Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Sri Ramana once said to Madahva, his attendant, " I am not real Madhava! " Bhagavan often pointed out that if we take Ramana to be the body, it is a mistake. Ramana is the Heart, the Self which is of the nature of consciousness, Existence, Bliss. It is the Bliss which is Self-Knowing, Self-Aware and free from sorrows. It is found in One's Own Self and not anywhere else. What is illusion? It must be something that stems from Reality. What is individuality? It is that which arises from the Self. So no need for resistance and no need to despise the mind or the ego or individuality for its limitations and weaknesses. It is simply the nature of things. If we understand the nature of things and are accepting of our divinity and humanity as equally natural then we do not create artificial barriers in our mind. Becoming gentle, both with ourselves and with others, or at least having that perspective of gentleness, allows us not to contend. A victory that is costly to others is not a victory. Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. A wave that rises high seems like it has become separate from the ocean but in fact always has its foundation and home in the ocean. The nature of water in the wave and ocean is the same. A wave rises high and appears to become separate. The fear is in the separation, in the individual becoming separate from the whole. Then after some time the wave merges back. It is in that merging where the wave has started to fall back on the ocean that the wave realizes the Truth. I am the Ocean! I have always been the Ocean! Similarly, the essence of the individuality and the Self are the same. Mind rises from the Heart but is never separate from it. It is always supported by the Heart and the essence of the Heart permeates it as consciousness. Individuality rises from the Self and subsides back into it. On the merging of the mind in the Heart arises a Self - Knowing which has always been present as the undercurrent but now manifests to itself in full and overwhelming force. Then the mind and the Heart become One and this Knowing Knows It Self fully and completely as the Self. The One without a second. /join Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: <<blather snipped>> > Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > ************ Hey Harsha, why is it you think you're so obsessed with nonviolence? Eh? Put that through the ol' spin cycle and see what you get. I mean, how stupid do you think we are? Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > Sri Ramana once said to Madahva, his attendant, " I am not real Madhava! " > Bhagavan often pointed out that if we take Ramana to be the body, it is > a mistake. Ramana is the Heart, the Self which is of the nature of > consciousness, Existence, Bliss. It is the Bliss which is Self- Knowing, > Self-Aware and free from sorrows. It is found in One's Own Self and not > anywhere else. What is illusion? It must be something that stems from > Reality. What is individuality? It is that which arises from the Self. > So no need for resistance and no need to despise the mind or the ego or > individuality for its limitations and weaknesses. It is simply the > nature of things. If we understand the nature of things and are > accepting of our divinity and humanity as equally natural then we do not > create artificial barriers in our mind. Becoming gentle, both with > ourselves and with others, or at least having that perspective of > gentleness, allows us not to contend. A victory that is costly to others > is not a victory. Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > A wave that rises high seems like it has become separate from the ocean > but in fact always has its foundation and home in the ocean. The nature > of water in the wave and ocean is the same. A wave rises high and > appears to become separate. The fear is in the separation, in the > individual becoming separate from the whole. Then after some time the > wave merges back. It is in that merging where the wave has started to > fall back on the ocean that the wave realizes the Truth. I am the Ocean! > I have always been the Ocean! Similarly, the essence of the > individuality and the Self are the same. Mind rises from the Heart but > is never separate from it. It is always supported by the Heart and the > essence of the Heart permeates it as consciousness. Individuality rises > from the Self and subsides back into it. On the merging of the mind in > the Heart arises a Self - Knowing which has always been present as the > undercurrent but now manifests to itself in full and overwhelming > force. Then the mind and the Heart become One and this Knowing Knows It > Self fully and completely as the Self. The One without a second. > > > /join > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > Sri Ramana once said to Madahva, his attendant, " I am not real Madhava! " > Bhagavan often pointed out that if we take Ramana to be the body, it is > a mistake. Ramana is the Heart, the Self which is of the nature of > consciousness, Existence, Bliss. It is the Bliss which is Self- Knowing, > Self-Aware and free from sorrows. It is found in One's Own Self and not > anywhere else. What is illusion? It must be something that stems from > Reality. What is individuality? It is that which arises from the Self. > So no need for resistance and no need to despise the mind or the ego or > individuality for its limitations and weaknesses. It is simply the > nature of things. If we understand the nature of things and are > accepting of our divinity and humanity as equally natural then we do not > create artificial barriers in our mind. Becoming gentle, both with > ourselves and with others, or at least having that perspective of > gentleness, allows us not to contend. A victory that is costly to others > is not a victory. Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > A wave that rises high seems like it has become separate from the ocean > but in fact always has its foundation and home in the ocean. The nature > of water in the wave and ocean is the same. A wave rises high and > appears to become separate. The fear is in the separation, in the > individual becoming separate from the whole. Then after some time the > wave merges back. It is in that merging where the wave has started to > fall back on the ocean that the wave realizes the Truth. I am the Ocean! > I have always been the Ocean! Similarly, the essence of the > individuality and the Self are the same. Mind rises from the Heart but > is never separate from it. It is always supported by the Heart and the > essence of the Heart permeates it as consciousness. Individuality rises > from the Self and subsides back into it. On the merging of the mind in > the Heart arises a Self - Knowing which has always been present as the > undercurrent but now manifests to itself in full and overwhelming > force. Then the mind and the Heart become One and this Knowing Knows It > Self fully and completely as the Self. The One without a second. > > > /join > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 > Fri, 06 May 2005 13:12:18 -0000 > " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes >Re: More on the Essential Teaching > >Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > ><<blather snipped>> > > > Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > > > >************ >Hey Harsha, why is it you think you're so obsessed with nonviolence? > maybe because nonviolence is not an important teaching. maybe because it is just another ego trip to teach it. the people who have taught nonviolence have often inflicted a lot of psychological violence on others. (in reference to indian history). " do as i say " , " i know more than you " ... these are just more ego trips. " all this " works fine by itself. if i kept my mouth shut, nobody would miss a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemant bhai " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > > Fri, 06 May 2005 13:12:18 -0000 > > " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...