Tony, Vndism and Vndication

[Guest guest]

Tony is taking quite a pounding these days, but even though he is one

of my 2 favorite betes noires, and has quoted, in the last few days,

numerous Kundalini Gurus ( Ammachi and Ramakrishna, who as a result

of their belief in Kundalini, can't be Realized! ) despite their

employment of Kundalini (which doesn't exist) to bolster his

arguments (issuing from the mind that he doesn't have) about the

nondual (on which all Kundalini Gurus take their stand), I would like

to take his part in a few observations.

First, as the originator of the neologism Vndism, I honestly think

Tony may be making a real and possibly enduring addition to the canon

of western nonduality, if such a canon is ever to come to pass. I

enjoy thinking that it will. ( You may call it "Heighdy-Ho, but I

call it "not two.")

Second, one very real classical school of Vedanta is Vndist. The 2

arguably greatest, and unarguably most famous, Indian Vedanta gurus

in the last 20 years are Swamis Chinmayananda (recently deceased) and

Dayananda Sarasvati, both of whom run well known Indian Vedanta

schools.

To take S. Chinmayananda's initiation and join his school in Bombay,

the aspirant would have to sign a solemn promise to undertake a 5

year unbreakable commitment to the training, which consisted in it's

entirety only of discourse, both verbal and logical, in the ancient

Vedic style. This verbal training (Vndism) could optionally be

enhanced by meditation and/or chanting as the student saw fit, but

those devices were in no way part of the required curriculum. The

curriculum, as our Tony would appreciate, consisted entirely of the

word, both verbal and written.

I met S. Dayananda, who has a large west coast retreat center and

school here in the states, as he passed through Santa Fe, back when I

was living there. I had an extreme problem with my practice that

required expert assistance that just wasn't represented in Santa Fe,

despite the local cross disciplinary panache, so I took a chance, and

applied to his people for a private darshan; and they, to my surprise,

graciously accomodated me. The first thing that struck me about our

meeting was the absolute absence of anything, anything at all,

resembling Shakti. It simply wasn't present. The second thing that

was forceably impressed upon me was that the good Swami didn't have

any idea what I was talking about. Like Tony, he didn't believe in

Kundalini, didn't teach it, raise it, treat it (which I knew) and

asserted that he didn't believe that it existed (which I didn't know

and rendered me utterly noncompose mentis

).

Swami's revelation struck me so dumbfoundingly sideways because of my

second hand experience of S. Chinmayananda and his works.

Chinmayananda, the upper class Brahman pundit, was extremely devoted

to Bhagawan Nityananda, who he treated as his Guru, making the long

and arduous journey out to Gansehpuri from Bombay whenever his duties

gave him the time. Pictures of the 2 of them together, which I may be

able to scrape together to post here if I can ever learn the

attachment game, are amusing as well as instructive. The voluble,

witty razor thin Chinmayanda, with his elegant silver goutee,

standing respectfully beside the seated silent, massive presence of

the near naked Avadhut lost in Shambhavi mudra is an amazing

testimony to the Darshan power of a great Siddha Realizer.

While I never met him, it is impossible for me to imagine that S.

Chinmayananda was devoid of Shakti or failed to appreciate the

Kundalini experience and teaching that Bhagawan so liberally showered

on those who attended him. Still, and here's the interesting rub, he

taught only Vedanta, at least in public, and did so exclusively

through the medium of words.

