Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Nondualarunachala

File under: Real True Gurus

Last month we received a complimentary message from a nice person asking if we'd exchange links between our blogs. It was such a sincere request that we had to warn them linking to this blog would definitely be at the risk of what was once their good name. So we made it optional to link here and were quite happy to link back to Arunachala Grace, a really nice little blog by the prolific Meenakshi Mammi, a resident of Tiruvannamalai, India, in the shadow of the great Shaivite pilgrimage destination, the holy Arunachala hill, aka Ramana Maharshi's guru.

We've enjoyed paying our respects to Arunachala these last few weeks via Meenakshi's blog. When we decided to visit yesterday, we found this brilliant quote from an unknown person that basically encapsulates everything this blog stands for:
Those who perpetuate the belief that ego transformation is enlightenment do spiritual culture a disservice. Additionally, the reverence and respect accorded enlightened beings is also undeserved because enlightenment is nothing other than a re-discovery of something that was already known.

When I wake up I don't become somebody else, I simply trade the idea of myself as a dreamer for the idea of myself as a waker. In fact, the waker and the dreamer are the same person, but seem to be separate entities because of their association with the state of consciousness in which they find themselves at the moment.

It is fashionable these days for society to congratulate formerly fat people who returned to their normal size. But rather than offer them respect, shouldn't they be castigated for getting fat in the first place? Touting one's Enlightenment only calls attention to a lengthy and embarrassing stay in ignorance.
Kudos to Meenakshi for recognizing the greatness of these statements. We've got a message out to him/her requesting the identity of this fantastic author. It's straight-up spot-on nondual truth and the antidote to everything that is wrong in global gurudom today. We'll update this entry once Meenakshi gets back to us with the info.

25 Comments:

At 9/07/2006 4:51 AM, Anonymous mistletoe said...

Is it ever possible to dump your mind and live only by consciousness as ramana says?
I dont particularly understand ramana when he says "you are not the body, mind but only THAT "
Does enlightenment mean life without a mind? that sounds crazy!
Is it not that you get your mind connected to consciousness and keep your mind still alive for all practical purposes?

But jody! This aint your style ?
you disappointed me huh
to say such good words on your blog? for once you sound like a puritan, unless you think your ass is getting whipped that your brain tells you to write some goodies ! Thats good piece of shit man !
Is that you try to strike a balance with all 'noble souls' -like meenakshi mammi- dropping in ?
Whats this new image jody you are tryin to cook? new antics?
cmon jody cant afford to lose you like that !!! Bring back your crap
and keep your mouth reeking as always ! CHUCK would love to smell that too !

 
At 9/07/2006 9:40 AM, Blogger jody said...

Is it ever possible to dump your mind and live only by consciousness as ramana says?

As long as Ramana was saying something, he had a mind doing it.

I dont particularly understand ramana when he says "you are not the body, mind but only THAT "
Does enlightenment mean life without a mind? that sounds crazy!


It may be that part of the mind that feeds back a sense of identity with the mind is lost, but as long as food is going in and words are being said, there's an active mind involved, in my opinion.

Is it not that you get your mind connected to consciousness and keep your mind still alive for all practical purposes?

Who keeps what, where? The person who believes they have a mind is merely a function of the mind reflecting a sense of identity, and that is totally illusory. But that doesn't mean it's not practical.

But jody! This aint your style ?

Obviously, you don't know my style.

you disappointed me huh
to say such good words on your blog?


Get in line. There are hundreds similarly disappointed by the content here.

for once you sound like a puritan, unless you think your ass is getting whipped that your brain tells you to write some goodies ! Thats good piece of shit man !

That's bad piece of shit writing, man!

Is that you try to strike a balance with all 'noble souls' -like meenakshi mammi- dropping in ?
Whats this new image jody you are tryin to cook? new antics?


Just saying what I think. It's perfectly consistent with what's been produced all along.

cmon jody cant afford to lose you like that !!! Bring back your crap

It sounds like that's your crap you're flinging around here.

and keep your mouth reeking as always ! CHUCK would love to smell that too !

I'm not doing this for you or Chuck, but thanks for reading nonetheless.

 
At 9/07/2006 10:20 AM, Anonymous LLL&L said...

Jody,
Is this Mistletoe bringing anything interesting to this blog?
I would apreciate if he goes to play with his holy crap somewhere else, and let the rest enjoy this blog.
Does anyone else have same opinion, or shall I move away for a while until he gets bored of shiting around?

