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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Mixology

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Morgen
    ... Yes, it seems. :-) On a more serious note, if anything approaching universal clarity were possible in mere words, the astonishing variety in written and
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      jogeshwarmahanta wrote:

      >Is mixology a confuseology or claritology?
      >
      >
      Yes, it seems. :-)

      On a more serious note, if
      anything approaching
      universal clarity were
      possible in mere words, the
      astonishing variety in
      written and spoken pointings
      toward the fact of nonduality
      would be quite unnecessary
      other than as some sort
      multi-millennial creative
      writing exercise. For some,
      the spare eloquence of a J.
      Krishnamurti serves, for
      others it may be the thought-
      stunning riddling of a Zen
      koan or the simple, achingly
      beautiful verse or a Rumi
      or Hafiz. Afaik, none of
      these is has ever been
      published with a warranty.

      >regards,
      >Jogeshwar
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >--- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
      ><jeff@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >>Bruce raised an issue
      >>that clearly casts "light"
      >>on much of the difficulty
      >>in communications.
      >>
      >>In the great majority of
      >>debates or discussions
      >>that take on a lawerly
      >>tone, there is a mix of
      >>literal and figurative
      >>language. Beyond that,
      >>or exacerbating that,
      >>is a mix of relative and
      >>absolute expressions, used
      >>to negate (neti neti) the
      >>others point of view.
      >>
      >>A great ploy of the advaita
      >>speakers is to point out
      >>the necessarily dualistic
      >>error of relative language
      >>in the expression of absolute
      >>nondual perspective, in an
      >>attempt to win the point.
      >>Mega mixology!
      >>
      >>As a short aside:
      >>When Bruce wrote of never
      >>seeing a person "glow", he
      >>was purposely practicing
      >>mixology, yet, many of the
      >>past master artists incorporated
      >>a literal "halo" around the
      >>head of holy men in their work.
      >>
      >>"There is no one to be
      >>enlightened." True, in
      >>the absolute sense of
      >>nonduality. Yet, we are
      >>living, breathing, typing
      >>and communicating in the
      >>world of duality. Even
      >>attempting to express
      >>nonduality uses the tools
      >>(illusory as they may be)
      >>of duality.
      >>
      >>In my recent "beams" I
      >>mixed the use of light,
      >>to the point of being
      >>labeled "literal-minded".
      >>(Which brought a beaming
      >>smile). Yet, my intent
      >>was to use "infused with
      >>light", literally, because
      >>of my personal experience
      >>and the huge body of work
      >>that references a similar
      >>occurance...and, I used
      >>to be infused with light,
      >>as in enlightenment -
      >>removal of darkness
      >>(of understanding) in
      >>a manner of figurative
      >>expression.
      >>
      >>It's a crazy, mixed-up
      >>world.
      >>
      >>Your friendly neighborhood
      >>mixologist,
      >>
      >>Jeff
      >>
      >>
    • Sandeep
      ... *And thus there is no one or nothing................. who or what................. is not already enlightened. The apperception of reality(to use a phrase)
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment



        > > > "There is no one to be
        > > > enlightened."
        And thus there is no one or nothing................. who or what................. is not already enlightened.

        The apperception of reality(to use a phrase) is the apperception that reality is not less somewhere or more somewhere else.

        There is no gradations, there are no levels, there are no stages..................thus  there is no alpha and there is no omega.

        And thus  no movement from a non-existant alpha to a non-existant omega.




        Which is why, for the enlightened (using  the usual conventional speak).....

        ......if there is an an "other".............other than himself/herself......

        ......an other un-enlightened seeker.............. who has to be taught, ............shown the path, corrected, given clarity to.........etc.....

        .....it is the same hoopla of any other gaming which dots that same reality.



        And yet, dialoguing, communicating, discourses take place, have taken place and will take place.

        The Jnaneshwars, Tukarams, the Buddhas, the Ramanas, the Rinzais,the Mansoods, the Arabis, the Nisargadattas...........and their specific unique lives......... have all occurred.

        Is there a contradiction?

