Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 love eric Methods that promise to lead to happiness lead to sadness. And if everything depended on practice then Grace would be for fools... And if Self is truly all what is left to get? source: unknown > source : http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb01.htm > M.: Misery is removed; our aim is removal of misery. > You do not acquire happiness. Your very nature > is happiness. Bliss is not newly earned. All that > is done is to remove unhappiness. These methods > do it. > > M.: Atman is the aim. What else can there be? > All other aims are for those who are incapable of atmalakshya > (having the Self for the aim). They lead you ultimately to > atma-vichara (enquiry into the Self). One-pointedness is the fruit > of all kinds of practice. One may get it quickly; another after > a long time. Everything depends on the practice. > > - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, No. 290 ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4. No Minimums. FREE Money 2002. 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 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Methods that promise to lead to happiness lead to sadness. And if everything depended on practice then Grace would be for fools... And if Self is truly all what is left to get? source: unknown > source : http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb01.htm > M.: Misery is removed; our aim is removal of misery. > You do not acquire happiness. Your very nature > is happiness. Bliss is not newly earned. All that > is done is to remove unhappiness. These methods > do it. > > M.: Atman is the aim. What else can there be? > All other aims are for those who are incapable of atmalakshya > (having the Self for the aim). They lead you ultimately to > atma-vichara (enquiry into the Self). One-pointedness is the fruit > of all kinds of practice. One may get it quickly; another after > a long time. Everything depends on the practice. > > - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, No. 290 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 On 2/25/02 at 1:45 PM david bozzi wrote: ºMethods that promise to lead to happiness ºlead to sadness. Of course - unmet expectations.. º ºAnd if everything depended on practice ºthen Grace would be for fools... Grace is for foolish practitioners too º ºAnd if Self is truly all ºwhat is left to get? Thanks for the laugh... Questions like the one above are meaningless because of the hidden suggestion there would be something to get if Self would not be all, or if Self doesn't exist. The belief there is anything to get at all could be called a basic lack regarding human (mammalian) functioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > On 2/25/02 at 1:45 PM david bozzi wrote: > > ºMethods that promise to lead to happiness > ºlead to sadness. > > Of course - unmet expectations.. > º > ºAnd if everything depended on practice > ºthen Grace would be for fools... > > Grace is for foolish practitioners too True. Reality isn't conferred on certain people by grace, nor by practice, nor by non-practice (nor, is the opposite inference correct -- that reality could be withheld). What is actual is not made more actual by being conferred or withheld. > º > ºAnd if Self is truly all > ºwhat is left to get? > > Thanks for the laugh... > Questions like the one above are meaningless because of the > hidden suggestion there would be something to get if Self > would not be all, or if Self doesn't exist. > The belief there is anything to get at all could be called a basic > lack regarding human (mammalian) functioning. Quite so. As long as there is thought to be a division of reality along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there is dichotomized perception. Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, or being truly less than all, or not existing. Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against what is outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > Thanks for the laugh... Quite welcome. Funny minds find the humerous... > Questions like the one above are meaningless because of the > hidden suggestion there would be something to get if Self > would not be all, or if Self doesn't exist. Only a meaningless mind discovers the meaningless Where is meaning? > The belief there is anything to get at all could be called a basic > lack regarding human (mammalian) functioning. Are you a mammal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Thank-you for sharing such exquisite poetry. May I inquire what prompted you to do so? Love, David , "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> > Mon Dec 31, 2001 6:53 am > My Master > > is invisible. > Has no name. > Needs no defense. > Causes no controversy. > Can not be addicted to. > Can not be attached to. > Can not be the object of a club, > organization or religion. > > My master defies all my knowing. > > Once I believe my master can be defined, > or has a name, > or needs to be defended, > or is controversial, > > or > > once I believe I need my master > or that I must cling to my master > or make my master out to be the object > of some religion, > or any oject at all > > then > > I have defied my master's teaching > and have lost my way. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Methods that promise to lead to happiness > > lead to sadness. > > > > And if everything depended on practice > > then Grace would be for fools... > > > > And if Self is truly all > > what is left to get? > > > > source: unknown > > > > > > > source : http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb01.htm > > > > > M.: Misery is removed; our aim is removal of misery. > > > You do not acquire happiness. Your very nature > > > is happiness. Bliss is not newly earned. All that > > > is done is to remove unhappiness. These methods > > > do it. > > > > > > M.: Atman is the aim. What else can there be? > > > All other aims are for those who are incapable of atmalakshya > > > (having the Self for the aim). They lead you ultimately to > > > atma-vichara (enquiry into the Self). One-pointedness is the > > fruit > > > of all kinds of practice. One may get it quickly; another > > after > > > a long time. Everything depends on the practice. > > > > > > - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, No. 290 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > True. Whose truth? > Reality isn't conferred on certain people > by grace, nor by practice, nor > by non-practice (nor, is the opposite > inference correct -- that reality could > be withheld). Who says so? > What is actual is not made more actual > by being conferred or withheld. If you say so... > As long as there is thought to be a division of reality > along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need > to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there > is dichotomized perception. Ok > Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, > or being truly less than all, or not existing. > Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against > what is outside. Dichotomized thought noted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 On 2/26/02 at 12:23 AM david bozzi wrote: º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: º º> Thanks for the laugh... º ºQuite welcome. ºFunny minds find the humerous... Well, at least, laughing has been proved to provide a health benefit. º º> Questions like the one above are meaningless because of the º> hidden suggestion there would be something to get if Self º> would not be all, or if Self doesn't exist. º ºOnly a meaningless mind ºdiscovers the meaningless Thanks, that is a meaningful remark. º ºWhere is meaning? At the same place where "Self" is. (At the bookshelf too) º º> The belief there is anything to get at all could be called a basic º> lack regarding human (mammalian) functioning. º ºAre you a mammal? Doesn't that question imply identification irrespective an answer? Thanks for the laugh again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: [snip] > As long as there is thought to be a division of reality > along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need > to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there > is dichotomized perception. > Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, > or being truly less than all, or not existing. > Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against > what is outside. Hi Dan. Would you proscribe a practice of nondichotomization to one who appears to dichotomize? --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > True. > > Whose truth? I'd venture the person known as Dan. > > Reality isn't conferred on certain people > > by grace, nor by practice, nor > > by non-practice (nor, is the opposite > > inference correct -- that reality could > > be withheld). > > Who says so? Someone in whose words I find much to agree with. > > What is actual is not made more actual > > by being conferred or withheld. > > If you say so... It's the obvious truth. > > As long as there is thought to be a division of reality > > along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need > > to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there > > is dichotomized perception. > > Ok > > > Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, > > or being truly less than all, or not existing. > > Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against > > what is outside. > > Dichotomized thought noted... All thoughts are, but some thoughts come to us by way of individuals who know what they are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > some thoughts come to us by > way of individuals who know what they are talking > about. To whom do you speak? Whose illusion resonates best to yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > > > some thoughts come to us by > > way of individuals who know what they are talking > > about. > > To whom do you speak? To pixels on a screen. > Whose illusion resonates best to yours? Those who appear to have the benefit of direct seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > > To whom do you speak? > > To pixels on a screen. So we have something in common... > > Whose illusion resonates best to yours? > > Those who appear to have the benefit of direct > seeing. We do the best we can according to our knowing... ...which amounts to nothing. I'm ok with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > > > > To whom do you speak? > > > > To pixels on a screen. > > So we have something > in common... > > > > Whose illusion resonates best to yours? > > > > Those who appear to have the benefit of direct > > seeing. > > We do the best we can > according to our knowing... > > ...which amounts to nothing. > > I'm ok with that. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > > True. > > Whose truth? Yes, Who's truth. > > Reality isn't conferred on certain people > > by grace, nor by practice, nor > > by non-practice (nor, is the opposite > > inference correct -- that reality could > > be withheld). > > Who says so? Right. Who says so. > > > What is actual is not made more actual > > by being conferred or withheld. > > If you say so... No, Who says so ... > > > As long as there is thought to be a division of reality > > along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need > > to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there > > is dichotomized perception. > > Ok Okay, okay. > > > Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, > > or being truly less than all, or not existing. > > Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against > > what is outside. > > Dichotomized thought noted... .... within dichotomized thought process ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > > > True. > > > > Whose truth? > > I'd venture the person known as Dan. True. And I'd venture him, too, but there's not much of an adventure in that venture ... > > > > Reality isn't conferred on certain people > > > by grace, nor by practice, nor > > > by non-practice (nor, is the opposite > > > inference correct -- that reality could > > > be withheld). > > > > Who says so? > > Someone in whose words I find much to agree with. Namaste. And any and all words, being formed by consensus, imply agreement or disagreement. Humorous to offer words in service of Reality in which there is neither agreement or disagreement. > > > > What is actual is not made more actual > > > by being conferred or withheld. > > > > If you say so... > > It's the obvious truth. It is. There is nothing to hide it. It is self-evident with no other to be misled. > > Dichotomized thought noted... > > All thoughts are, but some thoughts come to us by > way of individuals who know what they are talking > about. Glad to hear that. And yes, all thoughts are. Clarity about the nature of "discriminative thought" is indeed, clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > Thank-you for sharing such exquisite poetry. > May I inquire what prompted you to do so? > > Love, > David <<<< i am pretty novice at this, but, in the peotry, and the prompting to post it, i hear the familiar voice of Atman, but i could be wrong. Namaste' james > > , "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> > > Mon Dec 31, 2001 6:53 am > > My Master > > > > is invisible. > > Has no name. > > Needs no defense. > > Causes no controversy. > > Can not be addicted to. > > Can not be attached to. > > Can not be the object of a club, > > organization or religion. > > > > My master defies all my knowing. > > > > Once I believe my master can be defined, > > or has a name, > > or needs to be defended, > > or is controversial, > > > > or > > > > once I believe I need my master > > or that I must cling to my master > > or make my master out to be the object > > of some religion, > > or any oject at all > > > > then > > > > I have defied my master's teaching > > and have lost my way. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Methods that promise to lead to happiness > > > lead to sadness. > > > > > > And if everything depended on practice > > > then Grace would be for fools... > > > > > > And if Self is truly all > > > what is left to get? > > > > > > source: unknown > > > > > > > > > > source : http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb01.htm > > > > > > > M.: Misery is removed; our aim is removal of misery. > > > > You do not acquire happiness. Your very nature > > > > is happiness. Bliss is not newly earned. All that > > > > is done is to remove unhappiness. These methods > > > > do it. > > > > > > > > M.: Atman is the aim. What else can there be? > > > > All other aims are for those who are incapable of > atmalakshya > > > > (having the Self for the aim). They lead you ultimately to > > > > atma-vichara (enquiry into the Self). One-pointedness is > the > > > fruit > > > > of all kinds of practice. One may get it quickly; another > > > after > > > > a long time. Everything depends on the practice. > > > > > > > > - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, No. 290 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 , "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > source : http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb01.htm > > > > Removal of Misery > > D.: When duhka (misery) overpowers me, enquiry is impossible. > > M.: Because the mind is too weak. Make it strong. > > D.: By what means? > > M.: Sat-sanga, Isvara Aradhana, Pranayama > (association with the wise, worship of God, breath control). > > D.: What happens? > > M.: Misery is removed; our aim is removal of misery. > You do not acquire happiness. Your very nature > is happiness. Bliss is not newly earned. All that > is done is to remove unhappiness. These methods > do it. > > D.: Association with the wise may strengthen the mind. > There must also be practice. What practice should be made? > > M.: Yes. Practice