Yes, why? Do you think you can tackle a serious discussion cracking jokes?
loool
Yes sir, and no one is disputing that. Iâm sure you can rustle up some cynical motives 
Sree,Dan
âTat Tvam Asi " , is a quote of Adi Sankara, who was founder of Advaita Philosphy of Hinduism. It means You are That. Here That refers to Absolute Truth also called Bhraman by Hindus. It is also put differently but with same meaning, again said by Sankara " I am Bhrimasamiâ, means I am the absolute Truth. Advata philosphy says Absolute Truth alone is, there is no duality.
This s different from Kâs assertion that you are your anger,jealousy, sorrow etc.
Yes very different. Thanks for the clarification.
Todayâs quote of the day is perhaps relevant to this discussion:
Why do you identify yourself with another, with a group, with a country? Why do you call yourself a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or why do you belong to one of the innumerable sects? Religiously and politically one identifies oneself with this or with that group through tradition or habit, through impulse, prejudice, imitation and laziness. This identification puts an end to all creative understanding, and then one becomes a mere tool in the hands of the party boss, the priest or the favoured leader.
The other day someone said that he was a âKrishnamurti-ite,â whereas so-and-so belonged to another group. As he was saying it, he was utterly unconscious of the implications of this identification. He was not by any means a foolish person; he was well read. cultured and all the rest of it. Nor was he sentimental or emotional over the matter; on the contrary, he was clear and definite.
TNP, I donât see that K wasnât influenced.
Perhaps because your Hindu conditioning is stronger than your sense of understanding of K and your ability to reason?
[quote=âeye, post:129, topic:175â]
I am not a scholar of theology by any means, but there are commonalities between many religions (eastern and western) at their roots, right?
[/quote]found in all
There are no western religions worthy of comment, are there? Christianity originated from the East (Middle-East). Jesusâ teaching points to the same wisdom found in the profound religions of India and China.
Actually âJesusââ teaching isnât the same wisdom as many eastern religions. One of the significant differences is that with Christianity there is no doubt. Christianity is emphatic that what the bible says is fact with no questioning. With Hinduism and Buddhist belief people are encouraged to question everything.
When looking at this 'challenge" I mentioned, except for its historical âsignificanceâ discussion of organized religion seems to me to be beside the point. The point being, the inability to sustain âinsightâ in the face of thoughtâs need to âconcludeâ. The light of insight shines into the dark world of dead conclusions (and beliefs) and is absorbed and extinguishedâŚIsnât that why we speak of only a âmomentâ of seeing? A âglimpseâ? What has religion to do with that situation?
But I am sincere and honest. I do not consider myself at the same level as those who realize that they âdonât knowâ. You may not know and are honest about it. I know and I am being honest about this too.
Your conclusion that âwhen one sees that there is no ego, that means that the ego is gone, finishedâ is wrong. The ego, when it is seen, does not disappear. The person is still there but its identity no longer assumes that of Consciousness. Sree is still there and right now here in this forum conducting this conversation with you. Consciousness operating in his name is not his. Itâs the impersonal human consciousness. Can you get this?
You are conflating Jesusâ teaching with teachings of the Bible which comprise of the Old Testament (Judaism) and the New Testament (writings of early Christians who developed the theology upon which Christianity is founded.) The teaching of Jesus is the wisdom that is derived only from the words purported to be spoken by him as recorded in the Gospels.
Thank you for your observations. In Krishnamurtiâs case âYou are thatâ implies the observer is the observed". I do draw a parallel between this utterance and Tat Twam Asi because it also obliterates division (between âmanâ and âGodâ).
Sorry but again I must tell you that you donât realize the meaning and the implications of what you say.
The only explanation I can think of is that you live in a world of your own (as you stated in your private email). So you donât give to words the same meaning that the majority of man do, nor you have a glimpse of what is a logic speech.
Allow me to proceed slowly and analize what you have said:
âThe ego when it is seen, does not disappearâ According to logic if I see something it means that it exists.
So here you are admitting the existence of ego, while up to now you have always negated its existence.
It seems that you can live pacefully and naively with condraddictions in yourself without noticing them. You live in paradise Sree!
Now, letâs go back to your previous statement in which you said that you saw with your eyes that the ego does not exist (in yourself) : donât you see another contradiction? either it exists or not. If I see a chair it means that the chair exists. You can call it with a different name but the actual thing in front of your eyes still exists.
But you continue saying: âThe person is still there but its identity no longer assumes that of Consciousness.â What do you mean with âpersonâ? You were talking about ego and then suddenly appears something you call âpersonâ, is it a tranformation of the ego or just a camouflage of it?
Sree you are doing acrobatics with words and speech, a very contorted acrobatics like that they do in circus.
Let me repeate what I have already told you about the ego: itâs not a thing like the chair, but a pattern of the nervous system, or to use a simpler language, a pattern of human mind. Pattern, you understand? Like the sound waves which have a certain pattern which can be misured. You donât see the waves but can hear the sound. Same thing with the light. In the case of the mind most patterns can be called habits. For instance you may have the habit of smoking. Itâs a pattern that is registered in your brain. Patterns can be changed.
You cannot see the ego but you can see its effects in yourself and in others: someone insults you and you get hurt. You are the ego and you get hurt! Itâs so simple and you donât need to introduce acrobatic explanations like : "but its identity no longer assumes that of Consciousness. " It has no sense!
It has no sense, pay attention, because identity, ego, person, consciousness are just different words to describe the same phenomenon. When you are hurt, you are hurt! You can say âbut its identity no longer assumes that of Consciousnessâ, but you are still hurt. When you wish to have a car, is it your wish or someone else wish?
Last but not least: âThe ego when it is seen, does not disappearâ of course it does not disappear, you are looking at it with thought and that is not real looking. What K. meant is that when we really see the ego, all its implications, its destructive effects in relationship, drives, fears, hopes, immaginations, intellectual acrobatics, etc. just like we see the chair, when we see its nature, then it may dissolve. Patterns can be wiped out from the mind. And that means we are not more there, no more Sree! And of course no more hurts. So no more need to discuss things in this forum (
4 Likes
Unbelievable. So you know huh? You have no idea how utterly ignorant that statement is do you? I think only someone very young and naive would say something like that. And my friend you donât know. Still think violence is an ideal?
Another person desperate to be right even if it means stretching or manufacturing the facts.
Voyager, do you really think Sree is listening or is capable of listening to a well thought out, logical statement. He believes violence doesnât exist except as an ideal.
Donât forget we all originate from Africa. I wouldnât be surprised if our early ancestors had profound insights into the nature of things way before East/Middle-East or West.
I donât buy that. Itâs really not important because I donât believe Darwin and the science about mankind that he stirred up. Donât let me down, eye. You have to walk on water along with me. 
I do wonder why this reply garnered likes from both Dev and Jack. 
Was it the bit about how you now know what kind of person I am? 
The bit about all of my replies being nonsense? 
The bit about when I referred you to my existing answer? 
Surely it canât be the bit where you repeat (uselessly?), that I deleted my original post? 
Eh ⌠you donât believe Darwin? Zoiks.
Yh, well with big Jack and Defamattori Dettori to contend with, it will be all I can do to avoid drowning.