Purification of the Buddhi - talk returning

[Guest guest]

, "Mirror" <mirror@u...> wrote:

> Tony:

> > You, I, all this 'creation', never happened, it is like a dream.

It

> > has no relationship to anything...ONS Tony.

>

> It can only have 'never happened' in relation to it having

happened....there

> is no never without ever.

> Now let me guess....

> you are not saying this,

> and you are an illusion that never happened.

> :-)

> Mira

 

Namaste, Exactly!!!ONS Tony.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 8:46 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

 

º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

ºNamaste,

º

ºWhy waste time on the concept of kundalini, cakras etc. It is a

ºdiversion within illusion. 'Who am I?' is the way. K is just cleansing

ºprana that's all it is........ONS Tony.

 

Thanks again for the laugh Tony - I know very well "who I am" and because of

that,

I would be the very last one in the universe to start teaching it <laugh>

And that doesn't make me a Bodhisattva either <laugh>

BTW, if "natural state" IS natural, what on earth is there to teach about?

Just explain that in 'your' words <laugh>

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Mira:

> > It can only have 'never happened' in relation to it having

happened....there is no never without ever.

> > Now let me guess....

> > you are not saying this,

> > and you are an illusion that never happened.

> > :-)

 

Tony:

> Namaste, Exactly!!!ONS Tony.

 

Thank God!! For a minute you got me fooled there...!

Almost believed you were saying something!

:-) Mira

[Guest guest]

--- Dear Tony,

DO you care to know what i believe in and why? I didnt detect that

from your messages.

Gracie

In , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> , crookedlace wrote:

> > --- Dear Tony,

> > you wrote:

> > This is a Ramana list after all.

> >

> >

> > i would like to say that i was privately emailed from another

list

> > and asked to consider joining this one by Harsha. He did not

say i

> > had to be of any eastern religious persuasion. What i had to say

on

> > the other list was similar to what i have said here. I am

Native

> > American, and while i was raised roman catholic toplease my

dying

> > mother, I find that i dont completely to the teachings

of

> > that religion. I find that native spiritualism permeates my

belief

> > structure. You may think that you have found the ONLY

ENLIGHTENED

> > WAY, but I would not presume to say that your religious beliefs

are

> > incorrect, i amy not share them, and that is my choice. I am

not

> > God darlin, and here's a news flash for you, NEITHER ARE YOU!!!

God

> > decides what pleases Him, and we can only do what we think is

best

> > in our human frailty and imperfection. So look up whatever you

> like

> > if it makes you feel superior, the fact remains that not all

> > participants on this list to Ramana, and I was not

told,

> > when i was asked to consider this list, that it was a

requirement.

> > Gracie

> Namaste Gracie,

>

> I know you are a native Indian but what has that to do with

> spirituality, there are many paths even in the Amerindian

tradition.

> The Mayan mystics follow a path which is almost identical with so

> called eastern mysticism. I refer to the fact that this list is

> blessed in the name of Ramana, according to the preamble. So don't

be

> surprised if he is invoked as an authority, even if it contradicts

> what some are saying.

>

> There is no 'God', in the personal way, we are all God. I have no

> religion, I have a spiritual path. I read Ramana but I have no

guru

> other than my own higher self. I do not feel superior, I just

expected

> that if people joined a list like this they may at least

familiarise

> themselves with the Ramana teachings. It avoids unnecessary road

> blocks.

>

> I am familiar with native spirituality but I haven't seen what you

> believe in, and why.......ONS Tony.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 8:46 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

 

º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

ºNamaste,

º

ºWhy waste time on the concept of kundalini, cakras etc. It is a

ºdiversion within illusion. 'Who am I?' is the way. K is just cleansing

ºprana that's all it is........ONS Tony.

 

Thanks again for the laugh Tony - I know very well "who I am" and because of

that,

I would be the very last one in the universe to start teaching it <laugh>

And that doesn't make me a Bodhisattva either <laugh>

BTW, if "natural state" IS natural, what on earth is there to teach about?

Just explain that in 'your' words <laugh>

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> On 5/11/01 at 8:46 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

>

> º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> ºNamaste,

> º

> ºWhy waste time on the concept of kundalini, cakras etc. It is a

> ºdiversion within illusion. 'Who am I?' is the way. K is just

cleansing

> ºprana that's all it is........ONS Tony.

