Ego: the belief in "I"

Sophia19 · Post by **Sophia19** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:54 am

sue hindmarsh wrote:unwise spewed forth:

I get it unwise; youâ€™re just a mindless idiot who loves women. Sue

I apologize for interrupting..... but I really would like to know if you don't mind answering.....

Is it also true that any male that loves a female is an idiot?

Any man that wants enlightenment that also desires a woman is an idiot?

A man cannot be on the path of enlightenment if he allows himself to love a woman? respect a woman's mind? have her along for the journey? perhaps even as comfort and support?

The creation of women was a mistake? or women should not exist? If they do exist, only for the sake of servicing men?

I'm not trying to imply you believe this way, whether you do or not..... I am simply curious of your assessment of these statements is all.....

Sophia

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:37 am

unwise wrote:If you've heard much about the Da Vinci Code and the movie, you know that the Catholic church has spent a couple thousand years torturing and murdering folks in order to keep THE ultimate heresy in check: that a divine being, Jesus, could possible have had sex, gotten married, and sired children.

It's a good example of a continuing effort by artists and con-artists to feminize Jesus even further. First he was made into some kind smiling man saying we should be more nice and accepting to each other and the current stage is to turn him into the Family Man! Don't you see a pattern?

Here is Krishna and Radha: enjoy

Radha is in the original story briefly mentioned as one of the women who Krishna was playing with during his upbringing as a young boy. Her rise in importance, becoming some sort of consort, has obvious explanations; a tendency to worship the immersion into and attachment to the material world - personificated like so often as Woman.

However, there's a deeper aspect to this that might interest you. In many wisdom traditions the feminine has been used to portray the 'existence' aspect of our reality. Our physical nature, our ego, the forces of the universe, the cycles of seasons or the wheels of cause and effect. Early wisdom has chosen to portray these aspects as female for the reason that the women, physically, was closer to the many forces of nature because of her child birthing. Her weaker and more dependent nature in more violent times made her also more vulnerable for ego (deceit) as well as conformation. Not a good example for the budding spiritual hero!

Some have even gone so far to display truth and wisdom as a (lost) female: Sophia, that had to be found and known. But wisdom without a knower is not yet wisdom! Her power is the power to enchant one to take a certain road, a strong plea to find her out while making it at the same time as hard as possible.

Worshipping feminine symbols as goddesses equal the situation of humans immersed in their own karmic web. They worship nature but do not know her. Her depiction was there to serve meditation and understanding. Just like a statue of Shiva was there to remind people of truth, not to revere or desire, or to suggest that such a being really existed in the flesh.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:11 am

unwise wrote:

What is experienced in enlightenment?

Objects, without delusion.

For example, a word â€œonâ€ a screen is not a 3D object. It is an appearance caused by the quality and characteristics (or, nature) that comprise a 3D object and given meaning by humans (well, reasoning ones, that is). Notice that there is no such thing as a word that can be plucked off this screen with your fingers, or heard without a voice through a voice box and ears, etc. Course, you can make a 3D word out of stone or plaster or some such thing, and turn it into a 3D object, letter by letter. But, there is no such 2D object, by definition and as an empirical fact. An object, to be experienced by humans, has length, depth and breadth.

Written words appear as a quality/characteristic of a 3D object -- they are not 3D objects. Have you ever seen a written/typed word without a PC monitor or ink in paper? Is there absolutely no depth to that piece of paper? If so, how is it that you can hold it between your fingers, or make a 3-inch thick book out of several hundred pages?

I would imagine that should one consider words as solid 3D objects, they would become quite hurt by them -- as if words were jumping right out of a screen and hitting them smack-bang in between the eyes. What a fantastic source of joy and pain they would be to see and hear!

Can you imagine being attached to them, one object to another?

Since 2D objects exist a priori and as a means to 3-/4-D experiences, what relationship does such a priori knowledge have with enlightenment, or the lack of it? What would be the difference between an animalâ€™s (or even a plantâ€˜s) existence, which does demonstrate or articulate conscious a priori knowledge, and that of a reasoning man and on what basis do you judge the enlightened state of mind?

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:32 am

Written words appear as a quality/characteristic of a 3D object -- they are not 3D objects. Have you ever seen a written/typed word without a PC monitor or ink in paper? Is there absolutely no depth to that piece of paper? If so, how is it that you can hold it between your fingers, or make a 3-inch thick book out of several hundred pages?

2-D objects are defined by their available range of motion.

The coordinate plane that we experience as space is dimension.

Using a coordinate system, 2-D objects are defined using the X and Y axis.

Can you imagine being attached to them, one object to another?

So, you're a poet after all.

May the mighty gusts of the 4th dimension lift you!

