Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Dear Tony, You wrote to the Sacred Kundalini list, just as you wrote similarly to Harsha's Satsangh: > Although there are 'realised souls', I sincerely > *doubt* there are any that write on the internet. > Also many people *may be* closer than others > but again I *doubt* there is more than a handful > on the planet at any one time. You describe yourself here as a doubting person..., as such you are putting your doubt ahead of your willingness and ability to recognize 'realised souls'. When this doubt is gone realization is easily recognized. That is why, as yet, you will not recognize realization... even when it is your own. ((((((((:-)))))))) By the way, Tony, you are using the word 'souls'. Do you care to expand? >......'realised souls', I sincerely *doubt* > there are any that write on the internet. Is writing "on the internet" somehow below standard for realized ones? What if they evaluate things differently than you? What if they do not judge values at all? > I doubt there is more than a handful > on the planet at any one time. A 'handful' Tony? As you seem to specialize in doubt, your counting can hardly be counted upon... And... is being on this planet somehow below standard for enlightened beings? What if those beings don't have problems with this planet at all? What if they just love it? Why putting doubt before insight? disdain before love? scepticism before hope? derision before compassion? withholding before surrender? judgement before acceptance? disbelief before trust? illusion before reality? bitterness before bliss? that before this? Your tone on the Sacred Kundalini list -up to this post- started out commendably better than on Harsha's Satsangh or previously on the K. list. Why don't you keep it that way? With this post you got into your old pattern again... Love, Wim, Wishing you well in putting clarity, insight, love, hope, compassion, surrender, acceptance, trust, reality, bliss, etc. first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > You wrote to the Sacred Kundalini list, just as you wrote similarly to > Harsha's Satsangh: > > Although there are 'realised souls', I sincerely > > *doubt* there are any that write on the internet. > > Also many people *may be* closer than others > > but again I *doubt* there is more than a handful > > on the planet at any one time. > > You describe yourself here as a doubting person..., as such you are > putting your doubt ahead of your willingness and ability to recognize > 'realised souls'. When this doubt is gone realization is easily > recognized. That is why, as yet, you will not recognize realization... > even when it is your own. ((((((((:-)))))))) > > By the way, Tony, you are using the word 'souls'. Do you care to expand? , etc. first. Namaste Wimm, Souls means thought entities, really there is only one soul in the universe, and even that is an illusion. Most people use the word soul to describe the bundle of thoughts called a human entity. A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an appearance. Nearly all 'realised persons', that think I've read didn't write much at all. Although their words were transcribed, like Ramana or Jesus or Buddha. I doubt they would write on these lists to be 'torn apart' by the rigid straitjacket, inflexible, mentality of verbose verbal non dualists. May just as well go and sit and listen to the pharisees. Yes I doubt that anything that I experience is true!!ONS....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Hi Tony, >A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an >appearance. What's the difference?? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 11:52 AM Dharma wrote: ºHi Tony, º º>A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an º>appearance. º ºWhat's the difference?? Hahaha!! You took the bait - there is no such thing as a realized "person" - it is an appearance in Tony's mind ) Joy and laughter, Jan º ºLove, ºDharma º º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 11:52 AM Dharma wrote: ºHi Tony, º º>A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an º>appearance. º ºWhat's the difference?? Hahaha!! You took the bait - there is no such thing as a realized "person" - it is an appearance in Tony's mind ) Joy and laughter, Jan º ºLove, ºDharma º º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Tony: >>>A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an appearance. Dharma: >>What's the difference?? Jan: >Hahaha!! You took the bait - there is no such thing as a realized "person" - it is an appearance in Tony's mind ) Saying that there isn't such thing as a realized person, is only the opposite of saying there is.... Both are appearances. Poof! Mira :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > >A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an > >appearance. > > What's the difference?? > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, Realisation Moksha...ONS...