Guest guest Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 Dave, You asked: > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > thoughts, emotions and so on ? Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the I-Am and the divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your comment on this if you would. Shawn " You see, when the Soul is one with the Beloved, in her original form, she has no way of knowing it! There is no one to know it… the purpose of Creation is not merely to negate one's separation and to dissolve into Oneness. The purpose of evolution is to reach a point of being almost one! It is reaching the point where you recognise both your separation and your Oneness. At this point of meeting you begin merging with God. This precise point, when you are neither separated, nor One is the Ultimate Experience, and the true most noble purpose of Creation...You enjoy this journey the most when you leave the dimension of ignorance far behind yourself and you are very close to the final dissolution into the Source of Creation. Because, when you dissolve completely, you are not, only the Beloved remains. In order to experience God, a slight duality is required. If there is too much duality one is simply separated painfully from Existence. If there is no duality at all, there is no Me either. But when there is a touch of duality, the conscious meeting between God and her child takes place. That is the purpose of Creation. Now you can perhaps understand that duality is sacred in its essence, as it allows the Soul to experience the divine marriage with the Beloved, a communion with God. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote: > Dave, > > You asked: > > > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > > thoughts, emotions and so on ? > > Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the I-Am and the > divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your comment on this if > you would. > > Shawn > > " You see, when the Soul is one with the Beloved, in her original > form, she has no way of knowing it! There is no one to know it… the > purpose of Creation is not merely to negate one's separation and to > dissolve into Oneness. The purpose of evolution is to reach a point > of being almost one! It is reaching the point where you recognise > both your separation and your Oneness. At this point of meeting you > begin merging with God. This precise point, when you are neither > separated, nor One is the Ultimate Experience, and the true most > noble purpose of Creation...You enjoy this journey the most when you > leave the dimension of ignorance far behind yourself and you are very > close to the final dissolution into the Source of Creation. Because, > when you dissolve completely, you are not, only the Beloved remains. > In order to experience God, a slight duality is required. If there is > too much duality one is simply separated painfully from Existence. If > there is no duality at all, there is no Me either. But when there is > a touch of duality, the conscious meeting between God and her child > takes place. That is the purpose of Creation. Now you can perhaps > understand that duality is sacred in its essence, as it allows the > Soul to experience the divine marriage with the Beloved, a communion > with God. " If you think you can equate God to an experience you have of God -- indeed, you are involved with your own conceptuality -- you can excuse this self-involvement by calling it a wonderful, necessary duality, as long as that seems to help ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 > " Shawn " <shawnregan >Nisargadatta >Nisargadatta > For Dave S. on Aziz >Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:28:32 -0000 > >Dave, > >You asked: > > > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > > thoughts, emotions and so on ? > >Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the I-Am and the >divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your comment on this if >you would. > >Shawn > [cut] Shawn, but I already stated my position on this matter! I maintain that you should forget all these borrowed (or is it stolen?)concepts about god, soul, I-am, beloved etc. and abide in your underlying simplicity and innonence, doing naturally what must be done. Why complicate life more than it is ? Have you the guts to throw out all these flunkies, freaks, wierdos, gurus, (mess)iahs out your system, and walk away to be on your own ? Then you need not rely on the advise or comments from anyone outside. The game is over and that's it... ~dave _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 Perhaps reading Aziz out of context is not helping matters or I'm barking up the wrong forum. Thanks anyway for the response. Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote: > > Dave, > > > > You asked: > > > > > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > > > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > > > thoughts, emotions and so on ? > > > > Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the I-Am and the > > divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your comment on this if > > you would. > > > > Shawn > > > > " You see, when the Soul is one with the Beloved, in her original > > form, she has no way of knowing it! There is no one to know it… the > > purpose of Creation is not merely to negate one's separation and to > > dissolve into Oneness. The purpose of evolution is to reach a point > > of being almost one! It is reaching the point where you recognise > > both your separation and your Oneness. At this point of meeting you > > begin merging with God. This precise point, when you are neither > > separated, nor One is the Ultimate Experience, and the true most > > noble purpose of Creation...You enjoy this journey the most when > you > > leave the dimension of ignorance far behind yourself and you are > very > > close to the final dissolution into the Source of Creation. > Because, > > when you dissolve completely, you are not, only the Beloved > remains. > > In order to experience God, a slight duality is required. If there > is > > too much duality one is simply separated painfully from Existence. > If > > there is no duality at all, there is no Me either. But when there > is > > a touch of duality, the conscious meeting between God and her child > > takes place. That is the purpose of Creation. Now you can perhaps > > understand that duality is sacred in its essence, as it allows the > > Soul to experience the divine marriage with the Beloved, a > communion > > with God. " > > If you think you can equate God to an experience > you have of God -- indeed, you are involved > with your own conceptuality -- you can excuse > this self-involvement by calling it a > wonderful, necessary duality, as long as that > seems to help ... > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 Does this include throwing away Nisargadatta also? I'm not at that point yet, I still need some guidance. I think I'm about at the point where I want to stop reading though. Enough is too much. Thanks, Shawn > Shawn, but I already stated my position on this matter! > I maintain that you should forget all these borrowed > (or is it stolen?)concepts about god, soul, I-am, beloved etc. > and abide in your underlying simplicity and innonence, doing > naturally what must be done. Why complicate life more than it > is ? Have you the guts to throw out all these flunkies, freaks, > wierdos, gurus, (mess)iahs out your system, and walk away > to be on your own ? Then you need not rely on the advise or > comments from anyone outside. The game is over and that's it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 ....Does this include throwing away Nisargadatta also?.... > Shawn -------------------- You are me, I am you, I am everybody. Who is Nisargadatta? El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Butting in here, I would say Aziz is right on the money. Except there is no individual soul, its the one forgeting and remembering itself in the many. Cosmic senility, perhaps. Pete --- Shawn <shawnregan wrote: > Dave, > > You asked: > > > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > > thoughts, emotions and so on ? > > Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the > I-Am and the > divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your > comment on this if > you would. > > Shawn > > " You see, when the Soul is one with the Beloved, in > her original > form, she has no way of knowing it! There is no one > to know it… the > purpose of Creation is not merely to negate one's > separation and to > dissolve into Oneness. The purpose of evolution is > to reach a point > of being almost one! It is reaching the point where > you recognise > both your separation and your Oneness. At this point > of meeting you > begin merging with God. This precise point, when you > are neither > separated, nor One is the Ultimate Experience, and > the true most > noble purpose of Creation...You enjoy this journey > the most when you > leave the dimension of ignorance far behind yourself > and you are very > close to the final dissolution into the Source of > Creation. Because, > when you dissolve completely, you are not, only the > Beloved remains. > In order to experience God, a slight duality is > required. If there is > too much duality one is simply separated painfully > from Existence. If > there is no duality at all, there is no Me either. > But when there is > a touch of duality, the conscious meeting between > God and her child > takes place. That is the purpose of Creation. Now > you can perhaps > understand that duality is sacred in its essence, as > it allows the > Soul to experience the divine marriage with the > Beloved, a communion > with God. " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 dave, what you wrote is beautiful. yet it's also important to realize that after you describe your realization when you present it as a prescription, it becomes as you stated, 'borrowed, stolen' concepts for the others. should you need to stop prescribing then? this is where it gets complicated. it's impossible to tell when your description stops being a prescription and helps someone else to use the same description as a verbal tool, pointers, to express their realization. did i just write a prescription??? hur Nisargadatta, " Dave Sirjue " <davesirjue@h...