Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9/4/01 (part 2)

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ***************** GLORIA LEE Subject: Of what use are disputes Ramana Maharshi : Of what use are disputes about the world, saying that it is real, that it is
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      *****************
       
      GLORIA LEE

      Subject: Of what use are disputes

       Ramana Maharshi :
       
      "Of what use are disputes about the world, saying that it is real, that it is an illusory appearance, that it is conscious, that it is insentient, that it is happy, that it is miserable ?

      All men alike love the Egoless State , which is won by turning
      away from the world and knowing the untainted real Self  which
      transcends the assertions that It is one and that It is manifold."

      .....................................................................    ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________


      "The conflict of teachings is only apparent, and can be resolved if one practices self-surrender to God; this will lead to the Self, to which everyone must come back in the end, because that is the Truth. The discord amongst the creeds can never be got rid of by discussing their merits; for discussion is a mental process. The creeds are mental - they exist in the mind alone, while the Truth is beyond the mind; therefore the Truth is not in the creeds."

      Ramana Maharshi 
       .................................................................................   
             MAHA YOGA
             or  The Upanishadic Lore in the Light of the Teachings of        Bhagavan Sri Ramana
             By 'Who' (K. Lakshmana Sarma).

              published by : T.N. Venkataraman
              Sri Ramanasramam , 1973
             ....................................................................................................................................

       
      GARY MERRILL Reflections on Mind
       
      Bruce posted:

      > Mind definition:
      >
      > "Mind" is
      thought's way of  convincing itself that it's
      > an ongoing and
      significant  entity rather than the
      > fragmented and transient 
      neural activity it actually
      > is.  Ego is thus at least  twice
      removed from it's
      > actual nature as a mere
      bioelectric/biochemical
      > bodily process.  What is it that persists
      and abides in
      > the absence of thought?

      I thought it might be helpful to explore this further. First a look at the
      definition and origin - the story of the 'mind' concept.

      n. memory; commemoration (arch); record (obs); judgement; opininion; purpose
      (Shakespear); inclination; attention;, direction of the will; state of
      thought and feeling; wits, right senses, sanity; consciousness; intellect;,
      that which thinks, knows feels and wills; soul; personality; a thinking or
      directing person.
      v. to remind (arch); to bring to mind; to remember; to attend to; have care
      of; to beware of; to be troubled by
      Origin: OE: to think; Latin 'mens' meaning 'mind' and related to 'measure'.

      Quite a story of knowledge! Mind could be said to be the totality of
      consciousness as registered in memory based on the recorded measure of
      experience - the known - and also the activity of this in time, not merely
      passive.

      One of the questions that arises is 'Is there a self or ego, separate from
      mind?' and subesquently 'Can mind know mind?' The questions are relevant
      because we speak and behave as if there is a thinker separate from thought
      and as if there is an observer outside of observation. From this arises the
      whole battleground of will and conflict, because we believe that there is a
      'self' which is responsible.

      JK said something which I never really understood, something like
      'Consciousness is its content'. What I now understand by this is that there
      is never an entity that can extricate itelf from consciousness or the known
      and stand outside of itself. Put differently one would say Consciousness is
      one, or all is consciousness. If all is mind then mind will never know mind
      and the division between subject and object is only theoretical.

      If the above is true (and I believe it is), how can it seem otherwise? Here
      I think comes in the active aspect of mind, in time. The mind as memory is
      active in minding what 'it does. As if 'it' 'mind' were somehow a separte
      'self' or 'soul'. So a view of the world based on cause and effect arises,
      The self identified with thought (mind) and body allows this and enables the
      construction of identity and relationships. But the 'self' is never the
      cause of the cause, never the cause of itself, a first cause can't be found.
      So if the mind or consciousnes is whole, complete, it must be acausal. 'My'
      efforts are then seen as illusory and misplaced.

      Lest this sound a negative, or fatalistic view (and in a way it is!) then I
      can only restate the positive of wholeness and selflessness which is to
      partake of this holiness. Not by choice but understanding the way it is.
      Being That.

      Love,
      Gary


       
      DAN BERKOW
       
      Dear Gary --

      Can I notice, while reading each word,
         that any seeming continuity of meaning, thought,
         association -- is utterly empty?

      Can I notice that there is no movement from this
         to that moment?

      If so -- then "noticing" and "all" is the same ...

      Mindfully,
      No-minded


       
      GENE POOLE
       
      NDS Moderator

      Hi Tony...

      You wrote, asking of me:

      >From: "Tony O'Clery"
      >Subject: How much freespeech on
      here?
      >
      >Namaste All,
      >
      >As you are no doubt aware, I
      have been put under moderation/censorship
      >at the harshasatsangh. Mainly
      for posting satirical responses on fraud
      >gurus, to people touting them.
      It seems one can tout fraud gurus and
      >their cults but not respond to
      them. I posted as myself and as
      >Humanzee, or rather Humanzeeananda guru
      of gurus.

      Sorry to say, I had no idea of your activities on HS. I pay it no mind.

      >It is an interesting point that the poor are an asset to
      these people.
      >For without promises of service activity how would the cash
      flow?