 
At 9/07/2006 11:46 AM, Anonymous mistletoe said...

Yes JodY ! perhaps i had concluded on you seeing just a few postings!
May be the posts (many of them) i read did not reflect any sobriety !

But The III&I is threatening you that he wold quit if you dont get me outta here...you gotta do something now real quick !

Poor fella did not know that you do this blog not for 'anybody' including III&I who has such a valuable presence here.
Or is it that you really care anyone coming or not coming here?

He almost sounded like a guruphiliac committee secretary
who threatens to drop out if some
member does not bring enough donations ! ha ha !

This fela shold have been some manager kind in some 'hole in the wall' ashram running a faction that indulge in self-glorification and criminalisation of other inmates !

Dont you feel already the pressure of running a institution Jody?
your faithful already complaining to you and threatening to leave etc?? ha ha ! Jody for all i can see you could be a space daddy too soon and start playin God.

III$I may even start a
ex-jody.blogspot.com soon !!!
-----------------------------------

 
At 9/07/2006 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you, lll&l

 
At 9/07/2006 4:01 PM, Anonymous mistletoe said...

It may be that part of the mind that feeds back a sense of identity with the mind is lost, but as long as food is going in and words are being said, there's an active mind involved, in my opinion.

++++ Stilling, eracing, killing, dissolving, dropping etc of the mind seem to have caught up the fancy and the mind factor seem to appear such a dirty thing as if it some ass load of shit!

Is there any spiritual master or a guru who ever agreed upon the whimsical and fancyful mind
as it is but only encouraged to use it to explore the consciousness within ?

 
At 9/07/2006 7:56 PM, Anonymous meir said...

Mistletoe said: Stilling, eracing, killing, dissolving, dropping etc of the mind seem to have caught up the fancy and the mind factor seem to appear such a dirty thing as if it some ass load of shit!

Since I have gotten involved in the spiritual scene, seems all I hear about is this mind is bad shit. I would like to know what is wrong with the mind. All this mind talk has just become spiritual cliches and I run from it whenever I hear it. Jody, you have anything to say about that, or any one else? I am new to this idea. I personally think the intellect is way underrrated.

 
At 9/07/2006 8:59 PM, Blogger jody said...

I would like to know what is wrong with the mind.

There is nothing wrong with the mind. It's the operating system of the human organism.

The problem is in the identification with the mind as the source of identity. We have minds, but we aren't minds. We are pure being absolute and unborn. The mind just buzzes along, and we shine within. The trouble arises at birth. We come to know ourselves as the beings having experiences which are mediated by the mind. A few months of this and we're convinced it is we having the experiences. Then we grow up, read Siddhartha or something and decide we need to get enlightened, never having insight into the fact that it is our being identified as a mind that is the source of the idea that we need to get out of our minds. Mind is not the problem, identification is the problem. But the only way to get out of that is to get out of your mind. Psychedelic drugs can help, if you don't fry yourself in the process. Meditation is a more tested alternative, but there's no guarantee when it's going to bear fruit. It's better to just accept your lot and seek surrender to a higher power. Ramakrishna said, "bhakti is the easiest path." Give it to God and go on with your life and your meditation practice. Then maybe one day you'll wake up to the fact that you're something you could never describe in a million years, other than to say it's the most ordinary and mundane thing you've ever come to face about yourself.

 
At 9/08/2006 8:07 AM, Anonymous meir said...

Thanks jody, I like your explanation. I don't think it's so much the idea that has turned me off as certain pseudospiritual teachers who go around repeating that over and over again while being very ego centered in their private lives. Of course they would deny it if you told them that.

 
At 9/08/2006 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm hesitant to disturb the beaty of the quote but anyway...

"There is nothing wrong with the mind. It's the operating system of the human organism."

There is something wrong with the mind which is what many of these traditions have been saying for a long time. Its operation becomes "faulty" around age 3-5 when full self-consciousness takes effect. But you will need to train correctly to realize the truth of this statement. Yes, one one hand you are functioning "correctly" but only if we define "correctly functioning" to mean barely aware.

Your "true" self is the actual process that takes place the half second before your state of consciuosness recognizes it (Dr. Libet's work). You have identified yourself with a stream of thought that is actually simply a feedback (backdating) process of your neural architecture. The vast majority have identified this delusion as being "correctly functioning". This doesn't mean it is the correct state.

