Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? Obviously not, since these words have appeared. The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like Venus from the sea. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? > Obviously not, since these words have appeared. > The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of > knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of > knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing > is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And > Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness > the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, > as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, > in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. > > To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, > sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always > there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. > So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? > Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears > clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like > Venus from the sea. > > Pete The thinking mind believs that 'nothing' actually is a possible state or reality, but is it? In deep dreamless sleep we felt like nothing, we say. But what is that dreamless sleep other than as a memory experienced now? Is a memory nothing? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? > Obviously not, since these words have appeared. > The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of > knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of > knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing > is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And > Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness > the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, > as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, > in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. > > To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, > sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always > there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. > So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? > Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears > clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like > Venus from the sea. > > Pete ************************************* :0) P.S. Is it possible Hur for us, or me, to be on line. For now I wrote few posting and I don't see them as I did previously. I wrote to Pete and said things to him before he writes this one here above. That means that what I said Doesn't necessarly apply after what he just said. Now I see you better my Pete friend! :0) Thanks Hur, Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > > can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > > we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? > > Obviously not, since these words have appeared. > > The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of > > knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of > > knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing > > is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And > > Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness > > the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, > > as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, > > in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. > > > > To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, > > sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always > > there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. > > So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? > > Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears > > clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like > > Venus from the sea. > > > > Pete > > >Al: The thinking mind believs that 'nothing' actually is a possible state > or reality, but is it? In deep dreamless sleep we felt like nothing, > we say. But what is that dreamless sleep other than as a memory > experienced now? P:You think dreamless sleep is a memory, but there is no memory of such state, what you remember is the instant consciousness faded. AL: Is a memory nothing? You know memory is an imperfect re-prensentation. A poor imitation of phenomenality. Only what has qualities, properties can be re- presented. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > > > can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > > > we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? > > > Obviously not, since these words have appeared. > > > The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of > > > knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of > > > knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing > > > is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And > > > Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness > > > the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, > > > as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, > > > in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. > > > > > > To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, > > > sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always > > > there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. > > > So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? > > > Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears > > > clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like > > > Venus from the sea. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > >Al: The thinking mind believs that 'nothing' actually is a possible > state > > or reality, but is it? In deep dreamless sleep we felt like > nothing, > > we say. But what is that dreamless sleep other than as a memory > > experienced now? > > P:You think dreamless sleep is a memory, but there is no memory > of such state, what you remember is the instant consciousness > faded. No. What I rememember is a _memory_ of consciousness fading. Consciousness may never have faded. The past? What past?! The past is also memory. Do you remember what you had for dinner 400 days ago? If not, then would you say that you ate 'nothing' that day? I myself ate nothing 400 days ago, because 400 days ago is now. :-) Jesus Christ said (or says now, because there is only now :-) that " I am before Abraham was born " or something like that. There is only now. Or, as Tony Parsons says: " No one has ever bought any shoes " . > AL: Is a memory nothing? > > You know memory is an imperfect re-prensentation. A poor imitation > of phenomenality. Only what has qualities, properties can be re- > presented. > > So you do admit that there never has been a past, that there never will be a past and that the past is only now? :-) What qualities has the past? I have always been thinking of 'nothing' as a polar opposite of 'everything'. But recently I had some sort of insight into, a form of seeing what 'no thing'-ness is. Only in an intellectual way, but still a very different idea than that of 'things'. A thing exists within a context. 'Everything' is both all things _and_ the context. 'Nothing' is a word. Just a word. A word is not nothing. 'No thing' is for me a very different concept than 'nothing'. A month ago I didn't even have the concept 'no thing' in my mind. Sure, I had heard of masters talking about no-thing-ness and such, but such concepts were still 'things' in my mind. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 > P:You think dreamless sleep is a memory, but there is no memory > of such state, what you remember is the instant consciousness > faded. > AL: Is a memory nothing? > > You know memory is an imperfect re-prensentation. A poor imitation > of phenomenality. Only what has qualities, properties can be re- > presented. (t) The entity's totality....is composed solely of memory.......It evolves...and revolves within a pseudo world...of mis-information...... No " thing " ......can be represented....No " thing " exists as a distinct...entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > > > > can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > > > > we are? Do they mean, there is no existence? > > > > Obviously not, since these words have appeared. > > > > The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of > > > > knowingness, as in deep sleep. In this lack of > > > > knowing, neither `self' nor `other' appears, not a thing > > > > is there to be seen, complete, unexcelled absence. And > > > > Yet, it is also beingness. And in this empty beingness > > > > the knowingness reappears as the dream state, and then, > > > > as the waking state. This nothing/being is always there, > > > > in life, as it is in death. Always, albeit unnoticed. > > > > > > > > To the sage the nothingness is always a presence, > > > > sometimes looming, sometimes discreet, but always > > > > there. For the sage that nothing, is true self. > > > > So what's the difference between deep sleep and death? > > > > Only this, from deep sleep the knowingness reappears > > > > clothed in memories; from death it issues naked like > > > > Venus from the sea. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > >Al: The thinking mind believs that 'nothing' actually is a > possible > > state > > > or reality, but is it? In deep dreamless sleep we felt like > > nothing, > > > we say. But what is that dreamless sleep other than as a memory > > > experienced now? > > > > P:You think dreamless sleep is a memory, but there is no memory > > of such state, what you remember is the instant consciousness > > faded. > > No. What I rememember is a _memory_ of consciousness fading. > Consciousness may never have faded. The past? What past?! The past is > also memory. Do you remember what you had for dinner 400 days ago? If > not, then would you say that you ate 'nothing' that day? > > I myself ate nothing 400 days ago, because 400 days ago is now. :-) > Jesus Christ said (or says now, because there is only now :-) that " I > am before Abraham was born " or something like that. There is only > now. Or, as Tony Parsons says: " No one has ever bought any shoes " . > > > AL: Is a memory nothing? > > > > You know memory is an imperfect re-prensentation. A poor imitation > > of phenomenality. Only what has qualities, properties can be re- > > presented. > > > > > So you do admit that there never has been a past, that there never > will be a past and that the past is only now? :-) What qualities has > the past? P:What? Are you Yogi Berra? I know, you don't know who he is, but he is an ex-baseball player, who says funny contradictory statements. Like " the future ain't what it used to be " . I don't know why you get so confused about certain words. Maybe, if I give you a new word for the past, you will see it in a new light. There is only the " cummulative now. " It's the magic trick of change, things change but don't disappear, they are here and now with new forms in this cummulative now, which is like a snow ball rolling downhill. Past exists only as a memory, future exists only as daydream and anticipation. > > Al:I have always been thinking of 'nothing' as a polar opposite > of 'everything'. But recently I had some sort of insight into, a form > of seeing what 'no thing'-ness is. Only in an intellectual way, but > still a very different idea than that of 'things'. A thing exists > within a context. 'Everything' is both all things _and_ the > context. 'Nothing' is a word. Just a word. A word is not nothing. 'No > thing' is for me a very different concept than 'nothing'. A month ago > I didn't even have the concept 'no thing' in my mind. Sure, I had > heard of masters talking about no-thing-ness and such, but such > concepts were still 'things' in my mind. P: Nothingness is identical with total unknowing. What is, is a fullness only partially, and temporerally revealed by knowingness. Example, the microscopic world was unknown in the 18th century. Pete > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Do you remember what you had for dinner 400 days ago? If > not, then would you say that you ate 'nothing' that day? > > I myself ate nothing 400 days ago, because 400 days ago is now. :- Alberto, :0) > Jesus Christ said (or says now, because there is only now :-) that " I > am before Abraham was born " or something like that. There is only > now. Or, as Tony Parsons says: " No one has ever bought any shoes " . Alberto: Told you Pete Jesus is not that stupid! > > AL: Is a memory nothing? > > > > You know memory is an imperfect re-prensentation. A poor imitation > > of phenomenality. Only what has qualities, properties can be re- > > presented. > > > > > So you do admit that there never has been a past, that there never > will be a past and that the past is only now? :-) What qualities has > the past? Alberto: Huge smile! :0) > I have always been thinking of 'nothing' as a polar opposite > of 'everything'. But recently I had some sort of insight into, a form > of seeing what 'no thing'-ness is. Only in an intellectual way, but > still a very different idea than that of 'things'. A thing exists > within a context. 'Everything' is both all things _and_ the > context. 'Nothing' is a word. Just a word. A word is not nothing. 'No > thing' is for me a very different concept than 'nothing'. A month ago > I didn't even have the concept 'no thing' in my mind. Sure, I had > heard of masters talking about no-thing-ness and such, but such > concepts were still 'things' in my mind. > > /AL I agree with you Al, The past exist only because you give him the power to be with the present, the future doesn't have existance by it self. Only when we get there in the present, the future " is " . There is only the present or the " presence " . The no-thing-ness. Only he can give life to all. Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > .... > > P: Nothingness is identical with total unknowing. What is, is a > fullness only partially, and temporerally revealed by knowingness. > Example, the microscopic world was unknown in the 18th century. > > Pete > Yes. I think that is a good description. When 'no thing' is cut up in bits and pieces then knowledge appear, and only when the unlimited is limited (fullness looked at partially) can there be knowledge of something. Fullness, or 'no thing' can never be known in the ordinary form of subject-object relationship. Nothingness is true fullness and is a state of total unknowing from which the world of form, including what we normally call knowledge, appear. We can think of nothingness as a computer screen that is empty. Every pixel on that screen is blank. This means that no pixel has any particular colour. Each pixel has a potential for taking on, producing any color. So the blank pixels are not empty, they are rather in a state of 'no colour'. Such screen will not contain any picture. It would be tempting to say that the screen has no picture on it, but it could also be said that the screen contains all possible pictures there is at the same time. So, we can then say that although there is no picture on the screen, that it has the potential for displaying any picture because in a way it contains all pictures. So the empty screen, this nothingness, is in fact true fullness. Each pixel is in a probability state. And just like in quantum physics, at any given moment when we look at the screen, each pixel's probability function collapses into a defined state, i.e. produces a certain colour. When all the pixels on the screen are collapsed in such way we get a unique picture on the screen. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > .... > > I agree with you Al, > > The past exist only because you give him the power to be with the > present, the future doesn't have existance by it self. Only when we > get there in the present, the future " is " . There is only the present > or the " presence " . The no-thing-ness. Only he can give life to all. > > Alberto, Hi Alberto, Yes, the nowness. But I have only an intellectual understanding of presence. Many masters talk about living in the presence of now without past and future (other than as tools when needed). For me I am constantly anxious about the future, and in a way that is silly. What future? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: >That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people >can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, >we are? Hi Pete. What are you talking about? Which sage ever said something like this? The " nothing " you are talking about is the " nothing " the mind is making up. The mind knows " nothing " only as opposed to " something " . Therefor: when somebody says " we are nothing " it is an absurd statement. It simply means he is lying. Because he could not say something if he were nothing. It is rightly so that most people cant accept this statement. You are misunderstanding the masters. You are using their Vedanta terminology from the point of your own dualistic thinking. But when someone talks from the authority of Vedanta we get a totally different picture. Because now we have no more pairs of opposites. That what is called nothing can as well be called something. Maharshi calls it Sat-Chit-Anand: BEING... CONSCOUSNESS... BLISS... >Do they mean, there is no existence? >Obviously not, since these words have appeared. >The nothing, sages point at, is a complete lack of >knowingness, as in deep sleep. From where did you get this crazy idea? If it was so, why is it worth to talk about it at all, to make an email list about it and publish hundreds of books? Holy confusion - opa! - But you seem to like Maharaj, so I let him speak again, o.k? He calls Enlightenment the " fourth state " , because what we experience are the three states of 1.deep sleep 2.dream state 3.waking state The forth state differs from those states, here he says how: " what is this fourth state? It is knowledge that does not particularise anything. It is also NOT without awareness of itself as awareness. The fourth state is that Knowing which is not conscious of any other as object, but also NOT UNCONSCIOUS OF ITSELF. He who realizes it even for a trice, realizes TRUTH. YOU are that only. " What do you say now? Does this sound like deep sleep to you? Not to me... I am speechless... And he was THERE when he said this, do you see? If the forth state would be the same as deep sleep... lets go sleep and take sleeping pills that we can sleep as long as possible. That would be the best way to be " spiritual " in ths case... haha! all the best Stefan-Achileas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 > > Hi Alberto, > > Yes, the nowness. But I have only an intellectual understanding of > presence. Many masters talk about living in the presence of now > without past and future (other than as tools when needed). For me I > am constantly anxious about the future, and in a way that is silly. > What future? > > /AL ********************************* Hi Al, I liked what you just said. Nowness. Yes. I like that! Ok, Al, your toughts are very useful when it comes to grasp Reality or God or life. You need your toughts to start the process. If you want to grab a glass of water, you need your hand! No? You are not the hand! You see! You are not the toughts also. But this you might not have experienced this at your level. If you mistake the level you are in with someone else level lets say Master Ramana. You will never be able to evolve in your understanding. Because you already " think " you are there. You cannot think the process. the process is about transformation, is about true growth. No fake possible! In the Way you can act as if, to look good in the eyes of others, and this is the biggest mistake of many spiritual seekers. They read a book and next day the say they understood. The are awaken!! :0) Unfortunatly this is not the case. Knowing where you are, what you truly understand etc. from there you can evolve, begin or continue your understanding. You said above that you understand the presence only intellectualy, That is a lot to start with. Observe your understandind, observe it closely, meditate in your toughts. meditate in silence. See your toughts and breath. :0) This is the first step. How can you stop thinking if you can't see that you are thinking all the time!!! Alberto, P.S. You cannot think love. You can fall in love. You cannot think Self Realisation, you can be Self-Realised or God-Realised! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alberto, > > > > Yes, the nowness. But I have only an intellectual understanding of > > presence. Many masters talk about living in the presence of now > > without past and future (other than as tools when needed). For me > I > > am constantly anxious about the future, and in a way that is > silly. > > What future? > > > > /AL > > ********************************* > > Hi Al, > I liked what you just said. Nowness. Yes. I like that! > Ok, Al, your toughts are very useful when it comes to grasp Reality > or God or life. You need your toughts to start the process. If you > want to grab a glass of water, you need your hand! No? You are not > the hand! You see! You are not the toughts also. But this you might > not have experienced this at your level. If you mistake the level > you are in with someone else level lets say Master Ramana. You will > never be able to evolve in your understanding. Because you > already " think " you are there. You cannot think the process. the > process is about transformation, is about true growth. No fake > possible! In the Way you can act as if, to look good in the eyes of > others, and this is the biggest mistake of many spiritual seekers. > They read a book and next day the say they understood. The are > awaken!! :0) Unfortunatly this is not the case. > > Knowing where you are, what you truly understand etc. from there you > can evolve, begin or continue your understanding. > > You said above that you understand the presence only intellectualy, > That is a lot to start with. Observe your understandind, observe it > closely, meditate in your toughts. meditate in silence. See your > toughts and breath. :0) This is the first step. How can you stop > thinking if you can't see that you are thinking all the time!!! > > Alberto, > > P.S. You cannot think love. You can fall in love. > You cannot think Self Realisation, you can be Self-Realised or > God-Realised! True. And how can we know the future as an abstraction when we take it as being something solid? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: >Knowing where you are, what you truly understand etc. from there you >can evolve, begin or continue your understanding. So true, Alberto! What sense does it make to post here? We have to open up our hearts and be honest. Only when we expose our weakness the weakness can become power! Bravo Anders, you made the first step. I have listened to the masters, I have understood a lot and I have understood even more from my heart. I have gone a long road and it was often rocky and bumpy but I have also got those glimpses. But still: what do I know? Still I am the stubborn guy looking for the exit on the wrong spot, obviously!! Haha... so crazy... what can I do... maybe I dont want to go out yet... maybe its not so cozy out there...?? I mean, lets face it: we are sitting in this room discussing how it is outside and discussing how we can find the way out. Some even say there is no way out. Using borrowed second hand knowledge. And if somebody says " the door is open " , or " you are sitting already outside " ... we ignore him and instead of having a look... we prefer to chitchat about: Nothingness... Hahahaha!!!! Thats all too much for me sometimes... S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > >That `we' are nothing, is a statement most people > >can't accept. But what is this nothing, sages say, > >we are? > > Hi Pete. > > What are you talking about? Which sage ever said something like this? Hi Stephan, P: Nisargadatta said that, Stephan. Read his statement below, it was posted under the title " The meaning of all this. " " That state cannot be witnessed by you... only what is other than you can be witnessed by you. Still, in that state of no-knowingness, without eyes, you must abide. This is real liberation: to know that you are nothing. " To understand Maharaj's words people need to understand that almost all which has been published about his words were answers he gave to different seekers. To one who was not ready to understand the above statement, he will talk about staying with the " I am " or even to do just bhajans, or repeat a mantra. To others he will say you don't belong here, go somewhere else. I think he will have said that to you. I think you would enjoy Harsha's list, or sufimystic list much better. Those are lists for people that are at the bhakti stage like you seem to be. Here, you will read things you are not ready to accept. Let's face it, you are seeking immortality, spiritual drama and glorification. It's even evident in the way you sign Stephan-Achileas. Do you see yourself as a Homeric Hero? ) > > From where did you get this crazy idea? If it was so, why is it worth > to talk about it at all, to make an email list about it and publish > hundreds of books? Holy confusion - opa! - But you seem to like > Maharaj, so I let him speak again, o.k? > > He calls Enlightenment the " fourth state " , because what we experience > are the three states of > > 1.deep sleep > 2.dream state > 3.waking state > > The forth state differs from those states, here he says how: > > " what is this fourth state? It is knowledge that does not > particularise anything. It is also NOT without awareness of itself as > awareness. The fourth state is that Knowing which is not conscious of > any other as object, but also NOT UNCONSCIOUS OF ITSELF. He who > realizes it even for a trice, realizes TRUTH. YOU are that only. " > > What do you say now? Does this sound like deep sleep to you? Not to > me... I am speechless... And he was THERE when he said this, do you > see? P:Yes, I see. I see he was talking about enlightenment. He has also said, that enlightenment is there as long as the body is there. The absolute is beyond consciousness, beyond enlightenment, beyond any knowing. Here are his words again: " All experiences are due to memories and are merely movements in consciousness and therefore they cannot last. Happiness and unhappiness come and go. If you have a correct perspective, the world is still going with a sense of quietitude. Nature has the institution of death. If death did not exist, there would be an unbearable accumulation of memories. People come and go, the memories are wiped out, therefore there is a sense of balance. " So even if enlightenment is achieved those memories of enlightenment will vanish with death. " I, as the Absolute, don't know myself " . He has said that. Sorry, Achileas, there is nothing you can take with you. Best, Pete > > all the best > Stefan-Achileas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 > > To understand Maharaj's words people need to understand that almost > all which has been published about his words were answers he gave to different seekers. To one who was not ready to understand the > above statement, he will talk about staying with the " I am " or > even to do just bhajans, or repeat a mantra.>> Pete :0) The Zen stick again hein! You are so right about what you said above here! I've red that once Muktananda a spiritual Master when asked by a young teenager how he could realise God. The answer was: go play soccer, Go play a game something! Go have fun! That answer was only for that young teenager! And that answer is true. Can you imagine that young boy repeating mantras, poor boy!! Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: >Hi Stephan, > >P: Nisargadatta said that, Stephan. Read his statement below, it was >posted under the title " The meaning of all this. " Please, Pete!!!! I have read that statement and I have answered it and have tried to convey to you why I think that you are misunderstanding it!!! Maharaj talkes about Nothingness of Vedanta, you talk about Nothingness (dualistic) as opposed to Something. You did not contradict my correction until now... I have to assume you remain quiet because you have nothing to contradict. Instead you start to become... quite... personal. I do accept that you have your own truth. But I will not stop to tell you MY truth, and I feel very close to Nisargadatta, in a way I am sitting at his feet right now. >To understand Maharaj's words people need to understand that almost >all which has been published about his words were answers he gave to >different seekers. To one who was not ready to understand the >above statement, he will talk about staying with the " I am " or >even to do just bhajans, or repeat a mantra. To others he will say >you don't belong here, go somewhere else. I think he will >have said that to you. You are respectless, young boy!!! If you are young enough I will forgive you... Listen: the quotes that I have given to you were from Ramana Maharshi, not Maharaj. They are from the book " All Is One " . This book is an authorized translation from his comments on an old Tamil publication. It represents the " essence " of his teaching. It was not a Question/Answer situation. And what you say about Nisargadatta is absolutely true, thats why I would suggest that you include the questions if you are posting quotes the next time. And, more important: If you want to understand Maharaj you have to understand that he did not talk in English. He talked in Marathi and used the Vedanta terminology which is sanskrit. I believe that he used the word " shunya " (often translated as " nothingness " ) which means: " consciousness being empty of a self and anything belonging to a self " . I repeat: the " nothingness " mentioned in Vedanta is not meaning " nothing " the way you put it. I have to say: this is really a tragic misunderstanding. And, something else Pete, I feel exactly right here at Nisargadattas feet. You are not the one who can tell me otherwise. >I think you would enjoy Harsha's list, or sufimystic list much >better. Huhu... I am not here only for enjoyment like all you brainsportlers. And I hate that sufi list, have d as fast as I could... >Those are lists for people that are at the bhakti stage >like you seem to be. First of all Bhakti is not a stage. It is a way. And Nisargadatta was offering both ways. He often talks about devotion, surrender to the master and emphasizes that the state he is in is pure LOVE. Did you know that Nis himself went out to sing Bhajanas every day? He did this almost until his last day when he died from larynx cancer. Do you know his own master and his line? How Nisargadatta devoted everything to his master? Did you hear about the talk of the bird? Those ways seem to have completely died in some western countries, along with respectfulness and grace, and this brings tears to my eyes. >Here, you will read things you are not ready to accept. Now: you are soooo right!!!! I dont accept mindf***. Why are you talking to me in this way? Because you have nothing factual to answer. But I did not want at all to go into an argument with you... I simply am conveying something from my own experience and my own knowledge about the tradition and try to shed some light on those common misunderstandings. >Let's face it, you are seeking immortality, spiritual >drama and glorification. It's even evident in the way you sign >Stephan-Achileas. Do you see yourself as a Homeric Hero? ) No. It was a favor for my beloved Alberto who gave me this name. But I could tell you a few stories about Achilles and you would be amazed. What do you know about Homer and Achillles... not much obviously! I will better leave this for now, better for you ;-). >P:Yes, I see. I see he was talking about enlightenment. He has also >said, that enlightenment is there as long as the body is there. >The absolute is beyond consciousness, beyond enlightenment, beyond >any knowing. Here are his words again: > > " All experiences are due to memories and are merely movements in >consciousness and therefore they cannot last. Happiness and >unhappiness come and go. If you have a correct perspective, the >world >is still going with a sense of quietitude. >Nature has the institution of death. If death did not exist, there >would be an unbearable accumulation of memories. People come and go, >the memories are wiped out, therefore there is a sense of balance. " In this statement he says the absolute truth. But he does not say a single word about enlightenment that would support your idea. You simply dont understand. In enlightenment there is no " I " involved. You have courage, you are showing your ignorance about Vedanta... and everybody who knows Vedanta can see this. (But maybe there is nobody anymore in this list who knows...??) And it is really laughable that someone like you is asking me to leave this list... really funny! Haha... but now I will stay here, believe me. I wanted to leave a few days ago but now I have decided to stay. It starts to become fun even for me now! So, back to the facts: in the fourths state (or enlightenment) there arises simply no question about life and death, because there is NOBODY left who has been ever born or could ever die. When you go there, you cannot take yourself with you! Haha! Thats why " YOU " dont become enlightened. Once it happens there is no identified " YOU " . One day your body will die and with it everything will die which refers to your identity as a person. YOU simply die!!! All your memories. But that which you realize when you become enlightened is not this personal YOU... YOU simply disappear and consciousness IS. It cannot die. The YOU that is born and dies is like the blinking of an eye. But even during this blinking there is a chance to jump into reality. This is why Nisargadatta was sitting in his room, talking to people, even when he was almost dying and could hardly speak. This is why Maharshi talked to all kind of crazy people. Because he simply HAD to show, that IT is possible. To you this sounds heroic and like glorification of immortality. Because you still are thinking about " you " and " me " as persons. You just dont get it: in Vedanta we are talking about a state which is beyond all that. So, if you think that means that YOU, Pete, or I, Stefan, are becoming immortal this way, you are still in a state of a small child which believes in fairy tales. >So even if enlightenment is achieved those memories of enlightenment >will vanish with death. " I, as the Absolute, don't know myself " . He >has said that. Sorry, Achileas, there is nothing you can take >with you. Enlightenment cannot be " achieved " ... there is nobody to achieve this state. ... When IT happens, then there are no memories. Only functional memories: " where did this being put his toothbrush... It should brush its teeth every day... " . Or " when did it happen to him? His girlfriend wants to know... " . All this luckily is over when the body dies. But consciousness... independent from this or that body, does not die. I see nothing heroic about it... its a very simple fact instead... I dont know where you have got YOUR ideas from. I dont criticise that you have your own ideas. On the contrary, go for it! But I vehemently contradict if you confuse those your ideas in public with the tradition of Vedanta. And, believe me, I know what I am talking about. I have breathed Vedanta for 35 years into all my cells. And I would advise you to do your homework first if you think you have the right to stand up and discipline others in this group in the name of Vedanta. This group is called " Nisargadatta " , and I am sitting at Nisargadattas feet. Hope you understand this, and I am always open for a factual clarification of those things... nobody (Haha!) is perfect...! (lets say: only NOBODY is perfect... lol!) And I am always open for a friendly chat with you... Pete! All the best S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > >Hi Stephan, > > > >P: Nisargadatta said that, Stephan. Read his statement below, it was > >posted under the title " The meaning of all this. " > S: Please, Pete!!!! I have read that statement and I have answered it and > have tried to convey to you why I think that you are misunderstanding > it!!! Maharaj talkes about Nothingness of Vedanta, you talk about > Nothingness (dualistic) as opposed to Something. You did not > contradict my correction until now... I have to assume you remain > quiet because you have nothing to contradict. Instead you start to > become... quite... personal. I do accept that you have your own truth. > But I will not stop to tell you MY truth, and I feel very close to > Nisargadatta, in a way I am sitting at his feet right now. Hi Stephen, P: How many kinds of nothingness you think there are? Do you think there is a nothingness for Vedanta and another for Buddhism, that there are nondual nothings and dual nothings? There might be many concepts about nothing, but the 'nothing that is not', can't be put within a concept because is a complete absence of anything known. > >S: In this statement he says the absolute truth. But he does not say a > single word about enlightenment that would support your idea. You > simply don't understand. In enlightenment there is no " I " involved. > > One day your body will die and with it everything will die which > refers to your identity as a person. YOU simply die!!! All your > memories. But that which you realize when you become enlightened is > not this personal YOU... YOU simply disappear and consciousness IS. It > cannot die. P: Stephen I like what you said above. Except the last sentence. Consciousness is the product of the food body, and dies with it. There is no immortal consciousness. Maharaj said so himself. Now, Stephen ,you take yourself too seriously, guy. Is even evident in your email address. magicsteve. Are you magic Steve? Do you believe in magic? Another thing, I did not ask you to leave. This is not my list, anyway, so I can't ask anyone to leave. I was giving you two suggestions. I can see why you didn't like sufi, I didn't like it either. Oh, a favor, when you answer one of my posts, please be brief. I don't read long manifestos. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> P: How many kinds of nothingness you think there are? .... I dont know, in Sanskrit maybe 5? The reason is, that every word contains already a whole definition. A wonderful language! Bhuddism and Vedanta are closely related, also in terminology. >Consciousness is the product of the food body, and dies with it. >There is no immortal consciousness. Maharaj said so himself. Wrong, he was talking about another consciousness then, not " pure consciousness " . There are at least a dozen different consciousnesses in Sanskrit, lol!!! Nisargadatta: >Before the world was, consciousness was. In consciousness it comes >into being, in consciousness it lasts and into pure consciousness it >dissolves. >Now, Stephen ,you take yourself too seriously, guy. Is even >evident in your email address. magicsteve. Are you magic Steve? >Do you believe in magic? I dont remember why I chose this name... wait... I think it was 10 years ago and I wanted to seduce women over the internet. No, I am not interested in magic. >Another thing, I did not ask you to leave. I found your " suggestion " insulting. Is it that you always want to be the preacher and the slightest questioning makes you crazy? >Oh, a favor, when you answer one of my posts, please be brief. don't >read long manifestos. I had no problem with your long manifesto. Of cause, in a short sermon like this you can avoid the basic questions that I have raised. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > > P: How many kinds of nothingness you think there are? > ... > > I dont know, in Sanskrit maybe 5? The reason is, that every word > contains already a whole definition. A wonderful language! Bhuddism > and Vedanta are closely related, also in terminology. P: I didn't ask you about Sanskrit terminology. You are lost in conceptuality, Stefan. Are you meditating? What is your sadhana? > > >Consciousness is the product of the food body, and dies with it. > >There is no immortal consciousness. Maharaj said so himself. > > Wrong, he was talking about another consciousness then, not " pure > consciousness " . There are at least a dozen different consciousnesses > in Sanskrit, lol!!! P:There you again! terminology & Concepts! Can you tell me what impure consciousness is? > > Nisargadatta: > >Before the world was, consciousness was. In consciousness it comes > >into being, in consciousness it lasts and into pure consciousness it > >dissolves. P; Again, he must have been talking to someone like you, who wants to survive no matter in what tenuous shape. Can you see the contradiction in wanting to survive, and actively pursuing a spiritual path that would ultimately bring you to the realization that you never existed in any shape or form? > > I dont remember why I chose this name... wait... I think it was 10 > years ago and I wanted to seduce women over the internet. No, I am not > interested in magic. P:Nothing wrong with sex in moderation. A musician shouldn't have problems with that. What instruments do you play? Cello is my favorite, then piano. To listen to, I mean. I don't play either. > > >Another thing, I did not ask you to leave. > > I found your " suggestion " insulting. P:So you can be insulted! You're at a disadvantage there. Is it that you always want to be > the preacher and the slightest questioning makes you crazy? P: No. Nothing makes me crazy. I was born that way. > > >Oh, a favor, when you answer one of my posts, please be brief. don't > >read long manifestos. > > I had no problem with your long manifesto. Of cause, in a short sermon > like this you can avoid the basic questions that I have raised. P: Basic questions? Did I miss them? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > >Hi Stephan, > > > >P: Nisargadatta said that, Stephan. Read his statement below, it was > >posted under the title " The meaning of all this. " > > Please, Pete!!!! I have read that statement and I have answered it and > have tried to convey to you why I think that you are misunderstanding > it!!! Maharaj talkes about Nothingness of Vedanta, you talk about > Nothingness (dualistic) as opposed to Something. You did not > contradict my correction until now... I have to assume you remain > quiet because you have nothing to contradict. Instead you start to > become... quite... personal. I do accept that you have your own truth. > But I will not stop to tell you MY truth, and I feel very close to > Nisargadatta, in a way I am sitting at his feet right now. > > >To understand Maharaj's words people need to understand that almost > >all which has been published about his words were answers he gave to > >different seekers. To one who was not ready to understand the > >above statement, he will talk about staying with the " I am " or > >even to do just bhajans, or repeat a mantra. To others he will say > >you don't belong here, go somewhere else. I think he will > >have said that to you. > > You are respectless, young boy!!! If you are young enough I will > the quotes that I have given to you were from > Ramana Maharshi, not Maharaj. They are from the book " All Is One " . > This book is an authorized translation from his comments on an old > Tamil publication. It represents the " essence " of his teaching. It was > not a Question/Answer situation. And what you say about Nisargadatta > is absolutely true, thats why I would suggest that you include the > questions if you are posting quotes the next time. And, more > important: If you want to understand Maharaj you have to understand > that he did not talk in English. He talked in Marathi and used the > Vedanta terminology which is sanskrit. I believe that he used the word > " shunya " (often translated as " nothingness " ) which means: > " consciousness being empty of a self and anything belonging to a > self " . I repeat: the " nothingness " mentioned in Vedanta is not meaning > " nothing " the way you put it. I have to say: this is really a tragic > misunderstanding. Alberto: Right Nothingness is not nothing! > > And, something else Pete, I feel exactly right here at Nisargadattas feet. You are not the one who can tell me otherwise. Alberto: This is the attitude of the true seeker. Well one must be polite of course! The buddha said: If you see the buddha, kill the buddha! Or if you see the Pete man, kill the Pete man! Lol Those are lists for people that are at the bhakti stage like you seem to be. Alberto, when we truly understand what Bhakti is and it is not a stage but a way to God-Realisation one doesn't laught at it. > First of all Bhakti is not a stage. It is a way. And Nisargadatta was offering both ways. He often talks about devotion, surrender to > the master and emphasizes that the state he is in is pure LOVE. Did > you know that Nis himself went