Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 you have me quoting that statement when it was someone else. " there is nothing he has to do " , that was according to you previously, which is it? - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:32 AM Re: The sense of " me " Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? Well first of all.......you have to think.......and think........and think.........you know ....pull up everything that you have ever been taught............then you go through all those things and pick out the ones that make the most sense to you......you make two files...one you name 'Concepts' and the other.......hummmmmmm let's see.....yeah.......you call it 'Knowing'. You following me so far? Ok.....so......you put these concept things together in a way that you find pleasing.....put them in alphabetical order and move them all over to the 'Knowing folder. That's it.........That's all you have to do. I'll be out of town for quite a while.....but if you have any questions......the federal government has a help line. If you would like ....I can git you the number. toombaru ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 The whole creation is an imagination of Lord for His entertainment. This can be understood by comparing with the dreaming of human being in conscious state. The very imagination power was given to human beings by Lord to understand this concept. You can modify, remove, produce and destroy anything in your imagination. Human being with very little power is able to imagine a small scene. Whereas Lord, who is of Infinite power can imagine such a huge creation. But the creation is imagination to Lord but reality to human beings. Like anybody in your imagination is imaginary with respect you but real to another in your imagination. This even clearly shows the dreamer (Lord) and anything in the dream (creation) are not one and the same. at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: That kinda sums up the whole religion thing. Mind first conceptually cuts the naturalness up into bite sides pieces....and then conceptually mashes all those pieces together into one big thing....it names that thing 'God' and then imagines its self to be this God thing. That's a pretty neat trick huh? You should be happy that it all fall apart...when the identified entity dies. toombaru 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 dear Fred i did not get you. what do you mean by that? at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Fred <thejman wrote: " Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. " ok, can see where this is going Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 what does this concept mean to you: Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service - prakki surya Nisargadatta Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:35 PM Re: The sense of " me " dear Fred i did not get you. what do you mean by that? at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Fred <thejman wrote: " Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. " ok, can see where this is going Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 dear friend Today, in the world everybody agrees that the real power is the money only. Money is the fruit of work and Bhagavatgita calls sacrifice of money “Karma Phala Tyaga”. In Bhagavatgita it is said “Dhyanat Karma Phala Tyagah” which means that devotion is greater than Knowledge and sacrifice of the fruit of the work (money) is greater than the devotion. Knowledge consists of intelligence and words. Devotion consists of mind and words. Sacrifice consists of heart and love. The proof of the love is the practical service, which is the practical sacrifice of work or money. For the propagation of the divine knowledge and devotion the money is needed to publish the gospel in the form of books. When you sacrifice your money for the divine work your treasure in the heaven is built up. This means that God will help you after your death and you will enter the kingdom of God. You are giving your earnings to your family only and so your real love is on your family only. There is no need of any further argument on this point because it is very clear proof. This is the real fire test for your love. You are sacrificing valueless words and valueless mind in leisure, which is valueless time. This cannot prove the real value of God. You must give real value to God. You are finishing your prayers and meditation on God as soon as the time to go to job is nearing. Similarly when some work for the family is approaching, you are immediately leaving the presence of God. Therefore you are not giving any value to God for all practical purpose. But you are telling lies in your prayers that God is everything for you. The money is the final test and it can be the only test also since all the family is associated with you for money only and the family serves you in your old age for your money only. If the money is sacrificed to God your real color of love can be seen. at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Fred <thejman wrote: what does this concept mean to you: Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 dear friend Today, in the world everybody agrees that the real power is the money only. >they must not have talked with " me " yet. Money is the fruit of work and Bhagavatgita calls sacrifice of money " Karma Phala Tyaga " . In Bhagavatgita it is said " Dhyanat Karma Phala Tyagah " which means that devotion is greater than Knowledge and sacrifice of the fruit of the work (money) is greater than the devotion. Knowledge consists of intelligence and words. Devotion consists of mind and words. Sacrifice consists of heart and love. >yes and the wisdom to know the difference. The proof of the love is the practical service, which is the practical sacrifice of work or money. >so Love/God needs proof of our devotion through sacrifice by illusionary methods? " your " God is sounding kinda weak. For the propagation of the divine knowledge and devotion the money is needed to publish the gospel in the form of books. When you sacrifice your money for the divine work your treasure in the heaven is built up. This means that God will help you after your death and you will enter the kingdom of God. >entrainment is another word for propagation. why would and infinitely powerful God need one to build up treasure in heaven when heaven is within? You are giving your earnings to your family only and so your real love is on your family only. >if my family is also an expression of God then this makes sense. There is no need of any further argument on this point because it is very clear proof. >who needs proof when they know God? This is the real fire test for your love. You are sacrificing valueless words and valueless mind in leisure, which is valueless time. >so an all powerful God who creates only perfection is telling us that what we do is valueless? This cannot prove the real value of God. >why would we need to prove God? You must give real value to God. >so an all powerful God needs something from us. You are finishing your prayers and meditation on God as soon as the time to go to job is nearing. >how did you come to this judgment? my life is a prayer... there is not one moment where " I " and the " creator " are not one. Similarly when some work for the family is approaching, you are immediately leaving the presence of God. >this is an impossibility. Therefore you are not giving any value to God for all practical purpose. >ah..there it is... you've decided what is practical or not for God. But you are telling lies in your prayers that God is everything for you. >if that is occurring then it is between me and God, the consequences of which will be known. you have no say so in it. The money is the final test and it can be the only test also since all the family is associated with you for money only and the family serves you in your old age for your money only. If the money is sacrificed to God your real color of love can be seen. >and you are the decider of the color of that money. at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Fred <thejman wrote: what does this concept mean to you: Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000 wrote: > > The whole creation is an imagination of Lord for His entertainment. You are speculating based on the on the false assumption that there is a 'you'. > >This can be understood No....mind is incapeable of understanding its own origin. by comparing with the dreaming of human being in conscious state. The very imagination power was given to human beings by Lord to understand this concept. > > You can modify, remove, produce and destroy anything in your imagination. Human being with very little power is able to imagine