Guest guest Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 You know, I can't help but get back to that story of the tailor, who was always sewing and he was always asking himself, "Who is really sewing this cloth?" All of a sudden, his mind kind of blew open, and he felt very happy and free. He didn't know what happened, he wanted an explanation, so he went to a Zen Buddhist priest and the priest told him, "You have seen into your true nature, and you realise that 'you' are not doing the sewing." And then he got himself all involved once again. "Who is it who saw the real nature? Who is real?" So in a sense he may have had a realisation? There was indeed. That he was not really the doer. Yes, but that realisation happened to a "me!" When true realisation happens, the tailor will find no need to go to a Zen master or any other Master. If it were deep enough and true enough? Yes. When there has been an understanding, and one is awake, woken up, is it true, that there is no more attachment to one's own body-mind than to the objects that one is looking at? All is seen as Consciousness? Yes, that is the understanding, yes. There is that awareness even though this body-mind is here and that body-mind is there? Yes. But all body-mind organisms, all objects, are not seen as one object. They are all seen as Consciousness? They are all seen in the great diversity with a sense of wonder, that Consciousness could have produced such diversity and yet be the same, that Consciousness is immanent in the billions of beings and yet in each one that it should be so diverse, so separate that no two human beings are alike; even the fingerprints are different, pulse rate is different, the voice graph is different. So the understanding is that in that diversity there is Oneness which is immanent. Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar Consciousness Speaks (Ramesh S Balsekar) published by Advaita Press PO Box 3479 Redondo Beach CA 90277 USA www.advaita.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville wrote: > > You know, I can't help but get back to that story of the tailor, who was always sewing and he was always asking himself, " Who is really sewing this cloth? " All of a sudden, his mind kind of blew open, and he felt very happy and free. He didn't know what happened, he wanted an explanation, so he went to a Zen Buddhist priest and the priest told him, " You have seen into your true nature, and you realise that 'you' are not doing the sewing. " > > And then he got himself all involved once again. " Who is it who saw the real nature? Who is real? " > > So in a sense he may have had a realisation? > > There was indeed. > > That he was not really the doer. > > Yes, but that realisation happened to a " me! " When true realisation happens, the tailor will find no need to go to a Zen master or any other Master. > > If it were deep enough and true enough? > > Yes. > > When there has been an understanding, and one is awake, woken up, is it true, that there is no more attachment to one's own body-mind than to the objects that one is looking at? All is seen as Consciousness? > > Yes, that is the understanding, yes. > > There is that awareness even though this body-mind is here and that body-mind is there? > > Yes. But all body-mind organisms, all objects, are not seen as one object. > > They are all seen as Consciousness? > > They are all seen in the great diversity with a sense of wonder, that Consciousness could have produced such diversity and yet be the same, that Consciousness is immanent in the billions of beings and yet in each one that it should be so diverse, so separate that no two human beings are alike; even the fingerprints are different, pulse rate is different, the voice graph is different. So the understanding is that in that diversity there is Oneness which is immanent. > > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > The identified mind takes the above comments and interprets the term " consciousness " as if it were its own personal concept of being that is implied to able to see all things as itself. It looks at the world through identification.....inflates its own center to imaginary infinity.....and believes that it has reached freedom. In the Understanding....the " Consciousness " of which Ramesh speaks becomes the center of manifestation...and embraces the illusions of the imaginary characters a delightful aspect of the dream. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > You know, I can't help but get back to that story of the tailor, who > was always sewing and he was always asking himself, " Who is really > sewing this cloth? " All of a sudden, his mind kind of blew open, and > he felt very happy and free. He didn't know what happened, he wanted > an explanation, so he went to a Zen Buddhist priest and the priest > told him, " You have seen into your true nature, and you realise that > 'you' are not doing the sewing. " > > > > And then he got himself all involved once again. " Who is it who saw > the real nature? Who is real? " > > > > So in a sense he may have had a realisation? > > > > There was indeed. > > > > That he was not really the doer. > > > > Yes, but that realisation happened to a " me! " When true realisation > happens, the tailor will find no need to go to a Zen master or any > other Master. > > > > If it were deep enough and true enough? > > > > Yes. > > > > When there has been an understanding, and one is awake, woken up, is > it true, that there is no more attachment to one's own body-mind than > to the objects that one is looking at? All is seen as Consciousness? > > > > Yes, that is the understanding, yes. > > > > There is that awareness even though this body-mind is here and that > body-mind is there? > > > > Yes. But all body-mind organisms, all objects, are not seen as one > object. > > > > They are all seen as Consciousness? > > > > They are all seen in the great diversity with a sense of wonder, > that Consciousness could have produced such diversity and yet be the > same, that Consciousness is immanent in the billions of beings and yet > in each one that it should be so diverse, so separate that no two > human beings are alike; even the fingerprints are different, pulse > rate is different, the voice graph is different. So the understanding > is that in that diversity there is Oneness which is immanent. > > > > > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > > > > > > > The identified mind takes the above comments and interprets the term > " consciousness " as if it were its own personal concept of being that > is implied to able to see all things as itself. > > > It looks at the world through identification.....inflates its own > center to imaginary infinity.....and believes that it has reached freedom. > > > In the Understanding....the " Consciousness " of which Ramesh speaks > becomes the center of manifestation...and embraces the illusions of > the imaginary characters a delightful.... ....albeit somewhat painful and frightening....... ........aspect of the dream. > > > > toombaru > 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.