What would be the difference between an animalâ€™s (or even a plantâ€˜s) existence, which does demonstrate or articulate conscious a priori knowledge, and that of a reasoning man and on what basis do you judge the enlightened state of mind?

All sentinent beings have Buddha-Nature.

When the reasoning man becomes enlightened, so does the world - in a sense.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:38 am

DVR:

However, there's a deeper aspect to this that might interest you. In many wisdom traditions the feminine has been used to portray the 'existence' aspect of our reality. Our physical nature, our ego, the forces of the universe, the cycles of seasons or the wheels of cause and effect. Early wisdom has chosen to portray these aspects as female for the reason that the women, physically, was closer to the many forces of nature because of her child birthing. Her weaker and more dependent nature in more violent times made her also more vulnerable for ego (deceit) as well as conformation. Not a good example for the budding spiritual hero!

It's always interesting when people want to explain Hinduism to me.

Yes, you are correct, Purusha is always symbolized by the male and Prikriti by the female. Purusha is like a man meditating - or it is like the full, motionless sun in all its glory. Prakriti is symbolized as a woman because it is full of change, mystery, movement, and drama. So far so good.

The fact that all Hindu gods are shown and described with female consorts is a metaphor for the ultimate dualistic nature of reality. Gods and enlightened men are seen with female counterparts to demonstrate the merging of the two realities.

It is said that the ancient gods, or rishis, who brought to the earth the Veda (the complete truth), ruled over the East as married men with fully enlightened female wives. That is the tradition.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:03 am

Are you pretending to add something again, Steven?

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:16 am

Nevermind.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:40 am

Unwise said to Diebert:

It's always interesting when people want to explain Hinduism to me.

It is interesting how you block everything out and only pay attention to your own deluded view. I want to see how you compare to a quote describing a person with the "sattvic essence", from the Charak Samhita...

â€œThe persons having the sattvic essence are endowed with memory, devotion, are grateful, learned, pure, courageous, skillful, resolute, free from anxiety, having well-directed and serious intellect and activities and are engaged in virtuous actsâ€
-Charak Samhita III-8:110

Do you think you embody that, Unwise? I don't think you do. I think you're a person who's so full of fear/sadness/anger that you feel the need to cover it up with an ultimate understanding. You need to adopt a hobby and show it off...as if that'll make you better. That's just an impression I get from you, though. I may be way off, as this is the internet and I've never known you beyond this forum.

Hinduism is misunderstood as a philosophy, until it becomes true for you personally. There aren't two aspects to reality. Read Ramana Maharshi's "40 Verses on Reality" and try to see where you're getting it wrong. Try to make the philosophy true for you personally. Test yourself...or rather...allow God to test you. I'm sure you'll quickly realise how stupid you've been here.

I'll post a quote from Ramana, explaining the marks of a real teacher...

"Steady abidance in the Self, looking at all with an equal eye, unshakeable courage at all times, in all places and circumstances, etc."

Once again, do you think this describes who you are? I don't think it does. If you were to abide in the Self, I doubt you'd constantly talk about Purusha being half of reality. What does anyone get from hearing about some word, "Purusha"? It doesn't take anyone closer to knowing. Do you look at all with an equal eye? Be honest, for once. I'm sure you don't feel the same things for me as you do for someone like Frank. Are you courageous at all times? I certainly don't catch any brave type of vibe from you. You seem more like a house cat hiding under a rug, thinking it's so clever, rather than a lion roaring on the top of a mountain...to use some analogies.

I think you should also check out Swami Sivananda's writings at http://www.divinelifesociety.org ...all of these things I'm telling you have at least helped me realize that I'm a moron when it comes to this stuff. Yet, I'm smart enough to realize I'm a moron about it...where you, on the other hand, think you're the brightest bulb in the box when you're not even screwed into the socket.

Yes, you are correct, Purusha is always symbolized by the male and Prikriti by the female. Purusha is like a man meditating - or it is like the full, motionless sun in all its glory. Prakriti is symbolized as a woman because it is full of change, mystery, movement, and drama. So far so good.

Here's something kind of funny...remember Frank's post about his experience with a female who brought him to his senses? Isn't it funny how the roles were completely the opposite of this? Man is still and feminine is desiring...yet Frank was desiring and that wise woman of his was still. What does that say about Frank?

Just something to ponder.

The fact that all Hindu gods are shown and described with female consorts is a metaphor for the ultimate dualistic nature of reality. Gods and enlightened men are seen with female counterparts to demonstrate the merging of the two realities.

There is one reality. The reason why there are stories of Gods and Goddesses playing around is to confuse people. That's it, really. It's like how the Christian God is in most American churches. Personified and conceptualized...never experienced.

It is said that the ancient gods, or rishis, who brought to the earth the Veda (the complete truth), ruled over the East as married men with fully enlightened female wives. That is the tradition.

