who is motivated

[Guest guest]

Chapter 18. Practices and teachers

 

18.1. Why practice?

 

Suffering is intrinsic to the dream because of the perception of pervasive

conflict and potential war between the split pairs. From the point of view

of the individual, the purpose of all spiritual practice is to awaken from

the dream of suffering. Since the basis of all splits is the ego, or

illusory I-entity, awakening means to see that there is no I-entity.

However, expecting the ego to see this is like asking something that does

not exist to see that it does not exist.  Spiritual practice does not get

rid of the ego because there is no ego to get rid of.

 

Awakening can only happen by seeing from outside the split that there is no

split.  Since the essence of the ego is the false sense of personal doership

and responsibility, awakening means to see that there is no doer, there is

no choice, and there is no responsibility.  Paradoxically, awakening is

usually preceded by considerable effort but it is never that of a doer.  For

spiritual practice to happen, intense earnestness and intention are also

usually necessary.  (Of course, if they are supposed to happen, they will.

If not, they won¹t.)  An immediate and lasting benefit of spiritual practice

is that, even before awakening, suffering decreases, and the experience of

reduced suffering and greater peace is inspiration for further practice and

progress.

 

One misconception that is common among beginners on the spiritual path is

that suffering and sacrifice in themselves are useful spiritual practices.

(This is undoubtedly reinforced by the biblical story of Jesus suffering for

our sins, and the suffering of the Christian martyrs.) Nothing could be

further from the truth. Since separation is the basis of suffering, seeking

to suffer in the hopes of finding spiritual truth in it can only increase

the sense of separation, and thereby increase suffering. Only the individual

can suffer. The one good thing about suffering is that its presence tells

you that you are still identified, and a keen examination of it will tell

you with what you are identified. In this way suffering is actually your

guide to freedom from suffering. The path away from suffering is the path

towards liberation.  

 

 

18.2. The importance of being aware

 

As an individual, you can do nothing, but you are not an individual,

you are pure Awareness (see Section 11.7). It is because you

transcend the ego that you can see that it does not exist, and you

can be aware that the effort to see that it does not exist is not

your effort.

Bondage and suffering are due to identification of Consciousness with

the I-concept and all of its trappings, resulting in the illusory "I"

and all of its problems. To be effective, any spiritual practice

depends on the increasing awareness of these identifications. When

the seeker understands that suffering is the direct result of

identification, there is a strong incentive to become aware of them.

Thus, becoming aware of the connection between a specific suffering

and the identification from which it springs is a valuable, even

necessary, spiritual practice and is the first step in becoming

disidentified and free.

 

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

 

(many thanks to b))))))))))Shawn

[Guest guest]

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> Spiritual practice does not get

> rid of the ego because there is no ego to get rid of.

 

An ego wrote your post. It may not exist in the absolute but it is essential to

reading and writing.

 

As someone else posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he read the newspaper

or responded to students. Without an ego, a sense me and other, he could not

even communicate.

 

We might investigate what "ego" looks like for one who spends most of their day

in the absolute.

 

This mumbo-jumbo conflation of relative and absolute causes me to suffer.

[Guest guest]

on 1/13/03 9:04 PM, David King at david.king wrote:

> , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

>

>> Spiritual practice does not get

>> rid of the ego because there is no ego to get rid of.

>

> An ego wrote your post. It may not exist in the absolute but it is essential

> to reading and writing.

 

 

Do I sense the squirming of an ego in the peril?

 

> As someone else posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he read the

> newspaper or responded to students. Without an ego, a sense me and other, he

> could not even communicate.

 

 

The ego is a self made identity-process and can be seen through even while

it seems to exist.

 

> We might investigate what "ego" looks like for one who spends most of their

> day in the absolute.

 

You are free to do that?

> This mumbo-jumbo conflation of relative and absolute causes me to suffer.

 

I thought this was brilliantly written!

These are words. You cause your own suffering.