Second, as to this argument between Tony and Jodyrrr, I have to say

that Tony's point that the realizer's mind/body is run by some

version of "Universal Mind" (by whatever name you want to call it) is

very much the teaching of both Vedanta and it's more appealing rival

for modern attention, Kashmir Saivism. Trika (three, or the vehicle

of three), the once secret name for Kashmir Saivism, designates will

(Icha), knowledge(Jnana) and activity(Kriya), the three primal

activities of Siva in manifestation, known collectively as Shakti. In

classical Vedanta, the same Shakti is refered to as Maya, or Yogamaya,

according to who is doing the teaching. The two teachings find their

separate character and most significant difference in the status and

origin to which they assign this Shakti, or Yogamaya. To the strict

Vedantist, Maya and her origin are completely inexplicable and have

no necessary connection to Brahman. To the Saivite, on the other

hand, She is the Creatrix, the Mother of the Universe, Siva in action

as manifestation. Realization in this path is also known as

Siva-Shakti Samarasya, or the Union (reunion) of Siva, the unmoving

conscious absolute, and his Shakti, the dynamic primal energy of

manifestation (ie. manifestation itself).

That after such a Realization the occupant is completely gone, as alleges, rather than merely in a kind of self willed and enjoyable

suspension occuring as a simultaneous merger and reflection of what

Shri Ramana calls the I.I. would have to be another discussion. I

will say that as soon as I have amassed enough empirical evidence,

I'll make sure to keep you all informed.

yours in the bonds,

eric

[Guest guest]

, EBlackstead@c... wrote:

> Tony & Friends,

>

> Tony is taking quite a pounding these days, but even though he is

one of my 2

> favorite betes noires, and has quoted, in the last few days,

numerous

> Kundalini Gurus ( Ammachi and Ramakrishna, who as a result of their

belief in

> Kundalini, can't be Realized! ) despite their employment of

Kundalini (which

> doesn't exist) to bolster his arguments (issuing from the mind that

he

> doesn't have) about the nondual (on which all Kundalini Gurus take

their

> stand), I would like to take his part in a few observations.

>

> First, as the originator of the neologism Vndism, I honestly think

Tony may

> be making a real and possibly enduring addition to the canon of

western

> nonduality, if such a canon is ever to come to pass. I enjoy

thinking that it

> will. ( You may call it "Heighdy-Ho, but I call it "not two.")

>

> Second, one very real classical school of Vedanta is Vndist. The 2

arguably

> greatest, and unarguably most famous, Indian Vedanta gurus in the

last 20

> years are Swamis Chinmayananda (recently deceased) and Dayananda

Sarasvati,

> both of whom run well known Indian Vedanta schools.

>

> To take S. Chinmayananda's initiation and join his school in Bombay,

the

> aspirant would have to sign a solemn promise to undertake a 5 year

> unbreakable commitment to the training, which consisted in it's

entirety only

> of discourse, both verbal and logical, in the ancient Vedic style.

This

> verbal training (Vndism) could optionally be enhanced by meditation

and/or

> chanting as the student saw fit, but those devices were in no way

part of the

> required curriculum. The curriculum, as our Tony would appreciate,

consisted

> entirely of the word, both verbal and written.

>

> I met S. Dayananda, who has a large west coast retreat center and

school here

> in the states, as he passed through Santa Fe, back when I was living

there. I

> had an extreme problem with my practice that required expert

assistance that

> just wasn't represented in Santa Fe, despite the local cross

disciplinary

> panache, so I took a chance, and applied to his people for a private

darshan;

> and they, to my surprise, graciously accomodated me. The first thing

that

> struck me about our meeting was the absolute absence of anything,

anything at

> all, resembling Shakti. It simply wasn't present. The second thing

that was

> forceably impressed upon me was that the good Swami didn't have any

idea what

> I was talking about. Like Tony, he didn't believe in Kundalini,

didn't teach

> it, raise it, treat it (which I knew) and asserted that he didn't

believe

> that it existed (which I didn't know and rendered me utterly

noncompose mentis

 

Namaste Eric,

 

My phrase Vndist really applies to people who believe that the mind

somehow or other becomes unitive and that this is done by words and

talk alone and no sadhana or practice. Practice to purify the

awareness sheath or the Buddhi.

