Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*. > > Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however, *improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with). > > Individually and collectively. > > ~A What is improved is involved with the experiencing. Experience improves according to the judgment of the experiencer (in conjunction with other experiencers). However, nonduality is the experiencer and experience / not-two. No improvement here. The instant that experience/experiencer not-two = no experience. Nameless nothing. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Awareness is nondual. There is no practicing of this or improving it. Totality is not improvable. Totality is not an experience, nor is it a collection of experiences. Totality isn't going anywhere. Totality isn't a collection of goings and arrivings. - D - Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect awarenss > or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the > obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at > once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is not > " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down > -geo- > > > It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those > who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*. > > Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however, > *improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with). > > Individually and collectively. > > ~A > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > What's the difference between practice and living your life? > > > > - D - > > You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like becomin > > 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL > > What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something to the obstacles > > to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is not > > sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite corner, or > > chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing thoughts, > > going > > along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs, desires, > > clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed does > > something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the thinking > > field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world. > > -geo- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM > Re: Re: Practice > > > > Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect awarenss > or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the > obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at > once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is not > " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down > > We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to > non-fragmentation - it is or it is not. > Either there is conceptual separation or there is not. > -geo- Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or that other way. " Nonconceptualization says nothing. There is no " either/or " ... Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > In the practice of practicing, we overcome the obstacle that was never there. > > > > > > Go figure. > > > > > > ~A > > > > What's the difference between practice and living your life? > > > > - D - > > > > > Nada, Dan... Not even such a thing as a thing... that's why i > never got involved in practicing...however, I admit to having > been a *seeker*. lol. > > ~A anna is your real name judith durham?! i knew some of the seekers and all the the new christy minstrels. haven't seen any of them for ages.. we never played the same venues.. but we did record at some of the same studios. if you're judy..hey! if your not... hey anyway! Spencer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of awareness. > > That's nonduality's essence. > > From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you say are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being? > > How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many know intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites? > > How many know who they are and who they are not? > > Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious beingness of life. > > ~A There simply aren't any others. If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting. Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality. Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences. There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness. One's perceptual objects can fool one. It seems that others interact, perceptually. Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of awareness. > > > > That's nonduality's essence. > > > > From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you say are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being? > > > > How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many know intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites? > > > > How many know who they are and who they are not? > > > > Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious beingness of life. > > > > ~A > > There simply aren't any others. > > If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting. > > Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality. > > Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences. > > There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness. > > One's perceptual objects can fool one. > > It seems that others interact, perceptually. > > Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions. > > - D - > Ok... let's not mix *levels* of perceptions... THAT would be foolish. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:15 PM Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM > Re: Re: Practice > > > > Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect > awarenss > or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the > obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at > once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is > not > " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down > > We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to > non-fragmentation - it is or it is not. > Either there is conceptual separation or there is not. > -geo- Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or that other way. " Nonconceptualization says nothing. There is no " either/or " ... Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be. - D - If nonconceptualization says nothing - so it is conceptualization what you say. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > In the practice of practicing, we overcome the obstacle that was never there. > > > > > > Go figure. > > > > > > ~A > > > > What's the difference between practice and living your life? > > > > - D - > > > > > Nada, Dan... Not even such a thing as a thing... that's why i > never got involved in practicing...however, I admit to having > been a *seeker*. lol. > > ~A Agreed. Knock and it shall be opened. Seek and ye shall find. Nothing needs to be found. That is the finding. The seeker was an interpretation, nothing more. What we call our life is an interpretation. Life isn't opposed to death. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:09 PM Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What's the difference between practice and living your life? > > - D - > You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like becomin > 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL > What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something to the obstacles > to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is not > sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite corner, or > chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing thoughts, > going > along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs, desires, > clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed does > something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the thinking > field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world. > -geo- Hi Geo - There is no practice toward nonduality. Therefore there is no obstacle to nonduality. Obstacles you can work on, can be improved. Practices don't improve obstacles to nonduality, they improve obstacles toward experiences you want to have in your life. Nonduality isn't an experience. Therefore, there is no obstacle to it. Living your life is the " practice " of nonduality. But only in the sense that there is no division between the practice, the actuality, what is the case. The word " practice " doesn't really fit, life is nonduality, that is all. If you think about it and divide it up, there is no one else to blame. Any obstacle is self-created. The observer is the observed. When you observe what you are doing, it already has been done. There is nothing to change. - Dan There is only one movement, one clarity. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of awareness. > > > > > > That's nonduality's essence. > > > > > > From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you say are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being? > > > > > > How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many know intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites? > > > > > > How many know who they are and who they are not? > > > > > > Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious beingness of life. > > > > > > ~A > > > > There simply aren't any others. > > > > If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting. > > > > Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality. > > > > Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences. > > > > There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness. > > > > One's perceptual objects can fool one. > > > > It seems that others interact, perceptually. > > > > Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions. > > > > - D - > > > > > Ok... let's not mix *levels* of perceptions... THAT would be foolish. > > ~A This moment of perceiving - is your perception occurring in different levels? Or is there just this, as is? I don't see any separated levels that could mix. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:15 PM > Re: Practice > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM > > Re: Re: Practice > > > > > > > > Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect > > awarenss > > or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the > > obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at > > once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is > > not > > " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down > > > > We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to > > non-fragmentation - it is or it is not. > > Either there is conceptual separation or there is not. > > -geo- > > Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or > that other way. " > > Nonconceptualization says nothing. > > There is no " either/or " ... > > Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be. > > - D - > > If nonconceptualization says nothing - so it is conceptualization what you > say. > -geo- Yes, quite so. This is the humor of this kind of communicating. Saying what can't be said. Pointing where there is no pointing possible. Saying as one conceptual being to another, " no conceptual being can ever grasp what this is " ... As if something were being said. If there isn't enjoyment of the inability to say it, then forget about it ... Smiles -- - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*. > > > > Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however, *improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with). > > > > Individually and collectively. > > > > ~A > > What is improved is involved with the experiencing. Everyone seems to feel to be " practicing " .. " Life is a laboratory to perform experiments in " (anon. poster at Gurusfeet.com) Everyone is 'practicing'... Everyone is " acting " and " re-acting " ... " We'll get to real life, real soon now... keep practicing... almost there... almost therrrreee.. just a wee bit more.... " We'll get to actually living life, soon enough... but for now, keep practicing ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > There is nothing to change. > > - Dan I tried to change nothing, But no matter how much I tried, nothing happened ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > There is nothing to change. > > > > - Dan > > I tried to change nothing, > > But no matter how much I tried, > > nothing happened ;-). > and nothing keeps happening ;-) good nite boys, ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is nothing to change. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > I tried to change nothing, > > > > But no matter how much I tried, > > > > nothing happened ;-). > > > > > and nothing keeps happening ;-) > > good nite boys, > > ~A Well, tell 'nothing' to knock it off ;-)... Sleep good, girl.... don't dream of a squirrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > There is nothing to change. > > > > - Dan > > I tried to change nothing, > > But no matter how much I tried, > > nothing happened ;-). Not to worry -- I'll give you change for your nothing. Here's five little nothings for that big nothing. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is nothing to change. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > I tried to change nothing, > > > > But no matter how much I tried, > > > > nothing happened ;-). > > > > > and nothing keeps happening ;-) > > good nite boys, > > ~A g'nite girl. keep happenin'. not that you can help it. :-) = D = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 At 04:19 PM 7/22/2009, you wrote: geo > You can not " improve " towards non-duality Geo, I think you're right and that you're wrong. There is no method or technique possible when one is in samadhi, and thus, jumping out of identifying with the Cosmic Ego is Grace descending upon one. Freedom is a gift from the Absolute. -edg- Samadhi is a subjective expression unless you clear it and let me know what is it. The same with Cosmic Ego. -geo- Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi -- partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the other end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from Nisargadatta that goes to this issue. When the gunas are merged into amness (samadhi) this is an act of stopping the ego from being manifest -- and with the ego out of the way, the healing power of natural laws of human physiology can undo the knots of attachment that are only able to be " gotten at " when the ego is not kicking up a storm of thoughts. It's delicate surgery, and the ego's pogo sticking shakes the operating room too much. The samskaras are physically embodied as micro-structures in the nervous system that are, as if, tiny islands of excitation, little broadcasting radio stations that independently can rile up a mind intent on peace. It is these renegades that are the left-overs of previous acts of attachment -- stored up karma if you allow me to say it that way. Transcending thought is not a one step process -- it is a gradual lowering of excitation, and even entering samadhi is not a final act. Residing in samadhi is silent only a short span in the beginning. Healing the samskaras finally allows the mind to entertain a perfect peace -- not a false peace in which it is only a matter of time before some samskara will drag your ego out of unity and get it roaring and screaming and banging pots and pans. And there goes the neighborhood. No wonder yogis hole up in caves -- their own inner noise is blaring enough. Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. Cosmic Ego is the ego of Brahma -- His mind is able to entertain samadhi as an all time living reality even though thoughts and actions are, well, godlike in excitational intensity. This is the ultimate duality -- Identity and the bestest-mostest perfect image to symbolize Identity, Brahma's body/mind. This is perfection in action that does not create karma for future instantiations of ego to be burdened by. But, as Brahma's inability to " get to the Absolute " symbolizes, this kind of enlightenment is not a state of freedom -- merely a state of infinite empowerment and license. Brahma cannot free Himself from " thinking He's Brahma. " Only by Grace -- during samadhi -- can a quiet mind realize the Identity has never been embodied -- merely symbolized by a process. On the other hand, one can practice methods, like inquiry, that help the ego stop attaching to things, and that does help the ego when it attempts to merge into samadhi. -edg- There is no ego that attaches. Edg: I don't know how a student of Nisargadatta can make that statement. Ego is not an ultimate truth -- we agree. But, until one is enlightened, saying ego doesn't exist is whistling past the graveyard. A pretense only. Denying the reality of the ego -- as an intellectual exercise -- is a spiritual tool that has some merit, but the heart is hardly involved in this -- it is a true believer in ego even if the intellect is prancing about singing about its great discovery and what a boob heart is to buy into individuality. For the intellect to get the heart jiggy with the fact that everything is a mirage -- that's a task like debating a mother into seeing her child as an illusion which has no power to allure her heart. Good luck with that. Only an intellectual giant has the resolving power, the acuity, to see that the heart's intuition is the finest of intellectual operations. Most of us would be better off doing bhakti. There is attachement as consciousness, but nothing is attaching. Edg: Consciousness is a vast processing in which we can discover subsets/patterns that repeat. This repetition is the proof of attachment. That is: the mind sticks to the pleasures it knows, and, like an autistic kid rocking in the corner, the mind rocks with patterns that have yielded a payoff in the past. This is a clinging to a frayed rope while hanging over a cliff -- and there's Nisargadatta saying, " Grab that other rope next to you that I've lowered. " That rope is inquiry -- a process that extinguishes itself by entering silence. When you say, " nothing is attaching, " to me that's saying " The Absolute's Identity is so wonderfully embodied by manifestation that It somehow thinks the image is It. " That I find to be a wrong statement. Instead, No Thingness, the Absolute, is unaffected by any object in consciousness -- never ever; though the Absolute is everywhere/when, it is not solely in space/time, so while the image in the mirror can assert that it is sentient, the proof that the image is ephemeral is that its sentience cannot have non-sentience as an object of consciousness. It cannot see its Self. This is the proof that Self is not captured by any embodiment but resides within/without/and-beyond any conceptualization. It is the image that finally gets it that it's but a kid's sparkler on the Fourth of July being waved in a figure eight pattern. The flaming sparkler's pattern seems solid, but we know it is but a point moving in space/time so fast that the eye is fooled. If one can see only that point and ignore the pattern -- that's entering just like entering samadhi. If, additionally, one can understand that the pattern and also the flame are not sentient but are, rather, wielded by " an arm they know not of, " then one has realized the Absolute. The figure eight pattern, the ego, can continue to be dynamically processed, but the delusion that it is forming its figure eight pattern is removed. The ego is a burnt rope -- form, yes, but no fundamental " resting state reality. " There is no such entity. How can something that does not exist merge into samadhi. Edg: Depends on what level of existence you're talking about. In my present state, I assert that there is an " I. " This " I " is there as much as an apple on my palm is. It's real to me. For this " me " to enter samadhi, I am placing awareness on ever more delicate operations of the brain. This quiets down the mind's psychic decibels. Watching one's breath is but one method for lessening the excitation of the mind -- it gives the mind something very tiny to do, and thus the big stuff is not engaged. Self inquiry is more powerfully peace-bringing than breath watching -- it gives you the immediate task of placing awareness on nothing, no thingness, the Absolute. This lessening of excitation gives the body a chance to heal some samskaras. When inquiry is practiced, the ego is, like any other process of the brain, attenuated to some degree. With practice, excitation decrease until only the process called OM is operating. This is an almost perfect paradox: the buzz of OM is convincingly able to pull off pretending it's silence. In samadhi, OM prevails, and all the gross sounds that could spring from it -- like the ego sound -- are not being emitted. This is the ego being Moses unable to cross the river Jorden, ya see? It gets itself to the doorway of amness, and then not only does it have to take off its shoes to get inside Pure Being, but it must take off its entirety. That is, dissolve/merge and not really enter samadhi. The small ego knocks on the door, and the Cosmic Ego answers -- just like in the film 2001 A Space Odyssey where at the end the astronaut