I have some questions

5th November 2003

Hi K,

> Hi Sandeep:We are a group of "Big heads" [frustated intellectuals].

Intellect finally has to get frustrated.

That frustration should not happen,........is the real frustration.

We
> are studing about all this no-dual stuff and we have some questions:
> 1.What happen in deep sleep ,inconciousness, awarenness without an
> object,blank state,nothing??

To whom would the question be of relevance?

And thus the question arises in which state?

> 2.Advaita talk about Conscioussness the source,background,screen from where everything arrise or are projected and buddhism [mahayamika] teach that there is no source no conscioussness no ultimate self.contradictory or complement views?

Advaita, talks about nothing.

The term Advaita means Not-Two.

Not-Two, does not connote,...................Only One.

Not-Two means just that, .............Not-Two.

Now since this may be difficult to "get",.........compassionate beings, corrupted the pointing which was only an indication of Not Two ......................and posited ,......Only Consciousness,...........or only Awareness, only Source, etc etc in which this entire phenomenality arises as a projection.

Now if there is only Consciousness, ...........who is not-Consciousness, ...........in order to be able to observe and thus affirm Consciousness?

Any affirmation or negation (which is only affirmation in a reverse direction),................needs the separation, for the affirmation/negation to be possible.

Mahayamika, posits there is no Source, no Consciousness, no small self, no biggie Self, etc

Who is then positing,............... this very ............."No source, no Consciousness"?

Ergo, both are concepts.

Advaita is a concept and really the true apperception of Advaita is the end of Advaita.

No Source, No Consciousness,..............is a concept.

Concepts are useful, they have a functional value.

Concepts are like thorns.

You use a thorn to dig out another deeply embedded thorn.

And then keep both the thorns aside.

Not replace one with the other.

Anybody, saying anything or conveying by any other means, about Ultimate Reality, to somebody, anywhere, at any time, ever,............all that has happened is a "birthing" of a concept.

Including right now.

> 3.What about self observing=Gurdieff,vigilance=Gangaji,Keep the I
> am=Nisargadatta,minfullness=Buddhism, for me its all a duality
> practice [subject vs object]What your
> oppinion?

Self observing ,.........happens.

There is none to observe the self

Awareness of I AM, happens.

There is none to be aware of.

Mindfulness happens.

There is no mind to be mindful.

Look at the situation.

Duality is the reality in the phenomenal sense.

There is a K sitting in front of a PC in Puerto Rico, there is a S sitting in India.

This very dialogue can only take place, in this gestalt of apparent duality, apparent separation.

Duality is not the issue.

Dualism is the issue, where there is a prevailing sense of entitification, by which it is assumed, believed .......

.......that it is I K which is asking these profound questions and it is I which is answering with these profoundities.

Thus if there is a sense of assumption that it is K which is observing the Self, it is K which is being aware of the I AM, it is K which is being mindful that he must remain in mindfulness,........then it's all hoopla of the dualisticism.

As soon as it is apperceived that there is doing, but no doer thereof,......there is a path but none to traverse, ..............there is Nirvan but none to attain,..........

.......whatever is the doing in the moment, is the doing of Totality, through a manifest conditioned, sentient biological organism.

Moment to moment to moment.

And it is the same Totality simultaneously functioning through other billions of manifest and "so" conditioned objects,......in simultaneous time.

To enable a mosaic, which is phenomenality.

> 4.What's the meaning of "enlightment may or may not happens"?
> Balsekar.

Each and every manifest object is not destined to have the prevailing sense of entitification, mysteriously erased.

99% of humanity, would die totally convinced that spirituality is for the losers, for those who could not be successful in Life.

> 5.Some teach that meditation or [stay aware of what is happening now
> and now and now] is the key to a free of mental suffering life,What
> you oppinion?

Free of mental suffering is equivalence of peace of mind.

Meditation is great for peace of mind, provided you have the peace of mind to meditate. :-)

However by all means, you should meditate, if you are moved to.

It has several beneficial effects for the body-mind organism as a whole.

> 5.What is your oppinion about practice "living in the now"=from the
> power of now=Tolle if in my oppinion we can never get out of it? Or
> in other words we are it.? I'm
> correct?

There being only the "now", you cannot reach the "now".

For that posits something which is apart or separate from the now, which is then trying to reach the now.

There is only the now, this moment,.............moment to moment to moment.

The now, which includes a sense of entity which wants to live in the now.

> 6. Where is the particular word that everybody including teachers
> are talking about? A car hit me is not a fragmented event ,[not
> really an event]but a whole happening [until I think or remembering
> happen]

As I have no clue which particular word are you looking for, you should be checking with those teachers.

> My conclusion is that all teachings are pointers to what is always
> already happening moment to moment to moment.

>But some ask me What
> about suffering?Is suffering [mental not Physical pain] part of what
> is too?

Everything is just this moment.

Pain, whether physical, mental or emotional is not suffering.

At the advent of pain in the moment (s),............suffering is the anguish........... "WHY ME?"

The unacceptance of the pain in the moment,..................is suffering.

As exampled by the dude on the cross.

On the cross Jesus screamed "Hey Dad, why ye kicked my ass?" (paraphrased a bit)

Here he was, his entire adult life, spreading the good word, helping out people, doing good things, healing the sick, raising the dead, converting water into wine, etc etc and finally what does he get for breakfast?

Jesus was suffering.

And then the next moment,.........the apperception and the expressing from that state of apperception....."Thine Will, not mine".

And Christ was born.

Do you recomend not to do anything about it?Ignore it?

I recommend nothing.

If someone is moved to unravel the root of suffering, which is the root of unacceptance,........then that is exactly what will happen.

And the dissipation of the suffering.

Another will be moved to keep screaming, 'WHY ME?,........whether silently or articulated.

Both,........nuances of the perfection of the moment.

In My
> friends everyday they don't suffer too much [maybe they are
> insensitives guys],but when suffering arrive they recall all thatthey
> have learned from advaita Buddhism ect and the suffering cease.

Or at least, they can say suffering has ceased.:-)

No learning of Advaita, or Buddhism, will do a whit about the dissipation of suffering.

Seeing the root of the whole drama,..............is the only way.

In my
> case I don't do anything I see the suffering as another inevitable
> manifectation of what is.They say that I have to "work out my
> suffering",but this seems ridiculous to me.

Suffering is an opportunity to see the root of the drama.

You are not interested in the root, but want to enjoy the drama,.............that's fine.

Enjoy with full gusto, full passion.

Why to accept the nice and reject the ugly?

To whom is,.................. nice..............."nice" ...........and ...........ugly..............."ugly"?