Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 The following text is from Karl Renz a German Satsang teacher. It is pretty long. Maybe you like it .., Werner Q: What do you mean when you use the word " realization? " Most people usually think of it as a kind of understanding. K: Just look at the combination of the words " real " with " realization. " It is the real, and also the unfolding of the real as in time and space. Q: Is realization something that reveals itself in time, or is there a precursor to realization? K: Is there ever a moment in time when the Self is not realized? That which you think you are will never be realized. How can an idea or an object be realized? What realization means here, is that consciousness, which once identified with an object, becomes infinite; it becomes conscious about being consciousness. But the Self is never enlightened or unenlightened. It is always prior to all ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, no matter what you say about it. All this is conceptual. Q: Would you say that prior to enlightenment you existed in the same manner? K: There is " no one " who ever realized anything, not even Karl, who is part of the realization. Perhaps you mean the final resignation, the absolute resignation-when full of desire to improve or change, you really see that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a way out of what you are. You can never become what you already are! This is not something that " happens, " it is just an " aha " -a seeing that what you are is what you always were and always will be. What you are is outside of time. Time exists because of you; it merely reflects what you are. Q: This is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of the ego. K: There never was an ego that breathed. There is no " last " breath because there was no " first " breath. Don't create a process out of it; there is no process. You just see that what you are is the only real thing and that it was never touched by whatever is sensorial. This is not something new; it is ancient and infinite. Just this, " aha, oh, infinity " -and all there is is the infinite, not an experience nor an event. Q: The common understanding of a human being is, " I am conscious; one of my properties is consciousness. " K: So, out of the idea of an " owner " comes the idea to own consciousness? This happens because of the feeling of separation. What results is the sense of being a separate person, which is also false. What you mean to say is, " Consciousness plays the role of a person, but there is no person who 'owns' consciousness. " If there is any ownership at all it is on the part of consciousness, which " owns " a person, because it plays the role of a person. Q: So consciousness is creating a picture. K: There is no creator and there is no creation. There is only the one Self and the unfolding of the Self-it's an infinite unfolding. Because there is nothing outside of the Self there cannot be a separate creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the " I " as awareness becomes the thought " I am " ; from the thought " I am " comes the feeling " I am an object in time. " All of this is part of the unfolding of the Self. Q: It seems that you are speaking of three levels: The " I, " the " I am, " and the " I am this. " K: This is just a concept. The only thing which is not conceptual is the Self. With concepts you can look at things from infinite angles and in the process make new and different concepts. This does not require an explanation! This is only about seeing: to point to the very core, to see that only Self is reality, and this reality is prior to all ideas of existence or nonexistence. Any idea that arises is fiction. That, which is prior to fiction, to ideas, is what you are. Replacing one concept with another concept in order to create a " clear " concept is not an advantage at all. This is not part of understanding. What we are speaking of is what you are, and this does not require understanding, or knowledge about how it functions. Just see! Self is all, and whatever takes place is only in and of the Self. Q: But people are coming to this because there is an urge to understand, to get out of the story, to realize something. K: People come to find a way out and I show them that there is no way out. They may come to see that the idea of a way out occurs because of the belief that there is one " who needs a way out. " If I show them that what they are has no need of anything, and that there is no necessity to leave what they already are, they may directly see that whatever they cognize is not what they are. Without the absolute perceiver nothing would be present. Even the relative perceiver, the person, is part of the act of perception. The ideas of a perceiver, the act of perceiving, and the object perceived is only just a part of this realization. Although the unfolding is a functioning of the Self, the Self is always absolute stillness and is untouched by any unfolding. Ultimately, there is no unfolding of anything, even this is a concept. Ramana Maharshi said that you use one concept to remove another concept, and then both are discarded. All of this is just to see that what you are is not a concept. And this absolute experience is seen when you are in total emptiness; then there is no second. When there is nothing to perceive, what remains is still what you are. In this total emptiness, it is not possible to say if you are or you are not. So you exist even without an idea or perception of anything. You remain what you are even when the sensation of being " you " no longer exists. Q: To see this is a huge step, a profound shift in perspective. K: When you see that nothing has ever happened, there are no more steps. You are what you always have been and always will be; the rest is just lila-a theatrical play. The Self doesn't depend on anything. Whether or not you see the Self as the source of everything holds no advantage for the Self, since it neither realizes nor becomes ignorant of anything. Becoming clear on a particular point is meaningless when you are clarity itself. So, in this way, you are worth nothing. Q: The Self is pretty mean. First, it creates people worth nothing, and then these people feel they are suffering. And the Self is having fun all the time. K: The Self is not the caretaker of what unfolds. The Self is as it is, and is perfect in itself. It is the absence of all ideas of what the Self is or is not that brings perfect happiness and contentment. Always come back to the following point: Be prior to that which exists in time. See that what you are cannot be touched by what is perceived by any of the senses. Q: Are you speaking about pure awareness without any object? K: Awareness is the first unfolding; it's a sense of self which is aware of existence. So there is a self being aware of its separateness. In this way, awareness is already part of separation. Q: Because awareness is already a function of the Self? K: Exactly. It's part of the functioning but it is not that which is functioning. You may call it the source of the " I am, " which is the source of " I am Karl, " but you can only truly rest when you see that whatever you define cannot be what you are. Just as the eye cannot see itself, the absolute definer cannot define what the definer is. What you are can't avoid resting in " what is, " nor can it rest in something else, because Self is all there is. And you cannot escape because all there is is Self-wherever you may go, you will already be present. Whether you stay still or move about, no one moves and no one stays still. Just see the totality of what you are, even in the world of time and space. This totality is all there is. The unfolding of the Absolute is as absolute as that which is unfolding. Even this image called " me, " which pops up in the morning and goes down in the evening, is without any need of realization. As long as you believe you are this image, as long as this " I " -thought is your reality, the Self is only an idea. It is consciousness looking for the Self. Q: As long as we consider ourselves to be a person trapped in time, there will always be trouble. K: And there is no way out of it. Q: Do you mean that the identified consciousness will be always exist? K: Exactly. It will always be there because identified consciousness (consciousness imagining itself limited to an object) is part of the infinite. Q: But that which exists in time doesn't look at it this way. K: That which is in time never looked because there is no time and therefore nothing to be in time. Only the Self looks. It doesn't matter how the Self looks: from in time, out of time, or prior to time. The Self perceives, and what it perceives is only the Self, because the Self is all there is. Q: But for perception time is necessary! K: Time comes out of the idea of a " me. " All of these ideas are only part of the unfolding of the totality, the Self. Even though you may perceive what seems to be finite time, and it appears to come and go, it doesn't mean that it exists in something finite like time. Q: What about suffering? The Buddha said there is an end to suffering. K: Look for the beginning of suffering. When you can find the beginning, then you may be able to find the end of suffering. Did suffering ever start? For suffering to be present there would need a sufferer, so look for the sufferer first. As long as you look for the " end " of suffering, there will continue to be a sufferer. The sense of " I am " brings with it a sufferer-maybe not suffering-but at any moment, without