Guest guest Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > 31. When the pot is broken, > the space within it is absorbed in the infinite space > and becomes undifferentiated. > > When the mind becomes pure, > I do not perceive any difference between the > mind and the supreme Being. > > > > ####### > > 26. As the self is filled by the Self, so is > all filled continuously by you. There is no > meditator or meditation. Why does your mind > meditate shamelessly? > > > ####### > > 23. If it is of the nature of the not-Self, > how can there be Samahdi? If it is of the > nature of the Self, how can there be Samahdi? > > If it is both " is " and " is not " , how can there > be Samahdi? If all is one and of the nature of > freedom, how can there be Samahdi? > > > ~Avadhut Gita of Dattatreya > i.e., if it can be ATTACHED to ANY word(s), indeed, to anything -- how can there be Samahdi? " HOW " and " Samahdi " already exclude Samahdi. Thus, it is beyond " love " or " peace " or any attachment in language, thought or deed. indeed, it is beyond THIS, or any statement, it is beyond " beyond " and thus, WITHIN any statement, as well: so, WITHIN " love " and " peace " and so, the following is ALSO true: 31. When the pot is broken, > the space within it is NOT absorbed in the infinite space > and DOES NOT become undifferentiated. > > When the mind IS " IMPURE, " > I do not perceive any difference between the > mind and the supreme Being. conversely, since, when there is " mediation, " " pure " and " impure, " AND " shame " and " shamelessness, " how can there be Samadhi? > > > ####### > > 26. As the self is filled by the Self, so is > all filled continuously by you. There is no > meditator or meditation. Why does your mind > meditate shamelessly? > > > ####### > > 23. If it is of the nature of the not-Self, > how can there be Samahdi? If it is of the > nature of the Self, how can there be Samahdi? Indeed, how can there NOT be Samahdi, if there can be either Samahdi or not-Samahdi? > > If it is both " is " and " is not " , how can there > be Samahdi? If all is one and of the nature of > freedom, how can there be Samahdi? > > > ~Avadhut Gita of Dattatreya > If it is both " Samahdi " and " not Samahdi " , how can there be Samahdi? How can there NOT be Samahdi? 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.