Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Dear Friends, I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines of nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no sense at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with nonduality, because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. With Love, Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Dear Mazie, In Bhakti, the lover and the Beloved eventually merge, and what remains is only "Love loving Love" -- and that's nonduality. Eventually a Bhakta could say: "There is only Love, and I am That." Joy & Happiness, Omkara / Tim , sraddha54@h... wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines of > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no sense > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with nonduality, > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > With Love, > Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , "Omkara" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > Dear Mazie, > > In Bhakti, the lover and the Beloved eventually merge, and what > remains is only "Love loving Love" -- and that's nonduality. > Eventually a Bhakta could say: "There is only Love, and I am That." > > Joy & Happiness, > > Omkara / Tim Dear Omkara/Tim, This is what I thought, but was not sure. Paramahansa Yogananda, my Guruji, achieved this. No, he was this. Is this. "Love loving Love." Love Alone. Only Love. Thanks for your helpful answer. I see it much more clearly now, and it makes me very happy to be so in love with Love. With Love, loving only Love, Mazie > > , sraddha54@h... wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. > > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations > > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines > of > > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no > sense > > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with > nonduality, > > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > > > With Love, > > Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi Maize, Omkara has already stated it well and still another way it could be stated nondually is: Lover-Love-Beloved Beloved-Love-Lover Obviously the unity of Lover and Beloved is Love. Nonduality-Love-Bhakti Bhakti-Love-Nonduality Intellect-Love-Intuition Intuition-Love-Intellect Love, james , sraddha54@h... wrote: > , "Omkara" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear Mazie, > > > > In Bhakti, the lover and the Beloved eventually merge, and what > > remains is only "Love loving Love" -- and that's nonduality. > > Eventually a Bhakta could say: "There is only Love, and I am That." > > > > Joy & Happiness, > > > > Omkara / Tim > > Dear Omkara/Tim, > > This is what I thought, but was not sure. Paramahansa Yogananda, my > Guruji, achieved this. No, he was this. Is this. "Love loving Love." > Love Alone. Only Love. Thanks for your helpful answer. I see it much > more clearly now, and it makes me very happy to be so in love with > Love. > > With Love, loving only Love, > Mazie > > > > , sraddha54@h... wrote: > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely > enthralling. > > > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my > meditations > > > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the > lines > > of > > > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > > > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no > > sense > > > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with > > nonduality, > > > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > > > > > With Love, > > > Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 In a message dated 06/17/2001 9:43:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, berkowd writes: << Without fear or desire, what else is there, other than All, and what is there to be, other than No-thing? Peace, Dan >> now explain where the fear and desire come from, Dan....cause and effect....both in totality is crucial... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , sraddha54@h... wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines of > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no sense > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with nonduality, > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > With Love, > Mazie Namaste Mazie, This a popular route, some non dualists? seem to have a love for the Sakti, which in effect is the amorphous form of an Ishtadevata-Iswara. Others move from one to the other, depends on personality. IMO they all end up in the same place, as do the yogas of the Gita. So whether a person chooses the path of blending with love/energy as a step, which is the easiest way or one goes the path of virtually ignoring the energy, it ends up the same. Most it seems actually combine both......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > , sraddha54@h... wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. > > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations > > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines > of > > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no > sense > > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with nonduality, > > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > > > With Love, > > Mazie > > Namaste Mazie, > > This a popular route, some non dualists? seem to have a love for the > Sakti, which in effect is the amorphous form of an Ishtadevata-Iswara. > Others move from one to the other, depends on personality. IMO they > all end up in the same place, as do the yogas of the Gita. > > So whether a person chooses the path of blending with love/energy as a > step, which is the easiest way or one goes the path of virtually > ignoring the energy, it ends up the same. Most it seems actually > combine both......ONS...Tony. Namaste, I a feeling from the perspective of the dream, that there is an ultimate difference between merging with the Love energy of Saguna, and Nirguna. If one becomes praneaswara, as Maharaj would call it, does one have to wait for pralaya for ultimate moksha? Without getting into the non dual jargon and polishing the egg, is it not that ultimate moksha is above and beyond the love energy/saguna..ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Dear Friends, I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely enthralling. Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my meditations that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the lines of nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no sense at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with nonduality, because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. With Love, Mazie As long as there is a desire to feel love toward an object, an object will appear. The object can be money, work, knowledge, drugs, pretty things, a great body, an insightful intellect, meditation, a state of consciousness, pleasure, bliss, a person, an ideal, or a God. The desire to have God for oneself is the desire to be a God, for who else could have God for oneself? The God one wants to have reflects one's conception of what is available ;-) The history of the human race is the evolution of the desire to have the ultimate object and to be a God (through money, power, devotion, bliss). Thus: pyramids, temples, sciences, nations, religions, the World Trade Center, the Tokyo Stock Market. Yet, the Beloved that a lover has will never be more than something a lover has. When a lover has no Beloved whatsoever, then who and where can the Beloved (Totality) be, other than exactly where the lover is? And then, where and who is the lover? When a lover (awareness) has no object, it can only enfold itself into itself. It enfolds as a dimensionless point of infinity/emptiness. Thus enfolded, there is neither body, mind, self, other, nor a particular state of consciousness. If what enfolds itself, unfolds itself, what will it see/know that is "other", where will it be not? And where else can such enfolding occur? What goes around, comes around, and what comes around, goes around. Fear of losing all objects is fear of losing the self. Desire to have the ultimate object is really the desire to be a God. Without fear or desire, what else is there, other than All, and what is there to be, other than No-thing? Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi James, You left out: brahma-vishnu-siva father-son-holy ghost perceiver-perceived-perception Yet, as primal unity is known as never having been divided, perceiver and perception, experiencer and experience, dissolve. Lover-loving-beloved Knower-knowing-known dissolve. With literally no quality whatsoever, there is no basis "now" for anthropomorphizing "this," including anthropomorphic visions of love. Words and concepts fail, for words can only reflect "the mind of man in time." Love, Dan Hi Maize, Omkara has already stated it well and still another way it could be stated nondually is: Lover-Love-Beloved Beloved-Love-Lover Obviously the unity of Lover and Beloved is Love. Nonduality-Love-Bhakti Bhakti-Love-Nonduality Intellect-Love-Intuition Intuition-Love-Intellect Love, james , sraddha54@h... wrote: > , "Omkara" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear Mazie, > > > > In Bhakti, the lover and the Beloved eventually merge, and what > > remains is only "Love loving Love" -- and that's nonduality. > > Eventually a Bhakta could say: "There is only Love, and I am That." > > > > Joy & Happiness, > > > > Omkara / Tim > > Dear Omkara/Tim, > > This is what I thought, but was not sure. Paramahansa Yogananda, my > Guruji, achieved this. No, he was this. Is this. "Love loving Love." > Love Alone. Only Love. Thanks for your helpful answer. I see it much > more clearly now, and it makes me very happy to be so in love with > Love. > > With Love, loving only Love, > Mazie > > > > , sraddha54@h... wrote: > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely > enthralling. > > > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my > meditations > > > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the > lines > > of > > > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience both > > > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no > > sense > > > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with > > nonduality, > > > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > > > > > With Love, > > > Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Well said Dan, Yes! One could state all wisdom traditions this way. And, the entire history of all 'isms' show that 'it' cannot be expressed in words/concepts. Yet, there is unspeakable Beauty in words well spoken. Love, james , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Hi James, > > You left out: > brahma-vishnu-siva > father-son-holy ghost > perceiver-perceived-perception > > Yet, as primal unity is > known as never having been > divided, > perceiver and perception, > experiencer and experience, > dissolve. > > Lover-loving-beloved > Knower-knowing-known > dissolve. > > With literally no quality > whatsoever, there is > no basis "now" for > anthropomorphizing "this," > including anthropomorphic > visions of love. > > Words and concepts fail, for > words can only reflect > "the mind of man in time." > > Love, > Dan > > > > Hi Maize, > > > > Omkara has already stated it well and still another way it could > >be stated nondually is: > > > > Lover-Love-Beloved > > Beloved-Love-Lover > > > > Obviously the unity of Lover and Beloved is Love. > > > > Nonduality-Love-Bhakti > > Bhakti-Love-Nonduality > > > > Intellect-Love-Intuition > > Intuition-Love-Intellect > > > > Love, > > james > > > > > >, sraddha54@h... wrote: > > > , "Omkara" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Mazie, > > > > > > > > In Bhakti, the