Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 Tim Gerchmez <fewtch At 06:03 PM 6/15/99 +0300, you wrote: >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > >Thank you very much Murthygaru. > >Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big >I" and the "Small I" :-) Only that the small "i" (the ego/mind complex) is pure illusion and ignorance, while the "Big I" (the Atman/Brahman) is real, eternal, formless and all-pervasive. Some difference, huh? :-) In Sadhana, Tim Harsha: There is only One I. That is The Eye. Small I is the Big I. Self is the Eye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > > Harsha: There is only One I. That is The Eye. Small I is the Big I. Self is > the Eye. > careful there harshaji, someone might lose an i .... (oy! Wise Guy!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: <snip> > Harsha: There is only One I. That is The Eye. Small I is the Big I. Self is > the Eye. Marcia: Hi Harsha, I wonder. I have the distinct feeling or sensation maybe of a difference in my too I's (big and small) as reflected in my actual eyes. One of my eyes seems to be more internal than the other. The other more focussed and single pointed. The Self or third eye is the connector or context. Can you talk to me about that? I am all ears. :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Marcia Paul wrote: > Marcia: > > Hi Harsha, > > I wonder. I have the distinct feeling or sensation maybe > of a difference in my too I's (big and small) as reflected > in my actual eyes. One of my eyes seems to be more > internal than the other. The other more focussed and > single pointed. janpa: Is there a difference between looking within and looking without? Is it possible to find the parents of our thoughts... ie: that which conditions consciousness comes from both within and without. Within is the sphere of memory, conditioning, without is the sphere of karma imo. So in a sense, to me, outside is the precursor to inside. inside is the illusion world we live in or something. i may be babbling again --janpa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 > Marcia Paul <jacpa [...] > The Self or third eye is the connector or context. Can > you talk to me about that? I am all ears. :-) The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of the body. But there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right of the chakra on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and this is referred to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. Jan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 jb wrote: > "jb" <kvy9 > > > Marcia Paul <jacpa > [...] > > The Self or third eye is the connector or context. Can > > you talk to me about that? I am all ears. :-) > > The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of the body. But > there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right of the chakra > on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with > individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no > more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and this is referred > to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is > transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it > coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable > pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of > individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. > > Jan Gloria: I don't know that anyone writes about the energy that is left in this. It is really quite interesting, I can't find words to describe this experience. Radiant space is an interesting description but it doesn't quite go far enough. It is an ever present void, usually one things of void as being empty, it is empty of the human condition... but rather then empty it is intensely unified, full and never changing, the words "original state" comes to mind. It is a transcendental permanency which does not flucuate...an active silence which has no boundaries. > > > ------ > Looking to expand your world? > > ONElist has 170,000 e-mail communities from which to choose! -- Enter The Silence to know God...and...accept life as the teacher. Gloria Joy Greco e-mail me at:lodpress visit my homepage & internet retreat at: http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 1999 jb wrote: >The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of the body. But > there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right of the chakra > on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with > individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no > more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and this is referred > to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is > transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it > coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable > pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of > individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. Marcia: I got more than I bargained for when I asked that question. So Jan could we say that in the framework of needing to die in order to be born but in order to die one has to wake up first that it is the "third eye" that dies? Also Jan can you speak to the question of an astral body? I think I have too many different frameworks so I will stick with the one I am comfortable with. I have heard it said that the chalkras feed the astral body. I am not sure if this is a permanent change but I seem to be past (at least for now) the raw sexual feelings which were really making me a little crazy. Now I have the most intense sensations and feelings in my heart and throat. And it feels like something is being fed. There is no other way to put it. The connection between the arising of desire and having to do something about it has been severed. It seems that in that severing the energy (for lack of a better word) is now feeding what I am assuming is the astral body. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. I feel very alive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 > Marcia Paul <jacpa > > > > jb wrote: > > >The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of > the body. But > > > there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right > of the chakra > > on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with > > individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no > > more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and > this is referred > > to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is > > transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it > > coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable > > pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of > > individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. > > Marcia: > > I got more than I bargained for when I asked that question. > > So Jan could we say that in the framework of needing to die > in order to be born but in order to die one has to wake up > first that it is the "third eye" that dies? The third eye isn't something to die. Strictly speaking it is a center, associated with certain states of consciousness (contents of consciousness) and nothing more. It would be incorrect to state it is the "location" of individuality. Anyone on the verge of dissolving duality will feel having to die, without being able to pinpoint a "where", this feeling is taking place. It is related to dying but there is nothing it can be compared too and never did I read any description on the K. list that even came close. It is not for nothing there are no analogies of this process whatsoever. But everyone undergoing it will be worried; in the NT this is the chapter about Gethsemane but the story is heavily veiled. > Also Jan can you speak to the question of an astral body? > I think I have too many different frameworks so I will stick > with the one I am comfortable with. I have heard it said > that the chalkras feed the astral body. The astral body and its possibilities are well covered in the Patanjali sutras in chapter III - powers. I'm familiar with two perspectives, one where all bodies are said to be transformed into the Self and the second, where bodies merge so all differences disappear and a body emerges that can't be predicted from any of the constituents. The powers were nice, in my case cigerettes and lighters would materialize in the pockets of my coat when I had forgotten them. Lights would be turned on by mere thinking to switch them on. But my focus was on the transformations, the pranic currents and as many "human issues" were transforming into non-issues, I was puzzled (having no knowledge of what was going on) so I didn't pay attention to materializations, visions and apparitions. But the summary of all the experiences would be that the theory of the "inner" bodies at least is incomplete. At the end, the above perspectives merge, because when all bodies are merged they are no longer distinguishable and it is correct to say all bodies are transformed into Self. What is omitted is that the world, also is transformed into Self, not as intellectualism or feeling, but fact. > I am not sure if this is a permanent change but I seem to > be past (at least for now) the raw sexual feelings which > were really making me a little crazy. Now I have the most > intense sensations and feelings in my heart and throat. > And it feels like something is being fed. There is no other > way to put it. The connection between the arising of > desire and having to do something about it has been > severed. It seems that in that severing the energy (for > lack of a better word) is now feeding what I am assuming > is the astral body. Any help with this would be greatly > appreciated. I feel very alive. The so called knots in some chakras indicate a resistance and this is the cause of eventual enhanced sexual feelings. There are far more knots then literature mentions but if one did succeed in untying the mentioned ones, it is possible to untie all of them. At your level of purity and introspection there shouldn't be more problems. Don't worry about the astral body. If a knot is untied, energy flows like water until the next obstacle is met. The more energy one can transform, the more alive one will feel. This is what spiritual life is about. One becomes more and more alive, until one IS Life. This should be felt in every cell of the entire body (includes all bodies). It is why it is logical to properly take care of the body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 It seems that whenever we work within the illusion of I, no matter if big or small we are working with our physical awareness of ourselves. My thought is that we project an awareness (that is individual, per culture, belief system, etc.) into I to say "The Big I" as Tim explains it or our manifestation and projection of what we consider reality. So in reality (or illusion as all life is)both that concept of the big I and the little i are the same. When you can expand your thought process to say YOU or your reality is not within the boundries of the infinite then you have accomplished understanding. Only the gods can define the reality of the