Lewis - I AM - realization - common versus not-common.

[Guest guest]

[....]

 

>

> Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well,

the

> sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I

am.

> I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

> why it is so difficult to understand.

>

> **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> experience it.

 

Thanks, Lewis !

 

I think, Ramana too says quite similar

things:

 

D.: It is one step to realization.

Ramana: Realization is already there.

The state free from thoughts is the

only real state.

 

There is no such action as realization.

 

IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS NOT REALIZING

THE SELF?

DOES ANYONE DENY HIS OWN EXISTENCE?

 

Speaking of realization, it implies

two selves - the one to realize, the

other to be realized. What is not

already realized, is sought to be

realized.

 

ONCE WE ADMIT OUR EXISTENCE, HOW IS IT

THAT WE DO NOT KNOW OUR SELF?

 

..

....

......

 

But, then he goes further and says:

 

1. What are the marks of a real

teacher (Sadguru)?

 

STEADY ABIDANCE IN THE SELF, looking

at all with an equal eye, unshakeable

courage at all times, in

all places and circumstances, etc.

 

1. What is the state of attainment of

knowledge?

IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

THE SELF in which the mind which has

become one with the Self

does not subsequently emerge again at

any time. That is, just as everyone

usually and naturally has

the idea, 'I am not a goat nor a cow

nor any other animal but a man', when

he thinks of his body, so

also when he has the idea 'I am not

the principles (tatwas) beginning with

the body and ending with

sound (nada), but the Self which is

existence, consciousness and bliss',

the innate self-consciousness

(atmaprajna), he is said to have

attained firm knowledge.

 

 

1. What is the method of practice?

As the Self of a person who tries to

attain Self-realization is not

different from him and as there is

nothing other than or superior to him

to be attained by him, Self-realization

being only the realization

of one's own nature, the seeker of

Liberation realizes, without doubts or

misconceptions, his real

nature by distinguishing the eternal

from the transient, and NEVER SWERVES

FROM HIS NATURAL STATE.

This is known as the practice of

knowledge. This is the enquiry leading

to Self-realization.

 

 

10. What is the end of the path of

knowledge (jnana) or Vedanta?

It is to know the truth that the 'I'

is not different from the Lord (Isvara)

and to be free from the

feeling of being the doer (kartrtva,

ahamkara).

 

11. How can it be said that the end of

both these paths is the same?

WHATEVER THE MEANS, THE DESTRUCTION OF

THE SENSE 'I' AND 'MINE' IS THE GOAL,

and as these are

interdependent, the destruction of

either of them causes the destruction

of the other; therefore in order

to achieve that state of Silence which

is beyond thought and word, either the

path of knowledge

which removes the sense of 'I' or the

path of devotion which removes the

sense of 'mine', will

suffice. So there is no doubt that the

end of the paths of devotion and

knowledge is one and the same.

 

 

What do you think ?

 

 

Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

 

 

---- Where are You ???

 

Are you in steady abidance in Self or

do you keep losing in thoughts and

concepts ?

 

------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

Katie has / had same and equal

occurrences of losing in thoughts and

concepts ?

 

If Not, can it then be said that they

were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

else ?

 

 

regards,

ac.

 

 

 

 

[.....]

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

> [....]

>

> >

> > Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well,

> the

> > sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I

> am.

> > I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

> > why it is so difficult to understand.

> >

> > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> > simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> > experience it.

>

> Thanks, Lewis !

>

> I think, Ramana too says quite similar

> things:

>

> D.: It is one step to realization.

> Ramana: Realization is already there.

> The state free from thoughts is the

> only real state.

>

> There is no such action as realization.

>

> IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS NOT REALIZING

> THE SELF?

> DOES ANYONE DENY HIS OWN EXISTENCE?

>

> Speaking of realization, it implies

> two selves - the one to realize, the

> other to be realized. What is not

> already realized, is sought to be

> realized.

>

> ONCE WE ADMIT OUR EXISTENCE, HOW IS IT

> THAT WE DO NOT KNOW OUR SELF?

>

> .

> ...

> .....

>

> But, then he goes further and says:

>

> 1. What are the marks of a real

> teacher (Sadguru)?

>

> STEADY ABIDANCE IN THE SELF, looking

> at all with an equal eye, unshakeable

> courage at all times, in

> all places and circumstances, etc.

>

> 1. What is the state of attainment of

> knowledge?

> IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> THE SELF in which the mind which has

> become one with the Self

> does not subsequently emerge again at

> any time. That is, just as everyone

> usually and naturally has

> the idea, 'I am not a goat nor a cow

> nor any other animal but a man', when

> he thinks of his body, so

> also when he has the idea 'I am not

> the principles (tatwas) beginning with

> the body and ending with

> sound (nada), but the Self which is

> existence, consciousness and bliss',

> the innate self-consciousness

> (atmaprajna), he is said to have

> attained firm knowledge.

>

>

> 1. What is the method of practice?

> As the Self of a person who tries to

> attain Self-realization is not

> different from him and as there is

> nothing other than or superior to him

> to be attained by him, Self-realization

> being only the realization

> of one's own nature, the seeker of

> Liberation realizes, without doubts or

> misconceptions, his real

> nature by distinguishing the eternal

> from the transient, and NEVER SWERVES

> FROM HIS NATURAL STATE.

> This is known as the practice of

> knowledge. This is the enquiry leading

> to Self-realization.

>

>

> 10. What is the end of the path of

> knowledge (jnana) or Vedanta?

> It is to know the truth that the 'I'

> is not different from the Lord (Isvara)

> and to be free from the

> feeling of being the doer (kartrtva,

> ahamkara).

>

> 11. How can it be said that the end of

> both these paths is the same?

> WHATEVER THE MEANS, THE DESTRUCTION OF

> THE SENSE 'I' AND 'MINE' IS THE GOAL,

> and as these are

> interdependent, the destruction of

> either of them causes the destruction

> of the other; therefore in order

> to achieve that state of Silence which

> is beyond thought and word, either the

> path of knowledge

> which removes the sense of 'I' or the

> path of devotion which removes the

> sense of 'mine', will

> suffice. So there is no doubt that the

> end of the paths of devotion and

> knowledge is one and the same.

>

>

> What do you think ?

 

 

No thing.

 

 

 

>

>

> Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

>

>

> ---- Where are You ???

 

 

The question is nonsensical. You already know the answer. Why ask?

 

>

> Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> do you keep losing in thoughts and

> concepts ?

>

 

There are none not two (you and Self). So there is no " who " or " what "

lost in thoughts and concepts. Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

with, tools to be used. Nothing more. And it makes no difference, for

it is done as it is. Assuming otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

To play or use does not mean lost.

 

And if you are an " object I " or the " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

that is self or other played or worked with. Toys and tools are picked

up and put down as it goes as one observes in children and

craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do you play with your Self, do you

work with your Self as others here do by asserting that that is beyond

assertion?

 

 

> ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> Katie has / had same and equal

> occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> concepts ?

 

 

Who or what knows that? One only imagines about what one cannot

possibly know.

 

>

> If Not, can it then be said that they

> were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> else ?

>

>

> regards,

> ac.

 

 

They twirl as they are and repeat one sentence thousands of times in

different ways. All of what they say is simply one sentence - an

unattainable dream that sustained them and that keeps " hope " alive in

others who haven't the foggiest.

[Guest guest]

> ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> Katie has / had same and equal

> occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> concepts ?

 

 

Lewis:

>>>Who or what knows that? One only

imagines about what one cannot

possibly know.

 

 

Thanks, Lewis !

 

Let us see if we can use this reality /

possibility at other places too !

 

 

>

> If Not, can it then be said that they

> were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> else ?

>

>

> regards,

> ac.

 

 

Lewis:

>>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

sentence thousands of times in

different ways. All of what they say

is simply one sentence – " an

UNATTAINABLE dream "

 

How do you know it is – " an

UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

 

Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

 

Do you know it or

are you imagining it in stating it in way that

might sound like a " known truth " ?

 

 

>>that sustained them

and that keeps " hope " alive in

others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

 

How do you know it is –

" others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

 

Is it FOGGIEST to you or do you mean

it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

 

Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

are you imagining it in stating it in way that

might sound like a " known truth " ?

 

> 1. What is the state of attainment of

> knowledge?

> IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> THE SELF in which the mind which has

> become one with the Self

> does not subsequently emerge again at

> any time.

 

......

 

.....

 

> Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

>

>

> ---- Where are You ???

 

 

Lewis:

 

>>The question is nonsensical. You

already know the answer. Why ask?

 

How do you know that you ALREADY

know the answer that you might give ?

 

Or, are you just imagining it ?

 

I think, I don't and that's one

reason for why I asked.

 

 

With warm regards,

ac.

 

[NNNB]

 

 

>

> Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> do you keep losing in thoughts and

> concepts ?

>

 

Lewis:

 

>>There are none not two (you and Self).

So there is no " who " or " what "

lost in thoughts and concepts.

Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

And it makes no difference, for

it is done as it is. Assuming

otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

To play or use does not mean lost.

 

And if you are an " object I " or the

" Self, " then you are toy or a tool

that is self or other played or worked

with. Toys and tools are picked

up and put down as it goes as one

observes in children and

craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

you play with your Self, do you

work with your Self as others here do

by asserting that that is beyond

assertion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

> > ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> > Katie has / had same and equal

> > occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> > concepts ?

>

>

> Lewis:

> >>>Who or what knows that? One only

> imagines about what one cannot

> possibly know.

>

>

> Thanks, Lewis !

>

> Let us see if we can use this reality /

> possibility at other places too !

>

>

> >

> > If Not, can it then be said that they

> > were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> > else ?

> >

> >

> > regards,

> > ac.

>

>

> Lewis:

> >>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

> sentence thousands of times in

> different ways. All of what they say

> is simply one sentence – " an

> UNATTAINABLE dream "

>

> How do you know it is – " an

> UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

 

 

Can one drink the water of a mirage?

 

 

>

> Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

> it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

 

 

Can one drink the water of a mirage?

Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

 

 

>

> Do you know it or

> are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> might sound like a " known truth " ?

 

 

It is clearly apparent.

 

Can you drink the water of a mirage?

Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

 

 

>

> >>that sustained them

> and that keeps " hope " alive in

> others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

>

> How do you know it is –

> " others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

 

 

Can one find and drink the water of a mirage?

Are there others who cannot even find the water of a mirage or see the

mirage itself yet imagine they see what is not?

 

 

>

> Is it FOGGIEST to you

 

 

 

It is futile to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

 

 

 

> or do you mean it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

 

 

It is futile for anyone to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

 

 

>

> Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

> are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> might sound like a " known truth " ?

 

It is clearly apparent.

 

Can you drink the water of a mirage?

Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

 

 

>

> > 1. What is the state of attainment of

> > knowledge?

> > IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> > THE SELF in which the mind which has

> > become one with the Self

> > does not subsequently emerge again at

> > any time.

>

> .....

>

> ....

>

> > Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> > 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

> >

> >

> > ---- Where are You ???

>

>

> Lewis:

>

> >>The question is nonsensical. You

> already know the answer. Why ask?

>

> How do you know that you ALREADY

> know the answer that you might give ?

 

 

From mouna.

 

 

>

> Or, are you just imagining it ?

 

 

No imagination.

 

 

>

> I think, I don't and that's one

> reason for why I asked.

 

 

Follow Ramanas words. It may help.

He speaks of a way to mouna.

There are other ways.

 

 

 

Love,

 

Lewis

 

>

>

> With warm regards,

> ac.

>

> [NNNB]

>

>

> >

> > Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> > do you keep losing in thoughts and

> > concepts ?

> >

>

> Lewis:

>

> >>There are none not two (you and Self).

> So there is no " who " or " what "

> lost in thoughts and concepts.

> Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

> with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

> And it makes no difference, for

> it is done as it is. Assuming

> otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

> To play or use does not mean lost.

>

> And if you are an " object I " or the

> " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

> that is self or other played or worked

> with. Toys and tools are picked

> up and put down as it goes as one

> observes in children and

> craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

> you play with your Self, do you

> work with your Self as others here do

> by asserting that that is beyond

> assertion?

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Lewis!

 

I was looking for some simple,

straight-forward answers.

 

But, what I got looks like a `avoidance',

hiding or play of words to me.

 

 

But, it is possible that you have some reasons to do that.

 

It is also possible that you are answering in completely

straightforward terms but I am not able to get it.

 

Mirage and other terms without explaining what is

that you are calling mirage doesn't tell me much.

 

So, let me try again:

 

>>They ( Ramana and others ) twirl as they

are and repeat one sentence thousands of times in

different ways. All of what they say

is simply one sentence – " an

UNATTAINABLE dream "

 

What is that " UNATTAINABLE dream "

that they repeat thousand times, Lewis.

 

Could you please elaborate it.

 

Just the term " UNATTAINABLE dream "

doesn't tell me anything other than that

they talk about something that is `dream'

and further that it is ... " UNATTAINABLE " .

 

Also, if it is UNATTAINABLE ( for everyone)

then, Why do they keep doing it?

 

[NNB]

 

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > > ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> > > Katie has / had same and equal

> > > occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> > > concepts ?

> >

> >

> > Lewis:

> > >>>Who or what knows that? One only

> > imagines about what one cannot

> > possibly know.

> >

> >

> > Thanks, Lewis !

> >

> > Let us see if we can use this reality /

> > possibility at other places too !

> >

> >

> > >

> > > If Not, can it then be said that they

> > > were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> > > else ?

> > >

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > ac.

> >

> >

> > Lewis:

> > >>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

> > sentence thousands of times in

> > different ways. All of what they say

> > is simply one sentence – " an

> > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> >

> > How do you know it is – " an

> > UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

>

>

> Can one drink the water of a mirage?

>

>

> >

> > Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

> > it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

>

>

> Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

>

>

> >

> > Do you know it or

> > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > might sound like a " known truth " ?

>

>

> It is clearly apparent.

>

> Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

>

>

> >

> > >>that sustained them

> > and that keeps " hope " alive in

> > others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

> >

> > How do you know it is –

> > " others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

>

>

> Can one find and drink the water of a mirage?

> Are there others who cannot even find the water of a mirage or see

the

> mirage itself yet imagine they see what is not?

>

>

> >

> > Is it FOGGIEST to you

>

>

>

> It is futile to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

>

>

>

> > or do you mean it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

>

>

> It is futile for anyone to drink the water of a mirage to quench

thirst.

>

>

> >

> > Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

> > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > might sound like a " known truth " ?

>

> It is clearly apparent.

>

> Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

>

>

> >

> > > 1. What is the state of attainment of

> > > knowledge?

> > > IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> > > THE SELF in which the mind which has

> > > become one with the Self

> > > does not subsequently emerge again at

> > > any time.

> >

> > .....

> >

> > ....

> >

> > > Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> > > 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

> > >

> > >

> > > ---- Where are You ???

> >

> >

> > Lewis:

> >

> > >>The question is nonsensical. You

> > already know the answer. Why ask?

> >

> > How do you know that you ALREADY

> > know the answer that you might give ?

>

>

> From mouna.

>

>

> >

> > Or, are you just imagining it ?

>

>

> No imagination.

>

>

> >

> > I think, I don't and that's one

> > reason for why I asked.

>

>

> Follow Ramanas words. It may help.

> He speaks of a way to mouna.

> There are other ways.

>

>

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

>

> >

> >

> > With warm regards,

> > ac.

> >

> > [NNNB]

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> > > do you keep losing in thoughts and

> > > concepts ?

> > >

> >

> > Lewis:

> >

> > >>There are none not two (you and Self).

> > So there is no " who " or " what "

> > lost in thoughts and concepts.

> > Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

> > with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

> > And it makes no difference, for

> > it is done as it is. Assuming

> > otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

> > To play or use does not mean lost.

> >

> > And if you are an " object I " or the

> > " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

> > that is self or other played or worked

> > with. Toys and tools are picked

> > up and put down as it goes as one

> > observes in children and

> > craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

> > you play with your Self, do you

> > work with your Self as others here do

> > by asserting that that is beyond

> > assertion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

> Thanks, Lewis!

>

> I was looking for some simple,

> straight-forward answers.

 

They were provided.

 

>

> But, what I got looks like a `avoidance',

> hiding or play of words to me.

 

The answers were answers not play, hiding or avoidance.

 

>

> But, it is possible that you have some reasons to do that.

>

 

No reasons.

 

 

> It is also possible that you are answering in completely

> straightforward terms but I am not able to get it.

 

 

That may be so.

 

 

> Mirage and other terms without explaining what is

> that you are calling mirage doesn't tell me much.

 

It is simple. It tells it all. Receive it in mouna. Wait.

 

 

> So, let me try again:

>

> >>They ( Ramana and others ) twirl as they

> are and repeat one sentence thousands of times in

> different ways. All of what they say

> is simply one sentence – " an

> UNATTAINABLE dream "

>

> What is that " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> that they repeat thousand times, Lewis.

>

> Could you please elaborate it.

 

 

 

No.

 

Some notes on it will suffice.

 

AC you read and quote Tolle and Ramana. Can you not see it? You can

find the sentence that defines all that is said and then see clearly

what it is; the central defining assumption each one holds from which

all their words and thoughts emerge and are formed. Their words are

formed and are consistent and not formless and non-descriptive because

they present a formulated belief, a formed structure, a world of their

own making, in words, based in their individual experiences. It is

their " world, " their reality, only.

 

How is it that one individual's reality becomes the reality for all?

Can you tell me how an apple I eat tastes by watching and listening?

Can my description of how an apple tastes give you the taste

experienced by my appearance? You will never know my experience as it

is. You can only imagine it. Telling about it helps a little to get

soemthing done. Nothing more. What would you experience after eating

an apple, if you saw individuals buying and eating printed

descriptions of apples, trying to imagine the taste, chewing the paper

and saying it tastes good and feels good?

 

 

 

 

>

> Just the term " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> doesn't tell me anything other than that

> they talk about something that is `dream'

> and further that it is ... " UNATTAINABLE " .

>

 

That is clear enough. Find what they talk about, the central defining

assumption. Examine it without belief. Know that they present only one

version, their version of the universe and its contents. See it for

what it is.

 

 

> Also, if it is UNATTAINABLE ( for everyone)

> then, Why do they keep doing it?

 

 

In this as in everything, my answer is not yours. Ask your self or

Self. There will appear an answer.

 

 

>

> [NNB]

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> > <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > > > ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> > > > Katie has / had same and equal

> > > > occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> > > > concepts ?

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis:

> > > >>>Who or what knows that? One only

> > > imagines about what one cannot

> > > possibly know.

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks, Lewis !

> > >

> > > Let us see if we can use this reality /

> > > possibility at other places too !

