From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bronte Baxter
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:32 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain
Realization
Christ said I and the Father are One where
--- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bronte Baxter
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:32 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that
a *Me* can Gain
Realization
is that a *Me* can Gain
Realization
Christ said I and the Father are One where is the two in that?
They are one but they are also two, as a branch can say I am the tree and
still be a branch. You can experience being one with the Infinite yet an
individual at the same time.
And I
, September 22, 2007 7:32 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that
a *Me* can Gain
Realization
Christ said I and the Father are One where is the
two in that?
They are one but they are also two, as a branch can
say I
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that
a *Me* can Gain
Realization
Christ said I and the Father are One where is the
two in that?
They are one but they are also two, as a branch can
say I am the tree and
still be a branch. You can experience being one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life time
but the master has to be
enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it is
essencial to be working
one to one. The Guru is the light,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life
time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then
from the opinion of my
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life
time but the master has to be
Comment:
Personally, I get the feeling that the vast maj-
ority of gurus who claim that their followers
need them to get enlightened in reality need
their followers far more than the followers need
them. If the followers weren't there hanging off
every word and paying the bills, these gurus
would
--Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!.
The statement, There's only the One is a true statement, but it's
incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is saying that. The Guru
doesn't have a bodyhe is a body/mind as an individual as
opposed to other individuals, in the relative sense.
A
I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of the snake and string it
clears it up-
The significant thing is a process of ilimination for what is transcient and
what is eternal.
All that which is transcient has a reality to it but short lived and therefore
no reality so a
paradox
Ron, unfortuanately you're wasting your breath on
these mala covered samsarins who insist on
individuality and can not recognize the function of
the ego in this belief that somehow realization of
That includes individuality. Poor deluded bhogis. By
the way, I'm not saying this, so there.
---
---You're confusing unreal with non-existent. Relative existence
(i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are
unreal, but the relative things, people, etc; are not non-
existent. They exist, but not as agreed upon by those ignorant of
the Self.
Your Guru still exists,
---Excuse me: Ramana's Enlightenment day was 7-17-1896.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---You're confusing unreal with non-existent. Relative
existence
(i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are
unreal, but the relative things,
Well again, the honesty of it for me is that there is still further to go, and
therefore the
parts not known by direct experience are accepted in faith, with the
confirmation of my
intuition
That being the case, what I have heard is it is inevitable that all come to
this Being-
My interpretaion of the writting here is it is sincere, respectfull but it is
all about that
paradox where yes it is real even though it is relative but it is not real as
well
Great that you are reading from Ramana- My Guru would say you can never go
wrong with
Ramana, but no one is going to
The discussion has been on no me. My experience, and interpretation
of it, my take, is that there is no volitional I. There is
apparatus that does stuff, here, now, but it all happens as innocently
as thoughts come.
The discussion has not dwelt (as far as I can seeĀan I have not read
all the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well again, the honesty of it for me is that there is still
further to go, and therefore the
parts not known by direct experience are accepted in faith, with
the confirmation of my
intuition
That being the case, what I
--Nope, you're wrong. There is an I after realization but it's not
the delusional I as before.
Response: what happens to that I when you die? ( drop the body?)- and what
happens to
the eternal Being?
By process of illimination- whatever is left after everything else is gone-
this is not
Christ said I and the Father are One where is the two in that?
They are one but they are also two, as a branch can say I am the tree and
still be a branch. You can experience being one with the Infinite yet an
individual at the same time.
-
I am not enlightened and can not say from direct experience - I can only pass
along what
3 people here say in my path- then again, the honesty of the situation is
unless it is
known from direct experience, then it is a belief system- so you have my
beliefs
presented.
I will let you know
Ron wrote:
I am not enlightened and can not say from direct experience - I can only pass
along what 3 people here say in my path- then again, the honesty of the
situation is unless it is known from direct experience, then it is a belief
system- so you have my beliefs presented.
--- tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--I disagree. The I after the illusory I
vanishes and refers to
something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind
that others engage
with.