        No, ...........as soon as it is apperceived,.............. that there is no investment, no baggage, no-to-be-achieved-agenda, with such a communicating.



        There is no communicating taking place to achieve anything,........... whether that be clarity or transmitting of Light, Sound, Enlightenment or whatever


        There is no communicating taking place between discrete, separated "selfs", ........one at some higher level and the other at a lower
        (which would mean that there are gradations, differential levels to Reality).


        And yet communicating happens.

        Happens as a nuance of the moment.

        Which needs a gestalt of dualistic poles, apparently separated.

        Thus, speaking happens apparently through the distinctive vehicle  labeled as the "Sage"......... to.......... the distinctive vehicle assumed to be the "seeker".

        But there is no "to" in this event-ing, .............the event-ing in which............ the speaking, the contents of the speech, the consequences of such a speaking.............AND......... the two apparently distinctive separated conditioned vehicles through which this functioning is occuring .....

        ......are ALL nuances of the same eventing.



        In the apperception of this.............who is then to seek to express clarity............... of what is already crystal clear?

        Who is to receive clarity.......... of what is already crystal clear?


        Thus the apperception................. that the communicating........... whether through a "Sage" or a through a "believing-himself-to-be a Sage", ..
        ...along with the consequences of such a communicating....

        ...just like any example of ANY functioning............making up the moment.......

        .......IS IN completion,........ in itself.


        In completion.........moment to moment to moment.



        As an example............ the arising urge to "do" a meditation technique............ the arising is already in completion.

        The external actualization of that urge into a specific physical action ,........ or the dissipation  of the urge into mentation.........is also in completion.




        This entire phenomenal gestalt, .............which is an array of perceivable objects, .......

        ......EACH existing as an mere image, as a reflection.........  in each other other.....

        .......the entire gestalt apparently made up of tremendous movement, "becomings", change, .......


        .......not a single aspect of it............... is not in completion.......... already.



        Tremendous journeys were undertaken by you...........within the last-night-sleep-dream-drama.

        Without you moving an inch from that 6 X 4 cot.





        True, in
        > > > the absolute sense of
        > > > nonduality. Yet, we are
        > > > living, breathing, typing
        > > > and communicating in the
        > > > world of duality.

        In the "Yet".............appears the sense of distinction.

        There is no "yet".

        The non-dual reality IS the apparent dualistic world of living, breathing, typing,communicating,............ of cyber-space and Internet Gurus and the whole debate on whether practice non-practice, neo-advaita and classical-dirty-your-hand-approach,......

        ...... the world of Dubya Bush and Bird-Flu, ..............of catastrophic genocide, ............and of romatic poetry, ..........

        ......of flitting butterflies basking in the sun-shine and of two Dark Holes each of the size of 100 Million Stars, currently merging into one another in deep-outer-space as reported by NASA recently.




        Non-Duality is never not the case..........while ever being transcendent to that very apparently dualistic expressing of itself.

        The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.




        Just like the hoopla of the last-night-sleep-dream-drama, including all the dreamt-up characters,  including yourself,.......

        .......the pathos, the ethos, the seekings, the successes of those seekings, the failures of the seekings, the loved ones and the unloved ones, the relatings, the joys and sorrows, the agony and ecstasy  associated with each of those relatings, ........

        ........the experiences that you had which now define your own self-identity to yourself,.............

        ..........the "Truths" that you have realized.......

        .....in essence the entire hoopla of the last-night-sleep-dream-drama..............each and  every nuance of that hoopla....... was just you in expression.


        While, ...........you ever transcendent to that hoopla, ...........being the one sound asleep and snoring in a 6 X 4 cot.

        The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.




        >
        > My point exactly. And when
        > the advaita-speakers speak
        > from the cloud of unknowing,
        > they are not adding clarity.

        The issue is not whether there is communicating which is adding to clarity, or which is not adding to clarity.

        The issue is,................. for whom does it hold a relevance,................... that clarity can be added, through expression.

        Or clarity can be subtracted, through expression.

        Clarity about that, ...........whose very expressing................... is the expression in question.....

        which is believed to achieve clarity or cloud clarity.






