Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 'MAYA' " This touch of `I Amness' is in every being; this beingness has the touch of love for the Absolute and it is a representation of the Absolute. When you got yourself separated from the Absolute with this identity `I Am', you felt fragmented, isolated, and that is why your demands started. In the Absolute there are no needs. Only the Absolute prevails. The truth is total Brahman only, nothing else but Brahman. In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, `I Am', and with that, separation started, otherness has come. But this `I Amness' is not just a small principle - that itself is the `mula-maya', the primary illusion......... " " That `maya', is so powerful that it gets you completely wrapped up in it. `Maya' means `I Am', `I Love to be'. It has no identity except love. That knowledge of `I Am' is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, it will turn around and lead you to the highest state. " [ Excerpts from `Prior to Consciousness'- Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (ed. Jean Dunn) ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok> wrote: > > 'MAYA' > > " This touch of `I Amness' is in every being; this > beingness has the touch of love for the Absolute and > it is a representation of the Absolute. When you got > yourself separated from the Absolute with this identity > `I Am', you felt fragmented, isolated, and that is why your > demands started. In the Absolute there are no needs. > Only the Absolute prevails. > The truth is total Brahman only, nothing else but Brahman. > In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, `I Am', > and with that, separation started, otherness has come. > But this `I Amness' is not just a small principle - that > itself is the > `mula-maya', the primary illusion......... " > > " That `maya', is so powerful that it gets you completely > wrapped up in it. `Maya' means `I Am', `I Love to > be'. > It has no identity except love. That knowledge of `I Am' > is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it > might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, > it will turn around and lead you to the highest state. " > > > [ Excerpts from `Prior to Consciousness'- > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > (ed. Jean Dunn) ] Absolutly true! Bhakti is for me the Royal road to " I amness " once you conquered " I amness " with Bhakti yoga. " The I amness " becomes your friend and yes leads you to the Absolute! Alberto, Even if Master says the highest state. I understand him. He was probably talking to someone very interested in the highest state. The absolute is not an State. This I talk as experience as maharaj is talking as experience not just talking! Don't worry guys won't be with you for long. You all knew that and beyond... the absolute of course !! 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 , " Era " <mi_nok> wrote: > > > > 'MAYA' > > > > " This touch of `I Amness' is in every being; this > > beingness has the touch of love for the Absolute and > > it is a representation of the Absolute. When you got > > yourself separated from the Absolute with this identity > > `I Am', you felt fragmented, isolated, and that is why your > > demands started. In the Absolute there are no needs. > > Only the Absolute prevails. > > The truth is total Brahman only, nothing else but Brahman. > > In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, `I Am', > > and with that, separation started, otherness has come. > > But this `I Amness' is not just a small principle - that > > itself is the > > `mula-maya', the primary illusion......... " > > > > " That `maya', is so powerful that it gets you completely > > wrapped up in it. `Maya' means `I Am', `I Love to > > be'. > > It has no identity except love. That knowledge of `I Am' > > is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it > > might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, > > it will turn around and lead you to the highest state. " > > > > > > [ Excerpts from `Prior to Consciousness'- > > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > (ed. Jean Dunn) ] > > Absolutly true! > > Bhakti is for me the Royal road to " I amness " once you conquered " I > amness " with Bhakti yoga. " The I amness " becomes your friend and yes > leads you to the Absolute! > Alberto, > > > Even if Master says the highest state. I understand him. He was > probably talking to someone very interested in the highest state. > The absolute is not an State. > > This I talk as experience as maharaj is talking as experience not > just talking! > > Don't worry guys won't be with you for long. You all knew that and > beyond... the absolute of course !! .......I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta really did not want people to discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok> wrote: > > > > > > 'MAYA' > > > > > > " This touch of `I Amness' is in every being; this > > > beingness has the touch of love for the Absolute and > > > it is a representation of the Absolute. When you got > > > yourself separated from the Absolute with this identity > > > `I Am', you felt fragmented, isolated, and that is why your > > > demands started. In