>

> Thanks again for the laugh Tony - I know very well "who I am" and

because of that,

> I would be the very last one in the universe to start teaching it

<laugh>

> And that doesn't make me a Bodhisattva either <laugh>

> BTW, if "natural state" IS natural, what on earth is there to teach

about?

> Just explain that in 'your' words <laugh>

>

> Jan

 

Namaste Jan,

 

I have a problem keeping up with your intellectual gymnastics and

strange sense of humour. I never did teach anything. You are right

there is nothing to teach or laugh about....ONS Tony.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 9:05 PM crookedlace wrote:

 

º--- Dear Tony,

ºDO you care to know what i believe in and why? I didnt detect that

ºfrom your messages.

ºGracie

 

Please let me guess

 

1. you don't really exist

2. i don't really exist

3. nothing is existing at all

4. hence there is neither a question nor a response

5. Saguna Brahman is another name for futility

 

Now hand over that steak for the headache!!

And good appetite

 

<laugh>

Jan

[Guest guest]

Gracie:

--- Dear Tony,

DO you care to know what i believe in and why? I didnt detect that

from your messages.

 

Jan:

Please let me guess

1. you don't really exist

2. i don't really exist

3. nothing is existing at all

4. hence there is neither a question nor a response

5. Saguna Brahman is another name for futility

Now hand over that steak for the headache!!

And good appetite

<laugh> Jan

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

As a good vegetarian I'll share that one with you! It's an illusion anyway!

Mira

[Guest guest]

--- dear Jan,

Classic Janji, I love it <laugh>

Love Gracie

In , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> On 5/11/01 at 9:05 PM crookedlace wrote:

>

> º--- Dear Tony,

> ºDO you care to know what i believe in and why? I didnt detect

that

> ºfrom your messages.

> ºGracie

>

> Please let me guess

>

> 1. you don't really exist

> 2. i don't really exist

> 3. nothing is existing at all

> 4. hence there is neither a question nor a response

> 5. Saguna Brahman is another name for futility

>

> Now hand over that steak for the headache!!

> And good appetite

>

> <laugh>

> Jan

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 11:33 PM Mirror wrote:

 

ºGracie:

º--- Dear Tony,

ºDO you care to know what i believe in and why? I didnt detect that

ºfrom your messages.

º

ºJan:

ºPlease let me guess

º1. you don't really exist

º2. i don't really exist

º3. nothing is existing at all

º4. hence there is neither a question nor a response

º5. Saguna Brahman is another name for futility

ºNow hand over that steak for the headache!!

ºAnd good appetite

º<laugh> Jan

º

ºLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

ºAs a good vegetarian I'll share that one with you! It's an illusion anyway!

ºMira

 

For many probably a surprise that a raw food vegan could come up

with such an advice <laugh>

The predictable effect of a teaching like "life is an illusion" is that

life becomes a block - whereas "life is an illusion" is the illusion <laugh>

 

Joy, laughter and humor,

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 9:13 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

 

[...]

ºNamaste Jan,

º

ºI have a problem keeping up with your intellectual gymnastics and

ºstrange sense of humour. I never did teach anything. You are right

ºthere is nothing to teach or laugh about....ONS Tony.

 

Could it be that for someone on the intellectual path of Vedanta, intellect

could be lacking? That would make it a futile exercise.

And who suggested you were teaching anything?

And since you know there is nothing to teach, that means there is nothing to

learn either. Hence, a futile effort, especially because there isn't a doer .

But at least, laughing happens without it <laugh>

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

>

> On 5/11/01 at 9:13 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

>

> [...]

> ºNamaste Jan,

> º

> ºI have a problem keeping up with your intellectual gymnastics and

> ºstrange sense of humour. I never did teach anything. You are right

> ºthere is nothing to teach or laugh about....ONS Tony.

>

> Could it be that for someone on the intellectual path of Vedanta,

intellect

> could be lacking? That would make it a futile exercise.

> And who suggested you were teaching anything?

> And since you know there is nothing to teach, that means there is

nothing to

> learn either. Hence, a futile effort, especially because there

isn't a doer .

> But at least, laughing happens without it <laugh>

>

> Jan

 

Namaste,

 

Actually I have found vedanta to need the least intellectualising at

all. Its premise is very simple, Who am I? Koham/Soham I am he! Aham

Brahmasmi! There is no need to pile writings upon writings or explore

energies and experience for this. Even my untrained intellect was

able to grasp it!

 

But as Sankara says it is real enough whilst one is in it. One has to

deal with but not believe in it or be overwhelmed or hypnotised by it.

