Bliss and joy are impediments

October 19, 2003

Again, the certainty of words the ignorance of thought...words are

such an impediment to understanding sometimes...

It is not just clockwork. Clocks are just clockwork...or is the clockwork just illusion?

Nirguna is not Nirguna. Nirvana is not Nirvana. These are just words

Tony and the words are just symbols and the symbols are not

experience.

Each living thing has experience...whether we believe or not. Belief

or non-belief makes no difference.

The seeming illusion of this world is just a layer of thought...

And when all is known as thought, then you can enjoy thought again...

Suffering is the denial of thought...the natural warning of the flesh

that suffering will continue when action or conditions fail to change

to alleviate pain. We sense it because we occupy bodies in physical

space. Is that all? No. Of course we are more than that...but we

are not- NOT that just because we are more than that. We can be

physical beings, spiritual beings and pure thought all at the same

time. One state does not negate all others. But ignorance can lead

to suffering...(just close a door the wrong way)

and understanding can lead to joy.

Arguing against joy or the natural state of joyfullness is a terrible

mistake. Even when we know that such joy is fleeting, passing, we

should never seek to avoid it. Certainly, trying to cling to it

unnaturally (forcing that laughter to go on and on) becomes a wrong

thing...and a very eerie sounding thing, too, I may add.

But, I warn you...the Very Engine of Creation has more humor and joy

in the briefest instant than you seem able to allow yourself in most

of your thoughts. Relax, breathe deep and go for a nice walk in a

park. If you see something funny, allow yourself to laugh. It will

heal more than your body.

Namaste,

Zenbob

PS and now I leave Tony to your good graces to heal and share painful

discourse with...as I retreat back into my quiet nest along with my

Peafowl, chickens, hawks and tiny finches.

October 19, 2003

Namaste,

Albeit the final impediment to realising they in fact are also

illusions neti neti. I find that when I go within there is a more

broad feeling other than the ego. I do not know beyond that for I am

unconscious. The Buddhists are right in a way there is no 'God'

manipulating this dream, it is clockwork there is only nirvana

nirguna..........ONS...Tony.

October 19, 2003

Hello Tony,

I think this is the notion of Anatman and Shunyata. Voidness.

There is no one specifically manipulating this dream, the process is

simply an interaction of parts which are interlinked to each other

and ignorant that they are in fact, devoid of any real existence,

infinite, dreamers.

-

Tony OClery

Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:09 PM

Bliss and joy are impediments

Namaste,Albeit the final impediment to realising they in fact are also

illusions neti neti. I find that when I go within there is a more

broad feeling other than the ego. I do not know beyond that for I am

unconscious. The Buddhists are right in a way there is no 'God'

manipulating this dream, it is clockwork there is only nirvana

nirguna..........ONS...Tony./join

"Love itself is

the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam"

by Suri Nagamma

Terms of Service.

October 20, 2003

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:

> Again, the certainty of words the ignorance of thought...words are

such an

> impediment to understanding sometimes...

Hey, tell me about it. :-)

> Suffering is the denial of thought...the natural warning of the

flesh that

> suffering will continue when action or conditions fail to change to

alleviate

> pain.

I also like what you once said about 'writers block' (which is a form

of suffering I suppose!) -- A block is caused from lack of action or

from not knowing the character well enough. It seems our own

suffering is from the same. It seems our own suffering is from

the same -- either lack of action or not knowing ourselves (or

another?) well enough.

>But ignorance can lead to suffering...(just close a door the wrong

<way)and understanding can lead to joy.

How beautifully said ZB. Tonight I was on a crisis call with a man

who was suicidal and suffering so. After talking to him for quite a

while, it became obvious to me he was ignorant of how to grieve!

Everytime in his life that he needed to grieve,he thought he was

supposed to take his life and die. It never occurred to him

that this was inappropriate behavior for grieving! (and you know I

told him it was! LOL) No one had ever told him it was okay to grieve

or be mad. Nooo, he thought he had to suffer and die. Aiyiyi.

That understanding to him was an eye opener. His crisis passed and

he was actually laughing by the end of our call. The Sheriffs office

came about the time we were done, and rather than baker-act him, they

just left their card.

> Arguing against joy or the natural state of joyfullness is a

>terrible mistake.

I'm not sure it would be a mistake. (?) Arguing against(or for)joy

would be meaningless. That's why I'm arguing with you -- I know its

meaningless. :-~ Well plus I like to argue and I hope you'll be

easy with me. (puhhleeeease)

>Even when we know that such joy is fleeting, passing, we should

>never seek to avoid it. Certainly, trying to cling to it

>unnaturally (forcing thatlaughter to go on and on) becomes a wrong

>thing...and a very eerie sounding thing,too, I may add.

