Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

July 23, 2009

Edg:

When the individual's nervous system is experiencing the least state

of excitation required to remain alive—this is defined as pure-Being,

samadhi, etc. (India is replete with stories of saints who are

sealed into caves and only come out once a year for a breath and then

back to samadhi -- almost no food or water is needed by such quiet systems.)

The ego is said to be perfect in its unity with Being when the

body/mind is in this quiescence, and that the ego's status is equal

to that of the so-called Cosmic Ego, God's Ego, The Ego of Universal

Consciousness (Being.)

Despite its unity-status, until " realization, " ego's re-emergence

from Being is due to a samskara that is not " burnt by the fires of

knowledge " and that thusly remains during samadhi that then again

founds the ego's potential-to-manifest out of this " perfection of

Being. " " Perfection " here means, " as if nondual " in that the unity

of Being, samadhi, is unsullied by motion/thought/feeling — which, if

present, would mean that the ego had become the doppelganger for

the " absentee Absolute " and thus assume its role as the subjective

aspect of relative manifestation.

Being/samadhi is " as close as possible " to being a perfect symbol of

the Absolute in that 1. No thing-ness exists (ignoring the special

case of Being having thingness in that it has the characteristic

of " existing without a manifest observer,) and 2. Being has the

potential to symbolize sentience once it manifests creation.

When we use the reflection/mirror analogy, we immediately understand

that though the Relative is a " mirror " that might " reflect, " it

has " no one " to reflect " to " since the Absolute is beyond any quality

or non-quality—including the quality of " the ability to receive a

reflection from a non-thing. "

Thus is the " Mexican standoff " created.

We have no egoic actions during samadhi, and the Absolute, of course,

does no actions (and does no not-doing either.) What then, is the

recognizer of the nonconceptual during samadhi or out of samadhi?

Only when immersed in Being do we have an " experience " that

intellectually satisfies us (after the experience, not during it) when

we use it as Being as a symbol for the Absolute, but when the ego

manifests -- becomes a recognizer -- then it must necessarily be

dualistically appreciative (limited,) and relegated to the status of being

a " reviewer of the past " which then juggles qualities that are

bogusly proffered as symbols of the experience of pure Being. This

is merely a case of the ego recognizing " mental actions outside of

samadhi " that are resonant with the ego's " sense of self, " during

samadhi, and in no way is the ego " reliving " or " remembering " the

experience of Being but instead is recalling the experience of its

emergence from the " absoluteness " of Being. This emergence is " done "

at the finer levels of consciousness (subtle, very quiet body/mind

movements.) The experience of the finest level of consciousness is

bliss, and you must slip " through " bliss as you enter samadhi and

once again as you emerge from it. During samadhi, it is like

dreamless sleep—which itself is considered by Nisargadatta as another

" fit " symbol for the Absolute. Emergence from samadhi is a true birth

process, a true re-incarnation of the ego occurs.

The ego pretends to be sentient, a real observer, the " absolute

witness " of that samadhi experience when, in fact, it is merely an

editing-of-memory function of the nervous system.

The ego is NEVER in a position to recognize anything but, well,

things, and even then the ego is a part of the recognition process,

not the knower of the recognition process. The best that can be said

is that the ego pretends to relive experiences, via memory, of

entering or leaving pure Being and that these become symbolic of the

entering-unity experience. There is no way for ego or any other

process to directly experience anything—being a process and non-

sentient. This whole process is as dead as it would be if it were

observed in a Hollywood conception of a futuristic robot's mind. No

sentience is found—only processes that can be used as limited symbols

of it are found.

So, again, what is the recognizer? The manifest ego pretends and

does not actually recognize, and the Absolute is beyond action/non-

action and never is/isn't a recognizer.

Thus, no enlightenment is possible—there being no entity that could

somehow " suddenly get a whole bunch more sentience " or whatever other

poetic expression that might come up to justify that some " thing "

becomes enlightened. The ego is annihilated when it enters samadhi,

and only by " pure grace " does the so-called " Big Self disidentify

with the small self. " Spontaneously—beyond causality—grace " flows "

and suddenly what? Suddenly the samskara that is the basis of the

ego's emergence is burnt by the true fire of knowledge—grace, a gift

from the beyond. Suddenly, the whole nervous system shifts

paradigms, and the egoic processes begin to speak of the illusory

nature of manifestation, of the non-ness of itself, of the wholeness

of Being's infinite correlation with itself, etc.

