You are not the doer? - don't belive it; I can be very dour indeed.

[Guest guest]

Hi Vicki,

Yes, I know what you mean about stuffed-shirts with karmic gravy.

(Hell! Maybe that's why I have such huge laundry bills!)

But on the other hand, it has sometimes happened that, after a long

time spent in single-pointed contemplation of a particular

proposition, such as "You are not the body and not the mind", and

with a bit of help from friends, suddenly the answer appears.

Once the answer appears it's obvious, but until then it's real head-against-a-brick-wall stuff.

It's like climbing the path leading to the top of a mountain; hard

work, but the view from the top is wonderful. (Please don't try to

stretch this metaphor; it is pretty inelastic).

On the matter of chocolate donuts, have you ever thought of the gradual approach to liberation?

I have a breakfast every day of one coffee and one friand. The friand

is just flavour-saturated, so one is quite enough. It is totally

decadent and artificial, of course. Probably the major ingredient is

coal-tar extract. But eating one leads to a dramatic cessation of

desire. Quite Buddhist, really.

Love

Warwick

Hi, Warwick, this was written tongue-in-cheek and cheekily. Let's put

it this way...I know it intellectually, just like you do. But to live

it is quite another thingie. If you don't have a sense of humor and

proportion about it occasionally, you become just another stuffed

shirt with karmic gravy on it :-) Love, VickiP.S. Leave it to the

experts to answer your post better than I. I am just playing the

fool right this minute.>>> ->

skiplaurel> > Sunday,

January 11, 2004 7:21 AM> You are not the

doer>>>> You are not the Doer>> You and I are not doers. We're

really not. This is one of the last dominoes to fall when you are

trying to wake up. Arguments against this theory abound, obfuscating

the clear light of the principle.>> I am not typing these words into

the computer. Well, of course I am. Actually, "I am" is typing these

words into the computer, but "me" is not. "Me" doesn't have a clue. "

Me" is "I am" dressed up as" Vicki the typist.">> I try hard not to

intellectualize what I know to be true. I get tired of reading

esoteric blah blah about enlightenment. These fingers pointing to

the moon are not typing, you might say. Everything is typing and

that is the simple truth. Everything backs up everything and nothing

is excluded.>> Martian rocks and argyle socks are excellent typists

when they need to be. So are newborn pups and coffee cups. Whatever

needs to be done is done by the All. When you run out of tape

wrapping a package, the universe runs out of tape and has to go to

the store. That is why gurus talk about cultivating the higher

virtues, like thrift. Ramana Maharshi didn't waste a scrap of food.

We all know that. If he had eaten at Chili's, he would have taken

home part of his dinner in a styrofoam box.>> The day I discovered

that I was not the doer was when my husband blamed me for burning

dinner. "Oh, no," I chirped, "the universe burned the dinner." >>

"Well, the universe doesn't have to clean it up," he said. He

frowned at the charred skillet and I knew that I had found a real

reason to believe in the theory of not being the doer.>> This may

not be what you were expecting to read, but the universe is not

always a very good writer. If you are dissatisfied enough to want

to argue with me about this theory, the universe will be happy to

hear what you have to say. And by the way, the universe likes

chocolate-covered doughnuts but they tend to make it fat. >> So,

let's recap, shall we? There is no doer and the universe is a

trillion pounds overweight. They may find no life on Mars, but they

will find a rather large double chin. > When they figure out to get

it a health club membership, all of us will have to go.>> Yours in

clear understanding,> Vicki Woodyard>

http://www.bobwoodyard.com>>>>

/join>>

>> >>

"Love itself is the actual form of God.">> Sri Ramana>> In

"Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma>>>>

>

Links>> a.. To visit your group on the web, go

to:> /> >

b.. >

> > c.. Your use

of is subject to the Terms of

Service./join

"Love itself is

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

by Suri Nagamma To visit your group on the web, go

to:/ To from

this group, send an email

to: Your use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Hi Vicki,

>

> Yes, I know what you mean about stuffed-shirts with karmic gravy. (Hell! Maybe

that's why I have such huge laundry bills!)

>

> But on the other hand, it has sometimes happened that, after a long time spent

in single-pointed contemplation of a particular proposition, such as "You are

not the body and not the mind", and with a bit of help from friends, suddenly

the answer appears.

> Once the answer appears it's obvious, but until then it's real

head-against-a-brick-wall stuff.

 

Yes, I know the feeling. The zen phrase is "being brought straight up against

the iron wall." I, too, wrestle with this principle like Crocodile Hunter.

Then I remember, "Hey, this is happening inside my mind, where I think that I

can do. Being knows it is not the doer. Thinking can never get to this place of

peace, now can it:-)

>

> It's like climbing the path leading to the top of a mountain; hard work, but

the view from the top is wonderful. (Please don't try to stretch this metaphor;

it is pretty inelastic).

 

Yeah, and so am I....

>

> On the matter of chocolate donuts, have you ever thought of the gradual

approach to liberation?

> I have a breakfast every day of one coffee and one friand. The friand is just

flavour-saturated, so one is quite enough. It is totally decadent and

artificial, of course. Probably the major ingredient is coal-tar extract. But

eating one leads to a dramatic cessation of desire. Quite Buddhist, really.

 

Where do you live? I think they have friands at La Madeleine. Well, I am off

to watch Figure Skating. I will lose enough weight skating in the Nationals to

have two friands, now won't I?

>

> Love

> Warwick

>

> Hi, Warwick, this was written tongue-in-cheek and cheekily. Let's put it

this way...I know it intellectually, just like you do. But to live it is quite

another thingie. If you don't have a sense of humor and proportion about it

occasionally, you become just another stuffed shirt with karmic gravy on it :-)

Love, Vicki

>

> P.S. Leave it to the experts to answer your post better than I. I am just

playing the fool right this minute.

> >

> >

> > -

> > skiplaurel

> >

> > Sunday, January 11, 2004 7:21 AM

> > You are not the doer

> >

> >

> >

> > You are not the Doer

> >

> > You and I are not doers. We're really not. This is one of the last

dominoes to fall when you are trying to wake up. Arguments against this theory

abound, obfuscating the clear light of the principle.

