3bob

Powers as the goal lead away from enlightenment... a self inductive-reactance type of law will come into effect if ego try's to take over the inviolate. The secret so to speak is that - Spiritual Truth gets us, thus one does not get or take it for one's own designs.... there is also that Christian saying (which is widely applicable even if said religion tends to be dualistic) along the lines of, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all things shall be added unto you" as needed or implied.

no need to feel torn Bindi...although one just saying that doesn't mean much during a tsunami of mind... another analogy: if mind itself is like a pool of water and it goes still then it can be seen through all the way to the depths, and that which does such seeing is not the water it once "thought" it was because of all the crashing ripples it was caught-up in seeing before. Anyway, you are getting a big mix of information from many people about several religions, and or ways and that can leave one feeling torn, I suggest you back off on the mixtures and try sticking with just one school of inspirational teachers and doctrines for awhile and thus get a clear conceptual handle through same - for all of the true ways are like vehicles which will help you along.

another thing is that mind/ego is really a tool (or hopefully should be) without any root of its own, and I'd say that even the term "spiritual mind" is problematic since that could be called the causal realm which is still dependent upon Self/Siva/Spirit/Tao/God (depending on your preference) to exist.

!

I know there are forms of fighting that are goofy on purpose so as to throw off an opponent, and hell some politicians are so seriously goofy that they think they are really serious and proceed to send 18 year old kids off to die for there trumped up causes - how tricky Richard.

you know it seems that women are more careful about acting out on feeling goofy, just as most of them are with farting, or in making strange sounds like those of jungle creatures... although that may not be true in women's locker rooms. (which I wouldn't know about)

so one might wonder just how goofy and playful some of the great sages of recorded history got? (while at times being dead serious)

ok and true, but this subject also had goofy in it...

ok I see what you mean by killing in that sense but to me I'd put say such is the killing of the attachment to seeing in a limited way although not a killing of form per-se but seeing the permutations into form for what they are - starting for example from pure energy and then proceeding to colors which are also vibrations. In other words Siva does not kill his emanation or Om although they are taken back up (so to speak) during the return direction.

Hello TI, (or others that would like to comment along the lines of this comment ) In your recent quote I wonder why Ramana keeps using the term "killing" that tends to have a certain connotation? I can partly relate to same in a certain sense or in a manner of speaking but I find a description along the lines of eight limbed yoga more conducive to discussions along these lines; in my own words I might use the image of gates - thus one opens and goes through one gate and leaves behind or detaches from whatever was active and binding them in that realm and then on to next gate and the next becoming more free from things behind the previous gates as they progress, which doesn't mean the killing or burning down of such gates and realms per-se but the power to open and close them for one's self as needed. Extrapolate that sort of process up to the toughest gate of creation itself, for mind can not pass that gate and can not conceive of passing that gate where it no longer exists and cannot reach, for up to that point it has largely been master but the deeper master lies beyond what could be called the first and last gate. (first to manifest as pure energy, last to un-manifest as pure energy) I also believe I understand what Ramana is talking about in falling into a still, sleep like rest, which in my analogy used here could be likened to getting stuck part way through a gate, (or in an in-between part of a realm) that could be difficult to break free of. (and where the Grace of the Sat Guru would surely help!) Lastly, or another way of looking at this subject from a God level or Supreme Being level is that Siva can not "kill" Shakti to find or free himself - far from it since there is a quintessential and unbreakable connection! ...or btw. with some correlation to Taoism in that Tao "goes far" and "returns". (yet never really left, and was never really lost) Good day

" I'd say "true knowledges" means what the Buddha said in His own words in relation to same, namely: "There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore there is an escape from the born, originated, created, formed." The summation and fact of which is not knowable through the powers of reason, although point-able to with reason. (Btw, I'm more into Vedic teachings but I gotta give Buddhist teachings their due credit)

I'd say one can not deny the import of the following Buddhist account in relation to "mind" and "beyond the beyond" Mahasaccaka Sutta - Majjhima Nikaya #36: On the Buddha: "When his mind was "concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability" he directed it to the "true knowledges" that gave rise to his incredible breakthrough in consciousness known in the sutras as Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi. So we see that the Jhanas are not only at the heart of his teaching, but also were at the heart of his own practise". Underline by me, which I believe point to something different than killing "mind" per-se... not unlike an idea of an implosion and transmutation of all forms of gathered energy including that of "mind" which was needed for His breakthrough.