 

With regard to Kundalini, I regard it as a misnomer of the universal

mind or Mahat. K then is the mind and that is activity. It is not that

I don't believe in it but that I believe there is nothing but that in

energy. So it is the interpretation in which I differ. To me, what

people call K is the mind cleaning the sheaths or intellect of the

individual, automatically. Three and a half coils and cakras etc is

all a mental construct, and it is the attention that moves. Sure there

are vortices near the endocrine glands as they use more energy

perhaps. There are vortices everywhere, nadis everywhere, nothing but

nadis and vortices.

 

I don't accept the siva/sakti premise of the sahasrara, for energy

uniting with energy cannot result in liberation. I would call it

purusha/prakriti, if I believed in it.

 

Siva is Nirguna and Sakti is Saguna. So it is all in the

interpretation that's all.

 

Actually when I use the short bijas that Ammachi gave me, I don't

sense the energy coming from the muladhara at all, but generally much

higher or non localised.

 

I enjoyed your piece though, a hammering from anyone doesn't bother me

by the way, neither do insults. Like an Arab if they are clever ones I

would be entertained.........ONS.......Tony.

[Guest guest]

snip

That after such a Realization the occupant is completely gone, as alleges, rather than merely in a kind of self willed and enjoyable

suspension occuring as a simultaneous merger and reflection of what

Shri Ramana calls the I.I. would have to be another discussion. I

will say that as soon as I have amassed enough empirical evidence,

I'll make sure to keep you all informed. yours in the bonds, eric

As soon as you do what? Eric, do you have enough time left for this?

Going by the stories of all your experiences, I figure you must be

what - about 80?

 

Anyway, I hope you are not suggesting here that Ramana's I-I was

merely a kind of self willed, simultaneous merger with whatever...

you have any idea what we do to people who say that? Who do you think

you are - Tony??

 

Here is a HINT: if there never was any occupant to begin with... (and

in Tony's case, this can be plainly seen) who is to merge with

whatever??

 

And what do I have to do to get you to stop talking about me and talk

to me? Tell me about Woodstock or something.

 

Love,

Gloria

[Guest guest]

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Here is a HINT: if there never was any occupant to begin with...

> (and in Tony's case, this can be plainly seen) who is to merge

> with whatever??

 

Wonderful point Gloria!

 

If the individual never existed, then what happens at realization?

Where does an individual who never existed go? How can a non-

existent individual cease to exist?

 

Ramana was Ramana. He talked to people and interacted with them

just as human beings do. He knew who he (and everyone else) really

was, but he also had a point of view, which entails having a sense

of one's existence *as* an individual. Just because you know yourself

as the Self doesn't mean you forget that you are an ordinary human

being, despite Tony's obnoxious pontifications to the contrary.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Here is a HINT: if there never was any occupant to begin with...

> > (and in Tony's case, this can be plainly seen) who is to merge

> > with whatever??

>

> Wonderful point Gloria!

>

> If the individual never existed, then what happens at realization?

> Where does an individual who never existed go? How can a non-

> existent individual cease to exist?

>

> Ramana was Ramana. He talked to people and interacted with them

> just as human beings do. He knew who he (and everyone else) really

> was, but he also had a point of view, which entails having a sense

> of one's existence *as* an individual. Just because you know

yourself

> as the Self doesn't mean you forget that you are an ordinary human

> being, despite Tony's obnoxious pontifications to the contrary.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

Yes that is true there was nobody there or anything to begin with.

However that is the illusion of Maya. How to get out? How to end this

illusion?

 

Well in the first place we have reinforced it with our own thoughts

and samskaras. So they only way we can undo it is by purifying and

frying the samskaras, like a burnt seed that can no longer sprout.

 

Now getting back to the mind? of the jivanmukti. Again there is no

individual mind, one cannot be a little bit liberated or a little bit

merged. How does one get a drop of water back from the ocean after

dropping it in?

 

The karmic samskaras that drive the body are now operated by the

Universal Mind. Giving the impression of a resident personality. After

all a personality is only made up of ego and samskaras. The ego has

gone so has the individual mind, so now the samskaras appear to be the

same personality that is all. Walking and talking and appearing to a

non realised person to be the same as before. This is why only one

realised person can recognise another.

