Re: [Meditation Society of America] Unselfish Love
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Rushikant Mehta
> It's difficult to disagree & also to empathise.--respectfully, it is entirely possible to have
empathy for the suffering of someone and at the
same time not buy into the actions or views that
support the pain. some who come to see me are in
great turmoil due to their religious beliefs or
their addictions, which in their minds limit
their options. when one understands what has led
a person to where they are, it is entirely possible
to empathize without condoning behaviour.
> --- Sandeep <sandeep1960@y...> wrote:
> > A prevailing hint of a sense of
> > distinction.............aka the relative in contrast
> > to the Absolute........
> > ......lo- behold the entity and the co-dependent
> > world of that entity, teeming with concepts.
> > No........... I do not pity you or sympathise with
> > you or laugh at you ..
> > Nor do I just dump you in my nothingness.
> > There is neither my nothingness, ..........nor a you
> > to be dumped.
> > There is only the infinite nuances of this moment,
> > ............one of which happenes to be this
> > dialogue.....happening between two apparently
> > separated and discrete biological objects.
> > Two manifest conditioned biological
> > objects,.......... as images........which themselves
> > are nuances of the same moment.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rushikant Mehta
> > To: email@example.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America]
> > Unselfish Love
> > Absolutely true, Sandeep, absolutely.
> > But not relatively.
> > What u say appears to be a view of the '
> > Enlightened '
> > one, who has reached where realization dawns that
> > there is nowhere to go, nowhere to reach; where
> > 'entitification' drops, meditator vanishes in the
> > meditative state & perhaps nothing but bliss
> > pervades.
> > And being in that mode u probably admit not even
> > theoratically, of any mundane mortal existence
> > suffering from ignorance of non-entitification !
> > To
> > such an ignorant mortal like me you sound more
> > like
> > philosophizing that leads to pedantry more than
> > enlightenment.
> > U r right but what u say doesn't help me realize
> > what
> > u do, may be just because I think it is so for me.
> > You may like to pity me or sympathise with me or
> > laugh
> > on me or....just dump it in your nothingness !
> May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.
> Send instant messages to your online friends
Thank you all for the responses.
So... Of all the groups, people, centres, etc, I seem to come across
a distinct difference in the interactions of nothingness as
Namely, compassion. Many non-dual types, seem to me to arrogent and
condesending. They seem to laugh at human suffering. They
say, "Hey, non-duality is so simple, just drop everything" If it was
that easy for many humans, would they not all awaken in a flash?
Many of these types dont realize that dropping all concepts, is a
concept in and of itself. Just another thorn, to remove the thorn of
Than we have what I call real enlightend beings. Those that have
realized, and yet sympathize with those who have not. These types
dont seem to hide their heads under the sand like and osterach.
These dont see nothing wrong with leading someone to non-duality.
Unlike the former who will just say "what pain? what ego? what
seperation? You are delusional, your pain is irrelivant to me?".
So I wonder about this. Ramana would say this is just parabdha. The
enlightend ones, will just let the body go like a runaway train. The
avatar will take control of the train, in full realization, and help
Does anyone see this difference? Was not compassion, empathy, the
traits of all true realized masters. Jesus, Guatama, Ramana,
Ramakrishna etc. etc.
It seems to me these two distinctions are like this. Both are
1. The being, refuses to speak of duality, tries to be non-dual.
But dont realize that non-duality is beyond words. They dont
identify with their own egos, so how could they possibly feel others
These people seem scared. Scared that using their ego in a
benovelent manner, will drag them back into ignorance.
2. The being, who acts in accordance with qualified non-dualism.
They do not identify with their ego, but they are not scarred to use
the ego. They see the suffering of others, and empathize. They are
love, and they use the ego to express it.
So, I feel blessed to have such good teachers, who have explained
three things to me.
1. duality. The first step of spiritual awakeing. The devotee and
the diety. The relative and the absolute. They strive for something
higher, not yet knowing that what they strive for is non-duality.
2. Qualified non-dualism. Realizing our true nature, the awakend
one, sees that his ego is a part of a universal ego. That their true
nature is non-dual, but as long as their is awareness of ego, it is
qualified. Savikalpa samadhi. These realize all is consciousness,
but are honest eneogh to acknoledge the duality in oneness.
3. Non-dualism. This is beyond words. It cannot be explained, only
experienced. It is beyond pure awarenes of ego. It is the
difference between being sugar and tasting sugar. It is called
nirvikalpa samadhi. There is no awareness of anything. Not bliss,
not love, not emptiness, not nothingness, not anything. It is
neither everything, or no-thing. It is neither, love nor hate. It
is neither being, or non-being. Even the word non-dual implies the
opposite of dual. That is why scripture calls it THAT.
Anyways, thank you for all the responses. I have dealt with these
two types of people for years. I play with both. But I prefer the
honest ones. It is what it is. If you are reading this, it is
qualified non-dualsim. No-thing has an ego. If you did not, you
would not be reading this.
So, personally, I feel that compassion is the only teaching/teacher.
If you cannot identify with the ignorant person, you are of little
Om Namah Shivaya
All love is you, in me.
Jason James Morgan
>Hi Sandeep, I want to put this
up at the mashpit of GR
> A prevailing hint of a sense of distinction.............aka the relative in contrast to the Absolute.........
> ......lo- behold the entity and the co-dependent world of that entity, teeming with concepts.
> No........... I do not pity you or sympathise with you or laugh at you ..
> Nor do I just dump you in my nothingness.
> There is neither my nothingness, ..........nor a you to be dumped.
> There is only the infinite nuances of this moment, ............one of which happenes to be this dialogue.....happening between two apparently separated and discrete biological objects.
> Two manifest conditioned biological objects,.......... as images........which themselves are nuances of the same moment.
> Absolutely true, Sandeep, absolutely.
> But not relatively.
> What u say appears to be a view of the ' Enlightened '
> one, who has reached where realization dawns that
> there is nowhere to go, nowhere to reach; where
> 'entitification' drops, meditator vanishes in the
> meditative state & perhaps nothing but bliss pervades.
> And being in that mode u probably admit not even
> theoratically, of any mundane mortal existence
> suffering from ignorance of non-entitification ! To
> such an ignorant mortal like me you sound more like
> philosophizing that leads to pedantry more than
> U r right but what u say doesn't help me realize what
> u do, may be just because I think it is so for me.
> You may like to pity me or sympathise with me or laugh
> on me or....just dump it in your nothingness !