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. Dan: Not sure what you mean by this. xxxSlater: The so called Realization and or the experiences one has, both are not one's true nature or as you categorize it, " being truth " . We could even claim that there is a Goddess of creation that has created the program of what you call Realization or Truth or the Self or what ever. The preceding presumption is just as valid as any other creative mindset of God, Self, Truth, Heaven Hell, etc. What this boils down to is that anything we discuss using words or " being truth " will never, can never convey Reality. What appears in consciousness as content and the consciousness itself is also programmatic in nature. By positing that " you can't realize truth except by being truth " you seem to be implying that not being " truth " is non-truth. That which appears as a product of the programming, the embodied SELF, which is conceptualized as The Self or the subject, along with all objects appearing are merely variants, or lets just call it " The Creative Program " . More on the " creative program " if it comes up again. " One might say that the mistaking of experiences as evidence for you being someone youre not, someplace you arent, is released. " XXXSlater. When someplace you aren't is released, you are also in a place of, someplace you aren't. As long as consciousness is contained in a vehicle, subtle or gross it is " someplace you aren't " . And when it is disembodied then there is no longer anyone, anything to know anything. Since words cant reach there, there is nothing left to comment on. Certain gifted incarnates have been given the mental powers to neutralize all mental recordings and obliterate the implanted command effects of those placements. Just as some power may have written our personal worldly program, that power has granted each entity the ability to rewrite and alter that program to wipe out all attention grabbing parts of our psyche that captures our attention. Those with more powerful minds and or less implants progress at a quickened pace. Those with less powerful minds and or more implants, must work at gaining that powerful ability to rewrite the program of the personal Self. But even when successful they are still at a place of " some place you aren't " . 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. xxxslater: As mentioned about the (small self obliterating program) has kicked in and accomplished its goal to wipe out recorded reactive data. >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. XXXslater: The truth that you talk about can only be experienced by negation of all that arises in consciousness and when completed the benefiting remains without a benefitor. How will you not have the wanting, which wants to not have certain thoughts and reactions? XXX The wanting has ended when the recordings are neutralized. >I want to > destroy not Realize. How will the destroyer destroy the destroyer, and the destroyer's destruction? xxxslater: See above comments which seem to credibly answer this question. 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. xxxslater: What is, are those basic underpinnings of what was, was is and what will be. In programming language they call it zeros and ones. The physicists call it strings. Sant Mat calls it Shabda or the audible sound current. The Christians call it the Word. I call it the powers of the " creative program " . > 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? xxxslater: Yes to those who think mattering matters, but obviously it does not matter to Dan. Is you favorite song, " it really doesn't matter at all " LOL > 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. xxxslater There is only game playing, whether you are a jnani or an ajani. The jnani suffers no more because he/she won that game, but still is playing a new game with aplomb. The ajnani suffers much and continues to suffer until he wins that game and plays the same game of the jnani. > 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. xxxslater. The so-called Realized being has two views depending on how honest they are. One is to see objects as outside of themselves for the purposes of functioning in the world. and another counter view of oneness. Try driving an auto when the oneness view is operating. 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? xxxslater: The above explanations answered this question. > 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. xxxslater U.G talks about his mind declutched. This explains how the fish can function both as a fish and as the ocean. 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. xxxslater The illusion continues when the jnani is experiencing the body and the world and in samadhi no illusion enters. It comes down to lets call it a " firm conviction " . If you believe strongly enough that you are not the body and in the world, then that is your reality. You must have a firm conviction that you are the Self or words similar to that. This trip is all about " lets pretend " and believing. > 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. xxxslater when the body speaks through the mental faculties the Reality is put on hold. > 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. xxxslater Doing or not doing is doing and so is neither. 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. xxxslater If this philosophy works for you and you are in that blissful state, then I congratulate you, admire you and will even worship you if you let me.. You may ask, who is the worshiper and naturally I will say there is only worshiping. > 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. xxxslater Who knows what Ramana or Aurobino would say now. They are not here to answer. If they did not evolve or change then they are stuck in the same stuff that is printed in the bibles. See, aren't I an apt student? hehehe > My Buddhist > teachers 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. xxxslater. That was discussed above. 