Comment below: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in this post. > > But, NO ONE has such skills. > > All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest folks > possible, and none of them ever produced anything in text that would, > you know, pick one's soul up like a crying toddler and, just with a > whisper or two to the intellect, free one FOREVER. > > Not that they didn't try. Not that scholars were duffers. The best > minds tried. Minds that are so stellar. Minds way beyond my ken. > All have failed to produce a book that "gets you there in one reading." > > I believe in saturation now -- a simple running of concepts over and > over again is found to breed, grow, do-whatever-is-needed, for a brain > to finally have what it PHYSICALLY takes to have the clarity about > identification that I believe I have. I'm not talking about me being > enlightened and having pure-knowledge to hand down from on high. I'm > not talking about having passed an IQ test. I am not touting > superiority, but as I've pointed out, NO ONE can claim to "have the > words that cut to the chase." I wish I could say words with that > transformative power, but NO ONE has ever been able to "say THAT," and > be successful. > > Like everyone here, I am a very long time thinker, but I didn't get > what I'm trying to communicate about identification after decades of > spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical and financial commitment to > this "work." Flat out didn't get it. > > You'd think I would have gotten it. Should have. Didn't. 29 years > in the chair, 2,000 pujas, lifestyle dedication ..... nada. > > What happened, methinks, is that my whole spirituality was spread out > over many issues. Most of my time was spent on many things instead of > the "one truth." On my third reading of Ramana Maharshi's "Talks," > something clicked. It took that long!!!! And if you've read "Talks," > you know that at first it comes off as Ramana saying the exact same > thing to everyone all the time. But I didn't even hear what he was > saying for the first two readings. It's there plain as day in his > words, but I didn't have the brain to read them properly. Simple as that. > > I've tried to communicate this here, but I've failed miserably -- or, > better said, I've discovered yet again, gotten clear about it yet > again, that the intellect is a very weak tool when it comes to > "informing" a mind -- better said: growing a mind. > > Saturation. Priceless. > > Child psychology teaches that certain cognitions are not available to > a child until the brain has grown "enough" to "get it." A child's > brain will grab at a paper doll instead of a $100 bill, believe that a > tall skinny glass has more water than a shorter but much larger glass, > not be able to pick a square out from amongst circles, etc. > > Not so hard to think that maybe an adult has to grow a brain that can > tell the difference between silence and noise. > > It's not hypnosis, not brainwashing, not delusion -- saturation is > merely "watering the mind" until a clarity flower grows. > > Remember when we were first told that "life is bliss," "you can > contact God," "one can achieve a thoughtless state," "dreams are > astral traveling," "Guru Dev is divine," or any of the thousand others > "cult statements" we've all had to encounter "for the first time?" We > didn't know what the words meant -- not like we know now, right? > > We all had to grow neuron-connectivity in order to PHYSICALLY EMBODY > what we actually meant when we said these phrases to ourselves and > others. The bones had to be fleshed out. Neurons had to grow to form > a faithful "reproduction of the outside" inside. > > No one, upon first hearing that "life is bliss" could be expected to > instantly know all the ramifications of believing such a statement. > In fact, the belief itself must be grown first, then "tried out" again > and again to see what really is "going on" when one has the brain > produce such activities. It takes thousands of iterations before one > can "feel the heft of the belief" inside one's mind. > > From age 25 to 59, I was your typical geekazoid, couch potato, no > exercise, weakling. Oh, I could get the groceries into the house, > pick up the kids in my arms, pretend to be Superman to toddlers, and I > was thinking "I'm okay. Yeah, I could do a bit more, but I'm not in > "bad" shape." > > But I was a joke. > > Now, after three years of vigorous exercise daily for 30 minutes, I'm > in shape. And like the heft of a saturation born process, my muscles > "hang heavily" from my shoulders. Three years it took, but now I can > just feel the strength and power draping my bones. First time in my > life feeling of fitness. Did me wonders psychologically. > > That's what I'm talking about when I say "saturation." > > Ramana's words just kept exercising my neurons until I could finally > pick up the barbells he had in his gym. Something like that. > > I wish I could just say, read my posts, but it's really a case of read > my posts a thousand times, or better yet, read Ramana three times. > > Boy does this sound like cult oogabooga or what? Another promise by > another deluded proselyte. > > To me, any thought is an action of the body, and paying attention to > it instead of EVERYTHING/NONTHING is the biting of the apple. > > Sin is: not paying attention to silence. TM gets the mind to pay > attention to the state of least excitation, but that's still an action > of the body -- a fitting symbol in that it is as close as we can get > to embodying silence, but it's still noise. The white stuff in > chicken shit is more chicken shit. Amness is pure white. See? TM > says, "hang out with amness, and the next thing you know, you'll > toggle onto 'true silence, the Absolute." One goes from saint to > enlightened saint. > > Ramana says the mind must "die." That means it loses its taste for > noise. The noise will still be there if the body still lives, but