|
Post by michaelsees on Nov 24, 2010 12:46:13 GMT -5
Yes he's one of the good guys. Happy Turkey day Love Timothy Conway. His book, Women of Power and Grace, is one of my top ten books!![/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Manu Namasivayam on Sept 2, 2011 10:55:26 GMT -5
Please note that I am not offering any books for download on my site nisargadatta.org/
|
|
niz
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by niz on Jul 23, 2012 13:43:11 GMT -5
He Came to Scoff . . . [via Balsekar’s Pointers ]
When one participates in the dialogues between Maharaj and his visitors over a period, one is astonished at the range of questions that are asked—many of them shockingly naive — and the spontaneity and ease with which the answers come from Maharaj. Both the questions and answers are translated as accurately as possible. Maharaj's answers in Marathi, which is the only language he is fluent in, would naturally be based on the Marathi words used in the translation of the question. In his answers, however, Maharaj makes very clever use of the Marathi words used in the translation of the question, either by way of puns or by a slight change in the words themselves, producing interpretations sometimes totally different from their usual meaning. The exact significance of such words could never be brought out in any translations. Maharaj frankly admits that it is usually in the lighter vein that he uses the Marathi language in exposing the mental level of the questioner and the intent and the conditioning behind his question. If the questioner treats the session as an entertainment, albeit of a superior kind, Maharaj is ready to join in the fun in the absence of better subjects and better company!
Among the visitors, there is occasionally an unusual type of person who has a very keen intellect but is armed with a devastating skepticism. He is cock-sure that he has an open mind and a penetrating intellectual curiosity. He wants to be convinced and not merely cajoled by vague and woolly words that religious teachers often dole out in their discourses. Maharaj, of course, is quick to recognize this type and then the conversation at once assumes a piquancy that leaves one stunned. The intuitive perception underlying the words of Maharaj simply sweeps away the metaphysical quibbles put forward by such an intellectual. One wonders how a man who did not have even the benefit of proper schooling can prove more than a match for pedantic scholars and skeptical agnostics who believe themselves to be invulnerable. Maharaj's words are always galvanic and scintillating. He never quotes authorities from the scriptures in Sanskrit or any other language. If one of the visitors should quote even a fairly familiar verse from the Gita, Maharaj has to ask for a Marathi translation of it. His intuitive perception needs no support by way of the words from any other authority. His own internal resources are limitless indeed. Whatever I say, says Maharaj, stands by itself, it needs no support.
One of the usual visitors at the session had brought with him a friend and introduced him to Maharaj as a man with a very keen intellect who would not take anything for granted and who would question everything before accepting it. Maharaj said he was happy to meet such a person. The new visitor was a professor of mathematics.
Maharaj suggested that it would perhaps be best for the two of them to have a dialogue without assumptions of any kind; right from the basic level. Would he like that? The visitor must have been most pleasantly surprised at this offer. He said he was delighted at the suggestion.
Maharaj: Now, tell me, you are sitting before me here and now. What exactly do you think 'you' are?
Visitor: I am a male human being, forty-nine years old, with certain physical measurements and with certain hopes and aspirations.
M: What was your image about yourself ten years ago? Same as it is now? And when you were ten years old? And when you were an infant? And, even before that? Has not your image about yourself changed all the time?
V: Yes, what I considered as my identity has been changing all the time.
M: And yet, is there not something, when you think about yourself— deep down — that has not changed?
V: Yes, there is, though I cannot specify what exactly it is.
M: Is it not the simple sense of being, the sense of existing, the sense of presence? If you were not conscious, would your body exist for you? Would there be any world for you ? Would there then be any question of God or the Creator?
V: This is certainly something to ponder. But tell me, please, how do you see yourself?
M: I am this-I-am or, if you prefer, I am that-I-am.
V: I am sorry, but I don't understand.
M: When you say "I think I understand", it is all wrong. When you say "I don't understand", that is absolutely true. Let me make it simpler: I am the conscious presence — not this individual or that, but Conscious Presence, as such.
V: Now, again I was about to say, I think I understand! But you have just said that that is wrong. You are not deliberately trying to get me confused, are you?
