Love all or none of it . . . .

April 5, 2008

" Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not

another. Love all or none of it, and stop complaining. " Niz

When I'm in the dream state and dream of my favourite things, I

really feel the emotions asociated with experiencing those things.

Same goes for anything negative that happens in my dreams. I feel

those things, too.

If I get into an argument with my wife in a dream and hurt her

feelings, that's an illusion. It isn't real and I won't pay for it

later when I wake up.

But if I say something hurtful to my wife in the waking state, she's

gonna' make me pay, whether I make myself believe it's all just a

dream or not.

How can I love both the positive and the negative parts of my dream?

How can I not love it? I live in a dream of my own making and there

are other people in it, like my wife, who have feelings like I do. I

can't just stop loving one part and start loving another part. I hate

fighting with my wife. I hate the hurtful things she and I say to

each other sometimes. How can I love that?

But I love the good things that happen and the good times we have

together. How can I not love that?

Rob

April 5, 2008

In a message dated 4/5/2008 9:17:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, silver writes:

"Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not another. Love all or none of it, and stop complaining." NizWhen I'm in the dream state and dream of my favourite things, I really feel the emotions asociated with experiencing those things.Same goes for anything negative that happens in my dreams. I feel those things, too.If I get into an argument with my wife in a dream and hurt her feelings, that's an illusion. It isn't real and I won't pay for it later when I wake up.But if I say something hurtful to my wife in the waking state, she's gonna' make me pay, whether I make myself believe it's all just a dream or not.How can I love both the positive and the negative parts of my dream? How can I not love it? I live in a dream of my own making and there are other people in it, like my wife, who have feelings like I do. I can't just stop loving one part and start loving another part. I hate fighting with my wife. I hate the hurtful things she and I say to each other sometimes. How can I love that?But I love the good things that happen and the good times we have together. How can I not love that?Rob

Hi Rob

I appreciate your openness, and of course we all have the same dillema to one degree or another. Nizzy's second sentence seems like more than just a pointer, and seems to be a method which of course won't work. The focus is really on attachments to outcome, and it's clear that in the absence of attachments, there will be experiences that are enjoyed and others that won't be so much, but none of it really has that intense quality that leads to suffering.

What it means is that the intensity of the highs and lows is reduced, which is what I call duality clipping, which may lead to the conclusion that life loses it's color or intensity, which is not what is wanted, and so it's usually resisted. In my experience, this is not what has occurred, because as the intensity of attachment to dualistic experience decreases, something else begins to show up. To the degree that ego is not present, a nondualistic form of Joy and Peace begin to show up, and because they are nondualistic, they are not dependent upon the experience. They're present and sourced from within, and this Joy and Peace colors everything in the experience so that pleasant experiences become more joyful rather than bland, and 'negative' experiences lose their 'bite' and can often become a source of wonder and humor. It will also be noticed the experiences don't drive the Joy and Peace, but rather the Joy and Peace form the experiences, since they are created from the inside out and are not objectively present. IOW, it's not just the same experiences that are tollerated or even appreciated, but the experiences themselves are different as a reflection of the perceiver who now colors everything with his own sense of Joy and wonder.

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 7, 2008

Dear Phil,

I am a new member. I appreciate and support your

asnwer to Rob.

I would like to add the following.

When your desires fade out then love for God

increases.

There are 2 paths. 1. Extrovert and 2. Introvert.

No scripture is complete without explaining the both

and so every great saint makes a note of it and points

out the same.

1. In extrovert path, the devottee tries to see God

'in any form' in others. He tries to superimpose the

same on others and later on when his devotes and

surrenderance matures, he sees good and the same

spirit pervading in everything which he sees. This is

the dualistic approach. Later on he turns on to non

dual approach which is introvert (Sri Nissargduttaji

Maharaj's path). " So love all "

2. In introvert path or non-dual approach, the

disciple or the meditator sees this world world as an

illusion and rejects it and tries to know 'who am I'.

He is (or tries to be) neutral in all the situations

and tries to establish himself in the self.So " Love

None "

This 2 lines:

" So love all " & " Love None " are the extreme and in

practical application we sould make them as reference

and try to reach to this pont.

We are not free from desires and so maebe we cannot

see god in our enemys or cannot be neutral in tsting

times, as we all have moods.

But constant practice, character building, meditation

(very important), prayers and surrender to the

almighty can definitely help us to reach this state

where we can " love all or none " . A person can annouce

this without fear only when he has realised the true

self.

Sinerely

Sujal Upadhyay

--- souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/5/2008 9:17:06 AM Pacific

> Daylight Time,

> silver writes:

>

> " Your problem is that you like one part of your

> dream and not

> another. Love all or none of it, and stop

> complaining. " Niz

>

> When I'm in the dream state and dream of my

> favourite things, I

> really feel the emotions asociated with

> experiencing those things.

>

> Same goes for anything negative that happens in my

> dreams. I feel

> those things, too.

>

> If I get into an argument with my wife in a dream

> and hurt her

> feelings, that's an illusion. It isn't real and I

> won't pay for it

> later when I wake up.

>

> But if I say something hurtful to my wife in the

> waking state, she's

> gonna' make me pay, whether I make myself believe

> it's all just a

> dream or not.

>

> How can I love both the positive and the negative

> parts of my dream?

> How can I not love it? I live in a dream of my own

> making and there

> are other people in it, like my wife, who have

> feelings like I do. I

> can't just stop loving one part and start loving

> another part. I hate

> fighting with my wife. I hate the hurtful things she

> and I say to

> each other sometimes. How can I love that?

>

> But I love the good things that happen and the good

> times we have

> together. How can I not love that?

>

> Rob

>

> Hi Rob

> I appreciate your openness, and of course we all

> have the same dillema to

> one degree or another. Nizzy's second sentence seems

> like more than just a

> pointer, and seems to be a method which of course

> won't work. The focus is really

> on attachments to outcome, and it's clear that in

> the absence of

> attachments, there will be experiences that are

> enjoyed and others that won't be so

> much, but none of it really has that intense quality

> that leads to suffering.

>

> What it means is that the intensity of the highs and

> lows is reduced, which

> is what I call duality clipping, which may lead to

> the conclusion that life

> loses it's color or intensity, which is not what is

> wanted, and so it's usually

> resisted. In my experience, this is not what has

> occurred, because as the

> intensity of attachment to dualistic experience

> decreases, something else

> begins to show up. To the degree that ego is not

> present, a nondualistic form of

> Joy and Peace begin to show up, and because they

> are nondualistic, they are

> not dependent upon the experience. They're present

> and sourced from within, and

> this Joy and Peace colors everything in the

> experience so that pleasant

> experiences become more joyful rather than bland,

> and 'negative' experiences lose

> their 'bite' and can often become a source of

> wonder and humor. It will also

> be noticed the experiences don't drive the Joy and

> Peace, but rather the Joy

> and Peace form the experiences, since they are

> created from the inside out

> and are not objectively present. IOW, it's not just

> the same experiences that

> are tollerated or even appreciated, but the

> experiences themselves are

> different as a reflection of the perceiver who now

> colors everything with his own

> sense of Joy and wonder.

>

> Phil

>

> **************Planning your summer road trip? Check

> out AOL Travel Guides.

>

(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

April 8, 2008

Hi Sujal

I don't disagree with the practices you've outlined here because I see that all things are happening precisely as they need to happen, and so all such practices serve perfectly. In my case, the focus is both outward and inward. The inward focus is where the 'looking' takes place, and the outside acts as a mirror for that focus.

To me, the attempt to see God in others is futile from the start by virtue of the assumption that there are others in whom to see this God. The seeking of virtue in otherness is merely an attempt to bias ones dualistic perception, and the mind functions as a duality mechanism, and so it can only pretend to see only such goodness. It's not so that the 'enlightened' master does not see the idiocy and foolishness and cruelty of humanity. This does not change, but the perfection of that expression is recognized as well as the recognition that it is One's own expression and cannot be, and need not be, other than it is.

It's also not necessary to see that the world is an illusion as such, it is the false egoic identity that must be revealed as illusion. The world goes on in all it's illusory glory and the question of it's reality turns out to have no significance at all. Desires cannot and do not need to end for the apparent individual. Again, if you look to the masters you see that preferences and desires remain, but there is no longer attachment to the outcome of those desires. It's this attachment that results in suffering, and it can be released by revealing the false nature of it, and so it is not so much a focus on Truth that is helpful, since mind is not equiped to realize it anyway, but rather the removal of the intense focus on the imaginary self, which is potentially evident since it is mind that forms this focus. God is already present. The Truth is already what you are. There are already too many things known; much that must be unlearned.