There is no such thing as "me and my body" yet this is "normal" languaging. And if you visited a place where everyone crawled, because they had never learned to walk (been taught? is walking innate for humans like it is for animals?) then would they believe you were a mutant with strange powers?

Meditation to achieve proper neural fuctioning is the same as a sport/skill such as learning to cycle or swim. At this point, the issue is too few have learned to swim...

 
At 9/08/2006 9:55 AM, Blogger jody said...

There is something wrong with the mind which is what many of these traditions have been saying for a long time. Its operation becomes "faulty" around age 3-5 when full self-consciousness takes effect. But you will need to train correctly to realize the truth of this statement. Yes, one one hand you are functioning "correctly" but only if we define "correctly functioning" to mean barely aware.

Or, the normal operation of an individual organism as it has been defined by evolution.

What you are calling "barely aware" is more than enough for an organism to eat, protect itself and reproduce. That's what life is, organisms going about their business. A conscious awareness of our true nature is superfluous to life, hence the fact that evolution has not selected for organisms to come to self-realization.

Your "true" self is the actual process that takes place the half second before your state of consciuosness recognizes it (Dr. Libet's work).

What you are calling the "true self" Vedanta calls the buddhi, which is still a function that occurs within the brain, and as such is not the Self.

The Self is not a thought, feeling, process or sensation of any kind. It's the underlying awareness which brings the light of consciousness to the contents of the mind. It's the confusing of that light with the contents it illuminates that causes delusion, but that doesn't mean that delusion isn't completely natural and normal and selected for via evolution.

You have identified yourself with a stream of thought that is actually simply a feedback (backdating) process of your neural architecture.

"We" have not done anything. We (as the illusory identity) have come into existence as the result of the feedback process, but "we" as the product of this feedback have not been involved in any decision to identify with anything.

The vast majority have identified this delusion as being "correctly functioning". This doesn't mean it is the correct state.

The "correct" state is the one that gets us though life with food, a roof over our heads and some nookie. Self-realization is completely superfluous to these essential goals of life.

There is no such thing as "me and my body" yet this is "normal" languaging.

That's Advaita shuffling. If we start from the basics of our existence as we know them as individuals, we can certainly claim that such is the "normal" condition of humanity, and that there is a seemingly autonomous individual who appears to have a body and must make sure the needs of that body are taken care of. Self-realization doesn't pay the bills, unless you are a flimflamming guru out for a buck.

And if you visited a place where everyone crawled, because they had never learned to walk (been taught? is walking innate for humans like it is for animals?) then would they believe you were a mutant with strange powers?

If you lived in a place where they only crawled, it would be because crawling was the best means of self-conveyance.

Meditation to achieve proper neural fuctioning is the same as a sport/skill such as learning to cycle or swim. At this point, the issue is too few have learned to swim...

If meditation were necessary to achieve "proper neural functioning", it would have been built into the system by evolution. As it is, as long as you are paying your bills, you can get though life–very happily–without ever having heard of meditation or the Self.

I'm not saying it's not good to meditate and come to self-realization, just that these are superfluous to what a biologist would consider to be a normal, functioning organism. Your pathologization of this is just another symptom of what is wrong with spiritual culture today.

 
At 9/08/2006 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm not saying it's not good to medite and come to self-realization, just that these are superfluous to what a biologist would consider to be a normal, functioning organism."

This statement is self-contradictory. If meditation is "good" (has utlity) then it is important for survival.

Swimming is an important skill quite often necessary for survival yet requires training. So is walking. And speech. In fact, in our history there were many "meditative" behaviours that are now gone - "simple life" such as hand farming, still hunting, etc. is practiced at monasteries for a reason! Will walking "evolve" away now that we have invented cars, segways and electric wheelchairs?

The issue with your argument is to define "a normal functioning organism". We have modified the terms for "normal functioning" just as we have created, through our actions, all the chemical-resistant bacteria. Just because they are capable of such evolution does not mean it was necessary (that there is utlity) for it to occur.

"It is fashionable these days for society to congratulate formerly fat people who returned to their normal size. But rather than offer them respect, shouldn't they be castigated for getting fat in the first place?"

So if overeating is contrary to survival, why do people do it? Shouldn't the opposite be coded through evolution?

You "think" unconsiously - so what is actually "you"? What we have done is identify with the stream of fluff that occurs due to the actual pneuralrocess itself and call such a state "normal".

"Why does the tail of the ox not pass through when all the rest of it has?"

