Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 Maharaj did devotional religious stuff, singing, chanting, incense, pictures on the wall, altar, etc.. Krishnamurti vehemently rejected all religious tradition as deluded superstition. There's an obvious disagreement there, that's the context I see Maharaj's comment in. To me they're both great, have both been of profound assistance. There's no need to reconcile them. andrew cathywb wrote: > Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that he is > in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but does > that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. What was > interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's comment as a > complement. They thought that being a great thinker was a great > accomplishment. > Competition in itself isn't bad, look at Shankara. He competed, debated > and won. He reformed Hinduism as a result of that competition. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Namaste All, Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. Devotional bhajans and aartis etc are really just ritual for the lower mind. So even if he was realised at some level he left the body/mind to do what it did through habit. He presumably was just a witness.........M is no means logical.......ONS Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > Maharaj did devotional religious stuff, singing, chanting, incense, pictures on the > wall, altar, etc.. Krishnamurti vehemently rejected all religious tradition as deluded > superstition. > There's an obvious disagreement there, that's the context I see Maharaj's comment in. > To me they're both great, have both been of profound assistance. There's no need to > reconcile them. > > andrew > > cathywb@p... wrote: > > > Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that he is > > in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but does > > that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. What was > > interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's comment as a > > complement. They thought that being a great thinker was a great > > accomplishment. > > Competition in itself isn't bad, look at Shankara. He competed, debated > > and won. He reformed Hinduism as a result of that competition. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Tony: " ...................he left the body/mind to do what it did through habit. " El: Yes. -------------------------------- Nisargadatta, " Tony O'Clery " <aoclery> wrote: > Namaste All, > > Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. > Devotional bhajans and aartis etc are really just ritual for the > lower mind. So even if he was realised at some level he left the > body/mind to do what it did through habit. He presumably was just a > witness.........M is no means logical.......ONS > > > > Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > > Maharaj did devotional religious stuff, singing, chanting, incense, > pictures on the > > wall, altar, etc.. Krishnamurti vehemently rejected all religious > tradition as deluded > > superstition. > > There's an obvious disagreement there, that's the context I see > Maharaj's comment in. > > To me they're both great, have both been of profound assistance. > There's no need to > > reconcile them. > > > > andrew > > > > cathywb@p... wrote: > > > > > Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that > he is > > > in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but > does > > > that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. What > was > > > interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's comment as > a > > > complement. They thought that being a great thinker was a great > > > accomplishment. > > > Competition in itself isn't bad, look at Shankara. He competed, > debated > > > and won. He reformed Hinduism as a result of that competition. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > Tony: > > " ...................he left the > body/mind to do what > it did through habit. " > > El: > > Yes. > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just continued to live, as do we all. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Andrew: The body is a room. Maharaj is the whole house. El ---------------------- Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > > > Tony: > > > > " ...................he left the > > body/mind to do what > > it did through habit. " > > > > El: > > > > Yes. > > > > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from > the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just > continued to live, as do we all. > > andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 > Tony: > > " ...................he left the > body/mind to do what > it did through habit. " > > El: > > Yes. > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just continued to live, as do we all. andrew Maybe he didn't leave it as an " individual " ... Maybe he left it by including " the universe " ... Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 The whole house is not him, or El or Tony or me. The individual is the body/mind. Realisation that I am not the body/mind is the end of identification as an individual. " He " did not leave the body/mind. He or she or you or me don't exist apart from the body/mind. andrew elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > Andrew: > > The body is a room. > > Maharaj is the whole house. > > El > > ---------------------- > > Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> > wrote: > > elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > > > > > Tony: > > > > > > " ...................he left the > > > body/mind to do what > > > it did through habit. " > > > > > > El: > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from > > the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just > > continued to live, as do we all. > > > > andrew > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Daniel Berkow wrote: > > > > Tony: > > > > > > " ...................he left the > > > body/mind to do what > > > it did through habit. " > > > > > > El: > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from > > the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just > > continued to live, as do we all. > > > > andrew > > Maybe he didn't leave it as an " individual " ... > Maybe he left it by including " the universe " ... > > Dan > And the universe doesn't include the body/mind? Why do people want to leave it anyway? andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 He left the body-mind by having no where else to go or be. He was not " he " -- that's how he left what he was never in, in the first place. He is the body that is beyond the body-mind concept. He absorbed the universe by having nowhere to be, and then there was no then ... Dan The whole house is not him, or El or Tony or me. The individual is the body/mind. Realisation that I am not the body/mind is the end of identification as an individual. " He " did not leave the body/mind. He or she or you or me don't exist apart from the body/mind. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 At 06:50 PM 4/12/01 -0300, you wrote: Daniel Berkow wrote: > > > > Tony: > > > > > > " ...................he left the > > > body/mind to do what > > > it did through habit. " > > > > > > El: > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart from > > the body/mind and let it act this way or that. He just > > continued to live, as do we all. > > > > andrew > > Maybe he didn't leave it as an " individual " ... > Maybe he left it by including " the universe " ... > > Dan > And the universe doesn't include the body/mind? Why do people want to leave it anyway? andrew I didn't leave the universe by wanting to leave it. I left it by giving birth to it. How can a universe of no parts include a body/mind -- except as concept? Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Daniel Berkow [berkowd]Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:39 PMNisargadatta Subject: Re: Re: Maharaj and Krishnamurti > Tony:> > "...................he left the> body/mind to do what> it did through habit."> > El:> > Yes.>Nonsense. There is no individual to stand apart fromthe body/mind and let it act this way or that. He justcontinued to live, as do we all.andrew Maybe he didn't leave it as an "individual" ...Maybe he left it by including "the universe" ...Dan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and what is the universe other than mind-stuff? ~jessica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Daniel Berkow wrote: > I didn't leave the universe by > wanting to leave it. > I left it by giving birth to it. > > How can a universe of no parts > include a body/mind -- except > as concept? > > Dan > You didn't leave anywhere. How can auniverseofnoparts be other than body/mind, except as a concept? andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ > > and what is the universe other than mind-stuff? > > ~jessica ------------- " The Universe " is one of the many concepts in My (father's) mansion. Which is a no-mansion of course! And beyiond mansion and no mansion! You got all that, Jess? El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > Daniel Berkow wrote: > > > I didn't leave the universe by > > wanting to leave it. > > I left it by giving birth to it. > > > > How can a universe of no parts > > include a body/mind -- except > > as concept? > > > > Dan ---------------------- > You didn't leave anywhere. > How can auniverseofnoparts be other than body/mind, > except as a concept? > > andrew ------------------ Lets take it a step back. The ABSOLUTE is " the barren woman " . Cosmos cum Consciousness is the " child of the barren woman " . All the seeming little separate body cum consciousnesses, are children of the child of the barren woman. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 elizabethwells and what is the universe other than mind-stuff? ~jessica ------------- " The Universe " is one of the many concepts in My (father's) mansion. Which is a no-mansion of course! And beyiond mansion and no mansion! You got all that, Jess? El ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hi El, Nice to hear from you personally...not quite like old times ~ : O ; ) and thanks but I wasn't asking. In between clients in response to Dan's: Maybe he didn't leave it as an " individual " ... Maybe he left it by including " the universe " ... I wrote: and what is the universe other than mind-stuff? > > is it more clear this way? .... Maybe he didn't leave it as an " individual " ... Maybe he left it by including " mind stuff " ????huh???? no speaka da english! Love, ~jess ps and what is a concept other than mind-stuff? things that make mind's stuffed : ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > Lets take it a step back. > > The ABSOLUTE is " the barren woman " . > > Cosmos cum Consciousness is the > " child of the barren woman " . > > All the seeming little separate > body cum consciousnesses, > are children of the > child of the barren woman. > > El > > . The big C Consciousness/cosmos and the little c consciousness/body are THE SAME! 'The Absolute' is a myth. I love Nisargadatta but I am not his parrot. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Nisargadatta, andrew macnab <a.macnab@n...