Phil

In a message dated 4/7/2008 9:21:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Dear Phil,I am a new member. I appreciate and support yourasnwer to Rob. I would like to add the following.When your desires fade out then love for Godincreases.There are 2 paths. 1. Extrovert and 2. Introvert. No scripture is complete without explaining the bothand so every great saint makes a note of it and pointsout the same.1. In extrovert path, the devottee tries to see God'in any form' in others. He tries to superimpose thesame on others and later on when his devotes andsurrenderance matures, he sees good and the samespirit pervading in everything which he sees. This isthe dualistic approach. Later on he turns on to nondual approach which is introvert (Sri NissargduttajiMaharaj's path). "So love all"2. In introvert path or non-dual approach, thedisciple or the meditator sees this world world as anillusion and rejects it and tries to know 'who am I'. He is (or tries to be) neutral in all the situationsand tries to establish himself in the self.So "LoveNone"This 2 lines:"So love all" & "Love None" are the extreme and inpractical application we sould make them as referenceand try to reach to this pont.We are not free from desires and so maebe we cannotsee god in our enemys or cannot be neutral in tstingtimes, as we all have moods.But constant practice, character building, meditation(very important), prayers and surrender to thealmighty can definitely help us to reach this statewhere we can "love all or none". A person can annoucethis without fear only when he has realised the trueself.SinerelySujal Upadhyay

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 8, 2008

Hi All

What do you think about UG krishnamurthy.

Nisargadatta From: souldreamoneDate: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:16:24 -0400Re: Love all or none of it . . . .

Hi Sujal

I don't disagree with the practices you've outlined here because I see that all things are happening precisely as they need to happen, and so all such practices serve perfectly. In my case, the focus is both outward and inward. The inward focus is where the 'looking' takes place, and the outside acts as a mirror for that focus.

To me, the attempt to see God in others is futile from the start by virtue of the assumption that there are others in whom to see this God. The seeking of virtue in otherness is merely an attempt to bias ones dualistic perception, and the mind functions as a duality mechanism, and so it can only pretend to see only such goodness. It's not so that the 'enlightened' master does not see the idiocy and foolishness and cruelty of humanity. This does not change, but the perfection of that expression is recognized as well as the recognition that it is One's own expression and cannot be, and need not be, other than it is.

It's also not necessary to see that the world is an illusion as such, it is the false egoic identity that must be revealed as illusion. The world goes on in all it's illusory glory and the question of it's reality turns out to have no significance at all. Desires cannot and do not need to end for the apparent individual. Again, if you look to the masters you see that preferences and desires remain, but there is no longer attachment to the outcome of those desires. It's this attachment that results in suffering, and it can be released by revealing the false nature of it, and so it is not so much a focus on Truth that is helpful, since mind is not equiped to realize it anyway, but rather the removal of the intense focus on the imaginary self, which is potentially evident since it is mind that forms this focus. God is already present. The Truth is already what you are. There are already too many things known; much that must be unlearned.

Phil

In a message dated 4/7/2008 9:21:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Dear Phil,I am a new member. I appreciate and support yourasnwer to Rob. I would like to add the following.When your desires fade out then love for Godincreases.There are 2 paths. 1. Extrovert and 2. Introvert. No scripture is complete without explaining the bothand so every great saint makes a note of it and pointsout the same.1. In extrovert path, the devottee tries to see God'in any form' in others. He tries to superimpose thesame on others and later on when his devotes andsurrenderance matures, he sees good and the samespirit pervading in everything which he sees. This isthe dualistic approach. Later on he turns on to nondual approach which is introvert (Sri NissargduttajiMaharaj's path). "So love all"2. In introvert path or non-dual approach, thedisciple or the meditator sees this world world as anillusion and rejects it and tries to know 'who am I'. He is (or tries to be) neutral in all the situationsand tries to establish himself in the self.So "LoveNone"This 2 lines:"So love all" & "Love None" are the extreme and inpractical application we sould make them as referenceand try to reach to this pont.We are not free from desires and so maebe we cannotsee god in our enemys or cannot be neutral in tstingtimes, as we all have moods.But constant practice, character building, meditation(very important), prayers and surrender to thealmighty can definitely help us to reach this statewhere we can "love all or none". A person can annoucethis without fear only when he has realised the trueself.SinerelySujal Upadhyay

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

Windows Live Spaces : Help your online world come to life, add 500 photos a month. Try it!

April 8, 2008

Dear Phil,

I also do not disagree with your line of thinking. I

am also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on

'AUM'.

But it is not posible for each and every individual to

follow only one path. Non-dual approach is the

straight path, but is difficult for others eventhough

it suits me.

So for a common man, who does not have much faith in

God but is aware of the word God, in other words for a

beginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,

unknownigly think of us a body and try to fulfill

his/her personal needs. So for a man who believes

himself as body (because unless and until you

experience detachment, you never know that you

are/were attached. before we can separate ourself from

the mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not the

mind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should try

to apply spirituality in the practical life. So for a

commo man, who believes that he is a body, he cannot

think of himself as formless. so dual approach helps

him to be stable, achieve concentration, and develop

faith and surrenderance in a particular form of god.

this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach. later

on with proper understanding, he realises that the

same god is in himself and then he turns introvert.

Then the philosophy which you have said can be

applied, but not at the begining. You can take the

example of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshna

paramhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI, realised

her, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then advait

vedanta. So he establised that same truth can be

approached in many ways.

Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but they

do not identify themselfs with the thought, i would

like to say that when you realise your self through

intense meditation, your mind is completely empty and

has also become brahman itself. then why do the saints

show a particular character or choices. Because

society wont accept them and they behave normally,

take medicines, as we follows their footsteps and copy

them.

The paths to reach the mountain top are different but

as we approach the top, then the path comes nearer

(i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top is

only one. So you cannot say that dual approach is

frutile.

All paths lead to the same destination you may call

god, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness.

Sincerely

Sujal

--- souldreamone wrote:

>

> Hi Sujal

> I don't disagree with the practices you've outlined

> here because I see that

> all things are happening precisely as they need to

> happen, and so all such

> practices serve perfectly. In my case, the focus is

> both outward and inward. The

> inward focus is where the 'looking' takes place,

> and the outside acts as a

> mirror for that focus.

>

> To me, the attempt to see God in others is futile

> from the start by virtue

> of the assumption that there are others in whom to

> see this God. The seeking of

> virtue in otherness is merely an attempt to bias

> ones dualistic perception,

> and the mind functions as a duality mechanism, and

> so it can only pretend to

> see only such goodness. It's not so that the

> 'enlightened' master does not

> see the idiocy and foolishness and cruelty of

> humanity. This does not change,

> but the perfection of that expression is recognized

> as well as the recognition

> that it is One's own expression and cannot be, and

> need not be, other than

> it is.

>

> It's also not necessary to see that the world is an

> illusion as such, it is

> the false egoic identity that must be revealed as

> illusion. The world goes on

> in all it's illusory glory and the question of it's

> reality turns out to have

> no significance at all. Desires cannot and do not

> need to end for the

> apparent individual. Again, if you look to the

> masters you see that preferences and

> desires remain, but there is no longer attachment

> to the outcome of those

> desires. It's this attachment that results in

> suffering, and it can be released

> by revealing the false nature of it, and so it is

> not so much a focus on

> Truth that is helpful, since mind is not equiped to

> realize it anyway, but

> rather the removal of the intense focus on the

> imaginary self, which is

> potentially evident since it is mind that forms

> this focus. God is already present. The

> Truth is already what you are. There are already

> too many things known; much

> that must be unlearned.

>

> Phil

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2008 9:21:41 PM Pacific

> Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Dear Phil,

>

> I am a new member. I appreciate and support your

> asnwer to Rob.

> I would like to add the following.

>

> When your desires fade out then love for God

> increases.

> There are 2 paths. 1. Extrovert and 2. Introvert.

> No scripture is complete without explaining the both

> and so every great saint makes a note of it and

> points

> out the same.

>

> 1. In extrovert path, the devottee tries to see God

> 'in any form' in others. He tries to superimpose

> the

> same on others and later on when his devotes and

> surrenderance matures, he sees good and the same

> spirit pervading in everything which he sees. This

> is

> the dualistic approach. Later on he turns on to non

> dual approach which is introvert (Sri Nissargduttaji

> Maharaj's path). " So love all "

>

> 2. In introvert path or non-dual approach, the

> disciple or the meditator sees this world world as

> an

> illusion and rejects it and tries to know 'who am

> I'.

> He is (or tries to be) neutral in all the

> situations

> and tries to establish himself in the self.So " Love

> None "

>

> This 2 lines:

> " So love all " & " Love None " are the extreme and in

> practical application we sould make them as

> reference

> and try to reach to this pont.

>

> We are not free from desires and so maebe we cannot

> see god in our enemys or cannot be neutral in tsting

> times, as we all have moods.

