TO TIM-----FRIENDS......C&A 6-30-81

[Guest guest]

Tim " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

>

> Certainly... yet who's to judge anyone... there are those

sneaking

> around who are not at all what they appear ;-). Nisargadatta

said so

> himself in 'I Am That'... " Rarely will a realized one make himself

> known to you, and then only for your abiding welfare " (very

loosely

> paraphrased).

 

--------------

 

Tim,

the Jnani's Worldly Life

is the Total Functioning.

 

Whether the name and

shape goes public or not,

or trips in and out of

varrying situations,

under various disguises,

is not a choice...

 

 

 

As I told Hur sometime back.

The higher up you go,

the clearer you see what

Maharaj said and was pointing at,

what he didn't say and wasn't

pointing at........

what is a confused mix of both,

due to translators etc.,

what is taken out of contenxt

(by readers and listeners on

the spot also) from

the back and forth conversation

he was having with someone

at the time.

 

And you also see how he was

a Buddha who grew over his lifetime,

rather than shrink.

 

This is my experience with Maharaj.

 

 

And by the way, I am not telling you

anything you don't well already know.

 

 

El

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Elizabeth,

 

Nisargadatta, elizabethwells2001 wrote:

>the Jnani's Worldly Life

>is the Total Functioning.

>

> Whether the name and

> shape goes public or not,

> or trips in and out of

> varrying situations,

> under various disguises,

> is not a choice...

 

Yes, but this applies to 'everyone' ... the Jnani is aware of this

functioning as such, that's all. The total functioning is the total

functioning -- again, not to be confused with 7 billion

(human) " total functionings " walking and talking, all separate

somehow.

 

There is only the total functioning, and it is choiceless. Jnani or

no Jnani, it makes no difference. If there were not a single " Jnani "

(definition: a conceptual 'entity' assumed 'superior') the fact

remains.

 

> And you also see how he was

> a Buddha who grew over his lifetime,

> rather than shrink.

 

I see him responding spontaneously to situations, and influenced also

by the expectations of the culture he lived in. In India, a " Buddha "

is expected to " grow, " thus the appearance is such. In the West,

typically a " Buddha " is expected to " shrink, " thus this is the

appearance. Admittedly this is a generalization -- it depends, also,

if the " Buddha " is going to be doing any formal teaching :-).

 

Nothing is really happening, but situations spinning apparent dream-

universes out of nothing and nowhere.

 

> And by the way, I am not telling you

> anything you don't well already know.

 

Namaste... thank you for telling me ;-).

 

Love,

 

Tim (Omkara)