Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Rob: I am sure you noticed that I have come full circle again. What goes around comes around and now I am back to accepting Ramana's teachings as the sine qua non of spirituality. I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the Self, because all is the Self and we are that. However all I really care about is having a mind that is pure and focused on that which gives rise to all appearances. Mahalo for all that you offer. Love, Alton Dear Alton, Good to have you back, old buddy. > If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings > are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. I disagree with this. This is only possible if you misread Sri Ramana by taking his remarks out of context. Unfortunately the Ramana literature is very diffcult to read because no transcripts were ever made, because the books were poorly edited, and because most of the serious writings are a condensed, formal, stylized form of poetry which is very different from modern Western texts. To illustrate how difficult it is to understand Ramana Maharshi from the published writings, take the example of the pamphlet "Self-enquiry." This is the document to which most people turn to learn about Ramana Maharshi's method. This pamphlet is distributed by the official Sri Ramana ashram as one of his authentic writings. Unfortunately (a) this pamphlet wasn't written by him and (b) it hardly mentions self-enquiry and © it mostly discusses other sadhanas which were advocated by other teachers but not by him. The main reason why people get the impression that Sri Ramana recommended a wide range of sadhanas (in fact he did not) was because visitors constantly asked him about other sadhanas, and he answered their questions. The easiest way to get an accurate understanding of Ramana Maharshi's teachings is from the introductory essays (at the start of each chapter) in David Godman's anthology "Be As You Are." Best wishes, Rob If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. I remember reading where one becomes all objects and therefore they are one and the same with the SELF. Much Aloha, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Second, many people (maybe most, maybe all) who end up Realizing go through a hellish period of depression, despair, self-hatred, anxiety and seeming madness as they get close to the point of involuntary dissolution. Christian Mystics (the Christian counterparts of yogis) have emphasized this stage, and there is a famous book on the topic by St. John of the Cross called "Dark Night of the Soul." There are numerous modern first-person accounts of it; U.GKrishnamurti's autobiography comes to mind, as does Saradamma'sstory in "No Mind -- I Am the Self" and -- I think, not sure about this lastone -- Eckhard Tolle's book.Most of the valuable out of print book is being posted on a new group named Intrinsic II. Here is the link in case you are interested. INTRINSIC_II/ The last I heard is that Lakshmana wont give Godman sanction to reissue that volume. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Alak, > What is the relationship of unhappy confusion with > enlightenment happening ? There are at least three answers to this question. First, unhappiness is the force that motivates people to turn their attention inward and practice real sadhana. Nobody who was satisfied with ordinary life would ever do this. (Hardly anybody who is dissatisfied really does it either!) This is why the first Noble Truth of Buddha is, " There is suffering. " The first Noble Truth is the most prominent statement in the whole of Buddha's teachings. " There is suffering. " Why did he choose this axiom as the starting point for his teaching? It's worth a minute's consideration. Second, many people (maybe most, maybe all) who end up Realizing go through a hellish period of depression, despair, self-hatred, anxiety and seeming madness as they get close to the point of involuntary dissolution. Christian Mystics (the Christian counterparts of yogis) have emphasized this stage, and there is a famous book on the topic by St. John of the Cross called " Dark Night of the Soul. " There are numerous modern first-person accounts of it; U.G Krishnamurti's autobiography comes to mind, as does Saradamma's story in " No Mind -- I Am the Self " and -- I think, not sure about this last one -- Eckhard Tolle's book. Third, according to Advaita Vedanta, all experience of objects is due to confusion (avidya). Best wishes, Rob - " alak_azam " <alak_azam <Realization > Saturday, November 01, 2003 10:50 AM Re: Hello I am new here > > What is the relationship of unhappy confusion with > enlightenment happening ? > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Hi Devi, You wrote (with regard to my friend's experiences of God): > to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. He didn't take any drugs. For whatever it's worth, here's what he told me about this subject. He said it's a mistake to think that there are such things as high and low states of consciousness. He said every instance of consciousness is always the same as every other instance of consciousness. It doesn't come in varieties. It's like an electron, in the sense that each electron is always exactly the same as every other electron. There's no such thing as better and worse consciousness, or higher and lower consciousness, or cheaper and costlier consciousness. It's always plain consciousness, nothing more and nothing less. He says you're confusing the perceptions that are seen in consciousness with consciousness itself. Sometimes God appears in our consciousness; sometimes we see dog turds. Both these things -- and everything else that appears -- are like movies on a movie screen. Consciousness is the screen. The screen doesn't become better or worse because a particular movie happens to be playing at a given moment. My friend became quite excited at this point in the conversation, and he shouted into the phone, " The movie has nothing to do with enlightenment. Nothing at all! People who think enlightenment has something to do with a better quality of movie are revealing the fact that they know absolutely nothing about it. Enlightment cannot begin unless the movies stop. " Best wishes, Rob - " devianandi " <devi <Realization > Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:02 PM Re: Hello I am new here > Realization , " ESSENTIAL I " <unbound@h...