9883Re: 'I am' is True, all else is Inference of cannisters
- Jul 7, 2003Hi Bob... a few remarks:
>medit8ionsociety <no_reply@y...> wrote:Above, remove the 'the' for clearer meaning:
> The sense of "I" is not the same as sensing "I Am"
> Here's Swami Sivananda:
> Experience is never possible without consciousness. Anything that is
> eternal must be infinite and unlimited. Consciousness is unlimited;
> the consciousness of limitation shows that consciousness is greater
> than limitation.
"consciousness of limitation shows that consciousness is greater
'The consciousness of limitation' is itself, limited.
One could also say: 'Perspective of the consciousness
of limitation... ".
The container of all containers is bigger than all
containers, except itself. Kind of like those kitchen
Now is your chance to 'graduate' from tiny container
to BIG container! You are in yourself, right now!
(But none of those statements is either clear, or true;
it is merely 'cheerleading' the choir. One must already
posses (at the least) opinions related to these issues,
in order to 'assume' the truth of such short and
presumptive statements. )
> Perfection is the attainment of immortal life orYet another great and inadequate generalization!
> pure consciousness. The enquiry of, "Who am I?" leads to self-
> realisation (Brahma-jnana). Divine wisdom can be attained only by
> those who are endowed with purity. Tear the veil. Realise the reality.
Like ACIM, the drama is the energy; and the 'helpings'
of 'truth' are supposed to be deeply implanted, in the
mind of the seeker. My suggestion: Forget the drama.
> Pain is the effect of not having what is wanted, or having what isWell... DUH!
> not wanted. Brahman is secondless. There is no pain or want in
> Brahman. Therefore pain is impossible in the absolute. Contact is the
> mother of pain. The absolute can have no contacts and therefore no
> pain. Brahman is free from all wants and desires because it includes
> everything in itself. Therefore it is an embodiment of bliss.
> Bliss is not an attribute. It is the very constitutive essence of theSorry, dude. We are not 'enlightened' by reasoning alone;
> self, or atman. As the self is absolute in nature, its bliss is also
> absolute. This is the same as Brahman.
thus, your formulations of words simply fight for dominance
in a ghetto of existing impressions. Ever see 'Fight Club'?
> Annihilate the ego. Reach the goal here and now. Take the inner"Annihilate the ego", eh? Ever try to strangle yourself
> essence and attain perfection. Relax not the keen vigilance against
> your most subtle foes - egoism and desire. Where can you see the
> Lord? I found the Lord where 'I' did not exist.
with your own hands? Get real, dude!
> Where there is no sense of 'I', there is liberation.More like, where there is no sense of 'you', O
purveyor of puerile pap!
> It is bondage to [there is no liberation without bondage!]Secret? Eternal life, is that there is no life!
> have the sense of 'I' and 'mine'. Identify with the all-pervading
> soul (atman). You will attain immortality. This is the secret of
> eternal life.
Ya can't lose what you don't have!
> With the growth and expansion of your inmost being, you attainOr, tumors.
> greater perfection and fulfillment of yourself, and bliss is the
> result thereof.
Now come on, guy... bliss as a result?
How about what you said up above, eh?
> Purge yourself from self-seeking and egoism. EscapeYes, sir! Thou speakest, I obeyest!
> from space-time limitations. Lose all sense of separateness. Unite
> with Brahman or the absolute.
> The practice of the presence of GodWhose... mine, or God's?
> will cause the ego-veil to dissolve.
I thought that God kinda enjoyed
me-as-His-veil! I can tell, cause he
is laughing it up, right now!
> Divine love will now manifest and eternal bliss will flow in. TheSincere? Like, you mean, uh... without will?
> Lord's grace is ever upon sincere, selfless souls.
> SIVANANDA DAILY READING FOR 5 JULYWaves of... Ganga? You mean... a 'sea of green'?
> WAVES OF GANGA
Now, that I can go for!
> "cornelius" <d_agenda2000@y...> wrote:
> > From "I am That"
> > Maharaj: The perceiver of the world, is he prior to the world, or
> > does he come into being along with the world?
> > Q: What a strange question! Why do you ask such questions?
> > M: Unless you know the correct answer, you will not find peace.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>