..nothing but being..

September 26, 2006

> These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a verse from the Gita

> that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that after the

> realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that the Self is the

> source of all and has become all this.

>

Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self is to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being." points to this for me...

> _____

>

> A visitor: "The Supreme Spirit is Real. The world is illusion," is

> the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say,

> "The world is reality." Which is true?

>

> Ramana: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of

> development and are spoken from different points of view.

>

> The aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always;

> then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is

> changing. It cannot be real; "not this, not this!" The seekers ultimately

> reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing

> note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to

> be part of the unity. Being absorbed in the Reality, the world also is Real.

>

> There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being.

>

> snip

>

> From the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

>

> Ramakrishna: ".During the struggle one should follow the method of

> discrimination-'Not this, not this'-and direct the whole mind to God. But

> the state of perfection is quite different. After reaching God one

> reaffirms what formerly one denied. To extract butter you must separate it

> from the buttermilk. Then you discover that butter and buttermilk are

> intrinsically related to one another. They belong to the same stuff. The

> butter is not essentially different from the buttermilk, not the buttermilk

> essentially different from the butter. After realizing God one knows

> definitely that it is He who has become everything. In some objects He is

> manifested more clearly, and in others less clearly."

>

> Nisargadatta:

>

> snip

>

> <..>

> Therefore this consciousness will depend

> on how long the body is there.

>

> Even this consciousness is not everything and it is not going to last for

> all time. Find out how this consciousness has arisen, the source of the

> consciousness

>

> ~~~~~~

> Era

>

> distinction between Consciousness & Awareness

> <http://tinyurl. <http://tinyurl.com/mrm8w> com/mrm8w>

>

> In the preceeding quote Nisargadatta is reported to have said:

>

> "Even this consciousness is not everything.Find out how this consciouness

> has arisen, the source of the consciousness."

>

> And once again I offer this quote from the Bhagavad Gita.

>

> Quote from the Bhagavad Gita,

>

> Chapter 15, verses 17 and 18

>

> But there is another being, the Highest, called the Supreme Self, who, as

> the Immutable, pervades and sustains the three worlds. As I surpass the

> Perishable and as I am higher even than the Imperishable, I am extolled in

> the world and in the Vedas as the Supreme Self.

>

--for me the: "But there is another being" doesn't sound nondual + I'm drawn to the nontheist Buddhist thaught..

> Warm regards,

>

> michael

best wishes, Era

September 26, 2006

---- Era Molnar <n0ndual (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> > These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a verse from the Gita

> > that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that after the

> > realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that the Self is the

> > source of all and has become all this.

> >

>

> Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self is to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

>

> as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being." points to this for me...

>

snip

Dear Era,

The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This classical description is used because the Self is more than Consciousness or Awareness. In the passage you quote from Sri Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more than "awareness" alone.

But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that is the source and support, indeed the substratum of all that we see. This Being has become the All, the entire Universe and all the beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite Ocean of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is rightfully descirbed in the classics as Satchidananda - Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that the Self is "Awareness" alone, then I would respectfully suggest that you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya", the fourth state. Turiya is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and awareness are not sufficient to describe the Self. Indeed nothing is sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully inadequate.

Warm regards,

michael

September 26, 2006

Era: I am wondering if the Self is to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

-- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being."

points to this for me...

> >

>

> snip

>

> Dear Era,

>

> The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.. This classical

description is used because the Self is more than Consciousness or Awareness. In the

passage you quote from Sri Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more than

"awareness" alone.

>

> But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that is the source and support,

indeed the substratum of all that we see. This Being has become the All, the entire

Universe and all the beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite Ocean

of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is rightfully descirbed in the classics as

Satchidananda - Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

>

> If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that the Self is "Awareness"

alone, then I would respectfully suggest that you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya",

the fourth state. Turiya is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

>

> Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as Existence-

Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and awareness are not sufficient to

describe the Self. Indeed nothing is sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully

inadequate.

>

thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes sense..

Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

Nisargadatta, who passed on in 1982, was a self-realized sage who taught a path of

staying constantly with the inner question "Who am I?" This path of self-inquiry was also

taught by the great sage Ramana Maharshi of Arunachala, who died in 1950. They both

said that by dwelling on the question of our actual identity eventually a series of

realizations occurs which leads to self realization or knowledge of the Self, which is not

different from God-realization. This post deals with a subtle distinction made my

Nisargadatta between the words "consciousness" and "awareness."

CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when I first began reading

Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between the way he uses the two terms

"consciousness" and "awareness."

Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning basically the same

thing, but N. uses them to point to two very different meanings. When he uses the term

"consciousness" he seems to equate that term with the "I Am " and when he talks about

"awareness" he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ("I Am"),

that is, to the absolute.

As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that it is all that we know,

it is the fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the

sense of being. Consciousness = "sense of presence" = "the beingness" = the "I Am."

Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he directs us, as we start

out, to simply be aware of the "I Am" so that we come to the realization that we are the

consciousness itself, and not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and

identification, he does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization has

established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always points out that this

means the universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a cow or a dog or an

ant), when I realize that I am the "I am" he take us to the next realization which is when I

subsequently realize that I am NOT the "I am," I am beyond that, I am pure awareness only!

These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word "consciousness" there is always the

touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in relation to being unconscious. If "I am" it is

always in relation to the "not-me." If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something.

Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while the realization of

my identity as the "I am" is very much closer to reality than the idea that "I am so-and-so,

a person" it is still a step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the

non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be conscious. Awareness is

that which is shining through the consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself.

So " awareness" is different from "consciousness" in Nisargadatta's talks. The pure

awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no consciousness.

Another way he puts it is that the awareness "is that by which I know that I am." Thus the

awareness is there before the "I am" (or consciousness) appears, and is there after the

consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond even

the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this astonishing distinction is by

saying that the absolute is "awareness unaware of itself." That statement of his is almost

like a Zen koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

duality. He speaks of it as "shining," and of it being an uncaused mystery. This is even

beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it "God" but simply says "the absolute," or the

ultimate reality, beyond time, which ever was and ever will be.

So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is not OF

something, it is not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

This difference between his use of the words "consciousness" and "awareness" took me a

long time to grasp, because we don't really make this distinction in ordinary common

English. Being conscious or being aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses

the terms differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding what he is

trying to convey to us.

I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of "trick" in leading us from

one realization to another. This is the trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

the "sense of presence" or the "sense of beingness," and when we finally realize that he

turns us around to the next higher realization and says what seems to be the opposite:

"NO, you are not that "I Am" either! You are beyond the beingness, beyond the

consciousness, beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness only by which

the conscious has been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

awareness only." This latter realization can only proceed out of the former realization. First

I must realize that I am the "I am," the universal consciousness, then out of that I can

realize that I am NOT the "I am!" I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

This is just breathtaking to me! No one else but Nisargadatta has ever made that line of

realization clear to me. It is utterly simple, really, but difficult to stay with and crack open.

Elegant but subtle. That is why he tells us that we must become completely obsessed with

it. We must develop an intense NEED TO KNOW. You can't just play with it and expect to

get anywhere. When he describes the time before his own realization he says that he was

thinking and pondering about this nearly every single waking moment! He was OBSESSED

to find out what he really was! The usual playing with words has no significance at that

level of constant meditation. It simply becomes a life and death matter to really find out

for oneself what one is. This is religion at it deepest level, the actual breakthrough into the

absolute reality.

So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite different really, although the

consciousness can only exist because of the prior shining of pure awareness.. The

awareness, on the other hand, does not depend on any way whatsoever on the

consciousness, and is not even touched by it. The consciousness comes and goes, waking

and sleeping, birth and death, but the awareness is always there. The consciousness

suddenly appears in the morning on top of the birthless and deathless ever existing pure

nondual awareness. Other than that absolute, there is really nothing.

Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how Nisargadatta keeps hammering

away at the question about "When did you first appear? What was that exact moment when

you first knew that you ARE?" That is a very difficult question, but he says it is of extreme

importance to contemplate. I can't remember when I first knew that I was! I have no idea!

Isn't that rather mysterious in itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am beginning to

suspect that perhaps his stressing of this question might be to prepare us for the final

realization: that I am NOT that "I Am." In other words, this "I am" had a beginning, seemed

to appear out of nowhere, and it will have an end. So I must be beyond that "I am,"

because I am the knower of that "I am." I am not actually the "I am" but rather THAT which

is aware of the "I am."

