Guest guest Posted September 1, 2001 Report Share Posted September 1, 2001 Hello!, Well, it hasn't been too long since I have posted last, but seems like an eternity!! I have had an experience today, the experience of feeling like a small child being cradled by God. It was a wonderful, and through me into the present, not the future or past. I have heard that when you realize that there is only the present, you can go into depression, but it is comforting for me, to just be here now, being cradled by God. Blessed be Leaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hi Leaf, - Joe0464 Realization Saturday, September 01, 2001 07:08 PM (no subject) Hi, A lot of religions have their own enlightenments, but I say that these enlightenments are fake, or only a fragment of what true enlightenment is. S: What is true enlightenment? I know that Buddhism has it's own enlightenment, but that is definitely not close to true enlightenment. The reason religions don't let you have true enlightenment is because then, you would leave that religion, and most religions don't want you to leave it. S: This contention is based on the premise that enlightenment is "something" to be got by "somebody". Hence that "something" is to be hoarded otherwise that "somebody" will leave you. Are we talking about enlightenment or sex.<LOL> Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hello Sandeep and leaf, I like what you say here about enlightenment, it is very true, religions work for self, for the " I " of mankind. This has no space for enlightenment. which is surrender to what is real. Hi, A lot of religions have their own enlightenments, but I say that these enlightenments are fake, or only a fragment of what true enlightenment is. S: What is true enlightenment? True enlightenment is waking up, waking up from the dream that is duality, true enlightenment is divine realization that in God there is no other, that there is only one, one becomes Buddha through surrender of the separate self. I know that Buddhism has it's own enlightenment, but that is definitely not close to true enlightenment. The reason religions don't let you have true enlightenment is because then, you would leave that religion, and most religions don't want you to leave it. Exactly, all religion on earth today is infected with Luciferic consciousness, or ego awareness. if it does not relate the the " I " of man he refuses to listen to it. S: This contention is based on the premise that enlightenment is " something " to be got by " somebody " . Hence that " something " is to be hoarded otherwise that " somebody " will leave you. The self wants things for its self. An illusion maintaining an illusion. which has nothing to do with reality. Or what is real. Are we talking about enlightenment or sex.<LOL> Cheers Sandeep Interesting thread. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hi Sandeep, > Are we talking about enlightenment or sex.<LOL> I'm still trying to figure out to tie this damn diaper. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hiya Rob, Why bother?Let it all hang out.Makes life simpler LOL Cheers Sandeep - Rob Sacks Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 04:48 PM Re: (no subject) Hi Sandeep, > Are we talking about enlightenment or sex.<LOL> I'm still trying to figure out to tie this damn diaper. Rob ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Enlightenment is enlightenment, there are no parts only forms that set out to trick the ego to convince that there are 'others', 'lesser experience', etc. These are all tricks played by the mind when fear arises about the Truth of unity - and the mind falls prey to it and reinforces the separations it thinks it sees: "they have lesser/different experiences"/"this is the only way"etc.... Trace "You are free- naturally! In a moment of Silence you can taste and recognize yourself- the limitless, boundless being that you are. Everything that arises in you- thoughts, feelings, emotions, body sensations- if met with simple willingness, reveal themselves to be Freedom itself, too." Neelam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hiya Steve, - Steve Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 03:26 PM Re: (no subject) Hello Sandeep and leaf, <SNIP> S: What is true enlightenment? True enlightenment is waking up, waking up from the dream that is duality, true enlightenment is divine realization that in God there is no other, S: That there is no other is a useful concept, a useful thorn to pluck out, other deeply embedded thorns. However, even this concept, finally, is to be seen as a concept and kept aside. For in Oneness ( a conceptual term being used for this communication) who is to realize that there is no other? To whom would it be necessary to aver this premise? And thus what would the need to realize this? Truth being Truth has no need to realize Truth. ----------- that there is only one, one becomes Buddha through surrender of the separate self. S: "One" to become Buddha, suggest there is "one" who is not-Buddha, in time, and moves from this state to Buddhahood(however you define this