 
At 9/08/2006 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "correct" state is the one that gets us though life with food, a roof over our heads and some nookie. Self-realization is completely superfluous to these essential goals of life."

LOL...

Well, I'm of the conviction that the mental states that result from some types of meditation are superior to what we presently call "normal consciousness". This is why the samurai, martial artists and fighter jet pilots perform meditation - it increases the likelihood of survival.

Not much different those who believe in the utility of eating properly and exercising regularly. The obese and others who are creating health problems for themselves through lifestyle are "teaching" the survivors...

But this is not strictly evolution since it is not necessarily selecting genes. More like cultural memes that are being selected...

 
At 9/08/2006 10:58 AM, Blogger jody said...

This statement is self-contradictory. If meditation is "good" (has utlity) then it is important for survival.

That's a facile logic which you could use to say that since heroin makes you feel good, then it's good for you.

Swimming is an important skill quite often necessary for survival yet requires training. So is walking. And speech.

And this training is built into the culture that one is born into. So, if you live in an area where there is water that you have to deal with, then that culture will have swimming. But if you live in a desert where no open water is found, you will never have to learn to swim as long as you live there.

In fact, in our history there were many "meditative" behaviours that are now gone - "simple life" such as hand farming, still hunting, etc. is practiced at monasteries for a reason! Will walking "evolve" away now that we have invented cars, segways and electric wheelchairs?

That's more facile logic. You'll have to walk from where you park your Segway, and only folks who don't walk use wheelchairs.

The issue with your argument is to define "a normal functioning organism". We have modified the terms for "normal functioning" just as we have created, through our actions, all the chemical-resistant bacteria. Just because they are capable of such evolution does not mean it was necessary (that there is utlity) for it to occur.

Of course it does! Bacteria are exposed to conditions which inhibit their existence, so, they evolve ways of dealing with the inhibiting conditions they encounter. I'd say that's as utilitarian as it gets. It may suck for us that we can't kill them as easily, but you can't blame them for doing what it takes to continue their existence.

So if overeating is contrary to survival, why do people do it? Shouldn't the opposite be coded through evolution?

Not in places where there are periods of scarcity. If you have to go through the dark winter with little food, you better be pretty fat to start.

I'd contend that overeating is an aspect of survival that has lost its utility in this age of grocery stores. In other words, it is a survival adaptation that has turned into a hindrance as a result of cultural evolution, which happens on a much faster time scale than biological evolution.

You "think" unconsiously - so what is actually "you"? What we have done is identify with the stream of fluff that occurs due to the actual pneuralrocess itself and call such a state "normal".

"You" could be thought of as bicameral. There's the sense of you that has evolved by way of having a life, and the you that underlies all this as pure awareness. We are both these "yous" at the same time. Most of us are only familiar with the top "you", but when you come to know yourself as the bottom "you", the top "you" continues to be useful as a way of understanding yourself in the world. This make knowing yourself as the bottom "you", while sometimes helpful and certainly at times pleasant, still entirely superfluous.

"Why does the tail of the ox not pass through when all the rest of it has?"

Because its tail got stuck on a nail.

 
At 9/08/2006 11:12 AM, Blogger jody said...

I'm of the conviction that the mental states that result from some types of meditation are superior to what we presently call "normal consciousness". This is why the samurai, martial artists and fighter jet pilots perform meditation - it increases the likelihood of survival.

But those are extraordinary circumstances. Going about the basic business of life, we need only take care of our basic needs. This has been done for millennia without having to resort to any kind of meditation.

I'm not saying that your life won't improve with meditation, or even that it won't help you with your survival problems. I'm saying that it's no more natural to meditate than to remain deluded about your true nature, and that knowing yourself as you really are is completely superfluous to getting by in life.

That said, it's certainly true that knowing yourself as you really are can make life a whole lot more pleasant than it would be otherwise, and that can contribute to survival. But that's different than saying that meditation and self-awareness are survival mechanisms.

 
At 9/08/2006 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's a facile logic which you could use to say that since heroin makes you feel good, then it's good for you."

No, it is simple logic, consistently applied.

If you are going to use evolution as the foundation for your argument then you have defined "good" as meaning "benefits survival". I never mentioned "feels good", I simply extended your logic to its conclusions. In fact, meditation often does not "feel good" and for this reason there are likely far more heroin addicts than serious meditation practitioners.

You either are basing "utility" on survival (evolution) or you are not. You appear to have a sliding definition that requires a correction.

