Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Courtesy of Joyce Short. Hi Mike, >Mike: The link at the end of my post > leads to Sankara's own refutation of that > view i.e. nothing but awareness. Joyce: Is this world-mistaken-for-a rope Sankara? Novice philosopher asking I tried your link but all that comes up is a gorgeous night-sky blue >Mike: the beginning - intentionality. Joyce: Important to note Mind habitually intends to intend everything, like a lizard on a rock catching flies. >Mike: Sankara > starts there in his Bhasya so it has to be > OK. Intentionality signifies the > aboutness of awareness or that > consciousness is consciousness of > something. Let's suppose instead of > dissolving that intuition dialectically we > accept that awareness posits the existence > of something external to the subject. > This pen in my hand, feel, texture, smell > of ink, now I see the clip but when I turn > the pen I can't etc., etc. Joyce: Isn't seeing the " object-out-there or in-there/here/somw " where " loss of awareness/ig-norance? (avvija) >Mike: Sankara asks > himself, how can that out there, the > object, come to be in here *as it is*. I > emphasise that because in advaita there is > no sense of phenomena, sense-data or any > of the manifestations of mediate realism. Joyce: Quoting from someone talking about Sankara " Shankara introducing his system of Advaita Vedanta suggested that the world was like a segment of rope mistaken for a snake. The rope is lying on the ground. Dusk has gathered and it is not easy to see clearly. An observer walking along the road mistakes the piece of rope for a poisonous cobra and takes fright. In this manner, says Shankara, the world and its suffering is perceived, when the reality is the pure Absolute (Brahmin) alone. The world is purely illusion (maya). When the illusion is seen for what it is, just as the snake becomes again the rope which it has always been, so too the world transforms back into Brahmin. By this means, Sankara posited nonduality (adwaita) " . BUT... Here is a Buddhist critique " This analogy overlooks the dichotomy established established by it, of an absolute illusion or existence (sat) versas non-existence (asat). " Then there is the comparison with Vasubhandu resolution of subject/object dichotomy occurring in a non-dualistic absolute. I could post for comparison if anyone is interested. What I'm reading says its a problem of " languaging " . A line to consider would be " The intrinsic nature of diversity is non dual. " And Shankara's " argument that elementary particles are actualized in terms of having various qualities, rather than quantities per se, is equally invalid, since 'difference' would still presuppose physical measurement in the final analysis. Shankara's supposed groupings of 'qualita-tive particles' are thought to combine in order to produce the gross 'atoms' and 'molecules' of material perception and yet, once again, the very singularity of the supposed ultimate building blocks of nature precludes their combination, since they combines they would have to possess 'parts'. A singularily is by definition partless and unitary. Then again, a comparison made between Vasubhandu's elephant analogy and rope and snake analogy. The logic of an ultimate atomism is that whatever is gross must have parts which have further parts and so on until we reach the 'elementary particle' which atomists believe is not made up of anything smaller and that cannot be subdivided. It is precisely this that cannot BE made intelligible " . [not capable of linguistic determination. As no word can convey the meaning of one-ness of singularity, or absolute individuality, it is necessarily beyond intelligent elaboration. I hear every now and then about " hinayanists " who believe in these particles and ultimate building blocks, must have been from one of the 18 early schools of Hinayana Buddhism. > Sankara goes after the notion of 'same' by > a use of the concept of upadhi. Please > remember that he emphatically rejects the > idea of self-luminous congnition after the > Buddhist fashion. Mind is jada/inert. > That little talked of concept of the > limiting adjunct or the upadhi comes into > play. The witness/saksin is pure > Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of > mind, the object is the same pure > Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of > the object. The same object becomes > That's a realistic view of Advaita with > massive elision. Yes pure Consciousness > is the ultimate ground of everything but > subject and object are real inflexions of > that pleroma and not collapsed into each > other in the relative plane itself as > Idealist thinkers propose. Joyce: Buddhist critique goes " The logic of the Cittamatrins is no different from the naive Vedantin analogy of snake and rope. When the world (the object) is seen to be mere Consciousness (the subject), then the world vanishes, they say, leaving Consciousness-only (citta matra). This implies, like Brahmin for the Vedantins, a permanent subject, which is an absolute 'self'(atman). And if Consciousness or God were the source and creator of this world of suffering, however illusory that world may be, then Consciousness or God would still stand responsible for all the world's ills. If " He " the Good God, or " one " such as Consciousness were responsible for what is obviously a painful, curel world, then how could " good " be ascribed to such an entity? Using Vasubhandu's analogy, the real existence of 'elephant' (or anything) is its nonexistence from the beginning. The spell which formed the hallucination is the Consciousness of the universal ground (alaya- vijnana) as the Cittamatrins say, but with the disappearance of the 'elephant (the world of suffering) there is a simultaneous collapse of that very Consciousness. Subject and object vanish together, and therefore the ontological subject/object dichotomy is resolved. It is as Sri Nisargadatta has said: " That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute " . With the full realization of the Absolute, both Consciousness and the World - both God (Brahmin) and Illusion (Maya) collapse into zero (sunya). " Brahmin is created out of your beingness, " says Maharaj. " All this Brahmin is illusion, ignorance. Your beingness (sattva caittanya, Consciousness) is ignorance only, from the Absolute standpoint. And, " The original state prior to Consciousnss cannot be described; one can only BE That. " When consciousness ends, the world ends: where consciousness and world are not, That is the Absolute. As Buddha Shakyamuni said, there is no permanent subject or creator. " The sum total of all this is illusion and nobody is responsible for creation - it has come spontaneously and there is no question of improvement in that - it will go on in its own way. In these teachings of the great Marathi saint we see the same precision of language and exposition that occurs in the writings of Arya- Vasubhandu and the early masters of Yogacara. " That-which-is " , the noumenal aspect of the Consciousness (sems/citta), is the unchanging non-conceptual Matrix of Mystery, since the totality of created Appearance cannot be other than always good. Joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Courtesy of Joyce Short. > > > > Hi Mike, > > >Mike: The link at the end of my post > > leads to Sankara's own refutation of that > > view i.e. nothing but awareness. > > Joyce: Is this world-mistaken-for-a rope Sankara? > Novice philosopher asking > > I tried your link but all that comes up is a gorgeous night-sky blue > > > >Mike: the beginning - intentionality. > > Joyce: Important to note > Mind habitually intends to intend everything, > like a lizard on a rock catching flies. > > >Mike: Sankara > > starts there in his Bhasya so it has to be > > OK. Intentionality signifies the > > aboutness of awareness or that > > consciousness is consciousness of > > something. Let's suppose instead of > > dissolving that intuition dialectically we > > accept that awareness posits the existence > > of something external to the subject. > > > This pen in my hand, feel, texture, smell > > of ink, now I see the clip but when I turn > > the pen I can't etc., etc. > > Joyce: Isn't seeing the " object-out-there > or in-there/here/somw " where " loss of awareness/ig-norance? (avvija) > > > >Mike: Sankara asks > > himself, how can that out there, the > > object, come to be in here *as it is*. I > > emphasise that because in advaita there is > > no sense of phenomena, sense-data or any > > of the manifestations of mediate realism. > > Joyce: Quoting from someone talking about Sankara > " Shankara introducing his system of Advaita Vedanta suggested that > the world > was like a segment of rope mistaken for a snake. The rope is lying on > the > ground. Dusk has gathered and it is not easy to see clearly. An > observer > walking along the road mistakes the piece of rope for a poisonous > cobra and > takes fright. In this manner, says Shankara, the world and its > suffering is > perceived, when the reality is the pure Absolute (Brahmin) alone. The > world > is purely illusion (maya). When the illusion is seen for what it is, > just > as the snake becomes again the rope which it has always been, so too > the > world transforms back into Brahmin. > > By this means, Sankara posited nonduality (adwaita) " . BUT... > > Here is a Buddhist critique > > " This analogy overlooks the dichotomy established established by it, > of an > absolute illusion or existence (sat) versas non-existence (asat). " > > Then there is the comparison with Vasubhandu resolution of > subject/object > dichotomy occurring in a non-dualistic absolute. I could post for > comparison if anyone is interested. What I'm reading says its a > problem of > " languaging " . A line to consider would be > > " The intrinsic nature of diversity is non dual. " > > And Shankara's " argument that elementary particles are actualized in > terms > of having various qualities, rather than quantities per se, is equally > invalid, since 'difference' would still presuppose physical > measurement in > the final analysis. Shankara's supposed groupings of 'qualita-tive > particles' are thought to combine in order to produce the > gross 'atoms' and > 'molecules' of material perception and yet, once again, the very > singularity > of the supposed ultimate building blocks of nature precludes their > combination, since they combines they would have to possess 'parts'. A > singularily is by definition partless and unitary. Then again, a > comparison > made between Vasubhandu's elephant analogy and rope and snake analogy. > > The logic of an ultimate atomism is that whatever is gross must have > parts > which have further parts and so on until we reach the 'elementary > particle' > which atomists believe is not made up of anything smaller and that > cannot be > subdivided. It is precisely this that cannot BE made intelligible " . > [not > capable of linguistic determination. As no word can convey the > meaning of > one-ness of singularity, or absolute individuality, it is necessarily > beyond > intelligent elaboration. > > I hear every now and then about " hinayanists " who believe > in these particles and ultimate building blocks, must have been from > one of > the 18 early schools of Hinayana Buddhism. > > > > > Sankara goes after the notion of 'same' by > > a use of the concept of upadhi. Please > > remember that he emphatically rejects the > > idea of self-luminous congnition after the > > Buddhist fashion. Mind is jada/inert. > > That little talked of concept of the > > limiting adjunct or the upadhi comes into > > play. The witness/saksin is pure > > Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of > > mind, the object is the same pure > > Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of > > the object. The same object becomes > > That's a realistic view of Advaita with > > massive elision. Yes pure Consciousness > > is the ultimate ground of everything but > > subject and object are real inflexions of > > that pleroma and not collapsed into each > > other in the relative plane itself as > > Idealist thinkers propose. > > Joyce: Buddhist critique goes > > " The logic of the Cittamatrins is no different from the naive Vedantin > analogy of snake and rope. When the world (the object) is seen to be > mere > Consciousness (the subject), then the world vanishes, they say, > leaving > Consciousness-only (citta matra). This implies, like Brahmin for the > Vedantins, a permanent subject, which is an absolute 'self'(atman). > And if > Consciousness or God were the source and creator of this world of > suffering, > however illusory that world may be, then Consciousness or God would > still > stand responsible for all the world's ills. If " He " the Good God, > or " one " > such as Consciousness were responsible for what is obviously a > painful, > curel world, then how could " good " be ascribed to such an entity? > > Using Vasubhandu's analogy, the real existence of 'elephant' (or > anything) > is its nonexistence from the beginning. The spell which formed the > hallucination is the Consciousness of the universal ground (alaya- > vijnana) > as the Cittamatrins say, but with the disappearance of the 'elephant > (the > world of suffering) there is a simultaneous collapse of that very > Consciousness. Subject and object vanish together, and therefore the > ontological subject/object dichotomy is resolved. > > It is as Sri Nisargadatta has said: > > " That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute " . With the full > realization of the Absolute, both Consciousness and the World - both > God > (Brahmin) and Illusion (Maya) collapse into zero (sunya). " Brahmin is > created out of your beingness, " says Maharaj. " All this Brahmin is > illusion, ignorance. Your beingness (sattva caittanya, Consciousness) > is > ignorance only, from the Absolute standpoint. > > And, " The original state prior to Consciousnss cannot be described; > one can > only BE That. " When consciousness ends, the world ends: where > consciousness > and world are not, That is the Absolute. As Buddha Shakyamuni said, > there > is no permanent subject or creator. " The sum total of all this is > illusion > and nobody is responsible for creation - it has come spontaneously > and there > is no question of improvement in that - it will go on in its own way. > In > these teachings of the great Marathi saint we see the same precision > of > language and exposition that occurs in the writings of Arya- > Vasubhandu and > the early masters of Yogacara. > > " That-which-is " , the noumenal aspect of the Consciousness > (sems/citta), is > the unchanging non-conceptual Matrix of Mystery, since the totality of > created Appearance cannot be other than always good. > > > Joyce Reality is made of one 'stuff'. We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. Something truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can have stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, such as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So stuff 'A' can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is one connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. P: Is that Right! I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, as usual. ) We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. Something > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can have > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, such > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So stuff 'A' > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is one > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > P: Is that Right! > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > as usual. ) Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) /AL > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > Something > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > have > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > such > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > stuff 'A' > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is > one > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Hi , " A student asks a guru : Dont we both live in the same objective world? The guru says, yes but you see yourself in the world and I see the world in myself. " After reading this exchange , I now firmly believe that everyworld view creates its own world! regards M anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > P: Is that Right! > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > as usual. ) Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) /AL > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > Something > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > have > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > such > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > stuff 'A' > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is > one > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > /AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > Hi , > " A student asks a guru : Dont we both live in the same objective world? The guru says, yes but you see yourself in the world and I see the world in myself. " > > After reading this exchange , I now firmly believe that everyworld view creates its own world! > regards > M The ego world is the firm belief that there is a me and other people. But what if this firm belief is a lie? The whole ego image will crumble to dust if there is no one else out there in the world, if the world is an entirely private world in the sense that you are the only one being conscious in the world. This idea is very, very spooky to the ego, yet the ego cannot dismiss the possibility that it may indeed be living in a private dream. But maybe this idea is not so spooky. If there never has been any past, then there has never been any you. " But " , the ego says, " I remember yesterday, and I remember being on vacation a month ago " . A memory happening now, is not the same as what you remember actually has happened in some past. It may be that there never has been any past, and if there never has been any past, then there never has been any you living in a private world or any you having lived in a