Practice

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those

who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*.

>

> Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however,

*improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with).

>

> Individually and collectively.

>

> ~A

 

What is improved is involved with the experiencing.

 

Experience improves according to the judgment of the experiencer (in conjunction

with other experiencers).

 

However, nonduality is the experiencer and experience / not-two.

 

No improvement here.

 

The instant that experience/experiencer not-two = no experience.

 

Nameless nothing.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Awareness is nondual.

 

There is no practicing of this or improving it.

 

Totality is not improvable.

 

Totality is not an experience, nor is it a collection of experiences.

 

Totality isn't going anywhere.

 

Totality isn't a collection of goings and arrivings.

 

- D -

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect awarenss

> or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the

> obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at

> once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is not

> " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down

> -geo-

>

>

> It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those

> who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*.

>

> Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however,

> *improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with).

>

> Individually and collectively.

>

> ~A

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > What's the difference between practice and living your life?

> >

> > - D -

> > You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like becomin

> > 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL

> > What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something to the obstacles

> > to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is not

> > sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite corner, or

> > chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing thoughts,

> > going

> > along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs, desires,

> > clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed does

> > something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the thinking

> > field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world.

> > -geo-

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> geo

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM

> Re: Re: Practice

>

>

>

> Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect awarenss

> or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the

> obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at

> once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is not

> " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down

>

> We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to

> non-fragmentation - it is or it is not.

> Either there is conceptual separation or there is not.

> -geo-

 

Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or

that other way. "

 

Nonconceptualization says nothing.

 

There is no " either/or " ...

 

Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > In the practice of practicing, we overcome the obstacle that was never

there.

> > >

> > > Go figure.

> > >

> > > ~A

> >

> > What's the difference between practice and living your life?

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

>

> Nada, Dan... Not even such a thing as a thing... that's why i

> never got involved in practicing...however, I admit to having

> been a *seeker*. lol.

>

> ~A

 

 

anna is your real name judith durham?!

 

i knew some of the seekers and all the the new christy minstrels.

 

haven't seen any of them for ages..

 

we never played the same venues..

 

but we did record at some of the same studios.

 

if you're judy..hey!

 

if your not... hey anyway!

 

Spencer.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of

awareness.

>

> That's nonduality's essence.

>

> From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you say

are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being?

>

> How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many know

intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites?

>

> How many know who they are and who they are not?

>

> Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious

beingness of life.

>

> ~A

 

There simply aren't any others.

 

If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the

bump, there aren't two separate things hitting.

 

Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality.

 

Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences.

 

There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness.

 

One's perceptual objects can fool one.

 

It seems that others interact, perceptually.

 

Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> > I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of

awareness.

> >

> > That's nonduality's essence.

> >

> > From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you

say are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being?

> >

> > How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many

know intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites?

> >

> > How many know who they are and who they are not?

> >

> > Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious

beingness of life.

> >

> > ~A

>

> There simply aren't any others.

>

> If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the

bump, there aren't two separate things hitting.

>

> Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality.

>

> Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences.

>

> There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness.

>

> One's perceptual objects can fool one.

>

> It seems that others interact, perceptually.

>

> Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions.

>

> - D -

>

 

 

Ok... let's not mix *levels* of perceptions... THAT would be foolish.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:15 PM

Re: Practice

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> geo

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM

> Re: Re: Practice

>

>

>

> Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect

> awarenss

> or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the

> obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at

> once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is

> not

> " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down

>

> We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to

> non-fragmentation - it is or it is not.

> Either there is conceptual separation or there is not.

> -geo-

 

Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or

that other way. "

 

Nonconceptualization says nothing.

 

There is no " either/or " ...

 

Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be.

 

- D -

 

If nonconceptualization says nothing - so it is conceptualization what you

say.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > In the practice of practicing, we overcome the obstacle that was never

there.

> > >

> > > Go figure.

> > >

> > > ~A

> >

> > What's the difference between practice and living your life?