> >

> > I am not typing these words into the computer. Well, of course I am.

Actually, "I am" is typing these words into the computer, but "me" is

not. "Me"

doesn't have a clue. " Me" is "I am" dressed up as" Vicki the typist."

> >

> > I try hard not to intellectualize what I know to be true. I get tired

of reading esoteric blah blah about enlightenment. These fingers pointing to

the moon are not typing, you might say. Everything is typing and that is the

simple truth. Everything backs up everything and nothing is excluded.

> >

> > Martian rocks and argyle socks are excellent typists when they need to

be. So are newborn pups and coffee cups. Whatever needs to be done is done by

the All. When you run out of tape wrapping a package, the universe runs out of

tape and has to go to the store. That is why gurus talk about cultivating the

higher virtues, like thrift. Ramana Maharshi didn't waste a scrap of food. We

all know that. If he had eaten at Chili's, he would have taken home part of his

dinner in a styrofoam box.

> >

> > The day I discovered that I was not the doer was when my husband blamed

me for burning dinner. "Oh, no," I chirped, "the universe burned the dinner."

> >

> > "Well, the universe doesn't have to clean it up," he said. He frowned

at the charred skillet and I knew that I had found a real reason to believe in

the theory of not being the doer.

> >

> > This may not be what you were expecting to read, but the universe is not

always a very good writer. If you are dissatisfied enough to want to argue

with me about this theory, the universe will be happy to hear what you have to

say. And by the way, the universe likes chocolate-covered doughnuts but they

tend to make it fat.

> >

> > So, let's recap, shall we? There is no doer and the universe is a

trillion pounds overweight. They may find no life on Mars, but they will find a

rather large double chin.

> > When they figure out to get it a health club membership, all of us will

have to go.

> >

> > Yours in clear understanding,

> > Vicki Woodyard

> > http://www.bobwoodyard.com

> >

> >

> >

> > /join

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > "Love itself is the actual form of God."

> >

> > Sri Ramana

> >

> > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> "Love itself is the actual form of God."

>

> Sri Ramana

>

> In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c..

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Hi Vicki,

>

> Yes, I know what you mean about stuffed-shirts with karmic gravy.

(Hell! Maybe that's why I have such huge laundry bills!)

>

> But on the other hand, it has sometimes happened that, after a long

time spent in single-pointed contemplation of a particular

proposition, such as "You are not the body and not the mind", and

with a bit of help from friends, suddenly the answer appears.

 

------------------------------

 

Dear Warwick,

 

Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit word,

dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in the

mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

 

The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your awareness.

Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.

 

What is this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the mind.

These are objects in your awareness.

 

You can watch all of these objects come and go and change. What is

it that does not change? That is your awareness. It is yourSelf.

 

This awareness illumines your mind, but it is not your mind.

 

Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but it is not.

 

Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and goes and

changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old habit of the mind.

 

I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it is, I apologize. I

am a student, and not a teacher.

 

I am not speaking from my own experience, but as one who is

identified with the dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in what

I have said.

 

However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it in

the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes time.

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Warwick,Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit

word, dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in

the mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your awareness.

Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.What is

this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the mind. These are

objects in your awareness. You can watch all of these objects come

and go and change. What is it that does not change? That is your

awareness. It is yourSelf.This awareness illumines your mind, but it

is not your mind.Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but

it is not.Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and

goes and changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help. Rome

wasn't built in a day.The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old

habit of the mind. I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it

is, I apologize. I am a student, and not a teacher.I am not speaking

from my own experience, but as one who is identified with the

dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in what I have said.

However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it in

the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes time.

Durga

Dear Durga,

Thank you for sending this post.

I had never heard this word "dehatmabuddhi", but various friends have

taken me over this ground, and, like you, I have found it very

helpful.

The first time anyone pointed me in this direction was when I was at a

retreat with Francis Lucille in Touzac, in France.

I was telling a friend (I had only met him a day or two before) about

an experience during which I had observed my consciousness changing

while I looked.

He said, "No sweetheart, consciousness doesn't change."

I was struck dumb.

I didn't get all the ramifications of it, but I had the sense that he

had said something very significant.

A few weeks later, at a satsang in London with a well-known teacher, I

was asked, "Who do you think that you are?"

I gave a list of the various physical and personality (mental)

attributes which I believed constituted "me".

So then I was asked, "Are you really all those things - or are you

that which sees all those things?"

And a whole bunch of things fell into place; that what I am is

consciousness; that while the body and mind change all the time,

consciousness doesn't change -- as Francis Lucille says, the

awareness of change is evidence of the changelessness of awareness;

that consciousness, not being subject to change, is the realm of

eternity, which is now; that now is not in time, now doesn't refer to

the "these events and objects that are happening or existing in front

of me", now is timeless. And a lot more.

But I still don't see what the sages mean when they say "you are not the doer."

Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that we,

the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with.

Let's agree that "I" have seen, even if it is not totally stabilized,

that"I" am not these thoughts or appearances; I am that unchanging

self which sees the changing appearances that constitute the

world/body/mind. (If we really disidentify, then it will have to be

acknowledged that this one "I" is the real essence of Stalin and

Hitler, as well as Mahatma Ghandi and Ramana Maharshi.)

Now I'm going to post a verse from Atmananda's ATMA-Darshan:

9. The Self

1. One does not need to be told, for one knows it clearly that

the “I” does not change.

2. The “I” persists in all the states. It is there when there

is thought. It is there when there is no thought.

3. If so, what other evidence is needed to show that it

cannot be doer or enjoyer, which means change?

4. At the time a thing is being done, there is no thought or

feeling that one is doing it. This is further proof that one is not a

doer.

5. Claiming to have done a thing after the doing cannot make

one a doer.

6. The intense feeling that one is neither doer nor enjoyer

removes all bondage and one’s real nature comes to light thereby.

Atmananda is pretty clear, here, that the Self, "I", is not the doer.

So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the

doer, who is the doer?

The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, in which case

nothing ever happens. And that makes sense from the point of view

that only consciousness is real and that the world/body/mind is just

a dream. But we have gone a very long way to say that the

world/body/mind is just a dream. I certainly don't deny it. I am open

to it it's being true, but I wouldn't affirm it as first hand

experience.

