|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 9:03:14 GMT -5
Post by shadowplay on Sept 2, 2020 9:03:14 GMT -5
Once all without exception is included as Brahman manifest, then there is peace no matter what state the seeker may be in, for Brahman is all states, including not realizing. It is the inclusion of all states as Brahman manifest that brings that peace, the end of the search, and the end of feeling disconnected, for disconection is impossible, it is unconditional, whether embodied or conceptual, total connection cannot be avoided:) PS. Living without this realization IS Brahman living without this realization. Yes but your very statements here reveal a contradiction. Your statements demonstrate a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness. Without that realisation your statements could not be made. So the point is this: A realisation IS NOT required for Oneness to be the case. It’s always already Oneness - realisation or no realisation. But a realisation of this (the above statement) IS required for the dawning of realisation to be the case. Further protests by yourself will simply confirm and solidify that a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness is already the case. You see, realisation was never required in order for Oneness to be the case. It is required in order for there to be insight into this.
Mixing up these two contexts is the issue here.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 9:22:11 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 2, 2020 9:22:11 GMT -5
Once all without exception is included as Brahman manifest, then there is peace no matter what state the seeker may be in, for Brahman is all states, including not realizing. It is the inclusion of all states as Brahman manifest that brings that peace, the end of the search, and the end of feeling disconnected, for disconection is impossible, it is unconditional, whether embodied or conceptual, total connection cannot be avoided:) PS. Living without this realization IS Brahman living without this realization. Yes but your very statements here reveal a contradiction. Your statements demonstrate a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness. Without that realisation your statements could not be made. So the point is this: A realisation IS NOT required for Oneness to be the case. It’s always already Oneness - realisation or no realisation. But a realisation of this (the above statement) IS required for the dawning of realisation to be the case. Further protests by yourself will simply confirm and solidify that a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness is already the case. You see, realisation was never required in order for Oneness to be the case. It is required in order for there to be insight into this. Mixing up these two contexts is the issue here.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 9:27:13 GMT -5
amit likes this
Post by amit on Sept 2, 2020 9:27:13 GMT -5
Yes but your very statements here reveal a contradiction. Your statements demonstrate a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness. Without that realisation your statements could not be made. So the point is this: A realisation IS NOT required for Oneness to be the case. It’s always already Oneness - realisation or no realisation. But a realisation of this (the above statement) IS required for the dawning of realisation to be the case. Further protests by yourself will simply confirm and solidify that a realisation (in some important sense) of Oneness is already the case. You see, realisation was never required in order for Oneness to be the case. It is required in order for there to be insight into this. Mixing up these two contexts is the issue here. Realization is not required because the state of not realized is already Oneness, so realizing cannot make you any more Oneness because what you thought of as 'you' was already Oneness before any realization. The state of lacking insight is also already Oneness lacking insight, so gaining insight will not increase connection to Oneness. If you include all as already Oneness, particularly what you think of as 'yourself', the problem disappears.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 9:59:43 GMT -5
Post by shadowplay on Sept 2, 2020 9:59:43 GMT -5
Realization is not required because the state of not realized is already Oneness, so realizing cannot make you any more Oneness because what you thought of as 'you' was already Oneness before any realization. The state of lacking insight is also already Oneness lacking insight, so gaining insight will not increase connection to Oneness. If you include all as already Oneness, particularly what you think of as 'yourself', the problem disappears. Right, this is the mixing up of contexts that I mentioned. I’ve acknowledged that realisation is NOT required for Oneness to be the case. It’s always already Oneness - realisation or no realisation. Realisation IS required for realisation (of this) to be the case (tautology alert.) And as predicted, your argument - which is coming from a position of understanding (a realisation of sorts) - confirms the point.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 11:33:33 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 2, 2020 11:33:33 GMT -5