out to sing Bhajanas every day? He did this almost until his last day when he died from larynx cancer. Do you know his own master and his line? How Nisargadatta devoted everything to his master? Did you hear about the talk of the bird? Those ways seem to have completely died in some western countries, along with respectfulness and grace, and this brings tears to my eyes. Alberto: You are so right stefan. > >Let's face it, you are seeking immortality, spiritual > >drama and glorification. It's even evident in the way you sign > >Stephan-Achileas. Do you see yourself as a Homeric Hero? ) > >Stefan: No. It was a favor for my beloved Alberto who gave me this name. But I could tell you a few stories about Achilles and you would be amazed. Alberto: Stefan you understood me very well and it was a very gentle attention to give you this name. You still are achileas in my heart, you are a true spiritual warrior for me! Even if there guys here don't understand my intention. > In this statement he says the absolute truth. But he does not say a > single word about enlightenment that would support your idea. You > simply dont understand. In enlightenment there is no " I " involved. > Alberto: right, > You have courage, you are showing your ignorance about Vedanta... and > everybody who knows Vedanta can see this. (But maybe there is nobody anymore in this list who knows...??) Alberto: I'm not Vedanta king that is for sure;0) I'm glad you know your Vedanta stefan. We can help each other! So, back to the facts: in the fourths state (or enlightenment) there arises simply no question about life and death, because there is NOBODY left who has been ever born or could ever die. When you go there, you cannot take yourself with you! Haha! Thats why " You " dont become enlightened. Once it happens, there is no identified " you " . Only " I " remain Alberto: that is enough!!! I give you a mantra Stefan, Ok! Repeat this mantra until awakening comes slowly, until fully! Trust me on that one. This is the mantra and it applies to you: So, back to the facts: in the fourths state (or enlightenment) there arises simply no question about life and death, because there is NOBODY left who has been ever born or could ever die. When you go there, you cannot take yourself with you! Haha! Thats why " You " dont become enlightened. Once it happens, there is no identified " you " . Only " I " remain Trust the Masters do not trust one Master but all! The One! The Only one! There is only one true Self. Not two but One. Do it repeat it until you die! If you don't attain the full 4th stage. That means that God doesn't exist and you are not reading this Mantra and you don't have legs and I can E-mail you with toombaru's shoe!!! Understood. It is NOW ACHILEAS MUST AWAKE NOW. let them laugh at you like they laugh at Jesus and other Masters. Do it, DO IT. Trust. Everyting you've learn must be used now! Do it! > One day your body will die and with it everything will die which > refers to your identity as a person. YOU simply die!!! All your > memories. But that which you realize when you become enlightened is > not this personal YOU... YOU simply disappear and consciousness IS. It cannot die. Alberto: Well Krishna says that too, I say that too! > The YOU that is born and dies is like the blinking of an eye. But even during this blinking there is a chance to jump into reality. This is why Nisargadatta was sitting in his room, talking to people, even when he was almost dying and could hardly speak. This is why Maharshi talked to all kind of crazy people. Because he simply HAD to show, that IT is possible. To you this sounds heroic and like glorification of immortality. Because you still are thinking about " you " and " me " as persons. You just dont get it: in Vedanta we are talking about a state which is beyond all that. So, if you think that means that YOU, Pete, > or I, Stefan, are becoming immortal this way, you are still in a state of a small child which believes in fairy tales. > Alberto: wonderful speech! I'm speechless! > Enlightenment cannot be " achieved " ... there is nobody to achieve > this state. ... When IT happens, then there are no memories. Only > functional memories: " where did this being put his toothbrush... It > should brush its teeth every day... " . Or " when did it happen to him? > His girlfriend wants to know... " . All this luckily is over when the > body dies. But consciousness... independent from this or that body, > does not die. I see nothing heroic about it... its a very simple fact instead... > Alberto: true I have breathed Vedanta for 35 years into all my cells. This group is called " Nisargadatta " , and I am sitting at > Nisargadattas feet. Alberto: You are with him for sure. > All the best > S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > >Hi Stephan, > > > > > >P: Nisargadatta said that, Stephan. Read his statement below, it > was > > >posted under the title " The meaning of all this. " > > > > Please, Pete!!!! I have read that statement and I have answered it > and > > have tried to convey to you why I think that you are > misunderstanding > > it!!! Maharaj talkes about Nothingness of Vedanta, you talk about > > Nothingness (dualistic) as opposed to Something. You did not > > contradict my correction until now... I have to assume you remain > > quiet because you have nothing to contradict. Instead you start to > > become... quite... personal. I do accept that you have your own > truth. > > But I will not stop to tell you MY truth, and I feel very close to > > Nisargadatta, in a way I am sitting at his feet right now. > > > > >To understand Maharaj's words people need to understand that > almost > > >all which has been published about his words were answers he gave > to > > >different seekers. To one who was not ready to understand the > > >above statement, he will talk about staying with the " I am " or > > >even to do just bhajans, or repeat a mantra. To others he will say > > >you don't belong here, go somewhere else. I think he will > > >have said that to you. > > > > You are respectless, young boy!!! If you are young enough I will > > the quotes that I have given to you were from > > Ramana Maharshi, not Maharaj. They are from the book " All Is One " . > > This book is an authorized translation from his comments on an old > > Tamil publication. It represents the " essence " of his teaching. It > was > > not a Question/Answer situation. And what you say about > Nisargadatta > > is absolutely true, thats why I would suggest that you include the > > questions if you are posting quotes the next time. And, more > > important: If you want to understand Maharaj you have to understand > > that he did not talk in English. He talked in Marathi and used the > > Vedanta terminology which is sanskrit. I believe that he used the > word > > " shunya " (often translated as " nothingness " ) which means: > > " consciousness being empty of a self and anything belonging to a > > self " . I repeat: the " nothingness " mentioned in Vedanta is not > meaning > > " nothing " the way you put it. I have to say: this is really a > tragic > > misunderstanding. > > Alberto: Right Nothingness is not nothing! > > > > And, something else Pete, I feel exactly right here at > Nisargadattas feet. You are not the one who can tell me otherwise. > > Alberto: This is the attitude of the true seeker. Well one must be > polite of course! The buddha said: If you see the buddha, kill the > buddha! Or if you see the Pete man, kill the Pete man! Lol > > Those are