attention, it can go back to suffering. So the only way is to annihilate the idea of a sufferer. When the sufferer is annihilated, where is the suffering? The total annihilation of the sufferer can only take place when you really see what you are-when you perceive yourself as that, without beginning and without end. When this manifestation is seen to be only the Self, there is absolute annihilation of the sense of separation, of existing as a separate self. Q: What is the difference between the experienced seeker who may listen to talks like these for fifty years and the butcher who is not interested in this subject, but just wants to make lots of money, have a nice house, and simply be happy? K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel! Yes, both want to be happy, absolutely happy. Due to the ignorance of what they already are, they both strive-as consciousness-for absolute happiness. The idea of separation holds within it a sense of imperfection, which drives both of these people to look for perfection, not knowing that they are absolute perfection itself. So, both the butcher and the seeker are consciousness looking for satisfaction. There is no difference. Q: But doesn't it help to hear you say this for a period of years? What advice would you give to the sincere seeker who devotes his or her life to the pursuit of enlightenment? K: Imagine that there is somebody who could be helped and that there is one to do the helping. That would be hell. Don't listen to anybody, not even to yourself. Whatever you perceive cannot be what you are. Whatever you have understood you can forget. And the belief in an entity that can " become clear " is not what you are. Q: But there is the idea that slowly, there is less and less ego. K: Less ego; more ego. What can disappear can surely appear again. The ego which goes may return sooner or later. First, see what actually appears and if that appearance is real. Then, who cares about an appearance? This is the main question to ask, not what comes and goes. How stupid to care about an appearance. This is ignorance of the Self, the belief in a separate self, which takes an appearance as real. Q: What about all of the ideas of purity: to live a pure life and strive for goodness like the Bodhisattva? K: It's all " Dharma-keeping. " It keeps the Dharma alive; it keeps the lila alive. Q: Is there an advantage to being good? K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be good. And as long as you believe being good will make you happy, then it's better for you to be good. Q: But it makes some people happy to be bad. K: Yes, in the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that you need something different from what you are now in order to be complete or to be happy. Just see that what you are is perfect just as it is, and that ideas of imperfection are merely ideas and cannot touch perfection itself. Q: But what if I know that I am " no thing, " that I have " no form? " K: The idea " I am without form, " or " I am not, " is still within the realm of separation. " Who " is it that has no form but still needs one? Just see that what exists in " no-form " also exists in form. I am still the same either with form or without form. Without the sense of difference, without the sense of separation, it is all complete. You do not require any special circumstance. That which you are exists in any and every circumstance. The circumstances we call birth or death can never touch you. You are prior to the sensation of birth and death. What you are existed before this body was born. See that you are total compassion, that nothing happens to you, that whatever arises, is because you are. There is no difference between this eye looking at something or the other eye; you are the infinite eye, which looks from infinite angles into what you are. You are the infinite perception which perceives only Self-information. The main thing to see is that there is no need for a way out. And in this resignation-that you are the essence or substratum of what is- there is no way out because you are the very source of what is. Only then is there peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 devi: werner, i read that you aren't intersted in the Self anymore..whats up? smiles Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > The following text is from Karl Renz a German Satsang teacher. It is > pretty long. Maybe you like it .., > > Werner > > Q: What do you mean when you use the word " realization? " Most people > usually think of it as a kind of understanding. > K: Just look at the combination of the words " real " > with " realization. " It is the real, and also the unfolding of the > real as in time and space. > Q: Is realization something that reveals itself in time, or is there > a precursor to realization? > K: Is there ever a moment in time when the Self is not realized? That > which you think you are will never be realized. How can an idea or an > object be realized? What realization means here, is that > consciousness, which once identified with an object, becomes > infinite; it becomes conscious about being consciousness. But the > Self is never enlightened or unenlightened. It is always prior to all > ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, no matter what you say > about it. All this is conceptual. > Q: Would you say that prior to enlightenment you existed in the same > manner? > K: There is " no one " who ever realized anything, not even Karl, who > is part of the realization. Perhaps you mean the final resignation, > the absolute resignation-when full of desire to improve or change, > you really see that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a way > out of what you are. You can never become what you already are! This > is not something that " happens, " it is just an " aha " -a seeing that > what you are is what you always were and always will be. What you are > is outside of time. Time exists because of you; it merely reflects > what you are. > Q: This is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of the ego. > K: There never was an ego that breathed. There is no " last " breath > because there was no " first " breath. Don't create a process out of > it; there is no process. You just see that what you are is the only > real thing and that it was never touched by whatever is sensorial. > This is not something new; it is ancient and infinite. Just > this, " aha, oh, infinity " -and all there is is the infinite, not an > experience nor an event. > Q: The common understanding of a human being is, " I am conscious; one > of my properties is consciousness. " > K: So, out of the idea of an " owner " comes the idea to own > consciousness? This happens because of the feeling of separation. > What results is the sense of being a separate person, which is also > false. What you mean to say is, " Consciousness plays the role of a > person, but there is no person who 'owns' consciousness. " If there is > any ownership at all it is on the part of consciousness, which " owns " > a person, because it plays the role of a person. > Q: So consciousness is creating a picture. > K: There is no creator and there is no creation. There is only the > one Self and the unfolding of the Self-it's an infinite unfolding. > Because there is nothing outside of the Self there cannot be a > separate creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the " I " as > awareness becomes the thought " I am " ; from the thought " I am " comes > the feeling " I am an object in time. " All of this is part of the > unfolding of the Self. > Q: It seems that you are speaking of three levels: The " I, " the " I > am, " and the " I am this. " > K: This is just a concept. The only thing which is not conceptual is > the Self. With concepts you can look at things from infinite angles > and in the process make new and different concepts. This does not > require an explanation! This is only about seeing: to point to the > very core, to see that only Self is reality, and this reality is > prior to all ideas of existence or nonexistence. Any idea that arises > is fiction. That, which is prior to fiction, to ideas, is what you > are. Replacing one concept with another concept in order to create > a " clear " concept is not an advantage at all. This is not part of > understanding. What we are speaking of is what you are, and this does > not require understanding, or knowledge about how it functions. Just > see! Self is all, and whatever takes place is only in and of the Self. > Q: But people are coming to this because there is an urge to > understand, to get out of the story, to realize something. > K: People come to find a way out and I show them that there is no way > out. They may come to see that the idea of a way out occurs because > of the belief that there is one " who needs a way out. " If I show them > that what they are has no need of anything, and that there is no > necessity to leave what they already are, they may directly see that > whatever they cognize is not what they are. Without the absolute > perceiver nothing would be present. Even the relative perceiver, the > person, is part of the act of perception. The ideas of a perceiver, > the act of perceiving, and the object perceived is only just a part > of this realization. Although the unfolding is a functioning of the > Self, the Self is always absolute stillness and is untouched by any > unfolding. Ultimately, there is no unfolding of anything, even this > is a concept. Ramana Maharshi said that you use one concept to remove > another concept, and then both are