Perhaps they were. Who ever said that enlightened people don't marry and have children? Remember, enlightenment is living the truth. Living is a necessary part of it.

Hopefully this helps you out, Unwise. I only wish more people would tell you that you're plain wrong....I wish someone with a better background in Hinduism could come here and point out where you're wrong. I guess the best I can do to make that wish come true is to post one more quote from this website: http://sivanandaonline.org/graphics/ebo ... nners.html

"Ahamkara is the greatest obstacle to Self-realisation. "I know everything. My view or opinion alone is correct. What I do is right. That man does not know anything. Everybody should follow what I say. Everybody should obey me. I am free from any kind of fault. I am full of auspicious qualities. I am very intelligent. That man is very stupid. That man is wretched. That man has got many defects. I am wise. I am beautiful." Thus says the egoistic man. This is the nature of Rajasic Ahamkara. He hides his own faults. He exaggerates and advertises his own abilities and qualities. He belittles others. He condemns others. He superimposes faults on others which they have not got. He sees not good but evil in others. He superimposes on himself several good qualities which he does not possess. That man cannot practise Vedantic Sadhana. He is unfit for the path of Jnana."
-Swami Sivananda

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:25 pm

Do you think you embody that, Unwise? I don't think you do. I think you're a person who's so full of fear/sadness/anger that you feel the need to cover it up with an ultimate understanding. You need to adopt a hobby and show it off...as if that'll make you better. That's just an impression I get from you, though. I may be way off, as this is the internet and I've never known you beyond this forum.

I'm full of fear and sadness and anger? Where do you get that? I am a happy, fulfilled and contented person. Why do you profess to know my traits? Where do you get this stuff? You always attack me. I think you have had a bad experience with Hindu fake-o gurus, and you are trying to make me pay for it.

Read Ramana Maharshi's "40 Verses on Reality" and try to see where you're getting it wrong. Try to make the philosophy true for you personally. Test yourself...or rather...allow God to test you. I'm sure you'll quickly realize how stupid you've been here.

I have a copy here. I have most of his works. He is the foundation of my realization. It is weird that you think I'm at odds with him. He could understand what I am saying, but can you? What is with this anger in you? Even enlightened sages differ in their understanding of reality. Strange but true.

. Do you look at all with an equal eye? Be honest, for once. I'm sure you don't feel the same things for me as you do for someone like Frank.

You are projecting many things on me like a child. Do you think Ramana treated everyone the same? He did NOT. Some people he ignored completely - didn't even answer their questions. He most certainly treated people differently according to their understanding, sincerity, ego etc. Sages are all a little different. You ought to know this.

Here's something kind of funny...remember Frank's post about his experience with a female who brought him to his senses? Isn't it funny how the roles were completely the opposite of this? Man is still and feminine is desiring...yet Frank was desiring and that wise woman of his was still. What does that say about Frank?

We are ALL women until we are realized. Only Purusha is the true man. All other beings are women. You have now officially pissed me off with your arrogance. I will not answer any more questions from you after this post. You are ignorant and do not know who you are dealing with.

And, that rant at the end of your post could be true of any preacher. It is nothing new. Does it apply to Jesus?

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:19 pm

sschaula wrote:

Sue summed up Unwise's ideas as:

1. Women have minds.
2. Women have depth.
3. â€˜Enlightenmentâ€™ is the union between the feminine and the masculine mind.
4. Sex is spiritual.
5. Masculinity is unable to function correctly without the feminine.

Here's my take on these 5 ideas...

1 - Women obviously have minds. Anything that can do math has a mind. Anything that can walk and talk has a mind. It's just that a man's mind is more developed. And a philosopher's is even MORE.

Cats and dogs can talk and walk in their own fashion. Women obviously are as capable as cats and dogs. They are also capable of engaging in most intellectual pursuits, such as math, but this only highlights the superficial nature of these pursuits. Math, science, academic philosophy, business, medicine, engineering, novel writing, politics: have nothing what-so-ever to do with the pursuit of Wisdom, and are therefore the domains of Woman. As you point out, only truly masculine men have minds fit for the job of Philosophy.

2 - It's true that women don't have depth. Men only have depth. Whoever has a developed mind has a developed soul, and the soul is what has depth.

Yes, this depth means that oneâ€™s thoughts arise out of a deep understanding of Nature. Unwise would consider that he possessed this kind of depth, yet he makes it very clear by his attachment to Woman that he knows nothing about the nature of Reality.

3 - Of course a person can't become enlightened through denying their feminine side. If a person was to just think abstractly all day, and not apply it to their consciousness throughout the day, they wouldn't get anywhere. Masculinity is thinking abstractly, and femininity is living it. Enlightenment is undoubtedly a combination of the two principles. Even more...you can't destroy femininity. The more you become masculine, the more feminine you'll be. The more you think of truth, the more it'll be integrated in your consciousness.