It took me years to figure this much out. Each realization builds on and becomes possible

because of the previous realizations, and the final realization can even seem to contradict

a previous realization.

1. First I realize I am not all this other stuff that people usually think they are. I am not a

person. The person is memories, knowledge, habits, and other false identies: "Mr. So-

and-so." So I dispense with that. I can see that it is all a false identity made up by

thoughts.

2. Then I realize I am not even the more intimate stuff that people usually think they are. I

am not the body (that is the toughest one, as Nisargadatta points out again and again). I

am not the mind or its thoughts either. I am not the chemistry of all this either. One could

spend an entire lifetime and not ever get through this realization.

3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my sense of existing

itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the consciousness. I realize that I am

that consciousness only, the feeling of existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very

subtle. But now I am coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase "I am that

I am." And along with this stage of realization comes the realization of my universality.

This realization of the "I am" brings with it the explosive understanding that there is no

such thing as an individual, the "I am" is universal, everyone and every living thing is

feeling it the same way. We don't ourselves create our sense of "I am." Rather we inherit

the prior existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously first

appeared on the background of the void, or the object-less pure awareness.

4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense of presence, or

the "I am," I am at last poised for the final realization. Remember, the realization of the "I

am" is already a very high state, and many will simply stop here to enjoy living in the

universal personless beingness. This is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am

God. But some rare ones keep going and keep questioning deeper and come to the

breakthrough realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of "God" is still a form of

illusion and duality, and they will realize and move into and "become" the pure awareness

only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the universal "I am." The

consciousness will continue on no doubt, and the all the activities of life, but the identity

of myself will now be fixed back at its original home, the pure awareness which was prior

to consciousness.

This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it again and again.

Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting them off like tattered old clothes

and stripping naked down to the singular universal consciousness. But who can give up

that very sense of beingness itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It

is frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final realization seems like absolute and

utter anihilation itself, and who on earth wants to be completely anihilated? Thus, very few

rare souls ever realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE!

But the true sage makes the final realization and the final step and is in fact completely

anihilated. "He" ceases to exist, and all that is left of him is what was there at the

beginning of the world, as Buddha became the Void itself and entered into the great

nirvana. A friend of mine called it "The Great Suicide." Then one realizes the final

incredible and terrifying reality: there is nothing. And though really and truly there is

absolutely nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to fullness with

an indescribable "something which is not a thing," the pure awareness, the absolute,

unaware of itself. That is the one and only "thing-which-is-not- a-thing" which is truly

real. All else is false, a fraud made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come

and go, the Great Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal mind.

That a human creature can realize THAT is a miracle to me, a miracle in this incredible

dream-Creation. The whole thing boggles the mind. The mind cannot grasp it, because

the mind is too limited. As all the sages have sung, it is not a matter of gaining anything,

it is just a matter of removing stuff, and removing more stuff, until that which was always

there begins to shine through. Certainly I can't CREATE the ultimate reality. All I can do is

clean the mirror so that light of the incomprehensible pure awareness can reflect through

the mirror and shine. That is why Nisargadatta says that self realization is very simple and

easy, and yet it is very subtle and difficult. Removing all the dirt from the mirror is not so

easy as it might seem, although that is really all that needs to be done.

Above all, in contemplating all this, one feels sometimes like bowing down and thanking

heaven that sages like Nisargadatta, and so many others, especially in ancient times (like

the "satya yuga" or age of truth), have taken birth and shown the way. As N.. points out,

our lives, if we sum it all up, are primarily an experience of suffering overall. One thing or

another, from birth to death, there are endless problems, unfullfilled desires, stuggle and

effort, and suffering. Now and then a few happy moments to keep us going. In fact, if

there were no such possibility as realization and liberation one might well say that suicide

were a preferable way out and an answer to the sufferings of life.

But that awareness has broken through in the cases of so many sages and saints and

proven throughout all of human history that a glorious freedom is indeed possible. From

the ancient Vedas and Upanishads to the teachings of the Christ, again and again, certain

rare ones have demonstrated to mankind that evolution into the likes of angels is possible.

For this we must be ever grateful throughout our journeys, and follow the teachings and

instructions of those like Nisargadatta, with great earnestness, love and joy.

