Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 The following letter, dated August 13, 1980, was written by Nome in response to correspondence from Shanti. Shanti had communicated about the death of someone close to her. She had also discussed her ideas about Jesus Christ and her desire to establish a forest ashram in the state of New York. She was already involved in studying the teachings of Sri Atmananda and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. August 13, 1980 Dear Shanti, With the illusory rise of the ego, or individual, all objectivity arises, and with its demise it is realized that the Self alone exists and there has never been a single objective thing. In other words, only so long as an individual is mistakenly assumed to exist is there the appearance of differentiation. Upon the false assumption of individuality, objectivity or differentiation illusorily appears in the forms (or concepts) of mind, personality, a body, a world, etc. This gives rise to all sorts of dualisms such as life and death, higher and lower, sin and virtue, thought and consciousness, bondage and liberation, and you and I. As a result, the Ultimate Bliss, or Peace, of Absolute Being seems to vanish. Awakening to the Truth of no-ego, that is to say, the Self, which you always are, is the finding of the Silent Peace that was never really lost. Upon this Awakening, all differentiation, being an illusion, simply vanishes. In Reality, I, the Self alone Am and there is no " me. " I was not born, nor am I now living, nor will I ever die. I am not in a body, nor is there a body in " I. " I am not in the mind, nor is there a mind in " I. " I am supportless and eternally undefined. Bodyless and mindless, birthless and deathless, changeless and conceptless, I Am. This is just Being, but not individuality; just Consciousness, but not conscious of any thing; and Bliss, but not an experience. The Absolute Realization that " the Self alone exists, the Self alone is Real " is the one and only complete answer to death. This Truth is alone eternal, and no transient concept can ever suffice in its place. Where there is form there is change and loss, but where the formless Truth is, there is no change, loss, fear, or sorrow. Of course, there are not really two " where's " (samsara and Nirvana). This is just a manner of speaking. In Truth, there is only Absolute formless Being (Supreme Being), and neither " you " nor a " me " have ever come to be. This being the case, the highest Truth should never be diluted in its expression to aspirants, even if they should request it. The excuse of the " need of relative half-steps " is not valid, because the Self is not far away but within, and one is never really other than the Self all along (as in the tenth man story). The piercing and liberating quality of Truth lies in its being incongruous with any concept the aspirant may cling to or misidentify with. To try to make Reality be in agreement with the aspirant's concept is to dilute the Truth and delude the aspirant. To reduce the Infinite to concepts (the very same concepts that keep the aspirant bound!) would not be beneficial to anyone. So, it's far better to rely only on the Absolute, and honestly express it as well as words can when requested, even though this is apt to create a significant lack of popularity. There are none in bondage, none striving for salvation, and none liberated—this is the highest Truth. The simple, non-conceptual Realization of undifferentiated Being, or the Self, is alone the Enlightenment of all sages. Although we speak of sages, this should not give rise to the concept of separate enlightened beings. Truly, there are no enlightened beings, just Being, which is Enlightenment. There is no such thing as a free individual, but rather Realization is freedom from the individual. One must see it as sages (the Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Atmananda, Buddha, Christ, Huang Po and countless other friends) see it, that is to say, from Reality. This leaves no room for " a sage " or " an enlightened being " and " others, " degrees and levels of Liberation, special functions in the world, etc. All of these suppose the existence of an individual entity, or ego, body misidentification, a belief in " a real world, " and different types of Enlightenment. But ego, individuality, a mind— call it what you will—is really nonexistent, and body misidentification is just basic ignorance. The fact that the notion of " a real world " is totally false is fundamental. When inquired into, the world is found to be utterly unreal, and formless Consciousness is found to be our only actual experience. There are certainly no degrees, levels, types, special conditions, etc. of Enlightenment, as Enlightenment is our true nature, the Self. Enlightenment is that which is innate, and not any sort of experience or state that is attained. It is just eternal, silent Being. This being the case, the concept of a special function is just that: a concept. If Christ thought he was Jesus, that he was born or died, that he had some sort of special function to perform, and believed in the existence of " others, " who were sinful on top of it, well, then, he would just be a dualistic ignoramus and not the Christ. If He really taught such conceptual nonsense, what kind of salvation would that be? If, from the tattered remnants of His sayings, we derive the sense that He Knows and Is the Truth, then He could not possibly hold any of the above concepts, but rather He Knows Himself as Christ Consciousness, God (I AM), or the Self. I do not need any scriptural quotes to verify what I say, for it is known by all as a matter of direct experience. However, there is plenty of substantiation in the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and other Gnostic texts. The unity of all sages (East, West, in-between, and neither) is in the worldless Self, which is their Enlightenment and who they really are. No other " integration " is needed. " If you've seen one Buddha, you've seen them all. " I have no conceptual discipline to practice in order to overcome imaginary conditions or influences, for I am That which is eternally free. I have no life story to tell, as I do not regard myself as a living entity. I have no extraordinary experiences to relate, for I have realized the Truth in which there is no experiencer. I have no mission or work to accomplish, for I rest in the magnificent perfection of Absolute Peace. I have no fear or suffering regarding death, be it this body or any other, because I have realized who I am. Real Peace is found within. If one looks for peace externally or in an environment, then when that external environment changes or disappears, the peace will disappear, as well. Upon close examination, it is revealed that even the experience of peace during the temporary appearance of that external environment was not as deep as it could have been. Supreme Peace is in the Self, and the sage knows himself as That. So, when the environment is favorable, his joy is not increased; and, when that environment disappears or becomes unfavorable, his joy does not decrease even in the least. Whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, living or dead, in the company of others or alone, in the country or in the city, he remains ever the same. Such Peace, or Shanti, is alone worth having, for it is eternal. If we were missing the senses, external environments would mean nothing to us. Now that the senses appear, should we misidentify and attach ourselves to one thing or the other? To Be as That which alone remains after the release of all else is undoubtedly Real Peace. It is not my custom anymore to write, but out of a deep Love for you this has been shared. The I or Self of which I speak and in which I remain Silent, is your Self, your very Being. Without any other support, Realization of This is perfect Peace and Immortality. This Truth is identical with limitless and undying Love, which is the real basis of our friendship. Should you care to write to me, you may feel free to do so, and I will, of course, reply to you. Also, you are always welcome here, should you ever wish to visit and share company in Atma. Your abiding in Truth always has my full support and your very Being my deepest Love - the Truth and Love in which we are not two, but One. Ever yours as the Self, Nome --------------------- Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Dear Richard, Thank you for sharing. It is a lovely letter by Nome. Who is Shanti? Namaste and love to all Harsha Richard Clarke wrote: > The following letter, dated August 13, 1980, was written by Nome in > response to correspondence from Shanti. Shanti had communicated about > the death of someone close to her. She had also discussed her ideas > about Jesus Christ and her desire to establish a forest ashram in the > state of New York. She was already involved in studying the teachings > of Sri Atmananda and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. > > > August 13, 1980 > > Dear Shanti, > > With the illusory rise of the ego, or individual, all objectivity > arises, and with its demise it is realized that the Self alone exists > and there has never been a single objective thing. In other words, > only so long as an individual is mistakenly assumed to exist is there > the appearance of differentiation. Upon the false assumption of > individuality, objectivity or differentiation illusorily appears in > the forms (or concepts) of mind, personality, a body, a world, etc. > This gives rise to all sorts of dualisms such as life and death, > higher and lower, sin and virtue, thought and consciousness, bondage > and liberation, and you and I. As a result, the Ultimate Bliss, or > Peace, of Absolute Being seems to vanish. Awakening to the Truth of > no-ego, that is to say, the Self, which you always are, is the > finding of the Silent Peace that was never really lost. Upon this > Awakening, all differentiation, being an illusion, simply vanishes. > > In Reality, I, the Self alone Am and there is no " me. " I was not > born, nor am I now living, nor will I ever die. I am not in a body, > nor is there a body in " I. " I am not in the mind, nor is there a > mind in " I. " I am supportless and eternally undefined. Bodyless and > mindless, birthless and deathless, changeless and conceptless, I Am. > This is just Being, but not individuality; just Consciousness, but > not conscious of any thing; and Bliss, but not an experience. > > The Absolute Realization that " the Self alone exists, the Self alone > is Real " is the one and only complete answer to death. This Truth is > alone eternal, and no transient concept can ever suffice in its > place. Where there is form there is change and loss, but where the > formless Truth is, there is no change, loss, fear, or sorrow. Of > course, there are not really two " where's " (samsara and Nirvana). > This is just a manner of speaking. In Truth, there is only Absolute > formless Being (Supreme Being), and neither " you " nor a " me " have > ever come to be. > > This being the case, the highest Truth should never be diluted in its > expression to aspirants, even if they should request it. The excuse > of the " need of relative half-steps " is not valid, because the Self > is not far away but within, and one is never really other than the > Self all along (as in the tenth man story). The piercing and > liberating quality of Truth lies