|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 5, 2019 23:34:05 GMT
Now Hear This “I talked with Maurice Frydman some years back and he edited my words, empathizing certain points and adding his own ideas, in the book ‘I am That’. That book and whatever was expounded at that time was only relevant for that period. I am speaking differently today. As a matter of fact, this should also have been recorded and published in greater detail, and is emphasizing different aspects.”
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj LOL...Wow... just saw this now. Cool synch that in reading that page, we were both were drawn to this quote. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 14, 2019 16:15:48 GMT
No knowingness is the perfect state. This consciousness state is very subtle, very tasty, but nevertheless is a lot of trouble. Don't let there be the feeling: "I am one" or "I am a personality" or "I am an entity". Just witness the manifest play of consciousness and realise "none of this is me". Moment by moment let it happen spontaneously without the sense of being a doer. This is real meditation. ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj There is trouble only when you cling to something. When you hold on to nothing, no trouble arises. ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj Is there a difference between 'holding on' , and caring about something? Could Niz's words be read as 'When you care about nothing, no trouble arises'? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 14, 2019 18:10:19 GMT
No knowingness is the perfect state. This consciousness state is very subtle, very tasty, but nevertheless is a lot of trouble. Don't let there be the feeling: "I am one" or "I am a personality" or "I am an entity". Just witness the manifest play of consciousness and realise "none of this is me". Moment by moment let it happen spontaneously without the sense of being a doer. This is real meditation. ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj There is trouble only when you cling to something. When you hold on to nothing, no trouble arises. ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj Is there a difference between 'holding on' , and caring about something? Could Niz's words be read as 'When you care about nothing, no trouble arises'? Yes. Given the choice, I think most would much prefer a life with some troubles vs. a life where there's a complete absence of caring about anything. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 16, 2019 0:29:25 GMT
Is there a difference between 'holding on' , and caring about something? Could Niz's words be read as 'When you care about nothing, no trouble arises'? Yes. Given the choice, I think most would much prefer a life with some troubles vs. a life where there's a complete absence of caring about anything. I think so too. So, is he suggesting to care, but not too much? I don't actually see that there needs to be a limit on caring, as caring in it's purist form is a movement of Love, but he may mean something different when he says not to 'hold on'. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2019 23:40:32 GMT
Yes. Given the choice, I think most would much prefer a life with some troubles vs. a life where there's a complete absence of caring about anything. I think so too. So, is he suggesting to care, but not too much? I don't actually see that there needs to be a limit on caring, as caring in it's purist form is a movement of Love, but he may mean something different when he says not to 'hold on'. Yup. There is caring deeply that arises in spite of ego and then there is caring deeply that is all about ego...the two are quite different. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 17, 2019 3:39:23 GMT
I think so too. So, is he suggesting to care, but not too much? I don't actually see that there needs to be a limit on caring, as caring in it's purist form is a movement of Love, but he may mean something different when he says not to 'hold on'. Yup. There is caring deeply that arises in spite of ego and then there is caring deeply that is all about ego...the two are quite different. Yes, and (speaking of Ramana now), he means to talk about the ending of those egoic thoughts, not the end of mind or the end of thinking. I'm seeing a pattern here of conceptualizing the teachings and missing the subtleties that are being pointed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 17, 2019 17:27:10 GMT
Yup. There is caring deeply that arises in spite of ego and then there is caring deeply that is all about ego...the two are quite different. Yes, and (speaking of Ramana now), he means to talk about the ending of those egoic thoughts, not the end of mind or the end of thinking. I'm seeing a pattern here of conceptualizing the teachings and missing the subtleties that are being pointed to. That's exactly what's happening, yes. Absent those subtleties, we of course get the now infamous, Jeff Foster, brown bear:  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 22, 2019 15:07:51 GMT
You do a terrible disservice to Niz's teachings when you attempt to categorize and segregate the contexts from which he speaks in as you've done here. You have a bad habit of wanting to tie things up in neat little bows, even when such packaging/tying does not apply. Stop it. Your messy little mind that craves order is splashed all over this one, Reefs.
It depends completely upon what one is saying. If one is comparing life to 'a dream,' he's obviously looking 'at' life in it's totality. All that arises...all that is experienced...the entire phenomenal world. Contexts are not always segregated in the way you are suggesting.
This is no different from saying 'I am the body, I am not the body,"...that there is no separation, all is one....there is but one thingless/thing.
You say you are trying to clarify Niz's message, but really all you're doing is mangling his message to match yours in an attempt to discredit those whom you disagree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 26, 2019 21:00:21 GMT
Apparently, quite confusing indeed. No they are not. Consciousness and dream content may be inseparable, but that does not mean the terms can be used synonymously as you suggest. This is the problem with your ontology Reefs; you've mistaken "I am all of it," to equal 'no distinction'. Absent distinction, there is no 'world'...no 'dream' to include within 'all'...'it.' And the moment there is distinction, there is that which is fundamental (and which remains fundamental) and that which arises to/within it. (That which is unchanging vs. that which is ephemeral, which comes and goes). To say they are synonymous, wrongly indicates that there is no distinction at all between that which is fundamental and that which is ephemeral. The very basis of 'thingness/content/ephemerally arising dream-stuff' is 'distinction.' Absent distinction, we don't have 'a dream.' The actuality of 'being awake to the dream' is NOT part of the dream. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5345/nisargadatta-maharaj?page=4#ixzz5rzOXYLX4 |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 27, 2019 13:54:24 GMT
Apparently, quite confusing indeed. No they are not. Consciousness and dream content may be inseparable, but that does not mean the terms can be used synonymously as you suggest. This is the problem with your ontology Reefs; you've mistaken "I am all of it," to equal 'no distinction'. Absent distinction, there is no 'world'...no 'dream' to include within 'all'...'it.' And the moment there is distinction, there is that which is fundamental (and which remains fundamental) and that which arises to/within it. (That which is unchanging vs. that which is ephemeral, which comes and goes). To say they are synonymous, wrongly indicates that there is no distinction at all between that which is fundamental and that which is ephemeral. The very basis of 'thingness/content/ephemerally arising dream-stuff' is 'distinction.' Absent distinction, we don't have 'a dream.' The actuality of 'being awake to the dream' is NOT part of the dream. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5345/nisargadatta-maharaj?page=4#ixzz5rzOXYLX4I'm pretty sure I've heard Niz talk about human consciousness as the arising of the dream, in the same way it's the arising of the sense 'I am', which does not mean 'consciousness' and 'dream' are synonyms. Just means you have to be conscious in order to dream. |
|
