You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Can a missed life be someone's last life?

Can a missed life be someone's last life?


28 replies [Last post]
Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:

I’m 72 years old, and so the matter of what happens next, at the end of this life, and the matter of how this life should be regarded--has become particularly relevant for me at my age.
.
Books aren’t much help, because my background is so unusual.
.
We’re born, naïve and trusting, into a world owned and run by adults—who have their own petty and selfish needs of jealousy and control of those who are smaller than they are.
.
I’m referring mostly to parents, but also to school and the larger societal surroundings too.
.
It was evident to me that the “rule” was a boring, dead and dull routine, and it didn’t occur to me to wonder for whose benefit. Of course some survive under these conditions better than others do.
.
Life just starting out. …and promptly killed?
.
Neo-Advaita tells us that this life can be our last one, no matter who we are, or what our background is. The timeless peace, content, happiness, completely without wants, needs, inclinations, menaces, hardships, and loss, at the end of lives, is available to all of us, at the end of this life….according to Neo-Advaita.
.
.But does that make any sense for everyone? …or is it, for many, people, ridiculously over-ambitious goal?
.
Any answers or comments?
.
So: Can a missed life be someone’s last life?
.
Michael Ossipoff

0
Your rating: None
mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
It's always now, always today . . .

Hey Michael,

Some basic observations . . . if one looks long enough one comes to see that there are basically conceptual knowing (thinking mind and its many stories of "what is"), non-conceptual understanding (direct experience of "what is") as well as many shades-of-nuanced "knowing" in between.

So what I say here is essentially a conceptual story told by mind and apprehended directly by formless awareness (the apparent interior and exterior emptiness and stillness wherein all appearances exist). Note the words and remain aware.

What I experientially know is this: it's always 'now', and always 'today'. While everything said about Here and Now is illusory, conjured by mind, Here and Now as Presence is not illusory.

So whatever anyone says, including Tony, about Advaita (neo- or otherwise) is story, illusory, not real. More likely to obscure than reveal bare awareness.

See 'pass' the stories, 'through' them if you will . . . and notice there is only Now, only Today, where Everything unfolds: living, dying, laughing, crying, questioning, answering, ruminating, yearning, seeking . . . even so-called 'after-life'. (If what you see here are only words, than all you understand are concepts.)

Even so . . . who or what asks: "Can a missed life be someone’s last life?"

In this instance it's only Mind asking the question, the mind-created-story-of-Michael.

See that You are not the Mind nor the story-of-Michael and notice the question falls away on its own . . . irrelevant. Remember, the very act of perceiving (awareness itself) reveals you are not what is perceived. Stay with the 'seeing', not the 'thinking about' . . . if you can. And I believe you can . . . because you are Presence.

But don't take my word for any of this . . . See for yourself. Right where you are, Awareness is too.

(P.S. For whatever saliency it may offer, this action-figure is also 72.)

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Tony and Gachchy: . Thanks

Tony and Gachchy:
.
Thanks for the replies. I’m replying to your comments inline in the order in which they were posted. This reply is to Tony, and the next is to Gachchy:
.
(In the first quote in this post, I’m, experimentally trying the “[quote]…[/quote]” format.)
.
Tony—
.
[You wrote] :
.
[quote]
.
Some basic observations . . . if one looks long enough one comes to see that there are basically conceptual knowing (thinking mind and its many stories of "what is"), non-conceptual understanding (direct experience of "what is") as well as many shades-of-nuanced "knowing" in between.
.
So what I say here is essentially a conceptual story told by mind and apprehended directly by formless awareness (the apparent interior and exterior emptiness and stillness wherein all appearances exist). Note the words and remain aware.
.
What I experientially know is this: it's always 'now', and always 'today'. While everything said about Here and Now is illusory, conjured by mind, Here and Now as Presence is not illusory.
.
[/quote]
.
[unquote]
.
Absolutely. Nisargadatta pointed out that anything that can be said is a lie.
.
Evaluations and descriptions of how things are, don’t even come close to describing how things are. It’s been suggested, and it seems to me, that what indescribably is, is incomparably better than any description or evaluation.
.
I like sundials, calendars, map-projections, and metaphysics. But I realize that metaphysics is to Reality as knowing all about how a car or bus engine works is to actually going for a ride in the countryside.
.
[You wrote] :
.
So whatever anyone says, including Tony, about Advaita (neo- or otherwise) is story, illusory, not real. More likely to obscure than reveal bare awareness.
.
[unquote]
.
Quite so, for anything that is said.
.
[You wrote] :
.
See 'past' the stories, 'through' them if you will . . . and notice there is only Now, only Today, where Everything unfolds: living, dying, laughing, crying, questioning, answering, ruminating, yearning, seeking . . . even so-called 'after-life'. (If what you see here are only words, than all you understand are concepts.)
.
Even so . . . who or what asks: "Can a missed life be someone’s last life?"
.
In this instance it's only Mind asking the question, the mind-created-story-of-Michael.
.
See that You are not the Mind nor the story-of-Michael and notice the question falls away on its own . . . irrelevant. Remember, the very act of perceiving (awareness itself) reveals you are not what is perceived. Stay with the 'seeing', not the 'thinking about' . . . if you can. And I believe you can . . . because you are Presence.
.
But don't take my word for any of this . . . See for yourself. Right where you are, Awareness is too.
.
[unquote]
.
Yes, for each individual, that time eventually comes, when those facts become clear.
.
It’s said that Moksha comes, naturally and inevitably, to a life of Kama, Artha and Dharma.
.
Just as I like metaphysics, and such topics as sundials, calendars & map-projections, we all, in general, have to deal with this relational world that we all “materially” live in as life-protagonists. So, my question about the end-of-lives is (as you pointed out) a merely descriptive matter, like a geographical navigational matter, relating to this relational world. …just as any one of us might have to ask for directions to the post-office, etc.
.
It’s in that regard that I asked my question. As we all agree, we’re in this life-experience because we wanted it. Our needs and inclinations for this life are the reason for our experience of this life. We’re not here to discount, dismiss or disparage this life (or these lives) that we felt that we wanted or needed. We’re done with it when we’re done with it, and we’ll know when that is. It will be obvious then.
.
It’s just that, due to my unusual background, I’m definitely behind, in comparison to those who are more spiritually-ready.
.
Many or most people will be “staying-back” again this time (to use a school expression)--because whatever Vasanas are the reason for this life, they still are there just as they were before--and so will I, even if my reason for it is more unusual than theirs.
.
Again, I emphasize that I'm not trying to accurately or truly describe reality--which is inherently indescribable. I'm merely speaking at the directions-to-the-post-office level, a level of discussion and affairs that we all have to deal with, in this life.
.
Michael Ossipoff

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Michael, I appreciate you

Michael,

I appreciate you providing some contextual background and attempting to address the issue above at the "directions-to-post-office level".

In navigating to my local Post Office (Consciousness, "What is", Non-duality, etc) I notice it exists both outside and within this body-mind simultaneously. That is, I don't have to go anywhere to find it, its's always Here and I am It.

I didn't always see this because the Post Office in question is formless, immaterial, limitless and invisible to the eye. I initially came to know it through the shadows it cast.

The shadows consisted of this body's sensory data; the sights, sounds, taste, smells, and bodily sensations I experienced as the Tony action-figure and Mind's "stories" told inwardly and to others about these experiences, ("needs and inclinations . . . discussions and affairs that we all need to deal with . . .").

In this way I learned to treat the "shadows" (Mind's stories, individual and collectively) AS IF they were "Reality".

And there were/are so many Stories (beliefs, assumptions, credos tenets, commandments, etc) to believe or disbelieve, to remember or forget, to cherish or disparage; stories of regret, suffering, calamity, rejection, dismissal, awakenings, enlightenment, liberation, multi-verses, after-life, romance, science fiction, religion, success, failure, my unusual life, redemption, karma, vasanas, justice, fairness, mathematics, staying-back, theoretical physics, my prior life, abiding in presence, compassion, non-duality, etc, etc, etc.

I've now learned these simple directions, . . . Recognize mind's story for what it is and don't take it for Reality.

This way you'll find the Post Office (Self) every time (Return to Sender). There is only living Now, everything else is Story. Including this one. But what is aware of this story . . . is not story.

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Tony— [You wrote] : I

Tony—

[You wrote] :
I appreciate you providing some contextual background and attempting to address the issue above at the "directions-to-post-office level".
[unquote]

I wanted to emphasize that that was the level on which I was speaking, when I asked my question. It was a relative-world question, similar to the one that you’d ask someone on the street if you wanted to find the post-office, to mail a letter

Such a question _cannot_ be dismissed at the level of nondual absolute reality and truth. Any valid answer to such a question must be on the relative-world level.

We simply _cannot_ deal with the affairs of life entirely on the absolute nondual level. And yes we must deal with the affairs of worldly life.

[You wrote]:
In navigating to my local Post Office (Consciousness, "What is", Non-duality, etc) I notice it exists both outside and within this body-mind simultaneously. That is, I don't have to go anywhere to find it, its's always Here and I am It.
[unquote]

So that will get your rent-check mailed, right? Without going anywhere?

I respectfully disagree.

And then, don’t be bothered when you find the (illusory of course) eviction-notice tacked to your illusory front-door.

New-Age Neo-Advaita offers and seeks immediate Moksha without Artha or Dharma, in stark contrast to, and in stark contradiction of, traditional Vedanta.

Everyone wants to be a captain, but no one wants to be a sailor.

Read Sankara, regarding the requirements for Liberation.

[You wrote]:
I didn't always see this because the Post Office in question is formless, immaterial, limitless and invisible to the eye.
[unquote]

I was speaking of the physical post-office, the one at which you can mail a letter. It’s the physical post office.

No, I’m not advocating Physicalism (Materialism). This physical universe isn’t the ultimate reality, and doesn’t have primary or fundamental existence. But, whether you like it or not, you must live your life in this physical universe, and deal with it, however you regard it.

I’m a Vedantist. My life-views agree with those of traditional Vedanta.

Neo-Advaita is a modern Western radical revision of traditional Vedanta.

[You wrote] :
The shadows consisted of this body's sensory data; the sights, sounds, taste, smells, and bodily sensations I experienced as the Tony action-figure and Mind's "stories" told inwardly and to others about these experiences, ("needs and inclinations . . . discussions and affairs that we all need to deal with . . .").
[unquote]

Yes, this life, and the world in which it takes place, is a story. My question was about that story. The fact that it’s a story doesn’t justify dismissing every question or statement about it.

Verbal statements, questions, descriptions and evaluations (as we’ve already agreed) don’t even come close to accurately describing reality. But the relative world and our lives in it, stories though they are, must nevertheless be dealt with and lived in, while we’re physically here in it.

Neo-Advaita can’t successfully evade it, mightily though it strives to.

[You wrote] :
In this way I learned to treat the "shadows" (Mind's stories, individual and collectively) AS IF they were "Reality".
[unquote]

Good enough

[You wrote] :
.And there were/are so many Stories (beliefs, assumptions, credos tenets, commandments, etc) to believe or disbelieve, to remember or forget, to cherish or disparage; stories of regret, suffering, calamity, rejection, dismissal, awakenings, enlightenment, liberation, multi-verses, after-life, romance, science fiction, religion, success, failure, my unusual life, redemption, karma, vasanas, justice, fairness, mathematics, staying-back, theoretical physics, my prior life, abiding in presence, compassion, non-duality, etc, etc, etc.
[unquote]

…All part of a story, yes. All dismissible because they’re in a story? No, sorry.

As I said, you’re in worldly life, whether you like it or not. And don’t forget to take that rent-check to the post-office on time.

[You wrote] :
I've now learned these simple directions, . . . Recognize mind's story for what it is and don't take it for Reality.
[unquote]

Sure, recognize worldly-life and its physical world as a story, which is what it is.

[You wrote] :
This way you'll find the Post Office (Self)
[unquote]

No, the post-office to which I was referring was the physical one, at which letters are mailed.

[You wrote] :
There is only living Now
[unquote]

Yes, and nothing that I said contradicts that statement.

The fact that there is only the living Now doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss the future, which is (whether anyone likes it or not) part of our temporal worldly life.

What days in the coming week will be your days off?

Oops!! How un-hip of me, to speak of the future, when there’s only the living Now!

And yet, somehow it can be useful to consider which day in the coming week will be your days off, because maybe there are things that you’d like to in that future. Maybe you have to swing by the hardware-store tomorrow, to get some essential household item. Oops!! There I go again, un-hip-ly speaking of the future, when of course we know that there is only the living Now.

No, you don’t stake your happiness on the future, because it’s true that there’s only the Now. No, you don’t live in the future. But you nevertheless consider the future, when making plans. Sorry, but yes you do.

[You wrote] :
, everything else is Story. Including this one.
[unquote]

Your life is a story. And you must deal with that story while you are in this life.

[You wrote] :
But what is aware of this story . . . is not story.
[unquote]

My intent in this discussion has never been to challenge the metaphysics.

I asked my initial question because I wanted to hear what people would have to say about it.

As people often are, I was a bit insulted by the Neo-Advaitist dismissal. That explains this reply.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t criticize or express disagreement with someone else’s beliefs.

But, I wanted to hear how others would answer my question. I wanted to get others’ opinion. And of course I got that. So I have no complaint.

Obviously we don’t agree, and I don’t have a mission to change your beliefs or convince you of anything.

But, in reply to the Neo-Advaitist dismissal, I wanted to answer on these matters.

But I just want to emphasize that I ordinarily don’t criticize the beliefs of others.

How many Neo-Advaitists does it take to change a light-bulb?

Who is it who wants to know?

Michael Ossipoff

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502
Top

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Who is responsible for seeing or not seeing . . . ?

Michael,

MO (reinterpreted): "I simply _cannot_ deal with the affairs of life entirely on the absolute nondual level. And yes I must deal with the affairs of worldly life."

Read this way, I fully appreciate the honest disclosure and understand the focus of time, energy, heart and soul seeking valid answers to questions of concern to you on the relative-world level.

But for the record, please realize that by recognizing story for what it is and not mistaking it for Reality, I am not dismissing the relative world of appearance.

I am not a non-dualist, neo-advaitist, vedantist, christian, buddhist, spiritual seeker, philosopher, psychologist, superior, subordinate, teacher or any other label.

Nor do I go on about there's no one here, no doer, doing nothing, needing nothing, being nobody, going nowhere etc, etc, etc.

I stop on red, go on green. Pay bills. Invest time, energy, money and equity in people, relationships, and property. Seek shelter from the storm, relief from pain, and get soaked and bedraggled and suffer when I don't. This all happens Now. As do the consequences.

MO: "I’m a Vedantist. My life-views agree with those of traditional Vedanta."

Response: Continue to read Sankara, and all other material that provide guidance and reassurance that what you know comports with traditional knowing. For me, I see what I see through stories (assumptions, expectations, etc) . . . and sometimes I see before there is story. Neither good nor bad.

But ultimately, what I write here sheds no light on Michael, advaita, nonduality, "what is", dimly or brightly, dismissively or confirmatory. What is written only reveals the author to the author, no one else. There's no need to rush to judgment (to defend or attack) except Mind says there's a reason (MO: "I was a bit insulted by the Neo-Advaitist dismissal." Why insulted, why offended . . . words cannot dismiss "what is".)

Similarly, what Michael writes here about Advaita, Sankara, Liberation, or Tony, only reveals and sheds light on Michael's interpretations, assumptions and beliefs thereof.

Such is the nature of self-inquiry, to hold up the mirror with sufficient clarity and honesty to see what is to be seen . . . or not?

Sometimes I see what I want or expect to see, and sometimes I don't see what I don't want or don't expect to see. Sometimes I see directly that I am, and sometimes I see I am not. Who is responsible for this seeing or not seeing, Michael or Tony? (A rhetorical question.)

Namaste

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Tony— . I apologize for the

Tony—
.
I apologize for the defensive reaction, which evidently caused some offense. In the West, when you ask a question of an Advaitist, you should expect a Neo-Advaitist dismissive answer. And, if you don’t want that, then don’t ask a question of a Western Advaitist. So I should have either not asked, or else expected the answer that I got.
.
In any case, either way, I certainly shouldn’t have made it into an argument, and for that I apologize, both to you and to myself.
.
It’s just that (lots of people have said this), there’s a certain hipper-than-thou one-upmanship in the routine dismissive Neo-Advaitist answers.
.
Look, what if I asked you how to replace a car’s ignition-points and sparkplugs? Your answer:
.
“There is no car. There are no points.. There are no sparkplugs. There is only the Absolute.”
.
That ain’t gonna help me worth diddley-squat!
.
The implication of that answer is that, if I were as Enlightened as the answerer, I wouldn’t ask that question.
.
I don’t have any use for the game of more-Enlightened-than-thou. But of course I shouldn’t have let it anger me or surprise me, when I ask a question of an Advaitist in the West.
.
If, passing on the sidewalk, I ask you where the nearest post-office is, and you reply, “You _are_ the post-office. You were never away from the post-office.”…that isn’t an answer either.
[quote]
MO (reinterpreted): "I simply _cannot_ deal with the affairs of life entirely on the absolute nondual level. And yes I must deal with the affairs of worldly life."
.
[unquote]
.
No, absolutely not. That isn’t a reasonable interpretation of what I said or meant. I said and meant that _everyone_ , not just I, must deal with worldly affairs. Even though one’s life is a Story, we all must deal with that story. You acknowledged that you, yourself, deal with your worldly-affairs of life, and that, on the practical level, you treat the story as real. …but my question didn’t deserve any acknowledgement of validity at any level?
.
Of course my question was one that an Enlightened Master wouldn’t have asked you. Certainly, my question included an implied assumption that you know something that I don’t know. So your answer didn’t need to establish that.
.
But I wasn’t asking if worldly-life is really real.
.
I don’t really like what I’m doing now. I don’t want or need to convince you of anything, or “convert” you from Neo-Advaita.
.
But I just feel that it’s fair that you have the opportunity to hear an alternative point-of-view. (…but I’m not going to keep bothering you about it, and make a proselytizing nuisance of myself. Just this one more message, and then I’ll leave you alone.)
.
Neo-Advaita amounts to a selective denial of relative fact. Yes, you pay your bills, because you know that you have to, whether they’re real or not. But, in discussion, somehow, all of a sudden, there’s nothing but the Absolute, and it’s un-hip to speak of anything other than the fact that we’re the Absolute. Do you see that that’s a sure conversation-stopper? Do you really want to say that we shouldn’t say anything about this relative world?
.
Neo-Advaita says that we’re all already Enlightened, that we’re all already Liberated. Maybe you should explain that to Sankara, who listed some rather demanding requirements for Liberation—It isn’t just about knowing or hearing the metaphysical facts. Maybe you should explain that to Ramana, who said that very few people will become Liberated in this lifetime. Maybe you should explain it to the traditional Vedantists, who, throughout history, for thousands of years, have been pointing out that Moksha doesn’t come by itself. It comes after long practice, consisting typically of many years, or lifetimes, of Dharmic living.
.
As I may have already said in this discussion, it is the traditional Vedanta position that:
.
Moksha, naturally and inevitably, comes into a life of Kama, Artha, and Dharma.
.
Yes, Liberation is there for everyone. Just not necessarily in this year, or this lifetime.
.
But, I ask Neo-Advaitists, “What’s the hurry?” Why is it so important and necessary to be already Liberated?
.
Is it about social status, and the human instinct for competitiveness? …,a need to be in the in-crowd?
.
If we humans drive a car, or sail a boat, etc., we aren’t content with that. We want our car to be faster or better; we want to win a sailboat race and be better than the other sailors. Can we recognize and drop that competitive need? …and live our human life without the competition?
.
[quote]
Read this way, I fully appreciate the honest disclosure and understand the focus of time, energy, heart and soul seeking valid answers to questions of concern to you on the relative-world level.
.
But for the record, please realize that by recognizing story for what it is and not mistaking it for Reality, I am not dismissing the relative world of appearance.
.
[quote]
I am not a non-dualist, neo-advaitist, vedantist, christian, buddhist, spiritual seeker, philosopher, psychologist, superior, subordinate, teacher or any other label.
[unquote]
.
Now, you see that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Another form of he Neo-Advaita conversation-stopper. “I can’t be described in any way, because there is no Michael, and there are no metaphysical, philosophical or religious positions, because it’s all illusion and story.”
.
Well, for the purpose of this discussion, at the level of discussion, I can say that I’m a Vedantist.
.
[quote]
Nor do I go on about there's no one here, no doer, doing nothing, needing nothing, being nobody, going nowhere etc, etc, etc.
[unquote]
.
Weren’t you using those conversation-stoppers?
.
[quote]
For me, I see what I see through stories (assumptions, expectations, etc) . . . and sometimes I see before there is story. Neither good nor bad.
[unquote]
.
Nothing wrong with that. But if I ask you how to replace a car’s sparkplugs, I hope you aren’t going to tell me that there is no car, and there are no sparkplugs, because there is only the Absolute.
[quote]
.
Why insulted, why offended . . . words cannot dismiss "what is".
[unquote]
.
But I wasn’t asking about what Ultimately Is.
.
People who get those dismissive Neo-Advaita answers are insulted and offended because they’re being told that their question, itself, is wrong. (Yes yes, “There is no wrong, and no right…”) They’re being told that the only answer to their question is that the question shows how unenlightened they must be, to even ask it.
.
But I withdraw my question.
[quote]
Similarly, what Michael writes here about Advaita, Sankara, Liberation, or Tony, only reveals and sheds light on Michael's interpretations, assumptions and beliefs thereof.
[unquote]
.
Incorrect. Sankara really did write (his, not my) statement about the requirements for Liberation. Ramana (at least as quoted by a critic of Neo-Advaita) really did say that very few people will be Liberated in this lifetime. Traditional Vedants really does speak of Moksha as something that goes with Dharma, rather than something that everyone already has.
.
No, I don’t claim to quote those sources perfectly, but I’ve merely pointed to the gist of what they say, and I encourage you to read them for yourself. …for _your own_ interpretation of what they say.
.
Yes, Post-Modern relativism says that anything that someone says can be taken as only their assumptions and beliefs, because there are no facts.
.
Anyway, I repeat and emphasize my apology for getting argumentative, when I should have expected the usual Neo-Advaita dismissal when asking a question of a Western Advaitist.
.
And I repeat my promise that I’m not going to continue being a proselytizing nuisance, and I’m not going to further try to explain what’s wrong with Neo-Advaita, or to “convert” you from it.
.
I just felt that, in fairness to you, you’re entitled to hear an alternative point of view. But of course, when continued too long, that’s how I could become, to you, a proselytizing nuisance.
.
Best wishes,
.
Michael

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Happy trails . . . !

Michael,

It's become clear to me that the Michael I have been reading and responding to is a figment-of-my-imagination, upon which I have projected assumptions and interpretations that we were somehow fellow "consciousness explorers". My mistake and apologies for that. So there won't be any point-by-point responses or attempts at clarification to your last posting.

Instead, here are some last words from me as well (unless they aren't): I encourage self-discovery, seeing for oneself what's what, and I fully understand (when not distracted by figments-of-imagination) that if my words don't work for you (and they don't), if there's no experiential resonance (and there isn't, only irritating dissonance), you absolutely do not need to waste another moment on them. Throw them on the rubbish heap! No apologies necessary.

So with that sentiment in mind, here's a final, final note in a bottle, to pulse along some mental electro-chemical pathway in some brain somewhere or to be blissfully ignored: we in form are walking-talking-breathing-points-of-view, with pinhole perspectives that cannot see the totality of the sky (the absolute). So all anyone ever says about "what is" (the limited [conditioned personality] or the limitless [unconditioned self]) is from a personal pinhole perspective only, be they Sankara, Ramana Maharshi, Nisagadaarta Maharaj, Papaji, Buddha, Huang Po, Suzuki Roshi, or the Dalai Lama. Their seeing is not my seeing, their understanding is not my understanding, their enlightenment is not my enlightenment, their Truth is not my truth.

That's why I encourage readers not to take anything I write or anyone says about "awareness awakening to itself" as true. However, I do point out that it is self-verifiable . . . one can truly find out for oneself or convincingly delude oneself. That's the wonder of this embodied journey. An awakening glimpse can happen at any time (Now), anywhere (Here), under any circumstance (reading these words) or not at all!

In this endeavor, here's a handy tip from Nisagadaarta Maharaj I found very helpful, "The very act of perceiving reveals you are not that which is perceived."

Work it or don't work it, it's up to you.

Happy trails Amigo!

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
[quote] …if my words don't

[quote]
…if my words don't work for you…
[unquote]

I’ve already withdrawn my question.

Basically, this is simply about changing the subject.

This isn’t a complaint, but rather is just an elucidation of the history of this discussion.

Here is what changing the subject means:

I ask you a question about the life-cycle of snails, and you reply: “The answer is that your question doesn’t even have anything to do with, or relevance to, the records of proceedings of the Minnesota legislature.”

Your answer was of that nature. I wasn’t asking about the absolute truth about what is. I didn’t ask if worldly life, and the physical world that it takes place in, is fundamentally real. I didn’t ask if this physical universe is the primary, ultimate reality.

You could have just said, “I don’t know.” …or “That isn’t my subject.” That would have made a lot more sense.

As I said, my question wasn’t about metaphysics, or the matter of what really is.

And, in the subsequent discussion, at no time did I express disagreement with you regarding your metaphysical statements.

How is what I’m saying in this post relevant or helpful?:

A lot of people are suckered by Neo-Advaita, with its use of its concepts about the Absolute and absolute truth, to selectively dismiss, evade or avoid relative facts of worldly life. …and its promise of instant, drive-through Liberation, available to anyone who is willing to believe right, without the long practice of Dharmic living that is part of legitimate traditional Vedanta.

Masquerading as Indian Advaita Vedanta, Neo-Advaita is, as I said before, a modern Western radical revision of traditional Indian Advaita Vedanta.

Michael Ossipoff

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Finding one's way home . . .

Michael:

What you call "changing the subject", with delightful example of snails and such, I previously acknowledged as a "figment-of-imagination", and even suggested you take my words and throw them on the rubbish heap!

But I see that in lieu of dismissing them to the rubbish heap the proselytizer in you doth protested too much (wanted to elucidate just a little bit more).

That's okay. And in return, I contribute a companion elucidation, only seemingly at cross-purposes:

Beware so-called "Neo-Advaita" and so-called "Traditional Indian Advaita Vedanta". Both are conceptual illusions prone to confuse the unwary. But once alerted to the basis of confusion, mistaking the unreal for real, one can usually find one's way home.

May you enjoy peace of mind.

Namaste

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
[Tony said] : Beware

[Tony said] :
Beware so-called "Neo-Advaita" and so-called "Traditional Indian Advaita Vedanta". Both are conceptual illusions prone to confuse the unwary.
[unquote]

The difference is that legitimate Vedanta doesn't offer instant Liberation by bestowal of metaphysical truths.

It's Neo-Advaita, not legitimate Vedanta, that tries to pass concepts off as Reality.

So yes, beware of Neo-Advaita's deluded misinterpretation of Vedanta.

Michael Ossipoff

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
[Tony says] :Beware

...

gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
.

Hello Tony and Michael,

I must appreciate both of you for showing the Highest Maturity in the preceding discussions, which proves that both of you have the Highest State of Evolved Mind.

Both Tony and Michael have elaborated about the two aspects of the same reality Noumenal and Phenomenal, but their EMPHASIS only differed. When Tony stresses on Noumenal Aspect of Reality, it doesn't mean that he disregards the Phenomenal world. So also, when Micheal emphasizes the Phenomenal Aspects of reality, it doesn't mean that he disagrees with the Noumenal Aspect of the Reality. It may be assumed, say for example like, when two persons define a World, one gives more emphasis to the North Pole and the other the South Pole. But, aren't both these Poles part of the same world?

As always, I admire the views of Tony and his clarity about Awareness and his Pin Hole Perspective Theory. Tony's points are irrefutable. To my understanding, they are perfect to the core. One more good aspect of Tony, as I have always noticed, is his extraordinary composure in delivering his view points. Conveying ones views without hurting others is like walking on RAZOR EDGE. Tony has an expertise in putting the apt words when he conveys a message without hurting anybody. It's quite fortunate that I have come across a person like Tony in my life. I wish to emulate and learn this quality from him.

I understand the Logic and Reason behind Michael's Greater Emphasis on Traditional Vedanta. I fully agree with Michael's views also for several valid reasons. Many people who ill-conceive Advaita, go really CRAZY, LAZY, ADAMANT, ARGUMENTATIVE, WORTHLESS and IMPRACTICAL by taking shelter behind half baked understanding about Advaita. I have always felt very uneasy about few Neo Advaitic writers in this forum, arguing excessively that 'Existence is a Greatest Illusion', 'You don't even Exist", 'I don't even Exist', 'Awareness is Illusion', 'Consciousness is Illusion', 'Light alone is real', 'You are already Enlightened', 'Everybody is Enlightened','There is no Enlightenment', 'Enlightenment is Fake', 'There is No Right and Wrong' etc. There is a Greater Risk in life if we misinterpret Advaita, as such wrong interpretations can cripple one's Mind and Activities totally. Such people may even become Mentally Handicapped persons and become useless. Such, imprudent Self Made Advaitists, have their own THESIS about ADVAITA and become like a spoilt child arguing day in and day out. They talk and talk and talk and never act. Such people have argued tooth and nail even in this forum as to why Ego is so much wrong, exhibiting their Highest Ego. They would write pages and pages about Unconditional Acceptance, but they would never accept other's views. During my earlier days, I had also been a victim of such ill-conceived propaganda.

Hence, I wholeheartedly welcome and endorse Michael's views about Traditional Vedanta viz., Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha, and the pitfalls that may lie ahead in senselessly following several Crazy Neo Advaitic Principles. I have really learnt something useful from your posts.

I may expect Michael to continue writing in this forum.

Thank you Tony and Michael.

It's time to Enjoy some Enchanting Music (No Religious Affiliation intended)

https://youtu.be/xrcgb_NTMiQ?list=RDT6T5U7ewezU
https://youtu.be/mzFQPyb8lfQ?list=RDT6T5U7ewezU
https://youtu.be/vSpABFys6TQ

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Brother Gachchy . . .

Gachchy,

Hey, thank you for your generous words and let me say it's a pleasure witnessing your evolving self-inquiry and the integrating of same into daily life.

As I've written before, I'm generally not interested in debating the mote in someone else's eye that might be impairing their vision (dogmatic: non-duality, buddhism, advaita vedanta, zen, meditation, affirmations, etc, etc), . . . so much as I am intrigued with investigating the log in my eye (thinking mind's unexamined assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and general all-around knowledge-based monkey-mind activity) impairing my clarity.

And what I've discovered in this inquiring, in part, is that awareness, consciousness, presence, essential emptiness, source, stillness, however labeled . . . is Silent. That which speaks (asking questions and providing answers, worrying and complaining) is Mind only. Thus, impairing my clarity is believing and trusting Mind's description of "whatever". (Huh?!)

And that which hears Mind's self-talk does not speak or respond to Mind. What responds is Mind masquerading as Awareness. (Who woulda thunk!)

And in the realm of Mind, conceptual opposites coexist simultaneously, not mutually exclusive in actuality. The limited and the limitless are inseparable in Now. Each known by the existence of its apparent opposite. And Ideology of any sort, belittled or exhorted, is a log in one's eye. (Really! You realized this by "simply" paying attention to your actions and inactions in daily life? Hmmmm?!)

Gachchy: "We are always trying to decipher the truth using our Mind. Mind is a very limited tool just like a spanner or screw driver, can not repair and give solutions to all our problems. It's highly crazy to expect all solutions from our Mind. At first, let's first try to avoid trusting our mind. Just, let us try to go one step beyond the Mind and stay as Awareness.

When the Mind refers to its own self instead of objects, its true nature, consciousness is realized. Being alert like watching the breath, or watching its own self through Meditation, can bring the mind to the point of stillness aka consciousness. Here, we are simply not tranquilizing the mind, but instead transcending the mind. This is consciousness being aware of its own self and the seer is present to its own self."

Response: This is a fine description of self-inquiry . . . encouraging actual "direct seeing" versus merely "talking or thinking about direct seeing". Simply put, when Mind is quiet there is clarity of direct perception. When Mind is active at any level, there is impairment of direct seeing equivalent to the level of mental activity. Directly seeing is realizable and discoverable by "simply" noticing how one is when Mind is silent and how one is when Mind is active during so-called every day existence.

(And "we" all know how easy "simply" is don't we! Not! It's "simply" a matter of Believing "this" or that", or "this and that", or "this but not that", or "something something", and voila! Enlightenment! Wisdom! Irrefutable knowledge! Hahahahahahha!)

Keep on posting brother Gachchy!

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
The religion of instant

The religion of instant Liberation by the bestowal of metaphysical concepts?
.
It’s probably futile, and bad manners too, to go to a Western Advaita website-forum, and criticize the prevailing religion of Western Advaitists.
.
I certainly didn’t expect to prevail in that Quixotic and Sisyphean endeavor.
.
I just wanted to have my say on that matter, for the benefit of any visitors to the forum who might be lured into that religion of drastically-modified, hijacked Vedanta, posing as Vedanta.
.
Michael Ossipoff

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Ships passing on a vast ocean . . .

MO: "The religion of instant Liberation by the bestowal of metaphysical concepts?"

Response: Hmmm . . . the only "religion" of "liberation" "bestowed" by "metaphysical concepts" I see referenced herein is the one you query? As for me, I don't support, endorse or promote any religion.

MO:"It’s probably futile, and bad manners too, to go to a Western Advaita website-forum, and criticize the prevailing religion of Western Advaitists."

Response: You are free to criticize whatever doesn't comport with your point of view, conceptual or experiential. My observation, and that's all it is, is that, in this instance, the irritating Neo-advaita that's rubbing you the wrong way appears to be an unwelcome squatter that's taken up residence in your mind, ("there’s a certain hipper-than-thou one-upmanship in the routine dismissive Neo-Advaitist answer", "I don’t have any use for the game of more-Enlightened-than-thou"). One may ask, who's really playing the "one-upmanship" "more-Enlightened-than-thou" game?

MO: "I certainly didn’t expect to prevail in that Quixotic and Sisyphean endeavor."

Response: Hmmm . . . to prevail or not prevail in a Quixotic and Sisyphean endeavor? Interesting perspective . . . Self-inquiry (Awareness-awakening-to-itself) as competition? From my viewpoint, competition isn't really viable in Self-inquiry because there are as many paths of Self-inquiry (beyond dogma, labels, and vedas) as there are people on the planet. This may sound blasphemous to a True Believer but the inconvenient truth is that these paths are not interchangeable.

MO: "I just wanted to have my say on that matter, for the benefit of any visitors to the forum who might be lured into that religion of drastically-modified, hijacked Vedanta, posing as Vedanta."

Response: Of course you may say whatever you want to say on this forum about whatever. After all, neither you nor I reveal, speak for or on behalf of: "everyone", "anyone", "some", "each", "we", "others", "us" or "them". Ultimately it's the writer that's revealed through his or her choice of words and choice of subject matter. At heart, Michael reveals always and only Michael. And Tony reveals only Tony. Tony reveals nothing about Non-duality (oneness or non-separation), Advaita (neo or otherwise), Consciousness (wave or ocean), Reality (relative or absolute), "what is" (God or Source), no matter how often he utters those words. Until Mind is seen clearly, it's basically all mental projections disguised as . . . ?

Nevertheless, despite how we may look at and see the world, thank you for sharing. We are ships passing on a vast ocean and your hailing voice is welcome.

(A non-sequitur self-reminder: Self-inquiry (by whatever label) requires a willingness to look in the mirror of daily life with as much commitment and clarity as I can muster and see what self-imaging is projected thereon. Because, let's face it Tony, wherever you go, there "I" am.)

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Tony— . I considered not

Tony—
.
I considered not replying, because I don’t like to criticize anyone’s beliefs.
.
But, for one thing, part of a forum’s purpose is the expression of different opinions or positions.
.
I don’t mean any of this as criticism. …just an objective discussion of Neo-Advaita.
.
I’m not trolling or chumming (though I’ve often been accused of it).
.
My purpose isn’t to start an argument or criticize you. I’m just trying to help.
.
Anyway, when I asked my question, you had several options:
.
1. You could have just not replied.
.
2. You could have just said, “I don’t know”
.
3. You could have just said, “That isn’t my subject.”
.
Of course options #2 and #3 are dominated by option #1.
.
Instead, you chose to dismiss the relevance and validity of my question. That’s quite common for Neo-Advaitists. It’s one of the reasons why people often comment on the rudeness of Neo-Advaitists.
.
Had you chosen option 1, 2, or 3, I wouldn’t have said anything.
.
You statement or implication that my question, itself was misguided, that merely asking the question amounts to an error, makes your Neo-Advaitism my business. When you make such a statement or implication, you invite an answer.
.
My reply will be partly inline, but not entirely:
.
MO: "The religion of instant Liberation by the bestowal of metaphysical concepts?"
.
[quote]
.
Response: Hmmm . . . the only "religion" of "liberation" "bestowed" by "metaphysical concepts" I see referenced herein is the one you query?
[unquote]
.
Yes. Neo-Advaita.
.
[quote]
As for me, I don't support, endorse or promote any religion.
[/quote]
.
Not by name. But at least much, or at least most, of what you’ve been saying is Neo-Advaita. …the religion of Neo-Advaita.
.
Of course I should clarify what I mean by that:
.
I’m not referring to your metaphysics. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I haven’t expressed disagreement with your metaphysics.
.
And whenever you or Gachchy have pointed out the difference between metaphysics and Reality, the difference between concepts and experience, I’ve emphatically agreed.
.
For you to point that out, and for it to be emphasized by this forum’s signature/statement-of-purpose is valuable, important, and could helpful to many.
.
So then, in what sense have you been talking Neo-Advaita all the time?
.
It isn’t about the facts that you speak. It’s a matter of confusion of _levels_ of discussion.
.
I emphasize that I’ve withdrawn my initial question, but your “answer” to it exemplified the usual and typical Neo-Advaitist confusion of levels.
.
I asked a question about relative, worldly matters. Whether you like it or not, we do live in that world. You’ve admitted that even you deal with that world. But you answered in terms of the Absolute, dismissing my question by saying that worldly life isn’t real, that there is no Michael, there is really no such thing as a life. …and that all that there reallyis is the absolute. …and that therefore my question was just an instance of wrongness and misguidedness. Your answer to my question was that its asking has no justification, because only the Absolute is real.
.
Your statement that even you make your payments on time, and otherwise live in and deal with the relative world, amounts to a contradiction of your dismissal of my question because it’s about the relative world. That sort of self-contradiction is the essence of Neo-Advaita.
.
I’m just bringing your self-contradiction to your attention.
.
As for your pointing out the difference between concept and experience, between metaphysics and Reality: Though that’s completely valid, you’ve been using it a not-valid way. You trot it out as an answer to a worldly, relative question or discussion.
.
You’re trotting-out and using valid truths to “answer” a question or to win an argument (an argument of your own making). The topic was relative, worldy matters, and you’re trying to use Absolute truths to answer on such matters, or to make and win an argument about such matters.
.
That’s what I meant by “confusion of levels of discussion”.
.
As such, you’re using your valid truths as concepts and doctrines. In other words, you’re misinterpreting and mis-using them.
.
Your approach is doctrinaire. You’re pushing the doctrine of Neo-Advaita.
.
I’m sure that you’ve read that, in Zen, someone who advocates or talks Zen in a manner that is doctrinaire is said to “reek of Zen”. That’s what I’m talking about here, except that it’s Advaita instead of Zen.
.
What do I suggest? You just don’t really want to use your valid truths as concepts and doctrines to start and win arguments, to make criticisms, on worldy, relative matters. That isn’t what those valid truths are for. That isn’t what they are. You’re confusing levels.
.
When you do that, you’re confusing what your valid truths are really about, and you’re debasing them.
.
It goes without saying that I make no claim to be a spiritual teacher. But let me make a little comment:
.
You’re dismissing life, believing that you’ve risen above it. Is that what you think Liberation is?
.
Reconsider Ramana’s statement that there’s a false “Liberation” that very few people will get past.
.
Reconsider Sankara’s list of requirements for Liberation.
.
Neo-Advaita’s Moksha-without-Dharma is a modern Western radical revision of Vedanta.
.
Instead of replying inline (point-by-point) to your statements below, I’ll just mention that they’re all pure, classic, standard Neo-Advaita evasion.
.
“There is no religion, there are no beliefs, there is no you, there is no I, there is no rudeness…because there is only the Absolute”. That can be, and is, said by Neo-Advaitsts in many forms and in many ways.
.
…as a (perhaps subconscious) system of evasion that, in its own terms, is of course un-assailable and unfalsifiable. Anything that’s said about your Neo-Advaita can be “refuted” by the statement in quotes, in the paragraph before this one. …or by some variation of it.
.
I again emphasize that I’m not trying to criticize, but only to help. Don’t take offense or get defensive. Just consider that maybe there’s something to what I’m saying.
.
A number of people report that they were deceived by Neo-Advaita, a phoney misinterpretation of Advaita, for years.
.
I’m posting this reply so that you’ll realize Neo-Advaita’s phoniness now, instead of a decade or two from now.
.
No offense intended.
Michael Ossipoff
.
.
MO:"It’s probably futile, and bad manners too, to go to a Western Advaita website-forum, and criticize the prevailing religion of Western Advaitists."
.
Response: You are free to criticize whatever doesn't comport with your point of view, conceptual or experiential. My observation, and that's all it is, is that, in this instance, the irritating Neo-advaita that's rubbing you the wrong way appears to be an unwelcome squatter that's taken up residence in your mind, ("there’s a certain hipper-than-thou one-upmanship in the routine dismissive Neo-Advaitist answer", "I don’t have any use for the game of more-Enlightened-than-thou"). One may ask, who's really playing the "one-upmanship" "more-Enlightened-than-thou" game?
.
MO: "I certainly didn’t expect to prevail in that Quixotic and Sisyphean endeavor."
.
Response: Hmmm . . . to prevail or not prevail in a Quixotic and Sisyphean endeavor? Interesting perspective . . . Self-inquiry (Awareness-awakening-to-itself) as competition? From my viewpoint, competition isn't really viable in Self-inquiry because there are as many paths of Self-inquiry (beyond dogma, labels, and vedas) as there are people on the planet. This may sound blasphemous to a True Believer but the inconvenient truth is that these paths are not interchangeable.
.
MO: "I just wanted to have my say on that matter, for the benefit of any visitors to the forum who might be lured into that religion of drastically-modified, hijacked Vedanta, posing as Vedanta."
.
Response: Of course you may say whatever you want to say on this forum about whatever. After all, neither you nor I reveal, speak for or on behalf of: "everyone", "anyone", "some", "each", "we", "others", "us" or "them". Ultimately it's the writer that's revealed through his or her choice of words and choice of subject matter. At heart, Michael reveals always and only Michael. And Tony reveals only Tony. Tony reveals nothing about Non-duality (oneness or non-separation), Advaita (neo or otherwise), Consciousness (wave or ocean), Reality (relative or absolute), "what is" (God or Source), no matter how often he utters those words. Until Mind is seen clearly, it's basically all mental projections disguised as . . . ?
.
Nevertheless, despite how we may look at and see the world, thank you for sharing. We are ships passing on a vast ocean and your hailing voice is welcome.
.
(A non-sequitur self-reminder: Self-inquiry (by whatever label) requires a willingness to look in the mirror of daily life with as much commitment and clarity as I can muster and see what self-imaging is projected thereon. Because, let's face it Tony, wherever you go, there "I" am.)
.
Tony

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Examining the mote in God's eye . . . or not?

Hey Michael,

I do appreciate your talking points as talking points of view . . . but I suspect something else might be at play besides "just an objective discussion of Neo-Advaita"?

MO: " . . . I'm not really trying to proselytize you. I'm just trying to de-program you."

MO: "I again emphasize that I’m not trying to criticize, but only to help."

MO: "I’m posting this reply so that you’ll realize Neo-Advaita’s phoniness now, instead of a decade or two from now.
.
No offense intended."

Response: How utterly delightful! Thank you for your kind intentions. But please understand, for me, "de-constructing" or "de-programming" is at the very heart of self-inquiry and already underway.

Per Nisagaardatta's instructive insight, "The very act of perceiving reveals you are (I am) not that which is perceived". Thus, I'm on a journey of self-inquiry undertaken as an individual endeavor. So, metaphorically speaking, such self-inquiry is my pail of water to carry.

And, as a "personal self", I discover, or not, the power of . . . neti, neti, neti, . . . . not this, not this, not this, . . . persistently de-constructing who I think I am and daily recognizing what I am not. Not by reading books or scripture, by daily meditation, until there is this familiar sense of inner stillness.

And what is seen, in the experiential sense of Now and not the conceptual sense of a decade or two from now, is the illusory nature of so-called Neo-Advaita and the illusory nature of so-called Traditional Advaita Vedanta. And it's grasped that simply because an illusion is illusory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does, it's just not real.

On a different level of discourse, I intuit that so-called . . . relative, worldly matters and the Absolute, . . . the limited and the limitless, . . . and self and no-self, . . . are inseparable and interconnected. Not "either/or" but "and" . . . simultaneously. Not contradictory or incompatible except in Mind. Thus, I can daily live with apparent paradoxes and daily live fitting apparent opposites into neatly labeled illusory boxes of differentiation (not for truth's sake, but for convenience's sake). Either way there are life consequences and living with those consequences.

Again speaking for myself only, and switching gears, I daily focus (meditate) on the Logs (unexamined and/or unacknowledged beliefs, assumptions, knowledge, conditioning, etc) lodged in mind's eye obstructing my vision . . . and not so much on the tiny motes (unexamined and/or unacknowledged beliefs, assumptions, knowledge, conditioning, etc) lodged in someone else's eye that may be impairing their vision.

Meaning, despite the forum's signature/statement-of-purpose, I'm not here on NNH to win arguments, be a spokesperson for or act as a self-appointed guardian of Non-duality, pointing out apparent fallacies and inconsistencies in other people's beliefs or assumptions.

I speak on my own behalf, based primarily on personal experience. Basically, I just ask, in one form or another, "Who is doing the seeking, who is asking the questions, who is defending point of view?" And I speak from this perspective, effectively or clumsily, as the case may be.

In this regard, I have first hand experience of the conditioned habit of looking outward and pointing "there" is the problem, "there" is the confusion, the misinterpretation, the misguidedness, the phoniness, the delusion, it's out there in "you", in "them", in "it", the "world", not in "me"! But looking into the mirror of self-inquiry . . . well, that's another story.

What I find most helpful about your posts are not the validity or invalidity of your opinions and comments, which you are entitled to however you came by them, but my reactions to them (positive, negative or indifferent). Meaning, while it may look on the surface like you're responding to me and I'm responding to you, for me it's still self-inquiry happening.

Thus, witnessing these reactions helps identify those pesky motes and logs still floating in mind's eye, as it were, interfering with direct seeing unmediated by beliefs, assumptions, knowledge, and conditioning.

Until such Mind activity is clearly seen within oneself, I imagine it's basically going to be "mental projections" and "confusing levels of discussion" existing as "different levels of communication".

And these different levels of communication involve, at a minimum, writing these comments partially as responses to Michael, partially as self-clarifications, and partially as messages in a bottle to unknown forum readers as fellow beachcombers on Planetship Earth. If what is read resonates with anybody, fine. If not, any such person is free to toss the message aside as irrelevant and unimportant. After all, one's either genuinely interested in self-inquiry or one's not? If one is, one looks inward at mind's activities. If one's not, that's okay too.

As someone once said, "The sun shines indiscriminately on a vineyard and the individual grape ripens on the vine without taking any credit for its ripening."

In the spirit of indiscriminate sunshine, keep posting Michael, keep on posting. No offense is taken. Why would there be? You're simply expressing your point of view filtered through something, that's not actually a thing, you've labeled Traditional Advaita Vedanta as I simply express my point of view filtered through what I label conditioned mind (conceptual understanding) and unconditioned mind (non-conceptual understanding).

Happy beachcombing!

Namaste

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Saturday, 6/10/17 Reply

Hi Tony—
.
[quote]
Examining the mote in God's eye . . . or not?
[unquote]
.
Spoken like a true Atheist.
.
By the way, “The Mote in God’s Eye” was the title of a science-fiction novel by Larry Niven &/or Jerry Pournelle.
.
[quote]
.
Hey Michael,
.
I do appreciate your talking points as talking points of view . . . but I suspect something else might be at play besides "just an objective discussion of Neo-Advaita"?
.
[unquote]
.
Such as?? :^)
.
My motives were as stated by me.
.
If you want to imply or theorize otherwise, then you need to be a lot more specific about what you’re talking about. But I admit that specificity isn’t usually a Neo-Advaitist attribute.
.
[quote]

Response: How utterly delightful! Thank you for your kind intentions. But please understand, for me, "de-constructing" or "de-programming" is at the very heart of self-inquiry and already underway.
.
[unquote]
.
Good. Skepticism is necessary. It’s said that all assumptions are subject to question.
.
[quote]
And, as a "personal self", I discover, or not, the power of . . . neti, neti, neti, . . . . not this, not this, not this, . . . persistently de-constructing who I think I am and daily recognizing what I am not. Not by reading books or scripture, by daily meditation, until there is this familiar sense of inner stillness.
[unquote]
.
Yes, but don’t forget that, according to millennia of Vedanta teaching, how you live has everything to do with it.
.
Hardly surprising, because, after all, we’re living in this world, and it should be obvious that the nature of our involvement and participation in it matters.
.
It was my understanding that this was a true story:
.
The leader of a Breatharian cult was caught, by one of his disciples, eating potato-chips. When the disciple expressed shock, the leader said, “It isn’t what you eat; it’s what you know.”
.
Do you believe that?
.
No, it isn’t entirely about what you know. You can’t just rise-above life, and Liberate yourself by what metaphysical facts you know. …any more than you can graduate from highschool without going to school. As someone who is living: Life, the conduct of life, is your business here. You’re involved in it. You can’t dismiss that away.
.
…Right-living, for a long time. Many or most won’t achieve Liberation during this year, or this lifetime. But that’s fine, because there’s no requirement for everyone that they achieve Liberation now.
.
What’s the hurry?
.
[quote]
And what is seen, in the experiential sense of Now and not the conceptual sense of a decade or two from now, is the illusory nature of so-called Neo-Advaita and the illusory nature of so-called Traditional Advaita Vedanta.
[unquote]
.
There now, that’s exactly what I’m talking about:
.
Saying that it’s all illusory doesn’t answer specific comments regarding worldly relative matters. That was largely my point. This “It’s all illusory anyway” is a popular form of standard Neo-Advaita evasion.
.
And no, I’m not promoting “Traditional Advaita Vedanta”. I’m just calling your attention to some particularly blatant confusions regarding levels and topics of discussion. This isn’t about Neo-Advaita vs Traditional Advaita Vedanta. It’s about Neo-Advaita vs adequate participation in discussion, and replying on-topic. That’s why I said that I wasn’t trying to proselytize you, but only to de-program you.
.
[quote]
And it's grasped that simply because an illusion is illusory doesn't mean it doesn't exist
[unquote]
.
Quite so.
.
[quote]
On a different level of discourse, I intuit that so-called . . . relative, worldly matters and the Absolute, . . . the limited and the limitless, . . . and self and no-self, . . . are inseparable and interconnected.
[unquote]
.
…but not interchangeable as topics.
.
Look, you just want to stir everything together into one big uniform goo. “It’s all the same.” “It’s all illusory anyway, so whatever I say or believe is as right as anything else can be.” In science they speak of unfalsifiable propositions . For example, the Flat-Earthers, and the sect that believed that we’re living on the inside surface of a hollow Earth—They came up with special ad-hoc explanations for every observed fact that contradicted their theories. Such propositions are referred to as “unfalsifiable”.
.
Your positions, too, are unfalsifiable, because anything that is said can be said to be just as illusory as what you believe, because everything is illusory anyway. So, by your radical postmodern relativism, one statement or position is just as right as another, because it’s all part of the same whole, and it’s all illusory.
.
Compare that to Vedanta. If you’re interested in Vedanta, then read about Vedanta. _Actual_ Vedanta, not the modern Western radical misinterpretation of it known as Neo-Advaita.
.
[quote]
…Meaning, despite the forum's signature/statement-of-purpose, I'm not here on NNH to win arguments, be a spokesperson for or act as a self-appointed guardian of Non-duality, pointing out apparent fallacies and inconsistencies in other people's beliefs or assumptions.
[unquote]
.
…but that’s what you were being and doing when you answered my question by asserting your belief that such relative or worldly matters are irrelevant, because really only the Absolute exists.
.
As I’ve said twice, you could have just said that you don’t know, or that it isn’t your subject—Or, better yet, you could have just not said anything in reply to my question.
.
But no, you needed to use it as an opportunity to assert your beliefs. That motivated me to reply by commenting on those beliefs. Not because it’s necessary to reply, but just because I felt like doing so.
.
[quote]
I speak on my own behalf, based primarily on personal experience. Basically, I just ask, in one form or another, "Who is doing the seeking, who is asking the questions, who is defending point of view?"
[unquote]
.
Yes, and you call that a “reply”.
.
[quote]
In this regard, I have first hand experience of the conditioned habit of looking outward and pointing "there" is the problem, "there" is the confusion, the misinterpretation, the misguidedness, the phoniness, the delusion, it's out there in "you", in "them", in "it", the "world", not in "me"! But looking into the mirror of self-inquiry . . . well, that's another story.
[unquote]
.
So no one should express disagreement on anything or try to point out an error, because we should all just look at our own errors instead? I’m not so sure that would make for a very useful kind of discussion. Everyone should be a “yes-man”?
.
Anyway, you _did_ say or imply that you were pointing out an error in my question, and that the question itself amounted to a misunderstanding, in the light of your superior understanding that it’s all illusory, and that there is only the Absolute.
.
[quote]
What I find most helpful about your posts are not the validity or invalidity of your opinions and comments, which you are entitled to however you came by them, but my reactions to them (positive, negative or indifferent).
[unquote]

.
Good. That’s part of how we find out things via discussion.
.
[quote]
Meaning, while it may look on the surface like you're responding to me and I'm responding to you, for me it's still self-inquiry happening.
[unquote]
.
…if we’re willing to question our beliefs or positions. As you said, and I agreed, skepticism is essential, and all assumptions are subject to question.
.
[quote]
Until such Mind activity is clearly seen within oneself, I imagine it's basically going to be "mental projections" and "confusing levels of discussion" existing as "different levels of communication".
[unquote]
.
You can remove the quotes from “different levels of communication”. …Because, no, it isn’t an illusory concept.
.
It’s just a simple, basic fact, not on a high spiritual or metaphysical level, but just on the most basic plain level of discussion.
.
Are we, or are we not, talking about the same topic? Not if you’re answering on a topic different from that of what you’re “answering”.
.
By the way, I only have 2nd-hand information that there’s such a thing as Liberation.
.
Can you say otherwise about yourself?
.
I don’t even know if there are any currently-living spiritual teachers. Fortunately there’s a millennia-long tradition of teachers, and my initial question in this thread is answered in their writings.
.
Michael Ossipoff

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Hold fast to your beliefs . .

Michael,

Hold fast to your beliefs and assumptions. No one is trying to change your mind. After all, it is as it is.

Namaste

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
New Thread, "Skeptical Metaphysics"; link to Neo-Advaita article

I want to announce, here, a message that I've just posted, to its own thread, "Skeptical Metaphysics", in which I propose a metaphysics that, it seems to me, qualifies as a version of Vedanta, though it isn't Advaita.

That metaphysics emphasizes uncontroversial statements and avoidance of unnecessary unsupported assumptions, minimizing the number of assumptions....Ockham's Principle of Parsimony.

It's posted to this "Non-Duality" forum.

--------------------------

It occurs to me that I should link to a "reference" article, to clarify what I'm talking about when I talk about Neo-Vedanta.

So here is a link to an article by Timothy Conway, about Neo-Vedanta. His article is the most frank and complete article about Neo-Advaita.

It's a very long article, and not very structured, but fortunately the most important part is at its beginning.

But, farther down in the article, be sure to check out the quote from an article by Tom Huston, about Huston's bad experience when he was suckered by Neo-Advaita.

In addition to that quote, there's also a link to Huston's article but it doesn't seem to work. Maybe it will work for you.

Likewise the link to an article by a woman who has written a fictitious "Satsang" combining some of the main Neo-Advaita teachers.

Here's the link to that reference article by Timothy Conway:

http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html

Also, google "Neo-Advaita", to find many more articles about Neo-Advaita, including a good Wikipedia article.

I hope that it's permissible to post a link to an outside article, for the purpose of reference, to clarify what I mean by a term ("Neo-Advaita")

Michael Ossipoff

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Beliefs and assumptions

Tony says:

[quote]
Hold fast to your beliefs and assumptions.
[unquote]

...like my belief and assumption that Tony's topic is usually different from the topic of the statements and posts that he's "replying" to?

Or maybe my belief and assumption, based on comparison of Tony's statements with Vedanta writings, that his Neo-Vedanta is demonstrably, clearly, a bogus modern modification of Vedanta.

(I'm not the only one who says that. The phony nature of Neo-Vedanta is well established and discussed.)

And of course Tony doesn't have any beliefs or assumptions, does he.

In these posts, I've made a point of not expressing metaphysical beliefs or assumptions, something that can't be said for Tony.

My main topic has just been the simple and basic matter of whether or not Tony's answers are on the same subject as the posts and statements that he's "answering".

I guess the main purpose of these posts has been to comment on Neo-Advita, as exemplified by Tony's answers and beliefs, for the benefit of any visitor to this forum, who might otherwise find Neo-Advaita appealing.

Michael Ossipoff

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Deleted . . .

Deleted duplicate entry . . .

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Will reply in about a week or so.

Hi Tony--

I'll get a chance to reply in about a week or so.

For now, let me just say that I'm not really trying to proselytize you. I'm just trying to de-program you.

later,
Michael Ossipoff

gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your appreciations. I have always loved to read your posts. We know, 'Undifferentiated Awareness/consciousness' can only be realized, but can not be expressed in words. I know how difficult it is to explain the inexpressible ('Undifferentiated Awareness/consciousness). The irony is anything spoken or written immediately becomes yet another concept. This is inevitable. All communications are nothing but mere approximation only. But, still we have to communicate the importance of the inexpressible somehow by some means. You have by and large successfully carried out the same through your numerous posts. They are really Brilliant. Keep writing more.

I dedicate a small piece of writing by 'Kip Mazuy', which I loved very much as it is in tune with my understanding, to all those who wish to realize what this 'Undifferentiated Awareness/Consciousness' we are talking about:

"This very moment is limitless.
It is a doorway to the infinite.

But in order to go through the doorway,
you must relinquish all ideas, all concepts.

You cannot bring anything through this doorway.
Only your most naked essential self as attention goes through.

So the path of awareness means in meditation,
you keep surrendering all thoughts that arise.
You do not get rid of them or push them away.
You surrender your holding on to them.

And each time you surrender all holding on,
you sink a little deeper into this moment,
a little deeper into consciousness.

Consciousness becomes cleaner, clearer;
more transparent.

And in this transparency,
consciousness is revealed to be infinite.
You are opened up into the infinite.

What this moment is, what consciousness is
is beyond all understanding.
It is limitless and astounding.

With every experience we have of consciousness
we define it and that definition limits our perception of it.

We call it being, we call it the witness and so on.
And so we learn to relinquish these ideas too
in order to experience consciousness fresh in this moment.

You relinquish everything and dissolve as attention
into attention itself and that opens you up into the Infinite, into the extraordinary mystery that is the essence of everything.

Much love,

Kip"

The above writing of Kip Mazuay appears in:

http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/doorway-infinite

Kip Mazuay can be found in:

http://www.bliss-music.com/spiritual-enlightenment.htm

https://youtu.be/Om33YeCCjN8

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Gachchy— . Thanks for

Gachchy—
.
Thanks for speaking up, and showing that I’m not the only one here who says what I say about Neo-Advaita.
.
I had to say something, because it dismays me when people who are interested in Vedanta get sidetracked, hijacked and suckered by phoney Neo-Advaita’s unrealistic promises, and its fraudulent impersonation of legitimate Advaita.Vedanta. …for sale as a quick Liberation without Dharma, for the drive-through generation. …for people who want to be in what they perceive as the hip in-crowd, and who want that right away.
.
[You wrote] :
Both Tony and Michael have elaborated about the two aspects of the same reality Noumenal and Phenomenal, but their EMPHASIS only differed. When Tony stresses on Noumenal Aspect of Reality, it doesn't mean that he disregards the Phenomenal world. So also, when Michael emphasizes the Phenomenal Aspects of reality, it doesn't mean that he disagrees with the Noumenal Aspect of the Reality. It may be assumed, say for example like, when two persons define a World, one gives more emphasis to the North Pole and the other the South Pole. But, aren't both these Poles part of the same world?
[/quote]
.
Sure, and that’s the trouble with Neo-Advaita: It offers its _concept_ of the Absolute, its concept of Reality, a conceptual metaphysical doctrine that merely has to be told, heard and accepted, for instant Liberation. But a conceptual doctrine, recited and promoted, isn’t what Reality is, and isn’t an accurate description of Reality
.
Neo Advaita _does_ disregard and discount the role of Dharma, the matter of how we live in the phenomenal relative world, and its role in Moksha, which, contrary to Neo-Vedanta’s pretense, isn’t instantly given in isolation by a bestowal of metaphysical truths.
.
As I said, that disregard and that phoney Vedanta, well suits the values and ways of the drivethrough generation.
.
There’s more to Vedanta than metaphysics. There’s more to Vedanta and Moksha than accepting a metaphysical doctrine and believing right.
.
Neo-Advaita is pseudo-Vedanta.
.
As I’ve said, metaphysics is to Reality as knowing all about how a car or bus engine works is to actually taking a ride in the countryside.
.
I agree that I haven’t expressed disagreement with Tony’s metaphysical statements. I like metaphysics, and recognize its validity. I just don’t call it Reality.
.
Anyway, Gachchy, by weighing-in on this subject, you’ve shown people, visitors and participants in the forum, that there’s some consensus here about Neo-Vedanta. Your joining the topic now means that my efforts aren’t alone, and therefore haven’t been for nothing.
.
Thanks for speaking out.
.
Michael

gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
.

Hi Michael,

Welcome to NNH. I am also on the same page with you. Life doesn't seem to be any enthusiastic for me. I am aghast with life. Don't worry. Life will always seem incomplete, because it is the very Nature of all our Minds. Just ignore your Mind. Try to transcend and stay beyond your Mind, as Awareness, just witnessing your own self as an impartial spectator (even if it happens in your mind).

Anyhow I don't consider Neo Advaita much for my understanding about existence. Rather, I always trust the TRADITIONAL VEDANTA and its proponents (like James Swartz - http://www.shiningworld.com, https://www.youtube.com/user/shiningworldvideo etc) for my understanding and clarifications. Just consider the life of the Hindu mythological figure LORD KRISHNA (not in any religious manner). He assumed and performed every role perfectly during his life time as a Child, Teen, Playboy, Prince, Lover, Husband, Family man, Adviser, Strategist, Philosopher, Guru, God etc. Lord Krishna is worth emulating for our living. Every moment Krishna lived in an exemplary way. I really Love the way Krishna Lived. I really wish to emulate Krishna. I want to become Lord Krishna. In fact, I am Lord Krishna.

I will come out with more of my thoughts on your feelings soon as I am busy right now.

I will try to come back soon and share my views elaborately. Good to have you in NNH.

Forget about all my Philosophies. For a moment just forget about everything and listen to this SIMPLE MUSIC. Live this moment fully. This, this moment looks completely perfect. Get lost (disappear) in this moment, just as this small girl gets lost in her singing. This is all life is.

https://youtu.be/MyNSOu-Fl-k?list=RDT6T5U7ewezU

https://youtu.be/4WhkXpC2iqg?list=RDT6T5U7ewezU

https://youtu.be/ANk4fmRNyuE?list=RDT6T5U7ewezU

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Reply to your 1st message

Gachchy—

[YouWrote] :

Welcome to NNH. I am also on the same page with you. Life doesn't seem to be any enthusiastic for me. I am aghast with life.

[unquote]

Yes, Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity.

But of course, though it might have been calamitous and inadvisable to start in life, it’s still true that, once in life, once involved in it, because we wanted it—had and have needs and inclinations—we’re in it to its resolution and natural conclusion. Once in it, we aren’t done with it till we’re done with it.

That statement about birth being a cslamity, and similar statements that I’d been hearing, along with the negative aspects of my own experiences, convinced me into a disparagement, dismissal and rejection of additional lives, about a year and a half ago.

Before that, about 2 years ago, more or less, I came to the same conclusion as now: I realized & understood, at least to some extent, what went wrong in my life, and roughly how and why it happened. …and how I could have done differently (…if I’d been able to, which I wasn’t).

It was immensely liberating for me (not the Liberation that Advaitists speak of, but the best liberation available to me). I felt as if I’d achieved what I needed to achieve, and fulfilled the purpose of my old-age, the purpose of my living as long as I’ve lived. …to understand what went wrong, how and why, and how I could have done different, had I been able to.

…and to realistically understand that Liberation with a capital “L” isn’t available, meaningful or relevant to me in this lifetime, because the Vasanas that are the reason for this life are still there, and will be, at the end of this lifetime.

I felt as though, in the event that my life ended at any subsequent time, it would be alright, because I’d accomplished what I could in this lifetime.

I now feel that I was completely right, at that time.

But then, later, for some reason, I was later overwhelmed by how all that was negative in my own life is so well mirrored by the strife, aggression, ugly-intentions, and resulting misfortune all around us in this life….at the small local interpersonal level, and also at the worldwide level too.

..and by a perception about the hazardoussness and hardship in life.

I took the attitude that I lost in my early life because a person like me just doesn’t have a chance at all, period. (a pessimistic dead-end cop-out assumption). I wrote-off the whole thing (my life and the notion of any possible subsequent ones) as one whole large bad-idea.

I then began noticing that there must (I thought) have been some correctness in how I gave up on and rejected life when I was a kid. …because I was doing the same thing again. So I felt as if I was actually right to do so when I was a kid, as my reaction to the obvious impossibility of life for me then.

But, after a while, more and more, that didn’t feel right. It felt as if I was just repeating the same not-so-healthy giving-up that I’d done as a kid. I began to realize (just as I had about 2 years ago) that the needs and inclinations that were the reason for my experience of this life are still there, and that it therefore made no sense for me to think that I could just dismiss and disparage the whole thing and declare that I was done with it.

One of the arguments that I’d made (to myself) had been that any subsequent lives can’t fix what went wrong this time. …and could only provide an opportunity to make the same or similar mistakes again, where a life only guarantees a hypothetical chance that maybe someone might (but might not) get to live.

But of course what went wrong before in this life doesn’t _need_ to be fixed. Life is unlimited, and it isn’t as if someone’s limited supply of life has been used up and wasted. What is important and relevant is understanding and appreciation of the life that was there, regardless of what happened. Appreciation doesn’t include dismissal, disparagement or rejection of life.

I haven’t a clue about what life would have been like when I was young, even though I was there in those times, and at that time of life. But the relevant important thing is that I _was_ there, and that life was there…_is_ there, at that time of life.

This life might be consistent with a result of a previous life in which I was too aggressive, and so I then needed to find out what it’s like to be alone and miss-out. …a sort of “time-out” that I needed.

[You wrote] :

Don't worry. Life will always seem incomplete, because it is the very Nature of all our Minds. Just ignore your Mind. Try to transcend and stay beyond your Mind, as Awareness, just witnessing your own self as an impartial spectator (even if it happens in your mind).

[unquote]

Yes, and my current attitude is very much in keeping with that non-judgmental Awareness and Appreciation.

[You wrote] :

Anyhow I don't consider Neo Advaita much for my understanding about existence. Rather, I always trust the TRADITIONAL VEDANTA

[unquote]

I agree. The Vedanta developed and well-tried over thousands of years is much more likely to be valid and helpful than a recent modern revision of it.

I call myself a Vedantist.

[You wrote] :

Just consider the life of the Hindu mythological figure LORD
KRISHNA (not in any religious manner). He assumed and performed every role perfectly during his life time as a Child, Teen, Playboy, Prince, Lover, Husband, Family man, Adviser, Strategist, Philosopher, Guru, God etc. Lord Krishna is worth emulating for our living.

[unquote]

Most definitely. Something very similar had occurred to me
too. The fact that I’m not done with lives doesn’t prevent me from having goal of living a right and exemplary life, in every lifetime, like the life of Krishna that you describe. And it’s not a question of the _extent_ to which I can achieve that. It’s just a matter of it being the natural desideratum in a life...doing as well as possible in each aspect of life: Kama, Artha, Dharma. (But I’ll skip the “Strategist” part.)

[YouWrote] :

Every moment Krishna lived in an exemplary way. I really Love the way Krishna Lived. I really wish to emulate Krishna.

[unquote]

Absolutely. I too. Just because someone isn’t done with lives doesn’t mean that lives can’t be lived well and right, or at least increasingly-so, to the best of a person’s ability. …also thereby eventually resolving the needs, inclinations, Vasanas.

This has been my reply to your first message.

My reply to your 2nd message will be along next.

Michael Ossipoff

gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 hours 9 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
Hi Michael,

  

'Awareness alone may be Real; everything else mere cooked up Stories, just for the sake of fun'

  
'All doubts will remain until or otherwise Self Realization and Liberation happen in you'
  

As we grow we try to use more of our Intellect. Intellect is a faculty of our Mind. There are definitely no answers for all our questions using our Intellect. Even if there are answers for our questions, we can never know whether the answers are really correct. So, what is the way out?

We are always trying to decipher the truth using our Mind. Mind is a very limited tool just like a spanner or screw driver, can not repair and give solutions to all our problems. It's highly crazy to expect all solutions from our Mind. At first, let's first try to avoid trusting our mind. Just, let us try to go one step beyond the Mind and stay as Awareness. Then, how to transcend the Mind and stay as Awareness?

How to transcend the Mind and stay as an Aware/ Conscious Being?

When the Mind refers to its own self instead of objects, its true nature, consciousness is realized. Being alert like watching the breath, or watching its own self through Meditation, can bring the mind to the point of stillness aka consciousness. Here, we are simply not tranquilizing the mind, but instead transcending the mind. This is consciousness being aware of its own self and the seer is present to its own self. Repeated and regular practicing of the self referencing state of consciousness makes one's witnessing consciousness to blossom, wherein the thoughts submit itself to its original state of consciousness, consciousness becomes predominant than thoughts and becomes subliminally proactive at all times. By this way thoughts subdues itself giving way for consciousness to reign the supremacy. Once this realization happens, you don't identify yourself with your Mind. Thoughts do arise. Our mind may blabber so many things. But, you just don't give credence to them. You are no more a victim of your Mind. This is where Self Realization blossoms.

Legitimate Irresponsibility is Enlightenment ...!!!!!

Once the waggeries of our mind are realized, we come to realize that the whole Universe is a Construction of our Mind only. Since, you are not an Independent piece, you don't have independent action, except as a belief in your Mind. Everything Happens Spontaneously at this moment, which is Eternal, even without our concurrence.

Enlightenment or Self Realization is all about being aware and consciousness all the time and NOT carried away by our Mind at any point of time. All our doubts will remain for ever until or otherwise Self Realization happens. When self realization happens you realize the helplessness of your Mind, as you come to realize that you are the Eternal Awareness, in which the Bodies and Minds are only a limited constructs for the time being.

You now know that everything just happens through you, and not by you. At first, this results in your Enlightenment. This Enlightenment subsequently liberates you from all bindings, what soever they may be. Liberation is the outcome of Self Realization/ Enlightenment.

Now the question, ' Can a missed life be someone's last life?' becomes a less important question after the realization of the fact that 'You are consciousness/Awareness' and just not your 'Body and Mind.' Your identification changes from 'Body and Mind' to 'Awareness/Consciousness.' Bodies and Minds may come and go. But you are sure that you are the Consciousness/Awareness, in which they happen. This Enlightenment results in your LIBERATION. Once you are liberated, you just allow everything to flow in your life like a river. Your mind takes the back seat, consciousness/awareness reign supremacy and takes the driver's seat. Till Self Realization happens, you have to constantly assert that you are the Awareness/ Consciousness and not your Mind. You just have to FAKE it (Enlightenment) till you MAKE it. Once Enlightenment happens sooner or later your Mind attains Liberation. This free flowing, river like state of mind is a sort of say, 'Legitimate Irresponsibility.' You become a WITNESS to your own MIND and ACTIONS...!!!!!

('You' in the preceding paragraphs is to be understood as a GENERALIZED reference to ANYONE. The term 'You' is merely used to give a greater EMPHASIS.

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.