Promises of eternity

[Guest guest]

despite the common experiences of ordinary people, there's a

tremendous effort made by some nonduality teachers to change the

perspective of the seeker to see a world without subjects and objects

but all verbs. for example when the seeker says, " i am in love with a

woman. " some gurus tell us that there's no " i " and " no other woman "

but love itself. the guru will repeat over and over again

that " there's no you, all there is...is <insert your version of Truth

or delusion here>. "

 

on the path to discover the " no you, " one of the methods used is to

have the seeker ask questions such as " who am i " or " where am i? "

when the seeker is unable to come up with a satisfactory answer, the

guru then suggests that there's no you...all there is...is <a version

of Truth or delusion>...therefore the conclusion is " i am that

Truth. " the little ego clings on to this with the hope that maybe

there is some type of eternity. as opposed to the dualistic promises

of eternity in the forms of heaven/hell and reincarnation, nonduality

in that sense presents itself as the promise of eternity on the

impersonal level. this drug does not appeal to most people because

eternal, impersonal existence does nothing for the little me.

 

i'm not questioning anyone's experience of nondual awareness. i won't

even discount nondual awareness as another mental state, a sort of

neurological glitch. but what i often wander is...if the endless

preaching of " there's no you " is for the purpose that the seeker

shifts his/her identity and believes himself to be

<Consciousness/Truth>...so that the seeker can feel some sort of

relief from the burden of individual existence while hoping to

continue an eternally blissful individual existence.

 

existence and awareness of existence are fascinating for the ego and

it's also just as amazing how the smart ego will use skilful

arguments in search of eternal life.

 

hur

[Guest guest]

on 2/4/03 6:21 PM, Hur Guler <hur at hur wrote:

snip>

> but what i often wander is...if the endless

> preaching of " there's no you " is for the purpose that the seeker

> shifts his/her identity and believes himself to be

> <Consciousness/Truth>...so that the seeker can feel some sort of

> relief from the burden of individual existence while hoping to

> continue an eternally blissful individual existence.

 

If the ACTION of identification is undermined by direct intuitive

insight(not by the ego), then the identity or persona is not the one who

feels relief, unless some part of this " persona " remains.

The concept of " consciousness vs ego " is to be used as a tool as one concept

is used to remove the other and as a thorn is used to remove another thorn

both thorns are then disgarded.

 

 

> existence and awareness of existence are fascinating for the ego and

> it's also just as amazing how the smart ego will use skilful

> arguments in search of eternal life.

>

> hur

 

yes, very tricky...I like what Nome said about this:

 

cee: i kept trying to figure out how " my " consciousness is the same as

everyone elses, but, if the " my " dissolves, that is not really a question.

 

 

 

nome: here's a funny thing. within the limitlessness of your own

consciousness, where we really don't see a boundary or a size or shape,

within that consciousness there appears as it were a wave an illusion of

certain ideas. one of those ideas is " i " , some of those ideas make up what

you commonly call a personality or a mind-- whatever seems to mark you off

as a separate being.

 

you are the consciousness and you have these ideas of a separate being, and

then marvelously enough you imagine you stand as the separate being and

refer to the consciousness as if it were your possession. isn't that a funny

thing? that's very strange.

 

first we set something apart from ourselves, then we step into it as if it

were ourselves. and look back at ourselves, thinking that we are a stranger

to ourselves. but none of that is true, none of that is actually happening.

there is really no such thing as " my consciousness " or " your consciousness " .

" mine " " your " etcetera, these are just ideas, and all ideas or thoughts are

inert.

 

the consciousness is the living part. now if you look right directly into

your consciousness it doesn't have an " i " or a " you " or a " yours " or

anything else like that.

 

upstream of all thought, in your consciousness where you know nothing other,

where you know no thing whatsoever,

 

there is no illusion.

 

from:

http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html

 

 

Namaste)))))Shawn

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> on 2/4/03 6:21 PM, Hur Guler <hur@p...> at hur@p... wrote:

> snip>

> > but what i often wander is...if the endless

> > preaching of " there's no you " is for the purpose that the seeker

> > shifts his/her identity and believes himself to be

> > <Consciousness/Truth>...so that the seeker can feel some sort of

> > relief from the burden of individual existence while hoping to

> > continue an eternally blissful individual existence.

>

> If the ACTION of identification is undermined by direct intuitive

> insight(not by the ego), then the identity or persona is not the one who

> feels relief, unless some part of this " persona " remains.

