Comments on: Back away from the enlightened guy… nothing to see here http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/ Investigations on the Psycho-Spiritual Life Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:50:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Surjit Saxena http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33490 Surjit Saxena Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:11:13 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33490 I will let you have the last word and the last laught too as promised. The non emergence of the I thought matters a whole lot. If that happens, one is indeed enlightened and no one should back away from such a master (not a guy). I will let you have the last word and the last laught too as promised. The non emergence of the I thought matters a whole lot. If that happens, one is indeed enlightened and no one should back away from such a master (not a guy).

]]> By: sashen http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33470 sashen Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:38:07 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33470 How weird... I saw a "we" in that sentence when I read it... yet another case of perception being inaccurate and the mind filling in apparent holes. Ah, well. Anyway... I didn't "avoid* telling you "who I really am." I have no frame of reference for which the question "Who are you, really?" has any meaning since "I" is not a "thing" that can be defined by any answer, nor is it a no-thing. Though, for the fun of saying something (that, I suspect, you won't like), when I look closely, the most accurate description I've found so far of what I notice is: a self-referential awareness that co-arises simultaneously with, and inextricably from, anything seeming-object of awareness -- touch, taste, visual image, sound, smell, thought, or I-thought. Though there is neither an actual subject or object in that equation as both "sides" of the equation are equal in every way. My prediction is that you'll respond with "Ah, but who you really are is that in which what you've described arises." (or something along those lines). What happened to "I'll let you have the last word" I wonder? Hmmm.... How weird… I saw a “we” in that sentence when I read it… yet another case of perception being inaccurate and the mind filling in apparent holes. Ah, well.

Anyway…

I didn’t “avoid* telling you “who I really am.”

I have no frame of reference for which the question “Who are you, really?” has any meaning since “I” is not a “thing” that can be defined by any answer, nor is it a no-thing.

Though, for the fun of saying something (that, I suspect, you won’t like), when I look closely, the most accurate description I’ve found so far of what I notice is: a self-referential awareness that co-arises simultaneously with, and inextricably from, anything seeming-object of awareness — touch, taste, visual image, sound, smell, thought, or I-thought. Though there is neither an actual subject or object in that equation as both “sides” of the equation are equal in every way.

My prediction is that you’ll respond with “Ah, but who you really are is that in which what you’ve described arises.” (or something along those lines).

What happened to “I’ll let you have the last word” I wonder? Hmmm….

]]> By: Surjit http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33466 Surjit Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:37:52 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33466 I meant to say, why are YOU taking this so seriously? I did not say WE as you will notice. Also you avoided telling me who you really are? If you really wanted to counter me you would told me who you are. You have not countered anything. Do you really know who you are? Anyway who is the I you are referring to? So who is Sashen? If you are so funny as you claim why are you so upset? You do not sound funny at all. I have admitted Surjit is a non entity. It is just a name I use, beacuse it is required by the present system. It has no significance at all. So you can tell me whatever you wish, call me anything you want. There is no one hurting from this side. I meant to say, why are YOU taking this so seriously? I did not say WE as you will notice. Also you avoided telling me who you really are? If you really wanted to counter me you would told me who you are. You have not countered anything. Do you really know who you are? Anyway who is the I you are referring to? So who is Sashen? If you are so funny as you claim why are you so upset? You do not sound funny at all. I have admitted Surjit is a non entity. It is just a name I use, beacuse it is required by the present system. It has no significance at all. So you can tell me whatever you wish, call me anything you want. There is no one hurting from this side.

]]> By: sashen http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33462 sashen Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:51:05 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33462 Dude, I don't know who this "we" is, that you're talking about. You're the one who took this seriously, accusing me of various forms of ignorance, of lack of experience, etc. And when I countered each of your contentions, you merely changed tactics... until your last position, which is still pitching a philosophy. When it comes to taking things seriously, you clearly missed something that's usually self-evident about this blog (unless someone is offended by something they think I've said), namely, this blog is FUNNY. If you think I've been taking ANY of this seriously, you have, once again, dramatically misunderstood me. To quote my teenage friends: What-e-ver. Dude, I don’t know who this “we” is, that you’re talking about.

You’re the one who took this seriously, accusing me of various forms of ignorance, of lack of experience, etc.

And when I countered each of your contentions, you merely changed tactics… until your last position, which is still pitching a philosophy.

When it comes to taking things seriously, you clearly missed something that’s usually self-evident about this blog (unless someone is offended by something they think I’ve said), namely, this blog is FUNNY.

If you think I’ve been taking ANY of this seriously, you have, once again, dramatically misunderstood me.

To quote my teenage friends: What-e-ver.