lists for people that are at the bhakti stage like you > seem to be. > > Alberto, when we truly understand what Bhakti is and it is not a > stage but a way to God-Realisation one doesn't laught at it. > > > First of all Bhakti is not a stage. It is a way. And Nisargadatta > was offering both ways. He often talks about devotion, surrender to > > the master and emphasizes that the state he is in is pure LOVE. Did > > you know that Nis himself went out to sing Bhajanas every day? He > did this almost until his last day when he died from larynx cancer. > Do you know his own master and his line? How Nisargadatta devoted > everything to his master? Did you hear about the talk of the bird? > Those ways seem to have completely died in some western countries, > along with respectfulness and grace, and this brings tears to my > eyes. > > Alberto: You are so right stefan. > > > >Let's face it, you are seeking immortality, spiritual > > >drama and glorification. It's even evident in the way you sign > > >Stephan-Achileas. Do you see yourself as a Homeric Hero? ) > > > >Stefan: No. It was a favor for my beloved Alberto who gave me this > name. But I could tell you a few stories about Achilles and you > would be amazed. > > Alberto: Stefan you understood me very well and it was a very gentle > attention to give you this name. You still are achileas in my heart, > you are a true spiritual warrior for me! Even if there guys here > don't understand my intention. > > > > In this statement he says the absolute truth. But he does not say a > > single word about enlightenment that would support your idea. You > > simply dont understand. In enlightenment there is no " I " involved. > > > > Alberto: right, > > > You have courage, you are showing your ignorance about Vedanta... > and > > everybody who knows Vedanta can see this. (But maybe there is > nobody anymore in this list who knows...??) > > Alberto: I'm not Vedanta king that is for sure;0) I'm glad you know > your Vedanta stefan. We can help each other! > > So, back to the facts: in the fourths state (or enlightenment) there > arises simply no question about life and death, because there is > NOBODY left who has been ever born or could ever die. When you go > there, you cannot take yourself with you! Haha! Thats why " You " dont > become enlightened. Once it happens, there is no identified " you " . > Only " I " remain > > Alberto: that is enough!!! I give you a mantra Stefan, Ok! > Repeat this mantra until awakening comes slowly, until fully! > Trust me on that one. > > This is the mantra and it applies to you: > > So, back to the facts: in the fourths state (or enlightenment) there > arises simply no question about life and death, because there is > NOBODY left who has been ever born or could ever die. When you go > there, you cannot take yourself with you! Haha! Thats why " You " dont > become enlightened. Once it happens, there is no identified " you " . > Only " I " remain > > Trust the Masters do not trust one Master but all! The One! The Only > one! There is only one true Self. Not two but One. Do it repeat it > until you die! If you don't attain the full 4th stage. That means > that God doesn't exist and you are not reading this Mantra and you > don't have legs and I can E-mail you with toombaru's shoe!!! > Understood. It is NOW ACHILEAS MUST AWAKE NOW. let them laugh at you > like they laugh at Jesus and other Masters. Do it, DO IT. Trust. > Everyting you've learn must be used now! Do it! > > > > One day your body will die and with it everything will die which > > refers to your identity as a person. YOU simply die!!! All your > > memories. But that which you realize when you become enlightened is > > not this personal YOU... YOU simply disappear and consciousness > IS. It cannot die. > > Alberto: Well Krishna says that too, I say that too! > > > > The YOU that is born and dies is like the blinking of an eye. But > even during this blinking there is a chance to jump into reality. > This is why Nisargadatta was sitting in his room, talking to people, > even when he was almost dying and could hardly speak. This is why > Maharshi talked to all kind of crazy people. Because he simply HAD > to show, that IT is possible. To you this sounds heroic and like > glorification of immortality. Because you still are thinking > about " you " and " me " as persons. You just dont get it: in Vedanta we > are talking about a state which is beyond all that. So, if you think > that means that YOU, Pete, > > or I, Stefan, are becoming immortal this way, you are still in a > state of a small child which believes in fairy tales. > > > > Alberto: wonderful speech! I'm speechless! > > > > Enlightenment cannot be " achieved " ... there is nobody to achieve > > this state. ... When IT happens, then there are no memories. Only > > functional memories: " where did this being put his toothbrush... It > > should brush its teeth every day... " . Or " when did it happen to > him? > > His girlfriend wants to know... " . All this luckily is over when the > > body dies. But consciousness... independent from this or that body, > > does not die. I see nothing heroic about it... its a very simple > fact instead... > > > Alberto: true > > I have breathed Vedanta for 35 years into all my cells. This > group is called " Nisargadatta " , and I am sitting at > > Nisargadattas feet. > > Alberto: You are with him for sure. > > > All the best > > S. ............for the most obvious of reasons.........zombees never dance alone.... .....they need each other ........for support.......... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: >P: I didn't ask you about Sanskrit terminology. I thought you are interested in Vedanta and Nisargadatta. I am pointing to your misunderstanding. You dont need to defend " yourself " so vehemently. >P:There you again! terminology & Concepts! Can you tell me what >impure consciousness is? You are still arguing from the mind, and the mind only knows pairs of opposites. It only can imagine " Nothing " , it cannot imagine something which is impersonal. But intuition can, and Nisargadatta is trying to push us into this direction. " Pure Consciousness " means: consciousness only conscious of itself. You are the first guy I ever met who talks about Vedanta without knowing those basics. It is funny, but, this seems to be the new " instant online generation " . >P; Again, he must have been talking to someone like you, who >wants to survive no matter in what tenuous shape. No, no. He talked to them who are already capable to intuitively grasp non-duality. You, Pete, still cannot. You accept only that which you can imagine with your mind. Therefore you are constructing a " Pete-System " which is logic in itself but has nothing to do with Vedanta. I am trying to show you how you are lost. Because I know those things and I care for you. But no problem, you can open your mind at any time and start to think different... you seem to be still young and the understanding will come with time. >Can you >see the contradiction in wanting to survive, and actively >pursuing a spiritual path that would ultimately bring you >to the realization that you never existed in any shape or form? Yes I can see this, but I told you that there is no " You " left to survive. You just cannot imagine anything impersonal. To accept the existence of the impersonal is threatening to the mind. >P: Basic questions? Did I miss them? You dont seem to read my posts very darefully? S. 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.