the Absolute there are no needs. > > > Only the Absolute prevails. > > > The truth is total Brahman only, nothing else but Brahman. > > > In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, `I Am', > > > and with that, separation started, otherness has come. > > > But this `I Amness' is not just a small principle - that > > > itself is the > > > `mula-maya', the primary illusion......... " > > > > > > " That `maya', is so powerful that it gets you completely > > > wrapped up in it. `Maya' means `I Am', `I Love to > > > be'. > > > It has no identity except love. That knowledge of `I Am' > > > is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it > > > might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, > > > it will turn around and lead you to the highest state. " > > > > > > > > > [ Excerpts from `Prior to Consciousness'- > > > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > (ed. Jean Dunn) ] > > > > Absolutly true! > > > > Bhakti is for me the Royal road to " I amness " once you conquered " I > > amness " with Bhakti yoga. " The I amness " becomes your friend and yes > > leads you to the Absolute! > > Alberto, > > > > > > Even if Master says the highest state. I understand him. He was > > probably talking to someone very interested in the highest state. > > The absolute is not an State. > > > > This I talk as experience as maharaj is talking as experience not > > just talking! > > > > Don't worry guys won't be with you for long. You all knew that and > > beyond... the absolute of course !! > > > > > ......I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta really did not want people to > discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... ************************************ What did I say wrong toombaru? I would be more than glad if you explain to me what he meant? My english is poor I know. I have a nose and if I don't know yet how I can pronouce nose in several languages that doesn't mean that I don't have a nose!!! Love! Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >...I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta really >did >not want people to >discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... Hi Pete. First of all, Nisargadatta never presented " ideas " . All those words that you have read in a book or somewhere in the internet are for YOU " ideas " that can be treated like " ideas " , using your intellect. If you like to go this way, it is ok... but if others want to go a different way it is not wrong only because it does not fit into YOUR view. I went today through some of your postings... what I feel is that YOU all the time are trying to discuss Nisargadatta, presenting YOUR ideas how YOU understand his words as the ultimate truth. Pete, if you have a relationship with Nisargadatta, then stay with this relationship. Take his words as you feel you should take them. But dont try to impose your point of view on others! If you do this you become stuck with your momentary understanding and you disrespect the personal relationship that others have with the master. Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Sorry, I am just realizing that I have read a posting of Toombarus and thought it was Pete! Haha.. very interesting... Sorry Pete, Sorry Toombarus, but I can see it applies to both of you, so no problem. Good night Stefan Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >...I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta really > >did >not want people to > >discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... > > Hi Pete. > > First of all, Nisargadatta never presented " ideas " . All those words > that you have read in a book or somewhere in the internet are for YOU > " ideas " that can be treated like " ideas " , using your intellect. If you > like to go this way, it is ok... but if others want to go a different > way it is not wrong only because it does not fit into YOUR view. > > I went today through some of your postings... what I feel is that YOU > all the time are trying to discuss Nisargadatta, presenting YOUR ideas > how YOU understand his words as the ultimate truth. > > Pete, if you have a relationship with Nisargadatta, then stay with > this relationship. Take his words as you feel you should take them. > But dont try to impose your point of view on others! If you do this > you become stuck with your momentary understanding and you disrespect > the personal relationship that others have with the master. > > Greetings > S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >...I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta really > >did >not want people to > >discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... > > Hi Pete. > > First of all, Nisargadatta never presented " ideas " . All those words > that you have read in a book or somewhere in the internet are for YOU > " ideas " that can be treated like " ideas " , using your intellect. If you > like to go this way, it is ok... but if others want to go a different > way it is not wrong only because it does not fit into YOUR view. > > I went today through some of your postings... what I feel is that YOU > all the time are trying to discuss Nisargadatta, presenting YOUR ideas > how YOU understand his words as the ultimate truth. > > Pete, if you have a relationship with Nisargadatta, then stay with > this relationship. Take his words as you feel you should take them. > But dont try to impose your point of view on others! If you do this > you become stuck with your momentary understanding and you disrespect > the personal relationship that others have with the master. > > Greetings > S. Stuffed, I mean Stefan. You are so fixated with me, you mistake Toom's words for mine. Am I becoming your obsession? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok> wrote: > > > > > > > > 'MAYA' > > > > > > > > " This touch of `I Amness' is in every being; this > > > > beingness has the touch of love for the Absolute and > > > > it is a representation of the Absolute. When you got > > > > yourself separated from the Absolute with this identity > > > > `I Am', you felt fragmented, isolated, and that is why your > > > > demands started. In the Absolute there are no needs. > > > > Only the Absolute prevails. > > > > The truth is total Brahman only, nothing else but Brahman. > > > > In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, `I Am', > > > > and with that, separation started, otherness has come. > > > > But this `I Amness' is not just a small principle - that > > > > itself is the > > > > `mula-maya', the primary illusion......... " > > > > > > > > " That `maya', is so powerful that it gets you completely > > > > wrapped up in it. `Maya' means `I Am', `I Love to > > > > be'. > > > > It has no identity except love. That knowledge of `I Am' > > > > is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it > > > > might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, > > > > it will turn around and lead you to the highest state. " > > > > > > > > > > > > [ Excerpts from `Prior to Consciousness'- > > > > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > (ed. Jean Dunn) ] > > > > > > Absolutly true! > > > > > > Bhakti is for me the Royal road to " I amness " once you > conquered " I > > > amness " with Bhakti yoga. " The I amness " becomes your friend and > yes > > > leads you to the Absolute! > > > Alberto, > > > > > > > > > Even if Master says the highest state. I understand him. He was > > > probably talking to someone very interested in the highest > state. > > > The absolute is not an State. > > > > > > This I talk as experience as maharaj is talking as experience > not > > > just talking! > > > > > > Don't worry guys won't be with you for long. You all knew that > and > > > beyond... the absolute of course !! > > > > > > > > > > ......I think that this is a good example of why Nisargadatta > really did not want people to > > discuss his ideas outside of his presence......... > > ************************************ > > What did I say wrong toombaru? I would be more than glad if you > explain to me what he meant? My english is poor I know. I have a > nose and if I don't know yet how I can pronouce nose in several > languages that doesn't mean that I don't have a nose!!! > > Love! > Alberto, Ahhh my friend......any interpretation of Nisargatatta's words that I could come up with......would be tainted with my personal experience. Nisargadatta spoke to the moment......to the person...in front of him...in the moment. He spoke in a foreign language...in a culture alien to western thought....and you....better then most of us uni-lingualists....should know how difficult translation from one culture to another is.... His words...that were directed to an individual......in the moment....were translated......transcribed......and then interpreted by another individual......in another culture...in another time......... I Love Nisargadatta........I love.....the feeling when I read his words.......and I am amazed that ......in spite of any direct contact........the impact he has is so powerful for those ripe enough to hear... but......... Any discussion of his words.....among those caught in the dance of separation......can lead only to further confusion.... Self medication........with old medicine.......has a very small chance of success...... I enjoy your presence here...... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 > > Alberto, > > > Ahhh my friend......any interpretation of Nisargatatta's words that I could come up with......would be tainted with my personal experience. > > > Nisargadatta spoke to the moment......to the person...in front of him...in the moment. > > He spoke in a foreign language...in a culture alien to western thought....and you....better then most of us uni- lingualists....should know how difficult translation from one culture to another is.... > > His words...that were directed to an individual......in the moment....were translated......transcribed......and then interpreted by another individual......in another culture...in another time......... > > I Love Nisargadatta........I love.....the feeling when I read his words.......and I am amazed that ......in spite of any direct contact........the impact he has is so powerful for those ripe enough to hear... > > > but......... > > Any discussion of his words.....among those caught in the dance of separation......can lead only to further confusion.... > > Self medication........with