Realization is not required because the state of not realized is already Oneness, so realizing cannot make you any more Oneness because what you thought of as 'you' was already Oneness before any realization. The state of lacking insight is also already Oneness lacking insight, so gaining insight will not increase connection to Oneness. If you include all as already Oneness, particularly what you think of as 'yourself', the problem disappears. Right, this is the mixing up of contexts that I mentioned. I’ve acknowledged that realisation is NOT required for Oneness to be the case. It’s always already Oneness - realisation or no realisation. Realisation IS required for realisation (of this) to be the case (tautology alert.) And as predicted, your argument - which is coming from a position of understanding (a realisation of sorts) - confirms the point. Ok. Both points of view have been expressed and understood. I cant put it any clearer so we can leave it at that, and I wish you well.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 3, 2020 10:04:31 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 3, 2020 10:04:31 GMT -5
In terms of total connection to Brahman, It matters not if there is no seeing/knowing, because it is already Brahman not seeing/knowing. Correct. The issue is not real, it's perceptual only.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 3, 2020 10:08:54 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 3, 2020 10:08:54 GMT -5
Yes, you are already what you seek. But as a seeker you have no clue what that is. And so the search continues. Yes, you are already what you seek. But as a seeker you have no clue what that is. And so the search continues. The problem is always the same, it is not seeing that exclusions are not exclusions at all, but also Brahman manifest! In this case it is already Brahman having no clue, so moving from the state of having no clue to discovering does not increase connection to Brahman at all, because Brahman is already both and all states. Interesting that you keep insisting on this, Amit. Yes, what you say is true. And if you were talking to a sage, that would be a perfect reply. But if you are talking to a seeker, that reply, while ultimately true, is useless because it doesn’t consider the context in which the seeker operates. And that’s the main problem I see with neo-advaita teachers, that they have only one and the same answer for any and all contexts. Which results in seekers starting to mix contexts, like saying, when asked why they keep abusing others, that it’s all Brahman, so what could possibly be the harm, right? See what I’m getting at? Someone rather immature hearing your message will see that as an invitation to a high stakes game of identity poker. Not everyone who is self-realized is also destined to be a teacher. It takes more to be a teacher than just having a realization and being able to express it. As Ramakrishna says, "Anyone and everyone cannot be a guru. A huge timber floats on the water and can carry animals as well. But a piece of worthless wood sinks, if a man sits on it, and drowns him." But you raise some important points, Amit, that help illustrate the difference between neo-advaita and traditional advaita. Very good!
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 4, 2020 6:00:20 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 4, 2020 6:00:20 GMT -5
The problem is always the same, it is not seeing that exclusions are not exclusions at all, but also Brahman manifest! In this case it is already Brahman having no clue, so moving from the state of having no clue to discovering does not increase connection to Brahman at all, because Brahman is already both and all states. Interesting that you keep insisting on this, Amit. Yes, what you say is true. And if you were talking to a sage, that would be a perfect reply. But if you are talking to a seeker, that reply, while ultimately true, is useless because it doesn’t consider the context in which the seeker operates. And that’s the main problem I see with neo-advaita teachers, that they have only one and the same answer for any and all contexts. Which results in seekers starting to mix contexts, like saying, when asked why they keep abusing others, that it’s all Brahman, so what could possibly be the harm, right? See what I’m getting at? Someone rather immature hearing your message will see that as an invitation to a high stakes game of identity poker. Not everyone who is self-realized is also destined to be a teacher. It takes more to be a teacher than just having a realization and being able to express it. As Ramakrishna says, "Anyone and everyone cannot be a guru. A huge timber floats on the water and can carry animals as well. But a piece of worthless wood sinks, if a man sits on it, and drowns him." But you raise some important points, Amit, that help illustrate the difference between neo-advaita and traditional advaita. Very good! Of course if the problems raised remain the same, it is not surprising that so do the replies:). So once again, if the replies are of no use to some, it is already Brahman for whom they are of no use and no increase or decrease in connection to Brahman has occured, which connection was total before and after. So nothing to be done, or can be done to affect that connection. This message, which originatated long ago, nothing to do with me, has ended the search for characters it suits who resonate with it by trust. Not all require or are suited by practise. Who decides who is a teacher or not? The words are spoken by many who are not concerned with whether they are classified as teachers. The words speak for themselves and may resonate or not. And as you say it doesnt matter either way, for it is all Brahman, yet the words continue to appear to be spoken:) 'I' cannot utter a single word unless 'you' speak:).
