Published on www.acadun.com
The Netherlands
1th April 2014
Discussion Linkedin: “Essence of Non-Duality” group
Tittle: “The enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer. What does this mean?”
1th april 2014
L1: It has no meaning to the ones that are sleeping.
L2: It means the man is one of the means. To the extent it is so, one is also a part of the doer. Rather than debate what is the ulTIMate truth, this point of view ( or lack of it) has an enormous impact on how individuals and societies interact with one another.
L3: Who is there that is looking for meaning?
L4: It means that you did not raise this question, and I didn't answer.
AAU: Dear L1, You are right. But what does the enlightened mean, for surely he is not sleeping. AAU
AAU: Dear L2, Which part of man forms the means? Is part of his actions the means, if so who is to decide which part of the action is man’s and which part is who’s? Or is parts of his body such as his arms and legs the means used by whom? AAU
L5: im trying to think about the answer.. who is the doer? oh wait now thoughts about chocolate brownies are appearing.. upon this place.. called Mike.
AAU: Dear L3, Man always looks for a meaning; he asks a question and even types to ask a question. But the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer. What could this mean? AAU
AAU: L4, Common sense, logic and reason would imply that I raised the question and you did not answer. AAU
AAU: Dear L5, Shall wait for your answer to appear. AAU
L4: Dear AAU, Whether you raised a question or not, you did not raise a question. Whether I reacted to that or not, I did not react. Common sense, reason and logic would imply that you are nuts and that I am nuts. But, to put it in your vocabulary: the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not nuts.
L1: AAU, 'Enlightened' people making such statements are giant fools fooling themselves and the ones listing to it. These statements are made up by people wanting to escape life as it is very badly. The only 'thing' that can claim not to be the doer of his actions is though-form for as though-form lives disconnect from the life that he or she is.
AAU: L4, I did raise a question on the forum; it is in my computer and yours too. You have not answered the question raised on the forum, whether you have reacted or not reacted to the question is for the readers to decide. Common sense, reason, logic and science do not imply I or you are nuts, because we both discuss on a forum. You are discussing on a forum, essence of non-duality, surely you would know that the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer. AAU
AAU: L1, Is the scripture, for example, the Bhagawad Gita written by giant fools? Are enlightened beings such as Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Adi Shankara giant fools? Thoughts surely disconnect man from life, as life is timeless and thoughtless. AAU
L4: Yes AAU, you convinced me. It was you who did the typing, it was you who raised the topic. You were the doer indeed. "Surely you would know that the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer" I'd say 'proclamation' isn't the proper word here, but apart from that: yes, once oneness is realized, it is clear that 'I am not the doer'. And indeed it can be found in many scriptures, although the exact words may differ. In quite a few comments in this group, the same is stated. Some of these comments are clearly stemming from realization, other stem from thinking / repeating.
L4: Hi L1 Once oneness is realized, what also is realized is 'not being the doer'. Life unfolds. Yet nothing happens, nothing is done. These statements are perfectly clear, then. Once oneness is realized, as part of functioning in daily life, these kind of statements may be of value as a pointer, to someone who has not realized oneness yet. Other than that, I agree and they are just foolish statements. (Actually this is what I tried to say to AAU by "Common sense, reason and logic would imply that you are nuts and that I am nuts. But, to put it in your vocabulary: the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not nuts." Have a nice day. I enjoy your contributions.
L4: Ah, I almost forgot one very special meaning of this sentence, only on this forum: it may so happen that AAU is not the doer, as Shakara from time to time writes his comments. :-)
L1: L4, if statements are clear, then there is conceptual understanding :-) In oneness there is no distinction between the doer and the doing. Oneness cannot be realized. it is always and ever the present state of life. It does not matter if one is sleeping or awake. The one that thinks that there is something to realize is kicked out of life, and never comes back in between.
L4: Yes L1, so it is. :-) As for statements being clear: this not necesarrily points to understanding. It can also point to 'not polluted'.
AAU: L4, Yes L4, the world knows that the enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer. The enlightened surely would know that man does too. But they seem to have realised that the doing happens to man and he does not do it, but merely claims or believes to do it. Otherwise they would not have made the proclamation or statement. Yes, you are correct once oneness is understood absolutely it becomes clear that man is not the doer. Hence the question was raised. If it stems from understanding absolutely he or she will share that life is a singular movement without cause or effect. If it stems from thinking/repeating it would mean the beyond is to be achieved to realise that man is not the doer. AAU
AAU: L4, Comment to: "Ah...." So is Shankar a doer? Or am I a doer when I convey Shankar’s comments? AAU
L4: Hi AAU, agreed. Did I see a smile just now?
AAU: L4, You agree to what? AAU
L4: Implicit in the questions you posed just now, you made a point (bypassing the intended joke), and it is to that point that I agree. Shankar is not, and neither are you, the doer.
L6: When I am breathing I can notice there is no action taken by anyone to breath. It is just happening completely by itself. Same goes for smelling, tasting, blood pumping, hearing a.s.o. This all is observed by ??? When the doctor asks me Take a deep breath. I wiil do this for him. I donot say to him Sorry doctor there is no doer here and breathing is all going by itself.. So in this case I am the doer, the breather, knowing that no one is doing anything. This play is also observed by ???
AAU: L4, If neither Shankar nor I are the doers, how does it get done? If you agree you should be able to give an explanation. AAU
L8: Great question, thank you. My experience is that Life does life as me, through me. This is different from the experience I had before awakening in which I believed that a separate me was in control and driving everything. My experience now might be described as a co-creation with Life, but "co-" is misleading; there is just one movement, not two. I hope this is useful! Let me know if you have more questions. Blessings!
L1: AAU, when you smoke a good joint, you can have experiences enough to write your own Gita.
L1: Hi L6, "When I am breathing I can notice there is no action taken by anyone to breath". Wake up, and see the contradiction in your own statement! The one noticing is the "foolish" one :-) The one breathing is the "enlightened" being that you already are.
L6: OK L1, No problem!
L7: "What does this mean?" The apparent doer(man) is being done..
L1: Hi L7, Try to find out if it means that you are driven by 'your' wants, or are driven by Your Will.
AAU: L6, You are right that you notice that man does not do anything to breath, see, hear, smell, taste and touch. They all happen to man. It is observed by the witnesser (an evolved ego that does not judge). The same applies to the patient and doctor they all happen by itself, but is claimed by the ego to do it, and is observed by the witnesser that they all happen. AAU
AAU: L8 “co” is also misleading for there is only life and there cannot be another in life apart from life as life. You are right life is a singular movement. AAU
AAU: L1, If anyone could write a Gita after smoking a good joint, it will be contradicting the statement from the enlightened that man is not the doer. And also Buddha who is said to have said that deeds are done but there is no individual doer thereof. AAU
AAU: L7, Could you explain precisely what do you mean by ‘being done’ AAU
L6: @AAU. Thanks for your comment
2th april 2014
L7: "what do you mean by ‘being done’?" Man is not the chef on any level...it always comes down to just another ingredient in the pot, being cooked up by Life itself.
L7: "Try to find out if it means that you are driven by 'your' wants, or are driven by Your Will." Thanks, I'm leaning toward the latter there...
L1: AAU, again reasoning and reasoning. I would call reasoning self avoiding behavior :)
L6: Just ask yourself one question L1: Who is reasoning?
L1: And again someone is looking for a way out of this situation.
AAU: L7, Metaphors bring in clarity to some but not to all. Absolute understanding brings in clarity to all, as the understanding gets cooked by life, in him or her.
AAU: L7, By will or by want would make man the doer. This does not answer the question on the forum.
AAU: L1, Reasoning whether it is right or wrong, good or bad etc., would be self-avoiding behaviour. Reasoning whether anything could be real as believed it is, or could man be the doer, enriches man to be a wise or enlightened, and not behave as an enlightened man.
L4: Until this day I have not heard or read about a single one who reasoned himself into enlightenment. Some call it ' falling into grace' and I find that to be very much appropriate. Reasoning (inquiry) may help to 'pave the way', though. "But whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after -- the pursuit or search for truth or reality -- takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are. It's not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort -- that is why I use the word `acausal'. It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end." Krishnamurti (UG)
AAU: L1, reply to: "And again someone is looking for a way out of this situation." Would not that someone be a doer if he looks for a way out of any situation? And would not that someone who does not look for a way out of any situation also be a doer? This does not answer the question of the forum.
3th april 2014
AAU: L4, No one can reason himself into enlightenment. An understanding happens that reasons one into realising that life, which is the ‘now’, is timeless and thoughtless. This is the ‘falling into grace’. Grace is the understanding that life is timeless and thoughtless, which man cannot bring about. Reasoning is not something that man can do, for man is not the doer. If reasoning happens it surely paves the way. If reasoning is something man can do, it would take him away from his natural state just as UGK says it will. The natural state of man is a thoughtless state which he always is, in the ’now’. The thoughtless state is not something man can attain, accomplish or acquire through effort. The thoughtless state is acausal meaning without cause, meaning if it is meant to happen it will.
L7: "By will or by want would make man the doer." AAU, i'm seeing some misinterpretation, on more levels than one perhaps... if your referring to what L1 wrote, then my 'leaning toward the latter' was not implying what you stated. My interpretation was he was pointing to what we are as life itself, although wasn't in full agreement simply because I don't see 'life' as 'having' a will, whats happening here is more intimate then that.
L7: "Metaphors bring in clarity to some but not to all. Absolute understanding brings in clarity to all" I see your really trying to get down to the essence of things AAU, it's refreshing so thank you...must have forgotten what forum I was in :) Were all just using language here in an attempt to capture that which goes beyond words, life just can't be caught and put in a bottle. When it comes to 'absolute insight,' metaphors can sometimes be the easier way to explain things...
L1: Understanding, real understanding, is being aware of the fact that any kind of reasoning and/or knowledge damages and blinds you what is already here.
L6: L1 Can you tell me who is understanding what? Who is damaged or blinded? Is'n it all about unconditional love?
L4: Yes L6, it is.
AAU: L7, An enlightened directly points out, that life does not have a will and only man thinks that he has a will.
AAU: L7, If man is not the doer how can he attempt to capture to go beyond words? How could life be caught and put in a bottle when the bottle too is life? Is there a metaphor to point out that man is not the doer? That metaphor would indeed be helpful.
AAU: L1, Real understanding is being aware that if reasoning and knowledge informs what is already here as real, it blinds man.
4th april 2014
L7: "If man is not the doer how can he attempt to capture to go beyond words?" As pointed to earlier, man and the doer are synonymous...it's the same expression or 'wave' we could say in the ocean, although the notion of individual 'doership/free will' only carries meaning/significance from a man-made/waves viewpoint, from the oceans "perspective" there is just pure ocean... "How could life be caught and put in a bottle when the bottle too is life?" This is what i was pointing at, life/the ocean is too intimate with itself to capture it's own self, iow, the 'essence' of 'non-duality' can never be put in a bottle because the two are one in the same. If something has been bottled as the 'essence' then it could only be another wave and not the actual essence/ocean itself. Duality can only capture duality, iow, here among the waves, pointing is as far as we can take it when it comes down to the deeper reality of non-duality, we can only 'be' that reality.
L1: "Duality can only capture duality" Yes,, thougtform is capable of being aware of its own insanity, and clear that up. But the ignorance of thougtform is huge, as can be seen here.
L1: AAU, in real understanding, there is now knowledge any more.
AAU: L7, You mean to point out that duality is illusory and not real, and only the ocean, meaning life, is real and not illusory.
AAU: L1, reply to: rard, in real understanding, there is.... Please explain or clarify the sentence.
5th april 2014
L7: "You mean to point out that duality is illusory and not real, and only the ocean, meaning life, is real and not illusory." Hi AAU, as messy as it may appear, i'm attempting to point to nonduality, pointing into more 'categorizing' is pointing into the essence of duality... The way I see it is duality can only be viewed 'illusory/not real' from the illusory viewpoint, it's a viewpoint that doesn't even really exist, so we could say it's not real in this sense. However if we view duality as an expression of the ocean(the waves), then in this sense the expression is quite real since we can't separate the ocean from it's waves, meaning there aren't even two things here. So if the ocean is real then that must mean the expression can only be just as real. It's always the real deal from the oceans "perspective," because it -is- the expression itself. We don't even need to hold onto the concept of 'illusion', it seems to serve it's purpose for a while on this road of unconditioning, though it's not truth except from an imaginary point of view. When we tie together what's 'real' with 'illusion' then there is a sense of detachment that arises with that away from experience. If we live life holding onto the belief that everything is illusion, then we are not fully living. Children are able to live much fuller and "closer to reality" because their just fully in the experience as it arises, without all the conditioned concepts of what's happening or who they are to detach them from the experience, they haven't taken on concepts like 'illusion.' The advantage of getting conditioned is that it can be used to eventually gain a deeper understanding and unravel the conditioning in the process returning us back to this child like nature, this I would say is living life to the fullest.