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

>

> Nada, Dan... Not even such a thing as a thing... that's why i

> never got involved in practicing...however, I admit to having

> been a *seeker*. lol.

>

> ~A

 

Agreed.

 

Knock and it shall be opened.

 

Seek and ye shall find.

 

Nothing needs to be found.

 

That is the finding.

 

The seeker was an interpretation, nothing more.

 

What we call our life is an interpretation.

 

Life isn't opposed to death.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:09 PM

Re: Practice

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> What's the difference between practice and living your life?

>

> - D -

> You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like becomin

> 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL

> What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something to the obstacles

> to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is not

> sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite corner, or

> chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing thoughts,

> going

> along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs, desires,

> clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed does

> something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the thinking

> field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world.

> -geo-

 

Hi Geo -

 

There is no practice toward nonduality.

 

Therefore there is no obstacle to nonduality.

 

Obstacles you can work on, can be improved.

 

Practices don't improve obstacles to nonduality, they improve obstacles

toward experiences you want to have in your life.

 

Nonduality isn't an experience.

 

Therefore, there is no obstacle to it.

 

Living your life is the " practice " of nonduality.

 

But only in the sense that there is no division between the practice, the

actuality, what is the case.

 

The word " practice " doesn't really fit, life is nonduality, that is all.

 

If you think about it and divide it up, there is no one else to blame.

 

Any obstacle is self-created.

 

The observer is the observed.

 

When you observe what you are doing, it already has been done.

 

There is nothing to change.

 

- Dan

 

There is only one movement, one clarity.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I beg to differ with you. Awareness is perfected... in being aware of

awareness.

> > >

> > > That's nonduality's essence.

> > >

> > > From the standpoint of almost 7 billion human beings... how many would you

say are aware of awareness, of consciousness of being?

> > >

> > > How many have seen the separation of inside/outside disappear? How many

know intimately the sheer ecstasy of being? Sewn together all opposites?

> > >

> > > How many know who they are and who they are not?

> > >

> > > Nonduality is the practice of being aware of awareness in the conscious

beingness of life.

> > >

> > > ~A

> >

> > There simply aren't any others.

> >

> > If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of

the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting.

> >

> > Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality.

> >

> > Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences.

> >

> > There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness.

> >

> > One's perceptual objects can fool one.

> >

> > It seems that others interact, perceptually.

> >

> > Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions.

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

>

> Ok... let's not mix *levels* of perceptions... THAT would be foolish.

>

> ~A

 

This moment of perceiving - is your perception occurring in different levels?

 

Or is there just this, as is?

 

I don't see any separated levels that could mix.

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:15 PM

> Re: Practice

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > geo

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:25 PM

> > Re: Re: Practice

> >

> >

> >

> > Awareness is not like being a doctor or lawyer. You can not perfect

> > awarenss

> > or non-duality - no. What I mean is that there are ways to deal with the

> > obstacles to it. Say you have some habit. If you can not drop it at

> > once...ongoing opposition may be a good practice. But in fact...that is

> > not

> > " practicing " non-duality - that sounds ridiculous to even write it down

> >

> > We have to consider that it is a step from fragmentation to

> > non-fragmentation - it is or it is not.

> > Either there is conceptual separation or there is not.

> > -geo-

>

> Concept says " either this or that, one or the other, either it's this way or

> that other way. "

>

> Nonconceptualization says nothing.

>

> There is no " either/or " ...

>

> Nonconceptually aware, there is no " other way " for anything to be.

>

> - D -

>

> If nonconceptualization says nothing - so it is conceptualization what you

> say.

> -geo-

 

Yes, quite so.

 

This is the humor of this kind of communicating.

 

Saying what can't be said.

 

Pointing where there is no pointing possible.

 

Saying as one conceptual being to another, " no conceptual being can ever grasp

what this is " ...

 

As if something were being said.

 

If there isn't enjoyment of the inability to say it, then forget about it ...

 

Smiles --

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> > It's much like being a doctor or lawyer... practicing the craft... Or those

who stand on any pulpit... practicing what is *preached*.

