The Absolute

October 31, 2004

---

>

> I am aware of the game at least. That's what makes it fun (and a

> nightmare sometimes [there could probably be only one nightmare and

> it could possible be infinite long, but one of the characteristics

of

> a nightmare is that one always wakes up]). :-]

>

> /AL

Q: I want to be aware of the ultimate?

Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an

objective affair. When I'm in unicity then that is pure awareness

which is not aware of its awareness, and there can't be no subject

and no object- therefore no witnessing. Any manipulation, any

functioning, any witnessing can take place only in duality. There

has to be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are

not two, they are the different ends of the same thing. When

consciousness stirs, duality arises. There are millions of objects

but each object when it sees another, assumes the subjetivity of

the Absolute., although it is an object. I, as an object, perceive

and interpret all other objects, and I assume that I am the

subject, and witnessing takes place.

Let's say someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin

with? It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion

because of which the consciousness has taken place. That very

principle, the knowledge " I am " has developed, grown, and become

sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani state; but what

is that? It's the product of the five elemental food essence.

When that goes, what remains? THe Absolute which DOES NOT

KNOW ITSELF.

October 31, 2004

AdvaitaToZen , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> >> THe Absolute which DOES NOT KNOW ITSELF >>

>

> ººKip: You already know that I don´t agree completely with many

> interpretations of this statement attributed to Niz in a

> translation. I had too a discussion with Sandeep on this matter.

> Here again it is what lacks, what causes the problem. " Not knowing "

> is an extrapolation as well as, for example, an utterance

like: " the

> absolute which always has been aware of itself " . The apperception

of

> the absolute allows no judgement on it, it erradicates, instead,

> every attempt of extrapolation. Dialectically it is a correct

> logical conclusion. Logically there is no alternative to this

> statement to find.

>

> And, that´s exactly why I question it. It has didactically its

> relevance, without question, but, to stack on it a doctrine, like

> every other doctrine trying to offer a closing rate to such a

> question, is absurd. It isn´t the end of all discussions. Quite the

> opposite in regards on where, and at which point, logic becomes a

> loop which has to be dynamited. See?

>

> I´m not saying Niz was wrong here, but just pointing towards what I

> think he was pointing to, too....what remains after a jhani´s death

> or, the death of whatsoever living creature equipped with

> consciousness, or even, the death of a blade of grass, is

completely

> (absolutely) irrelevant and, so was it even before he or she died.

>

> There is no rest and ease to find in words. Final acceptance means

> actually that nothing has to be accepted, because the " accepter " ,

> the agent capable to express acceptance, vanished. What results is

> silence.

>

> Therefore, I would state that, if Niz would have said:... " what

> remains, is the absolute, which always have been aware of itself! " ,

> I would have smiled on it, like I smile on the utterance:... " what

> remains is the absolute which does not know itself! " .

>

> It is irrelevant, Pete, in my opinion. You cling just on the most

> logical conclusion. A thing, Niz didn´t do, precisely, by being the

> author of this utterance. See?

>

> Kip Almazy

>

> P.S. What lacks Pete?

ThAt statement is a blade to cut the feet from under survivalism.

The basic urge to survive holds on to the transfer of Identity

to the absolute, and the false premise that awareness is the corner

stone of the universe, rather than another survival tool created

by animal evolution. There is no awareness without a body.

Although, it is obvious, that the existence of the universe without

awareness, is completely irrelevant,to imply from this, that

awareness could exist without the universe is faulty logic. So

the statement has value not as final truth, but as a deconstructive

statament.

Pete

October 31, 2004

There is no awareness without a body. Although, it is obvious, that

the existence of the universe without awareness, is completely

irrelevant,to imply from this, that awareness [and unconsciousness

or " not being conscious of itself " ] could exist without the universe

is faulty logic.

> Pete

I would agree this way. That´s actually the same point Sarlo tried

to mediate, earlier on this matter. But you continue to post and

post on this thread. What are you trying to demonstrate?

October 31, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

>

> ---

> >

> > I am aware of the game at least. That's what makes it fun (and a

> > nightmare sometimes [there could probably be only one nightmare and

> > it could possible be infinite long, but one of the characteristics

> of

> > a nightmare is that one always wakes up]). :-]

> >

> > /AL

>

> Q: I want to be aware of the ultimate?

>

> Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an

> objective affair. When I'm in unicity then that is pure awareness

> which is not aware of its awareness, and there can't be no subject

> and no object- therefore no witnessing. Any manipulation, any

> functioning, any witnessing can take place only in duality. There

> has to be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are

> not two, they are the different ends of the same thing. When

> consciousness stirs, duality arises. There are millions of objects

> but each object when it sees another, assumes the subjetivity of

> the Absolute., although it is an object. I, as an object, perceive

> and interpret all other objects, and I assume that I am the

> subject, and witnessing takes place.

>

> Let's say someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin

> with? It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion

> because of which the consciousness has taken place. That very

> principle, the knowledge " I am " has developed, grown, and become

> sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani state; but what

> is that? It's the product of the five elemental food essence.

> When that goes, what remains? THe Absolute which DOES NOT

> KNOW ITSELF.

--you forgot to signe this Pete

hah ha

October 31, 2004

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> There is no awareness without a body. Although, it is obvious, that

> the existence of the universe without awareness, is completely

> irrelevant,to imply from this, that awareness [and unconsciousness

> or " not being conscious of itself " ] could exist without the

universe

> is faulty logic.