AAU: Hi L7, Duality is not illusory as a point of view. Duality is illusory by reason, logic and science. Illusory does not mean non existence. It means it does exist but not in the manner the mind believes it exists as actual. The illusoriness is the reality of that which exists as real and appears actual. Illusoriness means that it is not real. Two objects of different color and shape can be seen to exist but not two different waves of different colors and shape. Ocean is non dual because every atom of an ocean or wave is light and not water and so too every duality. The understanding that what exists is illusory is not a concept, as the understanding is based on common sense, logic, reason and science all of which are not abstract ideas which a concept is. The understanding is a fact and not an imaginary point of view. The understanding surely helps to un-condition the mind from what it believes to be real. The real that can be be tied together with an illusion by an ‘I’ which is false, is surely an imagination. Children surely live life until the ‘I’ takes over. The enlightened live life like the children when understanding happens to them that life as per the mind is illusory and not real. That is why they proclaimed that man is not the doer, just as the child until the ‘I’ takes over the child. The conditioned mind cannot be used by man to gain a deeper understanding, as understanding is an inherent characteristic of man and not under man’s control. When an understanding that man is not the doer happens to man, he becomes enlightened being aware every moment, that he is not the doer, unlike a child who is not aware every moment that it is not the doer. This is living life and not thinking life.
6th april 2014
L7: Greetings AAU. Duality can only be seen as illusory by reason, logic and science from the minds viewpoint, this point of view is deceptive itself in that it's not a real point of observation in and of it's own beyond what imagination tells us. All of this only means something from a seemingly real viewpoint imagined by thought. 100% intimacy with life is the only reality that goes beyond a point of view.
L7: AAU *
L7: I'll just add to clarify what I meant by detaching from experience by tying together illusion with what's real. We could say the world is not real in the perception that it is outwardly imagined as a separate reality, in this way we can tie it together with illusion and say the world is a mirage....however it doesn't mean that experience as it exists is not actual, our experience here is quite real. When we see the world is illusory, direct experience as well can tend to get thrown into that pile of delusion, which can cause a sense of detachment with experience itself.
L1: Knowledge requires a knower.
AAU: Greetings L7, That the world, man and mind is illusory is not deceptive, it is factual observation, which in turn is illusory by itself. Understand that relative knowledge and wisdom are both illusory and what is absolute is pure light, because even that 100% intimacy with life is the only realty that goes beyond a point of view is by itself a point of view.
AAU: L7 * AAU
L6: Does Life require anything L1 ? Life includes knowing. And you are life. So nothing required there.
AAU: L7, An experience of real is proof that the mind is conditioned. When the world is understood to be illusory, an experience too is realised as illusory as an experience would need time and time is illusory. So there is no question of delusion or tying the illusory with real for that away from experience.
AAU: L1, Is this your reply to point out the ignorance or for in real understanding, there is now knowledge any more. If it is, it still does not make any sense to me at least. If it is a statement once more, without acknowledging whether the previous responses is understood or not, here is the response to the statement to help you. Life has manifested knowledge and a knower in place precisely, albeit illusory. Man the knower has NOT done the knowledge, knowledge has happened to man.
L4: Hi AAU The word 'knowledge' can only have meaning in the realm where there is a 'subject of knowledge' and an 'object of knowledge'. This is in the relative realm - the very word 'knowledge' itself creaties dualities. By making use of sentences like 'X has happened to man' you found a nice way of expressing in language what is meant by 'I am not the doer' - but by writing 'knowledge has happened to man' you reintroduced duality. As L1 put is nicely: "In real understanding, there is no knowledge anymore" AAU, it can be of great benefit, to point toward oneness, even if you use reasoning for it, and this remains a point of view. As L7 put out nicely: "100% intimacy with life is the only reality that goes beyond a point of view." Over and over in your comments I see how you hop from the absolute perspective to the relative, and back again. You may start a comment by using reason and logic, and every time someone responds on that level, you dismiss what is being said and use absolute understanding as a means to that. And vice versa. I have been wondering for a long time what makes you do that. Your attitude is that of a teacher, who tries to get through to his pupils.Your way of interacting however, gives me the impression that either you have no absolute understanding of what you are writing about (and are just reproducing formulas), or your comments are only meant to protect your self-image. Either of them prove to me you are not living what you 'preach' and maybe you are living in the hardes illusion of all: the illusion created by thinking / ego that you freed yourself of illusions. I'll make it easier for you to avoid your conditioning of coming up with yet another load of reasoning, by unfollowing this thread, so that there is no need for you to reply to me. And I recommend you to, for the rest of 'your' life, live the question: "Who is reading this comment?" Namaste
AAU: Hi L4, After meaning happened to words knowledge came into being, so it is meaning of words that gave rise to knowledge and it is not knowledge that gives rise to meanings. So it is meanings that give rise to duality and knowledge, and not the other way around, meaning knowledge does not create meanings or dualities. Knowledge happened to man after letters, words and meanings happened to words. The same words and meanings are used to convey either relative or absolute understanding. There is no separate words and meanings to express absolute understanding. L1 wrote "In real understanding, there is NOW knowledge anymore" and not as you write “In real understanding, there is NO knowledge anymore" I have asked him to clarify and will respond to him if he does. Reasoning which are facts is not a point of view; points of view can differ but not facts, for facts are universal, albeit illusory. Reasoning which are facts point out that life is the ‘now’ is thoughtless and timeless. So to be intimate with life one needs to be thoughtless and timeless which is the ‘now’. UKG pointed out that the calamity that happened to him was a discontinuity from thoughts. The discontinuity of thoughts was the thoughtless and timeless ‘now’. Nothing is dismissed as right or wrong, everything is validated if it could be real or illusory. A teacher teaches right and wrong, good or bad etc., and not whether the known is real or illusory. A master points out that the real is illusory, and does not teach, You may reply if it happens to you. You ask who is reading this comment. The reader reads this comment, and it is a miracle that he can.
L9: All, Only one who realised life’s enlightened state, is to be realise another’s yet realised or yet not-realised state – so, realisation is only to be realised by the realised one. How could one who understood life to be an illusion, take on the attitude of a teacher who tries to get through to his pupils – indeed, this would be a contraction in terminus. The enlightened one only uses the relative to point towards the absolute – because, it is only the illusion which points to the real. This forum offers reader as well as participant a most unique opportunity to thoroughly and profoundly enquire the mind – enquiring the mind is the doorway to enlightenment. Understanding every thought the mind thinks to be illusory, implies understanding life to be real - illusory mind is life’s precious gift to realise man's enlightened stage. Thanks so much, AAU, for patiently replaying all understandable and required questions and reactions – because, if one would not question or react, how would one come to understand his questions and reactions to be illusoiry!? This unique forum is life’s precious gift to its mankind, to realise its already enlightened state. Therefore, AAU, also thank you for initiating and act upon this forum – for your help is the help-less help one helps to understand life does not need any help. Either man still dreams, or his understanding is absolute – absolute understanding is waking up from the dream, and never dream again.
L7: AAU: "When the world is understood to be illusory, an experience too is realised as illusory as an experience would need time and time is illusory." Where do you spot the illusion in your experience? We can't say experience is illusory/not real because there is no actual point of observation to see it as so, iow, there aren't really ocean & waves in our actual experience, there is just pure ocean, everything else is just an interpreted overlay on this pure experience. If there is 'someone' having or observing an experience, then we could say that would require time, although if we look directly into the heart of experience this is never actually the case, as you mention, separation/time is illusory.
L1: L6, AAU, The knower and the knowing (or known) are part of though-form. When thought-form ceases to exist, because it is whipe-out by the life as you already are the knower and what is known is gone. This can even happen before 'awakening' when it is seen that every thought and knowing is a kind of insanity and is a very terrifying process. In the timeless being that remains, thought is impossible for thought requires time. Again i will ask you to be aware of what tries to react to what is written here. Why you are doing it, and how you are doing it. Maybe some wisdom arises, although i'll guess chances are small :-)
L2: Our experience is an interaction between us and what is being observed, at a given moment. Naturally, it keeps changing from moment to moment. Also, the act of observation changes what was observed as well as the observer. Therefore, no two experiences could be exactly the same to the nth degree of awareness. This comes from Quantum Physics - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and also from the 5000+ year old Vedic knowledge. Try living with this awareness to comprehend who is the doer . Yes, man is NOT the sole doer in anything. Nevertheless man is part of the doer.
L6: Hi L1, I really do not understand your question "what tries to react what is written here?" and "Why you are doing it and how you are doing it?" The only answer that comes up is "I really do not know"
AAU: L7, Everything that is experienced has to be illusory, because everything that is experienced is just an illusory appearance of light. Just as the wave that is seen is illusory and not real for all there is, is ocean. Even the ocean is just light and the ocean too is illusory. Therefore everything is just an interpreted overlay on reflected light. The interpretations too are illusions of light. When you look directly into the heart of experience you admire the intelligence of life to manifest an illusory interpretation of an illusory experience of reflected light.
AAU: L1, When what is known is gone before or after awakening the unawakened and the awakened will not be able to survive as both would require the known to survive. Every thought and knowing is not insane for that very reason; it enables the awakened and the unawakened to survive. So the known is never wiped off as long as you are living. To wipe off the known is an impossibility which the ego is very keen to achieve. The ego does not realise the known is needed for survival. It believes bliss will descend when the known is gone. The thoughts are an insanity to the ego because it does not understand the other. You are right thought requires time and time too is a thought and not an actuality in life. The ‘now’ is therefore timeless and thoughtless, and all thoughts are in illusory time needed for survival. The enlightened live but thinking does not happen to them in order to live. What is needed to know for survival happens to them, and they are aware that the thoughts that happen to them are illusory and not real. The ‘I’ reacts because of knowledge while the witnesser (an evolved ‘I’) shares because of wisdom. Why and how it happens is indeed a miracle, it just happens and no one does it, neither the ego nor the witnesser . Usually reaction happens and rarely wisdom too could happen.
AAU: L2, Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal of momentum and position is well known. So too is Schrodinger’s cat. Physicists such as Carl Jung and Wolfgang L9i considered that the laws of physics and consciousness are complimentary. Man cannot try to live with an awareness to comprehend who is the doer, for as you say man is not the sole doer but only part of the doer. Man cannot try because he would require the other part too in trying to live in awareness. If man is part of the doer and does a part of the act, who could be the other part of the doer, who does the other part of the act? Who decides who does which part of an act in a moment which happens faster than an attosecond? This too is synonymous to Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Physicists are only one step away from admitting that the world is just an illusory product of our mind.
L2: "To the extent man is an integral part of the overall consciousness, man is the doer."
L2: AAU, You have said ".........world is just an illusory product of our mind". The same can be said for everything what we call reality or lack of it. With this frame of reference, what are the 10 success commandments for humans?
L1: Hi L6, in your answer I see the protective/evasive mechanism of thought coming up. Awake or not, we always know.
AAU, again you are reasoning yourself a way out of the situation given to you.
When we call or define all there is in life as an illusion, then we isolate ourselves from the means necessary to free ourselves from the burden of life.
L9: All, L1: “When we call or define all there is in life as an illusion, then we isolate ourselves from the means necessary to free ourselves from the burden of life”. The thought to free ourselves from the burden of life is itself an illusion, because to think life to be a burden is itself a thought and therefore is illusory. Indeed, life is made man to THINK and BELIEVE to free himself from the burden of life – but only as an imagination, fiction or thought, in the mind. Those whom life provided with an understanding that life is not a burden but a reflection of energy or pure light, to them life has installed an understanding that everything in life is but an illusion reflected by this same energy or pure light, and which is more certain the substratum for every illusion appearing as life. It is only pure light which appears as reflected light (as consciousness, five elements, plants, animals, man, mind) – reflected light is but the relative appearance of the absolute substratum, and therefore the appeared is called illusory, and not real.
