Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 `Do you live at all?' is my question. It has been proved that the thing that lives from birth till death is the same, changeless `I'-principle. The `I' is the centre of life. That alone lives. The `how' and the `why' of life are sought in the manifestations outside. When you turn to the manifestation, you lose sight of your centre and cease to live really. So the best way, for the best living, is to cling on to the living alone, forgetting the `how' and the `why' of it completely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Tom, if the " I " is changeless, then where was it before you were born? The " I " is a thought, and life can live very well without it. Stefan Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > >`Do you live at all?' is my question. It has been proved that the thing >that lives from >birth till death is the same, changeless `I'-principle. The `I' is the >centre of life. That >alone lives. >The `how' and the `why' of life are sought in the manifestations >outside. When you >turn to the manifestation, you lose sight of your centre and cease to >live really. So the >best way, for the best living, is to cling on to the living alone, >forgetting the `how' and >the `why' of it completely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Tom, > > if the " I " is changeless, then where was it before you were born? > The " I " is a thought, and life can live very well without it. > > Stefan > >Stefan: When Atmananda says I-principle, he means that principle that underlies the sense of I or ego. He means the SELF. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >>Stefan: When Atmananda says I-principle, he means that principle >that underlies the sense of I or ego. He means the SELF. Z Yes, Tom, I know. But terminology is a big problem here because it can lead to misunderstandings. Partly because of inaccurate translations from a relatively rich, ancient " spiritual " language into our relatively poor contemporary language. But also because of the fact, that our true nature cannot be described with a terminology within the myth of an independent personality. You are suggesting above that there exists a principle which underlies the sense of I or ego which you are calling the SELF. Can it not be, that this idea is a clever mental construct invented by this very ego in order to maintain itself? " I-principle " and " self " are both self-referential terms which intuitively suggest that there is something personal to be found. It is one big merit of Nisargadatta (and of his translators) that he has tried to avoided such terminology, (although maybe not always successfully). And when my master has talked about this " self " and I have looked at him and have felt his words, I knew that he meant ALL and NOTHING. And I was left shattered with no words. What if one tries to live a life without underlying principles? Completely naked? Under an open sky? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >>Stefan: When Atmananda says I-principle, he means that principle > >that underlies the sense of I or ego. He means the SELF. Z > > Yes, Tom, I know. > > But terminology is a big problem here > because it can lead to misunderstandings. > Partly because of inaccurate translations > from a relatively rich, ancient " spiritual " language > into our relatively poor contemporary language. > But also because of the fact, that our true nature > cannot be described with a terminology > within the myth of an independent personality. > > You are suggesting above > that there exists a principle > which underlies the sense of I or ego > which you are calling the SELF. > Can it not be, that this idea > is a clever mental construct > invented by this very ego > in order to maintain itself? > > " I-principle " and " self " > are both self-referential terms > which intuitively suggest > that there is something personal to be found. > It is one big merit of Nisargadatta > (and of his translators) > that he has tried to avoided such terminology, > (although maybe not always successfully). > > And when my master has talked about this " self " > and I have looked at him and have felt his words, > I knew that he meant ALL and NOTHING. > > And I was left shattered > with no words. > > What if one tries to live a life > without underlying principles? > Completely naked? > Under an open sky? > > Stefan > Stefan: Yes, Self is a trap-word.Actually we have not a clue what underlies ego.It is a blank page. A blind wall.That is why some people call it nothing.A cloud of unknowing. Anything that can be known or imagined is KNOWN and by definition not the KNOWER-- which is another trap-word. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >Yes, Self is a trap-word.Actually we have not a clue what >underlies ego.It is a blank page. A blind wall.That is why some >people call it nothing.A cloud of unknowing. Anything that can be >known or imagined is KNOWN and by definition not the KNOWER-- which >is another trap-word. Z A what? A trap for whom? And why? May I suggest, maybe you make things much too complicated. let me ask one more time: What if one tries to live a life without underlying principles? Completely naked? Under an open sky? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >Yes, Self is a trap-word.Actually we have not a clue what > >underlies ego.It is a blank page. A blind wall.That is why some > >people call it nothing.A cloud of unknowing. Anything that can be > >known or imagined is KNOWN and by definition not the KNOWER-- which > >is another trap-word. Z > > A what? > A trap for whom? > And why? > > May I suggest, > maybe you make things much too complicated. > > let me ask one more time: > What if one tries to live a life > without underlying principles? > Completely naked? > Under an open sky? > > Stefan under a what? an open sky for whom? and why? may I suggest, maybe you make things much too complicated. but.....lying there buck ass naked.. in front of god and everybody.. under some sky that's open.. you look pretty dumb. it's obvious that you have no principles...underlying or otherwise. it's cute though. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Hi Tom, I have written: >A what? >A trap for whom? >And why? maybe I have to clarify that. I wanted to understand what you mean with " trap-word " (i.e. self / knower). Do you mean " trap-word " in connection with certain non-dual circles where the trolls with absolute predictability jump at you when you are using certain words? I feel there you are right. Or did you write " trap-word " meaning that certain terms lead into a trap or loop when one ponders about them? When I was reading your response I felt you meant the latter. In this case I wanted to suggest, that maybe the trap is not in the word but rather in a habit of making principles out of words. This is a habit in order to feel protected, therefor I was suggesting an experiment in becoming " naked " which I did not mean literally. I find that when I use words protectively I am trapped in that very protection. It is also possible to use words out of joy, a kind of a friendly game more spontaneous in a way... communicating with a sense of wondering What is your story about feeling " trapped " ? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Tom, I have written: > > >A what? > >A trap for whom? > >And why? > > maybe I have to clarify that. > > I wanted to understand > what you mean with > " trap-word " (i.e. self / knower). > > Do you mean " trap-word " in connection > with certain non-dual circles > where the trolls with absolute predictability > jump at you when you are using certain words? > I feel there you are right. > > Or did you write " trap-word " > meaning that certain terms > lead into a trap or loop > when one ponders about them? > > When I was reading your response I felt > you meant the latter. > > In this case I wanted to suggest, > that maybe the trap is not in the word > but rather in a habit of making > principles out of words. > > This is a habit in order to feel protected, > therefor I was suggesting > an experiment in becoming " naked " > which I did not mean literally. > > I find that when I use words protectively > I am trapped in that very protection. > It is also possible to use words > out of joy, a kind of a friendly game > more spontaneous in a way... > communicating with a sense of wondering > > What is your story about feeling " trapped " ? > > Stefan it's not a trapped rat's changing story i'm sure. you know all about that sort of thing don't you? i'm sure this needs no further clarification. this is a friendly communication game.. without any sense of wonder at all. rats, like leopards..never change their spots.. but they DO try and change their stories all the time. i guess they need to feel loved. ha ha! but again..you know this through experience. ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, I have written: > > > > >A what? > > >A trap for whom? > > >And why? > > > > maybe I have to clarify that. > > > > I wanted to understand > > what you mean with > > " trap-word " (i.e. self / knower). > > > > Do you mean " trap-word " in connection > > with certain non-dual circles > > where the trolls with absolute predictability > > jump at you when you are using certain words? > > I feel there you are right. > > > > Or did you write " trap-word " > > meaning that certain terms > > lead into a trap or loop Namaste, This is funnier Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >Yes, Self is a trap-word. > Actually we have not a clue what > >underlies ego.It is a blank page. > A blind wall.That is why some > >people call it nothing.A cloud > of unknowing. Anything that can be > >known or imagined is KNOWN and by > definition not the KNOWER-- which > >is another trap-word. Z In nothingness... you die... but, then, you [ego] emerge again! And, it is YOU [Awareness] who gives birth to this " you " [ego] out of nothingness. There is no 'guide', no [external] 'God', It is your 'birth' and, you need to decide why you are 'birthing' again! Each time, you go into 'nothingness', you die. Each time, you go into deep dreamless sleep, you die. Each time, you go into samadhi, you die. And, then, YOU [Awareness] gets to 'birth' the " you " [ego] Again! If YOU choose, you can decide 'why' you are giving this birth [to ego]. Most of the times, it only prior conditioning which decides the 'why' [purpose] of the birth of the ego - because, YOU aren't vigilant, Alert and Careful enough to choose the 'why' for ego. Yet, each time that you die, you DO have this opportunity to *choose* the purpose of your [ego's] birth! ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > >Yes, Self is a trap-word. > > Actually we have not a clue what > > >underlies ego.It is a blank page. > > A blind wall.That is why some > > >people call it nothing.A cloud > > of unknowing. Anything that can be > > >known or imagined is KNOWN and by > > definition not the KNOWER-- which > > >is another trap-word. Z > > > In nothingness... you die... > > but, then, you [ego] emerge again! > > > And, it is YOU [Awareness] who gives birth > to this " you " [ego] out of nothingness. > > > There is no 'guide', > no [external] 'God', > > It is your 'birth' > and, you need to decide why you are 'birthing' again! > > > Each time, you go into 'nothingness', > you die. > > Each time, you go into deep dreamless sleep, > you die. > > Each time, you go into samadhi, > you die. > > And, then, YOU [Awareness] gets to 'birth' > the " you " [ego] Again! > > If YOU choose, you can decide 'why' > you are giving this birth [to ego]. > > Most of the times, it only prior > conditioning which decides the 'why' > [purpose] of the birth of the ego - > because, YOU aren't vigilant, Alert and > Careful enough to choose the 'why' for > ego. > > Yet, each time that you die, > you DO have this opportunity to *choose* > the purpose of your [ego's] birth! > > ac there is no such choice... no such 'you'.. no such number.. no such zone.. no living nor dying.. address unknown.. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 The word birth. Is it referring to the birth of the physical body or the birth of the ego? This might make a very big difference. An infant, then a young child has been born physically, but not yet egoically! Man is born physically without an ego, in the original nature, just simillar to the sprouting of a bud. The ego is created and strengthened and fully established in the first few years of life. When sages spoke about the real Self or I, they mean Who are you before the ego is created? Man as a child was living egolessly. mourad In Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Tom, > > if the " I " is changeless, then where was it before you were born? > The " I " is a thought, and life can live very well without it. > > Stefan > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > >`Do you live at all?' is my question. It has been proved that the thing > >that lives from > >birth till death is the same, changeless `I'-principle. The `I' is the > >centre of life. That > >alone lives. > >The `how' and the `why' of life are sought in the manifestations > >outside. When you > >turn to the manifestation, you lose sight of your centre and cease to > >live really. So the > >best way, for the best living, is to cling on to the living alone, > >forgetting the `how' and > >the `why' of it completely > 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.