Guest guest Posted February 27, 2001 Report Share Posted February 27, 2001 Dear John, One of the things I like about your meticulous questions is that, you also answer them so well I don't really consider myself to be an actor on the stage of life. I've only used it as a model, similar to the play of Leela. At some level identification with the body remains and that's what I was referring to. The main teaching that I've learned from Maharaj is the identification process as consciousness manifests through a form. Abiding in the sense " I am " and not identifying with the " food body " and not even identifying with the biochemical consciousness or the sense of " I am " is the priceless Maharaj wisdom. Hur Nisargadatta, " John Ward " <thejohnward@h...> wrote: > On 1-2-01 > Hur Guler wrote: > > " As one actor speaking to another actor in the play of consciousness, > can I make you realize this? " > > Dear Hur, > Why do consider yourself to be an actor? > > In a theatre there are many levels: > There is the scenery, the physical props, > there are the parts, ie the persons in > the play, then there are the actors playing > the parts, there is also the audience, and > the casting director, various prompters, > the producer. Usually there is also an > unknown owner. > Some say the object of the theatre is to > entertain, others say the real object is > to make money, ie a living? > > Hur, Why do you identify with the actor? > An actor is merely a profession, and is > not a real being? > > Consider the possibility that all these > levels in a theatre are one and the same > being? Can then one ask the question why > does one being appear as many interrelating > levels? Is it entertainment or something > more vital? I confess I do not know. > > I know only this: I am the part, not at > the level of the actor. The actor is the > little known > spiritual being standing behind me the part, > behind my limited self form, > and smiling sweetly at me. > > The Theatre...the mind > The scenery...the world > The props...the physical body > The part...the person or natural body, jiva > The actor...the spiritual body, Mahat > The audience...the witness, Atman > The casting director...Ahamkara > The prompters...the gunas > The producer...God, Brahman > The owner...The Absolute > > Entertainment is for the audience chiefly, > ie the witness. > A living, wealth, Life, is the activity of prana. > > What has one left out? There must be > something one has forgotten? > > John > - > Hur Guler > Nisargadatta > Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:41 PM > Re: Who sets the example? > > > Nisargadatta, dswgos@h... wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > > > Maharaj: ...realization is explosive. It takes place > spontaneously, > > > > It Appears to Take Place Spontaneously...I Believe Life is a > Process > > that Creates the Appearance of Spontaneity but It is Not > > Spontaneous...It appears to Be Spontaneous because I'm Always > > Unconscious of what's in the Background even though It's there so > > from that I Conclude that It's My Lack of Knowledge of What's going > > to Appear Next in My Awareness that Creates the False Notion of > this > > Relization I'm Experiencing Now is taking Place Spontaneously...! > > Dear David, > > I'd like to post the parapraph in question before addressing your > point. > > " ...realization is explosive. It takes place spontaneously, or at the > slightest hint. The quick is not better than the slow. Slow ripening > and rapid flowering alternate. Both are natural and right. Yet, all > this is so in the mind only. As I see it, there is really nothing of > the kind. In the great mirror of consciousness images arise and > disappear and only memory gives them continuity. And memory is > material -- destructible, perishable, transient. On such flimsy > foundations we build a sense of personal existence -- vague, > intermittent, dreamlike. This vague persuasion: 'I-am-so-and-so' > obscures the changeless state of pure awareness and makes us believe > that we are born to suffer and to die. " -Nisargadatta > > According to Webster.com " SPONTANEOUS implies lack of prompting and > connotes naturalness. " > > Whether realization is spontaneous or a process (both of which may be > the same depending on one's definition or model), I believe the > essence of Maharaj's teaching is not how realization takes place but > what that realization points to. > > Although Maharaj explains how the memory or the sense of time gives > continuity to the " frames " of memory, by arranging them in sequential > order, not unlike a movie camera, out of which emerges the " actor " > and the plot of the " play, " Maharaj's " mystical " insight is not how > one's model of reality plays in consciousness but how there is a > changeless state of pure awareness. In the changeless state of pure > awareness, the mind, body, the world, physical laws and even the > spiritual states all appear and disappear. Ultimately *you* are not > a thing, not even a state of mind but the pure awareness. Whether > one calls pure awareness the spirit, eternal reality or God, the > consciousness is the only link to That. > > As one actor speaking to another actor in the play of consciousness, > can I make you realize this? I don't think that is always a part of > the programming or the process as you call it. But as consciousness > speaking to consciousness, contemplation of consciousnes on > consciousness needs no explanation. Ultimately this is the triump of > Maharaj's teaching, as he always points us to the sense of " I am. " > As Maharaj says, the sense of " I am " is the only capital we are born > with. > > Hur > > > 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.