Incidentally, to all those who protest that this is nothing but a

"head trip" and that thinking will get you nowhere, I reply quite

firmly that the Advaitic sages definitely recognize the path of

intelligence, and Atmananda recommends that if one has employed a

chain of reasoning that leads to an understanding of truth, a seeing,

then one should constantly revisit it.

Much love

Warwick

/join

"Love itself

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

Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma To visit your group on the web, go

to:/ To from

this group, send an email

to: Your use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Dear Warwick,

>

> Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit word,

> dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in the

> mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

>

> The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your awareness.

> Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.

>

> What is this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the mind.

> These are objects in your awareness.

>

> You can watch all of these objects come and go and change. What is

> it that does not change? That is your awareness. It is yourSelf.

>

> This awareness illumines your mind, but it is not your mind.

>

> Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but it is not.

>

> Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and goes and

> changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help.

>

> Rome wasn't built in a day.

>

> The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old habit of the mind.

>

> I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it is, I apologize. I

> am a student, and not a teacher.

>

> I am not speaking from my own experience, but as one who is

> identified with the dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in what

> I have said.

>

> However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it in

> the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes time.

> Durga

Dear Durga,

>

> Thank you for sending this post.

> I had never heard this word "dehatmabuddhi", but various friends have taken me

over this ground, and, like you, I have found it very helpful.

>

> The first time anyone pointed me in this direction was when I was at a retreat

with Francis Lucille in Touzac, in France.

> I was telling a friend (I had only met him a day or two before) about an

experience during which I had observed my consciousness changing while I looked.

> He said, "No sweetheart, consciousness doesn't change."

> I was struck dumb.

> I didn't get all the ramifications of it, but I had the sense that he had said

something very significant.

>

> A few weeks later, at a satsang in London with a well-known teacher, I was

asked, "Who do you think that you are?"

> I gave a list of the various physical and personality (mental) attributes

which I believed constituted "me".

> So then I was asked, "Are you really all those things - or are you that which

sees all those things?"

> And a whole bunch of things fell into place; that what I am is consciousness;

that while the body and mind change all the time, consciousness doesn't change

-- as Francis Lucille says, the awareness of change is evidence of the

changelessness of awareness; that consciousness, not being subject to change, is

the realm of eternity, which is now; that now is not in time, now doesn't refer

to the "these events and objects that are happening or existing in front of me",

now is timeless. And a lot more.

>

> But I still don't see what the sages mean when they say "you are not the

doer."

>

> Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that we, the

formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with.

> Let's agree that "I" have seen, even if it is not totally

stabilized, that"I"

am not these thoughts or appearances; I am that unchanging self which sees the

changing appearances that constitute the world/body/mind. (If we really

disidentify, then it will have to be acknowledged that this one "I" is the real

essence of Stalin and Hitler, as well as Mahatma Ghandi and Ramana Maharshi.)

>

> Now I'm going to post a verse from Atmananda's ATMA-Darshan:

>

> 9. The Self

>

>

>

> 1. One does not need to be told, for one knows it clearly that the "I"

does not change.

>

> 2. The "I" persists in all the states. It is there when there is

thought. It is there when there is no thought.

>

> 3. If so, what other evidence is needed to show that it cannot be

doer or enjoyer, which means change?

>

> 4. At the time a thing is being done, there is no thought or feeling

that one is doing it. This is further proof that one is not a doer.

>

> 5. Claiming to have done a thing after the doing cannot make one a

doer.

>

> 6. The intense feeling that one is neither doer nor enjoyer removes

all bondage and one's real nature comes to light thereby.

>

>

>

> Atmananda is pretty clear, here, that the Self, "I", is not the doer.

>

> So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in consciousness, like

images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the doer, who is the doer?

>

> The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, in which case nothing

ever happens. And that makes sense from the point of view that only

consciousness is real and that the world/body/mind is just a dream. But we have

gone a very long way to say that the world/body/mind is just a dream. I

certainly don't deny it. I am open to it it's being true, but I wouldn't affirm

it as first hand experience.

>

> Incidentally, to all those who protest that this is nothing but a "head trip"

and that thinking will get you nowhere, I reply quite firmly that the Advaitic

sages definitely recognize the path of intelligence, and Atmananda recommends

that if one has employed a chain of reasoning that leads to an understanding of

truth, a seeing, then one should constantly revisit it.

>

>

>

> Much love

>

> Warwick

 

Hi, WW,

 

Could it be that these are mental questions? Enlightenment is a sate of mind.

(That just came to me.)

>

>

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> "Love itself is the actual form of God."

>

> Sri Ramana

>

> In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c..

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Dear Warwick,

>

> Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit word,

> dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in the

> mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

>

> The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your

awareness.

> Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.

>

> What is this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the mind.

> These are objects in your awareness.

>

> You can watch all of these objects come and go and change. What is

> it that does not change? That is your awareness. It is yourSelf.

>

> This awareness illumines your mind, but it is not your mind.

>

> Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but it is not.

>

> Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and goes and

> changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help.

>

> Rome wasn't built in a day.

>

> The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old habit of the mind.

>

> I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it is, I apologize.

I

> am a student, and not a teacher.

>

> I am not speaking from my own experience, but as one who is

> identified with the dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in

what

> I have said.

>

> However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it in

> the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes

time.

> Durga

Dear Durga,

>

> Thank you for sending this post.

> I had never heard this word "dehatmabuddhi", but various friends

have taken me over this ground, and, like you, I have found it very

helpful.

>

> The first time anyone pointed me in this direction was when I was

at a retreat with Francis Lucille in Touzac, in France.

> I was telling a friend (I had only met him a day or two before)

about an experience during which I had observed my consciousness

changing while I looked.

> He said, "No sweetheart, consciousness doesn't change."

> I was struck dumb.

> I didn't get all the ramifications of it, but I had the sense that

he had said something very significant.

>

> A few weeks later, at a satsang in London with a well-known

teacher, I was asked, "Who do you think that you are?"

> I gave a list of the various physical and personality (mental)

attributes which I believed constituted "me".

> So then I was asked, "Are you really all those things - or are you

that which sees all those things?"

