Guest guest Posted February 1, 2002 Report Share Posted February 1, 2002 , GCWein1111@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/31/02 8:08:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, jodyrrr@h... > writes: > > > > > > Simple. TM is simple mantra practice. It has been practiced for > > a long time. > > > > > Experientially, what one thinks during TM meditation is irrelevant: > > > money, food, job, whatever; as long as one returns to the mantra. > > > > That's just like vipassana, except you focus on the breath. > > > > > > l don't want to be nitpicky or overly critical here, , but just to > > clarify, based on my own expereince. Regarding the above, having practiced > > vipassana quite a bit before my energy eruption 10 yrs ago, l just wanted > > to say that it is far different from TM. As Daniel Goleman wrote > > extensively in his classic THE MEDITATIVE MIND years ago, while TM is a > > concentration practice, vipassana is both a concentration and insight > > practice. Also vipassana is one of the most versatile of practices, in that > > virtually anything can be used as an object of meditation -- not only the > > breath but also body sensations, emotions, thoughts, sounds, etc. This is > > not to say that vipassana is superior to TM (okay, l think it is, but l'm > > biased . > > > > > > > Thus, TM is a "progressive" path, as > > > opposed to Ramana's more direct approach. > > > > What Ramana knew that you folk don't is that there is > > no progression. It's not a matter of getting anywhere, it's > > a matter of seeing where you already are. > > > l hope we're not saying the progressive element is necessarily > lacking on the spiritual path. l know there's truth in the statement that > it's a matter of seeing where you already are, but preparation is also > required in many cases. l'm thinking of the ngondro practices in Tibetan > Buddhism, and the preparation required for working with kundalini energy (as > well as the progression of the energy itself), as examples of preparation (ie > progression) involved in some paths. > I disagree that there's no progression. The fact of the matter is that a. the world is Brahman but b. not everybody knows it. There's usually a time element between a. realizing that "one" is not Brahman (a false conclusion to begin with, agreed); but b. actual Self-Realization. If everybody were already Self-Realized (not having realized Brahman, then there would be no need for the Guru). Nobody doubts, intellectually (and some experientially), that the world is Brahman; but there's a difference between those who can only conceptualize the fact and actual realization. Saying "I am Brahman" over and over may not immediately do any good. Therefore, in my opinion, accepting the truth is the wisest course of action: again. a. we are Brahman, but b. not everybody has actually realized that fact, and practically speaking, it often takes time to realize IT. Saying that everybody is already Self-Realized is an incorrect statement if one defines Self-Realization in the commonly accepted framework of non-dualism. If this were otherwise, there would be no Gurus, no group discussions on this very same topic. Thus, the progression exists as a fact of life. If anybody refuses to accept it, that's fine with me. If anybody thinks they are already Self-realized but aren't, that's only another delusion they can tack onto the rest. I have an out of print book by David Godman on a Self-realized disciple of Ramana, Laksmana (I forgot the full name...book's at home). At any rate, Laksmana practiced Sadhana for a few years and one day came directly in front of Ramana and said "I have realized the Self"...at which time Ramana smiled to him as a way of affirming the fact. So, if on that day or the day before he had realized the Self, that means that prior to that day, he had not been Self-Realized; though of course he was still equally Brahman. Zen Koan: a dirt clod is the Buddha. (the dirt clod is equally Consciousness, the Void, or whatever term you wish to use...non-dual Brahman for Vedics..etc); but the Buddha has realized That as an actual reality. Who knows anything about the dirt clod...let it speak for itself, if possible. Sincerely, jiva (the TM guy) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2002 Report Share Posted February 1, 2002 , "purushaz" <purushaz> wrote: [snip] > > I disagree that there's no progression. The fact of the matter is > that a. the world is Brahman but b. not everybody knows it. The world is Maya, the manifestation of Shakti, the other side of Brahman. Everybody is Brahman, not all know it experientially. > There's > usually a time element between a. realizing that "one" is not Brahman > (a false conclusion to begin with, agreed); but b. actual > Self-Realization. Self realization seems to come after a period of sadhana, true. However, this period of sadhana brings us no closer to the Self than we already are. The time spent in practice helps to manifest more clarity in the mind, but the connection to Self realization is only tenuous. Self realization is a spontaneous event that can happen at any moment. There are cases of instant realization and cases of realization after concentrated and devoted practice, and many more cases of practice not resulting in the sought after goal at all. The point is that the "time element" isn't necessarily connected to the event's occurrance. > If everybody were already Self-Realized (not > having realized Brahman, then there would be no need for the Guru). I'm not saying they are Self realized, just that they are the Self, and all it takes to see it is a little grace. > Nobody doubts, intellectually (and some experientially), that the > world is Brahman; but there's a difference between those who can > only conceptualize the fact and actual realization. If it's a concept it has nothing to do with Brahman. The world is the world. Brahman as pure being lies outside of the world. In samadhi, where Brahman dwells, the world goes away. Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding concept. > Saying "I > am Brahman" over and over may not immediately do any good. It might if you said it as your mantra. > Therefore, in my opinion, accepting the truth is the > wisest course of action: again. a. we are Brahman, but > b. not everybody has actually realized that fact, and > practically speaking, it often takes time to realize > IT. Saying that everybody is already Self-Realized > is an incorrect statement if one defines > Self-Realization in the commonly accepted > framework of non-dualism. I didn't say everyone is realized, I said everyone is the Self. > If this were > otherwise, there would be no Gurus, no group > discussions on this very same topic. Thus, > the progression exists as a fact of life. If anybody refuses to > accept it, that's fine with me. If anybody thinks they are already > Self-realized but aren't, that's only another delusion they can tack > onto the rest. I have an out of print book by David Godman on a > Self-realized disciple of Ramana, Laksmana (I forgot the full > name...book's at home). At any rate, Laksmana practiced Sadhana for a > few years and one day came directly in front of Ramana and said "I > have realized the Self"...at which time Ramana smiled to him as a > way of affirming the fact. So, if on that day or the day before he > had realized the Self, that means that prior to that day, he had not > been Self-Realized; though of course he was still equally > Brahman. Zen Koan: a dirt clod is the Buddha. (the dirt clod is > equally Consciousness, the Void, or whatever term you wish to > use...non-dual Brahman for Vedics..etc); but the Buddha has > realized That as an actual reality. Who knows anything about the > dirt clod...let it speak for itself, if possible. Sincerely, > jiva (the TM guy) There is change in the mind that could be called development, but it only enjoys a tenuous connection to Self realization. There are many more failures than successes in terms of Self realization, although I'm sure every life benefits from spiritual practice. None of that changes the fact that TM is just a commercial repackaging of a very old meditation practice, and that there are many free sources of practices that would be just as effective to foster clarity in the mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2002 Report Share Posted February 2, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > The world is the world. Brahman as pure being lies outside of > the world. In samadhi, where Brahman dwells, the world goes away. > Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding concept. Unless it was a 'Jnani' that said it (and yes, you will hear it -- mostly outside the strictly Hindu/Indian traditions where conditioning & long tradition insinuates that the world is something to be escaped -- not surprising where poverty is so prevalent). Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2002 Report Share Posted February 3, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > The world is the world. Brahman as pure being lies outside of > > the world. In samadhi, where Brahman dwells, the world goes away. > > > Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding concept. > > Unless it was a 'Jnani' that said it (and yes, you will hear it -- > mostly outside the strictly Hindu/Indian traditions where > conditioning & long tradition insinuates that the world is something > to be escaped -- not surprising where poverty is so prevalent). > > Cheers, > > Tim Good point, Tim. Krishnamurti said (paraphrasing), "I am the world. I am the suffering of the world, and the pettiness and greed. I notice how suffering, pettiness, and greed is involved with 'me' ..." Jesus said, "As you do to the least of these, you have done to me." There is no escape, there is no "other place." How can the world go away, if there is no world? Because there is no "real world" (of separate things or persons), if "a world" appears "to me", then I am that world, and all in it. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2002 Report Share Posted February 3, 2002 On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:47:47 -0000 "dan330033" <dan330033 writes: > , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > > The world is the world. Brahman as pure being lies outside of > > > the world. In samadhi, where Brahman dwells, the world goes > away. > > > > > Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding > concept. > > > > Unless it was a 'Jnani' that said it (and yes, you will hear it -- > > > mostly outside the strictly Hindu/Indian traditions where > > conditioning & long tradition insinuates that the world is > something > > to be escaped -- not surprising where poverty is so prevalent). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim > > Good point, Tim. > > Krishnamurti said (paraphrasing), "I am the world. > I am the suffering of the world, > and the pettiness and greed. I notice > how suffering, pettiness, and greed > is involved with 'me' ..." > > Jesus said, "As you do to the least of these, > you have done to me." > > There is no escape, there is no "other place." > > How can the world go away, if there is no world? > > Because there is no "real world" (of separate things > or persons), if "a world" appears "to me", > then I am that world, and all in it. > > Love, > Dan > Consciousness is its contents -- an empty vessel without structure, a tabula rasa sans tabula, taking on form much as a chameleon takes on color! If "I see the world," then "I am the world!" http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ______________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 Hi Dan, , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > > Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding concept. > > > > Unless it was a 'Jnani' that said it <snip> > > Good point, Tim. Thanks... although the point is probably unnecessary. The only "occluding concept" I can imagine is the belief that there are occluding concepts :-). > There is no escape, there is no "other place." > > How can the world go away, if there is no world? How true! > Because there is no "real world" (of separate things > or persons), if "a world" appears "to me", > then I am that world, and all in it. That is indeed the conclusion. The separation of "maya" and "brahman" is an idea for 'seekers' to toy with, those looking for an "escape from maya." Love, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 I can speak, and I like to. Ego talk and Divine flow get mixed up in the bowl of soup of this our expression. Its okay. When we fall back out of a fear of being a non-dual expression of what we are, we get dumb, and start talking from the words of the Masters. No need to wait to be a Master though. If you wait, you lose the power of the Word. Just babble and be. Dialogue is communion. Communion is being. Being is expression, Being tongue tied is being dumb. Silence is the answer, but until we can be the answer in the silence, lets live as the expression, and not think it less. love eric. , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, > > or that you need to take thorazine. > > Neither. I said "Cheers and a thorazine tablet," the interpretation > is Jody's. But the implication was yours. > > Why don't you just say what you really want to say to me. > > What I want to say to you can't be spoken -- there isn't anyone to > speak it or anybody to listen. > > Cheers, > > Tim Right, all this doesn't exist and there's nobody talking to one another. Classic NonDualThinkâ„¢. ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial Click Here! ---~-> /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > > > > Saying that the world is Brahman is itself an occluding concept. > > > > > > Unless it was a 'Jnani' that said it <snip> > > > > Good point, Tim. > > Thanks... although the point is probably unnecessary. The > only "occluding concept" I can imagine is the belief that there are > occluding concepts :-). And that itself is a belief that binds you to your idea of nonduality. > > There is no escape, there is no "other place." > > > > How can the world go away, if there is no world? > > How true! Yes, if there is no world, how can we be it? > > Because there is no "real world" (of separate things > > or persons), if "a world" appears "to me", > > then I am that world, and all in it. > > That is indeed the conclusion. The separation of "maya" > and "brahman" is an idea for 'seekers' to toy with, those looking for > an "escape from maya." When something is found not to exist, what is there to escape from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > That is indeed the conclusion. The separation of "maya" > > and "brahman" is an idea for 'seekers' to toy with, those looking > > for > > an "escape from maya." > > When something is found not to exist, what is there to escape from? I said, those looking for an escape from maya, not "those escaping from maya." There is no escape from maya, because there is no maya. To take it further, since there is no maya, the appearance of maya is the Self (Brahman). Thus, Maya = Brahman. Cheers and a thorazine tablet, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: [snip] > Cheers and a thorazine tablet, Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, or that you need to take thorazine. Why don't you just say what you really want to say to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, > or that you need to take thorazine. Neither. I said "Cheers and a thorazine tablet," the interpretation is Jody's. > Why don't you just say what you really want to say to me. What I want to say to you can't be spoken -- there isn't anyone to speak it or anybody to listen. Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, > > or that you need to take thorazine. > > Neither. I said "Cheers and a thorazine tablet," the interpretation > is Jody's. But the implication was yours. > > Why don't you just say what you really want to say to me. > > What I want to say to you can't be spoken -- there isn't anyone to > speak it or anybody to listen. > > Cheers, > > Tim Right, all this doesn't exist and there's nobody talking to one another. Classic NonDualThink™. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > > Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, > > > or that you need to take thorazine. > > > > Neither. I said "Cheers and a thorazine tablet," the interpretation > > is Jody's. > > But the implication was yours. > > > > Why don't you just say what you really want to say to me. > > > > What I want to say to you can't be spoken -- there isn't anyone to > > speak it or anybody to listen. > > > > Cheers, So if i just go back to sleep will some one wake me at the 'end of the line'? sriprank > > > > Tim > > Right, all this doesn't exist and there's nobody talking to one > another. Classic NonDualThink™. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 I love these: Just babble and be. Let's live the expression, and not think it less. Thanks! --Greg At 03:59 PM 2/4/02 -0500, ErcAshfrd wrote: >I can speak, and I like to. Ego talk and Divine flow get mixed up in the bowl of soup >of this our expression. Its okay. >When we fall back out of a fear of being a non-dual expression of what we are, we get dumb, and start talking from the words of the Masters. No need to wait to be a Master though. If you wait, you lose the power of the Word. Just babble and be. Dialogue is communion. Communion is being. Being is expression, Being tongue tied is being dumb. Silence is the answer, but until we can be the answer in the silence, lets live as the expression, and not think it less. > >love > >eric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 Tim & Friends, More explicitly, Tim, Maya is God, as that concept is understood by the Judaic-Christian-Islamic religions. The joke is that many Advaita Vedanta fans think that because they have embraced a method that does not depend on God, or the concept of God, that God-Maya then ceases to exist simply because it(he, she) is labeled "illusion". As soon as the concept of "Grace" enters the picture, though, no matter how we slice it, the concept as well as the reality (what ever that is!) of God is back. yours in the bonds, eric , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > > That is indeed the conclusion. The separation of "maya" > > > and "brahman" is an idea for 'seekers' to toy with, those looking > > > for > > > an "escape from maya." > > > > When something is found not to exist, what is there to escape from? > > I said, those looking for an escape from maya, not "those escaping > from maya." There is no escape from maya, because there is no maya. > > To take it further, since there is no maya, the appearance of maya is > the Self (Brahman). Thus, Maya = Brahman. > > Cheers and a thorazine tablet, > > Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 Hi Tim! > snip > The > only "occluding concept" I can imagine is the belief that there are > occluding concepts :-). Very true. snip > The separation of "maya" > and "brahman" is an idea for 'seekers' to toy with, those looking for > an "escape from maya." Yes. Just like you said about "occluding concepts." The belief that there is an "occluding reality" is itself "the occluding reality." To look for escape from Maya, is Maya. When literally no escape is possible, there is no escapee that can be posited. With no escapee, what Maya is there, other than Brahman? Namaste and Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 eblack101 wrote: > > Tim & Friends, > > More explicitly, Tim, Maya is God, as that concept is understood by > the Judaic-Christian-Islamic religions. > > The joke is that many Advaita Vedanta fans think that because they > have embraced a method that does not depend on God, or the concept of > God, that God-Maya then ceases to exist simply because it(he, she) is > labeled "illusion". > > As soon as the concept of "Grace" enters the picture, though, no > matter how we slice it, the concept as well as the reality (what ever > that is!) of God is back. > > yours in the bonds, > eric > "God" is used in explaining "Grace". "Grace" is a possible explanation for "what is or is not". What is or is not is or is not with or without God and Grace. With the assertion of the explainer along come Grace and God, with the negation of the explainer, Grace and God are not. With or without assertion or negation the snow is falling. andrew andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > , "fewtch" <coresite@a...> wrote: > > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > > Wow Tim. Are you implying that I need to take thorazine, > > > or that you need to take thorazine. > > > > Neither. I said "Cheers and a thorazine tablet," the interpretation > > is Jody's. > > But the implication was yours. No, that isn't correct. There was no implication there at all, I used "thorazine tablets" as a reference to the craziness of all this talk. But believe what you will... you will anyway :-). > Right, all this doesn't exist and there's nobody talking to one > another. Classic NonDualThink™. You're the expert... Cheers, Tim 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.