Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Glad you drew my attention to this post, which somehow I had missed reading. > ***Slater: I don't have any desire to Realize because it would only > be an experience out of one's true nature. Not sure what you mean by this. Realization isn't an experience. It is equivalent with Reality. You can't realize truth except by being truth, which already always is so. That the truth which already is, is who you are, doesn't involve having any new experience. One might say that the mistaking of experiences as evidence for you being someone youre not, someplace you arent, is released. Such release of what has never been somewhere, isnt an experience, its just the ending of accumulating experiences as evidence for what never has occurred. >But I do want to master > the technology that would give me the mental power and skills to not > have any unwanted discursive thoughts and reactions. So, you want to benefit from a technology? Thus, the truth which has no place for a self that will benefit, is precluded by your direction. How will you not have the wanting, which wants to not have certain thoughts and reactions? >I want to > destroy not Realize. How will the destroyer destroy the destroyer, and the destroyer's destruction? The old sages' teachings are somewhat > enslaving and with new technology that will soon appear, one will > upload all their pesky mental tendencies and recordings that created > them. When that is accomplished the Self (blissful attention) will > shine as bright as 6 suns. What is, has no dependence on what will be. What will be, is what is. > Realization I don't consider to be a personal > possession in any way, shape, or form. > > ***Slater: Even if you did, would it matter? Does mattering matter? > And if one asks a question about realization from being outside > of it, one precludes the actuality of this truth. > > ***Slater: Some of us need role models to motivate us to attend to > practice, which most of the sages recommend. Sure, because they are players in that game. Any player, will recommend participation in the game wanting to be played. The game of no game can't be achieved through motivation, but rather *is* when the motivation to be in a game, has run out. > What I mean is, to see a realized being outside of oneself > doesn't really do much good, just perpetuates a stance > that precludes the actuality of " this " as is. > > ***Slater: Are you saying that seeing a Realized being outside of > oneself precludes her/him from being the unicity? To see anything outside yourself, is how you make yourself into a located being with an inside and outside. Thus, you can have experiences -- of things, people, places, feelings, thoughts. Realization, having no outside, can't really be precluded by anything, although I used that word -- but it's more that you can distract away from it, ignore it, act like it isn't there, has no reality -- and in fact, it must have no reality for you, if you are to be there, as a being experiencing things that are outside and inside of you (including feelings, thoughts, wants, fears). > What answer could a being assumed to be outside give, > that would make clear that nothing is outside, > and no knowledge from an outside source is required? > > ***Slater: The stuff I read from the souls of Ramana and > Nisargadatta gave answers and directions to remove obfuscations that > continue the ILLUSION. How will you end the obfuscation that you exist as a reader of their words, with a mind that makes sense of what they say, so as to understand something thereby? > It is as if the ocean were asking a fish the question, > " What is the nature of water? " while believing that > water is something that the ocean lacks and needs > to get into. > > ***Slater: This fish asks and sometimes gets answers from the ocean > that gives him faith and hope. So, the fish continues as a fish, which is the obfuscation. That one is the ocean, isn't recognized by being a fish swimming through the ocean. Being the ocean, is not to move. You can't move into or away from yourself. The paradigm of experience is overthrown, in which there are changing moments of experience moving past oneself, which one records, compares, remembers. Although memory still functions. It isn't giving what is real. Information isn't mistaken as reality. So, there is no technology involved, no reader required to be there. Still, if a book is to be read, a reader appears along with the book to be reading it. > Whatever the fish might say, would give an idea of how > water is experienced while swimming through it. > > ***Slater: Yes, but if the fish is deluded by separateness, then the > answer may somehow short out his defensiveness and the " explosion my > occur. The fish is the separateness. So, the fish doesn't get to be around to know " this " -- The explosion already is the case. The fish has never had its existence, which required a teacher to help the fish get rid of illusions. The fish is the illusion. > But couldn't give to the ocean what the ocean already > is -- all the water simultaneously, neither in need of, > or wanting of getting or having water, or an explanation > of what water is. > > If the fish said, " But you already are the ocean, " > wouldn't it be funny if the ocean would say, > " Oh yes, I just need to keep that fish around to > remind me of this, and I need to keep remembering > that there's nothing I need to do or get, > because I already am the ocean. " > > ***Slater says that. So what. It is only intellectualizations. Yes. Intellectualization in service of an intellect assumed to have its existence and experience. > Well, no, none of that is necessary. To already always > be the ocean has nothing to do with the idea or words, > " I always already am the ocean. " That doesn't add > anything to ocean-ness. Also, all the water is already > included, as is. All of it. None of it needs to be > changed, or made into something different. There isn't > more water in one spot, and less water in another spot. > > ***Slater: So Dan you are in the " do nothing " camp.? Neither doing, nor not doing. One instant of thinking there is something to do, or that one shouldn't do anything -- is already to have fashioned a mountain of illusion. > Of course, this is difficult for us humans. It means there > isn't more water in " Ramana " than in " Adolph. " > > But the point is just that Ramana wasn't looking to get > water, but Adolph had an insatiable desire to try to > get more and more water (power) if possible. > > ***Slater: Ramana may have been in repose and soon will desire to go > to higher levels as Sri Aurobindo says there are. Aurobindo's direction is limiting. Levels require a situated being that has experiences which accumulate and can be compared, so as to know one is progressing. This requires identification as a situated being. Thus, it cannot be " totality " -- " this which is " -- which is what Ramana pointed to. Ramana spoke from and of totality, Aurobindo spoke as one developing a program to evolve. The first subsumes and transcends the second, not vice versa. > My Buddhist > teaches said that Ramana was at a very high state of Universal > Consciousness, but not finished as far as the Buddhist model goes. A model, by virtue of being a model, is partial. Truth isn't a model. Of course, comments about who has exceeded whom will always be part of schools, the programs which they are vested in promoting, the way of thinking they adopt. So, truth which is not a personal possession, not a program, not involving of the information inherent in thought -- transcends all of that. > Most of us are trying to get more water in some form or > other. Very few are so clear as to know the water exactly > as it is, without any need to grab or hold. Yet, if one > is clear, then that one includes all the water simultaneously, > and isn't any more inclusive of Ramana and any less > inclusive of Adolph. > > ***Slater wants to completely destroy his existence although living > an extraordinary gifted life in paradise, because he knows that it > will surely end in disaster. To do the aforesaid he will take his > attention off all objects appearing in consciousness until his > personage is defunct. What about the " he " that is doing what you're describing? What will end that " he " who directs his attention in different ways? > Sorry for running on like this, it's very late here, and > I tend to run on when a bit tired. So, lots of love, > gotta get some sleep now :-) > > ***Slater: Who is this dualistic guy that has to say " sorry " . Takes one to know one :-) > Love, > Roshi Slater > > Slaters disclaimer. He may not be a match for this guy Dan who > evidentally holds multiple PHD'S In seven languages. Of course six of them are versions of pig latin. And the degrees were mailed after submitting a ten dollar fee to an internet site. Love, Sushi Dan 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.