a small scene. Whereas Lord, who is of Infinite power can imagine such a huge creation. There is that duality stuff again..... toombaru > > But the creation is imagination to Lord but reality to human beings. Like anybody in your imagination is imaginary with respect you but real to another in your imagination. This even clearly shows the dreamer (Lord) and anything in the dream (creation) are not one and the same. > > at the lotus of shri datta swami > surya > www.universal-spirituality.org > > toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > That kinda sums up the whole religion thing. > > Mind first conceptually cuts the naturalness up into bite sides pieces....and then conceptually mashes all those pieces together into one big thing....it names that thing 'God' and then imagines its self to be this God thing. > That's a pretty neat trick huh? > You should be happy that it all fall apart...when the identified entity dies. > > toombaru > > > > 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 In a message dated 3/9/2006 7:26:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:21:13 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The sense of " me " --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The sense of " me " > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > then it is unreal. > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > unreal. > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Bill > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > Phil Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently brainwashed ;-) Len Ya know, I'm thinkin that even brainwashing doesn't turn an idea into a knowing. It seems to just remain as an unquestioned concept that has no value other than to control behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 In a message dated 3/9/2006 8:03:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:49:19 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: The sense of " me " Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000 wrote: > > If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. > > Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, you enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks with our children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good food and do physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. > > You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? > > Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. > > Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. > > > > at the lotus of shri datta swami > surya > www.universal-spirituality.org > That kinda sums up the whole religion thing. Mind first conceptually cuts the naturalness up into bite sides pieces....and then conceptually mashes all those pieces together into one big thing....it names that thing 'God' and then imagines its self to be this God thing. That's a pretty neat trick huh? You should be happy that it all fall apart...when the identified entity dies. toombaru Break up wholeness, conceptualize it, call it God and then try to own it. (Just conceptualizing for myself here.) I like it. That's pretty much what we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The sense of " me " > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > then it is unreal. > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > unreal. > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Bill > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > Phil Look at how you are projecting your concepts here: You assume there is a " plan " ... nothing I said suggested that. You ask how I will turn it from a concept to a " knowing " . I said nothing about any of that. Address, please, in direct and simple terms what I am saying: *Is* there, for you, a " sense of within " ? Once that point is established we can go into it. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > different > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > sufficiently > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > one time is enough. > > > Not if it´s a concept. > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > from direct perception. > > Zen :-) > That is because as a concept there is memory involved. Memory says, " Aha! There it is again! " The repetition creates a sense of security, of solidity, of reality because " here it is *again* " . Good point about the link of psychological safety and insulation from direct perception. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents > > one > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > toombaru > when all is shed what remains... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > " Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. " > > ok, can see where this is going LOL! Yeah! Credit cards accepted... > - > prakki surya > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:40 AM > Re: The sense of " me " > > > If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. > > Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, you enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks with our children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good food and do physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. > > You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? > > Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. > > Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. > > > > at the lotus of shri datta swami > surya > www.universal-spirituality.org > > > > Mail > Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents > > > one > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > when all is shed > what remains... > ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/9/2006 8:03:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:49:19 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: The sense of " me " > > Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000@> wrote: > > > > If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you > are the Lord, then > there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord > separately. You eat and > do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. > > > > Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, > you enjoy the > trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks > with our > children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good > food and do > physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. > > > > You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so > many people are > worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? > > > > Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept > Him because > of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it > is true > worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only > eating the entire food. > But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real > colour comes out. > > > > Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the > Lord in human > form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your > service. Service > consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. > > > > > > > > at the lotus of shri datta swami > > surya > > www.universal-spirituality.org > > > > > > > That kinda sums up the whole religion thing. > > Mind first conceptually cuts the naturalness up into bite sides > pieces....and then > conceptually mashes all those pieces together into one big thing....it names > that thing > 'God' and then imagines its self to be this God thing. > > > That's a pretty neat trick huh? > > > You should be happy that it all fall apart...when the identified entity > dies. > > > toombaru > > > > Break up wholeness, conceptualize it, call it God and then try to own it. > (Just conceptualizing for myself here.) > I like it. That's pretty much what we do. > > One can be pretty sure that that is understood.....if one breaks out in a gust of laughter. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/9/2006 7:26:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:21:13 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The sense of " me " > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > then it is unreal. > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > unreal. > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > different > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > Phil > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently > brainwashed ;-) > > Len > > > > Ya know, I'm thinkin that even brainwashing doesn't turn an idea into a > knowing. It seems to just remain as an unquestioned concept that has no value > other than to control behavior. Yes, that´s what I mean. Len 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.