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

Qualified non-dualism or non-dualism

Expand Messages
  • jasonjamesmorgan
    Hello, 1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it? Or do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain. Ramana sat to close to the
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it? Or
      do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
      Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.


      2. I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing. Do you believe
      in yourself? If you only accept your awareness, do you accept mine?
      If you accept mine, you must accept God. That in which we live, move
      and have our being. Qualified non-dualism.


      3. Do you accept qualified non-dualism? Or do you only practice non-
      dualsim? If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.? The difference
      between tasting sugar and being sugar. Do you act non-dual(ie
      Ramana) or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
      dualism(ie papaji). Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.

      Namaste
      Om Namah Shivaya
      Jason James Morgan
    • Bruce Morgen
      ... Of course! ... That too.... ... The revered saint was also a foolish little man in a dhoti. ... Who are these non-dual types? Non-duality, being who and
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        jasonjamesmorgan wrote:

        >Hello,
        >
        >1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it?
        >
        Of course!

        >Or do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
        >
        >
        That too....

        >Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.
        >
        >
        The revered saint was also
        a foolish little man in a
        dhoti.

        >
        >2. I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing.
        >
        Who are these "non-dual types?"
        Non-duality, being who and what
        we are, requires no belief.
        Given that as a visceral and
        ongoing realization, the psyche
        has no need to believe other
        than as a simple, situationsal
        survival device -- e.g. the
        local weather forecast.

        >Do you believe
        >in yourself? If you only accept your awareness, do you accept mine?
        >
        >
        There isn't anything above
        that requires belief or
        acceptance from here, is
        there? There questions
        are moot.

        >If you accept mine, you must accept God.
        >
        See above -- awareness has no
        owner, and acceptance isn't
        necessary or relevant.

        >That in which we live, move
        >and have our being.
        >
        ...aka "maya," the essentially
        illusory realm of form, the
        manifest universe -- is this
        "God?"

        >Qualified non-dualism.
        >
        >
        Iirc, Jesus is reported to have
        said," Be thou in this world but
        no of it."

        >
        >3. Do you accept qualified non-dualism? Or do you only practice non-
        >dualsim?
        >
        The suffix "ism" implies a
        belief system, therefore the
        adherent of "non-dualism" is
        a believer more akin to a
        conventional religionist than
        to the realizer(s) s/he sees
        as "guru" or some such.

        >If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.?
        >
        Yes, intensely. :-P

        >The difference
        >between tasting sugar and being sugar. Do you act non-dual(ie
        >Ramana) or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
        >dualism(ie papaji). Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.
        >
        >
        The realizer is human, Ramana
        had a sheltered life and the
        option of eccentrically
        acting out "non-dual" for his
        chelas visitors.

        >Namaste
        >Om Namah Shivaya
        >Jason James Morgan
        >
        >
        Right back atcha!
      • jasonjamesmorgan
        Hello, You say ramana had a shelterd life. This I dont get. Leaving home, to sit on a mountain side the rest of the life, with no concern for food or
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          You say ramana had a shelterd life. This I dont get. Leaving home,
          to sit on a mountain side the rest of the life, with no concern for
          food or shelter????? This is non-dual. The ashram was not built
          around him for many years, who sheltered him before this?

          Working and paying rent, buying food, having sex etc. this is
          qualified non-dual"ism". There is no shame in this. Just be real.

          Your skillfull avoidence of my questions, I see right thru. Do you
          accept my awareness? Or am I a figment of your imagination?

          Why do you remove the splinter? Because you feel, you are aware of
          your foot. Was ramana aware of his legs? As for calling him
          foolish, I know you mean this this in a loving, joking context, but
          come on. I mean, do you really believe that the satguru for the 1900
          was a fool?