Your thinking on this matter is very sloppy. The truthful mind is the opposite of the feminine mind. I think you know this, but you are confusing the spontaneity of the philosopher with the mindless spontaneity of Woman. The philosopher rips out by the roots all that is feminine in him and by doing so develops a mind that is closer to the Infinite.

4 - Sex is spiritual....well what does spiritual mean? Does it mean feeling things that you aren't used to feeling? Does it mean entering a state of super-consciousness? Is it where you learn about scriptures, and what they really mean? I don't know...I'd say that sex is like doing anything else. The more integrated with truth you are, the more spiritual anything will be. If you're having sex, yet you see it clearly as a mirage, that is spiritual sex. If you're doing yogic poses, and your mind is only aware of the emptiness of everything, that's spiritual. If you're praying in church, and you're completely aware of the truth, that's spiritual. Driving a car...walking down the street...buying groceries...watching tv...

Unwiseâ€™s feeling about sex is due to his attachment to his emotions. By saying that â€œsex is spiritualâ€, he gives what is a mindless, emotionally driven act, more depth and colour than it deserves. This is what makes me consider him an idiot â€“ he takes ordinary mindless actions and pursuits and dresses them up in all kinds of finery. This obviously makes his mindlessness even more enjoyable. Of course, I give him too much credit even suggesting that he knows what he is doing, because he does not. He is lost: completely ensconced in Woman.

Of course it's tough to make everyday life spiritual...to constantly be aware of the absolute truth contained in David Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite". Having sex as a means to spirituality: I don't know. I don't think it's a good way to experience truth.

Consider the emotions involved with the act of sex and tell me how those emotions can lead anyone to Truth?

5 - Of course pure logic can't function well without integration. If you are deluded by the appearances of the world and your self, yet you think abstractly about the nature of the universe, you're not going to get it. That's the easiest place to fail with this path of thinking. The masculine indeed does depend on the feminine in this sense. A person's whole being must be thrown into the truth, so that all that's left is the truth. How could this be possible without both principles, the feminine and masculine?

Being intuitive and finding things inspirational is only useful if you have a strong intellectual understanding of Truth. Woman can easily be intuitive, inspirational, precognitive, clairvoyant, telepathic, etc, because they havenâ€™t a mind that is anchored to anything. They can play at that stuff all they like: it will never help them evolve minds that are capable of discovering the nature of Reality. (This, by the way, isnâ€™t something women feel the need to discover, since they already feel they know it. Unwise celebrates this fact in every post.)

Sue

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:05 pm

unwise wrote:The fact that all Hindu gods are shown and described with female consorts is a metaphor for the ultimate dualistic nature of reality. Gods and enlightened men are seen with female counterparts to demonstrate the merging of the two realities.

That looks like way too dualistic and even unneeded symmetrical thinking. Very traditional and dull as well. Just following some established religious script perhaps?

Reality ultimately doesn't have any dualistic nature. Where do you get this idea from? Our consciousness creates this duality (by definition, since awareness is identity) and this way an unknown is created: Maya, mysterious, beautiful but enchanting - the female consort of the gods. From that point on one cannot avoid getting lost in this illusion but one can cut through it with the sharpest state of consciousness that is available: the enlightened mind. Only after this truth can be lived.

Real non-dualism can only be discovered by reasoning out its existence, by rationally sorting through our experiences and interpretations of them. Becoming aware of every detail of how our own consciousness works as well as how its delusions work. Any other 'experience of non-dualism' is a trick of the mind since experiencing is fundamentally dual, by its very definition, no matter how 'whole' or 'encompassing' it might feel.

It is said that the ancient gods, or rishis, who brought to the earth the Veda (the complete truth), ruled over the East as married men with fully enlightened female wives. That is the tradition.

Tradition has always tried to modify, castrate the original teachings. It needs balls to go beyond it and reach its origin.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:35 pm

Diebert wrote:

Real non-dualism can only be discovered by reasoning out its existence, by rationally sorting through our experiences and interpretations of them. Becoming aware of every detail of how our own consciousness works as well as how its delusions work. Any other 'experience of non-dualism' is a trick of the mind since experiencing is fundamentally dual, by its very definition, no matter how 'whole' or 'encompassing' it might feel.

I would earnestly say that one earnestly thinks about this very seriously on their own, rather than jump at any conclusions without actually giving it much thought.

:) Diebert.