discarded. All of this is just to > see that what you are is not a concept. And this absolute experience > is seen when you are in total emptiness; then there is no second. > When there is nothing to perceive, what remains is still what you > are. In this total emptiness, it is not possible to say if you are or > you are not. So you exist even without an idea or perception of > anything. You remain what you are even when the sensation of > being " you " no longer exists. > Q: To see this is a huge step, a profound shift in perspective. > K: When you see that nothing has ever happened, there are no more > steps. You are what you always have been and always will be; the rest > is just lila-a theatrical play. The Self doesn't depend on anything. > Whether or not you see the Self as the source of everything holds no > advantage for the Self, since it neither realizes nor becomes > ignorant of anything. Becoming clear on a particular point is > meaningless when you are clarity itself. So, in this way, you are > worth nothing. > Q: The Self is pretty mean. First, it creates people worth nothing, > and then these people feel they are suffering. And the Self is having > fun all the time. > K: The Self is not the caretaker of what unfolds. The Self is as it > is, and is perfect in itself. It is the absence of all ideas of what > the Self is or is not that brings perfect happiness and contentment. > Always come back to the following point: Be prior to that which > exists in time. See that what you are cannot be touched by what is > perceived by any of the senses. > Q: Are you speaking about pure awareness without any object? > K: Awareness is the first unfolding; it's a sense of self which is > aware of existence. So there is a self being aware of its > separateness. In this way, awareness is already part of separation. > Q: Because awareness is already a function of the Self? > K: Exactly. It's part of the functioning but it is not that which is > functioning. You may call it the source of the " I am, " which is the > source of " I am Karl, " but you can only truly rest when you see that > whatever you define cannot be what you are. Just as the eye cannot > see itself, the absolute definer cannot define what the definer is. > What you are can't avoid resting in " what is, " nor can it rest in > something else, because Self is all there is. And you cannot escape > because all there is is Self-wherever you may go, you will already be > present. Whether you stay still or move about, no one moves and no > one stays still. Just see the totality of what you are, even in the > world of time and space. This totality is all there is. The unfolding > of the Absolute is as absolute as that which is unfolding. Even this > image called " me, " which pops up in the morning and goes down in the > evening, is without any need of realization. As long as you believe > you are this image, as long as this " I " -thought is your reality, the > Self is only an idea. It is consciousness looking for the Self. > Q: As long as we consider ourselves to be a person trapped in time, > there will always be trouble. > K: And there is no way out of it. > Q: Do you mean that the identified consciousness will be always exist? > K: Exactly. It will always be there because identified consciousness > (consciousness imagining itself limited to an object) is part of the > infinite. > Q: But that which exists in time doesn't look at it this way. > K: That which is in time never looked because there is no time and > therefore nothing to be in time. Only the Self looks. It doesn't > matter how the Self looks: from in time, out of time, or prior to > time. The Self perceives, and what it perceives is only the Self, > because the Self is all there is. > Q: But for perception time is necessary! > K: Time comes out of the idea of a " me. " All of these ideas are only > part of the unfolding of the totality, the Self. Even though you may > perceive what seems to be finite time, and it appears to come and go, > it doesn't mean that it exists in something finite like time. > Q: What about suffering? The Buddha said there is an end to suffering. > K: Look for the beginning of suffering. When you can find the > beginning, then you may be able to find the end of suffering. Did > suffering ever start? For suffering to be present there would need a > sufferer, so look for the sufferer first. As long as you look for > the " end " of suffering, there will continue to be a sufferer. The > sense of " I am " brings with it a sufferer-maybe not suffering-but at > any moment, without attention, it can go back to suffering. So the > only way is to annihilate the idea of a sufferer. When the sufferer > is annihilated, where is the suffering? The total annihilation of the > sufferer can only take place when you really see what you are-when > you perceive yourself as that, without beginning and without end. > When this manifestation is seen to be only the Self, there is > absolute annihilation of the sense of separation, of existing as a > separate self. > Q: What is the difference between the experienced seeker who may > listen to talks like these for fifty years and the butcher who is not > interested in this subject, but just wants to make lots of money, > have a nice house, and simply be happy? > K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel! Yes, both want to be happy, > absolutely happy. Due to the ignorance of what they already are, they > both strive-as consciousness-for absolute happiness. The idea of > separation holds within it a sense of imperfection, which drives both > of these people to look for perfection, not knowing that they are > absolute perfection itself. So, both the butcher and the seeker are > consciousness looking for satisfaction. There is no difference. > Q: But doesn't it help to hear you say this for a period of years? > What advice would you give to the sincere seeker who devotes his or > her life to the pursuit of enlightenment? > K: Imagine that there is somebody who could be helped and that there > is one to do the helping. That would be hell. Don't listen to > anybody, not even to yourself. Whatever you perceive cannot be what > you are. Whatever you have understood you can forget. And the belief > in an entity that can " become clear " is not what you are. > Q: But there is the idea that slowly, there is less and less ego. > K: Less ego; more ego. What can disappear can surely appear again. > The ego which goes may return sooner or later. First, see what > actually appears and if that appearance is real. Then, who cares > about an appearance? This is the main question to ask, not what comes > and goes. How stupid to care about an appearance. This is ignorance > of the Self, the belief in a separate self, which takes an appearance > as real. > Q: What about all of the ideas of purity: to live a pure life and > strive for goodness like the Bodhisattva? > K: It's all " Dharma-keeping. " It keeps the Dharma alive; it keeps the > lila alive. > Q: Is there an advantage to being good? > K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be good. And > as long as you believe being good will make you happy, then it's > better for you to be good. > Q: But it makes some people happy to be bad. > K: Yes, in the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that you need > something different from what you are now in order to be complete or > to be happy. Just see that what you are is perfect just as it is, and > that ideas of imperfection are merely ideas and cannot touch > perfection itself. > Q: But what if I know that I am " no thing, " that I have " no form? " > K: The idea " I am without form, " or " I am not, " is still within the > realm of separation. " Who " is it that has no form but still needs > one? Just see that what exists in " no-form " also exists in form. I am > still the same either with form or without form. Without the sense of > difference, without the sense of separation, it is all complete. You > do not require any special circumstance. That which you are exists in > any and every circumstance. The circumstances we call birth or death > can never touch you. You are prior to the sensation of birth and > death. What you are existed before this body was born. See that you > are total compassion, that nothing happens to you, that whatever > arises, is because you are. There is no difference between this eye > looking at something or the other eye; you are the infinite eye, > which looks from infinite angles into what you are. You are the > infinite perception which perceives only Self-information. The main > thing to see is that there is no need for a way out. And in this > resignation-that you are the essence or substratum of what is- there > is no way out because you are the very source of what is. Only then > is there peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Hi Devi, I feared that you might reply Seriously, what this Karl Renz is writing about the Self I simply don't understand. Do you ? Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > devi: werner, i read that you aren't intersted in the Self > anymore..whats up? > > smiles > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > The following text is from Karl Renz a German Satsang teacher. It > is > > pretty long. Maybe you like it .., > > > > Werner > > > > Q: What do you mean when you use the word " realization? " Most > people > > usually think of it as a kind of understanding. > > K: Just look at the combination of the words " real " > > with " realization. " It is the real, and also the unfolding of the > > real as in time and space. > > Q: Is realization something that reveals itself in time, or is > there > > a precursor to realization? > > K: Is there ever a moment in time when the Self is not realized? > That > > which you think you are will never be realized. How can an idea or > an > > object be realized? What realization means here, is that > > consciousness, which once identified with an object, becomes > > infinite; it becomes conscious about being consciousness. But the > > Self is never enlightened or unenlightened. It is always prior to > all > > ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, no matter what you > say > > about it. All this is conceptual. > > Q: Would you say that prior to enlightenment you existed in the > same > > manner? > > K: There is " no one " who ever realized anything, not even Karl, > who > > is part of the realization. Perhaps you mean the final > resignation, > > the absolute resignation-when full of desire to improve or change, > > you really see that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a > way > > out of what you are. You can never become what you already are! > This > > is not something that " happens, " it is just an " aha " -a seeing that > > what you are is what you always were and always will be. What you > are > > is outside of time. Time exists because of you; it merely reflects > > what you are. > > Q: This is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of the > ego. > > K: There never was an ego that breathed. There is no " last " breath > > because there was no " first " breath. Don't create a process out of > > it; there is no process. You just see that what you are is the > only > > real thing and that it was never touched by whatever is sensorial. > > This is not something new; it is ancient and infinite. Just > > this, " aha, oh, infinity " -and all there is is the infinite, not an > > experience nor an event. > > Q: The common understanding of a human being is, " I am conscious; > one > > of my properties is consciousness. " > > K: So, out of the idea of an " owner " comes the idea to own > > consciousness? This happens because of the feeling of separation. > > What results is the sense of being a separate person, which is > also > > false. What you mean to say is, " Consciousness plays the role of a > > person, but there is no person who 'owns' consciousness. " If there > is > > any ownership at all it is on the part of consciousness, > which " owns " > > a person, because it plays the role of a person. > > Q: So consciousness is creating a picture. > > K: There is no creator and there is no creation. There is only the > > one Self and the unfolding of the Self-it's an infinite unfolding. > > Because there is nothing outside of the Self there cannot be a > > separate creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the " I " as > > awareness becomes the thought " I am " ; from the thought " I am " > comes > > the feeling " I am an object in time. " All of this is part of the > > unfolding of the Self. > > Q: It seems that you are speaking of three levels: The " I, " the " I > > am, " and the " I am this. " > > K: This is just a concept. The only thing which is not conceptual > is > > the Self. With concepts you can look at things from infinite > angles > > and in the process make new and different concepts. This does not > > require an explanation! This is only about seeing: to point to the > > very core, to see that only Self is reality, and this reality is > > prior to all ideas of existence or nonexistence. Any idea that > arises > > is fiction. That, which is prior to fiction, to ideas, is what you > > are. Replacing one concept with another concept in order to create > > a " clear " concept is not an advantage at all. This is not part of > > understanding. What we are speaking of is what you are, and this > does > > not require understanding, or knowledge about how it functions. > Just > > see! Self is all, and whatever takes place is only in and of the > Self. > > Q: But people are coming to this because there is an urge to > > understand, to get out of the story, to realize something. > > K: People come to find a way out and I show them that there is no > way > > out. They may come to see that the idea of a way out occurs > because > > of the belief that there is one " who needs a way out. " If I show > them > > that what they are has no need of anything, and that there is no > > necessity to leave what they already are, they may directly see > that > > whatever they cognize is not what they are. Without the absolute > > perceiver nothing would be present. Even the relative perceiver, > the > > person, is part of the act of perception. The ideas of a > perceiver, > > the act of perceiving, and the object perceived is only just a > part > > of this realization. Although the unfolding is a functioning of > the > > Self, the Self is always absolute stillness and is untouched by > any > > unfolding. Ultimately, there is no unfolding of anything, even > this > > is a concept. Ramana Maharshi said that you use one concept to > remove > > another concept, and then both are discarded. All of this is just > to > > see that what you are is not a concept. And this absolute > experience > > is seen when you are in total emptiness; then there is no second. > > When there is nothing to perceive, what remains is still what you > > are. In this total emptiness, it is not possible to say if you are > or > > you are not. So you exist even without an idea or perception of > > anything. You remain what you are even when the sensation of > > being " you " no longer exists. > > Q: To see this is a huge step, a profound shift in perspective. > > K: When you see that nothing has ever happened, there are no more > > steps. You are what you always have been and always will be; the > rest > > is just lila-a theatrical play. The Self doesn't depend on > anything. > > Whether or not you see the Self as the source of everything holds > no > > advantage for the Self, since it neither realizes nor becomes > > ignorant of anything. Becoming clear on a particular point is > > meaningless when you are clarity itself. So, in this way, you are > > worth nothing. > > Q: The Self is pretty mean. First, it creates people worth > nothing, > > and then these people feel they are suffering. And the Self is > having > > fun all the time. > > K: The Self is not the caretaker of what unfolds. The Self is as > it > > is, and is perfect in itself. It is the absence of all ideas of > what > > the Self is or is not that brings perfect happiness and > contentment. > > Always come back to the following point: Be prior to that which > > exists in time. See that what you are cannot be touched by what is > > perceived by any of the senses. > > Q: Are you speaking about pure awareness without any object? > > K: Awareness is the first unfolding; it's a sense of self which is > > aware of existence. So there is a self being aware of its > > separateness. In this way, awareness is already part of separation. > > Q: Because awareness is already a function of the Self? > > K: Exactly. It's part of the functioning but it is not that which > is > > functioning. You may call it the source of the " I am, " which is > the > > source of " I am Karl, " but you can only truly rest when you see > that > > whatever you define cannot be what you are. Just as the eye cannot > > see itself, the absolute definer cannot define what the definer > is. > > What you are can't avoid resting in " what is, " nor can it rest in > > something else, because Self is all there is. And you cannot > escape > > because all there is is Self-wherever you may go, you will already > be > > present. Whether you stay still or move about, no one moves and no > > one stays still. Just see the totality of what you are, even in > the > > world of time and space. This totality is all there is. The > unfolding > > of the Absolute is as absolute as that which is unfolding. Even > this > > image called " me, " which pops up in the morning and goes down in > the > > evening, is without any need of realization. As long as you > believe > > you are this image, as long as this " I " -thought is your reality, > the > > Self is only an idea. It is consciousness looking for the Self. > > Q: As long as we consider ourselves to be a person trapped in > time, > > there will always be trouble. > > K: And there is no way out of it. > > Q: Do you mean that the identified consciousness will be always > exist? > > K: Exactly. It will always be there because identified > consciousness > > (consciousness imagining itself limited to an object) is part of > the > > infinite. > > Q: But that which exists in time doesn't look at it this way. > > K: That which is in time never looked because there is no time and > > therefore nothing to be in time. Only the Self looks. It doesn't > > matter how the Self looks: from in time, out of time, or prior to > > time. The Self perceives, and what it perceives is only the Self, > > because the Self is all there is. > > Q: But for perception time is necessary! > > K: Time comes out of the idea of a " me. " All of these ideas are > only > > part of the unfolding of the totality, the Self. Even though you > may > > perceive what seems to be finite time, and it appears to come and > go, > > it doesn't mean that it exists in something finite like time. > > Q: What about suffering? The Buddha said there is an end to > suffering. > > K: Look for the beginning of suffering. When you can find the > > beginning, then you may be able to find the end