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 10:16 PM Mirror wrote: ºTony: º>>>A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an appearance. º ºDharma: º>>What's the difference?? º ºJan: º>Hahaha!! You took the bait - there is no such thing as a realized º"person" - it is an appearance in Tony's mind ) º º ºSaying that there isn't such thing ºas a realized person, ºis only the opposite of saying there is.... ºBoth are appearances. ºPoof! ºMira :-) º If there is a realized person, show it, <laugh> Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Mira: >>Saying that there isn't such thingas a realized person, is only the opposite of saying there is....Both are appearances.Poof!Mira :-) Jan: >If there is a realized person, show it, <laugh> ta-da !!! :-D LOLOLOLOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Jan: If there is a realized person, show it, <laugh> psst Jan... I couldn't even find a person.... darn... and the street is crowded with people.... couldn't even find the one that is looking for a person!! chuckle M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Just words? Not even siddhis like changing the weather? Why not say "I am Shiva" - realized words too ) Not impressive:) JanOn 6/10/01 at 10:33 PM Mirror wrote: Mira: >>Saying that there isn't such thingas a realized person, is only the opposite of saying there is....Both are appearances.Poof!Mira :-) Jan: >If there is a realized person, show it, <laugh> ta-da !!! :-D LOLOLOLOL /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 the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 10:35 PM Mirror wrote: ºJan: ºIf there is a realized person, show it, <laugh> º º º ºpsst Jan... I couldn't even find a person.... darn... ºand the street is crowded with people.... couldn't even find the one that ºis ºlooking for a person!! ºchuckle ºM That's more like it - when looking for a person, there is none Joy and Light, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Jan: >That's more like it - when looking for a person, there is none I knew it, I knew it, I knew it !!! I knew there was a correct nondual way to get my ass out of the mess :-) love, M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 10:48 PM Mirror wrote: ºJan: º>That's more like it - when looking for a person, there is none º º ºI knew it, I knew it, I knew it !!! ºI knew there was a correct nondual way to get my ass out of the mess :-) ºlove, ºM Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) left Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" frame... Love, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Jan: >>>That's more like it - when looking for a person, there is none Mira: >>I knew it, I knew it, I knew it !!! I knew there was a correct nondual way to get my ass out of the mess :-) Jan: >Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) left Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" frame... This adaptive mind loves it when you talk like "that".... yummmmm M (off to bed now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 11:00 PM Mirror wrote: ºJan: º>>>That's more like it - when looking for a person, there is none º ºMira: º>>I knew it, I knew it, I knew it !!! ºI knew there was a correct nondual way to get my ass out of the mess :-) º ºJan: º>Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) ºleft ºJust an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" ºframe... º º ºThis adaptive mind loves it when you talk like "that".... ºyummmmm ºM º º(off to bed now) Good night... Sleep well and pleasant dreams.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Hi Tony, >> >A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an >> >appearance. >> >> What's the difference?? > >Realisation Moksha. Throwing a couple of words out doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by loving the world "as such"? What do you mean by loving the world "only as an appearance"? If it's only apparently a world, is there a real world that it's an appearance of?? When you appreciate a beautiful flower, do you think to yourself, "I don't care for this flower as such. But I do appreciate it as an appearance" ?? Do you also appreciate the artist? Or is that too narcissistic? ) Love, Dharma P.S. First time I've heard of Realisation Moksha... how many kinds are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Hi Jan, >Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) >left >Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" frame... Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than others... wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains of a persona... something to use? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Dear Tony, You should be ashamed... Yes, Tony, hear me out... I wrote: > > ... is *being* on this planet somehow below > > standard for *enlightened beings*? > > What if those *beings* don't have problems with > > this planet at all? What if they just love it? You wrote: > A realised *person* cannot love the world as such, > only as an appearance. "A realized person?" A 'realized person' cannot even exist. A 'person' cannot be realized. A 'person' as such cannot even exist. A 'person' is a conceptual description of a human functionality. A 'person' plays a role in the theatre of life. A 'person' 'behaves' in society. A 'person' is some legal or otherwise conceptual entity. Look up "person" in an etymological dictionary... You don't know how right you are when you say that "a realised person cannot love the world as such", as 'persons' ARE appearances, they CANNOT love, let alone unconditionally. *** You also don't know how badly you read and understood what I wrote ***, and that is a shame. Do you do that on purpose, ARE you of ill intent? Do you even notice what you might be doing? > Yes I doubt that anything that I experience is true!! Do you think that you, who live in doubt (as you admit) can tell -that and how- a realized *being* loves this world? You doubt your own experiences as you say, so how can you know about the reality of a realized being? You have absolutely no inkling, what you know and profess is doubt. What can you say about reality with any kind of certainty? Do not come with your "tongue in cheek" excuse as you have your foot firmly planted in your mouth... This is not just naive mischievousness Tony. This is what I wrote: > > And... is *being* on this planet somehow below > > standard for *enlightened beings*? > > What if those *beings* don't have problems with > > this planet at all? What if they just love it? Realized beings cannot help but love, nothing is appearance... all is real... all is love... all is truth The malicious *person* does not present