 

So the mistake you are making is thinking that the samkaras of Ramana

are Ramana, kind of like thinking a hologram is the same as the

original if you will, not an perfect analogy but a help for thinking.

 

A point of view is only a built as the result of previous samskaras.

 

A programme, plus hardware and software, is not the programmer.

 

ONS.......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> So the mistake you are making is thinking that the samkaras of Ramana

> are Ramana, kind of like thinking a hologram is the same as the

> original if you will, not an perfect analogy but a help for thinking.

 

Ramana, like every other being, is Brahman. However, Ramana, like

every other person, had a locus of expression that we could call a

personality. He may have totally transcended it and was not

identified with it at all, but it certainly existed. If it did not,

he wouldn't have been much more than a lump of quivering flesh.

 

When speaking of Ramana, all we have is his existence as a personality.

If we say he was the Self, that is true. However, that is true for us

all, regardless of our status as realized.

 

The only difference between Ramana and the rest of us was that he

was realized, while only some of us are. Perhaps he didn't think

of himself as an individual, but he certainly operated as one.

When a beloved devotee approached him, he expressed love for them,

just as we would for a beloved friend.

 

The point is that whether one is a jivanmukta or an aspirant, there

continues to exist a locus of individuality from which we operate.

We may have completely transcended it, and are not identified with

it anymore, but as long as we are in a body, this particular

collection of samskaras (which is what I'm calling the mind) is how

the jivanmukta lives, breathes and communicates with his/her fellow

non-existent beings.

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

 

> The only difference between Ramana and the rest of us was that he

> was realized, while only some of us are. Perhaps he didn't think

> of himself as an individual, but he certainly operated as one.

> When a beloved devotee approached him, he expressed love for them,

> just as we would for a beloved friend.

>

> The point is that whether one is a jivanmukta or an aspirant, there

> continues to exist a locus of individuality from which we operate.

> We may have completely transcended it, and are not identified with

> it anymore, but as long as we are in a body, this particular

> collection of samskaras (which is what I'm calling the mind) is how

> the jivanmukta lives, breathes and communicates with his/her fellow

> non-existent beings.

 

Namaste Jody,

 

You are confusing the hologram with the original again. There is no

Ramana only his personality samskaras and karmas. The jivanmukti does

not live the drop cannot be retrieved from the ocean. Again this mind

is the Universal Mind only, there is no ego individual mind or

Ramana....ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,

>

> You are confusing the hologram with the original again. There is no

> Ramana only his personality samskaras and karmas. The jivanmukti does

> not live the drop cannot be retrieved from the ocean. Again this mind

> is the Universal Mind only, there is no ego individual mind or

> Ramana....ONS....Tony.

 

If there was no Ramana, why are you using his name?

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namaste Jody,

> >

> > You are confusing the hologram with the original again. There is

no

> > Ramana only his personality samskaras and karmas. The jivanmukti

does

> > not live the drop cannot be retrieved from the ocean. Again this

mind

> > is the Universal Mind only, there is no ego individual mind or

> > Ramana....ONS....Tony.

>

> If there was no Ramana, why are you using his name?

 

Namaste Jody,

 

I use your name don't I? Whats in a name? ......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

, aoclery wrote:

> , jodyrrr@h... wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody,

>

> I use your name don't I? Whats in a name? ......ONS....Tony.

 

A name refers to an individual existence. You have one, I have

one, and the jivanmuktas have them, at least insofar as they will

look at you when you use their name. The name refers to their

understanding that while they are in a body, they exist as beings

that can be referred to as individuals.

[Guest guest]

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

>

> snip

>

> That after such a Realization the occupant is completely gone, as

Tony

> alleges, rather than merely in a kind of self willed and enjoyable

suspension

> occuring as a simultaneous merger and reflection of what Shri

Ramana calls

> the I.I. would have to be another discussion. I will say that as

soon as I

> have amassed enough empirical evidence, I'll make sure to keep you

all

> informed.