.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:23 pm

diebert:(but this is to everyone)

Real non-dualism can only be discovered by reasoning out its existence, by rationally sorting through our experiences and interpretations of them. Becoming aware of every detail of how our own consciousness works as well as how its delusions work. Any other 'experience of non-dualism' is a trick of the mind since experiencing is fundamentally dual, by its very definition, no matter how 'whole' or 'encompassing' it might feel.

why don't you start by telling all about the consciousness...I've seen saying a lot of the same stuff over here,and what does it tell?why isn't anybody enlightening me?c'mon,c'mon...who has the balls,and open the topic:this is what enlightenment is all about,and I'm telling you!!

a trick of the mind!!why don't you tell me how belief works and what natural belief is all about!I can hardly wait...

let me upstart:
some say knowledge only is eternal,it is the eternal illusion of learning - the Ukase of learning what we already know.directly we ask ourselves "how" we induce stupidity;without this conception what is there we could not know and accomplish?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:09 pm

Unwise:

I'm full of fear and sadness and anger? Where do you get that? I am a happy, fulfilled and contented person. Why do you profess to know my traits? Where do you get this stuff? You always attack me. I think you have had a bad experience with Hindu fake-o gurus, and you are trying to make me pay for it.

I get a vibe from you. A gut level feeling...my instincts. Intuition. You don't seem like a happy, fulfilled and contented person by the way you act on these boards. I don't always attack you. I attack anyone's delusion. I haven't had a bad experience with any guru.

I have a copy here. I have most of his works. He is the foundation of my realization. It is weird that you think I'm at odds with him. He could understand what I am saying, but can you?

I'm sure he'd understand what you're saying, but I'm also sure he'd correct you by pointing out the unenlightened nature of your personality.

What is with this anger in you?

I'm angry? Oh I know what's going on. You're confusing being corrected with being scolded. No, Captain, I'm not scolding you. I'm just pointing out where you're wrong.

Even enlightened sages differ in their understanding of reality. Strange but true.

Where do you get that? How could two people that are enlightened have different understandings of reality? There is one reality, and there is one enlightenment.

You are projecting many things on me like a child. Do you think Ramana treated everyone the same? He did NOT. Some people he ignored completely - didn't even answer their questions. He most certainly treated people differently according to their understanding, sincerity, ego etc. Sages are all a little different. You ought to know this.

You're confusing things. A sage looks at all with an equal eye, although he may not speak to someone as a way of teaching them. He will still see them as himself.

We are ALL women until we are realized. Only Purusha is the true man. All other beings are women. You have now officially pissed me off with your arrogance. I will not answer any more questions from you after this post. You are ignorant and do not know who you are dealing with.

No, I'm a man and I'm not realized. Purusha isn't a true man. All beings aren't women. Some are males, some are females. Some possess the traits of the masculine and some the feminine. For someone who is supposively "in the know", you really do not seem like a man. You seem like a man that grew up without a penis...always having to disguise yourself with motorcycles and women. Although, once again, it's not like I know you personally.

I've pissed you off, though? How can a seeker piss off a guru with their arrogance? You won't answer anymore questions? Fine, it's not like I'm finding any answers in you anyway. All I find in you is bullshit. Of course I don't know who I'm dealing with...you're just a person on the internet. If this is truly making you angry though, I want you to know that I treat you the way I do for your own good. I don't think you're enlightened, and I hope that you find what you're looking for.

And, that rant at the end of your post could be true of any preacher. It is nothing new. Does it apply to Jesus?

Is Jesus our yardstick? The father is my yardstick. The rant was written by a very wise man, and you should definitely pay attention to it. The one who wrote it was definitely enlightened.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:16 pm

Sue:

Your thinking on this matter is very sloppy. The truthful mind is the opposite of the feminine mind. I think you know this, but you are confusing the spontaneity of the philosopher with the mindless spontaneity of Woman. The philosopher rips out by the roots all that is feminine in him and by doing so develops a mind that is closer to the Infinite.

Perhaps it is sloppy. But then again, so is talking about masculinity/femininity in the first place.

Consider the emotions involved with the act of sex and tell me how those emotions can lead anyone to Truth?

Like I said, I have no idea.

Being intuitive and finding things inspirational is only useful if you have a strong intellectual understanding of Truth. Woman can easily be intuitive, inspirational, precognitive, clairvoyant, telepathic, etc, because they havenâ€™t a mind that is anchored to anything. They can play at that stuff all they like: it will never help them evolve minds that are capable of discovering the nature of Reality.

Agreed. I'm saying that a philosopher's "feminine side" must be there for a perfect understanding of truth. He must both feel and know...think and act...etc...out of the truth. Perhaps I need to think about this some more, to clarify my thoughts.

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:51 am

Real non-dualism can only be discovered by reasoning out its existence, by rationally sorting through our experiences and interpretations of them. Becoming aware of every detail of how our own consciousness works as well as how its delusions work. Any other 'experience of non-dualism' is a trick of the mind since experiencing is fundamentally dual, by its very definition, no matter how 'whole' or 'encompassing' it might feel.

Diebert,

Hi.

Non-dualism "is," as a result of delusion:

Delusion being the counter-thought.