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

Hi David,

Communication depends on a few common properties, like experiences and the

language to describe, or another way to respond, like hugging. Regarding "ego"

the dictionary gives:

1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.

2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious,

most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch

with external reality.

3. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate

pride in oneself; self-esteem.

It won't need further discussion to see that Ramana exclusively meant 1.

It won't be a surprise, Jung exclusively meant 2.

Nor will it surprise that those attributing "ego" property to a text or mind-bodies

are referring to 3, eventually by demonstration.

Distinctions like "absolute" and "relative" are conjured up for "beginners",

like the teaching issue called neti-neti, recognizable by the frequent use of

the words "neither" and "nor":

Some say I'm the body

Others think I am the mind

Some think i'm the ego

Yet I am of neither kind.

Nor am I empty space

Neither am I form

Hence the "who am i" tool as one of the tools to discover the age-old

question, for which no verbal or written answer exists. That known/realized,

issues like relative/absolute lose their meaning, as the "answer" is equally

valid for every single cell, creatures are composed of and the constituents,

the cell is composed of - etc. etc. Recursion ad infinitum...

Peace,

Jan

On 1/13/03 at 11:04 PM David King wrote:

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:>

Spiritual practice does not get> rid of the ego because there is no

ego to get rid of.An ego wrote your post. It may not exist in the

absolute but it is essential to reading and writing.As someone else

posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he read the newspaper or

responded to students. Without an ego, a sense me and other, he

could not even communicate.We might investigate what "ego" looks like

for one who spends most of their day in the absolute.This mumbo-jumbo

conflation of relative and absolute causes me to suffer.

[Guest guest]

Hi Shawn,

 

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> on 1/13/03 9:04 PM, David King at david.king@p... wrote:

>

> >> Spiritual practice does not get

> >> rid of the ego because there is no ego to get rid of.

> >

> > An ego wrote your post. It may not exist in the absolute but it is

essential

> > to reading and writing.

>

> Do I sense the squirming of an ego in the peril?

 

Yes, there was some squirming in my post. :-)

 

Sometimes my rational part gets annoyed at writers, or new students, who throw

around absolutes without understanding what they mean. Like "There is no good

or evil, only your Original Face ... peace, love, dope." In the relative, we

still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our world. Etc.

> > As someone else posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he read the

> > newspaper or responded to students. Without an ego, a sense me and other,

he

> > could not even communicate.

>

> The ego is a self made identity-process and can be seen through even while

> it seems to exist.

 

There is not "one ego" like On and Off. Babies do not know they are helpless,

children do not know they are childish, ..., and so on for each "self" we

traverse in our journey through this life.

 

In meditation, we can see that nothing is there. Nevertheless, two "selves" are

having this conversation.

> > We might investigate what "ego" looks like for one who spends most of their

> > day in the absolute.

>

> You are free to do that?

 

Not yet. :-)

 

But I think Sri Ramana did and it is fascinating to watch his "ego" or what

little is left of it when he communicates with students. His words seem to

consistently arise from an abyss of tremendous depth, like no-one is talking.

> > This mumbo-jumbo conflation of relative and absolute causes me to suffer.

>

> I thought this was brilliantly written!

 

It was a nice article, Shawn, keep sending them. A year from now I may care

less about who conflates what.

> These are words.

 

Muktenanda taught that words have power. Insult someone close to you to verify.

;-)

> You cause your own suffering.

 

Absolutely.

 

dave.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful comments; I will try to understand them below.

 

I went back and looked at Shawn's original website. The work is really

fascinating and it is from a physicist! I'll go back and read the whole thing

when time permits.

 

Now on to your post.

 

, "ecirada" <ecirada@m...> wrote:

>

> Communication depends on a few common properties, like experiences and the

> language to describe, or another way to respond, like hugging.

 

OK, but don't forget a relative sense of me and other. If Maharshi took himself

to be the ajnani, he would have said really dumb things.

> Regarding "ego" the dictionary gives:

>

> 1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.

