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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Mixology

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.