of suffering. Did > > suffering ever start? For suffering to be present there would need > a > > sufferer, so look for the sufferer first. As long as you look for > > the " end " of suffering, there will continue to be a sufferer. The > > sense of " I am " brings with it a sufferer-maybe not suffering-but > at > > any moment, without attention, it can go back to suffering. So the > > only way is to annihilate the idea of a sufferer. When the > sufferer > > is annihilated, where is the suffering? The total annihilation of > the > > sufferer can only take place when you really see what you are- when > > you perceive yourself as that, without beginning and without end. > > When this manifestation is seen to be only the Self, there is > > absolute annihilation of the sense of separation, of existing as a > > separate self. > > Q: What is the difference between the experienced seeker who may > > listen to talks like these for fifty years and the butcher who is > not > > interested in this subject, but just wants to make lots of money, > > have a nice house, and simply be happy? > > K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel! Yes, both want to be happy, > > absolutely happy. Due to the ignorance of what they already are, > they > > both strive-as consciousness-for absolute happiness. The idea of > > separation holds within it a sense of imperfection, which drives > both > > of these people to look for perfection, not knowing that they are > > absolute perfection itself. So, both the butcher and the seeker > are > > consciousness looking for satisfaction. There is no difference. > > Q: But doesn't it help to hear you say this for a period of years? > > What advice would you give to the sincere seeker who devotes his > or > > her life to the pursuit of enlightenment? > > K: Imagine that there is somebody who could be helped and that > there > > is one to do the helping. That would be hell. Don't listen to > > anybody, not even to yourself. Whatever you perceive cannot be > what > > you are. Whatever you have understood you can forget. And the > belief > > in an entity that can " become clear " is not what you are. > > Q: But there is the idea that slowly, there is less and less ego. > > K: Less ego; more ego. What can disappear can surely appear again. > > The ego which goes may return sooner or later. First, see what > > actually appears and if that appearance is real. Then, who cares > > about an appearance? This is the main question to ask, not what > comes > > and goes. How stupid to care about an appearance. This is > ignorance > > of the Self, the belief in a separate self, which takes an > appearance > > as real. > > Q: What about all of the ideas of purity: to live a pure life and > > strive for goodness like the Bodhisattva? > > K: It's all " Dharma-keeping. " It keeps the Dharma alive; it keeps > the > > lila alive. > > Q: Is there an advantage to being good? > > K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be good. > And > > as long as you believe being good will make you happy, then it's > > better for you to be good. > > Q: But it makes some people happy to be bad. > > K: Yes, in the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that you > need > > something different from what you are now in order to be complete > or > > to be happy. Just see that what you are is perfect just as it is, > and > > that ideas of imperfection are merely ideas and cannot touch > > perfection itself. > > Q: But what if I know that I am " no thing, " that I have " no form? " > > K: The idea " I am without form, " or " I am not, " is still within > the > > realm of separation. " Who " is it that has no form but still needs > > one? Just see that what exists in " no-form " also exists in form. I > am > > still the same either with form or without form. Without the sense > of > > difference, without the sense of separation, it is all complete. > You > > do not require any special circumstance. That which you are exists > in > > any and every circumstance. The circumstances we call birth or > death > > can never touch you. You are prior to the sensation of birth and > > death. What you are existed before this body was born. See that > you > > are total compassion, that nothing happens to you, that whatever > > arises, is because you are. There is no difference between this > eye > > looking at something or the other eye; you are the infinite eye, > > which looks from infinite angles into what you are. You are the > > infinite perception which perceives only Self-information. The > main > > thing to see is that there is no need for a way out. And in this > > resignation-that you are the essence or substratum of what is- > there > > is no way out because you are the very source of what is. Only > then > > is there peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > devi: werner, i read that you aren't intersted in the Self > anymore..whats up? > > smiles Namaste, He has found out the Self is another illusion, Saguna Brahman....ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 > > Hi Devi, > > I feared that you might reply > > Seriously, what this Karl Renz is writing about the Self I simply > don't understand. Do you ? > > Werner > devi: its very long. some of it i do and some of it i don't.. before nisargadatta what have you been into,,has *enlightenment* been the priority in life? maybe we should work on thet fear problem of yours.... > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > devi: werner, i read that you aren't intersted in the Self > > anymore..whats up? > > > > smiles > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > The following text is from Karl Renz a German Satsang teacher. It > > is > > > pretty long. Maybe you like it .., > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Q: What do you mean when you use the word " realization? " Most > > people > > > usually think of it as a kind of understanding. > > > K: Just look at the combination of the words " real " > > > with " realization. " It is the real, and also the unfolding of the > > > real as in time and space. > > > Q: Is realization something that reveals itself in time, or is > > there > > > a precursor to realization? > > > K: Is there ever a moment in time when the Self is not realized? > > That > > > which you think you are will never be realized. How can an idea > or > > an > > > object be realized? What realization means here, is that > > > consciousness, which once identified with an object, becomes > > > infinite; it becomes conscious about being consciousness. But the > > > Self is never enlightened or unenlightened. It is always prior to > > all > > > ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, no matter what you > > say > > > about it. All this is conceptual. > > > Q: Would you say that prior to enlightenment you existed in the > > same > > > manner? > > > K: There is " no one " who ever realized anything, not even Karl, > > who > > > is part of the realization. Perhaps you mean the final > > resignation, > > > the absolute resignation-when full of desire to improve or > change, > > > you really see that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a > > way > > > out of what you are. You can never become what you already are! > > This > > > is not something that " happens, " it is just an " aha " -a seeing > that > > > what you are is what you always were and always will be. What you > > are > > > is outside of time. Time exists because of you; it merely > reflects > > > what you are. > > > Q: This is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of the > > ego. > > > K: There never was an ego that breathed. There is no " last " > breath > > > because there was no " first " breath. Don't create a process out > of > > > it; there is no process. You just see that what you are is the > > only > > > real thing and that it was never touched by whatever is > sensorial. > > > This is not something new; it is ancient and infinite. Just > > > this, " aha, oh, infinity " -and all there is is the infinite, not > an > > > experience nor an event. > > > Q: The common understanding of a human being is, " I am conscious; > > one > > > of my properties is consciousness. " > > > K: So, out of the idea of an " owner " comes the idea to own > > > consciousness? This happens because of the feeling of separation. > > > What results is the sense of being a separate person, which is > > also > > > false. What you mean to say is, " Consciousness plays the role of > a > > > person, but there is no person who 'owns' consciousness. " If > there > > is > > > any ownership at all it is on the part of consciousness, > > which " owns " > > > a person, because it plays the role of a person. > > > Q: So consciousness is creating a picture. > > > K: There is no creator and there is no creation. There is only > the > > > one Self and the unfolding of the Self-it's an infinite > unfolding. > > > Because there is nothing outside of the Self there cannot be a > > > separate creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the " I " as > > > awareness becomes the thought " I am " ; from the thought " I am " > > comes > > > the feeling " I am an object in time. " All of this is part of the > > > unfolding of the Self. > > > Q: It seems that you are speaking of three levels: The " I, " > the " I > > > am, " and the " I am this. " > > > K: This is just a concept. The only thing which is not conceptual > > is > > > the Self. With concepts you can look at things from infinite > > angles > > > and in the process make new and different concepts. This does not > > > require