Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Harsha > > Monday, May 23, 2005 12:04 PM > Re: Re: letters and comments > > > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego > "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). > Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego? > > > Hey Fuzzie, > You have been 'served'; you're busted!!! > > a.)) Only in your dreams, sweetheart... fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Groucho was reported to have attended a session at a spiritualist.. let's say Madame Lazonga.. she sat on a dais clothed in flowing robes.. One of her attendants turned towards the audience and said in a pompous voice Madame Lazonga will now answeer your questions.": To which Graucho replied; "What's the capital of NorthDakota?" cheers... - yosyflug Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:55 AM Re: Re: letters and comments alike but not the same... groucho said one thing, nasrudin another. groucho wrote a letter to an anti-semitic country club, which refused to accept his daughter who wanted to go to the swimming pool, asking: "could she get in the water up to her waist? she is only half jewish..." quite a nasrudin character, groucho... yosy - Sam Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:07 AM Re: Re: letters and comments it wasn't nasrudin... it was groucho marx.. (naah) .. groucho said : 'I wouldn't join any club that would have me as one of it's members'.... samiam - yosyflug Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:28 AM Re: Re: letters and comments - Sam Monday, May 23, 2005 12:26 PM Re: Re: letters and comments - Anna Ruiz Monday, May 23, 2005 6:21 PM Re: Re: letters and comments - Harsha Monday, May 23, 2005 12:04 PM Re: Re: letters and comments fuzzie_wuz wrote: The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego"surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego?Hey Fuzzie, You have been 'served'; you're busted!!! a.)) Oh please, please (fluttering eyelashes) who is busted?? S ;-) Any/all whose who of Who's ) (raising left eyebrow up since I gave up fluttering last month:)) You know I think owls are all advaita teachers... always saying .. who?.. who?... who?... You have heard I suppose of the famous register of Famous People..."Who's who"... now there is a new one for advaitins... "Who's not!" Problem is if you want your name in it you are automatically excluded.... just tip toe by whistling casually... Cheers...S ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ) "i belong to a club which is so selective and exclusive" said nasrudin, "that whoever considers himself a member, is instantly and automatically expelled." yosy/join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:43 AM Re: letters and comments , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote:> > - > fuzzie_wuz > To: > Monday, May 23, 2005 10:08 AM> Re: letters and comments> > > , michael bindel> <michael_bindel> wrote:> > > > THE MAHARSHI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > May/June 2001> > Vol. 11 - No. 3> > > > > > > > Produced & Edited by> > Dennis Hartel> > Dr. Anil K. Sharma> > > > > > > > > > > > Letters and Comments> > > > I was wondering if someone could help clarify a confusion I have> over one of Ramana's points. > > > > He states that we are not the doers.... Yet, if we are not the> doers, then who is, if all is one consciousness? > > > > I have heard from the Advaita side that because we are not the> doers, then apparently we are not responsible for our actions.... How> can this not be a harmful teaching? Haven't all the religions and> countless masters encouraged people to act in loving ways? > > > > I would really appreciate any guidance whatsoever. Thank you and> blessings to you... > > > > - An American Seeker > > > > The teaching is correct: "We are not the doers." But as long as we> live an ego-centered life we are unable to experience the truth of> this teaching and will have to suffer the consequences of our actions.> That is called the Law of Karma. > > > > Once we completely surrender to the Higher Power, or completely> efface the ego by Self-enquiry and realize the Self, we know for> certain that we are not the doer. It is an ever-present experience. Up> to this point we must make effort to realize the truth that we cannot,> in fact, make any efforts, that we are only tools in the the hands of> the Higher Power. Such are the contradictions in verbalizing spiritual> truths. > > > > No true teacher will ever say you are not responsible for your> >actions. Only when individuality is lost, when we are fixed in the> >realization of the One Reality, are we not responsible for our> >actions. In that state there is no one but the Higher Power to be> >responsible - Editor> > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego> "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). The> imaginary ego is imaginary from the start. It's already non-existent;> like Santa Claus and unicorns, etc. To say that the imaginary ego has> to do something in order to realize it is imaginary is absurd. The> imaginary ego cannot "realize" anything. Furthermore, the imaginary> ego cannot be held responsible for actions which it is incapable of> committing (again, because it is imaginary). > > There is no doer; no "you". It's the old rope/snake trick. > > > > fuzzie> > > Fuzzie my dear,> > Perhap This is where you and I are n> longer "joined at the hip", so to speak.> No, I can not imagine it would be so.