As self-awareness increases, "reasoning through" experience decreases.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:24 am

bert wrote: why don't you start by telling all about the consciousness...

Didn't we try to talk before? It wasn't a success, even the basics couldn't get covered in any meaningful way. To be honest I don't think this forum, or its purpose is something for you right now. Just an observation from my side.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:37 am

R. Steven Coyle wrote:As self-awareness increases, "reasoning through" experience decreases.

What do you mean with a "reasoning through" experience?

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:41 am

I mean, that I shake my hips and snap my fingers.

"True emptiness" doesn't require "reasoning through."

Reasoning through something isn't emptiness.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:41 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
bert wrote: why don't you start by telling all about the consciousness...
Didn't we try to talk before? It wasn't a success, even the basics couldn't get covered in any meaningful way. To be honest I don't think this forum, or its purpose is something for you right now. Just an observation from my side.

and suddenly there is space of purpose.

bye

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:32 am

Scott wrote:

I think you should also check out Swami Sivananda's writings at http://www.divinelifesociety.org ...all of these things I'm telling you have at least helped me realize that I'm a moron when it comes to this stuff. Yet, I'm smart enough to realize I'm a moron about it...where you, on the other hand, think you're the brightest bulb in the box when you're not even screwed into the socket.

I checked out that website Scott.

Todays "Sivinanda Daily reading" was:

Saturday, June 10, 2006

WORSHIP

One can realise God through worship of murti (or idol). The worship of the Lord in saguna (concrete) form is a great aid for vedantic realisation also, and for the realisation of the Lord in His all-pervading, formless aspect. The worship of the murti is very essential for the purpose of concentration and meditation in the beginning......blah, blah, blah

What do you get out of this stuff Scott? Is there anything more feminine than worship?

You claimed that it helped you realize you were a moron - but maybe its just helping you to replace one form of moronic conditioning with another form of moronic conditioning?

However, the website is quite stylish though. Very pretty pictures and nice sanskrit words.

Ah, but wait, just before I submitted this a decided to read a bit further.

Practical Aspect of Philosophy

by Swami Sivananda

Proper understanding of Vedanta and its principles, and practice of Vedanta in daily life is sure to bring peace, solace and happiness to a world distracted by war, communal strife, petty quarrels and religious fights.

Atman the Self is the Ultimate Reality. It is the ultimate philosophical principle. It is the substratum for everything. It is the only living truth. It is the Brahman of the Upanishads. It is the Omkara of the Vedas. It is the foundation of society. It is the Support of this world. It is the prop of this body and Prana. It is the Impersonal Absolute.

Supreme Peace or Parama Santi is the quest of your life. Peace, Moksha and Immortality are convertible terms (Paryaya Sabdas). Mental reaction to pleasure and pain will cease when you attain this state. All kinds of likes and dislikes (Raga-Dvesha) will vanish in toto, when you realise this state of absolute quietude.

He who attains Knowledge of the Self is absolutely free from all desires because he knows that everything is in himself, and that there is nothing outside of himself to continue to desire. Aptakamasya ka spriha - What can he desire who has everything? Brahman is Paripurna (All-full), Nirapeksha (self-contained). How can desire arise in the mind of one who has realised the Self, who beholds the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self?

You have been given the key to unlock many of the secrets of life. That key is meditation. Meditate regularly in the morning between 4 and 6 and attain eternal bliss and immortality.

Rigorous self-discipline and regular meditation will help you to fix your mind completely on the Eternal.

Have self-confidence. Develop independent judgment. Cultivate the indomitable will. Practise self-control and self-mastery. You cannot attain freedom or peace without self-control.

The man who is bitten by the serpent of ignorance will be cured by the Garuda Mantra called Jnana or Knowledge of Brahman.
An ounce of spiritual experience is better than tons of theories, and study of spiritual books. A single glimpse of Brahman or the Immortal Soul will bestow on you illumination and remove the worldly intoxication of pride, delusion, pain and grief. Spiritual vision or Atmanubhava will stand out like a beacon light for you.
Learn the principles of Divine Life and apply them to daily conduct in life. Become practical men in the spiritual path.

The possession of Siddhis never brings one nearer to God. The development of psychic faculties does not itself imply any real spiritual progress. They tempt the aspirant and bring about his downfall.

The attainment of cosmic consciousness is permanent in realised souls. It is like a glimpse in the beginning. Through steady meditation it becomes permanent or natural.

The external world is the world of objects. The internal subjective world is the world of images created by the mind. Raga-Dvesha (likes and dislikes or attraction and repulsion) are not in the external objects of the senses. They dwell in the mind and in the internal images. Stop the wandering mind in the objective world through Trataka, Japa, Upasana, Pranayama. In the subjective world, wage a war against the image-producing mind either by Raja Yogic method of Chitta-Vritti-Nirodha (stopping all mental modifications) or the method of self-analysis and enquiry, the method of Jnana Yogins.