L2: That is why highly enlightened people may also appear as freaks.
AAU: L2, The question is what does the statement of the enlightened mean, for they say that man is not the doer. Do you mean to say that the enlightened are wrong?
AAU: L2, It is not a frame of reference it is a scientific fact that everything that exists is made up of light. Whatever may be the 10 commandments that man believes in; the belief would be illusory and not real. Illusory does not mean it does not exist. It does not exist in the way man thinks it exists.
L2: Yes AAU, a frame of reference can also be factual to those who so believe. Within the 100% illusory mind set, are there any permanent facts - scientific or otherwise? Also, by 'light' you perhaps meant 'energy', visible wavelengths of which are known as light. Are we are in agreement?
L2: AAU, I am responding to your comment "The question is what does the statement of the enlightened mean, for they say that man is not the doer. Do you mean to say that the enlightened are wrong? ". I say the enlightened one's are correct because most thetime the man operates as though one is detached from the overall consciousness. At the same time my position remains: "To the extent man is an integral part of the overall consciousness, man is the doer."
AAU: L1, Is it not sensible and logical to reason any situation logically, instead of reacting or rejecting the situation?
AAU: L1, Illusory does not mean the burden does not exist. Understand the means needed to free ourselves from the burdens of life (whatever they may be) when they happen, the means would be illusory too. The intelligence of life cannot be comprehended by the mind.
AAU: L2, Nevertheless, what does it mean that man is not the doer, is the question, as the enlightened proclaim that man is not the doer
L2: AAU, You say "Illusory does not mean the burden does not exist.....". Interestingly the oldest scripture on earth, namely Vedas, have never mentioned about burden. Could it be a feeling of burden is just a feeling and it can be let go!!! I think, burden is always in the eyes of the beholder. Right at this moment I don't feel any.
L7: AAU, At the most fundamental level, we really don't know what 'experience' is made of, when we believe that it's actually made out of matter, in this way we could say that our experience is illusory...if your implying that experience is made out of 'light' in the phenomenal sense then this is illusion in the same way we believe that experience is made out of matter. If were using the concept 'light' on the 'absolute' level then that's just one way we could put it, other concepts we could use are- consciousness, awareness, life, energy, etc...though it really it doesn't matter what we name it, were still on the conceptual level here, just pointing to something beyond-> a non-conceptual truth where the conceptual mind just can't go.
9 april 2014
AAU: L2, Nothing is permanent in life, including scientific facts, albeit illusory. The only exception is the fact, that the world, man and mind is illusory and not real. Energy is light, visible or invisible energy. Agreement is harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling. The above statements are neither an opinion nor a feeling. It is a fact, albeit illusory.
AAU: L2 response to: "I say the enlightened one's are correct because....." If your position were right, would not the enlightened have proclaimed it, instead of proclaiming man is not the doer?
L7: I'll just add, 'assuming' we know what 'experience' is made of makes it illusory we could say, though this still doesn't make the actual experience unreal...
"Therefore everything is just an interpreted overlay on reflected light." The intellectual mind is really the only thing that interprets our perception, pure perception doesn't interpret. Antime we use the word 'reflection' were getting back into the intellectual mind, into duality. If we say that we are just experiencing a reflection of something, this would be similar to saying that our direct experience now is comparable to touching a reflection in the mirror and not what's actually being reflected, which is detachment to the core... my 'not two' cents.
L1: We are that intelligence of life. Better said Intelligent life. It is only blinded by thought(-form). One can become aware, if he wants, has the guts, and is absolutely honest to himself, how that burdon is created, how we do that to ourselves. It is a territory that not much people dear to go to. I at least did not in the beginning. It is easier and safer to read ally he books and thing and relativize everything, sit and meditate on a pillow etc. like you see happening here.
L6: L1, Life is including so called intelligent life, whatever that means.
L1: Hi L6, If you know that you woke up, you very well know what i meant earlier in this topic :-))
L5: The intelligent energy is what we are. Look out at the stars and planets and the aliveness out there. The space you see between all of that and you is alive too.. now ha ha ha.. the space your looking out of at all of this.. is space itself and what is happening in that space....taaa daaa aliveness.. lol!! literally one star looking at itself!! clearly see this? amazing. it that does not work , then where is the dividing line between anything? find it point to it, look, then you will see.
AAU: Dear L2, The question on this forum is, what does the statement man is not the doer, proclaimed by the enlightened mean? You are deviating from the question.
L7: L7, Light is used not on an absolute level but on a relative level, for the simple reason man cannot base anything on the absolute level. He can only point to the absolute level, by valid logic and reasoning. Matter, words or thoughts are all basically made up of atoms which is light. So at a fundamental level, an experience is a thought and therefore thought is an illusory manifestation of light.
AAU: L7, Man experience’s reflected light AS something and not a reflection of something. The inherent characteristic of reflected light is to reflect AS something. Just as man cannot touch what is reflected in the mirror but can know the reflection, he can neither know what pure light is nor touch pure light, but can only relatively know that the absolute is pure light. The inherent characteristic of pure light is reflected light, which is pure light’s inherent characteristic, just as the inherent characteristic of a mirror is to reflect something.
AAU: L1, Logic, reason and science point sensibly that we could only be a reflection of intelligence AS intelligent life. Better said intelligence which is pure light reflects life not as an actuality but as an illusion. The enlightened have also proclaimed life to be ‘maya’ meaning illusory, and that man is NOT the doer, The intelligence of life is blinded by the thought ‘I’ do, ‘I’ read, ‘I’ meditate, ‘I’ sit etc. Man becomes aware when he realises that the intelligence of life is not something that can be acquired, attained or accomplished as a result of effort.
AAU: L7, Illusory does not mean an experience does not exist. It’s existence is illusory.
10 april 2014
L1: AAU, "Logic, reason and science point" is the insane and racist (dual) reality created by though-form. It creates problems over and over again, and produces nothing than a pathetic view of what life really is. It is all far from the wisdom that could be. We never look where problems concerning life themselves come from. A very basic understanding tells us that a scientific view on life tells us all about how we (as thougt-form) experience (with or without instruments) life, but it does not tell us anything about that life selve. The intelligence you claim is nothing more then the light of the moon reflected in a dirty puddle behaving as the light of the sun itself. (haha, this is the means of the advaita symbol i guess) :-))
L7: "AAU: Light is used not on an absolute level but on a relative level, for the simple reason man cannot base anything on the absolute level. He can only point to the absolute level, by valid logic and reasoning. Matter, words or thoughts are all basically made up of atoms which is light. So at a fundamental level, an experience is a thought and therefore thought is an illusory manifestation of light." Thanks AAU. My view is atoms are made of "thought" as is all perceivable phenomenon and conceptual imperceptible's :) ...what thought-form is made of we'll never know, were too intimate with it to stick in a bottle and label...
AAU: Michael Everything that happens in any space is only a illusory manifestation of light, that appears real only to man, who is an illusory manifestation of light too. A dividing line in any space is therefore illusory and not an actuality.
AAU: L1, Please explain what life really is. I am sure you would note that if your explanation were sensible, logical and even scientific it would be insane and racist (dual) reality created by thought-form.
L1: I am.
AAU: L7, Atoms are NOT made of thought, they are KNOWN as thoughts. Atoms are made of light. Thought is an illusory manifestation of subtle sound, as is words which are an illusory manifestation of sound.
11 april 2014
L3: The enlightened also say: Knowledge is ignorance - the only ignorance there is is knowledge. That does not mean that what you know is wrong - it just means its nature is ignorance :)
L6: "This" contains all knowledge. Ans "we" are This!
AAU: L1, ‘I’ is a single letter and ‘am’ is dual letters. Reasoning, logic and duality are made up of letters that have happened to man, and man has not made then happen to him. Reasoning, logic and duality have happened to man, to enable him to survive and converse with another ‘I am’. Reason, logic and duality is therefore a gift from life to man. Reasoning, logic and duality enables man to be sane, lack of which results in insanity. Therefore reasoning and logic is not insanity. Man needs to be grateful to life for the gift of reason, logic and duality, because it enables man to self- enquire what ‘I am’ really is.
AAU: L3, By this the enlightened mean that ignorance is knowledge too, and that no one is right or wrong in what they say, because the enlightened realise that the nature of knowledge, ignorance, right or wrong is light, and that the light appears as illusory knowledge, ignorance, and right or wrong in the mind, but not anything actual in life.
AAU: L6, If “this” is knowledge and “we” are this, meaning knowledge. Firstly, what could knowledge be? Secondly, who could wisdom be and what could we be meant by wisdom?
L6: This is not knowledge; it contains knowledge, it is the source of knowledge. We are This, the source and not anything seperated from that. Knowledge is some label we give to things that are obvious already there like for instance toiletpaper or a sweater. Also wisdom is a label for all kinds of mind structures. So I am not kowledge or wisdom. I am the source!
12 april 2014
L1: AAU, Who would you be without knowledge?
AAU: L6, If ‘this’ is the source of knowledge and we are ‘this’, meaning the source, and not separate from the source, it only means that knowledge too is not separate from the source and could only be the source, just as we are the source. It also means that the source gives a label and not you or me, as ‘you’ and ‘me’ are the source. This also means that a label which is knowledge or wisdom also would not be separate from the source and is the source. This means the source is the doer and not man? So, what is the source?
AAU: L1, The question is not applicable to a modern man. The question is applicable to a primitive man, since a primitive man was without knowledge, until knowledge evolved within him. I cannot be without knowledge as knowledge has evolved within primitive man and evolved him as a modern man ‘you’ and ‘me’. Without knowledge I and you would be a dead man. Knowledge is with reasoning and logic, and without it knowledge could not be. So knowledge is not insanity. This is for you to understand, and acknowledge the fact, as the explanation was given in the previous response to you. Therefore, understand that reason and logic is NOT insanity and racist (dual) reality.
L1: AAU, i guess you find yourself somebody by knowing a lot. You identify yourself thru knowledge just as easy you identify yourself with though! I'dd guess you where smarter then that. There is not even a basic understanding of duality here.
L6: The source is what you "really" are! The source is that which never changes and never leaves you. Which is Always there. It is the space in which your body, thoughts, so-called wisdom, knowledge. The source can never be a person because the person is perceived in the source including ideas about enlightment, questions about doership and so on.
13 april 2014
L2: L6, Everything and every person is part of the same source, though the source can never be a person just as you said. The duality is an illusion of convenience, made by people. All non-humans operate from the oneness paradigm. I am afraid, the moderator may rightfully remind me once again that I am deviating from his question "The enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer. What does this mean? And, I can't know what does it mean, since I am not an accepted enlightened one. Interesting!! I believe, the man is always a part doer whether one subscribes to the oneness or separation paradigms. This "...... NOT a doer ...." attitude can be a very convenient excuse for not accepting even a part of the responsibility. Frankly, regardless of whatever the enlightened one's may have meant, what an individual deeply believes in at a given moment is most important at least to that individual.
AAU: L1, The discussion on the forum is; NOT whether I know a lot or not, whether I identify myself through knowledge or NOT, whether to guess I am smart or NOT, or what duality is or NOT. The discussion is what does man is not the doer mean? Reason and logic to enquire whether man could be the doer was used for the discussion, to which you said, reason and logic is insane and racist (dual) reality created by though-form. I have discussed that reason and logic does not create insanity and racist (dual) reality. Let us stick to the discussion and not deviate from the topic.
L6: L2, In the play of life of course we have responsabilities. But responsabilities have no reality in itself. Of course man has to look out when he crosses a busy street. But even this kind of doership has no owner. It just happens. Problem of man is that with everything he does she or he wants to claim the ownership.You can say I am alive but for me it is better to say I am aliveness.The mind will never accept doing without claiming doingship. A young baby has no complete developed mind but is completely human. And we are attracted to baby's maybe to look in the mirror of not knowing. Not knowing opens the way to complete freedom. As soon as I think I know something the beauty and mysterie of things maybe gone. I donot believe in enlightened ones. There was once a congres for enlightened people. Everybody showing up was inmediately removed from the list. Enlightment is another concept which does not contain realtity. You are this vast open space wheter you (your mind) like it or not. No one helping here!
