Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > Sadly. > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > ~A > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say they made a mistake. If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. And that is the Advaita shuffle. And that is why your guruship is bullshit. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > Sadly. > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > ~A > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say they made a mistake. If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. And that is the Advaita shuffle. And that is why your guruship is bullshit. ~A .....the group is changing to a political group?.... .... the " guruship " of most of spiritual members of whatever groups, sites, blogs etc....is bullshit, only Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > " No one ever said that life is fair (to the person). " > > > > And no one keeps right on saying this. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > > > No one ever listens, too. > > No one seems to find it interesting. > > So keep talkin', if ya like ;-). LOL! No one ever listens. No one is ever listening. Love, Ever-listening No One Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Q: I can understand holy desires (satyakama) emanating from the self. It may be the expression of the bliss aspect of the Sadchitananda (Beingness -- Awareness --Happiness) of the Self. But why unholy desires? M: All desires aim at happiness. Their shape and quality depend on the psyche (antahkarana). Where inertia (tamas) predominates, we find perversions. With energy (rajas), passions arise. With lucidity (sattva) the motive behind the desire is goodwill, compassion, the urge to make happy rather than be happy. But the Supreme is beyond all, yet because of its infinite permeability all cogent desires can be fulfilled. Q: Which desires are cogent? M: Desires that destroy their subjects, or objects, or do not subside on satisfaction are self-contradictory and cannot be fulfilled. Only desires motivated by love, goodwill and compassion are beneficial to both the subject and object and can be fully satisfied. Q: All desires are painful, the holy as well as the unholy. M: They are not the same and pain is not the same. Passion is painful, compassion -- never. The entire universe strives to fulfil a desire born of compassion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > ~A > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > they made a mistake. > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > ~A > You're absolutely right. My 'guruship' was a brief, abortive past venture, circa early-to-mid 2008. And the past is bullshit. No doubt about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Q: Don't you have desires and fears any more? M: My destiny was to be born a simple man, a commoner, a humble tradesman, with little of formal education. My life was the common kind, with common desires and fears. When, through my faith in my teacher and obedience to his words, I realised my true being, I left behind my human nature to look after itself, until its destiny is exhausted. Occasionally an old reaction, emotional or mental, happens in the mind, but it is at once noticed and discarded. After all, as long as one is bur dened with a person, one is exposed to its idiosyncrasies and habits. Q: Are you not afraid of death? M: I am dead already. Q: In what sense? M: I am double dead. Not only am I dead to my body, but to my mind too. Q: Well, you do not look dead at all! M: That's what you say! You seem to know my state better than I do! Q: Sorry. But I just do not understand. You say you are bodyless and mindless, while I see you very much alive and articulate. M: A tremendously complex work is going on all the time in your brain and body, are you conscious of it? Not at all. Yet for an outsider all seems to be going on intelligently and purposefully. Why not admit that one's entire personal life may sink largely below the threshold of consciousness and yet proceed sanely and smoothly? Q: Is it normal? M: What is normal? Is your life -- obsessed by desires and fears, full of strife and struggle, meaningless and joyless -- normal? To be acutely conscious of your body id it normal? To be torn by feelings, tortured by thoughts: is it normal? A healthy body, a healthy mind live largely unperceived by their owner; only occasionally, through pain or suffering they call for attention and insight. Why not extend the same to the entire personal life? One can function rightly, responding well and fully to whatever happens, without having to bring it into the focus of awareness. When self-control becomes second nature, awareness shifts its focus to deeper levels of existence and action. Q: Don't you become a robot? M: What harm is there in making automatic, what is habitual and repetitive? It is automatic anyhow. But when it is also chaotic, it causes pain and suffering and calls for attention. The entire purpose of a clean and well-ordered life is to liberate man from the thraldom of chaos and the burden of sorrow. http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Q: If reality leaves no evidence, there is no speaking about it. M: It is. It cannot be denied. It is deep and dark, mystery beyond mystery. But it is, while all else merely happens. Q: Is it the Unknown? M: It is beyond both, the known and the unknown. But I would rather call it the known, than the unknown. For whenever something is known, it is the real that is known. Q: Is silence an attribute of the real? M: This too is of the mind. All states and conditions are of the mind. Q: What is the place of samadhi? M: Not making use of one's consciousness is samadhi. You just leave your mind alone. You want nothing, neither-from your body nor from your mind. > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=4 > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > ~A > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > they made a mistake. > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > ~A > > > ....the group is changing to a political group?.... Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . It's " the " personal preoccupation. And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > ~A > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > they made a mistake. > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > ~A > > > ....the group is changing to a political group?.... Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . It's " the " personal preoccupation. And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. .....what are this " your " silly words about?... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > > they made a mistake. > > > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > > > ~A > > > > > > ....the group is changing to a political group?.... > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > ....what are this " your " silly words about?... > > > Exactly. Are they really " someone else's " words? Are they not actually the words of the 'one reading' right now? Are the words arising " somewhere else " ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Q: The scriptures show the general directions but the individual needs personal instructions. M: Your own self is your ultimate teacher (sadguru). The outer teacher (Guru) is merely a milestone. It is only your inner teacher, that will walk with you to the goal, for he is the goal. Q: The inner teacher is not easily reached. M: Since he is in you and with you, the difficulty cannot be serious. Look within, and you will find him. Q: When I look within, I find sensations and perceptions, thoughts and feelings, desires and fears, memories and expectations. I am immersed in this cloud and see nothing else. M: That which sees all this, and the nothing too, is the inner teacher. He alone is, all else only appears to be. He is your own self (swarupa), your hope and assurance of freedom; find him and cling to him and you will be saved and safe. Q: I do believe you, but when it comes to the actual finding of this inner self, I find it escapes me. M: The idea 'it escapes me', where does it arise? Q: In the mind. M: And who knows the mind. Q: The witness of the mind knows the mind. M: Did anybody come to you and say: 'I am the witness of your mind'? Q: Of course not. He would have been just another idea in the mind. M: Then who is the witness? Q: I am. M: So, you know the witness because you are the witness. You need not see the witness in front of you. Here again, to be is to know. Q: Yes, I see that I am the witness, the awareness itself. But in which way does it profit me? M: What a question! What kind of profit do you expect? To know what you are, is it not good enough? Q: What are the uses of self-knowledge? M: It helps you to understand what you are not and keeps you free from false ideas, desires and actions. Q: If I am the witness only, what do right and wrong matter? M: What helps you to know yourself is right. What prevents, is wrong. To know one's real self is bliss, to forget -- is sorrow. Q: Is the witness-consciousness the real Self? M: It is the reflection of the real in the mind (buddhi). The real is beyond. The witness is the door through which you pass beyond. Q: What is the purpose of meditation? M: Seeing the false as the false, is meditation. This must go on all the time. Q: We are told to meditate regularly. M: Deliberate daily exercise in discrimination between the true and the false and renunciation of the false is meditation. There are many kinds of meditation to begin with, but they all merge finally into one. > > > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=4 > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Q: Please tell me which road to self-realisation is the shortest. M: No way is short or long, but some people are more in earnest and some are less. I can tell you about myself. I was a simple man, but I trusted my Guru. What he told me to do, I did. He told me to concentrate on 'I am' -- I did. He told me that I am beyond all perceivables and conceivables -- I believed. I gave him my heart and soul, my entire attention and the whole of my spare time (I had to work to keep my family alive). As a result of faith and earnest application, I realised my self (swarupa) within three years. You may choose any way that suits you; your earnestness will determine the rate of progress. Q: No hint for me? M: Establish yourself firmly in the awareness of 'I am'. This is the beginning and also the end of all endeavour. > > > > > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=4 > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> > - > Tim G.> Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:35 PM> Re: I AM THAT.> > > > Nisargadatta , "ac" adithya_comming@ wrote:> >> > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.> >> > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put > > an end to them.> > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to > them, he would have done so.> > It is not within man's power to put an end to them.> > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.> -tim-> > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and then > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How?> By not being divided.> -geo-> I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in a compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions.For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an illusion'.I suspect that in the above example of "suffering and wars in the world" too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all (like wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on the questioner. Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the non-dual truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. What do you think?regards,ac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. And there is much emotion around it. On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also read posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is going on. No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. And only no one easily accepts this. Smiles, - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > > > > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > > > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > > > they made a mistake. > > > > > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > > > > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > > > > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > ....the group is changing to a political group?.... > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > > > > > ....what are this " your " silly words about?... > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > Are they really " someone else's " words? Can't be. Except for conventional definitions. Which are definitions " I " keep and hold to - or not. > Are they not actually the words of the 'one reading' right now? If there is appearance, there is appearance. Just this appearance appearing - nothing else, nowhere else, no one else's. > Are the words arising " somewhere else " ? Negatory. And where is " here " where they arise? You can't point to it. Anywhere you point, is only the appearance pointing to the appearance. Funny, but the " here " is " nowhere. " And with nowhere to appear, is appearance appearing? The one to whom it appears says " yes, this is real. " But the one it appears to, and the appearing of it, are the same. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > put > > an end to them. > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to > them, he would have done so. > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > -tim- > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > then > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > By not being divided. > -geo- I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in a compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions. For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an illusion'. I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all (like wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on the questioner. Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. What do you think? regards, ac Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my best to express how I see the matter. Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man created confusion and conflict. When man is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a corresponding " outer " society based on the principles of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man stops projecting the inner entity that was the cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way through self-centered people, everything is already alright. The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... -geo- --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 18:43:28 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, February 22, 2010 6:32 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > " you " . > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > make " you " different than " me " . > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven > to it anyway... or not. One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. And there is much emotion around it. On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also read posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is going on. No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. And only no one easily accepts this. Smiles, - D - Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of water molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 18:34:58 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 18:50:44 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Are the words arising " somewhere else " ? > > Negatory. > > And where is " here " where they arise? > > You can't point to it. > > Anywhere you point, is only the appearance pointing to the appearance. > > Funny, but the " here " is " nowhere. " > > And with nowhere to appear, is appearance appearing? If one said " no " , it would suggest that something is absent. And that isn't true either. It isn't appearing, and it isn't not appearing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation,> > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.> > >> > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > put> > > an end to them.> >> > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to> > them, he would have done so.