> Warm regards,

>

> michael

best wishes, Era

<http://tinyurl.com/mrm8w>

September 26, 2006

Dear Era,

---- Era Molnar <n0ndual (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote:

> Era: I am wondering if the Self is to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

> -- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being."

> points to this for me...

> > >

> >

> > snip

> >

> > Dear Era,

> >

> > The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This classical

> description is used because the Self is more than Consciousness or Awareness. In the

> passage you quote from Sri Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more than

> "awareness" alone.

> >

> > But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that is the source and support,

> indeed the substratum of all that we see. This Being has become the All, the entire

> Universe and all the beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite Ocean

> of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is rightfully descirbed in the classics as

> Satchidananda - Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

> >

> > If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that the Self is "Awareness"

> alone, then I would respectfully suggest that you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya",

> the fourth state. Turiya is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

> distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

> >

> > Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as Existence-

> Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and awareness are not sufficient to

> describe the Self. Indeed nothing is sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully

> inadequate.

> >

>

> thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes sense..

>

> Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

>

SNIP

Dear Era,

I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with my own experience.

September 26, 2006

> -- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being."

>

I don't know who rote this, but it makes sense..

>

> Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness: <http://tinyurl.com/mrm8w>

>

> SNIP

>

> Dear Era,

>

> I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with my own experience.

>

I'll continue my neti neti toward Awareness, it is less abstract for me..

warm wishes, Era

September 26, 2006

---- Era Molnar <n0ndual (AT) webtv (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> > -- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being."

> >

> I don't know who rote this, but it makes sense..

> >

> > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness: <http://tinyurl.com/mrm8w>

> >

> > SNIP

> >

> > Dear Era,

> >

> > I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with my own experience.

> >

>

> I'll continue my neti neti toward Awareness, it is less abstract for me..

>

> warm wishes, Era

>

Era,

Continuing with "neti, neti" would be the classic and time tested approach.

Warm regards,

michael

September 27, 2006

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > > These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a verse

from the Gita

> > > that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that after

the

> > > realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that

the Self is the

> > > source of all and has become all this.

> > >

> >

> > Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self is

to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

> >

> > as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization,

and nothing but being." points to this for me...

> >

>

> snip

>

> Dear Era,

>

> The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-

Bliss. This classical description is used because the Self is more

than Consciousness or Awareness. In the passage you quote from Sri

Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more

than "awareness" alone.

>

> But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that is

the source and support, indeed the substratum of all that we see.

This Being has become the All, the entire Universe and all the

beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite

Ocean of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is

rightfully descirbed in the classics as Satchidananda - Existence-

Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

>

> If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that

the Self is "Awareness" alone, then I would respectfully suggest that

you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya", the fourth state. Turiya

is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

>

> Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as

Existence-Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and

awareness are not sufficient to describe the Self. Indeed nothing is

sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully inadequate.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> michael

>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

indeed. the self/awareness is the sahaja/savikalpa

samadhi.

the simple being (or not-being; the indescribable

sat/chit/ananda is beyond scope of words or ideas),

without any differentiation or 'self' is the turiya,

the nirvikalpa samadhi. [beyond the always/everywhere

never/nowhere here/now... hahaha]

this is what is. rest are ideas, concepts, stories

and speculations.

aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

_()_

yosy

September 27, 2006

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> Dear Era,

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes

sense..

> >

> > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

> >

>

> SNIP

>

> Dear Era,

>

> I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with

my own experience.

>

yes. but whoever wrote it has intuited the

delibrate varying use nasargadatta makes of

'awareness' and 'consciousness', as a means

of pointing towards the indescribable quite

correctly, imho...

and indeed truth is beyond 'awareness' or any

other idea/concept/imagination... no name is

the nameless name. the nameless can't be named.

_()_

yosy

September 27, 2006

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > > -- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-

Realization, and nothing but being."

> > >

> > I don't know who rote this, but it makes sense..

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness:

<http://tinyurl.com/mrm8w>

> > >

> > > SNIP

> > >

> > > Dear Era,

> > >

> > > I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally

with my own experience.

> > >

> >

> > I'll continue my neti neti toward Awareness, it is less abstract

for me..

> >

> > warm wishes, Era

> >

> Era,

>

> Continuing with "neti, neti" would be the classic and time tested

approach.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> michael

>

specially when applied to one's 'self'....

