Subject: [NDS] supportive of non-dualism ?
hi Bobby G
you asked Am `I' supportive of
`Advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of
the jIva, the
individual self, is nothing other than brahman
Bobby G it is very easy for the mind /ego to
turn this statement
into a belief system.
"Now there is no need for
any vigilance or mindfulness I just
give over to what wants to happen,
because all is God"
all that is really handed over is the
most basic unconscious
patterns of justifiable neurosis acting
The 1940's German Chancellor was a very committed and
strong believer in the term `providence'
1. the foreseeing care and
guardianship of God over his
But he also said "I suffer
from tormenting self-deception"
Depressed and exuberant states
coupled with grandiose
fantasies and paranoid tendencies are not
uncommon to many
claiming to be `lived by' the advaitain / providence belief
To be supportive of non-dualism one might also
be clear what it
is `they' are believing re: non dualism.
belief's adopted by any individual, have very precise
consequences of how they experiences any given creation.
BELIEF n 1.
the state of believing, conviction or acceptance that
certain things are
true or real. Anything believed or accepted as
"He who knows not how to rule his inner self would
his fellow men according to his own arrogant
Some thoughts by some of the greatest known
Enlightenment means there is `no me' with a sense of
doership "I" can do nothing. Everything that happens is Gods
will" R. S. Balsekar
"When you think you re doing all these
things -then you live in
ignorance. If you become aware that the whole is
everything, you are possessed by the whole, breathed by it, you
are just a hollow bamboo a flute, the sound comes from the
whole life comes from it- then you live a life of
Let us not pose as the doers, but resign ourselves to the
Power Shri Ramana
As long as you have the idea
of influencing events, liberation is
not for you.
Physicist Neils Bohr said "a great truth is
a truth whose opposite
is also a great truth"
Your thoughtful reply is much appreciated.
influencing events, belief systems, and ruling the inner
self are all ideas
worthy of consideration.
About being supportive of Advaita, I originally
meant simply are you
against the ideas or not.
I thought you might
be saying these ideas are wrong.
The question of being supportive
of advaita is interesting.
It is much like saying I believe the
essential identity of the
individual jiva is nothing other than Brahman but
the experience of
Brahman is held back by idea.
I sincerely thank you for what you have offered
slowly recognise the right/wrong game becomes increasingly
more difficult to
believe in, the more intelligence and awareness
is used to recognise the
belief system that has been adopted to
view any creation.
Maharshi has been quoted
"all scriptures are only for the purpose
of investigating if there
are two consciousness".
He went on
to say "if there is any division felt, it is because we
imagine that we as
the seer are separate from the experience".
It's very easy for anyone to
claim enlightenment and speak in
terms of non-duality.
Scharfstein, a philosopher once remarked
"I think that if the writings
of admitted mystics and admitted
psychotics is compared line by line, image
by image, conviction
by conviction, they will often not be distinguishable
both, as we
have seen, can share the feeling of immensity and
incommunicabilty of their experience. Both can be happy. Both
can feel that they contain the universe or adjoined with it in
unsurpassing union. Both can be overwhelmed by the sudden
conviction that they see the truth now bare. Both can believe that
they have godly wisdom and benevolence. Both can use
self definition and say of themselves `I AM'.
Just on a last note,
here's a few statements
Are these statements made by non -dualist
mystics or by
1. "It's not fair to demand more
of a man than he can give"
2, "Now, he who destroys life is himself
3. "The soul and mind migrate, just as the body returns to
4 "This life is eternally reborn from life ..... the
5. "It's a mistake to think that man should be
guided by his
6. "Man alone amongst the living creatures,
tries to deny the laws
7. "Prepare for war with
peace in thy soul"
8. "Do unto others as you would have them do
9. "Conflict exists as long as there is effort, as long as
contradiction so, is there not a contradiction between the
`observer' and the `observed' in that division?
10 "Man is
absurdly concentrated upon the symptoms of his own
distress, and, thus,
human beings collectively and individually
pursue knowledge of, and the
power over, the conditions which
confront them in body and mind".
"Only people condemen who have some part in what they are
who said what..........
to 6 A. Hitler
7. Lord Krishna
9. J Krishnamurti
10. Adi Da Samraj
The seeker is the sought.
I still don't get it.
Could someone explain
the subtle aspect of this matter!
A spiritual seeker is looking for something. Perhaps something grand,
blissful, peaceful, that might end suffering or illuminate the secrets of
the Universe or allow them to gaze on the countenance of God. When the
seeking is over, it is realized that there is no other in existence.
You, the Self, the I-principle, nothing/no-one else. That Self,
realized, was always there, never not there. It was masquerading
seeker, and as the answer.
When the seeker finds what she is
looking for, she comes back to herself,
realizing that she never
...........haha now you"re really screwed cause greg explained it so
clearly and concisely, that now you're probably gonna start believing
that you actually understand it. Most questions are just better off
Of course - the mind always tries to grasp, which is activity whereas
the absence of mental activity 'escapes' all grasping. Most questions
could be classified under "doctor, i want a pill to cure ..."
the lifestyle where even the thought of asking that wouldn't arise,
is likely to be rejected