Still arguing the meaningless here... It is impossible to cling to

joy (naturally or unnaturally), only because joy isn't

fleeting/passing. It is always here. The clinging is probably to

expectations or unacceptance -- not to the joy. Once they

are eliminated, voila! Joy is back!

>

> But, I warn you...the Very Engine of Creation has more humor and

joy in the

> briefest instant than you seem able to allow yourself in most of

your thoughts.

> Relax, breathe deep and go for a nice walk in a park. If you see

something

> funny, allow yourself to laugh. It will heal more than your body.

Laughter is THE best medicene! Coconut Oil is pretty cool too. LOL

Love,

xxxtg

October 20, 2003

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:

> Again, the certainty of words the ignorance of thought...words are

such an

> impediment to understanding sometimes...

>

> It is not just clockwork. Clocks are just clockwork...or is the

clockwork

> just illusion?

>

> Nirguna is not Nirguna. Nirvana is not Nirvana. These are just

words

Namaste,

I think you will find that Ramana has used the word Nirvana for

liberation. Nir Vana or non blowing, and Nir Guna or no modes or

moving convey the same meaning.

Another bird died on my balcony yesterday, now is 'God' playing

games or are they just dying of the bliss they have as you suggest?

IMO there is Nirguna Brahman, then there is the association known as

Saguna Brahman with the creation dream. All so called Love and Bliss

is within the mind and is the energy of the Sakti. All ultimately

unreal.............ONS...Tony.

October 20, 2003

> Another bird died on my balcony yesterday, now is 'God' playing

> games or are they just dying of the bliss they have as you suggest?

> IMO there is Nirguna Brahman, then there is the association known

as

> Saguna Brahman with the creation dream. All so called Love and

Bliss

> is within the mind and is the energy of the Sakti. All ultimately

> unreal.............ONS...Tony.

devi: hi tony, i thought of you today when i posted this in my

club...i thought i'd bring it over here.

11. The Two Birds

Two birds live in the same tree as comrades. But one of them eats the

sweet fruit of the tree and gets bound in delusion. But the other

bird does not eat anything and remains an eternal witness. This

analogy occurs in the Rigveda and the Mundaka Upanishad. This is to

illustrate that the Jiva and the Paramatman are both in the same

body, but the Jiva enjoys through contact the pleasures and pains of

Samsara and gets bound, whereas the Paramatman or the Supreme Soul,

the Kutastha, remains as a Sakshi or a witness and exists ever In

Absoluteness.

October 20, 2003

Dear Tony and ALL,

--- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote:

SNIP

> Another bird died on my balcony yesterday, now is

> 'God' playing

> games or are they just dying of the bliss they have

> as you suggest?

Dear Tony--Death is an assumption that you make.

Please, introduce me to the person that knows anything

about death. Do you know anyone who has died and then

lived to tell about it? Are you trying to say that

you have determined that death is bad? That's rather

dualistic isn't it?

I have seen quotes that you have posted on other lists

that refer to the Gospel of Thomas. So, let me assume

that you have a bit of a Christian bent and therefore

please consider the following quote from the Gospel of

Mathew:

Matthew 10:29

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of

them will fall to the ground apart from the will of

your Father.

Matthew 10:31

So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many

sparrows.

> IMO there is Nirguna Brahman, then there is the

> association known as

> Saguna Brahman with the creation dream. All so

> called Love and Bliss

> is within the mind and is the energy of the Sakti.

> All ultimately

> unreal

So--There's this Brahman and that Brahman and etc.

Are there more than two Brahmans? The multiple

Brahman idea is what's unreal. And by the way, the

term "unreal" that is used by certain Vedantists

really means "impermanent".

Life is "impermanent"; but it is very, very real.

Love (real love),

michael

P.S. Dying can be tough; but being dead is a "piece

of cake".

Love again, more and more:

michael

>

The New with improved product search

October 20, 2003

, "devianandi" <devi@p...>

wrote:

> 11. The Two Birds

> Two birds live in the same tree as comrades. But one of them eats

the

> sweet fruit of the tree and gets bound in delusion. But the other

> bird does not eat anything and remains an eternal witness. This

> analogy occurs in the Rigveda and the Mundaka Upanishad. This is

to

> illustrate that the Jiva and the Paramatman are both in the same

> body, but the Jiva enjoys through contact the pleasures and pains

of

> Samsara and gets bound, whereas the Paramatman or the Supreme

Soul,

> the Kutastha, remains as a Sakshi or a witness and exists ever In

> Absoluteness.

Namaste,

Thank you for that, I recall Krishna saying the same thing. Caitanya

Kutastha, yes Christ/Krishna Consciousness. However as I understand

it this is Sakti and therefore Saguna.........ONS..Tony.

