To accept or not to accept...or neither!

[Guest guest]

" It " (so to speak) is always already there (here, this) prior to either

acceptance or non-acceptance, prior to there being

any " one " to do either or even think of either.

 

Michael

 

 

< Hi, thanks for asking!

<

< I meant: everything that arises has to be accepted. You can chose a

< part of it (like a concept of truth, love and peace and a supposedly

< longing for it) and accept that. Great. But this is not the total

< acceptance I am talking about. Embrace everything. Existence is every

< moment new. Full of surprises. We like to live in a predictable world,

< though. This is the reason why people go on and on discussing how

< things are going to be.

 

< But if one is longing for truth...

< To be with what is...

< How could truth be found anywhere else?

<

< Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@s...> wrote:

 

> " It " (so to speak) is always already there (here, this) prior to

>either acceptance or non-acceptance, prior to there being

>any " one " to do either or even think of either.

>

>Michael

 

and how... do you *know* this ??

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@s...> wrote:

>

> > " It " (so to speak) is always already there (here, this) prior to

> >either acceptance or non-acceptance, prior to there being

> >any " one " to do either or even think of either.

> >

> >Michael

>

> and how... do you *know* this ??

>

> Stefan

>

 

Who knows it?

 

If you say there is no one to know .... or that it itself does not --

not know it or does know it. who knows that is either knows

or does not know it?

 

To whom does it arise or not arise?

 

How did the first realized being come to know the truth?

or did that being not come to know it since he does not exist.

 

Well then The Self being the conscious absolute who is conscious

of the consciousness. not having form as-such of its (his her) own..

creates this entire delusion called consciousness in order to

tell itself (herself, himself) what itself (herself, himself) IS NOT

and by that come to realize what itself (herself, himself) actually is.

 

That is why it is not possible for any existent ego or being to come to

know The Self... it is always The Self who comes to know The Self as

that Self is ONE-ALL_THRU....

 

SO if anything or anyone is either deliberately or spontaneously

coming into being (remember being and existing is merely an illusion of

existing and being) it is coming because what has arisen is a reflection

of an aspect of infinite possibility existing in non-existence. Hence

what has seemed to arise is a speck of the potency of the Self .... or

as Sri Krishna says.. all this exists as and in my potency...

 

hence the existence exists spontaneously in order that the self come

to know himself as the non-limited conscious-absolute-- being.... It is

no use running about saying all there is is consciousness. because that

is only half the story.... the other half is limitlessness.

 

Whereas consciousness is all that exists in existence.. consciousness

cannot be known or seen to exist if there is the absence of comparison

as is the case in the Conscious Absolute ... BECAUSE the NESS clause in

the word consciousNESS is qualitative, indicactive and attributable

only in the event of subject object reality..

 

The problem lies in the English phrase (the absolute consicousness) as

if there is a difference between the self and his conscient nature.

 

NO th e correct phrase to use is the Conscious Absolute as itself

(herself, himself)exists PRIOR to the consciousness...

 

we should stop running about saying all there is .... is consicousness.

 

with respect and love

 

bindu