Fwd: Nir Vikalpa Samadh, Yoga Nidra etc.

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

 

NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

>

> Hi Tony,

>

> You are right in both your understandings about NS and YN. (I did

> notice that you accidentally left out the word " not " - no sweat it

was

> clear.)

>

> The only thing that you may actually want to leave out is any kind

of

> qualitative comparisons that carry the slightest hint of judgment,

> there is no need for it, it does not play in any of this.

>

> When you quote JC: " By their fruit etc... " you seem to include some

> kind of judging... Observation, distinction is the only thing

needed,

> the slightest amount of judging is redundant.

>

> The judgment that you apply seems to have to do with a difficulty

you

> seem to display with the topic of 'reality' and 'illusion'

> Reality comes on a graduated scale... all real... just different

> densities of reality so to say.

> Reality is appearance in the sense of coming forth, apparent stuff

> Illusion is appearance in the sense of seeming or semblance, not

> stuff, conceptual only.

>

> In reality no duping is present, in illusion mostly that.

>

> Years ago I extensively got into that, in the posts we exchanged

with

> each other...

>

> It should make more sense now...

>

> Love, Wim

 

Namaste Wim,

 

I think Jesus was talking of observation. If person improved became

more compassionate, spiritual etc etc--------Not Judging.

 

The problem I have, which you point out, is in fact I don't believe

anything has happened at all. And that gradations of illusion or

seeing all as the Saguna Self never happened either.

 

This is a problem when speaking or writing, relatively, absolutely

etc etc.................ONS....Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

 

NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

>

> NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

> >

> > NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

> > <wim that Nirguna is a verbal indicator of.

>

> Illusion, as I said, is that what is not happening and never

happened,

> that's why it is called illusion. Saguna happens though and it is

> Nirguna that enables saguna to happen, to be the way it is in all

its

> variations that we know of.

> I AM (Nirguna, void) THAT (Saguna, form)

> " form is void, void is form "

> ~ Avalokiteshvara in Heart Sutra

>

> Is that logical? It does not have to be as this is an area where

logic

> does not operate. Logic can be only applied in the world of saguna,

> not there where saguna 'epiphanises' in nirguna.

>

> [snip]

>

> > My guess is that if one becomes a Mukta or one with the Saguna

> > one realises Nirguna at the same time.

>

> Not a bad guess at all, Tony !!!!

>

> > The only conclusion we think it is real or happening is we are

> > Brahman, but veiled or not veiled that it the question.

>

> As we need no logic here, let's go for both!!!

>

> Analogous to light being particle/wave...

>

> Wim

 

Namaste Wim,

 

>Nirguna that enables saguna to happen, to be the way it is in all

its

> variations that we know of.

> I AM (Nirguna, void) THAT (Saguna, form)

> " form is void, void is form "

> ~ Avalokiteshvara in Heart Sutra<

 

 

'I am 'is being and therefore is the Saguna Concept. That or Tat is

form--- yes. 'form is void and void is form', but again this is the

Saguna concept.

 

This is what I said earlier, you are attributing more than a

relative validity to Creation, even as appearance. That is the path

of the devotee and the goddess concept and is legitimate within that

philosophy but it isn't the ultimate truth. There is only

Peace/Nirguna nothing ever happened even in appearance. This is why

it has to disappear or Brahman is comprised as dual, even if it is

in appearance for thought is a thing........ONS...Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---