> > >Re: More on the Essential Teaching > > > >Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > ><<blather snipped>> > > > > > Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > > > > > > >************ > >Hey Harsha, why is it you think you're so obsessed with nonviolence? > > > > maybe because nonviolence is not an important teaching. > > maybe because it is just another ego trip to teach it. > > the people who have taught nonviolence have often inflicted a > lot of psychological violence on others. (in reference to indian history). > > " do as i say " , " i know more than you " ... these are just more ego trips. > > " all this " works fine by itself. if i kept my mouth shut, nobody would miss > a thing. ********** Yes, deceitfully violent men are obsessed with non-violence. Underneath all that sugar and spice, passive agressiveness, lurks a monster with sharp teeth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Maybe one of these days we'll get to see the real Harsha. Won't THAT be fun? :-) Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemant bhai " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > > Fri, 06 May 2005 13:12:18 -0000 > > " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...> > >Re: More on the Essential Teaching > > > >Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > ><<blather snipped>> > > > > > Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > > > > > > >************ > >Hey Harsha, why is it you think you're so obsessed with nonviolence? > > > > maybe because nonviolence is not an important teaching. > > maybe because it is just another ego trip to teach it. > > the people who have taught nonviolence have often inflicted a > lot of psychological violence on others. (in reference to indian history). > > " do as i say " , " i know more than you " ... these are just more ego trips. > > " all this " works fine by itself. if i kept my mouth shut, nobody would miss > a thing. devi: harshaji is right...the Purusha/Self/Atman/the Supreme (as sri niz would say) is the ultimate form of non-violence..where does your negativity come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. Lewis: So it can be. If it is allowed, Harsha, it would serve many here, those actively posting and those not active, to participate in a dialog with an expression of the Self that does not assume an " image " that is usually used in communication. This would entail not speaking of the Self as an object of thought. For example, " Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence " is an object of thought. Instead, direct communicative discourse can be used. In this way, Self speaks directly and does not make an " object " of Itself for human consumption. a process that can be very misleading, especially for the literal-minded. This discursive process usually involves the casting of various thought objects to and fro, performances of accepting and rejecting, unraveling and discarding, forming and defending. This process can and does become adversarial and oppositional for all the reasons that that happens. It can go other ways, less adversarial atr least, if thought objects such the examples given are not used. The Self is spoken of well in your assuming, that is, as " Harsha presenting. " Is it possible to forego " Harsha presenting " and to speak directly without reference to Self as an object of thought? This request assumes Self is Heart is Harsha. If this is so, cannot direct speech be given without objectivication? If this is not so, can it be admitted that there is no Self-Realization and that what has been presented is well learned knowledge and that Harsha indeed is still a wave on the way up and not one with ocean, that Harsha is on the way to that which is spoken about? I do not think of a Self or consider the Self as an object of thought. I do not conceptualize a Self in any manner. The concept is understood not only as a concept, as an intellectual object. There is also no concern for the veracity of the concept of Self for that is wholly unecessary. It is insignificant. What needs to be proved? What could be proved or argued about? But as a service, speak without assuming an identity if that is possible so that a dialog can ensue that is above the objectivication of Self. Please speak as Self without objectivication of Self. Topics that have engaged many here and elsewhere is on the nature of and experience of phenomena, the nature and experience of illusion and the waking dream, doership and no-doership, and realization and awakening. How about speaking directly on any of these or another chosen. Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > Lewis: So it can be. If it is allowed, Harsha, it would serve many > here, those actively posting and those not active, to participate in a > dialog with an expression of the Self that does not assume an " image " > that is usually used in communication. This would entail not speaking > of the Self as an object of thought. For example, " Self is the > ultimate form of nonviolence " is an object of thought. Instead, direct > communicative discourse can be used. In this way, Self speaks directly > and does not make an " object " of Itself for human consumption. a > process that can be very misleading, especially for the > literal-minded. This discursive process usually involves the casting > of various thought objects to and fro, performances of accepting and > rejecting, unraveling and discarding, forming and defending. This > process can and does become adversarial and oppositional for all the > reasons that that happens. It can go other ways, less adversarial atr > least, if thought objects such the examples given are not used. > > The Self is spoken of well in your assuming, that is, as " Harsha > presenting. " Is it possible to forego " Harsha presenting " and to speak > directly without reference to Self as an object of thought? This > request assumes Self is Heart is Harsha. If this is so, cannot direct > speech be given without objectivication? If this is not so, can it be > admitted that there is no Self-Realization and that what has been > presented is well learned knowledge and that Harsha indeed is still a > wave on the way up and not one with ocean, that Harsha is on the way > to that which is spoken about? > > I do not think of a Self or consider the Self as an object of thought. > I do not conceptualize a Self in any manner. The concept is understood > not only as a concept, as an intellectual object. There is also no > concern for the veracity of the concept of Self for that is wholly > unecessary. It is insignificant. What needs to be proved? What could > be proved or argued about? But as a service, speak without assuming > an identity if that is possible so that a dialog can ensue that is > above the objectivication of Self. Please speak as Self without > objectivication of Self. > > Topics that have engaged many here and elsewhere is on the nature of > and experience of phenomena, the nature and experience of illusion and > the waking dream, doership and no-doership, and realization and > awakening. How about speaking directly on any of these or another chosen. > > Love, > > Lewis devi: be real with me lewis....have you realized the Self in its real form...in the highest samadhi...