« Death no big deal to most over 50 | Main | Boltzmann brains can blow your mind »

September 15, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The subject of vegetarianism (see Brian's link above) occasionally comes up.

1) Many people can be healthy on a nutritious vegetarian diet.

2) Killing and eating animals is offensive and morally wrong to some people.

2b) Some people believe they shouldn't eat meat because they believe it is bad karma, or for other religious/spiritual reasons.

3) People who fall into both (1) and (2)should be vegetarians, and those in (2b)must be vegetarian due to certain metaphysical beliefs.

4) Some people have difficulty maintaining optimal health on a strict vegetarian diet.

5) Some people believe that it is better for their health and the environment to be vegetarian.

6) For those in groups (4) and (5) see the following: http://chetday.com/vegmyths.htm

Brian wrote: "Philosophically speaking my mantra is: "I don't know. I don't know. Don't know. Don't know." -- Well, could be.

Brian also wrote: "I was surprised that the person advocating an embrace of Krishna Consciousness was none other than Tao – who has been harshly critical of "churchy" religious organizations, including India-based ones like Radha Soami Satsang Beas."

I think you have misunderstood something about what I have posted. You apparently have failed to recognize that there is a very significant difference between actual Krishna consciousness (God consciousness) itself on the one hand, and "churchy religious organizations" (like RSSB and Iskcon) on the other hand. Like many folks mistakenly do, you tend to unintentionally or possibly deliberately, want to blur the difference. Krishna consciousness or God-consciousness itself, is simply not connected to any religious organization or cult. God consciousness can exist entirely without any organization or cult affiliation. No doubt I have criticised cult organizations like RSSB and Iskcon, but not Krishna or God consciousness itself.


Contrary to what Brian asserts, Krishna consciousness, that is Krishna CONSCIOUSNESS, IS in fact Churchless (and Templeless).

Krishna consciousness does not depend upon or require any affiliation with any church, temple, group, cult, or religion.

As Krishna clearly states in Bhagavad Gita 18.66:

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me."

Therefore Brian, it would behoove you to better educate yourself on what Krishna consciousness actually is, before making such an assertion/opinion. I would suggest that you at least may become better informed here:

Reference:

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/18/66/en

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/18/en

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/en


http://vedabase.net/


It doesn't surprise me that TAO may be a closeted Krishna. Based on his superb demonstrations of persistence I can imagine him at an airport, or selling life insurance, or competing in the UFC.

"Energy and persistence conquer all things."
Benjamin Franklin

Tao, I'll admit that I don't know much about Krishna consciousness. But then I don't know much about Christ, Sufi, Zen, Advaita, or lots of other kinds of consciousnesses either.

I find it hard to believe that there's a special form of elevated consciousness that you have to follow a special technique to attain.

I find it even harder to believe that this special form of consciousness is the result of devotion to a personal God, such as Krishna.

I looked at the web links you included in your previous comment. I can see why this one appeals to Hare Krishna devotees, for pretty much the same reason similar sentiments appeal to Christian, Sant Mat, Jewish, or Muslim devotees.
http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/18/66/en

Namely, Krishna [or substitute other name of personal divinity] loves you and will take care of you if you surrender to Him. Sounds nice, but I can't help but wonder: "How do you know which of the many personal forms of God is the real form?"

What if I surrender to Krishna, then die and find out that Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, or Charan Singh (RSSB guru) is seriously pissed at me for not surrendering to him instead?

You say that there is a difference between Krishna consciousness and the ISKCON organization. Granted. But it still seems to me that Krishna consciousness is a religious concept, through and through.

I mean, Krishna consciousness supposedly is superior to all other forms of religiosity; it requires specific techniques/rituals to attain. These strike me as signs of religion, not of open-souled mysticism.

Should mention that I've read the Bhagavad Gita a number of times and enjoy it. My mother got considerable comfort from some passages that speak of the soul being unaffected by death (after her long-time companion died).

So I entirely agree there is much to admire in the Bhagavad Gita. I just don't see it, or any religious book, as the ultimate guide to spirituality.

To Brian and readers:

What I have been relating was never about any special forms or religious concepts. It is only about consciousness.

Perhaps viewing the following video will clarify and will help you and others to better understand what I have been trying to share:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUyLIYVrd5U


I read somewhere that one can surrender to a tree and that is just as effective as surrendering to a god as long as you surrender.