September 27, 2006

In a message dated 9/26/2006 6:28:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

yosyflug (AT) isdn (DOT) net.il writes:

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > > These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a verse

from the Gita

> > > that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that after

the

> > > realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that

the Self is the

> > > source of all and has become all this.

> > >

> >

> > Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self is

to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

> >

> > as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization,

and nothing but being." points to this for me...

> >

>

> snip

>

> Dear Era,

>

> The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-

Bliss. This classical description is used because the Self is more

than Consciousness or Awareness. In the passage you quote from Sri

Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more

than "awareness" alone.

>

> But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that is

the source and support, indeed the substratum of all that we see.

This Being has become the All, the entire Universe and all the

beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite

Ocean of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is

rightfully descirbed in the classics as Satchidananda - Existence-

Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

>

> If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that

the Self is "Awareness" alone, then I would respectfully suggest that

you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya", the fourth state. Turiya

is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

>

> Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as

Existence-Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and

awareness are not sufficient to describe the Self. Indeed nothing is

sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully inadequate.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> michael

>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

indeed. the self/awareness is the sahaja/savikalpa

samadhi.

the simple being (or not-being; the indescribable

sat/chit/ananda is beyond scope of words or ideas),

without any differentiation or 'self' is the turiya,

the nirvikalpa samadhi. [beyond the always/everywhere

never/nowhere here/now... hahaha]

this is what is. rest are ideas, concepts, stories

and speculations.

aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

_()_

yosy

This is not a concept?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

Phil

September 27, 2006

_____

[]

On Behalf Of yosyx

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:39 PM

Re: ..nothing but being..

@ <%40>

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> Dear Era,

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes

sense..

> >

> > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

> >

>

> SNIP

>

> Dear Era,

>

> I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with

my own experience.

>

yes. but whoever wrote it has intuited the

delibrate varying use nasargadatta makes of

'awareness' and 'consciousness', as a means

of pointing towards the indescribable quite

correctly, imho...

and indeed truth is beyond 'awareness' or any

other idea/concept/imagination... no name is

the nameless name. the nameless can't be named.

_()_

yosy

Dear yosy,

As you allude to my friend, truth is beyond concept and name. It is beyond

awareness. It is beyond existence. It is beyond the beyond.

To quote a Buddhist mantra

GATE

PARAGATE

PARASAMGATE

BODHI SVAHA

Roughly translated - Beyond the Beyond

Way beyond...

But it is extremely difficult to discuss things that are beyond the beyond.

If we're going to discuss things in an internet forum then it seems to me we

have to use words and concepts. It seems almost inevitable that persons

talk about "THINGS". Experiences are "THINGS". I would rather hear the

stories of peoples' lives, their aspirations, their practices and their

experiences than try to discuss the "nameless truth". How do you talk about

the "nameless truth"?

In a setting however where you find a living great being such as Ramana,

then one can go there and sit in silence with the master and words need not

be spoken and books and emails need not be read. And we'd probably find

each other there, you and I, sitting in silence. And if you know some man

as great as Ramana or even almost as great then please let me know.

Warm regards,

michael

September 27, 2006

, souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 9/26/2006 6:28:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> yosyflug writes:

>

> , <aumshanti@> wrote:

> >

> > ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a

verse

> from the Gita

> > > > that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that

after

> the

> > > > realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that

> the Self is the

> > > > source of all and has become all this.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self

is

> to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

> > >

> > > as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization,

> and nothing but being." points to this for me...

> > >

> >

> > snip

> >

> > Dear Era,

> >

> > The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-

Consciousness-

> Bliss. This classical description is used because the Self is

more

> than Consciousness or Awareness. In the passage you quote from

Sri

> Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more

> than "awareness" alone.

> >

> > But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that

is

> the source and support, indeed the substratum of all that we see.

> This Being has become the All, the entire Universe and all the

> beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite

> Ocean of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is

> rightfully descirbed in the classics as Satchidananda - Existence-

> Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

> >

> > If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that

> the Self is "Awareness" alone, then I would respectfully suggest

that

> you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya", the fourth state.

Turiya

> is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

> distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

> >

> > Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as

> Existence-Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and

> awareness are not sufficient to describe the Self. Indeed nothing

is

> sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully inadequate.