(Self not really having form) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > > > Lewis: So it can be. If it is allowed, Harsha, it would serve many > > here, those actively posting and those not active, to participate > in a > > dialog with an expression of the Self that does not assume > an " image " > > that is usually used in communication. This would entail not > speaking > > of the Self as an object of thought. For example, " Self is the > > ultimate form of nonviolence " is an object of thought. Instead, > direct > > communicative discourse can be used. In this way, Self speaks > directly > > and does not make an " object " of Itself for human consumption. a > > process that can be very misleading, especially for the > > literal-minded. This discursive process usually involves the > casting > > of various thought objects to and fro, performances of accepting > and > > rejecting, unraveling and discarding, forming and defending. This > > process can and does become adversarial and oppositional for all > the > > reasons that that happens. It can go other ways, less adversarial > atr > > least, if thought objects such the examples given are not used. > > > > The Self is spoken of well in your assuming, that is, as " Harsha > > presenting. " Is it possible to forego " Harsha presenting " and to > speak > > directly without reference to Self as an object of thought? This > > request assumes Self is Heart is Harsha. If this is so, cannot > direct > > speech be given without objectivication? If this is not so, can it > be > > admitted that there is no Self-Realization and that what has been > > presented is well learned knowledge and that Harsha indeed is > still a > > wave on the way up and not one with ocean, that Harsha is on the > way > > to that which is spoken about? > > > > I do not think of a Self or consider the Self as an object of > thought. > > I do not conceptualize a Self in any manner. The concept is > understood > > not only as a concept, as an intellectual object. There is also no > > concern for the veracity of the concept of Self for that is wholly > > unecessary. It is insignificant. What needs to be proved? What > could > > be proved or argued about? But as a service, speak without > assuming > > an identity if that is possible so that a dialog can ensue that is > > above the objectivication of Self. Please speak as Self without > > objectivication of Self. > > > > Topics that have engaged many here and elsewhere is on the nature > of > > and experience of phenomena, the nature and experience of illusion > and > > the waking dream, doership and no-doership, and realization and > > awakening. How about speaking directly on any of these or another > chosen. > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > devi: be real with me lewis....have you realized the Self in its > real form...in the highest samadhi...(Self not really having form) devi: never mind, what a dumb question, of course you haven't. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Dear Lewis, Thanks for taking the time to write. You are so eloquent but also complex and a little hard for me to understand. I am not sure what you would have me do. But you should do that which is good and natural for you. May your life be a blessing to those around you. Love, Harsha Lewis Burgess wrote: > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > Lewis: So it can be. If it is allowed, Harsha, it would serve many > here, those actively posting and those not active, to participate in a > dialog with an expression of the Self that does not assume an " image " > that is usually used in communication. This would entail not speaking > of the Self as an object of thought. For example, " Self is the > ultimate form of nonviolence " is an object of thought. Instead, direct > communicative discourse can be used. In this way, Self speaks directly > and does not make an " object " of Itself for human consumption. a > process that can be very misleading, especially for the > literal-minded. This discursive process usually involves the casting > of various thought objects to and fro, performances of accepting and > rejecting, unraveling and discarding, forming and defending. This > process can and does become adversarial and oppositional for all the > reasons that that happens. It can go other ways, less adversarial atr > least, if thought objects such the examples given are not used. > > The Self is spoken of well in your assuming, that is, as " Harsha > presenting. " Is it possible to forego " Harsha presenting " and to speak > directly without reference to Self as an object of thought? This > request assumes Self is Heart is Harsha. If this is so, cannot direct > speech be given without objectivication? If this is not so, can it be > admitted that there is no Self-Realization and that what has been > presented is well learned knowledge and that Harsha indeed is still a > wave on the way up and not one with ocean, that Harsha is on the way > to that which is spoken about? > > I do not think of a Self or consider the Self as an object of thought. > I do not conceptualize a Self in any manner. The concept is understood > not only as a concept, as an intellectual object. There is also no > concern for the veracity of the concept of Self for that is wholly > unecessary. It is insignificant. What needs to be proved? What could > be proved or argued about? But as a service, speak without assuming > an identity if that is possible so that a dialog can ensue that is > above the objectivication of Self. Please speak as Self without > objectivication of Self. > > Topics that have engaged many here and elsewhere is on the nature of > and experience of phenomena, the nature and experience of illusion and > the waking dream, doership and no-doership, and realization and > awakening. How about speaking directly on any of these or another chosen. > > Love, > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > devi: be real with me lewis....have you realized the Self in its > > real form...in the highest samadhi...(Self not really having form) > > devi: never mind, what a dumb question, of course you haven't. :-) Hi devi, Yes, that is correct. It always seemed that what cannot ever be conceived and what cannot ever possibly be known with the intellect also cannot ever be realized.... You have said clearly that you are Self-realized. I do not doubt your word. Perhaps you could answer as was requested Harsha on any of the topics mentioned above or one of your own choosing, avoiding, if possible objectivication of the Self in conversation. I enjoyed your conversations with fuzzie about Ramana's seven stages presented in " Spiritual Instruction " pointing out that Self-realization is number four. Liberation or transcendence is stage seven. The seven jnana bhoomikas are listed below: 1. subheccha (the desire for enlightenment). 2. vicharana (enquiry). 3. tanumanasa (tenuous mind). 4. satwapatti (self-realization). 5. asamsakti (non-attachment). 6. padarthabhavana (non-perception of objects). 