          Namaste
          Om Namah Shivaya
          Jason James Morgan



          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
          <editor@j...> wrote:
          > jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
          >
          > >Hello,
          > >
          > >1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it?
          > >
          > Of course!
          >
          > >Or do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
          > >
          > >
          > That too....
          >
          > >Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.
          > >
          > >
          > The revered saint was also
          > a foolish little man in a
          > dhoti.
          >
          > >
          > >2. I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing.
          > >
          > Who are these "non-dual types?"
          > Non-duality, being who and what
          > we are, requires no belief.
          > Given that as a visceral and
          > ongoing realization, the psyche
          > has no need to believe other
          > than as a simple, situationsal
          > survival device -- e.g. the
          > local weather forecast.
          >
          > >Do you believe
          > >in yourself? If you only accept your awareness, do you accept
          mine?
          > >
          > >
          > There isn't anything above
          > that requires belief or
          > acceptance from here, is
          > there? There questions
          > are moot.
          >
          > >If you accept mine, you must accept God.
          > >
          > See above -- awareness has no
          > owner, and acceptance isn't
          > necessary or relevant.
          >
          > >That in which we live, move
          > >and have our being.
          > >
          > ...aka "maya," the essentially
          > illusory realm of form, the
          > manifest universe -- is this
          > "God?"
          >
          > >Qualified non-dualism.
          > >
          > >
          > Iirc, Jesus is reported to have
          > said," Be thou in this world but
          > no of it."
          >
          > >
          > >3. Do you accept qualified non-dualism? Or do you only practice
          non-
          > >dualsim?
          > >
          > The suffix "ism" implies a
          > belief system, therefore the
          > adherent of "non-dualism" is
          > a believer more akin to a
          > conventional religionist than
          > to the realizer(s) s/he sees
          > as "guru" or some such.
          >
          > >If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.?
          > >
          > Yes, intensely. :-P
          >
          > >The difference
          > >between tasting sugar and being sugar. Do you act non-dual(ie
          > >Ramana) or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
          > >dualism(ie papaji). Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.
          > >
          > >
          > The realizer is human, Ramana
          > had a sheltered life and the
          > option of eccentrically
          > acting out "non-dual" for his
          > chelas visitors.
          >
          > >Namaste
          > >Om Namah Shivaya
          > >Jason James Morgan
          > >
          > >
          > Right back atcha!
        • Bruce Morgen
          ... ...or very canny, given the culture he lived in.... ... A sheltered life doesn t imply physical shelter. ... Thanks for the reassuring instruction.
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            jasonjamesmorgan wrote:

            >Hello,
            >
            >You say ramana had a shelterd life. This I dont get. Leaving home,
            >to sit on a mountain side the rest of the life, with no concern for
            >food or shelter????? This is non-dual.
            >
            ...or very canny, given the
            culture he lived in....

            >The ashram was not built
            >around him for many years, who sheltered him before this?
            >
            >
            A "sheltered life" doesn't
            imply physical shelter.

            >Working and paying rent, buying food, having sex etc. this is
            >qualified non-dual"ism". There is no shame in this. Just be real.
            >
            >
            Thanks for the reassuring
            instruction. ;-)

            >Your skillfull avoidence of my questions, I see right thru. Do you
            >accept my awareness? Or am I a figment of your imagination?
            >
            >
            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.

            >Why do you remove the splinter? Because you feel, you are aware of
            >your foot. Was ramana aware of his legs?
            >
            Who knows? Who cares?

            >As for calling him
            >foolish, I know you mean this this in a loving, joking context, but
            >come on. I mean, do you really believe that the satguru for the 1900
            >was a fool?
            >
            >
            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.