The seed of this body is mind. There are two seeds for this mind, viz., vibration of Prana and Vasana. If Prana is controlled, the mind can be controlled. If Vasanas are eradicated through discrimination, Vichara, dispassion and meditation, the mind will be annihilated.

The neem leaves are bitter when you are in normal health, but if you taste them when you are bitten by a cobra, they are sweet. Bitterness or sweetness does not lie in the leaves, but it lies in the subject. They are created by the mind. It is the mind that gives the qualities, shape, taste, etc., to the objects. Control this mind. Rise above this mind and be happy for ever.

A doctor thinks that the advocate is happy. The advocate thinks that the businessman is happier. The businessman thinks that the judge is happier. The judge thinks that the professor is more happy. This is an illusion. This is a trick of the mind. No one is happy in this world. Real happiness can be had in oneâ€™s own Atman alone. The Jivanmukta alone who has realised the Self is ever happy. Therefore attain Self-realisation and be ever happy.

To be timid is the greatest sin. To be selfish is the greatest offence. To identify oneself with the body is the greatest crime. To forget oneâ€™s own Atman is the greatest sin. Therefore destroy timidity and selfishness. Abandon identification with the body and remember always your essential divine nature.

That which elevates you is virtue (Dharma), that which pulls you down is vice (Adharma) or sin; that which takes you to the goal is virtue, that which makes you a worldly man is sin; that which helps you to attain Godhead is virtue, that which hurls you down in the dark abyss of ignorance is sin; that which gives you illumination is virtue, that which causes intoxication is sin; that which purifies your heart is virtue, that which taints your heart is sin; that which gives you peace, joy, satisfaction, exhilaration, expansion of heart is virtue, that which brings restlessness, dissatisfaction, depression and contraction of heart is vice. Therefore practise Dharma. From Dharma knowledge arises.

The ears hear sounds through the intelligence of Atman or the Self. The eyes perceive the objects through the intelligence of Atman. The tongue tastes objects through the intelligence of Atman. Atman is the director of the five senses of knowledge. Atman is the Ear of ears, Tongue of tongues. Atman is the potent magnet. If you know the hidden, all-powerful, all-wise director, if you have direct intuitive perception of this Atman by the practice of meditation, you will cross the ocean of Samsara, you will attain immortality, eternal bliss and everlasting Peace.
Within you is the hidden God. Within you is the Immortal Soul. Within you is the inexhaustible spiritual treasure. Within you is the fount of joy and happiness. Within you is the ocean of bliss. Look within for this happiness, which you have sought in vain in the perishable sensual objects. Rest peacefully in your own Atman and drink the nectar of immortality.

Just as a man who does not know the place of a hidden treasure, is not able to find it even though he passes over it several times daily, so also you are not able to find out Brahman or the Immortal Self though you daily enter into Him in deep sleep. If ignorance is destroyed through Knowledge, you will have direct cognition of the supreme Tattva.

The world has vanished for a Jivanmukta or a liberated sage. He beholds Brahman or the pure Self everywhere. Even if the world comes back again, he is not deluded by it, just as the man is not deluded by the mirage or rope-snake after he has known fully well that it is only mirage or rope-snake. Even if the world comes back again for him, it is no longer the same world of pairs of opposites, troubles, tribulations, pains and sorrows, it is not the prison of miseries and afflictions. The world of troubles and sorrows has changed into Satchidananda, existence, knowledge and bliss Absolute. All barriers, all distinctions, all differences, all dualities, all water-tight compartments are destroyed by the vision of one all-pervading Soul or Atman. He has cosmic vision. He experiences always self-delight and Self-knowledge. He rejoices always in his own Self. Nothing can disturb him, as he is established in his own Self. His state is indescribable.

Do you believe in attaining an immortal cosmic consciousness scott?

I sure as hell would prefer it over the bleak picture that the QRS paints.

Considering the present habits I am in now, I would find it very difficult to get to bed early and to get up for 4am-6am meditation.

I'm sure, even if it doesnt lead to the happiness and bliss of Cosmic consciousness, that it would at least be a good habit to become accustomed to - at least biologically.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:31 am

Cory,

I checked out that website Scott.

Cool, glad to see people here actually read my posts.

Todays "Sivinanda Daily reading" was:

Saturday, June 10, 2006

WORSHIP

One can realise God through worship of murti (or idol). The worship of the Lord in saguna (concrete) form is a great aid for vedantic realisation also, and for the realisation of the Lord in His all-pervading, formless aspect. The worship of the murti is very essential for the purpose of concentration and meditation in the beginning......blah, blah, blah

What do you get out of this stuff Scott? Is there anything more feminine than worship?

