Guest guest Posted March 11, 2003 Report Share Posted March 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > From our own experience, our appreciation of what is 'real' is > different in different states of consciousness. There is a dramatic > difference in reality between waking and dreaming, and differences > from one day to the next, each moment to the next, and so on. > I am not referring to any philosophical construct of the world - but > our innocent appreciation or raw relationship with the non-self. " Our " and " non-self " ....please explain...who is our and who is the non-self? Does " our " mean the percieved " real " ....or is this just a typing practice? > So, we can speak of the different realities of dreaming, sleep and > waking; and in a less dramatic fashion, we can speak of the reality > of sadness, joy, and other human emotive or intellectual states. > Why should realities be different..if it is real it is...if it is not it ain't.More people I have found on the contrary,describe the " realities!! " of joy,sadness more dramatically. > Nisgardatta is speaking from a different major state of > consciousness, as different from waking state as from our waking > state is to our dream state. If you read his book more carefully you will find that he describes our waking and dream state as one....no differetiation between them. More so it would be very difficult..nay impossible for you to describe his level of conciousness/state/dimension/or whatever you may have... because you dont possibly share his world. He is describing the characteristics of > his knowledge, or appreciation of self/non-self. > Nisargatta ,correct me if I am wrong,is beyond knowledge (as is mentioned in his talks) he dosent dwell in knowledge, he is niether the known or the knower. > So Advaita, (Vendanta) is a major state of consciousness, not just a > hightened or lit-up waking state, and certainly not just a > philosophy - with completely different 'rules of engagement'. > Advaita(non-duality) is NOT a state of conciousness it is a concept to you and me...thats all..when we go beyond causation..whenever that is...we would dwell in the non-dual Brahman. The last stages of the " Vedas " (Knowledge) is called " vedanta " ( " anta " meaning the " END " ). Vedanta means the " END OF KNOWLEDGE " and from where the true inner journey begins and ends.It is the stage where you are beyond knowledge.( Read Kayvalya Upanishad to have a better idea before quoting). > Having a firm grasp of the material, having an intellectual > understanding of Avaita is of value, but acquiring the experience is So you think by having a " firm " so to say " grasp " you can have the " experience " .But what good is the " experience " as it is only the play of mind...should you and me not work to go beyond these??What for the experiences?? > what brings fulfillment. Some claim there is no path or anything > that needs to be done, other feel there is a path with things to do > or undo. Both are useful approaches. " Both are useful approaches " ....How do you know this Larry? Did you yourself walk on these,what you call paths, and find them out? Stop fooling yourself Larry and be concious and if possible try to be aware also while you type these non-sensical posts. Jade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2003 Report Share Posted March 11, 2003 > " Our " and " non-self " ....please explain...who is our and who is > the non-self? Does " our " mean the percieved " real " ....or is this > just a typing practice? In waking state (aka ignorance or bondage), there is no self or non- self. What we have is an ego that identifies with what it experiences. This knowledge of the object, whether we take it to be factual or conceptual, is thought-based. In this way, the ego is 'united' with the object, but at the expense of the Self. The Self is lost or evershadowed by experience. That is why we often feel like a leaf being blown around by the wind. We think we are somebody - but there is no real permanance offered by the ego. The term enlightenment has so much associated baggage - so I will use the term SelfRealization (SR). In SR, there is simply a change in perspective, one's identity is the Absolute. " I Am That " - - but this identity is not on the level of thinking - it is NOT THOUGHT BASED - but existence or being. (As one does not need to run into the bathroom to check one's sex.<grin>) In SR there is a Self and non- self - there is the Absolute Self and everything else**. On the surfacy content of life, one's life stays the same - - before SR I carried water and chopped firewood, after SR I carried water and chopped firewood. So who realizes the Self? Not the ego - the ego can not do this. In a sense, the Self stops playing hide-and-seek with itself, the Self curves back on itself. So how do we know if we have realized the Self? Many seekers think " I know I have realized the Self when I (fill in the blanks) " When I am more spiritual (whatever that means), more kind and gentle, be stronger, lose weight, stop getting angry . . . but these are all skills and attributes and are all thought-based and have nothing to do with SR. The true 'acid test' of SR is in deep sleep - because in sleep the ego is not-experiencing/evaluating and there is therefore no opportunity for delusion. **The Upanishads say " I Am That, Thou art That, All this is That , and That