Guest guest Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step to liberation. " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* is separating from *whom*? " But that is just due to thinking too much. The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. Neo-Advaita busies itself with fussing about constructs in any particular recommendation, thus missing the whole point of the recommendation. Neo-Advaita really wants to say: No recommendations! Recommendations fall under " skill in means " . Neo-Advaita is perhaps the most unskillful approach to " skill in means " that there is. It basically takes a right/wrong (actually just wrong/wrong) approach to recommendations, which reflects a complete lack of understanding about " skill in means " . Per a true understanding of " skill in means " there is no such thing as right/wrong. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger > and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step > to liberation. " > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > is separating from *whom*? " > > But that is just due to thinking too much. > The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. > > Neo-Advaita busies itself with fussing about constructs in > any particular recommendation, thus missing the whole point > of the recommendation. Neo-Advaita really wants to say: > No recommendations! > > Recommendations fall under " skill in means " . Neo-Advaita is > perhaps the most unskillful approach to " skill in means " that > there is. It basically takes a right/wrong (actually just > wrong/wrong) approach to recommendations, which reflects a > complete lack of understanding about " skill in means " . Per a > true understanding of " skill in means " there is no such > thing as right/wrong. > > > Bill Only that seen through the eyes of the poet yields true understanding. Anything seen through the eyes of the hack yields only right/wrong. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger >and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step >to liberation. " > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* >is separating from *whom*? " > >But that is just due to thinking too much. >The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. Of course I do not know in which way it is effective for you. For me it is effective because the externalization naturally leads to the next question: who is angry, and who can see the anger? Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this obvious question thinks too much. The very purpose of " thinking too much " is to maintain the illusion of a consistent personality and to avoid the direct inquiry into " who I am " . Did not Nisargadatta say again and again: Give up all questions except one: " Who am I? " Did the neo-advaitan Nisargadatta think too much? Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 --- Stefan <s.petersilge wrote: > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger > >and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step > >to liberation. " > > > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > >is separating from *whom*? " > > > >But that is just due to thinking too much. > >The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. > > Of course I do not know in which way it is effective for you. For me > it is effective because the externalization naturally leads to the > next question: who is angry, and who can see the anger? > > Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this obvious > question thinks too much. The very purpose of " thinking too much " is > to maintain the illusion of a consistent personality and to avoid the > direct inquiry into " who I am " . > > Did not Nisargadatta say again and again: > Give up all questions except one: " Who am I? " > > Did the neo-advaitan Nisargadatta think too much? > > Greetings > Stefan Nisargadatta was not neo-advaitan. Else agree with your text, especially: " Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this obvious question thinks too much. " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Beside that it's a very funny question, it is a question too much, but what if we find a collective answer to the I love thinking question, If the last and ultimate question is finally answered, we would have nothing more to think about and we could eventually start thinking about nothing the entire day long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > Beside that it's a very funny question, it is a question too much, > > but what if we find a collective answer to the I love thinking question, > > If the last and ultimate question is finally answered, we would have nothing more to think about and we could eventually start thinking about nothing the entire day long. So? ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: >Nisargadatta was not neo-advaitan. Hi Bill, first of all it came to my mind to call Nisargadatta an " neo-advaitan " because you had written yourself: >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* >is separating from *whom*? " and there you described IMO exactly the type of inquiry Nisargadatta continously was suggesting. But then I also would like to mention that in the literature Nisargadattas line is often called " neo-advaita " as opposed to the traditionally established formal vedanta advaita line. The latter can be called a religion, going back to Gaudapada and Adi Shankara. Neo-Advaita, with its radical emphasis on personal experience starts with Maharshi. Nevertheless, for me the term " neo-advaita " (new-not-two) is simply nonsense, so thats just for the records. Greetings Stefan >Else agree with your text, especially: > " Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this >obvious question thinks too much. " > >Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: >If the last and ultimate question is finally answered, we would have >nothing more to think about... Oh, there is still enough food for thought... " where are my beedees... " " and where did I put that lighter... " its probably just about putting the head back to the right place again... Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> wrote: > > > >Nisargadatta was not neo-advaitan. > > > > > Hi Bill, first of all it came to my mind to call Nisargadatta an > " neo-advaitan " because you had written yourself: > > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > >is separating from *whom*? " > > and there you described IMO exactly the type of inquiry Nisargadatta > continously was suggesting. > > But then I also would like to mention that in the literature > Nisargadattas line is often called " neo-advaita " as opposed to the > traditionally established formal vedanta advaita line. The latter can > be called a religion, going back to Gaudapada and Adi Shankara. > Neo-Advaita, with its radical emphasis on personal experience starts > with Maharshi. Nevertheless, for me the term " neo-advaita " > (new-not-two) is simply nonsense, so thats just for the records. > > Greetings > Stefan > > >Else agree with your text, especially: > > " Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this > >obvious question thinks too much. " > > > >Bill good to hear that " neo-advaita " is simply nonsense..... i already thought ....with all the mind-games going on around.... soon there would even be a " neo-neo-advaita " .... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Having a teacher is just another human relationship. Having a teaching is just another form of human possessiveness. The human being can't escape being human, regardless. Being exactly where and as one is, this moment, where is the teacher, where the student, where the neo-Advaitin, where the traditional Advaitin? To be human is to survive as a human. The survival program must be looked into. No teacher can do this for you, no program, no neo, no traditional. Only you, taking a look at what makes " you. " All the teachings dissolve, all the teachers are gone, all the neos, and all the traditionals evaporate. Now there is just this one here, looking deeply into what constitutes the agenda that has been mistaken for reality and being. Now there is just this one here looking at what is this " attempt to anchor being " -- attempt to anchor in a teaching, in a technique, in a program to get somewhere, in a pretense to be perfect as is, in an attempt to continue as a being -- How deeply can one look? It finally comes down to just this -- how deeply am I willing to look, how willing am I to give up my anchorings ... This can't come from someone else's exhortations, teachings, expressions of their experiences, etc. If it is time for one, one knows it is one's time -- and it is unavoidable. If it can be avoided, then almost anything can be used as a dodge, including teachings to externalize, to internalize, to neither externalize nor internalize, to do nothing, to do something. So, it's very personal, very intimate, very much a matter of commitment here and now. Just between me and who I am. And it changes immediately when instead of me looking into who I am, it is the " me " that is being looked into. -- Dan Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger > and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step > to liberation. " > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > is separating from *whom*? " > > But that is just due to thinking too much. > The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. > > Neo-Advaita busies itself with fussing about constructs in > any particular recommendation, thus missing the whole point > of the recommendation. Neo-Advaita really wants to say: > No recommendations! > > Recommendations fall under " skill in means " . Neo-Advaita is > perhaps the most unskillful approach to " skill in means " that > there is. It basically takes a right/wrong (actually just > wrong/wrong) approach to recommendations, which reflects a > complete lack of understanding about " skill in means " . Per a > true understanding of " skill in means " there is no such > thing as right/wrong. > > > Bill > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> wrote: > > > > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger > >and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step > >to liberation. " > > > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > >is separating from *whom*? " > > > >But that is just due to thinking too much. > >The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. > > Of course I do not know in which way it is effective for you. For me > it is effective because the externalization naturally leads to the > next question: who is angry, and who can see the anger? > > Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this obvious > question thinks too much. The very purpose of " thinking too much " is > to maintain the illusion of a consistent personality and to avoid the > direct inquiry into " who I am " . > > Did not Nisargadatta say again and again: > Give up all questions except one: " Who am I? " > > Did the neo-advaitan Nisargadatta think too much? > > Greetings > Stefan Laughing. Good point. And for those who became famous as teachers, like Niz or Ramana -- are they authorities? Or are they mirrors we can use? Are we to ask " who am I? " because they recommended it? If so, how beneficial will that be -- all it can be is an attempt to emulate what we think we are supposed to do. If Nisargaddata " received " from asking, and Ramana " received " ... it was because they asked fully, were ready, and the question came from their very being. It's not a matter of following an authority, it's a matter of direct knowing/being. Their words may catalyze something - who knows? But what is catalyzed doesn't depend on the words ... For every Niz and Ramana there is someone else who never got famous, who asked wholeheartedly and " received " - but didn't express in such a way as to garner fame. Never became an authority. But may have acted as a " catalyst " for those she or he interacted with, in ways that had nothing to do with representing an authority. So, this isn't to say that authorities are bad, or to be avoided, or no one should listen to them. It's to say that what is key to inquiry, can't be contained in a role-oriented relationship. What pierces through the image maintained as self and world, is only the depth of being itself, nonlocatable, nonverbalizable. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 --- Stefan <s.petersilge wrote: > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > >Nisargadatta was not neo-advaitan. > > > > > Hi Bill, first of all it came to my mind to call Nisargadatta an > " neo-advaitan " because you had written yourself: > > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > >is separating from *whom*? " > > and there you described IMO exactly the type of inquiry Nisargadatta > continously was suggesting. > > But then I also would like to mention that in the literature > Nisargadattas line is often called " neo-advaita " as opposed to the > traditionally established formal vedanta advaita line. The latter can > be called a religion, going back to Gaudapada and Adi Shankara. > Neo-Advaita, with its radical emphasis on personal experience starts > with Maharshi. Nevertheless, for me the term " neo-advaita " > (new-not-two) is simply nonsense, so thats just for the records. > > Greetings > Stefan > > >Else agree with your text, especially: > > " Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this > >obvious question thinks too much. " > > > >Bill > Thanks for that... if Ramana and Nisargadatta are neo-advaita then my understanding of the term is definitely not correct. I'll have to look into it more. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Having a teacher is just another human relationship. > > Having a teaching is just another form of human possessiveness. > > The human being can't escape being human, regardless. > > Being exactly where and as one is, this moment, where is the teacher, > where the student, where the neo-Advaitin, where the traditional Advaitin? > > To be human is to survive as a human. > > The survival program must be looked into. > > No teacher can do this for you, no program, no neo, no traditional. > > Only you, taking a look at what makes " you. " > > All the teachings dissolve, all the teachers are gone, all the neos, > and all the traditionals evaporate. > > Now there is just this one here, looking deeply into what constitutes > the agenda that has been mistaken for reality and being. > > Now there is just this one here looking at what is this " attempt to > anchor being " -- attempt to anchor in a teaching, in a technique, in a > program to get somewhere, in a pretense to be perfect as is, in an > attempt to continue as a being -- > > How deeply can one look? > > It finally comes down to just this -- > > how deeply am I willing to look, how willing am I to give up my > anchorings ... > > This can't come from someone else's exhortations, teachings, > expressions of their experiences, etc. > > If it is time for one, one knows it is one's time -- and it is > unavoidable. > > If it can be avoided, then almost anything can be used as a dodge, > including teachings to externalize, to internalize, to neither > externalize nor internalize, to do nothing, to do something. > > So, it's very personal, very intimate, very much a matter of > commitment here and now. > > Just between me and who I am. > > And it changes immediately when instead of me looking into who I am, > it is the " me " that is being looked into. > > -- Dan it is been said that there is nothing new under the sun. In this light seeing sees, hearing hears, knowing knows and loving loves. how it appears is the purity of this one moment, here now, giving us exactly what we think, we see, we hear, we know and love. what changes? who changes? how does IT change? is IT changeless? questions no one answers, answers no one questions;-) Anna > > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> wrote: > > > > > > " If you are angry or in pain, separate yourself from anger > > and pain and watch them. Externalization is the first step > > to liberation. " > > > > -- Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > > is separating from *whom*? " > > > > But that is just due to thinking too much. > > The recommendation is easy to follow and very effective. > > > > Neo-Advaita busies itself with fussing about constructs in > > any particular recommendation, thus missing the whole point > > of the recommendation. Neo-Advaita really wants to say: > > No recommendations! > > > > Recommendations fall under " skill in means " . Neo-Advaita is > > perhaps the most unskillful approach to " skill in means " that > > there is. It basically takes a right/wrong (actually just > > wrong/wrong) approach to recommendations, which reflects a > > complete lack of understanding about " skill in means " . Per a > > true understanding of " skill in means " there is no such > > thing as right/wrong. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: >And for those who became famous as teachers, like Niz or Ramana -- >are they authorities? Or are they mirrors we can use? >Are we to ask " who am I? " because they recommended it? >If so, how beneficial will that be -- all it can be is an attempt to >emulate what we think we are supposed to do. >If Nisargaddata " received " from asking, and Ramana " received " ... >it was because they asked fully, were ready, and the question came >from their very being. Yes, the only authority is ones own experience, including the appearance of other persons, the mirrors. But asking fully, being ready: this cannot be forced. Who has enough to eat and feels no hunger, why should he ask silly questions? Here in Greece we have a saying: do not disturb the sleep of the unhappy, because you would ruin his sweet dream, his only comfort. And the dreamer may think he knows it all and debating great philosophical questions is a nice pastime. But one day life can change all of a sudden and show a different face. And then maybe burning questions do arise and there is no escape. They follow into ones sleep. What is the sense of it all? Why the suffering? The quest has begun. The king has stepped out of his palace. And in the midst of despair somebody appears and says: " Give up all questions except –who am I " ... And something tells you that there is more behind it and there is nothing you have to lose. And bare of any more solutions, in the face of your own death, you are then ready to give up everything except this one question. And you give up even the expectation to receive something in return. Now you are ripe. And slowly there comes a sense of trust and surrender because you finally understand that – however you turn it - there is nothing left to hold onto. All is as is and that is all. And as it goes gratitude arises, just so, by and for itself, no more too much thinking. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > > --- Stefan <s.petersilge wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> wrote: > > > > > > >Nisargadatta was not neo-advaitan. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, first of all it came to my mind to call Nisargadatta an > > " neo-advaitan " because you had written yourself: > > > > >A neo-Advaitan will say in response to the above, " Oh, *who* > > >is separating from *whom*? " > > > > and there you described IMO exactly the type of inquiry Nisargadatta > > continously was suggesting. > > > > But then I also would like to mention that in the literature > > Nisargadattas line is often called " neo-advaita " as opposed to the > > traditionally established formal vedanta advaita line. The latter can > > be called a religion, going back to Gaudapada and Adi Shankara. > > Neo-Advaita, with its radical emphasis on personal experience starts > > with Maharshi. Nevertheless, for me the term " neo-advaita " > > (new-not-two) is simply nonsense, so thats just for the records. > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > >Else agree with your text, especially: > > > " Is this too much thinking? No, the one who avoids this > > >obvious question thinks too much. " > > > > > >Bill > > > > Thanks for that... if Ramana and Nisargadatta are neo-advaita > then my understanding of the term is definitely not correct. > > I'll have to look into it more. > > Bill My interest in this topic isn't scholarly, but my guess is that advaita in Indian thought could be traced back to the Upanishads, from which the saying " Thou art That " comes. There also would seem to be a nondual interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita as well. -- Dan 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.