Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if > > that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful > > coexistence is. > > Well, Anna, you're going to get " nondual talk " on " nondual lists " . > > Complaining about it is as silly as complaining about stamp-collecting talk on a stamp-collecting forum. > > The Internet is a big place. > > Go where you're interested. > > Stop complaining. > > I'm good and tired of complaints about nondual talk on nondual lists. > > Quite frankly, it's stupid. > I'm not always into nondual talk either. It bores me to tears sometimes. I now feel bad that when i was new to it i preached the nondual talk to innocent people at new age parties at one time in cambridge, mass (it made me really unpopular). So why run a list which can be under the nonduality umbrella? Frankly speaking " nonduality " is a big place and lots of folks who have no other place to go feel safe here while listening to all this gibberish. It's not like i can go to a sufi list...since i'm not full of love and quite frankly i hate people sometimes....especially when i'm driving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if > > > that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful > > > coexistence is. > > > > Well, Anna, you're going to get " nondual talk " on " nondual lists " . > > > > Complaining about it is as silly as complaining about stamp-collecting talk on a stamp-collecting forum. > > > > The Internet is a big place. > > > > Go where you're interested. > > > > Stop complaining. > > > > I'm good and tired of complaints about nondual talk on nondual lists. > > > > Quite frankly, it's stupid. > > > > I'm not always into nondual talk either. It bores me to tears > sometimes. IME it tends to be boring, until the reality of it is more real and more meaningful than 'personal talk', talk of me and you. Then it's more meaningful/interesting, and conflictful talk is just painful and unpleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > I would love to be on a *spiritual* site where the members leave their dirty boots outside and don't trample in and on beautiful minds. > > > > > > > > It's heartbreaking. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > P: Wake up! Neither you, nor Dan have a beautiful > > > mind. If you can be offended, you have a plain, > > > ordinary mind. > > > > > > > > I know this is bridget's under the water already -- still: > > > > If we did what Anna suggests - leave our dirty boots outside > > the forum - there would of course just be beautiful minds in > > side - although it would only be half minds - half wits :-)) > > > > -Lene > > > > > Imagine walking into an ashram, a church, a temple, a synagogue, or even your own home. You expect peace and a moment to be able to get away from the *real world* (do I need to get into a litany of what a real world is?). > > You take off your coat and sit down, someone comes barging in with a gun, and threatens you because you managed to be *there*? > > Quick, how are you going to react? I would react with Love, Compassion and lots of hugs. Werner > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful coexistence is. > > Ahh, but just so you know, I know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. It just shouldn't come from *spiritual* finders. > > ~A > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > I would love to be on a *spiritual* site where the members leave their dirty boots outside and don't trample in and on beautiful minds. > > > > > > > > It's heartbreaking. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > P: Wake up! Neither you, nor Dan have a beautiful > > > mind. If you can be offended, you have a plain, > > > ordinary mind. > > > > > > > > I know this is bridget's under the water already -- still: > > > > If we did what Anna suggests - leave our dirty boots outside > > the forum - there would of course just be beautiful minds in > > side - although it would only be half minds - half wits :-)) > > > > -Lene > > > > > Imagine walking into an ashram, a church, a temple, a synagogue, or even your own home. You expect peace and a moment to be able to get away from the *real world* (do I need to get into a litany of what a real world is?). > > You take off your coat and sit down, someone comes barging in with a gun, and threatens you because you managed to be *there*? > > Quick, how are you going to react? > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful coexistence is. > > Ahh, but just so you know, I know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. It just shouldn't come from *spiritual* finders. > > ~A Yes, the nondual card being thrown up, isn't the nondual. It's the nondual card. Not the same. Ongoing attraction to the language of confrontation with the other can be used to reflect the nondual card being thrown up, but how is it expressing nondual awareness? This is not the same as a necessary confrontation with mutual listening. Is the nondual attracted into the mindset of ongoing confrontation? Confrontation of what? For what purpose? How can there be an agenda to nondual awareness? It is phony, under the guise of " proving that the other is phony. " It is an agenda. The confrontationalism (or pretending that the mindset of confrontationalism is other than it is) shows where it is coming from. And this is not to say that confrontation can't be constructive. It can. It's a matter of timing, context, and mutual listening. But constructive confrontation isn't over and over, regardless of context, timing, and listening. Is there mutual listening? Or nondually, the listening of one ear hearing? Smiles, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if > > that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful > > coexistence is. > > Well, Anna, you're going to get " nondual talk " on " nondual lists " . > > Complaining about it is as silly as complaining about stamp-collecting talk on a stamp-collecting forum. > > The Internet is a big place. > > Go where you're interested. > > Stop complaining. > > I'm good and tired of complaints about nondual talk on nondual lists. > > Quite frankly, it's stupid. As I hear Anna, she's not complaining about nondual talk. She's not being stupid. She's giving an honest response. Sounds fine, here. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > ............. And don't forget that you can use your list to create a psychic link and beam your love to your students instead of having to meet in person. You know the ones I'm talking about. They are asking for your love, they just don't like to come right out and say it... > > > > I know that posters usually go easy on the moderator since no one wants to risk it but asking for my love???? I don't have the time for giving love since i'm so occupied begging for it. You are funny this evening! LOL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just good and tired of folks throwing up the nondual card as if > > > > that were everything. It isn't. Life is and creating a peaceful > > > > coexistence is. > > > > > > Well, Anna, you're going to get " nondual talk " on " nondual lists " . > > > > > > Complaining about it is as silly as complaining about stamp-collecting talk on a stamp-collecting forum. > > > > > > The Internet is a big place. > > > > > > Go where you're interested. > > > > > > Stop complaining. > > > > > > I'm good and tired of complaints about nondual talk on nondual lists. > > > > > > Quite frankly, it's stupid. > > > > > > > I'm not always into nondual talk either. It bores me to tears > > sometimes. > > IME it tends to be boring, until the reality of it is more real and more meaningful than 'personal talk', talk of me and you. > > Then it's more meaningful/interesting, and conflictful talk is just painful and unpleasant. This last piece is what Anna was saying. She was talking about conflictful talk being unpleasant and painful, and the nondual card being used as a rationalization. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > Aggressive speech reflects unhappiness of spirit. > > There is no " correcting " an investment in dukkha. > > One observes it, and moves on. > > - Dan - > > > > superficial love and related attachments to an imaginary world...means, ego....is also of aggressivity. ....envelopped only in some meaningless love bubbles.... > > > > > Marc > > > Ps: moving on?.... > > where?... > > is there a place to move on for " non-aggressive " people?... > > this your new site/group?. .. > > for all pseudo advaitins?.. . > > lol I move on without going anywhere. Don't see anything to be aggressive toward. Do you? - D - no..... everything is just like it is....for real.... means, it is .... no importance to give to It... .... except ignorance is giving It some importance... .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 ...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. It is that which divides us inside that needs to be healed. What is required after a glimpse of awakening is radical honesty, a willingness to look at how we unenlighten ourselves, how we bring ourselves back into the gravitational force of the dream state, how we allow ourselves to be divided. As a spiritual teacher, getting people to this state of honesty, or suggesting that they go there, can be quite difficult. This is because there is a strong tendency in the egoic structure to use awakening as a reason to hide from all of one's inner divisions. When I suggest some of the things I'm talking about here, like recognizing where we unenlighten ourselves, some of my students will say, "But there's nobody to do that. There is no person here. The ego and person is an illusion, so there's really no one to look inside." From the perception of awakening, there isn't a problem, therefore there is nothing to do. "If you perceive that there is something to do, you're deluded." It can be very difficult for any spiritual teacher to get through to students like this, to get them to stop holding on to their fixation on an absolute view. This is one of the dangers of awakening: the tendency to grasp at a lopsided view. We grasp at the absolute view of awakening, and we deny anything else. It is actually the ego that fixates on the absolute in this way, using it as an excuse for dismissing unenlightened behavior, thought patterns, and divided emotional states. As soon as we grasp at any view, we have gone blind to everything else. Adyashanti, The End of Your World I am one of the listeners Dan mentioned a few posts back. I joined the list...174 posts ago. I've been trying to get a feeling for what the overall intent of this thread is, for on one hand, everyone seems quite cheerful about the insults and lecturing, yet the responses are those of people who are quite offended. But the main,overriding feeling is that there is no attempt at drop-my-point-of-view, deep listening going on. Nothing wrong with that, but no forward motion to the conversation either. I yearn for that "willingness to look at how we unenlighten ourselves." It is what brought me to the list, and I find I have been shown, in an unexpected way, one of the most obvious reasons this happens. It happens everywhere, all the time, but a list like this can encapsulate the phenomena in 174 posts or less. Less . I don't like the preachiness I'm hearing from myself, so I apologize for that. Busy,busy,busy. Thanks, G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Gloria WilsonNisargadatta Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AMRe: Re: Aggressive speech...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside.=Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside?-geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself.This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus." G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:54 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. " G Yes, I also like that. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:08 PM Re: Re: Aggressive speech - Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:54 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. " G Yes, I also like that. But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where " I am " is the world. It is the world syaing " I am " - not some inner imagined separate observer. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:21 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech - geoNisargadatta Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:08 PMRe: Re: Aggressive speech- Gloria WilsonNisargadatta Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:54 AMRe: Re: Aggressive speechGloria WilsonNisargadatta Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AMRe: Re: Aggressive speech...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becomingperfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness,which means not being divided inside.=Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside?-geo-I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between insideand outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know.That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feelsincomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought meto this list:There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' andthe observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self',despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when theobserver accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, andso to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goesand in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifestsitself.This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes consciousof himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he isanyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention toattention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucialfactor that brings Reality into focus."GYes, I also like that.But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where "I am" is the world.It is the world syaing "I am" - not some inner imagined separate observer.-geo- There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. " G Yes, I also like that. But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where " I am " is the world. It is the world syaing " I am " - not some inner imagined separate observer. -geo- There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. G Ha yes. This is an extremely interesting " place " . There is the understanding/realization that I am the world and the world is me... for I am nothing. But somehow - and this is subtle - the seeing is still from inside the bubble of manifestation. The seen and the seer are the same but there is a subtle conceptual projection in it. It is as if there was an immense fear, or confusion, of/when considering some " outside " of the bubble. This fear of confusion arises from the fact that there is the deep understanding that any referencing of some " outside " of the bubble of the world is thought. But seeing the bubble, the bubble of time, limitedness, space, manifestation, wholly..... IS the outside of it. The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two. Is that it? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:07 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becomingperfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness,which means not being divided inside.=Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside?-geo-I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between insideand outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know.That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feelsincomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought meto this list:There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' andthe observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self',despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when theobserver accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, andso to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goesand in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifestsitself.This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes consciousof himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he isanyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention toattention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucialfactor that brings Reality into focus."GYes, I also like that.But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where "I am" isthe world.It is the world syaing "I am" - not some inner imagined separate observer.-geo-There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe.I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. :)GHa yes. This is an extremely interesting "place". There is the understanding/realization that I am theworld and the world is me... for I am nothing. But somehow - and this is subtle - the seeing is still from insidethe bubble of manifestation. The seen and the seer are the same but there is a subtle conceptual projectionin it. It is as if there was an immense fear, or confusion, of/when considering some "outside" of the bubble.This fear of confusion arises from the fact that there is the deep understanding that any referencing of some"outside" of the bubble of the world is thought. But seeing the bubble, the bubble of time, limitedness,space, manifestation, wholly..... IS the outside of it. The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two.Is that it?-geo- geo: "The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two.Is that it?" That's the feeling, all right And the sea is experiencing itself through it's waves, wholly, deeply. G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:07 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becomingperfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness,which means not being divided inside.=Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside?-geo-I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between insideand outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know.That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feelsincomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought meto this list:There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' andthe observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self',despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when theobserver accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, andso to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goesand in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifestsitself.This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes consciousof himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he isanyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention toattention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucialfactor that brings Reality into focus."GYes, I also like that.But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where "I am" isthe world.It is the world syaing "I am" - not some inner imagined separate observer.-geo-There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe.I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. :)GHa yes. This is an extremely interesting "place". There is the understanding/realization that I am theworld and the world is me... for I am nothing. But somehow - and this is subtle - the seeing is still from insidethe bubble of manifestation. The seen and the seer are the same but there is a subtle conceptual projectionin it. It is as if there was an immense fear, or confusion, of/when considering some "outside" of the bubble.This fear of confusion arises from the fact that there is the deep understanding that any referencing of some"outside" of the bubble of the world is thought. But seeing the bubble, the bubble of time, limitedness,space, manifestation, wholly..... IS the outside of it. The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two.Is that it?-geo- And thanks, geo... g Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. " G Yes, I also like that. But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where " I am " is the world. It is the world syaing " I am " - not some inner imagined separate observer. -geo- There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. G Ha yes. This is an extremely interesting " place " . There is the understanding/realization that I am the world and the world is me... for I am nothing. But somehow - and this is subtle - the seeing is still from inside the bubble of manifestation. The seen and the seer are the same but there is a subtle conceptual projection in it. It is as if there was an immense fear, or confusion, of/when considering some " outside " of the bubble. This fear of confusion arises from the fact that there is the deep understanding that any referencing of some " outside " of the bubble of the world is thought. But seeing the bubble, the bubble of time, limitedness, space, manifestation, wholly..... IS the outside of it. The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two. Is that it? -geo- geo: " The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two. Is that it? " That's the feeling, all right And the sea is experiencing itself through it's waves, wholly, deeply. G Yes. The experiencing of the inside of the bubble and the outside of it. The outside is/was never absent. The outside goes through the inside and it is its foundation. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 - Gloria Wilson Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:28 PM Re: Re: Aggressive speech - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:07 AM Re: Re: Aggressive speech ....awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. = Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? -geo- I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me to this list: There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. " G Yes, I also like that. But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where " I am " is the world. It is the world syaing " I am " - not some inner imagined separate observer. -geo- There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. G Ha yes. This is an extremely interesting " place " . There is the understanding/realization that I am the world and the world is me... for I am nothing. But somehow - and this is subtle - the seeing is still from inside the bubble of manifestation. The seen and the seer are the same but there is a subtle conceptual projection in it. It is as if there was an immense fear, or confusion, of/when considering some " outside " of the bubble. This fear of confusion arises from the fact that there is the deep understanding that any referencing of some " outside " of the bubble of the world is thought. But seeing the bubble, the bubble of time, limitedness, space, manifestation, wholly..... IS the outside of it. The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two. Is that it? -geo- geo: " The sea is seeing its waves. They are not two. Is that it? " That's the feeling, all right And the sea is experiencing itself through it's waves, wholly, deeply. G I am reminded of something Don Juan said, paraphrasing very loosely... " The warrior straitens the fibers within the bubble and then the fibers within and without are the same strait fibers " " The act of straightening the fibers is called impeccability " " Impeccability is not something in the eyes of " others " , but the best one can do according to ones own eyes " -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 I am reminded of something Don Juan said, paraphrasing very loosely..."The warrior straitens the fibers within the bubble and then the fibers within and without are the same strait fibers""The act of straightening the fibers is called impeccability""Impeccability is not something in the eyes of "others", but the best one can do according to ones own eyes"-geo I love this. I am very partial to the way Don Juan explains Awareness. And have given much thought to this concept of Impeccability. G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:21 AM > Re: Re: Aggressive speech > > > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:08 PM > Re: Re: Aggressive speech > > - > Gloria Wilson > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:54 AM > Re: Re: Aggressive speech > > Gloria Wilson > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AM > Re: Re: Aggressive speech > > ...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming > perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, > which means not being divided inside. > = > Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? > -geo- > > I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside > and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know. > That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels > incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me > to this list: > > There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and > the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the > 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self', > despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the > observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and > so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes > and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests > itself. > This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious > of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is > anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to > attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial > factor that brings Reality into focus. " > > G > > Yes, I also like that. > But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where " I am " is > the world. > It is the world syaing " I am " - not some inner imagined separate observer. > -geo- > > > There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. > > I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. > > G P: Thanks God you decided to post. You are not so blindfolded. You are peeking with one eye. I agree with all have you said so far. I hope you have no head to this to go to. Yes, " What Is " knows itself in us, but in doing so it sees itself as the " other: " the inanimate and non-aware. It's also important to understand that being aware of itself is no big thing for " what is. " it is equally OK with not knowing itself. Welcome to the posting rostrum, Pete, aggressively fighting the mucho-hiding of BS, or is it the mushahaddeen of BS? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > Aggressive speech reflects unhappiness of spirit. > > > > There is no " correcting " an investment in dukkha. > > > > One observes it, and moves on. > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > superficial love and related attachments to an imaginary world...means, ego....is also of aggressivity. ....envelopped only in some meaningless love bubbles.... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: moving on?.... > > > > where?... > > > > is there a place to move on for " non-aggressive " people?... > > > > this your new site/group?. .. > > > > for all pseudo advaitins?.. . > > > > lol > > I move on without going anywhere. > > Don't see anything to be aggressive toward. > > Do you? > > - D - > > > no..... > > everything is just like it is....for real.... > > means, it is > > ... > > no importance to give to It... > > ... > > except ignorance is giving It some importance... > > ... > > > > > > Marc Hi Marc - So, what is, is exactly the way it is. Yes. And ignorance is not what it is. Thus, there's no concern here about ignorance or what it might do or not do. There's just what it is. Nothing else is going on. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > ...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, which means not being divided inside. It is that which divides us inside that needs to be healed. What is required after a glimpse of awakening is radical honesty, a willingness to look at how we unenlighten ourselves, how we bring ourselves back into the gravitational force of the dream state, how we allow ourselves to be divided. > As a spiritual teacher, getting people to this state of honesty, or suggesting that they go there, can be quite difficult. This is because there is a strong tendency in the egoic structure to use awakening as a reason to hide from all of one's inner divisions. When I suggest some of the things I'm talking about here, like recognizing where we unenlighten ourselves, some of my students will say, " But there's nobody to do that. There is no person here. The ego and person is an illusion, so there's really no one to look inside. " From the perception of awakening, there isn't a problem, therefore there is nothing to do. " If you perceive that there is something to do, you're deluded. " > It can be very difficult for any spiritual teacher to get through to students like this, to get them to stop holding on to their fixation on an absolute view. This is one of the dangers of awakening: the tendency to grasp at a lopsided view. We grasp at the absolute view of awakening, and we deny anything else. It is actually the ego that fixates on the absolute in this way, using it as an excuse for dismissing unenlightened behavior, thought patterns, and divided emotional states. As soon as we grasp at any view, we have gone blind to everything else. > > Adyashanti, The End of Your World > > I am one of the listeners Dan mentioned a few posts back. I joined the list...174 posts ago. I've been trying to get a feeling for what the overall intent of this thread is, for on one hand, everyone seems quite cheerful about the insults and lecturing, yet the responses are those of people who are quite offended. But the main,overriding feeling is that there is no attempt at drop-my-point-of-view, deep listening going on. Nothing wrong with that, but no forward motion to the conversation either. I yearn for that " willingness to look at how we unenlighten ourselves. " It is what brought me to the list, and I find I have been shown, in an unexpected way, one of the most obvious reasons this happens. It happens everywhere, all the time, but a list like this can encapsulate the phenomena in 174 posts or less. Less . > > I don't like the preachiness I'm hearing from myself, so I apologize for that. Busy,busy,busy. > > Thanks, > > G Not preachy at all. Very good points - thanks. I appreciate what you're pointing out. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Gloria Wilson > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:24 AM > Re: Re: Aggressive speech > > > > ...awakening and enlightenment have nothing to do with becoming > perfect, holy, or saintly. What is truly holy is perceiving from wholeness, > which means not being divided inside. > = > Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside? > -geo- Yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > Aggressive speech reflects unhappiness of spirit. > > > > There is no " correcting " an investment in dukkha. > > > > One observes it, and moves on. > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > superficial love and related attachments to an imaginary world...means, ego....is also of aggressivity. ....envelopped only in some meaningless love bubbles.... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: moving on?.... > > > > where?... > > > > is there a place to move on for " non-aggressive " people?... > > > > this your new site/group?. .. > > > > for all pseudo advaitins?.. . > > > > lol > > I move on without going anywhere. > > Don't see anything to be aggressive toward. > > Do you? > > - D - > > > no..... > > everything is just like it is....for real.... > > means, it is > > ... > > no importance to give to It... > > ... > > except ignorance is giving It some importance.. . > > ... > > > > > > Marc Hi Marc - So, what is, is exactly the way it is. Yes. And ignorance is not what it is. Thus, there's no concern here about ignorance or what it might do or not do. There's just what it is. Nothing else is going on. - D - there is no " ignorance " going on?.... .... why not accepting that beside many many things which are going on... also " ignorance " is going on .... some say that the world is... some say that the world is not .... everybody is allowed to " see " what is(n't).... .... only fools don't allow (themself & ) others to " see " what is(n't) .... everybody is responsible for what he/she is " seeing " .... there is nobody else...anyway .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