alone Is. " I am granting that one could experience SR as a sequence of these 4 statements - each closer to the Truth of Advaita or Vedanta which declares " That Alone Is " . In Vedant there is no longer Self/non-self - and when the Self alone is - there is no concept of Self at all. There is no inside or outside, there is no internalizing of experience - - everything that happens happens exactly where it happens. Larry > So, we can speak of the different realities of dreaming, sleep and > > waking; and in a less dramatic fashion, we can speak of the reality > > of sadness, joy, and other human emotive or intellectual states. > > > > > Why should realities be different..if it is real it is...if it is > not it ain't.More people I have found on the contrary,describe > the " realities!! " of joy,sadness more dramatically. > > > > > > Nisgardatta is speaking from a different major state of > > consciousness, as different from waking state as from our waking > > state is to our dream state. > > > If you read his book more carefully you will find that he describes > our waking and dream state as one....no differetiation between them. > More so it would be very difficult..nay impossible for you to > describe his level of conciousness/state/dimension/or whatever you > may have... because you dont possibly share his world. > > > > > > He is describing the characteristics of > > his knowledge, or appreciation of self/non-self. > > > > Nisargatta ,correct me if I am wrong,is beyond knowledge (as is > mentioned in his talks) he dosent dwell in knowledge, he is niether > the known or the knower. > So Advaita, (Vendanta) is a major state of consciousness, not just > a > > hightened or lit-up waking state, and certainly not just a > > philosophy - with completely different 'rules of engagement'. > > > > Advaita(non-duality) is NOT a state of conciousness it is a concept > to you and me...thats all..when we go beyond causation..whenever that > is...we would dwell in the non-dual Brahman. > > The last stages of the " Vedas " (Knowledge) is called " vedanta " ( " anta " > meaning the " END " ). Vedanta means the " END OF KNOWLEDGE " and from > where the true inner journey begins and ends.It is the stage where > you are beyond knowledge.( Read Kayvalya Upanishad to have a better > idea before quoting). > > > > > Having a firm grasp of the material, having an intellectual > > understanding of Avaita is of value, but acquiring the experience > is > > So you think by having a " firm " so to say " grasp " you can have > the " experience " .But what good is the " experience " as it is only the > play of mind...should you and me not work to go beyond these??What > for the experiences?? > > > > > what brings fulfillment. Some claim there is no path or anything > > that needs to be done, other feel there is a path with things to do > > or undo. Both are useful approaches. > > > " Both are useful approaches " ....How do you know this Larry? Did > you yourself walk on these,what you call paths, and find them out? > > Stop fooling yourself Larry and be concious and if possible try to be > aware also while you type these non-sensical posts. > > > Jade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2003 Report Share Posted March 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > " Our " and " non-self " ....please explain...who is our and who is > > the non-self? Does " our " mean the percieved " real " ....or is this > > just a typing practice? > > In waking state (aka ignorance or bondage), there is no self or non- > self. What we have is an ego that identifies with what it > experiences. This knowledge of the object, whether we take it to be > factual or conceptual, is thought-based. In this way, the ego > is 'united' with the object, but at the expense of the Self. The Self > is lost or evershadowed by experience. That is why we often feel > like a leaf being blown around by the wind. We think we are somebody - > but there is no real permanance offered by the ego. Yes,you seem to be right. > > The term enlightenment has so much associated baggage - so I will use > the term SelfRealization (SR). In SR, there is simply a change in > perspective, one's identity is the Absolute. " I Am That " - - but this > identity is not on the level of thinking - it is NOT THOUGHT BASED - > but existence or being. (As one does not need to run into the > bathroom to check one's sex.<grin>) Uh..why do you have to go to the bathroom to do that? In SR there is a Self and non- > self - there is the Absolute Self and everything else**. On the > surfacy content of life, one's life stays the same - - before SR I > carried water and chopped firewood, after SR I carried water and > chopped firewood. > Ditto, > So who realizes the Self? Not the ego - the ego can not do this. In > a sense, the Self stops playing hide-and-seek with itself, the Self > curves back on itself. > > So how do we know if we have realized the Self? Many seekers > think " I know I have realized the Self when I (fill in the blanks) " > When I am more spiritual (whatever that means), more kind and gentle, > be stronger, lose weight, stop getting angry . . . but these are all > skills and attributes and are all thought-based and have nothing to > do with SR. > I think you have a got a point here. > The true 'acid test' of SR is in deep sleep - because in sleep the > ego is not-experiencing/evaluating