Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hello Tim, << coresite (Omkara) Hi List, The sages tell us everything is illusion. It contradicts with our daily experience and sometimes creates conflict. Sometimes i think the idea " everything is a dream " or " everything perceivable or conceivable is unreal " is not always a helpful one, especially if this is taken to be some ultimate truth. Words and concepts are useful only as far as loosening attachment to words and concepts! Normally, these ideas are given in order to loosen the hold of the mind and reveal something " beyond the mind. " KKT: Is there really something " beyond the mind " ? -------------------------- Because there is such an obsession or " outward focus " with the things of this world, we are told " it is all illusion, " in order that it could help us develop some dispassion and disinterest in the world so an " apperception " or Realization of something beyond the mind might occur. KKT: Maybe this something beyond the mind is also an illusion ? ----------------------------- Yet strictly speaking, the word " illusion " is not a good translation of " Maya. " As seen here, the world is temporary and passing, and thus not worthy of so much interest (the body dies... so what's the real point of achieving anything? Life is very brief). KKT: The body dies, but the DNA remains :-)) -------------------------- If we " go inward " and remains still, certain things beyond the mind are revealed. KKT: Don't you think that you run after an illusion ? ------------------------- But to cling to the idea " everything is an illusion " beyond the point where such an idea isn't useful anymore, has to be foolish. If everything is an illusion, so is the idea " everything is an illusion. " If everything is a dream, then that idea itself lies within the dream! KKT: Same thing for the idea of something beyond the mind. -------------------------- This is not meant to be a mantra to be repeated or a belief to be clung to, but a helpful " pointer " to something else entirely, something to aid in developing " dispassion " or lessening interest in the world. It isn't something to get stuck with, but it is important to let go of this idea of " illusion " when the time seems right to let go of it. Here is a very beautiful Hindu scripture (the Ashtavakra Gita) i found very helpful in bringing clarity (a wonderful translation as well) -- 'Seen from here', highly recommended reading for anyone on a path based in Advaita Vedanta and the related modern sages (Ramesh, Nisargadatta): http://www.swcp.com/~robicks/gita00.htm KKT: Very beautiful indeed, but don't you think that you hypnotize yourself with such words ? :-)) ------------------------ Outside of the Hindu traditions, there is often much less emphasis on " the world is a dream " or " illusion. " Many Buddhist " Sages " have stated, " Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samsara. " Ultimately, there is no distinction between the two -- the veil hiding Reality is actually 'part of' the Reality. The " point " is that the world or the Universe is really a very small and brief (short-lasting) thing. As long as a duality between " The World " and " Reality " is maintained, that duality will be there. On 'my path', the idea " This is all a dream " has been helpful, but not clung to beyond the point where it wasn't useful. Let intuition be the guide for everyone. Somehow, this seldom-used faculty has to be reawakened. The " Inner Guru " (sometimes called " Grace " ) needs to be discovered and " obeyed. " Formal meditation can be very helpful for some. There has to be more of a demonstration of earnestness or sincerity than just reading some words every day after work or something -- that doesn't cut it. Peace & Freedom, Tim >> Peace, KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Omkara: To say it is a dream I believe just helps me to understand that it is made out of consciousness and passing. For example, when in a night time sleeping dream, all of the objects can be seen as made of consciousness, whereas in this long dream of " reality " it is also made out of consciousness. The way I look at it is it is shakti. Shiva is the subject and Shakti the object, yet they are one. Shiva doesn't change, shakti takes on forms. Yet Shiva and Shakti are one. Does anyone else see it this way? Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 KKT: Is there really something " beyond the mind " ? -------------------------- D: No. Nor is there a mind for something to be beyond or within. KKT: Maybe this something beyond the mind is also an illusion ? D: Any conceptuality taken as reality becomes illusion. The nonconceptual, which is not the word or idea " nonconceptual " is real. And that is all that is. Words have meaning within the realm of word-games. Beyond games is reality, necessarily beyond the concept " beyond concepts. " " This statement cannot give you truth. " KKT: The body dies, but the DNA remains :-)) -------------------------- D: The reality of " the body " is not conceptual. The concepts of birth, death, DNA apply to the conceptual body. One could as easily say, " the reality of 'birth' is not conceptual. The concepts of death, the body, and DNA apply to the conceptuality of 'birth.' " And so on .... If we " go inward " and remains still, certain things beyond the mind are revealed. KKT: Don't you think that you run after an illusion ? D: Yes. That's all it can be. And if so, then, the thought that " I run after an illusion " -- is that not an illusion? And the thought that this thought is an illusion, is that not the height of illusion? Yet, when reality *is*, no illusion is possible. And, reality *is.