Guest guest Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> wrote: > To understand Advaita the imaginary " I " has to understand what > Advaita is trying to tell me: that life is nothing but a dream. IN a > dream the subject-verb-and-object are one and the same. Exactly like > a dream. > > When the mind can somehow accept that life is just another dream, > (which is on top of all its sleep-dreams) then it – the mind -- is > free to be the JOY of the Dreamer, dreaming. That is all there is. > > Why does the mind dream? The same reason we make movies and write etc., etc., etc., sam: It sounds like you're doing the same thing Moller and others get caught up in, which is to focus on one aspect only. In this case you, like Moller and Toombaru (my sweet zombee where are you? Windsailing down in strawberry Canyon no doubt) are focusing on one aspect which is Void/Emptiness. Void/Emptyness is there but so is the yin to it's yang, which is Creation. These aren't separate but one. Void/Emptyness is creation and creation is void/emptyness, not separate but one. It is you who pulls it apart to focus on one aspect of it or another. This makes you want to explain this thing called Dream in an attempt to lead you to understand the split you're trying to define. So you get caught up in deciphering the dream as illusion, which is all true and correct, however you focus on it being nothing. In doing this a great split arises in you because you can't explain why you continue to create through dream. If you embrace/accept that You are nothing and all which **includes** creation/dream then the illusory nature of it becomes irrelevent. The artist paints a picture and doesn't care if it's not real; they just paint. You are creation as part of void, which is both empty and not empty at all. This is your snag. Perhaps one of the Buddhist details describing void as empty has done more harm in enmeshing people in confusion than anything else. It analyzes only that one aspect which is also why the millions of buddhists practising still aren't any farther ahead then the atheist selling corn at the side of the road. If you include your focus to embrace creation/dream along with Void/empty then you sit back and live this experience called Gene, irregardless if it's " real " or not. Understand creation and understand void/empty and then you get that they aren't separte and then there's nothing more to understand. You then know You. You then get that creation is the very core of you. It's what you are and what you do and everything and nothing in between and then the words " do " and " be " also become irrelevent. You can't stop it (creation) dear - this thing you fight. Well, maybe you can hold it at bay for a little while, but creation pours forth out of void because void simply is not Empty without NoThing. There is something and nothing. The something creates the dream, is the dream which then created you to go on to experience. Why fight what you are? that fighting puts you into void without accepting creation aspect which divides and separates you into a sense of wanting to get rid of something that isn't real. This causes part of your suffering. You don't know you create because you're too busy denying that aspect as something that isn't 'real'. You spin into a mixed up head space of confusion when you focus on the aspect of -NOW, which is a correct concept, but when you divide it from creation and void, as you do by denying creation/dream as something illusory/unreal and therefore irrelevent then you pop yourself out of NOW since you are NOW - in the now - creating this experience called GENE and a part of your consciousness can't deny that. Oh it makes a fine mess. The mess that is prevalent within the spiritual pandits on forums and off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 Dear sam_t_7 Did you read the book " I AM THAT " or the 3 volume book " Nothing Ever Happened " or " Consciousness Speaks " or " Talks with Ramana Maharshi " ... or the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads? If so then you should read them again, and if need be again and if need be even again UNTIL you can start to understand the very basics of what they are talking about, like: I AM THAT and NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. the LOVE YOU are, NOW =-========================= -- In Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> > wrote: > > To understand Advaita the imaginary " I " has to understand what > > Advaita is trying to tell me: that life is nothing but a dream. > IN > a > > dream the subject-verb-and-object are one and the same. Exactly > like > > a dream. > > > > When the mind can somehow accept that life is just another dream, > > (which is on top of all its sleep-dreams) then it – the mind -- > is > > free to be the JOY of the Dreamer, dreaming. That is all there > is. > > > > Why does the mind dream? The same reason we make movies and write > etc., etc., etc., > > > sam: It sounds like you're doing the same thing Moller and others > get caught up in, which is to focus on one aspect only. In this > case you, like Moller and Toombaru (my sweet zombee where are you? > Windsailing down in strawberry Canyon no doubt) are focusing on one > aspect which is Void/Emptiness. Void/Emptyness is there but so is > the yin to it's yang, which is Creation. These aren't separate > but one. Void/Emptyness is creation and creation is void/emptyness, > not separate but one. It is you who pulls it apart to focus on one > aspect of it or another. This makes you want to explain this thing > called Dream in an attempt to lead you to understand the split > you're trying to define. So you get caught up in deciphering the > dream as illusion, which is all true and correct, however you focus > on it being nothing. > > In doing this a great split arises in you because you can't explain > why you continue to create through dream. > > If you embrace/accept that You are nothing and all which **includes** > creation/dream then the illusory nature of it becomes irrelevent. > The artist paints a picture and doesn't care if it's not real; they > just paint. You are creation as part of void, which is both empty > and not empty at all. This is your snag. Perhaps one of the > Buddhist details describing void as empty has done more harm in > enmeshing people in confusion than anything else. It analyzes only > that one aspect which is also why the millions of buddhists > practising still aren't any farther ahead then the atheist selling > corn at the side of the road. > > If you include your focus to embrace creation/dream along with > Void/empty then you sit back and live this experience called Gene, > irregardless if it's " real " or not. Understand creation and > understand void/empty and then you get that they aren't separte and > then there's nothing more to understand. You then know You. You > then get that creation is the very core of you. It's what you are > and what you do and everything and nothing in between and then the > words " do " and " be " also become irrelevent. You can't stop it > (creation) dear - this thing you fight. Well, maybe you can hold it > at bay for a little while, but creation pours forth out of void > because void simply is not Empty without NoThing. There is > something and nothing. The something creates the dream, is the > dream which then created you to go on to experience. > Why fight what you are? > > that fighting puts you into void without accepting creation aspect > which divides and separates you into a sense of wanting to get rid > of something that isn't real. This causes part of your suffering. > You don't know you create because you're too busy denying that > aspect as something that isn't 'real'. You spin into a mixed up > head space of confusion when you focus on the aspect of -NOW, which > is a correct concept, but when you divide it from creation and void, > as you do by denying creation/dream as something illusory/unreal and > therefore irrelevent then you pop yourself out of NOW since you are > NOW - in the now - creating this experience called GENE and a part > of your consciousness can't deny that. > Oh it makes a fine mess. > The mess that is prevalent within the spiritual pandits on forums > and off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Gene Polotas " <semmin@e...> wrote: > Dear sam_t_7 > > Did you read the book " I AM THAT " or the 3 volume book " Nothing Ever > Happened " or " Consciousness Speaks " or " Talks with Ramana > Maharshi " ... or the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads? > > If so then you should read them again, and if need be again and if > need be even again UNTIL you can start to understand the very basics > of what they are talking about, like: I AM THAT and NOTHING EVER > HAPPENED. > > the LOVE YOU are, NOW > > =-========================= sam: All the reading in the world won't do it. You can read it again and again and again, but just one reading of your sentence indicates a contradiction in the very thing you're saying; " " I AM THAT and NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. " " do you get the contradictory quality? Nothing ever happened (sure) but You are That which never happened. In the middle of those two is the answer to your dilemma. They aren't mutally exclusive one from the other. Nothing ever happend, yet it continues to happen in the form of Gene. This bridge you can't gap if you keep reading these books by people whom you esteem as the authoritative voice. Only through silence of your own inner voice - not by taking other people's ideas as gospel- can you break through this dilemma of contradiction your in. you can't even see your in a contradiction much less bridge it. if it works for you keep doing it. it doesn't work for me so I don't follow your program of books. 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.