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > If Not, can it then be said that they

> > > > were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> > > > else ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > ac.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis:

> > > >>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

> > > sentence thousands of times in

> > > different ways. All of what they say

> > > is simply one sentence – " an

> > > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > >

> > > How do you know it is – " an

> > > UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

> >

> >

> > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

> > > it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

> >

> >

> > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Do you know it or

> > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> >

> >

> > It is clearly apparent.

> >

> > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > >>that sustained them

> > > and that keeps " hope " alive in

> > > others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

> > >

> > > How do you know it is –

> > > " others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

> >

> >

> > Can one find and drink the water of a mirage?

> > Are there others who cannot even find the water of a mirage or see

> the

> > mirage itself yet imagine they see what is not?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Is it FOGGIEST to you

> >

> >

> >

> > It is futile to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

> >

> >

> >

> > > or do you mean it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

> >

> >

> > It is futile for anyone to drink the water of a mirage to quench

> thirst.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

> > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> >

> > It is clearly apparent.

> >

> > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > 1. What is the state of attainment of

> > > > knowledge?

> > > > IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> > > > THE SELF in which the mind which has

> > > > become one with the Self

> > > > does not subsequently emerge again at

> > > > any time.

> > >

> > > .....

> > >

> > > ....

> > >

> > > > Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> > > > 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---- Where are You ???

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis:

> > >

> > > >>The question is nonsensical. You

> > > already know the answer. Why ask?

> > >

> > > How do you know that you ALREADY

> > > know the answer that you might give ?

> >

> >

> > From mouna.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Or, are you just imagining it ?

> >

> >

> > No imagination.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I think, I don't and that's one

> > > reason for why I asked.

> >

> >

> > Follow Ramanas words. It may help.

> > He speaks of a way to mouna.

> > There are other ways.

> >

> >

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > With warm regards,

> > > ac.

> > >

> > > [NNNB]

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> > > > do you keep losing in thoughts and

> > > > concepts ?

> > > >

> > >

> > > Lewis:

> > >

> > > >>There are none not two (you and Self).

> > > So there is no " who " or " what "

> > > lost in thoughts and concepts.

> > > Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

> > > with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

> > > And it makes no difference, for

> > > it is done as it is. Assuming

> > > otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

> > > To play or use does not mean lost.

> > >

> > > And if you are an " object I " or the

> > > " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

> > > that is self or other played or worked

> > > with. Toys and tools are picked

> > > up and put down as it goes as one

> > > observes in children and

> > > craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

> > > you play with your Self, do you

> > > work with your Self as others here do

> > > by asserting that that is beyond

> > > assertion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > Thanks, Lewis!

> >

> > I was looking for some simple,

> > straight-forward answers.

>

> They were provided.

>

> >

> > But, what I got looks like a `avoidance',

> > hiding or play of words to me.

>

> The answers were answers not play, hiding or avoidance.

>

> >

> > But, it is possible that you have some reasons to do that.

> >

>

> No reasons.

>

>

> > It is also possible that you are answering in completely

> > straightforward terms but I am not able to get it.

>

>

> That may be so.

>

>

> > Mirage and other terms without explaining what is

> > that you are calling mirage doesn't tell me much.

>

> It is simple. It tells it all. Receive it in mouna. Wait.

>

>

> > So, let me try again:

> >

> > >>They ( Ramana and others ) twirl as they

> > are and repeat one sentence thousands of times in

> > different ways. All of what they say

> > is simply one sentence – " an

> > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> >

> > What is that " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > that they repeat thousand times, Lewis.

> >

> > Could you please elaborate it.

>

>

>

> No.

>

> Some notes on it will suffice.

>

> AC you read and quote Tolle and Ramana. Can you not see it? You can

> find the sentence that defines all that is said and then see clearly

> what it is; the central defining assumption each one holds from

which

> all their words and thoughts emerge and are formed. Their words are

> formed and are consistent and not formless and non-descriptive

because

> they present a formulated belief, a formed structure, a world of

their

> own making, in words, based in their individual experiences. It is

> their " world, " their reality, only.

>

> How is it that one individual's reality becomes the reality for all?

> Can you tell me how an apple I eat tastes by watching and listening?

> Can my description of how an apple tastes give you the taste

> experienced by my appearance? You will never know my experience as

it

> is. You can only imagine it.

 

 

Maybe, you are making it sound far too complicated than it is.

 

We say:

 

----- Sky is blue.

 

ocean is blue,

clouds are white,

rainbow has seven colors,

 

---- Honey is sweet,

 

Lemon sour,

mangoes, strawberries are delicious,

 

rotten milk tastes ...yucky.

 

 

---- flute hears good,

 

so does violin, sitar or sound of a bird,

 

But, the sound scratching metal hears bad.

 

---- love feels warm,

 

Anger and jealously like burning,

passion hot !

 

---- When cut it bleeds and hurts,

 

When touched slowly, gently it tickles.

 

 

We talk all That,

 

....and, believe it an not Most people GET it !

