Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 - " Omkara " <coresite <Nisargadatta > Sunday, June 17, 2001 4:26 PM Re: Skye/Toasting Life > > 'Historically', there is *always* a death (symbolic or otherwise) > involved in 'rebirth'. > [cut] Funny how thoughts stimulates and plays with other thoughts, so let's try and crack this one. From the 'me's' standpoint it appears that the 'me' itself is eternal !. Why ? because the 'me' was not around during physical birth and by extension, more than likely, will not be around during what it presumes to be death. We only observe the birth and death of others, the 'me' can never experience it's own birth or death...if there was or will be such events fo 'it'. Second-hand info from someone, probably our parents, tells 'me' that 'I' was born, and such and such was my name at such and such place.... Were they probably mistaken, misguided.. was I told a lie which I believed but was never really part of my experience? So how can I confirm this, except through inductive, inferential reasoning or belief ? Ever since the 'me' was aware of itself, it knew life and it seems life has always been what it is, giving the 'me' a sense of eternity.. 'I' have no knowledge of any other states prior to birth or after death to compare with, though 'I' may fantasize such states exists, from what 'I' hear and observe from others. But from first-hand direct experience - there is no birth and death for 'me' -...of course others may argue convincingly otherwise, but can their personal views ever agree with the 'me's' perspective...as for example, when I go for walks it appears the pathway moves towards me and then recedes, so do I move or do I remain perfectly still while events occurs around me ? Then is not the search for immortality pointless ? :-) ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 At 01:00 PM 6/18/2001, you wrote: >- > " Omkara " <coresite ><Nisargadatta > >Sunday, June 17, 2001 4:26 PM > Re: Skye/Toasting Life > > > > 'Historically', there is *always* a death (symbolic or otherwise) > > involved in 'rebirth'. > > [cut] > >Funny how thoughts stimulates and >plays with other thoughts, so let's >try and crack this one. > > From the 'me's' standpoint it appears >that the 'me' itself is eternal !. >Why ? because the 'me' was not around >during physical birth and by extension, more than >likely, will not be around during what it presumes to be >death. We only observe the birth and death >of others, the 'me' can never experience it's >own birth or death...if there was or will be >such events fo 'it'. > >Second-hand info from someone, probably >our parents, tells 'me' that 'I' was born, >and such and such was my name at such >and such place.... >Were they probably mistaken, misguided.. >was I told a lie which I believed but was >never really part of my experience? So how >can I confirm this, except through inductive, >inferential reasoning or belief ? > >Ever since the 'me' was aware of itself, it knew life >and it seems life has always been what it is, >giving the 'me' a sense of eternity.. > >'I' have no knowledge of any other states prior to birth or >after death to compare with, though 'I' may fantasize >such states exists, from what 'I' hear and observe from >others. > >But from first-hand direct experience - there is no birth and >death for 'me' -...of course others may argue convincingly >otherwise, but can their personal views ever agree with the 'me's' >perspective...as for example, when I go for walks it appears >the pathway moves towards me and then recedes, so do I move >or do I remain perfectly still while events occurs around me ? >Then is not the search for immortality pointless ? > >:-) >~dave No it isn't. Yes, it is. Depends on where you are coming from. Michael _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Nisargadatta, " D. Sirjue " <dsirju@n...> wrote: > From the 'me's' standpoint it appears > that the 'me' itself is eternal !. The 'me' fears its own extinction. Everything it 'does' is only to maintain the illusion of its existence, because it fears terribly that it does not exist at all (a justifiable fear!). It could rightly be said that the 'me' *is* fear. It depends entirely on memory for its continuity, and obsessively accesses memory again and again in order to maintain its own continuity. If by some miracle no further energy is invested in maintaining the 'me', it simply vanishes like a puff of smoke. > Ever since the 'me' was aware of itself, it knew life > and it seems life has always been what it is, > giving the 'me' a sense of eternity.. The 'me' is more like a 'pocket of unawareness' -- it can't be aware of anything. It's just sort of a contraction in thought. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 - " Michael " <dvdsforapenny <Nisargadatta > Monday, June 18, 2001 4:52 PM Re: Re:Toasting Life/Immortality > No it isn't. > Yes, it is. Neither this nor that ..you got the drift Mike. It seems changing perspectives confuses many people. Vivekananda for example appears to change standpoints at lightning speed from Dwaita to Advaita's views during his conversations, apparently contradicting himself (?) > Depends on where you are coming from I remember reading somewhere of a young chap who came eagerly looking forward for an interview with Ramana, but was ignored. After several hours he complained to the Maharishi, and mentioned he had travelled several thousands of miles. Ramana's reply was " Please go back from where you came! " . The guy was shocked. Where do you think Ramana was coming from ? ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 - " Omkara " <coresite <Nisargadatta > Monday, June 18, 2001 5:19 PM Re:Toasting Life/Immortality > The 'me' fears its own extinction. Yeah, but what I was trying to say is that the very fear itself has come about as a subsequent reaction learnt from what others say and what the 'me' observes about others. But if the 'me' remains as a first-hand unconcerned witness not identifying with outside or alien suggestions, where is the fear ? >Everything it 'does' is only to > maintain the illusion of its existence, because it fears terribly > that it does not exist at all (a justifiable fear!). This is the crux of the matter. Despite what others on this or other list may say including the realised masters from Maharaj to Timothy that the 'me' is an illusion and does not exist; this may not be so to the vast majority. Throwing such premature statements that it is false is more likely harmful and may be responsible for unnecessary bondage, sorrow, guilt and fears of the 'me'...not that the 'me' should be pampered, but maybe it might be better to let it take it's own course to develop and mature. Only ripe fruits drops naturally. ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 Perhaps, Dave. It probably depends on the reader... and if i remember correctly, the message was addressed to " one particular reader " (and it wasn't Dave). Nobody will convince me that making statements on a mailing list is " harmful. " Shooting a gun at someone may be harmful, but words from a total stranger (nameless, faceless and unknown)... since when have those been harmful? Do you know any cases where psychiatric treatment was required? It's sad to see everyone taking words so seriously, but i guess that is the conditioning of a lifetime. If instead they were taken as " pointers, " and the non-useful sections simply ignored or discarded... well, who could hope for it. Conditioning reigns supreme. Namaste, Tim Nisargadatta, " D. Sirjue " <dsirju@n...> wrote: > >Everything it 'does' is only to > > maintain the illusion of its existence, because it fears terribly > > that it does not exist at all (a justifiable fear!). > > This is the crux of the matter. > Despite what others on this or other list may say including the > realised masters from Maharaj to Timothy that the 'me' is > an illusion and does not exist; this may not be so to the vast > majority. > Throwing such premature statements that it is false is more > likely harmful and may be responsible for unnecessary > bondage, sorrow, guilt and fears of the 'me'...not that the 'me' > should be pampered, but maybe it might be better to let it > take it's own course to develop and mature. > Only ripe fruits drops naturally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 - " Omkara " <coresite <Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:18 PM Re:Toasting Life/Immortality > Nobody will convince me that making statements on a mailing list > is " harmful. " Shooting a gun at someone may be harmful, but words > from a total stranger (nameless, faceless and unknown)... [cut] Hi Tim, Have you not heard of the old saying - " the pen is mightier than the sword " ? RIP. ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 Hi Dave, Nisargadatta, " D. Sirjue " <dsirju@n...> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Have you not heard of the old saying - > " the pen is mightier than the sword " ? Yes, i have heard that saying. Namaste, Tim 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.