"And this training is built into the culture that one is born into. So, if you live in an area where there is water that you have to deal with, then that culture will have swimming...."

This is "facile logic" by you own definition. Please define "culture" in terms of evolution and genes. Are you saying "culture" is genetically encoded?

Dawkins noticed that there are a number of behaviourial traits for humans that seemingly run counter to survival. He called them "memes" but we often call them "culture". He concluded that with behaviourial complexity there may be some survival traits that are important to pass on that are not genetic. The logical conclusion is that some memes do encode important survival information but that many are simply passed on because they self-replicate well. Dawkins believes that memes are only useful to observe how culture changes over time but that there is no impact on evolution since they are not actually connected. He is, in a strictly logical sense, correct.

So you need to decide whether you believe in evolution or "something else". You appear to be straying over to "something else" so you leave yourself open for "facile logic".

For example, it has long been pointed out that religions incorporated survival behaviour such as "eating pork is prohibited" which is smart if you have a problem with trichinosis. Or that circumcision apparently helps resist some sexual diseases and even impacts long-term fidelity.

Of course, there may be some utility to discovering the actual utility for the practice and then being able to dispense with the baroque ritual.

Then again, maybe we're just a dead end. I always thought a good brow ridge beats meditation any day...

www.livescience.com/othernews/060908_humans_odd.html

 
At 9/08/2006 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That said, it's certainly true that knowing yourself as you really are can make life a whole lot more pleasant than it would be otherwise, and that can contribute to survival."

No, not for evolution. More of your "facile logic".

"In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift.

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits"

So it is either genetically encoded and therefore can be passed on if it confers a survival trait or it is just a lucky coincidence that the organism does it.

Ants are cool. They build two garbage dumps away from their nest - one for dead ants and one for everything else. And the dump for dead ants is farther away from the nest than the one for everything else. This is really "smart" since ant carcasses could easily pass on disease, fungi, etc. to the rest of the population so putting them far away avoids accidental contact.

Nifty thing is that they do this even when you start with a queen (no other part of a colony). So it must be genetically encoded since there is no other explanation - no "ant culture" being passed on. Evolution in action for "complex behaviour".

You need to decide where you stand on evolution and survival. If it is truly important for survival then it must be encoded in our genes.

 
At 9/08/2006 12:16 PM, Anonymous meir said...

Jody said: I'm not saying it's not good to meditate and come to self-realization, just that these are superfluous to what a biologist would consider to be a normal, functioning organism. Your pathologization of this is just another symptom of what is wrong with spiritual culture today.

I really appreciate this dialogue here. I have been trying to figure out what is wrong with spiritual culture and could not really pin it down. A big part of the turn off for me is the pathologizing of the mind, and of course the self proclaimed enlightened people who try to market self realization.
I really resent it when, after using reason, insight and critical thinking to try to make sense of right and wrong action regarding human behavior, I am accused of being duped by the ‘mind’. I think it’s a good thing to deconstruct this weird phenomenon in spiritual culture. An intelligent discourse is needed to clarify these issues.

 
At 9/08/2006 1:05 PM, Blogger jody said...

If you are going to use evolution as the foundation for your argument then you have defined "good" as meaning "benefits survival".

That's putting words into my mouth. You said: If meditation is "good" (has utlity) then it is important for survival.

I said that meditation is unnecessary for survival, because if it was necessary it would have evolved as a component of our biology.

I'm not saying that meditation is not good, I'm saying it's unimportant from a biological perspective.

This is "facile logic" by you own definition. Please define "culture" in terms of evolution and genes. Are you saying "culture" is genetically encoded?

We're getting off the track. I'll say culture is an aspect of evolution that is socially encoded. So, we've evolved various survival traits, including the evolution of symbolic thought. This allowed culture to evolve as a social container which assists us in our survival (for the most part) but is not genetically encoded.

He concluded that with behaviourial complexity there may be some survival traits that are important to pass on that are not genetic.

Of course, but meditation is not one of these.

The logical conclusion is that some memes do encode important survival information but that many are simply passed on because they self-replicate well.

So that's why I'm inordinately fascinated with celebrity culture like the rest of the herd.

Then again, maybe we're just a dead end. I always thought a good brow ridge beats meditation any day...

And that's exactly what I'm saying. It's good to meditate, and the state of relaxation one might bring about can actually enhance survival, but all the meditation in the world isn't going to help you against a 300-pound brute bent on killing you in the dark alley.