>

> But constant practice, character building,

> meditation

> (very important), prayers and surrender to the

> almighty can definitely help us to reach this state

> where we can " love all or none " . A person can

> annouce

> this without fear only when he has realised the

> true

> self.

>

> Sinerely

>

> Sujal Upadhyay

>

**************Planning your summer road trip? Check

> out AOL Travel Guides.

>

(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

April 8, 2008

In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:53:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Dear Phil,I also do not disagree with your line of thinking. Iam also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on'AUM'.But it is not posible for each and every individual tofollow only one path. Non-dual approach is thestraight path, but is difficult for others eventhoughit suits me.So for a common man, who does not have much faith inGod but is aware of the word God, in other words for abeginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,unknownigly think of us a body and try to fulfillhis/her personal needs. So for a man who believeshimself as body (because unless and until youexperience detachment, you never know that youare/were attached. before we can separate ourself fromthe mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not themind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should tryto apply spirituality in the practical life. So for acommo man, who believes that he is a body, he cannotthink of himself as formless. so dual approach helpshim to be stable, achieve concentration, and developfaith and surrenderance in a particular form of god.this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach. lateron with proper understanding, he realises that thesame god is in himself and then he turns introvert.Then the philosophy which you have said can beapplied, but not at the begining. You can take theexample of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshnaparamhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI, realisedher, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then advaitvedanta. So he establised that same truth can beapproached in many ways.Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but theydo not identify themselfs with the thought, i wouldlike to say that when you realise your self throughintense meditation, your mind is completely empty andhas also become brahman itself. then why do the saintsshow a particular character or choices. Becausesociety wont accept them and they behave normally,take medicines, as we follows their footsteps and copythem.

*****I see it differently. The Awakening event that occurrs through the mind/body does not supply a volitional controller where once there was none, it is the removal of the notion that there ever was one, and so the 'Awakened one' is not choosing what to say and do any more than we are. There is simply the Realization of this fact. Some will talk about what the mind/body 'seems to do', and it does not normally even need to be paid any particular attention to. The personality and likes and dislikes are part of the conditioning of a mind whos functioning is fully integrated with the Totality of the functioning of Consciousness. There is no person after 'enlightenment' any more than there is a person before, though the conditioning is altered to varying degrees.

The paths to reach the mountain top are different butas we approach the top, then the path comes nearer(i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top isonly one. So you cannot say that dual approach isfrutile.

****All approaches are futile in the sense that there is a person attempting to accomplish something. If all that is present is a false notion of personhood, then all that can happen is the realization that this is a false notion. The path doen't lead anywhere because there's nowhere to go. You already are what you seek, the seeking itself, and so all that can happen is the ending of the seeking; the realization of the futility of seeking. That's enlightenment.

All paths lead to the same destination you may callgod, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness.

*****Yes, they all end precisely where they began before the seeking began, with knowing exactly nothing and seeking nothing. Truth is already present, it's the illusion that must come to an end.

Phil

Sincerely Sujal

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 9, 2008

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:53:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Dear Phil,

>

> I also do not disagree with your line of thinking. I

> am also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on

> 'AUM'.

>

> But it is not posible for each and every individual to

> follow only one path. Non-dual approach is the

> straight path, but is difficult for others eventhough

> it suits me.

>

> So for a common man, who does not have much faith in

> God but is aware of the word God, in other words for a

> beginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,

> unknownigly think of us a body and try to fulfill

> his/her personal needs. So for a man who believes

> himself as body (because unless and until you

> experience detachment, you never know that you

> are/were attached. before we can separate ourself from

> the mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not the

> mind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should try

> to apply spirituality in the practical life. So for a

> commo man, who believes that he is a body, he cannot

> think of himself as formless. so dual approach helps

> him to be stable, achieve concentration, and develop

> faith and surrenderance in a particular form of god.

> this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach. later

> on with proper understanding, he realises that the

> same god is in himself and then he turns introvert.

> Then the philosophy which you have said can be

> applied, but not at the begining. You can take the

> example of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshna

> paramhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI, realised

> her, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then advait

> vedanta. So he establised that same truth can be

> approached in many ways.

>

> Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but they

> do not identify themselfs with the thought, i would

> like to say that when you realise your self through

> intense meditation, your mind is completely empty and

> has also become brahman itself. then why do the saints

> show a particular character or choices. Because

> society wont accept them and they behave normally,

> take medicines, as we follows their footsteps and copy

> them.

>

> *****I see it differently. The Awakening event that occurrs through

the

> mind/body does not supply a volitional controller where once there

was none, it

> is the removal of the notion that there ever was one, and so the

'Awakened

> one' is not choosing what to say and do any more than we are. There

is simply

> the Realization of this fact. Some will talk about what the

mind/body 'seems

> to do', and it does not normally even need to be paid any

particular attention

> to. The personality and likes and dislikes are part of the

conditioning of a

> mind whos functioning is fully integrated with the Totality of the

> functioning of Consciousness. There is no person after

'enlightenment' any more than

> there is a person before, though the conditioning is altered to

varying

> degrees.

>

> The paths to reach the mountain top are different but

> as we approach the top, then the path comes nearer

> (i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top is

> only one. So you cannot say that dual approach is

> frutile.

>

> ****All approaches are futile in the sense that there is a person

attempting

> to accomplish something. If all that is present is a false notion of

> personhood, then all that can happen is the realization that this

is a false notion.

> The path doen't lead anywhere because there's nowhere to go. You

already are

> what you seek, the seeking itself, and so all that can happen is

the ending

> of the seeking; the realization of the futility of seeking. That's

> enlightenment.

>

> All paths lead to the same destination you may call

> god, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness.

>

> *****Yes, they all end precisely where they began before the

seeking began,

> with knowing exactly nothing and seeking nothing. Truth is already

present,

> it's the illusion that must come to an end.

> Phil

>

> Sincerely

>

> Sujal

it's baba's gift to lift those illusions.

but as long as you seem to enjoy playing with them,

baba will not end them for you..

but rather let them hold you in their arms.

you and your illusions will end in due time.

take comfort from this promise and do not be anxious.

baba knows that you cannot understand nor appreciate his blessings.

apparently continued suffering and long winded and silly preachings...

will remain your lot..

for lots of years yet.

..b bobji baba

April 9, 2008

Dear Phil,

I agree with your thoughts. But not 100%

The answer that you gave can only be said by a

realised saint. After enlightenment, one can say that

all the paths are frutile, like the Nirvana is there

but not the path etc.

But as a student, struggling for enlightement, if i

think that all the paths are frutile, can i meditate?

One question may have 2 or more answers and all may be

correct, but for different people with different state

of mind. A Guru gives answer which suits the

questioner and the answer can be prctically be applied

by the questioner. But it may not suit others.

****All approaches are futile in the sense that there

is a person attempting to accomplish something. If all

that is present is a false notion of personhood, then

all that can happen is the realization that this is a

false notion. The path doen't lead anywhere because

there's nowhere to go. You already are what you seek,

the seeking itself, and so all that can happen is the

ending of the seeking; the realization of the futility

of seeking. That's enlightenment.

What you say is true. But this answer can be applied

to a person, who has only one thought left in mind

i.e. 'i am'. He may experience Samadhi (true SELF) but

cannot be in that state for ever. For him you can say

that

" All approaches are futile in the sense that there is

a person attempting to accomplish something. "

meditation is a mental process and it requires mental

efforts. Now time has come to drop your efforts and be

aware of true SELF.

Sri Ramana Maharshi said that " to be aware of

anything else other than you " SELF " is nothing but

unhappiness.

But for a beginner, your answer cannot be appied.

It is like you are hurt badly by a thorne (ignorance

about SELF)pearced in your feet and you keep on saying

that i am not hurt. i am not hurt. The problem is not

solved. First we should try to remove the thorne

(ignorance) with the help of sharp object (Knowledge)

and then throw away both. Go beyond Knowledge

(Jyana)and Ignogance (Agyana). i.e. go beyond words,

be in the SELF.

Anyway, these are my thoughts, so please dont take it

personal. Discussion should not end in an argument.

Until next time

AUM

Sujal

--- souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:53:08 AM Pacific

> Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Dear Phil,

>

> I also do not disagree with your line of thinking.

> I

> am also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on

> 'AUM'.

>

> But it is not posible for each and every individual

> to

> follow only one path. Non-dual approach is the

> straight path, but is difficult for others

> eventhough

> it suits me.

>

> So for a common man, who does not have much faith

> in

> God but is aware of the word God, in other words for

> a

> beginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,

> unknownigly think of us a body and try to fulfill

> his/her personal needs. So for a man who believes

> himself as body (because unless and until you

> experience detachment, you never know that you

> are/were attached. before we can separate ourself

> from

> the mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not

> the

> mind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should

> try

> to apply spirituality in the practical life. So for

> a

> commo man, who believes that he is a body, he

> cannot

> think of himself as formless. so dual approach

> helps

> him to be stable, achieve concentration, and develop

> faith and surrenderance in a particular form of

> god.