> 2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most

immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external

reality.

> 3. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate pride

in oneself; self-esteem.

>

> It won't need further discussion to see that Ramana exclusively meant 1.

> It won't be a surprise, Jung exclusively meant 2.

 

OK.

> Nor will it surprise that those attributing "ego" property to a text or

mind-bodies

> are referring to 3, eventually by demonstration.

 

I don't understand. Text reveals something of its author and we attribute that

something to the author's ego. I get a sense of your ego from your writing and

attribute it to your mind-body, aka Jan.

> Distinctions like "absolute" and "relative" are conjured up for

"beginners",

> like the teaching issue called neti-neti, recognizable by the frequent use of

> the words "neither" and "nor":

>

> Hence the "who am i" tool as one of the tools to discover the age-old

> question, for which no verbal or written answer exists. That known/realized,

> issues like relative/absolute lose their meaning, as the "answer" is equally

> valid for every single cell, creatures are composed of and the constituents,

> the cell is composed of - etc. etc. Recursion ad infinitum...

 

Now I think you are conflating relative and absolute.

 

Cells are composed of molecules which are composed of atoms and we did not learn

this by meditating and it is important because it can help us relieve suffering.

 

Is it a big ego that labels all distinctions as "beginners' imagination?"

 

Next time you take an aspirin for your headache, remember that it was not

"conjured up;" it was discovered by hard working people using the relative

practice called science.

 

qed, :-)

dave.

[Guest guest]

On 1/15/03 at 2:02 PM David King wrote:

Hi Jan,Thanks for your thoughtful comments; I will try to understand

them below.I went back and looked at Shawn's original website. The

work is really fascinating and it is from a physicist! I'll go back

and read the whole thing when time permits.

Hi David,

The perspective from molecular biology has to be sobering up, considering that all

thought and action, from what is called "trivial" to "holy" can be described in

terms of cells, communication and metabolism.

Now on to your post., "ecirada"

<ecirada@m...> wrote:> > Communication depends on a few common

properties, like experiences and the> language to describe, or

another way to respond, like hugging.OK, but don't forget a relative

sense of me and other. If Maharshi took himself to be the ajnani, he

would have said really dumb things.

This brings up, how many ppl are required to label a mind-body as "jnani"?

How to differentiate between a mind-body labeled "jnani"and "ajnani" when

both are sleeping? Since you bring up the subject, may i suggest to come up

with a scientifically sound method? (Wise words can be parroted, as can be

observed).> Regarding "ego" the dictionary gives: > > 1. The self,

especially as distinct from the world and other selves.> 2. In

psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most

immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with

external reality.> 3. a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance;

conceit. b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.> > It won't

need further discussion to see that Ramana exclusively meant 1.> It

won't be a surprise, Jung exclusively meant 2. OK.> Nor will it

surprise that those attributing "ego" property to a text or

mind-bodies > are referring to 3, eventually by demonstration.I don't

understand. Text reveals something of its author and we attribute

that something to the author's ego. I get a sense of your ego from

your writing and attribute it to your mind-body, aka Jan.

Unless text refers to repeatable experiments/observation, how to interpret?

That also depends on feelings the text evokes, which could trigger a response.

Attributing a label like "ego" to that can be observed to happen and the response

to that often is the predictable "mirror game" serving as a

demonstration.> Distinctions like "absolute" and "relative" are

conjured up for "beginners",> like the teaching issue called

neti-neti, recognizable by the frequent use of> the words "neither"

and "nor":> > Hence the "who am i" tool as one of the tools to

discover the age-old > question, for which no verbal or written

answer exists. That known/realized, > issues like relative/absolute

lose their meaning, as the "answer" is equally > valid for every

single cell, creatures are composed of and the constituents, > the

cell is composed of - etc. etc. Recursion ad infinitum...Now I think

you are conflating relative and absolute.

Where is the absolute apart from its relative definition?

