Guest guest Posted August 15, 1999 Report Share Posted August 15, 1999 hariH OM! the only way to arrive at the pure NOW is either by stopping thoughts or effectively ignoring them. the latter is moksha. when this happens, we see, hear and feel with a richness and clarity that has no parallel in the world of Mind. simply because Mind, by nature, functions through limits and comparisons. whereas the pure NOW (field of brahman) functions wholistically, where each NOW (the *eternal* NOW) is a perfect hologram of brahman--regardless if it includes the saguna outbreath of maya. being in the pure NOW is where we *are*, in truth, each and every now. :-) we *are* the continuum of NOW itself. NOW always was, is, and always will be NOW. What everyone *seems to* struggle with, is an innocently mis-perceived overlay, caused by an unfathomable mistake called ego: Creator of Mind; Commander-in-Chief of all Illusions; Sustainer of all Misconceptions. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 1999 Report Share Posted August 16, 1999 f. maiello <egodust advaitin <advaitin > Sunday, August 15, 1999 7:28 AM follow-up to last reply to Parisi & Watson: <snip> >"f. maiello" <egodust >What everyone *seems to* struggle with, is an >innocently mis-perceived overlay, caused by an >unfathomable mistake called ego: Creator of >Mind; Commander-in-Chief of all Illusions; >Sustainer of all Misconceptions. I had a three day email outage, so I hope I didn't miss a reply. Somewhere in his 'Gospel,' Ramakrishna is reported to have said some words to the effect that it is impossible for a person who hasn't experienced samadhi even to believe in God. For those who realistically have little prospect for realization in this life, convincing arguments must remain just that - convincing but potentially mistaken, a tantalizing hypothesis and working assumption, but not yet a reality. It is conceivable that I could eventually persuade myself not to identify with my body, mind, thoughts, and so on, but that in itself would change very little. I would still see only through my two eyes and no others, still feel sensations only through my body and no other, and so forth. As far as I can tell, there would be no obvious detectable difference of any kind. So clearly arriving at this intellectual conviction is not enough. And the other, supra-rational component is difficult to come by. I often wonder how people are able to endure, possibly for a whole lifetime, a state of essentially suspended judgment, pending the lightning bolt of intuition that may or may not ever come. It seems that for me this condition doesn't offer a lasting defense against corrosive, predatory doubts, mostly of an empirical and neurological bent. But I don't see much that I can do about it except just continue to muddle along as best I can, and try to remain open to all possibilities. Or am I missing something here? Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 1999 Report Share Posted August 16, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > > [...] .... It is conceivable that I could > eventually persuade myself not to identify with my body, mind, thoughts, and > so on, but that in itself would change very little. I would still see only > through my two eyes and no others, still feel sensations only through my > body and no other, and so forth. As far as I can tell, there would be no > obvious detectable difference of any kind. what faculty of perception are you using in saying "as far as I can tell"? if/when one ceases to identify, the concrete reasoning mind is disengaged, and something else takes over. that is the intuitive mode called buddhi. it apprehends life wide and unlimited, unfettered by comparative judgments. the engagement of such itself is indispensable before anything can be stated in the form of a counter argument--for the best that may arise therefrom is conjecture and abstract theory. on the other hand, the difference defies even a poetic metaphor! namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 1999 Report Share Posted August 16, 1999 f. maiello <egodust advaitin <advaitin > Monday, August 16, 1999 8:29 PM Re: follow-up to last reply to Parisi & Watson: >"f. maiello" <egodust >what faculty of perception are you using in >saying "as far as I can tell"? <snip> Only the faculties that are basically as common as dirt. But then that was the point. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > > >"f. maiello" <egodust > >what faculty of perception are you using in > >saying "as far as I can tell"? > <snip> > > Only the faculties that are basically as common as dirt. But then that was > the point. > yes. which is why the 'common' means is defunct in the face of the Absolute. the common means we're in the habit of engaging but now attempted to be used in the arena of the ineffable, is likened to using a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 this post to replace last incomplete reply... sorry for the inconvenience. Parisi & Watson wrote: > > >"f. maiello" <egodust > >what faculty of perception are you using in > >saying "as far as I can tell"? > <snip> > > Only the faculties that are basically as common as dirt. But then that was > the point. > yes. which is why the 'common' means is defunct in the face of the Absolute. the common means we're in the habit of engaging but now attempted to be used in the arena of the ineffable, is likened to using a yardstick to weigh oneself. namaste 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.