 

This is the problem the mass fascination with matter and energy, a

hypnotic effect. This is why there are exercises and practices to

lessen the hypnosis and allow the awareness sheath to be purified.

 

I don't mind telling you that your sense of humour is somewhat

derisive and is delivered with a feeling of intellectual superiority.

I have a good sense of humour but not at other's expense and self

agrandisment in the guise of spiritual comment.

 

A joke is usually a clever insult, and in some cases it is because

the mind is scared of what it doesn't wish to know. A symptom of the

fear of annihalation. This is why some people turn to the manifested

world and the concept of Sakti/God etc.

 

Again as this list was in the beginning, I am surprised that Ramana's

teachings haven't even been given a cursory look by some people.

Otherwise a lot of what I have said wouldn't have attracted such

scoffing and sarcastic derision. However this is your problem it

doesn't effect me. Superciliousness isn't my bag.

 

A lot of this goes on at the K list, but then there are a lot of

people with borderline tendencies of psychosis there. It naturally

attracts all kinds.

 

Om Namah Sivaya..Tony.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 9:40 PM crookedlace wrote:

 

º--- dear Jan,

ºClassic Janji, I love it <laugh>

ºLove Gracie

 

 

Thank you Gracie - Tony is a cracker when it comes to deconditioning isn't he?

Almost the same sense of humor as Ramana <laugh>

That sense of humor was one of his most charming 'features' <s>

And he loved reading cartoons.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

>Energy itself is an illusion, 'God', or Saguna Brahman is an illusion.

>It is all but a dream. This is my experience.

 

How could you have personally experienced that God or Saguna Brahman is an

illusion? How can you have actual experience of a negative? I may say

that the yeti does not exist, but how could I possibly have the experience

of it not existing? Such a negative is only intellectual. One experience

to the contrary... one photo... one yeti actually caught... would prove

me wrong.

>Kundalini rising is an illusion within all this also. K is the mind,

>that's all, the focus changes so gives the sense of rising movement.

 

You've already told us that what you do is intellectual. Obviously you

have not experienced Kundalini rising. Another negative that you are

convinced of.

>K is prana and doesn't lead to enlightenment.

 

And this is an entirely different subject. Whether it exists and whether

it leads to enlightenment are two very different matters.

 

I have said that Kundalini is not necessary. But how can you be sure that

it doesn't lead to enlightenment? For anybody?? Ever???? Many paths,

Tony... all leading to the same end.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Gracie

>>Tony:

>>This is a Ramana list after all.

>

>Gracie:

>i would like to say that i was privately emailed from another list

>and asked to consider joining this one by Harsha. He did not say i

>had to be of any eastern religious persuasion. What i had to say on

>the other list was similar to what i have said here. I am Native

>American, and while i was raised roman catholic toplease my dying

>mother, I find that i dont completely to the teachings of

>that religion. I find that native spiritualism permeates my belief

>structure. You may think that you have found the ONLY ENLIGHTENED

>WAY, but I would not presume to say that your religious beliefs are

>incorrect, i amy not share them, and that is my choice. I am not

>God darlin, and here's a news flash for you, NEITHER ARE YOU!!! God

>decides what pleases Him, and we can only do what we think is best

>in our human frailty and imperfection. So look up whatever you like

>if it makes you feel superior, the fact remains that not all

>participants on this list to Ramana, and I was not told,

>when i was asked to consider this list, that it was a requirement.

>Gracie

 

Right on, gal! I was also invited to this list, and I am not a Ramana

devotee... though I have deep respect and love for him.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

 

I think that with a teacher who has already walked the path, probably any

method works.

 

Active Kundalini is not necessary on the spiritual path, and to study

Kundalini Yoga with the hope of awakening Kundalini _solely in order to_

find God or moksha or the ultimate samadhi or the All is indeed a waste of

time... not that you won't eventually get there... but it is unnecessary.

 

For one whose Kundalini awakens, it is important to find the best

techniques to handle it and develop it.

 

For one who is no longer seeking the All, Kundalini work is a service...

transforming one's own bodies as part of the work of transforming the

world. If you have already been "all the way up," it is to go up again and

take the body with you.

 

It is also a great adventure ... and who said we shouldn't enjoy our

work? )))

 

I wonder what the "life-energy" can be that isn't covered by the terms of

Kundalini Yoga or the Tantrayana. Can you explain what you mean by your

term? Thanks.

