Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 The propagation of divine knowledge should be carried out under the guidance of a Spiritual teacher (Satguru), who is nothing but Lord Himself. This is the most pious job. Divine knowledge means the knowledge required for the identification of lord when comes in Human form. Human beings interpretations cannot be accepted. Satguru can only assess how much the disciple has assimilated His preachings. Rama Krishna Paramahamsa told that such a divine knowledge should be learnt from a Satguru by serving Him. As per the order of Satguru only a disciple can participate in the propagation of divine knowledge. Propagation of false or misleading knowledge is a sin. Because, anybody who is a sincere seeker will get diverted or misled and finally he will not get the grace of Lord. There is no place for any interpretation of human beings in spirituality, because human intelligence cannot understand Him (Namedhaya, naisha tarkena). at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: Identification is not the cause of suffering.............it Is suffering. The appearance of separate bodies leads to the conclusion that there are separate consciousnesses. These bodies are nothing but corpses......animated by the one unknowable consciousness....streaming through all apparent forms........ " Here I Am. " toombaru FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000> wrote: > > > The propagation of divine knowledge should be carried out under the guidance of a Spiritual teacher (Satguru), who is nothing but Lord Himself. This is the most pious job. Divine knowledge means the knowledge required for the identification of lord when comes in Human form. Human beings interpretations cannot be accepted. > > > > Satguru can only assess how much the disciple has assimilated His preachings. Rama Krishna Paramahamsa told that such a divine knowledge should be learnt from a Satguru by serving Him. As per the order of Satguru only a disciple can participate in the propagation of divine knowledge. Propagation of false or misleading knowledge is a sin. Because, anybody who is a sincere seeker will get diverted or misled and finally he will not get the grace of Lord. > > > > There is no place for any interpretation of human beings in spirituality, because human intelligence cannot understand Him (Namedhaya, naisha tarkena). > > > > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami > > surya > > www.universal-spirituality.org If you believe that the water you seek is to be found only in one well......you will continue to seek... ...................when in your morning shower................the water whispers......... " Here I Am " toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: There is no place for any interpretation of human beings in spirituality, because human intelligence cannot understand Him (Namedhaya, naisha tarkena). And the Truth cannot be spoken by anyone. Perhaps the point of spiritual evolution is missed. Human spiritual truth is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who speaks it. The seeker is drawn to the teaching that represents his own particular boundaries of awareness. This is the teaching that is most appropriate to the expansion of his awareness. This is the perfection and need not be perfected. It's pointless to tell an atheist that God is to be found within the self by surrendering his concept of self. It will produce nothing more than a humorous story to tell his friends. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: If you believe that the water you seek is to be found only in one well......you will continue to seek... ...................when in your morning shower................the water whispers......... " Here I Am " toombaru Is that what that is?! I was thinking I had plumbing problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 In a message dated 11/2/2005 11:01:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Human spiritual truth " is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who speaks it. " How many " spiritual " truths are there? Human vs. " Other " ? If there is no personal " I " , what has need of any " spirituality " ? Does the Absolute (prior to consciousness) need any spiritual frames of reference? MStrinado To say that there is no individual human with volition is not to say that the illusion is not seeming to occur. If this were so, none of us would be seeking to know the Truth beyond the illusion. Or more beterrer, there would be no seeking going on. The 'process' that seems to be occurring is not occurring in the human but in an individualized aspect of consciousness. This aspect is seemingly becoming aware through the exploration of it's own dream. Is this aspect of consciousness deluded? Yes, but it's you in your delusion and you are seemingly becoming aware of Self and you will experience this occurring in spite of your present misidentification. You also have no control over this 'process'. There are as many spiritual truths (small 't') as there are seekers. These truths are not found within the illusion but are merely the outpicturing of the awareness of consciousness, but in the context of what I responded to, these truths are not meaningless simply because they aren't spoken by an enlightened individual. They are appropriate for the corresponding 'level' of awareness. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 " Human spiritual truth " is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who speaks it. " How many " spiritual " truths are there? Human vs. " Other " ? If there is no personal " I " , what has need of any " spirituality " ? Does the Absolute (prior to consciousness) need any spiritual frames of reference? MStrinado - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:33 AM Re: Seeing I to I - - - In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: There is no place for any interpretation of human beings in spirituality, because human intelligence cannot understand Him (Namedhaya, naisha tarkena). And the Truth cannot be spoken by anyone. Perhaps the point of spiritual evolution is missed. Human spiritual truth is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who speaks it. The seeker is drawn to the teaching that represents his own particular boundaries of awareness. This is the teaching that is most appropriate to the expansion of his awareness. This is the perfection and need not be perfected. It's pointless to tell an atheist that God is to be found within the self by surrendering his concept of self. It will produce nothing more than a humorous story to tell his friends. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > There is no place for any interpretation of human beings in spirituality, > because human intelligence cannot understand Him (Namedhaya, naisha tarkena). > > > > > > And the Truth cannot be spoken by anyone. Perhaps the point of spiritual > evolution is missed. > > Human spiritual truth is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who > speaks it. The seeker is drawn to the teaching that represents his own particular > boundaries of awareness. This is the teaching that is most appropriate to the > expansion of his awareness. 'He' does not have a constricted awareness that can be expandes.......'He' is the constricted awareness. toombaru This is the perfection and need not be perfected. > > It's pointless to tell an atheist that God is to be found within the self by > surrendering his concept of self. It will produce nothing more than a > humorous story to tell his friends. > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " MStrinado " <discern1@v...> wrote: > > " Human spiritual truth " is contextual and is not Truth regardless of who speaks it. " > > How many " spiritual " truths are there? Human vs. " Other " ? If there is no personal " I " , what has need of any " spirituality " ? Does the Absolute (prior to consciousness) need any spiritual frames of reference? > > MStrinado > Evidently it does. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " MStrinado " <discern1@v...> wrote: > > > > " To say that there is no individual human with volition is not to say that > the illusion is not seeming to occur. If this were so, none of us would be > seeking to know the Truth beyond the illusion. Or more beterrer, there would be > no seeking going on. " > > That's the point...why the need to " seek " anything? > > " The 'process' that seems to be occurring is not occurring in the human but > in an individualized aspect of consciousness. This aspect is seemingly becoming > aware through the exploration of it's own dream. Is this aspect of > consciousness deluded? 'You " are not deluded................. " You' are the delusion. Yes, but it's you in your delusion and you are seemingly > becoming aware of Self and you will experience this occurring in spite of your > present misidentification. You also have no control over this 'process'. " > > Spontaneity is key, yet who's this " you " who is having the illusion? Is consciousness divided into individualized compartments? > > " There are as many spiritual truths (small 't') as there are seekers. Every spiritual truth............is equally untrue. These > truths are not found within the illusion but are merely the outpicturing of > the awareness of consciousness, but in the context of what I responded to, > these truths are not meaningless simply because they aren't spoken by an > enlightened individual. They are appropriate for the corresponding 'level' of > awareness. " Goose eggs ....................in bottles. These 'problems' exist only within mind. There is no resolution to a problem that does not exist. The mind will wrestle with This.....until it doesn't. Hang on my friend..............Its gonna be a bumpy ride.......:-) Is that thunder I hear? toombaru > > Who's initiating these " levels " of awareness...when does awareness really kick-in and does it warrant any means of gradual self-realization? > MStrin > > Phil > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 " To say that there is no individual human with volition is not to say that the illusion is not seeming to occur. If this were so, none of us would be seeking to know the Truth beyond the illusion. Or more beterrer, there would be no seeking going on. " That's the point...why the need to " seek " anything? " The 'process' that seems to be occurring is not occurring in the human but in an individualized aspect of consciousness. This aspect is seemingly becoming aware through the exploration of it's own dream. Is this aspect of consciousness deluded? Yes, but it's you in your delusion and you are seemingly becoming aware of Self and you will experience this occurring in spite of your present misidentification. You also have no control over this 'process'. " Spontaneity is key, yet who's this " you " who is having the illusion? Is consciousness divided into individualized compartments? " There are as many spiritual truths (small 't') as there are seekers. These truths are not found within the illusion but are merely the outpicturing of the awareness of consciousness, but in the context of what I responded to, these truths are not meaningless simply because they aren't spoken by an enlightened individual. They are appropriate for the corresponding 'level' of awareness. " Who's initiating these " levels " of awareness...when does awareness really kick-in and does it warrant any means of gradual self-realization? MStrinado Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 In a message dated 11/3/2005 2:28:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " To say that there is no individual human with volition is not to say that the illusion is not seeming to occur. If this were so, none of us would be seeking to know the Truth beyond the illusion. Or more beterrer, there would be no seeking going on. " That's the point...why the need to " seek " anything? Well, maybe we wanna be careful about conceptualizing as a means of justifying resistance. The concept that there is no seeker, when known, dissolves the seeker. If the seeker is still seemingly present, this concept is not known but remains only a concept. The concept that all is already known and therefore nothing needs to occur is not experientially valid as long as one does not 'experience' the knowing. The idea that time is an illusion and therefore enlightenment has already 'occurred' is nifty as hell except for the illusory individual that continues to experience separation. The fact that the human does not exist doesn't mean that You don't exist. The fact that you are experiencing your own illusion doesn't mean the experience has no value. The human doesn't cause any of this to occur, and the complete realization of this ends suffering. This is why the seeker seeks. " The 'process' that seems to be occurring is not occurring in the human but in an individualized aspect of consciousness. This aspect is seemingly becoming aware through the exploration of it's own dream. Is this aspect of consciousness deluded? Yes, but it's you in your delusion and you are seemingly becoming aware of Self and you will experience this occurring in spite of your present misidentification. You also have no control over this 'process'. " Spontaneity is key, yet who's this " you " who is having the illusion? Is consciousness divided into individualized compartments? Consciousness is not divided, but there is the illusion of individuation, as you can clearly see. " There are as many spiritual truths (small 't') as there are seekers. These truths are not found within the illusion but are merely the outpicturing of the awareness of consciousness, but in the context of what I responded to, these truths are not meaningless simply because they aren't spoken by an enlightened individual. They are appropriate for the corresponding 'level' of awareness. " Who's initiating these " levels " of awareness...when does awareness really kick-in and does it warrant any means of gradual self-realization? MStrinado It seems clear that awareness does come about gradually, and 'parts' of Truth can even be seen intuitively. However, there are no actual parts to Wholeness, and so actual awakening is seeing this Wholeness, wholly, which naturally occurs suddenly. The gradual awareness involves ideas such as acceptance and surrender and willingness and such. From my perspective, I see an amazing process 'occurring' wherein we do actually learn from each other and the experience of the illusion does indeed bring about awareness, and all of it occurs spontaneously. " We " , as consciousness, create our own dream, experience the dream, and this leads to this same individuation of consciousness increasing it's own awareness to the point where the individuation itself dissolves into the totality of consciousness. The remarkable thing is that the human controls nothing, and consciousness has no ability to make choices about it's own awareness, and so even though everything is self determined, the process cannot be controlled anywhere. There literally is nobody in charge, unless you want to see it as the totality of All That Is, but there is no hierarchy. This does not make the entire process meaningless, it just means that struggling with it serves no purpose. This realization, itself, is the end of suffering. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 “Well, maybe we wanna be careful about conceptualizing as a means of justifying resistance. The concept that there is no seeker, when known, dissolves the seeker. If the seeker is still seemingly present, this concept is not known but remains only a concept. The concept that all is already known and therefore nothing needs to occur is not experientially valid as long as one does not'experience' the knowing. The idea that time is an illusion and therefore enlightenment has already 'occurred' is nifty as hell except for the illusory individual that continues to experience separation. The fact that the human does not exist doesn't mean that You don't exist. The fact that you are experiencing your own illusion doesn't mean the experience has no value. The human doesn't cause any of this to occur, and the complete realization of this ends suffering. This is why the seeker seeks.” Concepts