world with other conscious people. " But, but " , the ego says, " I remember posting here yesterday, and my post is still here, I can read what I wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is _also_ only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example the geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you having done anything. /AL > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > > > P: Is that Right! > > > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > > as usual. ) > > Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the > only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > > Something > > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > > have > > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > > such > > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > > stuff 'A' > > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is > > one > > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Snip >I wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If > there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is _also_ > only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the > appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there > ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, > whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example the > geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year > ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and > only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you having > done anything. > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you believe, you you haven't done anything. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 hi, Havent you noticed that the enligtened players lets opposites (ego/nerves/mind) perform their dance... while fully engaging yourself you dont allow any outcome to damage who you are. The forces of nature will throw you around but the enligtened players will find a place to stand where ups and downs dont throw him around. Such a place can only be inside. when he finds this place then he gets off the rollercoaster of ego/nerves/mind's collective memories of the past and approach every now - clean /innocent/without burden.. other replies in caps below The ego world is the firm belief that there is a me and other people. THERE IS A ME AND OTHER PEOPLE, SURE BUT DONT NECESSARILY DO NOT = EGO WORLD. ITS JUST WORLD - AN AS IS WERE IS WORLD. THE ME HAS TO GET COMFORTABLE IN THIS EQUATION RECOGNISING THAT HE IS UNIQUE. But what if this firm belief is a lie? YOU KNOW VERY WELL IT ISNT A LIE SO WHY INDULGE IN THAT THOUGHT. The whole ego image will crumble to dust if there is no one else out there in the world, if the world is an entirely private world in the sense that you are the only one being conscious in the world. This idea is very, very spooky to the ego, yet the ego cannot dismiss the possibility that it may indeed be living in a private dream. But maybe this idea is not so spooky. If there never has been any past, then there has never been any you. WHO SAID THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PAST!!! ALL YOUR YESTERDAYS - EXPERIENCES / THOUGHTS MAKE YOU WHAT YOU ARE TODAY..WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY POINT OF ENTRY INTO LIFE IS THE " NOW " " But " , the ego says, " I remember yesterday, and I remember being on vacation a month ago " . I THINK I MESSAGED BEFORE EGO IS ALWAYS MESSAGING US OUR MEMORIES OF THE PAST. WE HAVE TO THROW THESE PRESSURES OF THE MIND / EGO / NERVES SO THE NOW CAN PLAY ITS TANGO. A memory happening now, is not the same as what you remember actually has happened in some past. It may be that there never has been any past, and if there never has been any past, then there never has been any you living in a private world or any you having lived in a world with other conscious people. " But, but " , the ego says, " I remember posting here yesterday, and my post is still here, I can read what I wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is _also_ only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example the geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you having done anything. :-) YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT IS A RAMBLING ACCOUNT OF PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE INDULGING IN THE SAME . I HOPE YOU ARE JUST INDULGING AND DONT BELIEVE THIS!!! /M /AL > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > > > P: Is that Right! > > > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > > as usual. ) > > Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the > only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > > Something > > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > > have > > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > > such > > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > > stuff 'A' > > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all is > > one > > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Snip > > >I wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If > > there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is > _also_ > > only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the > > appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there > > ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, > > whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example > the > > geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year > > ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and > > only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you > having > > done anything. > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you believe, you > you haven't done anything. ) The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie already made. Or not. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > hi, > > > Havent you noticed that the enligtened players lets opposites (ego/nerves/mind) perform their dance... while fully engaging yourself you dont allow any outcome to damage who you are. The forces of nature will throw you around but the enligtened players will find a place to stand where ups and downs dont throw him around. Such a place can only be inside. when he finds this place then he gets off the rollercoaster of ego/nerves/mind's collective memories of the past and approach every now - clean /innocent/without burden.. > other replies in caps below If all is one, and it _is_ one in the sense that at the most fundamental level of existence, all things are interconnected, then it would be possible to experience oneself as the world. Not as me and the world, but as the world. > > > The ego world is the firm belief that there is a me and other people. THERE IS A ME AND OTHER PEOPLE, SURE BUT DONT NECESSARILY DO NOT = EGO WORLD. ITS JUST WORLD - AN AS IS WERE IS WORLD. THE ME HAS TO GET COMFORTABLE IN THIS EQUATION RECOGNISING THAT HE IS UNIQUE. Yes, a person is unique, yet this uniqueness may only be because of a particular view. At the bottom it may be that we are the one and the same consciousness. > But what if this firm belief is a lie? YOU KNOW VERY WELL IT ISNT A LIE SO WHY INDULGE IN THAT THOUGHT. When I dream I am often also not alone. There are often other persons in my dream. When I wake up, there are other persons too. But how do I know that the world is not just a more elaborate dream than the dreams I have during sleep? :-) The whole ego image will > crumble to dust if there is no one else out there in the world, if > the world is an entirely private world in the sense that you are the > only one being conscious in the world. This idea is very, very spooky > to the ego, yet the ego cannot dismiss the possibility that it may > indeed be living in a private dream. > > But maybe this idea is not so spooky. If there never has been any > past, then there has never been any you. WHO SAID THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PAST!!! ALL YOUR YESTERDAYS - EXPERIENCES / THOUGHTS MAKE YOU WHAT YOU ARE TODAY..WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY POINT OF ENTRY INTO LIFE IS THE " NOW " I don't deny that there is a past. What I cannot confirm is that the past actually has happened or if the past is only a structure created now. If someone made a copy of your memories and plugged them into a self-aware robot, then that robot would believe it had done all the things you have done since your birth to present day. But the robot has not done what you have done. The robot only has your memories and _believes_ itself having done this and that. Similarly, our human memories and bodies and the world around us may be created in a snap, now! Poff! Instant 'creation' of everything that is now. 15 billion years created in zero seconds! > " But " , the ego says, " I > remember yesterday, and I remember being on vacation a month ago " . I THINK I MESSAGED BEFORE EGO IS ALWAYS MESSAGING US OUR MEMORIES OF THE PAST. WE HAVE TO THROW THESE PRESSURES OF THE MIND / EGO / NERVES SO THE NOW CAN PLAY ITS TANGO. I think it is beautiful to think of oneself as _being_ the now - all of it. A > memory happening now, is not the same as what you remember actually > has happened in some past. It may be that there never has been any > past, and if there never has been any past, then there never has been > any you living in a private world or any you having lived in a world > with other conscious people. " But, but " , the ego says, " I remember > posting here yesterday, and my post is still here, I can read what I > wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If > there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is _also_ > only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the > appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there > ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, > whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example the > geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year > ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and > only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you having > done anything. :-) YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT IS A RAMBLING ACCOUNT OF PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE INDULGING IN THE SAME . I HOPE YOU ARE JUST INDULGING AND DONT BELIEVE THIS!!! What if the now was born now, and now is the only 'thing' there is? Isn't that pretty cool? ;-) The now is born now and expands into infinity - now! /AL > > > /M > /AL > > > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > > > > > P: Is that Right! > > > > > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > > > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > > > as usual. ) > > > > Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the > > only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > > > Something > > > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > > > have > > > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > > > such > > > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > > > stuff 'A' > > > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all > is > > > one > > > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Snip > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you believe, you > > you haven't done anything. ) > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie already > made. Or not. :-) > > /AL Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot machine which results have been already programmed, but you, the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result is there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or not. Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. Nevertheles, this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( whether pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. The must important question in philosophy is not whether an idea is true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. After all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes he hears the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or not, the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what would be the consequences of believing all things are pre-ordained? If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he pleases, them it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you understand, that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel guilty, or proud about results. Then, is for the best. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Snip > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you believe, > you > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > already > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > /AL > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result is > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or not. > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. Nevertheles, > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( whether > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an idea is > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. After > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes he hears > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or not, > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre-ordained? > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he pleases, them > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you understand, > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel guilty, or > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > Pete Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a machine gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. Only a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even the psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the killing, why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the action of the Source. I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not do is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible is not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and there is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the movie is already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre-ordained is not in our control. However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh calls the state of a sage. So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by the Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by the Source. That is what Ramesh says. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > believe, > > you > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > > already > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > /AL > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result is > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or not. > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > Nevertheles, > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( whether > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an idea is > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. > After > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes he > hears > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or not, > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- ordained? > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he pleases, > them > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > understand, > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel guilty, or > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > Pete > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a machine > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your > programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. Only > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even the > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the killing, > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the > action of the Source. > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not do > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible is > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and there > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the movie is > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre-ordained is > not in our control. I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: http://www.advaita.org /AL > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh > calls the state of a sage. > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by the > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by the > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only what works for me, has any value. I offered it in case you find value in it too. If you don't, just disregard it. Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > believe, > > > you > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > > > already > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result is > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or > not. > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > Nevertheles, > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( whether > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an idea > is > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. > > After > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes he > > hears > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or > not, > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > ordained? > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he pleases, > > them > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > understand, > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel guilty, > or > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > Pete > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > machine > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. > Only > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even the > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > killing, > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the > > action of the Source. > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not do > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible > is > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > there > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the movie > is > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre-ordained is > > not in our control. > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > http://www.advaita.org > > /AL > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by the > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by > the > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 same here..No Ramesh lives my life, I do. cerosoul <Pedsie2 wrote: I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only what works for me, has any value. I offered it in case you find value in it too. If you don't, just disregard it. Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > believe, > > > you > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > > > already > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result is > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or > not. > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > Nevertheles, > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( whether > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an idea > is > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. > > After > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes he > > hears > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or > not, > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > ordained? > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he pleases, > > them > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > understand, > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel guilty, > or > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > Pete > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > machine > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. > Only > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even the > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > killing, > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the > > action of the Source. > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not do > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible > is > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > there > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the movie > is > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre-ordained is > > not in our control. > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > http://www.advaita.org > > /AL > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by the > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by > the > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > /AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 hey Al, there is a Prakash (just like ur Ramesh) that I know of :-))) who says .... small knowledge is very dangerous ..Also a lot of knowledge with no actual application is also crazy . This is what Prakash says. :-) ..oh and by the way I read Ramesh too..one quote what i wanted to pass on to u is this.. " If you but cease from useless conceptualizing, you will be what you are and what you have always been " . /M anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > hi, > > > Havent you noticed that the enligtened players lets opposites (ego/nerves/mind) perform their dance... while fully engaging yourself you dont allow any outcome to damage who you are. The forces of nature will throw you around but the enligtened players will find a place to stand where ups and downs dont throw him around. Such a place can only be inside. when he finds this place then he gets off the rollercoaster of ego/nerves/mind's collective memories of the past and approach every now - clean /innocent/without burden.. > other replies in caps below If all is one, and it _is_ one in the sense that at the most fundamental level of existence, all things are interconnected, then it would be possible to experience oneself as the world. Not as me and the world, but as the world. > > > The ego world is the firm belief that there is a me and other people. THERE IS A ME AND OTHER PEOPLE, SURE BUT DONT NECESSARILY DO NOT = EGO WORLD. ITS JUST WORLD - AN AS IS WERE IS WORLD. THE ME HAS TO GET COMFORTABLE IN THIS EQUATION RECOGNISING THAT HE IS UNIQUE. Yes, a person is unique, yet this uniqueness may only be because of a particular view. At the bottom it may be that we are the one and the same consciousness. > But what if this firm belief is a lie? YOU KNOW VERY WELL IT ISNT A LIE SO WHY INDULGE IN THAT THOUGHT. When I dream I am often also not alone. There are often other persons in my dream. When I wake up, there are other persons too. But how do I know that the world is not just a more elaborate dream than the dreams I have during sleep? :-) The whole ego image will > crumble to dust if there is no one else out there in the world, if > the world is an entirely private world in the sense that you are the > only one being conscious in the world. This idea is very, very spooky > to the ego, yet the ego cannot dismiss the possibility that it may > indeed be living in a private dream. > > But maybe this idea is not so spooky. If there never has been any > past, then there has never been any you. WHO SAID THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PAST!!! ALL YOUR YESTERDAYS - EXPERIENCES / THOUGHTS MAKE YOU WHAT YOU ARE TODAY..WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY POINT OF ENTRY INTO LIFE IS THE " NOW " I don't deny that there is a past. What I cannot confirm is that the past actually has happened or if the past is only a structure created now. If someone made a copy of your memories and plugged them into a self-aware robot, then that robot would believe it had done all the things you have done since your birth to present day. But the robot has not done what you have done. The robot only has your memories and _believes_ itself having done this and that. Similarly, our human memories and bodies and the world around us may be created in a snap, now! Poff! Instant 'creation' of everything that is now. 15 billion years created in zero seconds! > " But " , the ego says, " I > remember yesterday, and I remember being on vacation a month ago " . I THINK I MESSAGED BEFORE EGO IS ALWAYS MESSAGING US OUR MEMORIES OF THE PAST. WE HAVE TO THROW THESE PRESSURES OF THE MIND / EGO / NERVES SO THE NOW CAN PLAY ITS TANGO. I think it is beautiful to think of oneself as _being_ the now - all of it. A > memory happening now, is not the same as what you remember actually > has happened in some past. It may be that there never has been any > past, and if there never has been any past, then there never has been > any you living in a private world or any you having lived in a world > with other conscious people. " But, but " , the ego says, " I remember > posting here yesterday, and my post is still here, I can read what I > wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If > there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is _also_ > only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the > appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there > ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, > whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example the > geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year > ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and > only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you having > done anything. :-) YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT IS A RAMBLING ACCOUNT OF PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE INDULGING IN THE SAME . I HOPE YOU ARE JUST INDULGING AND DONT BELIEVE THIS!!! What if the now was born now, and now is the only 'thing' there is? Isn't that pretty cool? ;-) The now is born now and expands into infinity - now! /AL > > > /M > /AL > > > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > > > > > P: Is that Right! > > > > > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has substance. > > > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > > > as usual. ) > > > > Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is the > > only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > > > Something > > > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we can > > > have > > > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as a > > > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent entity, > > > such > > > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > > > stuff 'A' > > > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that all > is > > > one > > > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate things. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > disregard it. > Of course, you couldn't care less. You see? You have no choice in the matter. You are being *done* by the Source, including your 'couldn't care less'. ;-) /AL > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > > believe, > > > > you > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > > > > already > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result > is > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or > > not. > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > Nevertheles, > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > whether > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > idea > > is > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. > > > After > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes > he > > > hears > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or > > not, > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > ordained? > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > pleases, > > > them > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > understand, > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > guilty, > > or > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > machine > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. > > Only > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even > the > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > killing, > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not > do > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible > > is > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > > there > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > movie > > is > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- ordained > is > > > not in our control. > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by > the > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by > > the > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > same here..No Ramesh lives my life, I do. Ramesh says that there is no 'you', and he maybe knows this better than you do. You don't know that. ;-) /AL > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > disregard it. > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > > believe, > > > > you > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a movie > > > > already > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to obtain > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The result > is > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, or > > not. > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > Nevertheles, > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > whether > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > idea > > is > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if implemented. > > > After > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes > he > > > hears > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real or > > not, > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So what > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > ordained? > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > pleases, > > > them > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > understand, > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > guilty, > > or > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > machine > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: Your > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like that. > > Only > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even > the > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > killing, > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also the > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you not > do > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting responsible > > is > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > > there > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > movie > > is > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- ordained > is > > > not in our control. > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the understanding > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what Ramesh > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by > the > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined by > > the > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > hey Al, there is a Prakash (just like ur Ramesh) that I know of :- ))) who says ... small knowledge is very dangerous ..Also a lot of knowledge with no actual application is also crazy . This is what Prakash says. :-) ..oh and by the way I read Ramesh too..one quote what i wanted to pass on to u is this.. > " If you but cease from useless conceptualizing, you will be what you are and what you have always been " . > > > /M Knowledge is good. But knowledge is only a limited surface descrition of things, a map. The map is not the territory. I would say that to say what is useless conceptualizing and what is not is very difficult unless we see all conceptualizing as part of what is and could not be otherwise. /AL > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > hi, > > > > > > Havent you noticed that the enligtened players lets opposites > (ego/nerves/mind) perform their dance... while fully engaging > yourself you dont allow any outcome to damage who you are. The forces > of nature will throw you around but the enligtened players will find > a place to stand where ups and downs dont throw him around. Such a > place can only be inside. when he finds this place then he gets off > the rollercoaster of ego/nerves/mind's collective memories of the > past and approach every now - clean /innocent/without burden.. > > other replies in caps below > > If all is one, and it _is_ one in the sense that at the most > fundamental level of existence, all things are interconnected, then > it would be possible to experience oneself as the world. Not as me > and the world, but as the world. > > > > > > > The ego world is the firm belief that there is a me and other > people. THERE IS A ME AND OTHER PEOPLE, SURE BUT DONT NECESSARILY DO > NOT = EGO WORLD. ITS JUST WORLD - AN AS IS WERE IS WORLD. THE ME HAS > TO GET COMFORTABLE IN THIS EQUATION RECOGNISING THAT HE IS UNIQUE. > > Yes, a person is unique, yet this uniqueness may only be because of a > particular view. At the bottom it may be that we are the one and the > same consciousness. > > > But what if this firm belief is a lie? YOU KNOW VERY WELL IT ISNT A > LIE SO WHY INDULGE IN THAT THOUGHT. > > When I dream I am often also not alone. There are often other persons > in my dream. When I wake up, there are other persons too. But how do > I know that the world is not just a more elaborate dream than the > dreams I have during sleep? :-) > > The whole ego image will > > crumble to dust if there is no one else out there in the world, if > > the world is an entirely private world in the sense that you are > the > > only one being conscious in the world. This idea is very, very > spooky > > to the ego, yet the ego cannot dismiss the possibility that it may > > indeed be living in a private dream. > > > > But maybe this idea is not so spooky. If there never has been any > > past, then there has never been any you. WHO SAID THERE HAS NOT > BEEN ANY PAST!!! ALL YOUR YESTERDAYS - EXPERIENCES / THOUGHTS MAKE > YOU WHAT YOU ARE TODAY..WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY POINT OF ENTRY > INTO LIFE IS THE " NOW " > > I don't deny that there is a past. What I cannot confirm is that the > past actually has happened or if the past is only a structure created > now. If someone made a copy of your memories and plugged them into a > self-aware robot, then that robot would believe it had done all the > things you have done since your birth to present day. But the robot > has not done what you have done. The robot only has your memories and > _believes_ itself having done this and that. Similarly, our human > memories and bodies and the world around us may be created in a snap, > now! Poff! Instant 'creation' of everything that is now. 15 billion > years created in zero seconds! > > > " But " , the ego says, " I > > remember yesterday, and I remember being on vacation a month ago " . > I THINK I MESSAGED BEFORE EGO IS ALWAYS MESSAGING US OUR MEMORIES OF > THE PAST. WE HAVE TO THROW THESE PRESSURES OF THE MIND / EGO / NERVES > SO THE NOW CAN PLAY ITS TANGO. > > I think it is beautiful to think of oneself as _being_ the now - all > of it. > > A > > memory happening now, is not the same as what you remember actually > > has happened in some past. It may be that there never has been any > > past, and if there never has been any past, then there never has > been > > any you living in a private world or any you having lived in a > world > > with other conscious people. " But, but " , the ego says, " I remember > > posting here yesterday, and my post is still here, I can read what > I > > wrote yesterday, and I remember clearly what I wrote and why " . If > > there is no past, then material stuff, like posts on , is > _also_ > > only a memory and that memory is only now. The memory gives the > > appearance of a past, but we have no evidence to confirm that there > > ever was an _actual_ past. All we have is a memory of the past, > > whether it is in the form a thought or in the form of for example > the > > geological record. You may be proud over something you did a year > > ago, but did you really do it? What if the past is created now, and > > only now? Then there never has been any time line, and no you > having > > done anything. :-) YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT IS A RAMBLING ACCOUNT OF > PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE INDULGING IN THE > SAME . I HOPE YOU ARE JUST INDULGING AND DONT BELIEVE THIS!!! > > What if the now was born now, and now is the only 'thing' there is? > Isn't that pretty cool? ;-) The now is born now and expands into > infinity - now! > > /AL > > > > > > > /M > > /AL > > > > > anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > Reality is made of one 'stuff'. > > > > > > > > P: Is that Right! > > > > > > > > I don't think anyone mentioned, or implied reality has > substance. > > > > You just understood that, and are now arguing with yourself, > > > > as usual. ) > > > > > > Yes, and what I wrote indicates that argumenting with myself is > the > > > only thing I can do, because ultimately, there is no other. :-) > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot have both stuff 'A' as an > > > > > independent entity, and 'B' as another independent entity. > > > > Something > > > > > truly independent cannot be a part of reality. But maybe we > can > > > > have > > > > > stuff 'A' and stuff 'B' connected together with stuff 'C' as > a > > > > > connector? But since we cannot have a truly independent > entity, > > > > such > > > > > as stuff 'A', then stuff 'A' is dependent on stuff 'C'. So > > > > stuff 'A' > > > > > can only exist when we have stuff 'C'. In this we see that > all > > is > > > > one > > > > > connected wholeness, and it matters not what labels we put on > > > > > separate things, because there cannot be truly separate > things. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > same here..No Ramesh lives my life, I do. > > Ramesh says that there is no 'you', and he maybe knows this better > than you do. You don't know that. ;-) LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not to care. > > /AL > > > > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > > disregard it. > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > > > believe, > > > > > you > > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a > movie > > > > > already > > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to > obtain > > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The > result > > is > > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, > or > > > not. > > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > > Nevertheles, > > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > > whether > > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > > idea > > > is > > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if > implemented. > > > > After > > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes > > he > > > > hears > > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real > or > > > not, > > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So > what > > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > > ordained? > > > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > > pleases, > > > > them > > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > > understand, > > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > > guilty, > > > or > > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > > machine > > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: > Your > > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like > that. > > > Only > > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even > > the > > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > > killing, > > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also > the > > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you > not > > do > > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting > responsible > > > is > > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > > > there > > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > > movie > > > is > > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- > ordained > > is > > > > not in our control. > > > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the > understanding > > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what > Ramesh > > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by > > the > > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined > by > > > the > > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > > same here..No Ramesh lives my life, I do. > > > > Ramesh says that there is no 'you', and he maybe knows this better > > than you do. You don't know that. ;-) > > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not to > care. Hehe. Ramesh is nothing but a body/mind mechanism, as he describes all human beings including himself. A human being without the ego is nothing but (like) a programmed computer or a robot he says. It is the ego that makes a human human, so to speak, and the ego is a divine hypnosis: the ego is the idea of being a separate entity with its own will and volition. Enlightenment according to him is nothing but this idea vanishing in a person. I cannot say if Ramesh is right or wrong conceptually (he points out that what he says is only concepts, not the truth). /AL > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > > > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > > > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > > > disregard it. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if > you > > > > > believe, > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a > > movie > > > > > > already > > > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a > slot > > > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to > > obtain > > > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The > > result > > > is > > > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to > know, > > or > > > > not. > > > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > > > Nevertheles, > > > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > > > whether > > > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > > > idea > > > > is > > > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if > > implemented. > > > > > After > > > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman > believes > > > he > > > > > hears > > > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is > real > > or > > > > not, > > > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So > > what > > > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > > > ordained? > > > > > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > > > pleases, > > > > > them > > > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > > > understand, > > > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > > > guilty, > > > > or > > > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > > > machine > > > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: > > Your > > > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like > > that. > > > > Only > > > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And > even > > > the > > > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > > > killing, > > > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to > be > > > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also > > the > > > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you > > not > > > do > > > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting > > responsible > > > > is > > > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, > and > > > > there > > > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > > > movie > > > > is > > > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- > > ordained > > > is > > > > > not in our control. > > > > > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :- ) > > > > > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the > > understanding > > > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what > > Ramesh > > > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined > by > > > the > > > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined > > by > > > > the > > > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Absolutely..bingo!!! LOL cerosoul <Pedsie2 wrote: LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not to care. > > /AL > > > > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > > disregard it. > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if you > > > > believe, > > > > > you > > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a > movie > > > > > already > > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a slot > > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to > obtain > > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The > result > > is > > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to know, > or > > > not. > > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > > Nevertheles, > > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > > whether > > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > > idea > > > is > > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if > implemented. > > > > After > > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman believes > > he > > > > hears > > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is real > or > > > not, > > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So > what > > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > > ordained? > > > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > > pleases, > > > > them > > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > > understand, > > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > > guilty, > > > or > > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > > machine > > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: > Your > > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like > that. > > > Only > > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And even > > the > > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > > killing, > > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to be > > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also > the > > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you > not > > do > > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting > responsible > > > is > > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, and > > > there > > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > > movie > > > is > > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- > ordained > > is > > > > not in our control. > > > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :-) > > > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the > understanding > > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what > Ramesh > > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined by > > the > > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined > by > > > the > > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > Absolutely..bingo!!! LOL > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not to > care. What I find interesting about realization is the peace Ramesh talks about. But I admit that his teaching can be very frustrating: " What do you mean, I am not in control of anything? I don't believe that. I want to have at least some influence over my life. I don't want to be a robot or puppet with some mysterious force pulling all my strings and buttons " . But I think this becomes more acceptable when one looks at the mysterious force as no other than oneself, or oneSelf. /AL > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > I couldn't care less about what Ramesh says. Only > > > what works for me, has any value. I offered it in > > > case you find value in it too. If you don't, just > > > disregard it. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? Don't forget to flush the toilet, even if > you > > > > > believe, > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > you haven't done anything. ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The flushing or not is already complete. Life is like a > > movie > > > > > > already > > > > > > > made. Or not. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm! Good analogy, but not quite! I would say more like a > slot > > > > > > machine which results have been already programmed, but you, > > > > > > the player, need to insert a coin and pull the lever to > > obtain > > > > > > (know) the result. The key word hear is, 'knowing'. The > > result > > > is > > > > > > there whether you know it or not, but you must wish to > know, > > or > > > > not. > > > > > > Some may say, this wish is also already pre-determinated. > > > > > Nevertheles, > > > > > > this will to know, and pull the lever must be actualized ( > > > whether > > > > > > pre-ordained or not) for the knowing to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > The must important question in philosophy is not whether an > > > idea > > > > is > > > > > > true or not, but what consequences it will have if > > implemented. > > > > > After > > > > > > all, lies and falsehoods have consequences. A madman > believes > > > he > > > > > hears > > > > > > the voice of God ordering to kill, whether the voice is > real > > or > > > > not, > > > > > > the order will have terrible consequences if carry out. So > > what > > > > > > would be the consequences of believing all things are pre- > > > > ordained? > > > > > > > > > > > > If that believe leads someone to inertia, or to do as he > > > pleases, > > > > > them > > > > > > it' the wrong idea whether it'is true or not. But if you > > > > > understand, > > > > > > that you must act responsibly, and yet, not care or feel > > > guilty, > > > > or > > > > > > proud about results. Then, is for the best. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar has a good answer to this. If everything is > > > > > determined by the Source, what is to prevent me from taking a > > > > machine > > > > > gun and going out and killing twenty people? His answer is: > > Your > > > > > programming is what prevents you from doing something like > > that. > > > > Only > > > > > a psychopath is capable of doing something like that. And > even > > > the > > > > > psychopath is entitled to ask: It is the Source that did the > > > > killing, > > > > > why should I be punished? Ramesh answers: There is no you to > be > > > > > punished. The action is the action of the Source, and the > > > > > consequences (such as putting the person in prison) are also > > the > > > > > action of the Source. > > > > > > > > > > I have another similar explanation: What you do and what you > > not > > > do > > > > > is not up to you. So acting responsible or not acting > > responsible > > > > is > > > > > not something you do or have any control over, it happens, > and > > > > there > > > > > is nothing you can do about it to change the outcome. If the > > > movie > > > > is > > > > > already made, then all we are is a part of that movie. > > > > > > > > > > And even beleiving or not beleiving that things are pre- > > ordained > > > is > > > > > not in our control. > > > > > > > > I meant believing. I blame the Source for this misspelling. :- ) > > > > > > > > Here is a site with information about Ramesh Balsekar: > > > > > > > > http://www.advaita.org > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, Ramesh says that in a few individuals, the > > understanding > > > > > that there is no doer is realized, and that state is what > > Ramesh > > > > > calls the state of a sage. > > > > > > > > > > So whatever you do, *whatever* you do, is already determined > by > > > the > > > > > Source. And whatever anyone does is of course also determined > > by > > > > the > > > > > Source. That is what Ramesh says. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > > > Absolutely..bingo!!! LOL > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not > to > > care. > > What I find interesting about realization is the peace Ramesh talks > about. But I admit that his teaching can be very frustrating: " What > do you mean, I am not in control of anything? I don't believe that. I > want to have at least some influence over my life. I don't want to be > a robot or puppet with some mysterious force pulling all my strings > and buttons " . But I think this becomes more acceptable when one > looks at the mysterious force as no other than oneself, or oneSelf. > > /AL P: Now, this wanting to have some influence, did you decide to have that want? Did you will it? Did it not appear spontaneously? When the wish to have some potato sausages come, did you will that? When the thought appears, no I will have pickle herrings instead. Did you will that? No it all bubbles up unbidden. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > > > > > > Absolutely..bingo!!! LOL > > > cerosoul <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not > > to > > > care. > > > > What I find interesting about realization is the peace Ramesh talks > > about. But I admit that his teaching can be very frustrating: " What > > do you mean, I am not in control of anything? I don't believe that. > I > > want to have at least some influence over my life. I don't want to > be > > a robot or puppet with some mysterious force pulling all my strings > > and buttons " . But I think this becomes more acceptable when one > > looks at the mysterious force as no other than oneself, or oneSelf. > > > > /AL > > P: Now, this wanting to have some influence, did you decide to have > that want? Did you will it? Did it not appear spontaneously? When > the wish to have some potato sausages come, did you will that? When > the thought appears, no I will have pickle herrings instead. Did you > will that? No it all bubbles up unbidden. > > Pete If I want to have a beer, then it is me who wants the beer, and where the wanting is coming from is from reality itself. Then perhaps a new want may arise that says that I should not drink so much beer, that I must have a glass of water instead. And then there is a conflict between several wants. But this conflict is also a kind of regulating factor so that there is some balance between wants. I cannot say that I myself is the source of my wants; they arise depending on the situation and my past conditioning. /AL 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.