 

 

....and, I have NEVER heard even one person

attempting to eat the printed paper with mango

printed on it and hoping to taste ...mango !

 

Or trying to hear music out of printed paper,

because it has word violin printed on it.

 

 

So Lewis, I think, your concerns might be

out of place !

 

 

I think, people understand it just Fine !

 

 

 

>Telling about it helps a little to get

> soemthing done. Nothing more. What would you experience after

eating

> an apple, if you saw individuals buying and eating printed

> descriptions of apples, trying to imagine the taste, chewing the

paper

> and saying it tastes good and feels good?

>

>

>

>

> >

> > Just the term " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > doesn't tell me anything other than that

> > they talk about something that is `dream'

> > and further that it is ... " UNATTAINABLE " .

> >

>

> That is clear enough. Find what they talk about, the central

defining

> assumption. Examine it without belief. Know that they present only

one

> version, their version of the universe and its contents. See it for

> what it is.

>

>

> > Also, if it is UNATTAINABLE ( for everyone)

> > then, Why do they keep doing it?

>

>

> In this as in everything, my answer is not yours. Ask your self or

> Self. There will appear an answer.

>

>

> >

> > [NNB]

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> > > <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > > > > ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> > > > > Katie has / had same and equal

> > > > > occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> > > > > concepts ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis:

> > > > >>>Who or what knows that? One only

> > > > imagines about what one cannot

> > > > possibly know.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thanks, Lewis !

> > > >

> > > > Let us see if we can use this reality /

> > > > possibility at other places too !

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If Not, can it then be said that they

> > > > > were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> > > > > else ?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > ac.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis:

> > > > >>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

> > > > sentence thousands of times in

> > > > different ways. All of what they say

> > > > is simply one sentence – " an

> > > > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > > >

> > > > How do you know it is – " an

> > > > UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

> > >

> > >

> > > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

> > > > it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

> > >

> > >

> > > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Do you know it or

> > > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> > >

> > >

> > > It is clearly apparent.

> > >

> > > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > >>that sustained them

> > > > and that keeps " hope " alive in

> > > > others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

> > > >

> > > > How do you know it is –

> > > > " others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

> > >

> > >

> > > Can one find and drink the water of a mirage?

> > > Are there others who cannot even find the water of a mirage or

see

> > the

> > > mirage itself yet imagine they see what is not?

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Is it FOGGIEST to you

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is futile to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > or do you mean it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

> > >

> > >

> > > It is futile for anyone to drink the water of a mirage to

quench

> > thirst.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

> > > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> > >

> > > It is clearly apparent.

> > >

> > > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > > 1. What is the state of attainment of

> > > > > knowledge?

> > > > > IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> > > > > THE SELF in which the mind which has

> > > > > become one with the Self

> > > > > does not subsequently emerge again at

> > > > > any time.

> > > >

> > > > .....

> > > >

> > > > ....

> > > >

> > > > > Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> > > > > 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ---- Where are You ???

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > >>The question is nonsensical. You

> > > > already know the answer. Why ask?

> > > >

> > > > How do you know that you ALREADY

> > > > know the answer that you might give ?

> > >

> > >

> > > From mouna.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Or, are you just imagining it ?

> > >

> > >

> > > No imagination.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I think, I don't and that's one

> > > > reason for why I asked.

> > >

> > >

> > > Follow Ramanas words. It may help.

> > > He speaks of a way to mouna.

> > > There are other ways.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > With warm regards,

> > > > ac.

> > > >

> > > > [NNNB]

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> > > > > do you keep losing in thoughts and

> > > > > concepts ?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > >>There are none not two (you and Self).

> > > > So there is no " who " or " what "

> > > > lost in thoughts and concepts.

> > > > Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

> > > > with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

> > > > And it makes no difference, for

> > > > it is done as it is. Assuming

> > > > otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

> > > > To play or use does not mean lost.

> > > >

> > > > And if you are an " object I " or the

> > > > " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

> > > > that is self or other played or worked

> > > > with. Toys and tools are picked

> > > > up and put down as it goes as one

> > > > observes in children and

> > > > craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

> > > > you play with your Self, do you

> > > > work with your Self as others here do

> > > > by asserting that that is beyond

> > > > assertion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> > <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > > Thanks, Lewis!

> > >

> > > I was looking for some simple,

> > > straight-forward answers.

> >

> > They were provided.

> >

> > >

> > > But, what I got looks like a `avoidance',

> > > hiding or play of words to me.

> >

> > The answers were answers not play, hiding or avoidance.

> >

> > >

> > > But, it is possible that you have some reasons to do that.

> > >

> >

> > No reasons.

> >

> >

> > > It is also possible that you are answering in completely

> > > straightforward terms but I am not able to get it.

> >

> >

> > That may be so.