> this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach.

> later

> on with proper understanding, he realises that the

> same god is in himself and then he turns introvert.

> Then the philosophy which you have said can be

> applied, but not at the begining. You can take the

> example of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshna

> paramhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI,

> realised

> her, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then advait

> vedanta. So he establised that same truth can be

> approached in many ways.

>

> Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but

> they

> do not identify themselfs with the thought, i would

> like to say that when you realise your self through

> intense meditation, your mind is completely empty

> and

> has also become brahman itself. then why do the

> saints

> show a particular character or choices. Because

> society wont accept them and they behave normally,

> take medicines, as we follows their footsteps and

> copy

> them.

>

> *****I see it differently. The Awakening event that

> occurrs through the

> mind/body does not supply a volitional controller

> where once there was none, it

> is the removal of the notion that there ever was

> one, and so the 'Awakened

> one' is not choosing what to say and do any more

> than we are. There is simply

> the Realization of this fact. Some will talk about

> what the mind/body 'seems

> to do', and it does not normally even need to be

> paid any particular attention

> to. The personality and likes and dislikes are part

> of the conditioning of a

> mind whos functioning is fully integrated with the

> Totality of the

> functioning of Consciousness. There is no person

> after 'enlightenment' any more than

> there is a person before, though the conditioning

> is altered to varying

> degrees.

>

> The paths to reach the mountain top are different

> but

> as we approach the top, then the path comes nearer

> (i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top is

> only one. So you cannot say that dual approach is

> frutile.

>

> ****All approaches are futile in the sense that

> there is a person attempting

> to accomplish something. If all that is present is

> a false notion of

> personhood, then all that can happen is the

> realization that this is a false notion.

> The path doen't lead anywhere because there's

> nowhere to go. You already are

> what you seek, the seeking itself, and so all that

> can happen is the ending

> of the seeking; the realization of the futility of

> seeking. That's

> enlightenment.

>

> All paths lead to the same destination you may call

> god, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness.

>

> *****Yes, they all end precisely where they began

> before the seeking began,

> with knowing exactly nothing and seeking nothing.

> Truth is already present,

> it's the illusion that must come to an end.

> Phil

>

> Sincerely

>

> Sujal

>

**************Planning your summer road trip? Check

> out AOL Travel Guides.

>

(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

April 9, 2008

Hi Sujal

No, there is nothing taken personally and no argument here. I can see that you are sincere and it's appreciated. I'm not sure if this is what is meant, but I'll take your comments to mean I don't know what I'm saying to be true and therefore should not be saying it. I do know that the effort ends in futility as this has been my continual experience with every exploration, and the only thing that has provided me with what we might call awareness or spiritual growth or evolution, but my point was that realizing what is not so (which is the realization of futility) is not really the knowing of anything but rather an unknowing. It is not a moving toward anything but rather the removal of the illusion that there was somewhere to go. It is not an evolution that brings about wisdom in the form of knowledge, but rather the wisdom of knowing there is nothing to be known.

So, in a way that may be difficult to understand, the effort is needed in order to realize the futility of the effort. The seeking is about learning that there is nothing to seek. This is not to imply that one should end the seeking, because that's just another form of seeking; a particularly unproductive one. What I said above is what is meant by 'There is no path' or 'all paths are futile'. The path does not go anywhere. The seeking does not acquire anything. Rather, the seeking ends in the ending of the seeker, who was never present to begin with.

Phil

In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:00:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Dear Phil,I agree with your thoughts. But not 100%The answer that you gave can only be said by arealised saint. After enlightenment, one can say thatall the paths are frutile, like the Nirvana is therebut not the path etc.But as a student, struggling for enlightement, if ithink that all the paths are frutile, can i meditate?One question may have 2 or more answers and all may becorrect, but for different people with different stateof mind. A Guru gives answer which suits thequestioner and the answer can be prctically be appliedby the questioner. But it may not suit others.****All approaches are futile in the sense that thereis a person attempting to accomplish something. If allthat is present is a false notion of personhood, thenall that can happen is the realization that this is afalse notion. The path doen't lead anywhere becausethere's nowhere to go. You already are what you seek,the seeking itself, and so all that can happen is theending of the seeking; the realization of the futilityof seeking. That's enlightenment.What you say is true. But this answer can be appliedto a person, who has only one thought left in mindi.e. 'i am'. He may experience Samadhi (true SELF) butcannot be in that state for ever. For him you can saythat "All approaches are futile in the sense that there isa person attempting to accomplish something. "meditation is a mental process and it requires mentalefforts. Now time has come to drop your efforts and beaware of true SELF.Sri Ramana Maharshi said that " to be aware ofanything else other than you "SELF" is nothing butunhappiness.But for a beginner, your answer cannot be appied.It is like you are hurt badly by a thorne (ignoranceabout SELF)pearced in your feet and you keep on sayingthat i am not hurt. i am not hurt. The problem is notsolved. First we should try to remove the thorne(ignorance) with the help of sharp object (Knowledge)and then throw away both. Go beyond Knowledge(Jyana)and Ignogance (Agyana). i.e. go beyond words,be in the SELF.Anyway, these are my thoughts, so please dont take itpersonal. Discussion should not end in an argument.Until next timeAUMSujal--- souldreamone wrote:> > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:53:08 AM Pacific> Daylight Time, > sujal_u writes:> > Dear Phil,> > I also do not disagree with your line of thinking. > I> am also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on> 'AUM'.> > But it is not posible for each and every individual> to> follow only one path. Non-dual approach is the> straight path, but is difficult for others > eventhough> it suits me.> > So for a common man, who does not have much faith> in> God but is aware of the word God, in other words for> a> beginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,> unknownigly think of us a body and try to fulfill> his/her personal needs. So for a man who believes> himself as body (because unless and until you> experience detachment, you never know that you> are/were attached. before we can separate ourself> from> the mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not > the> mind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should> try> to apply spirituality in the practical life. So for> a> commo man, who believes that he is a body, he> cannot> think of himself as formless. so dual approach > helps> him to be stable, achieve concentration, and develop> faith and surrenderance in a particular form of> god.> this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach.> later> on with proper understanding, he realises that the> same god is in himself and then he turns introvert.> Then the philosophy which you have said can be> applied, but not at the begining. You can take the> example of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshna> paramhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI,> realised> her, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then advait> vedanta. So he establised that same truth can be> approached in many ways.> > Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but> they> do not identify themselfs with the thought, i would> like to say that when you realise your self through> intense meditation, your mind is completely empty> and> has also become brahman itself. then why do the> saints> show a particular character or choices. Because> society wont accept them and they behave normally,> take medicines, as we follows their footsteps and> copy> them.> > > > *****I see it differently. The Awakening event that> occurrs through the > mind/body does not supply a volitional controller> where once there was none, it > is the removal of the notion that there ever was> one, and so the 'Awakened > one' is not choosing what to say and do any more> than we are. There is simply > the Realization of this fact. Some will talk about> what the mind/body 'seems > to do', and it does not normally even need to be> paid any particular attention > to. The personality and likes and dislikes are part> of the conditioning of a > mind whos functioning is fully integrated with the> Totality of the > functioning of Consciousness. There is no person> after 'enlightenment' any more than > there is a person before, though the conditioning> is altered to varying > degrees.> > > > > The paths to reach the mountain top are different> but> as we approach the top, then the path comes nearer> (i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top is> only one. So you cannot say that dual approach is> frutile.> > > > > ****All approaches are futile in the sense that> there is a person attempting > to accomplish something. If all that is present is> a false notion of > personhood, then all that can happen is the> realization that this is a false notion. > The path doen't lead anywhere because there's> nowhere to go. You already are > what you seek, the seeking itself, and so all that> can happen is the ending > of the seeking; the realization of the futility of> seeking. That's > enlightenment.> > > > All paths lead to the same destination you may call> god, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness. > > > > > *****Yes, they all end precisely where they began> before the seeking began, > with knowing exactly nothing and seeking nothing.> Truth is already present, > it's the illusion that must come to an end.> Phil> > > > Sincerely > > Sujal> > > > > > > > **************Planning your summer road trip? Check> out AOL Travel Guides. > >(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)> ---**If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