L1: AAU, The answer can not be found by reasoning or logic. For they are part of, and create duality themselves. One has to go beyond that to see... to your earlier response: Modern and thinking man lives his life far from nature in perspective to primitive man, for they where all living 'enlightenment' life. In the early days of humanity this was a normal thing, until one started thinking. Modern thinking man (humanity) equals the zombies we see in a lot of movies these days. At least they behave themselves like that. So,, who are the real primitives i would ask???
AAU: L6, You have described the physical, physiological and mental characteristics of the source such as what it never does and will never do, and that it is always present. You have described its contents too and that the source is never a person, because the person is perceived in the source including his thoughts. But, you have not described what the source is made up of, its physical nature? Because, if everything is the source, it would be impossible to understand all the destruction that is going on is happening in the source. So please explain what is the nature of the source?
AAU: L1, If you do not know the answer, let it be known, and the reason and logic will be shared, and it is not necessary to go beyond reason and logic to know that man is not the doer. Primitive man did not go beyond reason or logic for he had neither. Primitive man was living surely, but was not aware that living is enlightenment or that man is not the doer, for he neither had reason nor logic. Modern man by reason and logic can be aware that living is enlightenment and man is not the doer. Since man has not made reason or logic happen to him, he cannot make reason and logic explain to him that man is not the doer. It happens to some who are the enlightened.
L6: AAU. What we do all the time (for so far there is such a thing astime) is commenting on things that are already there. We try to figure out what and how. Why is this and why is that. Whatever conclusions we may find are never complete. Labels never hold. The source itself cannot be described just as for instance bitter or sweet cannot be described. We can only compare. This immediate aliveness is the source of all things that are perceived by the seeer. But ask yourself the question Who is seeing this. You will find out there is nobody seeing. There is seeing that's it. Nothing more nothing less. It is a great mistery. Only miracles happening to "Who"
L10: Thought can not find the answer, I think ;-) I am learning to surrender to what want to be done through my location instead of figuring out what I want to do.
L11: The phrase "The enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer" leaves the possibility that "someone else" (not man) is or can be the doer, of course with a "free will", and how conveniently, only known to religious leaders (and political / royal associates). However, in a system of (almost) infinitely nested stimulus and response everything happens on its own accord - which isn't the same as a declaration that every event is predestinated.
14 april 2014
L1: AAU, The answer is of no concern (to me). What should be of concern is who or what is asking the question and why! Only then some wisdom may arise. You are asking this question, because you already have an answer. There can not be a question without an answer. This is how thought works. You are not asking a question here. Chances are you are looking for confirmation of what you already know, so you can add another brick to your wall of enlightenment. To make it more clear to you, I can re frame the old statement. "Thought-form is not the doer"
AAU: L6, Bitter and sweet can be described and the description are compared. But by your statement bitter and sweet, it’s aliveness, the comparison, the description and the person who does it has to be the source and so would be the taster. The person according to your statement is the source, so the source sees and the source is the seer and the seeing. The question is; what is the nature of the source which manifests this mystery.
AAU: L10, The enlightened have realised that man is not the doer and have proclaimed it by thought. Have you figured out that you know what is done only after it has been done and never before it is actually done, for example; the surrender to learn? The same applies to speech and thought.
L6: AAU, I think I will never be able to explain bitter in words to someone who never tasted bitter. The nature of the source is Love. No person involved here. The person appears in the source. And you are the source. So find out who you are and you will find the source.
AAU: L11, The word ‘man’ implies either man or woman. Therefore the possibility of someone else to be the doer, would imply a man or woman too, and this is not possible according to the statement of the enlightened. You are correct that everything happens on its own accord. As the stimulus and the reaction, which happen in the moment, which is the aliveness of the moment cannot be premeditated with certainty, and man only comes to know the stimulus and the reaction only after they have happened and never before they happen, the same applies to speech and thought, it could only mean that man is not the doer.
AAU: L1, When the answer to the question why man is not the doer becomes a clarity, automatically who or what is the asking the question and why, become clear. That is why by reason and logic Dr. Shankar is sharing to all, why man cannot be the doer. He does not need confirmation from others, who believe that man is the doer, he is aware that man is not the doer and he understands that the understanding has not happened to all. If he just gives the answer without reason and logic, man will not be able to understand. Intellect has also sophisticated and to those to whom it has sophisticated will understand that man is not the doer by reason and logic, at the precise moment. Reason and logic point that thought form is an illusory manifestation of light.
AAU: L3, Answers are not given here by me, but explanations that any answer is illusory and not real is co-ordinated by me on behalf of Dr. Shankar and acadun.com. A real answer is that which cannot be questioned, and a real question is that which cannot be answered. The real answer is; everything that exists is light and the real question is; is there a cause for light?
AAU: L6, You will also not be able to explain what bitter is, to a person who does not know your language. You would be able to explain what bitter is, to a person who knows your language and has tasted bitter. Common sense, reason, logic and science point out that everything that exists is light including man and his mind. Therefore the source is light and everything that exists is an illusory manifestation of light. How everything exists as an actuality, including man and his mind, though they are not actual but yet exist, is the mystery.
L12: When you say man is not the doer, then you are believing in duality by defining man. But, if indeed, all is one, then you are pretending man is separate, which he is not, and not part either, since one is without division, then any doing is also pretending. And if one is pretending man, then one is also pretending that anything is done and pretending any doer. And right now I am pretended too.
L12: What the enlightened mean by man is, both man and woman. If all is one, and you are right all is one, what could be that one? If all is one then there cannot be anyone pretending and pretense as well. But there is a pretender, pretending and pretense, as well as duality. This cannot be denied for it obvious to common sense, reason, logic and science that they are present. Science however proves that everything that exists including man is made up of atoms, which is basically light. Therefore everything that exists in three dimensions has to illusory and not real. Science further shows that a hologram is a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source. Similarly, life is three dimensional illusory forms formed by light, and man as a doer is illusory and not real.
AAU: L12 What the enlightened mean by man is, both man and woman. If all is one, and you are right all is one, what could be that one? If all is one then there cannot be anyone pretending and pretense as well. But there is a pretender, pretending and pretense, as well as duality. This cannot be denied for it obvious to common sense, reason, logic and science that they are present. Science however proves that everything that exists including man is made up of atoms, which is basically light. Therefore everything that exists in three dimensions has to illusory and not real. Science further shows that a hologram is a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source. Similarly, life is three dimensional illusory forms formed by light, and man as a doer is illusory and not real.
L11: AAU, even the pope nowadays accepts the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life so a limitation to terrestrial hominids isn't valid. Another issue is if "the enlightened" are infallible, a property though also ascribed to the pope, obviously doesn't apply. There's a saying "every journey has to start with the first step": which foot (after contemplating the issue of doership and free will) will be moved first, would it matter and if so, why? It's true that whatever is noticed / observed regards past events because information has to travel which takes time. From that perspective, every response (feedback) is by definition a delayed one - an issue that every designer of amplifiers knows by experience too.
L6: AAU, Life is a gigantic gift without borders, reasoning, understandig, catching in words. I am that. Impossible for the eye to see the eye.But the play we are now playing os also part of life. So let us enjoy without setting goals.
L13: I have been a student of such inquiry into 'the doer' for some time but don't find anything original to contribute...but I remember this post that appeared in Facebook some years ago which describes the interaction between Ramana and a disciple. This is the last paragraph of the dialogue; Leave identification with the doer (karta) and Enjoyer (Bhokta.) Relax. Remain as Consciousness and whenever identification with doer is identified, inquire who is doing, and relax into consciousness again! -Ramana Maharishi
L3: AAU, If light is the sole existance how can there be a cause for it? The question is absurd L3.
AAU: L11, To the enlightened the stimulus and the reaction are not separate from each other. Since man knows the stimulus and reaction only after they have happened which is an experience, could man have done the experience or practise doing any experience? Is there time in life for man to have an experience or practise? Yet an experience and practise do happen. How real could they be if man is not the doer? So is a stimulus, reaction, experience real or illusory?
AAU: L6, Life is a gigantic mystery and this mystery is a gift waiting to be understood, if that gift of understanding happens. There are no goals being set. Goals too are thoughts and thoughts are an illusory manifestation of sound which is light. The mystery is; that actuality is illusory and not real, but yet present.
L6: AAU, Life is not a thing or somethimg you canb grasp or can get holf of. Life is lived . There is no more than that. Although having a cup of coffee can also be very nice ;-)
AAU: L13, Dr. Vijai Shankar of acadun.com lived 100 miles from Ramana Maharishi. His mother who is now 88yrs old informed her son during his student days, very well about Ramana Maharishi. Dr. Shankar worked in Africa, UK and the USA but eventually self-enquiry into ‘the doer’ took over him, he eventually left medicine and established the website acadun.com, which I coordinate, he explains what Adi Shankara and Ramana Maharishi meant. He is well informed of Ramana Maharishi by his mother. He explains Ramana never told anybody what to do; such as relax, leave identification, or remain, as these would entail a doer. Ramana only said find out who the doer is? Shankar further explains that if you are a student of self-enquiry into ‘the doer’ you would not want anything to contribute, for to contribute would entail a doer.
16 April 2014
L3: L3, The question is not absurd. Because it would make man ponder how could there be a cause for anything that exists, as everything is light.
AAU: L6, Life cannot be grasped or got hold of by man, as you say rightly say life is lived. But man can grasp a cup and drink coffee. This is the mystery, how could man grasp a cup and drink coffee when every atom of coffee and the cup is light. He does it and it is not denied. The cup, coffee and the drinking needs to be illusory and not real. They need to be illusory, and they are, as everything is light.
L12: Seems life is a 'real illusion".
L11: AAU, a generalization like "The enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer" can be refuted by just one example. Excerpt from a translation of Attakārī Sutta: The Self-Doer, translated from the Pali by K. Nizamis: ----- Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus: “Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1] -//- (omitting a large part for copyright reasons - the site with the complete text can be found easily via a search engine) -//- “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” -//- ----- In order for the generalization / subject of this thread to be true despite of this, the Buddha would have to be redefined as unenlightened.
L3: AAU, the question remains absurd. If - as is obvious - there is only light, how can there be a cause? If there would be a cause there would be two: the cause and the light - which is a contradiction to the first statement and therefore absurd. But - as I have said before on this blog - when you ask a question on this blog, it is not a question that you have, it is asked in order to manipulate the mind of the reader. You probably mean well, but it nevertheless increases thought processes which continue to feed on themselves. Thought is relative. Truth is absolute:)
L6: L3, Are you saying that AAU is the cause of increasing thought porcesses? Where is the oneness here?
17 April 2014
L3: L6 - I think we don't need to emphasize this anymore on this blog: There is nothing but Oneness.
AAU: L12, You are right. Illusoriness is the reality of life.
AAU: L11, Stories of man meeting Brahman are in abundance in Hindu religion too. When everything is light including man and Brahman, could man meet Brahman?
L7: "Illusoriness is the reality of life." drop this fixation with the minds viewpoint and bring it in closer! :)
L11: AAU, the generalization " The enlightened have proclaimed that man is not the doer" is incorrect and the generalization "everything is light" is both incorrect and ambiguous. Quite useful for advertising or a beer fest though but not suitable for discussion unless in the "comparing tarts with cakes contest" class :-D
AAU: L3, The question is not absurd, because the point that is being shared is that cause of anything relative cannot exist. So man just cannot be the doer as the enlightened have rightly proclaimed. It has been shared before that everything is light and science proves that every atom of everything that exists is energy which is basically light, so there is no manipulation of the mind here, but only opening the mind to common sense. Truth which is light is absolute and truth cannot be known because it is absolute. Only the relative could be known as illusory, which points that the absolute which is pure light and real, cannot be known.
AAU: L7, When all the viewpoints of the mind are understood to be illusory, man is close to his true nature.
AAU: L11, Science proves that every atom of everything that exists is made up of energy, which is basically light.
18 April 2014
L1: AAU, science proves only how we think of, and experience the life (with or without instruments) around us from a thought perspective. That is why they call all of their knowledge theories, and not truth. Basically scientist do not know what they experiencing or measuring, so they do not prove anything. Basic metaphysics.