> And a whole bunch of things fell into place; that what I am is

consciousness; that while the body and mind change all the time,

consciousness doesn't change -- as Francis Lucille says, the

awareness of change is evidence of the changelessness of awareness;

that consciousness, not being subject to change, is the realm of

eternity, which is now; that now is not in time, now doesn't refer to

the "these events and objects that are happening or existing in front

of me", now is timeless. And a lot more.

>

> But I still don't see what the sages mean when they say "you are

not the doer."

>

> Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that we,

the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with.

> Let's agree that "I" have seen, even if it is not totally

stabilized, that"I" am not these thoughts or appearances; I am that

unchanging self which sees the changing appearances that constitute

the world/body/mind. (If we really disidentify, then it will have to

be acknowledged that this one "I" is the real essence of Stalin and

Hitler, as well as Mahatma Ghandi and Ramana Maharshi.)

>

> Now I'm going to post a verse from Atmananda's ATMA-Darshan:

>

> 9. The Self

>

>

>

> 1. One does not need to be told, for one knows it clearly

that the "I" does not change.

>

> 2. The "I" persists in all the states. It is there when

there is thought. It is there when there is no thought.

>

> 3. If so, what other evidence is needed to show that it

cannot be doer or enjoyer, which means change?

>

> 4. At the time a thing is being done, there is no thought

or feeling that one is doing it. This is further proof that one is

not a doer.

>

> 5. Claiming to have done a thing after the doing cannot

make one a doer.

>

> 6. The intense feeling that one is neither doer nor

enjoyer removes all bondage and one's real nature comes to light

thereby.

>

>

>

> Atmananda is pretty clear, here, that the Self, "I", is not the

doer.

>

> So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the

doer, who is the doer?

>

> The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, in which

case nothing ever happens. And that makes sense from t> So, if the

person is not the doer, being just objects in consciousness, like

images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the doer, who is the

doer?

he point of view that only consciousness is real and that the

world/body/mind is just a dream. But we have gone a very long way to

say that the world/body/mind is just a dream. I certainly don't deny

it. I am open to it it's being true, but I wouldn't affirm it as

first hand experience.

>

> Incidentally, to all those who protest that this is nothing but

a "head trip" and that thinking will get you nowhere, I reply quite

firmly that the Advaitic sages definitely recognize the path of

intelligence, and Atmananda recommends that if one has employed a

chain of reasoning that leads to an understanding of truth, a seeing,

then one should constantly revisit it.

>

>

>

> Much love

>

> Warwick

>

>

 

 

Dear Warwick, dear Durga, you two are great!!! So glad you are

here!!!

 

This is what comes to me when I read your post, Warwick. You wrote:

> So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the

doer, who is the doer?

> The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, ...

 

 

....and what if there is no person? What if there is no Self?

 

What if, in this particular instance, person and Self are just empty,

made-up concepts?

 

If there is no person, then does the question "who is the doer?" even

arise?

 

 

*silence*

 

 

If the question doesn't arise, then what is left? Where are you?

 

 

*silence*

 

 

If the question arises and you do not give value to it (given that

the question's source has been revealed to be simply the "person,"

the empty, made-up concept), then where are you? WHO are you?

 

(and, please, don't give value to any answer your mind comes up

with!!)

 

 

Smiling just because,

 

Love,

 

Kheyala

[Guest guest]

-

Dear Warwick, dear Durga, you two are great!!! So glad you are

here!!! :)This is what comes to me when I read your post,

Warwick.

....and what if there is no person? What if there is no Self?What if,

in this particular instance, person and Self are just empty, made-up

concepts?If there is no person, then does the question "who is the

doer?" even arise?*silence*If the question doesn't arise, then what

is left? Where are you?*silence*If the question arises and you do

not give value to it (given that the question's source has been

revealed to be simply the "person," the empty, made-up concept), then

where are you? WHO are you?(and, please, don't give value to any

answer your mind comes up with!!)Smiling just because,Love,KheyalaHi

Kheyala,

Maybe what I mean when I use the word Self, or "I", is different from

what you mean when you use that word.

I think that is the most likely explanation.

Love

Warwick

/join

"Love itself

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

Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma To visit your group on the web, go

to:/ To from

this group, send an email

to: Your use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

, "kheyalove" <kheyala@n...>

wrote:

> , "Warwick Wakefield"

> <formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> > Dear Warwick,

> >

> > Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit word,

> > dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in the

> > mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

> >

> > The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your

> awareness.

> > Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.

> >

> > What is this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the

mind.

> > These are objects in your awareness.

> >

> > You can watch all of these objects come and go and change. What

is

> > it that does not change? That is your awareness. It is yourSelf.

> >

> > This awareness illumines your mind, but it is not your mind.

> >

> > Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but it is not.

> >

> > Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and goes and

> > changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help.

> >

> > Rome wasn't built in a day.

> >

> > The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old habit of the

mind.

> >

> > I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it is, I

apologize.

> I

> > am a student, and not a teacher.

> >

> > I am not speaking from my own experience, but as one who is

> > identified with the dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in

> what

> > I have said.

> >

> > However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it

in

> > the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes

> time.

> > Durga

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Durga,

> >

> > Thank you for sending this post.

> > I had never heard this word "dehatmabuddhi", but various friends

> have taken me over this ground, and, like you, I have found it very

> helpful.

> >

> > The first time anyone pointed me in this direction was when I was

> at a retreat with Francis Lucille in Touzac, in France.

> > I was telling a friend (I had only met him a day or two before)

> about an experience during which I had observed my consciousness

> changing while I looked.

> > He said, "No sweetheart, consciousness doesn't change."

> > I was struck dumb.

> > I didn't get all the ramifications of it, but I had the sense

that

> he had said something very significant.

> >

> > A few weeks later, at a satsang in London with a well-known

> teacher, I was asked, "Who do you think that you are?"

> > I gave a list of the various physical and personality (mental)

> attributes which I believed constituted "me".

> > So then I was asked, "Are you really all those things - or are

you

> that which sees all those things?"

> > And a whole bunch of things fell into place; that what I am is

> consciousness; that while the body and mind change all the time,

> consciousness doesn't change -- as Francis Lucille says, the

> awareness of change is evidence of the changelessness of awareness;

> that consciousness, not being subject to change, is the realm of

> eternity, which is now; that now is not in time, now doesn't refer

to

> the "these events and objects that are happening or existing in

front

> of me", now is timeless. And a lot more.

> >

> > But I still don't see what the sages mean when they say "you are

> not the doer."

> >

> > Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that

we,

> the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with.

> > Let's agree that "I" have seen, even if it is not totally

> stabilized, that"I" am not these thoughts or appearances; I am that

> unchanging self which sees the changing appearances that constitute

> the world/body/mind. (If we really disidentify, then it will have

to

> be acknowledged that this one "I" is the real essence of Stalin and

> Hitler, as well as Mahatma Ghandi and Ramana Maharshi.)

> >

> > Now I'm going to post a verse from Atmananda's ATMA-Darshan:

> >

> > 9. The Self

> >

> >

> >

> > 1. One does not need to be told, for one knows it clearly

> that the "I" does not change.

> >

> > 2. The "I" persists in all the states. It is there when

> there is thought. It is there when there is no thought.

> >

> > 3. If so, what other evidence is needed to show that it

> cannot be doer or enjoyer, which means change?

> >

> > 4. At the time a thing is being done, there is no

thought

> or feeling that one is doing it. This is further proof that one is

> not a doer.

> >

> > 5. Claiming to have done a thing after the doing cannot

> make one a doer.

> >

> > 6. The intense feeling that one is neither doer nor

> enjoyer removes all bondage and one's real nature comes to light

> thereby.

> >

> >

> >

> > Atmananda is pretty clear, here, that the Self, "I", is not the

> doer.

> >

> > So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

> consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not

the

> doer, who is the doer?

> >

> > The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, in which

> case nothing ever happens. And that makes sense from t> So, if the

> person is not the doer, being just objects in consciousness, like

> images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the doer, who is the

> doer?

> he point of view that only consciousness is real and that the

> world/body/mind is just a dream. But we have gone a very long way

to

> say that the world/body/mind is just a dream. I certainly don't

deny

> it. I am open to it it's being true, but I wouldn't affirm it as

> first hand experience.

> >

> > Incidentally, to all those who protest that this is nothing but

> a "head trip" and that thinking will get you nowhere, I reply quite

> firmly that the Advaitic sages definitely recognize the path of

> intelligence, and Atmananda recommends that if one has employed a

> chain of reasoning that leads to an understanding of truth, a

seeing,

> then one should constantly revisit it.

> >

> >

> >

> > Much love

> >

> > Warwick

> >

> >

>

>

> Dear Warwick, dear Durga, you two are great!!! So glad you are

> here!!!

>

> This is what comes to me when I read your post, Warwick. You wrote:

>

> > So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

> consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not

the

> doer, who is the doer?

>

> > The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, ...

>

>

> ...and what if there is no person? What if there is no Self?

>

> What if, in this particular instance, person and Self are just

empty,

> made-up concepts?

>

> If there is no person, then does the question "who is the doer?"

even

> arise?

>

>

> *silence*

>

>

> If the question doesn't arise, then what is left? Where are you?

>

>

> *silence*

>

>

> If the question arises and you do not give value to it (given that

> the question's source has been revealed to be simply the "person,"

> the empty, made-up concept), then where are you? WHO are you?

>

> (and, please, don't give value to any answer your mind comes up

> with!!)

>

>

> Smiling just because,

>

> Love,

>

> Kheyala

 

 

, "kheyalove" <kheyala@n...>

wrote:

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

> Dear Warwick,

>

> Try this. It has helped me, a lot. There is a sanskrit word,

> dehatmabuddhi. This word means the strong notion (buddhi) in the

> mind, that the body (deha), is the atma (Self).

>

> The body, and everything comprising it are objects in your

awareness.

> Your mind, all your thoughts, are objects in your awareness.

>

> What is this awareness? It is not the body. It is not the mind.

> These are objects in your awareness.

>

> You can watch all of these objects come and go and change. What is

> it that does not change? That is your awareness. It is yourSelf.

>

> This awareness illumines your mind, but it is not your mind.

>

> Your mind has taken itself to be that awareness, but it is not.

>

> Maybe try making the distinction, between what comes and goes and

> changes, and what does not. Perhaps this will help.

>

> Rome wasn't built in a day.

>

> The dehatmabuddhi is a very strong and very old habit of the mind.

>

> I hope this is not confusing to anyone, and if it is, I apologize.

I

> am a student, and not a teacher.

>

> I am not speaking from my own experience, but as one who is

> identified with the dehatmabuddhi, so there may be some fault in

what

> I have said.

>

> However this teaching has been very helpful to me, so I share it in

> the hope that it may be helpful to you. I think this all takes

time.

> Durga

Dear Durga,

>

> Thank you for sending this post.

> I had never heard this word "dehatmabuddhi", but various friends

have taken me over this ground, and, like you, I have found it very

helpful.

>

> The first time anyone pointed me in this direction was when I was

at a retreat with Francis Lucille in Touzac, in France.

> I was telling a friend (I had only met him a day or two before)

about an experience during which I had observed my consciousness

changing while I looked.

> He said, "No sweetheart, consciousness doesn't change."

> I was struck dumb.

> I didn't get all the ramifications of it, but I had the sense that

he had said something very significant.

>

> A few weeks later, at a satsang in London with a well-known

teacher, I was asked, "Who do you think that you are?"

> I gave a list of the various physical and personality (mental)

attributes which I believed constituted "me".

> So then I was asked, "Are you really all those things - or are you

that which sees all those things?"

> And a whole bunch of things fell into place; that what I am is

consciousness; that while the body and mind change all the time,

consciousness doesn't change -- as Francis Lucille says, the

awareness of change is evidence of the changelessness of awareness;

that consciousness, not being subject to change, is the realm of

eternity, which is now; that now is not in time, now doesn't refer to

the "these events and objects that are happening or existing in front

of me", now is timeless. And a lot more.

>

> But I still don't see what the sages mean when they say "you are

not the doer."

>

> Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that we,

the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with.