>

> yours in the bonds,

> eric

>

> As soon as you do what? Eric, do you have enough time left for

this? Going by the stories of all your experiences, I figure you must

be what - about 80?

>

> Anyway, I hope you are not suggesting here that Ramana's I-I was

merely a kind of self willed, simultaneous merger with whatever...

you have any idea what we do to people who say that? Who do you think

you are - Tony??

>

> Here is a HINT: if there never was any occupant to begin with...

(and in Tony's case, this can be plainly seen) who is to merge with

whatever??

>

> And what do I have to do to get you to stop talking about me and

talk to me? Tell me about Woodstock or something.

>

> Love,

> Gloria

 

Also, in the true Indian fashion, we show some respect for age here

(if anyone is over 55, please speak up and we will require special

courtesy when people address you).

 

Thanks

Harsha

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , aoclery wrote:

> > , jodyrrr@h... wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namaste Jody,

> >

> > I use your name don't I? Whats in a name? ......ONS....Tony.

>

> A name refers to an individual existence. You have one, I have

> one, and the jivanmuktas have them, at least insofar as they will

> look at you when you use their name. The name refers to their

> understanding that while they are in a body, they exist as beings

> that can be referred to as individuals.

 

Namaste Jody rrr, rewind X3?

 

I will say again there is no ego mind there to understand that they

are in a body. Please rewind to my previous posts about the Universal

being the mind of the mukti. Also read Eric's post on the same.

 

What you are calling a mind and an individual are only karmas and

samskaras. If you do not understand that, say so and I will try and

explain again......ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

- harsha-hkl (AT) home (DOT) com

Friday, August 24, 2001 3:08 PM

Re: Tony, Vndism and Vndication

snip

Also, in the true Indian fashion, we show some respect for age here

(if anyone is over 55, please speak up and we will require special

courtesy when people address you). ThanksHarshaDear Harsha AND Eric

AND Tony AND Occupant,

Okay, so I am busted by the boss.

Well, I had hoped that my obvious exaggeration of Eric's age would be

a clue to the intended humor. Maybe I should have said a 100! Anyway,

if anyone doesn't appreciate my admittedly wierd sense of humor, you

probably have a lot of company. My career as a standup comic went

nowhere. I was only wanting to interrupt this ongoing 'no occupant'

verbal ping pong between Tony and Jody, with that joke about Tony. It

wouldn't harm anyone at this point to see the humor in it. Anyway, I'm

pretty sure Eric is NOT 80, and personally I don't think 55 is quite

old enough to qualify for special old age treatment, since I am

almost there myself. Old, to me, will always be at least 5 years

older than my age. But whatever you say goes, Harsha, 55 it is.

Now alas, no doubt, Tony really is over 55. What special courtesy do you want? Deep bows?

Respectfully,

Glo

[Guest guest]

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

>

> -

> harsha-hkl@h...

>

> Friday, August 24, 2001 3:08 PM

> Re: Tony, Vndism and Vndication

>

>

> snip

>

> Also, in the true Indian fashion, we show some respect for age here

> (if anyone is over 55, please speak up and we will require special

> courtesy when people address you).

>

> Thanks

> Harsha

>

> Dear Harsha AND Eric AND Tony AND Occupant,

>

> Okay, so I am busted by the boss.

> Well, I had hoped that my obvious exaggeration of Eric's age would

be a clue to the intended humor. Maybe I should have said a 100!

Anyway, if anyone doesn't appreciate my admittedly wierd sense of

humor, you probably have a lot of company. My career as a standup

comic went nowhere. I was only wanting to interrupt this ongoing 'no

occupant' verbal ping pong between Tony and Jody, with that joke about

Tony. It wouldn't harm anyone at this point to see the humor in it.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Eric is NOT 80, and personally I don't think

55 is quite old enough to qualify for special old age treatment, since

I am almost there myself. Old, to me, will always be at least 5 years

older than my age. But whatever you say goes, Harsha, 55 it is.