> The concept of " consciousness vs ego " is to be used as a tool as one concept

> is used to remove the other and as a thorn is used to remove another thorn

> both thorns are then disgarded.

>

>

> > existence and awareness of existence are fascinating for the ego and

> > it's also just as amazing how the smart ego will use skilful

> > arguments in search of eternal life.

> >

> > hur

>

> yes, very tricky...I like what Nome said about this:

>

> cee: i kept trying to figure out how " my " consciousness is the same as

> everyone elses, but, if the " my " dissolves, that is not really a question.

>

>

>

> nome: here's a funny thing. within the limitlessness of your own

> consciousness, where we really don't see a boundary or a size or shape,

> within that consciousness there appears as it were a wave an illusion of

> certain ideas. one of those ideas is " i " , some of those ideas make up what

> you commonly call a personality or a mind-- whatever seems to mark you off

> as a separate being.

>

> you are the consciousness and you have these ideas of a separate being, and

> then marvelously enough you imagine you stand as the separate being and

> refer to the consciousness as if it were your possession. isn't that a funny

> thing? that's very strange.

>

> first we set something apart from ourselves, then we step into it as if it

> were ourselves. and look back at ourselves, thinking that we are a stranger

> to ourselves. but none of that is true, none of that is actually happening.

> there is really no such thing as " my consciousness " or " your consciousness " .

> " mine " " your " etcetera, these are just ideas, and all ideas or thoughts are

> inert.

>

> the consciousness is the living part. now if you look right directly into

> your consciousness it doesn't have an " i " or a " you " or a " yours " or

> anything else like that.

>

> upstream of all thought, in your consciousness where you know nothing other,

> where you know no thing whatsoever,

>

> there is no illusion.

>

> from:

> http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html

>

>

> Namaste)))))Shawn

 

 

thank you both hur and Shawn, from

the above page:

 

nome:

pay attention to everything that is

changing for twenty four hours. if

you do that, you will become, without bringing in any kind of conceptual

knowledge, you will find yourself

becoming keenly aware of the awareness

or consciousness itself. you are not

going to be thinking about it-but it

will be obvious to you. obvious as you

you won't feel it separated from

yourself, you will be looking from it.

 

something casually referred to as " i "

will be changeless the whole time.

 

love, karta

[Guest guest]

Shawn,

 

Thanks for the link to this site - Shankara has once again taken a

bodily form.

 

Larry

>

> from:

> http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html

>

>

> Namaste)))))Shawn

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hur@p...> "

<hur@p...> wrote:

> despite the common experiences of ordinary people, there's a

> tremendous effort made by some nonduality teachers to change the

> perspective of the seeker to see a world without subjects and

objects

> but all verbs. for example when the seeker says, " i am in love with

a

> woman. " some gurus tell us that there's no " i " and " no other woman "

> but love itself. the guru will repeat over and over again

> that " there's no you, all there is...is <insert your version of

Truth

> or delusion here>. "

 

Hur,

For an individual that identifies self as individual ego - the

authentic experience is " I am a human being having human experiences.

Yesterday I was happy and had strawberry ice cream, today I am gloomy

and had chocolate ... " One can intellectualize the " I " away, but as

soon as the tummy rumbles, loins flare up, or someone approaches with

a knife - its off to the races again...

Any guru can help wear down the ego to a nub, but a compassionate

guru will give back something bigger - the Self. Or should I say, a

compassionate guru will show you the art of no longer play hide-and-

seek with Self.

 

>

> on the path to discover the " no you, " one of the methods used is to

> have the seeker ask questions such as " who am i " or " where am i? "

> when the seeker is unable to come up with a satisfactory answer,

the

> guru then suggests that there's no you...all there is...is <a

version

> of Truth or delusion>...therefore the conclusion is " i am that

> Truth. " the little ego clings on to this with the hope that maybe

> there is some type of eternity. as opposed to the dualistic

promises

> of eternity in the forms of heaven/hell and reincarnation,

nonduality

> in that sense presents itself as the promise of eternity on the

> impersonal level. this drug does not appeal to most people because

> eternal, impersonal existence does nothing for the little me.

