Memory is not psyche or 'self'. Images are not 'self'. Thinking is not self either. All these i.e. memory,thinking, images except 'self' are part of 'Dvaita' ( wrongly translated as Duality ) through which inanimate or animate as Life manifests and are the expressions of 'Advaita'(lossely translated as 'oneness' or as per 'k' the 'Ground') This world... whole of cosmos, your body, my body are part of 'Dvaita' .What is incorrect is 'conflict' which rises from thinking as Thought and it misconstrues 'Dvaita' as Duality meaning division of oneness or unity as if the same can be divided!This is Maya. Maya though real is never actual.Maya is delusion but real and is a construction by thought rather it is virtual shadow of Dvaita and thus not the actuality.

One who is seen this, for him there is no difference between Advaita and Dvaita.The questions as : ' Was that knowledge from memory in whole or part, or was that discovery going on in 'k' over and over, new each time? Or reply as Was K present when he spoke, and was there intelligence operating? are irrelvent.There is simply no psyche or observer or self present, the viel of Maya having been lifted so dimension in which 'k' spoke changes all together to what you persume are.Therefore you cannot touch that 'state ' till 'self' arising from thought is presnt.Though of course thinking, images, memory are present in such a man who is seen and are used whenever required but there is no 'self' which arises out of thinking or even if it slips in the same is negated since it is known it is false.

Only through negation of this virtual doer you touch the state of 'Dvaita' and hence 'Advaita'.

In fact there is no doer.All is one.All is what is.

Ravi Seth wrote:
What is incorrect is 'conflict' which rises from thinking as Thought...

Can you make the nature of the 'conflict' more clear, Ravi?

Ravi Seth wrote:
...and it misconstrues 'Dvaita' as Duality meaning division of oneness or unity as if the same can be divided!

What is the 'it' here? How does 'it' misconstrues 'Dvaita' as duality?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Ravi Seth wrote:
Only through negation of this virtual doer you touch the state of 'Dvaita' and hence 'Advaita'.

In fact there is no doer.All is one.All is what is.

Wah!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Ravi Seth wrote:
Memory is not psyche or 'self'. Images are not 'self'. Thinking is not self either. All these i.e. memory,thinking, images except 'self' are part of 'Dvaita'

I want to go into this carefully.

Are you referring to two different things here : self and 'self'?

Ravi Seth wrote:
There is simply no psyche or observer or self present,

Here: self.

Ravi Seth wrote:
Therefore you cannot touch that 'state ' till 'self' arising from thought is presnt.

Here:'self'

Ravi Seth wrote:
but there is no 'self' which arises out of thinking or even if it slips in the same is negated since it is known it is false.

Here again : 'self'

Ravi Seth wrote:
but there is no 'self' which arises out of thinking or even if it slips in the same is negated since it is known it is false

I think this is right and important to see.

Thank you sir.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 26 Jan 2012.

Ravi Seth wrote:
In fact there is no doer.

Also right.

Ravi if that is so, why is it, that that state has a strong impact on ONLY SOME people and others do not 'feel' it at all?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Thu, 26 Jan 2012.

The preceeding is the most idiotic dialogue I've ever had the misfortune to come upon.

lidlo lady wrote:
The preceeding is the most idiotic dialogue I've ever had the misfortune to come upon.

More than the one you have with yourself?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
with yourself

correction . . . shadow Western Saharan Kennedy self

Amber Cinquini wrote:
More than the one you have with yourself?

Ouch!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
correction . . . shadow Western Saharan Kennedy self

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Amber Cinquini wrote:
ONLY SOME people and others do not 'feel' it at all?

I think Maya has two sides one that conditions and one that don't condition.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Maya is basically a false.Being a false at psychological level , it is not like handling mathematical statement though same logic holds.Only pure attention which unfolds the false in the so called maya.

I am that Iam.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Maya is basically a false.

Let it be there only if it don't condition, like love, intelligence, sacred and so on..
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

A fallacy(false) leads to a contridiction and a conflict which effects the the consciousness, which means the individual becomes psychological wreck.For a sensitive person maya/a false at psychological level is virtually a death.

I am that Iam.

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Wed, 01 Feb 2012.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
A false leads to a contridiction and a conflict which effects the the consciousness, which means the individual becomes psychological wreck.For a sensitive person maya/a false at psychological level is virtually a death.

Hello ArjunaRao,

Perhaps the word fallacy would be more appropriate in your posts at times when you use the word false.

Fallacy: 1. A deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.; misconception.

A minor point but more clear in communication.

I hoping you won't mind this input.

With only kind thoughts,

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 31 Jan 2012.

Hello Peter,

Thanks.

I am that Iam.

Ravi Seth wrote:
In fact there is no doer.All is one.All is what is.

Ravi, it is very good posting.Doer is not separate from doing.Then maya ends istantly.

I am that Iam.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Doer is not separate from doing.

If both are there it is the spell of maya.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
If both are there it is the spell of maya.

Yes,it appears so, as if the doer is independent of his doing.

I am that Iam.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can you make the nature of the 'conflict' more clear, Ravi?

In what ever way it may be made clearer , you cannot get it by understanding the same with thought that you are.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
What is the 'it' here? How does 'it' misconstrues 'Dvaita' as duality?

For umpteenth times the same has been pointed out by Buddha, Guru Nanak, Kabir, Christ,Ramana, 'k' , Nissargdatta..... but instead looking at what is being pointed out , the thought raises questions since it doesn't / cannot comprehend its own demise.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Ravi if that is so, why is it, that that state has a strong impact on ONLY SOME people and others do not 'feel' it at all?

Because insight of the same is not for sale as it cannot be desired.

lidlo lady wrote:
The preceeding is the most idiotic dialogue I've ever had the misfortune to come upon.

You are the 'chosen' one to have such misfortunes....lucky you...

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Doer is not separate from doing.Then maya ends istantly.

Don't simply conclude , but, END IT.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Maya is basically a false.

ganesan balachandran replies:
Let it be there only if it don't condition, like love, intelligence, sacred and so on..
gb>

Everything has its own attributes, like water wets, wind dries.The work of Maya is to condition.It is conditioning itself.If it doesn't condition , it is not MAYA.

Ravi Seth wrote:
If it doesn't condition

you can also see in advaitic litreatures about the two aspects of maya.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Ravi Seth wrote:
water wets, wind dries.

That also is Maya:)
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
you can also see in advaitic litreatures about the two aspects of maya.

When the living teachings are present, what is the need of any literature howsoever profound that may appear to be.

ravi wrote:
water wets, wind dries.

gb replied:
That also is Maya:)

Correction, that is 'Maha Maya', the universal mind.How can without ending of Maya; 'Maha Maya' can end?Ending of Maya is the first and the last step because ending of one leads to the ending of the second.It is not vice versa.

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Thu, 02 Feb 2012.

Ravi Seth wrote:
When the living teachings are present, what is the need of any literature howsoever profound that may appear to be.

That is what i wanted to ask you when you suggested to others.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Ravi Seth wrote:
'Maha Maya'

So you agree there are two types of maya:)However i don't mean that . i meant that one conditions and that one don't condition.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 03 Feb 2012.