 

Love,

Dharma

>The web is teeming with info regarding Kundalini yoga: and all of it is

>conceptual <laugh>

>Not even identical twins will go through the same K. experiences. Knowing

>everything about

>the chakras in order to deal with life-energy is just as useful as the

>biological knowledge of the lungs

>when it comes to breathing. So I don't think you will find anything of use:

>

>All so called "spiritual training" falls into the class of "reverse

>engineering":

>conceptualizing "what worked for me", generalizing that and offering it as

>"teaching".

>The non-verified assumption is that such an approach will work for others:

>quite often, it doesn't.

>

>Hence, what I call a supreme blessing, not to have fallen into the hands

>of such teachers

>but having been trained by Yama, and later on, Shakti <laugh>.

>So I couldn't recommend a study of Kundalini Yoga - it is dysfunctional

>unless in a rare case of 'emergency'.

>

>Jan

[Guest guest]

>> Tony:

>> > Energy itself is an illusion, 'God', or Saguna Brahman is an

>illusion.

>>

>> In relation to what? To reality?

>> The joke is on you Tony.

>> Mira

>

>You, I, all this 'creation', never happened, it is like a dream. It

>has no relationship to anything...ONS Tony.

 

If you really believe that, why do you bother writing email? And why do

you care so much whether everyone agrees with you? )

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 5:33 PM Dharma wrote:

 

ºHi Jan,

º

ºI think that with a teacher who has already walked the path, probably any

ºmethod works.

 

Neither knowing nor being a teacher, I could not possibly know that

And there is no interest to become a teacher as to find that out <laugh>

º

ºActive Kundalini is not necessary on the spiritual path, and to study

ºKundalini Yoga with the hope of awakening Kundalini _solely in order to_

ºfind God or moksha or the ultimate samadhi or the All is indeed a waste of

ºtime... not that you won't eventually get there... but it is unnecessary.

 

I am not at all familiar with spiritual paths, only with what has been

"taught" by the illustrious Yama & Shakti. And for this one,

that has been quite enough <laugh>

º

ºFor one whose Kundalini awakens, it is important to find the best

ºtechniques to handle it and develop it.

 

Wouldn't Shakti know that "best"? <laugh>

º

ºFor one who is no longer seeking the All, Kundalini work is a service...

ºtransforming one's own bodies as part of the work of transforming the

ºworld. If you have already been "all the way up," it is to go up again and

ºtake the body with you.

 

Not once in life I have been seeking the "spiritual" or the "All" - strictly

speaking,

I became its victim <laugh>

º

ºIt is also a great adventure ... and who said we shouldn't enjoy our

ºwork? )))

 

As an adventure, it sure is great - but it could be a bit more 'fast forward'...

º

ºI wonder what the "life-energy" can be that isn't covered by the terms of

ºKundalini Yoga or the Tantrayana. Can you explain what you mean by your

ºterm? Thanks.

 

There is a nice saying, referring to Shakti as "snake":

"the snake swallowing its tail". This is a "terra incognita"

as it points to a situation where Shakti "as Shakti" no longer

exists (snake having consumed itself).

 

Love,

Jan

º

ºLove,

ºDharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

>†I think that with a teacher who has already walked the path, probably any

>†method works.

>

>Neither knowing nor being a teacher, I could not possibly know that

>And there is no interest to become a teacher as to find that out <laugh>

 

Some are natural teachers, some are not... it is good to know your own

path. I've always been teaching something... swimming, piano, Old

Testament, world literature, writing... whatever.

>†Active Kundalini is not necessary on the spiritual path, and to study

>†Kundalini Yoga with the hope of awakening Kundalini _solely in order to_

>†find God or moksha or the ultimate samadhi or the All is indeed a waste of

>†time... not that you won't eventually get there... but it is unnecessary.

>

>I am not at all familiar with spiritual paths, only with what has been

>"taught" by the illustrious Yama & Shakti. And for this one,

>that has been quite enough <laugh>

 

Yours is the best path of all... to find your own guides, your spiritual

gurus. You are a shaman, and you have your own vision and walk your own

path.

>†For one whose Kundalini awakens, it is important to find the best

>†techniques to handle it and develop it.

>

>Wouldn't Shakti know that "best"? <laugh>

 

Of course! What is Kundalini but Shakti herself? In the beginning of my

active K., Mother Shakti guided me too for a time.

>†

>†For one who is no longer seeking the All, Kundalini work is a service...