> wrote: > elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > > > > Lets take it a step back. > > > > The ABSOLUTE is " the barren woman " . > > > > Cosmos cum Consciousness is the > > " child of the barren woman " . > > > > All the seeming little separate > > body cum consciousnesses, > > are children of the > > child of the barren woman. > > > > El ----------------------- Andrew: > The big C Consciousness/cosmos > and > the little c consciousness/body > are > THE SAME! ------------------------- El: Right. ------------------------- Andrew: > 'The Absolute' is a myth. ----------------------- El: Call it True Reality. Call it " What Is " . Call it whatever turns you on. Or don't call it. It comes to the same. ---------------- Andrew: I love Nisargadatta but I am not his parrot. --------------- El: It does no harm to use Maharaj words and stories, who they appear spontaneously, when on the Maharaj site. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2001 Report Share Posted April 12, 2001 Andrew: > The big C Consciousness/cosmos > and > the little c consciousness/body > are > THE SAME! ------------------------- El: Right. --------------------- El: This should be qualified. There is no little consciousness. Or Big Consciousness. There is no little body. Or Big Body. There is Only the Total Functioning Consciousness. Which is the child of the barren woman. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 At 07:37 PM 4/12/01 -0300, you wrote: Daniel Berkow wrote: > I didn't leave the universe by > wanting to leave it. > I left it by giving birth to it. > > How can a universe of no parts > include a body/mind -- except > as concept? > > Dan > You didn't leave anywhere. How can auniverseofnoparts be other than body/mind, except as a concept? andrew I left where I never was. I am where no one is. Dying to self as concept, to the concept body/mind ... Totality isn't a word-game. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 > Daniel Berkow wrote: > > > I didn't leave the universe by > > wanting to leave it. > > I left it by giving birth to it. > > > > How can a universe of no parts > > include a body/mind -- except > > as concept? > > > > Dan ---------------------- > You didn't leave anywhere. > How can auniverseofnoparts be other than body/mind, > except as a concept? > > andrew ------------------ Lets take it a step back. The ABSOLUTE is " the barren woman " . Cosmos cum Consciousness is the " child of the barren woman " . All the seeming little separate body cum consciousnesses, are children of the child of the barren woman. El .. Nicely reframed ... Also could say " the immaculate conception " and " the only begotten son of God " ... Same essential mythic information, different culture ;-) Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 Daniel Berkow wrote: > > > I didn't leave the universe by > > > wanting to leave it. > > > I left it by giving birth to it. > > > > > > How can a universe of no parts > > > include a body/mind -- except > > > as concept? > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > You didn't leave anywhere. > > How can auniverseofnoparts be other than body/mind, > > except as a concept? > > > > andrew > > I left where I never was. > > I am where no one is. > > Dying to self as concept, > to the concept body/mind ... > > Totality isn't a word-game. > > Dan > What I'm on about came a few posts back in this thread, it was the statement that Nisargadatta left the body/mind to do as it wanted. I say this notion of detachment from the body/mind is a misunderstanding. The realization that I am the unlimited deathless conscious totality allows me as body/mind to live fully, fearlessly. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 andrew: >I say this notion of >detachment from the body/mind is a >misunderstanding. The realization that I am >the unlimited deathless conscious totality >allows me as body/mind to live fully, >fearlessly. Thanks, Andrew, for a candle in the darkness. -tomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 What I'm on about came a few posts back in this thread, it was the statement that Nisargadatta left the body/mind to do as it wanted. I say this notion of detachment from the body/mind is a misunderstanding. The realization that I am the unlimited deathless conscious totality allows me as body/mind to live fully, fearlessly. andrew I say that nonattachment is a more useful word here than detachment, and that teachings about " not being the body " can mislead to seemingly affirming a misperception: a separation of observer from observed. All kinds of " subjugations " of the body have been perpetrated as a result. Nonetheless, the body/mind isn't living for a " me " ... There is no " me " to enjoy the status of knowing that " this body of mine is living fearlessly " ... The body/mind is concept -- if taken as real, is the attempt to make a split in reality have an existence as if whole. If " he " left the body/mind to run its course as a disembodied being, that is dissociation. If " he " left the body/mind to run its course because, nonattached, he and Life were/are one -- there is simply living beyond concept, living beyond the split of life/death -- Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 Right on Dan. love, andrew Daniel Berkow wrote: > I say that nonattachment > is a more useful word > here than detachment, > and that teachings about > " not being the body " > can mislead to seemingly > affirming a misperception: > a separation of > observer from observed. > > All kinds of " subjugations " of the body > have been perpetrated as a result. > > Nonetheless, the body/mind isn't living > for a " me " ... There is no " me " > to enjoy the status of knowing > that " this body of mine is living > fearlessly " ... > > The body/mind is concept -- if taken as > real, is the attempt to make a split > in reality have an existence as if > whole. > > If " he " left the body/mind to run its > course as a disembodied being, that is > dissociation. If " he " left the body/mind > to run its course because, nonattached, > he and Life were/are one -- there is > simply living beyond concept, living > beyond the split of life/death -- > > Peace, > 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.