            >Namaste
            >Om Namah Shivaya
            >Jason James Morgan
            >
            >
            >
            >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
            ><editor@j...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >>jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Hello,
            >>>
            >>>1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it?
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>Of course!
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Or do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>That too....
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>The revered saint was also
            >>a foolish little man in a
            >>dhoti.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>2. I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>Who are these "non-dual types?"
            >>Non-duality, being who and what
            >>we are, requires no belief.
            >>Given that as a visceral and
            >>ongoing realization, the psyche
            >>has no need to believe other
            >>than as a simple, situationsal
            >>survival device -- e.g. the
            >>local weather forecast.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Do you believe
            >>>in yourself? If you only accept your awareness, do you accept
            >>>
            >>>
            >mine?
            >
            >
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>There isn't anything above
            >>that requires belief or
            >>acceptance from here, is
            >>there? There questions
            >>are moot.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>If you accept mine, you must accept God.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>See above -- awareness has no
            >>owner, and acceptance isn't
            >>necessary or relevant.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>That in which we live, move
            >>>and have our being.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>...aka "maya," the essentially
            >>illusory realm of form, the
            >>manifest universe -- is this
            >>"God?"
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Qualified non-dualism.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>Iirc, Jesus is reported to have
            >>said," Be thou in this world but
            >>no of it."
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>3. Do you accept qualified non-dualism? Or do you only practice
            >>>
            >>>
            >non-
            >
            >
            >>>dualsim?
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>The suffix "ism" implies a
            >>belief system, therefore the
            >>adherent of "non-dualism" is
            >>a believer more akin to a
            >>conventional religionist than
            >>to the realizer(s) s/he sees
            >>as "guru" or some such.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.?
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>Yes, intensely. :-P
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>The difference
            >>>between tasting sugar and being sugar. Do you act non-dual(ie
            >>>Ramana) or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
            >>>dualism(ie papaji). Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>The realizer is human, Ramana
            >>had a sheltered life and the
            >>option of eccentrically
            >>acting out "non-dual" for his
            >>chelas visitors.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>>Namaste
            >>>Om Namah Shivaya
            >>>Jason James Morgan
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>Right back atcha!
            >>
            >>
          • jasonjamesmorgan
            Hello, Thanks for playing with me. ... This is qualified non-dualsim. ... Was not Ramana a housholder before he left. This seems a copout, and an insult to
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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.




              > 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. This seems a copout, and
              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
              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.

              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.

              Much love
              Namaste
              Om Namah Shivaya
              Jason James Morgan
            • Bruce Morgen
              ... OK, label noted. ... No, he went from his parents home directly to renunciation afaik. ... If Bhagavan is insulted, perhaps he ll somehow let me know --
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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!
              • jasonjamesmorgan
                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
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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!
                • Greg Goode
                  Nice dialoguing, Bruce! --Greg ________________________________ From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM To:
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Section 1

                    Nice dialoguing, Bruce!

                     

                    --Greg

                     


                    From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                    To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism or non-dualism

                     

                    jasonjamesmorgan wrote:

                    >Hello,
                    >
                    >Thanks for playing with me.
                    >
                    >
                    >

                  • Bruce Morgen
                    Thank you, old friend -- and thanks also to that fine Canadian fellow who spells his surname so strangely! :-) Much love -- Bruce
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thank you, old friend -- and
                      thanks also to that fine
                      Canadian fellow who spells
                      his surname so strangely! :-)

                      Much love -- Bruce


                      Greg Goode wrote:

                      > Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --Greg
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      >
                      > *From:* Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@...]
                      > *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                      > *To:* meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > *Subject:* Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism
                      > or non-dualism
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                      >
                      >>Hello,
                      >>
                      >>Thanks for playing with me.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                    • Jeff Belyea
                      Nice log rolling, Greg. ... or
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nice log rolling, Greg.

                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Goode"
                        <goode@d...> wrote:
                        > Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --Greg
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >
                        > From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@j...]
                        > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                        > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism
                        or
                        > non-dualism
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                        >
                        > >Hello,
                        > >
                        > >Thanks for playing with me.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                      • Bruce Morgen
                        The exchanging of favors or praise, as among artists, critics, or academics, Jeffji? I confess I once attempted to give Gregji an old snare drum, but he
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "The exchanging of favors or
                          praise, as among artists,
                          critics, or academics," Jeffji?
                          I confess I once attempted to
                          give Gregji an old snare drum,
                          but he turned me down, citing
                          lack of room for it in his
                          apartment.