7. turyaga (transcendence). If you engage any topic offered or a different one, there will be no disparagement of what is discussed. The topic will be pursued respectfully. For example, after self-realization there is non-attachment. How does one go about that? This is a good topic rarely discussed. Would it be possible to have a dialogue on this? Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > Dear Lewis, > > Thanks for taking the time to write. You are so eloquent but also > complex and a little hard for me to understand. I am not sure what you > would have me do. But you should do that which is good and natural for you. > > May your life be a blessing to those around you. > > Love, > Harsha Hi Harsha, The request was to have dialogue about the mentioned topics or others selected with Harsha as Self, not to " Harsha presenting " Self as a universalized thought object. This is " natural and good " as it goes at the moment. ~~~~~~~~~~~ More complications below. The request was to engage in a discourse without objectifying the Self, speaking of the Self as object. The Self spoken of in Advaita Vedanta is not an object of thought. Yet it is spoken of, referred to in that way. The Self is....., realize the Self, and so on. I assume that Harsha is Self and capable of speaking, writing without referring to a thought object that cannot equal that capacity to write. It is similar to assuming that a typed word - " me " - is equivalent to that which writes the word " me, " which is clearly not the case. The word " me " is not " me, " the capacity to write. Anything may be done to that word or any word written and it does not change in any way the capacity to write the word. For example, there is an indescribable undergoing /in/are/of X (i.e. Self-Realization). In in trying to explain the indescribable undergoing X, there is a the turning of " it " into an " experience " (an abstraction). Then there is an extraction out of that " experience " certain thoughts and concepts - X1 X2 X3 Xn.. These are then formed and further refined and expressed as " universalized thought objects " used in discourse, for example, " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /Heart /I AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/ " and " processes and stages of realization " of these. There is a great deal of abstraction and conceptualizing that is far removed for the indescribable undergoing as it was/is. There is enormous energy put into realizing " empty " concepts whose content is imagined. Also, such metaphors are employed in various ways trying to convey at great remove the indescribable undergoing X. As this is done, a universalization occurs. A specific individualis undergoing X in a specific uphadi/mind/body complex/appearance in a certain cultural milieu and this individual undergoing X is then universalized, made generally understandable and in most cases absolutely vague or enormously complex. So in the end it is usually imagination that takes over in the play with these " thought objects. " Ramana becomes something completely imagined. Is this necessary? One way to avoid this is to move steps backwards in this production of thought objects, moving back to the individual appearance and away from univeral objectification and then to communicate. If objectivication of Self and similar universalized or complicated thought objects are not presented in communication can proceed perhaps more fruitfully, less abstractly. Perhaps, the simple sentences - I AM. and I am Self-Realized. - are perhaps the most complicated statements one can make in a forum like this because of the enormous and oftimes hidden load of conceptual baggage that is necessary to sustain it. Love, Lewis > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. > > > > Lewis: So it can be. If it is allowed, Harsha, it would serve many > > here, those actively posting and those not active, to participate in a > > dialog with an expression of the Self that does not assume an " image " > > that is usually used in communication. This would entail not speaking > > of the Self as an object of thought. For example, " Self is the > > ultimate form of nonviolence " is an object of thought. Instead, direct > > communicative discourse can be used. In this way, Self speaks directly > > and does not make an " object " of Itself for human consumption. a > > process that can be very misleading, especially for the > > literal-minded. This discursive process usually involves the casting > > of various thought objects to and fro, performances of accepting and > > rejecting, unraveling and discarding, forming and defending. This > > process can and does become adversarial and oppositional for all the > > reasons that that happens. It can go other ways, less adversarial atr > > least, if thought objects such the examples given are not used. > > > > The Self is spoken of well in your assuming, that is, as " Harsha > > presenting. " Is it possible to forego " Harsha presenting " and to speak > > directly without reference to Self as an object of thought? This > > request assumes Self is Heart is Harsha. If this is so, cannot direct > > speech be given without objectivication? If this is not so, can it be > > admitted that there is no Self-Realization and that what has been > > presented is well learned knowledge and that Harsha indeed is still a > > wave on the way up and not one with ocean, that Harsha is on the way > > to that which is spoken about? > > > > I do not think of a Self or consider the Self as an object of thought. > > I do not conceptualize a Self in any manner. The concept is understood > > not only as a concept, as an intellectual object. There is also no > > concern for the veracity of the concept of Self for that is wholly > > unecessary. It is insignificant. What needs to be proved? What could > > be proved or argued about? But as a service, speak without assuming > > an identity if that is possible so that a dialog can ensue that is > > above the objectivication of Self. Please speak as Self without > > objectivication of Self. > > > > Topics that have engaged many here and elsewhere is on the nature of > > and experience of phenomena, the nature and experience of illusion and > > the waking dream, doership and no-doership, and realization and > > awakening. How about speaking directly on any of these or another chosen. > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Perhaps you could answer as was requested Harsha on any of the > topics mentioned above or one of your own choosing, avoiding, if > possible objectivication of the Self in conversation. devi: the Self doesn't speak..to the Self,,nothing ever happens, nothing is happening and nothing will ever happen... the Self is all Alone located nowhere that can be pointed to...complete non-duality..Isolated Mokshaed Eternally in the HIghest Samadhi..no creation..no others..nirguna brahman.... so that *speaking directly from the Self* .....is not possible... the only speaking that happens is through the funtion of a mouth...and a mind...an ego and I Am...working together... lewis:I enjoyed your conversations with fuzzie about Ramana's seven stages presented in " Spiritual Instruction " pointing out that Self- realization is number four. Liberation or transcendence is stage seven. The seven jnana bhoomikas are listed below: devi: yes, i would have liked to pick through fuzzi more but he didn't seem to be open to it... as for developing non-attachment..if your not born with it it takes practice and determination.... the most useful teaching for me was *Patanjilis Yoga