> >

> > Warm regards,

> >

> > michael

> >

>

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> indeed. the self/awareness is the sahaja/savikalpa

> samadhi.

> the simple being (or not-being; the indescribable

> sat/chit/ananda is beyond scope of words or ideas),

> without any differentiation or 'self' is the turiya,

> the nirvikalpa samadhi. [beyond the always/everywhere

> never/nowhere here/now... hahaha]

>

> this is what is. rest are ideas, concepts, stories

> and speculations.

>

> aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

> _()_

> yosy

>

> This is not a concept?

> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

>

> Phil

>

a thorn is removed by another, and then both

are discarded...

BOOM!!!

yosy

September 27, 2006

In a message dated 9/26/2006 8:17:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

yosyflug (AT) isdn (DOT) net.il writes:

, souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 9/26/2006 6:28:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> yosyflug writes:

>

> , <aumshanti@> wrote:

> >

> > ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > These are interesting quotes. The last one relates to a

verse

> from the Gita

> > > > that I posted on Sunday. But the great souls agree that

after

> the

> > > > realization of Brahman, Self, God that it becomes known that

> the Self is the

> > > > source of all and has become all this.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Thank you Michael for your answer, I am wondering if the Self

is

> to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

> > >

> > > as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization,

> and nothing but being." points to this for me...

> > >

> >

> > snip

> >

> > Dear Era,

> >

> > The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-

Consciousness-

> Bliss. This classical description is used because the Self is

more

> than Consciousness or Awareness. In the passage you quote from

Sri

> Ramana, Ramana uses the term "Being". "Being" is more

> than "awareness" alone.

> >

> > But it is my experience that there is an unmanifest Being that

is

> the source and support, indeed the substratum of all that we see.

> This Being has become the All, the entire Universe and all the

> beings. But in its unmanifest state it is known to be an infinite

> Ocean of Life, more blissfull than a billion orgasms, and it is

> rightfully descirbed in the classics as Satchidananda - Existence-

> Consciousness-Bliss. This is my experience.

> >

> > If it has been your experience or Nisargadatta's experience that

> the Self is "Awareness" alone, then I would respectfully suggest

that

> you and Nisargadatta have reached "Turiya", the fourth state.

Turiya

> is characterized by a clearness of consciousness untainted by the

> distractions of the mind. But Turiya is not the end of the road.

> >

> > Many of the great sages including Shankara refer to the Self as

> Existence-Consciousness-Bliss because the terms consciousness and

> awareness are not sufficient to describe the Self. Indeed nothing

is

> sufficient; but in my experience awareness is woefully inadequate.

> >

> > Warm regards,

> >

> > michael

> >

>

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> indeed. the self/awareness is the sahaja/savikalpa

> samadhi.

> the simple being (or not-being; the indescribable

> sat/chit/ananda is beyond scope of words or ideas),

> without any differentiation or 'self' is the turiya,

> the nirvikalpa samadhi. [beyond the always/everywhere

> never/nowhere here/now... hahaha]

>

> this is what is. rest are ideas, concepts, stories

> and speculations.

>

> aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

> _()_

> yosy

>

> This is not a concept?

> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

>

> Phil

>

a thorn is removed by another, and then both

are discarded...

BOOM!!!

yosy

What we need is somebody standing by to grab both the thorns out of our

sweaty little hands. Hehe.

Phil

September 27, 2006

, souldreamone wrote:

>

>> >

> >

> > This is not a concept?

> > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> a thorn is removed by another, and then both

> are discarded...

>

> BOOM!!!

> yosy

>

> What we need is somebody standing by to grab both the thorns out

of our

> sweaty little hands. Hehe.

>

> Phil

>

hahahaha not if the discarding is discarded

with the thorns...

yosy

September 27, 2006

In a message dated 9/26/2006 8:49:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

yosyflug (AT) isdn (DOT) net.il writes:

, souldreamone wrote:

>

>> >

> >

> > This is not a concept?

> > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> a thorn is removed by another, and then both

> are discarded...

>

> BOOM!!!

> yosy

>

> What we need is somebody standing by to grab both the thorns out

of our

> sweaty little hands. Hehe.

>

> Phil

>

hahahaha not if the discarding is discarded

with the thorns...

yosy

Okay, now you're just trying to confuse me......Keep up the good work!

