Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4 wrote: > > P: Illusion is part of nature, it's here to > stay, and realization or not it must be deal with. > >>> > B: I heartily disagree. > Illusion is just that, illusion. It is a mis-taking of > what is. It serves no real value. > > > P: Ha, ha! " I heartily disagree " is illusion, > It is the sense of " I Am " returning. ============================= 32. D.: When according to your instructions, I enquire into the five sheaths and reject them as being non-self, I do not find anything left but simple void. Where then is the Self? 33-35. M.: To say that there is nothing left behind the five sheaths, is like saying " I have no tongue to speak " . D.: How so? M.: Unless one has a tongue one cannot say that one has no tongue to speak with. Similarly unless there is the seer of the void one cannot say there was nothing left. Otherwise one can not say anything. On the contrary since the speaker says that nothing is seen, it is obvious that the Self remains there revealing nothing besides Itself. ============================= Taken from Advaita Bhoda Deepika as published by Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannamalai 2002. You can download at http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/downloads/downloads.htm Read postings to date on http://www.love-yoga.com/Ramana/Advaita_Bhoda/Index.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > them as being non-self, I do not > find anything left but simple void. > > Where then is the Self? the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and nothing else. a nothing, zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > them as being non-self, I do not > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and nothing > else. > a nothing, zero. > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] and, NOT the " seen " ! .... Self is THAT which 'SEES' ... the Void or ...non-void Self is not that which is 'seen' ... be it " void " or... " no-void " .... Self Is... when 'nothing' is seen... Self is... when " things " are Seen! But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... a 'thing'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 BW, Realize the void and then you will see if it is the Self or not. Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > them as being non-self, I do not > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and nothing > else. > a nothing, zero. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > BW, > > Realize the void and then you will see if it is the Self or not. > > Werner > But be carefull......If you realize the void....there will be no one there to realize it. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > BW, > > Realize the void and then you will see if it is the Self or not. > > Werner > i'm not so silly to try it about the Self, let it to advaitin cheers W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and > nothing > > else. > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > ... > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > ... the Void or ...non-void > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > ... > > Self Is... > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > Self is... > > when " things " are Seen! > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... a 'thing'! > you radically do not understand what nothing is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and > > > nothing > > > > else. > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > That is which, there is " something " > 'to understand'... > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > There is no such thing as nothing. (another good bumper sticker) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and > > > nothing > > > > else. > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > That IN which, there is " something " 'to understand'... can NOT be 'nothing'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, > and > > > > nothing > > > > > else. > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > That IN which, there is " something " > 'to understand'... > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > yes it caaaaaaaaa aaaaaan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, and > > > > nothing > > > > > else. > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > That is which, there is " something " > > 'to understand'... > > > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > > > yes, you speak about the Self, the Seen the Seer and so on...these are your " something " that you understand. and those concepts are not nothing for you, mm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the void, > > and > > > > > nothing > > > > > > else. > > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > > > > > That IN which, there is " something " > > 'to understand'... > > > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > > > > > again you show that you do not know what nothing is! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 > > > > > There is no such thing as nothing. > > (another good bumper sticker) > > > toombaru > who could disagree?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " > <adithya_comming@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the > void, > > > and > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That IN which, there is " something " > > > 'to understand'... > > > > > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > > > > > > > > > > again you show that you do not know what nothing is! That " which " you can " know " ... is NOT 'nothing'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Divine Message of His Holiness Shri Datta Swami Due to the power of God only, creation takes place. Mere awareness has no such power to create this Universe. This awareness is the will or imagination of God. This Universe appears always as imagination only to God. This Universe itself is an ocean of awareness. The soul is a drop in it. The power of the ocean is far greater than the power of the drop. Due to this only, this universe appears as materialized solid to the soul. This whole universe is again a drop only in the awareness created by God in the beginning, which is called as “Mula Prakruti†or “Maha Mayaâ€. God does not exist in the Universe. Therefore, this Universe becomes a scene to the spectator-God. Scene must be different from the spectator. The “Mula Prakruti†into which God entered and pervaded is called as Lord (Eswara). This Lord is spectator and Universe is scene. Thus, both the Scene and the outer cover of Brahman are forms of awareness only. The soul is also a form of awareness. Soul – Universe –Spectator become greater and greater as we pass on. God is neither in the Universe nor is in the soul. Therefore, both these have no power of creation. Spectatorship is the characteristic of the awareness. Therefore, even the soul is a spectator. But the soul can see its own imaginary world as imagination and the Universe as reality. It cannot see this Universe as imagination. For the Lord only, this Universe including all the souls is an imagination. The Lord knows and sees everything in the Universe. But the soul sees and knows only a little in the Universe. Thus the spectatorship also differs in both the cases. The soul can see and knows everything of its own imaginary world only. Though, the Universe is entirely awareness, a part of it becomes spectator in the form of souls and another part is inert which does not see or know anything. This difference took place only by the will of the Lord. Therefore, a soul cannot throw away this difference created by the Lord and cannot treat both as one and the same awareness. The soul cannot say that the whole Universe has spectatorship. Some claim that they have realized the entire Universe as one awareness, which is totally against their own experience. Such experience of difference is the will of the Lord and so they behave differently for all practical purposes. No scholar talks with a stone! A stone cannot preach you and remove your ignorance for all practical purposes. Even the Lord views both the soul and inert matter differently as per their status, but He views both as His imagination. But the soul cannot see both as his imagination and the soul also views both differently