      • jodyrrr
        ... It can be an expression of either. There are many who speak from speculation. Their mixology is an expression of confusion and ignorance. But those who
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "jogeshwarmahanta"
          <jogeshwarmahanta@...> wrote:
          >
          > Is mixology a confuseology or claritology?
          >
          > regards,
          > Jogeshwar

          It can be an expression of either. There are many who speak from
          speculation. Their mixology is an expression of confusion and
          ignorance. But those who see things as they are and find themselves
          wanting to express it, their mixology is an attempt to express clarity.
          Unfortunately, clarity isn't expressible by language. But since language
          is all we have, some of us make the attempt nonetheless.

          --jody.

          >
          > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Belyea"
          > <jeff@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Bruce raised an issue
          > > that clearly casts "light"
          > > on much of the difficulty
          > > in communications.
          > >
          > > In the great majority of
          > > debates or discussions
          > > that take on a lawerly
          > > tone, there is a mix of
          > > literal and figurative
          > > language. Beyond that,
          > > or exacerbating that,
          > > is a mix of relative and
          > > absolute expressions, used
          > > to negate (neti neti) the
          > > others point of view.
          > >
          > > A great ploy of the advaita
          > > speakers is to point out
          > > the necessarily dualistic
          > > error of relative language
          > > in the expression of absolute
          > > nondual perspective, in an
          > > attempt to win the point.
          > > Mega mixology!
          > >
          > > As a short aside:
          > > When Bruce wrote of never
          > > seeing a person "glow", he
          > > was purposely practicing
          > > mixology, yet, many of the
          > > past master artists incorporated
          > > a literal "halo" around the
          > > head of holy men in their work.
          > >
          > > "There is no one to be
          > > enlightened." True, in
          > > the absolute sense of
          > > nonduality. Yet, we are
          > > living, breathing, typing
          > > and communicating in the
          > > world of duality. Even
          > > attempting to express
          > > nonduality uses the tools
          > > (illusory as they may be)
          > > of duality.
          > >
          > > In my recent "beams" I
          > > mixed the use of light,
          > > to the point of being
          > > labeled "literal-minded".
          > > (Which brought a beaming
          > > smile). Yet, my intent
          > > was to use "infused with
          > > light", literally, because
          > > of my personal experience
          > > and the huge body of work
          > > that references a similar
          > > occurance...and, I used
          > > to be infused with light,
          > > as in enlightenment -
          > > removal of darkness
          > > (of understanding) in
          > > a manner of figurative
          > > expression.
          > >
          > > It's a crazy, mixed-up
          > > world.
          > >
          > > Your friendly neighborhood
          > > mixologist,
          > >
          > > Jeff
          > >
          >
        • Adam West
          Hi all, It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the everyday observation of genuine enlightened saints (what ever that
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi all,
             
                It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the everyday observation of "genuine enlightened saints" (what ever that is? - at least humans in temporary or permanent spiritual states of Divine / Self-Realisation - very, very rare, not the multitude of wanabes and their lesser psychic states) by relatively unbiased, non-followers and every day folk from cultures all over the world; it seems clear that a halo of light does indeed emanate from such people, which is perceptible by the physical eyes - as distinct from the temporary or permanent psychic sight of the observer.
             
                So mine is a conclusion based on intuition, which is valueless to others, as it can be called into question by so many arguments, not least of all it is un-falsifiable; but also, it is a conclusion based on the meta-analysis of empirical observations.  Naturally, all of these premises can be called into questions, as can the validity and certainly the soundness of the argument; but, the documentation is out there if you bother to look. 
             
                I can think of plenty of documentation from everyday folks witnessing monks from the Eastern Orthodox Traditions, the Tibetan Rainbow Body of dying Rinpohes and practitioners, also the yogic and Hindu mystics; the list goes on and on :-)
            In kind regards,
             
            Adam.     
          • Jeff Belyea
            Thank you for your non-attempt to not add clarity. Got it. ... that ... omega. ... omega. ... speak)..... ... himself/herself...... ... taught, ...
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you for your non-attempt
              to not add clarity. Got it.