term) which is also in time, through whatever means-surrender, meditation, yoga, bhakti, etc etc. It suggests a continuum and assumes the existential reality of time. Is it so? Or is awakening, a state where the one who seeks to become Buddha, that "one" is itself no more. That there is a total break in the continuum. And if that "one" is no more, who is left to note the fact that one has become "Buddha"? All "becomings" are occurrences in phenomenality which itself is a concept, needing the conceptual contructs of time and space to be itself cognized. Ergo any "becoming", whether mundane or profound, are they any more, than mere movements within a dream-sequence? If I am the "not-Buddha", I am the Buddha and I am the movement from one to another, is there really any "becoming" taking place? Surrender of the separate self. This has much bandied about in many a school of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, all busy trying to surrender. Who is to surrender? The separate self? In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Akin trying to lift yourself by your shoelaces. You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Can it ever be possible? Surrender can happen, can occur in a psycho-somatic apparatus and such an occurrence can only be non-volitional (in respect to the individual self) Surrender cannot be achieved, no matter what song and dance you are upto. Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. I know that Buddhism has it's own enlightenment, but that is definitely not close to true enlightenment. The reason religions don't let you have true enlightenment is because then, you would leave that religion, and most religions don't want you to leave it. Exactly, all religion on earth today is infected with Luciferic consciousness, or ego awareness. if it does not relate the the "I" of man he refuses to listen to it. S: All Religions are amusing games, part of the totality of Leela. Play these games, if you prefer, drop them when you are bored of them. Nothing more, nothing less to them. Incidentally the much despised "ego", is an absolutely necessary tool for life to be what it is. And the occurrence of "apperception", "awakening", "enlightenment" does not in any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a particular name and form. The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called "Hey Bhagwan" turned to the direction of the caller. He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the body-mind complex, continued. Same with Buddha, who went wandering for close to 40 years, after spending a night under the Bodhi tree. Without the ego, the psycho-somatic apparatus cannot survive. So what's the difference between a sage and non-sage? In one, there has been the involuntary, non-volitional, acausal "erasure" of the sense of personal doership and in the other, that event has yet to occur. In a sage, there is the appereception (perception without a perceiver) of the entire phenomenality as the Impersonal functioning of That Which-IS, "through" the billions of body-mind complexes (including the body-mind comples of the sage). And thus moment to moment to moment, it is only perfection. Perfection as the moment enfolds, not as it ought to be. That is why no sage (the real ones, not the jokers) ever consider himself or herself to be "superior" to any ordinary seeker, for the apperception is present in the sage, that there is no "him" or "her" any more existing in such a psycho-somatic apparatus, to whom the issue could be of relevance. S: This contention is based on the premise that enlightenment is "something" to be got by "somebody". Hence that "something" is to be hoarded otherwise that "somebody" will leave you. The self wants things for its self. An illusion maintaining an illusion. which has nothing to do with reality. Or what is real. S: Very true. Having seen the temporality of what it sought all it's life, the self now wants to go for something eternal. Enlightenment (as one's innate conditioning concieves it to be) seems a safe bet on the eternal time scale. It shops around in the spiritual bazaar for techniques, methods, paths, Gurus, thinking that such a process, through trial and error, will lead him to Father's kingdom. Again, very appropriate games, for nothing occurs in phenomenality that is not appropriate. (Why are there so many false Gurus?Perfectly appropriate, otherwise who else will cater to the needs of the false seeker-LOL) In few rare psyco-somatic apparatus, through Grace, the non-volitional occurrence happens, which is the understanding, the apperception, that the very seeking is the very obstacle to obtain the sought. And the surrender has taken place, without any individual self surrendering. Conceptually speaking, for all this hoopla can only occur with the phenomenal framework, which is itself a concept. Doooo beeeee Doooo beeeee Doooooooo Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Thank you, Rob. ) Hi Trace, Welcome! Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Dear Sandeep, It's amazing to see such a knowledgable letter! > This has much bandied about in many a school > of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, > all busy trying to surrender. The last part of this sentence is incredibly funny. > In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Do you think this can ever make sense to anybody until after they happen to see it? (I'm not arguing, I really wonder.) > Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. Non-volitional, yes, but I don't think that's the same thing as acausal. My own experience with this resulted from the hardest effort I ever made. Then I suddenly thought to myself, "This is utterly stupid," and gave up -- gave up more completely than I had ever given up in my life. All effort stopped more profoundly than I could have imagined. Just for a second, but that was enough. And then it happened. So yes, it was non-volitional, but I can't say it was uncaused -- in fact, the practice caused the effort to stop, and then the cessation of effort caused the <whatever it was> to happen. Regards, Rob - Sandeep Chatterjee Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:54 AM Re: (no subject) Hiya Steve, - Steve Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 03:26 PM Re: (no subject) Hello Sandeep and leaf, <SNIP> S: What is true enlightenment? True enlightenment is waking up, waking up from the dream that is duality, true enlightenment is divine realization that in God there is no other, S: That there is no other is a useful concept, a useful thorn to pluck out, other deeply embedded thorns. However, even this concept, finally, is to be seen as a concept and kept aside. For in Oneness ( a conceptual term being used for this communication) who is to realize that there is no other? To whom would it be necessary to aver this premise? And thus what would the need to realize this? Truth being Truth has no need to realize Truth. ----------- that there is only one, one becomes Buddha through surrender of the separate self. S: "One" to become Buddha, suggest there is "one" who is not-Buddha, in time, and moves from this state to Buddhahood(however you define this term) which is also in time, through whatever means-surrender, meditation, yoga, bhakti, etc etc. It suggests a continuum and assumes the existential reality of time. Is it so? Or is awakening, a state where the one who seeks to become Buddha, that "one" is itself no more. That there is a total break in the continuum. And if that "one" is no more, who is left to note the fact that one has become "Buddha"? All "becomings" are occurrences in phenomenality which itself is a concept, needing the conceptual contructs of time and space to be itself cognized. Ergo any "becoming", whether mundane or profound, are they any more, than mere movements within a dream-sequence? If I am the "not-Buddha", I am the Buddha and I am the movement from one to another, is there really any "becoming" taking place? Surrender of the separate self. This has much bandied about in many a school of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, all busy trying to surrender. Who is to surrender? The separate self? In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Akin trying to lift yourself by your shoelaces. You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Can it ever be possible? Surrender can happen, can occur in a psycho-somatic apparatus and such an occurrence can only be non-volitional (in respect to the individual self) Surrender cannot be achieved, no matter what song and dance you are upto. Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. I know that Buddhism has it's own enlightenment, but that is definitely not close to true enlightenment. The reason religions don't let you have true enlightenment is because then, you would leave that religion, and most religions don't want you to leave it. Exactly, all religion on earth today is infected with Luciferic consciousness, or ego awareness. if it does not relate the the "I" of man he refuses to listen to it. S: All Religions are amusing games, part of the totality of Leela. Play these games, if you prefer, drop them when you are bored of them. Nothing more, nothing less to them. Incidentally the much despised "ego", is an absolutely necessary tool for life to be what it is. And the occurrence of "apperception", "awakening", "enlightenment" does not in any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a particular name and form. The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called "Hey Bhagwan" turned to the direction of the caller. He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the body-mind complex, continued. Same with Buddha, who went wandering for close to 40 years, after spending a night under the Bodhi tree. Without the ego, the psycho-somatic apparatus cannot survive. So what's the difference between a sage and non-sage? In one, there has been the involuntary, non-volitional, acausal "erasure" of the sense of personal doership and in the other, that event has yet to occur. In a sage, there is the appereception (perception without a perceiver) of the entire phenomenality as the Impersonal functioning