 
At 9/08/2006 1:10 PM, Blogger jody said...

You need to decide where you stand on evolution and survival. If it is truly important for survival then it must be encoded in our genes.

You need to take another look at what I'm saying, because that's exactly what I've said.

Meditation can help a person in their lives, but there are millions who have never meditated who survive, not to mention all the other life forms that do not appear to meditate.

It's good to meditate. A calm mind is better equipped to deal with life. A mind that deals with life better can contribute to the survival of that organism, but none of this is biologically imperative.

If you can eat, find shelter and reproduce, you've got it made. None of those require any kind of meditation to be performed.

Yet, meditation may help in a more efficient performance of all of the above.

 
At 9/08/2006 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And that's exactly what I'm saying. It's good to meditate, and the state of relaxation one might bring about can actually enhance survival, but all the meditation in the world isn't going to help you against a 300-pound brute bent on killing you in the dark alley."

Uh, what was that I wrote about why martial artists and fighter pilots (the military defined the term "radiness potential" as 13Hz brainwave state) training in meditation?

Oh well, forget it...at least you're consistently inconsistent in your "facile logic"...

 
At 9/08/2006 2:08 PM, Blogger jody said...

Uh, what was that I wrote about why martial artists and fighter pilots (the military defined the term "radiness potential" as 13Hz brainwave state) training in meditation?

The original discussion began with the idea that ordinary human awareness was somehow incorrect and needed to be corrected by a meditation practice. I think we've established that survival traits are biological rather than cultural, but that some cultural traits improved survival without being biologically encoded.

But clearly here you are correct. Maybe meditation would help against the brute in the alley, but that doesn't mean it's a survival trait as we've established it.

In other words, if you never meet the brute in the alley, you'll get along fine without having ever meditated. Additionally, if you're a meditation master and the brute has you by the balls, you're still screwed, and all the meditation won't help that, except maybe to help you deal with the pain caused by having your balls placed in your mouth.

Oh well, forget it...at least you're consistently inconsistent in your "facile logic"...

We've all been consistently twisting each others' logic around our own ideas. That's another cultural trait that could work to enhance one's chances of survival that's not a survival trait as we've defined it today.

 
At 9/10/2006 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish, I truly and sincerely wish with all my heart, that someone would tell me, or I could automatically know, or find out through some means (are there any means I have not tried so far, including "giving up" all the techniques (means)?) what the Truth of this existence is.

I'm so tired of discussions and boards and arguments and books and swamijis and matajis and babajis and "who stole what money, which one screwed whom and when, who is the most ridiculous guru of all...."

If anyone posting here can say "I found the Truth, it's really the Truth, I am enlightened (please no semantics like 'there is no one to be enlightened if you truly are'...) just tell me how it happened and recommend. Did you go to a particular good guru who was not full of crap? Did you sit and eat oranges? Did you fall from a tree and wake up illumined?

If anyone here is in That State, please advise. Otherwise, please don't respond to this query with more opinions and BS.

I actually want to know the Truth of Truths. (If you claim there is no such thing as enlightenment or Truth, you also need not reply to this query, as I'm not interested in your opinion.)

Thanks a lot.

 
At 9/11/2006 8:14 AM, Anonymous meira said...

Anon, I can relate to your quest. In a similar predicament this summer, I decided to do an online course with Alan Clements and his partner jeannine davies on worlddharma.com
I know not every one may like him or agree with what he says, but he presents articles, essays and questions which are meant to inspire people to look deeper into themselves. About 30 people or so participate in the forum and answer each others questions about meaning of truth, life, how to live one's spirituality in the world, etc. It can be an interesting dialogue. When i did it, I learned a lot from the experiences of the other participants, who are from different countries around the globe. I have to admit, though, that I haven't found Truth, I just feel more connected to truth seekers.
Hope that helps

 
At 9/12/2006 2:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dear,
I can only find the Truth of who I am, which is the Truth of what Is.
Once this Truth is a living Truth, there is always an evolving towards the inmensity of Life and Light. So what you call the Truth, of Truths is something you cannot have. It sugest that ONE TRUTH IS MORE TRUTH THAN OTHERS, this is crazy. either is truth or not true.
God is always expanding and creating... so truth also.
And if u want that, just observe yourself, how much you want it, or how much, sometimes, u prefer other than Thruth... it requires big Honesty.Honesty to the limits, at whatever cost.
A teacher can inspire you and remind you. He can point there. But the Teacher, you alone can find it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home