              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Sandeep
              <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > > > > "There is no one to be
              > > > > > enlightened."
              >
              > *And thus there is no one or nothing................. who or
              > what................. is not already enlightened.
              >
              > The apperception of reality(to use a phrase) is the apperception
              that
              > reality is not less somewhere or more somewhere else.
              >
              > There is no gradations, there are no levels, there are no
              > stages..................thus there is no alpha and there is no
              omega.
              >
              > And thus no movement from a non-existant alpha to a non-existant
              omega.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Which is why, for the enlightened (using the usual conventional
              speak).....
              >
              > ......if there is an an "other".............other than
              himself/herself......
              >
              > ......an other un-enlightened seeker.............. who has to be
              taught,
              > ............shown the path, corrected, given clarity
              to.........etc.....
              >
              > .....it is the same hoopla of any other gaming which dots that
              same reality.
              >
              >
              >
              > And yet, dialoguing, communicating, discourses take place, have
              taken
              > place and will take place.
              >
              > The Jnaneshwars, Tukarams, the Buddhas, the Ramanas, the
              Rinzais,the
              > Mansoods, the Arabis, the Nisargadattas...........and their
              specific
              > unique lives......... have all occurred.
              >
              > Is there a contradiction?
              >
              > No, ...........as soon as it is apperceived,.............. that
              there is
              > no investment, no baggage, no-to-be-achieved-agenda, with such a
              > communicating.
              >
              >
              >
              > There is no communicating taking place to achieve
              anything,...........
              > whether that be clarity or transmitting of Light, Sound,
              Enlightenment
              > or whatever
              >
              >
              > There is no communicating taking place between discrete, separated
              > "selfs", ........one at some higher level and the other at a lower
              > (which would mean that there are gradations, differential levels
              to
              > Reality).
              >
              >
              > And yet communicating happens.
              >
              > Happens as a nuance of the moment.
              >
              > Which needs a gestalt of dualistic poles, apparently separated.
              >
              > Thus, speaking happens apparently through the distinctive vehicle
              > labeled as the "Sage"......... to.......... the distinctive
              vehicle
              > assumed to be the "seeker".
              >
              > But there is no "to" in this event-ing, .............the event-ing
              in
              > which............ the speaking, the contents of the speech, the
              > consequences of such a speaking.............AND......... the two
              > apparently distinctive separated conditioned vehicles through
              which this
              > functioning is occuring .....
              >
              > ......are ALL nuances of the same eventing.
              >
              >
              >
              > In the apperception of this.............who is then to seek to
              express
              > clarity............... of what is already crystal clear?
              >
              > Who is to receive clarity.......... of what is already crystal
              clear?*
              >
              > *Thus the apperception................. that the
              > communicating........... whether through a "Sage" or a through a
              > "believing-himself-to-be a Sage", ..
              > ...along with the consequences of such a communicating....
              >
              > ...just like any example of ANY functioning............making up
              the
              > moment.......
              >
              > .......IS IN completion,........ in itself.
              >
              >
              > In completion.........moment to moment to moment.
              >
              >
              >
              > As an example............ the arising urge to "do" a meditation
              > technique............ the arising is already in completion.
              >
              > The external actualization of that urge into a specific physical
              action
              > ,........ or the dissipation of the urge into
              mentation.........is also
              > in completion.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > This entire phenomenal gestalt, .............which is an array of
