Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried again and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, and impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is it that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers stress the importance of liberation through a process of stabilizing in the eternal nature of this Self? Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, "Liberation from what?" I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are thereafter nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for our selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by the mind. In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. How often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in non-being? Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind is simply confirmed by asking "who is it that is thinking?" The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues presented on this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at through their own direct experience, at the same time some others continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations precipitated by their minds. It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, while others are still meandering. What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and focus the attention directly onto ourselves? Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's play? Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of self? It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot stabilize into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates reality, which simply cannot be done. There will always be a "you" which lies at the heart of reality; it is reality! Not the mentally formulated "you" which I agree is merely just another concept, but the "you" that is there prior to all concepts. Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct us to see through life, to unmask its delusions. As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and all to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the borderline between "I am" and "Not-I am". Suppose it does not occur to you that "you are". Does it mean that you are not? If that "I-am-ness" is not there, You, the Absolute, are… You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of "I-am-ness" is like an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. "I am"- the word or the "I am" feeling that you get inside you - is not eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of "I-am-ness", you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this conviction? Visitor: I know I am sitting here. Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction that you are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? That which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how can you meditate? In what you call "meditation," you need an object. Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The process necessitates the presence of "someone" as well as an "object," does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true meditation, the Meditator is "alone", without any object to meditate upon. From Ramana Maharshi: 10. How will the mind become quiescent? By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization. 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought `Who am I?' When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the skill to stay in its source. Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932 wrote: > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried again > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, and > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is it > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > stress the importance of liberation through a process of stabilizing in > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are thereafter > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for our > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by the > mind. > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. How > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > non-being? > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues presented on > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > precipitated by their minds. > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, while > others are still meandering. > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > play? > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of self? > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot stabilize > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates reality, > which simply cannot be done. > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > it is reality! > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > concepts. > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct us > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and all > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > are… > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this conviction? > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction that you > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? That > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how can you > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The process > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > meditate upon. > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > `Who am I?' > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > Marv > Well...........it should be a simple matter then. Let's see you get on in there and just do it. Let us know how it turns out. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932 wrote: > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried again > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, and > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is it > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > stress the importance of liberation through a process of stabilizing in > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are thereafter > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for our > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by the > mind. > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. How > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > non-being? > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues presented on > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > precipitated by their minds. > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, while > others are still meandering. > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > play? > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of self? > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot stabilize > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates reality, > which simply cannot be done. > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > it is reality! > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > concepts. > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct us > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and all > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > are… > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this conviction? > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction that you > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? That > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how can you > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The process > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > meditate upon. > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > `Who am I?' > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > Marv Namaste Mary, You talk about unraveling thought.......that is impossible. You may be able to concentrate on one thought in meditation, or have one thought of ignorance in deep sleep, but one cannot unravel the ball. One has to rise above it and leave it behind so to speak, by going within to the big 'I' or Siva/Self. One can 'experience the Self and that gives the game away----that the Self is Saguna within illusion. However if one realises the Self one realises the truth of NirGuna at the same time and that is as much as can be said about it. It is all in the negative neti neti and neti........It never happened...Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried again > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, and > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is it > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > stress the importance of liberation through a process of stabilizing in > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are thereafter > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for our > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by the > mind. > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. How > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > non-being? > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues presented on > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > precipitated by their minds. > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, while > others are still meandering. > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > play? > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of self? > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot stabilize > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates reality, > which simply cannot be done. > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > it is reality! > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > concepts. > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct us > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and all > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > are… > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this conviction? > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction that you > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? That > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how can you > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The process > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > meditate upon. > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > `Who am I?' > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > Marv Namaste Mary, You talk about unraveling thought.......that is impossible. You may be able to concentrate on one thought in meditation, or have one thought of ignorance in deep sleep, but one cannot unravel the ball. One has to rise above it and leave it behind so to speak, by going within to the big 'I' or Siva/Self. One can 'experience the Self and that gives the game away----that the Self is Saguna within illusion. However if one realises the Self one realises the truth of NirGuna at the same time and that is as much as can be said about it. It is all in the negative neti neti and neti........It never happened...Cheers Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932 wrote: > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. Hi, Marvin, Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " And you will understand why meditation is pointless. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > > Hi, Marvin, > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > Werner > The conceptual mind meditating on the conceptual world is beyond pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > The conceptual mind meditating on the conceptual world is beyond > pointless. commenting on it is pointless too. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > > Hi, Marvin, > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > Werner > Namaste, Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or one pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does increase teh computing power of the mind, to destroy itself..........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > ineffective > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some > object, > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > proponents of > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in > true and > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in > that > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation > ceases. > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > Werner > > > Namaste, > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or one > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does increase > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy itself..........Tony. > tony...that's ridiculous. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > > ineffective > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some > > object, > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > > proponents of > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in > > true and > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in > > that > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Namaste, > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or one > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does increase > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy itself..........Tony. > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > .b b.b. > Namaste, Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything else..Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > > > ineffective > > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on > some > > > object, > > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > > > proponents of > > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in > > > true and > > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and > in > > > that > > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or > separation > > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or one > > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does > increase > > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy itself..........Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > > > .b b.b. > > > Namaste, > > Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything > else.. oh sure thing tony. now if there's a 'self' to experience anything.. the Self to which you refer is unobtainable. just thought you might like to know. you're having hallucinations that's all. drink some warm cocoa and get some rest. well that takes care of the 'self' and Self.. and tomorrow tiny tim, we can take up " anything else " . we'll get rid of all these awful " things " that possess you. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > > > > ineffective > > > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on > > some > > > > object, > > > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > > > > proponents of > > > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in > > > > true and > > > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and > > in > > > > that > > > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or > > separation > > > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or one > > > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > > > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does > > increase > > > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy itself..........Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything > > else..> > > oh sure thing tony. > > now if there's a 'self' to experience anything.. > > the Self to which you refer is unobtainable. > > just thought you might like to know. > > you're having hallucinations that's all. > > drink some warm cocoa and get some rest. > > well that takes care of the 'self' and Self.. > > and tomorrow tiny tim, we can take up " anything else " . > > we'll get rid of all these awful " things " that possess you. > > :-) > > .b b.b. Namaste, As Sankara said, it is real whilst one is in it..and of course whilst one is in it one can experience Saguna or the Self....That doesn't mean that it reinforces illusion, if one is into Jnana it just is a step on the way that actually stabilises the knowledge that nothing ever happened..........Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " > <mmoss2932@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless > and > > > > > ineffective > > > > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on > > > some > > > > > object, > > > > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > > > > > proponents of > > > > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. > But in > > > > > true and > > > > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, > and > > > in > > > > > that > > > > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or > > > separation > > > > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or > one > > > > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > > > > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does > > > increase > > > > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy > itself..........Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything > > > else..> > > > > > oh sure thing tony. > > > > now if there's a 'self' to experience anything.. > > > > the Self to which you refer is unobtainable. > > > > just thought you might like to know. > > > > you're having hallucinations that's all. > > > > drink some warm cocoa and get some rest. > > > > well that takes care of the 'self' and Self.. > > > > and tomorrow tiny tim, we can take up " anything else " . > > > > we'll get rid of all these awful " things " that possess you. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > Namaste, > > As Sankara said, it is real whilst one is in it..and of course whilst > one is in it one can experience Saguna or the Self....That doesn't > mean that it reinforces illusion, if one is into Jnana it just is a > step on the way that actually stabilises the knowledge that nothing > ever happened..........Cheers Tony. relying on the words of others is a sure sign of Ignorance. you ain't no Jnana kid. don't kid yourself. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932 wrote: > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried again > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, and > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is it > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > stress the importance of liberation through a process of stabilizing in > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are thereafter > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for our > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by the > mind. > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. How > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > non-being? > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues presented on > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > precipitated by their minds. > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, while > others are still meandering. > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > play? > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and ineffective > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some object, > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents of > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true and > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation ceases. > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of self? > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot stabilize > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates reality, > which simply cannot be done. > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > it is reality! > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > concepts. > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct us > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and all > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > are… > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this conviction? > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction that you > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? That > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how can you > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The process > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > meditate upon. > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > `Who am I?' > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > Marv > why do you write all this words to this self-important people in here......? do you realy believe that anybody in here would ever agree with " you " .... their disagreement with whatever words are just a sign of their disagreement with Self.... an endless battle and useless game....until death. when there is death, indeed, it's too late to meditate... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> > wrote: > > > > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried > again > > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, > and > > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is > it > > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > > stress the importance of liberation through a process of > stabilizing in > > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are > thereafter > > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for > our > > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by > the > > mind. > > > > > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. > How > > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > > non-being? > > > > > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues > presented on > > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > > precipitated by their minds. > > > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, > while > > others are still meandering. > > > > > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > > play? > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > ineffective > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some > object, > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents > of > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true > and > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation > ceases. > > > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of > self? > > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot > stabilize > > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates > reality, > > which simply cannot be done. > > > > > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > > it is reality! > > > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > > concepts. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct > us > > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and > all > > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > > are… > > > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this > conviction? > > > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction > that you > > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? > That > > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how > can you > > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The > process > > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > > meditate upon. > > > > > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > > > `Who am I?' > > > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > > > > > Marv > > > > > why do you write all this words to this self-important people in > here......? > do you realy believe that anybody in here would ever agree > with " you " .... > > their disagreement with whatever words are just a sign of their > disagreement with Self.... > > an endless battle and useless game....until death. > > when there is death, indeed, it's too late to meditate... > > > Marc > useless and pointless question by the all foolish and unknowing me: which are the endlessly battling self-important people in here? are you saying it's too late to meditate after death.. or that it's to soon to meditate before death? meditation is sort of strange in either case. the ends of the sentence lines found in.. this paragraph are moving inwards. isn't that interesting? no? oh well.. hell. your meditation. ..b b.b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am that. -mahesh Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> > wrote: > > > > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried > again > > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, > and > > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is > it > > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > > stress the importance of liberation through a process of > stabilizing in > > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are > thereafter > > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for > our > > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by > the > > mind. > > > > > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. > How > > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > > non-being? > > > > > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues > presented on > > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > > precipitated by their minds. > > > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, > while > > others are still meandering. > > > > > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > > play? > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > ineffective > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some > object, > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents > of > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true > and > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation > ceases. > > > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of > self? > > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot > stabilize > > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates > reality, > > which simply cannot be done. > > > > > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > > it is reality! > > > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > > concepts. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct > us > > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and > all > > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > > are… > > > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this > conviction? > > > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction > that you > > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? > That > > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how > can you > > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The > process > > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > > meditate upon. > > > > > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > > > `Who am I?' > > > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > > > > > Marv > > > > > why do you write all this words to this self-important people in > here......? > do you realy believe that anybody in here would ever agree > with " you " .... > > their disagreement with whatever words are just a sign of their > disagreement with Self.... > > an endless battle and useless game....until death. > > when there is death, indeed, it's too late to meditate... > > > Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mv.kamat " <mv.kamat wrote: > > till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a > conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a > subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light > but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp > or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of > darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as > presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am > that. > -mahesh that and $1.10 will get you a medium cup of coffee with tax. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mv.kamat " <mv.kamat wrote: > > till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a > conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a > subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light > but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp > or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of > darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as > presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am > that. > -mahesh that and $1.10 will get you a medium cup of coffee with tax. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " > > <mmoss2932@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless > > and > > > > > > ineffective > > > > > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on > > > > some > > > > > > object, > > > > > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some > > > > > > proponents of > > > > > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. > > But in > > > > > > true and > > > > > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, > > and > > > > in > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or > > > > separation > > > > > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka gratha or > > one > > > > > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level of > > > > > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and does > > > > increase > > > > > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy > > itself..........Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything > > > > else..> > > > > > > > > oh sure thing tony. > > > > > > now if there's a 'self' to experience anything.. > > > > > > the Self to which you refer is unobtainable. > > > > > > just thought you might like to know. > > > > > > you're having hallucinations that's all. > > > > > > drink some warm cocoa and get some rest. > > > > > > well that takes care of the 'self' and Self.. > > > > > > and tomorrow tiny tim, we can take up " anything else " . > > > > > > we'll get rid of all these awful " things " that possess you. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Namaste, > > > > As Sankara said, it is real whilst one is in it..and of course whilst > > one is in it one can experience Saguna or the Self....That doesn't > > mean that it reinforces illusion, if one is into Jnana it just is a > > step on the way that actually stabilises the knowledge that nothing > > ever happened..........Cheers Tony. > > > relying on the words of others is a sure sign of Ignorance. > > you ain't no Jnana kid. > > don't kid yourself. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Namaste, Have you any idea of how many people experience the Self and don't know it? Many may call it a 'Peak Experience' as I learned so long a go in psych at university..or others had an unknown buzz. Those on the spiritual path may recognise the 'experience', and utilise it like say Eckart Tolle....others may go into meditation and withdraw..........On the surface it doesn't effect the mind per se...Hitler could have had one and still continued with his murderous karmic ways........... Let me tell you something else-----I never ever speculate and only talk about things that I have direct knowledge or experience with. Whether that is being a Jnani or not I don't know.....However I have had experiences of the sakti energy since I was a young boy, and they have become more pronounces as I age.........On one occasion last year I came out of meditation into a bliss state which lasted nearly all day.............I don't put terms on them.......But yes I am probably what you call a Jnani...............Cheers Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Namaste, Have you any idea of how many people experience the Self and don't know it? Many may call it a 'Peak Experience' as I learned so long a go in psych at university..or others had an unknown buzz. Those on the spiritual path may recognise the 'experience', and utilise it like say Eckart Tolle....others may go into meditation and withdraw..........On the surface it doesn't effect the mind per se...Hitler could have had one and still continued with his murderous karmic ways........... Let me tell you something else-----I never ever speculate and only talk about things that I have direct knowledge or experience with. Whether that is being a Jnani or not I don't know.....However I have had experiences of the sakti energy since I was a young boy, and they have become more pronounces as I age.........On one occasion last year I came out of meditation into a bliss state which lasted nearly all day.............I don't put terms on them.......But yes I am probably what you call a Jnani...............Cheers --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " > <aoclery@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " > > > <mmoss2932@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a > pointless > > > and > > > > > > > ineffective > > > > > > > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as > concentration on > > > > > some > > > > > > > object, > > > > > > > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by > some > > > > > > > proponents of > > > > > > > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would > agree. > > > But in > > > > > > > true and > > > > > > > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with > itself, > > > and > > > > > in > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or > > > > > separation > > > > > > > ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Marvin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I say meditation is pointless. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself: " Who is the meditator ? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you will understand why meditation is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > Actually meditation is good for jnana, rest and eka > gratha or > > > one > > > > > > > pointedness. It prepares the mind for a different level > of > > > > > > > awareness..it is also somewhat like self hypnosis and > does > > > > > increase > > > > > > > teh computing power of the mind, to destroy > > > itself..........Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tony...that's ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > Only if you haven't done it, experienced the Self or anything > > > > > else..> > > > > > > > > > > > oh sure thing tony. > > > > > > > > now if there's a 'self' to experience anything.. > > > > > > > > the Self to which you refer is unobtainable. > > > > > > > > just thought you might like to know. > > > > > > > > you're having hallucinations that's all. > > > > > > > > drink some warm cocoa and get some rest. > > > > > > > > well that takes care of the 'self' and Self.. > > > > > > > > and tomorrow tiny tim, we can take up " anything else " . > > > > > > > > we'll get rid of all these awful " things " that possess you. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > As Sankara said, it is real whilst one is in it..and of course > whilst > > > one is in it one can experience Saguna or the Self....That > doesn't > > > mean that it reinforces illusion, if one is into Jnana it just is > a > > > step on the way that actually stabilises the knowledge that > nothing > > > ever happened..........Cheers Tony. > > > > > > relying on the words of others is a sure sign of Ignorance. > > > > you ain't no Jnana kid. > > > > don't kid yourself. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > Namaste, > > Have you any idea of how many people experience the Self and don't > know it? Many may call it a 'Peak Experience' as I learned so long a > go in psych at university..or others had an unknown buzz. > so..the " Self " ... " peak experience " ..and " unknown buzz " .. are the same same in your thought and experience. you need broaden your horizons.. and you need learn to know what your smoking. no more unknown buzzes impersonating as Self henceforth! > Those on the spiritual path may recognise the 'experience', and > utilise it like say Eckart Tolle....others may go into meditation and > withdraw..........On the surface it doesn't effect the mind per > se...Hitler could have had one and still continued with his murderous > karmic ways........... this may be coming to you in an " unknown " buzz tony.. but it's a bad'un as far as buzzes is concerned. it's too far out to even call spacey. try breaking the prozacs in half next time. > Let me tell you something else-----I never ever speculate and only > talk about things that I have direct knowledge or experience