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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Apr 3 1:09 PM
    • 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 2 of 16 , Apr 3 1:25 PM
      • 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 3 of 16 , Apr 3 1:38 PM
        • 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 4 of 16 , Apr 3 2:32 PM
          • 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 5 of 16 , Apr 3 3:26 PM
            • 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 6 of 16 , Apr 4 4:53 AM
              • 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 7 of 16 , Apr 4 7:40 AM
                • 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 8 of 16 , Apr 4 7:56 AM
                  • 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 9 of 16 , Apr 4 8:07 AM
                    • 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 10 of 16 , Apr 4 8:17 AM
                      • 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 11 of 16 , Apr 4 8:49 AM
                        • 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 12 of 16 , Apr 4 1:55 PM
                          • 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 13 of 16 , Apr 7 10:34 AM
                            • 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 14 of 16 , Apr 7 10:13 PM
                              • 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.