Well I undestand the meaning of Sat Vam, but Sang?
On 20 Aug, 18:17, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> You made me feel like I was listening to someone in Satsang, Lee !
> Thank you very much.
>
> On Aug 20, 10:13 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Indeed I make you right Vam. You can only ever own yourSelf, heh and
> > even then it's only rented from Him, and even then you only think it
> > is rented from Him! Ikonkar and all that wot wot!
>
> > On 20 Aug, 18:10, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Kidding, Lee !
>
> > > In a way, what we'd discussed did relate to ' ownership ' issue of
> > > this thread. But may not seen as such, by the mainstream.
>
> > > Conclusion : There is nothing other than our Self, for us to own. We
> > > can only own something which is other than ourself.
>
> > > On Aug 20, 9:55 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Bwahahahah, who stop dwelling on what Vam Huh Huh? ;¬)
>
> > > > On 20 Aug, 17:50, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Pat, my friend, it gives me goosebumps, merely to know that there is
> > > > > someone who sees this perfect sense !
>
> > > > > This is where, and only where, one knows of the miraculous nature ( of
> > > > > the worlds ) of Maya, when one sees that it never was. Untill then,
> > > > > there is nothing illusory about Maya. Its effects affect us
> > > > > overwhelmingly, overpower our self completely, forever pre - seeding
> > > > > us with I - me - mine - want - satisfaction - desire - fulfilment -
> > > > > misery - joy - knowledge - ignorance ... and all the cyclic phenomena
> > > > > of gross, subtle and causal spaces, most of which we are not even
> > > > > aware of ( ever ).
>
> > > > > Satyam Gyanam Anantam Brahman ... Existence Knowledge Infinite
> > > > > Brahman. IT has nothing to do with these worlds of endless finites,
> > > > > which is ours, in our minds.
>
> > > > > We should stop dwelling on this topic, lest the moderators swoop down
> > > > > upon us, their shrill whistle creating pandemonium all about us !
>
> > > > > Back to us, Pat, did you change your mobile ? I tried calling you up
> > > > > a couple of times but couln't connect.
>
> > > > > On Aug 20, 8:52 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 19 Aug, 17:53, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Thoughts on ' next life ' are rich grounds for speculation,
> > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > presented as ' this ' is what one believes, thinks or supposes.
>
> > > > > > > Knowers, in Hindu and Buddhist tradition, announce that it is
> > > > > > > like the
> > > > > > > dream state of being, which compares well in terms of body
> > > > > > > possession
> > > > > > > and identity. In the dream state, one is without body rootedness
> > > > > > > ; in
> > > > > > > ' next life,' we are without the body itself.
>
> > > > > > > The picture then, of next life, is ego - desire - want - idea of
> > > > > > > oneself - remorse - joy - finite knowledge flashes - sensuous
> > > > > > > impressions in oneself, of others ... in short, dreams become
> > > > > > > real,
> > > > > > > like much of the same existential experience and being in this
> > > > > > > life,
> > > > > > > but now without the opportunity to act and experience and learn
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > realise and become free of it all while being on - the - job !
>
> > > > > > > Indeed, the summum bono : I've done all there was to be done,
> > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > all there was to know, been all there was to be ... and I desire
> > > > > > > none
> > > > > > > of it all, transcend all ! There is no ' next life ' for such,
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > coming or going, no paths or destinations, no ( finite ) beings or
> > > > > > > experiences or relationships to be identified with, no bondage or
> > > > > > > liberation. He is One.
>
> > > > > > > Maya is real all the way ... except with One that knows its
> > > > > > > unreality
> > > > > > > and transcends it
>
> > > > > > Thus Maya is an all-too-willing servant that quickly turns the
> > > > > > tables
> > > > > > and becomes one's master; but NEVER becoming master of one who knows
> > > > > > they are One. This makes perfect sense in that One simply cannot
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > a master. ;-)
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 19, 8:21 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 19 Aug, 14:40, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I would agree, but rather than say "rather than
> > > > > > > > > ours" I would say including ours, as I believe that part of
> > > > > > > > > me that
> > > > > > > > > is god includes all of me, and, I AM god, meaning, I include
> > > > > > > > > all of
> > > > > > > > > god. On a good day, I hold this in my awareness.