Suddenly the ego speaks with authority as it denies its authority.

Suddenly the ego is guru who says, " Within is the guru—I'm only here

to tell you you're looking in the wrong direction for me. "

What happened? How did this come about that suddenly the ego

has " gotten it? "

Nothing happens, of course, when we see the world through Advaita

tinted lenses, but on a grosser level of existence, we strain the

limitations of language to assign meaning to this circumstance. The

blind ego suddenly sees the REAL, everywhere, and yet maintains the

illusion of the conceptual. Why is the ego so certain?

Here's how I am presently talking about this to myself: the nervous

system gradually gets thoroughly saturated with the Advaita

Concepts -- concepts are patterns of ideation that must necessarily

have physicality underlying them. All the masters suggest that

" hanging out with the enlightened " is a powerful technique; also,

Ramana and Nisargadatta both did the Hindu rituals with bajans

and pujas etc., and they had dialogue with their devotees in which

all the forms of yoga and other paths to enlightenment are thoroughly

discussed over and over and over and over and over.

The practice of self inquiry leads to samadhi that burns up the

samskaras, and when the mind/body system is

thus purified, THEN, grace " can finally withdraw identification with

the small self. " This means that the body/mind is now in perfect

accord with the " intent of Universal Consciousness " and the " lineage "

of all experiences of that body/mind is such that it is directly

flowing, untouched, unedited, straight out of Being. This is the

status that allows the ego to " let go of the notion of doership. "

The ego, in such a mind free of samskaras, finally has a nervous

system that has the clarity to see the utterly mysterious nature of

manifestation, finally can see that causality is a crock, finally can

see its own impotency, finally can adore spontaneous right actions

that are unwavering true to their most subtle origins, and in the end

can " retire " when it sees that all the jobs of doership are filled

by " God " and that its role of subjectivity is proper but

identification with that subjectivity no longer is present and the

illusion of sentience is evaporated.

Once you see the snake as a rope, the fear of the snake is gone, and,

so too, the ego can retire from being " that which can be harmed by

snakebite " —that which never was snake-bitable even if a real snake

has been there.

In the end, we are left with the Absolute and with (without too) a

mind/body system that is wholly automatic (it always was but the ego

had not surrendered to this fact due to lack of saturation/clarity.)

The mind/body now glorifies the Absolute as the source of Being that

has no explanation for itself….and no need to have one. The ego

never gets enlightened but it begins to act in the ways that only the

enlightened act. Knowing its own thingness, the ego, properly

aligned at last in a harmonious, unified mind/body system, has no

pretensions of sentience. The Absolute did nothing; Being's ego

finds out it " is nothing " and is satisfied to know that it is as

close to being Absolute as it can get, and that while it no longer

thinks of itself as the Absolute, the Absolute is understood to never

have identified with it in the first place—that being a delusion of

the ego's grandeur.

Realization, then, is a misnomer. Nothing is realized—meaning the

nothingness of the conceptual is finally integrated into the

perceptual, the mental, the psychological, the physical, etc. to such

a degree that it is taken as truth by the WHOLE mind/body system with

such certainty that clarity is present at the most subtle levels of

the thinking processes. It is not a clarity about the Absolute but

rather of the non-ness of the conceptual.

The ego, after realization, is not working overtime to conceptually

designate all experiences as illusory or anything else to " maintain "

realization. It is truly convinced of the illusory nature of

manifestation, and so, it has no need to shore-up its opinions

anymore with constant dogma-lessons. Hence, no egoic functions come

up. The mind/body, now relieved of the pressures of the ego to

support the " I'm sentient " stance, is an automaton that is EXACTLY of

the same ilk as we happen upon in our night dreams. In our normal

dreams we have many " other characters " and also our " dream self " that

interacts with these other characters. These other characters are

being manufactured by the sleeping-REM-state brain and are considered

by us, when we awaken, to have never been anything but a mental

processing of autonomic functions of the dreaming mind. Just so,

does the realized mind/body slough off identification—in exactly the

same manner that we disidentify with the life-intent of the dream

characters we " are " in dreams. When we awaken, no matter how

important the actions of the dream character seem to be, we do not

regret the unfinished business of the dream once waking consciousness

is upon us. We don't pine away our morning hours worrying about our

dream children who no longer have our dream parenting. Why? Because

we see the non-ness of those children with such clarity that

identification cannot take place.