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 4, 2020 7:36:48 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2020 7:36:48 GMT -5
Interesting that you keep insisting on this, Amit. Yes, what you say is true. And if you were talking to a sage, that would be a perfect reply. But if you are talking to a seeker, that reply, while ultimately true, is useless because it doesn’t consider the context in which the seeker operates. And that’s the main problem I see with neo-advaita teachers, that they have only one and the same answer for any and all contexts. Which results in seekers starting to mix contexts, like saying, when asked why they keep abusing others, that it’s all Brahman, so what could possibly be the harm, right? See what I’m getting at? Someone rather immature hearing your message will see that as an invitation to a high stakes game of identity poker. Not everyone who is self-realized is also destined to be a teacher. It takes more to be a teacher than just having a realization and being able to express it. As Ramakrishna says, "Anyone and everyone cannot be a guru. A huge timber floats on the water and can carry animals as well. But a piece of worthless wood sinks, if a man sits on it, and drowns him." But you raise some important points, Amit, that help illustrate the difference between neo-advaita and traditional advaita. Very good! Of course if the problems raised remain the same, it is not surprising that so do the replies:). So once again, if the replies are of no use to some, it is already Brahman for whom they are of no use and no increase or decrease in connection to Brahman has occured, which connection was total before and after. So nothing to be done, or can be done to affect that connection. This message, which originatated long ago, nothing to do with me, has ended the search for characters it suits who resonate with it by trust. Not all require or are suited by practise. Who decides who is a teacher or not? The words are spoken by many who are not concerned with whether they are classified as teachers. The words speak for themselves and may resonate or not. And as you say it doesnt matter either way, for it is all Brahman, yet the words continue to appear to be spoken:) 'I' cannot utter a single word unless 'you' speak:). Anything is possible, but I've never met a single sage or even read about one who attained a sense of freedom, flow, psychological unity, existential understanding, equanimity, etc. simply by trusting that Brahman is all there is and that whatever is happening is Brahman. Niz wrote a lot about trust, but he was primarily focused upon the idea of trusting a guru and based upon that trust doing what the guru advised. Niz spent three years doing what his guru advised before he woke up, and that was a much faster journey to awakening than for most sages. One of the reasons that trust, alone, is insufficient is that simply hearing the truth, even if totally believed, doesn't change people's mental habit of living in their heads. A few people, like Paul Morgan-Somers, suddenly discovered the truth right out of the blue, but in his case trust was not a factor. In fact, most sages who trusted that their teacher was speaking the truth still had to spend years before the truth they trusted was directly apprehended and known in the same way as their own teacher. Just saying.... Out of curiosity, can you name anyone who ceased to search for the truth and woke up simply as a result of resonating with the idea that Brahman is all that is?