an explanation! This is only about seeing: to point to > the > > > very core, to see that only Self is reality, and this reality is > > > prior to all ideas of existence or nonexistence. Any idea that > > arises > > > is fiction. That, which is prior to fiction, to ideas, is what > you > > > are. Replacing one concept with another concept in order to > create > > > a " clear " concept is not an advantage at all. This is not part of > > > understanding. What we are speaking of is what you are, and this > > does > > > not require understanding, or knowledge about how it functions. > > Just > > > see! Self is all, and whatever takes place is only in and of the > > Self. > > > Q: But people are coming to this because there is an urge to > > > understand, to get out of the story, to realize something. > > > K: People come to find a way out and I show them that there is no > > way > > > out. They may come to see that the idea of a way out occurs > > because > > > of the belief that there is one " who needs a way out. " If I show > > them > > > that what they are has no need of anything, and that there is no > > > necessity to leave what they already are, they may directly see > > that > > > whatever they cognize is not what they are. Without the absolute > > > perceiver nothing would be present. Even the relative perceiver, > > the > > > person, is part of the act of perception. The ideas of a > > perceiver, > > > the act of perceiving, and the object perceived is only just a > > part > > > of this realization. Although the unfolding is a functioning of > > the > > > Self, the Self is always absolute stillness and is untouched by > > any > > > unfolding. Ultimately, there is no unfolding of anything, even > > this > > > is a concept. Ramana Maharshi said that you use one concept to > > remove > > > another concept, and then both are discarded. All of this is just > > to > > > see that what you are is not a concept. And this absolute > > experience > > > is seen when you are in total emptiness; then there is no second. > > > When there is nothing to perceive, what remains is still what you > > > are. In this total emptiness, it is not possible to say if you > are > > or > > > you are not. So you exist even without an idea or perception of > > > anything. You remain what you are even when the sensation of > > > being " you " no longer exists. > > > Q: To see this is a huge step, a profound shift in perspective. > > > K: When you see that nothing has ever happened, there are no more > > > steps. You are what you always have been and always will be; the > > rest > > > is just lila-a theatrical play. The Self doesn't depend on > > anything. > > > Whether or not you see the Self as the source of everything holds > > no > > > advantage for the Self, since it neither realizes nor becomes > > > ignorant of anything. Becoming clear on a particular point is > > > meaningless when you are clarity itself. So, in this way, you are > > > worth nothing. > > > Q: The Self is pretty mean. First, it creates people worth > > nothing, > > > and then these people feel they are suffering. And the Self is > > having > > > fun all the time. > > > K: The Self is not the caretaker of what unfolds. The Self is as > > it > > > is, and is perfect in itself. It is the absence of all ideas of > > what > > > the Self is or is not that brings perfect happiness and > > contentment. > > > Always come back to the following point: Be prior to that which > > > exists in time. See that what you are cannot be touched by what > is > > > perceived by any of the senses. > > > Q: Are you speaking about pure awareness without any object? > > > K: Awareness is the first unfolding; it's a sense of self which > is > > > aware of existence. So there is a self being aware of its > > > separateness. In this way, awareness is already part of > separation. > > > Q: Because awareness is already a function of the Self? > > > K: Exactly. It's part of the functioning but it is not that which > > is > > > functioning. You may call it the source of the " I am, " which is > > the > > > source of " I am Karl, " but you can only truly rest when you see > > that > > > whatever you define cannot be what you are. Just as the eye > cannot > > > see itself, the absolute definer cannot define what the definer > > is. > > > What you are can't avoid resting in " what is, " nor can it rest in > > > something else, because Self is all there is. And you cannot > > escape > > > because all there is is Self-wherever you may go, you will > already > > be > > > present. Whether you stay still or move about, no one moves and > no > > > one stays still. Just see the totality of what you are, even in > > the > > > world of time and space. This totality is all there is. The > > unfolding > > > of the Absolute is as absolute as that which is unfolding. Even > > this > > > image called " me, " which pops up in the morning and goes down in > > the > > > evening, is without any need of realization. As long as you > > believe > > > you are this image, as long as this " I " -thought is your reality, > > the > > > Self is only an idea. It is consciousness looking for the Self. > > > Q: As long as we consider ourselves to be a person trapped in > > time, > > > there will always be trouble. > > > K: And there is no way out of it. > > > Q: Do you mean that the identified consciousness will be always > > exist? > > > K: Exactly. It will always be there because identified > > consciousness > > > (consciousness imagining itself limited to an object) is part of > > the > > > infinite. > > > Q: But that which exists in time doesn't look at it this way. > > > K: That which is in time never looked because there is no time > and > > > therefore nothing to be in time. Only the Self looks. It doesn't > > > matter how the Self looks: from in time, out of time, or prior to > > > time. The Self perceives, and what it perceives is only the Self, > > > because the Self is all there is. > > > Q: But for perception time is necessary! > > > K: Time comes out of the idea of a " me. " All of these ideas are > > only > > > part of the unfolding of the totality, the Self. Even though you > > may > > > perceive what seems to be finite time, and it appears to come and > > go, > > > it doesn't mean that it exists in something finite like time. > > > Q: What about suffering? The Buddha said there is an end to > > suffering. > > > K: Look for the beginning of suffering. When you can find the > > > beginning, then you may be able to find the end of suffering. Did > > > suffering ever start? For suffering to be present there would > need > > a > > > sufferer, so look for the sufferer first. As long as you look for > > > the " end " of suffering, there will continue to be a sufferer. The > > > sense of " I am " brings with it a sufferer-maybe not suffering- but > > at > > > any moment, without attention, it can go back to suffering. So > the > > > only way is to annihilate the idea of a sufferer. When the > > sufferer > > > is annihilated, where is the suffering? The total annihilation of > > the > > > sufferer can only take place when you really see what you are- > when > > > you perceive yourself as that, without beginning and without end. > > > When this manifestation is seen to be only the Self, there is > > > absolute annihilation of the sense of separation, of existing as > a > > > separate self. > > > Q: What is the difference between the experienced seeker who may > > > listen to talks like these for fifty years and the butcher who is > > not > > > interested in this subject, but just wants to make lots of money, > > > have a nice house, and simply be happy? > > > K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel! Yes, both want to be happy, > > > absolutely happy. Due to the ignorance of what they already are, > > they > > > both strive-as consciousness-for absolute happiness. The idea of > > > separation holds within it a sense of imperfection, which drives > > both > > > of these people to look for perfection, not knowing that they are > > > absolute perfection itself. So, both the butcher and the seeker > > are > > > consciousness looking for satisfaction. There is no difference. > > > Q: But doesn't it help to hear you say this for a period of > years? > > > What advice would you give to the sincere seeker who devotes his > > or > > > her life to the pursuit of enlightenment? > > > K: Imagine that there is somebody who could be helped and that > > there > > > is one to do the helping. That would be hell. Don't listen to > > > anybody, not even to yourself. Whatever you perceive cannot be > > what > > > you are. Whatever you have understood you can forget. And the > > belief > > > in an entity that can " become clear " is not what you are. > > > Q: But there is the idea that slowly, there is less and less ego. > > > K: Less ego; more ego. What can disappear can surely appear > again. > > > The ego which goes may return sooner or later. First, see what > > > actually appears and if that appearance is real. Then, who cares > > > about an appearance? This is the main question to ask, not what > > comes > > > and goes. How stupid to care about an appearance. This is > > ignorance > > > of the Self, the belief in a separate self, which takes an > > appearance > > > as real. > > > Q: What about all of the ideas of purity: to live a pure life and > > > strive for goodness like the Bodhisattva? > > > K: It's all " Dharma-keeping. " It keeps the Dharma alive; it keeps > > the > > > lila alive. > > > Q: Is there an advantage to being good? > > > K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be