Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Dan talks: > > > > =========== > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > the belief over and over. > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > have something to count on. > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > -- Dan > > > > ========== > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dan, > > > > Please let me clarify Again. > > > > There is a VAST difference between ... I am Arvind, I am Dan, I am > > enlightened, I am Jnani, I am deluded and > > > > ---- I AM --- > > > > .... > > ... > > . > > > > I am this, I am that is ...the identification. Sometimes called > ego. > > > > It requires maintenance. It requires thinking. It dies as soon > > as ...think stops. > > > > But, > > > > --- I AM --- is known in its pure form for the first time, ONLY > after > > the thoughts have completely died. > > > > After that, even if the image, memory and identification of ....I > am > > this, I am that gets created again for any purpose it is not > confused > > for anything other than ...a role, a function, an utility, a > > temporary arrangement. > > > > > > . > > ... > > ..... > > > > --- I AM --- requires No maintenance, ...NO Repeating, No > thinking. > > > > As I have mentioned a earlier, it is a `word`, a `symbol', > > a `pointer' used to point to the one that EXISTS ...whether ...NOT > > thinking or ...Thinking. > > > > > > .... > > ... > > . > > > > I have explained it many time already in this thread but perhaps, > it > > is Not yet clear to you. To help you out with it, let me do an > > Internet search and see if I can find something that might help you > > understand it little better. > ========== > > D.: What is this Self again? > > Ramana : The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always > exist. The Be-ing is the Self. > > 'I am' is the name of God. > > Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the > Biblical statement " I AM THAT I AM " in EXODUS (Chap. 3). > > There ate other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and > Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM The Absolute > Being is what is - It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God > is known. > > In fact God is none other than the Self. > > =========== > > > Does that Help you understand it, Dan ? > > If NOt, you are on Your Own. > > Good Bye ... > > I do not wish to spend any more words on this thread. > > Let us start a New One ... There never has been any other, my friend Arvind. Only this one interweaving, which isn't even a numerical one, hence can't involve many. Simply the unspeakably interweaving and interwoven. -- Dan > > With warm regards and ...love, > > ac. 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.