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 4, 2020 10:46:40 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 4, 2020 10:46:40 GMT -5
Of course if the problems raised remain the same, it is not surprising that so do the replies:). So once again, if the replies are of no use to some, it is already Brahman for whom they are of no use and no increase or decrease in connection to Brahman has occured, which connection was total before and after. So nothing to be done, or can be done to affect that connection. This message, which originatated long ago, nothing to do with me, has ended the search for characters it suits who resonate with it by trust. Not all require or are suited by practise. Who decides who is a teacher or not? The words are spoken by many who are not concerned with whether they are classified as teachers. The words speak for themselves and may resonate or not. And as you say it doesnt matter either way, for it is all Brahman, yet the words continue to appear to be spoken:) 'I' cannot utter a single word unless 'you' speak:). Anything is possible, but I've never met a single sage or even read about one who attained a sense of freedom, flow, psychological unity, existential understanding, equanimity, etc. simply by trusting that Brahman is all there is and that whatever is happening is Brahman. Niz wrote a lot about trust, but he was primarily focused upon the idea of trusting a guru and based upon that trust doing what the guru advised. Niz spent three years doing what his guru advised before he woke up, and that was a much faster journey to awakening than for most sages. One of the reasons that trust, alone, is insufficient is that simply hearing the truth, even if totally believed, doesn't change people's mental habit of living in their heads. A few people, like Paul Morgan-Somers, suddenly discovered the truth right out of the blue, but in his case trust was not a factor. In fact, most sages who trusted that their teacher was speaking the truth still had to spend years before the truth they trusted was directly apprehended and known in the same way as their own teacher. Just saying.... Out of curiosity, can you name anyone who ceased to search for the truth and woke up simply as a result of resonating with the idea that Brahman is all that is? You are already aware of the earlier post about Niz advice to a seeker in depair to trust that he was already what was sought. That approach was fast through trust, practise slower. There is room for both depending on where seekers may be at. For me any difference in the quality of the experience of another cannot be known. Many I have spoken with in and around our group here, and at Tony's meetings describe that the search has ended through trust, including some who now give talks internationally.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 5, 2020 11:19:37 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2020 11:19:37 GMT -5
Interesting that you keep insisting on this, Amit. Yes, what you say is true. And if you were talking to a sage, that would be a perfect reply. But if you are talking to a seeker, that reply, while ultimately true, is useless because it doesn’t consider the context in which the seeker operates. And that’s the main problem I see with neo-advaita teachers, that they have only one and the same answer for any and all contexts. Which results in seekers starting to mix contexts, like saying, when asked why they keep abusing others, that it’s all Brahman, so what could possibly be the harm, right? See what I’m getting at? Someone rather immature hearing your message will see that as an invitation to a high stakes game of identity poker. Not everyone who is self-realized is also destined to be a teacher. It takes more to be a teacher than just having a realization and being able to express it. As Ramakrishna says, "Anyone and everyone cannot be a guru. A huge timber floats on the water and can carry animals as well. But a piece of worthless wood sinks, if a man sits on it, and drowns him." But you raise some important points, Amit, that help illustrate the difference between neo-advaita and traditional advaita. Very good! Of course if the problems raised remain the same, it is not surprising that so do the replies:). So once again, if the replies are of no use to some, it is already Brahman for whom they are of no use and no increase or decrease in connection to Brahman has occured, which connection was total before and after. So nothing to be done, or can be done to affect that connection. This message, which originatated long ago, nothing to do with me, has ended the search for characters it suits who resonate with it by trust. Not all require or are suited by practise. Who decides who is a teacher or not? The words are spoken by many who are not concerned with whether they are classified as teachers. The words speak for themselves and may resonate or not. And as you say it doesnt matter either way, for it is all Brahman, yet the words continue to appear to be spoken:) 'I' cannot utter a single word unless 'you' speak:). Yes, it's always the same issue essentially and always the same reply essentially. However, the reply needs to be tailored to the individual and his/her unique circumstances and background and perspective in order to be effective. That's where a good teacher comes into play. And teacher here doesn't necessarily mean someone who considers himself a teacher or someone who is widely recognized as a teacher. Teacher here just means someone who can bridge contexts. Someone who only has literally (!) the same answer no matter who is asking the question is someone who doesn't understand context and will create more confusion than clarity. That's the point I was trying to make. And these are general comments about teachers, not about you personally. The actual words don't matter. What matters is the perspective conveyed and how effectively that is done. So in terms of words and phrases used, we can and should be flexible. In terms of perspective conveyed, we should remain firm. The challenge basically is to find out if the 'teacher' is speaking from true knowing or just from memory, i.e. if what s/he has to say is based on an actual realization or based on a fixed mental position. If it is based on an actual realization, then it's genuine and there will be a certain flexibility and spontaneity in the teaching. If it is based solely on memory, there will be a certain degree of dogmatism and literalism.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 5, 2020 11:20:57 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2020 11:20:57 GMT -5
Many I have spoken with in and around our group here, and at Tony's meetings describe that the search has ended through trust, including some who now give talks internationally. Trust in what exactly?
