|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 30, 2010 7:59:44 GMT -5
Lightmystic: Just like with bernadette robert I sense-feel-understand you have something for me in your "continuity". So I found myself in the same position with you than with bernadette robert... Hi M, I'm sorry to say that LightMystic stopped contributing to this board - quite suddenly - several months ago and hasn't been heard from since. I'm sure he's appreciate your remarks though, wherever he is. It's discussed here. |
|
|
|
Post by m on Nov 30, 2010 9:43:59 GMT -5
Thank you Michael. I do appreciate. I just received this very book from Amazone in my mailbox
m
|
|
|
|
Post by m on Nov 30, 2010 9:55:20 GMT -5
Thank you Peter, just my luck LOL !
Well may be LM and I will bump into each others, one of these days!
Anyways some questions are too important to care for answers...
And I trust I'll do it with a little help from my friends on this forum or elsewhere..
m
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 24, 2011 6:34:05 GMT -5
1/I remain curious, however, about why she doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between her experiences and those of so many other people on the path of non-duality. 2/I enjoyed reading David Godman's recollections of Nisargadatta. He said that Nisargadatta agreed with everything that Ramana Maharshi said except for the heart-center being on the right side of the chest. Nisargadatta had never had an experience that would verify that claim, so he could neither agree nor disagree with it. 3/BTW, I, too, prefer Nisargadatta's distinction between awareness and consciousness. In absolute samadhi, for example, there is pristine non-dual awareness but no content whatsoever. In that state there is absolutely no sense of self. Is this what you are calling "nirvikalpa" samadhi? 1/ Yes, it´s strange. One of the problems may be that she spoke with people who were followers of a religion, Budhism or Hinduism, for example. But many people (with the obvious exceptions), once they have understood their true nature, drop their traditions, while most of the ones who are still "seekers" remain attached to the those religions. Very probably she spoke with representants of the second category, people who still consider themselves as Hindus, for example, people that still haven´t realized that "no-self" Bernadette speaks about. I mean, if she had directly spoken to somebody like Nisargadatta she would realize they´re on the same boat. 2/Yes, I read them too, they´re great. And here there´s a perfect example of two sages overcoming the semantic differences. Nisargadatta, as Bernadette herself, denied the eternity of Consciousness, because he gave that word the sense of Ramana´s "mind". But Maharaj knew Ramana and him spoke about the same unmanifest reality, while Bernadette struggled with those concepts. 3/ Yes, that´s the sense I give to nirvikalpa samadhi. Thanks for your words. I've been wandering around the web site and found this, may start a discussion, as it seems one didn't get started...?... |
|
|
|
Post by magnesio on Nov 28, 2013 18:06:02 GMT -5
bernadette experiences of no self are coloured by her christian conditioning
|
|
|
|
Post by magnesio on Nov 28, 2013 18:07:23 GMT -5
we can never know if what she says is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 6, 2018 13:31:16 GMT -5
Never heard of her until last month when she made a home visit lol ..
Seems like she was on a similar wavelength to me ..
A few of her thoughts ..
The true nature of self can only be fully disclosed when it is gone, when there is no self.
One outcome, then, of the no-self experience is the disclosure of the true nature of self or consciousness. As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience. Because the terms "self" and "consciousness" express the same experiences (nothing can be said of one that cannot be said of the other), they are only definable in the terms of "experience".
Every other definition is conjecture and speculation. No-self, then, means no-consciousness. If this is shocking to some people, it is only because they do not know the true nature of consciousness.
A different type of knowing remains when the relative mind ceases to
exist. It is the type of knowing that is not a knowing at all, for there
is only Being.
How can anything be known, when it Is? How can the eye
see itself? Or music hear itself? How can 'I' know 'that', when 'I' AM
'that'?
Eggsactly what I say about no self / self in that there requires no self realization to understand self ... The not knowing stuff isn't a knowing at all .. That consciousness is of the mind only ... The actual 'being' what you are is beyond self .
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2018 16:36:19 GMT -5
Never heard of her until last month when she made a home visit lol .. Seems like she was on a similar wavelength to me .. A few of her thoughts .. T he true nature of self can only be fully disclosed when it is gone, when there is no self.
One outcome, then, of the no-self experience is the disclosure of the true nature of self or consciousness. As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience. Because the terms "self" and "consciousness" express the same experiences (nothing can be said of one that cannot be said of the other), they are only definable in the terms of "experience".