When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever—no REAL-ization took

place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

process was merely the ego finding out its true status—illusory non-

entity-ness—and having the common sense from that point to stay out

of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

ken of the ego.

July 23, 2009

When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

ken of the ego.

-edg-

The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

you seem to know...

Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

-geo-

July 23, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't expect

that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's explanations,

but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all philosophies

reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my definitions -- I

cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the " intellectually

defined " ballpark of my personal design.

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself unwilling

to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try to get us

both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do in

Nisargadatta.

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of devotees --

hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly enlightened, your book

should be precise and consistent without fail. I find your usages to be fuzzy

and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find Nisargadatta contradicting

himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with Ramana's Advaitic statements.

These two giants were models of precision usage. Your few posts here are far

from being enough proof for me to try to adopt your word usage.

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to me

previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience nearly

so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those who seem to

be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice, and I've had my

share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc. But my memory of

those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about enlightenment, and so I try

to be in harmony with those who I think are the spiritual experts.

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water -- no

need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's words

to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one day you

might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero motivation to meet

my west. I need precision words right now to shore up motivation to do inquiry.

By your words, I would say you have no need to do inquiry. Why are you here?

Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate again and again until the

likes of me are saved?

Edg

July 24, 2009

-

duveyoung

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do

in Nisargadatta.

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try to

adopt your word usage.

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are the

spiritual experts.

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water --

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

Edg

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

July 24, 2009

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

Edg: Geo, if I were able to truly say, " There is only light

and I am not here, " I would be enlightened by my definition.

That is why I ask you about it -- to me those are words that can only be

true if you're free of youness. Yet, despite the boldness of your

statement, you rapidly step back from it when confronted with your

" what a joke " conditional. I don't get this.

Oh, I know, I know, " if you meet the Buddha on the path, kill the

Buddha, " so your ego dare not declare it is an entity that could

even begin to think of itself as something that could be free. But,

but, but -- how about putting that aside for the nonce and " just

have a friendly conversation with a stranger who's walking with you for

but a while on your life-stroll? "

As for simplicity. I love simplicity.

Shankara had four disciples. Three of them were giant intellects,

and they severely challenged Shankara's bringing non-dualism to the

Vedas. The fourth disciple was Trotakacharya who, well, he did the

washing and cooking and never was significant in the debates. The

other disciples had less than full respect for him. One day,

Shankara delayed starting the debate, because Trotakacharya was late

getting to the meeting. The three disciples wondered why, but soon,

up the hill came sweet, loving, Trotakacharya singing in perfect meter a

new poem of love for Shankara he'd spontaneously composed that astounded

the three disciples with depth of insight and perfection of

expression.

So, yeah, I get it that the intellect is not a necessary element in all

the ways to get free. There is no limit to the power of

Grace. I often consider that Bali the demon king became Krishna's

most ardent devotee -- without giving up his status as the leader of

necromancers.

But, while I'm waiting for Grace in whatever form it takes, I do like to

write and juggle stuff. Call it " giving the elephant a chain

to carry to keep his trunk from mischief. " If I didn't

" do writing, " hell, I'd be out there investing in sex, drugs

and rock and roll, right?

I think that your advice to me is an attempt by you to get me to see

something more clearly. Nice intent, but your words have not given

me whatever it would take to " make my thirsty horse

drink. " In fact, I would dare say that suggestions like yours

are counter to Nisargadatta's advice to do inquiry. My intellect

dwelling on your suggestions would be a form of contemplation that keeps

the mind immersed in the unreal, right?

Do you have a spiritual technique to promote, or are you satisfied with

inquiry? And, um, er, do you do inquiry?

Edg

At 06:59 PM 7/23/2009, you wrote:

-

duveyoung

To:

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

--- In

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor

wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego

realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL,

and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory

non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay

out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond

the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize

anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You

seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where

all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal

design.

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to

try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I

do

in Nisargadatta.

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I

find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing

with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try

to

adopt your word usage.