As I look at my life it appears that almost everything I (ego) wanted I did not get. As I reflect back in time it appears to have been almost all laid out for me. Sounds weird I know but that is how it looks.

Wont bore you with the details but it seems kind of funny now the twist and turns my life took that sent me off into a different (and much more challenging) directions then the directions I wanted.

Can’t explain it that is just how it looks. My point: free will looks like it may be as big a fallacy as the idea most religions have that we are a separate creation from god and can exist outside this absolute isness.

For me and apparently no one else once we see the role of ignorance we see how oneness becomes twoness. The definition of ignorance being unawareness and/or not knowing that, which is available to be known.

I still hold out that we may have choices within boundaries but choices within boundaries may be as big a fallacy as free will.

Continued:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIvQzryesY


To Brian and readers:

What I have been relating was never about any special forms or religious concepts. It is only about awareness and consciousness.

Perhaps viewing the following videos will help to clarify and help you and others to better understand what I have been trying to share:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUyLIYVrd5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIvQzryesY


Tao - huh?

Okay, you have created a (uneccessary, imo) dichotomy between ISKCON and 'Krishna consciousness'. There are several of your comments which belie the validity of this 'dodge', such as those about the relative happiness between Krishna devotees and RS satsangis. Clearly *social and group* inferences. As is your praise of Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON.

However, back to the main point, your dichotomy between practice, guru (Prabhupada), theology as opposed to the group ISKCON.

Well, I think you'll find no RS follower has ever cared about the ORGANISATION around the guru. It is strictly about Shabd consciousness and devotion to guru. There is absolutely no difference between your attempt to seperate ISKCON from 'Krishna consciousness', than attempting to seperate Shabd consciousness from the RS organisations.

And, you have NEVER extended the same courtesy & time for nuanced expression of interpreting the RS path as you are now asking for yourself. In fact, you have abused any mention of RS that wasn't positively scathing, in the most bitter and vindictive of ways. Now, you seem to getting overly defensive about questions not even a tenth of the harshness you displayed! Suck it up. If I was in the mood to do so, I'd rip your nonsense to bits, but if you read closer, you'll notice I'm not as vehement or vitriolic as you, I'm simply questioning your point!

You do not see the blatant irony and contraditions in your 'argument', because I honestly don't believe you're interested in being open, or learning or growing, or self-introspection etc.

And, using NISARGADATTA as some kind of backup to your point?

WHAT?

Come on, this is unbearably random!

Sorry Tao, as I know you have a habit of denying the blatantly obvious, I will make my point a little clearer, lest you imply another meaning!

You said Krishna Consciousness is churchless.

I agree.

However, and you can deny this as much as you like (which doesn't really mean anything coming from somebody who doesn't experientially know what is being discussed!), Shabd is ALSO completely, totally and utterly CHURCHLESS.

You're consistently missing the hypocrisy and short-sightedness in your arguments!

And, even more outrageously, not only is SHABD completely churchless, it also grants you FURTHER potential of 'inner' experiences than Krishna consciousness does!!

I know this from personal experience. I'd be willing to debate this further & fully, but I have no doubt that intellectual debate is meaningless and erroneous. Whereas, experiential knowledge of these things appears to be quite rare, judging from my time on the internet....

Manjit wrote:
"not only is SHABD completely churchless, it also grants you FURTHER potential of 'inner' experiences than Krishna consciousness does!!

I know this from personal experience. I'd be willing to debate this further & fully, but I have no doubt that intellectual debate is meaningless and erroneous. Whereas, experiential knowledge of these things appears to be quite rare, judging from my time on the internet...."

Where is the scope of comparision between SHABD and Krishna consciousness? Both are subject to experience. Both are churchless.

In any case, one will have to work hard to experience either. Discussion with unbiased mind will essentially help us in furtherance of our step forward.

Manjit has rightly put it that "I know this from personal experience". I bow to Manjit's progress and wish her more in the time to come.

with love

Manjit,

Basically everything you have said in regards to my posts is either a severe distortion, or worse an outright lie. Therfore, you and your dishonest rubbish are not even worth any further response from me. Go back to your rat-hole of self-possesed delerium.


His comments on awareness and consciousness is pristine and beautifully stated. I find absolutely nothing with what he said that I disagree with.

The origin of our ignorance is that gap between that pure awareness and consciousness. Stated another way consciousness has within it ignorance and awareness. That ignorance is simply a not knowing status. Without that “not knowing” status there is no phenomena. There is no play or drama. That not knowing status allows isness to be the producer, director and actors of the most realistic and majestic play in the universe.