> Let's agree that "I" have seen, even if it is not totally

stabilized, that"I" am not these thoughts or appearances; I am that

unchanging self which sees the changing appearances that constitute

the world/body/mind. (If we really disidentify, then it will have to

be acknowledged that this one "I" is the real essence of Stalin and

Hitler, as well as Mahatma Ghandi and Ramana Maharshi.)

>

> Now I'm going to post a verse from Atmananda's ATMA-Darshan:

>

> 9. The Self

>

>

>

> 1. One does not need to be told, for one knows it clearly

that the "I" does not change.

>

> 2. The "I" persists in all the states. It is there when

there is thought. It is there when there is no thought.

>

> 3. If so, what other evidence is needed to show that it

cannot be doer or enjoyer, which means change?

>

> 4. At the time a thing is being done, there is no thought

or feeling that one is doing it. This is further proof that one is

not a doer.

>

> 5. Claiming to have done a thing after the doing cannot

make one a doer.

>

> 6. The intense feeling that one is neither doer nor

enjoyer removes all bondage and one's real nature comes to light

thereby.

>

>

>

> Atmananda is pretty clear, here, that the Self, "I", is not the

doer.

>

> So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the

doer, who is the doer?

>

> The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, in which

case nothing ever happens. And that makes sense from t> So, if the

person is not the doer, being just objects in consciousness, like

images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the doer, who is the

doer?

he point of view that only consciousness is real and that the

world/body/mind is just a dream. But we have gone a very long way to

say that the world/body/mind is just a dream. I certainly don't deny

it. I am open to it it's being true, but I wouldn't affirm it as

first hand experience.

>

> Incidentally, to all those who protest that this is nothing but

a "head trip" and that thinking will get you nowhere, I reply quite

firmly that the Advaitic sages definitely recognize the path of

intelligence, and Atmananda recommends that if one has employed a

chain of reasoning that leads to an understanding of truth, a seeing,

then one should constantly revisit it.

>

>

>

> Much love

>

> Warwick

>

>

 

 

Dear Warwick, dear Durga, you two are great!!! So glad you are

here!!!

 

This is what comes to me when I read your post, Warwick. You wrote:

> So, if the person is not the doer, being just objects in

consciousness, like images on a movie screen, and the Self is not the

doer, who is the doer?

> The only conclusion seems to be that there is no doer, ...

 

 

....and what if there is no person? What if there is no Self?

 

What if, in this particular instance, person and Self are just empty,

made-up concepts?

 

If there is no person, then does the question "who is the doer?" even

arise?

 

 

*silence*

 

 

If the question doesn't arise, then what is left? Where are you?

 

 

*silence*

 

 

If the question arises and you do not give value to it (given that

the question's source has been revealed to be simply the "person,"

the empty, made-up concept), then where are you? WHO are you?

 

(and, please, don't give value to any answer your mind comes up

with!!)

 

 

Smiling just because,

 

Love,

 

Kheyala

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

Dear Warwick, Kheyala, Vicki and Joyce,

 

There is a lot I would like to say and have to say about all of your

posts. However, it is a beautiful day outside after days and days of

rain, so I am going out to enjoy it I have already written this out

twice, and lost it into cyber space, but will try again.

 

There is a mistake in what is written above by Warwick:

 

"Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that we,

the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with."

 

I also used to think this, until I ran it by my teacher, who told me,

it is actually the other way round.

 

The formless consciousness is never confused.

 

It is the mind which is confused, and has mistakenly identified

itself as the *I*, the consciousness.

 

This causes a lot of problems for the individual, who thinking that

*I* is a product of my body and mind, believes that *I* am limited

and bound by change.

 

There is a saying, "What is day for a jnani, (one with self-

knowledge), is night for an ajnani (one with ignorance). What is

night for a jnani is day for an ajnani.

 

So, it is the false notions in the mind which need to be undone, and

(hopefully) are undone, by the teaching of vedanta

 

This is such an interesting discussion to me, but the day beckons.

 

Will try, if I have time, to reply with what I want to say either

later to day or tomorrow.

 

Much love to all, Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi, WW,Could it be that these are mental questions? Enlightenment is

a sate of mind. (That just came to me.)

Hi Vicki,

I really couldn't say what enlightenment is.

 

But I can quite happily say that I see what Nisargadatta and his

friends mean when they say, "I am not the body and not the mind."

 

And he's right, too.

 

I think that is just the first ABC on the path of spiritual

literacy. It doesn't look like much of a step for mankind, but it's a

pretty good step for a man -- takes you right out of yourself.

 

Mind is OK.

 

Lot of folks said pretty nasty things about mind but I reckon it's like a map.

If it's got everything in the wrong place it leads you round and round in circles.

If it's got things in the right place it gets you where you want to go.

 

Once you get where you want to go, of course, you fold it up and put

it in the glove box of your car. Unless you're in the USA, in which

case you put it in the watchacallit of your automobile. Or, more

likely, just switch off your GPS navigation system -- that's the

heart system of direction finding, makes maps look pretty slow and

outdated.

 

So long as you find the way home, who cares?

 

Love

 

WW

[Guest guest]

Dear Warwick, Kheyala, Vicki and Joyce,There is a lot I would like to

say and have to say about all of your posts. However, it is a

beautiful day outside after days and days of rain, so I am going out

to enjoy it I have already written this out twice, and lost it into

cyber space, but will try again.There is a mistake in what is written

above by Warwick:"Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind

objects that we, the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify

with."I also used to think this, until I ran it by my teacher, who

told me, it is actually the other way round.The formless

consciousness is never confused.It is the mind which is confused, and

has mistakenly identified itself as the *I*, the consciousness.This

causes a lot of problems for the individual, who thinking that *I* is

a product of my body and mind, believes that *I* am limited and bound

by change. There is a saying, "What is day for a jnani, (one with

self-knowledge), is night for an ajnani (one with ignorance). What

is night for a jnani is day for an ajnani.So, it is the false notions

in the mind which need to be undone, and (hopefully) are undone, by

the teaching of vedantaThis is such an interesting discussion to me,

but the day beckons.Will try, if I have time, to reply with what I

want to say either later to day or tomorrow.Much love to all, DurgaHi

Durga,

Who is your teacher?

I wonder if our approaches are really at odds.