Karl, Going nuts proves nothing but being nutty. Btw, being nuts is not all bad if one can detach from their nuts from time to time and also leave other peoples nuts well enough alone; ultimately such can be done.

Apech, Nice post #28. I'd add that most of us human beings are in conflict within to some degree and in some way or another - it comes with the territory. There is not just one ego so to speak or voice in our thoughts or feelings but many all vying for some type of place or action, thus there is this "I" and that "I" times how ever high the count goes... so to be operating under one totally unified ego would be very rare, even more rare would be to operate under one unified spirit that ego can no longer steal from or effectively take its place. And yes, there is eternal Atman but Atman is veiled until it is no longer veiled, not unlike the idea that a mile is not walked until it is walked even if the concept of having already finished such a walk might be dilly-dallied around with.

Karl, this is not your circus alone so quit trying so hard to sell your peanuts, "Utimately it cannot be done".

Yep, Mr. N. it takes a will to surrender a will

Karl, It sounds like the red pill or the blue pill or both are stuck somewhere in your throat? And or thus I don't think gagging is all you're making it out to be.

I'd say most fine masters control a shred of ego to still interact with the world, yet can leave it behind for Self and then come back, so to speak... Another string commented on a very tiny handful of masters that are perpetually in Spirit so one could look there for info along those lines. Further, when jiva (so to speak in common language) becomes Siva what ego can remain; (?) schools along that line say none.

one persons suffering can be another persons bliss - since and again perception and it's related framework and or factors is key.

Karl, we also find that we are not this mind (if you meant and include that?) and dis-identify with it... and that is a much bigger leap than all the various forms of body beyond just the physical. Btw I'd say there are requirements for the various forms and or various energies which you seemingly belittle with the term "base"; for one must have a base from which to reach and cross the next threshold until death finally dies.

nothing wrong with older and wiser nuts

"I'm completely clear on what I know", if so then you are most likely a nut although I'm not completely sure of that.

as long as we are barking up trees I'd say the impartial but not indifferent and if you will supreme consciousness is not limited to any particular identity or form and that is the most true consciousness of ourselves which is also the common denominator to all selves, thus in that identity there can be no death, for it is then death that dies. (the tough old curmudgeon )

Similar problem there Karl for a definition of "real"... and there is more than one way to look at it: Btw, Vedic teachings or Vedic related type teachings have a lot of variations in interpretation, thus the several main branches and all sorts of different schools - a pattern which one can also see in the different schools of Taoism and Buddhism. Further, in the Upanishads we hear how all things "spring from the Self", which brings up the very obvious question, if something springs from the real then how can it be unreal? And instead of using the words spring from what if we used the words 'connected to', then the obvious question would be, how can the unreal be connected to the real? Also in considering such connections one could ask how can the Absolute be transformed into the non-absolute? Or how can the Silent Om be transformed into sound/vibration that is throughout and at every level of the cosmos? ...or how can we be in direct contact if we are just out of reach, which in a way could be reverse correlated to a finger trap where the harder one tries to loosen it the harder it tightens up. ...and why not include a correlation with the Buddhist Jhanas while we are at it? For instance per Buddhist doctrine the jhanas are all connected (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8..) and from the last of them the historic Buddha then made the leap so to speak and or I'd say the connection to, "beyond the beyond" - so in a way that shoots the often common hang-up about illusion being something in particular all to hell since where does such illusion really begin and end being that the Buddha did not reject any of the jhanas, along with them being directly spoken of and in important detail as he was passing... There is also that saying along the lines of, samsara correctly understood is nirvana. Note: all attempted correlations here are mine, and not from any school.

thus drop concepts either way per the 4 four negation and get on with it