Try t his on for size: consciousness is the process awareness is the reality. Without this ignorance there is no phenomena. i.e. consciousness.

I think where you and I disagree is that I believe this “enlighten master in the video” still has a very “long” journey ahead of him. Paul Brunton who spent his adult life studying Hindu enlighten masters believed that these “I am” folks may come back in a more challenging society like America. Please before you put down Brunton read his works. He was the first to write about enlighten Hindu masters.

Now the question becomes why does this person have a very long journey ahead of him (as a illus ional entity) even through he may have realized his isness. That is the discussion I have been unable to have with anyone on the Internet.

“Investigate yourself this is the purpose of your being. There can be no consciousness without awareness. There can be awareness without consciousness. Consciousness is partial and changing. Awareness is total.”

These above quotes taken from the video are in my view at this time perfectly stated. From my view the difference between awareness and consciousness is ignorance. I.e. not knowing or unawareness. Consciousness allows oneness to become twoness. (kinda of)

the above quote was written last night. love these deep discussons.
this morning's ramblings: whoops I meant insights.

From the other video: “You must have that strong desire to find him.” Who is you and who is him? This suggests twoness. Desire? where did that desire come from? Without that desire there is no play (i.e. phenomena). It is that desire that moves the soul (illusionary entity) on an evolutionally journey back to pure awareness knowing of course the soul never left pure awareness. Love those paradoxes.

I often wonder if desire is the very vehicle that allows pure awareness to express itself and maybe even know itself or maybe share itself and being oneness it has to express itself with entities that do not know they are that that is. More paradoxes.

Please Tao don’t be in a hurry in cheating god out of its play. There is much left someday you will be flying around planets like earth seeing what you have created and how well it turned out.

From my point of view one of these lesser gods created evangels, rednecks and neo cons and then said to itself “well that did not work” and then created liberals to balance it out.

Dear Brian,

There were once two cows in a field.

One said, "Moo."

The other said, "That's just what I was going to say."

Robert Paul Howard

I agree with Manjit.

Hello Rakesh - Thanks. And, the comparison between 'Krishna Consciousness' and 'Shabd' is, imo, that 'Krishna Consciousness' is a part of the scope of experience that Shabd can provide, but not neccessarily vice versa. Of course, the dualistic symbolism leading up to the climax may be different, but the ground of experience is identical. Lastly, she, ie me, is a he, see? :o)

Hello Tao - Hmmmm, yesssss.

Hello William - when you say Nisargadatta (and other 'I AM THAT' people) have a long journey in front of them, why and what makes you say that? Also, what evidence do you have that reincarnation actually exists? Paul Brunton, whilst wonderful, is not THE authority on this. In fact, nobody is! I have a wonderfully fascinating, profound, direct, unsurmountable viewpoint on what 'mysticism' really is, and why scientific materiliasm is mistaken in it's reductionist assumptions. (even if I do say so myself :o). Only thing is, I want to keep it to myself......for now! Anyway, point being, I honestly think the person(ego)-centric view of mysticism is deeply mistaken, and the concept of reincarnation (and liberation or heaven etc)is a part of that mistaken approach to genuine mysticism. Actually, if you read verrrrry closely the writings of mystics in the highest throws of mystical ecstasy, you will notice they all say the same! Concepts arise later. Anyway, I would love to hear more on why you consider Nisarga to have a long journey ahead?

Hello Robert Paul Howard - There where 2 cows in a field discussing the meaning of life and creation. One said Moooo. The other said Ommmmm. Sorry......

Hello Catherine - Why thank you :o)

Manjit,
I myself was confused to take you either Manjit Singh or Manjit Kaur. I have noted that you are "He" Manjit.
You wrote:
'Shabd' is, imo, that 'Krishna Consciousness' .........

Manjit, let us not discuss it any more. You know the difference between one thousand and one million.......

with lots of loving regards,

Hi Everyone,
Just been reading the above.

Not taking any sides.....

but.....
here's an interesting little point....

perhaps... the obsession with churchless....

is becoming a religion....

a churchless religion. Only the truly churchless may enter....

the rest may rot in hell....

On a lighter note...
I just heard a joke....
Two satsangis had just died and were hovering in the upper regions.... wondering which way to go... when suddenly they heard a door close...
"What the heck was that?" asked one of them.
"That, my friend," replied the other, "Was the Door of Sach Khand slamming shut."