I agree that confusion exists in the mind if it harbours the belief

that consciousness resides in the bodymind; that this is "my"

consciousness. Even if the belief is that the consciousness is

formless and timeless, if it is thought that it is "my"

consciousness, that I have consciousness, that's a mistake.

Let me ask you, "Does a thought understand anything?"

I think you'll agree that it doesn't. A thought is insentient.

Consciousness can perceive and understand thoughts but a thought is

insentient.

Let's ask another question; "Is the 'person' that which perceives, or

is the person something which is perceived?"

If we agree that the person is perceived, and is just a collection

of thoughts and beliefs, then the person doesn't have the ability,

the freedom, to identify or disidentify.

But consciousness has the ability to do either.

Now, what does happen is that when the first glimpse is seen of what

it is that I really am, what it is that the word "I" was coined for,

the person is dissolved. Consciousness sees Itself and the person is

dissolved. However, the person is pretty soon reassembled, but now

it harbours the belief that I, the person, own consciousness. There

is my consciousness and there is your consciousness. A more

sophisticated form of ignorance, if you like.

And that belief, which distorts the view of reality, also has to be

dispelled. (That's what teachers are for. Aren't we lucky!)

It has to be seen that there is only ONE consciousness, and all the

persons in the drama exist within the one consciousness.

Francis Lucille used the metaphor of a dream at night to shed light

onto the situation. He pointed out that when a night dream is

happening there are many characters, many persons. But only one of

them is regarded as "me". The other characters can do surprising

things that give me a great shock; they seem to be utterly other.

But if we step back from the belief that it is all real, if we see it

as just a dream, then we see that all the persons, all the characters

(and all the houses and trees, too, for that matter) are being created

in the mind of the person lying asleep on her bed. The next morning

she might say, "Last night I was dreaming that I was walking through

a forest and a vicious dog came out from a thicket, snarling and

slobbering. I tried to run away but my legs had turned to lead and

wouldn't function." But she can see, from the perspective of being

awake, that she had created all the characters, the character she

remembers as "I", and the dog, and the trees. And somehow she was

able to see the dog as "other", as "not me", even though she was

creating it.

And in a similar fashion, not in exactly the same fashion but in a

similar fashion, Consciousness creates, and chooses to identify with,

all the characters that we know and love and call my Mum and my Dad

and my lover, the sweetheart, and my last lover but one, God Damn

him, and so on and so on.

I know that raises the question, "Why would consciousness want to identify with a limited entity?"

Well, why do kids play cops and robbers?

Why do we love watching intense dramas on the stage and on the screen?

Why do we say about our political leaders, "I want to see someone in charge who cares passionately."

But you might say, "That's blasphemous! That's like accusing God of

being in the grip of adolescent emotion! God is all-wise and

all-loving!

Well, she might well be all-wise and all-loving, but she just killed

forty thousand men women and children in Iran, folks who were just

going about their business.

Can we grasp, for more than a second or two, the depth and wonder of the working of the Divine?

Love

WW

/join

"Love itself

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

Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma To visit your group on the web, go

to:/ To from

this group, send an email

to: Your use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

I hope it's clear, who said what for those who wish to read this, as

I am a bit new to posting on lists. durga

 

 

Durga wrote that she felt:

 

There is a mistake in what is written above by Warwick:

 

"Let's agree that the person is the set of bodymind objects that

we,

the formless consciousness, mistakenly identify with."

 

I also used to think this, until I ran it by my teacher, who told

me,

it is actually the other way round.

 

The formless consciousness is never confused.

 

It is the mind which is confused, and has mistakenly identified

itself as the *I*, the consciousness.

 

This causes a lot of problems for the individual, who thinking that

*I* is a product of my body and mind, believes that *I* am limited

and bound by change.

 

There is a saying, "What is day for a jnani, (one with self-

knowledge), is night for an ajnani (one with ignorance). What is

night for a jnani is day for an ajnani.

 

So, it is the false notions in the mind which need to be undone,

and

(hopefully) are undone, by the teaching of vedanta

 

This is such an interesting discussion to me, but the day beckons.

 

Will try, if I have time, to reply with what I want to say either

later to day or tomorrow.

 

Much love to all, Durga

 

 

 

Hi Durga,

> Who is your teacher?<

 

My teacher is an obscure sanskrit scholar, who unfolds classic

advaitic texts a traditional manner, and would probably not

appreciate being named on the web, so I won't.

>I wonder if our approaches are really at odds.<

Let's see.

> I agree that confusion exists in the mind if it harbours the belief

that consciousness resides in the bodymind;<

 

Agreed

>that this is "my"

consciousness.<

 

It *is* your consciousness.

>Even if the belief is that the consciousness is

formless and timeless, if it is thought that it is "my"

consciousness, that I have consciousness, that's a mistake.<

 

Don't Agree. You do have consciousness. If fact conscious *is* who

you are.

>Let me ask you, "Does a thought understand anything?"

I think you'll agree that it doesn't. A thought is insentient.

Consciousness can perceive and understand thoughts but a thought is

insentient.<

 

I would not agree that consciousness can understand thoughts.

Thoughts are understood by your mind.

>Let's ask another question; "Is the 'person' that which perceives,

or is the person something which is perceived?"

If we agree that the person is perceived, and is just a

collection of thoughts and beliefs, then the person doesn't have the

ability, the freedom, to identify or disidentify.

But consciousness has the ability to do either.<

 

No, I don't agree with this at all.

 

The reason here, is the use of the word "perceived".

I was going to write to Joyce about this, probably will. Perceived

implies a perceiver, witnesser,seer. These terms are not literal,

but are used as a device to point to the Self.

 

It is the mind that has misidentified itself to be the Self.

>Now, what does happen is that when the first glimpse is seen of

what it is that I really am, what it is that the word "I" was coined

for, the person is dissolved.<

 

The person doesn't dissolve. Their misidentification as being a

separate person is dissolved. The consciousness which was always

there, but misidentified, is now seen to be who they really are and

always have been. Their mind is still there, their body is still

their, everything is still there except their false notion. Now they

know who they are.

>Consciousness sees Itself<

 

Consciousness does not see itself.

>and the

person is dissolved. However, the person is pretty soon reassembled,

but now it harbours the belief that I, the person, own consciousness.

