Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 I want direct experience of the Ultimate. Prior to Consciousness..Nisargadatta Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an objective affair. When I am unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its awareness, and there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no witnessing. Any manifestation, and functioning, any witnessing, can only take place in duality. There has to be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, they are two ends of the same thing. When consciousness stirs, duality arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, although it is an object. I, as an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I assume that I am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. That consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when the consciousness stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, and start functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an individual and what is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble starts. Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin with? It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of which the consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the knowledge " I " Am, " has developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental food essence. When that goes, what remains? The Absolute which does not know itself. Q: The desire for liberation is also a desire, isn't it? M: Don't talk about liberation, talk about yourself, what you are. When you understand that, both knowledge and ignorance disappear. You only require knowledge so long as the ignorance it there. A knowledgeable person can tell anything to an ignorant person to remove his ignorance. For that purpose he takes the aid of the so-called worldly knowledge, concepts, and both the worldly conceptual knowledge and the ignorance go simultaneously. A jnani will give you any concepts to remove you ignorance. This " I Amness " is the knowledge and you are embracing that. To remove that he gives you all these concepts; to understand that you are not this " I Amness " which is an outcome of the food essence product. Once you realize that, whatever concepts he has given you, together with this " I Amness, " are to be thrown out. What remain is the Absolute. This is the actual state of affairs. You can never say I am like this or that - you are without knowledge. Rarely will one understand this and transcend the domain of consciousness. After listening to my talks, you think it is all very simple, but it is not that easy. jnani = knower 12/7/1980 ~~~~~~~~~~ love, Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an objective affair. When I am unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its awareness, and there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no witnessing. Any manifestation, and functioning, any witnessing, can only take place in duality. There has to be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, they are two ends of the same thing. When consciousness stirs, duality arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, although it is an object. I, as an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I assume that I am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. That consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when the consciousness stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, and start functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an individual and what is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble starts. Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin with? It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of which the consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the knowledge " I " Am, " has developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental food essence. When that goes, what remains? The Absolute which does not know itself. Groovy stuff. I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to self destruct as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. Possibly, this is what Whitehorse is galloping on about. It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective awareness, has no means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of consciousness; to obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the goal is not to cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality of consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of nature, and there is no real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the only way that it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism of consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what allows for the experience of Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at all. When there is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no more experience. That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves back into consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness experiencing itself through all the other vehicles of perception, originating within the Self. Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and repeatedly. What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego remains as a part of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to disappear. 'You' are the one 'moving'. Ego remains. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 human and jnani are not shared identities. where light is, darkness is not. why talk about the non-existing darkness in a brightly lit room? knowing and being are not the same. why concern yourself with an absolute identity which does not know itself? the absolute has no need to know itself. Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an objective affair. > When I am > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its awareness, and > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no witnessing. > Any manifestation, and functioning, > any witnessing, can only take > place in duality. There has to > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, > they are two ends of the same thing. > > When consciousness stirs, duality > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, although it is an > object. I, as > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I assume that I > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. That > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when the consciousness > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, and start > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an individual and what > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble starts. > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin with? > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of which the > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the knowledge " I " Am, " has > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental food essence. > When that goes, what remains? > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > Groovy stuff. > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to self destruct > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. Possibly, this is > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective awareness, has no > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of consciousness; to > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the goal is not to > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality of > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of nature, and there is no > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the only way that > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism of > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what allows for the experience of > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at all. When there > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no more experience. > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves back into > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness experiencing itself > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating within the Self. > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and repeatedly. > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego remains as a part > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to disappear. 'You' are the > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an objective affair. > When I am > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its awareness, and > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no witnessing. > Any manifestation, and functioning, > any witnessing, can only take > place in duality. There has to > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, > they are two ends of the same thing. > > When consciousness stirs, duality > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, although it is an > object. I, as > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I assume that I > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. That > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when the consciousness > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, and start > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an individual and what > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble starts. > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin with? > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of which the > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the knowledge " I " Am, " has > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental food essence. > When that goes, what remains? > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > Groovy stuff. > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to self destruct > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. Possibly, this is > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective awareness, has no > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of consciousness; to > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the goal is not to > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality of > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of nature, and there is no > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the only way that > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism of > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what allows for the experience of > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at all. When there > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no more experience. > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves back into > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness experiencing itself > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating within the Self. > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and repeatedly. > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego remains as a part > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to disappear. 'You' are the > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > Phil .....