good. > > And > > > as long as you believe being good will make you happy, then it's > > > better for you to be good. > > > Q: But it makes some people happy to be bad. > > > K: Yes, in the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that you > > need > > > something different from what you are now in order to be complete > > or > > > to be happy. Just see that what you are is perfect just as it is, > > and > > > that ideas of imperfection are merely ideas and cannot touch > > > perfection itself. > > > Q: But what if I know that I am " no thing, " that I have " no form? " > > > K: The idea " I am without form, " or " I am not, " is still within > > the > > > realm of separation. " Who " is it that has no form but still needs > > > one? Just see that what exists in " no-form " also exists in form. > I > > am > > > still the same either with form or without form. Without the > sense > > of > > > difference, without the sense of separation, it is all complete. > > You > > > do not require any special circumstance. That which you are > exists > > in > > > any and every circumstance. The circumstances we call birth or > > death > > > can never touch you. You are prior to the sensation of birth and > > > death. What you are existed before this body was born. See that > > you > > > are total compassion, that nothing happens to you, that whatever > > > arises, is because you are. There is no difference between this > > eye > > > looking at something or the other eye; you are the infinite eye, > > > which looks from infinite angles into what you are. You are the > > > infinite perception which perceives only Self-information. The > > main > > > thing to see is that there is no need for a way out. And in this > > > resignation-that you are the essence or substratum of what is- > > there > > > is no way out because you are the very source of what is. Only > > then > > > is there peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Hi Devi, Good idea. Some people before you already worked with me on my fear problem and very soon they all got free of fear ) Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Devi, > > > > I feared that you might reply > > > > Seriously, what this Karl Renz is writing about the Self I simply > > don't understand. Do you ? > > > > Werner > > > > devi: its very long. some of it i do and some of it i don't.. > > before nisargadatta what have you been into,,has *enlightenment* > been the priority in life? > > maybe we should work on thet fear problem of yours.... > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > > devi: werner, i read that you aren't intersted in the Self > > > anymore..whats up? > > > > > > smiles > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The following text is from Karl Renz a German Satsang teacher. > It > > > is > > > > pretty long. Maybe you like it .., > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Q: What do you mean when you use the word " realization? " Most > > > people > > > > usually think of it as a kind of understanding. > > > > K: Just look at the combination of the words " real " > > > > with " realization. " It is the real, and also the unfolding of > the > > > > real as in time and space. > > > > Q: Is realization something that reveals itself in time, or is > > > there > > > > a precursor to realization? > > > > K: Is there ever a moment in time when the Self is not > realized? > > > That > > > > which you think you are will never be realized. How can an > idea > > or > > > an > > > > object be realized? What realization means here, is that > > > > consciousness, which once identified with an object, becomes > > > > infinite; it becomes conscious about being consciousness. But > the > > > > Self is never enlightened or unenlightened. It is always prior > to > > > all > > > > ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, no matter what > you > > > say > > > > about it. All this is conceptual. > > > > Q: Would you say that prior to enlightenment you existed in > the > > > same > > > > manner? > > > > K: There is " no one " who ever realized anything, not even > Karl, > > > who > > > > is part of the realization. Perhaps you mean the final > > > resignation, > > > > the absolute resignation-when full of desire to improve or > > change, > > > > you really see that there is not now, nor will there ever be, > a > > > way > > > > out of what you are. You can never become what you already > are! > > > This > > > > is not something that " happens, " it is just an " aha " -a seeing > > that > > > > what you are is what you always were and always will be. What > you > > > are > > > > is outside of time. Time exists because of you; it merely > > reflects > > > > what you are. > > > > Q: This is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of > the > > > ego. > > > > K: There never was an ego that breathed. There is no " last " > > breath > > > > because there was no " first " breath. Don't create a process > out > > of > > > > it; there is no process. You just see that what you are is the > > > only > > > > real thing and that it was never touched by whatever is > > sensorial. > > > > This is not something new; it is ancient and infinite. Just > > > > this, " aha, oh, infinity " -and all there is is the infinite, > not > > an > > > > experience nor an event. > > > > Q: The common understanding of a human being is, " I am > conscious; > > > one > > > > of my properties is consciousness. " > > > > K: So, out of the idea of an " owner " comes the idea to own > > > > consciousness? This happens because of the feeling of > separation. > > > > What results is the sense of being a separate person, which is > > > also > > > > false. What you mean to say is, " Consciousness plays the role > of > > a > > > > person, but there is no person who 'owns' consciousness. " If > > there > > > is > > > > any ownership at all it is on the part of consciousness, > > > which " owns " > > > > a person, because it plays the role of a person. > > > > Q: So consciousness is creating a picture. > > > > K: There is no creator and there is no creation. There is only > > the > > > > one Self and the unfolding of the Self-it's an infinite > > unfolding. > > > > Because there is nothing outside of the Self there cannot be a > > > > separate creator or creation. Out of this unfolding, the " I " > as > > > > awareness becomes the thought " I am " ; from the thought " I am " > > > comes > > > > the feeling " I am an object in time. " All of this is part of > the > > > > unfolding of the Self. > > > > Q: It seems that you are speaking of three levels: The " I, " > > the " I > > > > am, " and the " I am this. " > > > > K: This is just a concept. The only thing which is not > conceptual > > > is > > > > the Self. With concepts you can look at things from infinite > > > angles > > > > and in the process make new and different concepts. This does > not > > > > require an explanation! This is only about seeing: to point to > > the > > > > very core, to see that only Self is reality, and this reality > is > > > > prior to all ideas of existence or nonexistence. Any idea that > > > arises > > > > is fiction. That, which is prior to fiction, to ideas, is what > > you > > > > are. Replacing one concept with another concept in order to > > create > > > > a " clear " concept is not an advantage at all. This is not part > of > > > > understanding. What we are speaking of is what you are, and > this > > > does > > > > not require understanding, or knowledge about how it > functions. > > > Just > > > > see! Self is all, and whatever takes place is only in and of > the > > > Self. > > > > Q: But people are coming to this because there is an urge to > > > > understand, to get out of the story, to realize something. > > > > K: People come to find a way out and I show them that there is > no > > > way > > > > out. They may come to see that the idea of a way out occurs > > > because > > > > of the belief that there is one " who needs a way out. " If I > show > > > them > > > > that what they are has no need of anything, and that there is > no > > > > necessity to leave what they already are, they may directly > see > > > that > > > > whatever they cognize is not what they are. Without the > absolute > > > > perceiver nothing would be present. Even the relative > perceiver, > > > the > > > > person, is part of the act of perception. The ideas of a > > > perceiver, > > > > the act of perceiving, and the object perceived is only just a > > > part > > > > of this realization. Although the unfolding is a functioning > of > > > the > > > > Self, the Self is always absolute stillness and is untouched > by > > > any > > > > unfolding. Ultimately, there is no unfolding of anything, even > > > this > > > > is a concept. Ramana Maharshi said that you use one concept to > > > remove > > > > another concept, and then both are discarded. All of this is > just > > > to > > > > see that what you are is not a concept. And this absolute > > > experience > > > > is seen when you are in total emptiness; then there is no > second. > > > > When there is nothing to perceive, what remains is still what > you > > > > are. In this total emptiness, it is not possible to say if you > > are > > > or > > > > you are not. So you exist even without an idea or perception > of > > > > anything. You remain what you are even when the sensation of > > > > being " you " no longer exists. > > > > Q: To see this is a huge step, a profound shift in perspective. > > > > K: When you see that nothing has ever happened, there are no > more > > > > steps. You