Disagreements.

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

Well, there certainly is a lot of disagreement.

As is obvious, my guide/teacher on the path is Francis Lucille.

Francis is very vehement about not "believing" him. He constantly

asserts that there is no point in just agreeing with him. If what he

says clarifies something, so that it becomes your own, first hand,

then it has meaning. Otherwise it is just an hypothesis.

And this is how I take it. How can I say that who I really am is

neither body nor mind, but formless consciousness? Because it is

first hand.

And why am I so reluctant to agree that "you are not the doer"? Because I don't understand it.

Of course, what I think I understand may in fact be a

misunderstanding. After I saw that "I" am formless consciousness I

continued to regard this consciousness as Warwick's. Took a while

before I saw that it is the other way round.

As for a "total enlightenment" after which there is no possibility of

any ignorance; there are two things I would like to say

1. I have met many who claim to be "totally enlightened" and they

have all displayed personality structures, or quirks, if you like,

that were solidly based in feelings and ideas about the necessity to

defend their personal identity.

2. Wisdom is not the exclusive preserve of "enlightened ones". There

are enlightened ones who do and say crazy things, not divine crazy

but just stupid crazy, and there are plain folk, like my late aunt,

who manifest breathtaking depths of wisdom and love and cheerful

commonsense, even when death is standing at the door, waiting to take

them away.

Wisdom is wisdom and love is love wherever it happens. Partial

understanding is better than no understanding at all.

Godspeed to you Durga

WW

-

durga

Monday, January 12, 2004 12:33 PM

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

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. durgaDurga 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

>WWDear 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.. To

from this group, send an email to:

c.. Your use of

is subject to the --- End

forwarded message ---.> > > >

/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]

Dear Warwick

an "enlightened" person

a complete enlightened person

a half enlightened bulb.....

oh Dear

who knows does not tell

who talks does not know

so much theoretical stuff

its much easier Dear

its like climbing on a tree

the people on the ground have a limited view

as higher you climb the more you see

usually you cannot make yourself undertand if you have a better view

all the best for today

michael bindel

>"Warwick Wakefield"

> >

> Disagreements. >Mon, 12 Jan 2004

14:19:58 +1100 > >Hi Durga, > >Well, there certainly is a lot of

disagreement. > >As is obvious, my guide/teacher on the path is

Francis Lucille. > >Francis is very vehement about not "believing"

him. He constantly asserts that there is no point in just agreeing

with him. If what he says clarifies something, so that it becomes

your own, first hand, then it has meaning. Otherwise it is just an

hypothesis. > >And this is how I take it. How can I say that who I

really am is neither body nor mind, but formless consciousness?

Because it is first hand. > And why am I so reluctant to agree that

"you are not the doer"? Because I don't understand it. > >Of course,

what I think I understand may in fact be a misunderstanding. After I

saw that "I" am formless consciousness I continued to regard this

consciousness as Warwick's. Took a while before I saw that it is the

other way round. > >As for a "total enlightenment" after which there

is no possibility of any ignorance; there are two things I would like

to say > >1. I have met many who claim to be "totally enlightened"

and they have all displayed personality structures, or quirks, if you

like, that were solidly based in feelings and ideas about the

necessity to defend their personal identity. > >2. Wisdom is not the

exclusive preserve of "enlightened ones". There are enlightened ones

who do and say crazy things, not divine crazy but just stupid crazy,

and there are plain folk, like my late aunt, who manifest

breathtaking depths of wisdom and love and cheerful commonsense, even

when death is standing at the door, waiting to take them away. >

>Wisdom is wisdom and love is love wherever it happens. Partial

understanding is better than no understanding at all. > >Godspeed to

you Durga > >WW >- > durga > To:

> Monday, January 12, 2004

12:33 PM > Re: You are not the doer? -

don't belive it; I can be very dour indeed. > > > 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 > > a.. To visit your

group on the web, go to: >

/ > > b.. To

from this group, send an email to: >

> > c.. Your use of

is subject to the Terms of > Service. > ---

End forwarded message --- > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> /join > >

> >

> > "Love itself is the actual form

of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by

Suri Nagamma > > > Sponsor >

> > > > >

>

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

to: > / > > b.. To

from this group, send an email to: >

> > c.. Your use of

is subject to the > Add photos

to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.