Please show (by experiment).Cells are composed of molecules which are

composed of atoms and we did not learn this by meditating and it is

important because it can help us relieve suffering.

Can you show a type of suffering that isn't man-made (ignorance,

violating the laws of nature?)Is it a big ego that labels all

distinctions as "beginners' imagination?"

Have you ever been in kindergarten? That's the begin to learn sitting still in class.

Could a term like "beginner" in school apply?

Can you meditate four hours or more on a stretch?

If not, objection to the label "beginner" again?Next time you take an

aspirin for your headache, remember that it was not "conjured up;" it

was discovered by hard working people using the relative practice

called science.

qed, :-)dave.

You must be kidding: many so called "discoveries" are but trial & error to find the

active chemical(s) from folk medicine. In case of aspirin, the leaves of willow trees were

chewed long before the active chemical was found. Hard work? Hard cash..

BTW, Kekule had a dream triggering the idea for the hexagonal ring structure of benzene.

Happy dreaming ;-)Jan

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

 

It is hard to see who wrote what with your colored Word-like formatting. I will

try to compensate.

 

, "ecirada" <ecirada@m...> wrote:

> The perspective from molecular biology has to be sobering up, considering that

all

> thought and action, from what is called "trivial" to "holy" can be

described

in

> terms of cells, communication and metabolism.

 

That would be reductionism: reducing everything to its exterior attributes.

There are good arguments suggesting that interiors are real, that they cannot

simply be reduced to exteriors.

> > > Communication depends on a few common properties, like experiences and the

> > > language to describe, or another way to respond, like hugging.

> > OK, but don't forget a relative sense of me and other. If Maharshi took

himself

> > to be the ajnani, he would have said really dumb things.

> This brings up, how many ppl are required to label a mind-body as "jnani"?

 

Sorry, what is a "ppl?"

> How to differentiate between a mind-body labeled "jnani"and "ajnani" when

> both are sleeping?

 

You cannot differentiate anyone by simply looking at them (although one may look

more relaxed or handsome, etc.).

> Since you bring up the subject, may i suggest to come up

> with a scientifically sound method?

 

Sure. The exterior attributes of meditation show up as differences in brain

waves -- delta versus alpha, for example. There are many other measurable

attributes. Also see Andy Newberg's book "Why God Won't Go Away".

 

Ultimately, whether one is jnani or ajnani depends on concensus from a community

of peers versed in the relevant methodology, just like science.

> (Wise words can be parroted, as can be observed).

 

Not sure if one can "observe" wise words being parroted but we know it is

possible so we try to stay awake and look for clues.

> > I don't understand. Text reveals something of its author and we

> > attribute that something to the author's ego. I get a sense of your

> > ego from your writing and attribute it to your mind-body, aka Jan.

>

> Unless text refers to repeatable experiments/observation, how to interpret?

 

Jan, we could not even begin to understand each other unless we already shared a

huge amount of cultural / linguistic shared intersubjective knowledge. Hello?

> That also depends on feelings the text evokes, which could trigger a response.

> Attributing a label like "ego" to that can be observed to happen and the

response

> to that often is the predictable "mirror game" serving as a demonstration.

 

Huh? Your words tell me about Your ego. My feelings and reactions to them tell

you something about My ego. Kapesh?

> > Now I think you are conflating relative and absolute.

>

> Where is the absolute apart from its relative definition?

> Please show (by experiment).

 

The experiment is to find out who you are. If you look carefully, you will find

no time, no thinker, no ego, and you won't even be able to find who is asking

the question. That is absolute, though these relative instructions remain mere

words.

> > Cells are composed of molecules which are composed of atoms and we did not

> > learn this by meditating and it is important because it can help us relieve

suffering.

>

> Can you show a type of suffering that isn't man-made (ignorance, violating the

laws of nature?)

 

Sure. Earthquakes, disease, etc.

> > Is it a big ego that labels all distinctions as "beginners' imagination?"