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given

to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life

experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot

those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual

practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are

the

spiritual experts.

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water

--

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for

Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that

one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to

do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to

reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

Edg

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

July 24, 2009

-

Edg

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 11:51 AM

Re: Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

Edg: Geo, if I were able to truly say, " There is only light and I am not

here, " I would be enlightened by my definition. That is why I ask you about

it -- to me those are words that can only be true if you're free of youness.

Yet, despite the boldness of your statement, you rapidly step back from it

when confronted with your " what a joke " conditional. I don't get this.

geo> Because enlightment is a " stuffed up " word. I hate it. It is like god.

Cant stand it. Those are expressions that are used in a miriad of ways...

But yes, there is only light and there is not a ME. The ME is the assumed

inner separate observer. What is it that you dont like in what I said?

Edg:...Oh, I know, I know, " if you meet the Buddha on the path, kill the

Buddha, " so your ego dare not declare it is an entity that could even begin

to think of itself as something that could be free. But, but, but -- how

about putting that aside for the nonce and " just have a friendly

conversation with a stranger who's walking with you for but a while on your

life-stroll? "

geo> Happy to do it. Lets walk.

edg:...As for simplicity. I love simplicity.

Shankara had four disciples. Three of them were giant intellects, and they

severely challenged Shankara's bringing non-dualism to the Vedas. The

fourth disciple was Trotakacharya who, well, he did the washing and cooking

and never was significant in the debates. The other disciples had less than

full respect for him. One day, Shankara delayed starting the debate,

because Trotakacharya was late getting to the meeting. The three disciples

wondered why, but soon, up the hill came sweet, loving, Trotakacharya

singing in perfect meter a new poem of love for Shankara he'd spontaneously

composed that astounded the three disciples with depth of insight and

perfection of expression.

So, yeah, I get it that the intellect is not a necessary element in all the

ways to get free. There is no limit to the power of Grace. I often

consider that Bali the demon king became Krishna's most ardent devotee --

without giving up his status as the leader of necromancers.

geo: You see...you have considered a " grace " . Who the fuck is going to

provide it and for whom if there is only light and nobady else? The most

difficult task for you edg, - and we are friends walking in a shady path,

right? - is to damp all those ideas, all those hearasays about enlightment,

wisdom, gods, spirituality. We must be the light to ourselves. But how if we

carry the lamps of others?

edg:...But, while I'm waiting for Grace in whatever form it takes, I do like

to write and juggle stuff. Call it " giving the elephant a chain to carry to

keep his trunk from mischief. " If I didn't " do writing, " hell, I'd be out

there investing in sex, drugs and rock and roll, right?

geo> This is serious. How to live life, right? So you must know you are

addicted - if you compare it to sex and drugs, right? You love to toss and

twist ideas ABOUT the essence - adicction. Waiting for grace is cheap

religiousness, goes against the minimum rationality. It is bringuing in the

notion of " taking time to get rid of time " .

edg:...I think that your advice to me is an attempt by you to get me to see

something more clearly. Nice intent, but your words have not given me

whatever it would take to " make my thirsty horse drink. " In fact, I would

dare say that suggestions like yours are counter to Nisargadatta's advice to

do inquiry. My intellect dwelling on your suggestions would be a form of

contemplation that keeps the mind immersed in the unreal, right?

geo> Not your intellect edg. You are not being just with me. Nis fundamental

issue is the question " who or what am I " . That is what I did/do. In my case

I did it out of pure perplexity - sorry I will talk of me again, but i have

to. It is a " sacred " inquiry. Now I ask you: how much intellectual work you

need to pursue this incredible question? Nis said all he did was do it -

nothing else, because his " guru " told him. Now a voice in the wilderness is

telling you: stay with this questioning, nothin else. The problem is that

your horse wants to drink essays, and hearasys. Lets sit on that log over

there and have a cup of coffe from my termo... >

edg:..Do you have a spiritual technique to promote, or are you satisfied

with inquiry? And, um, er, do you do inquiry?

geo> LOL i think I answered above. But as we are having coffee I will

elaborate. A child that has bearly any knowledge looks around and suddenly

" sees " that there is a ground of being...and that nothing is excluded from

the ground. This world is a cloak - with its history, its galaxies, its

people.... - and all will be gone as the body kicks.