Sutras* knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible important... i am no expert in things of this world or the next, by the way...so don't expect too much in the form of *how the univesre works* namastes devi > > 1. subheccha (the desire for enlightenment). > 2. vicharana (enquiry). > 3. tanumanasa (tenuous mind). > 4. satwapatti (self-realization). > 5. asamsakti (non-attachment). > 6. padarthabhavana (non-perception of objects). > 7. turyaga (transcendence). > > If you engage any topic offered or a different one, there will be no > disparagement of what is discussed. The topic will be pursued > respectfully. For example, after self-realization there is > non-attachment. How does one go about that? This is a good topic > rarely discussed. Would it be possible to have a dialogue on this? > > Love, > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > Perhaps you could answer as was requested Harsha on any of the > > topics mentioned above or one of your own choosing, avoiding, if > > possible objectivication of the Self in conversation. > > devi: the Self doesn't speak..to the Self,,nothing ever happens, > nothing is happening and nothing will ever happen... > the Self is all Alone located nowhere that can be pointed > to...complete non-duality..Isolated Mokshaed Eternally in the > HIghest Samadhi..no creation..no others..nirguna brahman.... > > so that *speaking directly from the Self* .....is not possible... > ********** Sure I can, watch me, what were you expecting, the Easter Bunny? You been hanging out with them idiot yogis, don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Because their head is stuck so far up their ass. Your precious Baba is in desperate need of psycho-therapy. Judi > the only speaking that happens is through the funtion of a > mouth...and a mind...an ego and I Am...working together... > > lewis:I enjoyed your conversations with fuzzie about Ramana's seven > stages presented in " Spiritual Instruction " pointing out that Self- > realization is number four. Liberation or transcendence is stage > seven. The seven jnana bhoomikas are listed below: > > > devi: yes, i would have liked to pick through fuzzi more but he > didn't seem to be open to it... > > as for developing non-attachment..if your not born with it it takes > practice and determination.... > > the most useful teaching for me was *Patanjilis Yoga Sutras* > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > important... > > i am no expert in things of this world or the next, by the way...so > don't expect too much in the form of *how the univesre works* > > namastes > devi > > > > > > 1. subheccha (the desire for enlightenment). > > 2. vicharana (enquiry). > > 3. tanumanasa (tenuous mind). > > 4. satwapatti (self-realization). > > 5. asamsakti (non-attachment). > > 6. padarthabhavana (non-perception of objects). > > 7. turyaga (transcendence). > > > > If you engage any topic offered or a different one, there will be > no > > disparagement of what is discussed. The topic will be pursued > > respectfully. For example, after self-realization there is > > non-attachment. How does one go about that? This is a good topic > > rarely discussed. Would it be possible to have a dialogue on this? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Dear Lewis, I don't what to say. I am not sure I know exactly what you are saying. Maybe I could figure it out but it would take some energy and my energy does not go into directions of figuring things out. I am sorry to disappoint you because you seem very sincere. Probably you need to have dialogues with people of high intellectual stature and with Ph.D.s in Philosophy because you have a brilliant analytical mind. I would not be the right conversation partner for you. What is your academic discipline. Just curious. Thanks. Love, Harsha > > > Hi Harsha, > > The request was to have dialogue about the mentioned topics or others > selected with Harsha as Self, not to " Harsha presenting " Self as a > universalized thought object. This is " natural and good " as it goes at > the moment. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > More complications below. > > The request was to engage in a discourse without objectifying the > Self, speaking of the Self as object. The Self spoken of in Advaita > Vedanta is not an object of thought. Yet it is spoken of, referred to > in that way. The Self is....., realize the Self, and so on. > > I assume that Harsha is Self and capable of speaking, writing without > referring to a thought object that cannot equal that capacity to > write. It is similar to assuming that a typed word - " me " - is > equivalent to that which writes the word " me, " which is clearly not > the case. The word " me " is not " me, " the capacity to write. Anything > may be done to that word or any word written and it does not change in > any way the capacity to write the word. > > For example, there is an indescribable undergoing /in/are/of X (i.e. > Self-Realization). > > In in trying to explain the indescribable undergoing X, there is a the > turning of " it " into an " experience " (an abstraction). Then there is an > extraction out of that " experience " certain thoughts and concepts - X1 > X2 X3 Xn.. These are then formed and further refined and expressed as > " universalized thought objects " used in discourse, for example, > " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /Heart /I > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/ " and " processes and stages of > realization " of these. There is a great deal of abstraction and > conceptualizing that is far removed for the indescribable undergoing > as it was/is. There is enormous energy put into realizing " empty " > concepts whose content is imagined. > > Also, such metaphors are employed in various ways trying to convey at > great remove the indescribable undergoing X. As this is done, a > universalization occurs. A specific individualis undergoing X in a > specific uphadi/mind/body complex/appearance in a certain cultural > milieu and this individual undergoing X is then universalized, made > generally understandable and in most cases absolutely vague or > enormously complex. So in the end it is usually imagination that takes > over in the play with these " thought objects. " Ramana becomes > something completely imagined. > > Is this necessary? One way to avoid this is to move steps backwards in > this production of thought objects, moving back to the individual > appearance and away from univeral objectification and then to communicate. > > If objectivication of Self and similar universalized or complicated > thought objects are not presented in communication can proceed perhaps > more fruitfully, less abstractly. > > Perhaps, the simple sentences - I AM. and I am Self-Realized. - are > perhaps the most complicated statements one can make in a forum like > this because of the enormous and oftimes hidden load of conceptual > baggage that is necessary to sustain it. > > Love, > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > > > > > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > > > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > Perhaps you could answer as was requested Harsha on any of the > > topics mentioned above or one of your own choosing, avoiding, if > > possible objectivication of the Self in conversation. > > devi: the Self doesn't speak..to the Self,,nothing ever happens, > nothing is happening and nothing will ever happen... > the Self is all Alone