Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Hi Tony, > If you are Wim Borsboom off the k list,... If, as you sometimes imply, our personalities are so illusive could you please put aside the illusive views you have of 'you and me'? How can dialogue indeed take place if it gets filtered through memories, assumptions and shadow-fights? > I know little of philosophy > never having been traind in it. Does one have to take classes in philosophy before one can talk lovingly about truth? (philo=I love, sophia=truth) If, as you say: > ... *it* is real whilst one is in *it*, > but on dropping the Jiva/body > *it* all disappears... What does *it* mean to you while you are in *it*? What is the reason that you keep deflecting this issue by referring to the "dropping body/jiva," the "not being in it?" Is there something the matter, something problematic, whilst one is in *it*? Could you tell us what *it* is without referring to whatever happens when you are not in *it*? The way you have been dealing with this question so far is similar to answering a child when it asks what a car is, that you reply, " It is not a horse." If, as you say, "nothing is happening" could you then tell us what this is really without telling us what it is not? > I only know Vedanta. Being a student of Vedanta, as you say, you must know that Vedanta deals fundamentally with *it* in terms of "Om Tat Sat" http://www.geocities.com/radhakutir/text423.html Check it out, it is way more than the usual understanding of "neti neti" http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/baladeva/gb/04--11.html http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/advaita.htm Tony I sincerely wish that vedantic reality, wisdom, bliss and happiness (as in Sat Chit Ananada) will at some point not be seen by you as impediments... Wim , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , 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, > then I will not engage in > long philosophical verbiage with you. .......ONS..Tony. , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 , Wim <wim_borsboom> wrote: > Hi Tony, in *it*? > What is the reason that you keep deflecting this issue by referring to > the "dropping body/jiva," the "not being in it?" > Is there something the matter, something problematic, whilst one is in > *it*? > Could you tell us what *it* is without referring to whatever happens > when you are not in *it*? Namaste Wim et al, I still explain myself by paraphrasing Sri Sanakaracharya, 'that it is real enough whilst one is in it'. That if one is not realised at death it is better to be chanting 'Bhaja Govindam'. I read this to mean that all is a dream of Brahman, and that all that is in the dream is ultimately unreal from ourselves to Sakti/Saguna Brahman. If one is a Jivanmukta then one can see the whole world as a projection of Saguna Brahman and also one's body. If one isn't realised one can only understand this, but knowing what a King is doesn't make one a King. Yes there is something problematic whilst one is in it, and that is the question and the answer.Ultimately on realisation Ramana says it never happened. After all how can it? For with universal consciousness what looks at what?.....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 Thank you Tony, Wim --- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: > , Wim <wim_borsboom> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > in *it*? > > What is the reason that you keep deflecting this issue by > referring to > > the "dropping body/jiva," the "not being in it?" > > Is there something the matter, something problematic, whilst one > is in > > *it*? > > Could you tell us what *it* is without referring to whatever > happens > > when you are not in *it*? > > Namaste Wim et al, > > I still explain myself by paraphrasing Sri Sanakaracharya, 'that it > is real enough whilst one is in it'. That if one is not realised at > death it is better to be chanting 'Bhaja Govindam'. > I read this to mean that all is a dream of Brahman, and that all > that is in the dream is ultimately unreal from ourselves to > Sakti/Saguna Brahman. > If one is a Jivanmukta then one can see the whole world as a > projection of Saguna Brahman and also one's body. If one isn't > realised one can only understand this, but knowing what a King is > doesn't make one a King. > Yes there is something problematic whilst one is in it, and that is > the question and the answer.Ultimately on realisation Ramana says it > never happened. After all how can it? For with universal > consciousness what looks at what?.....ONS...Tony. > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > Your use of is subject to > > > The New with improved product search 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.