L11: AAU, not science but scientists can deliver proof - consisting of descriptions of experiments that can be verified by repeating them under the same conditions as the authors of a publication provided. The relationship between mass and the theoretical energy it represents is just that - what matters is practical convertibility which in the case of nuclear fusion always is some 30 years in the future.
L3: AAU, absolute truth can not be known as we generally know knowing. But there is another kind of knowing which is referred to in the age old and only real challenge for mankind. "Know thy self". Man operates in two worlds - the inner, spiritual or whatever you want to call it and the external world. That is why in "topics of spirituality" - if there is a question - the only one relevant has to do with self inquiry. That is why the Maharshi repeatedly taught: "Find out who is asking the question first and then worry about the light or other things if such topics are still relevant". In "things of the world" it is indeed relevant to develop ones personality. Or as the Tao says in dealing with people be gentle and kind in dwelling be close to the land in action watch the timing!
19 April 2014
AAU: L1, Scientists prove that man thinks of life but have not understood as yet, that thinking happens to man. They too believe that man is the doer, speaker and thinker. They have knowledge but not wisdom, as yet. That every atom in everything that exists is made up of energy which is basically light is a scientific fact and not a theory. Scientific theories are not the truth, because theories that defines a fact changes as understanding sophisticates. So far, the fact that every atom is light is universal, meaning to every scientist, and this fact has not changed. But not every theory as a fact is universal, meaning to every scientist, and so they keep changing. Surely scientists do know what they are experiencing and measuring, but have not understood as yet that it is illusory and not real, meaning they do not know absolutely but only know relatively. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
AAU: L11, The relationship between mass and theoretical energy is light and the relationship between mass and practical energy is light too. Nuclear fusion is present now, and the fusion is light as well.
AAU: L3 The Maharishi only said ‘find out who you are’ to any question, and he did not teach. He never said what you say he taught or said. Maharishi realised that everything is light including himself.
L12: It seems to me that words and reasoning can only attempt to understand an experience. We think that by using words we can make someone else understand, or even have an experience. but we can't. When I was a child and was told about sex, I had no understanding of what they were talking about. And even could not remember the words they said. And then after the events were experienced, I had an understanding, and remembered that I had been told something, but not what I had been told. I thought that maybe there was a fault with my listening, since I had gained no understanding. Then I was able to understand and contribute to understanding after the events of experience had occurred! And still, I sought the experience. I think we need to seek the experience, but what has the experience is not what analyzes and talks about the experience.
L11: AAU, there used to be a time when schools provided some basic knowledge about electromagnetic radiation - for instance that only the visible spectrum is called "light". If that no longer is the case and new-age humans can read their newspaper by cosmic background "light", the bright side is that quotes as copied below will start to make a lot of sense too: "The goal of electromagnetic forces is to plant the seeds of love rather than dogma. The quantum matrix is bursting with electrical impulses. Perception is inside quantum facts: This life is nothing short of a condensing explosion of non-dual interconnectedness. The goal of ultra-sentient particles is to plant the seeds of interconnectedness rather than materialism."
AAU: L12, You are quite right. Everyone’s experience is unique; it may be similar or dis-similar, but never identical in meaning, quality or intensity. Man may seek an experience, but the experience cannot be had just by seeking, though it appears so. An experience happens if it is meant to happen, and does not happen if it is meant not to happen. Nevertheless, absolute understanding reveals than an experience is illusory and not real, though an experience exists. The illusoriness of the experience is real to man with relative understanding.
AAU: L11 Humans will read newspaper only by visible light and not by cosmic background “light”. Electromagnetic force is light and it has no goals, only man has goals in his mind. Entire life is analog electricity, which again is light. The fact of quantum is that it is light, which appears as a particle and a wave at the same time to the human mind, just as perception is only to a human mind, albeit illusory. Life is light and explosion, condensing and interconnectedness is only to a human mind as a thought, albeit illusory. Ultra-sentient particles are light and they do not have goals, only the human mind has in the form of thoughts, albeit illusory.
L14: One , two , three already wrong.
20 April 2014
AAU: L14 Moore The enlightened are wise and knowledgeable; they however know that knowledge is illusory, so they realise that one, two three is right and not wrong, but that it is nevertheless illusory.
L11: AAU, It has been noticed by quite a few that the new age movement with its specific brands of spirituality not only developed its own jargon but often redefines words to suit generalizations in the form of one-liners that often defy laws of elementary physics. Hence some designed algorithms to spout such "wisdom" on demand, as a form of humor. The text between quotes was for 100% from such generators: see http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ and http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
L11: L11 Life has made knowledge happen to man and man did not make knowledge happen to him. Spirituality too, old or new, is knowledge that life has made it happen to man. Life has made religion too happen to man and it is not man who has made religion happen to him. In religion life has indicated that light is the symbol for God or divinity. Likewise life has made science happen to man and it is not man who has made science happen to him. In science life gives proof that everything is made up of light, to indicate that God is light and life is an illusory manifestation of light, including old or new age spirituality, and not an actuality. Every moment in life is alive. The aliveness could be growth, action, speech, thought, light, sound or darkness. The moment by itself is not under man’s control, for it is not man who makes a moment, but it is a moment that has received man within it. Man has not made and also does not make the aliveness within a moment too, for he can never premeditate the aliveness within a moment with certainty. If man makes the aliveness within a moment he would certainly be able to premeditate the aliveness within a moment with certainty. He is only convinced that he can do, he can speak or he can think, and only comes to know that he has after they happen and not before they happen. If man can make growth happen, do an action, speak a word or think a thought, he would be able to premeditate the aliveness of any moment with certainty. Since he cannot, it only means, he has never done anything in any moment of life, spoken anything, or thought anything. They all however do happen in an illusory manner and not actually. Man is not the doer as the enlightened have rightly proclaimed. Doing speaking, thinking, and growth happen to man and man does not do them.
AAU: Dear L12, Every moment in life is alive. The aliveness could be growth, action, speech, thought, light, sound or darkness. The moment by itself is not under man’s control, for it is not man who makes a moment, but it is a moment that has received man within it. Man has not made and also does not make the aliveness within a moment too, for he can never premeditate the aliveness within a moment with certainty. If man makes the aliveness within a moment he would certainly be able to premeditate the aliveness within a moment with certainty. He is only convinced that he can do, he can speak or he can think, and only comes to know that he has after they happen and not before they happen. If man can make growth happen, do an action, speak a word or think a thought, he would be able to premeditate the aliveness of any moment with certainty. Since he cannot, it only means, he has never done anything in any moment of life, spoken anything, or thought anything. They all however do happen in an illusory manner and not actually. Man is not the doer as the enlightened have rightly proclaimed. Doing speaking, thinking, and growth happen to man and man does not do them. Dr.Vijai S Shankar
21 april 2014
L11: AAU, The phrase "Life has made knowledge happen" suggests life is the doer whereas "life" is but a concept made by humans. Those extremely selfish humans, as meat and diary consumers lacking the least compassion, are unleashing what already has been termed "the sixth extinction". IOW if life would be an entity instead of a concept related to a certain organized state of matter, it is suicidal. Regarding gods, they are human inventions. All human societies are hierarchical and extrapolation of the line of increasing power leads to the concept of a god from whom highest authority (the ruler doesn't have) can be "borrowed". In human evolution that makes sense because in an emergency there's no time to vote on the action to be taken. But before that, gods were associated with what back then, in the realm of metaphysics, were supernatural phenomena like lightning, thunder, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. A moment is but a concept too and neither life nor death applies to it although very few notice it. This is the reason why those peddling spiritual issues nowadays prefer such vague concepts and denounce ancient approaches that worked well but require effort: jnana yoga for instance, where discrimination between "real" and "unreal" is one of the disciplines. Such a process has the obvious side-effect that the power of discrimination gets applied in daily life too. Regarding the issue of a doer, first and foremost (before replying to this post), try to become aware which foot must be placed first to start a journey, and subsequently report in the reply what force (or which entity) compels one to place that foot first instead of the other, in a way that readers of this forum can verify for themselves.
22 april 2014
AAU: L11, It does not suggest that life is a doer for life is not separate from another life. Because man thinks he is separate from another man he believes he is a doer. Suicidal too is illusory and not real, just as any other concept is illusory and not real. A moment is all there is and is not a concept, it is an understanding that happens when you realise time is not an actuality in life. Jnana yoga is applied to daily life and to nowhere else to realise what life really is. Understand the mind cannot overcome gravity merely by thought or decide which foot to precisely place where, but yet walking happens, and man believes he is the doer. I have indicated to you in the previous response, that man cannot premeditate the aliveness of the moment with certainty, which includes walking too. To really understand how life has manifested knowledge, which includes Gods, inventions, lightning, thunder, volcanic eruptions, walking etc., read the book evolution of mind by Dr.Vijai S Shankar.
L11: AAU, you failed to mention the answer to the question who does move the first foot when starting a journey. What is simpler than standing on both feet and watching closely what force or which entity does move the first foot, intentionally? Could the answer be "you"? Frolicking from one unverifiable generalization to the next is a strategy of confusion used by politicians, marketing agencies and pro-profit "gurus" alike. In the case of the last category, when people are critical, the boogieman is used to at least silence them with the next generalization "everything is an illusion" (and I, self-proclaimed omniscient guru, knows what isn't an illusion). If a moment had any significance apart from literature, my test equipment would have been calibrated in moments instead of in seconds. Time is related to motion (change of coordinates) and can be measured. In case of doubt, take it up with the author of this article: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/over-time-buddhism-and-science-agree Regarding the suggested book (which I won't read), the author has been rated for his estimated service to mankind: just look up his name on this page (and eventually discuss with the site owner why the rating uses a four letter word too).
23 april 2014
AAU: L11, I answered your question but the understanding did not happen to you. The answer was the statement that man cannot premeditate the aliveness within a moment with certainty. Walking happens in a moment and man cannot premeditate the walking as the mind cannot overcome gravity by thought. The answer cannot be man; man merely claims that he can walk. Walking happens to man and it is not man who makes walking happen to him. A child too begins to walk and parents can never premeditate the moment when the child will walk. Your question would be appropriate if you had asked who was the first person who walked and who could have taught him? Generalization is the known and the known is explained in detail to be illusory in the book ‘The evolution of mind’. Read it if you are really interested. State what isn’t an illusion by the self-proclaimed guru? Everything is in motion as everything is made up of atoms, and every atom is constantly in motion. The limited mind cannot appreciate the motion within an atom. Therefore time cannot be measured, as it has no reference point which is not moving. Time is a thought and no clock measures it. A clock defines time and does not measure time in life. Time is a thought in human mind and not an actuality in life. The smallest unit of time defined by an atomic clock is an attosecond, which is one billionth of a billionth of a second. A moment happens much faster than an attosecond. The time within a moment is not yet determined. So test equipment cannot be calibrated in moments, it is calibrate in illusory time. A moment is an imaginary time interval within the mind. You do not read the book, the reading is not happening to you, as yet. Ratings too happen and it reflects the understanding that has happened to the rater, and he is right where he is, albeit illusory.
L12: AAU, This strikes home with me. "The moment by itself is not under man’s control, for it is not man who makes a moment, but it is a moment that has received man within it. " Still and all, I think we are overthinking all of this. Is it the mental gyrations of questioning that will help us be in the moment, or perhaps leaving off the contorted maze of trying to figure it out and just be in and love the moment, enjoying without explaining. Thank you for your provocative patience...