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 5, 2020 12:52:51 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 5, 2020 12:52:51 GMT -5
Of course if the problems raised remain the same, it is not surprising that so do the replies:). So once again, if the replies are of no use to some, it is already Brahman for whom they are of no use and no increase or decrease in connection to Brahman has occured, which connection was total before and after. So nothing to be done, or can be done to affect that connection. This message, which originatated long ago, nothing to do with me, has ended the search for characters it suits who resonate with it by trust. Not all require or are suited by practise. Who decides who is a teacher or not? The words are spoken by many who are not concerned with whether they are classified as teachers. The words speak for themselves and may resonate or not. And as you say it doesnt matter either way, for it is all Brahman, yet the words continue to appear to be spoken:) 'I' cannot utter a single word unless 'you' speak:). Yes, it's always the same issue essentially and always the same reply essentially. However, the reply needs to be tailored to the individual and his/her unique circumstances and background and perspective in order to be effective. That's where a good teacher comes into play. And teacher here doesn't necessarily mean someone who considers himself a teacher or someone who is widely recognized as a teacher. Teacher here just means someone who can bridge contexts. Someone who only has literally (!) the same answer no matter who is asking the question is someone who doesn't understand context and will create more confusion than clarity. That's the point I was trying to make. And these are general comments about teachers, not about you personally. The actual words don't matter. What matters is the perspective conveyed and how effectively that is done. So in terms of words and phrases used, we can and should be flexible. In terms of perspective conveyed, we should remain firm. The challenge basically is to find out if the 'teacher' is speaking from true knowing or just from memory, i.e. if what s/he has to say is based on an actual realization or based on a fixed mental position. If it is based on an actual realization, then it's genuine and there will be a certain flexibility and spontaneity in the teaching. If it is based solely on memory, there will be a certain degree of dogmatism and literalism. For me the words speak for themselves. In terms of variation it is enough to acknowledge that one size does not fit all. Some are attracted to practise, others trust. One cannot experience the experience of another in order to decide about the quality of the experience, or to make comparisons.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 5, 2020 12:54:28 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 5, 2020 12:54:28 GMT -5
Many I have spoken with in and around our group here, and at Tony's meetings describe that the search has ended through trust, including some who now give talks internationally. Trust in what exactly? That one is already what is sought.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 5, 2020 16:58:44 GMT -5
Post by zazeniac on Sept 5, 2020 16:58:44 GMT -5
Anything is possible, but I've never met a single sage or even read about one who attained a sense of freedom, flow, psychological unity, existential understanding, equanimity, etc. simply by trusting that Brahman is all there is and that whatever is happening is Brahman. Niz wrote a lot about trust, but he was primarily focused upon the idea of trusting a guru and based upon that trust doing what the guru advised. Niz spent three years doing what his guru advised before he woke up, and that was a much faster journey to awakening than for most sages. One of the reasons that trust, alone, is insufficient is that simply hearing the truth, even if totally believed, doesn't change people's mental habit of living in their heads. A few people, like Paul Morgan-Somers, suddenly discovered the truth right out of the blue, but in his case trust was not a factor. In fact, most sages who trusted that their teacher was speaking the truth still had to spend years before the truth they trusted was directly apprehended and known in the same way as their own teacher. Just saying.... Out of curiosity, can you name anyone who ceased to search for the truth and woke up simply as a result of resonating with the idea that Brahman is all that is? You are already aware of the earlier post about Niz advice to a seeker in depair to trust that he was already what was sought. That approach was fast through trust, practise slower. There is room for both depending on where seekers may be at. For me any difference in the quality of the experience of another cannot be known. Many I have spoken with in and around our group here, and at Tony's meetings describe that the search has ended through trust, including some who now give talks internationally. Is this Tony you reference Tony Parsons? Though I'm devoted to practice being one of the untrusting and my motto being" if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him," I find a certain appeal in Parsons. There's a playfulness that makes me wonder if he's not the real thing. I would definitely pay the admission charge if he ever showed up in my hinterland. I enjoy his talks on youtube.
|
|