> >

> >

> > > Mirage and other terms without explaining what is

> > > that you are calling mirage doesn't tell me much.

> >

> > It is simple. It tells it all. Receive it in mouna. Wait.

> >

> >

> > > So, let me try again:

> > >

> > > >>They ( Ramana and others ) twirl as they

> > > are and repeat one sentence thousands of times in

> > > different ways. All of what they say

> > > is simply one sentence – " an

> > > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > >

> > > What is that " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > > that they repeat thousand times, Lewis.

> > >

> > > Could you please elaborate it.

> >

> >

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Some notes on it will suffice.

> >

> > AC you read and quote Tolle and Ramana. Can you not see it? You can

> > find the sentence that defines all that is said and then see clearly

> > what it is; the central defining assumption each one holds from

> which

> > all their words and thoughts emerge and are formed. Their words are

> > formed and are consistent and not formless and non-descriptive

> because

> > they present a formulated belief, a formed structure, a world of

> their

> > own making, in words, based in their individual experiences. It is

> > their " world, " their reality, only.

> >

> > How is it that one individual's reality becomes the reality for all?

> > Can you tell me how an apple I eat tastes by watching and listening?

> > Can my description of how an apple tastes give you the taste

> > experienced by my appearance? You will never know my experience as

> it

> > is. You can only imagine it.

>

>

> Maybe, you are making it sound far too complicated than it is.

>

> We say:

>

> ----- Sky is blue.

>

> ocean is blue,

> clouds are white,

> rainbow has seven colors,

>

> ---- Honey is sweet,

>

> Lemon sour,

> mangoes, strawberries are delicious,

>

> rotten milk tastes ...yucky.

>

>

> ---- flute hears good,

>

> so does violin, sitar or sound of a bird,

>

> But, the sound scratching metal hears bad.

>

> ---- love feels warm,

>

> Anger and jealously like burning,

> passion hot !

>

> ---- When cut it bleeds and hurts,

>

> When touched slowly, gently it tickles.

>

>

> We talk all That,

>

> ...and, believe it an not Most people GET it !

>

>

> ...and, I have NEVER heard even one person

> attempting to eat the printed paper with mango

> printed on it and hoping to taste ...mango !

>

> Or trying to hear music out of printed paper,

> because it has word violin printed on it.

 

 

 

You miss the the metaphor and interpret it as a purely physical event

unrelated to trying to " eat " Ramana's or Tolle experience through

their words.

 

Intersubjectivity is dialogic and imagined. What is " gotten " is simply

imagined to be the same as what others " got. " Your examples are yours.

Not mine. Clouds are white to you. Clouds are variegated to me given

all the types and conditions seen and experienced. The same goes for

all the other examples. I have spent much time on the Atlantic Ocean

deep see fishing it appears green to me, turqoise in the Caribbean,

never saw blue, what shade of blue.....

 

 

>

>

> So Lewis, I think, your concerns might be

> out of place !

 

 

Just a response to your probes. If you think it is out of place, it is

so. If it does not suit your taste, it does not. You see and eat what

you want to. You know what you like. If you do not like the taste,

don't eat it. If it is yucky to you, it is yucky. No more will be

served. That expression will not alter what is cooked and served. Your

reaction is observed and noted:

 

" Oh it is not tasty to him. His palate likes a different taste, a

simple one, mangoes and strawberries. Let me see, well, I have nothing

like that for him here. He says he does not like the food served, he

ordered something different. Well, this is the cuisine served here. It

is clearly on the menu. There are plenty of other restaurants, he can

go to a different restaurant that serves simple fare, for a simple

palate. Let's see, how long will he stay complaining about the food?

If he continues, I will politely show him the door. Let's wait and see..

 

 

 

> I think, people understand it just Fine !

 

 

More appropriately is that we imagine we understand just fine. Those

examples above are equivalent to what was immediately written below.

" Telling about it helps a little to get something done. " People take

it for granted that others " get it " " got it " or that they " get it "

" got it. " They imagine, believe, and assume understandings. Sometimes

they get together and dialogically adjust and fix their language so it

matches. In any case, when they get close to it and examine it, they

find otherwise. The conditions on this list and elsewhere demonstrate

exactly this observation.

 

For example, you did not see a metaphor when presented and interpreted

it as " an physcial scenr/event. " You ask questions get answers and do

not understand the answers. How is that? One word or expression does

not always mean the same. One time before, I asked you what is in your

wallet and you told me what it was in it down to the penny and credit

cards. That was not asked. You answered in that way. I said nothing.

That simplicity is understandable. A simple mind. A gift to be simple

a gift to be free.

 

It does not mean I or anyone need twirl as you do. I twirl this way,

" blah, blah, blah. blah, blah and blah blah blah " and do as I am and I

am free. Others twirl differently and are free.

 

We do as we are. No help in that. None needed.