and there is therefore no > opportunity for delusion. The true acid test to my mind(read.. subjective & ignorant mind),is to be able to be concious of your deep sleep. > > **The Upanishads say " I Am That, Thou art That, All this is That , > and That alone Is. " I am granting that one could experience SR as a > sequence of these 4 statements - each closer to the Truth of Advaita > or Vedanta which declares " That Alone Is " . In Vedant there is no > longer Self/non-self - and when the Self alone is - there is no > concept of Self at all. There is no inside or outside, there is no > internalizing of experience - - everything that happens happens > exactly where it happens. > You appear to be right. Jade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can speak of the different realities of dreaming, sleep > and > > > waking; and in a less dramatic fashion, we can speak of the > reality > > > of sadness, joy, and other human emotive or intellectual states. > > > > > > > > > Why should realities be different..if it is real it is...if it is > > not it ain't.More people I have found on the contrary,describe > > the " realities!! " of joy,sadness more dramatically. > > > > > > > > > > > Nisgardatta is speaking from a different major state of > > > consciousness, as different from waking state as from our waking > > > state is to our dream state. > > > > > > If you read his book more carefully you will find that he > describes > > our waking and dream state as one....no differetiation between them. > > More so it would be very difficult..nay impossible for you to > > describe his level of conciousness/state/dimension/or whatever you > > may have... because you dont possibly share his world. > > > > > > > > > > > > He is describing the characteristics of > > > his knowledge, or appreciation of self/non-self. > > > > > > > Nisargatta ,correct me if I am wrong,is beyond knowledge (as is > > mentioned in his talks) he dosent dwell in knowledge, he is niether > > the known or the knower. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Advaita, (Vendanta) is a major state of consciousness, not > just > > a > > > hightened or lit-up waking state, and certainly not just a > > > philosophy - with completely different 'rules of engagement'. > > > > > > > Advaita(non-duality) is NOT a state of conciousness it is a concept > > to you and me...thats all..when we go beyond causation..whenever > that > > is...we would dwell in the non-dual Brahman. > > > > The last stages of the " Vedas " (Knowledge) is > called " vedanta " ( " anta " > > meaning the " END " ). Vedanta means the " END OF KNOWLEDGE " and from > > where the true inner journey begins and ends.It is the stage where > > you are beyond knowledge.( Read Kayvalya Upanishad to have a better > > idea before quoting). > > > > > > > > > Having a firm grasp of the material, having an intellectual > > > understanding of Avaita is of value, but acquiring the experience > > is > > > > So you think by having a " firm " so to say " grasp " you can have > > the " experience " .But what good is the " experience " as it is only > the > > play of mind...should you and me not work to go beyond these?? What > > for the experiences?? > > > > > > > > > what brings fulfillment. Some claim there is no path or anything > > > that needs to be done, other feel there is a path with things to > do > > > or undo. Both are useful approaches. > > > > > > " Both are useful approaches " ....How do you know this Larry? Did > > you yourself walk on these,what you call paths, and find them out? > > > > Stop fooling yourself Larry and be concious and if possible try to > be > > aware also while you type these non-sensical posts. > > > > > > Jade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 I appreciate that you agreed with me about much of below - but I must warn you that the mind will make sense out of anything <big grin>. I should also point out that much what I wrote is classical Indian Philosophy. I say that even while admitting that there is no such thing as a singular Indian thought. However, I think there is much commonality to what all the Masters are saying - and Nisargatta falls in line with them as well. However, thay have their subtle differences - and we select that one(s) whose phrases fancies our ego the most. Larry Nisargadatta , " jade_matrix999 " <intensivists@h...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > > " Our " and " non-self " ....please explain...who is our and who > is > > > the non-self? Does " our " mean the percieved " real " ....or is > this > > > just a typing practice? > > > > In waking state (aka ignorance or bondage), there is no self or non- > > self. What we have is an ego that identifies with what it > > experiences. This knowledge of the object, whether we take it to > be > > factual or conceptual, is thought-based. In this way, the ego > > is 'united' with the object, but at the expense of the Self. The > Self > > is lost or evershadowed by experience. That is why we often feel > > like a leaf being blown around by the wind. We think we are > somebody - > > but there is no real permanance offered by the ego. > > > > Yes,you seem to be right. > > > > > > The term enlightenment has so much associated baggage - so I will > use > > the term SelfRealization (SR). In SR, there is simply a change in > > perspective, one's identity is the Absolute. " I Am That " - - but > this > > identity is not on the level of thinking - it is NOT THOUGHT BASED - > > > but existence or being. (As one does not need to run into the > > bathroom to check one's sex.