                          Jeff Belyea wrote:

                          >Nice log rolling, Greg.
                          >
                          >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Goode"
                          ><goode@d...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >>Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>--Greg
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>________________________________
                          >>
                          >>From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@j...]
                          >>Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                          >>To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          >>Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism
                          >>
                          >>
                          >or
                          >
                          >
                          >>non-dualism
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>>Hello,
                          >>>
                          >>>Thanks for playing with me.
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                        • Jeff Belyea
                          Snare drum: Advaitaspeak (TM)? ... dualism
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Snare drum: Advaitaspeak (TM)?

                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
                            <editor@j...> wrote:
                            >
                            > "The exchanging of favors or
                            > praise, as among artists,
                            > critics, or academics," Jeffji?
                            > I confess I once attempted to
                            > give Gregji an old snare drum,
                            > but he turned me down, citing
                            > lack of room for it in his
                            > apartment.
                            >
                            >
                            > Jeff Belyea wrote:
                            >
                            > >Nice log rolling, Greg.
                            > >
                            > >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Goode"
                            > ><goode@d...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>--Greg
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>________________________________
                            > >>
                            > >>From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@j...]
                            > >>Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                            > >>To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > >>Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-
                            dualism
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >or
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >>non-dualism
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>>Hello,
                            > >>>
                            > >>>Thanks for playing with me.
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                            > >>>
                          • Bruce Morgen
                            Not at all -- I found out that he likes to hit things rhythmically on occasion, so I figured to give him something appropriate for that activity. Sometimes a
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Not at all -- I found out
                              that he likes to hit things
                              rhythmically on occasion,
                              so I figured to give him
                              something appropriate for
                              that activity. Sometimes a
                              drum is just a drum and a
                              compliment is just a
                              compliment.



                              Jeff Belyea wrote:

                              >Snare drum: Advaitaspeak (TM)?
                              >
                              >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
                              ><editor@j...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >>"The exchanging of favors or
                              >>praise, as among artists,
                              >>critics, or academics," Jeffji?
                              >>I confess I once attempted to
                              >>give Gregji an old snare drum,
                              >>but he turned me down, citing
                              >>lack of room for it in his
                              >>apartment.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>Jeff Belyea wrote:
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>>Nice log rolling, Greg.
                              >>>
                              >>>--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Goode"
                              >>><goode@d...> wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>>Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>--Greg
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>________________________________
                              >>>>
                              >>>>From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@j...]
                              >>>>Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                              >>>>To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>>Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >dualism
                              >
                              >
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>or
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>>non-dualism
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>Hello,
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>Thanks for playing with me.
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                            • Jeff Belyea
                              And sometimes a pun is just a pun.
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                And sometimes a pun
                                is just a pun.

                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
                                <editor@j...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Not at all -- I found out
                                > that he likes to hit things
                                > rhythmically on occasion,
                                > so I figured to give him
                                > something appropriate for
                                > that activity. Sometimes a
                                > drum is just a drum and a
                                > compliment is just a
                                > compliment.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Jeff Belyea wrote:
                                >
                                > >Snare drum: Advaitaspeak (TM)?
                                > >
                                > >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Morgen
                                > ><editor@j...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >>"The exchanging of favors or
                                > >>praise, as among artists,
                                > >>critics, or academics," Jeffji?
                                > >>I confess I once attempted to
                                > >>give Gregji an old snare drum,
                                > >>but he turned me down, citing
                                > >>lack of room for it in his
                                > >>apartment.
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >>Jeff Belyea wrote:
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >>>Nice log rolling, Greg.
                                > >>>
                                > >>>--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Goode"
                                > >>><goode@d...> wrote:
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>>Nice dialoguing, Bruce!
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>--Greg
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>________________________________
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>From: Bruce Morgen [mailto:editor@j...]
                                > >>>>Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 5:32 PM
                                > >>>>To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                                > >>>>Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >dualism
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>or
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>>>non-dualism
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>jasonjamesmorgan wrote:
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>>Hello,
                                > >>>>>
                                > >>>>>Thanks for playing with me.
                                > >>>>>
                                > >>>>>
                                > >>>>>
                              • Sandeep
                                Yoo-hoo JJM, A somewhat dated post... Some two cents... ... From: jasonjamesmorgan To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 7, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Yoo-hoo JJM,
                                   