>

> Have you ever been in kindergarten? That's the begin to learn sitting still in

class.

> Could a term like "beginner" in school apply?

 

Yes. Beginner is a word. I don't understand the question.

> Can you meditate four hours or more on a stretch?

> If not, objection to the label "beginner" again?

 

Now you seem to be defining "beginner" as anyone who hasn't meditated for at

least four hours.

> > Next time you take an aspirin for your headache, remember that it was not

"conjured up;"

> > it was discovered by hard working people using the relative practice called

science.

>

> You must be kidding: many so called "discoveries" are but trial & error to

find the

> active chemical(s) from folk medicine.

 

"Trial and error" is a relative practice. Now we are learning more about Jan.

Continue.

> In case of aspirin, the leaves of willow trees were chewed long

> before the active chemical was found. Hard work? Hard cash..

 

He thinks the pharmeceutical industry, maybe all of science, is based on cash,

greed? Kind of a 60's view.

> BTW, Kekule had a dream triggering the idea for the hexagonal ring structure

of benzene.

 

Dreams (interiors) are helpful, but science requires exteriors (proof,

repeatability, etc.) to be acceptable.

> Happy dreaming ;-)

 

And a dash of sarcasm. I definitely think Jan has an ego which means he is

human like me. :-)

 

dave.

[Guest guest]

On 1/15/03 at 6:58 PM David King wrote:

Hi Jan,

 

It is hard to see who wrote what with your colored Word-like formatting. I will

try to compensate.

 

Hi David,

 

As you have used Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 to receive that post

and

Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 uses the Internet Explorer to display

HTML, that doesn't not differ from the Email program i used to write the post.

So let me help you how this looks, by taking a look at the picture i took from

the post i received, as displayed in Internet Explorer - the attached file

how_hard.jpg

Very difficult to see who wrote what isn't it?

As the picture says more than a thousand words, end of the discussion.

 

Regards,

 

Jan

Attachment: (image/jpeg) how_hard.jpg [not stored]

[Guest guest]

on 1/14/03 1:19 PM, David King at david.king wrote:

 

> Sometimes my rational part gets annoyed at writers, or new students, who throw

> around absolutes without understanding what they mean. Like "There is no good

> or evil, only your Original Face ... peace, love, dope." In the relative, we

> still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our world. Etc.

 

Listen carefully: *my* rational part....does it belong to you? If so, why?

Don't you choose to claim them as yours? Do you have to?

>In the relative, we

> still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our world. Etc.

 

Are there two different worlds? If the snake is *seen* to be a rope, what

then needs to be done about the bite?

 

>>> As someone else posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he read the

>>> newspaper or responded to students. Without an ego, a sense me and other,

>>> he

>>> could not even communicate.

 

I don't concern myself with who or who does not have one, I look to find out

what it is , how does it arrive.

 

>> The ego is a self made identity-process and can be seen through even while

>> it seems to exist.

> There is not "one ego" like On and Off. Babies do not know they are helpless,

> children do not know they are childish, ..., and so on for each "self" we

> traverse in our journey through this life.

>

> In meditation, we can see that nothing is there. Nevertheless, two "selves"

> are having this conversation.

 

 

Everything you are saying to me is happening in my consciousness. You draw

boundaries where there is none.

>>> We might investigate what "ego" looks like for one who spends most of their

>>> day in the absolute.

 

 

....better to look for what it looks like directly.

 

> But I think Sri Ramana did and it is fascinating to watch his "ego" or what

> little is left of it when he communicates with students. His words seem to

> consistently arise from an abyss of tremendous depth, like no-one is talking.

>

 

better to follow his advise than to be come fascinated with his apparent

condition.

>> These are words.

>

> Muktenanda taught that words have power. Insult someone close to you to

> verify. ;-)

 

Yes, people are identified and so they *allow* the words to have power.

 

"My" *friend* said that to *me*,....*who* gives the words power?