> >> > It is not within man's power to put an end to them.> >> > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.> > -tim-> >> > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > then> > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How?> > By not being divided.> > -geo-> > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo.> Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in a > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions.> For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > illusion'.> I suspect that in the above example of "suffering and wars in the world" > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all (like > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on > the questioner.> Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'.> What do you think?> regards,> ac> > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my best > to express how I see the matter.> Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > created confusion and conflict. When man> is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a corresponding > "outer" society based on the principles> of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars.> Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > stops projecting the inner entity that was the> cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > Interestingly the moment the inner self is> seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way > through self-centered people, everything is already alright.> The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling......> -geo-> Thanks for explaining it, Geo! It makes sense to me. I think I understand it now and I find agreement with your view.Best,ac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > And there is much emotion around it. > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you > also read posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. Indeed. I've 'watched' the whole thing playing out a number of times, 'in person'. Seen fear in someone's eyes. Heard the 'forced' tone, perceived the attempt behind it, seen how much energy is put into it. It's unmissable, when one isn't focusing on " oneself " and one's own attempt at maintaining a personal space. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. Presumed (pre-assumed). Pre-occupied. Pre, pre, pre. All the commotion for a past that isn't around, that isn't there. > And there is much emotion around it. True. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, February 22, 2010 7:56 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is > > driven to it anyway... or not. > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on > this list. > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this > list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed > against you. " > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. > And thousands of years of human history. > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. Presumed (pre-assumed). Pre-occupied. All this commotion for a past that isn't around, that isn't there. > And there is much emotion around it. True. Tim, why send each post twice? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 20:59:03 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 21:16:15 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - ac Nisargadatta Monday, February 22, 2010 6:59 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > exploitation, > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > put > > > an end to them. > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end > > to > > them, he would have done so. > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > -tim- > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > then > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > By not being divided. > > -g eo- > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in > a > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions. > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > illusion'. > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > (like > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on > the questioner. > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the > non-du al truth; ho wever, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > What do you think? > regards, > ac > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > best > to express how I see the matter. > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > created confusion and conflict. When man > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > corresponding > " outer " society based on the principles > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > Interestingly th e moment the inner self is > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > -geo- > Thanks for explaining it, Geo! It makes sense to me. I think I understand it now and I find agreement with your view. Best, ac So, is there some inner entity looking at an outside world? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 20:59:01 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 22/2/2010 21:18:14 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > put > > > an end to them. > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to > > them, he would have done so. > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > -tim- > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > then > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > By not being divided. > > -geo- > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in a > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions. > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > illusion'. > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all (like > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on > the questioner. > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > What do you think? > regards, > ac > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my best > to express how I see the matter. > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > created confusion and conflict. When man > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a corresponding > " outer " society based on the principles > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > -geo- How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, without seeing the illusory nature of the outer entity? Funny! Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the outer boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. Puh-lease ... - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven > > to it anyway... or not. > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on > this list. > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list > clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against > you. " > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And > thousands of years of human history. > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > And there is much emotion around it. > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also read > posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. > > Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. > > There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is going > on. > > No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. > > And only no one easily accepts this. > > Smiles, > > - D - > > Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered > conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as > eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of water > molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. > -geo- Hello. There is no " each " individual. The mythic separately existing individual who can be addressed and told to change - turns out never to have been the case. But, keep making a case against " him " - That poor soul " out there " messing everything up ... After all, that's how Krishnamurti made his ever-lecturing claim to fame ... Not to mention all the people running around thinking, " I'm to blame. I've got to straighten this out. It's all my fault. " Hey, feed right into that thinking, why not? " It's those self-centered humans out there - always thinking there is someone to blame ... " Smiles, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