Every other definition is conjecture and speculation. No-self, then, means no-consciousness. If this is shocking to some people, it is only because they do not know the true nature of consciousness.
A different type of knowing remains when the relative mind ceases to
exist. It is the type of knowing that is not a knowing at all, for there
is only Being.
How can anything be known, when it Is? How can the eye
see itself? Or music hear itself? How can 'I' know 'that', when 'I' AM'that'? Eggsactly what I say about no self / self in that there requires no self realization to understand self ... The not knowing stuff isn't a knowing at all .. That consciousness is of the mind only ... The actual 'being' what you are is beyond self . Hey tenka.... I read The Experience of No-Self and The Path to No-Self many years ago, and then What Is Self? and some of her privately published stuff (the last one now publicly available on Amazon). I found her extraordinarily profound. Just curious, it sounds like you personally met her? I'd like to hear more. (I also know she has done 2 or 3 very small group retreats a year, California). [She is also adamant that her experience (of no-self) and Eastern non-duality (and "Modern" non-duality) do not correspond {despite her good rating here on ST's}]. Oh...just for the record, she is also adamant that what she has to say (her experience) and today's Christianity/church/understanding of Jesus, also do not correspond. (I concur). |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 12, 2018 2:34:05 GMT -5
Never heard of her until last month when she made a home visit lol .. Seems like she was on a similar wavelength to me .. A few of her thoughts .. T he true nature of self can only be fully disclosed when it is gone, when there is no self.
One outcome, then, of the no-self experience is the disclosure of the true nature of self or consciousness. As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience. Because the terms "self" and "consciousness" express the same experiences (nothing can be said of one that cannot be said of the other), they are only definable in the terms of "experience".
Every other definition is conjecture and speculation. No-self, then, means no-consciousness. If this is shocking to some people, it is only because they do not know the true nature of consciousness.
A different type of knowing remains when the relative mind ceases to
exist. It is the type of knowing that is not a knowing at all, for there
is only Being.
How can anything be known, when it Is? How can the eye
see itself? Or music hear itself? How can 'I' know 'that', when 'I' AM'that'? Eggsactly what I say about no self / self in that there requires no self realization to understand self ... The not knowing stuff isn't a knowing at all .. That consciousness is of the mind only ... The actual 'being' what you are is beyond self . Hey tenka.... I read The Experience of No-Self and The Path to No-Self many years ago, and then What Is Self? and some of her privately published stuff (the last one now publicly available on Amazon). I found her extraordinarily profound. Just curious, it sounds like you personally met her? I'd like to hear more. (I also know she has done 2 or 3 very small group retreats a year, California). [She is also adamant that her experience (of no-self) and Eastern non-duality (and "Modern" non-duality) do not correspond {despite her good rating here on ST's}]. Oh...just for the record, she is also adamant that what she has to say (her experience) and today's Christianity/church/understanding of Jesus, also do not correspond. (I concur). When I mean 'home visit' pilgrim, I mean't in spirit form . She passed over last november . When I heard her name shout out in my meditation I looked her up and did a little research . When I started to read online some of her teachings I resonated with what little I read . Quite a bit of what I read was at the heart of discussion and disagreement had on the other forums . She must of been listening to my thoughts lol .. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 12, 2018 17:01:00 GMT -5
Hey tenka.... I read The Experience of No-Self and The Path to No-Self many years ago, and then What Is Self? and some of her privately published stuff (the last one now publicly available on Amazon). I found her extraordinarily profound. Just curious, it sounds like you personally met her? I'd like to hear more. (I also know she has done 2 or 3 very small group retreats a year, California). [She is also adamant that her experience (of no-self) and Eastern non-duality (and "Modern" non-duality) do not correspond {despite her good rating here on ST's}]. Oh...just for the record, she is also adamant that what she has to say (her experience) and today's Christianity/church/understanding of Jesus, also do not correspond. (I concur). When I mean 'home visit' pilgrim, I mean't in spirit form . She passed over last november . When I heard her name shout out in my meditation I looked her up and did a little research . When I started to read online some of her teachings I resonated with what little I read . Quite a bit of what I read was at the heart of discussion and disagreement had on the other forums . She must of been listening to my thoughts lol .. OK, thanks, I hadn't heard she had died (well...that her body had died). |
|