                                  A somewhat dated post...
                                   
                                  Some two cents...
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:28 AM
                                  Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism or non-dualism


                                  Hello,

                                  1.  If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove it?  Or
                                  do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
                                   
                                  There is none.
                                   
                                  And yet a splinter may be removed.
                                   
                                  Or remains embedded.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   

                                  Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.
                                   
                                  Ramana did not.
                                  Yes the psycho-somatic organism which maybe labeled "Ramana", Buddha", "George W Bush/Osama Ben laden".......
                                   
                                  ......so long such an organism is "alive"..........if it sits on a hot stove, .......the organism will rapidly ascend.
                                   
                                   



                                  2.  I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing.
                                   
                                   
                                  Not even that nothing.
                                   
                                  And there is no non-dual types.
                                   
                                  Or to put it in another manner........there is not a whit difference between a non-dual type and a dual-type.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   Do you believe in yourself?
                                   
                                   
                                  What is this "yourself"?
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                    If you only accept your awareness, do you accept mine? 
                                   
                                   
                                  There is no "your" or "my" awareness.
                                   
                                   

                                  If you accept mine, you must accept God.  That in which we live, move
                                  and have our being. Qualified non-dualism.
                                   
                                  Aceept whatever rocks.
                                   
                                  Reject whatever rocks
                                   
                                  Both sneezings of the dreamt up character of the last night sleep dream.
                                   
                                   



                                  3.  Do you accept qualified non-dualism?  Or do you only practice non-
                                  dualsim?
                                   
                                   
                                  What is qualified non-dualism?
                                  What is the practice non-dualism?
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                    If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.?
                                   
                                  Very much.
                                   
                                  And you forgot a good Cohiba.
                                   
                                  Sex is mere humping,.......... while a good cigar..........now that's something.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                    The difference
                                  between tasting sugar and being sugar.
                                   
                                   
                                  Being somewhat wet-behind the ears, can you please explain what is that difference?
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                    Do you act non-dual(ie
                                  Ramana)
                                   
                                   
                                  That dude in the diaper was acting?
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
                                  dualism(ie papaji).
                                   
                                  So non-hypocrisy lies in practicing non-qualified non-dualism?
                                   
                                  Can any "ism" escape a qualification?
                                   
                                  Non-qualification..............is not a qualification?
                                   
                                   
                                    Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.
                                   
                                  How do you act non-dual?
                                   
                                • jasonjamesmorgan
                                  Hello, The Holy Mother prepares food according to the childs temperments. Let us see if I can cook some good old fashion, home cooked non-dual Bhakti, non-dual
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 7, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello,

                                    The Holy Mother prepares food according to the childs temperments.

                                    Let us see if I can cook some good old fashion, home cooked non-dual
                                    Bhakti, non-dual Gnani style. I get the feeling it would be less
                                    spicy.

                                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Sandeep"
                                    <sandeep1960@y...> wrote:
                                    > Yoo-hoo JJM,
                                    >
                                    > A somewhat dated post...
                                    >
                                    > Some two cents...
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: jasonjamesmorgan
                                    > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:28 AM
                                    > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Qualified non-dualism or
                                    non-dualism
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Hello,
                                    >
                                    > 1. If you were to get a splinter in your foot, do you remove
                                    it? Or
                                    > do you realize there is no foot, no splinter, no pain.
                                    >
                                    > There is none.
                                    >
                                    > And yet a splinter may be removed.
                                    >
                                    > Or remains embedded.