April 10, 2008

In a message dated 4/9/2008 11:02:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,I agree. I is ofcourse the process of unlearning.Your thoughts are not absurd but are in accordancewith indian traditional scriptures.They say that the false label on the SELF should beremoved.They also say that nobody can give knowledge, but theignorance can ofcource be removed. Because to giveknowledge means you were not the SOUL or Atman and nowyou are (after getting the knowledge. There is anotherword " to achieve that you already are - praptasyaprapti"I was talking about the process (sadhana) and thepractical application in day to day life.****"but I'll take your comments to mean I don't know> what I'm saying to be true > and therefore should not be saying it. "I do not say that what you say is false.Even i practice detachment with NON-SELF. Then whatremains is our true SELF, but with the help of AUM.I pass through the same process that you havedescribed. I experience that as the mind becomes quitepeace increases. As the false identification with theNON-SELF decreases, eternal bliss increases. I findmyself closer to God and even after meditation, thatfealing of being ALONE or peace originating as aresult of detachment flows continously through me.The reason i pointed out was due to the fact that itis not for everybody because to understand thisphilosophy, one should have experience detachment,with the help of internse meditation. Else doubtsremain.Q: Why is it difficult to understand the non dualconcept of unlearning? A: There are 24 hours. out of 24 hours how much timedo we dedicate for finding our ture nature. 2, 3 or 5hours. What about the rest.We need 7 hours of sleep. Out of which, 2 hours are ofdeep sleep in which there are no thoughts. But even indreams, we try to achieve which we cannot in the daytime asdreams are nothing but a way of emotionaloutlet (imp to stabilise our mind) and thoughts areextinguished in dreams.So majority of time we spend with NON-SELF, that iswhy thoughts disturb us and influence us inmeditation.For a person who does not have strong determination torealise his true nature and enlightment is not theonly goal of his life, he will find it difficult toabsorb the process of unlearning because generally weare not ready to QUIT anything, which is extremelynecessary for us to unlearn or detach from NON-SELF. Anyway, thanks for your feedback and comments. I willalways take them positively.Until Next TimeAUMSujal

Hi again

Yes, I think we are in agreement, though my 'path' has not involved intense meditation but is mostly intuition or what some might call direct perception. Sometimes meditation enhances it and sometimes it dulls it since what seems to be required is a state of high alertness in the absence of mentation. I realize meditation is very important to you and that's fine, but it's not a requirement for revealing the illusory nature of attachments and the self.

I wanted to offer another perspective on dreams. I had always thought that they were a kind of 'junk removal' process, but I noticed that's not the primary function. The mind insists on staying active during waking hours because the ego identity depends upon this activity. Since there is no reality to the ego, it must continually reinforce it's illusory structure with thought, almost all of which is self referential in some way. This is why it's difficult to stop the thoughts.

In sleep, before consciousness is fully lost, the mind finds it's external senses blocked, and so it simply creates an internal dreamscape to replace the external one because even in this state it desires experience. It's only when consciousness is totally absent in deep sleep that the dream scenarios can no longer be created. If you look at the dream content, you find that some are frightening, some are informative and powerful, and some are fun, and all are interesting in some way. Some of the dreams do not seem to be junk.

It's also clear that thought IS present in dreams. Have you never noticed that you think in dreams?

PhilPlanning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 10, 2008

Hi Phil,

I agree.

I is ofcourse the process of unlearning.

Your thoughts are not absurd but are in accordance

with indian traditional scriptures.

They say that the false label on the SELF should be

removed.

They also say that nobody can give knowledge, but the

ignorance can ofcource be removed. Because to give

knowledge means you were not the SOUL or Atman and now

you are (after getting the knowledge. There is another

word " to achieve that you already are - praptasya

prapti "

I was talking about the process (sadhana) and the

practical application in day to day life.

****

" but I'll take your comments to mean I don't know

> what I'm saying to be true

> and therefore should not be saying it. "

I do not say that what you say is false.

Even i practice detachment with NON-SELF. Then what

remains is our true SELF, but with the help of AUM.

I pass through the same process that you have

described. I experience that as the mind becomes quite

peace increases. As the false identification with the

NON-SELF decreases, eternal bliss increases. I find

myself closer to God and even after meditation, that

fealing of being ALONE or peace originating as a

result of detachment flows continously through me.

The reason i pointed out was due to the fact that it

is not for everybody because to understand this

philosophy, one should have experience detachment,

with the help of internse meditation. Else doubts

remain.

Q: Why is it difficult to understand the non dual

concept of unlearning?

A: There are 24 hours. out of 24 hours how much time

do we dedicate for finding our ture nature. 2, 3 or 5

hours. What about the rest.

We need 7 hours of sleep. Out of which, 2 hours are of

deep sleep in which there are no thoughts. But even in

dreams, we try to achieve which we cannot in the day

time asdreams are nothing but a way of emotional

outlet (imp to stabilise our mind) and thoughts are

extinguished in dreams.

So majority of time we spend with NON-SELF, that is

why thoughts disturb us and influence us in

meditation.

For a person who does not have strong determination to

realise his true nature and enlightment is not the

only goal of his life, he will find it difficult to

absorb the process of unlearning because generally we

are not ready to QUIT anything, which is extremely

necessary for us to unlearn or detach from NON-SELF.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback and comments. I will

always take them positively.

Until Next Time

AUM

Sujal

--- souldreamone wrote:

>

> Hi Sujal

> No, there is nothing taken personally and no

> argument here. I can see that

> you are sincere and it's appreciated. I'm not sure

> if this is what is meant,

> but I'll take your comments to mean I don't know

> what I'm saying to be true

> and therefore should not be saying it. I do know

> that the effort ends in

> futility as this has been my continual experience

> with every exploration, and the

> only thing that has provided me with what we might

> call awareness or spiritual

> growth or evolution, but my point was that realizing

> what is not so (which

> is the realization of futility) is not really the

> knowing of anything but

> rather an unknowing. It is not a moving toward

> anything but rather the removal of

> the illusion that there was somewhere to go. It is

> not an evolution that

> brings about wisdom in the form of knowledge, but

> rather the wisdom of knowing

> there is nothing to be known.

>

> So, in a way that may be difficult to understand,

> the effort is needed in

> order to realize the futility of the effort. The

> seeking is about learning that

> there is nothing to seek. This is not to imply that

> one should end the

> seeking, because that's just another form of

> seeking; a particularly unproductive

> one. What I said above is what is meant by 'There

> is no path' or 'all paths

> are futile'. The path does not go anywhere. The

> seeking does not acquire

> anything. Rather, the seeking ends in the ending of

> the seeker, who was never

> present to begin with.

>

> Phil

>

> In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:00:25 AM Eastern

> Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Dear Phil,

>

> I agree with your thoughts. But not 100%

>

> The answer that you gave can only be said by a

> realised saint. After enlightenment, one can say

> that

> all the paths are frutile, like the Nirvana is there

> but not the path etc.

>

> But as a student, struggling for enlightement, if i

> think that all the paths are frutile, can i

> meditate?

>

> One question may have 2 or more answers and all may

> be

> correct, but for different people with different

> state

> of mind. A Guru gives answer which suits the

> questioner and the answer can be prctically be

> applied

> by the questioner. But it may not suit others.

>

> ****All approaches are futile in the sense that

> there

> is a person attempting to accomplish something. If

> all

> that is present is a false notion of personhood,

> then

> all that can happen is the realization that this is

> a

> false notion. The path doen't lead anywhere because

> there's nowhere to go. You already are what you

> seek,

> the seeking itself, and so all that can happen is

> the

> ending of the seeking; the realization of the

> futility

> of seeking. That's enlightenment.

>

> What you say is true. But this answer can be

> applied

> to a person, who has only one thought left in mind

> i.e. 'i am'. He may experience Samadhi (true SELF)

> but

> cannot be in that state for ever. For him you can

> say

> that

>

> " All approaches are futile in the sense that there

> is

> a person attempting to accomplish something. "

>

> meditation is a mental process and it requires

> mental

> efforts. Now time has come to drop your efforts and

> be

> aware of true SELF.

>

> Sri Ramana Maharshi said that " to be aware of

> anything else other than you " SELF " is nothing but

> unhappiness.

>

> But for a beginner, your answer cannot be appied.

>

> It is like you are hurt badly by a thorne

> (ignorance

> about SELF)pearced in your feet and you keep on

> saying

> that i am not hurt. i am not hurt. The problem is

> not

> solved. First we should try to remove the thorne

> (ignorance) with the help of sharp object

> (Knowledge)

> and then throw away both. Go beyond Knowledge

> (Jyana)and Ignogance (Agyana). i.e. go beyond

> words,

> be in the SELF.

>

> Anyway, these are my thoughts, so please dont take

> it

> personal. Discussion should not end in an argument.

>

> Until next time

>

> AUM

>

> Sujal

>

> --- souldreamone wrote:

>

> >

> > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:53:08 AM Pacific

> > Daylight Time,

> > sujal_u writes:

> >

> > Dear Phil,

> >

> > I also do not disagree with your line of

> thinking.

> > I

> > am also practicing advait vedanta and chanting on

> > 'AUM'.

