Hope & ripening

[Guest guest]

Murali:

 

> At least conceptually I came to know that this false shadowy self is

> causing all the miseries (or happiness) just by identifying itself

> with thoughts, actions and things. Once this off shoot is cut off,

> then there is just " happenings " with nobody claiming ownership and

> nobody to be miserable.

>

What is this cutting off of the off shoot? What does it involve? How does

ripening prepare for it? Does anyone do the cutting off? Is it

self-annihilation? Or, to back up a bit: what is this false shadowy self? If

I say that Gary is writing this to Murali, are Gary and Murali false shadowy

selves? If not, then what is the difference between a false shadowy self and

a true one?

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

[Guest guest]

To Gary & B,

 

Hey, are we switching positions? :-)

 

 

Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote:

> What is this cutting off of the off shoot? What does it involve?

How does

> ripening prepare for it? Does anyone do the cutting off? Is it

> self-annihilation?

 

It is nothing more than an analogy. I could have used any number of

them, each time failing utterly to convey " it " (which no language can

ever convey). 'A bubble bursting' describes the same but will bring

out another set of questions.

 

Any way, this offshoot of course is the ego-self, an aberration from

the natural, caught up in the process of identifying thoughts,

actions and things as it's own (or others') and there by claiming all

the miseries.

 

Knowing this as a fact is the first step in ripening. Of course

knower and the known is the ego itself. Naturally the question 'what

is the way out?' is raised. And all the answers invariably point in

getting rid of the questioner itself! Definitely the ego or mind

cannot get rid itself off. All it can do is to weaken itself to such

an extent (like stilling the mind through self-inquiry) that a mere

touch (the accident or grace) will destroy it forever.

 

All efforts and ripening is valid and required to bring the ego upto

this vulnerable state. The rest is inevitable. And those who happened

to undergo this transformation accidentally must have done their

homework earlier (perhaps a life or two).

 

 

>Or, to back up a bit: what is this false shadowy self? If

> I say that Gary is writing this to Murali, are Gary and Murali

false shadowy

> selves? If not, then what is the difference between a false shadowy

self and

> a true one?

 

 

The ego-self is false because it is not permanent. It is shadowy

because when the light of intuition grows, it depletes like a shadow.

As long as Murali sees himself as a wave, Gary is another. The

moment the individuality is lost, there is nothing but the ocean.

Now, when you ask about the difference between the real and the

false, my mind somehow is going blank. I don't know perhaps.

 

And of course all what is said above is just a bundle of concepts the

way I understood. May be far far away from the real.

 

 

Murali