> wrote: > Shawn, but I already stated my position on this matter! > I maintain that you should forget all these borrowed > (or is it stolen?)concepts about god, soul, I-am, beloved etc. > and abide in your underlying simplicity and innonence, doing > naturally what must be done. Why complicate life more than it > is ? Have you the guts to throw out all these flunkies, freaks, > wierdos, gurus, (mess)iahs out your system, and walk away > to be on your own ? Then you need not rely on the advise or > comments from anyone outside. The game is over and that's it... > > ~dave > > > _______________ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Pete, It seems that there is either us or God but no levels in between? A Soul would be at that level, there could be infinite levels of conscious complexity between the human and God. Shawn Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Butting in here, I would say Aziz is right on the > money. Except there is no individual soul, its the one > forgeting and remembering itself in the many. > > Cosmic senility, perhaps. > > Pete > > > --- Shawn <shawnregan> wrote: > > Dave, > > > > You asked: > > > > > Who is this " Someone " who is mysteriously > > > supposed to be looking at or be attentive of > > > thoughts, emotions and so on ? > > > > Aziz recognizes the identity of a Soul between the > > I-Am and the > > divine. His explanation is below. I'd like your > > comment on this if > > you would. > > > > Shawn > > > > " You see, when the Soul is one with the Beloved, in > > her original > > form, she has no way of knowing it! There is no one > > to know it… the > > purpose of Creation is not merely to negate one's > > separation and to > > dissolve into Oneness. The purpose of evolution is > > to reach a point > > of being almost one! It is reaching the point where > > you recognise > > both your separation and your Oneness. At this point > > of meeting you > > begin merging with God. This precise point, when you > > are neither > > separated, nor One is the Ultimate Experience, and > > the true most > > noble purpose of Creation...You enjoy this journey > > the most when you > > leave the dimension of ignorance far behind yourself > > and you are very > > close to the final dissolution into the Source of > > Creation. Because, > > when you dissolve completely, you are not, only the > > Beloved remains. > > In order to experience God, a slight duality is > > required. If there is > > too much duality one is simply separated painfully > > from Existence. If > > there is no duality at all, there is no Me either. > > But when there is > > a touch of duality, the conscious meeting between > > God and her child > > takes place. That is the purpose of Creation. Now > > you can perhaps > > understand that duality is sacred in its essence, as > > it allows the > > Soul to experience the divine marriage with the > > Beloved, a communion > > with God. " > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote: > Perhaps reading Aziz out of context is not helping matters or I'm > barking up the wrong forum. Thanks anyway for the response. You're welcome. Were you looking for " what he says is most excellent, accept it without further inquiry; it is the truth " as the response? " He comes across to me as unnecessarily flowery, mysterious, and special ... but that's just my take on it ... Whether one enjoys a speaker or not, seems to be largely a matter of taste ... Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 & gt; & gt; It seems that there is either us or God but no & gt; levels in between? A & gt; Soul would be at that level, there could be infinite & gt; levels of & gt; conscious complexity between the human and God. & gt; & gt; Shawn Hi Shawn, Before we get into the question whether a soul exist or not we have define what is a soul. What is a soul for you? For me it is just a concept people use to reassure themselves of personal survival. Pete - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember./tribute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 > Shawn, but I already stated my position on this matter! > I maintain that you should forget all these borrowed > (or is it stolen?)concepts about god, soul, I-am, beloved etc. > and abide in your underlying simplicity and innonence, doing > naturally what must be done. Why complicate life more than it > is ? Have you the guts to throw out all these flunkies, freaks, > wierdos, gurus, (mess)iahs out your system, and walk away > to be on your own ? Then you need not rely on the advise or > comments from anyone outside. The game is over and that's it... > > ~dave ---- dave, what you wrote is beautiful. yet it's also important to realize that after you describe your realization when you present it as a prescription, it becomes as you stated, 'borrowed, stolen' concepts for the others. should you need to stop prescribing then? this is where it gets complicated. it's impossible to tell when your description stops being a prescription and helps someone else to use the same description as a verbal tool, pointers, to express their realization. did i just write a prescription??? hur ---- Dave's prescription is ~~~no prescription at all~~~~. This is what happens when the me has had it up the gazoo with everything, including itself. There is a spontaneous turning inward. With no return. The jig is up. Nothing left but for the fat lady to sing. El .. 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.