of That Which-IS, "through" the billions of body-mind complexes (including the body-mind comples of the sage). And thus moment to moment to moment, it is only perfection. Perfection as the moment enfolds, not as it ought to be. That is why no sage (the real ones, not the jokers) ever consider himself or herself to be "superior" to any ordinary seeker, for the apperception is present in the sage, that there is no "him" or "her" any more existing in such a psycho-somatic apparatus, to whom the issue could be of relevance. S: This contention is based on the premise that enlightenment is "something" to be got by "somebody". Hence that "something" is to be hoarded otherwise that "somebody" will leave you. The self wants things for its self. An illusion maintaining an illusion. which has nothing to do with reality. Or what is real. S: Very true. Having seen the temporality of what it sought all it's life, the self now wants to go for something eternal. Enlightenment (as one's innate conditioning concieves it to be) seems a safe bet on the eternal time scale. It shops around in the spiritual bazaar for techniques, methods, paths, Gurus, thinking that such a process, through trial and error, will lead him to Father's kingdom. Again, very appropriate games, for nothing occurs in phenomenality that is not appropriate. (Why are there so many false Gurus?Perfectly appropriate, otherwise who else will cater to the needs of the false seeker-LOL) In few rare psyco-somatic apparatus, through Grace, the non-volitional occurrence happens, which is the understanding, the apperception, that the very seeking is the very obstacle to obtain the sought. And the surrender has taken place, without any individual self surrendering. Conceptually speaking, for all this hoopla can only occur with the phenomenal framework, which is itself a concept. Doooo beeeee Doooo beeeee Doooooooo Sandeep..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 P.S. This sentence I just wrote is nearly unintelligible: > Sandeep: In the very attempt, is it not > it's own perpetuation? > Rob: Do you think this can ever make sense > to anybody until after they happen to see it? I meant to say: Do you think that this statement can be understood by people before they have had an experience which allows them to see that it is true? - Rob Sacks Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 10:34 AM Re: (no subject) Dear Sandeep, It's amazing to see such a knowledgable letter! > This has much bandied about in many a school > of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, > all busy trying to surrender. The last part of this sentence is incredibly funny. > In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Do you think this can ever make sense to anybody until after they happen to see it? (I'm not arguing, I really wonder.) > Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. Non-volitional, yes, but I don't think that's the same thing as acausal. My own experience with this resulted from the hardest effort I ever made. Then I suddenly thought to myself, "This is utterly stupid," and gave up -- gave up more completely than I had ever given up in my life. All effort stopped more profoundly than I could have imagined. Just for a second, but that was enough. And then it happened. So yes, it was non-volitional, but I can't say it was uncaused -- in fact, the practice caused the effort to stop, and then the cessation of effort caused the <whatever it was> to happen. Regards, Rob - Sandeep Chatterjee Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:54 AM Re: (no subject) Hiya Steve, - Steve Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 03:26 PM Re: (no subject) Hello Sandeep and leaf, <SNIP> S: What is true enlightenment? True enlightenment is waking up, waking up from the dream that is duality, true enlightenment is divine realization that in God there is no other, S: That there is no other is a useful concept, a useful thorn to pluck out, other deeply embedded thorns. However, even this concept, finally, is to be seen as a concept and kept aside. For in Oneness ( a conceptual term being used for this communication) who is to realize that there is no other? To whom would it be necessary to aver this premise? And thus what would the need to realize this? Truth being Truth has no need to realize Truth. ----------- that there is only one, one becomes Buddha through surrender of the separate self. S: "One" to become Buddha, suggest there is "one" who is not-Buddha, in time, and moves from this state to Buddhahood(however you define this term) which is also in time, through whatever means-surrender, meditation, yoga, bhakti, etc etc. It suggests a continuum and assumes the existential reality of time. Is it so? Or is awakening, a state where the one who seeks to become Buddha, that "one" is itself no more. That there is a total break in the continuum. And if that "one" is no more, who is left to note the fact that one has become "Buddha"? All "becomings" are occurrences in phenomenality which itself is a concept, needing the conceptual contructs of time and space to be