Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Hi kheyalove Before me is this space, and it seems to include others, sometimes one, sometimes many. The space opens and opens, as long as there is giving and giving and giving into it. Transformation seems to occur, and others and myself seem to become more open to it, but the space is just this magical opening, opening in so many unexpected ways, to me, to everyone. The space is love of course, or presence, and all it seems to ask is to keep giving into it, of me and of everyone. You can talk of true self as some objective entity, but the space is love, pure giving, washing through you and everything around you. At first it seems as if the circles of giving are small, as in relationships or healing circles, but the giving can happen in any way, and without purpose is better, because the whole of everything is just this beautiful space we give into this way. The truth os this space is a love that cannot stop giving, to you, and you, and you and you and you. Love to you Michael --- kheyalove <kheyala 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 > === message truncated === Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 Hello Michael McCarthy because LOVE IS ALL THERE IS LOVE IS GD michael bindel >michael mccarthy > >To: > Effortless undiscriminating stillness >Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:13:59 -0800 (PST) > >Hi kheyalove > >Before me is this space, and it seems to include >others, sometimes one, sometimes many. The space >opens and opens, as long as there is giving and giving >and giving into it. Transformation seems to occur, >and others and myself seem to become more open to it, >but the space is just this magical opening, opening in >so many unexpected ways, to me, to everyone. The >space is love of course, or presence, and all it seems >to ask is to keep giving into it, of me and of >everyone. You can talk of true self as some objective >entity, but the space is love, pure giving, washing >through you and everything around you. At first it >seems as if the circles of giving are small, as in >relationships or healing circles, but the giving can >happen in any way, and without purpose is better, >because the whole of everything is just this beautiful >space we give into this way. The truth os this space >is a love that cannot stop giving, to you, and you, >and you and you and you. > >Love to you > >Michael >--- kheyalove wrote: > > --- In , "Warwick > > Wakefield" > > 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 > > >=== message truncated === > > > > > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes >http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 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.