like the Lord. If you refer to the external form of the Lord only, which is awareness, both the external form of Lord and the entire soul are one and the same. The difference is that the Lord is God embraced by the awareness, where as the soul is mere awareness. The Lord is the wire with current, where as the soul is the wire without current. Therefore, the soul cannot achieve anything in this world just by faith only. Its external actions may achieve something in this world but not its mere internal will. Even this external action becomes sometimes invalid, because the field of its action is the world, which is without God. Some say that everything is possible by self-confidence or faith. But this statement is laudable only till it is not analysed! The wire without current cannot create even a ray of light in the bulb. People believe that self-faith can achieve anything and therefore, they conclude that the self itself is the Lord. Anything is possible only to the Lord. If a soul wishes to make everything possible, the only way is to catch the Lord and please Him. “Self-Faith’ means the faith that is concentrated on the Lord, who came down as a self or as a human being. For the sake of the convenience of the soul to achieve such goal, the Lord comes down as a soul. The faith in such soul, to believe it as the Lord is called as “Self-Faithâ€. All the power of God is present in such human incarnation, because God and His power are beyond the spatial dimensions. The soul can change anything just by its will in its imaginary world only but not in this physical world. It can change a stone into Lord Krishna in its imaginary world. But the soul cannot change a stone into Lord Krishna in the actual world. If you believe the fire as water and put your finger in it, it will burn and will not be cold. Therefore, before you believe, you must analyse and find out the truth in the object. You must identify the real water and then only you can believe it as water. Then if you put your hand, you can feel it cool. So, just by faith, everything in this world cannot become God. Even if you believe yourself as God and utter the same for crores of times, you cannot become God. First you must analyse and identify the God in human form and then believe Him. Such faith is a wise faith. Otherwise, the faith is a blind faith only. For the former, good results and for the latter bad results are inevitable. Hence for the identification of God, analytical knowledge is the first and foremost requisite. This whole universe is created by the Lord, who is the ‘Holy Awareness†or “Para – Sakthiâ€. The most subtle and finest form of Energy is awareness. The gross forms of the Energy like light, heat etc, are the inert energies. Matter is the solidified form of Energy. Thus the whole creation is a form of energy according to both the ancient and modern scholars. Awareness is a form of Energy and matter is a form of energy, according to the modern scientists. Therefore, there is no contradiction in stating that this whole world is a form of awareness. The homogeneous single phase of this world is energy, but this concept is only Science but not spiritual knowledge. A Scientist who found such homogeneity cannot be a Philosopher. The homogeneity in this Universe in the context of philosophy is the perception of God everywhere in this world. The Unity or oneness indicates God as per Veda. The oneness here means the one God. Such a vision is the ninth step in devotion, which is madness as seen in the case of top most devotees like Radha. In such a state, the devotee leaves even all the duties as per Gita (Naishkarmya Siddhim……). posted by: His servant at the lotus feet of shri datta swami www.universal-spirituality.org Arvind <cptc wrote: Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " > <adithya_comming@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " > > <adithya_comming@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " > <bigwaaba@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the > > void, > > > > and > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' > or... > > > > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That IN which, there is " something " > > > > 'to understand'... > > > > > > > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again you show that you do not know what nothing is! > > That " which " you can " know " ... > > is NOT 'nothing'! > if you just write without all those " ... " '....' maybe it could be a little clearer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:52:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Arvind " <cptc Re: I AM - Ramana Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " > <adithya_comming@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32. D.: When according to your instructions, > > > > > > > > I enquire into the five sheaths and reject > > > > > > > > them as being non-self, I do not > > > > > > > > find anything left but simple void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where then is the Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question points to the fact that the Self is the > void, > > > and > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > a nothing, zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is the SEER of the Void [or non-void] > > > > > > and, NOT the " seen " ! > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is THAT which 'SEES' > > > > > > ... the Void or ...non-void > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is not that which is 'seen' ... > > > > > > be it " void " or... " no-void " > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self Is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when 'nothing' is seen... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when " things " are Seen! > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Self is NOT that " which " is 'Seen'... 'nothing' or... > > > > > a 'thing'! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you radically do not understand what nothing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That IN which, there is " something " > > > 'to understand'... > > > > > > can NOT be 'nothing'! > > > > > > > > > > again you show that you do not know what nothing is! That " which " you can " know " is NOT 'nothing'! All my life I've had a fascination with how things work. This has been the focus of my careers and my hobby interests, and a dominant focus of my spiritual search. In this case, that fascination is rather unfortunate. While there's much to be said for understanding our personal relationship with, and functioning within, the illusion so as to loosen our mental grasp and emotional attachments, it's clear that the mind isn't capable of conceptualizing any Absolute Truth and all that can be done is to get it out of the way. There is no resistance to this attachment to conceptual understanding because it is understood that resistance is the problem to begin with, so the exploration is simply followed to it's ultimate conclusion and actually, quite a wonderful life has been created out of these understandings. However, I'm learning to discriminate between useful and not so useful conceptual explorations. First of all, everything we speak about, think about, is a concept. Almost daily, somebody here will jump up and say, 'but that's just a concept'. This is not a useful concept to express and is very often used to avoid addressing someone's point. To sit around and discuss whether a concept is real or not is not useful. It's a concept, it's not real, it's just a thought. Nothingness is a concept. I AM is a concept. 'Concept " and 'non-concept' are concepts. Ego is a concept.. None of them are real and none of them are true in an absolute sense. Jumping from one context to another as the ideas are batted back and forth is not useful and starts to look pretty silly after a while. When ego is being discussed in the context of human experience, it's not useful to declare that ego or experience doesn't exist. When discussing the operation of duality within the illusion, it's not useful to shift contexts and declare that there is no duality or illusion, or worse yet, that the individual posting doesn't exist. Not a problem, just some stuff I seem to be noticing lately. 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.