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... Regards and peace Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " ramanama06 " <ramanama06> wrote: > > > human and jnani are not shared identities. where light is, darkness is not. why talk about > the non-existing darkness in a brightly lit room? knowing and being are not the same. why > concern yourself with an absolute identity which does not know itself? the absolute has no > need to know itself. > > > hello... nice words.......from the place " where is light " ...... it is in the nature of mind to be attached to many kinds of things.......and so the need to get " detached " .....by the law of Karma.....let people " fall in love " to God....sometimes....... we are all children of God.....some feel to act more childish than others.....lol if it's possible to know the Absolute?...... whatever is the perception......the sum total of non-identification with the Absolute is Maya.........and so, one can be aware of this " amount " of Maya one is involved in.....or not....... in " I am " ....there is just infinite emptyness and peace...... " who or what " could be there.... " to love " ......except Mickey Mouse & Co..... Regards and peace Marc > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " ramanama06 " <ramanama06 Re: You can not know the Absolute human and jnani are not shared identities. where light is, darkness is not. why talk about the non-existing darkness in a brightly lit room? knowing and being are not the same. why concern yourself with an absolute identity which does not know itself? the absolute has no need to know itself. Phil: For the reason I mentioned. Some seek to be the Absolute rather than the experience of being that, and this leads to the idea that the human vehicle of perception is meaningless and the ego should be obliterated. If it is recognized that the Absolute cannot experience itself except by way of an experiential illusion of 'otherness', perhaps we will be a bit more gentle on ourselves. We are the eyes of God. Close your eyes and you cannot see God. Open them, and you can see nothing but God. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: You can not know the Absolute Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an objective affair. > When I am > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its awareness, and > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no witnessing. > Any manifestation, and functioning, > any witnessing, can only take > place in duality. There has to > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, > they are two ends of the same thing. > > When consciousness stirs, duality > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, although it is an > object. I, as > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I assume that I > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. That > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when the consciousness > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, and start > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an individual and what > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble starts. > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to begin with? > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of which the > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the knowledge " I " Am, " has > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the manifest jnani > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental food essence. > When that goes, what remains? > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > Groovy stuff. > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to self destruct > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. Possibly, this is > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective awareness, has no > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of consciousness; to > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the goal is not to > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality of > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of nature, and there is no > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the only way that > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism of > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what allows for the experience of > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at all. When there > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no more experience. > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves back into > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness experiencing itself > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating within the Self. > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and repeatedly. > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego remains as a part > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to disappear. 'You' are the > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > Phil .....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... Regards and peace Marc So?.......Hehe. The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself dissolves back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, infinite dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an > objective affair. > > When I am > > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its > awareness, and > > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no > witnessing. > > Any manifestation, and functioning, > > any witnessing, can only take > > place in duality. There has to > > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, > > they are two ends of the same thing. > > > > When consciousness stirs, duality > > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, > although it is an > > object. I, as > > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I > assume that I > > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no reason. > That > > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But when > the consciousness > > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, > and start > > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an > individual and what > > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble > starts. > > > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to > begin with? > > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of > which the > > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the > knowledge " I " Am, " has > > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the > manifest jnani > > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five elemental > food essence. > > When that goes, what remains? > > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > > > > Groovy stuff. > > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to self > destruct > > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. > Possibly, this is > > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective > awareness, has no > > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of > consciousness; to > > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the goal > is not to > > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality of > > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of nature, > and there is no > > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the > only way that > > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism > of > > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what allows > for the experience of > > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at all. > When there > > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no more > experience. > > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves back > into > > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness > experiencing itself > > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating within > the Self. > > > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and > repeatedly. > > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego remains > as a part > > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to > disappear. 'You' are the > > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > > > Phil > > ....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... > because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... > > Regards and peace > > Marc > > > > So?.......Hehe. > The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself dissolves > back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, infinite > dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. > > Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? > > Phil yes....nice theories in your mind.... " the last ego........ " .....yes, i remember such an idea....that one can be sure that the " world " remains minimum as long....as there is still one human being " aware " of it..... but if you could " see " Oneness.....then there is the end of dreaming about " first or last " ego......then there is awareness of Self........ and so....the non-existence of a " seperated " mind..... ..... " you " were never born in any world.....but worlds are " created " and get birth.....by the Self only.......and " nothing else " ..... wish you to get some other tricks (of the mind).... Regards and peace Marc > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > > > > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an > > objective affair. > > > When I am > > > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its > > awareness, and > > > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be no > > witnessing. > > > Any manifestation, and functioning, > > > any witnessing, can only take > > > place in duality. There has to > > > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not two, > > > they are two ends of the same thing. > > > > > > When consciousness stirs, duality > > > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > > > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, > > although it is an > > > object. I, as > > > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and I > > assume that I > > > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > > > > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > > > > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no > reason. > > That > > > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But > when > > the consciousness > > > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen spontaneously, > > and start > > > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an > > individual and what > > > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the trouble > > starts. > > > > > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it to > > begin with? > > > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because of > > which the > > > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the > > knowledge " I " Am, " has > > > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes the > > manifest jnani > > > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five > elemental > > food essence. > > > When that goes, what remains? > > > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > > > > > > > Groovy stuff. > > > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to > self > > destruct > > > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. > > Possibly, this is > > > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > > > > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective > > awareness, has no > > > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of > > consciousness; to > > > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the > goal > > is not to > > > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > > > > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality > of > > > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of > nature, > > and there is no > > > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but the > > only way that > > > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive mechanism > > of > > > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what > allows > > for the experience of > > > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at > all. > > When there > > > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no > more > > experience. > > > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves > back > > into > > > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness > > experiencing itself > > > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating > within > > the Self. > > > > > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, and > > repeatedly. > > > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego > remains > > as a part > > > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to > > disappear. 