> >

> > But it is not posible for each and every

> individual

> > to

> > follow only one path. Non-dual approach is the

> > straight path, but is difficult for others

> > eventhough

> > it suits me.

> >

> > So for a common man, who does not have much

> faith

> > in

> > God but is aware of the word God, in other words

> for

> > a

> > beginner, Dual approach is easiest, because we,

> > unknownigly think of us a body and try to

> fulfill

> > his/her personal needs. So for a man who

> believes

> > himself as body (because unless and until you

> > experience detachment, you never know that you

> > are/were attached. before we can separate

> ourself

> > from

> > the mind ot thoughts, we cannot say that i am not

>

> > the

> > mind, i am that 'i am'.) I believe that we should

> > try

> > to apply spirituality in the practical life. So

> for

> > a

> > commo man, who believes that he is a body, he

> > cannot

> > think of himself as formless. so dual approach

> > helps

> > him to be stable, achieve concentration, and

> develop

> > faith and surrenderance in a particular form of

> > god.

> > this is a stepping stone for non-dual approach.

> > later

> > on with proper understanding, he realises that

> the

> > same god is in himself and then he turns

> introvert.

> > Then the philosophy which you have said can be

> > applied, but not at the begining. You can take

> the

> > example of Great Indian Saint Sri Ramakrshna

> > paramhansa. He meditated on the form of KALI,

> > realised

> > her, then he practiced tratric sadhana, then

> advait

> > vedanta. So he establised that same truth can be

> > approached in many ways.

> >

> > Regarding that realised saints have thoughts but

> > they

> > do not identify themselfs with the thought, i

> would

> > like to say that when you realise your self

> through

> > intense meditation, your mind is completely

> empty

> > and

> > has also become brahman itself. then why do the

> > saints

> > show a particular character or choices. Because

> > society wont accept them and they behave

> normally,

> > take medicines, as we follows their footsteps

> and

> > copy

> > them.

> >

> > *****I see it differently. The Awakening event

> that

> > occurrs through the

> > mind/body does not supply a volitional controller

> > where once there was none, it

> > is the removal of the notion that there ever was

> > one, and so the 'Awakened

> > one' is not choosing what to say and do any more

> > than we are. There is simply

> > the Realization of this fact. Some will talk about

> > what the mind/body 'seems

> > to do', and it does not normally even need to be

> > paid any particular attention

> > to. The personality and likes and dislikes are

> part

> > of the conditioning of a

> > mind whos functioning is fully integrated with

> the

> > Totality of the

> > functioning of Consciousness. There is no person

> > after 'enlightenment' any more than

> > there is a person before, though the

> conditioning

> > is altered to varying

> > degrees.

> >

> > The paths to reach the mountain top are different

> > but

> > as we approach the top, then the path comes

> nearer

> > (i.e. things become common), and atlast, the top

> is

> > only one. So you cannot say that dual approach

> is

> > frutile.

> >

> > ****All approaches are futile in the sense that

> > there is a person attempting

> > to accomplish something. If all that is present

> is

> > a false notion of

> > personhood, then all that can happen is the

> > realization that this is a false notion.

> > The path doen't lead anywhere because there's

> > nowhere to go. You already are

> > what you seek, the seeking itself, and so all

> that

> > can happen is the ending

> > of the seeking; the realization of the futility

> of

> > seeking. That's

> > enlightenment.

> >

> > All paths lead to the same destination you may

> call

> > god, atma, self, brahman, heart, awareness.

> >

> > *****Yes, they all end precisely where they

> began

> > before the seeking began,

> > with knowing exactly nothing and seeking

> nothing.

> > Truth is already present,

> > it's the illusion that must come to an end.

> > Phil

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > Sujal

> >

> > **************Planning your summer road trip?

> Check

> > out AOL Travel Guides.

> >

>

(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

> >

>

> Do You ?

> Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam

> protection around

>

> ---

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to

> change your

> subscription, sign in with your ID and go to

> Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No

> Email " for the Nisargadatta

> group and click on Save Changes.

>

April 10, 2008

Hi Phil,

Yes i agree that we think and mind is active in

dreams.

I also give importance to meditation and believe that

without meditation i cannot have that awareness

constantly thoughout day and night.

Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF according

to me.

The statement about dreams that i made originally

belongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya

(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand of

Jnana and manan ashram.

Also the importance i give to meditation of chanting

gods name or being aware of the SELF can be found in

Traditional Scriptures if non-duality like

Vivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that

" there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) to

realise yor true nature.

The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.

1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God

(Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)

2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana

3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri Ramana

Maharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,

and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri Adi

Sankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)

* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formless

atribute of God just as national flag represents the

entire nation.

Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) also

represents GOD but with atributes.

I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) as

Shaastra is nothing but collection of the experience

of innumerable realised saints with time immorial.

So i consider them as authentic.

AUM

Sujal

--- souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/9/2008 11:02:12 PM Pacific

> Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Hi Phil,

>

> I agree.

> I is ofcourse the process of unlearning.

> Your thoughts are not absurd but are in accordance

> with indian traditional scriptures.

>

> They say that the false label on the SELF should be

> removed.

> They also say that nobody can give knowledge, but

> the

> ignorance can ofcource be removed. Because to give

> knowledge means you were not the SOUL or Atman and

> now

> you are (after getting the knowledge. There is

> another

> word " to achieve that you already are - praptasya

> prapti "

>

> I was talking about the process (sadhana) and the

> practical application in day to day life.

>

> ****

> " but I'll take your comments to mean I don't know

> > what I'm saying to be true

> > and therefore should not be saying it. "

>

> I do not say that what you say is false.

>

> Even i practice detachment with NON-SELF. Then what

> remains is our true SELF, but with the help of AUM.

>

> I pass through the same process that you have

> described. I experience that as the mind becomes

> quite

> peace increases. As the false identification with

> the

> NON-SELF decreases, eternal bliss increases. I find

> myself closer to God and even after meditation,

> that

> fealing of being ALONE or peace originating as a

> result of detachment flows continously through me.

>

> The reason i pointed out was due to the fact that it

> is not for everybody because to understand this

> philosophy, one should have experience detachment,

> with the help of internse meditation. Else doubts

> remain.

>

> Q: Why is it difficult to understand the non dual

> concept of unlearning?

>

> A: There are 24 hours. out of 24 hours how much

> time

> do we dedicate for finding our ture nature. 2, 3 or

> 5

> hours. What about the rest.

>

> We need 7 hours of sleep. Out of which, 2 hours are

> of

> deep sleep in which there are no thoughts. But even

> in

> dreams, we try to achieve which we cannot in the day

> time asdreams are nothing but a way of emotional

> outlet (imp to stabilise our mind) and thoughts are

> extinguished in dreams.

>

> So majority of time we spend with NON-SELF, that is

> why thoughts disturb us and influence us in

> meditation.

>

> For a person who does not have strong determination

> to

> realise his true nature and enlightment is not the

> only goal of his life, he will find it difficult to

> absorb the process of unlearning because generally

> we

> are not ready to QUIT anything, which is extremely

> necessary for us to unlearn or detach from NON-SELF.

>

> Anyway, thanks for your feedback and comments. I

> will

> always take them positively.

>

> Until Next Time

>

> AUM

>

> Sujal

>

> Hi again

> Yes, I think we are in agreement, though my 'path'

> has not involved intense

> meditation but is mostly intuition or what some

> might call direct perception.

> Sometimes meditation enhances it and sometimes it

> dulls it since what seems

> to be required is a state of high alertness in the

> absence of mentation. I

> realize meditation is very important to you and

> that's fine, but it's not a

> requirement for revealing the illusory nature of

> attachments and the self.

>

> I wanted to offer another perspective on dreams. I

> had always thought that

> they were a kind of 'junk removal' process, but I

> noticed that's not the

> primary function. The mind insists on staying

> active during waking hours because

> the ego identity depends upon this activity. Since

> there is no reality to the

> ego, it must continually reinforce it's illusory

> structure with thought,

> almost all of which is self referential in some

> way. This is why it's difficult to

> stop the thoughts.

>

> In sleep, before consciousness is fully lost, the

> mind finds it's external

> senses blocked, and so it simply creates an internal

> dreamscape to replace the

> external one because even in this state it desires

> experience. It's only when

> consciousness is totally absent in deep sleep that

> the dream scenarios can

> no longer be created. If you look at the dream

> content, you find that some are

> frightening, some are informative and powerful, and

> some are fun, and all

> are interesting in some way. Some of the dreams do

> not seem to be junk.

>

> It's also clear that thought IS present in dreams.

> Have you never noticed

> that you think in dreams?

>

> Phil

>

> **************Planning your summer road trip? Check

> out AOL Travel Guides.

>

(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

April 10, 2008

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujal

As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path.

What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing?