located nowhere that can be pointed > to...complete non-duality..Isolated Mokshaed Eternally in the > HIghest Samadhi..no creation..no others..nirguna brahman.... > > so that *speaking directly from the Self* .....is not possible... > > the only speaking that happens is through the funtion of a > mouth...and a mind...an ego and I Am...working together... **Lewis: In Advaita Vedanta the non-duality concept plays through as: " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /I AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/action " There is no separation and Parabrahman is all. So how does speech occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break? > > lewis:I enjoyed your conversations with fuzzie about Ramana's seven > stages presented in " Spiritual Instruction " pointing out that Self- > realization is number four. Liberation or transcendence is stage > seven. The seven jnana bhoomikas are listed below: > > > devi: yes, i would have liked to pick through fuzzi more but he > didn't seem to be open to it... > > as for developing non-attachment..if your not born with it it takes > practice and determination.... > > the most useful teaching for me was *Patanjilis Yoga Sutras* > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > important... Lewis: I am familiar with them. What is your current activity in this? > > i am no expert in things of this world or the next, by the way...so > don't expect too much in the form of *how the univesre works* > > namastes > devi Lewis: Your experiential knowledge is more than enough. Love, Lewis > > > > > 1. subheccha (the desire for enlightenment). > > 2. vicharana (enquiry). > > 3. tanumanasa (tenuous mind). > > 4. satwapatti (self-realization). > > 5. asamsakti (non-attachment). > > 6. padarthabhavana (non-perception of objects). > > 7. turyaga (transcendence). > > > > If you engage any topic offered or a different one, there will be > no > > disparagement of what is discussed. The topic will be pursued > > respectfully. For example, after self-realization there is > > non-attachment. How does one go about that? This is a good topic > > rarely discussed. Would it be possible to have a dialogue on this? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: Dear Lewis, I don't what to say. I am not sure I know exactly what you are saying. Maybe I could figure it out but it would take some energy and my energy does not go into directions of figuring things out. I am sorry to disappoint you because you seem very sincere. Probably you need to have dialogues with people of high intellectual stature and with Ph.D.s in Philosophy because you have a brilliant analytical mind. I would not be the right conversation partner for you. What is your academic discipline. Just curious. Thanks. Love, Harsha Hi Harsha, There is no disappointment. Intellectual stature and degrees are not significant factors for having dialogue. As you said " readiness to embrace " is important. My academic training was in social anthropology. Love, Lewis > > > Hi Harsha, > > The request was to have dialogue about the mentioned topics or others selected with Harsha as Self, not to " Harsha presenting " Self as a universalized thought object. This is " natural and good " as it goes at the moment. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > More complications below. > > The request was to engage in a discourse without objectifying the > Self, speaking of the Self as object. The Self spoken of in Advaita > Vedanta is not an object of thought. Yet it is spoken of, referred to > in that way. The Self is....., realize the Self, and so on. > > I assume that Harsha is Self and capable of speaking, writing without > referring to a thought object that cannot equal that capacity to > write. It is similar to assuming that a typed word - " me " - is > equivalent to that which writes the word " me, " which is clearly not > the case. The word " me " is not " me, " the capacity to write. Anything > may be done to that word or any word written and it does not change in > any way the capacity to write the word. > > For example, there is an indescribable undergoing /in/are/of X (i.e. > Self-Realization). > > In in trying to explain the indescribable undergoing X, there is a the > turning of " it " into an " experience " (an abstraction). Then there is an > extraction out of that " experience " certain thoughts and concepts - X1 > X2 X3 Xn.. These are then formed and further refined and expressed as > " universalized thought objects " used in discourse, for example, > " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /Heart /I > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/ " and " processes and stages of > realization " of these. There is a great deal of abstraction and > conceptualizing that is far removed for the indescribable undergoing > as it was/is. There is enormous energy put into realizing " empty " > concepts whose content is imagined. > > Also, such metaphors are employed in various ways trying to convey at > great remove the indescribable undergoing X. As this is done, a > universalization occurs. A specific individualis undergoing X in a > specific uphadi/mind/body complex/appearance in a certain cultural > milieu and this individual undergoing X is then universalized, made > generally understandable and in most cases absolutely vague or > enormously complex. So in the end it is usually imagination that takes > over in the play with these " thought objects. " Ramana becomes > something completely imagined. > > Is this necessary? One way to avoid this is to move steps backwards in > this production of thought objects, moving back to the individual > appearance and away from univeral objectification and then to communicate. > > If objectivication of Self and similar universalized or complicated > thought objects are not presented in communication can proceed perhaps > more fruitfully, less abstractly. > > Perhaps, the simple sentences - I AM. and I am Self-Realized. - are > perhaps the most complicated statements one can make in a forum like > this because of the enormous and oftimes hidden load of conceptual > baggage that is necessary to sustain it. > > Love, > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Harsha wrote: > > > > > > > > > Harsha: Real strength always lies in good humor, forgiveness, > > > and readiness to embrace. Self is the ultimate form of nonviolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 **Lewis: In Advaita Vedanta the non-duality concept plays through as: " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /I > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/action " There is no separation and Parabrahman is all. So how does speech > occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break? devi: Silence a Poem by Baba Hari Dass... beyond time, space and causation is silence that silence is Brahman the absolute sound is movement of energy in nature it creates a sound so sound is the cause of creation just like darkness is an eternal nature and within that eternal darkness light comes and goes. in the same way, silence is an eternal nature sound appears and disappears in it from silence originates sound from sound originates speech, speech creates language when speech and language cease then silence is experienced within.. sound is a form of language connecting each other by feeling, emotions, desires and attachments whereas silence disconnects and separates everything sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, ideas