itself cognized. Ergo any "becoming", whether mundane or profound, are they any more, than mere movements within a dream-sequence? If I am the "not-Buddha", I am the Buddha and I am the movement from one to another, is there really any "becoming" taking place? Surrender of the separate self. This has much bandied about in many a school of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, all busy trying to surrender. Who is to surrender? The separate self? In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Akin trying to lift yourself by your shoelaces. You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Can it ever be possible? Surrender can happen, can occur in a psycho-somatic apparatus and such an occurrence can only be non-volitional (in respect to the individual self) Surrender cannot be achieved, no matter what song and dance you are upto. Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. I know that Buddhism has it's own enlightenment, but that is definitely not close to true enlightenment. The reason religions don't let you have true enlightenment is because then, you would leave that religion, and most religions don't want you to leave it. Exactly, all religion on earth today is infected with Luciferic consciousness, or ego awareness. if it does not relate the the "I" of man he refuses to listen to it. S: All Religions are amusing games, part of the totality of Leela. Play these games, if you prefer, drop them when you are bored of them. Nothing more, nothing less to them. Incidentally the much despised "ego", is an absolutely necessary tool for life to be what it is. And the occurrence of "apperception", "awakening", "enlightenment" does not in any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a particular name and form. The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called "Hey Bhagwan" turned to the direction of the caller. He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the body-mind complex, continued. Same with Buddha, who went wandering for close to 40 years, after spending a night under the Bodhi tree. Without the ego, the psycho-somatic apparatus cannot survive. So what's the difference between a sage and non-sage? In one, there has been the involuntary, non-volitional, acausal "erasure" of the sense of personal doership and in the other, that event has yet to occur. In a sage, there is the appereception (perception without a perceiver) of the entire phenomenality as the Impersonal functioning of That Which-IS, "through" the billions of body-mind complexes (including the body-mind comples of the sage). And thus moment to moment to moment, it is only perfection. Perfection as the moment enfolds, not as it ought to be. That is why no sage (the real ones, not the jokers) ever consider himself or herself to be "superior" to any ordinary seeker, for the apperception is present in the sage, that there is no "him" or "her" any more existing in such a psycho-somatic apparatus, to whom the issue could be of relevance. S: This contention is based on the premise that enlightenment is "something" to be got by "somebody". Hence that "something" is to be hoarded otherwise that "somebody" will leave you. The self wants things for its self. An illusion maintaining an illusion. which has nothing to do with reality. Or what is real. S: Very true. Having seen the temporality of what it sought all it's life, the self now wants to go for something eternal. Enlightenment (as one's innate conditioning concieves it to be) seems a safe bet on the eternal time scale. It shops around in the spiritual bazaar for techniques, methods, paths, Gurus, thinking that such a process, through trial and error, will lead him to Father's kingdom. Again, very appropriate games, for nothing occurs in phenomenality that is not appropriate. (Why are there so many false Gurus?Perfectly appropriate, otherwise who else will cater to the needs of the false seeker-LOL) In few rare psyco-somatic apparatus, through Grace, the non-volitional occurrence happens, which is the understanding, the apperception, that the very seeking is the very obstacle to obtain the sought. And the surrender has taken place, without any individual self surrendering. Conceptually speaking, for all this hoopla can only occur with the phenomenal framework, which is itself a concept. Doooo beeeee Doooo beeeee Doooooooo Sandeep..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Sandeep wrote: > > The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called " Hey Bhagwan " turned to the > direction of the caller. > He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the > hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the body-mind > complex, continued. If you are hungry and I feed you, do I identify with you? I identify with you only if I make my happiness depend on your being fed. Similarly, I identify with my body's hunger only if I make my happiness depend on my being fed. You wisely said just previously: > Incidentally the much despised " ego " , is an absolutely necessary tool for life > to be what it is. > > And the occurrence of " apperception " , " awakening " , " enlightenment " does not in > any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a > particular name and form. Yes, the ego identifies with a particular name and form, but I do not have to identify with my ego even while recognizing it as an absolutely necessary tool for life. I do not have to identify with life. Best to all, Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Rob queried: >> Sandeep: In the very attempt, is it not >> it's own perpetuation? > >> Rob: Do you think this can ever make sense >> to anybody until after they happen to see it? > > I meant to say: Do you think that this statement > can be understood by people before they have > had an experience which allows them to see > that it is true? > Yes. Independent of any awakening, we know what it is to fail because we're trying too hard . . . and other analogies. If there could not be ANY understanding of the statement before experiencing its truth, then all the correspondence in Realization would either be fruitless or preaching to the fully realized choir. Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hi Trace, Welcome! Rob - Trace Thode Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:21 AM RE: (no subject) Enlightenment is enlightenment, there are no parts only forms that set out to trick the ego to convince that there are 'others', 'lesser experience', etc. These are all tricks played by the mind when fear arises about the Truth of unity - and the mind falls prey to it and reinforces the separations it thinks it sees: "they have lesser/different experiences"/"this is the only way"etc.... Trace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hi Gary, > If there could not be ANY understanding of > the statement before experiencing its truth, > then all the correspondence in Realization > would either be fruitless or preaching to the > fully realized choir. I must hasten to say that I don't think full realization is required for this experience! Just a little glimpse or wake-up event will do nicely! Of course I concede that some degree of understanding is conveyed. My question, really, is whether that understanding is misleading in a way that's likely to be counter- productive. An analogy might be drawn to Freud's theory of jokes: the hearer understands, yes, but suddenly there is a revelation of fact that reveals that the understanding was mistaken. (If that's not Freud's theory, sorry, my memory for intellectual things is not what it used to be.) Regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hiya Gary, - Gary Schouborg Realization Cc: Liberation Group () Sunday, September 02, 2001 08:44 PM Re: (no subject) Sandeep wrote:> > The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called "Hey Bhagwan" turned to the> direction of the caller.> He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the> hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the body-mind> complex, continued.If you are hungry and I feed you, do I identify with you? I identify withyou only if I make my happiness depend on your being fed. San: When I am hungry and you cognize my hunger, whether you do something about it or not, you have identified an "other", separate to yourself, isn't it? That's all I am saying. Ego is nothing but this identification with a form (the particular body-mind complex) and the name which society has labeled it with. This identification is absolutely a must, for the psycho-somatic apparatus to survive. Where it becomes interesting, all the games of bondage and liberation from this bondage, etc etc, is the added quality of a sense of personal doership, to this ego, which births the "me". With a "me", "mine" is born. With a "me", a "you" and "yours" is immediately born. A relationship is now possible between this "me" and this "you". A relationship of love, or hate, or indifference, whatever, is possible. And Life which is nothing but this myriad complex of relationship between the billions "Me's" and "you's", Life comes to be. ------------ Similarly, Iidentify with my body's hunger only if I make my happiness depend on mybeing fed. San: I am not getting into happiness, which is only relevant to a "me-entity". All I am saying is for "me" to cognize "my" body-mind-complex's hunger (in whichever form), the witnessing Consciousness (a mere conceptual terminology for the purpose of this communication) continues to be identified with the body-mind complex. The moment this identification ends, it is the "death" of the body-mind complex along with it's hunger. -------------- You wisely said just previously:> Incidentally the much despised "ego", is an absolutely necessary tool for life> to be what it is.> > And the occurrence of "apperception", "awakening", "enlightenment" does not in> any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a> particular name and form.Yes, the ego identifies with a particular name and form, but I do not haveto identify with my ego even while recognizing it as an absolutely necessarytool for life. I do not have to identify with life. San: Who does not have to identify with life? To whom is the issue relevant? Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hiya Rob, - Rob Sacks Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 08:04 PM Re: (no subject) Dear Sandeep, It's amazing to see such a knowledgable letter! > This has much bandied about in many a school > of spiritual pursuits and has many a follower, > all busy trying to surrender. The last part of this sentence is incredibly funny. > In the very attempt, is it not it's own perpetuation? Do you think this can ever make sense to anybody until after they happen to see it? (I'm not arguing, I really wonder.) San: Indeed. That is why you see Consciousness(or Micky Mouse) playing a myriad of games through the multitude of body-mind organisms. In one, there is burial in the sand with only the eyes and nose sticking out. In other the most severe meditation practise. In other bhakti for a self-conceived diety. And yet in other, there is a 24 hours muttering "Who am I", "Who am I". And so on and so on. Mind you, I do not deride any game whatsoever. All games, if they occur, are appropriate. Appropriate to the conditioning of the particular body-mind organism. And apperception, seeing realization occurs, if it occurs, with no relation to any of the games being played out. And I use the term apperception, not perception, for in perception there still persists a "perceiver" who perceives the particular perception. > Surrender can only occur, non-volitionally, acausaly. Non-volitional, yes, but I don't think that's the same thing as acausal. My own experience with this resulted from the hardest effort I ever made. Then I suddenly thought to myself, "This is utterly stupid," and gave up -- gave up more completely than I had ever given up in my life. All effort stopped more profoundly than I could have imagined. Just for a second, but that was enough. And then it happened. So yes, it was non-volitional, but I can't say it was uncaused -- in fact, the practice caused the effort to stop, and then the cessation of effort caused the <whatever it was> to happen. San: Rob this is very interesting. "This is utterly stupid", was this not a "thought" which occurred, appeared as if from no where, rather than a logical conclusion of previous thoughts? Just go back to that moment and try to unravel it. In Quantum Mechanics, "thought" is seen to be a collapse of a wavicle(wave-particle complex) from that Infinite Field of possibilities. Neuro-surgeons and behaviourial experts, specially people like Dr Benjamin Libet have experimentally validated the time lag of close to half a second, between such "collapses", the occurrenc of such non-volitional thoughts and the "taking delivery", "taking ownership", whereby the non-volitional thought gets converted into "my" thought. Coming back to your point, there is indeed a school of thought which while accepting the tenet of non-volitional, still cannot let go with the idea that all effort are mere games and bring about the premise that effort "prepares" the body-mind complex to receive the Grace of transmission and hence effort is necessary, paramount. I am submitting that this is not the case. There is no qualifying of seeking. If a particular "effort" , before apperception is to occur, is the destiny of the body-mind organism, then that "effort" is what will happen "through" this body-mind organism. If the destiny of the body-mind organism is to chew blades of grass and apperception strikes, then that will happen. By the term acausal, what I am pointing out is that the event of apperception is not within the realm of cause-effect stratum. For example, the cessation of effort, that you mention, enabled the availability of space. Sure. And yet the occurrence is no way related or dependent on this available space. Why do I say so? For apperception to be causal, that is bound within the cause-effect continuum, there must the self which is present in the "effort-mode" and the same self which persists to note the "apperception-mode" and thus can now further co-relate the two states and arrive at the causality between the two states. In apperception, the self and all these tenets of relativeness, duality, which is the essence of phenomenality, all that is no more. Conceptually speaking, that is. Ladeee Daaa Deeee Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hi Leaf, Did you decide to give Buddhism a second chance? Rob - Joe0464 Realization Sunday, September 02, 2001 2:50 PM (no subject) HI, I am very excited, I found a new meditation, and it sounds like a very good meditation. You are suppose to picture yourself in your mind, and direct good feelings to it, so that you love yourself, direct love and happiness to it. Then, you do the same to your parents or someone close to you in your family. Then, a close friend, then, someone else close to you that taught you like a teacher or something, then, someone who you have trouble loving, but it is still pretty easy, then, your enemies. Then, you start extending out until, you direct those loving feelings to every being in the universe. Blessed be Leaf 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.