Guest guest Posted April 30, 2001 Report Share Posted April 30, 2001 Hi Tim, Jessica, El -- The only reason there have been designated " realized sages " is because there are people considering themselves not realized (i.e., lacking something, incomplete), " acting out " in ways that " verify " this nonrealized status, and thus, at times of " unhappiness " , when " quick fixes " have failed, believing themselves in need of someone who is realized. An imagined role as " realized one " is now constructed to address an imaginary illness. Thus, there is now the relationship between realized and unrealized apparent entities. The realized one, if genuine, seeing nothing apart, and no " duality " separable from " nonduality " , plays a role in the drama of apparently separated stances without being captured by dualistic assumptions -- presumably to guide the one assuming unenlightened status to self-inquiry. The instant that there is clarity that " realized " only has meaning in relation to " unrealized " , that each quality depends on the other -- there can no longer remain the assumption that reality, or the reality of " a being " , can meaningfully be categorized as either. What is neither " realized " nor " unrealized " ? What is neither " a being " nor " something other than a being (e.g. God, beingness) " ? Only this, as it is. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2001 Report Share Posted April 30, 2001 Dear Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > An imagined role as " realized one " is > now constructed to address an > imaginary illness. It could be noted that those appearing to gather around such " Realized Ones " usually grant the title rather than the so- called " Realized One. " Those so-called 'Realized Ones' who do accept the title likely do so because 'their words' would not be listened to otherwise. There is only one Buddha, and 'He Awakened' just now :-). Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2001 Report Share Posted April 30, 2001 It could be noted that those appearing to gather around such " Realized Ones " usually grant the title rather than the so- called " Realized One. " Those so-called 'Realized Ones' who do accept the title likely do so because 'their words' would not be listened to otherwise. There is only one Buddha, and 'He Awakened' just now :-). Namaste, Tim Quite so, Tim. And he is not more awake in one part of his seamless body than in another part. Seeming differences only allow his body to be sensed as form, as various eyes allow the undifferentiated color to take on multiple hues. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Hi Tim, Jessica, El -- > > The only reason there have been > designated " realized sages " is > because there are people considering > themselves not realized (i.e., lacking > something, incomplete), " acting out " > in ways that " verify " this nonrealized > status, and thus, at times of " unhappiness " , > when " quick fixes " have failed, > believing themselves > in need of someone who is realized. > > An imagined role as " realized one " is > now constructed to address an > imaginary illness. > > Thus, there is now the relationship > between realized and unrealized > apparent entities. > > The realized one, if genuine, > seeing nothing apart, and no > " duality " separable from " nonduality " , > plays a role in the drama of apparently > separated stances without being captured by > dualistic assumptions > -- presumably to guide the one > assuming unenlightened > status to self-inquiry. > > The instant that there is clarity that > " realized " only has meaning in relation > to " unrealized " , that each quality depends > on the other -- there can no longer remain > the assumption that reality, or the reality > of " a being " , can meaningfully be > categorized as either. > > What is neither " realized " nor " unrealized " ? > What is neither " a being " nor " something > other than a being (e.g. God, beingness) " ? > > Only this, as it is. > > Namaste, > Dan Namaste Dan, Perhaps being in the presence of a realised master has a cleansing effect on the sheaths or kosas of an aspirant. Perhaps their vijnanamayakosa is enhanced. It is more practical then reading or intellectualising about something one hasn't experienced....ONS Tony. 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.