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. xxxslater Can we agree to disagree? > 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? xxxslater Again this has been answered above. > 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 > evidently 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. xxxslater Who cares about degrees. I quit after three years but I am no Bill Gates. hehehe Love, no sage slater p.s posting this on essential_i group too, which I am a moderator of. Any objections and I will delete it. Love, Sushi Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Mr. Slater -- I've read through you're responses, and my subjective experience of what you're presenting is that it is a rather complex system of definitions and beliefs. I can simplify our dialogue by stating this: truth is not a system, not defined, not a belief or group of interrelated beliefs. Although when conversing, we refer to words, and words are part of a system of definitions, that doesn't mean that the truth we are speaking to is a system or is definable. One speaks to convey that there is truth that is immediate and not dependent on maintaining a system, definitions of it, or beliefs about it. That is all. It is direct, it doesn't involve having an experience, it is who you already always are. Nonetheless, you may set up a system of beliefs which obscure this omnipresent truth, and the holding onto those beliefs and relevant experiences seems to involve a holder. When that dynamic falls, and fall it must -- there is neither holder nor held. This is beginningless freedom. This is who you are. And it can't be brought about by any conviction, belief, systemic approach, of way of defining " what is. " I have no objections to you posting our correspondence on your list, and thanks for your courtesy in letting me know. And of course we can agree to disagree. Disagreement is as basic to dialogue as is agreement. What is true, what is so, involves neither agreement nor disagreement. This simply is " so. " But it can't converse, there is nothing about which to converse, and no one to converse with. So, this conversation is invented, and along with it, me and you, agreement and disagreement. Yet, still, nothing is being said. -- Dan > 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. > > Dan: Not sure what you mean by this. > > xxxSlater: The so called Realization and or the experiences one has, > both are not one's true nature or as you categorize it, " being > truth " . We could even claim that there is a Goddess of creation > that has created the program of what you call Realization or Truth > or the Self or what ever. The preceding presumption is just as valid > as any other creative mindset of God, Self, Truth, Heaven Hell, etc. > What this boils down to is that anything we discuss using words > or " being truth " will never, can never convey Reality. > What appears in consciousness as content and the consciousness > itself is also programmatic in nature. By positing that " you can't > realize truth except by being truth " you seem to be implying that > not being " truth " is non-truth. That which appears as a product of > the programming, the embodied SELF, which is conceptualized as The > Self or the subject, along with all objects appearing are merely > variants, or lets just call it " The Creative Program " . More on > the " creative program " if it comes up again. > > > " One might say that the mistaking of experiences as evidence for you > being > someone youre not, someplace you arent, > is released. " > > XXXSlater. When someplace you aren't is released, you are also in a > place of, someplace you aren't. As long as consciousness is > contained in a vehicle, subtle or gross it is " someplace you > aren't " . And when it is disembodied then there is no longer anyone, > anything to know anything. > Since words cant reach there, there is nothing left to comment on. > Certain gifted incarnates have been given the mental powers to > neutralize all mental recordings and obliterate the implanted > command effects of those placements. Just as some power may have > written our personal worldly program, that power has granted each > entity the ability to rewrite and alter that program to wipe out all > attention grabbing parts of our psyche that captures our attention. > Those with more powerful minds and or less implants progress at a > quickened pace. Those > with less powerful minds and or more implants, must work at gaining > that powerful ability to rewrite the program of the personal Self. > But even when successful they are still at a place of " some place > you aren't " . > > > > > 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. > > > > xxxslater: As mentioned about the (small self obliterating program) > has kicked in and accomplished its goal to wipe out recorded > reactive data. > > >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. > > XXXslater: The truth that you talk about can only be experienced by > negation of all that arises in consciousness and when completed the > benefiting remains without a benefitor. > > > How will you not have the wanting, which wants to not > have certain thoughts and reactions? > > XXX The wanting has ended when the recordings are neutralized. > > >I want to > > destroy not Realize. > > How will the destroyer destroy the destroyer, > and the destroyer's destruction? > > xxxslater: See above comments which seem to credibly answer this > question. > > 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. > > xxxslater: What is, are those basic underpinnings of what was, was > is and what will be. In programming language they call it zeros and > ones. The physicists call it strings. Sant Mat calls it Shabda or > the audible sound current. The Christians call it the Word. I call > it the powers of the " creative program " . > > > 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? > > xxxslater: Yes to those who think mattering matters, but obviously > it does not matter to Dan. Is you favorite song, " it really doesn't > matter at all " LOL > > > 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. > > xxxslater There is only game playing, whether you are a jnani or an > ajani. The jnani suffers no more because he/she won that game, but > still is playing a new game with aplomb. The ajnani suffers much and > continues to suffer until he wins that game and plays the same game > of the jnani. > > > 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. > > xxxslater. The so-called Realized being has two views depending on > how honest they are. One is to see objects as outside of themselves > for the purposes of functioning in the world. and another counter > view of oneness. Try driving an auto when the oneness view is > operating. > > > 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? > > xxxslater: The above explanations answered this question. > > > 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. > > > xxxslater U.G talks about his mind declutched. This explains how > the fish can function both as a fish and as the ocean. > > > 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. > > > xxxslater The illusion continues when the jnani is experiencing the > body and the world and in samadhi no illusion enters. It comes down > to lets call it a " firm conviction " . If you believe strongly enough > that you are not the body and in the world, then that is your > reality. You must have a firm conviction