> > When the no-doer, no 'you' is Seen as the play of the One Seerer,ie Seeing, the Seeing is the Doing....> > With full vision of how, what, why, when and where. It isResponsibility in action, arising moment-to-moment in theright-here-ness of the right-now-ness in the absolute Presence of This,> the I Am, again receding in/as Nothing.> > Filling, emptying, filling, emptying. > > It is the Love of the Universe for Itself.> It is the Work of the Siddhas.> It is the Bliss of nothing/everything.> It is the You and I of We--This.> > a.Dear Anna: Your posts are often filled with symbolism and metaphor (you wouldmake a good symbolist poet; Rimbaud and Baudelaire, come to mind). Theinterpretations can be varied and multitudinous. I find no inherentdiscrepancies between your post and my previous post. Perhapssomething has been overlooked... I don't know...:)fuzzie Dear Fuzzie: Who is the doer? Who is the Seer? Who is the One Seen? Who is Fuzzie in this equation? How is Fuzzie Being Seen? Who is Fuzzie in relationship with? What is the result of Fuzzie "relatiing"? Just some questions on the nature of "Fuzzie".... : ) Anna /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:43 AM Re: letters and comments , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote:> > - > fuzzie_wuz > To: > Monday, May 23, 2005 10:08 AM> Re: letters and comments> > > , michael bindel> <michael_bindel> wrote:> > > > THE MAHARSHI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > May/June 2001> > Vol. 11 - No. 3> > > > > > > > Produced & Edited by> > Dennis Hartel> > Dr. Anil K. Sharma> > > > > > > > > > > > Letters and Comments> > > > I was wondering if someone could help clarify a confusion I have> over one of Ramana's points. > > > > He states that we are not the doers.... Yet, if we are not the> doers, then who is, if all is one consciousness? > > > > I have heard from the Advaita side that because we are not the> doers, then apparently we are not responsible for our actions.... How> can this not be a harmful teaching? Haven't all the religions and> countless masters encouraged people to act in loving ways? > > > > I would really appreciate any guidance whatsoever. Thank you and> blessings to you... > > > > - An American Seeker > > > > The teaching is correct: "We are not the doers." But as long as we> live an ego-centered life we are unable to experience the truth of> this teaching and will have to suffer the consequences of our actions.> That is called the Law of Karma. > > > > Once we completely surrender to the Higher Power, or completely> efface the ego by Self-enquiry and realize the Self, we know for> certain that we are not the doer. It is an ever-present experience. Up> to this point we must make effort to realize the truth that we cannot,> in fact, make any efforts, that we are only tools in the the hands of> the Higher Power. Such are the contradictions in verbalizing spiritual> truths. > > > > No true teacher will ever say you are not responsible for your> >actions. Only when individuality is lost, when we are fixed in the> >realization of the One Reality, are we not responsible for our> >actions. In that state there is no one but the Higher Power to be> >responsible - Editor> > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego> "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). The> imaginary ego is imaginary from the start. It's already non-existent;> like Santa Claus and unicorns, etc. To say that the imaginary ego has> to do something in order to realize it is imaginary is absurd. The> imaginary ego cannot "realize" anything. Furthermore, the imaginary> ego cannot be held responsible for actions which it is incapable of> committing (again, because it is imaginary). > > There is no doer; no "you". It's the old rope/snake trick. > > > > fuzzie> > > Fuzzie my dear,> > Perhap This is where you and I are n> longer "joined at the hip", so to speak.> No, I can not imagine it would be so.> > When the no-doer, no 'you' is Seen as the play of the One Seerer,ie Seeing, the Seeing is the Doing....> > With full vision of how, what, why, when and where. It isResponsibility in action, arising moment-to-moment in theright-here-ness of the right-now-ness in the absolute Presence of This,> the I Am, again receding in/as Nothing.> > Filling, emptying, filling, emptying. > > It is the Love of the Universe for Itself.> It is the Work of the Siddhas.> It is the Bliss of nothing/everything.> It is the You and I of We--This.> > a.Dear Anna: Your posts are often filled with symbolism and metaphor (you wouldmake a good symbolist poet; Rimbaud and Baudelaire, come to mind). Theinterpretations can be varied and multitudinous. I find no inherentdiscrepancies between your post and my previous post. Perhapssomething has been overlooked... I don't know...:)fuzzie Fuzzie, someone made the exact same comment -- can't quite remember who it is. And when I do, you, Fuzzie, will have been Outed, so to speak. No more hiding behind "fuzzie" lines. Love you to pieces, Anna /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 fuzzie_wuz wrote: > , Harsha wrote: > > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > > > > > > > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego > > > "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). > > > > Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego? > > > > No one is saying it. It is simply being said. Why attach an imaginary > entity to it? > > > > fuzzie > You already did in your original statement Fuzzie. Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 fuzzie_wuz wrote: - > > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego > "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). > Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego? > > > Hey Fuzzie, > You have been 'served'; you're busted!!! > > a.)) Only in your dreams, sweetheart... fuzzie There you go again Fuzzie. Protecting your imaginary ego. :-). /join "Love itself is the actual form of God." Sri Ramana In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 - Anna Ruiz Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:03 AM Re: Re: letters and comments Dear Fuzzie: Who is the doer? Who is the Seer? Who is the One Seen? Who is Fuzzie in this equation? How is Fuzzie Being Seen? Who is Fuzzie in relationship with? What is the result of Fuzzie "relatiing"? Just some questions on the nature of "Fuzzie".... : ) Anna ================================ Dear Anna: Fuzzie wuzzie was a bear Fuzzie wuzzie had no hair Fuzzie wuzzie wasn't very fuzzy Was he??? LOL, Joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Hello everyone, When replying to a sequence of posts, would you please put your reply at the top, or snip out the long sequence of posts that you are responding to and just leave the most recent, as below? Otherwise one has to scroll down quite a ways to find and read your reply. Thanks, Jill On May 24, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Harsha wrote: > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > - > > > > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > > > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary > ego > > "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher > Power"). > > > > > Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego? > > > > > > Hey Fuzzie, > > You have been 'served'; you're busted!!! > > > > a.)) > > Only in your dreams, sweetheart... > > > > fuzzie > > > There you go again Fuzzie. Protecting your imaginary ego. :-). > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > > Links > > • > / > > • > > > • Terms of > Service. > > Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 - Lady Joyce Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:19 AM Re: Re: letters and comments - Anna Ruiz Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:03 AM Re: Re: letters and comments Dear Fuzzie: Who is the doer? Who is the Seer? Who is the One Seen? Who is Fuzzie in this equation? How is Fuzzie Being Seen? Who is Fuzzie in relationship with? What is the result of Fuzzie "relatiing"? Just some questions on the nature of "Fuzzie".... : ) Anna ================================ Dear Anna: Fuzzie wuzzie was a bear Fuzzie wuzzie had no hair Fuzzie wuzzie wasn't very fuzzy Was he??? LOL, Joyce Dear Lady J: Yeppers, I do so want to scratch behind his ears, that's always a hard place to get to.....) Anna /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Dear Jill, Thank you for making that excellent point. I would go further and ask everyone to snip what is not relevant. Please think of others who are trying to figure out who wrote what. Hope you are all well Harsha Jill Eggers wrote: Hello everyone, When replying to a sequence of posts, would you please put your reply at the top, or snip out the long sequence of posts that you are responding to and just leave the most recent, as below? Otherwise one has to scroll down quite a ways to find and read your reply. Thanks, Jill On May 24, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Harsha wrote: There you go again Fuzzie. Protecting your imaginary ego. :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:44 AM Re: letters and comments , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote:> > - > Harsha > To: > Monday, May 23, 2005 12:04 PM> Re: Re: letters and comments> > > fuzzie_wuz wrote: > > The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego> "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power").> Who is saying all this? The imaginary ego?> > > Hey Fuzzie,> You have been 'served'; you're busted!!!> > a.))Only in your dreams, sweetheart...:)fuzzie Ah, so. Seems we are having the same dream--Precious. : ) anna /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 veryyyy interessstttingggg!! snip out everyOne's dialogue save your own. Hmmm, wonder what that might accomplish? Talking to oneSelf--I'd say Borrrringggg..... I love the entire Play with All the Characters, 'cause I know it's me playing, and I just never know what the other me's are up to.))) All is Well that End's Well.... Anna - Harsha Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:04 AM Re: Re: letters and comments Dear Jill,Thank you for making that excellent point. I would go further and ask everyone to snip what is not relevant.Please think of others who are trying to figure out who wrote what.Hope you are all wellHarshaJill Eggers wrote: Hello everyone, When replying to a sequence of posts, would you please put your reply at the top, or snip out the long sequence of posts that you are responding to and just leave the most recent, as below? Otherwise one has to scroll down quite a ways to find and read your reply. Thanks, Jill On May 24, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Harsha wrote: There you go again Fuzzie. Protecting your imaginary ego. :-). /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma 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.