       From my POV, the 'sharks' you point out, are exploiting the idealism
      of their victims. It is not need which makes one
      vulnerable, it is idealism. Idealism is simply another way of stating
      'naivety'.

      It is interesting to note, that idealism is 'taught' by the selfsame
      exploiters to whom you point. I would point out that the situation
      is universal. The teaching/exampling of idealism is
      simply the setup for later exploitation.

      "Teachers" who set up criteria for 'the attainment' attract only
      idealists; each 'student' is then 'meat on the hoof', and in the case
      of SB and many others, the 'touch' begins with sucking first of all
      resources (financial and all other material) and then finally
      when all resources are gone, vampirically sucking the life-force
      to the ultimate depletion. The empty husk is finally carted away,
      to make room for the next round of victims.

      My point is that this situation is nothing new; 'taught/exampled'
      idealism is the conditioning for the blindness which makes the
      deadly exploitation so easy, even inevitable.

      >My main point
      was Sai Baba and Muktananda, both of whom have
      >affidavits in multiples
      alleging molestation, including minors etc,
      >are touted.

      Yes. We could detail an endless list of this sort of historical reality.

      The idealist goes 'shopping for fulfillment', and ends up in the
      establishment of the one who advertises the most idealistic
      product, and the fleecing begins. Money first, then semen,
      and finally blood, is extracted. Only the naive see these events
      as anomalies. For the idealist/naive, the reality of life on Urth
      is a horror story of unparalleled proportions; that is why the denial
      of reality, and the seeking of the stairway to heaven.

      >So
      to the moderator, I would like to know in advance what the concept
      >of
      freespeech means to this list?
      >
      >Obviously on harshasatsangh it
      applies selectively, notwithstanding
      >the
      preamble........ONS.......Tony.

      I cannot speak of HS list, but the rules here in NDS are simple:

      No personal attacks

      No domination of the list by 'negative suggestion'.

      As moderator, I am the one who makes the judgement.

      I am sensitive to what is distractingly off-topic; persistent off-topic
      postings  will be pointed out.

      I ask that any posting be aimed to, or from, the nondual perspective
      (regardless of whether there actually can be such a thing as 'NDP').

      Finally, there is a vast difference between 'debating the
      (subjectively perceived) 'facts', and protesting/contesting issues
      of personality. Self-moderation is particularly called for in this area.

      ***

      If you read carefully my comments and replies to you, you may sense
      that I am holding back or moderating myself, in regards to my reportage
      of the exploitation of the naive by those who promulgate idealism.

      Tony, the teaching/exampling of idealism is the ultimate abuse, abuse of
      a magnitude to which sexual abuse is almost nothing by comparison.

      The race of vampires perpetuate themselves by the inculcation of idealism;
      and the unrequited (hungry) idealist may eventually become a vampire; this
      is another and prime example of the 'cycle of abuse'.

      The fact that humans have needs (hungers) makes the translation of need
      into idealism quite easy. The natural hungers validate conditioned desires,
      and 'teachers' of idealism are careful  to blur the line between what is
      organismic and what is conditioned. The whole manipulative schema is an
      ancient racket, designed to funnel the conditioned (primed) into the jaws
      of the utterly unprincipled. SB and such ilk are simply the current crop of
      exploitation artists. The real need is to immunize children against idealism,
      without inculcating cynicism in the process of doing so.

      (And thus my reason for a clear understanding of what is called 'ego'.
      The call to overcome ego is a tacit order to eschew autonomy. But
      the task of differentiating ego from identity will make clear the actual
      situation. Ego is organismic, while identity is conditioned.)

      Warmest regards,

      ==Gene Poole==


      GLORIA LEE
       
      Subject: Maha Yoga - the real Eye

        The question whether forms are real is therefore separately dealt with
        by the Sage. He says :

        "If the self be with form, then the world and God would be so too.
         But if the self be formless, then how and by whom are forms to be seen ?
         Is the spectacle ever otherwise than as the seeing eye is ?
         The real Eye is just the real Self ; It is infinite Consciousness,
         formless and wordless."
       
         The meaning was explained by the Sage himself as follows :
         "If the eye that sees be the eye of flesh , then gross forms are seen:
          if that eye be assisted by lenses , then  even invisible things are
          seen to have form; if the mind be the eye , then subtle forms are seen;
          thus the seeing eye and the object seen are of the same nature;       
          that is , if the eye be itself a form , it sees nothing but forms.
       
          But neither the physical eye nor the mind has any power of vision
          of its own ; the real Eye is the Self ; as He is formless , being
          the pure and infinite Consciousness , the Reality , He does not see
          forms."

         Forms are created by the very act of seeing.

         ........................................ .............................................................................   
         MAHA YOGA
         or  The Upanishadic Lore in the Light of the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana
         By 'Who' (K. Lakshmana Sarma).


       
      PAUL COTE
       
      Hi Gloria,

      Here is an interesting defn. of Forms from the Book, The Game of God,
      Recovering Your True Identity, (The Big Book for Humans Anonymous).

      FORM:  any observable entity;  a thing apparently separate and
      distinct from everything else by virtue of its being surrounded
      by "not-that-thing".