>
> > > > > > > > I WOULD agree, but I'm puzzled as 'that part of me that is
> > > > > > > > God'
> > > > > > > > implies there are (or may be) parts of you that are not God,
> > > > > > > > and, for
> > > > > > > > me, that implies a partner for God and/or something that is
> > > > > > > > 'other'
> > > > > > > > with respect TO God, and THAT borders on idolatry, for me. Of
> > > > > > > > course,
> > > > > > > > your statement continued "that part of me that is God includes
> > > > > > > > all of
> > > > > > > > me" which, then, doesn't conflict and becomes a difficult
> > > > > > > > statement to
> > > > > > > > grasp. I hope this is a good day, then. ;-)
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 9:29 am, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 19 Aug, 13:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What I am trying to say, is because we take our
> > > > > > > > > > > experience with us,
> > > > > > > > > > > after the death of our bodies, we take our relationships
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > us...relationships to others, to things, to all of our
> > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > The quality of our relationships is really the basis or
> > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > "choices". How we choose to relate to our experience
> > > > > > > > > > > defines our
> > > > > > > > > > > being.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, but there's a good chance that we might find out
> > > > > > > > > > that 'our'
> > > > > > > > > > thoughts aren't really ours (another false ownership) but
> > > > > > > > > > God's
> > > > > > > > > > thoughts being thought THROUGH the vehicle we call our
> > > > > > > > > > 'self'.
> > > > > > > > > > Equally, our experiences are the experiences of the One,
> > > > > > > > > > rather than
> > > > > > > > > > ours. This kind of understanding may well bring one to a
> > > > > > > > > > kind of
> > > > > > > > > > Nirvana, in that one will discover the true nature of self
> > > > > > > > > > as Self.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 8:15 am, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Aug, 13:04, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This brings to mind one of my favorite bits from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > series Red
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwarf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZqjLa2X3L8
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That cat knew what's what.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that in unity, connection with all others or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects, is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "being" one with experience. In the end, we do take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it all with us,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or at least, as much of it as is real, and it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > etched in our soul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for all eternity...and that is every one of our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moments in this life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I'll go along with that. Unfortunately, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > can't view YouTube
> > > > > > > > > > > > at work (and I still don't have a connection at home).
> > > > > > > > > > > > What was the
> > > > > > > > > > > > clip?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 7:52 am, Pat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 July, 18:02, frantheman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the course of the recent discussion here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerning the reposting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Minds Eye contributions in other internet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fora, the question of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copyright arose. It got me to thinking about the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea of intellectual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership and the idea of possession in general.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have all seen the Westerns in which the Native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Americans sold away
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > title to land for nothing, or pittances because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the white man's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concept of "owning" land was incomprehensible to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. Throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > history, many of those whom we regard as great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thinkers have been very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical of the benefits of possessions and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owning things. Indeed, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controversy centred on the absolute poverty of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christ raged throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the medieval Christian Church and completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > split the Franciscan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Franciscans#Renewed_controversy_on_the_question_of_poverty).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context, it is perhaps interesting to note that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the all-time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > heroes here on Minds Eye, William of Occam, was a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proponent of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle of absolute poverty and lost his job as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > English Franciscan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provincial and was excommunicated as a result.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I spent almost a decade as a Dominican
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > friar, during which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I took a "vow of poverty." I don't want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go into a discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the extent to which Catholic monks actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > live according to this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vow here, personally, I always found it to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expression of an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attitude of freedom from a dictatorship of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "things." It may also have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left an indelible mark on me in that in almost a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarter of a century
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since leaving the order I have been pretty bad at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > earning,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accumulating and retaining material wealth and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possessions. During my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > life I have gone through a number of pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radical changes, which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have often involved
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