 

 

> >Telling about it helps a little to get

> > soemthing done. Nothing more. What would you experience after

> eating

> > an apple, if you saw individuals buying and eating printed

> > descriptions of apples, trying to imagine the taste, chewing the

> paper

> > and saying it tastes good and feels good?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Just the term " UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > > doesn't tell me anything other than that

> > > they talk about something that is `dream'

> > > and further that it is ... " UNATTAINABLE " .

> > >

> >

> > That is clear enough. Find what they talk about, the central

> defining

> > assumption. Examine it without belief. Know that they present only

> one

> > version, their version of the universe and its contents. See it for

> > what it is.

> >

> >

> > > Also, if it is UNATTAINABLE ( for everyone)

> > > then, Why do they keep doing it?

> >

> >

> > In this as in everything, my answer is not yours. Ask your self or

> > Self. There will appear an answer.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > [NNB]

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> > > > <adithya_comming> wrote:

> > > > > > ------ Do you think Ramana, Tolle,

> > > > > > Katie has / had same and equal

> > > > > > occurrences of losing in thoughts and

> > > > > > concepts ?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis:

> > > > > >>>Who or what knows that? One only

> > > > > imagines about what one cannot

> > > > > possibly know.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks, Lewis !

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us see if we can use this reality /

> > > > > possibility at other places too !

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If Not, can it then be said that they

> > > > > > were twirling ...just like 'everybody'

> > > > > > else ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > ac.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis:

> > > > > >>>They twirl as they are and repeat one

> > > > > sentence thousands of times in

> > > > > different ways. All of what they say

> > > > > is simply one sentence – " an

> > > > > UNATTAINABLE dream "

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you know it is – " an

> > > > > UNATTAINABLE dream " , Lewis ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Is it UNATTAINABLE to you or do you mean

> > > > > it is UNATTAINABLE to each and everybody ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Can one drink the water of a mirage?

> > > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you know it or

> > > > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is clearly apparent.

> > > >

> > > > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >>that sustained them

> > > > > and that keeps " hope " alive in

> > > > > others who haven't the FOGGIEST.

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you know it is –

> > > > > " others who haven't the FOGGIEST " , Lewis ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Can one find and drink the water of a mirage?

> > > > Are there others who cannot even find the water of a mirage or

> see

> > > the

> > > > mirage itself yet imagine they see what is not?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Is it FOGGIEST to you

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is futile to drink the water of a mirage to quench thirst.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > or do you mean it is FOGGIEST to each and everybody ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is futile for anyone to drink the water of a mirage to

> quench

> > > thirst.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you know that it is FOGGIEST to `others' or

> > > > > are you imagining it in stating it in way that

> > > > > might sound like a " known truth " ?

> > > >

> > > > It is clearly apparent.

> > > >

> > > > Can you drink the water of a mirage?

> > > > Can anyone drink the water of a mirage?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > 1. What is the state of attainment of

> > > > > > knowledge?

> > > > > > IT IS FIRM AND EFFORTLESS ABIDANCE IN

> > > > > > THE SELF in which the mind which has

> > > > > > become one with the Self

> > > > > > does not subsequently emerge again at

> > > > > > any time.

> > > > >

> > > > > .....

> > > > >

> > > > > ....

> > > > >

> > > > > > Or, let me ask in a 'politically' and

> > > > > > 'spiritually' INCORRECT way:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ---- Where are You ???

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis:

> > > > >

> > > > > >>The question is nonsensical. You

> > > > > already know the answer. Why ask?

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you know that you ALREADY

> > > > > know the answer that you might give ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > From mouna.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Or, are you just imagining it ?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No imagination.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I think, I don't and that's one

> > > > > reason for why I asked.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Follow Ramanas words. It may help.

> > > > He speaks of a way to mouna.

> > > > There are other ways.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > With warm regards,

> > > > > ac.

> > > > >

> > > > > [NNNB]

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you in steady abidance in Self or

> > > > > > do you keep losing in thoughts and

> > > > > > concepts ?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis:

> > > > >

> > > > > >>There are none not two (you and Self).

> > > > > So there is no " who " or " what "

> > > > > lost in thoughts and concepts.

> > > > > Thoughts and concepts are toys to play

> > > > > with, tools to be used. Nothing more.

> > > > > And it makes no difference, for

> > > > > it is done as it is. Assuming

> > > > > otherwise betrays ignorance of others.

> > > > > To play or use does not mean lost.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if you are an " object I " or the

> > > > > " Self, " then you are toy or a tool

> > > > > that is self or other played or worked

> > > > > with. Toys and tools are picked

> > > > > up and put down as it goes as one

> > > > > observes in children and

> > > > > craftspeople. Are you a toy a tool, do

> > > > > you play with your Self, do you

> > > > > work with your Self as others here do

> > > > > by asserting that that is beyond

> > > > > assertion?