L11: AAU, In case it has been forgotten, the question was "Regarding the issue of a doer, first and foremost (before replying to this post), try to become aware which foot must be placed first to start a journey, and subsequently report in the reply what force (or which entity) compels one to place that foot first instead of the other, in a way that readers of this forum can verify for themselves." and is has not been answered. Before the era of new age apostles there used to be a time when yogas were considered a science - which means the possibility of verification. Generalization implies "there are no exceptions" which for it to be true, requires an infinite time of observation / verification which is impossible. In case it has been forgotten again, time is related to motion, and also to entropy which in popular parlance often is summarized as "the arrow of time has one direction". The way to verify is that is to burn a match so that none of the combustion products can escape, and to reconstitute the match from the combustion products with the energy produced from the combustion. It is absolutely impossible: the state of the unburnt match cannot be restored without applying energy in a process that takes time, just as combustion does. Thoughts are in the class of biochemical processes - brain scans already have revealed a lot but still are relatively primitive, as a figure of speech the equivalent of the coherer once used as detector for radio signals. Biochemical processes involve movement of chemicals and electrical impulses and hence, take time. As motion is relative, so is time, and so are thoughts. The latter are relative to silence, not regarding sound but the absence of thoughts popping up like gophers in a whack a mole game. More about that: http://singularian.50megs.com/The%20inner%20commentator.html BTW atoms only are in motion as long as the temperature is above 0 K and the theory that virtual particles still are moving below 0 K hasn't been proven yet. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm Last but not least, there are things called "dictionaries". Among others, used to give definitions of words / expressions so communication isn't hampered by redefining already defined words and the waste of energy involved by that. Example: moment (mo´ment) noun 1. A brief, indefinite interval of time. 1. A specific point in time, especially the present time: He is not here at the moment. 1. A particular period of importance, influence, or significance in a series of events or developments: a great moment in history; waiting for her big moment. 1. Outstanding significance or value; importance: a discovery of great moment. 1. A brief period of time that is characterized by a quality, such as excellence, suitability, or distinction: a lackluster performance that nevertheless had its moments. 1. Philosophy. a. An essential or constituent element, as of a complex idea. b. A phase or an aspect of a logically developing process. 1. Abbr. M Physics. a. The product of a quantity and its perpendicular distance from a reference point. b. The tendency to cause rotation about a point or an axis. 8. Statistics. The expected value of a positive integral power of a random variable. The first moment is the mean of the distribution.
24 april 2014
AAU: L12, Man cannot try to be in the moment by effort or practise, or even think of how to be in the moment. Man cannot because, though the body is in the moment, the moment is always ahead of the thinking mind. Lightning, which is light, is always ahead of the thunder, which is sound. Similarly, the body which is an optical illusion of light is always ahead of the mind, which is an auditory illusion of sound. Patience is never provocative as patience is the capacity to accept or tolerate delay, problems, or suffering without becoming annoyed or anxious. Dr.Vijai S Shankar has patience.
AAU: an, Man cannot try to become aware, meaning to know which foot must be placed first to start a journey, because the foot which is the first to move to start a journey happens and man does not make it to happen. If he could make the foot to move he could know which foot would be the first to move to start a journey. Life is the force which makes anything move let alone the foot. Is it clear now, if not read the book suggested. Science is a yoga that verifies and validates with reason and logic. That everything is made up of atoms, which is light is obvious by observation and scientific validation and verification and does not require infinite observations or verifications. Time is related to motion and this relation is relative and not absolute. Time is nevertheless a thought in the mind and not an actuality in life. Find out the precise moment the match is burnt or where does fire come from? It is obvious that energy cannot be created or destroyed, energy can only be converted from one form to another and man cannot do the conversion as man is energy too. So again find out how the match was formed before combustion as everything is energy? Understand that everything takes time, albeit illusory. Radio signals is light too as is the brain, scanner, and biochemical processes. Any measurement is illusory and not real, and the illusory measurement happens to man and man does not do it, as man is energy which is light. Illusory does not mean it does not exist. Illusory means its existence is a miracle. If everything is relative and the relative is energy which in turn is light, the relative obviously has to be illusory including time, man and mind. Any description of a moment, period, influence or significance, discovery, excellence, stability, distinction or lack luster performance is imaginary and not specific, as a moment is faster than an attosecond and no watch can detect the specific time within a moment. Philosophy, physics and statistics is knowledge and knowledge too is relative meaning illusory and not real. Read the book if it happens to you.
L11: AAU, Man is aware already but not of every action and event. There is no physical law or supernatural entity ordaining one to place the right or the left foot first. IOW there's total freedom which one to move first and that means man is in charge - it's just that for the journey it doesn't matter one iota. With breathing it starts to change, untrained man may hold his breath for several seconds whereas an accomplished hatha yogi can hold the breath much longer. So this could be classified as "freedom within constraints". With thoughts the issue has even more variability. An untrained man like an online book seller might be able to stay without thoughts for a few milliseconds, an accomplished hatha yogi might be able to maintain the state without thoughts during the time (s)he's in samadhi whereas for an accomplished raja or jnana yogi, thinking can happen "on demand" - freedom from all involuntary thoughts. That's a result of practice, not "the moment" or another plethora of new age ideas added to a mind already filled to the brim with commercials (including book recommendations). Regarding the often made reference to non-things like "illusory nature", this might help alienated, desensitized, brainwashed consumers who as a child weren't confronted with an unbearable loss (pet, relative, elder etc.) that forced them to contemplate life and death, love and loss - something that, like certain meditations, changes the brain irreversibly. Regarding burning matches, it is not possible to improve the already hilarious phlogiston theory by any other metaphysical illusion (= the condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief). Modern science explains in a way that can be verified and when that isn't the case, there are theories that sooner or later will be proven to be correct and or others, incorrect - like is happening with black hole / singularity. As this thread now has devolved into a book recommendation, the condition to be fulfilled for reading: After the book has been received at no cost with a pay of €100 per page in advance, for which eventually a summary after 3 months will be delivered as proof that it has been read. Lawyers are forbidden to deconstruct the text of this condition.
L6: Dear AAU, In some discussions the name of Mr.Vijai S.Shankar is used. In this discussion I have not seen any contributions from his hand. So my question is why don't you give your answers in stead of referreing to Mr Shankar, with all respect. L9 you claim he is failure less. Life is failure less in itself. So what can a person add to that? Of course he is invited to join this discussion so we can put his failure-less-ness to the test.
AAU: L6, The contributions are Dr Shankar's academy of absolute understanding. I coordinate the explanations of the academy of absolute understanding.
L6: Thank you for clarifying that AAU!
25 april 2014
AAU: L15, Response to: "It means that you are just a channell, An instrument of the divine. The identification as an isolated individual is an illusory perception." ---- Response: Either everything is illusory or everything is real. There cannot be some illusory and some real, because no one has the authority to decide which is real or which is illusory. If an individual is an illusory perception, and you are right, it would only mean that the entire life is an illusory perception. The enlightened have rightly proclaimed that life is illusory.
L15: @AAU. Good, Neti neti; Not this Not This. Who are the enlightened? As existence does, One should refrain from appreciation and judgement.
AAU: L11, Man is not aware of any action. He knows an action or which foot moves but is not aware of it. If man were aware he would realise that everything is simply moving. Man is not in charge of the movement, the ego claims that it is in charge and the ego is false. No physical law or supernatural entity moves the leg. Life moves everything including the leg. Hatha yogi can claim he can hold his breath longer, it just proves the intelligence of life and not man’s capacity, for breathing happens to man and man does not make it. No one can confirm if the other has no thoughts or the other can make thoughts happen on demand. All thoughts happen to man freely for he does not make them happen. If man were able to make thoughts happen on demand he would only make the thoughts that keep him happy and not any other thought. There is no such man who can do it every moment of his life. The age old sages have proclaimed that time is absent in life, which science has confirmed to be the truth. To practise would need time, so practise is an illusory thought superimposed upon life which is simply moving. The sages of olden days have also asked people to read if they did not understand, so advertisement was present in olden days too. If it were not present then it would not be present now. The now is always sophisticating. If life and death were contemplated it would be evident that life and death are illusory manifestation in life. As man is not in control of the moment of his birth or the moment of his death and cannot control a moment, how could he control the moments in between life and death? Also science which is knowledge that has happened to man shows that everything is light, and manifests life just as it manifests a mirage or a dream both of which are illusory and not real. I repeat again, illusory does not mean it does not exist. If meditations can change the brain irreversibly for every moment of life it only proves the intelligence of life and not man’s capacity. If you do not understand what is illusory, why everything is illusory and how it functions read the book ‘The evolution of mind’. Regarding matches it was a straight forward question, as every atom is light including every atom of man, which is not a phlogiston theory, find out how the match was formed? It is evident that man cannot make the match after combustion, can he prove that he can make a match as everything is light including himself? Scientific theories which are not universal to every scientist do get disproved. That every atom is light is universal to every scientist and is not disproved as yet. The book cannot be explained through a thread, so the thread is not devolved. You should ponder what love is. Love is not what the mind says it is. Love is unconditional. Read the book if you are interested to know what is an illusion and why life is illusory.
AAU: L15, The enlightened realise, neti neti means, not this and nor anything else. To man neti neti could mean, if it is not this and not this, it could be something else so he keeps searching. The enlightened realise that existence does not do, it simply flows, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. The enlightened realise that man cannot refrain, appreciate or judge, because they happen to everyone, but man thinks he does them. It happens to an enlightened too as he has to live every day, just as any other man has to, but he realises appreciation and judgment are illusory and not real and he does not do them but they happen to him, and are required for illusory life to go on.
L6: AAU, I notic several times that you speak of enlightened. What is an enlightened? It is a concept. There is no such thing as an enlightened. Enlightment cannot be seperated from "This" In the play of daily live we could talk about an enlightened person. There was once a meeting for enlightened people. Everybody showing up wat automatcally errased from the list...
L11: AAU, The obvious implication of someone expressing him/ herself repeatedly in generalization after generalization, even in cases where there are not a few but many exceptions, is that such a someone is speaking only for him/herself - whatever the reason for it. When a child is grieving about a grandparent or a pet who suddenly died, it is heartless to say to it (quote): "If life and death were contemplated it would be evident that life and death are illusory manifestation in life." This heartlessness is exactly the reason why neo-advaita / new age hoopla has even less value than the paper used to write it on because not publishing would have saved trees. Apart from that, there's an inspirational ancient work, the Kathopanishad, which despite its simplicity and age, has more "content" than all new age texts combined (generalization absolutely intended). Just one question: if money is also an illusion (apart from Ponzi-scheme related issues), why do you work for it when the illusory milk and bread bought with it only winds up in an illusory toilet? Summarized, it looks like the whole new-age / neo-advaita thing is a discussion about the sons of a barren woman, sacrificing holy unicorns in order to please a self-proclaimed representative of Lakshmi. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." Confucius Regarding "enlightenment", this cartoon: http://singularian.50megs.com/The%20Enlightened%20One.jpg "Silence is a true friend who never betrays." Confucius Whereas about a century ago people like Ramana often made remarks like "You need not aspire for or get any new state. Get rid of your present thoughts, that is all", new age / neo-advaita proponents only add a plethora of more useless thoughts, and claim to "speak from the absolute" (= therefore by definition must be absolutely true), unaware that the duality of "absolute" and "relative" only is absent when the mind is free from involuntary thought. But not all hope is lost: "The degree of freedom from unwanted thoughts and the degree of concentration on a single thought are the measures to gauge spiritual progress." Ramana Maharshi Related to that, "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves." Buddha
L15: @AAU That was well understood prior to your response, yet thank you for the explanation, since who says he is is not, I cannot share my personnal experience on that plane and also obviously perceptions canmot be shared. What I was really asking is: who are the enlightened? Give me names you seem to refer to hem a lot, we are all interested in meeting them...
26 april 2014
AAU: L6, Firstly, enlightened is not a concept, it is a fact. It is obvious that everything in life sophisticates by itself and man does not make this sophistication. Animal kingdom and vegetation have sophisticated. Man’s physical features have sophisticated, his intellect has sophisticated and his understanding too. It is obvious that the ego will sophisticate as well. The ego sophisticates as the witnesser. From these observations it is obvious that man too will sophisticate. Man with an ego and relative understanding sophisticates as an enlightened witnesser with absolute understanding. It is further obvious, that the enlightened who are in life now, will also be more sophisticated than the enlightened who were in the past. Man decides where he should go and will go, but does not realise that he will go where he is meant to go. The enlightened witness life where he is, realising that he will be where he is meant to be. The enlightened never claim to be enlightened, as only the ego claims and not a witnesser (evolved ego does not claim). An enlightened simply lives, and not as this or that. I am fortunate to have met Dr.Vijai S Shankar, who explains absolutely and not relatively the statements made by the enlightened.
L6: AAU, Nu Vijai Shankar weer ten tonele wordt gevoerd (met alle respect) veroorloof ik mij een citaat van Osho: "You ask me: What happened when you became enlightened? I laughed, a real uproarious laugh, seeing the whole absurdity of trying to be enlightened. The whole thing is ridiculous because we are born enlightened, and to try for something that is already the case is the most absurd thing. If you already have it, you cannot achieve it; only those things can be achieved which you don't have, which are not intrinsic parts of your being. But enlightenment is your very nature." In every day life there can be people who stand up claiming to know everything and calling themselves Guru or master or teacher. Let us not deny that But also not forget that they appear in this vast open space that we are and never can achieve.Osho, Vijai, AAU, L6 we all are one. Even these words appear in this open space. If we think that enlightement is something that can be achieved it's okay, but not my cup of tea.