]]> By: Surjit Saxena http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33460 Surjit Saxena Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:41:49 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33460 There is no sales pitch whatsoever. Why are taking this so seriously? People are free to choose whatever they wish. You use the label advaita, not me. There is neither advaita nor dvaita. There is only the SELF. The SELF is already realised. If it has to be realised in time, that is in the future, then that will be lost also. Some see and it some don't. No one is superior or inferior. Who is not present and aware? No harm done. Nothing ever happened at all. How can a dream be real? Reincarnation belongs to the lower realm of thought. No entity has ever born or died. People only believe and think they are the emperor's clothes. Anyway I'll let you have the last word. There is no sales pitch whatsoever. Why are taking this so seriously? People are free to choose whatever they wish. You use the label advaita, not me. There is neither advaita nor dvaita. There is only the SELF. The SELF is already realised. If it has to be realised in time, that is in the future, then that will be lost also. Some see and it some don’t. No one is superior or inferior. Who is not present and aware? No harm done. Nothing ever happened at all. How can a dream be real? Reincarnation belongs to the lower realm of thought. No entity has ever born or died. People only believe and think they are the emperor’s clothes. Anyway I’ll let you have the last word.

]]> By: sashen http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33337 sashen Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:32:33 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33337 If your statement "not that you are not free now" is true (and from the true advaita perspective, it is), then whether one notices the phenomenon of the I-thought or not is irrelevant. So, make up your mind (whatever that means): Are beings already free, which means they have no need to investigate the I-thought? Or are they only free after seeing clearly the functioning of the I-thought? If it's the former, then, perfect. It's all complete, exactly as it is. Some will investigate; some won't. No matter. If it's the latter, then you're merely presenting another sales pitch disguised as advaita, where this noticing is presented as important, and the message is that if one has not done it, one is in some way lacking (and, therefore, to fix oneself, one must inquire and investigate). If your statement “not that you are not free now” is true (and from the true advaita perspective, it is), then whether one notices the phenomenon of the I-thought or not is irrelevant.

So, make up your mind (whatever that means): Are beings already free, which means they have no need to investigate the I-thought? Or are they only free after seeing clearly the functioning of the I-thought?

If it’s the former, then, perfect. It’s all complete, exactly as it is. Some will investigate; some won’t. No matter.

If it’s the latter, then you’re merely presenting another sales pitch disguised as advaita, where this noticing is presented as important, and the message is that if one has not done it, one is in some way lacking (and, therefore, to fix oneself, one must inquire and investigate).

]]> By: Surjit Saxena http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33329 Surjit Saxena Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:00:37 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33329 It does not matter if you cannot put into words as to who are you are. It hardly matters if you disagree. You are(the SELF or Being). That is a fact. Is there not joy in being your SELF, your being, your aware presence, your existence. You are joy itself. Even you can't deny the joy of your own existence. Your body may change. But you are the unchanging aware presence all through. The belief in the separate me or self is an illusion. It does not matter if you cannot put into words as to who are you are. It hardly matters if you disagree. You are(the SELF or Being). That is a fact. Is there not joy in being your SELF, your being, your aware presence, your existence. You are joy itself. Even you can’t deny the joy of your own existence. Your body may change. But you are the unchanging aware presence all through. The belief in the separate me or self is an illusion.

]]> By: Surjit Saxena http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33326 Surjit Saxena Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:26:55 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33326 You are. Do you deny that? Do you deny the fact of your aware presence, being and knowing? You are present and aware. Do you deny that? You do not make an effort to be present and aware. Are you not present and aware naturally? But then your thought comes and says " I am present and aware. It is that false I you are confusing yourself to be. Don't be angry. Please investigate this yourself. I am not important and neither are you. The looking is. Once you see this false ownership the thinking mechanism claims for itself then the the game is over with. You are free. Not that you are not free now. You are. Do you deny that? Do you deny the fact of your aware presence, being and knowing? You are present and aware. Do you deny that? You do not make an effort to be present and aware. Are you not present and aware naturally? But then your thought comes and says ” I am present and aware. It is that false I you are confusing yourself to be. Don’t be angry. Please investigate this yourself. I am not important and neither are you. The looking is. Once you see this false ownership the thinking mechanism claims for itself then the the game is over with. You are free. Not that you are not free now.

]]> By: sashen http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33322 sashen Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:20:47 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33322 First you say "what you are cannot be put into words" and then you ask me to answer, IN WORDS, the question "who are you?" You see the contradiction, yes? Just because you can put words in order and stick a question mark at the end doesn't mean you've asked a meaningful question, let alone one which has a valid answer. You've already told me who I am (according to you). Why would I argue or agree with you? First you say “what you are cannot be put into words” and then you ask me to answer, IN WORDS, the question “who are you?”

You see the contradiction, yes?

Just because you can put words in order and stick a question mark at the end doesn’t mean you’ve asked a meaningful question, let alone one which has a valid answer.

You’ve already told me who I am (according to you). Why would I argue or agree with you?

]]> By: Surjit Saxena http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33320 Surjit Saxena Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:39:51 +0000 http://sashen.com/blog/13/back-away-from-the-enlightened-guy-nothing-to-see-here/#comment-33320 Then please tell me who you are? Who do you take yourself to be? If you have investigated or looked into yourself then tell me who you are. I don't wish to know what you think. Then please tell me who you are? Who do you take yourself to be? If you have investigated or looked into yourself then tell me who you are. I don’t wish to know what you think.

]]>