and imaginations, and divides in subject and object. silence gives rise to non-duality by going back to it's source, Brahman, the Absolute. > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > > important... > > > Lewis: I am familiar with them. What is your current activity in this? devi: you mean what do i do everyday thats' spiritual.... i play my harmonium, read scriptures , chat about spiritual subjects...basically i do whatever i can to stay balanced and peaceful....clear....out of trouble...:-) sometimes on meditate on my Atman sometimes i meditate on the tv i paint and sew i mess around with my kids regular life.... my youngest son just got his drivers licence today and once again i'm wondering what the future will bring... maybe teach yoga philosophy... but i have to learn it better...chuckles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Judi Rhodes " <judirhodes@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > Perhaps you could answer as was requested Harsha on any of the > > > topics mentioned above or one of your own choosing, avoiding, if > > > possible objectivication of the Self in conversation. > > > > devi: the Self doesn't speak..to the Self,,nothing ever happens, > > nothing is happening and nothing will ever happen... > > the Self is all Alone located nowhere that can be pointed > > to...complete non-duality..Isolated Mokshaed Eternally in the > > HIghest Samadhi..no creation..no others..nirguna brahman.... > > > > so that *speaking directly from the Self* .....is not possible... > > > > ********** Sure I can, watch me, what were you expecting, the Easter > Bunny? You been hanging out with them idiot yogis, don't know their > ass from a hole in the ground. Because their head is stuck so far up > their ass. Your precious Baba is in desperate need of psycho- therapy. > > Judi > > ************ What a joke, and this is what people think of and revere as " spiritual " , and try to mimic as some " valued " state. :-) Hysterical. Bunch of neurotics. LOL Trailer trash. :-) ROFL Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > devi: Silence a Poem by Baba Hari Dass... > > beyond time, space and causation is silence > > that silence is Brahman > > the absolute > > sound is movement of energy in nature > > it creates a sound > > so sound is the cause of creation > > just like darkness is an eternal nature and within that > > eternal darkness > > light comes and goes. > > in the same way, silence is an eternal nature > > sound appears and disappears in it > > from silence originates sound > > from sound originates speech, > > speech creates language > > when speech and language cease > > then > > silence is experienced within.. > > sound is a form of language > > connecting each other by > > feeling, emotions, desires and attachments > > whereas silence disconnects and separates > everything > > sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > ideas and > > imaginations, > > and divides in subject and object. > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > Absolute. > > ****** Description of psychosis. LOL Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > **Lewis: In Advaita Vedanta the non-duality concept plays through > as: " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /I > > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/action " > There is no separation and Parabrahman is all. So how does speech > > occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break? > > > devi: Silence a Poem by Baba Hari Dass... > > beyond time, space and causation is silence > > that silence is Brahman > > the absolute > > sound is movement of energy in nature > > it creates a sound > > so sound is the cause of creation > > just like darkness is an eternal nature and within that > > eternal darkness > > light comes and goes. > > in the same way, silence is an eternal nature > > sound appears and disappears in it > > from silence originates sound > > from sound originates speech, > > speech creates language > > when speech and language cease > > then > > silence is experienced within.. > > sound is a form of language > > connecting each other by > > feeling, emotions, desires and attachments > > whereas silence disconnects and separates > everything > > sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > ideas and > > imaginations, > > and divides in subject and object. > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > Absolute. > Lewis: So as it is said in this poem, speech originates in Parabrahman. The Self can speak, express. Can this be said, devi? > > > > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > > > > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > > > important... > > > > > > Lewis: I am familiar with them. What is your current activity in > this? > > > devi: you mean what do i do everyday thats' spiritual.... > > i play my harmonium, read scriptures , chat about spiritual > subjects...basically i do whatever i can to stay balanced and > peaceful....clear....out of trouble...:-) > > sometimes on meditate on my Atman > sometimes i meditate on the tv > i paint and sew > > > > i mess around with my kids > > regular life.... > > my youngest son just got his drivers licence today > > > and once again i'm wondering what the future will bring... > > maybe teach yoga philosophy... > > but i have to learn it better...chuckles! Lewis: It seems very nice and pleasant devi. Regular life. I cannot meditate. Otherwise, regular life for me too. The job thing is in the works too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > **Lewis: In Advaita Vedanta the non-duality concept plays through > > as: " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna Brahman /Atman /Self /I > > > AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/action " > > There is no separation and Parabrahman is all. So how does speech > > > occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break? > > > > > > devi: Silence a Poem by Baba Hari Dass... > > > > beyond time, space and causation is silence > > > > that silence is Brahman > > > > the absolute > > > > sound is movement of energy in nature > > > > it creates a sound > > > > so sound is the cause of creation > > > > just like darkness is an eternal nature and within that > > > > eternal darkness > > > > light comes and goes. > > > > in the same way, silence is an eternal nature > > > > sound appears and disappears in it > > > > from silence originates sound > > > > from sound originates speech, > > > > speech creates language > > > > when speech and language cease > > > > then > > > > silence is experienced within.. > > > > sound is a form of language > > > > connecting each other by > > > > feeling, emotions, desires and attachments > > > > whereas silence disconnects and separates > > everything > > > > sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > > > ideas and > > > > imaginations, > > > > and divides in subject and object. > > > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > > > Absolute. > > > > > Lewis: So as it is said in this poem, speech originates in > Parabrahman. The Self can speak, express. Can this be said, devi? devi: so did that poem answer your question which was *So how does speech occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break?) anyway,now you've gone and introduced another word...