AAU: L11, The generalization that everything that exists is light has no exceptions. Man cannot premeditate the aliveness of a moment with certainty. The aliveness within a moment happens, so what will be said to a child will get said. The aliveness of the moment happens and man does not make the aliveness happen and hence his living too. The ego which is false claims the living such as working, money, milk, bread, toilet etc., and the Upanishad’s point to this fact too that the ego is false and is not the doer. New is not separate from the old. The new is the old sophisticated. If the old did not exit, neither will the new. Therefore any discussion to please anyone is the sophistication of the old discussion and it is the aliveness of the moment, albeit illusory, which man cannot control. Life is simple and the complication, albeit illusory happens in the mind, and man does not make the complication to happen. The aliveness of the moment, including a cartoon, albeit illusory cannot be premeditated by man with certainty. Sound betrays, albeit illusory. Silence can never be known by the mind as the mind knows only sound. Ramana Maharishi never remarked what man should do or be rid of. I am not discussing speaking from the absolute. The mind can never be absent from thought, all of which are involuntary, as man can never premeditate the thought of a moment with certainty. Thoughts, albeit illusory, happen to man and therefore there are no voluntary thoughts. The duality of absolute and relative is illusory. This realisation is the aliveness of the moment which man cannot bring it about. Realisation happens if it is meant to happen. Ramana Maharishi never spoke such words. He was silent and was known for his silence which happened to him and he did not make the silence happen. People interpreted that they should be silent which includes the words which you have written, which are not Ramana’s words, to become silent. When the mind is understood to be illusory, and if it happens, man begins to live life that happens, and not think to live the way it should happen.
AAU: L6, ”Dr. Vijai Shankar was/is niet van het toneel verdwenen L6!” Respons: Enlightenment can neither be achieved nor realised. It cannot be because enlightenment is not a known entity with a meaning. Only a known entity with a meaning can be achieved or realised whether it is real or illusory, i.e. if it happens. A realisation that the world man and mind is illusory happens as life evolves understanding in man. The word enlightenment is a synonym to this realisation that happens and man cannot bring the realisation about. Man whose understanding has not evolved spins stories of its achievement or realisation and says that enlightenment can be realised. Osho, Vijai, AAU, and L6 are all one means, their separation is illusory and not real. That enlightenment can be achieved or realised is not a wise man’s cup of tea.
L4: "Ramana Maharishi never spoke such words. He was silent and was known for his silence which happened to him and he did not make the silence happen. People interpreted that they should be silent which includes the words which you have written, which are not Ramana’s words, to become silent." (AAU) June 29, 1936: "Mouna (silene) is not closing the mouth. It is eternal speech. That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. Hold some concept firmly and trace it back. By such concentration silence results. When pratice becomes natural it will result in silence." (Ramana) December 15, 1938: "Help yourself so that you may become strong. This is done by complete surrender. That means you offer yourself to Him. So you cannot retain your individuality after surrender. You then abide by His Will. Thus Silence is the highest of all achievements. (Ramana)
L11: AAU, Light is a specific part of the EM spectrum. If everything was light, typing this message would imply a multitude of photon-photon collisions. Collisions resulting in a material effect, pair production, only seem to happen at certain frequencies and in the presence of a strong electric field as exists close to an atomic nucleus. Generalization ---> invalid.
27 april 2014
AAU: L4 These words are not written by Ramana, they are interpretations of his words. His entire works written by him is collected by the mother of Dr.Vijai S Shankar who is living and 90 yrs old. Raman wrote very few. Dr.Shankar has gone through Ramana’s works written in his native language himself. Ramana never advocated practise in any of his written works or orally. Mouna means silence and this is not possible by not speaking, as thoughts still go on within the mind, or by holding a thought as the thought will always be there for you will be holding it and will never be able to know silence if silence is reached, and secondly it is impossible to hold on to a single thought as many other thoughts too flood in along with the single thought. These words including surrender were told by interpreters who believed they understood how Ramana was silent. Ramana never did anything to become silent. The state which transcends speech is silence. When you realise thoughts are illusory you realise silence is absolute that can never be known, because the known would not be silent. My last response to you was about knowledge and the thoughtless state indicated by UG Krishnamurthy, to which you do not respond.
AAU: L11 EM spectrum is light itself. Typing this message is analog electricity converted to digital signal format, analog electricity is light too. Every atom of a computer or material effect is light too. A strong electrical field too is light. Generalization is valid. Experiment in CERN validates this generalization too.
L4: Source: "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi" - Tiruvannamalai 2010 TALKS - it says… Quotation marks are used to indicate that these words are spoken by Ramana, and written down by Sri Nunagala S. Venkataramiah (a.k.a. Swami Ramanananda Saraswati) who is a man and probably not the mother of Shankar. @AAU: As indicated more than once: I stopped responding to autistic 'reasoning' . As Pascal put it: le coeur connait des raisons que la raison ne connait point.
AAU: L4 That is the point made, Ramana’s words interpreted to one's belief. @L4: Therefore, it would mean that scientists have autistic reasoning, which would make you one too.
L4: Yes AAU, thank you for spelling that out - Ramana's words interpreted to your beliefs. Logic as applied by AAU: L4 does not respond to autistic reasoning. Therefore: scientists have autistic reasoning. Therefore: L4 is a scientist. Now you can see why I wrote 'reasoning'… You are funny, in a way.
L9: Dear AAU, AAU: ‘Enlightenment can neither be achieved nor realised. It cannot be because enlightenment is not a known entity with a meaning. Only a known entity with a meaning can be achieved or realised whether it is real or illusory, i.e. if it happens. A realisation that the world man and mind is illusory happens as life evolves understanding in man. The word enlightenment is a synonym to this realisation that happens and man cannot bring the realisation about. Man whose understanding has not evolved spins stories of its achievement or realisation and says that enlightenment can be realised. Osho, Vijai, AAU, and L6 are all one means, their separation is illusory and not real. That enlightenment can be achieved or realised is not a wise man’s cup of tea’. Thank you for this clear, accurate and enlightened explanation – it absolute makes sense!!!
L9: Dear AAU, AAU: ‘A realisation that the world man and mind is illusory happens as life evolves understanding in man. The word enlightenment is a synonym to this realisation that happens and man cannot bring the realisation about’. Are ‘enlightenment’ and ‘ realisation’ the only two and most accurate words/ways to indicate an understanding happening in man – or are there other or more words, that could do the job, maybe better?
AAU: L9 Enlightenment is a synonym for realisation used by those who do not understand that enlightenment is not a known entity, and cannot be used for realising. Man realises the differences in the meaning of words that indicate duality by understanding. If there were other words life would have used them through Dr.Shankar, and would be on the website for people to copy as their own, which they do.
L9: Dear AAU, Thank you for clearly answering my question, its message has reached me!
AAU: L4, Ramana’s words were not interpreted. It was indicated that those words could not have been written by Ramana. You had indicated before in the forum that you are a scientist and so is Shankar.
AAU: L2, If it were beyond human reasoning, the enlightened would not have been able to proclaim that man is not the doer. In direct experience the experiencer is not separate from the experienced to know what is experienced. Hence direct experiences cannot be shared. Personal experiences, albeit illusory can be shared. What the enlightened have shared is not their experiences but their absolute understanding and not relative understanding.
L2: And, for example, what you have expressed above is your belief or proclamation. Thanks for sharing.
L11: L4, One of my FB friends, as a youth, met Ramana, and still considers him his guru. His site is http://luthar.com/ and probably my contribution (analysis of the Gilgamesh Epic as ancient story (analogy) of kundalini development) could still be there in an archive too.
L11: AAU, when everything is light, nothing is left to see it because seeing requires absorption of photons plus photochemical reaction, absent when there's only light. IOW an observation that everything is light can't be made, QED. But when seeing is impossible, maybe hearing helps, as the issue this part of the thread concerns has been accurately described musically and rather clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSWIV6lJvsY
28 april 2014
AAU: L2, It is neither my belief nor my proclamation. It is the proclamation of the enlightened, which is that man is not the doer, and the seer, seeing and the seen are one and not separate, amongst many other proclamations.
AAU: L11 Photons are light and so too are photochemical reactions. Have you wondered how electrical signals of music, word or an image is transferred through wires to appear as music, word or image on a computer screen, a TV or through a loud speaker? Life is a mystery of light.
L11: AAU, I used to work in electronics design so know rather well what has to happen in order to process, transmit and receive the INFORMATION present in music, pictures or text and restore it as music, pictures or text at the end of a chain. Hence no mystery at all.
AAU: L11 Similarly it is not a mystery to those who work in electronics, they take it for granted, as pondering over has not happened to them as yet. But little do they understand for example, that the images captured by a camera travel NOT as images through the wires but as analogue electricity and these days analogue electricity in digital signals format, but yet is viewed on the screen as images. They are blind to the mystery of life. The same applies to anything to do with electronics, such as recorders, speakers, computers etc. Life is filled with analogue electricity which is light.
29 april 2014
L11: AAU, Many professionals working in electronics engineering started that science as a hobby, and at an early age. Often as early as at the age of 12. Kids at that age don't have the accumulated conditioning of adults studying only because the profession enables one to earn much but instead read attentively and take many experiments, often with the motto "you learn most from your mistakes". Blind, deaf and dumb are ivory tower dwellers, interpreting every book as the holy truth.
AAU: Dear L11, I agree what you write is what happens. This only proves the intelligence of life. Adults do not ponder as to how knowledge could have happened to the first man on earth and then on to themselves. Adults take it for granted that they are knowledgeable and some children as young as 12 have learnt electronics as a hobby and went on to adulthood to earn more. Adults neither have pondered as to how, for example electronics, could happen when everything that concerns electronics is basically electricity but yet appears as music, words, images and computers, nor have pondered that if man were the doer why would he make a mistake? The blind, deaf and dumb would interpret what is told to them or read to them as the truth, just as those who can see, hear and speak interpret what they know and take for granted to be the truth. Until man understands how the first man earth did come to know or speak a language, he would not realise that life is a mystery that happens, which is illusory and cannot be real. This is because, an understanding as not yet happened to man, that the real will always be here; if it were real. That the real if it were real cannot be here and yet not here. The sages, however, declared ‘neti neti’, to mean ‘not this not this’; to mean ‘neither this nor that’ meaning it is here but yet not here. The sages realised that the real is here and yet not here, meaning illusory. Illusory does not mean the real does not exist in the world. Illusory means the real exists, but not in the way the mind thinks the real exists, for example electronics.
L11: AAU, It isn't that long ago that a son would have been educated for and initiated in the same job his father had. Nowadays that happens much less but thanks to emancipation it's possible a son or daughter chooses the same profession as one of the parents. This won't happen when a parent dislikes his / her job but only when it is loved. With hobbies that turn into one's profession it's the same, the work is loved. This in turn often results in a deep understanding, also of related issues (environment, social consequences etc.) which is something, corporate-funded universities try to prevent as it could result in lower profits. Modern society is as drenched in the "profit above all" destructive mentality as the soil is drenched in toxic glyphosate. There used to be a time when yogis retreated in the woods (nature) and the early farmers from the Upanishadic era instructed their sons in the simple truth. The Upanishads and the Patanjali sutras excel in simplicity and provide all the information one could need. What isn't immediately understood will become clear in the course of events, by itself.
AAU: Dear L11, What you say is exactly what is happening now and will also happen in an exact manner in life yet to come, in whatever form that may be. However, man should self-enquire (if it happens to him) not when, but how did knowledge, education and thinking begin, in order to make it happen now and for life yet to come, instead of taking it for granted that knowledge and education began not so long ago. Life gives clues, for example a new born child makes only sounds and does not have any knowledge, education or thinking. It begins to know, think and have education. Similarly, the first new born child on earth would have only made sounds. The question is who could have taught the first child how to know or think, so that the early farmers from the Upanishadic era could be able to instruct their sons and for the simplicity of Patanjali sutras to happen to provide all the information one could need. Life gives clues for example through electronics what could the known or thought be. If this enquiry happens man would realise WHAT actually he is and what actually life is and what the mind is made to THINK WHO he is and what life is.