old medicine.......has a very small chance of success...... > > > > I enjoy your presence here...... > > > toombaru Oh, and you think I don't, uh? Is that what you think? Just Joking! I like froggies. French eric is a friend of mine. Right Eric? I know you are there, you green amphivian. Speak Up. LOL. He's giving me the silent treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Ahhh my friend......any interpretation of Nisargatatta's words that I could come up with......would be tainted with my personal experience. > > > Nisargadatta spoke to the moment......to the person...in front of him...in the moment. > > He spoke in a foreign language...in a culture alien to western thought....and you....better then most of us uni- lingualists....should know how difficult translation from one culture to another is.... > > His words...that were directed to an individual......in the moment....were translated......transcribed......and then interpreted by another individual......in another culture...in another time......... > > I Love Nisargadatta........I love.....the feeling when I read his words.......and I am amazed that ......in spite of any direct contact........the impact he has is so powerful for those ripe enough to hear... > > > but......... > > Any discussion of his words.....among those caught in the dance of separation......can lead only to further confusion.... > > Self medication........with old medicine.......has a very small chance of success...... > > > > I enjoy your presence here...... > > > toombaru ***************************************************** Toombaru :0))) I knew it I felt it! You old Wise man!! ha ha ha! You were playing us all this time hein! ha ha ha! Like the Old Zen master playing with the young suposed Hero the new kid in town! :0) My brother I see you fully now and understand all what you said before in your disguised contradictions! Old toombaru!:0) and yes toombaru I did appreciate your zombie dance! ha ha ha! From where you are it is a very cute dance and you dance it well!!! Love toombaru, Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Ancient-Mysteries , " mike white " <infoplz wrote: these are notes as i review the cayce reading material on the maya. even though they are my notes, its been a few years, and often more ideas are generated from a reread. http://all-ez.com/mayan.htm first off, cayce confirms that mexico and central america assumed its present area and features after the earth-changes of 10,000 bce, and mexico was much larger before then. the temple that the atlantean iltar built was destroyed soon after by the cataclysm that destroyed the last of atlantis. so either iltar left atlantis early, or after shocks continued for a while. one reading seemed to place an inca influence in the yucatan circa 10,000 bce, which is surprising, because other readings led me to think that the yucatan became an inca colony about 3000 bce. cayce said that egyptian influences will also be found from prior to 3000 bce. circa 3000 bce, a portion of the lost tribes, termed 'those of greater power' entered southern usa, and made their way to yucatan, before centering in mexico city. oddly, cayce said we have found the pyramids and temples of the first civilization of mexico, but uncovering those of the second and third civilizations would destroy modern mexico. when speaking of the moundbuilders of central ohio of 3000 bce, cayce told of the building of homes, storehouses, and banks. he said they joined the beliefs from atlantis, mexico, hebrew, oz, og, mu, and inca. they communicated with norway, china, india, the pyrenees, and sicily. all spoke one tongue then, the division of languages had only happened in atlantis before then. again, this report changes my belief that the division of tongues was global circa 26,000 bce. [editor note : when compiled these readings were added as found, and are not in chronological order. it begins circa 10,000 bce, then to 3000 bce, then to 250,000 bce, then to 50,000 bce. the common thread is the setting in the americas or western hemisphere, and the impact upon the maya. ] it seems to say that the americas were overran by large predator beasts circa 50,000 bce, after landbridges were formed by earthchanges that resulted from the poleshift. our experts have dinosaurs in the americas for millions of years, its possible but unlikely that cayce is referring only to megafauna, like the sabretooth lion. im becoming more certain that large reptiles and dinosaurs did live in the americas as recently as 50,000 bce. ani was cited for the period when it was being sought to regain control of the elements to alleviate the hunger of the people in 10,700 bce, apparently in egypt. from 250,000 bce men had the ability to replicate needs from the elements. none credit the egyptian ani for such an early time. the last entry concerns the andes : " 1183-1 33. The entity then was in the name Alsia or Amammia - for it was named both. And there may be found yet, among the temples in the Andean experience, the records of the entity's activities in the storehouse of wealth of the earth - in golds! " [perhaps the metal tablets of ecuador?] mike --- End forwarded message --- 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.