"What about that door?" enquired the other. "Where does that lead to?"

"That leads to hell" replied the other....
and we better hurry and enter... before that door closes too....
otherwise we'll end up nowhere.

My friends.... it is sheer madness....
churchfull... churchless....
Like the cat said to Alice....
when she said she did not want to be among mad people...
"You can't help that," replied the cat "We're all mad here"

Perhaps the cat was wiser than we think....
perhaps we are all mad... but can only see the madness of the other...
and we think we are sane....
when in fact we are the maddest of them all...

Osho Robbins,
well said.Church and churchless are part of the same creation including you and me.

Views are being expressed here. Church and churchless are not two water tight compartments.

I may be at err......................

msmkit:"Anyway, I would love to hear more on why you consider Nisarga to have a long journey ahead?"

it appears manjit that you have already decided what is reality. do you still want to know why I think this person has a long journey ahead of him knowing that time is an illusion as the source is infinite so time only appears to exist in the phenomenal worlds.
let me know if still interested.

William,

How do you imagine the end of the journey?

Insofar as Niz is concerned ... (from I AM THAT)

M: The sense 'I am a person in time and space' is the poison. In a way, time itself is the poison. In time all things come to an end and new are born, to be devoured in their turn. Do not identify yourself with time, do not ask anxiously: 'what next, what next?' Step out of time and see it devour the world. Say: 'Well, it is in the nature of time to put an end to everything. Let it be. It does not concern me. I am not combustible, nor do I need to collect fuel'.


Q: I can distinguish two states of mind: 'I am' and 'the world is"; they arise and subside together. People say: 'I am, because the world is'. You seem to say: 'The world is, because I am'. Which is true?
M: Neither. The two are one and the same state, in space and time. Beyond, there is the timeless.

Elephant: the end of the journey. Not sure I can even imagine it but maybe can intellectualize about it. The best I can do now is to imagine pure awareness with the creative/manifestation power of the absolute.

Maybe from what could be termed lesser gods to absolute. I suspect when we reach lesser god status we are close to becoming that that is knowing of course we were always that that is. Paradox again.

Maybe we could say we once had the consciousness of a rock then the consciousness of a blade of grass then the consciousness of a plant to animal to humans to ............to lesser gods to having the “power and creative ability of the absolute.

Not sure about this but seems to fit into an evolution of consciousness theory.

Someday we meaning our consciousness not our existing perceived personality will be flying around in a UFO visiting planets rather than like we do on earth visiting countries.

The journey is about the challenge the struggle the discoveries knowing of course it is all phenomena and not the absolute reality, which I suspect, is pure awareness.

Meister Eckhart said something interesting that the Godhead does not do anything. Like a barren desert whereas god does the creating like the universe being in constant change and motion. The universe appears to be in my terms in a constant state of creation or maybe better stated as a constant state of manifestation.

From my point of view we cannot say, "I am" if we do not have the vitality/intelligence/creative ability of the absolute.

We may come to realize we are part of that oneness but we still lack the pure awareness and vitality of that oneness.

But it is a paradox we are always that oneness how could we be anything else? How else can oneness experience/express itself without manifestation of itself with the perception of twoness?

And interesting enough how this pure awareness manifests itself as something less than pure awareness is through a process of evolution of consciousness that is not aware nor does it have the abilities of this absolute. Pure awareness becomes a perceived twoness by the process of unawareness. Another term for unawareness is ignorance.

As humans we are in the very early stages of this evolutionary process. I suspect this is why those whatever’s in those UFO’s don’t even bother to communicate with us.

As our consciousness grows our identification of a personal identity becomes less and less. The absolute is never diminished by the manifestation of perceived entities. The absolute is infinite and therefore cannot be diminished.

Our minds at this time cannot comprehend infinite or perfect awareness can only intellectualize about it.

William apparently knows little of Nisargadatta and obviously even less of what Nisargadatta was really communicating.

Also, it appears that it is William himself who os the one who has "already decided what is reality".

William presumes that he is "knowing" that "time is an illusion as the source is infinite".

These statements (and other similar statements) by William, clearly indicate that William is unfamilar with the thrust and meaning of Nisargatta's teachings.


Further on, William writes:

"The best I can do now is to imagine pure awareness with the creative/manifestation power of the absolute."

-- Imagining you say? Yes you are indeed imagining. AHpwever, awareness is simply awareness. Whereas "the absolute" is only a mere concept.