              > perceivable objects, .......
              >
              > ......EACH existing as an mere image, as a reflection......... in
              each
              > other other.....
              >
              > .......the entire gestalt apparently made up of tremendous
              movement,
              > "becomings", change, .......
              >
              >
              > .......not a single aspect of it............... is not in
              > completion.......... already.*
              >
              >
              > *Tremendous journeys were undertaken by you...........within the
              > last-night-sleep-dream-drama.
              >
              > Without you moving an inch from that 6 X 4 cot.*
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > True, in
              > > > > > the absolute sense of
              > > > > > nonduality. Yet, we are
              > > > > > living, breathing, typing
              > > > > > and communicating in the
              > > > > > world of duality.
              >
              >
              > *In the "Yet".............appears the sense of distinction.
              >
              > There is no "yet".
              >
              > The non-dual reality IS the apparent dualistic world of living,
              > breathing, typing,communicating,............ of cyber-space and
              Internet
              > Gurus and the whole debate on whether practice non-practice, neo-
              advaita
              > and classical-dirty-your-hand-approach,......
              >
              > ...... the world of Dubya Bush and Bird-Flu, ..............of
              > catastrophic genocide, ............and of romatic
              poetry, ..........
              >
              > ......of flitting butterflies basking in the sun-shine and of two
              Dark
              > Holes each of the size of 100 Million Stars, currently merging
              into one
              > another in deep-outer-space as reported by NASA recently.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Non-Duality is never not the case..........while ever being
              transcendent
              > to that very apparently dualistic expressing of itself.
              >
              > The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Just like the hoopla of the last-night-sleep-dream-drama,
              including all
              > the dreamt-up characters, including yourself,.......
              >
              > .......the pathos, the ethos, the seekings, the successes of those
              > seekings, the failures of the seekings, the loved ones and the
              unloved
              > ones, the relatings, the joys and sorrows, the agony and ecstasy
              > associated with each of those relatings, ........
              >
              > ........the experiences that you had which now define your own
              > self-identity to yourself,.............
              >
              > ..........the "Truths" that you have realized.......
              >
              > .....in essence the entire hoopla of the
              > last-night-sleep-dream-drama..............each and every nuance
              of that
              > hoopla....... was just you in expression.
              >
              >
              > While, ...........you ever transcendent to that
              hoopla, ...........being
              > the one sound asleep and snoring in a 6 X 4 cot.
              >
              > The immanence and the simultaneous transcendence.*
              >
              >
              > >
              > > >
              > > > My point exactly. And when
              > > > the advaita-speakers speak
              > > > from the cloud of unknowing,
              > > > they are not adding clarity.
              >
              >
              > *The issue is not whether there is communicating which is adding
              to
              > clarity, or which is not adding to clarity.
              >
              > The issue is,................. for whom does it hold a
              > relevance,................... that clarity can be added, through
              expression.
              >
              > Or clarity can be subtracted, through expression.
              >
              > Clarity about that, ...........whose very
              expressing...................
              > is the expression in question.....
              >
              > which is believed to achieve clarity or cloud clarity.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > *
              >
              > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              -------
              >
            • jodyrrr
              ... You are expressing one of the most occluding beliefs there is about self-realization, that it s very, very rare and only the purview of the walking
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi all,
                >
                > It is my intuition and interpretation from reading eye witness accounts from the
                > everyday observation of "genuine enlightened saints" (what ever that is? - at least
                > humans in temporary or permanent spiritual states of Divine / Self-Realisation -
                > very, very rare