that you are the Self or > words similar to that. > This trip is all about " lets pretend " and believing. > > > > > 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. > > xxxslater when the body speaks through the mental faculties the > Reality is put on hold. > > > 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. > > xxxslater Doing or not doing is doing and so is neither. > > 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. > > xxxslater If this philosophy works for you and you are in that > blissful state, then I congratulate you, admire you and will even > worship you if you let me.. You may ask, who is the worshiper and > naturally I will say there is only worshiping. > > > 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. > > xxxslater Who knows what Ramana or Aurobino would say now. They > are not here to answer. If they did not evolve or change then they > are stuck in the same stuff that is printed in the bibles. See, > aren't I an apt student? hehehe > > > My Buddhist > > teachers 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. > > xxxslater. That was discussed above. > > 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. > > > xxxslater Can we agree to disagree? > > > > 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? > > xxxslater Again this has been answered above. > > > 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 > > evidently 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. > > xxxslater Who cares about degrees. I quit after three years but I am > no Bill Gates. hehehe > > Love, > no sage slater > > p.s posting this on essential_i group too, which I am a moderator > of. Any objections and I will delete it. > > > Love, > Sushi Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Couldn't find your group, Mr. Slater, doing a search for essential_i. ? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 Snipped for brevity. Mr. Slater -- I've read through you're responses, and my subjective experience of what you're presenting is that it is a rather complex system of definitions and beliefs. ###mr slater: Ok I will simplify it. 1. You can do anything with training including wiping out all that prevents a quiet aware mind. 2, What ever in occurring in the universe is programmatic, the creation of a programming power. 3. The way in, was the product of a program. 4. The way out, is also that program. I can simplify our dialogue by stating this: truth is not a system, not defined, not a belief or group of interrelated beliefs. ###mr slater: You can define truth anyway you want to, but being the truth, finding the truth is also a program and the creation of that programming power. Although when conversing, we refer to words, and words are part of a system of definitions, that doesn't mean that the truth we are speaking to is a system or is definable. ###mr slater: Then how can we converse about it? One speaks to convey that there is truth that is immediate and not dependent on maintaining a system, definitions of it, or beliefs about it. That is all. .. It is direct, it doesn't involve having an experience, it is who you already always are. Nonetheless, you may set up a system of beliefs which obscure this omnipresent truth, and the holding onto those beliefs and relevant experiences seems to involve a holder. ### mr slater: If " who you are " cant be tested with the scientific method then it remains in the realm of beliefs. Lets have the scientists test those so called Realized beings with the latest MRI technology and see if " being truth " is more than a mere imaginary notion. U.G said that he would never let the scientists test him, because he did not want them to recreate his transformation with chemicals. Ramana was said to have a pulsation on the right side of the heart center. Testing him would have opened many eyes to what Realization is about. When that dynamic falls, and fall it must -- there is neither holder nor held. This is beginningless freedom. ###mr slater: Can you identify someone like that? This is who you are. And it can't be brought about by any conviction, belief, systemic approach, of way of defining " what is. " I have no objections to you posting our correspondence on your list, and thanks for your courtesy in letting me know. And of course we can agree to disagree. Disagreement is as basic to dialogue as is agreement. What is true, what is so, involves neither agreement nor disagreement. This simply is " so. " But it can't converse, there is nothing about which to converse, and no one to converse with. So, this conversation is invented, and along with it, me and you, agreement and disagreement. Yet, still, nothing is being said. ###mr slater Even if something is being said we shall soon forgot it. Love, mr slater p.s If that tranformation happens to mr slater, then he will let those scientists test him. Also, he will answer all questions concerning that transformation. You may now say it is not a transformation, but our original state of beingness, but many say the Realization is a transformation on a cellular level. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 > ###mr slater Even if something is being said we shall soon forgot > it. > > Love, > mr slater Yes, you're right. I've forgotten. > p.s If that tranformation happens to mr slater, then he will let > those scientists test him. Also, he will answer all questions > concerning that transformation. You may now say it is not a > transformation, but our original state of beingness, but many say > the Realization is a transformation on a cellular level. Don't worry. Whatever they find, will eventually be forgotten. Love, Danielsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 Dansan: All those wierd theories I offered will only be valid if they work for me, so I am ratcheting up my training. If I can sit for 3 hours without moving victory of the Self will be close at hand. Years ago I was able to sit over two hours but never three. Now I dont sit in lotus anymore as I dont want to risk injuring my knees, so I use an ergonomic knelling seat. Love, slatersan Realization , dan330033 wrote: > > ###mr slater Even if something is being said we shall soon forgot > > it. > > > > Love, > > mr slater > > Yes, you're right. > > I've forgotten. > > > p.s If that tranformation happens to mr slater, then he will let > > those scientists test him. Also, he will answer all questions > > concerning that transformation. You may now say it is not a > > transformation, but our original state of beingness, but many say > > the Realization is a transformation on a cellular level. > > Don't worry. > > Whatever they find, will eventually be forgotten. > > > Love, > Danielsan 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.