"what could be termed lesser gods to absolute. I suspect when we reach lesser god status we are close to becoming that that is"

-- There can be no "becoming" that which is always already the case.


"we once had the consciousness of a rock then the consciousness of a blade of grass then the consciousness of a plant to animal to humans to lesser gods"

-- Objects and forms do not have consciousness. Consciousness has objects and forms.


"to having the “power and creative ability of the absolute."

-- Another mere concept.


"Someday we .... will be flying around in a UFO visiting planets rather than like we do on earth visiting countries."

-- Been there and done that.


"...knowing of course it is all phenomena and not the absolute reality"

-- Phenomena are not apart from reality.


"From my point of view we cannot say, "I am" if we do not have the vitality/intelligence/creative ability of the absolute.

-- That is absurd. Everyone says "I am".


"we are part of that oneness but we still lack the pure awareness and vitality of that oneness."

-- This is clear indication of dualistic contradiction. "oneness" is simply non-duality. Also, we do not "lack the pure awareness". There is no such "lack" of pure awareness. We ARE pure awareness.

William then goes on to contradict himself again by saying: "we are always that oneness how could we be anything else?"


"And ... this pure awareness manifests itself as something less than pure awareness is through a process of evolution of consciousness that is not aware nor does it have the abilities of this absolute."

-- More contradictory conceptual and verbal mumbo-jumbo.


"Pure awareness becomes a perceived twoness by the process of unawareness."

-- More contradictory conceptual and verbal mumbo-jumbo.


"we are in the very early stages of this evolutionary process. I suspect this is why those whatever’s in those UFO’s don’t even bother to communicate with us."

-- Imaginary assumptions.


"The absolute is infinite and therefore cannot be diminished."

-- More mere concepts.


"Our minds at this time cannot comprehend infinite or perfect awareness can only intellectualize about it."

Intellect of the Mind.

Awareness is true Knowledge, and vice versa.

Hello William,

Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what you meant in your mail addressed to me?

I AM interested in why you think Nisargadatta has a 'long journey' ahead. Please clarify your point as I'm not currently understanding what you meant, re time as an illusion?

I think it may be a language thing? Is English your first language, or are you from Europe?

Either way, I would be interested if you clarify your point.

Thanks.

One thing I'm pretty sure of however, is that nothing I personally have come across has been deeper or more profound than Nisargadatta. He is, imo, way way ahead of RS doctrine, or this or that shakti path. Discussions of time, space, pure awareness, consciousness etc, I have never personally never heard a more direct and profound overview of these subjects than Nisarga.

You mention 'pure awareness' and the bliss thereof in another mail above.

Very tricky subject William. This is difficult to explain in a few words on an internet forum, but believe me, Nisarga is talking about a far 'deeper' 'experience' than this. I know this personally. Bliss, pure awareness etc is not BEYOND his 'teaching', but PRIOR to his point.

Karma can not, and will not touch Nisarga.

He has no 'further journey', because he realised he never even started one.

You may call this intellectual, but I call that the imminent and present reality.

The intellectual or the ILLUSION is that we are on a journey. The 'journey' you've placed him on is YOUR illusion! Will I be scared of YOUR dream tiger? You may threaten me with it, but I'll never be bitten!

I am interested in clarification of your point.

Cheers.

Sorry William,

I just read your subsequent post, and I notice you are quite proficient at English! I didn't mean to offend!

Still I'm having a little difficulty in grasping precisely where you're coming from, which I find unusual and interesting?

Perhaps it's the lack of commas? I don't know.

Anyway, didn't mean to offend in any way.

Dear William:

William: "The best I can do now is to imagine pure awareness with the creative/manifestation power of the absolute."
TAO: Imagining you say? Yes you are indeed imagining.

I purposefully used the expression 'imagine' precisely because there is no difference OF NATURE between what you refer to as 'intellectualization' and 'imagination'. And your comment regarding Niz implied that you had in mind a certain image of the end of a journey ... (Otherwise why affirming he is not there yet?).


TAO: William apparently knows little of Nisargadatta and obviously even less of what Nisargadatta was really communicating.

That was the second part of my original post.

I don't know what you imagine of Niz, and if you base your beliefs regarding him on the information contained in a box of Cracker Jack, but what about reading some stuff about him before passing judgements. What about him made you think that he still has a long journey? A quote? An anecdote concerning his life? Just your thoughts about life is not enough - how do they relate with Niz and why do they imply that he is in error?