> >

> > Practice makes perfect. And life is perfect, isn't it? We can, however,

*improve* it....the more awareness we practice (with).

> >

> > Individually and collectively.

> >

> > ~A

>

> What is improved is involved with the experiencing.

 

Everyone seems to feel to be " practicing " ..

 

" Life is a laboratory to perform experiments in " (anon. poster at Gurusfeet.com)

 

Everyone is 'practicing'...

 

Everyone is " acting " and " re-acting " ...

 

" We'll get to real life, real soon now... keep practicing... almost there...

almost therrrreee.. just a wee bit more.... "

 

We'll get to actually living life, soon enough... but for now, keep practicing

;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> There is nothing to change.

>

> - Dan

 

I tried to change nothing,

 

But no matter how much I tried,

 

nothing happened ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > There is nothing to change.

> >

> > - Dan

>

> I tried to change nothing,

>

> But no matter how much I tried,

>

> nothing happened ;-).

>

 

 

and nothing keeps happening ;-)

 

good nite boys,

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > There is nothing to change.

> > >

> > > - Dan

> >

> > I tried to change nothing,

> >

> > But no matter how much I tried,

> >

> > nothing happened ;-).

> >

>

>

> and nothing keeps happening ;-)

>

> good nite boys,

>

> ~A

 

Well, tell 'nothing' to knock it off ;-)...

 

Sleep good, girl.... don't dream of a squirrel.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > There is nothing to change.

> >

> > - Dan

>

> I tried to change nothing,

>

> But no matter how much I tried,

>

> nothing happened ;-).

 

Not to worry -- I'll give you change for your nothing.

 

Here's five little nothings for that big nothing.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > There is nothing to change.

> > >

> > > - Dan

> >

> > I tried to change nothing,

> >

> > But no matter how much I tried,

> >

> > nothing happened ;-).

> >

>

>

> and nothing keeps happening ;-)

>

> good nite boys,

>

> ~A

 

g'nite girl.

 

keep happenin'.

 

not that you can help it.

 

:-)

 

= D =

[Guest guest]

At 04:19 PM 7/22/2009, you wrote:

 

geo > You can not " improve " towards non-duality

Geo,

I think you're right and that you're wrong.

There is no method or technique possible when one is in samadhi, and

thus,

jumping out of identifying with the Cosmic Ego is Grace descending upon

one.

Freedom is a gift from the Absolute.

-edg-

Samadhi is a subjective expression unless you clear it and let me know

what

is it. The same with Cosmic Ego.

-geo-

Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would

delineate many types of samadhi -- partial/temporary at one end of the

spectrum to full and balanced at the other end. Do you agree?

I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from Nisargadatta that goes

to this issue.

When the gunas are merged into amness (samadhi) this is an act of

stopping the ego from being manifest -- and with the ego out of the way,

the healing power of natural laws of human physiology can undo the knots

of attachment that are only able to be " gotten at " when the ego

is not kicking up a storm of thoughts. It's delicate surgery, and

the ego's pogo sticking shakes the operating room too much.

 

The samskaras are physically embodied as micro-structures in the nervous

system that are, as if, tiny islands of excitation, little broadcasting

radio stations that independently can rile up a mind intent on

peace. It is these renegades that are the left-overs of previous

acts of attachment -- stored up karma if you allow me to say it that

way. Transcending thought is not a one step process -- it is

a gradual lowering of excitation, and even entering samadhi is not a

final act. Residing in samadhi is silent only a short span in the

beginning. Healing the samskaras finally allows the mind to

entertain a perfect peace -- not a false peace in which it is only a

matter of time before some samskara will drag your ego out of unity and

get it roaring and screaming and banging pots and pans. And there

goes the neighborhood. No wonder yogis hole up in caves -- their

own inner noise is blaring enough.

Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony

with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the

Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken,

and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a

possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as

separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the

final step.

