physical based theories are based on the false self

santthosh kumaar's picture



Average: 5 (1 vote)

Those who base their physical based theories, thinking physical body itself as self, are prisoners in the experience of duality.

The inquiry and reasoning revels the fact that,the true self is not the physical body, then it is clear that one has to view and judge the worldview on the base of the formless entity, which is not the body.

Viewing and judging and passing opinion and theorizing on the base of the physical entity as self is mere imagination and leads to hallucination.

One has to discover the truth, which is beyond, within the experince of duality, by proper understanding of what is truth? and what is not truth? and accept only the truth and reject the untruth.

By theorizing and arguing on the base of their own physical based theories will keep them like a stagnant water, within the experince of duality. One need not accept what other says, but he has to make sure for himself, whether it holds good on the base the formless entity,which powers the whole experince of duality.

Master of non dual truth, Sri Nirakara said: the Waking entity, whether it is wealthy or popular or powerful disappears in deep sleep, and becomes one with the the formless substence from where the waking experince is erupted.
If body is not the self,then, what is it, that experiences, the dual[waking-dream] and non dual[deep sleep] states.

When the physical body is not the experince of the physical body itself, and something else is experiencing the body, then, how it is relevant to take the authorship of the physical body, and view and judge the worldview on the base physical body as self, and theorize and pass opinion, when physical body is not the author of the physical body itself.

Therefore, the onus is on the profounder of the theory to prove the physical body is the true self, to prove to themselves their theory holds good.

If they prove the physical body is the true self, then there is no need to struggle to know the ultimate truth. One has to accept their theory and remain in duality and experince it as reality, until it disappears on its own.

First one has to decide whether physical body is self and then only decide and pass opinion. The physical based theories hold good only on the false physical identity.

Sri, Nirakara said: duality and non duality are not theories. Dual and non dual are state of mind. One has to grasp, what becomes dual and non dual, in state of duality to acquire the knowledge of self. The duality will not vanish, but it becomes unreal to the one who becomes aware of the fact that 'I' is not the self. The formless witness of the 'I' is the true self. Therfore it is necessary for one to make sure, how 'I' is not the self? What is 'I', if it is not the self?

The dream becomes unreal, when waking takes place.Same way the waking becomes unreal when wisdom dawns.

Nirakara says: Self knowledge is not to see the vanishing of duality, but to realize the unreal nature of the experince duality, in the midst of the experince of duality, by realizing the true self is not the 'I', but the formless non dual spirit, to remain unaffected by the burden and bondage of the experince of duality.

When the unreal nature of the experince of duality is realized, one becomes aware of the fact that, the whole illusory experince of diversity, is created and sustained and finally dissolves in the substence from which, it has been erupted. Therefore there is no second thing other then the formless non dual subsistence, which spirit or Ataman.

Thus other then Ataman or spirit, which is the self ,everything else is illusion. when this conviction comes one gets the state of equanimity in the midst of duality.



Phroggy's picture

Theory theoretically proven

"Nirakara says: Self knowledge is not to see the vanishing of duality, but to realize the unreal nature of the experince duality, in the midst of the experince of duality, by realizing the true self is not the 'I'"

And that's all I be tryin to say in the other blog with my silly theories.

Phroggy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 00:25
Omkaradatta's picture

Next time...

Next time, instead of 'trying to say' something, just say it ;-). If folks don't understand straightforward speech, that be their probbie, not yerz.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 16:16
Phroggy's picture

My theory on straightforwardness

What I said was: "Once Truth is realized, duality is seen for what it is, but it remains." If that's not straightforward enough for you it's not my probbie.

Phroggy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 18:54
Omkaradatta's picture

That's hardly straightforward...

"Once Truth is realized, duality is seen for what it is, but it remains."

How do ya know? If you haven't realized the truth, it's hardly 'straightforward' to make declarations about it :-p.

It seems to me you're taking 'duality' as something external to you, separate from you. "You" are non-dual, but everything else isn't? If that isn't what you're saying, then I really don't understand.

P.S. you complained about me speaking out of context, and stated that I oughtta keep silent when talking about 'the ultimate truth'. Why not take your own advice?

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:11
Phroggy's picture

My theory on guru love and dumb ass Phil

A guru says: Self knowledge is not to see the vanishing of duality, but to realize the unreal nature of the experince duality.

Dumb ass Phil says:"Once Truth is realized, duality is seen for what it is, but it remains."

Even though they say the same thing, the guru words go unquestioned, but dumb ass Phil's words must somehow be wrong or half right or not straightforward enough or something is being assumed or whatever cause he couldn't possibly know cause after all he's just dumb ass Phil. This is what folks do to you, too. Since you don't have an ashram in India, whatever you say must be wrong. It's just a matter of coming up with a reason, which is easy, as you demonstrated with dumb ass Phil.

Phroggy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:12
Omkaradatta's picture

Ahhh...

Quitcher crying.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:14
Phroggy's picture

My spiritual ego theory

I've also advised that humility can be useful. I talk about what I see with the understanding that my vision is limited. I prattle on about Truth with the understanding that it comes mostly from ignorance. It helps me to do this because I get to look and see more of my ignorance for what it is, and I don't need some self appointed guru telling me to shut up because I'm not enlightened. Are you here to help or just to make yourself look superior?
(Is that straightforward enough?)

Phroggy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:30
Omkaradatta's picture

Neither...

I'm neither here to help, nor to make myself look a certain way. Let's leave it at that.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:36
Elijah_NatureBoy's picture

Where is proof that "spirit" based theories are true?

You have presented your argument that physical bassed theories is false, where is your proof that "spiritual" based theories are true? Where is the evidence supporting physical based theories is false? You mearly presented an hypothesis and words continuing in your theory but no substence to prove yur views.

Maybe both are false theories, maybe the true premis is to integrate them to determine absolute truth. Is it also possible that neither truth nor lie is complete in themselves, that they have to be integrated to determine the 64,800 degrees of knowledge in the ball of existence?

When one present one premis as one thing they need substence to prove the opposite or the union, is how I see it. If Ataman is provide he evidence.

Elijah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you questioned your beliefs? Reason the different concepts until all pros and cons are integrated into the 64,800 degrees of your vision.
--Elijah "NatureBoy"--

Elijah_NatureBoy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 03:00
Phroggy's picture

Invalid theoretical hypothedermic

Yer mistaken, there are actually 64,801 degrees of knowledge in the ball of existence. You forgot to include zero in your calculations........Lordy! Have we all lost our friggin minds?....Seriously.

Phroggy | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 04:07
Omkaradatta's picture

Nisargadatta sez...

"You are like a child that says: Prove that the sugar is sweet, then only I shall have it. The proof of the sweetness is in the mouth, not in the sugar. To know it is sweet, you must taste it, there is no other way. Of course, you begin by asking: Is it sugar? Is it sweet? and you accept my assurance until you taste it. Then only all doubts dissolve and your knowledge becomes first hand and unshakable." -- from "I Am That"

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/26/2008 - 15:49
mrsnacks's picture

Isn't that a relative truth

Isn't that a relative truth if there is such a thing ?The drink may be sweet to my mouth but not sweet to another.
Then is the drink sweet or not ? Someone said " all truth is relative. " The other person asked "are you absolutely sure all truth is relative? "

mrsnacks | Sun, 10/04/2009 - 04:18