keeps seeing an older version of himself and suddenly he's " over there inside that guy " instead of " back here being the guy seeing the other guy. " Identity jumps, ya see? Cosmic Ego answers the door, and he finds no one on the doorstep. Then your samadhi is just some kind of experience among a diversity of experinces, right? -geo- Edg: Exactly. Amness is an experience of perfect balance of the gunas. It is so perfect that the human mind cannot conceive of anything better, and thus, it is the final achievement -- it is the best that can be done to represent the unrepresentable. During samadhi, " I AM " is the message. See? There's your doppleganger right there -- Cosmic Ego asserting that it has sentience. The only solution is, after waiting for Grace by residing in OM, that finally, one gets so jiggy with amness that, well, ya gots the tee shirt, been there, done that, and you can realize that it is the vast silence that permeates all " isness " that is more alluring than any embodiment. The spaces between words, between thoughts, between the peaks and troughs of OM's vibrations are seen as the only eternal everness that OM cannot ever hope to symbolize. During samadhi, samskaras become burnt seeds, but how long one has to reside in samadhi to burn all the seeds is unknowable. Samadhi ends when the act of burning samskaras excites a process of manifestation, (when cleaning house, dust flies and can catch one's attention) and suddenly the ego is there again. -edg- Sorry edg. You said the ego was in samadhi...how can it be there AGAIN? -geo- Edg: The small ego is a potentiality of amness, and until that potential is " fixed " the damned ego will come out of the woodwork like a cockroach when the lights go out. The Cosmic Ego that's glorifying in " I AM " is the only thing that can allure awareness from the small ego. But residing as Cosmic Ego, heavenly and perfect, one gets uppity, and the small ego's pleasures cannot attract the mind from OM's song. And like that, the Cosmic Ego finally gets it that it too is but a small self compared to the Absolute. Then, oh boy, now ya gots the misery of Brahma when He figured out He had limits. There's your ultimate claustrophobia. The ego can hasten its own extinguishing by repeatedly entering samadhi until samadhi is perfected and all seeds are burnt. This is easily framed as the ego working towards enlightenment -- even though the ego never reaps such a reward. Do you agree with my fleshing out of your skeleton? -Edg- Unless you make an exercise of clarity in mind and clear what you are saying - it just doesnt makes much sense here... As I told you in one of our first exchanges...you seem to missinterpret what ego is. You treat it as something like " my ego " . But such attitude makes two of them. Yo imagine there is some real you AND some ego that is not you. These two things are part of the process of fragmentation from totality called by some as ego, by others as consciousness, or maia. -geo- Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but I don't feel comfortable with how your words are used in a fuzzy manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is false; the other realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it is the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion as a tool. What does it matter if the ego is taking credit? What matters is lessening the excitation of the human anatomy that will eventually tune the mind's ability to be delicate enough to have the buzz of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony of a " mind out of samadhi. " I see you and others here constantly talking about the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining freedom, but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil and take a lot of baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening of excitation by various methods -- self inquiry being the best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly transcending the level of excitation one is " presently at, " does one get the clarity to finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing " I AM. " That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and then, to give up even being God is the last step that cannot be consciously taken. God must shed His shoes and body too. --- In Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What's the difference between practice and living your life? > > - D - > You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like becomin > 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL > What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something to the obstacles > to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is not > sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite corner, or > chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing thoughts, > going > along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs, desires, > clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed does > something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the thinking > field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world. > -geo- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but I don't feel comfortable with how your words are used in a fuzzy manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is false; the other realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it is the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion as a tool. What does it matter if the ego is taking credit? What matters is lessening the excitation of the human anatomy that will eventually tune the mind's ability to be delicate enough to have the buzz of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony of a "mind out of samadhi." I see you and others here constantly talking about the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining freedom, but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil and take a lot of baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening of excitation by various methods -- self inquiry being the best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly transcending the level of excitation one is "presently at," does one get the clarity to finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing "I AM." That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and then, to give up even being God is the last step that cannot be consciously taken. God must shed His shoes and body too. geo> Dear edg, let me tell you that english is not my natural language (you know that by now) and I cant install a spell checker to my portuguese Outlook. What can I do.... Also, I learn as I write. We are dealing here with a matter that is similar to science, there is need for exactness. As you write long...I will choose smaller parts that I prefer to adress. I believe that what really matters is insight into the non-fragmented nature of what is. This realization is ALWAYS a quantum step, otherwise its illusion of non-duality. The emphasis is insight - the quantum step - which is in fact a transcedence of time, and NOT the idea of cleaning the organism. If