Thank you,

"I don't know what you imagine of Niz, and if you base your beliefs regarding him on the information contained in a box of Cracker Jack"

Comments like that reveal more about your state of mind then mine and not worth my time to respond. You are not interested in my reasons for stating the things I do; you have already decided you have found truth. I have discovered once we “buy” into a certain religious teaching it is all over for our rational mind.

Advaita teachings can be as much about religious beliefs as Christianity. Deeper and more knowledgeable but still fit into the category of paradigm paralysis. “My religion is thee religion” know it well; it is rampant throughout the world.
.

How can you advaita followers actually think you are enlightened and your journey is over with attack comments like above are beyond me? Is the idea of reincarnation so horrible to you that you can buy into this idea you are enlightened and the journey is over?
Enjoy the journey or not?

William,

I agree with Manjit's observations above concerning Nisargadatta.

Especially:

"He has no 'further journey', because he realised he never even started one."

Also, I agree with TAO who said:

"-- Imagining you say? Yes you are indeed imagining. AHpwever, awareness is simply awareness. Whereas "the absolute" is only a mere concept."

"-- More contradictory conceptual and verbal mumbo-jumbo.

"-- There can be no "becoming" that which is always already the case."

"-- Objects and forms do not have consciousness. Consciousness has objects." (this is key for you to understand, I think)

"-- Another mere concept."

-- More contradictory conceptual and verbal mumbo-jumbo."

"-- Phenomena are not apart from reality."

"-- Imaginary assumptions."

"Awareness is true Knowledge, and vice versa."

I think Nisargadatta would have responded similarly to William's comments.

Dear William:

"if you base your beliefs regarding him on the information contained in a box of Cracker Jack"
There is a 'if' at the beginning of the statement. Lets work out that sense of humor here (see below). Several individuals have asked you for some clarifications. So far, it seems you are avoiding even touching the topic. My guess of a Cracker Jack box is at this point as good as any other ... it was just the first thing that came to mind .. replace it by Pure Awareness if you prefer ...

"How can you advaita followers actually think you are enlightened and your journey is over with attack comments like above are beyond me?"

I apologize for the comment I made. I misperceived your sensibility. I always thought that a conditional statement vs "you are a freaking moron and stupid idiot for not following Niz's wisdom" (please don't take that in any way as something personal - I am simply imagining for myself what would be an attack comment) as somewhat different but I may be wrong. Again I apologize.

I really don't know the reasons by which you came to your conclusions on Niz. THOSE are what, other people and I, are interested in knowing. Why is it so difficult to answer? Manjit asked plainly and nicely.


"Comments like that reveal more about your state of mind then mine and not worth my time to respond." If that is how you take it; no problem and I wish you well

He he. I really liked this post William! Was you addressing this as much to me as The Elephant? "You advaita followers"? He he. As you said, "Comments like that reveal more about your state of mind then mine"

Let me clarify my personal position on this, brother.

I used to be a devout Radhasoami follower. Bhatki, and all the usual dualistic concepts of karma, sach khand, eternal bliss etc were my very existence. Nothing else mattered to me, including my very own life.

I had come across *little* bits of 'advaita', but dismissed it in precisely the same way you do. Precisely. In truth, and looking back at it, one thing is supremely obvious to me; I simply didn't UNDERSTAND it back then, and it was sheer misplaced conceptual arrogance & ignorance that caused me to dismiss it.

Brother, 'advaita' is not a teaching. It's the reality. But not one that is grasped intellectually, or by imagination, or by learning.

The thing is, I 'realised'. I didn't realise after reading books. It was forced upon me. It was natural and uncaused. I didn't even read or understand ANYTHING about 'advaita'. Advaita (non-duality) just HAPPENED. I didn't have to go to a guru, practice a certain yoga, get a certain type of initiation, read certain books etc. There are all intellectual/mental baggage that we have had to learn. They are not reality as it is, our natural condition; they are conceptual realities we have to learn and accumulate.

It was only after the non-dual burst forth in my being did I SUBSEQUENTLY devour texts I had previously considered useless, such as Nisargadatta. It was to make sense of what was happening to me. It's nice to know others have been through the same thing as you, you know? I couldn't comprehend it, because I had come from conceptual pathways such as that of Radhasoami.