like seeker/no-seeker arise from the body consciousness that “experiences” and is at the same time, the apparent experience itself. How can one seek what already is? So, no question here of a seeker or absence of a seeker. The “known” also falls within the boundaries of the body consciousness with its accumulated associations and attachments and perceptions…all of which constitutes excessive baggage for an apparent entity that needs to be “in the know”. Knowledge is entrapment and thus separation from the unknown. Why bother with concepts like “enlightenment”? Is there some separate “I” that needs to get enlightened? You are not. The undivided self-realization is that there is no separate, independent entity that needs salvation. " It seems clear that awareness does come about gradually, and 'parts' of Truth can even be seen intuitively. However, there are no actual parts to Wholeness, and so actual awakening is seeing this Wholeness, wholly, which naturally occurs suddenly. The gradual awareness involves ideas such as acceptance and surrender and willingness and such. From my perspective, I see an amazing process 'occurring' wherein we do actually learn from each other and the experience of the illusion does indeed bring about awareness, and all of it occurs spontaneously. " We " , as consciousness, create our own dream, experience the dream, and this leads to this same individuation of consciousness increasing it's own awareness to the point where the individuation itself dissolves into the totality of consciousness. The remarkable thing is that the human controls nothing, and consciousness has no ability to make choices about it's own awareness, and so even though everything is self determined, the process cannot be controlled anywhere. There literally is nobody in charge, unless you want to see it as the totality of All That Is, but there is no hierarchy. This does not make the entire process meaningless, it just means that struggling with it serves no purpose. This realization, itself, is the end of suffering. Phil” Awareness is the “undivided” sense of suchness whereas a “gradual” awareness is pseudo-awareness. There are gradual degrees of “awakening”, but not awareness…seeing the undivided nature of suchness (AS IT IS) devoid of phenomenal outflows. Equating awareness with the perceptual dreams of individuated consciousness only perpetuates what the Buddhists call “samsara” (life and suffering and death). Awareness stops spinning the wheel of pain by remaining prior to phenomena…pure apperception. MStrinado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 In a message dated 11/4/2005 8:58:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Concepts like seeker/no-seeker arise from the body consciousness that “ experiences†and is at the same time, the apparent experience itself. How can one seek what already is? So, no question here of a seeker or absence of a seeker. The “known†also falls within the boundaries of the body consciousness with its accumulated associations and attachments and perceptions…all of which constitutes excessive baggage for an apparent entity that needs to be “in the knowâ€. Knowledge is entrapment and thus separation from the unknown. Why bother with concepts like “enlightenmentâ€? Is there some separate “I†that needs to get enlightened? You are not. The undivided self-realization is that there is no separate, independent entity that needs salvation. This is all true. If this is a knowing for you, it is done and no argument can be made. If it is not done, then perhaps the concepts are being used to deny the very process by which this knowing occurs. There is no seeker with any independent volition, and yet seeking is 'occurring'. This seeking leads to knowing, even though this knowing occurs in consciousness rather than the dream character. There is a pretense of belief which occurs in all of us quite readily and naturally, and this is why conceptual understanding changes nothing. To choose the belief that we are all one, without the experience of oneness, has no effect on one's experience. To choose the belief that the human mind/ego does not exist does not yield the experience of it's dissolution. This must all come about through awareness of consciousness through the exploration of it's own boundaries of awareness. Seeking does occur, and with very good reason. To resist the seeking on the conceptual basis that there is no seeker is simply the exploration of another boundary. Nothing can be done about this. Awareness is the “undivided†sense of suchness whereas a “gradual†awareness is pseudo-awareness. There are gradual degrees of “awakeningâ€, but not awareness…seeing the undivided nature of suchness (AS IT IS) devoid of phenomenal outflows. Equating awareness with the perceptual dreams of individuated consciousness only perpetuates what the Buddhists call “samsara†(life and suffering and death). Awareness stops spinning the wheel of pain by remaining prior to phenomena…pure apperception. I accept your terminology. It is what it is....until it isn't. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 dear friends I am the knowledge, love and bliss Vedas call Me Parabrahman Knowledge, love and bliss concentrated Multiplied by infinity is Myself. My power is called Maya, Which is inexplicable for you I keep this secret of Maya with Me only Otherwise, human beings will catch My hair To keep the soul always at My feet I do not disclose the secret of Maya By this, the soul always surrenders to Me Otherwise, he will claim himself as the Lord. Through Maya only I created this world I enjoy by seeing this everlasting cinema For enjoyment I created ignorance Which covers Me and I forget Myself I am not sleeping and not caught by dream I am dreaming in the day opening My eyes The ignorance is at My will to stay or not Unlike the ignorance of a night dreamer My awareness is not your awareness If it is so, when you weep I should weep All should also weep at the same time Your awareness is negligible part of Mine. All the souls put together along with this world Form a pinhead drop in Me, almost nil I am the mightiest ocean of knowledge, love and bliss Which are the characteristics of consciousness Even all the souls weep together at a time I cannot be touched, all those being negligible Awareness of awareness is consciousness, no doubt You are seeing only the qualitative similarity Drop and ocean are qualitatively water, may be Can the drop become the ocean by this equality? Water is Brahman but ocean is Eswara You are already Brahman but not Eswara Sankara touched this qualitative aspect only To attract Bhuddists who were atheists then, He told “Oh drop! You are already water” But the drop thought that is was ocean Bhuddist was fooled like this by Sankara He has to accept his existence and If He is Brahman Qualitative realization was brought like this That is the beginning stage, which should be so Slowly when he analyzes the qualitative aspect And goes into quantitative angle, truth is seen He realizes that He is only water and not ocean Then he surrenders to ocean to become devotee Knowledge by analysis leads to devotion Devotion needs the ocean to be present before eyes For this purpose the ocean enters a human body drop Through His power of Maya, called human incarnation. “Anoraneeyan mahato maheeyan” Veda says so This means that the ocean has entered the drop In the same time it is ocean and also the drop That is the human incarnation, which is God and man. This human incarnation is called Parabrahman Which is greater than Brahman, soul, and Eswara Brahman is water, Eswara is ocean and drop is soul All these are quite logical terms to grasp. Parabrahman is greater than all these The word “Para” means “greater” actually It is greater than the drop, ocean and water Since it is the ocean hiding in a drop by Maya You can not face Eswara directly at any cost By that force, you will disappear along with this world You can face Parabrahman, which is the ocean That speaks with you hidden in a drop like you As the ocean is hidden in the drop by Maya The ocean can enter you also by the same Maya But the ocean independently can not hear you The voice of the drop is no where in the voice of ocean Therefore, approach Parabrahman and serve Him, As a servant without aspiring anything from Him If He wishes, you can get the samadhi In which the Ocean enters you as a shadow. Sankara never told that you are Eswara He told that you are only Brahman Awareness of a drop-like awareness is useless Awareness of an ocean-like awareness is greatest You can not achieve this samadhi by your effort Your effort is not heard by the roaring ocean The ocean comes down to hear you in this way If you do not use this opportunity, you are lost When the king comes to hear the public Your are keeping silent staying in your home When the king is busy in a battlefield You go there and submit your complaint! This is the state of Advita philosopher He is the foolish disciple of Sankara Egoism and jealousy cover his eyes He can not see the ocean in a drop But he, a drop, wants to contain the ocean How can the ocean enter him who is a drop? He discards the technique and the example How can he become the example by the same technique? Therefore, follow Satguru who is the ocean in a drop If you follow another drop what is the use? You are a rabbit and If you see the Lion You will vanish on the spot with fear. Therefore, the Lion came as a rabbit Remember, the Lion is covered by the skin of rabbit It is not at all a rabbit, it speaks “I am Lion” You rabbit! Don’t imitate that rabbit like Lion. Recognize and serve that rabbit like Lion with love Because it looks like a rabbit, it is your friend only There is no need of fear since the Lion is not exposed It behaves like a rabbit in all its activities. A human incarnation also behaves like a man With all the qualities of nature only This will generate love and nearness in your heart For you to approach and love, this technique is adopted. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33 wrote: thanks for your message...nice talk indead " this One " creates many things....?.... how could the " One " create something what is not already " the One " ....?.... all this " creations " are of " our " dreams.....it's a play of forms....a reflection of the changless and formless Self... nothing realy ever happen in the " One " ....and if the perception " think so " .....it's, indead, included in the dream of dreams.....in Maya one need a heart filled up with love....the love of God..... God who " show " the " One " by awareness of " all this " ..... " all things are possible for such a One " ....? ....maybe " all dreams are dreamable for such a One " .... Regards and peace Marc FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 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.