Cosmic Ego is the ego of Brahma -- His mind is able to entertain samadhi

as an all time living reality even though thoughts and actions are, well,

godlike in excitational intensity. This is the ultimate duality --

Identity and the bestest-mostest perfect image to symbolize Identity,

Brahma's body/mind. This is perfection in action that does not

create karma for future instantiations of ego to be burdened by.

But, as Brahma's inability to " get to the Absolute " symbolizes,

this kind of enlightenment is not a state of freedom -- merely a state of

infinite empowerment and license. Brahma cannot free Himself from

" thinking He's Brahma. " Only by Grace -- during samadhi

-- can a quiet mind realize the Identity has never been embodied --

merely symbolized by a process.

On the other hand, one

can practice methods, like inquiry, that help the ego

stop attaching to things, and that does help the ego when it attempts to

 

merge into samadhi.

-edg-

There is no ego that attaches.

Edg: I don't know how a student of

Nisargadatta can make that statement. Ego is not an ultimate truth

-- we agree. But, until one is enlightened, saying ego doesn't

exist is whistling past the graveyard. A pretense only.

Denying the reality of the ego -- as an intellectual exercise -- is a

spiritual tool that has some merit, but the heart is hardly involved in

this -- it is a true believer in ego even if the intellect is prancing

about singing about its great discovery and what a boob heart is to buy

into individuality. For the intellect to get the heart jiggy with

the fact that everything is a mirage -- that's a task like debating a

mother into seeing her child as an illusion which has no power to allure

her heart. Good luck with that. Only an intellectual giant

has the resolving power, the acuity, to see that the heart's intuition is

the finest of intellectual operations. Most of us would be better

off doing bhakti.

There is attachement as

consciousness, but

nothing is attaching.

Edg: Consciousness is a vast processing in

which we can discover subsets/patterns that repeat. This repetition

is the proof of attachment. That is: the mind sticks to the

pleasures it knows, and, like an autistic kid rocking in the corner, the

mind rocks with patterns that have yielded a payoff in the past.

This is a clinging to a frayed rope while hanging over a cliff -- and

there's Nisargadatta saying, " Grab that other rope next to you that

I've lowered. " That rope is inquiry -- a process that

extinguishes itself by entering silence.

When you say, " nothing is attaching, " to me that's saying

" The Absolute's Identity is so wonderfully embodied by manifestation

that It somehow thinks the image is It. " That I find to be a

wrong statement. Instead, No Thingness, the Absolute, is

unaffected by any object in consciousness -- never ever;

though the Absolute is everywhere/when, it is not solely in space/time,

so while the image in the mirror can assert that it is sentient, the

proof that the image is ephemeral is that its sentience cannot have

non-sentience as an object of consciousness. It cannot see its

Self. This is the proof that Self is not captured by any embodiment

but resides within/without/and-beyond any conceptualization.

 

It is the image that finally gets it that it's but a kid's sparkler on

the Fourth of July being waved in a figure eight pattern. The

flaming sparkler's pattern seems solid, but we know it is but a point

moving in space/time so fast that the eye is fooled. If one can see

only that point and ignore the pattern -- that's entering just like

entering samadhi. If, additionally, one can understand that the

pattern and also the flame are not sentient but are, rather, wielded by

" an arm they know not of, " then one has realized the

Absolute. The figure eight pattern, the ego, can continue to be

dynamically processed, but the delusion that it is forming its figure

eight pattern is removed. The ego is a burnt rope -- form, yes, but

no fundamental " resting state reality. "

There is no such entity.

How can something that does

not exist merge into samadhi.

Edg: Depends on what level of existence

you're talking about. In my present state, I assert that there is

an " I. " This " I " is there as much as an apple

on my palm is. It's real to me. For this " me " to

enter samadhi, I am placing awareness on ever more delicate operations of

the brain. This quiets down the mind's psychic decibels.

Watching one's breath is but one method for lessening the excitation of

the mind -- it gives the mind something very tiny to do, and thus the big

stuff is not engaged. Self inquiry is more powerfully

peace-bringing than breath watching -- it gives you the immediate task of

placing awareness on nothing, no thingness, the Absolute. This

lessening of excitation gives the body a chance to heal some

samskaras. When inquiry is practiced, the ego is, like any other

process of the brain, attenuated to some degree. With practice,

excitation decrease until only the process called OM is operating.

This is an almost perfect paradox: the buzz of OM is convincingly able to

pull off pretending it's silence. In samadhi, OM prevails, and all

the gross sounds that could spring from it -- like the ego sound -- are

not being emitted. This is the ego being Moses unable to cross the

river Jorden, ya see? It gets itself to the doorway of amness, and

then not only does it have to take off its shoes to get inside Pure

Being, but it must take off its entirety. That is, dissolve/merge and not

really enter samadhi. The small ego knocks on the door, and

the Cosmic Ego answers -- just like in the film 2001 A Space Odyssey

where at the end the astronaut keeps seeing an older version of himself

and suddenly he's " over there inside that guy " instead of

" back here being the guy seeing the other guy. " Identity

jumps, ya see? Cosmic Ego answers the door, and he finds no one on

the doorstep.

Then your samadhi is just

some kind of

experience among a diversity of experinces, right?

-geo-

Edg: Exactly. Amness is an experience

of perfect balance of the gunas. It is so perfect that the human

mind cannot conceive of anything better, and thus, it is the final

achievement -- it is the best that can be done to represent the

unrepresentable. During samadhi, " I AM " is the

message. See? There's your doppleganger right there -- Cosmic

Ego asserting that it has sentience. The only solution is, after

waiting for Grace by residing in OM, that finally, one gets so jiggy with

amness that, well, ya gots the tee shirt, been there, done that, and you

can realize that it is the vast silence that permeates all

" isness " that is more alluring than any embodiment. The

spaces between words, between thoughts, between the peaks and troughs of

OM's vibrations are seen as the only eternal everness that OM cannot ever

hope to symbolize.

 

During samadhi, samskaras

become burnt seeds, but how long one has to reside

in samadhi to burn all the seeds is unknowable.

Samadhi ends when the act of burning samskaras excites a process of

manifestation, (when cleaning house, dust flies and can catch one's

attention) and suddenly the ego is there again.

-edg-

Sorry edg. You said the ego was in samadhi...how can it be there

AGAIN?

-geo-

Edg: The small ego is a potentiality of

amness, and until that potential is " fixed " the damned ego will

come out of the woodwork like a cockroach when the lights go out.

The Cosmic Ego that's glorifying in " I AM " is the only thing

that can allure awareness from the small ego. But residing as

Cosmic Ego, heavenly and perfect, one gets uppity, and the small ego's

pleasures cannot attract the mind from OM's song. And like that,

the Cosmic Ego finally gets it that it too is but a small self compared

to the Absolute. Then, oh boy, now ya gots the misery of Brahma

when He figured out He had limits. There's your ultimate

claustrophobia.

 

The ego can hasten its

own extinguishing by repeatedly entering samadhi

until samadhi is perfected and all seeds are burnt. This is easily framed

as

the ego working towards enlightenment -- even though the ego never reaps

 

such a reward.

Do you agree with my fleshing out of your skeleton?

-Edg-

Unless you make an exercise of clarity in mind and clear what you are

 

saying - it just doesnt makes much sense here...

As I told you in one of our first exchanges...you seem to missinterpret

what

ego is. You treat it as something like " my ego " . But such

attitude makes two

of them. Yo imagine there is some real you AND some ego that is not you.

 

These two things are part of the process of fragmentation from totality

 

called by some as ego, by others as consciousness, or maia.

-geo-

Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but

I don't feel comfortable with how your words are used in a fuzzy

manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is false; the other

realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it is

the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion

as a tool. What does it matter if the ego is taking credit?

What matters is lessening the excitation of the human anatomy that will

eventually tune the mind's ability to be delicate enough to have the buzz

of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony of a " mind out of

samadhi. " I see you and others here constantly talking about

the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining

freedom, but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil

and take a lot of baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening

of excitation by various methods -- self inquiry being the

best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly transcending the level of

excitation one is " presently at, " does one get the clarity to

finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing " I

AM. " That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and

then, to give up even being God is the last step that cannot be

consciously taken. God must shed His shoes and body too.

 

--- In

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor

wrote:

>

> What's the difference between practice and living your life?

>

> - D -

> You can not " improve " towards non-duality - like

becomin

> 1,9....1,8....1,2.......ONE!!! No, that is not possible LOL

> What I feel is that certain " practices " will do something

to the obstacles

> to non-duality (paraphrazing nis. recent quote). In my case it is

not

> sitting and counting or crossing legs or staying in some quite

corner, or

> chanting, or repeting some stuff...but, very simpy observing

thoughts,

> going

> along with the thinking process, observing how the mind longs,

desires,

> clings, nags, etc... can be a hard thing to do sometimes and indeed

does

> something. If you dont do that you very easily get lost in the

thinking

> field beleiving you are not there - in the conceptual world.

> -geo-

>

[Guest guest]

Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but I don't feel comfortable with how your words are used in a fuzzy manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is false; the other realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it is the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion as a tool. What does it matter if the ego is taking credit? What matters is lessening the excitation of the human anatomy that will eventually tune the mind's ability to be delicate enough to have the buzz of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony of a "mind out of samadhi." I see you and others here constantly talking about the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining freedom, but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil and take a lot of baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening of excitation by various methods -- self inquiry being the best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly transcending the level of excitation one is "presently at," does one get the clarity to finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing "I AM." That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and then, to give up even being God is the last step that cannot be consciously taken. God must shed His shoes and body too. geo> Dear edg, let me tell you that english is not my natural language (you know that by now) and I cant install a spell checker to my portuguese Outlook. What can I do.... Also, I learn as I write. We are dealing here with a matter that is similar to science, there is need for exactness. As you write long...I will choose smaller parts that I prefer to adress. I believe that what really matters is insight into the non-fragmented nature of what is. This realization is ALWAYS a quantum step, otherwise its illusion of non-duality. The emphasis is insight - the quantum step - which is in fact a transcedence of time, and NOT the idea of cleaning the organism. If you focus in the later you fall back into time through the illusion of "becoming". There is the hope of a cleanner body/mind that in some future will attain something - it will never!! The problem is in the "will" - becoming. So... the cleansing process that insight producess, the organic transformation that the brain cells will eventually undergo should not be an issue of concern. No concern at all - nada!! That gradual change is something beyond human understanding and to focus on it is error. Important is the quantum step out of time and space and the known.

[Guest guest]

Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi -- partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the other end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from Nisargadatta that goes to this issue.geo> I prefer not to referr to third parties. Just me and you. To me there are two situations only: non-duality, no-time, no-known-dimension, no-knowledge - insight; and the illusion of having some inner separte observer. In another part you say you feel there is an "I". So the question is: is there some unseen part that is seeing other parts in order to be called a "I"? Is there?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Edg: Honestly, I get what you're saying, but I don't feel comfortable with

how your words are used in a fuzzy manner. Yes, there are two me's. One is

false; the other realer than the false me can imagine. My ego pretends that it

is the Identity that is receiving an experience. I use that delusion as a tool.

What does it matter if the ego is taking credit? What matters is lessening the

excitation of the human anatomy that will eventually tune the mind's ability to

be delicate enough to have the buzz of OM no longer drowned out by the cacophony

of a " mind out of samadhi. " I see you and others here constantly talking about

the ultimate abandonment of residing within a pattern (OM) and gaining freedom,

but in actuality, in real life, one has to deal with the devil and take a lot of

baby steps of again and again practicing the lessening of excitation by various

methods -- self inquiry being the best tool among tools. Only by repeatedly

transcending the level of excitation one is " presently at, " does one get the

clarity to finally reside in Pure Being -- amness -- Cosmic Ego singing " I AM. "

That's the goal of the small ego -- to become God, and then, to give up even

being God is the last step that cannot be consciously taken. God must shed His

shoes and body too.

>

> geo> Dear edg, let me tell you that english is not my natural language (you

know that by now) and I cant install a spell checker to my portuguese Outlook.

What can I do.... Also, I learn as I write. We are dealing here with a matter

that is similar to science, there is need for exactness. As you write long...I

will choose smaller parts that I prefer to adress. I believe that what really

matters is insight into the non-fragmented nature of what is. This realization

is ALWAYS a quantum step, otherwise its illusion of non-duality. The emphasis is

insight - the quantum step - which is in fact a transcedence of time, and NOT

the idea of cleaning the organism. If you focus in the later you fall back into

time through the illusion of " becoming " . There is the hope of a cleanner

body/mind that in some future will attain something - it will never!!

 

Edg: I don't like to ask this of someone, cuz, it's a big thing to ask, but can

you find any quote from Nisargadatta that could support your notion that

purifying the body/mind is useless? Also, I think Nisargadatta is clearly

saying that realization is a gift that can only be given to one whose mind is

prepared. Otherwise how does one explain Nisargadatta's bhakti actions?

 

The problem is in the " will " - becoming. So... the cleansing process that

insight producess, the organic transformation that the brain cells will

eventually undergo should not be an issue of concern. No concern at all - nada!!

That gradual change is something beyond human understanding and to focus on it

is error. Important is the quantum step out of time and space and the known.

 

Edg: you're espousing an act that is impossible for most minds. You're focusing

on the ultimate act of stepping out of Being into being/non-being. I don't

think the ordinary mind can do such a thing without practicing again and again

until it can reside in Pure Being long enough to get jiggy enough to see the

Pure Being is noisy and that silence compete is one's true Identity. Self

inquiry puts one instantly into fulfilment of that last step, yes, this I agree,

but only a practicing of inquiry will gain one the ability to bring the mind to

a state of the least excitation possible. The final stepless step is not an

egoic act, but the achievement of quiescence IS.

[Guest guest]

Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the "forever step" from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not "a soul in samadhi." That's the final step.-edg-

 

Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi --

partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the other

end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from

Nisargadatta that goes to this issue.

>

> geo> I prefer not to referr to third parties. Just me and you. To me there are

two situations only: non-duality, no-time, no-known-dimension, no-knowledge -

insight; and the illusion of having some inner separte observer. In another part

you say you feel there is an " I " . So the question is: is there some unseen part

that is seeing other parts in order to be called a " I " ? Is there?

>

 

Edg: I struggle to find comfort that I understand your usage above. You ask:

" is there some unseen part? " Answer: No, cuz a part is seeable. That which

sees parts is also a part itself. To me the ego is a process that cherry picks

all the other parts of my operations and selects only the elite parts and the

history of how those elite parts operated as its " history of me. " As if.

Denial, eh? That process ends during deep sleep and also during samadhi, but

during samadhi, awareness is not lost. The deep sleeping person cannot hear OM,

the person in samadhi is fully merged and so there is no one to hear OM --

instead Being OM is realized by the very act of shedding ego's clothing.

Residing in this status yields the acuity to finally realize that amness is a

cloaking also. Then, and only then, only then in this exaulted state of almost

perfect quiescence can Identity be realized as not-thingness.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with

ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's

Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the

" forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to

attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in

samadhi. " That's the final step.

> -edg-

>

> Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing.

Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities.

Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing,

nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look

at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child.

> -geo-

 

Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct

and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion.

Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough

yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me

and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of

glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see?

 

I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas,

samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to

allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed

if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state.

 

I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with

Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point

of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words,

but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big

enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied

with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being

by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle.

[Guest guest]

>

>Edg I don't know how to get you to where I'm at

 

P: Haha! By making him go back!

 

-- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my

intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy

with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back

to my old processes

 

P: hahaha! What makes you believe that what you have

now is not your interpretation?

 

 

Edg-- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now,

I can't be satisfied with less.

 

P: that is your clue: SATISFied. If it were truly non-being,

who will be there to be satisfied?

 

 

 

Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by

entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle.

>