>

> i'm not questioning anyone's experience of nondual awareness. i

won't

> even discount nondual awareness as another mental state, a sort of

> neurological glitch. but what i often wander is...if the endless

> preaching of " there's no you " is for the purpose that the seeker

> shifts his/her identity and believes himself to be

> <Consciousness/Truth>...so that the seeker can feel some sort of

> relief from the burden of individual existence while hoping to

> continue an eternally blissful individual existence.

>

> existence and awareness of existence are fascinating for the ego

and

> it's also just as amazing how the smart ego will use skilful

> arguments in search of eternal life.

 

The ego is very clever - hearing about nondual awareness it thinks " I

CAN live forever - this is all about ME. I CAN figure this out. " All

this while the ego is unwittingly lowering its head onto the

guillotine. Self Realization is simply a change in perspective, a

change from self as individual ego to Self as Unbounded Awareness.

Then, whether one keeps the notion of individual ego is more a

cultural or individual choice. " I am an unbounded spiritual being,

yet I (as dweller in the body) belly up to the counter and order my

favorite ice cream as always. " OR " I am an unbounded spiritual being,

and all action is service, all action is the will of another (God?). "

 

I suppose this as Nome suggested, erring on the side of the manifest

or erring on the side of the unmanifest.

 

Now, when one has realized the Fullness of Advaita, then All that is

known and perceived is Fullness, Oneness. Infinity in every

partition. " Everything is that Wholeness, and being there no inside

or outside, the Self then can not be located - the Self is found

nowhere. "

The " I " and even the unboundedness of Self are gone, there is No

Duality, there is no Self. Any ideas of I/Self/self/i can not be

sustained, like dancincing beads of water on a hot stove.

 

>

> hur

[Guest guest]

what nome says is pretty much the basic nonduality. what i am saying

is that, rather than deny a particular level of existence, why not

see all levels appearing in existence. what if there is " i "

or " my " ...or " my consciousness " ? it makes no difference. why spend

countless arguments disproving the personal level of existence which

is a common experience to ordinary people. obviously for most people

consciousness and the sense of self (the little i) rise at the same

time.

 

hur

 

Nisargadatta , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

 

> nome: ...the consciousness is the living part. now if you look

right directly into

> your consciousness it doesn't have an " i " or a " you " or a " yours " or

> anything else like that.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hur@p...> "

<hur@p...> wrote:

> what nome says is pretty much the basic nonduality. what i am

saying

> is that, rather than deny a particular level of existence, why not

> see all levels appearing in existence. what if there is " i "

> or " my " ...or " my consciousness " ? it makes no difference. why

spend

> countless arguments disproving the personal level of existence

which

> is a common experience to ordinary people. obviously for most

people

> consciousness and the sense of self (the little i) rise at the

same

> time.

 

Hur,

I agree with you - the sense of " i " is an authentic and natural

component to life. To attempt to argue or philosophize " i " away is

futile - it can not work. It only serves to bolster and flatter

the " i " by showering it with attention. It is a mistake to copy the

life and thoughts of a realized one if one is living in a

nonrealized state.

 

The only way to live the nonexistent Being is to get acquainted with

it, such as through meditation, and integration with outer activity.

In this case, one is adding Being naturally to one's life, instead

of trying to live a life of denial of " i " . Just be yourself.

 

Vedanta (Advaita), means the end of the Veda - that is , it is meant

for those who have removed much of the cobwebs in the mind, it is

meant for those deeply acquainted with Being. Those who employ

Advaita improperly will find it a failed get rich quick scheme.

[Guest guest]

on 2/5/03 5:09 PM, trem23 <inmadison at inmadison

wrote:

 

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hur@p...> "

> <hur@p...> wrote:

>> what nome says is pretty much the basic nonduality. what i am

> saying

>> is that, rather than deny a particular level of existence, why not

>> see all levels appearing in existence. what if there is " i "

>> or " my " ...or " my consciousness " ? it makes no difference. why

> spend

>> countless arguments disproving the personal level of existence

> which

>> is a common experience to ordinary people. obviously for most

> people

>> consciousness and the sense of self (the little i) rise at the

> same

>> time.

>

> Hur,

> I agree with you - the sense of " i " is an authentic and natural

> component to life. To attempt to argue or philosophize " i " away is

> futile - it can not work. It only serves to bolster and flatter

> the " i " by showering it with attention. It is a mistake to copy the

> life and thoughts of a realized one if one is living in a

> nonrealized state.

>

> The only way to live the nonexistent Being is to get acquainted with

> it, such as through meditation, and integration with outer activity.

***********************************

Hi guys,

 

" Getting acquainted " " through meditation is simply another way to

concentrate the mind and come to the silence.

 

> In this case, one is adding Being naturally to one's life, instead

> of trying to live a life of denial of " i " . Just be yourself.

 

 

One never adds anything, the being is always already the case.

No one is teaching denial. Observation is the activity in both dhyana

(meditation) and vichara (enquiry.) Who is teaching denial?

 

 

 

 

> Vedanta (Advaita), means the end of the Veda - that is , it is meant

> for those who have removed much of the cobwebs in the mind, it is

> meant for those deeply acquainted with Being. Those who employ

> Advaita improperly will find it a failed get rich quick scheme.

 

 

In the Sankrit language Advaita means " not two " and Vedanta means " the end

of knowledge " .  So one could say that Advaita Vedanta is the non-dual

experience at the end of knowledge, or beyond knowledge.

 

Om shanti my friends,

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> on 2/5/03 5:09 PM, trem23 <inmadison@h...> at inmadison@h...

> wrote:

>

> > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hur@p...> "

> > <hur@p...> wrote:

> >> what nome says is pretty much the basic nonduality. what i am

> > saying

> >> is that, rather than deny a particular level of existence, why

not

> >> see all levels appearing in existence. what if there is " i "

> >> or " my " ...or " my consciousness " ? it makes no difference. why

> > spend

> >> countless arguments disproving the personal level of existence

> > which

> >> is a common experience to ordinary people. obviously for most

> > people

> >> consciousness and the sense of self (the little i) rise at the

> > same

> >> time.

> >

> > Hur,

> > I agree with you - the sense of " i " is an authentic and natural

> > component to life. To attempt to argue or philosophize " i " away

is

> > futile - it can not work. It only serves to bolster and flatter

> > the " i " by showering it with attention. It is a mistake to copy

the

> > life and thoughts of a realized one if one is living in a

> > nonrealized state.

> >

> > The only way to live the nonexistent Being is to get acquainted

with

> > it, such as through meditation, and integration with outer

activity.

> ***********************************

> Hi guys,

>

> " Getting acquainted " " through meditation is simply another way to

> concentrate the mind and come to the silence.

>

> > In this case, one is adding Being naturally to one's life,

instead

> > of trying to live a life of denial of " i " . Just be yourself.

>

>

> One never adds anything, the being is always already the case.

> No one is teaching denial. Observation is the activity in both

dhyana

> (meditation) and vichara (enquiry.) Who is teaching denial?

>

 

Whether we say adding Being to one's life or " " being that is

already there is semantic use of words. PS I used " denial " because

that is how Hur phrased the question.

 

I would say that of all the conversations going on in the world,

between friends, lovers, lawyers, etc - - the one we had (having) - -

is more in tune with each other than most.

 

Yogastah Kuru karmani

" ? "

 

 

>

>

>

> > Vedanta (Advaita), means the end of the Veda - that is , it is

meant

> > for those who have removed much of the cobwebs in the mind, it is

> > meant for those deeply acquainted with Being. Those who employ

> > Advaita improperly will find it a failed get rich quick scheme.

>

>

> In the Sankrit language Advaita means " not two " and Vedanta

means " the end

> of knowledge " .  So one could say that Advaita Vedanta is the non-

dual

> experience at the end of knowledge, or beyond knowledge.

>

> Om shanti my friends,

>

> Shawn

[Guest guest]

on 2/7/03 5:44 PM, trem23 <inmadison at inmadison

wrote:

 

>

> Whether we say adding Being to one's life or " " being that is

> already there is semantic use of words. PS I used " denial " because

> that is how Hur phrased the question.

>

> I would say that of all the conversations going on in the world,

> between friends, lovers, lawyers, etc - - the one we had (having) - -

> is more in tune with each other than most.

>

> Yogastah Kuru karmani

> " ? "

 

Yes))))))))

If we can make peace within ourselves, then we will naturally make peace in

the world. To transcend the identification with thoughts and see them as

objects passing by and not as " mine " is the first step.

 

Namaste to you, whoever you are

 

?Shawn?

[Guest guest]

Shankara is a fool because of you.

-------

THAT

 

" trem23 <inmadison " <inmadison wrote:Shawn,

 

Thanks for the link to this site - Shankara has once again taken a

bodily form.

 

Larry

>

> from:

> http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html

>

>

> Namaste)))))Shawn