The barriers of my intellect crumbled, and I both experienced and understood things which would NEVER been possible in my previous state as a follower of a dualistic path. This isn't linear growth in understanding like accumulating knowledge as most 'spiritual' paths do, this was an EXPLOSION in understanding. Suddenly, the entire dualistic paths and their traps and fallacies were clear in front of my mind *simultaneously*. Unspeakable, really.

This isn't a 'teaching', or about 'beliefs' brother, this is the reality as it IS. Suchness.

So, all in all, your post in regards my experiences is totally innacurate and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what advaita IS in reality. It's more about how you IMAGINE it to be!

Regarding Nisarga, you say he is on a journey that is incomplete and insinuate 'advaita followers' think their journey is over just because they 'think' they're enlightened? Then you mention about how advaitists are doing the same 'my religion is the best' routine. Think about what you said. You have denied Nisarga's personal EXPERIENCE, simply because it doesn't fit YOUR paradigm! Hypocrisy? You are essentially insisting that Nisarga MUST remain within YOUR illusion! Did he ever say YOU wasn't enlightened? No, YOU are doing the 'my religion is better' routine.

Regarding reincarnation. Whoah. What a subject!

Essentially this illusion is perpetuated by the illusion that you are a 'self'. Pure awareness is a refinement of this ILLUSION. This is not a belief, this is the reality for anyone who examines the root of where this sense of 'self' arises. Reinforcing this illusion by imagining yourself as 'soul' helps nothing, except in refining the condition of this 'self' into one of temporal states of bliss during mediation.

Brother, I have recounted more 'past lives' than you would believe possible, millions upon millions in one 'sitting'.

This is illusion through and through.

Reincarnation is for the immature mind. If the boundaries of your intellect loosen themselves from your 'self', you will realise reincarnation is a ridiculous idea! The writing of most mystics, even such as Kabir, affirm this in their poems sung from the 'highest state'. And, this even though they were cultural immersed in such beliefs from birth.

First, you may experience(and identify with) individual lives one at a time. Then perhaps hundreds at a time. More strangely, you then perceive the 'souls' of entire nations, of entire races, then perhaps the 'soul' of the entire earth, or entire species of animals. Not individually, but as a WHOLE. Stranger still, you can also experience and identify with the souls of abstract concepts, such as love, or wrath, or DNA, or oil, or money etc. All these 'souls' interconnecting to create the infinite realities that exist all around us.

The point is, where does one 'soul' end and another begin? Why is my individual soul embedded within another soul, which is embedded within another, etc etc. Which is MY 'real' SOUL? Who am 'I'?

Also, when your 'soul' becomes liberated, where and what do you go/beecome? God, as distinct from the suffering in the world around us? Eternal bliss? Brother, you may find when you are liberated and merged with 'God', that God was nowhere except right here around. The suffering around us IS the suffering of God. Where can you run to where your God is not? You don't seek God, you seek selfish eternal bliss for your limited 'self'. Would you make years of effort to become the suffering in the world, your PRESENT suffering? Is God not already PRESENT there?

So, what is liberated? What part of your-self attains Sach Khand? Nothing. Only the illusion that you are an individual self is extinguished. You don't take your 'self' to some imagined heaven, but you extinguish the illusion that a 'self' ever existed. This is original sin. That you consider yourself an equal to God. That you exist apart from God. When the illusion is extinguished, only Suchness remains. You can call it God.

If you wish to retain concept of soul, then what is your original nature? God? So, it may be when you end your 'journey', you'll find yourself right back here. Because God IS HERE AND NOW.

Also, reincarnation doesn't make sense in the way that all our acts are SO very conditioned and automatic, AND interconnected to infinite 'external' factors, that free will is clearly another illusion based upon the illusion we have a 'self', and that our 'self' is in control. Nonsense!

Anyway, this post is too long.

Point is, instead of getting overly defensive and making irrelevant statements, why don't you answer the question I asked very politely. Why was Nisarga's journey not over, and how do you KNOW this.

Also, what do YOU think IS this 'journey' you keep mentioning?

Are you wary of stating it clearly because it may let the cat out of the bag?

That you are essentially sharing some kind of conceptual theology? That people may ask you how you know that particular theology is 'true'?

I'm sorry, it's just that I thought your above post was overly defensive and not in keeping with the tone of my question. ANd I thought The Elephant was just being a bit humourous too, and I cannot recall him saying he was 'enlightened'?

All in all, your response seemed very off base to me?

Very funny though (in a nice way!), thanks!

Peace


He he.

