Karl

This is the mistake. Thinking there is some separate entity called the ego. The mind is one, viewed against the transparency of conscious awareness. It isn't separated into 'me and my ego'. I also thought that way for years before it clicked. The problem is thinking 'I must think differently from the way I am currently thinking'. As soon as that thought arises, then it opposes reality. You cannot unthink what you thought, or change the thought and arrange the mind in some specific way as if it were a detached entity. You can add to your experience base, rethink solutions and concepts in light of new learnings, but beyond that nothing else is possible. It's seamless. Thoughts come and go and there is no obvious 'mind' in which they occur, all we can be is conscious of those thoughts. It's consciousness that makes thoughts possible and thoughts that make consciousness inevitable. If the though comes 'I have an ego self' then how is that thought any different from the thought 'I fancy eggs for breakfast' ? Is it the ego thinking about the eggs ? Or is it the egg fancying breakfaster thinking about the ego ? Maybe it's the egg fancier that is the problem then ? ;-) Both thoughts, one pure consciousness viewing both. This is why I say logic is so important. One thing cannot be both things. If that's how it seems then check the premise, one of them is wrong.

Precisely. He gave up the illusion of being unenlightened. It is possible to an extent to surrender to something or other. Pet rabbit, guru, God or whatever is handy. I did that for a few years as it steals away the sense 'I control this/that'. Kind of flinging yourself on the mercy of something greater. Really, anyway to rub off the imaginary ticks and leeches is fine.

Gagging is most infinitely preferable then :-) Better a gagging man than a suffering one.

The aforementioned person referred to as Karl is no longer practising but using, day to day, hour to hour, second to second, moment by moment. When everything is practice it's hard to define practice as separate.

Tragedy and hope by Caroll Quigley-in original form, which some saint has painstakingly copied onto PDF a page at a time. Logic-an introduction by Lionel Ruby-print on demand only. Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. The Road to Serfdom-FA Hayek. We the Living-Ayn Rand.

I have some invisible magic beans for sale. :-)

Can you be more specific ?

Find the one to whom 'me' occurs. You are creating an imaginary entity with which to do battle. That which you create can be uncreated, there is no 'removal' because there is nothing existent. See, there are not two minds. There is not one mind called 'ego' and another which is 'non ego'. It's just lumpy mind stew. If you create a dream wall, then you will have to create a dream hammer to break it down, but see, you remain just the same. Nothing changes. Will you create and endless supply of walls and hammers like the reflection between two mirrors ? You are as you are, accept that you are, do not seek to find what was never lost, or try break the thing that remains unbuilt.

Dogs run after sticks, what more do you need to know ?

Does it matter ? If it does then find the one for whom there is an ego that needs to be removed ;-)

Biggest mind fuck ever. Everyone striving to become some other thing than what they are. Why does anyone need mountains of books to know that ? Who can tell anyone how to be what they already are ? How is it that we scurry here and there for that which was never lost ? It seems to me that this is the far greater mystery. What is so scary or boring about reality we have to pretend we don't know what it is and go off in search of it ? Seems mad and amusing at the same time. The great false treasure hunt in which we trade a myriad of stories. We don't seem to be able to accept the gift of life as the ultimate gift. Buddahood see some vaguely like rejection of reality, a place in which reality is transmuted permanently into something better. That's just earthly Nirvana.

In a sense, there is no illusion either. It's purely a personal choice, something similar to having an imaginary friend. How that schism occurred is a bit of a mystery.

Yep, exactly how I saw it. More holes than Swiss cheese.

This was always the case during therapy with clients. Many really didn't want to change as they were comfortable with their own predicaments, they wanted to manage it better. Those who struggled to make a living wanted to win the lottery, or at least believe they could win the lottery, in order to make them feel better about not doing anything practical towards making a better living. I only took on clients who were 100% serious about change, but really, they knew what was required anyway without any help from me. It felt like a salesman pretending to sell a car-the customer had their hands out with the money and I just handed them the keys and a sales receipt.

Nothing particularly right either, just the way it is. Wisdom doesn't appear to be transferable so it's an entirely selfish accommodation. I think, well people have the desire to, and if they get sick of suffering they will figure it all out themselves eventually. People are resourceful enough as long as the desire is strong enough. If they don't, they can still have a great life-family, friends, adventures. I think it's only when things aren't so good that it starts the thinking. Others I suppose are doing it because they imagine some gain of powers, influence, or abilities.

By 'base' I meant a necessity for life which has switched on to other base objects as necessary. Holidays, cars, jewellery, qualifications, position. There are two versions of 'we are not this mind'. The mind doesn't exist apart from the body and brain. Instead there is a collection, of experiences, memories, direct sensation and conceptual thoughts mixed with emotions. All of this is viewed through the self as pure conscious awareness. When thoughts and sensations are completely absent, then there is no conscious awareness of anything. Consciousness arises and subsides at the same time. If the body is not alive, then consciousness is absent. There is no place for it to go, because there is nothing it can be conscious of. The mind is the filter prior to conscious awareness and not apart from it. It's like an intellectual lens that focuses things for awareness to grasp, but they are not independent. As long as consciousness is functioning then so is mind and thoughts. Neither operates independently of the other. Dead mind, dead consciousness-dead consciousness, dead mind. The other version of 'not the mind' is really neti neti. Here we get back to that old argument of subjectivity in which the consciousness is self and all is created by it. I've already said enough on that topic so I'm not going to repeat it. The subjectivists will always assume the objectivists are part of conscious creation and that completes their circle of reality. It plunges those that adhere to that ideology into a loop from which escape is difficult. It's like thinking you are God.