You have to distinguish here between a linguistic
convention that is used in conversation and a
--Nope, you're wrong. There is an I after realization but it's not
the delusional I as before. The referent is the body/mind, even
though there's no inner core of a false identity.; and this is not
only notational! The new individual is the I, and we can show that
this new entity is not only
Comment below:
--- tanhlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Below, you ask if I is the individual. Depends
upon how you
define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of
misidentification,
or b. the individual who remains after the
ignorance of
misidentification is gone, and who STILL may
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- tanhlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Below, you ask if I is the individual. Depends
upon how you
define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of
misidentification,
or b. the individual who remains after the
For Now, I am having my fun. I have told my Guru what I am up to. I am speaking
from my
own experiences as well which I have the opinion have an effect to move one
faster in the
path, and the reason I attirbute is because of working directly with the living
guru- one to
one.
By comparison,
Well Peter , your comments look quite correct here, and those in my path, even
the ones
in the midst of the journey, would recognize this, I think
It has it's own characteristics, sometimes people speak of truth in a
complicated way but
it is the same truth regardless- so then maybe those who
--I disagree. The I after the illusory I vanishes and refers to
something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind that others engage
with. The idea that everything vanishes is the Neo-Advaitin trap of
delusion. I can't believe anybody would fall for it. Go back to
MMY's SBAL: Brahman has
When the body, mind and conditionings are gone, there is still something left,
and this is
what is known by the enlightened, and this is not transcient, all the other
stuff is.
If the enlightened when using the word I are referring to this eternal IS,
that is One
thing, if one is using I'
--Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the me = I; the
notion of a delusional self associated with the mind as an identity
separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake that actually is
a rope. The snake doesn't exist in itself, therefore the I or me
in this sense can't get
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the me = I; the
notion of a delusional self associated with the mind as an identity
separate from Pure Consciousness.
Hridaya puri:I suppose getting the definitions matching
qntmpkt wrote: Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the
me = I; the notion of a delusional self associated with the mind
as an identity separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake
that actually is a rope. The snake doesn't exist in itself,
therefore the I or me in this sense
Well said (written), Edg. Particularly valuable to me was the noise
that comes with (and can't be separated from) the train
metaphor/analogy; that is very fine. Thanks.
Marek
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qntmpkt wrote: Thanks, this is quite
This is a very complicated post - my opinion is it serves to get the mind
engaged- where
as enlightenment is very simple- the me falls away, then there only IS
They say that then it was known that there never was a me, it was Maya- ego
is the
maya- so no cosmic ego's in my path
--- In
--The statement, ...then there only IS is an incomplete description
of existence. A more complete statement would be IsAS:
modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body;
etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual,
minus the false illusory I.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God is omnipresent -- what else needs to be said?
Edg
Been thinking about this one, in the context of why bother?, and
trying to figure out why God, or insert motive force of creation
here *does* bother. Or appears to.
--- Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a very complicated post - my opinion is it
serves to get the mind engaged- where
as enlightenment is very simple- the me falls away,
then there only IS
It might be quite complicated , but it does/can lead
the mind towards transcending itself. I
I just read this to swami G and she said yea, that's what happens
It might be quite complicated , but it does/can lead
the mind towards transcending itself. I agree that
enlightenment is simple, but it can come as quite a
shock when the mind attempts to reference itself, to
feel itself as a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--The statement, ...then there only IS is an incomplete description
of existence.
Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation
A more complete statement would be IsAS:
modifications
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--The statement, ...then there only IS is an incomplete description
of existence.
Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation
A more complete statement would be IsAS:
modifications
--Below, you ask if I is the individual. Depends upon how you
define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of misidentification,
or b. the individual who remains after the ignorance of
misidentification is gone, and who STILL may refer to herself as I
in ordinary exchanges of conversation
This is way too complicated for me, but I ask the usual- is the one writting
this speaking
from Being or about it? Start with that.
We have 3 enlightened one's in our group and though there is not a coaching,
they have
the same basic thing to say because it is coming from that One essence.
---This argument can easily lead to a Neo-Advaitin fallacy since
the ME is not the sum total of an individual. The I that
vanishes (or the Me) is the delusion of misidentification; but not
the body itself, nor a mind, nor the skin, bones, hair;, etc;
otherwise there would be no Enlightened
--- qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---This argument can easily lead to a Neo-Advaitin
fallacy since
the ME is not the sum total of an individual. The
I that
vanishes (or the Me) is the delusion of
misidentification; but not
the body itself, nor a mind, nor the skin, bones,
hair;,
The enlightened say that there is no change when the body drops.
People are drawn to very complicated explainations. My Guru's comments is that
people
hear it and dont understand it and think wow he is great. The complexity in all
ways adds
to keeping one from unfolding enlightenment which IS
46 matches
Mail list logo