>

> > Pete

>

> I would agree this way. That´s actually the same point Sarlo tried

> to mediate, earlier on this matter. But you continue to post and

> post on this thread. What are you trying to demonstrate?

P I'm trying to demonstrate that what you added between brackets,

which, of course is your undrstanding, not mine, is false. Lack,

absence of

consciousness, which is what unconsciousness, is doesn't require

an universe, or a body to be present. Now, the awareness of a period

of unconsciousness requires regaining consciousness, but I'm

not referring to any awareness of being unconcious. It's as if

you would say that the fact that I'm absent from Morocco requires

that I would have been present in Morocco at some time.

Pete

November 1, 2004

> I would agree this way. That´s actually the same point Sarlo tried

> > to mediate, earlier on this matter. But you continue to post and

> > post on this thread. What are you trying to demonstrate?

>

> P I'm trying to demonstrate that what you added between brackets,

> which, of course is your undrstanding, not mine, is false. Lack,

> absence of

> consciousness, which is what unconsciousness, is doesn't require

> an universe, or a body to be present. Now, the awareness of a

period

> of unconsciousness requires regaining consciousness, but I'm

> not referring to any awareness of being unconcious. It's as if

> you would say that the fact that I'm absent from Morocco requires

> that I would have been present in Morocco at some time.

Bla, bla, bla....from where have got the notion of Morocco, so that

you can be absent?

November 1, 2004

We are discussing here your beliefs. What Pete lacks is certainity.

Go on believing! Niz didn't lack certainity but you do. You have to

find your own *truth*, Pete. That´s the game. Don´t expect applause

for parroting others insights. Nobody has to swallow your beliefs

here. I interpret Niz in another way and actually agree with Buddha

on the matter of self and SELF. I love both. Have no problem with

that.

The only thing I can assert with certainity is that I don´t know and

actually I don´t need to know.

November 1, 2004

....and, Pete, you brought my message on this thread from

advaitatozen here to this board. Decide on which board you like to

discuss the topic. I will continue to post on this thread on

advaitatozen, where it began. Is this ok your you? No interest to

discuss the same sh*t on two boards. Have no time for that games.

gassho

Kip Almazy

November 1, 2004

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> ...and, Pete, you brought my message on this thread from

> advaitatozen here to this board. Decide on which board you like to

> discuss the topic. I will continue to post on this thread on

> advaitatozen, where it began. Is this ok your you? No interest to

> discuss the same sh*t on two boards. Have no time for that games.

>

> gassho

> Kip Almazy

P:Having some personal problems Kip? Or does the absolute,

absolutetly freak you out?

November 1, 2004

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> > I would agree this way. That´s actually the same point Sarlo

tried

> > > to mediate, earlier on this matter. But you continue to post

and

> > > post on this thread. What are you trying to demonstrate?

> >

> > P I'm trying to demonstrate that what you added between brackets,

> > which, of course is your undrstanding, not mine, is false. Lack,

> > absence of

> > consciousness, which is what unconsciousness, is doesn't require

> > an universe, or a body to be present. Now, the awareness of a

> period

> > of unconsciousness requires regaining consciousness, but I'm

> > not referring to any awareness of being unconcious. It's as if

> > you would say that the fact that I'm absent from Morocco requires

> > that I would have been present in Morocco at some time.

>

> Bla, bla, bla....from where have got the notion of Morocco, so that

> you can be absent?

P: It's not me who can witness my absence, but you. You can

on reading this know my absence in your home. If you had a notion

of me, or home, and I think you do, since you sent this email to

me from home, or office.

If discussing this upsets you, you don't have to. It's of no

importance.

November 1, 2004

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> We are discussing here your beliefs. What Pete lacks is certainity.

> Go on believing! Niz didn't lack certainity but you do. You have to

> find your own *truth*, Pete. That´s the game. Don´t expect applause

> for parroting others insights. Nobody has to swallow your beliefs

> here. I interpret Niz in another way and actually agree with Buddha

> on the matter of self and SELF. I love both. Have no problem with

> that.

>

> The only thing I can assert with certainity is that I don´t know and

> actually I don´t need to know.

P: Why the strong reaction? We are discussing ideas, I don't

consider them mine. I have no idea how many people before

me thought the exact thing. I doubt very much, I was the first

to think that. And that is of no importance.

Of course, no one has to agree with me, if they think I'm

wrong. But I also have the right to disagree, and often do.

That is how we clarify our ideas.

Certainty is a word with many nuances, if by that we mean

lack of hesitation, then yes, I'm very certain. If by that

we mean I believe my ideas exactly define reality, then

no, I do not think such thing. And I don't think Niz did

either. In my opinion he was using ideas to dislodge people's

images about themselves, and a world in which they have

independent existent, and an after- life in which they will

survive. He was pointing to an indefinable in which they

could subside now.

Respond wherever you want, if you need to respond at all,

I will repost at the other side if I consider it necessary.

Thanks,

Pete

November 1, 2004

Pete,

I respect the certainity you have in your belief. I am not upset.

Just looking which effects your medicine has on your self-object.

rgds

November 2, 2004

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> Pete,

>

> I respect the certainity you have in your belief. I am not upset.

> Just looking which effects your medicine has on your self-object.

>

> rgds

OK, Bud, You're the doc, watch me closely, and give me your

diagnosis. )

November 2, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

>

> ---

> >

> > I am aware of the game at least. That's what makes it fun (and a

> > nightmare sometimes [there could probably be only one nightmare

and

> > it could possible be infinite long, but one of the

characteristics