Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti—not this, not this, not that. " This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). .... http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf .... This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its mindless negations. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti—not this, not this, not that. " This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > ... > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > ... > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its mindless negations. > > ... > thanks ac.(Who wrote this anyways?). " It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. " Argue with that. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 unfounded belief in " self " is the prerequisite " blind faith " .. that is relied on here. the ultimate unreliable source issuing all things " self-evident " . it is in fact not " evidence " at all. to say: " It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It " is in itself nothing more than a strange loop of " self " conviction. it's comforting for the disbeliever as well as the believer in same. one due to " blind faith " ..the other due to " blind denial " . both relying on the most unreliable of sources: the one which either affirms...or....the one which denies. " the WHICH for which there is no whicher " .. neither confirms nor denies.. neither believes nor disbelieves.. does not rely on a need to believe nor not believe. all words pointing towards a " proof " not relying on " outside proof " are nothing more..nor less than.. ineffectual and mystical obfuscation. they convince no one. ONE needs no convincing. if there is a need or desire for fanciness and conviction.. there is no Knowledgeas Identity. " faith " and " belief " are the crutches used by Ignorance. Knowledge doesn't need to be comforted.. nor convinced. " Self-Evidential Proofs are therefore only of help and solace.. to " that " and " those " in need of " hope " in that which is " believed " .. and " faith " in that which is " hoped for " . " What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. " Christopher Hitchens. and christopher is dismissed in and by: unhoped for Truth.. unbelievable non-faith. Absolute distrust. what's to be trusted beyond One? Nothing. beyond Itself..All is unfaithful to One. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti—not this, not this, not that. " This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > ... > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > ... > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its mindless negations. > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. > > > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti—not this, not this, not that. " This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > > > ... > > > > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > > > ... > > > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its mindless negations. > > > > ... > > > thanks ac.(Who wrote this anyways?). > " It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. " > Argue with that. > > Mark that argues with itself. believers in hope need to believe it without thought. THAT which is without thought or belief or hope or faith.. is without need of affirmation as well as without denial. scared phantoms which fear their own reality.. are the authors of that drivel. and scared they should be. they are correct in their worst fears. that to which " Atman " is but a referent has no truck with such nonsense. no " undeniable " statements of belief are necessary for THAT. after all possible words..THAT is before all possible concerns. THAT is IMPOSSIBLE which is the reason for all the fearful talk about.. the possibility of impossible denial. our own improbability demands a faith in the impossible. it's undeniable. and yet that's all that it is... " IMPOSSIBLE " . at the moment of.. in space or time.. the issuance of " possibilities " .. the Truth..the IMPOSSIBLE.. is masked and hidden forever in Deeps below Deeps. and thus arise: bibles and wisdom.. sutras and theology.. koans and vedas.. philosophy and mathematics.. little green apples and coney islands.. and that strangest of the strange.. little scared monkeys thinking they speak profundities. it's damn funny and Wonderful. ...for a short " time " called a " life " . after which (before or after " physical " dying).. nothing is either funny or not..holy or not..provable or not. and it doesn't matter never has. never will. chill. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 What is called Self in these dialogues you provided is generally named awareness/ultimate/ground/no-thing/emptiness in the dialogues of this forum. I agree that some confuse " nothing " with lack of existence and take it to be the ultimate, the ground. So there is really a need the nomenclature. Several different people use different names. -geo- http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti-not this, not this, not that. " This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). .... http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf .... This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its mindless negations. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 - marktimmins60 Nisargadatta Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:51 AM Re: Some view on void. Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by > extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the > very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds > of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; > Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; > Self is above and Self is below. > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. > Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti-not this, not this, not that. " > This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical > abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, > infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and > self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is > the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > ... > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > ... > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry > employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the > teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described > throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- > Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart > from its mindless negations. > > ... > thanks ac.(Who wrote this anyways?). " It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. " Argue with that. Mark Yes. Atman here is the realization of the ground of being through the fragment called Human Being. The drop of the ocean. One more name to IT -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 are you aware that ultimately this dialogue is groundless and empty.. which therefore means nothing for any self existence.. which arises as several different deluded people.. with several different names fearing a lack of consensus.. regarding proper nomenclature.. and who even make a CAUSE over such silliness? generally too these self deluded illusions group together.. as lists on forums to discuss their fear and loathing. for instance this...and that. can you believe it? can you not? do you think you have a choice either way? do you even think there IS a " you " ? do you know the Way to San Jose? does it matter? is everybody joking here? if not.. do they really take this stupidity seriously? do you know? do you care? are you nuts???? LOL! ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What is called Self in these dialogues you provided is generally named > awareness/ultimate/ground/no-thing/emptiness in the dialogues of this forum. > I agree that some confuse " nothing " with lack of existence and take it to be > the ultimate, the ground. So there is really a need the nomenclature. > Several different people use different names. > -geo- > > > > > > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by > extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the > very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds > of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; > Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; > Self is above and Self is below. > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. > Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti-not this, not this, not that. " This > does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical > abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, > infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and > self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is > the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > ... > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > ... > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry > employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the > teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described > throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita > is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its > mindless negations. > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > marktimmins60 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:51 AM > Re: Some view on void. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by > > extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the > > very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds > > of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; > > Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; > > Self is above and Self is below. > > > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. > > Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti-not this, not this, not that. " > > This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical > > abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, > > infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and > > self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is > > the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > > > ... > > > > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > > > ... > > > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry > > employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the > > teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described > > throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- > > Advaita is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart > > from its mindless negations. > > > > ... > > > thanks ac.(Who wrote this anyways?). > " It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the > one who denies It. " > Argue with that. > > Mark > > Yes. Atman here is the realization of the ground of being through the > fragment called Human Being. The drop of the ocean. One more name to IT > -geo- " one more drop of the ocean " WOW! Marvelous! Wonderful is Thy Name! where the hell have i heard that before? hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! imitation is: the length..width..height..depth.. why my goodnesss it's the very SOUL of.. not having any ideas of your own. it's a sort of lack of what nomenclature to use.. when you don't even know what your talking about. if you don't have any ideas of your own...steal! that's the ticket. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Check! But what else can the bucket do but empty itself of its content? Nomen nescio Nowomen prefer nescafé Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > are you aware that ultimately this dialogue is groundless and empty.. > > which therefore means nothing for any self existence.. > > which arises as several different deluded people.. > > with several different names fearing a lack of consensus.. > > regarding proper nomenclature.. > > and who even make a CAUSE over such silliness? > > generally too these self deluded illusions group together.. > > as lists on forums to discuss their fear and loathing. > > for instance this...and that. > > can you believe it? > > can you not? > > do you think you have a choice either way? > > do you even think there IS a " you " ? > > do you know the Way to San Jose? > > does it matter? > > is everybody joking here? > > if not.. > > do they really take this stupidity seriously? > > do you know? > > do you care? > > are you nuts???? > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > What is called Self in these dialogues you provided is generally named > > awareness/ultimate/ground/no-thing/emptiness in the dialogues of this forum. > > I agree that some confuse " nothing " with lack of existence and take it to be > > the ultimate, the ground. So there is really a need the nomenclature. > > Several different people use different names. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://advaitaphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahmanthe-one-without-second.html > > > > The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by > > extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the > > very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds > > of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; > > Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; > > Self is above and Self is below. > > > > Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. > > Hence the Upanishads declare: " Neti Neti-not this, not this, not that. " This > > does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical > > abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, > > infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and > > self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is > > the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). > > > > ... > > > > http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Neo-Advaita%20and%20the%20Sa\ tsang%20Movement.pdf > > > > ... > > > > This is not to say that negation is not useful. Traditional Self Inquiry > > employs negation liberally. But it is half the loaf. The other half is the > > teachings that reveal the self, using the positive methods described > > throughout this book. The self is not a big empty void. Because Neo- Advaita > > is a nihilistic denial of the obvious, it has no methodology apart from its > > mindless negations. > > > > ... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Check! it's always in the mail " they " say. the check that is. it's always " on the way " . the problem is (that is if ever a problem there is)... each " you " and " me " in that thing called " we " .. is fast becoming.. the " they " of the famous song and dance " they say " . we should not trust that " we " of the " they " by the way. take cash instead. it's immediate.. dependable and spendable. on account of the fact that it doesn't depend.. on what's in an account of anyone. but that's a bucket of a different size. which is a nice segue into your next line: > > But what else can the bucket do but empty itself of its content? i don't know. i'm crazy. what was in the bucket? > Nomen nescio > > Nowomen prefer nescafé some like sanka. ..b b.b. 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.