M: On the contrary, I am telling you the exact position. Objectively, I am all that appears in the mirror of consciousness. Absolutely, I am that. I am the consciousness in which the world appears.
V: I am afraid, I don't see that. All I can see is what appears before me.
M: Would you be able to see what appears before you if you were not conscious? No. Is all existence, therefore, not purely objective inasmuch as you exist only in my consciousness, and I in yours? Is it not clear that our experience of one another is limited to an act of cognition in consciousness? In other words, what we call our existence is merely in the mind of some one else and, therefore, only conceptual? Ponder over this too.
V: Are you trying to tell me that we are all mere phenomena in consciousness, phantoms in the world? And what about the world itself? And all the events that occur?
M: Ponder over what I have said. Can you find a flaw in it? The physical body, which one generally identifies with oneself, is only the physical construct for the Prana (the life-force) and consciousness. Without the Prana-consciousness what is the physical body? Only a cadaver! It is only because consciousness has mistakenly identified itself with its physical covering — the psychosomatic apparatus — that the individual comes into existence.
V: Now, you and I are separate individuals who have to live and work in this world along with millions of others, of course. How do you view me?
M: I view you in this world exactly as you view yourself in your dream. Does that satisfy you? In a dream whilst your body is resting in your bed, you have created a whole world — parallel to what you call the 'real' world — in which there are people, including yourself. How do you view yourself in your dream? In the waking state, the world emerges and you are taken into what I would call a waking-dream state. While you are dreaming, your dream-world appears to you very real indeed, does it not? How do you know that this world that you call 'real' is also not a dream? It is a dream from which you must awaken yourself by seeing the false as false, the unreal as unreal, the transient as transient; it can 'exist' only in conceptual space-time. And then, after such an 'awakening' you are in Reality. Then you see the world as 'living', as a phenomenal dream within the periphery of sensorial perception in space-time with a supposed volitional freedom. Now, about what you call an individual: Why don't you examine this phenomenon analytically, of course with an open mind, after giving up all existing mental conditioning and preconceived ideas? If you do so, what will you find?
The body is merely a physical construct for the life-force (Prana) and consciousness, which constitute a sort of psychosomatic apparatus; and this 'individual' does nothing other than responding to outside stimuli and producing illusory images and interpretations. And, further, this individual sentient being can 'exist' only as an object in the consciousness that cognizes it! It is just an hallucination.
V: Do you really mean to say that you see no difference between a dream dreamt by me and my living in this world?
M: You have had quite a lot already to cogitate and meditate upon. Are you sure you wish me to proceed?
V: I am used to large doses of serious study, and I have no doubt you too are. I would be most grateful indeed if we could proceed further and take this to its logical conclusion.
M: Very well. When you were in deep sleep, did the phenomenal world exist for you? Can you not intuitively and naturally visualize your pristine state — your original being — before this bodyconsciousness condition intruded upon you unasked, unaided? In that state, were you conscious of your 'existence'? Certainly not. The universal manifestation is only in consciousness, but the 'awakened' one has his centre of seeing in the Absolute. In the original state of pure being, not aware of its beingness, consciousness arises like a wave on an expanse of water, and in consciousness the world appears and disappears. The waves rise and fall, but the expanse of water remains. Before all beginnings, after all endings, I am. Whatever happens, 'I' must be there to witness it.
It is not that the world does not 'exist'. Exist it does, but merely as an appearance in consciousness — the totality of the known manifested, in the infinity of the unknown, unmanifested. What begins must end. What appears must disappear. The duration of appearance is a matter of relativity, but the principle is that whatever is subject to time and duration must end, and is, therefore, not real.
Now, can you not apperceive that in this living-dream you are still asleep, that all that is cognizable is contained in this phantasy of living; and that the one, who whilst cognizing this objectified world considers oneself an 'entity' apart from the totality which is cognized, is actually very much an integral part of the very hypothetical world?