I think it's along the same lines as reasoning...a means to an end, which is the realization of truth. Raja yogis use a mantra to bring the mind to one-pointedness, which is dropped so that there's room in the mind for truth to enter. Jnanis use enquiry and Vedanta to destroy illusions and bring the mind to the truth. Here, we use logic. But, I think to become perfectly enlightened, a combination of all different ways needs to take place. There has to be a FULL change of perception, on the physical/mental/emotional/spiritual/whatever else there is...levels. Does that make sense? To be perfectly enlightened, no stone is left unturned.

It may seem stupid to sit still and meditate on Om, go read Nisargadatta Maharaj, sing songs to God, then come on here and talk about absolute truth reached by logic. I think they're all definitely connected, though. It's all about surrendering yourself to the absolute. I could explain more what I mean, in more detail, if you want.

You claimed that it helped you realize you were a moron - but maybe its just helping you to replace one form of moronic conditioning with another form of moronic conditioning?

Maybe it is. So far I've been treating this all as a science, because truthfully, I don't know if this path leads anywhere. Perhaps it's just an endless sadhana, and perfect enlightenment or realization of the Self or knowing God is all just a myth. Maybe there is no such thing as Dharmameghasamadhi. I've given myself up to become a tester of these systems, because I'm sick of hearing people say things about this and not knowing if they're just deluding themselves or if they're actually speaking the truth. I do it for people like me, who really want to know and don't want to be fooled.

However, the website is quite stylish though. Very pretty pictures and nice sanskrit words.

I think it's a good thing it's attractive. I don't like looking at websites that are all jacked-up. It shows that the people who put it together don't care enough about it, and what would that say about the words contained within the website? Probably that the person who wrote it doesn't care enough about what they're writing about. It's the same as if someone doesn't make an effort to make sense, here on the forums. Might as well just skim over it, because they probably don't have anything worthwhile to say.

Do you believe in attaining an immortal cosmic consciousness scott?

I think it is perfect enlightenment.

I sure as hell would prefer it over the bleak picture that the QRS paints.

What's preferrable about it? What's different between cosmic consciousness and perfect enlightenment?

Considering the present habits I am in now, I would find it very difficult to get to bed early and to get up for 4am-6am meditation.

I don't meditate for 2 hours. There are always different recommendations as to what to do. I'm following the advice of an internet yogi, who is at http://www.aypsite.org . In that system, I meditate twice a day for 20 minutes. The meditation recommended there is hearing "I am" or "Ayam" repeated in your mind, and coming back to it when your mind drifts. Even if there is no perfect enlightenment or cosmic consciousness, at least this gives my mind some rest time in my busy days. I've found that it helps me think clearly. It certainly helps stupid people learn how to discriminate: "This is not me listening to the sound of 'ayam' ". If you do it, you'll realize why I think it's a good addition to the thinking on this forum. It brings the whole person into logic, instead of them just conceptualizing in a compartment of their mind. While compartmentalizing your logic, you can still figure out absolute truth...but to live in that wisdom takes....not compartmentalizing your reasonings.

Like they say a lot, "reading books doesn't get you it, only practice does." So reading my ideas on this won't get you understanding. Actually trying meditation will. I suggest if you don't like meditation too much, just do it for 5 minutes whenever in your day. Then consider what I'm saying.

I'm sure, even if it doesnt lead to the happiness and bliss of Cosmic consciousness, that it would at least be a good habit to become accustomed to - at least biologically.

I thought about it when I first realized what I had to do in order to become perfectly enlightened. I was thinking, "Well, why sit there and zone out when I can just think about the truth?" I thought meditation was for people who are on a low level. Why meditate? Because a fire can't extinguish itself...that's why. An ego can't realize it's a delusion. I kept running into the glass door and falling over backwards. I kept thinking I was understanding the truth, then seeing that I'd go live a deluded life. I'd get pissed off at things...totally stuck in delusion. Still a stupid ego. Still not living the truth I'd reasoned out.

I don't know about happiness, bliss, cosmic consciousness...but I do know that this is necessary for me to do in order to reflect the truth.

Do you get where I'm coming from, Cory?

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:06 am

R. Steven Coyle wrote:I mean, that I shake my hips and snap my fingers.

"True emptiness" doesn't require "reasoning through."

Reasoning through something isn't emptiness.

There are so many things that aren't emptiness.

What is in your view the relation between reason and consciousness or self-awareness?

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:11 am

sschaula wrote: Cool, glad to see people here actually read my posts.

Don't interpret the lack of response as disinterest! The best material doesn't need any comment anyway, how to assault or complement it? Of course the same goes for the worst...

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:14 am

What is in your view the relation between reason and consciousness or self-awareness?

Reason is always a matter of the ego.

Emptiness is union with Tao.