the > mind has no thirst for anything that can spring forth from amness. > That's a whole nother thingy indeed from "merely transcending most > noise and listening to one pure note of OMMMMMMMM." > > I posted earlier about identifying with raindrops coursing down a > window pane -- BEING a drop, wanting fulfillment for it. That's an > act of placing one's attention on an inner embodiment -- an > ultraspecific activity of the brain, a slight buzzing. Buzz equals > drop. For however long, one incarnates as that buzz. > > When a dog pisses on a hydrant he thinks he leaves HIMSELF on it. He > identifies with his piss. His buzz is piss. > > Ramana says any attending to any buzz is a hell entered as surely as > one's first step towards a mirage in the desert is progress towards doom. > > Where is the value of anything buzzy when the vastness beyond amness > is being ignored? > > Only when the vastness is known does the buzzing turn sacred, > precious, small, rare -- Hiranyagarbha the gem, the drop of nectar in > the vastness of the inconceivable. > > To the beginner, amness is infinite. When one is transcending "most > noise" one enters a field of all possibilities. But it's a lie. > Amness cannot embody non-amness. > > Ramana and Nisargadatta are miffed if anyone has the temerity to > suggest they are bodies/minds, conglomerations of noise. "What proof > do you have for such slander?" they'd say. > > Remember: the great minds painted those giant Asian landscapes with > the wandering monk. They didn't leave out the monk. The mind, the > body, they're allowed, but they are almost insignificant in the > vastness of creation (amness,) and by analog, the paintings > additionally refer to the Absolute's "wilderness" and the mere > wandering monkishness of amness. > > "First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is," > and to me, the "there is no mountain" part of the song has to be > known, before the mountain can be properly entertained. Turq, I'm > telling you that my credo is the same as yours, but I think that > Ramana "got to me" about silence beyond amness having to be "owned" > before one can relish a true enjoyment of relativity. Ask yourself as > a musician what is prevented if one is not allowed to use silence -- > noise is only made into music if silence is added. > > Now, just because I have a saturated belief about the above, doesn't > mean I've stopped slurping noise. All I'm saying is that I have a > QUIETER definition for silence than "buzzing amness." > > This is why Ramana talks about self inquiry instead of "getting > quieter." The quietest one can get is the noise of amness. TM can > get you to "there." That's not quiet enough. Hanging out there has > great benefits, but freedom from noise addiction is not a gimme. > > Asking "Who am I?" is looking for the ego. The ego is looking for the > ego. Only one ego, so the ego can't find another ego. > > What non-happens is that the brain's identificational process is > stymied by presenting it with a task it cannot do. One hand clapping > time. Zen koan time. > > IT IS THAT MUTED EGO THAT IS QUIETER THEN AMNESS. The dissolved ego > of amness is pure, but still an illusion. The "muted, stymied ego" is > when the process of identification with amness momentarily ceases. > > When the ego pauses in consternation, identification is not attaching > to anything -- it's in neutral. The Absolute is being > "attended".....not amness, not beingness, not isness, not concepts, > feelings, memories, dogmas, conclusions, and on and on. Do that and > see what your neurons do in response. > > Ask, "Who am I?" AND GUESS WHAT? > > GUESS WHAT? > > The true answer is given. > > Ask the question a zillion times -- or more if that's what it takes. > Saturate with that answer that ALWAYS COMES INSTANTLY. > > Water yer brain with the source of amness. > > If you ask any question at all of amness, it will give you an endless > supply of answeringness, but ask the Absolute any question, and it > will always give the same one truth that answers all questions, (and > the non-answers to all unasked questions too, and hell, toss in all > the questions that cannot be asked.) Amness is sooooooo small when it > puffs itself up with the smug knowledge that it contains every THING. > > So, Turq, play with the answeringness, drink the life in the cafe, and > sing of its power. > > First there is singing, then there is no song, then there is. > > I hear the song you're singing, and I'm still practicing on the > non-song you also celebrate, but until I don't hear the song clearly > and forever, I'm not made happy by the fact that the singing seems to > be "independent-of-silencely" singing -- even if it is forever. > > Ok, now it's your turn to make the next word balloon -- in this care tune. > > Edg **snip to end** Edg, lovely stuff said and almost entirely congruent with my own experience (and so, not surprisingly, my reactive accolade). For me it was Nisargadatta that provided the tipping point, even though I had read and resonated with Ramana Maharshi prior. For some reason Ramana's insistence on the question, "Who Am I?" frustrated me as much as it tantalized me with its obviousness. Nisargadatta's affirmative "I Am", however, just seemed to line up the tumblers; the door swung open and everything that I'd heard and learned from Maharishi (and all the other teachers I'd been drawn to) finally lined up as well. It all came together (as it had always been). Funnily enough, even though Maharishi has always talked about the Self and Being, his language (in my mind, at least) always seemed to create a division between "me" and "the Self". Once I reached whatever saturation point was necessary to realize that what was always there was all I needed to put attention on, the "change" was enormous. It's a great sandbox to play in and there are some pretty cool kids making some fine sand castles here, too. I like the ones you scrape together quite a lot. Thanks. Marek