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

 

, "ecirada" <ecirada@m...> wrote:

> On 1/15/03 at 6:58 PM David King wrote:

>

> It is hard to see who wrote what with your colored Word-like formatting.

 

Sometimes when I reply to Word or HTML messages, the indentation is absent,

there is just a colored vertical bar down the left side, so it is hard to see

who wrote what. I normally send text-only messages to eGroups to avoid this.

Then I get the usual '>' indentations.

 

Outlook Express is wimpy, but it's free. ;-)

 

This is not a big deal. Really. I can also insert [Jan wrote:] and [Dave

wrote:] to make it clear.

 

regards,

david.

[Guest guest]

Hi Shawn,

 

Continuing the exploration...

 

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> on 1/14/03 1:19 PM, David King at david.king@p... wrote:

>

> > Sometimes my rational part gets annoyed at writers, or new

students, who throw

> > around absolutes without understanding what they mean.

Like "There is no good

> > or evil, only your Original Face ... peace, love, dope." In the

relative, we

> > still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our

world. Etc.

>

> Listen carefully: *my* rational part....does it belong to you?

 

Yes, as far as the relative world is concerned.

> If so, why?

 

Because you didn't have my thought, and if you trip over a stone, my

toe won't hurt.

> Don't you choose to claim them as yours?

 

No, I'm stuck with my thoughts.

> Do you have to?

 

No. Ultimately, they come from nowhere (or habitual patterns). How

I view them depends on my present state of mindfulness.

> >In the relative, we

> > still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our

world. Etc.

>

> Are there two different worlds?

 

Yes, for the purposes of consciousness.

 

Nagarjuna used to say stuff like "In the relative, Atman is real.

In the absolute, neither Atman or Anatman is real." (This is

similar to the earlier discussion.)

> If the snake is *seen* to be a rope, what

> then needs to be done about the bite?

 

This snake / rope thing is taken way too far. We need more modern

examples. Maybe a buffalo / lexus scenario.

> >>> As someone else posted, even Maharshi "had thoughts" when he

read the

> >>> newspaper or responded to students. Without an ego, a sense

me and other,

> >>> he

> >>> could not even communicate.

>

> I don't concern myself with who or who does not have one, I look

to find out

> what it is , how does it arrive.

 

It arrives as a normal (albeit amazing) part of human development.

> >> The ego is a self made identity-process and can be seen through

even while

> >> it seems to exist.

>

> > There is not "one ego" like On and Off. Babies do not know they

are helpless,

> > children do not know they are childish, ..., and so on for

each "self" we

> > traverse in our journey through this life.

> >

> > In meditation, we can see that nothing is there. Nevertheless,

two "selves"

> > are having this conversation.

>

> Everything you are saying to me is happening in my consciousness.

 

German Idealism had a similar argument but the sun still rises in

the morning.

 

Also see Jan's post (31721). Modern theories suggest that even

elementary particles have a certain "consciousness."

> You draw boundaries where there is none.

 

Atman is impersonal. Shawn has humor, insights and personality.

We "recognize" you and label this ego and say it is real as far as

the relative world goes.

 

Now if you start sounding like Maharshi, we might say "There is

Atman" or "Poor Shawn died." :-)

> >>> We might investigate what "ego" looks like for one who spends

most of their

> >>> day in the absolute.

>

> ...better to look for what it looks like directly.

>

> > But I think Sri Ramana did and it is fascinating to watch

his "ego" or what

> > little is left of it when he communicates with students. His

words seem to

> > consistently arise from an abyss of tremendous depth, like no-

one is talking.

>

> better to follow his advise than to be come fascinated with his

apparent

> condition.

 

"Better to, better to." It depends on what you want to do. To

experience absolute egolessness, follow Ramana's injunction. To

understand relative human nature and psychology, study differences

in peoples' egos. (To have even more fun, do both.

> >> These are words.

> >

> > Muktenanda taught that words have power. Insult someone close

to you to

> > verify. ;-)

>

> Yes, people are identified and so they *allow* the words to have

power.