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 10, 2008

Hi Diana

As you may know, self inquiry reveals that you can't be something that you observe, whether it be an object of your senses like the body, or an object of mind, like a thought or feeling. There would have to be one thing observing something else, and so the question becomes, what is it that's observing? If that observer can be objectified in any way (it has such and such qualities or comes and goes or radiates the blinding white light of Divine Essence or whatever) then what You are must be standing apart from it in some way in order to observe such qualities and that's what You really are, at least until you identify it in some way.

So, the reason for the question was to see if this SELF is something the mind has conjured up as an 'object' of which the observer is aware, or if it is the Awareness itself, which is quite impossible to objectify in any way. One does not experience the Self. One IS the Self. The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').

Phil

In a message dated 4/10/2008 1:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, diana.shellam writes:

hello all, thats an interesting question..phil asks, " what does it mean to be aware of the "SELF" and what thing is it that is aware of another thing? lets just explore this more closer? and keep it "kiss" because puppet diana is not that bright, thanks all, hi b.b.b. diana souldreamone wrote:

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujal

As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path.

What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing?

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

**

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 10, 2008

Yup, the whole deal turns into a process of "not knowing" or unlearning which, ironically, can take a lot of investigation, so the questioning is appropriate, doncha think? If we could just be and not know what we think we know, we would already have not-done that. It's an odd game.

Phil

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:21:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, diana.shellam writes:

hello phil, thank you for writing this out quite planely.. i agree that the "eye" cant see itself and one cant expereince what one is because "experience" is in time and "one" is a timeless "being". so it cant be known either, freedom only comes in not knowing and just "being".. so maybe these are questions of the "mind" which is that which your not either. thanks again, diana souldreamone wrote:

Hi Diana

As you may know, self inquiry reveals that you can't be something that you observe, whether it be an object of your senses like the body, or an object of mind, like a thought or feeling. There would have to be one thing observing something else, and so the question becomes, what is it that's observing? If that observer can be objectified in any way (it has such and such qualities or comes and goes or radiates the blinding white light of Divine Essence or whatever) then what You are must be standing apart from it in some way in order to observe such qualities and that's what You really are, at least until you identify it in some way.

So, the reason for the question was to see if this SELF is something the mind has conjured up as an 'object' of which the observer is aware, or if it is the Awareness itself, which is quite impossible to objectify in any way. One does not experience the Self. One IS the Self. The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').

Phil

In a message dated 4/10/2008 1:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, diana.shellam (AT) btinternet (DOT) com writes:

hello all, thats an interesting question..phil asks, " what does it mean to be aware of the "SELF" and what thing is it that is aware of another thing? lets just explore this more closer? and keep it "kiss" because puppet diana is not that bright, thanks all, hi b.b.b. diana souldreamone (AT) AOL (DOT) com wrote:

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 10, 2008

hello all, thats an interesting question..phil asks, " what does it mean to be aware of the "SELF" and what thing is it that is aware of another thing? lets just explore this more closer? and keep it "kiss" because puppet diana is not that bright, thanks all, hi b.b.b. diana souldreamone wrote: In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes: Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik

Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujal As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no

methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path. What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing? Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

hello phil, thank you for writing this out quite planely.. i agree that the "eye" cant see itself and one cant expereince what one is because "experience" is in time and "one" is a timeless "being". so it cant be known either, freedom only comes in not knowing and just "being".. so maybe these are questions of the "mind" which is that which your not either. thanks again, diana souldreamone wrote: Hi Diana As you may know, self inquiry reveals that you can't be something that you observe, whether it be an object of your senses like the body, or an object of mind, like a thought or feeling. There would have to be one thing observing something else, and so the question becomes, what is it that's observing? If that observer can be objectified in any way (it has such and such qualities or comes and goes or radiates the blinding white light of Divine Essence or whatever) then what You are must be standing apart from it in some way in order to observe such qualities and that's what You really are, at least until you identify it in some way. So, the reason for the question was to see if this SELF is something the mind has conjured up as an 'object' of which the observer is aware, or if it is the Awareness itself, which is quite impossible to objectify in any way. One does not experience the Self. One IS the Self. The eye

cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I'). Phil In a message dated 4/10/2008 1:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, diana.shellam (AT) btinternet (DOT) com writes: hello all, thats an interesting question..phil asks, " what does it mean to be aware of the "SELF" and what thing is it that is aware of another thing? lets just explore this more closer? and keep it "kiss" because puppet diana is not that bright, thanks all, hi b.b.b. diana souldreamone (AT) AOL (DOT) com wrote: In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes: Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik

Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujal As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no

methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path. What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing? Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. ** Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

"As words of a Realised saint are a result of their direct experience. After i know my true nature and always abide in it. i will, without any fear or hasitation, say "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').", as there is no doubt.

My words indiicate my state of mind and where i stand."

As do mine. You believe that I'm parroting concepts, which is fine, but it doesn't serve you to believe that you must be a "Realized saint" in order to know beyond doubt that the eye cannot see the eye. All that is needed is a moment of seeing beyond the mind that this is so. In the same way that which is the creator of thoughts cannot itself consist of thoughts, and that which creates the illusion of time cannot itself dwell in time, it can be seen that whatever is observing cannot itself be the object of it's observation. Anything that you can be aware of (body, thoughts, feelings, witnesser, etc) cannot be what You are. What You are cannot be an 'object' of your observation. You can see this right now if you allow it. It is not seen with the thinking mind and is not subject to the doubts of mind's conceptualization.

Phil

In a message dated 4/10/2008 10:52:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Dear Phil,"The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').(This is infact pointed out by Sri Ramana Maharshi in "40 verses on truth"What you say is definately true.When we say that "to god God, we should go inside the Heart". This does not mean that we have to travel from one place to other. It is a way of expressing, as our mind naturally is tuned with the body. SELF cannot be explained, as you correctly said "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I')."But what you do to put in the words to guide/express somebody. When Sri Nisargadattaji says that "SELF is beyond words", what does he mean? Does a saint try to cage the SELF, which is beyond words. If such is the case then nobody can talk to each other or express anything to others. WHO explains WHOM .What i talked was a process (as i meditate and give importance to Meditation), which, i realise, is frutile according to you.What you said is the result of the process. "You are the eye". Who sees whom. But again, I cannot dare to say these words before i experience this state or in your language "be the SELF" or "be what you are". As words of a Realised saint are a result of their direct experience. After i know my true nature and always abide in it. i will, without any fear or hasitation, say "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').", as there is no doubt.Else i see the 'snake' (which is superimposed on 'rope' - by false illusion), but keep on saying that i see the 'rope'.My words indiicate my state of mind and where i stand.I think we are not been able to tune ourselves with each other. Out line thinking is a bit different, but i think our Goal is the same.Anyway. byeAUMSujal

"souldreamone" <souldreamoneNisargadatta Sent: Friday, 11 April, 2008 1:39:50 AMRe: Love all or none of it . . . .

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

In a message dated 4/10/2008 11:22:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, malhimanjit writes:

First i read I am that than i come across books of UG Krishnamurthy which describes Mind is myth and there is no self and soul at all. Meditation is bullshit and harmful to body. but he also described his natural states and diiferent experience along with marks of chakra on various parts of body. i can not understand and in great dilemma .Should i leave self enquiry and meditation if i belive in UG. But in deep my heart it seems to be there is something .How should i clarify my doubts and make progress. If i want to know self or my true nature -Can anyone help me how to go about this in first step and how should i know my progress.HELP Warm regards Manjit

Hi Manjit

All I have to offer is my perspective and experience, of course. It's clear to me that no concepts are Truth, but can only point to it, so all concepts have limited value and are only valid within their own context.

The soul can be a useful analogy at some levels of understanding, but in a larger context I see no soul. Multiple souls would be yet another level of illusion inserted between the illusion of human experience and that which you/we truly are, and there is no need. Likewise, there is no reincarnation or the attending karma that accompanies that imagined process, though these too have their place as contextual analogies.

Mind is also a concept for identifying the thinking/perceiving aspect of illusion, and is itself part of the illusion, though it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to dismiss it.

I don't see meditation as harmfull to the body. I see it as yet another tool that serves its purpose, but it has limitations depending upon how it is done. Krishnamurty's definition of meditation is much different than how it is normally practiced, and for him was not actually a practice. It can become problematic for two reasons that I can see. It presupposes one who is attempting to accomplish something, while in reality the goal is to see that there is nobody present to accomplish anything. It also generally leads to various mind states, none of which are Truth because Truth is not a state of mind. The mind states may be very powerful and often lead seekers to believe some enlightened state has been accomplished. The state then ends and the seeker goes about trying to duplicate it without success.

Self inquiry has been very fruitful for me and is recommended by almost every guru I've stumbled across.

For what it's worth, that's my perspective.