* This is the height of paradox and utmost simplicity. KKT: Very beautiful indeed, but don't you think that you hypnotize yourself with such words ? :-)) ------------------------ D: Yes. And so with any words taken as if they are realities. Including words such as " you hypnotize yourself. " Very hypnotic words, KKT ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 At 12:12 PM 6/14/01 -0400, you wrote: Paul, I really don't mean this to sound as parrot-like as I'm sure it will, but who (or what) is that can HAVE an ego? In my woefully " endarkened " condition, I certainly feel like I am an ego. Steve " consciousness " identified with the thought construct " me " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Steve: You got me! I really don't know. I think I have an ego... It often sure feels like I do, especially when people are so mean to me... and I think I am my ego and that maybe is the problem... I guess I want a no ego ego... LOL What about the Atman... can't the Atman have an ego? learning from you, Paul there's no *real* ego, only misidentification. what is real has erroneously split itself into real and unreal portions (also inner and outer, self and object). taking this split as true, it identifies one aspect " consciousness " or " I " with the other " object, body, me " with no split, no identification can occur, there is no ego, and nothing to identify with ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hi Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > what is real has erroneously > split itself into real > and unreal portions (also > inner and outer, self and object). Reality makes errors? <grin>... Just teasing ;-). But could Reality talk Reality out of its mistake? i wonder if that's what is happening here :-). Laughter & Humor, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hi Tim! Hi Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > what is real has erroneously > split itself into real > and unreal portions (also > inner and outer, self and object). Reality makes errors? <grin>... Just teasing ;-). Cute! And actually, that's true isn't it? It's errors are non-errors, because *it* is, and nothing else. But could Reality talk Reality out of its mistake? i wonder if that's what is happening here :-). Yes! Laughing, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Hi Skye, Well put. -mort Nisargadatta, " skye chambers " <skyechambers@b...> wrote: > KKT: The body dies, > but the DNA remains :-)) > > But both the body and DNA are made of the same constituents which just break down, change form and remain a part of eternal life. Death means nothing to the body. Only human thought gives meaning to death because it perceives form and not its sub-stance. It ignores the fact that the electrical component of thought is inseparable from life. Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all sorts of impossible things. > > Skye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all sorts of impossible things. Skye --------------------- Thought is " dead " . In the sense all thought is of the " past " . It doesn't see anything. It is just a spontaneous reactions to past conditioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all > sorts of impossible things. Skye > > --------------------- > > Thought is " dead " . > In the sense all thought is of the " past " . > It doesn't see anything. > > It is just a spontaneous reactions > to past conditioning. > ***** Yes, it doesn't " see " it, it *is* it. There is no separation folks. You *are* what you think! -- Happy Days, Judi http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm TheEndOfTheRopeRanch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Judi wrote: > > elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > > > Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all > > sorts of impossible things. Skye > > > > --------------------- > > > > Thought is " dead " . > > In the sense all thought is of the " past " . > > It doesn't see anything. > > > > It is just a spontaneous reactions > > to past conditioning. > > > ***** > Yes, it doesn't " see " it, it *is* it. > > There is no separation folks. > > You *are* what you think! > ****** Can you say " mind prison " boys and girls? :-) -- Happy Days, Judi http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm TheEndOfTheRopeRanch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 > > Thought is " dead " . > > In the sense all thought is of the " past " . > > It doesn't see anything. > > > > It is just a spontaneous reactions > > to past conditioning. El ------- > Yes, it doesn't " see " it, it *is* it. > > There is no separation folks. > > You *are* what you think! Judi ------- Ya. A spontaneous reaction to past conditioning. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 At 11:05 AM 6/15/2001, you wrote: > > > Thought is " dead " . > > > In the sense all thought is of the " past " . > > > It doesn't see anything. > > > > > > It is just a spontaneous reactions > > > to past conditioning. >El >------- > > Yes, it doesn't " see " it, it *is* it. > > > > There is no separation folks. > > > > You *are* what you think! >Judi > >------- >Ya. >A spontaneous reaction to past conditioning. > >El Hi Judi and El: Is thinking that thought is a spontaneous reaction to past conditioning, a spontaneous reaction to past conditioning? Just kidding, of course.......:-)), Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Nisargadatta, Michael Johnson <michael@p...> wrote: > At 11:05 AM 6/15/2001, you wrote: > > > > > Thought is " dead " . > > > > In the sense all thought is of the " past " . > > > > It doesn't see anything. > > > > > > > > It is just a spontaneous reactions > > > > to past conditioning. > >El > >------- > > > Yes, it doesn't " see " it, it *is* it. > > > > > > There is no separation folks. > > > > > > You *are* what you think! > >Judi > > > >------- > >Ya. > >A spontaneous reaction to past conditioning. > > > >El > > Hi Judi and El: > > Is thinking that thought is a > spontaneous reaction to past conditioning, > a spontaneous reaction to past conditioning? > > Just kidding, of course.......:-)), > > Michael ------------- Michael, actually yes. But I don't claim it as my own, and make a " me " out of it. No suffering the fires of hell here. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > ****** Can you say " mind prison " boys and girls? :-) " Mind Prison. " -mort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > > You *are* what you think! The " unreal illusory sensory you " that is. -mort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 mortivan wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > > > > You *are* what you think! > > The " unreal illusory sensory you " that is. > > -mort > ***** No, I'm real alright. And so are you, and so is everything else. Look again. Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all sorts of impossible things. Skye --------------------- Thought is " dead " . In the sense all thought is of the " past " . It doesn't see anything. Quite so. It is just a spontaneous reactions to past conditioning. The past conditioning is the thought, to which thought tends to believe itself to be reacting. Thought is a spontaneously appearing self-referencing construction, in which a " reactor " and a " reacted to " are set up as an aspect of conditioning. Yes, it is repetition of conditioning that has nothing to do with " what is, " except that without " what is, " no thought would appear as thought. And yes, the conditioning always pertains to what is already past and thus what is not and has not truly been. What truly has been, *is.* And what *is* is not past, present, or future. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Judi wrote: > > mortivan wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > > > > > > You *are* what you think! > > > > The " unreal illusory sensory you " that is. > > > > -mort > > > ***** No, I'm real alright. And so are you, and so is everything else. > Look again. > > Judi > ***** " Incomparable " in other words. -- Happy Days, Judi http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm TheEndOfTheRopeRanch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Hi Judi and El: Is thinking that thought is a spontaneous reaction to past conditioning, a spontaneous reaction to past conditioning? Just kidding, of course.......:-)), Michael Yes, indeed! And so, thought can't really catch itself, anymore than " I " can catch " myself. " Stillness. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 At 10:37 AM 6/15/01 -0700, you wrote: Hi KKT, KKT: The body dies, but the DNA remains :-)) But both the body and DNA are made of the same constituents which just break down, change form and remain a part of eternal life. Death means nothing to the body. Only human thought gives meaning to death because it perceives form and not its sub-stance. It ignores the fact that the electrical component of thought is inseparable from life. Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all sorts of impossible things. Skye Quite true. And ... Eternal life has no parts. The idea of constituents that break down and change form is also " human thought. " Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Hi KKT, KKT: The body dies,but the DNA remains :-)) But both the body and DNA are made of the same constituents which just break down, change form and remain a part of eternal life. Death means nothing to the body. Only human thought gives meaning to death because it perceives form and not its sub-stance. It ignores the fact that the electrical component of thought is inseparable from life. Human thought sees comings and goings, and imagines all sorts of impossible things. Skye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 With eyes that are unreal? Besides, who is there to look again? -mort Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > ***** No, I'm real alright. And so are you, and so is everything else. > Look again. > > Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 mortivan wrote: > > With eyes that are unreal? **** No, you're eyes are real sweetie. Very real. Besides, who is there to look again? > **** It's just a matter of looking with your heart's eyes. That's all. You really don't have to think about anything, just look. If you want to look at something, look into these baby blues. :-) It's a " knack " . That's all it is. Judi > -mort > > Nisargadatta, Judi <judirhodes@e...> wrote: > > > ***** No, I'm real alright. And so are you, and so is everything > else. > > Look again. > > > > Judi > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Judi wrote: > > mortivan wrote: > > > > With eyes that are unreal? > > **** No, you're eyes are real sweetie. Very real. > > Besides, who is there to look again? > > > **** It's just a matter of looking with your heart's eyes. That's all. > You really don't have to think about anything, just look. If you want > to > look > at something, look into these baby blues. :-) It's a " knack " . That's > all > it is. > > Judi > ****** It's all in the " wrist " Mort. :-) Get my drift? :-)) Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.