in its being incongruous with any > concept the aspirant may cling to or misidentify with. To try to > make Reality be in agreement with the aspirant's concept is to dilute > the Truth and delude the aspirant. To reduce the Infinite to > concepts (the very same concepts that keep the aspirant bound!) would > not be beneficial to anyone. So, it's far better to rely only on the > Absolute, and honestly express it as well as words can when > requested, even though this is apt to create a significant lack of > popularity. There are none in bondage, none striving for salvation, > and none liberated—this is the highest Truth. > > The simple, non-conceptual Realization of undifferentiated Being, or > the Self, is alone the Enlightenment of all sages. Although we speak > of sages, this should not give rise to the concept of separate > enlightened beings. Truly, there are no enlightened beings, just > Being, which is Enlightenment. There is no such thing as a free > individual, but rather > > Realization is freedom from the individual. One must see it as sages > (the Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Atmananda, Buddha, Christ, Huang > Po and countless other friends) see it, that is to say, from > Reality. This leaves no room for " a sage " or " an enlightened being " > and " others, " degrees and levels of Liberation, special functions in > the world, etc. All of these suppose the existence of an individual > entity, or ego, body misidentification, a belief in " a real world, " > and different types of Enlightenment. But ego, individuality, a mind— > call it what you will—is really nonexistent, and body > misidentification is just basic ignorance. The fact that the notion > of " a real world " is totally false is fundamental. When inquired > into, the world is found to be utterly unreal, and formless > Consciousness is found to be our only actual experience. There are > certainly no degrees, levels, types, special conditions, etc. of > Enlightenment, as Enlightenment is our true nature, the Self. > Enlightenment is that which is innate, and not any sort of experience > or state that is attained. It is just eternal, silent Being. > > This being the case, the concept of a special function is just that: > a concept. If Christ thought he was Jesus, that he was born or died, > that he had some sort of special function to perform, and believed in > the existence of " others, " who were sinful on top of it, well, then, > he would just be a dualistic ignoramus and not the Christ. If He > really taught such conceptual nonsense, what kind of salvation would > that be? If, from the tattered remnants of His sayings, we derive > the sense that He Knows and Is the Truth, then He could not possibly > hold any of the above concepts, but rather He Knows Himself as Christ > Consciousness, God (I AM), or the Self. I do not need any scriptural > quotes to verify what I say, for it is known by all as a matter of > direct experience. However, there is plenty of substantiation in the > Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and other Gnostic texts. The > unity of all sages (East, West, in-between, and neither) is in the > worldless Self, which is their Enlightenment and who they > > really are. No other " integration " is needed. " If you've seen one > Buddha, you've seen them all. " > > I have no conceptual discipline to practice in order to overcome > imaginary conditions or influences, for I am That which is eternally > free. I have no life story to tell, as I do not > > regard myself as a living entity. I have no > > extraordinary experiences to relate, for I have realized the Truth in > which there is no experiencer. I have no mission or work to > accomplish, for I rest in the magnificent perfection of Absolute > Peace. I have no fear or suffering regarding death, be it this body > or any other, because I have realized who I am. > > Real Peace is found within. If one looks for peace externally or in > an environment, then when that external environment changes or > disappears, the peace will disappear, as well. Upon close > examination, it is revealed that even the experience of peace during > the temporary appearance of that external environment was not as deep > as it could have been. Supreme Peace is in the Self, and the sage > knows himself as That. So, when the environment is favorable, his joy > is not increased; and, when that environment disappears or becomes > unfavorable, his joy does not decrease even in the least. Whether > rich or poor, healthy or sick, living or dead, in the company of > others or alone, in the country or in the city, he remains ever the > same. Such Peace, or Shanti, is alone worth having, for it is > eternal. If we were missing the senses, external environments would > mean nothing to us. Now that the senses appear, should we misidentify > and attach ourselves to one thing or the other? To Be as That which > alone remains after the release of all else is undoubtedly Real Peace. > > It is not my custom anymore to write, but out of a deep Love for you > this has been shared. The I or Self of which I speak and in which I > remain Silent, is your Self, your very Being. Without any other > support, Realization of This is perfect Peace and Immortality. This > Truth is identical with limitless and undying Love, which is the real > basis of our friendship. Should you care to write to me, you may > feel free to do so, and I will, of course, reply to you. Also, you > are always welcome here, should you ever wish to visit and share > company in Atma. Your abiding in Truth always has my full support > and your very Being my deepest Love - the Truth and Love in which we > are not two, but One. > > Ever yours as the Self, > > Nome > > --------------------- > Not two, > Richard > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Dear Harsha, Shanti is a woman from New York state. She ran a yoga school there for many years. After this communication, she closed her school, left her husband and (grown) children and moved to California so she could be with Nome. Before the SAT temple was built, satsang used to be held at her house in Santa Cruz, CA. She first was in contact with Nome in the 1970s. She had been a seeker all her life, from when she was a girl in Germany. She first came into contact with him through that Avadhut Gita. She was searching for a copy of this book, and found somehow that Nome had a copy. She contracted a form a spinal cancer about eight years ago, and though she had a very poor survival prognosis, put her cancer in remission for a number of years through natural healing techniques. She finally passed away a few months ago. She was devoted to the teaching and practice, and in her last years had a kind of light and inner peace that seemed not be to touched by the cancer. Not two, Richard , Harsha wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > Thank you for sharing. It is a lovely letter by Nome. Who is Shanti? > > Namaste and love to all > Harsha > > Richard Clarke wrote: > > The following letter, dated August 13, 1980, was written by Nome in > > response to correspondence from Shanti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Dear Richardji Could you please tell me where in California is the SAT temple situated and what activities do they have there? Are there regular Satsang meetings? Suryakant Fremont, CA - Richard Clarke Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:26 PM Re: Letter from Nome - 1980 Dear Harsha,Shanti is a woman from New York state. She ran a yoga school there for many years. After this communication, she closed her school, left her husband and (grown) children and moved to California so she could be with Nome. Before the SAT temple was built, satsang used to be held at her house in Santa Cruz, CA.She first was in contact with Nome in the 1970s. She had been a seeker all her life, from when she was a girl in Germany. She first came into contact with him through that Avadhut Gita. She was searching for a copy of this book, and found somehow that Nome had a copy.She contracted a form a spinal cancer about eight years ago, and though she had a very poor survival prognosis, put her cancer in remission for a number of years through natural healing techniques. She finally passed away a few months ago. She was devoted to the teaching and practice, and in her last years had a kind of light and inner peace that seemed not be to touched by the cancer. Not two,Richard , Harsha wrote:>> Dear Richard,> > Thank you for sharing. It is a lovely letter by Nome. Who is Shanti?> > Namaste and love to all> Harsha> > Richard Clarke wrote:> > The following letter, dated August 13, 1980, was written by Nome in > > response to correspondence from Shanti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 Dear Suryakant, SAT is in Santa Cruz, CA. Maybe 35 minutes drive from Fremont. Go to www.satramana.org - http://www.satramana.org/html/directions_to_sat.htm for directions. Basically taKe Hgy 17 to Santa Cruz. When you enteer Santa Cruz at the first signal, turn right. It is maybe 1/2 mile, on the right, across from a grave yard. It is not well marked, so look carefully. It is maybe 100 M past Jewel street. They have satsang most Sundays (execept for today, or when there is a retreat). Satsang is at 10 AM, goes to about 11:45. They also have a Friday evening program at 8PM. Sometimes it is meditation, sometime reading and commentary on writings from Sri Ramana, or other ancient texts. They also have one the the best book stores for Ramana books and books on Advaita Vedanta. The schedule is http://www.satramana.org/html/calendar.htm If you have more questions, email me at richard. Not two, Richard , Chaubal <chaubal wrote: > > Dear Richardji > > Could you please tell me where in California is the SAT temple situated and what activities do they have there? Are there regular Satsang meetings? > > Suryakant > Fremont, CA > > > - > Richard Clarke > > Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:26 PM > Re: Letter from Nome - 1980 > > > Dear Harsha, > > Shanti is a woman from New York state. She ran a yoga school there for > many years. After this communication, she closed her school, left her > husband and (grown) children and moved to California so she could be > with Nome. Before the SAT temple was built, satsang used to be held at > her house in Santa Cruz, CA. > > She first was in contact with Nome in the 1970s. She had been a seeker > all her life, from when she was a girl in Germany. She first came into > contact with him through that Avadhut Gita. She was searching for a > copy of this book, and found somehow that Nome had a copy. > > She contracted a form a spinal cancer about eight years ago, and though > she had a very poor survival prognosis, put her cancer in remission for > a number of years through natural healing techniques. She finally > passed away a few months ago. > > She was devoted to the teaching and practice, and in her last years had > a kind of light and inner peace that seemed not be to touched by the > cancer. > > Not two, > Richard > > , Harsha <harsha@> wrote: > > > > Dear Richard, > > > > Thank you for sharing. It is a lovely letter by Nome. Who is Shanti? > > > > Namaste and love to all > > Harsha > > > > Richard Clarke wrote: > > > The following letter, dated August 13, 1980, was written by Nome in > > > response to correspondence from Shanti. > 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.