>

> "My" *friend* said that to *me*,....*who* gives the words power?

 

Insult a police officer then tell us whose fault it was that she got

angry after you get out of your relative jail cell. ;-)

 

dave.

[Guest guest]

on 1/18/03 4:30 PM, David King <david.king at

david.king wrote:

> Hi Shawn,

>

> Continuing the exploration...

>> Listen carefully: *my* rational part....does it belong to you?

>

> Yes, as far as the relative world is concerned.

>

>> If so, why?

>

> Because you didn't have my thought, and if you trip over a stone, my

> toe won't hurt.

 

 

Do you wish it to hurt? Sometimes people get the same idea at the same time,

whos idea is it? What *is* a "thought?" Do you keep all your thoughts with

you...somewhere and pull them out when needed? The "you" of your thoughts,

is a thought?

 

 

>> Don't you choose to claim them as yours?

>

> No, I'm stuck with my thoughts.

>

>> Do you have to?

>

> No. Ultimately, they come from nowhere (or habitual patterns). How

> I view them depends on my present state of mindfulness.

 

 

Okay Dave...*what on earth* does *that* mean? You have admitted that you

don't create "your" thought...how are you stuck with them? Don't they leave

as easily as they come? By "state of mindfulness" I suppose you are

referring to the habitual identification, the fluid ego...no? The idea of a

solid vs a fluid ego is mute when we are talking about a "concept," a mental

construct, an illusion. This illusory "I" gets caught up and really runs off

with some thoughts...why, who does this...a thought?

 

 

>>> In the relative, we

>>> still need to relieve suffering and improve ourselves and our

> world. Etc.

>>

>> Are there two different worlds?

>

> Yes, for the purposes of consciousness.

>

> Nagarjuna used to say stuff like "In the relative, Atman is real.

> In the absolute, neither Atman or Anatman is real." (This is

> similar to the earlier discussion.)

 

 

Nevermind what so and so says, *are* there two different worlds?

 

 

>> If the snake is *seen* to be a rope, what

>> then needs to be done about the bite?

>

> This snake / rope thing is taken way too far. We need more modern

> examples. Maybe a buffalo / lexus scenario.

 

 

Fine. Your buffalo poops and then Joyce slips in it...why would she blame

you for gassing up the buffalo, she knows you thought it was a lexus!

 

 

>> Everything you are saying to me is happening in my consciousness.

>

> German Idealism had a similar argument but the sun still rises in

> the morning.

 

I thought they dicovered that the earth goes *around* the sun.

> Also see Jan's post (31721). Modern theories suggest that even

> elementary particles have a certain "consciousness."

>

>> You draw boundaries where there is none.

>

> Atman is impersonal. Shawn has humor, insights and personality.

> We "recognize" you and label this ego and say it is real as far as

> the relative world goes.

 

These are your concepts. Yes yes as far as the relative....but we are

engagaed in a transcending process and in *that* process the understanding

is that the person is an illusion, the bodymind is *there* but consciousness

is not identified. The stubbed toe still hurts, but it hurts the body...the

unkind word hurts the identified mind, not the witness of these things.

Another version: The Self who is being Shawn has humor and all qualities,

since no other exists.

> Now if you start sounding like Maharshi, we might say "There is

> Atman" or "Poor Shawn died." :-)

 

 

An illusion cannot die.

 

<snip>

> "Better to, better to." It depends on what you want to do. To

> experience absolute egolessness, follow Ramana's injunction. To

> understand relative human nature and psychology, study differences

> in peoples' egos. (To have even more fun, do both.

 

 

Now you've done it!You have forced another*better to* : better to find the

Self in *both* cases!

 

 

> Insult a police officer then tell us whose fault it was that she got

> angry after you get out of your relative jail cell. ;-)

>

> dave.

 

 

Why on earth would I want to do that? You might get bad karma! Watch those

words, Dave...

 

 

Peace! Shawn