                You are expressing one of the most occluding beliefs there is about
                self-realization, that it's "very, very rare" and only the purview of
                the walking "divine". You believe such at the great peril to your own
                self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
              • Adam West
                You believe such at the great peril to your own self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                        "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                  self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
                   
                      Yes I agree, it is my awareness itself, the very same of which I am aware of this act of typing - the pristine clarity and the vast space in which the fog of conditioned cognition and identifications exist!  But recognition of this self-liberating awareness comes in degrees, and it is those degrees of awakening which are appropriated by the ego to claim realization where little exists.
                   
                      Rather, an intuitive realisation of truth / intrinsic nature is comprehended, yet it is clearly confused with absolute realisation. 
                   
                      Let us test your theses; are you enlightened?  Naturally, one mouthes one particular metaphysical theory, and answers yes!  All are enlightened - there is none other than this singular non-dual awarness; thus am I!  Yet are you conscious of creating and sustaining the universes?  Are you conscious of the infinitude of the laws of nature, of the underlying principles of quantum theory - of mathematical precision?  Of course not!  Your consciousness in actuality retains its finite limitations, thus by definition, it has no access and realisation of its infinite potential - no realisation of the totality of Being - no actual enlightenment, merely metaphysical potential!
                   
                      Naturally, you may -  thus I may accept you are one of the rare few! :-)
                   
                      We may have a sophisticated discussion of these things, yet it is clear very, very few have "actualized" their intrinsic natures - while it remains metaphysically true, there is nothing to realise - a convenient appropriation by oh so many egos and charlatans :-)
                   
                      As you are most likely aware, the Master Aziz has spoken of the difference and problems of which I am arguing and alluding to :-) 
                   
                  In kind regards,
                   
                  Adam. 
                   
                • jodyrrr
                  ... tip of your nose. ... It s not a space at all, and it comes all at once. A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                    > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the
                    tip of your nose."
                    >
                    > Yes I agree, it is my awareness itself, the very same of which I am aware of
                    > this act of typing - the pristine clarity and the vast space in which the fog of
                    > conditioned cognition and identifications exist! But recognition of this self-
                    > liberating awareness comes in degrees, and it is those degrees of awakening
                    > which are appropriated by the ego to claim realization where little exists.

                    It's not a space at all, and it comes all at once. A permanent rending of
                    the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of the truth of your
                    being.

                    > Rather, an intuitive realisation of truth / intrinsic nature is comprehended,
                    > yet it is clearly confused with absolute realisation.

                    That's not what I'm talking about.

                    > Let us test your theses; are you enlightened?

                    Would you be able to tell if I was?

                    > Naturally, one mouthes one particular metaphysical theory, and answers yes!
                    > All are enlightened - there is none other than this singular non-dual awarness;
                    > thus am I! Yet are you conscious of creating and sustaining the universes?

                    Such would not make me enlightened, as Brahman is only aware of
                    Brahman and not of any of the particulars in the world of name and
                    form, including the creation of such.

                    > Are you conscious of the infinitude of the laws of nature, of the underlying
                    > principles of quantum theory - of mathematical precision? Of course not! Y

                    Neither is Brahman aware of any of the overlays we employ to help
                    us "understand" the world of name and form.

                    > our consciousness in actuality retains its finite limitations, thus by
                    > definition, it has no access and realisation of its infinite potential -
                    > no realisation of the totality of Being - no actual enlightenment,
                    > merely metaphysical potential!

                    You describe an idea you have about consciousness which I say
                    occludes the truth.

                    > Naturally, you may - thus I may accept you are one of the rare few! :-)

                    These ideas you hold are preventing the truth from being known
                    rather than assisting its establishment in your life.

                    > We may have a sophisticated discussion of these things, yet it is
                    > clear very, very few have "actualized" their intrinsic natures - while it remains
                    > metaphysically true, there is nothing to realise - a convenient appropriation
                    > by oh so many egos and charlatans :-)

                    Your idea of "intrinsic nature" is like a fog which blocks the truth
                    from your view.

                    > As you are most likely aware, the Master Aziz has spoken of the
                    > difference and problems of which I am arguing and alluding to :-)
                    >
                    > In kind regards,
                    >
                    > Adam.

                    I don't know Aziz. But I do know that ANY idea you can think of
                    about self-realization prevents your coming to recognize it yourself.

                    Dump the ideas. It will be the best thing you've ever done
                    for yourself.

                    --jody.
                  • Adam West
                    You believe such at the great peril to your own self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own breath, as if on the tip of your nose.
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                        "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                      self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                      breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
                       
                          Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak - for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)
                       
                          Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose, you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument would not seem to validly follow. 
                       
                      (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                       
                      (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing revelation of the truth of your being."
                       
                          Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is, awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly an ongoing realization remains. 
                       
                          I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which no one on this planet has achieved and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining as Self-Realization; the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.
                       
                          The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma; metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions without any argumentation to support them.  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are enlightened as it implies. :-)
                       
                          Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion; and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have to go to work right now :-)
                       
                          Until later!
                       
                      In kind regards,
                       
                      Adam.
                    • jodyrrr
                      ... The moment when jnana comes to a life. Jnana is the ongoing experiential revelation that one s nature as being identical to Brahman. ... Who can say why
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                        > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                        > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."
                        >
                        > Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                        > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                        The moment when jnana comes to a life. Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                        revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                        > Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                        > you must have attained it yourself. If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                        > would not seem to validly follow.

                        Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                        than our own beating heart?

                        > (1.) " it comes all at once."
                        >
                        > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                        > revelation of the truth of your being."
                        >
                        > Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                        > premises 1 and 2. Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                        > awakening comes in degrees. And it is these degrees of awakening that
                        > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                        > an ongoing realization remains.

                        The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                        over time. Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                        Brahman by Brahman. There are no degrees of Brahman.

                        > I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                        > no one on this planet has achieved

                        If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                        4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                        > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                        > as Self-Realization;

                        These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                        truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                        > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                        > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                        > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                        > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                        That's called being a human being. Your idea of realization is
                        not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                        the hagiographers.

                        > The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                        > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                        Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                        > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                        > without any argumentation to support them.

                        Yep. If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                        anything close to descriptive.

                        > Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                        > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                        > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                        Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                        the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                        that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                        holding the belief that it is illusory.

                        > Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                        > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                        > to go to work right now :-)
                        >
                        > Until later!
                        >
                        > In kind regards,
                        >
                        > Adam.

                        Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                        --jody.
                      • suman sk
                        Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul development that takes over years and years and not in one birth but over many many
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul development that takes over years and years and not in one birth but over many many births. Because for some a single birth is not enough. So in essence we are all evolving with our own speed and that is what happens as a natural law which pervades the entire universe. So thinking that in the past we were not spiritually developed would not be correct. Because ultimately is a development in circular fashion which means everything is although changing but still constant. So this maya makes us feel that everything is changing but it is not. It the play of the Lord himself.
                          Point is due to this development when we are close to that level where instrisically we start to ourselves get the drive to move into the direction of spirituality and level and start to get over the evil forces within, and then starts the process of becoming pure and slowly gaining the power of miracles which Christ and Buddha had. So if someoe is at a lower level of spiritual development it may not even strike to him what people at a higher level are telling and discussing.Argueing about anything would therefore be redundant. With time such souls would learn there share of knowledge which comes from within and is develped by scriptures develpoved by great spiritual souls.
                          So everyhting is simple and not complex that may be made by millions of people.
                          It is just pure and simple truth that karma we do are just the reflections of seeds in our soul that are at a level of spiritual development.
                           
                          OM
                           
                          Surendra


                          jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          >   "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                          > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                          > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."

                          >     Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                          > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                          The moment when jnana comes to a life.  Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                          revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                          >     Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                          > you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                          > would not seem to validly follow.

                          Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                          than our own beating heart?

                          > (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                          >
                          > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                          >  revelation of the truth of your being."
                          >
                          >     Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                          > premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                          > awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that
                          > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                          > an ongoing realization remains. 

                          The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                          over time.  Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                          Brahman by Brahman.  There are no degrees of Brahman.

                          >     I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                          > no one on this planet has achieved

                          If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                          4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                          > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                          > as Self-Realization;

                          These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                          truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                          > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                          > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                          > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                          > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                          That's called being a human being.  Your idea of realization is
                          not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                          the hagiographers.

                          >     The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                          > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                          Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                          > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                          > without any argumentation to support them.

                          Yep.  If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                          anything close to descriptive.

                          >  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                          > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                          > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                          Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                          the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                          that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                          holding the belief that it is illusory.

                          >     Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                          > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                          > to go to work right now :-)
                          >
                          >     Until later!
                          >
                          > In kind regards,
                          >
                          > Adam.

                          Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                          --jody.






                          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






                          Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

                        • arun kumar
                          jodyrrr wrote: --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Adam West ... The moment when jnana comes to a life.
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Adam West" <adamwest1@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            >   "You believe such at the great peril to your own
                            > self-realization, which exists in you right now, closer than your own
                            > breath, as if on the tip of your nose."

                            >     Ok, would you kindly define the self-realization of which you speak -
                            > for apparently we need to clarify our terms :-)

                            The moment when jnana comes to a life.  Jnana is the ongoing experiential
                            revelation that one's nature as being identical to Brahman.

                            >     Further, if Self-Realization is so common and closer then my very nose,
                            > you must have attained it yourself.  If not, why not? If not, then your argument
                            > would not seem to validly follow.

