Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Dear Rob: Can a seeker really know who is Realized in that permanent place that you refer to? Shall l rely on your take on who is Realized, who is enlightened and who is not? There seems to be not much agreement on who is in that Final Solution place, except for maybe Ramana and Buddha and a handful of others. If someone claims that Realization, I accept what they claim. What does it really matter to me. If I am fated for that place then that is all I care about. I already received all the teachings and techniques from my two sage teachers, Ramana and Nisargadatta. Devi if I remember said she is Realized. Alak may also be Realized. Both are very humble and nice people. That is all that matters to me. Love from the soon to be peripatetic, Alton - Rob Sacks Realization Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:03 AM Re: Re: Hello I am new here Dear Diana,> Why would making that distinction matter?If somebody says "I had such-and-such an experience," but he or she really didn't, the statement is false. You're askingwhy it matters whether a statement is true or false.It matters for a lot of reasons. One reason, in this case,is that people can end up taking advice and guidance fromgurus who claim falsely to be realized. This can result inexploitation and pain. > Doesn't it lead immediately back to the imposition> of a filter, an assumption that 'truth' appears > in this form, but not that?I'm not sure I follow you here. By "form" do you meanstilted or non-stilted language? The language is just aclue. It doesn't determine whether the statement is trueor false. The truth depends on the underlying facts, notthe language.Best wishes,Rob- "diana_53231" <diana<Realization >Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:43 AM Re: Hello I am new here> Realization , "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:> > Dear Alak,> > > > The point is simply that you can usually tell whether somebody> > has really had an experience from the language they use to > > describe it. > > > > > Why would making that distinction matter?> > Doesn't it lead immediately back to the imposition> of a filter, an assumption that 'truth' appears > in this form, but not that?> > diane> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > 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 Yes, you said exactly what I was thinking. > - > " 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
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> wrote: > 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. Laughing ? I'm not laughing at anything. I'm just giving an honest amicable observation. You are playing a game with the people, here. It's funny to read, but it's not in any way any kind of relating of experience on the way to enlightenment. It's more like a drama with a role in it who is made up of a characature of an enlightened being. 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. You misinterpreted the meaning of the hands. You've never been there so there's no way for you to know. It wasn't symbolism, it was a picture of something that is just as real as physical hands but unseen to physical eyes. It was a surprise to me, too. The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, you are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. > 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, People often get angry at other people who claim falsely to be enlightened. I feel it myself sometimes. An urge to expose and humiliate them. The frauds! And these groups are full of people like that, so there are endless opportunities to work up a good steam over it. But what good would it do? Instead of worrying about the deluded people, it's better to look for people who really do know more than me and try to learn something from them. Now that's an interesting question -- what can be learned? For me, you're a good example. Your experience is a lot deeper than mine and you know more about this stuff. But what can I get from your messages? Something about practice maybe? Your comments (in the past) about your attitude toward thinking when you were young, etc. -- not exactly a formal sadhana, but it suggests maybe what somebody else can do? A lot of people who really know something like to try to describe their insights in words. It comes out sounding like philosophy. Then a lot of people who haven't had this kind of experience read the philosophy and try to imagine what it would feel like to see things that way. I think this probably doesn't do much good for anyone. Best wishes, Rob - " Onniko " <onniko <Realization > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:25 AM Re: Hello I am new here > Yes, you said exactly what I was thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > 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 It is ongoing - abiding - unchangeable - unshakable - without rhyme or measure. It is the stable base and Being from which creation appears to spring from and within being permeated by and sustained with like by-products simply due to it's nature....... Since the language was judged to be *classic* text and stilted did those who write the texts originally only fool themselves ? Where has the judgement arisen from as to how it is spoken of ? Is it the words and way it is said that have the value or is it what is pointed and alluded to? No how eloquent the words or how flowing or stilted they are never that which they can only point in the direction of and dissolve within until only THAT remains . Alak_azam <just one viewpoint along the road> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Dear Alak, The point is simply that you can usually tell whether somebody has really had an experience from the language they use to describe it. The point is not about the thing experienced. Let me give you a sort of neutral example. Suppose I decide to write a description of Cairo even though I've never been there. I could do a pretty good job. I would look at maps, read travel books, maybe see a few movies that were filmed there. I could write a long description of Cairo that was perfectly accurate and filled with truthful information. Now suppose I actually take a trip to Cairo. I spend two weeks' vacation there. Then I write a letter describing my vacation. Two documents. One written by somebody who never saw the place, and the other written by a vacationer who just came back. You don't think you could tell the difference? > Since the language was judged to be *classic* text and stilted > did those who write the texts originally only fool themselves ? The language in classics wasn't stilted when it was new. It becomes stilted because language changes over time, and because translations usually sound slightly unnatural and wooden. Best wishes, Rob - " alak_azam " <alak_azam <Realization > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:06 AM Re: Hello I am new here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> wrote: > Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> > wrote: > > 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. > Laughing ? I'm not laughing at anything. I'm just giving an honest amicable observation. You are playing a game with the people, here. It's funny to read, but it's not in any way any kind of relating of experience on the way to enlightenment. It's more like a drama with a role in it who is made up of a characature of an enlightened being. You have left the laughter for what ? There is nothing amicable in what you are posing here it is being put forth not out of love but judgmentalism. All life is a role and a drama none of it the reality of Being until the illusionary baggage drops and then what remains ? Isn't it the joy of the dance? So what is your role and drama here ? > 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. > You misinterpreted the meaning of the hands. You've never been there so there's no way for you to know. It wasn't symbolism, it was a picture of something that is just as real as physical hands but unseen to physical eyes. It was a surprise to me, too. > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, you > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. How could it be misinterpreted ? Or did you contact the author and have an inside tract on what was being conveyed ? Really in either case it is interpreted according to what the image connects and causes to flow so how can one be right while the other wrong ? > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, you > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. Not at all . From where did this spring ? There are no leaders or followers - if you believe so then just what is this One which you claim to be a knower of ? Why at another site is there harmony and here you judge it to be a competition ? I am not in a competetion with you or anyone for there are no others only particles and aspects of One heart and being . Separation lies only within the mind of relativity which seeks to be special within it's own eyes ---- the mental creation that is not willing to dissolve into the only dance there is . Once dissolved there is not either or it is One body fingers , toes, eyes, wings, leaves, cold, warmth the vastness of it's measure is One. So now how can your statement be made ? We are One there is no You versus I unless you are proposing duality ? It is the greatest mystery and joy the most beautiful IS wrapped up with the bow and experience called creation. > > 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 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Alak, > > The point is simply that you can usually tell whether somebody > has really had an experience from the language they use to > describe it. > Why would making that distinction matter? Doesn't it lead immediately back to the imposition of a filter, an assumption that 'truth' appears in this form, but not that? diane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Dear Diana, > Why would making that distinction matter? If somebody says " I had such-and-such an experience, " but he or she really didn't, the statement is false. You're asking why it matters whether a statement is true or false. It matters for a lot of reasons. One reason, in this case, is that people can end up taking advice and guidance from gurus who claim falsely to be realized. This can result in exploitation and pain. > Doesn't it lead immediately back to the imposition > of a filter, an assumption that 'truth' appears > in this form, but not that? I'm not sure I follow you here. By " form " do you mean stilted or non-stilted language? The language is just a clue. It doesn't determine whether the statement is true or false. The truth depends on the underlying facts, not the language. Best wishes, Rob - " diana_53231 " <diana <Realization > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:43 AM Re: Hello I am new here > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Dear Alak, > > > > The point is simply that you can usually tell whether somebody > > has really had an experience from the language they use to > > describe it. > > > > > Why would making that distinction matter? > > Doesn't it lead immediately back to the imposition > of a filter, an assumption that 'truth' appears > in this form, but not that? > > diane > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Dear Alton, > Can a seeker really know who is Realized in that permanent > place that you refer to? Probably not. And it's even worse than this, because before we can decide who is realized, we have to decide what realization really is. Two questions: A. What is realization? B. Who is realized? You can't answer one without simultaneously answering the other. Somebody who isn't in that state (whatever it is) probably can't answer either. > Shall l rely on your take on who is Realized, who is > enlightened and who is not? Haha Alton, where do you come up with these things. Good luck finding out who I think is realized. > There seems to be not much agreement on who > is in that Final Solution place, except for maybe > Ramana and Buddha and a handful of others. They seem like safe bets, if anybody is. That's why I sort of use them as benchmarks. One proof for me about Sri Ramana is the reactions of people around him. I've read dozens of memoirs by people who knew him personally for years, people who themselves were "realized" by the standards used in these mail groups. If they (people like Sri Muruganar and Papaji) thought he was realized, then he must have been, if anyone has ever been. > If someone claims that Realization, I accept what they > claim. What does it matter to me. Yes but Alton, it doesn't matter to YOU because you're not the type of person who follows gurus. You're ornery and independent. There are other people who do follow gurus and get sucked into cults etc., and for them, it can matter alot. > I already received all the teachings and techniques > from my two sage teachers, Ramana and Nisargadatta Okay, let's keep this in mind while we read the next snip: > Devi if I remember said she is Realized. Alak may > also be Realized. Both are very humble and nice > people. That is all that matters to me. Yeah but you distinguish Sri Ramana and Nisargadatta on the one hand from Devi and Alak on the other -- you regard the first two as your sage teachers. You do make a distinction. So obviously you don't think they are all "realized" in the same way. It's not that simple. Let me put it another way. The distinction matters because we use it for practical purposes, i.e., to decide whether to follow somebody's advice. > Love from the soon to be peripatetic, Have a great trip, Sri Alton. Love, Rob - ESSENTIAL I Realization Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:24 AM Re: Re: Hello I am new here Dear Rob: Can a seeker really know who is Realized in that permanent place that you refer to? Shall l rely on your take on who is Realized, who is enlightened and who is not? There seems to be not much agreement on who is in that Final Solution place, except for maybe Ramana and Buddha and a handful of others. If someone claims that Realization, I accept what they claim. What does it really matter to me. If I am fated for that place then that is all I care about. I already received all the teachings and techniques from my two sage teachers, Ramana and Nisargadatta. Devi if I remember said she is Realized. Alak may also be Realized. Both are very humble and nice people. That is all that matters to me. Love from the soon to be peripatetic, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 > > Devi if I remember said she is Realized. Alak may also be Realized. Both are very humble and nice people. That is all that matters to me.devi: hmm, i wish i had never said that..the saying of it has caused my big problems for the passt 11 months...> > Isn't that the work you needed to do? Did you not attract those "big problems"? Your not playing "victim are you? So are you saying you were unskillful by proclaiming your Realization? You want to change your destiny? May I tell you that all the events in your life and everyone's was cast in stone at birth or before and no changes were or are possible. You are re-enacting the fruits, bitter or sweet of the binary processes. Love, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Onniko, > > People often get angry at other people who claim falsely > to be enlightened. I feel it myself sometimes. An urge to > expose and humiliate them. The frauds! It never occurred to me that saying someone wasn't enlightened would be an insult. I asked Devi why I would say a thing like that, now. I realized that it had nothing to do with realization or enlightenment. It was just an observation that there is a humorous role playing game going on. > And these groups are full of people like that, so there are > endless opportunities to work up a good steam over it. > > But what good would it do? Instead of worrying about > the deluded people, it's better to look for people who really > do know more than me and try to learn something from them. > > Now that's an interesting question -- what can be learned? > > For me, you're a good example. Your experience is a lot > deeper than mine and you know more about this stuff. > > But what can I get from your messages? > > Something about practice maybe? Your comments (in the > past) about your attitude toward thinking when you were > young, etc. -- not exactly a formal sadhana, but it suggests > maybe what somebody else can do? > > A lot of people who really know something like to try to describe > their insights in words. It comes out sounding like philosophy. > Then a lot of people who haven't had this kind of experience read > the philosophy and try to imagine what it would feel like to > see things that way. I think this probably doesn't do much > good for anyone. > > Best wishes, > > Rob > > > - > " Onniko " <onniko> > <Realization > > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:25 AM > Re: Hello I am new here > > > > Yes, you said exactly what I was thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> wrote: > Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> > wrote: > > Realization , " alak_azam " > <alak_azam> > > wrote: > > > 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. > > > Laughing ? I'm not laughing at anything. I'm just giving an > honest amicable observation. You are playing a game with the > people, here. It's funny to read, but it's not in any way any kind of > relating of experience on the way to enlightenment. It's more like > a drama with a role in it who is made up of a characature of an > enlightened being. > > You have left the laughter for what ? There is nothing amicable > in what you are posing here it is being put forth not out of love but > judgmentalism. Well, probably if you see it that way, you feel that being realized is in some way a measure of your self-worth. I don't feel that it is so when I say it, it's just an acknowledgement that living life as a jnani 100% of the time is just as rare that Papaji said it is. But, also, it is true that we all have different moods and will speak in different ways according to the mood. Sometimes, I feel word pictures are the only way to say what I want to say. But, when someone seems to put on a specific costume to fit the subject they're on, it very much does seem like a game. Now, you're being real. The Little Prince is back on the shelf and the red one is reacting more spontaneously. All life is a role and a drama none of it the > reality of Being until the illusionary baggage drops and then what > remains ? Isn't it the joy of the dance? So what is your role and > drama here ? > > > > 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. > > > You misinterpreted the meaning of the hands. You've never > been there so there's no way for you to know. It wasn't > symbolism, it was a picture of something that is just as real as > physical hands but unseen to physical eyes. It was a surprise to > me, too. > > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, you > > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. > > > > How could it be misinterpreted ? Or did you contact the author > and have an inside tract on what was being conveyed ? Really in > either case it is interpreted according to what the image > connects and causes to flow so how can one be right while the > other wrong ? It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real live dog. > > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, you > > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. > > Not at all . From where did this spring ? There are no leaders or > followers - if you believe so then just what is this One which you > claim to be a knower of ? Why at another site is there harmony > and here you judge it to be a competition ? I am not in a > competetion with you or anyone for there are no others only > particles and aspects of One heart and being . Separation lies > only within the mind of relativity which seeks to be special within > it's own eyes ---- the mental creation that is not willing to > dissolve into the only dance there is . Once dissolved there is > not either or it is One body fingers , toes, eyes, wings, leaves, > cold, warmth the vastness of it's measure is One. So now how > can your statement be made ? We are One there is no You > versus I unless you are proposing duality ? It is the greatest > mystery and joy the most beautiful IS wrapped up with the bow > and experience called creation. > > > > > 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 It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real live dog. Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if you had or hadn't. What you might react to, though, is your own silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a difference. Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> wrote: > Realization , " alak_azam " <alak_azam> > wrote: > > Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> > > wrote: > > > Realization , " alak_azam " > > <alak_azam> > > > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > Laughing ? I'm not laughing at anything. I'm just giving an > > honest amicable observation. You are playing a game with the > > people, here. It's funny to read, but it's not in any way any > kind of > > relating of experience on the way to enlightenment. It's more like > > a drama with a role in it who is made up of a characature of an > > enlightened being. > > > > You have left the laughter for what ? There is nothing amicable > > in what you are posing here it is being put forth not out of love > but > > judgmentalism. > > Well, probably if you see it that way, you feel that being realized > is in some way a measure of your self-worth. I don't feel that it is > so when I say it, it's just an acknowledgement that living life as a > jnani 100% of the time is just as rare that Papaji said it is. But, > also, it is true that we all have different moods and will speak in > different ways according to the mood. Sometimes, I feel word > pictures are the only way to say what I want to say. But, when > someone seems to put on a specific costume to fit the subject > they're on, it very much does seem like a game. Now, you're being > real. The Little Prince is back on the shelf and the red one is > reacting more spontaneously. > > All life is a role and a drama none of it the > > reality of Being until the illusionary baggage drops and then what > > remains ? Isn't it the joy of the dance? So what is your role > and > > drama here ? > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > You misinterpreted the meaning of the hands. You've never > > been there so there's no way for you to know. It wasn't > > symbolism, it was a picture of something that is just as real as > > physical hands but unseen to physical eyes. It was a surprise to > > me, too. > > > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, > you > > > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. > > > > > > > > How could it be misinterpreted ? Or did you contact the author > > and have an inside tract on what was being conveyed ? Really in > > either case it is interpreted according to what the image > > connects and causes to flow so how can one be right while the > > other wrong ? > > It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you > had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you > told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like > everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real > live dog. > > > > > > > The dance is always a flow. You aren't talking about a flow, > you > > > are desiring that someone else sings harmony to your lead. > > > > Not at all . From where did this spring ? There are no leaders > or > > followers - if you believe so then just what is this One which you > > claim to be a knower of ? Why at another site is there harmony > > and here you judge it to be a competition ? I am not in a > > competetion with you or anyone for there are no others only > > particles and aspects of One heart and being . Separation lies > > only within the mind of relativity which seeks to be special > within > > it's own eyes ---- the mental creation that is not willing to > > dissolve into the only dance there is . Once dissolved there is > > not either or it is One body fingers , toes, eyes, wings, leaves, > > cold, warmth the vastness of it's measure is One. So now how > > can your statement be made ? We are One there is no You > > versus I unless you are proposing duality ? It is the greatest > > mystery and joy the most beautiful IS wrapped up with the bow > > and experience called creation. > > > > > > > > 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 > Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if > you had or hadn't. People imagine that seeing the dog is a gigantic attainment. They pride themselves on it. It bolsters their ego. Naturally they feel insulted if you say they haven't seen it. > What you might react to, though, is your own > silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a > difference. I think maybe you have to be a jnani to see that there's no difference. The rest of us find it difficult to believe. Except temporarily when we see like jnanis do. - " Onniko " <onniko <Realization > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:35 PM Re: Hello I am new here > It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you > had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you > told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like > everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real > live dog. > > Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if > you had or hadn't. What you might react to, though, is your own > silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a > difference. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 devi: no, i look forward to my destiny and probably your right to a certain extent...Baba Hari Dass says we have the free will of a goat thats tied to a fence with a long rope....smileslove to you alton The goat who God into expression power, created that so called "free will", but cant remember it until he/she gets a human body and comes under the direction and grace of a Realized sage. All here are so fortunate. The rest is a clean up operation. Love, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 onniko: "Without time, there can be no first one or last one". Alton: Happening in parallel innumerable universes that are so close as to almost touch us, there may be "time" equivalents and no "time" equivalents that contain both duality and non-duality simultaneously. To the worst of my knowledge. LOL. ----- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 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 ? devi: i can BUZZZZZZZZZZZ louder and longer than you... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 > 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? devi: the ONE in the audiance ceases to be an audiance becasue theres nothing to watch...then whatever is God's will? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 > > Devi if I remember said she is Realized. Alak may also be Realized. Both are very humble and nice people. That is all that matters to me. devi: hmm, i wish i had never said that..the saying of it has caused my big problems for the passt 11 months... > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Atlon: If someone claims that Realization, I accept what they > claim. What does it matter to me. Rob: Yes but Alton, it doesn't matter to YOU because you're not the type of person who follows gurus. You're ornery and independent. There are other people who do follow gurus and get sucked into cults etc., and for them, it can matter alot. Dear Rob: My wife had a friend that died in Jonesville: That was part of his purification leading toward the LIGHT. So many that I have known were violated by so called false gurus. In fact Roy Horn who is a Ramana devotee was really violated by a guru. He brought Ramana and Nisargadatta to us when we invited him for dinner. Upon reading the first 30 pages of 'I Am That" I got quite a rush. Then I was hooked forever on this path. Whether you were violated by a guru or died in some sort of holocaust, those horrendous events were God's will and actually accelerate our return to the SOURCE. Do you think anything can go wrong with someone's sadhana? Does God makes mistakes. Love and Namaste, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 > 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?devi: the ONE in the audiance ceases to be an audiance becasue theres nothing to watch...then whatever is God's will?The ONE in the audience as long as they are in this world remains both the audience and the knower of the silence. But not while in samadhi. Who can stay in permanent samadhi and be embodied? Ramana said he had thoughts when reading or being asked a question. So even his samadhi was intermittent. OK Rob tell me I am wrong. Aloha, Alton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Onniko " <onniko> wrote: > It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you > had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you > told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like > everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real > live dog. > > Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if > you had or hadn't. What you might react to, though, is your own > silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a > difference. > Why is this causing such a strong reaction ? Does non-dual reality contain points to rub against ? Isn't that friction and friction is only in place and maintained within the cognition of duality where there are two. When a letting go of this division occurs what friction may remain ? If no thoughts ripple the mind as they are are dual in nature and disturb the clarity of stillness, then there is nothing to create other to have friction against . Pure awareness needs no point of reference in which subject object are in competition for there is only One Essense and One Self. Why lose the beauty of this moment in wasteful attempts to find discord ? Why to seek for duality when non-duality is ever present to those who simply do not choose to chase mental fabrications of separation ? Alak_azam < just one view along the road > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " devianandi " <devi@p...> wrote: > 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 ? > > > devi: i can BUZZZZZZZZZZZ louder and longer than you... OK if it makes you happy go for it . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if > > you had or hadn't. > > People imagine that seeing the dog is a gigantic attainment. > They pride themselves on it. It bolsters their ego. Naturally > they feel insulted if you say they haven't seen it. > > > What you might react to, though, is your own > > silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a > > difference. > > I think maybe you have to be a jnani to see that there's > no difference. The rest of us find it difficult to believe. > Except temporarily when we see like jnanis do. Without time, there can be no first one or last one. Without separation, there can be no competition or lack. The human in us feels lonely and yearns for the formless but the formless gives birth to the world, human included, with the joy of creativity. To keep our minds going, we have to do just that: keep them going. The electricity has to dance, the patterns have to keep dividing and subdividing. But, whether they divided once or a kazillion times, they all return in an instant to what they originated from. We can follow the music for a million miles and still, the moment we stop, we're right where we started and not a moment has actually passed. Honest. > - > " Onniko " <onniko> > <Realization > > Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:35 PM > Re: Hello I am new here > > > > It's like this. If you had never seen a dog but I didn't know if you > > had or not and I told you about one that I'd seen, and if then you > > told me " Oh, yes, of course, I know. It is an energy pattern like > > everything else " I would then realize that you'd never seen a real > > live dog. > > > > Would it be insulting if I told you that? No, it doesn't matter if > > you had or hadn't. What you might react to, though, is your own > > silliness about trying to hide that fact as if it did make a > > difference. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
