13776Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism or non-dualism
- Apr 3, 2005Hello,
Thanks for playing with me.
> Your question remains mootThis is qualified non-dualsim.
> -- the closing elaboration
> is just plain silly. There
> are organisms and there is
> awareness, which is only
> nominally owned by
> Yes, and also of course aWas not Ramana a housholder before he left. This seems a copout, and
> sage. His "sheltered" status
> facilitated both -- those of
> us with householder
> responsibilities don't have
> the option of acting out
> non-duality so overtly.
an insult to ramanas greatness. Of course indian society does
support the renuciates. But if you were so inclined, you could
renounce the world here in the west as well. Homeless shelters would
feed you and house you, etc.
This is my point, westerners need to realize the difference between
qualified non-dualsim and non-dualism.
The difference between tasting sugar(qualified non-dualism) and being
non-dualism is ramana.
qualified non-dualism is ramakrishna
A hipocrit who says he is sugar, but really tastes sugar is Papaji.
There is nothing wrong with tasting the sugar. Unless they delude
themselves with papaji teachings and only talk the talk, and dont
walk the walk.
Om Namah Shivaya
Jason James Morgan
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>