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > devi: to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Alton, Good to have you back, old buddy. > If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings > are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. I disagree with this. This is only possible if you misread Sri Ramana by taking his remarks out of context. Unfortunately the Ramana literature is very diffcult to read because no transcripts were ever made, because the books were poorly edited, and because most of the serious writings are a condensed, formal, stylized form of poetry which is very different from modern Western texts. To illustrate how difficult it is to understand Ramana Maharshi from the published writings, take the example of the pamphlet "Self-enquiry." This is the document to which most people turn to learn about Ramana Maharshi's method. This pamphlet is distributed by the official Sri Ramana ashram as one of his authentic writings. Unfortunately (a) this pamphlet wasn't written by him and (b) it hardly mentions self-enquiry and © it mostly discusses other sadhanas which were advocated by other teachers but not by him. The main reason why people get the impression that Sri Ramana recommended a wide range of sadhanas (in fact he did not) was because visitors constantly asked him about other sadhanas, and he answered their questions. The easiest way to get an accurate understanding of Ramana Maharshi's teachings is from the introductory essays (at the start of each chapter) in David Godman's anthology "Be As You Are." Best wishes, Rob - ESSENTIAL I Realization Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:56 PM Re: Re: Hello I am new here If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. I remember reading where one becomes all objects and therefore they are one and the same with the SELF. Much Aloha, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Realization , " ESSENTIAL I " <unbound@h...> wrote: > > > > > > devi: to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. > > i have to agree that God is at the other end of the telescope but to > say that that is only what and where God is is limiting God....ramana > was careful to speak only of realiztion of the Self, He never really > talked about anything else....so i don't think we can ever really > know what He was doing and seeing and expereincing unless we have the > same expereince as He.. > If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. > I remember reading where one becomes all objects and therefore they are one and the same with the SELF. > Much Aloha, > Alton now I understand your marriage! its the shared understanding of the FISH not the symbol for Christ but of Ramana's Sef . . as in Sel-fish oh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Karta, You wrote: > > now I understand your marriage! > > its the shared understanding of the > FISH This is an attempt to make Devi (and possibly Alton) angry. It has no other meaning except to provoke an angry reaction. And this: > as in Sel-fish is just an insult. I've warned you several times that personal attacks are not permitted here. You know the rules, and you keep breaking them. I've given you several second chances, but your behavior remains the same, and the time has come to remove you from this group. I'm sorry to have to do this because nobody has ever been removed or placed on moderation here. That record was nearly four years old, and I liked it. But you've forced me to break it. I removed both your aliases of which I'm aware. If I missed any, and you use them to post here again, I'll remove them at that time. Best wishes, Rob - " satkartar14 " <satkarta4 <Realization > Monday, November 03, 2003 3:30 PM Re: Hello I am new here > Realization , " ESSENTIAL I " <unbound@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > devi: to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. > > > > i have to agree that God is at the other end of the telescope but to > > say that that is only what and where God is is limiting God....ramana > > was careful to speak only of realiztion of the Self, He never really > > talked about anything else....so i don't think we can ever really > > know what He was doing and seeing and expereincing unless we have the > > same expereince as He.. > > If you read Ramana you will find that his offerings are like the bible. You can find words to prove any contention. > > I remember reading where one becomes all objects and therefore they are one and the same with the SELF. > > Much Aloha, > > Alton > > > now I understand your marriage! > > its the shared understanding of the > FISH > > not the symbol for Christ > > but of Ramana's Sef > > as in Sel-fish > > oh > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Alton, > I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self > undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I > ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind > returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the > Self, because all is the Self and we are that. Did you think i was disagreeing about this? I didn't disagree Do you want me to react to this? I'm confused. > all I really care about is having a mind that is pure > and focused on that which gives rise to all appearances. As you know, pure mind = quiet mind. A quiet mind is one that isn't trying to do anything. I know an Indian yogi who speaks English imperfectly. He likes to say, "All the imaginations must stop." Speaking of Ramana Maharshi, the instruction he gave most often was "Summa iru." This is almost his motto. This is often translated as "be still" but apparently (I'm no expert) it's the everyday Tamil equivalent of "shut up" or "be quiet." I once sent an email to a Tamilian friend asking about the correct translation of this phrase. I put "summa iru" in the subject line. She wrote back that she was startled and worried when the email arrived because she saw the subject line first, and she wondered why I was yelling at her to shut up! So if you know just one thing about Ramana Maharshi, you should know that he is telling you to shut up. Rob - ESSENTIAL I Realization Monday, November 03, 2003 1:21 PM Re: Re: Hello I am new here Dear Rob: I am sure you noticed that I have come full circle again. What goes around comes around and now I am back to accepting Ramana's teachings as the sine qua non of spirituality. I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the Self, because all is the Self and we are that. However all I really care about is having a mind that is pure and focused on that which gives rise to all appearances. Mahalo for all that you offer. Love, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Devi, > > You wrote (with regard to my friend's experiences of God): > > > to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. > > He didn't take any drugs. For whatever it's worth, here's what > he told me about this subject. > > He said it's a mistake to think that there are such things as > high and low states of consciousness. > > He said every instance of consciousness is always the same > as every other instance of consciousness. It doesn't come in > varieties. It's like an electron, in the sense that each electron > is always exactly the same as every other electron. There's no > such thing as better and worse consciousness, or higher and lower > consciousness, or cheaper and costlier consciousness. It's > always plain consciousness, nothing more and nothing less. > > He says you're confusing the perceptions that are seen in > consciousness with consciousness itself. Sometimes God > appears in our consciousness; sometimes we see dog > turds. Both these things -- and everything else that > appears -- are like movies on a movie screen. Consciousness > is the screen. The screen doesn't become better or worse > because a particular movie happens to be playing at a given > moment. > > My friend became quite excited at this point in the conversation, > and he shouted into the phone, " The movie has nothing to do with > enlightenment. Nothing at all! People who think enlightenment > has something to do with a better quality of movie are revealing > the fact that they know absolutely nothing about it. Enlightment > cannot begin unless the movies stop. " > > Best wishes, > > Rob Would say that is true as far as it goes. It isn't the movie that changes . At one point the movie ends then it may reappear on the screen . The screen never changes neither is the movie confused with the screen. It's all good. Alak_azam <another point of view along the road> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2003 Dear Alton, > I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self > undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I > ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind > returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the > Self, because all is the Self and we are that. Did you think i was disagreeing about this? I didn't disagree Do you want me to react to this? I'm confused. Dear Rob: The old Alton may have wanted you to react, but the new Alton wants only clarification and knowledge by Realization. The paragraph above was addressing this issue that you raised. See below. "If God is everything, it doesn't really matter what you see, doesit? No matter which way the telescope is pointed, you'reseeing God.""But Ramana Maharshi disagreed with this. He said God isat the other end of the telescope. God, he said, is whateveris looking out of the telescope, not what is seen with it." So the paragraph was in response The above Ramana quote. But now that we seem to agree there are no more issues to address, right? Love, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Dear Alton, Oh I see the problem, I think. On the one hand, my friend said the Self is the looker but not the stuff that the looker is looking at. On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi said that everything (both the subject and object) is the Self. Well, first of all, even though I was quoting my friend, he was pretty much quoting Sri Ramana. So both these statements represent Sri Ramana's point of view. (For an example of Sri Ramana saying that God is the looker, see Papaji's description of how he became Sri Ramana's devotee in his autobiography, "Nothing Ever Happened.") Ramana Maharshi addresses this apparent contradiction in Talks With Ramana Maharshi, section 25. The basic idea is that the illusion of subject and object can only be transcended by focusing exclusively on the apparent subject. In other words, in reality, everything is the Self. However, in our ordinary waking consciousness, where we seem to be subjects (lookers) who are seeing stuff (objects), we can only "find" the Self by focusing our attention exclusively on the subject. Best wishes, Rob - ESSENTIAL I Realization Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:02 AM Re: Re: Hello I am new here Dear Alton, > I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self > undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I > ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind > returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > > Oh I see the problem, I think. > > On the one hand, my friend said the Self is the looker but not > the stuff that the looker is looking at. > > On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi said that everything (both > the subject and object) is the Self. > > Well, first of all, even though I was quoting my friend, he was > pretty much quoting Sri Ramana. So both these statements > represent Sri Ramana's point of view. > > (For an example of Sri Ramana saying that God is the looker, > see Papaji's description of how he became Sri Ramana's > devotee in his autobiography, " Nothing Ever Happened. " ) > > Ramana Maharshi addresses this apparent contradiction in > Talks With Ramana Maharshi, section 25. The basic idea is that > the illusion of subject and object can only be transcended by > focusing exclusively on the apparent subject. In other words, > in reality, everything is the Self. However, in our ordinary waking > consciousness, where we seem to be subjects (lookers) who are > seeing stuff (objects), we can only " find " the Self by focusing our > attention exclusively on the subject. > > Best wishes, > > Rob Sounds like to much thinking . Alak_azam < just another view along the road > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Devi, > > You wrote (with regard to my friend's experiences of God): > > > to me it meant that he was reaching a high state of > > consciousness, hopefullly it wasn't drug induced.. > > He didn't take any drugs. For whatever it's worth, here's what > he told me about this subject. > > He said it's a mistake to think that there are such things as > high and low states of consciousness. > > He said every instance of consciousness is always the same > as every other instance of consciousness. It doesn't come in > varieties. It's like an electron, in the sense that each electron > is always exactly the same as every other electron. There's no > such thing as better and worse consciousness, or higher and lower > consciousness, or cheaper and costlier consciousness. It's > always plain consciousness, nothing more and nothing less. > > He says you're confusing the perceptions that are seen in > consciousness with consciousness itself. Sometimes God > appears in our consciousness; sometimes we see dog > turds. Both these things -- and everything else that > appears -- are like movies on a movie screen. Consciousness > is the screen. The screen doesn't become better or worse > because a particular movie happens to be playing at a given > moment. > > My friend became quite excited at this point in the conversation, > and he shouted into the phone, " The movie has nothing to do with > enlightenment. Nothing at all! People who think enlightenment > has something to do with a better quality of movie are revealing > the fact that they know absolutely nothing about it. Enlightment > cannot begin unless the movies stop. " > > Best wishes, > > Rob devi: your friend seems a bit high strung...i can show you many discourse written by beings more highly evolved than your friend that speak to the issue of higher and lower consciousness... ask your friend if he left creation? > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > > > I just remember reading that Ramana said that all is the Self > > undifferentiatedly, but as I said you know so much more than I > > ever will about Ramana and his teachings. When the pure mind > > returns to its primordial state, then objects are just as real as the > > Self, because all is the Self and we are that. > > Did you think i was disagreeing about this? I didn't disagree > > Do you want me to react to this? I'm confused. > > > all I really care about is having a mind that is pure > > and focused on that which gives rise to all appearances. > > As you know, pure mind = quiet mind. A quiet mind is one that > isn't trying to do anything. > > I know an Indian yogi who speaks English imperfectly. He likes > to say, " All the imaginations must stop. " > > Speaking of Ramana Maharshi, the instruction he gave most often > was " Summa iru. " This is almost his motto. This is often translated > as " be still " but apparently (I'm no expert) it's the everyday Tamil > equivalent of " shut up " or " be quiet. " > > I once sent an email to a Tamilian friend asking about the correct > translation of this phrase. I put " summa iru " in the subject line. > She wrote back that she was startled and worried when the > email arrived because she saw the subject line first, and she > wondered why I was yelling at her to shut up! > > So if you know just one thing about Ramana Maharshi, you should > know that he is telling you to shut up. > > Rob > > devi: that was very funny rob...i have a question..did sri ramana speak english? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Hi Devi, > your friend seems a bit high strung... Haha, I'd say that's pretty accurate. > > ask your friend if he left creation? I don't know him well enough to keep calling him about this. But can I ask you ... what does it mean to leave creation? Best wishes, Rob - " devianandi " <devi <Realization > Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:02 PM Re: Hello I am new here > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Hi Devi, > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> wrote: > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> > wrote: > > Dear Alton, > > > > Oh I see the problem, I think. > > > > On the one hand, my friend said the Self is the looker but not > > the stuff that the looker is looking at. > > > > On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi said that everything > (both > > the subject and object) is the Self. > > > > Well, first of all, even though I was quoting my friend, he was > > pretty much quoting Sri Ramana. So both these statements > > represent Sri Ramana's point of view. > > > > (For an example of Sri Ramana saying that God is the looker, > > see Papaji's description of how he became Sri Ramana's > > devotee in his autobiography, " Nothing Ever Happened. " ) > > > > Ramana Maharshi addresses this apparent contradiction in > > Talks With Ramana Maharshi, section 25. The basic idea is > that > > the illusion of subject and object can only be transcended by > > focusing exclusively on the apparent subject. In other words, > > in reality, everything is the Self. However, in our ordinary > waking > > consciousness, where we seem to be subjects (lookers) who > are > > seeing stuff (objects), we can only " find " the Self by focusing > our > > attention exclusively on the subject. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Rob > > > Sounds like to much thinking . > > Alak_azam < just another view along the road > devi: it does sound like alot of thinking but at least the thinking is going in the right direction..so alak azam, i would be intersted in know your age and how long you since you realized the Self.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Dear Devi, > > devi: that was very funny rob...i have a question..did > sri ramana speak english? Yes but he didn't do it very often. Here's an account of this by Balaram Reddy, a devotee who knew Sri Ramana: " Bhagavan was familiar with, and had respect for, the classical English works. He had read many English books and would daily read an English newspaper. W. Y. Evans-Wentz had given Bhagavan copies of his published books, and of these books Bhagavan liked best Tibet's Great Yogi, Melarepa. He once requested me to read it. " Although he read and understood English quite well, he rarely spoke it. If people spoke English to him with clear diction and pronunciation he would not have much trouble understanding them. Once he said to me, 'I couldn't understand a word Chadwick said.' Which shows he did fail to understand English at times if not spoken clearly. " Bhagavan was once walking to Palakothu when the American engineer Guy Haig was standing directly in his path, apparently waiting to ask something. I was at the moment approaching from behind, but before I reached there, Haig had asked, " Can I help \others after the attainment of Self-realization? " " To this Bhagavan replied in concise English, 'After the realization of the Self there will be no others to help.' " I quoted this from: http://www.sentient.org/maharshi/janfeb96.htm Best wishes, Rob - " devianandi " <devi <Realization > Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:09 PM Re: Hello I am new here > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Dear Alton, > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " devianandi " <devi@p...> wrote: > Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> > wrote: > > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Alton, > > > > > > Oh I see the problem, I think. > > > > > > On the one hand, my friend said the Self is the looker but not > > > the stuff that the looker is looking at. > > > > > > On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi said that everything > > (both > > > the subject and object) is the Self. > > > > > > Well, first of all, even though I was quoting my friend, he was > > > pretty much quoting Sri Ramana. So both these statements > > > represent Sri Ramana's point of view. > > > > > > (For an example of Sri Ramana saying that God is the looker, > > > see Papaji's description of how he became Sri Ramana's > > > devotee in his autobiography, " Nothing Ever Happened. " ) > > > > > > Ramana Maharshi addresses this apparent contradiction in > > > Talks With Ramana Maharshi, section 25. The basic idea is > > that > > > the illusion of subject and object can only be transcended by > > > focusing exclusively on the apparent subject. In other words, > > > in reality, everything is the Self. However, in our ordinary > > waking > > > consciousness, where we seem to be subjects (lookers) who > > are > > > seeing stuff (objects), we can only " find " the Self by focusing > > our > > > attention exclusively on the subject. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > Sounds like to much thinking . > > > > Alak_azam < just another view along the road > > > devi: it does sound like alot of thinking but at least the thinking > is going in the right direction..so alak azam, i would be intersted in know your age and how long you since you realized the Self.. Does spirit have any age ? Are you speaking of temporal time and form the age of a carcass ? Who is there in the moment of realization ? Who returns ------- illusions fall away. Alak_azam < just another point of view along the road > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 your friend seems a bit high strung... > > Haha, I'd say that's pretty accurate. > > > > ask your friend if he left creation? > > I don't know him well enough to keep calling him > about this. > > But can I ask you ... what does it mean to leave > creation? > > Best wishes, devi: to me it means the same thing as stopping the movie... > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 devi:so alak azam, i would be intersted in knowing your age and how long since you realized the Self.. alak:Does spirit have any age ? devi: do you always answer questions with more quetsion... alak: Are you speaking of temporal time and form the age of a carcass ? devi: what do you think? alak: Who is there in the moment of realization ? devi:whats a who? alak:Who returns ------- illusions fall away. devi: whats a who? devi: again, are you about 20 years old and just got realized a few months ago,,thats my guess... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 your friend seems a bit high strung...> > Haha, I'd say that's pretty accurate. > > > > ask your friend if he left creation? > > I don't know him well enough to keep calling him > about this. > > But can I ask you ... what does it mean to leave> creation?> > Best wishes,devi: to me it means the same thing as stopping the movie... Alton: When the movie stops does that means the one in the audience no longer exists, or does it mean that the consciousness ate up the consciouness? And then what? > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " devianandi " <devi@p...> wrote: > devi:so alak azam, i would be intersted in knowing your age and how long since you realized the Self.. > alak:Does spirit have any age ? > devi: do you always answer questions with more quetsion... Sometimes > alak: Are you speaking of temporal time and form the age of a > carcass ? > > devi: what do you think? Why should I think and what difference would it make ? You seem to like to ask this question a lot . > alak: Who is there in the moment of realization ? > devi:whats a who? What do you think ? > alak:Who returns ------- illusions fall away. > > devi: whats a who? What is it not ? > devi: again, are you about 20 years old and just got realized a few months ago,,thats my guess... BUZZZZ - Chronological age has nothing to do with that which has never been born. How can an age realize anything ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " devianandi " <devi@p...> wrote: > devi:so alak azam, i would be intersted in knowing your age and how > long since you realized the Self.. > > alak:Does spirit have any age ? > > devi: do you always answer questions with more quetsion... > > alak: Are you speaking of temporal time and form the age of a > carcass ? > > devi: what do you think? > > alak: Who is there in the moment of realization ? > > devi:whats a who? > > alak:Who returns ------- illusions fall away. > > devi: whats a who? > > > devi: again, are you about 20 years old and just got realized a few > months ago,,thats my guess... My guess is that they are not realized at all. The language used is too contrived and the manner is too dramatic in a classic book kind of way. Now how many times have you heard me say something like that? My guess is never before. So, why do I say it now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> wrote: > Realization , " devianandi " <devi@p...> wrote: > > devi:so alak azam, i would be intersted in knowing your age and how long since you realized the Self.. > > alak:Does spirit have any age ? > > devi: do you always answer questions with more quetsion... > > alak: Are you speaking of temporal time and form the age of a carcass ? > > devi: what do you think? > > alak: Who is there in the moment of realization ? > > devi:whats a who? > > alak:Who returns ------- illusions fall away. > > devi: whats a who? > > devi: again, are you about 20 years old and just got realized a > few months ago,,thats my guess... > My guess is that they are not realized at all. The language used is too contrived and the manner is too dramatic in a classic book kind of way. Now how many times have you heard me say something like that? My guess is never before. So, why do I say it now? Laughing at the dance which most of the day we spent in quite an amicable discussion elsewhere. Now what was in those museum hands ? Shhhhhhhh it's only an energy pattern. What is one name or in another, one manner of speech versus another ? There is only one which appears as an experience of many . Will see you on the other side where the dance continues as a flow. Alak_azam < just another point of view along the road> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Hi Onniko, Nice to see you here again. > My guess is that they are not realized at all. The language > used is too contrived and the manner is too dramatic in a > classic book kind of way. People apply the word " realized " to themselves very freely in these mail groups. Papaji (H.W.L. Poonja) traveled widely during a long life. When he was an old man he said that during his whole life, he had met only a handful of people who were realized. (He also distinguished between enlightenment and realization. Maybe that distinction would help some people here sort out their state.) Realization is very rare, in the sense that Papaji gave the word. Many people have glimpses (temporary experiences) of nonduality. Many people have experiences of nirvikalpa, kaivalya, sartori, etc. Many people see temporarily that their egos are illusions and that they don't really exist as individuals. But none of this is realization, in the sense that Papaji or his guru Ramana Maharshi used the word. For them, realization is a permanent state. > The language used is too contrived and the manner is too > dramatic in a > classic book kind of way. Yes I agree with you about this as a general principle. People who have really had an experience tend to use original natural language to describe it. I would say that this applies to all experiences. Best wishes, Rob - " Onniko " <onniko <Realization > Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:06 PM Re: Hello I am new here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