I see this comment interested quite a few of us! :-)

Obviously I agree with both Tucson Bob and The Elephant. Very much so.

However, William, please don't take this conversation as a 'gang up' or argumentative.

Personally, I just wanted to know a little more on what you believed.

I may not agree with it, but I'm certainely interested?

And, you said you we think we 'have found truth'.

I'm not one to lie or have false humility. I DO think I've found MY truth, no doubt. I'm not too concerned with the reality or dream of others!

However, and I know this is true, I ALWAYS listen to what other people say deeply, and try and learn from it.

Though, even though I am open, I have very high standards! :o)

If I ever meet somebody who I think can teach me something, I bow to their feet eternally. Unfortunately, that is an extremely rare occurence these days.....:-)

William wrote: "How can you advaita followers actually think you are enlightened and your journey is over..."

"Advaita followers "you say? And just who are these followers that you speak of? I certainly am no such "follower" of advaita, or any other philosophy. And I would also venture to say that I am fairly sure that Manjit and Tucson Bob are not "advaita followers" either. Of course they can speak for themselves.

Elephant wrote to William: "...the reasons by which you came to your conclusions on Niz. THOSE are what, other people and I, are interested in knowing. Why is it so difficult to answer?"

I agree. William has consistently evaded these questions. He apparently knows littel or nothing about Nisargadatta, yet he refuses to answer Manjit's straightforward questions. This would indicate that William is full of talk, but no walk.

Manjit wrote to William: "...you may find when you are liberated and merged with 'God', that God was nowhere except right here around. The suffering around us IS the suffering of God. Where can you run to where your God is not? You don't seek God, you seek selfish eternal bliss for your limited 'self'. Would you make years of effort to become the suffering in the world, your PRESENT suffering? Is God not already PRESENT there?"

I very much agree with Manjit. And what he says is quite self-explanatory.

Manjit wrote to William: "What part of your-self attains Sach Khand? Nothing. Only the illusion that you are an individual self is extinguished. You don't take your 'self' to some imagined heaven, but you extinguish the illusion that a 'self' ever existed."

Ditto.

Manit wrote to William: "When the illusion is extinguished, only Suchness remains. You can call it God."

Ditto.

Manjit wrote to William: "So, it may be when you end your 'journey', you'll find yourself right back here. Because God IS HERE AND NOW."

Ditto.

Manjit wrote to William: "Why was Nisarga's journey not over, and how do you KNOW this?
Also, what do YOU think IS this 'journey' you keep mentioning?"

Please do answer these simple questions William, and without your usual vagueness and convoluted evasiveness.

Manjit wrote to William: "That you are essentially sharing some kind of conceptual theology?"

William's personal "conceptual theology" - That is basically the content and extent of William's posts.... with a little bit of new-age space-ship mumbo-jumbo thrown in the mix.


"So come off it and be real."

Think I will pass on this one Tao because I think for a person to be real to you means I have to buy into your truths and agree with your religious beliefs lock stock and barrel.

Not today maybe tomorrow who knows but the wind.

Lets see whose truths shall I believe. the preacher that tells me everything in his black book is truth or the folks on the net that think they are god. Tough choice. In their ignorance both have made god in their image.

Now don’t get upset over the word ignorance; ignorance simply means not knowing or unawareness. It is a human condition. What would the drama be like without that ignorance?

John K. Hart: "Nothing can prevent you from learning the truth so much as the belief that you already know it."

Apparently the advaita types and preachers don’t agree with john hart.

William wrote:

"Tao because I think for a person to be real to you means I have to buy into your truths and agree with your religious beliefs lock stock and barrel."

-- Another direct question for you to evade and fail to answer: And just what exactly are these "truths" and "religious beliefs" that you seem to think that I have and hold, and that you think I expect others to agree with? How about answering this one question before you continue on making more assumptions about what you think others believe.

"the folks on the net that think they are god."

-- And just who might they be? (another specific question)

"Now don’t get upset over the word ignorance; ignorance simply means not knowing or unawareness. It is a human condition. What would the drama be like without that ignorance?"

-- Any need for Wiliam's "research" would be absent.

"John K. Hart: "Nothing can prevent you from learning the truth so much as the belief that you already know it."

-- Tao: "Nothing can prevent you from unlearning what you believe so much as the notion that you believe it."

"Apparently the advaita types and preachers don’t agree"

-- Who exactly are these "advaita types" that you keep mentioning?


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.