infinite, man can define only that which he knows. Love, flute Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > > At 06:03 PM 6/15/99 +0300, you wrote: > >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > > > >Thank you very much Murthygaru. > > > >Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big > >I" and the "Small I" :-) > > Only that the small "i" (the ego/mind complex) is pure illusion and > ignorance, while the "Big I" (the Atman/Brahman) is real, eternal, formless > and all-pervasive. Some difference, huh? :-) > > In Sadhana, > > Tim > > Harsha: There is only One I. That is The Eye. Small I is the Big I. Self is > the Eye. > > ------ > Who is the most visited e-mail list community Web Service? > > ONElist.com - where more than 20 million e-mails are exchanged each day! -- flute http://www.create.org/healingarts/reiki.htm http://www.create.org/bbs - For Updates on REIKI HB 367 "The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures." R. Tagore Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 Carolyn Maloney wrote: > > Carolyn Maloney <flute > > It seems that whenever we work within the illusion of I, no matter if > big or small we are working with our physical awareness of ourselves. > My thought is that we project an awareness (that is individual, per > culture, belief system, etc.) into I to say "The Big I" as Tim explains > it or our manifestation and projection of what we consider reality. So > in reality (or illusion as all life is)both that concept of the big I > and the little i are the same. > When you can expand your thought process to say YOU or your reality is > not within the boundries of the infinite then you have accomplished > understanding. Only the gods can define the reality of the infinite, > man can define only that which he knows. > Love, > flute Hello Flute, It's nice to see our path cross again I was curious, from where does come this need to define? Any hint are welcome, Antoine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 jb wrote: > "jb" <kvy9 > > > Marcia Paul <jacpa > [...] > > The Self or third eye is the connector or context. Can > > you talk to me about that? I am all ears. :-) > > The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of the body. But > there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right of the chakra > on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with > individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no > more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and this is referred > to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is > transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it > coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable > pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of > individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. > > Jan Gloria: I don't know that anyone writes about the energy that is left in this. It is really quite interesting, I can't find words to describe this experience. Radiant space is an interesting description but it doesn't quite go far enough. It is an ever present void, usually one things of void as being empty, it is empty of the human condition... but rather then empty it is intensely unified, full and never changing, the words "original state" comes to mind. It is a transcendental permanency which does not flucuate...an active silence which has no boundaries. Thanks Jan and Gloria. I love how you express this. Self is a Place until It Is Space. An Active Silence. Very nice. Inspires me to write. When they ask Where is it to be found point to the mask When they ask tell me how say Do not look for it Just Look And See It Here and Now If they ask again how Tell them to go milk a cow. MU Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 > > Carolyn Maloney <flute > > It seems that whenever we work within the illusion of I, no matter if > big or small we are working with our physical awareness of ourselves. > My thought is that we project an awareness (that is individual, per > culture, belief system, etc.) into I to say "The Big I" as Tim explains > it or our manifestation and projection of what we consider reality. So > in reality (or illusion as all life is)both that concept of the big I > and the little i are the same. > When you can expand your thought process to say YOU or your reality is > not within the boundries of the infinite then you have accomplished > understanding. Only the gods can define the reality of the infinite, > man can define only that which he knows. > Love, > flute Hello Flute, It's nice to see our path cross again I was curious, from where does come this need to define? Any hint are welcome, Antoine Harsha: You guys are beautiful, Flute and Antoine, Janpa, Christiana, Linda, Keith, Tony, Marcia, Jan, Bruce, Judi, Greg, Jelke, Gloria, David, and all the rest (will get the other names next time). Thanks for being here Flute. Your words are music to my ears. How many times have your heard that? God, I am starting to sound like our resident comedian Jerry. Since Antoine asked for a hint, let me say the following. Maybe we actually only define things we don't understand. Does that make sense? Love you guys/gals. Peace and love and joy Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 Harshaji : <Maybe we actually only define things >we don't understand. Does that make sense? G: Bringing it down to my level , if i know something i have no need to define it ? Om Shanti ! Gurcharan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 1999 Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: <snip> > When they ask > Where is it to be found > point to the mask > When they ask > tell me how > say > Do not look for it > Just Look > And See It > Here and Now > If they ask again how > Tell them to > go milk a cow. > > MU Marcia: When Christiana and I did lunch the other day we went out for tea afterwards and in the shop we saw these big yellow smiley face mugs and Christiana suggested we should buy one for you. Now what was your address? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 17, 1999 Gurcharan wrote: > > "Gurcharan" <gurcharan > > Harshaji : > <Maybe we actually only define things > >we don't understand. Does that make sense? > > G: Bringing it down to my level , if i know something i have no need to > define it ? Do i know something? Scratching my head... After a long while of doing that with no success. I feel like going shaving my beard Sweet dreams Gurcharan Antoine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 17, 1999 > Hello Flute, > > It's nice to see our path cross again > > I was curious, from where does come this need to define? > Any hint are welcome, > Antoine > > Harsha: You guys are beautiful, Flute and Antoine, Janpa, Christiana, Linda, > Keith, Tony, Marcia, Jan, Bruce, Judi, Greg, Jelke, Gloria, David, and all > the rest (will get the other names next time). Thanks for being here Flute. > Your words are music to my ears. How many times have your heard that? God, I > am starting to sound like our resident comedian Jerry. Since Antoine asked > for a hint, let me say the following. Maybe we actually only define things > we don't understand. Does that make sense? Thanks for the hint Harsha, thanks for raising the question in me Flute. Thank you world, Antoine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 17, 1999 Antoine wrote: > > Antoine <carrea > > > Hello Flute, > > > > It's nice to see our path cross again > > > > I was curious, from where does come this need to define? > > Any hint are welcome, > > Antoine > > > > Harsha: You guys are beautiful, Flute and Antoine, Janpa, Christiana, Linda, > > Keith, Tony, Marcia, Jan, Bruce, Judi, Greg, Jelke, Gloria, David, and all > > the rest (will get the other names next time). Thanks for being here Flute. > > Your words are music to my ears. How many times have your heard that? God, I > > am starting to sound like our resident comedian Jerry. Since Antoine asked > > for a hint, let me say the following. Maybe we actually only define things > > we don't understand. Does that make sense? Dostoyeski - Brother's Karamozof had a statement that has always echo'd in my mind after I read it. That belief which man can impose on another gives him the verification that it is true. Others are our mirror self. When we define someone else we are echo'ing that which we recognize within. Maybe because we are yet mortal, we have that doubt which keeps us always looking for balance. "Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passon and your appetite." Kahlil Gibran flute http://www.create.org/healingarts/reiki.htm http://www.create.org/bbs - For Updates on REIKI HB 367 "The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures." R. Tagore Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 17, 1999 I love your poem Harsha, thats great. Gloria Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > jb wrote: > > > "jb" <kvy9 > > > > > Marcia Paul <jacpa > > [...] > > > The Self or third eye is the connector or context. Can > > > you talk to me about that? I am all ears. :-) > > > > The Self doesn't have a location, whether inside or outside of the body. > But > > there are some references to the spiritual heart (to the right of the > chakra > > on the axis) by Upanishads and Ramana . The third eye is connected with > > individuality and your question served as a reminder. When duality is no > > more (no "me"), there still is a sense of individuality and this is > referred > > to as +I+. However, in the course of events this "rest" individuality is > > transformed into what could be approximated as "radiant space" and it > > coincides with the absence of the third eye from what I call "observable > > pranic map". Anyway, this "radiant space" is devoid of any sense of > > individuality. No search was done for scriptural verification of this. > > > > Jan > > Gloria: > I don't know that anyone writes about the energy that is left in this. > It > is really quite interesting, I can't find words to describe this experience. > Radiant space is an interesting description but it doesn't quite go far > enough. > It is an ever present void, usually one things of void as being empty, it > is > empty of the human condition... but rather then empty it is intensely > unified, > full and never changing, the words "original state" comes to mind. It is a > transcendental permanency which does not flucuate...an active silence which > has > no boundaries. > > Thanks Jan and Gloria. I love how you express this. Self is a Place until It > Is Space. An Active Silence. Very nice. Inspires me to write. > > When they ask > Where is it to be found > point to the mask > When they ask > tell me how > say > Do not look for it > Just Look > And See It > Here and Now > If they ask again how > Tell them to > go milk a cow. > > MU > > Harsha > > ------ > With more than 20 million e-mails exchanged daily... > > ...ONElist is home to the liveliest discussions on the Internet! -- Enter The Silence to know God...and...accept life as the teacher. Gloria Joy Greco e-mail me at:lodpress visit my homepage & internet retreat at: http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