                                    JJM. A mental splinter, like a thought can be removed with non-
                                    identification.

                                    A phiscial splinter, like a splinter :), can be removed with tweezers.

                                    The difference between sahaja savikalpa samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa
                                    samadhi is that one dude would have moved back from the fire, to the
                                    other there was no fire, and no legs.

                                    I guess the defence mechanism of refutation might come from believing
                                    that you have the same power as the president.

                                    A king demand a yogi tell him a special mantra. The yogi refused.
                                    When asked he sayed it would not work for him. The king tripped out
                                    and demanded to know why. Just then the yogi tripped out and ordered
                                    a guard nearby to sieze the king. The guard did not even blink. The
                                    king then got angrier and odered the guard to sieze the yogi. The
                                    yogi became histarical with laughter when the gaurd grabbed him. The
                                    yogi said he had just demonstrated why it would not work.

                                    What if there is such things as avatars? Miracles........

                                    So this distinction is valid in my books.
                                    Ramana was the Man.

                                    If you want to know my description of the distinction between
                                    Savikalpa Samadhi and Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I am sure it is still
                                    floating around on web. Type my full name in exact search in
                                    google. Feel free to send me refutations. I enjoy learning more
                                    than teaching.

                                    >
                                    > Ramana sat to close to the fire once and severely burnt his legs.
                                    >
                                    > Ramana did not.
                                    > Yes the psycho-somatic organism which maybe labeled "Ramana",
                                    Buddha", "George W Bush/Osama Ben laden".......
                                    >
                                    > ......so long such an organism is "alive"..........if it sits on
                                    a hot stove, .......the organism will rapidly ascend.
                                    >

                                    JJM. So sit on a hot stove. The natural abidance in the effulgence
                                    of Self, is preceded by the un-natural abidance in the effulgence of
                                    Self.

                                    He however was already boiled, a fresh pot.

                                    Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi is different than Sahaja Savikalpa
                                    Samadhi. Those words of mine alluded to it.

                                    See different groups post at bottom( I just typed it and dont feel
                                    like retyping it)

                                    >
                                    > 2. I am told you non-dual types believe in nothing.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Not even that nothing.
                                    >
                                    > And there is no non-dual types.
                                    >
                                    > Or to put it in another manner........there is not a whit
                                    difference between a non-dual type and a dual-type.
                                    >

                                    JJM. See post at bottom.




                                    > Do you believe in yourself?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > What is this "yourself"?
                                    >

                                    JJM. Who read and then answered this post? That is "your"Self as I
                                    did not read and answer my post.



                                    > If you only accept your awareness, do you accept mine?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > There is no "your" or "my" awareness.
                                    >

                                    JJM. Truth is apparent. So is honesty. Honesty is accepting neither
                                    duality or oneness as you say. So, honestly, Jason is mine, Sandeep
                                    is yours. I will hang on to Jason for the time being. If your
                                    looking to give away Sandeep, I'll pass.


                                    >
                                    > If you accept mine, you must accept God. That in which we live,
                                    move
                                    > and have our being. Qualified non-dualism.
                                    >
                                    > Aceept whatever rocks.
                                    >
                                    > Reject whatever rocks
                                    >
                                    > Both sneezings of the dreamt up character of the last night sleep
                                    dream.

                                    JJM. The waking body is just as fleeting as the dream body. Where
                                    is your body in deep sleep, or nirvikalpa samdhi. Could we chat in
                                    the later "states". We are now. What does that tell ya?

                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 3. Do you accept qualified non-dualism? Or do you only practice
                                    non-
                                    > dualsim?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > What is qualified non-dualism?
                                    > What is the practice non-dualism?

                                    JJM. Look it up.