'You' are the > > > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > > > > > Phil > > > > ....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... > > because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > So?.......Hehe. > > The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself > dissolves > > back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, > infinite > > dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. > > > > Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? > > > > Phil > > yes....nice theories in your mind.... > > " the last ego........ " .....yes, i remember such an idea....that one > can be sure that the " world " remains minimum as long....as there is > still one human being " aware " of it..... > > but if you could " see " Oneness.....then there is the end of dreaming > about " first or last " ego......then there is awareness of Self........ > and so....the non-existence of a " seperated " mind..... > > .... " you " were never born in any world.....but worlds are " created " > and get birth.....by the Self only.......and " nothing else " ..... > > wish you to get some other tricks (of the mind).... > > Regards and peace > > Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > > > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > > > > > > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an > > > objective affair. > > > > When I am > > > > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its > > > awareness, and > > > > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be > no > > > witnessing. > > > > Any manifestation, and functioning, > > > > any witnessing, can only take > > > > place in duality. There has to > > > > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not > two, > > > > they are two ends of the same thing. > > > > > > > > When consciousness stirs, duality > > > > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > > > > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, > > > although it is an > > > > object. I, as > > > > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and > I > > > assume that I > > > > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > > > > > > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > > > > > > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no > > reason. > > > That > > > > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But > > when > > > the consciousness > > > > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen > spontaneously, > > > and start > > > > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an > > > individual and what > > > > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the > trouble > > > starts. > > > > > > > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it > to > > > begin with? > > > > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because > of > > > which the > > > > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the > > > knowledge " I " Am, " has > > > > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes > the > > > manifest jnani > > > > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five > > elemental > > > food essence. > > > > When that goes, what remains? > > > > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Groovy stuff. > > > > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to > > self > > > destruct > > > > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. > > > Possibly, this is > > > > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > > > > > > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective > > > awareness, has no > > > > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of > > > consciousness; to > > > > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the > > goal > > > is not to > > > > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > > > > > > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality > > of > > > > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of > > nature, > > > and there is no > > > > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but > the > > > only way that > > > > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive > mechanism > > > of > > > > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what > > allows > > > for the experience of > > > > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at > > all. > > > When there > > > > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no > > more > > > experience. > > > > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves > > back > > > into > > > > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness > > > experiencing itself > > > > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating > > within > > > the Self. > > > > > > > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, > and > > > repeatedly. > > > > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego > > remains > > > as a part > > > > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to > > > disappear. 'You' are the > > > > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > ....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... > > > because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > So?.......Hehe. > > > The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself > > dissolves > > > back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, > > infinite > > > dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. > > > > > > Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? > > > > > > Phil > > > > yes....nice theories in your mind.... > > > > " the last ego........ " .....yes, i remember such an idea....that one > > can be sure that the " world " remains minimum as long....as there is > > still one human being " aware " of it..... > > > > but if you could " see " Oneness.....then there is the end of > dreaming > > about " first or last " ego......then there is awareness of > Self........ > > and so....the non-existence of a " seperated " mind..... > > > > .... " you " were never born in any world.....but worlds are " created " > > and get birth.....by the Self only.......and " nothing else " ..... > > > > wish you to get some other tricks (of the mind).... > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 .....white horse, you can't have any idea of the absolute because you are attached to much Karma...... many ways to loose Karma.....but best is to loose ego-mind... thats most effectif meditation is therefore the highway to yourSelf it's not easy, sure......but please try it...... all this your love......please focus it to Self......and you will get the fruits of....liberation.... i don't follow any special philosophie or religion...... and thats what spirituality is about....to seek the Self in oneself...... if you reach this Self....then there is no more ego-mind " who " search for any complications.......and " missions " and roles and " divine " tasks and theories and concepts..... you only need to be Self....and enjoy the play of Maya......by being aware of It Regards and peace and love Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'm not denying anyone of these actions. " i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy " . what is this I that is doing the witnessing? Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:11:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > > > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:47:34 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Q: I want direct experience of the Ultimate. > > > > > > > > Maharaj: The Absolute cannot be experienced. It is not an > > > objective affair. > > > > When I am > > > > unicity then that is pure awareness which is not aware of its > > > awareness, and > > > > there can be no subject and object - therefore there can be > no > > > witnessing. > > > > Any manifestation, and functioning, > > > > any witnessing, can only take > > > > place in duality. There has to > > > > be a subject and an object, they are two, but they are not > two, > > > > they are two ends of the same thing. > > > > > > > > When consciousness stirs, duality > > > > arises. There are millions of objects, but each object, when > > > > it sees another, assumes the subjectivity of the Absolute, > > > although it is an > > > > object. I, as > > > > an object, perceive and interpret all the other objects, and > I > > > assume that I > > > > am the subject, and the witnessing takes place. > > > > > > > > Q: Why does consciousness stir? What is the cause? > > > > > > > > M: With any cause, spontaneously, it happens; there is no > > reason. > > > That > > > > consciousness is universal - there is no individuality. But > > when > > > the consciousness > > > > stirs in a particular form which has also arisen > spontaneously, > > > and start > > > > functioning in that form, that form assumes that it is an > > > individual and what > > > > is unlimited limits itself to a particular form and the > trouble > > > starts. > > > > > > > > Let us say that someone has become a jnani, but what was it > to > > > begin with? > > > > It was that sour, bitter, principle, that secretion because > of > > > which the > > > > consciousness has taken place. That very principle, the > > > knowledge " I " Am, " has > > > > developed, grown, and become sweet; it matures and becomes > the > > > manifest jnani > > > > state; but what is that; It is the product of the five > > elemental > > > food essence. > > > > When that goes, what remains? > > > > The Absolute which does not know itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Groovy stuff. > > > > I've been noticing lately, lots of folks who seem to want to > > self > > > destruct > > > > as a human perceptive mechanism, not just here but elsewhere. > > > Possibly, this is > > > > what Whitehorse is galloping on about. > > > > > > > > It can be noticed that what we truly are, pure, subjective > > > awareness, has no > > > > means of perceiving itself. This is the functioning of > > > consciousness; to > > > > obtain the ability to be conscious of the Self. Therefore, the > > goal > > > is not to > > > > cease consciousness, or to cease to exist as a human mechanism. > > > > > > > > The enlightened will talk about being oneness and the totality > > of > > > > consciousness, and will declare the human as a mechanism of > > nature, > > > and there is no > > > > real involvement with this mechanism. This is all true, but > the > > > only way that > > > > it's known that one is that, is through the perceptive > mechanism > > > of > > > > consciousness that it is known does not exist. This is what > > allows > > > for the experience of > > > > Self. Without that experience, there is nothing going on at > > all. > > > When there > > > > is no longer any mechanism to create experience, there is no > > more > > > experience. > > > > That apparently individual experiential perspective dissolves > > back > > > into > > > > consciousness from which it arose. One is then consciousness > > > experiencing itself > > > > through all the other vehicles of perception, originating > > within > > > the Self. > > > > > > > > Annihilation of the individual self will occur soon enough, > and > > > repeatedly. > > > > What we're looking for is the experience of Self while ego > > remains > > > as a part > > > > of consciousness. Fortunately, the ego isn't going to > > > disappear. 'You' are the > > > > one 'moving'. Ego remains. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > ....this your " Ego remains " .....is part of an illusions.... > > > because " you " never even have been this your " Ego " .... > > > > > > Regards and peace > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > So?.......Hehe. > > > The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself > > dissolves > > > back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, > > infinite > > > dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. > > > > > > Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? > > > > > > Phil > > > > yes....nice theories in your mind.... > > > > " the last ego........ " .....yes, i remember such an idea....that one > > can be sure that the " world " remains minimum as long....as there is > > still one human being " aware " of it..... > > > > but if you could " see " Oneness.....then there is the end of > dreaming > > about " first or last " ego......then there is awareness of > Self........ > > and so....the non-existence of a " seperated " mind..... > > > > .... " you " were never born in any world.....but worlds are " created " > > and get birth.....by the Self only.......and " nothing else " ..... > > > > wish you to get some other tricks (of the mind).... > > > > Regards and peace > > > > Marc > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > I'm not denying anyone of these actions. > " i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy " . > what is this I that is doing the witnessing? READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING AND LEARN WHAT i IS. > > >> > my dear marc > > > > all your rythmic gymanstic talk regarding the illusorary has > consumed > > you yet you still are. _______This is the i. you are an eternal it, part of the IT, if you wish that term. > > > > Let go of thinking and live. You may superimposed these patterns of > > thinking you " are not " , but all along " " " " you are. " " " " " > > > > For all your thought process there is no need to exist in the > > physical, since you are consumend in thiniking you " are not " . > > Consequently in this unique independent thought you are alone and > not > > in harmony, but (((you are thinking))) you have merged into onesness. Then > > behind all this is some thought that all you need to do is live. > > > > Here is your duality, it's in (((the thinking))) that you must just live > > and see all as one and live inoffensively and just perceive the > all > > as one. That is the sting of impersonal , Mayavadi philosphy. You > can > > attain to this pattern of thought but it will not be blissful. It > is > > in 'sat' only and your bliss is self induced, not God realized. Hence > > you may have attained a higher awakening than the western common > > folk but that does not imply love in the sense of harmonious love > but > > is intoxicating (((delirous self love.))) You may assume liberation in > the > > mind and you may be given that objective in (death)passing. > > That is the impersonal feature of the Godhead, or Brahman. ______this is your thinking, _____your I_____ it is impersonal these are not just words Marc. this is what you are describing as your self induced realized self, it is impersonal philosophy based in a nihilistic mysticism. These may be words but they describe your thought process and that (I) that you seek to attain or enjoy. That is the poision of 'selfishness'. because the witness only sees the self, as 'i am 'which is not based in humility, but in the perfection of self pride. Hence the character acts in a detached way appearing to the outside world as some (((special- realized- soul))) when in fact he is selfish realized soul. That is the goal of Mayavadi philospher. This is not just words but an education on what is 'selfless love' for God and 'selfish love' for God. mayavadi, jnani, nihilist, these are all selfish ideals, but the bhakti, or one who perceives God as Supreme Soul, develops genuine humility and reciprocates with love in a spiritual way detached from the reaction but attached to the act of loveing , giving , sharin caring, to name a few, hence he is free from karma, B/c he acts out of pure love. God the FAther acts out of pure love, He provides, food, water, shelter, sleep, intellect, and association, and like souls to share in the act of love. When one realizes his self as part of that Love, ie God then all goodness can be experinced not only in the self but in others as well who receive the love. Hence there is no karma ie akarma, in perfect love. Do you understand? >but > > Brahman is not sustainable for at some time you will again take on > a > > form or body, b/c it is the character make up of the soul. The > souls > > make up is pure and perfect love. But love is not selfish or > > independant, it requires relationship for love is an active word > not > > singular it is in action that love is experienced not inaction. > > > > So if you are in the world, then to love the souls your must act or > > just go be a babaji or hermit in the mountains. > > > > Are you understanding or wanting to deny that Love is interaction. > > > > Hear this, when acting out of pure love, that is inaction, b/c > there > > is no karma in that love. 'Pure love' knows no reaction except love. > > That is the perfection of Love, or in God. Jesus and the Holy > > Prophets still walked and talked, the point is there is no karmic > > reaction for actine without offence. > > > > Now you have said elsewhere that just see the world in peace, ok > but > > just seeing is not possible, you still must eat, your still must go > > to shop, you still talk, lest you be mute. > > > > Therfore to deny actions is not possible. It's like trying to deny > > thinking, this is frivolous and futile attempt at trying to dissove > > the mind. It's founded in one of the many theories of nihilism. > > > > i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy. > > > > Can you deny that? > > > > If you start attaching what you are really are to your own way of > > thinking then perhaps you might come around. > > eg . i am a mayavadi, or i am a practioner of nihilism. > > > > tell me does that sound inviting? > > > > No , why b/c it's rooted in ulimate selfishness. > > And it does not bare any resemblance to 'love', b/c it too becomes > > negated. > > > > Now you want to tell that there is not point to 'love'? > > > > i'll give you the floor now. > > > > whitehorserides again. > > > Do you deny the existence of love? Love does not require any ritual performance, not chanting, not seving statues, not meditating on fresh air, or nothing. Though meditation is by definition an active mind focused on a particular suject or object, it need not be misplaced. One need not think i must do something because i want in return. But one must live according to the source of Love, or the Supreme Loves's perfect Will. That is the teaching of living and walking in Holiness. A holy man does not need to dress to impress or attract followers, but he is one with God and lives in simple fashion as a free spirit in harmony with the Will of God. Now comes God.___________hear carefully this my frieds (s) God the source of love is bound by one and only one thing alone. That's right bound, tied up and obliged, and what is it? LOVE, AND LOVE ONLY. He who serves and loves God with heart, mind and soul will get the favour of God. How? Through and by Divine intervention. That is how and is His promise. therfore it is not just living but is a relationship in the spirit- mind with the Holy Spirit, and on occasion as the Lord, wills he makes special arrangements through the physical world in DIVINE SYNCHRONIZATION, that's coincides with the Words and prophecy of the pure son. That I AM. because the SON and the FAther are non different. Just as Moses warned Pharoah that unless he would release his family from there slavery, God would smite the pharaohs kingdom with a particular curse, hence as Moses spoke so God fulfilled that prophecy. Why? because Moses is, was a sent son purposed and set up by God for a particular purpose, to remove his good sons from slavery. Now that is the special arrangements for Holy Prophets or true sons of God ie One with one in perfection, one in love and so on. For such a soul there is no karma for he is liberated while living in the world. This world is not the paradise of perfection. All souls are born into sin or evil cultures under kings and presidents who promote and market or sustain their own with various ideas of socialism and communism all along throwing their ideas of god's at you from thier so called autheritative source ie PHd's and this ism and that ists telling you all you need is faith, and you will go to heaven. This is all lies. Now comes the guru world and words from many independent branches of what is and what isn't, in this free open market of anything goes, " freedom of religion " . Aan they tell you a completely new idea that has nothing to do with anything and sell their make shift forms of god in many unuique and diverse ways. And the gullible western market anxious for knowlege ,hope and some sort of personalized need for solace finds one to their liking and jumps on the bandwagon, lol. Thinking this is it, or that is it, or it's not it it's just not not and all sorts of ridiculous conjured concoctions of nothingness or oneness. Listen up here my friends,______all these practices where very well known to the Holy Prophets, and Jesus, becausse the whole of the region was filled with all these practices of idolatry from India, the Assyrian nations, as well all the practices of buddhism had made there way since he was 500 BC into the regions. What you haven't received is a clear and proper understanding that the ways of God and teachings of Moses and the follow of teaching s of the Holy Prophets and prophecied son, Jesus, were a break from hindhuism and all there idols and practices of flesh offerings to gods, durga and alike. and their meditative oneness and nonthingness, nihilistic theories. But it's all come back and has infiltraqted the western culture and has taken root. Why? Because the teachings of Jesus are lost, they are not what is coming from the pulpit, These are liars and greedy men using God's name for selfish motives even into getting public officials being elected. You