is necessary too. Practice means removal of > predispositions. Practice is not for any fresh gain; it is to kill > the predispositions. > > D.: Abhyasa (practice) should give me that power. > > M.: Practice is power. If thoughts are reduced to a single thought, > the mind is said to have grown strong. When practice remains > unshaken it becomes sahaja (natural). > > D.: What is such practice? > > M.: Enquiring into the Self. That is all. > Atmanyeva vasam nayet ... Fix the mind on the SELF. > > D.: What is the aim to be kept in view? Practice requires an aim. > > M.: Atman is the aim. What else can there be? > All other aims are for those who are incapable of atmalakshya > (having the Self for the aim). They lead you ultimately to > atma-vichara (enquiry into the Self). One-pointedness is the fruit > of all kinds of practice. One may get it quickly; another after > a long time. Everything depends on the practice. > > - Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, No. 290 <<< an american prophet once said, ..."Man is that he might have joy"... when we are born into this life, we travel awhile, begining as a pure Self(man/woman), as we travel, things collect upon us, inadvertantly, or through the instrumentality of others- well meaning and not so well-meaning. Some come to identify (falsely) their Self, with those things which are now attached to them. Layer after layer, item after item... becoming 'I am this- or I am that'. To me the purpose of practice, is to find and remove and discard, or if needed keep in a backpack for future use, that which has accumulated, but unattaching all these things from the Self. When we feel frustrated 'with ourselves' we are decieved, we are frustrated because we have confused that which is attached to ourself- with our Self. Once we separate the two- we have joy, and then that which is separated becomes the tool which empowers us, not that which defines us. Practice not so much 'Makes Perfect', but once we get to the Self, we find, 'Illuminates Perfect'. It has been said by one Master "have I not said and it is written in your law, I said, 'ye are Gods' ". This is found out through Practice. In the kabalist world, the words "I Am that I Am" are more correctly understood as "I will be that I will be". Therefore, as we are co-Eternal and co-Exsistant and of the same substance as that Entity... When we Practice long and correctly enough, we will find that our Self... rightfully utters the same words. Just my opinion. Metta Namaste', james Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 , "jamesstaples6th" <jamesstaples6th> wrote: > When we feel frustrated 'with ourselves' we are decieved, we > are frustrated because we have confused that which is attached to > ourself- with our Self. I see. Thank-you. There's no time to stop. > Once we separate the two- we have joy, We are joy. > and then that which is separated becomes the tool which empowers us, Joy-tools. : ) > not that which defines us. Practice not so much 'Makes Perfect', > but once we get to the Self, we find, 'Illuminates Perfect'. It > has been said by one Master "have I not said and it is written in > your law, I said, 'ye are Gods' ". This is found out through > Practice. Practice can be a joy-tool. What ways do you practice? One way I practice is through awareness. When I forget I know it's time to remember again... > When we Practice long and correctly > enough, we will find that our Self... rightfully utters the same > words. Just my opinion. Metta Namaste', james I am going to test your opinion with you. Blessings, David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > > True. > > > > Whose truth? > > Yes, Who's truth. > > > > Reality isn't conferred on certain people > > > by grace, nor by practice, nor > > > by non-practice (nor, is the opposite > > > inference correct -- that reality could > > > be withheld). > > > > Who says so? > > Right. Who says so. > > > > > > What is actual is not made more actual > > > by being conferred or withheld. > > > > If you say so... > > No, Who says so ... > > > > > > As long as there is thought to be a division of reality > > > along the lines of "what is outside me, which I need > > > to get" and "what is inside me, which I have" there > > > is dichotomized perception. > > > > Ok > > Okay, okay. > > > > > > Nondichotomization doesn't depend on a Self being truly all, > > > or being truly less than all, or not existing. > > > Nondichotomization is simply not setting an inside against > > > what is outside. > > > > Dichotomized thought noted... > > ... within dichotomized thought process ... Oops...how did I get on the echolalia list. :-) Little Sir Echo :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2002 Report Share Posted February 27, 2002 > Oops...how did I get on the echolalia list. :-) > > Little Sir Echo :-) By recognizing yourself as what comes back to you? Isn't Echo Lala a female Persian poet whose works were expunged for plagiarism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2002 Report Share Posted March 3, 2002 > Hi Dan. > > Would you proscribe a practice of nondichotomization > to one who appears to dichotomize? > > --jody. Hi Jody -- Pretty funny! No, I would just smile sweetly, and move on ... :-) Love, Dan 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.