Also, consider: We seem to be convinced that we live a life of our own, according to our own wishes and hopes and ambitions, according to our own plan and design through our own individual efforts. But is that really so? Or, are we being dreamed and lived without volition, totally as puppets, exactly as in a personal dream? Think! Never forget that just as the world exists, albeit as an appearance, the dreamed figures too, in either dream, must have a content — they are what the dream-subject is. That is why I say: Relatively 'I' am not, but the manifested universe is myself.
V: I think I am beginning to get the whole idea.
M: Is not thinking itself a notion in the mind? Thought is absent in seeing things intuitively. When you think you understand, you don't. When you perceive directly, there is no thinking. You know that you are alive; you do not 'think' that you are alive.
V: Good heavens! This seems to be a new dimension that you are presenting.
M: Well, I don't know about a new dimension, but you have expressed it well. It could indeed be said to be a fresh direction of measurement — a new centre of vision — inasmuch as by avoiding thought and perceiving things directly, conceptualizing is avoided. In other words, in seeing with the whole mind, intuitively, the apparent seer disappears, and the seeing becomes the seen.
The visitor then got up, paid his respects to Maharaj with considerably more devotion and submission than was shown by him on his arrival. He looked into Maharaj's eyes and smiled. When Maharaj asked him why he was smiling, he said he was reminded of a saying in English: 'They came to scoff, and remained to pray!'
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Jul 23, 2012 18:48:05 GMT -5
“You have some experiences and you try to benefit from them, but remember that whatever is going to be of use to you ultimately is going to harm you. Wherever there is use, there is also dis-use in this world of duality. Whatever you like is going to create harm for you. Whatever you like most is, in the end, going to be most harmful for you.”
“Whatever you have tried to understand during your spiritual search will prove false.”
“People who depend on the intellect only always will be swinging like a pendulum.”
"Discover all you are not. Body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, time, space, being and not-being, this or that -- nothing concrete or abstract you can point out to is you. A mere verbal statement will not do -- you may repeat a formula endlessly without any result whatsoever. You must watch your-self continuously -- particularly your mind -- moment by moment, missing nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the self from the not-self."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
|
Post by fraterdhyana on Jul 25, 2012 23:56:27 GMT -5
Mark West (author of "Gleanings of Nisargadatta") and Bob Adamson (various books, meetings, talks, and students) both lived with Nisargadatta and are still alive (in Australia).
"The Wisdom Teachings of Nisargadatta: A visual journey" probably has every picture ever taken. The biography writings have also probably been done to death.. but still, if you find something new.. why not.
|
|
|
Post by anyoldnamewilldo on Jul 28, 2012 7:45:27 GMT -5
Yes he's one of the good guys. Happy Turkey day Love Timothy Conway. His book, Women of Power and Grace, is one of my top ten books!! [/quote] Well, a lot Mr Conway writes about Rajneesh is certainly highly misleading. What a load of rubbish! He has collected all kinds of stuff from aorund the net( I can see a lot of it is innacurate but cannot be bothered to read through the lenghty, tiresome page. However, it is absolutely clear to me that he does not understand how Rajneesh worked, also, that he has actually no personal experience of what he is talking about with regards to Rajneesh at all. He wrote that he visited Poona for one talk from Rajneesh, but obviously did not feel anything, and never met him one-to one. Eveything he has written is based on reports by others. Even the man he regards as his own master, Nisargaddatta Maharaj, called Rajneesh "A great sage". I havent bothered reading through his writings on the other masters he dislikes, except for Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargaddatas translator, who Nis asked to start teaching sometime around 1980. Conway was probing into Ramesh`s sex life, and could not accept that Ramesh alledgedly had some sexual relations with some of his female friends. Conway has a strong Roman Catholic conditioning and believes that sex is acceptable for `enlightened ones` within the context of marriage, but totally not acceptable outside marraige. So he had a go at Ramesh. Apparently Ramesh laughed and told Conway that Nisargaddataa Maharaj used to visit a prostitute, who lived in the local red light district. But Conway cannot accept this, and thus Ramesh is not enlightened. He also doesnt accept Ranjit Maharaj, another beautifull naster who shared the same master as Nis , who used to visit Nis before he was teaching and Nis had told people present that he was a jnani.
|
|