                            Who can say why the veil of Maya lies over a truth more immediate
                            than our own beating heart?

                            > (1.) " it comes all at once." 
                            >
                            > (2.) A permanent rending of the ahamkara which results in an ongoing
                            >  revelation of the truth of your being."
                            >
                            >     Clearly, I would suggest there is an obvious contradiction between
                            > premises 1 and 2.  Further, these statements support my theses, that is,
                            > awakening comes in degrees.  And it is these degrees of awakening that
                            > are appropriated by the ego to claim full realization of truth, where clearly
                            > an ongoing realization remains. 

                            The ongoing nature of the revelation doesn't mean it changes
                            over time.  Brahman is only Brahman and can only be known as
                            Brahman by Brahman.  There are no degrees of Brahman.

                            >     I am making a distinction between absolute awakening which
                            > no one on this planet has achieved

                            If you mean realization of the absolute, Brahman, there are at least
                            4 members of this list who know themselves as such.

                            > and a much less degree of on going realization which I am defining
                            > as Self-Realization;

                            These definitions do absolutely nothing except occlude the
                            truth they poorly attempt to point at.

                            > the degree to which, is great, yet rare; and finally, the garden variety
                            > realization which many on the path have attained, (Zen Kensho and so
                            > on - which many on this list, I suspect have achieved) yet retain
                            > significant distortion, delusion and ignorance.

                            That's called being a human being.  Your idea of realization is
                            not much more than a fantasy which happens to be supported by
                            the hagiographers.

                            >     The other metaphysical points you make about the epistemic
                            > nature of Brahman are merely points of dogma;

                            Or directly known as the truth of one's being.

                            > metaphysical claims about the infinite are valueless presuppositions
                            > without any argumentation to support them.

                            Yep.  If you are trying to talk about Brahman, you will never say
                            anything close to descriptive.

                            >  Futher, they outside the finite minds capacity to comprehend or
                            > imagine; unless of course your argument holds and indeed you are
                            > enlightened as it implies. :-)

                            Brahman reveals itself to itself in a moment of grace and
                            the apparent individual is there to know about it, only now
                            that individual knows itself to be truly illusory rather than
                            holding the belief that it is illusory.

                            >     Jody, I thank you for this opportunity for an interesting discussion;
                            > and I apologise for being unable to respond for some time, as I have
                            > to go to work right now :-)
                            >
                            >     Until later!
                            >
                            > In kind regards,
                            >
                            > Adam.

                            Glad you're having fun, Adam.

                            --jody.





                            Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

                          • jodyrrr
                            ... What soul? There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman. We develop as individuals,
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul
                              > development [snip]

                              What soul?

                              There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our
                              conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman.

                              We develop as individuals, but that has absolutely nothing to
                              do with the Atman, which is eternal and changeless. Where is
                              there a soul between the two and why would such a thing be
                              necessary?
                            • suman sk
                              if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so.. It depends on
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so..
                                 
                                It depends on the ondividual's level of soul development.
                                SK

                                jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Any realization that comes does come over time and it is a process of soul
                                > development [snip]

                                What soul?

                                There is our idea of ourselves as individuals, the result of our
                                conditioning in this life, and there is the Atman.

                                We develop as individuals, but that has absolutely nothing to
                                do with the Atman, which is eternal and changeless.  Where is
                                there a soul between the two and why would such a thing be
                                necessary?





                                Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                              • jodyrrr
                                ... That makes sense. But what if character is a function of biological and genetic factors as well as being influenced by life conditions. So, someone
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 23, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, suman sk <sumansk@...> wrote:

                                  > if it was a result of conditioning then every individual will turn
                                  > out to be bad in adverse conditioning and good in good .. but ot is not so..
                                  >
                                  > It depends on the ondividual's level of soul development.
                                  > SK

                                  That makes sense. But what if character is a function of biological and genetic
                                  factors as well as being influenced by life conditions. So, someone blessed
                                  with good character traits can turn out ok despite bad conditions, and someone
                                  in great conditions can turn out a wreck. No soul is necessary for any of that.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.