(parabrahman)i don't know that word well enought to comment on it..maybe it is a combination of nirgunabrahman and sagunabrahman.. anyway, i said the Self doesn't do anything...i'll stick with that...and i can find statements on the internet to coraborate... i had asked my guru once about the condion of someones health,(she was in a wheelchair) and he responed her two legs wouldn't carry her anymore... he didn't say her Self wouldn't carry her... this conversation started because you asked harsha to speak directly from the Self....techniqally (sp?) the Self doesn't do anything... > > > > > > > > > > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > > > > > > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > > > > important... > > > > > > > > > Lewis: I am familiar with them. What is your current activity in > > this? > > > > > > devi: you mean what do i do everyday thats' spiritual.... > > > > i play my harmonium, read scriptures , chat about spiritual > > subjects...basically i do whatever i can to stay balanced and .. > > > Lewis: It seems very nice and pleasant devi. Regular life. > I cannot meditate. Otherwise, regular life for me too. The job thing > is in the works too. devi: i hardly ever worked outside of being a mom....so i've had alot of time to do my Yoga....sometimes i wish i had *work* i think it would be fun.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > **Lewis: In Advaita Vedanta the non-duality concept plays > > > through as: " Parabrahman / Nigurna Brahman /Saguna > > > Brahman /Atman /Self /I AM / ego / mind/body / phenomena/action " > > > > > > There is no separation and Parabrahman is all. So how does > > > speech occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break? > > > > > > devi: Silence a Poem by Baba Hari Dass... > > > > beyond time, space and causation is silence > > > > that silence is Brahman > > > > the absolute > > > > sound is movement of energy in nature > > > > it creates a sound > > > > so sound is the cause of creation > > > > just like darkness is an eternal nature and within that > > > > eternal darkness > > > > light comes and goes. > > > > in the same way, silence is an eternal nature > > > > sound appears and disappears in it > > > > from silence originates sound > > > > from sound originates speech, > > > > speech creates language > > > > when speech and language cease > > > > then > > > > silence is experienced within.. > > > > sound is a form of language > > > > connecting each other by > > > > feeling, emotions, desires and attachments > > > > whereas silence disconnects and separates > > everything > > > > sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > > > > ideas and > > > > imaginations, > > > > and divides in subject and object. > > > > silence gives rise to non-duality by > > > > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > > > > Absolute. > > > > > Lewis: So as it is said in this poem, speech originates in > Parabrahman. The Self can speak, express. Can this be said, devi? devi: so did that poem answer your question which was *So how does speech occur? How is speech possible at all if there is a break?) ***Lewis: Well it seemed to as I wrote above, but confirmation was sought from you since it appears that the poem says that the Self, at least indirectly, is the source of speech in these words: " ...silence is an eternal nature sound appears and disappears in it from silence originates sound from sound originates speech, speech creates language... If there is a break, that is, speech is not part or emitting from the Absolute, then we have a conceptual duality, of the Absolute and speech acts (mouths words and all the rest), which just pop up like this. A common solution to such a division is to say there are no acts at all, nothing happens or happened, all is a dream, all is illusion, only the Self is real. Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna Brahaman is one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The poem speaks of it in the follwoing words: ......sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, ideas and imaginations, and divides in subject and object. silence gives rise to non-duality by going back to it's source, Brahman, the Absolute. " So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, speech and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - and then a return, a going back to non-duality - silence the Absolute. From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. devi: anyway,now you've gone and introduced another word...(parabrahman)i don't know that word well enought to comment on it..maybe it is a combination of nirgunabrahman and sagunabrahman.. anyway, i said the Self doesn't do anything...i'll stick with that...and i can find statements on the internet to coraborate... i had asked my guru once about the condion of someones health,(she was in a wheelchair) and he responed her two legs wouldn't carry her anymore... he didn't say her Self wouldn't carry her... this conversation started because you asked harsha to speak directly from the Self....techniqally (sp?) the Self doesn't do anything... Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How language is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. :-). > > > > > > > > > > > knowing that i had to *control the thought-waves in the mind* in > > > > > > > > and..purification of all the vehicles....that was incredible > > > > important... > > > > > > > > > Lewis: I am familiar with them. What is your current activity in > > this? > > > > > > devi: you mean what do i do everyday thats' spiritual.... > > > > i play my harmonium, read scriptures , chat about spiritual > > subjects...basically i do whatever i can to stay balanced and .. > > > Lewis: It seems very nice and pleasant devi. Regular life. > I cannot meditate. Otherwise, regular life for me too. The job thing > is in the works too. devi: i hardly ever worked outside of being a mom....so i've had alot of time to do my Yoga....sometimes i wish i had *work* i think it would be fun.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 If there is a break, that is, speech is not part or emitting from the Absolute, then we have a conceptual duality, of the Absolute and speech acts (mouths words and all the rest), which just pop up like this. A common solution to such a division is to say there are no acts at all, nothing happens or happened, all is a dream, all is illusion, only the Self is real. devi: i have no idea what you mean by a break? and that common solution occured to me but then i remembered babajis poem and thought the poem was a better response... Or that speech belong to Saguna Brahman even though Saguna Brahaman i one in Nirguna Brahman and both are in Parabrahman. The poem speaks of it in the follwoing words: > > .....sound creates a duality by creating thoughts, > ideas and > imaginations, > and divides in subject and object. > silence gives rise to non-duality by > going back to it's source, Brahman, the > Absolute. " > > So there is a going out from silence, the Absolute, then sound, speech > and language, thoughts, ideas, imaginations - duality - and then a > return, a going back to non-duality - silence the Absolute. > > From the poem the question asked seems to be in the affirmative. But I defer to the author of the poem and to you for an answer. devi: i don't even know what the question is anymore.. Lewis: Ask him about the origin of speech and language. How language is produced. The answers vould prove to be enlightening. devi: i tend not to ask him qusestions...so, maybe we can find out another way...:-) > 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.