Anybody know the trouble I see?

[Guest guest]

In GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote:

>

> GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

> wrote:

> Only advanced

> > students can take up this book for their study.

>

> Tony,

>

> Excuse me for butting in here, but it seems to

> me that you have endeavored to get to the 'top'

> while avoiding the steps.

>

> If you find that all of creation has no meaning,

> and at the same time, you are intensely bothered

> by the scream of an innocent animal which is killed,

> then it seems to me that what you have adopted as a

> coping mechanism, is to say, " None of this ever

> happened in the first place. "

>

> IMO if one can say, " None of this ever happened in

> the first place, " and not be bothered by those apparent

> events which never happened, then okay. But if they bother

> you so much, it seems to me that you very much are

> an active participant in this illusion which

> 'never happened.'

>

> I rarely step out and psychologize people on the net.

> I don't think that is necessarily kind or useful to

> do so.

>

> But I wonder why you hold so tightly to

> this belief, which appears to me to mask

> your anxiety and ill ease with what

> you actually perceive is happening.

>

> When I corresponded with you about 'Ishwarsa

> Shristi,' I did so because, I felt that you

> were in pain, and I thought, " Oh

> if only he could understand that there is an

> order to all of this duality, which

> appears to bother him so much

> perhaps he could relax a bit and feel more

> comfortable with events as the unfold. "

>

> Thus once again, embarking on a useless

> undertaking, which the Tibetans have a good

> term for, " Idiot Compassion. "

>

> After awhile I saw that it was useless trying

> to communicate this to you, and it appeared to me

> that you had adopted a strategy that allowed you to

> cope (in a sense block out) that which apparently

> bothers you so intensely.

>

> So I thought, well leave him to it. In some way

> his views are serving him, so just let it lie.

> What difference does it make to me anyway what

> he view he holds?

>

> Then, much to my surprise, in what appeared to

> me to be a reaction to our correspondence,

> you chose to attack me personally on another list (advaitin).

> I thought, 'Wow, I really did get caught in idiot

> compassion to my own detriment once again.' So

> that is mine to look at, and fine tune. What is

> idiot compassion? And what is not?

>

> It is my understanding that unless one embraces the

> whole, including every part and parcel of one's

> apparent and illusory self, that moksha will never

> be attained. (Although, certainly moksha can occur with

> prati bhandikas, that is some unresolved psychological

> issues). But to totally deny the existence of that

> which bothers you so intensely, seems to me to put

> you at odds with yourself in such a way, that the

> concepts of 'moksha' and 'this never happened in

> the first place' become just coping mechanisms,

> and not truly accessible to be realized at all.

>

> Anyway, that is my opinion. Does voicing that opinion

> take me away from my own standards of saying only, that

> which is " kind, useful and pleasing? " Perhaps. And

> again, I would say that I rarely attempt to psychologize

> on the net, because I am not sure that it is either

> kind or useful to do so.

>

> And yet, at the risk of enflaming you by quoting

> my teacher, I will tell you that when I put forth

> some similar ideas to her, 'that Brahman has no

> problem with any of that which is occuring here,'

> she replied, " Yes, that is true. But it is the mind

> which is suffering. It is the mind which has Self-

> ignorance, and it is the mind which needs to gain

> Knowledge. " And you can say that your mind, thoughts,

> moods and emotions don't exist, but it appears to me

> as if your actual experience at this moment is that

> they do. And in fact, I don't know a jnani who is

> without them.

>

> Durga

>

Namaste,D,

 

I am not in pain per se, well no more than any other non realised

person. My whole belief system is really based on what Sankara said

about creation, that is 'it is real enough whilst one is in it'. And

Gaudapada's assertion on Ajativada...that it didn't happen at all

not even Maya or illusion.

 

I will say that Ajativada does attract sometimes hostile responses

for it negates that which people are hanging on to, and are

comfortable with.

 

I came to this conclusion about ten years ago when reading 'Be as

you are', on Ramana. It was like a light bulb going off in my head.

The concept of Ajativada suddenly made sense of it all. Uptil then I

couldn't understand the contradictions, suffering and belief

systems, or where a 'God' figured in all this.

 

I had learned that it was all about the mind, maya and illusion. Now

I find out it isn't about the mind at all for there isn't one.

 

And in some strange inexplicable way non existant samskaras in a non

existant mind prevent us from realising the non existant.

 

I do lend some validity to creation, duality, partial duality, non

duality but only as tools or signpost pointing to the end of

contradictions that never were.

 

Sure as I am unrealised or haven't remembered, I have energies that

can be alternately joy or grief, depending which name they are

assigned. However I am at least intellectually aware that it isn't

happening at all, and any description just bring duality into it.

 

This doesn't stop me performing mantras, bhajans, concentrating on

tools as such.

 

I rely on what the sages say that all disappears on bodiless moksha

and that makes sense or otherwise Brahman is only Saguna and that is

not so for it is only ever Nirguna..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

>

> In GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote:

> >

> > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

> > wrote:

> > Only advanced

> > > students can take up this book for their study.

> >

> > Tony,

> >

> > Excuse me for butting in here, but it seems to

> > me that you have endeavored to get to the 'top'

> > while avoiding the steps.

> >

> > If you find that all of creation has no meaning,

> > and at the same time, you are intensely bothered

> > by the scream of an innocent animal which is killed,

> > then it seems to me that what you have adopted as a

> > coping mechanism, is to say, " None of this ever

> > happened in the first place. "

> >

> > IMO if one can say, " None of this ever happened in

> > the first place, " and not be bothered by those apparent

> > events which never happened, then okay. But if they bother

> > you so much, it seems to me that you very much are

> > an active participant in this illusion which

> > 'never happened.'

> >

SNIP

 

See there. It never really happened.

 

You say that a lot Tony. When you run out of room to wiggle, that's

what always comes out.

 

But when others use the same meaningless statement. You want to shut

it down.

 

 

> Namaste,D,

>

> I am not in pain per se, well no more than any other non realised

> person. My whole belief system is really based on what Sankara said

> about creation, that is 'it is real enough whilst one is in it'.

 

SNIP

 

> Sure as I am unrealised or haven't remembered, I have energies that

> can be alternately joy or grief, depending which name they are

> assigned. However I am at least intellectually aware that it isn't

> happening at all, and any description just bring duality into it.

>

> This doesn't stop me performing mantras, bhajans, concentrating on

> tools as such.

>

> I rely on what the sages say that all disappears on bodiless moksha

> and that makes sense or otherwise Brahman is only Saguna and that

is

> not so for it is only ever Nirguna..........ONS...Tony.

 

This is the very first time that I can ever remeber you saying that

you are " unrealised " . Bravo Tony. I have respect for that.

 

But it is of no consequence because, well you know......

 

Not Really