are what you always have been and always will be; > the > > > rest > > > > is just lila-a theatrical play. The Self doesn't depend on > > > anything. > > > > Whether or not you see the Self as the source of everything > holds > > > no > > > > advantage for the Self, since it neither realizes nor becomes > > > > ignorant of anything. Becoming clear on a particular point is > > > > meaningless when you are clarity itself. So, in this way, you > are > > > > worth nothing. > > > > Q: The Self is pretty mean. First, it creates people worth > > > nothing, > > > > and then these people feel they are suffering. And the Self is > > > having > > > > fun all the time. > > > > K: The Self is not the caretaker of what unfolds. The Self is > as > > > it > > > > is, and is perfect in itself. It is the absence of all ideas > of > > > what > > > > the Self is or is not that brings perfect happiness and > > > contentment. > > > > Always come back to the following point: Be prior to that > which > > > > exists in time. See that what you are cannot be touched by > what > > is > > > > perceived by any of the senses. > > > > Q: Are you speaking about pure awareness without any object? > > > > K: Awareness is the first unfolding; it's a sense of self > which > > is > > > > aware of existence. So there is a self being aware of its > > > > separateness. In this way, awareness is already part of > > separation. > > > > Q: Because awareness is already a function of the Self? > > > > K: Exactly. It's part of the functioning but it is not that > which > > > is > > > > functioning. You may call it the source of the " I am, " which > is > > > the > > > > source of " I am Karl, " but you can only truly rest when you > see > > > that > > > > whatever you define cannot be what you are. Just as the eye > > cannot > > > > see itself, the absolute definer cannot define what the > definer > > > is. > > > > What you are can't avoid resting in " what is, " nor can it rest > in > > > > something else, because Self is all there is. And you cannot > > > escape > > > > because all there is is Self-wherever you may go, you will > > already > > > be > > > > present. Whether you stay still or move about, no one moves > and > > no > > > > one stays still. Just see the totality of what you are, even > in > > > the > > > > world of time and space. This totality is all there is. The > > > unfolding > > > > of the Absolute is as absolute as that which is unfolding. > Even > > > this > > > > image called " me, " which pops up in the morning and goes down > in > > > the > > > > evening, is without any need of realization. As long as you > > > believe > > > > you are this image, as long as this " I " -thought is your > reality, > > > the > > > > Self is only an idea. It is consciousness looking for the Self. > > > > Q: As long as we consider ourselves to be a person trapped in > > > time, > > > > there will always be trouble. > > > > K: And there is no way out of it. > > > > Q: Do you mean that the identified consciousness will be > always > > > exist? > > > > K: Exactly. It will always be there because identified > > > consciousness > > > > (consciousness imagining itself limited to an object) is part > of > > > the > > > > infinite. > > > > Q: But that which exists in time doesn't look at it this way. > > > > K: That which is in time never looked because there is no time > > and > > > > therefore nothing to be in time. Only the Self looks. It > doesn't > > > > matter how the Self looks: from in time, out of time, or prior > to > > > > time. The Self perceives, and what it perceives is only the > Self, > > > > because the Self is all there is. > > > > Q: But for perception time is necessary! > > > > K: Time comes out of the idea of a " me. " All of these ideas > are > > > only > > > > part of the unfolding of the totality, the Self. Even though > you > > > may > > > > perceive what seems to be finite time, and it appears to come > and > > > go, > > > > it doesn't mean that it exists in something finite like time. > > > > Q: What about suffering? The Buddha said there is an end to > > > suffering. > > > > K: Look for the beginning of suffering. When you can find the > > > > beginning, then you may be able to find the end of suffering. > Did > > > > suffering ever start? For suffering to be present there would > > need > > > a > > > > sufferer, so look for the sufferer first. As long as you look > for > > > > the " end " of suffering, there will continue to be a sufferer. > The > > > > sense of " I am " brings with it a sufferer-maybe not suffering- > but > > > at > > > > any moment, without attention, it can go back to suffering. So > > the > > > > only way is to annihilate the idea of a sufferer. When the > > > sufferer > > > > is annihilated, where is the suffering? The total annihilation > of > > > the > > > > sufferer can only take place when you really see what you are- > > when > > > > you perceive yourself as that, without beginning and without > end. > > > > When this manifestation is seen to be only the Self, there is > > > > absolute annihilation of the sense of separation, of existing > as > > a > > > > separate self. > > > > Q: What is the difference between the experienced seeker who > may > > > > listen to talks like these for fifty years and the butcher who > is > > > not > > > > interested in this subject, but just wants to make lots of > money, > > > > have a nice house, and simply be happy? > > > > K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel! Yes, both want to be happy, > > > > absolutely happy. Due to the ignorance of what they already > are, > > > they > > > > both strive-as consciousness-for absolute happiness. The idea > of > > > > separation holds within it a sense of imperfection, which > drives > > > both > > > > of these people to look for perfection, not knowing that they > are > > > > absolute perfection itself. So, both the butcher and the > seeker > > > are > > > > consciousness looking for satisfaction. There is no difference. > > > > Q: But doesn't it help to hear you say this for a period of > > years? > > > > What advice would you give to the sincere seeker who devotes > his > > > or > > > > her life to the pursuit of enlightenment? > > > > K: Imagine that there is somebody who could be helped and that > > > there > > > > is one to do the helping. That would be hell. Don't listen to > > > > anybody, not even to yourself. Whatever you perceive cannot be > > > what > > > > you are. Whatever you have understood you can forget. And the > > > belief > > > > in an entity that can " become clear " is not what you are. > > > > Q: But there is the idea that slowly, there is less and less > ego. > > > > K: Less ego; more ego. What can disappear can surely appear > > again. > > > > The ego which goes may return sooner or later. First, see what > > > > actually appears and if that appearance is real. Then, who > cares > > > > about an appearance? This is the main question to ask, not > what > > > comes > > > > and goes. How stupid to care about an appearance. This is > > > ignorance > > > > of the Self, the belief in a separate self, which takes an > > > appearance > > > > as real. > > > > Q: What about all of the ideas of purity: to live a pure life > and > > > > strive for goodness like the Bodhisattva? > > > > K: It's all " Dharma-keeping. " It keeps the Dharma alive; it > keeps > > > the > > > > lila alive. > > > > Q: Is there an advantage to being good? > > > > K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be > good. > > > And > > > > as long as you believe being good will make you happy, then > it's > > > > better for you to be good. > > > > Q: But it makes some people happy to be bad. > > > > K: Yes, in the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that > you > > > need > > > > something different from what you are now in order to be > complete > > > or > > > > to be happy. Just see that what you are is perfect just as it > is, > > > and > > > > that ideas of imperfection are merely ideas and cannot touch > > > > perfection itself. > > > > Q: But what if I know that I am " no thing, " that I have " no > form? " > > > > K: The idea " I am without form, " or " I am not, " is still > within > > > the > > > > realm of separation. " Who " is it that has no form but still > needs > > > > one? Just see that what exists in " no-form " also exists in > form. > > I > > > am > > > > still the same either with form or without form. Without the > > sense > > > of > > > > difference, without the sense of separation, it is all > complete. > > > You > > > > do not require any special circumstance. That which you are > > exists > > > in > > > > any and every circumstance. The circumstances we call birth or > > > death > > > > can never touch you. You are prior to the sensation of birth > and > > > > death. What you are existed before this body was born. See > that > > > you > > > > are total compassion, that nothing happens to you, that > whatever > > > > arises, is because you are. There is no difference between > this > > > eye > > > > looking at something or the other eye; you are the infinite > eye, > > > > which looks from infinite angles into what you are. You are > the > > > > infinite perception which perceives only Self-information. The > > > main > > > > thing to see is that there is no need for a way out. And in > this > > > > resignation-that you are the essence or substratum of what is- > > > there > > > > is no way out because you are the very source of what is. Only > > > then > > > > is there peace. 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.