October 20, 2003

, Michael Bowes

<rmichaelbowes> wrote:

> Dear Tony and ALL,

>

> --- Tony OClery <aoclery> wrote:

> SNIP

>

> > Another bird died on my balcony yesterday, now is

> > 'God' playing

> > games or are they just dying of the bliss they have

> > as you suggest?

>

> Dear Tony--Death is an assumption that you make.

> Please, introduce me to the person that knows anything

> about death. Do you know anyone who has died and then

> lived to tell about it? Are you trying to say that

> you have determined that death is bad? That's rather

> dualistic isn't it?

Namaste,

No I am not commenting on death only the state of the bird on my

balcony with the blood coming from its mouth. I brought up the bird

for first I perceived as a leaf then a bird. Its obvious suffering I

used as a point in explaining that there really is no 'God'

organising anything. I don't regard death as a negative. An old

Irish saying goes like this' sing a song at a wake and cry at a

birth'............hahaha....ONS...Tony.

October 22, 2003

, zen2wrk@a... wrote:> > Nirguna

is not Nirguna. > > Nirvana is not Nirvana. > > These are just

words Tony

, <aoclery> wrote:> snip...

All ultimately unreal...

Hmm, interesting, Tony...

Let's look carefully at your statement. We may even use some Socratic logic.

According to any good dictionary 'ultimately' means 'in the end'.This

is quite distinct from 'this here now' and 'what is so in

principle'.What might be unreal in the end, has to have been been

real at some point or it cannot be unreal eventually.

In the beginning, that what is real now and what is unreal in the end,

was at some point potentially real or real in principle.

Using Socratic logic, something that is 'ultimately unreal' is

therefore also 'real in principle'. For either one of these two

statements to be true, they need each other as much as a child needs

to have come forth from a mother and a father. Of course we haven't

even talked about what the characteristics of manifest reality (the

child) are, but that is actually quite simple: that what can be

sensed is manifest reality. (All this by the way jives with the the

'form is void, void is form' discussion in the Heart Sutra including

the discussions on the skandas or aggregates.)

Something being 'real in principle' but having no form yet - not

'manifestly real as yet' - does not mean the same as something being

'unreal ultimately' or voided of form..

So Tony, I hope you notice that your statement can not stand alone.

For your statement to have any value, the other statements are to be

accepted as equally valid.

The above may seem to be a linear kind of logic, but wait, it is

actually quite multi-dimensional.

Those three distinctions: . in principio ('in the beginning') . hic

and nunc ('here and now'). ad ultimatum ('in the end')form three

sides of the a two dimensional triangle, the trinity of Brahman,

Vishnu and Shiva. If any of these three are overlooked, denied or

over-emphasized the triangle collapses and none of the elements can

stand on its own.So when talking about states of reality (aggregates)

one has to be very equanimious and cannot favour any of the three.

This seems though what you are doing Tony.

One has to take the grand, all-encompassing view when discussing any

of this if one wants to be taken seriously. If one does not do this

one is just harping on old half-truths.

The wonder of creation is (and that is also

quantum-electro-dynamically correct, QED.) that being and non-being

are not mutually exclusive while also not being opposites of each

other, although semantically it may sound that way.

I don't want to go into this here, but approaching this wondrous

mystery we will quickly see that more dimensions than the four we are

so used to are involved.

Wim

ONSVB

October 22, 2003

, Wim <wim@a...> wrote:

> , zen2wrk@a... wrote:

> > > Nirguna is not Nirguna.

> > > Nirvana is not Nirvana.

> > > These are just words Tony

>

> , <aoclery> wrote:

> > snip... All ultimately unreal...

>

> Hmm, interesting, Tony...

Namaste Wim,

If you are Wim Borsboom off the k list, then I will not engage in

long philosophical verbiage with you. I know little of philosophy

never having been traind in it. I only know Vedanta. When I say

ultimately I mean it in the Sankara sense that it is real whilst one

is in it, but on dropping the Jiva/body it all

disappears.......ONS..Tony.

October 22, 2003

This is only a dream. All seeming participants (Jivas) are

ultimately not different from the whole dream. The dream can be said

to emanate or be created by the unconscious part of any of the Jivas

in the collective dream. There is nothing really real in the way we

usually understand the word real. All is the dream unfolding. It is

exciting, sometimes there is suffering, sometimes there is joy, but

all is unreal.

Love is the intuitive knowledge that all are One expressed

in the individual consciousness (Jiva). Love is the unconscious

perception of the underlying unity of the apparent separateness. It

is also the expression of the will of the Jivas to return to the

state of Unity (Yoga, Moksha, Nirvana) and be freed from the illusion

of separation. This will also expresses itself in the sexual act and

in the love between male and female, which is itself a representation

of the will of the opposites to unite and become whole (or void) once

again.

Frederico

-

Wim

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:50 AM

Re: Bliss and joy are impediments