > > > Yes that might be an absolutely good idea since it is still relatively > early... > I wonder if the Absolute is Relatively appalled too? > Mira > > > > /join > > > > > > 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. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Tony! > > >I don't want to answer every post, but let me say this. It would be a > >good idea if posters didn't mix their relatives with the absolutes. > > Good grief, no! Speaking personally, my relatives would be appalled! > > >Of course I know that I am realised but don't operate on it, due to > >samskaras etc. > >snip< > >I amuse myself here with reactions and > >semantics for it helps to keep one's mind on the general subject at > >least. > > I see... So would you like to give us a definition of a realised person? > (Somehow this doesn't sound quite like it.) > > > >Speaking about the relative world; it is all an illusion in our minds, > >which in turn are also illusions. EVen hypnosis can make a hot iron > >cold or vice versa > > Actually, hypnosis can't change the iron at all. It can make you react to > a cold iron _as though_ it is hot, but the iron won't change. It isn't > THAT illusory. ) > > >snip< > >Ultimately > >again there is this; Brahman plus thought=Man/Creatino. Man/Creation > >minus thought=Brahman. Thought is the illusion > > So there is Brahman, and then there is thought, which is illusion. So > there are TWO, not one? > > > it consists of > >everything we perceive or can think about. > > But obviously you were just thinking about Brahman, since you wrote about > Brahman... therefore Brahman is illusion? > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, Saguna Brahman is an illusion Nirguna is the ultimate truth. I cannot give you a definition of a realised person for only another can recognise one. The iron is changing all the time at the level of mind there is no difference. It is the action of mind at that level that changes perceptions and so called reality. Who can say if it is the body that is acting differently or the iron? Just as in quantum physics one cannot observe a sub atomic particle without affecting its behaviour to some extent. The mere act of observation at that level is subjective. Om Namah Sivaya....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 Hi Tony, >> >Of course I know that I am realised but don't operate on it, due to >> >samskaras etc. >> >snip< >> >I amuse myself here with reactions and >> >semantics for it helps to keep one's mind on the general subject at >> >least. >> >> I see... So would you like to give us a definition of a realised >person? >> (Somehow this doesn't sound quite like it.) > >I cannot >give you a definition of a realised person for only another can >recognise one. I thought you just agreed that everyone is realised. >> >Speaking about the relative world; it is all an illusion in our >minds, >> >which in turn are also illusions. EVen hypnosis can make a hot iron >> >cold or vice versa >> >> Actually, hypnosis can't change the iron at all. It can make you >react to >> a cold iron _as though_ it is hot, but the iron won't change. It >isn't >> THAT illusory. ) >The iron is changing all the time at the level of mind >there is no difference. It is the action of mind at that level that >changes perceptions and so called reality. Who can say if it is the >body that is acting differently or the iron? Ask any hypnotist. Watch it done, and then touch the iron. No amount of sophistry will make that iron hot. >Just as in quantum physics one cannot observe a sub atomic particle >without affecting its behaviour to some extent. The mere act of >observation at that level is subjective. Totally irrelevant. We are not dealing with the iron at a sub-atomic level. >> >snip< >> >Ultimately >> >again there is this; Brahman plus thought=Man/Creatino. >Man/Creation >> >minus thought=Brahman. Thought is the illusion >> >> So there is Brahman, and then there is thought, which is illusion. >So >> there are TWO, not one? >> >> > it consists of >> >everything we perceive or can think about. >> >> But obviously you were just thinking about Brahman, since you wrote >about >> Brahman... therefore Brahman is illusion? >Saguna Brahman is an illusion Nirguna is the ultimate truth. Which just sidesteps the question. Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > >> >Of course I know that I am realised but don't operate on it, due to > >> >samskaras etc. > >> >snip< > >> >I amuse myself here with reactions and > >> >semantics for it helps to keep one's mind on the general subject at > >> >least. > >> > >> I see... So would you like to give us a definition of a realised > >person? > >> (Somehow this doesn't sound quite like it.) > > > >I cannot > >give you a definition of a realised person for only another can > >recognise one. > > I thought you just agreed that everyone is realised. > > > >> >Speaking about the relative world; it is all an illusion in our > >minds, > >> >which in turn are also illusions. EVen hypnosis can make a hot iron > >> >cold or vice versa > >> > >> Actually, hypnosis can't change the iron at all. It can make you > >react to > >> a cold iron _as though_ it is hot, but the iron won't change. It > >isn't > >> THAT illusory. ) > > >The iron is changing all the time at the level of mind > >there is no difference. It is the action of mind at that level that > >changes perceptions and so called reality. Who can say if it is the > >body that is acting differently or the iron? > > Ask any hypnotist. > > Watch it done, and then touch the iron. > > No amount of sophistry will make that iron hot. > > >Just as in quantum physics one cannot observe a sub atomic particle > >without affecting its behaviour to some extent. The mere act of > >observation at that level is subjective. > > Totally irrelevant. We are not dealing with the iron at a sub-atomic level. > > >> >snip< > >> >Ultimately > >> >again there is this; Brahman plus thought=Man/Creatino. > >Man/Creation > >> >minus thought=Brahman. Thought is the illusion > >> > >> So there is Brahman, and then there is thought, which is illusion. > >So > >> there are TWO, not one? > >> > >> > it consists of > >> >everything we perceive or can think about. > >> > >> But obviously you were just thinking about Brahman, since you wrote > >about > >> Brahman... therefore Brahman is illusion? > > >Saguna Brahman is an illusion Nirguna is the ultimate truth. > > Which just sidesteps the question. > > Dharma Namaste Dharma, We are all realised we just haven't realised it!!! The hot and cold of the bar is subjective to the bar and the mind of the holder. Asking any hypnotist just shows that what we perceive is only the result of our minds and imaginations. As it is with say Fijians who walk on red hot stones without even singeing themselves. Brahman is real, the world is unreal, all is Brahman is my answer to your question on the reality of Brahman......ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.