There is my consciousness and there is your consciousness. A more

sophisticated form of ignorance, if you like.<

 

This I disagree with also. It is my understanding that once the

switchover occurs, and the Self is truly recognized, no going back

into ignorance is possible.

 

There will always be my mind and your mind, but consciousness is not

the mind.

>And that belief, which distorts the view of reality, also has to be

dispelled. (That's what teachers are for. Aren't we lucky!)<

 

Yes, extremely lucky, if we find a good one.

>It has to be seen that there is only ONE consciousness, and all

the persons in the drama exist within the one consciousness.

>Francis Lucille used the metaphor of a dream at night to shed light

onto the situation. He pointed out that when a night dream is

happening there are many characters, many persons. But only one of

them is regarded as "me". The other characters can do surprising

things that give me a great shock; they seem to be utterly other.

>But if we step back from the belief that it is all real, if we see

it as just a dream, then we see that all the persons, all the

characters (and all the houses and trees, too, for that matter) are

being created in the mind of the person lying asleep on her bed. The

next morning she might say, "Last night I was dreaming that I was

walking through a forest and a vicious dog came out from a thicket,

snarling and slobbering. I tried to run away but my legs had turned

to lead and wouldn't function." But she can see, from the perspective

of being awake, that she had created all the characters, the

character she remembers as "I", and the dog, and the trees. And

somehow she was able to see the dog as "other", as "not me", even

though she was creating it.<

 

This is not my understanding of what the dream analogy is used to

convey.

It is my understanding that the dream analogy, as with any analogy

has it's limitations.

My teacher has said that the dream is the Achilles heal of the

illusion.

 

The dream comes from you, is sustained by you, and resolves into

you.When you awaken from the dream, in the morning, and all the

little dream characters, including the one you may have identified

with, are wiped out, you don't care, and are not bothered one bit,

because nothing has actually happened to you (the consciousness).

>And in a similar fashion, not in exactly the same fashion but in a

similar fashion, Consciousness creates, and chooses to identify with,

all the characters that we know and love and call my Mum and my Dad

and my lover, the sweetheart, and my last lover but one, God Damn

him, and so on and so on.<

 

Or it is your mind that chooses to identify with them?

>I know that raises the question, "Why would consciousness want to

identify with a limited entity?"<

 

Good question. Does it? This is my point. Consciousness does not

identify with a limited entity. It may appear to show up as one, but

it has not identified itself as one.

>Well, why do kids play cops and robbers?

>Why do we love watching intense dramas on the stage and on the

screen?

>Why do we say about our political leaders, "I want to see someone

in charge who cares passionately."

>But you might say, "That's blasphemous! That's like accusing God

of

being in the grip of adolescent emotion! God is all-wise and all-

loving!

>Well, she might well be all-wise and all-loving, but she just

killed forty thousand men women and children in Iran, folks who were

just going about their business.

>Can we grasp, for more than a second or two, the depth and wonder

of the working of the Divine?<

 

Yes, I think you can.

>Love

>WW

 

Dear Warwick,

 

It seems to me, that you have a particular view in your mind of how

this all works. It seems as if you are anthropomorphizing

consciousness.

 

I don't agree with you, on many points, because this is not what I

have been taught, and not what I understand to be true.

 

However, I am not a teacher, and to try and tease all of this apart,

and try and clearly explain to you what I have come to understand, is

beyond my ability, nor do I think I should try any further. I am not

a "realized" person.

 

You began your post with the words, "I wonder if our approaches are

at odds?" I think that our understandings are very much "at odds".

 

However, what I hope is not at odds is our geniune desire to each

wake up and really know *Who am I*. I think the genuine desire for

freedom is paramount. Here's wishing you and all the very very best

in your quest. Off to my vedanta class. Jai Ho! Much love, Durga

 

 

 

 

 

/join

 

 

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

 

 

 

 

----

--------

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c.. Terms of

Service.

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

..

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, "Warwick Wakefield"

<formandsubstance@t...> wrote:

>

> -

>

> Dear Warwick, dear Durga, you two are great!!! So glad you are

> here!!!

>

> This is what comes to me when I read your post, Warwick.

> ...and what if there is no person? What if there is no Self?

>

> What if, in this particular instance, person and Self are just

empty,

> made-up concepts?

>

> If there is no person, then does the question "who is the doer?"

even

> arise?

>

>

> *silence*

>

>

> If the question doesn't arise, then what is left? Where are you?

>

>

> *silence*

>

>

> If the question arises and you do not give value to it (given

that

> the question's source has been revealed to be simply

the "person,"

> the empty, made-up concept), then where are you? WHO are you?

>

> (and, please, don't give value to any answer your mind comes up

> with!!)

>

>

> Smiling just because,

>

> Love,

>

> Kheyala

>

>

>

> Hi Kheyala,

>

> Maybe what I mean when I use the word Self, or "I", is different

from what you mean when you use that word.

> I think that is the most likely explanation.

> Love

>

> Warwick

>

 

 

 

Hi Warwick,

 

It's exactly things like meanings, understandings, and approaches (to

make reference to your latest exchange with Durga), that create

trouble. Remove them all and you are left as you are, with

absolutely no troubles.

 

This conversation has been all about attaining meanings and

understandings (i.e. "who is the doer?") and the truth is that even

if you do attain a really good understanding, it will go. That,

alone, is certain, because understandings exist only in time (nowhere

else) and every little thing in time comes and goes, appears and

disappears.

 

Why go on, in trying to achieve something when you already know you

ARE exactly what it is that you would like to achieve?

 

Enlightenment is not about "getting it." After all, who would be the

one to "get it?" Does Creation Itself need to get anything?

Understand anything? Grasp anything?

 

Enlightenment, truth, freedom, realization...whatever you choose to

call it... is not about achievement. It's about Being. It's about

being, now, and now, and now, and anyway, how can one *not* BE?

 

You asked: "Can we grasp, for more than a second or two, the depth

and wonder of the working of the Divine?" and Durga said, "I think

you can."

 

Well, I think you can, too, but only if you take your eye off of the

clock and put it back on who you are!

 

Here's to THAT!

 

Love,

Kheyala