with. you're an illusionist too because it doesn't show at all at all. > Whether that is being a Jnani or not I don't know.....However I have > had experiences of the sakti energy since I was a young boy, and they > have become more pronounces as I age.........On one occasion last > year I came out of meditation into a bliss state which lasted nearly > all day.............I don't put terms on them.......But yes I am > probably what you call a Jnani...............Cheers > you're about as much a jnani as howdey doodey is the buddha. hey, i almost stayed in a bliss state for: 843hrs,24min.,28sec... nah nah na nah nah! go sakti yourself some more, ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Can i identify myself as a lamp or light or electricity; if i identify myself as a lamp i see myself as an instrument which is on the verge of getting worn out, if i identify myself as light then i see myself getting dimmer & dimmer with the soot formation & is on the verge of getting withered out, if i identify myself as electricity which is the source of the lamp & light i see myself as indescriable. i cannot see it or feel it or smell it or taste it or hear it. i know it is there because of the lamp & light. i know iit is the source of light & the lamp, source of inertia in the engine or machine etc etc. if i am indescriable i only know myself as a source which gives light to the lamp, inertia to the engine/machine then my identity is there because of the lamp & light / engine & inertia. do i have to meditate on the lamp (body) or the light (mind) to know myself and even if i have to meditate on whom, for what or who is meditating. i dont have to prove myself that i am eternal. i know that i am the source (electricity) & my identity is the subject (light) & object (lamp). i am the unknown principle that rules. i am there hence everything is there. i am that. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:32:00 PM Re: Stop, look, and listen Nisargadatta, "mv.kamat" <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a > conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a > subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light > but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp > or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of > darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as > presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am > that.> -mahesh that and $1.10 will get you a medium cup of coffee with tax..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > Can i identify myself as a lamp or light or electricity; if i identify myself as a lamp i see myself as an instrument which is on the verge of getting worn out, if i identify myself as light then i see myself getting dimmer & dimmer with the soot formation & is on the verge of getting withered out, if i identify myself as electricity which is the source of the lamp & light i see myself as indescriable. i cannot see it or feel it or smell it or taste it or hear it. i know it is there because of the lamp & light.. i know iit is the source of light & the lamp, source of inertia in the engine or machine etc etc. if i am indescriable i only know myself as a source which gives light to the lamp, inertia to the engine/machine then my identity is there because of the lamp & light / engine & inertia. do i have to meditate on the lamp (body) or the light (mind) to know myself and even if i have to meditate on whom, for what or who is meditating. i dont > have to prove myself that i am eternal. i know that i am the source (electricity) & my identity is the subject (light) & object (lamp). i am the unknown principle that rules. i am there hence everything is there. > i am that. > -mahesh so who are you telling all this too? why? are you impressed?..no one else is. the above reads like badly wasteful and incoherent science fiction. you don't need to prove to yourself that you're a bad writer. you do not need prove this to 'others'..they can see that is the case. keep all that stuff to yourself or at most a close friend or two.. who understand you and feel sorry enough to be kind... and pretend. you seem like a nice enough person but an awful fool as well. remember when you get to remembering pal.. that included in that: " i am there hence everything is there. " ... is your utter bullshit. once you correctly identify your 'self' with that bullshit.. you can truthfully say without a word of a lie: " i am that " . LOL! ..b b.b. ********************************NNB*********************************** ________________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:32:00 PM > Re: Stop, look, and listen > > > Nisargadatta, " mv.kamat " <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a > > conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a > > subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light > > but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp > > or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of > > darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as > > presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am > > that. > > -mahesh > > that and $1..10 will get you a medium cup of coffee with tax. > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is it that sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, Siddhartha > > > Gautama (as well as other teachers of both past and present) tried > > again > > > and again through their many discourses to direct us to our Self, > > and > > > impress upon us the importance of realizing this Self? And why is > > it > > > that at the same time they will also say that this Self can not be > > > anything that we can perceive? And why did and do these teachers > > > stress the importance of liberation through a process of > > stabilizing in > > > the eternal nature of this Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the deep thinkers on this site might now say, " Liberation > > > from what? " I would simply say liberation from our mental concepts, > > > and since all of our concepts originate in the mind, and are > > thereafter > > > nourished and sustained by the mind, we must in turn find our way to > > > somehow unravel this labyrinth of thought that we have created for > > our > > > selves, and somehow disengage from the mental constructs created by > > the > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > In every one of Nisargadatta's books there is so much said about > > > this elemental Self, which he chose to refer to as the Absolute. > > How > > > often did he say that this absolute Self cannot be limited to > > > `existence' or `being', nor can it even be contained in > > > non-being? > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't it then be apparent that this Self or `I' cannot > > > therefore, be the mind, which can only exist in this world of > > > `being'. The distinction between this `I' and the mind > > > is simply confirmed by asking " who is it that is thinking? " > > > > > > The one that is thinking cannot be the thoughts that appear to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the past few months, I have read through the dialogues > > presented on > > > this site, and it seems to me that while some are speaking from an > > > understanding of this core Self derived from realizations arrived at > > > through their own direct experience, at the same time some others > > > continue to speak from perceptions derived from mental formulations > > > precipitated by their minds. > > > > > > It seems that some have their sights sharply focused on the goal, > > while > > > others are still meandering. > > > > > > > > > > > > What will it take for some to simply stop all the mental noise, and > > > focus the attention directly onto ourselves? > > > > > > Why is meditation regarded by some as some type of useless child's > > > play? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner seems to profess that meditation is a pointless and > > ineffective > > > undertaking. If we regard meditation as concentration on some > > object, > > > as in some of the methods that are often taught by some proponents > > of > > > the various new age philosophies, then I would agree. But in true > > and > > > deep meditation, the Self eventually merges with itself, and in that > > > state, a new clarity arises in which all duality or separation > > ceases. > > > > > > Why is it that Bob seems so hell-bent on obliterating his sense of > > self? > > > It appears to me that Bob seems to be claiming that we cannot > > stabilize > > > into anything at all since all is naught. This attitude negates > > reality, > > > which simply cannot be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > There will always be a " you " which lies at the heart of reality; > > > it is reality! > > > > > > Not the mentally formulated " you " which I agree is merely just > > > another concept, but the " you " that is there prior to all > > > concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, there really is nothing that I or anyone else can say > > > that will truly convince anyone of the validity of this fundamental > > > principle. But I would want to reiterate again that all of these > > > teachers tried to impress upon us the importance of peeling back the > > > many layers of our conceptual worlds to uncover our core self, which > > > ultimately lies at the heart of all there is. They tried to direct > > us > > > to see through life, to unmask its delusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I would suspect everyone on this site will attest to, there is > > > certainly an abundance of teachings out there available for any and > > all > > > to read and think about. Here is just a small sampling: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: You have to realize your own self. You must be at the > > > borderline between " I am " and " Not-I am " . Suppose it > > > does not occur to you that " you are " . Does it mean that you are > > > not? If that " I-am-ness " is not there, You, the Absolute, > > > are… > > > > > > You are infinite, eternal. This feeling of " I-am-ness " is like > > > an advertisement; it indicates the eternal state. " I am " - the > > > word or the " I am " feeling that you get inside you - is not > > > eternal…This cannot be understood in the usual intellectual way; > > > that state is spontaneously realized. When you are in the state of > > > " I-am-ness " , you merge in the eternal state. Now you know that > > > you are and that you are sitting. How did you develop this > > conviction? > > > > > > Visitor: I know I am sitting here. > > > > > > Nisargadatta: In the same way, you must develop the conviction > > that you > > > are the Absolute; this is most important. You have to focus your > > > attention on that only. Before the appearance of the beingness or > > > knowingness, I, the Absolute, am already there, eternally. Who will > > > focus attention? Who knows that this is focusing of attention? > > That > > > which focuses attention is prior to attention. In the mind, how > > can you > > > meditate? In what you call " meditation, " you need an object. > > > Who observes the meditation? Who practices the meditation? The > > process > > > necessitates the presence of " someone " as well as an > > > " object, " does it not? But before anything else, the Meditator > > > must be present. Now let Him alone be, without any object. In true > > > meditation, the Meditator is " alone " , without any object to > > > meditate upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > From Ramana Maharshi: > > > > > > 10. How will the mind become quiescent? > > > > > > By the enquiry `Who am I?'. The thought `Who am I?' > > > > > > will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for > > > > > > stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. > > > > > > Then, there will arise Self-realization. > > > > > > > > > > > > 11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought > > > > > > `Who am I?' > > > > > > When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, > > > > > > but should inquire `To whom do they arise?' It does not > > > > > > matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, > > > > > > one should inquire with diligence, `To whom has this thought > > > > > > arisen?'. The answer that would emerge would be `To me'. > > > > > > Thereupon if one inquires `Who am I?', the mind will go > > > > > > back to its source; and the thought that arose will become > > > > > > quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind > > > > > > will develop the skill to stay in its source. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marv > > > > > > > > > why do you write all this words to this self-important people in > > here......? > > do you realy believe that anybody in here would ever agree > > with " you " .... > > > > their disagreement with whatever words are just a sign of their > > disagreement with Self.... > > > > an endless battle and useless game....until death. > > > > when there is death, indeed, it's too late to meditate... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > useless and pointless question by the all foolish and unknowing me: > > which are the endlessly battling self-important people in here? -i have no idea about....who could know that....if not themselfs....lol > > are you saying it's too late to meditate after death.. -yes, like it's also too late to eat and sleep and also having a walk....etc > or that it's to soon to meditate before death? > > meditation is sort of strange in either case. > > the ends of the sentence lines found in.. > > this paragraph are moving inwards. > > isn't that interesting? > > no? oh well.. hell. > > your meditation. > > .b b.b > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mv.kamat " <mv.kamat wrote: > > till i am identifying myself as an object of a subject i will be in a > conceptual world of discovering reality. i am neither an object of a > subject nor a subject of the object. i can see the lamp & the light > but the truth is the electricity which cannot describe itself as lamp > or light. i illumine the universe i cannot be described as absence of > darkness or presence of light & vice versa. i cannot be described as > presence of creation or absence of dissolution & vice versa. I am > that. > -mahesh > > yes....many concepts you are talking about there is no creation & creator of anything, forget about that. enjoy what is....there is nothing else....and there will never be anything else Marc 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.