>

> Now alas, no doubt, Tony really is over 55. What special courtesy do

you want? Deep bows?

>

> Respectfully,

> Glo

 

Namaste Glo,

 

Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring on

the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Glo,

>

> Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring on

> the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

 

Fascinating. I had you pegged for about 23 and just getting started

in life. Your obstinateness is more in line with this period rather

than the approach of your golden years.

 

I'd expect a 23 year old to have something to prove, not someone

over 55.

 

Oh well, may Mother help you to see through that thicket of concept

and expectation that you've mistaken for wisdom

[Guest guest]

You have it so right Jody!

 

Love, Wim

 

jodyrrr [jodyrrr]

Friday, August 24, 2001 9:45 AM

Re: Tony, Vndism and Vndication

 

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> So the mistake you are making is thinking that the samkaras of Ramana

> are Ramana, kind of like thinking a hologram is the same as the

> original if you will, not an perfect analogy but a help for thinking.

 

Ramana, like every other being, is Brahman. However, Ramana, like

every other person, had a locus of expression that we could call a

personality. He may have totally transcended it and was not

identified with it at all, but it certainly existed. If it did not,

he wouldn't have been much more than a lump of quivering flesh.

 

When speaking of Ramana, all we have is his existence as a personality.

If we say he was the Self, that is true. However, that is true for us

all, regardless of our status as realized.

 

The only difference between Ramana and the rest of us was that he

was realized, while only some of us are. Perhaps he didn't think

of himself as an individual, but he certainly operated as one.

When a beloved devotee approached him, he expressed love for them,

just as we would for a beloved friend.

 

The point is that whether one is a jivanmukta or an aspirant, there

continues to exist a locus of individuality from which we operate.

We may have completely transcended it, and are not identified with

it anymore, but as long as we are in a body, this particular

collection of samskaras (which is what I'm calling the mind) is how

the jivanmukta lives, breathes and communicates with his/her fellow

non-existent beings.

 

 

 

 

/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

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

You have it so right Jody!

 

Love, Wim

 

jodyrrr [jodyrrr]

Friday, August 24, 2001 9:45 AM

Re: Tony, Vndism and Vndication

 

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> So the mistake you are making is thinking that the samkaras of Ramana

> are Ramana, kind of like thinking a hologram is the same as the

> original if you will, not an perfect analogy but a help for thinking.

 

Ramana, like every other being, is Brahman. However, Ramana, like

every other person, had a locus of expression that we could call a

personality. He may have totally transcended it and was not

identified with it at all, but it certainly existed. If it did not,

he wouldn't have been much more than a lump of quivering flesh.

 

When speaking of Ramana, all we have is his existence as a personality.

If we say he was the Self, that is true. However, that is true for us

all, regardless of our status as realized.

 

The only difference between Ramana and the rest of us was that he

was realized, while only some of us are. Perhaps he didn't think

of himself as an individual, but he certainly operated as one.

When a beloved devotee approached him, he expressed love for them,

just as we would for a beloved friend.

 

The point is that whether one is a jivanmukta or an aspirant, there

continues to exist a locus of individuality from which we operate.

We may have completely transcended it, and are not identified with

it anymore, but as long as we are in a body, this particular

collection of samskaras (which is what I'm calling the mind) is how

the jivanmukta lives, breathes and communicates with his/her fellow

non-existent beings.

 

 

 

 

/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

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namaste Glo,

> >

> > Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring

on

> > the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

>

> Fascinating. I had you pegged for about 23 and just getting started

> in life. Your obstinateness is more in line with this period rather

> than the approach of your golden years.

>

> I'd expect a 23 year old to have something to prove, not someone

> over 55.

>

> Oh well, may Mother help you to see through that thicket of concept

> and expectation that you've mistaken for wisdom

 

Namaste Jody rrr,

 

Actually my Irishness is probably responsible for my stubborness.

Those old survival samskaras. Age has nothing to do with it at all at

all.

 

However I see no stubborness here, only returning your calls that's

all. I have nothing to prove, there is nothing to prove, that's my

whole point. Unless you mean I should cease replying to you as

stubborn?

 

I usually like to finish what I am doing, not surrender to a little

annoyance. I thought your were really sincere in your questions?

 

Are you saying you weren't?

 

ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Namaste Jody rrr,

>

> Actually my Irishness is probably responsible for my stubborness.

> Those old survival samskaras. Age has nothing to do with it at all at

> all.

>

> However I see no stubborness here, only returning your calls that's

> all. I have nothing to prove, there is nothing to prove, that's my

> whole point. Unless you mean I should cease replying to you as

> stubborn?

>

> I usually like to finish what I am doing, not surrender to a little

> annoyance. I thought your were really sincere in your questions?

>

> Are you saying you weren't?

>

> ONS......Tony.

 

Tony, I'm sincere in my assertions that a) you have very little in

the way of understanding as you base what you know on speculation,

b) you are your own worst enemy in that you've occluded your

awareness with these speculations, and c) you have little hope of

coming to jnana unless you drop the 'understanding' you foist on

us and come to grips with the fact that you don't have a clue as

to what you're talking about.

 

I sincerely wish you well whatever happens, but I'm afraid that Irish

stubborness is going to be your Waterloo with regards to your coming

to the experiential understanding necessary to actually offer something

of value here.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

I give you a kiss for this one.

Kheyala

Namaste Glo,Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special

treatment, bring on the

tanks.......ONS...Tony./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

[Guest guest]

Hi Jody,

>> Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring on

>> the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

>

>Fascinating. I had you pegged for about 23 and just getting started

>in life. Your obstinateness is more in line with this period rather

>than the approach of your golden years.

>

>I'd expect a 23 year old to have something to prove, not someone

>over 55.

>

>Oh well, may Mother help you to see through that thicket of concept

>and expectation that you've mistaken for wisdom

 

Remember Shakespeare's _King Lear_? "He hath ever but slightly known

himself." Life finally opened him up when he was elderly, and it was

verrrry rough!

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> , "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

> Namaste Glo,

>

> Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring

on

> the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

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

Namaste Sri Tonyji. We respect and appreciate your warrior spirit. We

don't have any tanks though (unless you are referring lovingly to Sri

Bruceji and Sri Wimji and Sri Jodiji and others :-).

 

It may sound repititive and trite but our philosophy here is of non-

violence and love, I enjoyed hearing about your experience in the

nonviolence movement in England where you protested the imprisonment

of Bertrand Russell. Not to be off topic but I love hearing those

kinds of stories.

 

Also, have you been able to influence your grandchildren and children

in religion and philosophy.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

, jodyrrr@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > Namaste Jody rrr,

> >

> > Actually my Irishness is probably responsible for my stubborness.

> > Those old survival samskaras. Age has nothing to do with it at all

at

> > all.

> >

> > However I see no stubborness here, only returning your calls

that's

> > all. I have nothing to prove, there is nothing to prove, that's my

> > whole point. Unless you mean I should cease replying to you as

> > stubborn?

> >

> > I usually like to finish what I am doing, not surrender to a

little

> > annoyance. I thought your were really sincere in your questions?

> >

> > Are you saying you weren't?

> >

> > ONS......Tony.

>

> Tony, I'm sincere in my assertions that a) you have very little in

> the way of understanding as you base what you know on speculation,

> b) you are your own worst enemy in that you've occluded your

> awareness with these speculations, and c) you have little hope of

> coming to jnana unless you drop the 'understanding' you foist on

> us and come to grips with the fact that you don't have a clue as

> to what you're talking about.