Phil

September 27, 2006

I sent this message last night; but it never came through. I thought I'd

try it again.

_____

[]

On Behalf Of yosyx

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:39 PM

Re: ..nothing but being..

@ <%40>

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> Dear Era,

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes

sense..

> >

> > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

> >

>

> SNIP

>

> Dear Era,

>

> I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with

my own experience.

>

yes. but whoever wrote it has intuited the

delibrate varying use nasargadatta makes of

'awareness' and 'consciousness', as a means

of pointing towards the indescribable quite

correctly, imho...

and indeed truth is beyond 'awareness' or any

other idea/concept/imagination... no name is

the nameless name. the nameless can't be named.

_()_

yosy

Dear yosy,

As you allude to my friend, truth is beyond concept and name. It is beyond

awareness. It is beyond existence. It is beyond the beyond.

To quote a Buddhist mantra

GATE

PARAGATE

PARASAMGATE

BODHI SVAHA

Roughly translated - Beyond the Beyond

Way beyond...

But it is extremely difficult to discuss things that are beyond the beyond.

If we're going to discuss things in an internet forum then it seems to me we

have to use words and concepts. It seems almost inevitable that persons

talk about "THINGS". Experiences are "THINGS". I would rather hear the

stories of peoples' lives, their aspirations, their practices and their

experiences than try to discuss the "nameless truth". How do you talk about

the "nameless truth"?

One alternative is to find a great being such as Ramana. Then one can go

there and sit in silence with the master and words need not be spoken and

books and emails need not be read. And we'd probably find each other there,

you and I, sitting in silence. And if you know some man as great as Ramana

or even almost as great then please let me know.

Warm regards,

michael

September 27, 2006

Once again. It didn't work. I'm sitting here looking at two message in my

Sent Folder and they are different than this message that actually came

through.

I give up.. :-)

_____

[]

On Behalf Of Michael Bowes

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:21 AM

RE: Re: ..nothing but being..

I sent this message last night; but it never came through. I thought I'd

try it again.

_____

[]

On Behalf Of yosyx

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:39 PM

Re: ..nothing but being..

@ <%40>

, <aumshanti wrote:

>

> Dear Era,

>

> ---- Era Molnar <n0ndual wrote:

> >

> > thank you Michael, I don't know who rote this, but it makes

sense..

> >

> > Nisargadatta's Difference Between Consciousness & Awareness

> >

>

> SNIP

>

> Dear Era,

>

> I don't know who wrote this either; but it just doesn't tally with

my own experience.

>

yes. but whoever wrote it has intuited the

delibrate varying use nasargadatta makes of

'awareness' and 'consciousness', as a means

of pointing towards the indescribable quite

correctly, imho...

and indeed truth is beyond 'awareness' or any

other idea/concept/imagination... no name is

the nameless name. the nameless can't be named.

_()_

yosy

September 27, 2006

Dear Era you say:

So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is not OF

something, it is not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

1) How do you know that is not aware of itself?

2) If, as it is supposed to be by its definition as a concept, awareness includes in itself the dream that

it has created out of nothing, in that dream there is awareness of itself, and as awareness is timeless

and including all times, there is no before or after of when it becomes aware before or after creation

as all creations are included within it.

also you say:

I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

It is true that from the point of view of the absolute everything looks like a dream

but the dream is appearing within the absolute and as such is real

though changing. We can say only the absolute is real only if we define real

what is unchanging, that is only nothingness, but that is only a possible definition..

real and unreal are only mind concepts.

Also, from the point of view of the changing, the unchanging nothingness

looks often like a dream, one or the other acquire more solidity

depending on the point of observation.

I would rather say what is is as it is and that's it,

whether nothing, absolute, unchanging or changing , dream like or solid like,

what does it matter? what is is as it is and that's it.

When one says deeply open what is is as it is

one finds him/her/it-self in stillness

where everything is allowed to be

included not being and beyond too.

Marifa

-

Era Molnar

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:08 PM

Re: ..nothing but being..

Era: I am wondering if the Self is to be experinced as Nisargadatta's Awareness..

-- as Ramana says here: "There is only being in Self-Realization, and nothing but being."

points to this for me...

> >

>

> snip

>

> Dear Era,

>

> The classics refer to the Self (Brahman) as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This classical