       
      GLORIA

      Paul,
       
      Sounds also like a pretty good explanation
      of the origin of dualism. As each thing or quality
      is defined by separating from what it is not, an opposite
      arises with it. What has no opposite?


      DAN BERKOW

      "What has no opposite" has nothing
      to know, hence nothing to say -- no one
      to be known by, hence no way to appear.

      This is speechless, unknowing, and unthinkable.

      "This" can be nowhere else --
          in the midst of all forming and losing of form,
          is "this" -- which has never appeared to anyone,
          nor can ever disappear.


      JERRY KATZ
       
      Jan,

      Excuse me for jumping in in the middle of the thread. Respectfully, Jan,
      finding it incomprehensible that Sivananda would call a householder a
      failure, I checked his book. Quoting from Sivananda's textbook on Sadhana, he
      says, "Brahmacharya is the key-note of success in every walk of life. It is
      absolutely necessary for spiritual advancement." "The life of the householder
      is not inconsistent with the maintenance of celibacy. As soon as the
      householder has one child, to continue the line the wife becomes his mother."

      Whether a person has one or two children, or whether the wife becomes a
      mother, friend, sister, lover, or all of them, doesn't matter. Respect for
      the power of sexual/life energy is what matters. Celibacy -- or respect for
      life energy -- in all matters, not only sex, will lead to natural
      renunciation.

      Sivananda says, "The secret of renunciation  is renunciation of egoism,
      mineness and desires. Abandoning wife, children, property, house, relations
      and friends does not constitute real renunciation. Objects do not bind you.
      It is 'mineness' (Mamata) that binds you to this Samsara or cycle of births
      and deaths."

      As long as objects do not bind, a person can do whatever they want. Get
      married, buy cars, whatever. Remaining celibate, life energy is plentiful and
      wisely budgeted.

      As far as service, or helping others, Sivananda says, "Because the mind wants
      variety, you should engage it with some noble, benevolent work for the good
      of others. Service alone will bestow upon you everything. Through service
      alone you can have Realisation."

      However, he also said, "...selfless service is not needed for the advanced
      class." So, Jan may be in that class, and Tony may be in the one that does
      service. Who knows? Does anyone really care?

       

      JAN BARENDRECHT
       
      In the book "practice of yoga" there are some issues regarding "miserable mundane life".
      It's about how the illusion of a separate self tries to immortalize itself by taking certain
      measures.
      º
      ºWhether a person has one or two children, or whether the wife becomes a
      ºmother, friend, sister, lover, or all of them, doesn't matter. Respect for
      ºthe power of sexual/life energy is what matters. Celibacy -- or respect for
      ºlife energy -- in all matters, not only sex, will lead to natural
      ºrenunciation.

      Interestingly, Sivananda doesn't say what would generate natural brahmacarya.
      Ramana was one of the examples of that - without a former practice of yoga.

      º
      ºsnip
      ºAs long as objects do not bind, a person can do whatever they want. Get
      ºmarried, buy cars, whatever. Remaining celibate, life energy is plentiful
      ºand
      ºwisely budgeted.

      Desires do bind and without them, tendencies will act out spontaneously...
      º
      ºAs far as service, or helping others, Sivananda says, "Because the mind
      ºwants
      ºvariety, you should engage it with some noble, benevolent work for the good
      ºof others. Service alone will bestow upon you everything. Through service
      ºalone you can have Realisation."

      The chapter on karma yoga :)
      º
      ºHowever, he also said, "...selfless service is not needed for the advanced
      ºclass." So, Jan may be in that class, and Tony may be in the one that does
      ºservice. Who knows? Does anyone really care?
      º
      ºJerry

      Once i read a letter of someone considering herself abused - observing that
      many were benefited by that teacher nevertheless, her action against that teacher took that into
      consideration. That was one of the best examples of selfless service i came across...
      Not making more victims than there already are... But you are right, no one cares.



      HARSHA
       
      Gary wrote:
      So if the mind or consciousnes is whole, complete, it must be acausal. 'My'
      efforts are then seen as illusory and misplaced.
      *******************************************
      My dearest and wonderful Gary,

      I love your eloquence. Perhaps the efforts are also part of the whole. Can
      anything really be out of place? If one thing is out of place, then
      everything is out of place.

      But there is only this place. Here.


      You also said Gary: Lest this sound a negative, or fatalistic view (and in a
      way it is!) then I
      can only restate the positive of wholeness and selflessness which is to
      partake of this holiness. Not by choice but understanding the way it is.
      Being That.

      Love,
      Gary

      Yes, I love that. Thanks Gary. Being That. Being Whole. Being Here. All
      Being.

      Love to all
      Harsha

       

      MICHAEL READ
       
      ok that's it!
      meet YOU in the alley

      god

      even when i'm not PISsed, i'm still tough

      you putz!

      yup! this is how it starts

      stupid bastards always manifesting as
      righteous assholes

      What,
      Oh what,
      Will the day bring?

      Will it be marigolds?
      Or, will it be monsters?

      And who the fuck!!,
      Decides that?
      Hmmmmmm...?

      HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!

      Peace? or WAR? - loveya - Michael



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.