>

> I sincerely wish you well whatever happens, but I'm afraid that

Irish

> stubborness is going to be your Waterloo with regards to your coming

> to the experiential understanding necessary to actually offer

something

> of value here.

 

Namaste Jody et al,

 

My experience and logic tell me that advaita is the ultimate truth.

 

That a jivanmukt's mind is actually the universal, as there is no ego.

 

The individual mind is the ego attached to thoughts on a sutra,

string, no ego no mind.

 

Scientifically re physics the world is an illusion even.

 

There is only Nirguna Brahman, for Saguna/Goddess disappears at

pralaya........ONS.......Tony/

[Guest guest]

, harsha-hkl@h... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > , "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

> > Namaste Glo,

> >

> > Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment, bring

> on

> > the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

> ****************************

> Namaste Sri Tonyji. We respect and appreciate your warrior spirit.

We

> don't have any tanks though (unless you are referring lovingly to

Sri

> Bruceji and Sri Wimji and Sri Jodiji and others :-).

>

> It may sound repititive and trite but our philosophy here is of non-

> violence and love, I enjoyed hearing about your experience in the

> nonviolence movement in England where you protested the imprisonment

> of Bertrand Russell. Not to be off topic but I love hearing those

> kinds of stories.

>

> Also, have you been able to influence your grandchildren and

children

> in religion and philosophy.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

 

Namaste Harsha,

 

Some of my children are spiritual( into Vedanta and such), and

vegetarians and some are not. I don't try to influence beyond 15 yrs

of age, it is their life and decisions.

 

One grandchild is on the path through her own choice. It seems she

went to some church pig roast and saw a pig with an apple in its

mouth. This caused her to become a vegetarian at 10 yrs of age, her

parents aren't.

 

With regard to age, Jesus was 33, Sankara, 30 yrs old at death. Ramana

was realised at 17. It is all relative.

 

ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> , harsha-hkl@h... wrote:

> > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > > , "Gloria Lee" <glee@i...> wrote:

> > > Namaste Glo,

> > >

> > > Tony is over 55 but so what, I expect no special treatment,

bring

> > on

> > > the tanks.......ONS...Tony.

> > ****************************

> > Namaste Sri Tonyji. We respect and appreciate your warrior spirit.

> We

> > don't have any tanks though (unless you are referring lovingly to

> Sri

> > Bruceji and Sri Wimji and Sri Jodiji and others :-).

> >

> > It may sound repititive and trite but our philosophy here is of

non-

> > violence and love, I enjoyed hearing about your experience in the

> > nonviolence movement in England where you protested the

imprisonment

> > of Bertrand Russell. Not to be off topic but I love hearing those

> > kinds of stories.

> >

> > Also, have you been able to influence your grandchildren and

> children

> > in religion and philosophy.

> >

> > Love to all

> > Harsha

>

> Namaste Harsha,

>

> Some of my children are spiritual( into Vedanta and such), and

> vegetarians and some are not. I don't try to influence beyond 15 yrs

> of age, it is their life and decisions.

>

> One grandchild is on the path through her own choice. It seems she

> went to some church pig roast and saw a pig with an apple in its

> mouth. This caused her to become a vegetarian at 10 yrs of age, her

> parents aren't.

>

> With regard to age, Jesus was 33, Sankara, 30 yrs old at death.

Ramana

> was realised at 17. It is all relative.

>

> ONS......Tony.

 

Namaste Harsha,

 

Also I didn't get on to the spiritual path until I was 42 yrs old, so

most of my family were grown except for three. Two of them are

spiritual one is not. None of them have children as yet, all the

grandchildren are from the other children. It is amazing that the 10

year old, who has been a vegetarian for over a year and a half, would

pop up like that.

 

When I say not advising after 15 years of age, I mean not asking them

to come to my spiritual beliefs, bhajans or whatever. I of course

still advise if asked....

 

With regard to Bertand Russell, I was then marked and imprisoned

myself.............ONS......Tony.