Guest guest Posted November 1, 2002 Report Share Posted November 1, 2002 > If you new the bondage you would have > refused the birth. But because the I Amness was > absent, you were trapped. This confuses me - - he uses the word " you " , as in " you were trapped " , sounds like I am in bondage BEFORE I have the option of accepting bondage or denying bondage. So maybe what he is talking about is occupying some subtle body between (before) births, sort of a 'bondage lite' ? Larry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2002 Report Share Posted November 1, 2002 This is a teaching for those not ready yet to question such notions as the absolute, and particularly the notion of an absolute that could misunderstand things and get itself trapped. The teaching established the idea of " I am not the body, " which is itself as much of a one-sided view as the idea " I am only the body. " It is a teaching that seems meant to provide a sort of incentive for inquiry -- like, hmmmm... I must be the absolute and I got trapped by wrong teaching -- hmmm... I should perservere with this inquiry because there's really something great to get out of it -- I'll realize I'm the absolute and I won't have to get trapped by thinking I'm the body anymore, won't have to get stuck getting born anymore ... Sort of a Hindu version of the Christian incentive provided by the notion of living with God in eternity ... -- Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Maharaj: " Why should consciousness, which is > inadequacy, which is sickness, be there at all? To a > jnani, consciousness has not happened at all. If the > consciousness tries to understand itself it gets > stabilized in due course in the Absolute. And when the > consciousness gets stabilized in the Absolute, it > knows it's like a ghost, it's not real. It is not > palpable. > > You did not know your own existence after you were > born. Nine months in the womb and for sometime > afterwards that " I am so and so " is absent. When you > start recognizing your mother you also become aware of > your own existence. That " I amness " comes sometime > later. Mother teaches you, in ignorance, that you are > the body and you begin to believe that. Your mind also > stars slowly to develop. So right from the beginning, > because of ignorance the Absolute doesn't > know itself; and because of the body, it started > knowing that it is-- I Am. Because of the ignorance > you had to ask somebody, " who am I? otherwise you > would not have asked anybody. Even so called > incarnations such as Rama were like this, they had to > be taught. > > The incarnations are just like you. The bondage with > the body came because of wrong teaching, and the guru > came and told you that you are not the body, and then > you were liberated. That is why all these births are > taking place. If you new the bondage you would have > refused the birth. But because the I Amness was > absent, you were trapped. " > > Here, in this last paragraph, Maharaj clearly states > that before birth the Absolute has no notion of its > own existence and, therefore, is powerless to refuse > any birth. > > Pete > > > > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2002 Report Share Posted November 1, 2002 Maybe he said this when he was in his bondage phase. I wonder if he ever talked with Ramesh about this idea of refusing birth, as if there is a choosing entity involved ... -- Dan Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > If you new the bondage you would have > > refused the birth. But because the I Amness was > > absent, you were trapped. > > This confuses me - - he uses the word " you " , as in " you were > trapped " , sounds like I am in bondage BEFORE I have the option of > accepting bondage or denying bondage. > > So maybe what he is talking about is occupying some subtle body > between (before) births, sort of a 'bondage lite' > > ? Larry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2002 Report Share Posted November 1, 2002 Hi ?Larry? I presume " you " is used here in a generic grammatical way. Since Maharaj was responding to a particular seeker, my interpretation it as follows " if you, before your birth( meaning the Absolute) had known the bondage... This of course was a statement for a level of seeking that is looking for a way out. Maharaj knew quite well bondage is just a point of view. The Absolute is everything. Nirvana is Samsara. There is no scape, no one to scape, no bondage. The play goes on. Pete --- trem23 <inmadison wrote: > > If you new the bondage you would have > > refused the birth. But because the I Amness was > > absent, you were trapped. > > This confuses me - - he uses the word " you " , as in > " you were > trapped " , sounds like I am in bondage BEFORE I have > the option of > accepting bondage or denying bondage. > > So maybe what he is talking about is occupying some > subtle body > between (before) births, sort of a 'bondage lite' > > ? Larry ? > > > > > 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.