Well if I'm a nut, here's to being a nut :-) I've known the suffering of being other than the nut that I am and I prefer this way.

I've read that passage many times and come to the same conclusion each time. Ramana is talking about here and now and not any other time. The body dies to the self whilst we are alive and not after death. There is a passage in the bible that says similar and baptism indicates rebirth in a living person. That is how I understand it. We find that we are not the body and dis-identify with it. The body is part of the universe of things within the grasp of conscious awareness. When this is known we can stop the habit of identification with the universe of things because they are base, only necessary to the survival of the body when desired. There is no requirement for base things beyond survival of the body. Once that habit is stopped then there are no more worries because we are not desiring-'after the world we think we create internally'-in order to improve the body in some sense. This, it should be seen, is equally applicable to reincarnation, immortality and other methods to prolong the life of the body beyond its time. This does not mean we should not eat, think, excersise to maintain health, but we should not be actively desiring prolonging, or in some way extending life-even, as an 'after life'. We get busy with today, stay in self, forget yesterday/tommorow beyond what is necessary to survive.

I'm completely clear on what I know, however, I think what we are discussing is what SRM meant by those comments. He seems to suggest you will have to accept a lie in order to discover the true or real. I concur, if that is what he was indicating.

This is how SRM replied to direct questions. I have seen many variations and conflicts in his replies. That means that either: 1) His philosophy was inconsistent. 2) He did not really know what he was saying. 3) He told every seeker what he thought they needed to hear. I have come across many philosophical conflicts within interpretations and in direct quotes from a single guru. This is how I interpret FWIW. There is a universe of things- objects which are real. They are only objects and exist without the need for labels or concepts- these include our own bodies. They simply are. When we arise, we become conscious and then we identify. This is our 'world'. It is an illusion only as far as the identities we give the objects on which our gaze settles. So there are impersonal objects and a halo of personality as we ascribe to them. In time we are wedded to the idea that this world is the universe and it is a personal universe in which separation exists. It is this inability to understand the impersonal that brings suffering. Into this mix we can throw immortality. There is then impersonal immortality (the universe of objects) and personal mortality (the personal world as it is revealed by senses). One isn't the other. SRM told those who asked about reincarnation, life after death etc not to trouble themselves with it. This is how I see it. I've said in previous posts that after death there is no floating consciousness and that the universe exists independently from our conscious awareness of it. Impersonal consciousness is immortal, it is not apart from the universe. Personal consciousness and our experienced world view are mortal. Death is the end for our personal worlds, but not for everything within the universe which continues. Our consciousness reaches out to our bodies and the universe they are part and parcel of. We cloth the universe of things with the model we have of the world. Our consciousness does not create the universe, it creates our world.

Q So the world is not really illusory A at the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say the world is an illusion. There is no other way... There is no universe without the self. So long as man does not see the self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that this external universe is an illusion. Sankara: Brahman is real The universe is unreal, and The universe is Brahman. Q so the world is real when it is experienced as the self and unreal when it is seen as separate names and form. A just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms the world. When by compassionate divine grace the mind becomes clear , the nature of the world will be known to be not the illusory forms, but on the reality. Q I cannot say this is all clear to me. Is the world that is seen, felt and sensed by U.S. In so many ways something like a dream, an illusion. A there is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal if you are seeking the truth and truth alone. Q why so? A for the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real then your mind will always be after it.if you take the appearance to be real you will never know the real itself, although it is the real alone that exists.The point is illustrated by the analogy of the snake in the rope. You may be deceived into believing that the piece of rope is the snake. While you imagine the rope is the snake you cannot see the rope as a rope . The non existent snake becomes real to you , while the real rope seems wholly non existent as such. Excerpts from 'be as you are' the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi p187/188

Opeth - pale communion.

And 'liberation' is also undefined. I suspect everyone has a concept of liberation, be it running up a beach, living in a state of blissful ignorance, or just avoiding some pain of some type. Now, I would say that within the ability to accurately define 'liberation' lies liberation itself :-) of course that's an objectivist speaking. If we are talking 'of the mind' and not some other place, then does it not seem rational that we should first define what we believe to be liberty in order to know if we don't already have it ? I say we do. We just don't accept that to be true because it gives us a degree of excusable flexibility for not living freely. If we can believe we are not at liberty, we can avoid reality. It is reality that is feared most and Liberty is the key to realities door. Therefore begin with thoughts of how to 'get liberation' presupposes that we are trapped in some sense.

Not such of a mystery. Stones were always more mainstream than Man :-)

Hopeless. It's like gazing at a cloud and seeing shapes of things that appear. You can make things fit, but what he meant was a mystery. I think the dope was just too strong.