<grin>) > > > Uh..why do you have to go to the bathroom to do that? > > > > In SR there is a Self and non- > > self - there is the Absolute Self and everything else**. On the > > surfacy content of life, one's life stays the same - - before SR I > > carried water and chopped firewood, after SR I carried water and > > chopped firewood. > > > > > > Ditto, > > > > So who realizes the Self? Not the ego - the ego can not do this. > In > > a sense, the Self stops playing hide-and-seek with itself, the Self > > curves back on itself. > > > > So how do we know if we have realized the Self? Many seekers > > think " I know I have realized the Self when I (fill in the blanks) " > > When I am more spiritual (whatever that means), more kind and > gentle, > > be stronger, lose weight, stop getting angry . . . but these are > all > > skills and attributes and are all thought-based and have nothing to > > do with SR. > > > > > I think you have a got a point here. > > > > > > The true 'acid test' of SR is in deep sleep - because in sleep the > > ego is not-experiencing/evaluating and there is therefore no > > opportunity for delusion. > > > > The true acid test to my mind(read.. subjective & ignorant mind),is > to be able to be concious of your deep sleep. > > > > > > > **The Upanishads say " I Am That, Thou art That, All this is That , > > and That alone Is. " I am granting that one could experience SR as > a > > sequence of these 4 statements - each closer to the Truth of > Advaita > > or Vedanta which declares " That Alone Is " . In Vedant there is no > > longer Self/non-self - and when the Self alone is - there is no > > concept of Self at all. There is no inside or outside, there is no > > internalizing of experience - - everything that happens happens > > exactly where it happens. > > > > > You appear to be right. > > Jade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can speak of the different realities of dreaming, sleep > > and > > > > waking; and in a less dramatic fashion, we can speak of the > > reality > > > > of sadness, joy, and other human emotive or intellectual states. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should realities be different..if it is real it is...if it > is > > > not it ain't.More people I have found on the contrary,describe > > > the " realities!! " of joy,sadness more dramatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisgardatta is speaking from a different major state of > > > > consciousness, as different from waking state as from our > waking > > > > state is to our dream state. > > > > > > > > > If you read his book more carefully you will find that he > > describes > > > our waking and dream state as one....no differetiation between > them. > > > More so it would be very difficult..nay impossible for you to > > > describe his level of conciousness/state/dimension/or whatever > you > > > may have... because you dont possibly share his world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He is describing the characteristics of > > > > his knowledge, or appreciation of self/non-self. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargatta ,correct me if I am wrong,is beyond knowledge (as is > > > mentioned in his talks) he dosent dwell in knowledge, he is > niether > > > the known or the knower. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Advaita, (Vendanta) is a major state of consciousness, not > > just > > > a > > > > hightened or lit-up waking state, and certainly not just a > > > > philosophy - with completely different 'rules of engagement'. > > > > > > > > > > Advaita(non-duality) is NOT a state of conciousness it is a > concept > > > to you and me...thats all..when we go beyond causation..whenever > > that > > > is...we would dwell in the non-dual Brahman. > > > > > > The last stages of the " Vedas " (Knowledge) is > > called " vedanta " ( " anta " > > > meaning the " END " ). Vedanta means the " END OF KNOWLEDGE " and > from > > > where the true inner journey begins and ends.It is the stage > where > > > you are beyond knowledge.( Read Kayvalya Upanishad to have a > better > > > idea before quoting). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a firm grasp of the material, having an intellectual > > > > understanding of Avaita is of value, but acquiring the > experience > > > is > > > > > > So you think by having a " firm " so to say " grasp " you can have > > > the " experience " .But what good is the " experience " as it is only > > the > > > play of mind...should you and me not work to go beyond these?? > What > > > for the experiences?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > what brings fulfillment. Some claim there is no path or > anything > > > > that needs to be done, other feel there is a path with things > to > > do > > > > or undo. Both are useful approaches. > > > > > > > > > " Both are useful approaches " ....How do you know this Larry? > Did > > > you yourself walk on these,what you call paths, and find them out? > > > > > > Stop fooling yourself Larry and be concious and if possible try > to > > be > > > aware also while you type these non-sensical posts. > > > > > > > > > Jade. 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.