                                    >
                                    >
                                    > If so, do you have sex, enjoy food, etc.?
                                    >
                                    > Very much.
                                    >
                                    > And you forgot a good Cohiba.
                                    >
                                    > Sex is mere humping,.......... while a good cigar..........now
                                    that's something.

                                    Jason also enjoys the odd joint, the odd cigarrete, mexican and
                                    italian food, and the Holy Mother. Does the none dual state allow of
                                    parts?

                                    If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Only if there is
                                    an ear drum around. Other wise it is just vibration.

                                    The difference between tasting sugar, and being sugar.


                                    > The difference
                                    > between tasting sugar and being sugar.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Being somewhat wet-behind the ears, can you please explain what
                                    is that difference?

                                    JJM. See above.


                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Do you act non-dual(ie
                                    > Ramana)
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > That dude in the diaper was acting?
                                    >

                                    Yes, the part of Ramana. He did not talk for many years, in the
                                    early years. I guess he was only doing guest appearnences at the
                                    time. And as for his action after, he compared it to a sleep
                                    walker. He said Jesus the Christ was not aware of his action. Have
                                    you ever driven home and not remebered getting, like sleep walking,
                                    it is just a metaphor to explain sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. The pure
                                    expression of God.

                                    Living scripture.


                                    >
                                    > or are you a hipocrit and really practice qualified non-
                                    > dualism(ie papaji).
                                    >
                                    > So non-hypocrisy lies in practicing non-qualified non-dualism?
                                    >
                                    > Can any "ism" escape a qualification?
                                    >
                                    > Non-qualification..............is not a qualification?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Act non-dual as well as talk non-dual.
                                    >
                                    > How do you act non-dual?

                                    Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

                                    The sadhana of gnani gets you to act right. No parts, no desire.
                                    Kill desire. Etc. No male or female, means no sex. Shitty deal for
                                    some. An ape is attracted to an ape. Different races are attracted
                                    to their own somewhat. Daughter end up with husbands like their
                                    dads. Attraction is a mental creation, enforced by past influences.

                                    If you were non-dual, would you like blondes or brunnettes better?
                                    Bunk question in the non-dual standpoint.


                                    Anyways, If I had posted the below before you posted your response,
                                    which one would you have responded to, and what would have been the
                                    thought and context.


                                    Posted on the "direct approach" group.

                                    "Hello,

                                    Natural abidance in the effulgence of Self, is preceded by un-natural
                                    abidance in the effulgence of Self.

                                    This whole group, Ramana, Sankara, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, etc. etc.,
                                    vedanta, religion, the very chance to experience realization, would
                                    not be without the cause.

                                    So to deny the former, is to deny the present.

                                    Without duality, there would be no whole. Get it.

                                    Thank the dudes that remain un-awakened, as they give the chance for
                                    us to be the polar.

                                    Nirvikalpa samdhi admits of no parts, no body(hence death in most
                                    cases). So it is seen that the natural state would not allow our
                                    little chats. And where would be the fun in that.

                                    This is sahaja savikalpa samadhi we are injoying, or you would not be
                                    reading this.

                                    Sahaja savikalpa (dual) samadhi or the natural abidance in the
                                    effulgence of Self, is the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of heaven
                                    is inside you. Enjoy it.

                                    But remember without hell, there is no heaven.

                                    Om Tat Sat.

                                    Ramakrishna was travelling in a cariage to some devotees house, they
                                    passed a bar, with revelors and drunk merry makers. He saw the
                                    revelry of the Holy Mother and went into samadhi. He shouted,
                                    congratulations and happiness for them, as he leaned out of the
                                    carrige and lost outward consciousness. One new devotee became
                                    concerned about the masters body. His concernes were quenched by an
                                    experienced devotee of the Master.

                                    Namaste
                                    Om Namah Shivaya
                                    Jason James Morgan"



                                    You dont have to accept God, to accept this.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.