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

13778Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism or non-dualism

Expand Messages
  • jasonjamesmorgan
    Apr 3, 2005
      Hello,

      Honestly, I dont feel that being recognized for your renuciation has
      anything to do with it. What of the dudes that go into the forest,
      and are never helped. I have heard of one renuciate, who has rich
      family in toronto, but spends his time on the streets of calgary. He
      seemed to me, to be just like any other renuciate you might meet in
      india.

      Although I have found that eating and sleeping with homeless addicts
      is not conducive to sadhana, I do not think it would make it
      impossible. Who knows how many people renounce in north america.
      For as you say, who would be here to revere them. They would go
      unnoticed.

      I know I was not steadfast eneogh to be a renunciate here in
      calgary. But that may be because of my former relation to the
      underground.

      Anyways, much love to you, and thank you for your time.
      I salute you.

      Namaste
      Om Namah Shivaya
      Jason James Morgan



      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
      <editor@j...> wrote:
      > jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
      >
      > >Hello,
      > >
      > >Thanks for playing with me.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >>Your question remains moot
      > >>-- the closing elaboration
      > >>is just plain silly. There
      > >>are organisms and there is
      > >>awareness, which is only
      > >>nominally owned by
      > >>organisms.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >This is qualified non-dualsim.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > OK, label noted.
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >>Yes, and also of course a
      > >>sage. His "sheltered" status
      > >>facilitated both -- those of
      > >>us with householder
      > >>responsibilities don't have
      > >>the option of acting out
      > >>non-duality so overtly.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >Was not Ramana a housholder before he left.
      > >
      > No, he went from his parents'
      > home directly to renunciation
      > afaik.
      >
      > >This seems a copout, and
      > >an insult to ramanas greatness.
      > >
      > If Bhagavan is insulted,
      > perhaps he'll somehow let me
      > know -- I'll gladly apologize.
      > :-P
      >
      > >Of course indian society does
      > >support the renuciates.
      > >
      > Indeed it does.
      >
      > >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.
      > >
      > >
      > Free dental care might be a
      > nice bonus!
      >
      > >This is my point, westerners need to realize the difference
      between
      > >qualified non-dualsim and non-dualism.
      > >
      > >
      > If you say so -- I don't see
      > any such need, especially since
      > it would be such a remarkable
      > event for a Ramana-like course
      > of life to occur here in the
      > west. The cultural acceptance
      > of the sadhu as a respectable,
      > even revered member of society
      > is what facilitated (along with
      > his personal determination, of
      > course) the iconic Ramana so
      > many of use admire today. I
      > would maintain that such would
      > not be possible in the west.
      > The same goes for the Buddha,
      > who also made his livelihood
      > with a beggar's bowl -- for
      > such a life to occur requires
      > tolerance, approval, and support
      > from those who must earn their
      > daily bread. That is not to be
      > had in the cities of America and
      > Europe today.
      >
      > >The difference between tasting sugar(qualified non-dualism) and
      being
      > >sugar(non-dual)
      > >
      > >non-dualism is ramana.
      > >qualified non-dualism is ramakrishna
      > >A hipocrit who says he is sugar, but really tastes sugar is Papaji.
      > >
      > >
      > We all taste, even Ramana
      > did. Imo he was skillfully
      > playing a chosen role as an
      > extended teaching device.
      >
      > >There is nothing wrong with tasting the sugar.
      > >
      > There is no choice about it
      > -- to be incarnated is to
      > taste. Period.
      >
      > >Unless they delude
      > >themselves with papaji teachings and only talk the talk, and dont
      > >walk the walk.
      > >
      > >
      > It seems we are in agreement
      > concerning Papaji and his
      > several western disciples
      > with their untenable reliance
      > on Adviataspeak[tm]. :-)
      >
      > >Much love
      > >Namaste
      > >Om Namah Shivaya
      > >Jason James Morgan
      > >
      > >
      > ...and to you, sir!
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic