You are hereForums / Responsibility / Someone wrote me about the Avadhuta Gita.

Someone wrote me about the Avadhuta Gita.


3 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:

I think that I had a copy of this gita about 5 years ago and certain passages gave an open feeling.  The one’s that I liked at the time (one by one) demolished everything.

 

1. I won’t repeat his letter, but I will address his points.  First he relates to Exodus in the bible when “God” says “I am that I am”.  "This is Advita where the knower, the knowledge and known are one."

 

Do we need to reach for these connections?  Do they really have any significance, other than to prove someone’s point?

 

2.  Then he finds that St. John of the Cross has adopted Neti Neti, which proves the universality of establishing yourself in the Godhead by negating.  This one is not a harmless option.

 

Of course Christians (and Jews?) were completely ruled by guilt and shame, so negating is not a far stretch of the imagination.  Is that how you want to run your life??

 

Negation has a heavy consequence with your feelings and in mis-directing your attention.  You will always find yourself ruminating on thoughts and concepts and twisting and turning to avoid paying attention to what is your real and honest gift, your day to day life.  (Where else can life be but day to day?)

 

If you continuously spit on your gift (well that’s the greatest sin, if you want to think in those terms), then you are completely self-damned, only by your own beliefs and your own actions.

 

You may say that my gift is a mindless rat race.  But that is not a comment on the gift of life.  That is only a comment on how YOU run life.  Can you be coached on how to run your life in a more skillful way?

 

3.  This negating includes:

  • every object of the senses
  • all psychological objects
  • all feelings
  • all pleasure and pain
  • all joy and sorrow
  • all attraction and aversion

"By this method you are established in the self! It is by Logic, that God is defined by what God is not."

 

What rubbish!  You no longer want any part of being a human.  No feelings, no sense organs, no preferences.  You must have descended to the very bottom of your rat race.  You’ve even gone below the rats.  Now you are a spaced out robot.  And so is the God that you worship.  And it is all held in place with a “logic”.  

 

Remember logic is NOT existential.  (It ain’t here.)  Logic is just borrowed mind seeking to dominate other minds, and they have done a good job on you.  It is done the world over, not any less on this forum.

 

4. He goes on to say that you can also Assert your divinity.  Welcome to the world of fantasy, all borrowed of course.  Maybe better than negating, and still useful to escape your "gift of life".  Actually, even awakening is borrowed, because you don’t know what to make of it unless you’ve been studying the lore or your teacher tells you what it means.

 

Avoiding your own life has been such a painful ordeal that any further detachment from it comes as a welcomed relief.  Then you can negate, dismiss  and fantasize all the more to feel worse and worse, which will magnify the sense of relief in spacing out, until it becomes so big that you can call it an awakening.

 

5.  I go completely in the opposite direction.  Come closer and closer to Here, (with your attention), until you are unshakable in your resolve to not be led into hear-say about life.  The depth of your gift is immeasurable, and anything that you will ever find is contained herein.  You do this by multiplying your joy factor.  This is done by what you tell yourself and others about (anything) your life.  It is all done with your words.  Every word that you think (or say) creates a contraction level (more or less than before).  This is your feeling state.  Only say (think) things that open this contraction level.  This is why I sometimes say things about people that they resent, pretending that I don't know them.  I just read them like a book, by their words, which they reflect in life to a perfection. That's universal.

 

I once coined the term “verbal doorway” but it did not refer to the content per se’ of your thoughts.  It referred to the feeling that comes through the doorway of your communications and your self-talk.  It is easy to watch that feeling level and relate it to what your present definition set is.

 

All freedom of a skillful life is the ongoing result of being responsible for your self talk.

0
Your rating: None
n/a
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Richard Miller: …I go

Richard Miller:
…I go completely in the opposite direction.
Response: The direction you go has meaning because it is logical. And according to your present post, your direction is used to dominate the mind. And also according to you the aliveness of the moment cannot be controlled by man. On both instances you contradict yourself.
Marcus
www.acadun.com

Marcus Stegmaier

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Let’s look further into this.

I know this is important to you because you have schooled on more or less the same response, maybe dozens of times.  Your post doesn’t really consider the content above, so I don’t answer your every post, because basically it is my same answer.

 

Let’s say that there is a person who claims that he is not programmed by his memories.  So he is disconnected from those thoughts and feelings.  Otherwise he is just watching them, but claims not to be acting because of the feelings that they produce.

 

My statement is that his claim is definitely not true.  And that his actions (no mater how subtle) are a direct reflection of the definitions that he holds about those circumstances.

 

For instance, your repeated words indicate that you are clinging to a conviction that the aliveness in the moment cannot be controlled by man. That is your definition set.  Evidently, to you there are ramifications of that statement and you post it again and again.  The ramifications to me are that you know nothing of the aliveness of the moment.  It is merely a conjecture on your part. Your logic says, "If there are thoughts and patterns, then inside that thought interval there must be a moment that contains aliveness."  It is a non-experiential concept.

 

I say with some sureness that man has no access to any such moment of aliveness.  The cells would inhabit it, but the mind of man cannot approach it. So what is the use of talking like you can know it, or that it even has any reality for you?  It is a logical theory.

 

What is called I, (for me) certainly does not live there, and has lost all pretense that it does or can.  That I, lives in the interval.  The interval is a mind space. I know that both 'mind' and 'space' are discounted by your definitions.  But still mind-space is big enough to contain the me.

 

In that space I can direct my thoughts and feelings.  Other thoughts may come in, but I can also define my interests and I can let those thoughts go quite quickly.

 

Everyone I have ever met in a rather long lifetime has demonstrated one indelible pattern.  Their actions and moods are a perfect mirror image of their speech, thoughts and belief structures.  Never has that failed me, but not that I care about the other.  Never has it failed me, in directing my own emotional state.

 

Therefore whatever you can say about aliveness in the moment, it is not a factor in my living my life with choice.  It just doesn’t have any connection.

n/a
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
…Let’s look further into

…Let’s look further into this.
There are no ramifications to me, because I realise that the posting happens (meaning the aliveness in the posting) and I come to know about the aliveness (meaning logic) only after and never before they happen. No man knows the aliveness of the moment, he only knows the logic of the moment, which is the aliveness. Therefore aliveness of the moment is either an action, word or thought. My logic does not say that in the thought interval there is a moment that contains aliveness. This is your logic imposed on me. You are confirming that your direction is logical and is used to dominate other minds. To me the thought interval is possibly only because of the aliveness, just as you. me or anyone are possible only because of the aliveness. The aliveness is non-experiential, only the aliveness in the moment, which are logical concepts are experiential. I have never written that I know the aliveness, all that I have written is that the aliveness of the moment is either an action, word or a thought, which is known due to logic. Please read diligently what is written. Again I have never discounted mind or space, I affirm them and not discount them. I affirm them to be illusory and not real. How could you direct, define or let go of your thoughts and feelings, as you have conceded that the space (which is the interval of thought, not forgetting that the interval is made up of moments) so a moment cannot be controlled by man? Again you are contradicting Richard. Just as you say that everyone’s actions and moods are a perfect mirror image of their speech, thoughts and belief structures. Your logical conclusions too are a perfect mirror image to dominate, just as you said logic does.
Marcus
www.acadun.com

Marcus Stegmaier

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 5 guests online.