him or herself to live in mutual and reciprocal love, truth and reality... The person of malice resists reality with compulsive doubt, resists love with compulsive derision and ridicule and resists truth with the compulsive intent to confuse and stay confused. My question to you Tony is, "Are you doing that?" And when you come back with a quick "I doubt it," you may want to ponder the question a little longer. Realized beings cannot help but love, nothing is appearance... all is real... all is love... all is truth. And you dare coming back with: > A realised person cannot love the world as such, only as an appearance. Do you see how apparent it is, your careless and confused use of language? This is not just semantics, and when you insist that it is, then there is a good reason for it. You can't just fool around like that, that might be OK in the street... but this is a satsangh of friends who's intent is communion... Do you get that? Why did you introduce the word 'person' in combination with 'realized'? Those two words do not fit... I surely do not use 'person' in combination with 'realized' and 'enlightened'. 'Persons' by definition have their real face hidden, as much as they keep enlightenment and realization hidden, all too often under a cover of contempt. So don't mangle words and meanings... It is already clear that you quote badly, now here that is seen in action... That is very unkind of you Tony, that is bad manners... That is not acceptable for someone like you who insists on communicating about truth, reality, and love in satsangh. Do not come with excuses that you may lack papers or schooling, as you did before, I have no accreditations either... none whatsoever. Papers you don't need and schooling never stops unless one stops it with stubbornness and an unwillingness to learn. Imagine a house being built the same way that you use your language! It would have windows in the floor, doors in the roof and the roof between the rooms, roofing shingles glued with wallpaper gel on the ceiling and roofing nails upside down as carpeting in the bedroom. Language is to be used as efficiently, professionally and carefully as the tools and materials used by a master carpenter and crew. When a carpenter uses a hammer and nails to do a framing job, great care is taken to use the right size of nails, the right weight of hammer. Nails are carefully positioned in the right spots, with appropriate angles depending on where the nails are to be hammered and what they need to hold together. Tony, write like that and read like that, and life will not be a dubious house of cards; life will not be your illusion of an unreal world that you see inhabited by 'persons with behaviours' instead of real living beings. > Yes I doubt that anything that I experience is true!! Well then, now that you know that so well, stop giving in to it, stop the doubt. Get with reality, the way I suggested, by coming to your senses, start experiencing truth. Did you not mention Jesus? He did live on earth, he did not fool around with appearances, he did not belittle his own experiences. He did talk about people of little faith though, compulsive doubters... > I doubt they would write on these lists to be 'torn apart' > by the rigid straitjacket, inflexible, mentality of verbose > verbal non dualists. You can't even make up your own mind with all the doubt that you admit to. Do you think that you can make up the mind of the enlightened? They doubt as little as they are 'un-torn-apartable'. Why projecting doubt around us, we have no problem writing to you on these lists again and again with patience and compassion, we will not discard and reject you. Do not expect that to happen... Could it be that "the rigid straitjacket" is the one that you wear, that the stubbornness and "inflexibility" is yours... and that it is your verbality that is of the "verbose" kind. So indeed be with us in loving surrender... whatever you have been doing is not it. Therefore it is not a difficult thing, just do what you have never done. Start with doubting your notions, not your experiences, start with coming to your senses, discovering the all encompassing simplicity of being. All This is it One Moksha is not an exclusive release from the world, it is a release from the bondage and attachment to the world. Moksha is not an escape from the world, it is an unconditional surrender, a free fall and emancipation within and into an all inclusive universal freedom. The emancipated human is the divine human in an all inclusive divine universum. Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 On 6/10/01 at 11:01 PM Dharma wrote: ºHi Jan, º º>Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) º>left º>Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" ºframe... º ºEven Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a ºbody... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one ºlanguage rather than another... to use some gestures rather than others... ºwear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains ºof a persona... something to use? º ºLove, ºDharma There's no more opportunity to ask Ramana So I can only speak for my self and that one-liner couldn't be more concise... For "person", the dictionary gives: The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. And from that perspective, no personality remains as without fixed beliefs, the characteristics will change in (and as a result of) the course of events. My parents used to say repeatedly that I never failed to surprise them Because, they didn't see the change of characteristics... And sometimes, the changes are quite remarkable... Love, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > >Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) > >left > >Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" frame... > > Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a > body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one > language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than others... > wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains > of a persona... something to use? > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, There was no Ramana to use anything, it was the universal mind that used itself...ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > You should be ashamed... > Yes, Tony, hear me out... Namaste Wim, You seem so preoccupied with what I say? I'll say it again a realised person or a body without an ego sees the world for what it is an appearance on its Self. If you wish to pick me up on my bad English go ahead, it is a full time job. The world can be loved so to speak as a dream, that's all. I'll say it again, you wish to believe the world is real, that is your prerogative, you wish to have your own belief of what K is, that's all it is, that is your prerogative Wim. It is not mine, to me the world is at best an appearance and ultimately didn't happen at all. ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 At 11:01 PM 6/10/01 -0700, you wrote: Hi Jan, >Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) >left >Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" frame... Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than others... wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains of a persona... something to use? Love, Dharma Dear Dharma -- What happens when there is no separation between a "user" and "something that is used" ... what is a persona then? Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 >>>Jan: >†>Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona) >†>left >†>Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed" >†frame... >† >>Dharma: >†Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a >†body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one >†language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than others... >†wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains >†of a persona... something to use? >† >Jan: >There's no more opportunity to ask Ramana >So I can only speak for my self and that one-liner couldn't be >more concise... For "person", the dictionary gives: >The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; >the self. >And from that perspective, no personality remains as without fixed beliefs, >the characteristics will change in (and as a result of) the course of >events. >snip< Dharma: You must have a very small dictionary. My Webster's gives: >person, n. [OF. _persone_ (F. _personne_), fr. L. _persona_ a mask (used >by actors), a personage, part, person.] >1. _Archaic_. A character or part, as in a play. >2. A human being; a particular individual. >3. a One spoken of indefinitely; as, any _person_ present. > b A human being as distinguished from things or animals. > c One spoken of slightingly. >4. a The bodily form of a human being; also, outward appearance; as, of >comely _person_. > b Bodily presence; - in the phrase _in person_. >5. The real self of a human being; individual personality. >6. _Gram._ Any one of the three relations (that of the speaker, that of >one spoken to, and that of another person or thing spoken of, called >respectively the first, second, and third person) underlying discourse, >distinguished by certain pronouns and, in many languages, by inflected >forms of the verb (_I go_, _thou goest_, _he goes_). >7. _Law_. A human being (natural person), or a body of persons, or, in a >wider sense, an aggregate of property (_artificial_, _conventional_, or >_juristic person_), that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and >duties. >8. _Theol_. [_sometimes cap._] Among Trinitarians, one of the three modes >of being in the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); a >hypostasis*. >- _in person_. By oneself; with bodily presence. > >*hypostasis, n.; pl. -ses. [L., fr. Gr. _hypostasis_ >subsistence,substance, deriv. of _hypo_ under + _histasthai_ to stand, >middle voice of _histanai_ to cause to stand.] >1. _Eccl. Hist._ a In the original Nicene use, equivalent to _ousia_**; >specif., the unique essence of the Godhead, and as such, of the three >persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. > b In later use, one of the persons of the Godhead. Also, the whole >personality of Christ as distinguished from his two natures, human and >divine. >2. _Med_. >snip< >3. _Philos_. Sunstance, subsistent principle, or essential nature of anything. > >**|| ousia, n. [Gr.] Nature; substance; essence. Seems to me you are picking one definition among many and insisting on that. And objecting to anyone else using the word in another sense. It's nit-picking. Why not just take it in the sense that Tony meant it, which is perfectly acceptable English usage? Or do you also object to our speaking of the persons of the Trinity? ) Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Dear Tony, You wrote: > You seem so preoccupied with what I say? Look at that question mark. You even ask about your own statement. You are very transparent except to yourself. I do not "seem", Tony. There is no 'seeming' in life, one imagines seeming in illusion only. Your's is a illussive semblance of life based on self professed doubt, a pathology based on a familial dysfunction, which occurred to you within the first two minutes of your birth and which is compulsively reenacted by habituation. > I'll say it again, you wish to believe the world is real, that is your prerogative, I do not wish to believe... don't have to... This is. There are no prerogatives, no wishes, no doubts, no questions when one is free of will and clear of mind. Love, Wim PS, Read well Tony, understand! 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.