L4: Now here's an interesting concept: "the first new born child on earth" AAU, it might prove interesting to enquire (if it happens to you) into who gave birth to that "first new born child on earth"
L6: AAU, There is no past and there is no future. These thngs are in the mind. Everything is here right in this moment Life is Now. Life makes things happen (maybe as illusionary) But you can not say Life was yesterday. What is time Time is an agreement based on the mind but has no essetial meaning in tself. In this moment everything happen and is gone at the same ime. What reamins is now And that is what you are. If I say yesterday I had lunch wth Mr so and so, then that is a stroy made up by the mnd only It has no truth initself. Tomorrow am going to see ysister s a story made up the mind. Those stries arise now and disappear right now. There is no first born baby. When exactly does the seed and the egg start. Can anyone point that out? . Who is making this supercomplicated things. Or ask yourself the question To whom doe all these thoughts arise? Tou you? and who are You?
AAU: L4 The enquiry was left for the scientist with reasoning to reach this valid point. Obviously the scientist with reasoning does, because the first man on earth has to be a new born child. The more valid point would be how could there be first man on earth, when reasoning requires a man and woman for the first man to be born, so who could have come first, man or woman as a child? The first new born child evolved, and so has sound evolved as thoughts and knowledge. The details of which has happened to a scientist Dr.Vijai S Shankar, of course to you the scientific reasoning is autistic.
L4: You are getting close, mentioning sound.... For your reasoning is unsound :-)
L11: AAU, What people are taking for granted and at their peril, is that the environment will always be beneficial. This isn't the case, it's changing due to human influence and not for the better. Most people living in industrialized countries will only notice when due to a power cut, the air conditioner stops operating. This is but a subset of related issues like overpopulation and resource depletion. For a good reason, the system of yoga (raja, jnana, hatha, bhakti) was a science - a system to realize the innate contentment / happiness for which there is no apparent cause. This realization alone could have changed man's behavior in a way, to respect nature and to take good care of the only life-support system available, planet earth. As another direction has been followed, one of the consequences will be, less opportunity for the science of yoga and similar issues, especially in developing countries (including Panama, where coffee and banana culture already are affected by increasing temperatures and drought). The influence of US exports like movies and electronic gadgets only kindles desires and greed so that people hanker after money and have no other thoughts but how to earn enough. Yoga and meditation are considered luxuries for which inhabitants of third world countries neither have the opportunity nor the money. Too many children are born because for the parents they will serve as pension insurance. Before a spiritual text can be written down, there has to be a consensus about principles, explanations, and concepts - especially those not known by those lacking the personal history of experiences: they require analogies like the one of the fig seed, in one of the Upanishads so a reader can have some idea. Hence it's quite likely that the science of yoga was established long before anything was written down.
AAU: L4 You are getting close for you recognise it is sound. To help you further understand, a foreign language that you do not understand is sound to you. This proves that word is sound that appears as a language. It has also been explained scientifically why a word is sound in the website acadun.cum. Even the word unsound is sound which of course autistic reasoning cannot comprehend.
L4: "You are getting close"- I am nowhere to be found. Nothing moves. Nothing happens.0 "You recognise it is sound" - Nothing is recognised "To help you" - No-one can be helped. No-one can't be helped. "Further"- There is no further. "Understand" - Understanding is duality. "A foreign language that you do not understand is sound to you" - All spoken words are sound. Language is a concept and refers to what can spoken, written or thought. No understanding of any language here. No sound appears as language - that only happens in conceptual thinking. If Enlightenment came with the smell of rotten fish, would you regocnize it? My bet is, your mind would keep you from that. All your messages have some truth in it. For they all boil down to: Form is emptiness. You understand that one really well. This is only half of the equation though, and what you fail to see, is the other half: Emptiness is form. Form is emptiness - emptiness is form. These can only be separated by a deluded mind. Together, and lived toghether, it is Realized Truth. Namaste.
L6: Today a quote from me for you: This teaching is so simple that it is not a teaching at all. So simple: just to pluck a rose petal, just to give up the notion that you are bound, that you have to search for freedom in caves or mountains or monasteries. Freedom is revealed within yourself. A crow sat on a coconut tree, and the coconut fell. This does not create a relationship between the coconut and the crow. You may attribute freedom to meditation, and effort, but when the coconut fell, it fell on its own accord not because the crow sat on the tree. When you get it, you may attribute it to some sadhana, to staying with the teacher, to going to the Himalayas for years of contemplation, or to long austerities and meditations, but it has nothing to do with these things: it is simply a question of keeping quiet. Keep quiet just for a moment, for this instant of time and allow it to happen. Don’t interfere, just keep quiet and watch what happens. This is a very simple way to freedom. You are free, the notion that you are bound has been dumped on your head by your parents, by your priest, by your society. If you get rid of all these, instantly you will find that you are what you have always been. If you give up all that you have read, heard, seen, touched or tasted, freeing yourself from all past notions, what will be left? You alone will remain, that which you have always been, what you will always be and what you are now. The exercise or sadhana or way is not something to be be borrowed from the outside. Just keep quiet, keep silent and you will know freedom from sorrow and suffering. I wish everyone would try this and see. ~ Papaji
AAU: Dear L11, The same was happening before too but much less sophisticated. If it were not happening before it would not be happening now. Find out not WHEN but HOW people started taking for granted. How could man make any system like the yoga, when you cannot figure out how did the first human child learn to think and to know? Or even was possible to be born? If you understand, then you will realise HOW all that is happening like you mention is happening is precise and meant to happen. Again you are missing the point. Find out how the first child learnt to think and know. Then you will understand how yoga and written spiritual texts happened.
AAU: Dear L6, you are right that past and future are illusory and not real and that they are thoughts in the mind. If past and future as thoughts are illusory but nevertheless appear real, would not all thoughts also be illusory but nevertheless appear real? You are right again L6, everything is here right in this moment. It would be interesting to find out what this moment is in life and in the mind? Is the moment in the mind an actual unit of time or is it an imaginary period of time just like the past and future? Is time present in a moment in life or is it absent? Life is now you are right. You are right again, it cannot be said that life was yesterday, as yesterday would be past and hence illusory. But the illusion is real to man. The usage is needed for conversation to go on, if it is not used conversation would not go on. Would this not make any conversation illusory and not real? Conversation is present but yet not present, which is what illusion means, present but yet not present. L6, you are right again. Time is a thought in the mind, defined by the number of ticks a watch makes, a watch does not measure time in life, but only defines time in the mind, just like the past and future time is illusory for time gives rise to the past, present and future. This makes the present too illusory just as the past and future are illusory. So what could life and now be in life, and what could life and now be in the mind? Now and everything in the now in the mind are thoughts and therefore illusory and not real. Now and everything in the now in life is light as there is neither time nor thought in life, making life which is light timeless and thoughtless. In the moment in life nothing could happen as time is absent. Everything that happens as thoughts and goes at the same time is in the mind and not in life. The now that remains is light which is WHAT man is. You are right about the lunch, and sister story, it is a story which is true to the mind but nevertheless illusory. Its illusoriness is the truth to the mind. The truth in itself in life is that the story is light. The first born baby is illusory and not real but nevertheless appears real. WHEN the sperm and the egg started can never be known. But HOW the sperm and egg started has been pointed out by Dr. Vijai S shankar.in his talks. When truth is pointed out it appears super complicated to the mind resting comfortably in its beliefs. Thoughts arise to man and man does not make them arise, if could make them arise he could also make them not to arise, and this is impossible. Dr. Vijai S Shankar has explained how thoughts arise and he has not made those thoughts arise too. An understanding has happened to man as to who he is, and likewise an understanding will happen to man as WHAT he is.
AAU: L4, It is autistic reasoning to say I am nowhere to be found, nothing moves, nothing happens, nothing is recognised, non-one can be helped, no-one can’t be helped and that there is no further. Because, if it were true to sane reasoning, you will not be able to exist in this world. You are right that words are sound, and spoken language, and spoken concept are words too. This makes language and concepts sound too and nothing else. That sound appears to the mind as word, language, concept is not denied but affirmed to be illusory and not real. Understanding leads to knowledge and duality, whereas when understanding leads to wisdom clarity sets in that duality is illusory and not real. Enlightenment does not come with this or that. You recognise the smell of rotten fish. It is any bodies bet that no one would like to smell a rotten fish, including an enlightened. The fact in what is shared is, that form is form and not emptiness. An autistic mind thinks that form is emptiness. Form is emptiness which would make emptiness a form if emptiness were enclosed within a bottle for example.
L4: No reasoning seen here.
L11: AAU, Your insight would greatly improve if you would be living in a rural part of a 3rd world country like I am doing because children then wouldn't be speculative objects in a "rich world's spoiled brats" discussion that goes nowhere. Instead you would have actual relationships, and be familiar with what they think, how they are living, know the names of their pets, and have no need to comment on issues you know nothing about.
AAU: Dear L6, When you alone remain that which you always have been, you realise that you were never the doer. So to do, be quiet, to rid of, to give up, to keep quite refers to the ego doing. It results in spiritual behaviour which happens, just as any other behaviour happens to the ego. To be silent is not possible as thoughts will always be present within the mind, and silence is the absence of sound. Ramana was quite not because he got rid of any burden or gave up all he had read or kept quiet. He read his daily papers and lived the day that happened to him, and wrote few pages in his lifetime. He was quite for quietness happened to him. Ramana was interpreted that he must have done something to keep quiet, so many people started to keep quiet and finally behaved like an enlightened.
AAU: L4 An autistic doesn’t see any reasoning anywhere. A sane person sees reasoning where there is.
L4: Lol, and then there is the mind of AAU, seeing reasoning where there is none.
AAU: Dear L11 The wise know how those who live in rural areas think and know the names of their pets. It is in the same precise way as do the urban areas children do too. Wisdom happens when you know how pricisely the primitive child came to think and know. This is self-enquiry.
L4: By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization. Written by Ramana - 1902 (Published in 1923).
L4: "Whatever the means, the destruction of the sense ‘I’ and ‘mine’ is the goal, and as these are interdependent, the destruction of either of them causes the destruction of the other; therefore in order to achieve that state of silence which is beyond thought and word, either the path of knowledge which removes the sense of ‘I’ or the path of devotion which removes the sense of ‘mine’, will suffice." Ramana - Collected works, page 51 Silence, the unique language, ever surging in the Heart, is the state of grace. Ibid, page 149
L6: AAU Please can you explain what the difference is between an autistic and a sane person.
L4: Beautifully quiet. One of Raman's last verses: The Self alone, the Sole Reality, Exists for ever. If of yore the First of Teachers Revealed it through unbroken silence Say who can reveal it in spoken words?
AAU: L4, You are coming close, the words “where ever there is meaning” means where ever words are used logically.
AAU: L4 The original written by Ramana after repeated questioning by those who were around him, he wrote the thought “who I am” doesn’t exist, find out who you are. People wrote many books, he never objected to any. To him he had written and the matter was over for him.
AAU: L4 There are many written by others who interpreted Ramana. When Ramana was asked where silence is, he used to place his hand over his chest to indicate inside. By this gesture, silence was interpreted as the language of the heart. Ramana never knew the English word language and never used its equivalent in his language either. He spoke few words and NOT elaborate sentences.
AAU: Dear L6, Autistic reasoning is neither reason nor logic to the observer’s mind.
L4: Ramana wrote: "By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization."
L4: “Who am I?” is the title given to a set of questions and answers bearing on Self-enquiry. The questions were put to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi by one Sri M. Sivaprakasam Pillai about the year 1902. Sri Pillai, a graduate in Philosophy, was at the time employed in the Revenue Department of the South Arcot Collectorate. During his visit to Tiruvannamalai in 1902 on official work, he went to Virupaksha Cave on Arunachala Hill and met the Master there. He sought from him spiritual guidance, and solicited answers to questions relating to Self-enquiry. As Bhagavan was not talking then, not because of any vow he had taken, but because he did not have the inclination to talk, he answered the questions put to him by gestures, and when these were not understood, by writing. (Source: first paragraph of the Introduction to "Who am I?"