are typically born into a christian life which is nothing but a heathen culture of idolatry, just like the many hindhu types, with all there mythololgical stories of god's flying in air and immaculate ideas of birth as well as walking in mid air and monkey man and siva gods and so on these are all concocted well rehearsed written stories to manipulate and control the weaker spirits. Away with all this garbage religious posturing and learn to love and serve God as God desires to be loved. Jesus did not teach religion. He taught and practiced 'Love of God " . There is no colour or coat or name attached to Love, it emanates from the soul because God is the maker, Creator of all souls. i will stop there and hope you have taken time to digest, read this again, even 3 times , keep in your file and refer to it for it is not from me it comes via the Holy Spirit. peace unto you, This is all verifiable, i take no credit for it allready has been written. That doesn't make me a scholar, or a book worm, it just is what is. whitehorse rider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 my god, do you seriously think i have to learn what i am by reading it on a pc screen?!? i leave you in company of holy prophets and holy spirit, have a good time! LOL Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not denying anyone of these actions. > > " i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy " . > > what is this I that is doing the witnessing? > > > READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING AND LEARN WHAT i IS. > > > > > >> > my dear marc > > > > > > all your rythmic gymanstic talk regarding the illusorary has > > consumed > > > you yet you still are. > > > _______This is the i. you are an eternal it, part of the IT, if you > wish that term. > > > > > > > Let go of thinking and live. You may superimposed these patterns > of > > > thinking you " are not " , but all along " " " " you are. " " " " " > > > > > > For all your thought process there is no need to exist in the > > > physical, since you are consumend in thiniking you " are not " . > > > Consequently in this unique independent thought you are alone and > > not > > > in harmony, but (((you are thinking))) you have merged into > onesness. Then > > > behind all this is some thought that all you need to do is live. > > > > > > Here is your duality, it's in (((the thinking))) that you must > just live > > > and see all as one and live inoffensively and just perceive the > > all > > > as one. That is the sting of impersonal , Mayavadi philosphy. You > > can > > > attain to this pattern of thought but it will not be blissful. It > > is > > > in 'sat' only and your bliss is self induced, not God realized. > Hence > > > you may have attained a higher awakening than the western common > > > folk but that does not imply love in the sense of harmonious love > > but > > > is intoxicating (((delirous self love.))) You may assume > liberation in > > the > > > mind and you may be given that objective in (death)passing. > > > That is the impersonal feature of the Godhead, or Brahman. > > > > ______this is your thinking, _____your I_____ it is impersonal > > these are not just words Marc. this is what you are describing as > your self induced realized self, it is impersonal philosophy based in > a nihilistic mysticism. These may be words but they describe your > thought process and that (I) that you seek to attain or enjoy. > > That is the poision of 'selfishness'. because the witness only sees > the self, as 'i am 'which is not based in humility, but in the > perfection of self pride. Hence the character acts in a detached way > appearing to the outside world as some (((special- realized- soul))) > when in fact he is selfish realized soul. That is the goal of > Mayavadi philospher. > > This is not just words but an education on what is 'selfless love' > for God and 'selfish love' for God. mayavadi, jnani, nihilist, these > are all selfish ideals, but the bhakti, or one who perceives God as > Supreme Soul, develops genuine humility and reciprocates with love in > a spiritual way detached from the reaction but attached to the act of > loveing , giving , sharin caring, to name a few, hence he is free > from karma, B/c he acts out of pure love. God the FAther acts out of > pure love, He provides, food, water, shelter, sleep, intellect, and > association, and like souls to share in the act of love. > > When one realizes his self as part of that Love, ie God then all > goodness can be experinced not only in the self but in others as well > who receive the love. > > Hence there is no karma ie akarma, in perfect love. > > Do you understand? > > >but > > > Brahman is not sustainable for at some time you will again take > on > > a > > > form or body, b/c it is the character make up of the soul. The > > souls > > > make up is pure and perfect love. But love is not selfish or > > > independant, it requires relationship for love is an active word > > not > > > singular it is in action that love is experienced not inaction. > > > > > > So if you are in the world, then to love the souls your must act > or > > > just go be a babaji or hermit in the mountains. > > > > > > Are you understanding or wanting to deny that Love is interaction. > > > > > > Hear this, when acting out of pure love, that is inaction, b/c > > there > > > is no karma in that love. 'Pure love' knows no reaction except > love. > > > That is the perfection of Love, or in God. Jesus and the Holy > > > Prophets still walked and talked, the point is there is no karmic > > > reaction for actine without offence. > > > > > > Now you have said elsewhere that just see the world in peace, ok > > but > > > just seeing is not possible, you still must eat, your still must > go > > > to shop, you still talk, lest you be mute. > > > > > > Therfore to deny actions is not possible. It's like trying to > deny > > > thinking, this is frivolous and futile attempt at trying to > dissove > > > the mind. It's founded in one of the many theories of nihilism. > > > > > > i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > > > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy. > > > > > > Can you deny that? > > > > > > If you start attaching what you are really are to your own way of > > > thinking then perhaps you might come around. > > > eg . i am a mayavadi, or i am a practioner of nihilism. > > > > > > tell me does that sound inviting? > > > > > > No , why b/c it's rooted in ulimate selfishness. > > > And it does not bare any resemblance to 'love', b/c it too > becomes > > > negated. > > > > > > Now you want to tell that there is not point to 'love'? > > > > > > i'll give you the floor now. > > > > > > whitehorserides again. > > > > > > > Do you deny the existence of love? > > Love does not require any ritual performance, not chanting, not > seving statues, not meditating on fresh air, or nothing. > > Though meditation is by definition an active mind focused on a > particular suject or object, it need not be misplaced. One need not > think i must do something because i want in return. But one must live > according to the source of Love, or the Supreme Loves's perfect Will. > > That is the teaching of living and walking in Holiness. A holy man > does not need to dress to impress or attract followers, but he is one > with God and lives in simple fashion as a free spirit in harmony with > the Will of God. > > Now comes God.___________hear carefully this my frieds (s) God the > source of love is bound by one and only one thing alone. > > That's right bound, tied up and obliged, and what is it? > > LOVE, AND LOVE ONLY. He who serves and loves God with heart, mind and > soul will get the favour of God. > > How? > > Through and by Divine intervention. That is how and is His promise. > therfore it is not just living but is a relationship in the spirit- > mind with the Holy Spirit, and on occasion as the Lord, wills he > makes special arrangements through the physical world in DIVINE > SYNCHRONIZATION, that's coincides with the Words and prophecy of the > pure son. That I AM. because the SON and the FAther are non > different. > > Just as Moses warned Pharoah that unless he would release his family > from there slavery, God would smite the pharaohs kingdom with a > particular curse, hence as Moses spoke so God fulfilled that > prophecy. > > Why? because Moses is, was a sent son purposed and set up by God for > a particular purpose, to remove his good sons from slavery. > > Now that is the special arrangements for Holy Prophets or true sons > of God ie One with one in perfection, one in love and so on. For > such a soul there is no karma for he is liberated while living in the > world. > > This world is not the paradise of perfection. All souls are born into > sin or evil cultures under kings and presidents who promote and > market or sustain their own with various ideas of socialism and > communism all along throwing their ideas of god's at you from thier > so called autheritative source ie PHd's and this ism and that ists > telling you all you need is faith, and you will go to heaven. This is > all lies. > > Now comes the guru world and words from many independent branches of > what is and what isn't, in this free open market of anything > goes, " freedom of religion " . > > Aan they tell you a completely new idea that has nothing to do with > anything and sell their make shift forms of god in many unuique and > diverse ways. And the gullible western market anxious for > knowlege ,hope and some sort of personalized need for solace finds > one to their liking and jumps on the bandwagon, lol. Thinking this is > it, or that is it, or it's not it it's just not not and all sorts of > ridiculous conjured concoctions of nothingness or oneness. > > Listen up here my friends,______all these practices where very well > known to the Holy Prophets, and Jesus, becausse the whole of the > region was filled with all these practices of idolatry from India, > the Assyrian nations, as well all the practices of buddhism had made > there way since he was 500 BC into the regions. > > What you haven't received is a clear and proper understanding that > the ways of God and teachings of Moses and the follow of teaching s > of the Holy Prophets and prophecied son, Jesus, were a break from > hindhuism and all there idols and practices of flesh offerings to > gods, durga and alike. and their meditative oneness and nonthingness, > nihilistic theories. > > But it's all come back and has infiltraqted the western culture and > has taken root. > > Why? > > Because the teachings of Jesus are lost, they are not what is coming > from the pulpit, These are liars and greedy men using God's name for > selfish motives even into getting public officials being elected. > You are typically born into a christian life which is nothing but a > heathen culture of idolatry, just like the many hindhu types, with > all there mythololgical stories of god's flying in air and immaculate > ideas of birth as well as walking in mid air and monkey man and siva > gods and so on these are all concocted well rehearsed written stories > to manipulate and control the weaker spirits. > > Away with all this garbage religious posturing and learn to love and > serve God as God desires to be loved. Jesus did not teach religion. > He taught and practiced 'Love of God " . There is no colour or coat or > name attached to Love, it emanates from the soul because God is the > maker, Creator of all souls. > > i will stop there and hope you have taken time to digest, read this > again, even 3 times , keep in your file and refer to it for it is not > from me it comes via the Holy Spirit. > > peace unto you, > This is all verifiable, i take no credit for it allready has been > written. > > That doesn't make me a scholar, or a book worm, it just is what is. > > whitehorse rider. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Dear white horse.... my intiution tell me....that i don't need to read all this your words..... don't worry.....I AM.... and therefore....i assure you that this doesn't mean: I AM NOT lol i don't know exactly where is your problem..... calm down.....and learn to accept......and to respect the Self.....in yourself....and in others.... if, realy, somebody would be in search for a teacher (realized Master)......do you believe such a realized Master would kill his/her time here on internet........? all one need is inner love....and i'm convinced that most of people in here have and know and feel this love if you don't trust in most of people here...... please ask yourSELF.....why this is the case i trust your Self........and i'm sure that a Self can't produce such empty bubbles of ....whatever..... Namaste Marc > > I'm not denying anyone of these actions. > > " i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy " . > > what is this I that is doing the witnessing? > > > READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING AND LEARN WHAT i IS. > > > > > >> > my dear marc > > > > > > all your rythmic gymanstic talk regarding the illusorary has > > consumed > > > you yet you still are. > > > _______This is the i. you are an eternal it, part of the IT, if you > wish that term. > > > > > > > Let go of thinking and live. You may superimposed these patterns > of > > > thinking you " are not " , but all along " " " " you are. " " " " " > > > > > > For all your thought process there is no need to exist in the > > > physical, since you are consumend in thiniking you " are not " . > > > Consequently in this unique independent thought you are alone and > > not > > > in harmony, but (((you are thinking))) you have merged into > onesness. Then > > > behind all this is some thought that all you need to do is live. > > > > > > Here is your duality, it's in (((the thinking))) that you must > just live > > > and see all as one and live inoffensively and just perceive the > > all > > > as one. That is the sting of impersonal , Mayavadi philosphy. You > > can > > > attain to this pattern of thought but it will not be blissful. It > > is > > > in 'sat' only and your bliss is self induced, not God realized. > Hence > > > you may have attained a higher awakening than the western common > > > folk but that does not imply love in the sense of harmonious love > > but > > > is intoxicating (((delirous self love.))) You may assume > liberation in > > the > > > mind and you may be given that objective in (death)passing. > > > That is the impersonal feature of the Godhead, or Brahman. > > > > ______this is your thinking, _____your I_____ it is impersonal > > these are not just words Marc. this is what you are describing as > your self induced realized self, it is impersonal philosophy based in > a nihilistic mysticism. These may be words but they describe your > thought process and that (I) that you seek to attain or enjoy. > > That is the poision of 'selfishness'. because the witness only sees > the self, as 'i am 'which is not based in humility, but in the > perfection of self pride. Hence the character acts in a detached way > appearing to the outside world as some (((special- realized- soul))) > when in fact he is selfish realized soul. That is the goal of > Mayavadi philospher. > > This is not just words but an education on what is 'selfless love' > for God and 'selfish love' for God. mayavadi, jnani, nihilist, these > are all selfish ideals, but the bhakti, or one who perceives God as > Supreme Soul, develops genuine humility and reciprocates with love in > a spiritual way detached from the reaction but attached to the act of > loveing , giving , sharin caring, to name a few, hence he is free > from karma, B/c he acts out of pure love. God the FAther acts out of > pure love, He provides, food, water, shelter, sleep, intellect, and > association, and like souls to share in the act of love. > > When one realizes his self as part of that Love, ie God then all > goodness can be experinced not only in the self but in others as well > who receive the love. > > Hence there is no karma ie akarma, in perfect love. > > Do you understand? > > >but > > > Brahman is not sustainable for at some time you will again take > on > > a > > > form or body, b/c it is the character make up of the soul. The > > souls > > > make up is pure and perfect love. But love is not selfish or > > > independant, it requires relationship for love is an active word > > not > > > singular it is in action that love is experienced not inaction. > > > > > > So if you are in the world, then to love the souls your must act > or > > > just go be a babaji or hermit in the mountains. > > > > > > Are you understanding or wanting to deny that Love is interaction. > > > > > > Hear this, when acting out of pure love, that is inaction, b/c > > there > > > is no karma in that love. 'Pure love' knows no reaction except > love. > > > That is the perfection of Love, or in God. Jesus and the Holy > > > Prophets still walked and talked, the point is there is no karmic > > > reaction for actine without offence. > > > > > > Now you have said elsewhere that just see the world in peace, ok > > but > > > just seeing is not possible, you still must eat, your still must > go > > > to shop, you still talk, lest you be mute. > > > > > > Therfore to deny actions is not possible. It's like trying to > deny > > > thinking, this is frivolous and futile attempt at trying to > dissove > > > the mind. It's founded in one of the many theories of nihilism. > > > > > > i am constantly witnessing many here and elsewhere who are being > > > poisoned by these varying attempts to teach mayavadi philosophy. > > > > > > Can you deny that? > > > > > > If you start attaching what you are really are to your own way of > > > thinking then perhaps you might come around. > > > eg . i am a mayavadi, or i am a practioner of nihilism. > > > > > > tell me does that sound inviting? > > > > > > No , why b/c it's rooted in ulimate selfishness. > > > And it does not bare any resemblance to 'love', b/c it too > becomes > > > negated. > > > > > > Now you want to tell that there is not point to 'love'? > > > > > > i'll give you the floor now. > > > > > > whitehorserides again. > > > > > > > Do you deny the existence of love? > > Love does not require any ritual performance, not chanting, not > seving statues, not meditating on fresh air, or nothing. > > Though meditation is by definition an active mind focused on a > particular suject or object, it need not be misplaced. One need not > think i must do something because i want in return. But one must live > according to the source of Love, or the Supreme Loves's perfect Will. > > That is the teaching of living and walking in Holiness. A holy man > does not need to dress to impress or attract followers, but he is one > with God and lives in simple fashion as a free spirit in harmony with > the Will of God. > > Now comes God.___________hear carefully this my frieds (s) God the > source of love is bound by one and only one thing alone. > > That's right bound, tied up and obliged, and what is it? > > LOVE, AND LOVE ONLY. He who serves and loves God with heart, mind and > soul will get the favour of God. > > How? > > Through and by Divine intervention. That is how and is His promise. > therfore it is not just living but is a relationship in the spirit- > mind with the Holy Spirit, and on occasion as the Lord, wills he > makes special arrangements through the physical world in DIVINE > SYNCHRONIZATION, that's coincides with the Words and prophecy of the > pure son. That I AM. because the SON and the FAther are non > different. > > Just as Moses warned Pharoah that unless he would release his family > from there slavery, God would smite the pharaohs kingdom with a > particular curse, hence as Moses spoke so God fulfilled that > prophecy. > > Why? because Moses is, was a sent son purposed and set up by God for > a particular purpose, to remove his good sons from slavery. > > Now that is the special arrangements for Holy Prophets or true sons > of God ie One with one in perfection, one in love and so on. For > such a soul there is no karma for he is liberated while living in the > world. > > This world is not the paradise of perfection. All souls are born into > sin or evil cultures under kings and presidents who promote and > market or sustain their own with various ideas of socialism and > communism all along throwing their ideas of god's at you from thier > so called autheritative source ie PHd's and this ism and that ists > telling you all you need is faith, and you will go to heaven. This is > all lies. > > Now comes the guru world and words from many independent branches of > what is and what isn't, in this free open market of anything > goes, " freedom of religion " . > > Aan they tell you a completely new idea that has nothing to do with > anything and sell their make shift forms of god in many unuique and > diverse ways. And the gullible western market anxious for > knowlege ,hope and some sort of personalized need for solace finds > one to their liking and jumps on the bandwagon, lol. Thinking this is > it, or that is it, or it's not it it's just not not and all sorts of > ridiculous conjured concoctions of nothingness or oneness. > > Listen up here my friends,______all these practices where very well > known to the Holy Prophets, and Jesus, becausse the whole of the > region was filled with all these practices of idolatry from India, > the Assyrian nations, as well all the practices of buddhism had made > there way since he was 500 BC into the regions. > > What you haven't received is a clear and proper understanding that > the ways of God and teachings of Moses and the follow of teaching s > of the Holy Prophets and prophecied son, Jesus, were a break from > hindhuism and all there idols and practices of flesh offerings to > gods, durga and alike. and their meditative oneness and nonthingness, > nihilistic theories. > > But it's all come back and has infiltraqted the western culture and > has taken root. > > Why? > > Because the teachings of Jesus are lost, they are not what is coming > from the pulpit, These are liars and greedy men using God's name for > selfish motives even into getting public officials being elected. > You are typically born into a christian life which is nothing but a > heathen culture of idolatry, just like the many hindhu types, with > all there mythololgical stories of god's flying in air and immaculate > ideas of birth as well as walking in mid air and monkey man and siva > gods and so on these are all concocted well rehearsed written stories > to manipulate and control the weaker spirits. > > Away with all this garbage religious posturing and learn to love and > serve God as God desires to be loved. Jesus did not teach religion. > He taught and practiced 'Love of God " . There is no colour or coat or > name attached to Love, it emanates from the soul because God is the > maker, Creator of all souls. > > i will stop there and hope you have taken time to digest, read this > again, even 3 times , keep in your file and refer to it for it is not > from me it comes via the Holy Spirit. > > peace unto you, > This is all verifiable, i take no credit for it allready has been > written. > > That doesn't make me a scholar, or a book worm, it just is what is. > > whitehorse rider. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > Dear white horse.... > > my intiution tell me....that i don't need to read all this your > words..... > > don't worry.....I AM.... > > and therefore....i assure you that this doesn't mean: I AM NOT > > lol > > i don't know exactly where is your problem..... > > calm down.....and learn to accept......and to respect the Self.....in > yourself....and in others.... > > if, realy, somebody would be in search for a teacher (realized > Master)......do you believe such a realized Master would kill his/her > time here on internet........? > > all one need is inner love....and i'm convinced that most of people > in here have and know and feel this love > > if you don't trust in most of people here...... > > please ask yourSELF.....why this is the case > > i trust your Self........and i'm sure that a Self can't produce such > empty bubbles of ....whatever..... > > Namaste > > Marc > > BONJOUR, c'est exactement ce que je veux dire. Tu dit " namaste " . et cela veux dire 'dans le non de Dieu.' Dont pour quoi que tu reflet ces't mot. OUI est que c'est ne pas qu'est ce que jesus a dit.? Quand tu est 'dans le nom' cela veux dire, vivre en Dieu, rester dans Lui. Comment peu tu quand tu et dans un corps, et il et necessaire de manger, de tout faire. Pour quoi juste penser. Penser c'est n'est pas assez, les mots c'est ne pas assez. Ils faut vivre. en suite il faut servire, Tu ne peux enlever la service de la vie, ni ici ni dans la prochaine situation. ni dans ta maison ni d'hors. How's that , pretty bad, but because it's done without motive it's he spirit of love. You just have to hear that love is action and not just thought. Have you got guru? dog, wife, boss, government, body. You must serve, you cannot deny it, not possible. So it's in what spirit are you serving. It's the 'spirit' that must be cleansed from thinking i'm doing this b/c or not b/c. When your spirit is clean, pure then there is no motive whether for self or others and you behave selflessly. A philanthropist, gets a taste of love or doing for others, but still he is not free from thinking I did and now there is my name. Even the anonymous donor has his personal attachments, though he camoufalages his given, he's still thinking that God may return him the favour. So what is the state of pure love or pure consciousness? you tell me._______. give it a shot_______________________________. what is this thing you are trying to describe, forget all just live. whitehorserides free no charge, get on. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear white horse.... > > > > my intiution tell me....that i don't need to read all this your > > words..... > > > > don't worry.....I AM.... > > > > and therefore....i assure you that this doesn't mean: I AM NOT > > > > lol > > > > i don't know exactly where is your problem..... > > > > calm down.....and learn to accept......and to respect the > Self.....in > > yourself....and in others.... > > > > if, realy, somebody would be in search for a teacher (realized > > Master)......do you believe such a realized Master would kill > his/her > > time here on internet........? > > > > all one need is inner love....and i'm convinced that most of people > > in here have and know and feel this love > > > > if you don't trust in most of people here...... > > > > please ask yourSELF.....why this is the case > > > > i trust your Self........and i'm sure that a Self can't produce > such > > empty bubbles of ....whatever..... > > > > Namaste > > > > Marc > > > > > > BONJOUR, > > c'est exactement ce que je veux dire. Tu dit " namaste " . et cela > veux dire 'dans le non de Dieu.' Dont pour quoi que tu reflet ces't > mot. OUI est que c'est ne pas qu'est ce que jesus a dit.? > > Quand tu est 'dans le nom' cela veux dire, vivre en Dieu, rester dans > Lui. Comment peu tu quand tu et dans un corps, et il et necessaire de > manger, de tout faire. Pour quoi juste penser. Penser c'est n'est > pas assez, les mots c'est ne pas assez. Ils faut vivre. en suite il > faut servire, Tu ne peux enlever la service de la vie, ni ici ni > dans la prochaine situation. > ni dans ta maison ni d'hors. > > How's that , pretty bad, but because it's done without motive it's he > spirit of love. You just have to hear that love is action and not > just thought. > > Have you got guru? dog, wife, boss, government, body. > > You must serve, you cannot deny it, not possible. > > So it's in what spirit are you serving. It's the 'spirit' that must > be cleansed from thinking i'm doing this b/c or not b/c. When your > spirit is clean, pure then there is no motive whether for self or > others and you behave selflessly. > > A philanthropist, gets a taste of love or doing for others, but still > he is not free from thinking I did and now there is my name. Even the > anonymous donor has his personal attachments, though he camoufalages > his given, he's still thinking that God may return him the favour. > > So what is the state of pure love or pure consciousness? > > you tell me._______. > > give it a shot_______________________________. > > what is this thing you are trying to describe, forget all just live. > > > > > > whitehorserides > free no charge, get on. lol. i think that there is difference of the " understanding " of " Namaste " ... as far i know....it just mean " i bow to your inner Self " ....kind of...... people in Nepal as for example use this to say " hello " ..... this already show....that they are endless more advanced in " spirit " ........no question about. (if you realy would be interested in meeting people of deep spirit.......have a travel to India, Nepal.......as for example) your words, indead, sounds very philosophic.....and it seem that you build up kind of own philosophy.........interesting.......but why you don't get any satisfaction with it?..... lol there is nothing but God in a world perception...... so, how could anybody don't " serve " inside this?..... (still didn't get any answer from you.....but i suppose that your philosophy don't know any concret answer to this) i see and i know that you expect a " bonus " from God....for all this your wonderful " serving " ....... and exactly this is (one of) your problem(s) you ask about pure love.....and " pure consciousness " ..... pure love is the pure knowledge that " you " are One with all..... so " pure consciousness " brings you out of this illusion " to be this or that " .......but to " I am " i don't try to describe anything......because it's impossible to describe the truth..... all words which could describe the truth must sound like great jokes.......because there is absolutly nothing which is not encluded in the truth........ so....silence is only expression i know....to live the (in) truth..... if you could meditate....you would make the experience that you will never anymore miss something.......except yourSelf......when you are not aware of. oui....les pensées...les mots.......ce n'est rien, comparé à la vrai vie ce n'est que le " passe temps " pour les intellectuels....qui sont perdus dans leurs illusions d'être " QUELQU'UN " lalalilola Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 dear friend in your process mentioned, where is Lord, divine knowledge, devotion and service? Self-realisation is an intermediate step and God-realisation and pleasing Lord is the final step. posted by: His servant at the lotus feet of shri datta swami www.universal-spirituality.org dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33 wrote: ....white horse, you can't have any idea of the absolute because you are attached to much Karma...... many ways to loose Karma.....but best is to loose ego-mind...thats most effectif meditation is therefore the highway to yourSelf it's not easy, sure......but please try it...... all this your love......please focus it to Self......and you will get the fruits of....liberation.... i don't follow any special philosophie or religion...... and thats what spirituality is about....to seek the Self in oneself...... Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000> wrote: > hello the servent at the feet...., you too....you could start with meditation......don't you think so?.... that would be a real inner " revolution " of process in yourself.... so you could please the Lord on a direct way.... no need to tell whole world about this your need Regards and peace Marc > dear friend > > in your process mentioned, where is Lord, divine knowledge, devotion and service? Self-realisation is an intermediate step and God-realisation and pleasing Lord is the final step. > > posted by: His servant > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami > www.universal-spirituality.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 dennis_travis33 The moment the last ego awakens to the Self, consciousness itself dissolves > back into awareness, along with all of creation, time, space, infinite > dimensions. The heartbeat of life.... stops. > > Pretty slick trick for an illusion, huh? > > Phil yes....nice theories in your mind.... " the last ego........ " .....yes, i remember such an idea....that one can be sure that the " world " remains minimum as long....as there is still one human being " aware " of it..... but if you could " see " Oneness.....then there is the end of dreaming about " first or last " ego......then there is awareness of Self........ and so....the non-existence of a " seperated " mind..... ..... " you " were never born in any world.....but worlds are " created " and get birth.....by the Self only.......and " nothing else " ..... wish you to get some other tricks (of the mind).... Regards and peace Marc Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both discussing concepts that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that conveys slightly less smugness? Don't we already have enough of that here? It's not really about how many human beings remain, since it's all an illusion within consciousness anyway. What it's about is that pure, subjective awareness cannot know itself. Consciousness makes this possible but only as long as it's not fully aware of the totality of Self, since that apparent lack of awareness is all that distinguishes it from the totality of awareness itself, and so it 'dissolves' back into awareness. Again, I'm saying awareness cannot know itself. Therefore, when consciousness is no more, there is no such thing as perception or experience. Do you deny that you wish to experience your Self? You cannot do this simply by being. You are already being That. What you seek is the experience of being That. Therefore, let's not dismiss the value of that which experiences. That's all I was saying. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 Hi Phil, Phil: Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both discussing concepts > that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that conveys slightly less smugness? Don't we already have enough of that here? M: don't understand the word " smugness " ....but it sound not very " positive " ..........think you are right... your words sound, indead, very to " theorie " .....personnaly i'm not attached to any special theorie......i write about my perception of things......how i " see " it for the moment....... i don't reproduce theories and philosophies that i read somewhere.....and i'm conscient that this, indead, would not make much sense..... yes.....as i see......there is endless talk going on here for the moment first impression is that it look like a " battlefield " of some great ego-minds......thats maybe funny, sometimes....... but you are right......it lead to nowhere Phil: It's not really about how many human beings remain, since it's all an > illusion within consciousness anyway. M: yes, true.... Phil: What it's about is that pure, subjective awareness cannot know itself. Consciousness makes this possible but only as long > as it's not fully aware of the totality of Self, since that apparent lack of > awareness is all that distinguishes it from the totality of awareness itself, > and so it 'dissolves' back into awareness. Again, I'm saying awareness cannot > know itself. Therefore, when consciousness is no more, there is no such > thing as perception or experience. M: this could be discussed....there are some interesting points in it....try only to say few words often i have the impression that we share the same " view " ....only envelopped in little different words.... " Awareness can't know itself " ........yes..... " awareness " is something which can't be " known " ......maybe it result of knowledge and wisdom........and, i think, a peaceful mind is necessary as " ground " ....of it...... if not, i remind the recent post of the " ground... something... " it seem.... " between your lines and words " .....that this your described " awareness " would be the " source of all " .....kind of.....and therefore that there is some " move " .....some " creation " .....which would enclude this " awareness " ........?... (you would like to build nice " castles " ...?) " the totality of Self " .....?....is it not the " awareness " of Self and non-Self....at same time? this would make sense....and explain the state of a realized being......which don't live only in a " drop " of world.....but in all.....at same time yes....whenever there is " consciousness of " ....this has something to do with a " worldy " perception ....means, limited by time and space.......like all theories and concepts are if one go behind this " worldly " perception.....there is no " consciousness " of perception and experience....there is just being ....and coming back......it slowly build up " awareness " ..... " awareness " ....which don't let one loose the time....to build up " castles " .......but it let one enjoy the endless liberation......to " breath " freely....... Phil: > Do you deny that you wish to experience your Self? You cannot do this simply > by being. You are already being That. What you seek is the experience of > being That. Therefore, let's not dismiss the value of that which experiences. > That's all I was saying. > M: i don't deny this....and i explained you what i " see " as the " totality of Self " ..... yes....simply " being " .....is a moment kind of " break " ......it give the mind the chance....to get some order......it happen a " delete " of false knowledge by just being..... after that come " awareness " .......thats something else, indead it's difficult to talk about " experience " ......i mean, alse dangerous.....in here......because some people believe that, if they feel love......that this is already all they " are " ....all the " need " ......(maybe too much inspirated by the Beatles...lol) " being That " .....?......we all are,....already....since endless times........ maybe it's time to wake up....to open the mind and the eyes....and heart........ at same time wish you a good time......friend of the truth Regards and peace Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 In a message dated 11/30/2005 4:34:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: You can not know the Absolute Hi Phil, Phil: Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both discussing concepts > that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that conveys slightly less smugness? Don't we already have enough of that here? M: don't understand the word " smugness " ....but it sound not very " positive " ..........think you are right... your words sound, indead, very to " theorie " .....personnaly i'm not attached to any special theorie......i write about my perception of things......how i " see " it for the moment....... i don't reproduce theories and philosophies that i read somewhere.....and i'm conscient that this, indead, would not make much sense..... I agree. The goal is an increase in awareness rather than the collection of teachings or the mental circulation and reorganization of those teachings. It's actually true that all things are already known within, and so it's possible to look within for the answers to the mind's questions. This is sometimes called intuitive 'knowing' and the answers must come within one's current level of awareness and then simultaneously expands it. It's not enlightenment because this is seeing the Truth wholly, and since there are no parts to Truth, this is the only way that it can 'truly' be seen. However, it is a genuine means by which the evolution of consciousness occurs in preparation for awakening to the Truth. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 thank you Phil " It's not enlightenment because this is seeing the Truth wholly, and since there are no parts to Truth, this is the only way that it can 'truly' be seen. " . it seems I said it !!! Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/30/2005 4:34:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > Hi Phil, > > > Phil: > Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both discussing > concepts > > that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that conveys > slightly > less smugness? > Don't we already have enough of that here? > > M: > don't understand the word " smugness " ....but it sound not > very " positive " ..........think you are right... > > your words sound, indead, very to " theorie " .....personnaly i'm not > attached to any special theorie......i write about my perception of > things......how i " see " it for the moment....... > i don't reproduce theories and philosophies that i read > somewhere.....and i'm conscient that this, indead, would not make > much sense..... I agree. The goal is an increase in awareness rather than the collection of > teachings or the mental circulation and reorganization of those teachings. > It's actually true that all things are already known within, and so it's > possible to look within for the answers to the mind's questions. This is sometimes > called intuitive 'knowing' and the answers must come within one's current > level of awareness and then simultaneously expands it. It's not enlightenment > because this is seeing the Truth wholly, and since there are no parts to Truth, > this is the only way that it can 'truly' be seen. However, it is a genuine > means by which the evolution of consciousness occurs in preparation for > awakening to the Truth. > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > if you live in truth......don't worry....was " you " who wrote it.... > thank you Phil > " It's not enlightenment because this is seeing the Truth wholly, > and since there are no parts to Truth, this is the only way that it > can 'truly' be seen. " . it seems I said it !!! > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/30/2005 4:34:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > Phil: > > Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both discussing > > concepts > > > that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that > conveys > > slightly > > less smugness? > > Don't we already have enough of that here? > > > > M: > > don't understand the word " smugness " ....but it sound not > > very " positive " ..........think you are right... > > > > your words sound, indead, very to " theorie " .....personnaly i'm not > > attached to any special theorie......i write about my perception > of > > things......how i " see " it for the moment....... > > i don't reproduce theories and philosophies that i read > > somewhere.....and i'm conscient that this, indead, would not make > > much sense..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. The goal is an increase in awareness rather than the > collection of > > teachings or the mental circulation and reorganization of those > teachings. > > It's actually true that all things are already known within, and > so it's > > possible to look within for the answers to the mind's questions. > This is sometimes > > called intuitive 'knowing' and the answers must come within one's > current > > level of awareness and then simultaneously expands it. It's not > enlightenment > > because this is seeing the Truth wholly, and since there are no > parts to Truth, > > this is the only way that it can 'truly' be seen. However, it is a > genuine > > means by which the evolution of consciousness occurs in > preparation for > > awakening to the Truth. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 One love. Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > if you live in truth......don't worry....was " you " who wrote it.... > > > > thank you Phil > > " It's not enlightenment because this is seeing the Truth wholly, > > and since there are no parts to Truth, this is the only way that > it > > can 'truly' be seen. " . it seems I said it !!! > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/30/2005 4:34:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> > > > Re: You can not know the Absolute > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > Yes, you have some nice theories too. Since we're both > discussing > > > concepts > > > > that aren't true, possibly we can do it in such a way that > > conveys > > > slightly > > > less smugness? > > > Don't we already have enough of that here? > > > > > > M: > > > don't understand the word " smugness " ....but it sound not > > > very " positive " ..........think you are right... > > > > > > your words sound, indead, very to " theorie " .....personnaly i'm > not > > > attached to any special theorie......i write about my perception > > of > > > things......how i " see " it for the moment....... > > > i don't reproduce theories and philosophies that i read > > > somewhere.....and i'm conscient that this, indead, would not make > > > much sense..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. The goal is an increase in awareness rather than the > > collection of > > > teachings or the mental circulation and reorganization of those > > teachings. > > > It's actually true that all things are already known within, and > > so it's > > > possible to look within for the answers to the mind's questions. > > This is sometimes > > > called intuitive 'knowing' and the answers must come within > one's > > current > > > level of awareness and then simultaneously expands it. It's not > > enlightenment > > > because this is seeing the Truth wholly, and since there are no > > parts to Truth, > > > this is the only way that it can 'truly' be seen. However, it is > a > > genuine > > > means by which the evolution of consciousness occurs in > > preparation for > > > awakening to the Truth. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.