lover and the Beloved eventually merge, and what > > > > remains is only "Love loving Love" -- and that's nonduality. > > > > Eventually a Bhakta could say: "There is only Love, and I am > >That." > > > > > > > > Joy & Happiness, > > > > > > > > Omkara / Tim > > > > > > Dear Omkara/Tim, > > > > > > This is what I thought, but was not sure. Paramahansa Yogananda, my > > > Guruji, achieved this. No, he was this. Is this. "Love loving Love." > > > Love Alone. Only Love. Thanks for your helpful answer. I see it much > > > more clearly now, and it makes me very happy to be so in love with > > > Love. > > > > > > With Love, loving only Love, > > > Mazie > > > > > > > > , sraddha54@h... wrote: > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > > > > > I have found all the discourse on nonduality absolutely > > > enthralling. > > > > > Although I am chiefly a Bhakti, consumed in love, in my > > > meditations > > > > > that "absolute stillness" that is entered is right along the > > > lines > > > > of > > > > > nonduality. At least I think it is. Do any of you experience > >both > > > > > devotional approach to God and nonduality, or does this make no > > > > sense > > > > > at all? I don't see how this could reconcile itself with > > > > nonduality, > > > > > because to be a lover one must have a Beloved. > > > > > > > > > > With Love, > > > > > Mazie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > > > Well said Dan, > > Yes! One could state all wisdom traditions this way. > > And, the entire history of all 'isms' show that 'it' cannot be > expressed in words/concepts. > > Yet, there is unspeakable Beauty in words well spoken. > > Love, > james > > > , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > You left out: > > brahma-vishnu-siva > > father-son-holy ghost > > perceiver-perceived-perception > > > > Yet, as primal unity is > > known as never having been > > divided, > > perceiver and perception, > > experiencer and experience, > > dissolve. > > > > Lover-loving-beloved > > Knower-knowing-known > > dissolve. > > > > With literally no quality > > whatsoever, there is > > no basis "now" for > > anthropomorphizing "this," > > including anthropomorphic > > visions of love. > > > > Words and concepts fail, for > > words can only reflect > > "the mind of man in time." > > > > Love, > > Dan Namaste All, Seeing as we are getting philosophical and flying blind. This bhakti type union doesn't answer the question of merging with energy/love or transcending it completely.......ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi Tony, I think you understand this already. It is there when your child or grandchild gives you a hug and says, "Happy Father's Day Dad, I Love You!" Then, there is no question of merging/trancending... Happy Father's Day Tony, I Love you, James , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > Namaste All, > > Seeing as we are getting philosophical and flying blind. This bhakti > type union doesn't answer the question of merging with energy/love or > transcending it completely.......ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Well said Dan, Yes! One could state all wisdom traditions this way. And, the entire history of all 'isms' show that 'it' cannot be expressed in words/concepts. Yet, there is unspeakable Beauty in words well spoken. Love, james Blessed be, James! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No beholder and what is on one side of the eye is the same as what's on the other side. Timelessly, American Beauty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 << Without fear or desire, what else is there, other than All, and what is there to be, other than No-thing? Peace, Dan >> now explain where the fear and desire come from, Dan....cause and effect....both in totality is crucial... Dear Goldy -- "Know thyself." Know it all-at-once, or miss it entirely ... Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi Dan, eye say - Beauty james , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > Well said Dan, > > > > Yes! One could state all wisdom traditions this way. > > > > And, the entire history of all 'isms' show that 'it' cannot be > >expressed in words/concepts. > > > > Yet, there is unspeakable Beauty in words well spoken. > > > > Love, > > james > > Blessed be, James! > Beauty is in the eye of > the beholder. > No beholder and > what is on one side > of the eye is the same > as what's on the other > side. > > Timelessly, > American Beauty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > Desire to have the ultimate object is > really the desire to be a God. > ******** What about one of those "Ultimate Cheeseburgers" down at the burger place? LOL Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > >now explain where the fear and desire come from, Dan....cause and > >effect....both in totality is crucial... > > Dear Goldy -- > > "Know thyself." > > Know it all-at-once, > or miss it entirely ... > > Love, > Dan ******* Bingo! Give that man an ultimate cheeseburger. :-) Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 > Desire to have the ultimate object is > really the desire to be a God. > ******** What about one of those "Ultimate Cheeseburgers" down at the burger place? LOL Judi Interesting that you should say that. It's a ploy used in advertising all the time. Must be something to it ... Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Dear Dan, A good point :-). How about "the desire to be the ultimate Subject?" :-) There's plenty i could say on that, but curious as to 'your input' :-). Namaste, Tim , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > Desire to have the ultimate object is > > > really the desire to be a God. > > > > >******** > >What about one of those "Ultimate Cheeseburgers" > >down at the burger place? > > > >LOL > > > >Judi > > Interesting that you should say > that. > It's a ploy used in advertising > all the time. > Must be something to it ... > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi Tim! Okay, speak on ... As for me, I see it as very related. The desire to be the ultimate Subject is itself an object (as a desire that is maintained and had) ... Desire for an object is itself an object, and often there is a letdown described by those who attain a long sought-after object. Fear of losing the object is the shadow side of the desire. Yet, the arising fear associated with the desire maintains the intent to keep ahold of the desire. As for who is keeping ahold, there is no who -- the who is the attempt to exist, have, hold ... Any feelings, conceptions, beliefs, and associated states of consciousness or perceptions of awareness (associated with "being the ultimate Subject") -- are the "object" one has, or wishes to have. The "desire to be and have" is, itself, an object that is attempted to be retained and had. The subject, Witness, or Absolute Subject are the believed to exist observer, which is never found in the absence of an object. How could it be found without making itself an object to itself? Even subtle experiences of omnipresent beingness are an object ... Namaste, Dan Dear Dan, A good point :-). How about "the desire to be the ultimate Subject?" :-) There's plenty i could say on that, but curious as to 'your input' :-). Namaste, Tim , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > Desire to have the ultimate object is > > > really the desire to be a God. > > > > >******** > >What about one of those "Ultimate Cheeseburgers" > >down at the burger place? > > > >LOL > > > >Judi > > Interesting that you should say > that. > It's a ploy used in advertising > all the time. > Must be something to it ... > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Perfect Dan Wim brahma-vishnu-siva father-son-holy ghost perceiver-perceived-perceptionYet, as primal unity is known as never having been divided, perceiver and perception, experiencer and experience, dissolve.Lover-loving-belovedKnower-knowing-known dissolve.With literally no quality whatsoever, there is no basis "now" for anthropomorphizing "this," including anthropomorphic visions of love.Words and concepts fail, for words can only reflect "the mind of man in time."Love,Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > I think you understand this already. > It is there when your child or grandchild gives you a hug and > says, "Happy Father's Day Dad, I Love You!" > > Then, there is no question of merging/trancending... > > Happy Father's Day Tony, > I Love you, > James Namaste James, Yes I am well familiar, but that is not necessarily Love, it is well tainted with emotion and attachment....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Namaste' Tony, The mind can never go beyond the mind. You say that you are 'well familiar' with the Love shared in a family. Therefore you understand the 'feeling' and know intuitively. If you have the privilege of associating with a very young child - the 'innocence' that is there is 'felt' and it is Pure Love. You are touched by it because IT IS YOU - you already are what you most deeply seek - seeking it is the movement away from it. Hug a child and surrender to Love. Love, james , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > I think you understand this already. > > It is there when your child or grandchild gives you a hug and > > says, "Happy Father's Day Dad, I Love You!" > > > > Then, there is no question of merging/trancending... > > > > Happy Father's Day Tony, > > I Love you, > > James > Namaste James, > > Yes I am well familiar, but that is not necessarily Love, it is well > tainted with emotion and attachment....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > > Namaste' Tony, > > The mind can never go beyond the mind. > > You say that you are 'well familiar' with the Love shared in a > family. Therefore you understand the 'feeling' and know intuitively. > > If you have the privilege of associating with a very young > child - the 'innocence' that is there is 'felt' and it is Pure Love. > > You are touched by it because IT IS YOU - you already are what > you most deeply seek - seeking it is the movement away from it. > > Hug a child and surrender to Love. > > > Love, > james > > > > > > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > > > I think you understand this already. > > > It is there when your child or grandchild gives you a hug > and > > > says, "Happy Father's Day Dad, I Love You!" > > > > > > Then, there is no question of merging/trancending... > > > > > > Happy Father's Day Tony, > > > I Love you, > > > James > > Namaste James, > > > > Yes I am well familiar, but that is not necessarily Love, it is well > > tainted with emotion and attachment....ONS...Tony. Namaste James, I will familiar with the fact there is love with a child. I have ten children and twelve grandchildren. I will say it again, with humans it is always tainted with dependence, emotion and attachment...ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Namaste' Tony, Love is eternally available - what is preventing 'you' from seeing it? Do you *truly* want Love or are you avoiding it? If yes, you have just answered you own question about 'how'. You are familiar with the *fact* that there is Love and you see that with humans it is 'tainted with dependence, emotion and attachment' - therefore the way for 'you' is to drop dependence, emotion and attachment. Are you willing to be vulnerable? If not, you will 'stay' as you are - like you say, "I will say it again...dependence, emotion and attachment..." - you see these because they are 'your' barriers - drop them and Love is. Love, james > > I will familiar with the fact there is love with a child. I have ten > children and twelve grandchildren. I will say it again, with humans it > is always tainted with dependence, emotion and attachment...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.