you focus in the later you fall back into time through the illusion of "becoming". There is the hope of a cleanner body/mind that in some future will attain something - it will never!! The problem is in the "will" - becoming. So... the cleansing process that insight producess, the organic transformation that the brain cells will eventually undergo should not be an issue of concern. No concern at all - nada!! That gradual change is something beyond human understanding and to focus on it is error. Important is the quantum step out of time and space and the known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi -- partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the other end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from Nisargadatta that goes to this issue.geo> I prefer not to referr to third parties. Just me and you. To me there are two situations only: non-duality, no-time, no-known-dimension, no-knowledge - insight; and the illusion of having some inner separte observer. In another part you say you feel there is an "I". So the question is: is there some unseen part that is seeing other parts in order to be called a "I"? Is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but I don't feel comfortable with how your words are used in a fuzzy manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is false; the other realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it is the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion as a tool. What does it matter if the ego is taking credit? What matters is lessening the excitation of the human anatomy that will eventually tune the mind's ability to be delicate enough to have the buzz of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony of a " mind out of samadhi. " I see you and others here constantly talking about the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining freedom, but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil and take a lot of baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening of excitation by various methods -- self inquiry being the best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly transcending the level of excitation one is " presently at, " does one get the clarity to finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing " I AM. " That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and then, to give up even being God is the last step that cannot be consciously taken. God must shed His shoes and body too. > > geo> Dear edg, let me tell you that english is not my natural language (you know that by now) and I cant install a spell checker to my portuguese Outlook. What can I do.... Also, I learn as I write. We are dealing here with a matter that is similar to science, there is need for exactness. As you write long...I will choose smaller parts that I prefer to adress. I believe that what really matters is insight into the non-fragmented nature of what is. This realization is ALWAYS a quantum step, otherwise its illusion of non-duality. The emphasis is insight - the quantum step - which is in fact a transcedence of time, and NOT the idea of cleaning the organism. If you focus in the later you fall back into time through the illusion of " becoming " . There is the hope of a cleanner body/mind that in some future will attain something - it will never!! Edg: I don't like to ask this of someone, cuz, it's a big thing to ask, but can you find any quote from Nisargadatta that could support your notion that purifying the body/mind is useless? Also, I think Nisargadatta is clearly saying that realization is a gift that can only be given to one whose mind is prepared. Otherwise how does one explain Nisargadatta's bhakti actions? The problem is in the " will " - becoming. So... the cleansing process that insight producess, the organic transformation that the brain cells will eventually undergo should not be an issue of concern. No concern at all - nada!! That gradual change is something beyond human understanding and to focus on it is error. Important is the quantum step out of time and space and the known. Edg: you're espousing an act that is impossible for most minds. You're focusing on the ultimate act of stepping out of Being into being/non-being. I don't think the ordinary mind can do such a thing without practicing again and again until it can reside in Pure Being long enough to get jiggy enough to see the Pure Being is noisy and that silence compete is one's true Identity. Self inquiry puts one instantly into fulfilment of that last step, yes, this I agree, but only a practicing of inquiry will gain one the ability to bring the mind to a state of the least excitation possible. The final stepless step is not an egoic act, but the achievement of quiescence IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the "forever step" from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not "a soul in samadhi." That's the final step.-edg- Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi -- partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the other end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from Nisargadatta that goes to this issue. > > geo> I prefer not to referr to third parties. Just me and you. To me there are two situations only: non-duality, no-time, no-known-dimension, no-knowledge - insight; and the illusion of having some inner separte observer. In another part you say you feel there is an " I " . So the question is: is there some unseen part that is seeing other parts in order to be called a " I " ? Is there? > Edg: I struggle to find comfort that I understand your usage above. You ask: " is there some unseen part? " Answer: No, cuz a part is seeable. That which sees parts is also a part itself. To me the ego is a process that cherry picks all the other parts of my operations and selects only the elite parts and the history of how those elite parts operated as its " history of me. " As if. Denial, eh? That process ends during deep sleep and also during samadhi, but during samadhi, awareness is not lost. The deep sleeping person cannot hear OM, the person in samadhi is fully merged and so there is no one to hear OM -- instead Being OM is realized by the very act of shedding ego's clothing. Residing in this status yields the acuity to finally realize that amness is a cloaking also. Then, and only then, only then in this exaulted state of almost perfect quiescence can Identity be realized as not-thingness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > -edg- > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > -geo- Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 > >Edg I don't know how to get you to where I'm at P: Haha! By making him go back! -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes P: hahaha! What makes you believe that what you have now is not your interpretation? Edg-- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. P: that is your clue: SATISFied. If it were truly non-being, who will be there to be satisfied? Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > 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.