>†transforming one's own bodies as part of the work of transforming the

>†world. If you have already been "all the way up," it is to go up again and

>†take the body with you.

>

>Not once in life I have been seeking the "spiritual" or the "All" -

>strictly speaking,

>I became its victim <laugh>

 

)))))))))))) LOL ))))))))))

>†It is also a great adventure ... and who said we shouldn't enjoy our

>†work? )))

>

>As an adventure, it sure is great - but it could be a bit more 'fast

>forward'...

>

 

Hmm, I think mine's been about as fast as I could handle.

>†I wonder what the "life-energy" can be that isn't covered by the terms of

>†Kundalini Yoga or the Tantrayana. Can you explain what you mean by your

>†term? Thanks.

>

>There is a nice saying, referring to Shakti as "snake":

>"the snake swallowing its tail". This is a "terra incognita"

>as it points to a situation where Shakti "as Shakti" no longer

>exists (snake having consumed itself).

 

Beautiful!! But it doesn't tell me what you mean by "life-energy."

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/01 at 6:44 PM Dharma wrote:

 

ºHi Jan,

º

º>†I think that with a teacher who has already walked the path, probably any

º>†method works.

º>

º>Neither knowing nor being a teacher, I could not possibly know that

º>And there is no interest to become a teacher as to find that out <laugh>

º

ºSome are natural teachers, some are not... it is good to know your own

ºpath. I've always been teaching something... swimming, piano, Old

ºTestament, world literature, writing... whatever.

 

At work, I coached quite a few students - what interested them most,

was how I could come up with complicated circuit diagrams and fill in

the component values without calculations Some could be taught how

to use the mind "properly" - a minority though.

º

º>†Active Kundalini is not necessary on the spiritual path, and to study

º>†Kundalini Yoga with the hope of awakening Kundalini _solely in order to_

º>†find God or moksha or the ultimate samadhi or the All is indeed a waste

ºof

º>†time... not that you won't eventually get there... but it is

ºunnecessary.

º>

º>I am not at all familiar with spiritual paths, only with what has been

º>"taught" by the illustrious Yama & Shakti. And for this one,

º>that has been quite enough <laugh>

º

ºYours is the best path of all... to find your own guides, your spiritual

ºgurus. You are a shaman, and you have your own vision and walk your own

ºpath.

 

Not at all A matter of a sudden and clear apperception - and that made

everything clear in one go Not that it meant instant nirvana though )

º

º>†For one whose Kundalini awakens, it is important to find the best

º>†techniques to handle it and develop it.

º>

º>Wouldn't Shakti know that "best"? <laugh>

º

ºOf course! What is Kundalini but Shakti herself? In the beginning of my

ºactive K., Mother Shakti guided me too for a time.

 

For me, knowing the "goal" all the time since apperception, Shakti merely

serves as mark on the map

º

º>†

º>†For one who is no longer seeking the All, Kundalini work is a service...

º>†transforming one's own bodies as part of the work of transforming the

º>†world. If you have already been "all the way up," it is to go up again

ºand

º>†take the body with you.

º>

º>Not once in life I have been seeking the "spiritual" or the "All" -

º>strictly speaking,

º>I became its victim <laugh>

º

º)))))))))))) LOL ))))))))))

 

Probably that explains the seeming lack of "respect" - knowing what

"really" makes things "tick"

º

º>†It is also a great adventure ... and who said we shouldn't enjoy our

º>†work? )))

º>

º>As an adventure, it sure is great - but it could be a bit more 'fast

º>forward'...

º>

º

ºHmm, I think mine's been about as fast as I could handle.

 

Mine isn't - faster is always better but probably the body would be

auto electrocuted <laugh>

With no one left to care for that, Shakti cares...

º

º>†I wonder what the "life-energy" can be that isn't covered by the terms of

º>†Kundalini Yoga or the Tantrayana. Can you explain what you mean by your

º>†term? Thanks.

º>

º>There is a nice saying, referring to Shakti as "snake":

º>"the snake swallowing its tail". This is a "terra incognita"

º>as it points to a situation where Shakti "as Shakti" no longer

º>exists (snake having consumed itself).

º

ºBeautiful!! But it doesn't tell me what you mean by "life-energy."

 

Not just the "K." part but the total amount of energy available to a biological

unit for complete functioning. The crux of the matter, if that is 'enough' for

the snake to consume itself <laugh>

 

Love,

Jan

º

ºLove,

ºDharma