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

In a message dated 4/10/2008 11:51:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes:

> As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody > 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on > infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no methods. The > methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a > necessary part of ones path. > > What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of > another thing?> > PhilPhil....maybe you should meditate and find out.....joking, ok....as i see, you aren't interested in meditation.....even if since thousand of years it's practised and just give people All they ever wished to "Be".....means, Self.Self Is AwarenessAwareness Is Self....there is nothing but Self....for somebody meditating nicely :)Marc

Meditation has been, and still is, a part of my 'path', but I also see it's limitations. What I see as a limitation is what you see as special insight that leaves you in a position of superior knowingness. The difficulty is that the 'me' never quite goes away, and so it becomes 'MY' experience of Self as Awareness.

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

In a message dated 4/11/2008 1:36:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes:

Phil......i'm sorry.....i'm not the one in here who try hard....with endless words, like you do.....to explain a "superior knowingness"....etc...as far i see.....your knowledge indeed, is of many many personal thoughts.....and so of restless mind......and so of unawareness....can't you "see" that you are mostly talking to yourself....?....means, giving advices to just yourself.....Marc

That's precisely what I am doing. Though I do have to weed through volumes of posts from others who seem to think they are advising me instead of themselves while ignoring their own reflections.

Let me be clear. You and I have played this silly game before. I need no help from you at all. You're free to ignore me. I have no interest in what you have to say.

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

April 11, 2008

Dear Phil,"The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').(This is infact pointed out by Sri Ramana Maharshi in "40 verses on truth"What you say isÂ definately true.When we say that "to god God, we should go inside the Heart". This does not mean that we have to travel from one place to other. It is a way of expressing, as our mind naturally is tuned with the body. SELF cannot be explained, as youÂ correctly said "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I')."But what you do to put in the words to guide/express somebody. When Sri Nisargadattaji says that "SELF is beyond words", what does he mean? Does a saint try to cage the SELF, which is beyond

words.Â IfÂ suchÂ isÂ theÂ caseÂ thenÂ nobodyÂ canÂ talkÂ toÂ eachÂ otherÂ orÂ expressÂ anythingÂ toÂ others.Â WHOÂ explainsÂ WHOM .What i talked was a process (as i meditate and give importance to Meditation), which,Â iÂ realise, is frutile according to you.What you said is the result of the process. "You are the eye". Who sees whom. But again, I cannot dare to say these words before i experience this state or in your language "be the SELF" or "be what you are". As words of a Realised saint are a result of their direct experience. After i know my true nature and always abide in it. i will, without any fear or hasitation, say "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').", as there is no doubt.Else i see the 'snake' (which is superimposed Â on 'rope' - by false illusion), but keep on saying that i see the 'rope'.My words indiicate my state of mind and where i stand.I think we are not been able to tune

ourselves with each other. Out line thinking is a bit different, but i think our Goal is the same.Anyway. bye AUMSujal"souldreamone" <souldreamoneNisargadatta Sent: Friday, 11 April, 2008 1:39:50 AMRe: Love all or none of it . . . .

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way

other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji' s approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujalAs soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path. Â What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing?Â PhilÂ Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it..

April 11, 2008

First i read I am that than i come across books of UG Krishnamurthy which describes Mind is myth and there is no self and soul at all. Meditation is bullshit and harmful to body. but he also described his natural states and diiferent experience along with marks of chakra on various parts of body. i can not understand and in great dilemma .Should i leave self enquiry and meditation if i belive in UG. But in deep my heart it seems to be there is something .How should i clarify my doubts and make progress.

If i want to know self or my true nature -Can anyone help me how to go about this in first step and how should i know my progress.HELP

Warm regards

Manjit

Nisargadatta From: sujal_uDate: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:22:39 +0530Re: Love all or none of it . . . .

Dear Phil,"The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').(This is infact pointed out by Sri Ramana Maharshi in "40 verses on truth"What you say is definately true.When we say that "to god God, we should go inside the Heart". This does not mean that we have to travel from one place to other. It is a way of expressing, as our mind naturally is tuned with the body. SELF cannot be explained, as you correctly said "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I')."But what you do to put in the words to guide/express somebody. When Sri Nisargadattaji says that "SELF is beyond words", what does he mean? Does a saint try to cage the SELF, which is beyond words. If such is the case then nobody can talk to each other or express anything to others. WHO explains WHOM .What i talked was a process (as i meditate and give importance to Meditation), which, i realise, is frutile according to you.What you said is the result of the process. "You are the eye". Who sees whom. But again, I cannot dare to say these words before i experience this state or in your language "be the SELF" or "be what you are". As words of a Realised saint are a result of their direct experience. After i know my true nature and always abide in it. i will, without any fear or hasitation, say "The eye cannot see the eye (or the 'I' the 'I').", as there is no doubt.Else i see the 'snake' (which is superimposed on 'rope' - by false illusion), but keep on saying that i see the 'rope'.My words indiicate my state of mind and where i stand.I think we are not been able to tune ourselves with each other. Out line thinking is a bit different, but i think our Goal is the same.Anyway. byeAUMSujal

"souldreamone (AT) AOL (DOT) com" <souldreamone (AT) AOL (DOT) com>Nisargadatta Sent: Friday, 11 April, 2008 1:39:50 AMRe: Love all or none of it . . . .

In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sujal_u writes:

Hi Phil,Yes i agree that we think and mind is active indreams.I also give importance to meditation and believe thatwithout meditation i cannot have that awarenessconstantly thoughout day and night.Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF accordingto me.The statement about dreams that i made originallybelongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya(founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand ofJnana and manan ashram.Also the importance i give to meditation of chantinggods name or being aware of the SELF can be found inTraditional Scriptures if non-duality likeVivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that"there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) torealise yor true nature.The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God(Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri RamanaMaharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji' s approach,and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri AdiSankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)* Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formlessatribute of God just as national flag represents theentire nation.Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) alsorepresents GOD but with atributes.I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) asShaastra is nothing but collection of the experienceof innumerable realised saints with time immorial.So i consider them as authentic.AUMSujal

As soon as someone says "there is no other way than meditation" somebody 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place constraints on infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no methods. The methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions may be a necessary part of ones path.

What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is aware of another thing?

Phil

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it..

Planning marriage in 2008!

Join Shaadi.com matrimony FREE! Try it now!

April 11, 2008

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/10/2008 3:48:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> sujal_u writes:

>

> Hi Phil,

>

> Yes i agree that we think and mind is active in

> dreams.

>

> I also give importance to meditation and believe that

> without meditation i cannot have that awareness

> constantly thoughout day and night.

>

> Meditation is trying to be aware of the SELF according

> to me.

>

> The statement about dreams that i made originally

> belongs to a senior disciple of Swami Chinmaya

> (founder of Chinmaya mission nad Swami Tadrupanand of

> Jnana and manan ashram.

>

> Also the importance i give to meditation of chanting

> gods name or being aware of the SELF can be found in

> Traditional Scriptures if non-duality like

>

> Vivek Choodamani of Sri Adi Sankaracharya says that

> " there is no way other than meditation (sadhana) to

> realise yor true nature.

>

> The term meditation is sometimes loosely defined.

> 1. It may be chanting the name of any form of God

> (Path of Devotion - Pratik Upasana)

> 2. Chanting AUM (formless approach)- Pratik Upasana

> 3. The path of Knowledge - Neti Neti, Sri Ramana

> Maharshi's approach, Sri Nisargadattaji's approach,

> and Atmashatak or Nirvana Shatak of Sri Adi

> Sankaracharya (Ahangra upasna)

>

> * Pratik - Symbol - AUM represents the formless

> atribute of God just as national flag represents the

> entire nation.

>

> Similarly- chanting God's name ( say Lord RAMA) also

> represents GOD but with atributes.

>

> I try to follow Indian Scriptures (Shaastra) as

> Shaastra is nothing but collection of the experience

> of innumerable realised saints with time immorial.

>

> So i consider them as authentic.

>

> AUM

>

> Sujal

>

> As soon as someone says " there is no other way than meditation "

somebody

> 'Awakens' without ever having meditated. It's not wisdom to place

constraints on

> infinite potential. There are infinite ways and there are no

methods. The

> methods and practices are distractions, though these distractions

may be a

> necessary part of ones path.

>

> What does it mean to be aware of the SELF? What thing is it that is

aware of

> another thing?

>

> Phil

Phil....maybe you should meditate and find out.....

joking, ok....as i see, you aren't interested in meditation.....even

if since thousand of years it's practised and just give people All

they ever wished to " Be " .....means, Self.

Self Is Awareness

Awareness Is Self

.....

there is nothing but Self....for somebody meditating nicely

Marc

>

> **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel

Guides.

> (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?

ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

Sign In

Love all or none of it . . . .

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest