The thoughts of Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Walker]

Do you think he wears a nappy because he's full of shit?

(The Lowlander's attack is crude and ineffectual, Clansman.)

[Harbal]

Do you think he wears a nappy because he's full of shit?

(The Lowlander's attack is crude and ineffectual, Clansman.)

I'm glad to see that it isn't just your replies to me that are meaningless.

[seeds]

You asked me how all of the matter and energy of the universe could have [once] fit into the infinitesimal singularity associated with the Big Bang theory, and I gave you the answer to that question in a proverbial "nutshell" (pun intended)...

According to the Big Bang theory, all the matter in the universe was once contained in a tiny point, but a walnut (seed) does not contain the material that will eventually form a tree. The seed is more like a set of plans (blueprint) for making a tree. But maybe that was your point? IDK

You and I have never seen eye-to-eye on these issues, but yes, that was more my point.

However, instead of this particular "seed"...



...containing a fixed "blueprint" for a new universe (in the form of DNA instructions), it contains a soon-to-be incorporeal mind with a living, self-aware "agent"...

(a central, self-motivated consciousness/soul/"I Am-ness")

...who is capable of willfully controlling and shaping the holographic-like mental fabric of its very own being into absolutely anything it wishes.

I'm talking about a mental fabric of which I suggest that in our post-death state of "full consciousness" will appear to us in the same way that the mental fabric of this universe appears to the Greater Soul to whom this universe belongs.

Indeed, think of what you will be able to create within your own mind as appearing exponentially more "real" to you than your most vivid dreams do right now in your limited (semi-conscious) "seed" form.

Furthermore, because the gift of life given to us from the Greater Soul of this universe...

(i.e., from the fully-fruitioned, adult version of what we are the "seeds" of)

...is no doubt eternal*, we will each eventually be able to create a universe just like this one (within ourselves), and thus be able to forever pass-on the gift of eternal life to others (to our own familial offspring) in the same way we received it.

*I mean, if any of you were God, and if it were in your power, wouldn't you give your own children literally everything there is to give? Isn't that what parents want to do? In other words, if you could, wouldn't you not only give them the same gift of eternal life that you yourself possess, but also the exact same powers and abilities that you held? Well, that's what I am suggesting is the status of our situation. Our ultimate parent has given us absolutely everything there is to give.

And please, I don't want to hear anything about how horrible the Greater Soul of the universe must be because she's not doing anything about making things perfect for us during our few fleeting moments on earth. Just tough it out, for soon...

"...we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...”

Again, how much more "Natural" and "Organic" can the truth of reality be than in the notion that even at the most transcendent level of reality, the highest living beings in existence, replicate themselves...

"...let US make man in OUR image..."

...by literally conceiving their very own offspring within themselves (within the self-created universe of their own autonomous minds).

And just as we (in our initial birth) needed to be born out of our earth mother's womb in order to see what she and this outer world looked like,...

...likewise, we (our "I Am-nesses"/souls) need to experience a second (and final) birth out of our ultimate mother's womb (this universe) in order to see what she (and we) and our eternal abode look like...

“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” “...Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of [something that is] incorruptible...” [bracketed interjection mine]

My gosh, even the Bible uses the "seed" metaphor.

Now granted, all of that may simply be the wishful thinking of a crazed human (me) who thinks he's been allowed to glimpse the secret of the universe.

However, what I am suggesting has got to be more logical than the impractical little platitudes offered up by a chain-smoking old gooroo who is simply parroting the tired old style and talking points of one of the worlds ancient religions.

And lastly, if anyone is wondering where all of the substances come from that we (the "ultimate seeds") use to create new universes within ourselves,...

...just compare that to the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" where the materialists have no problem believing that trillions of new and fully-formed copies of you and this universe just now instantly sprang into existence in the time it took you to read this sentence, all from the interplay that took place between your eyes and the particles of light emitted from your computer screen.

Yet, that's supposed to be more plausible than what I'm proposing? Give me a break!

So in your opinion, what came first, the walnut seed (blueprint) or the walnut tree?

How it all began is the greatest mystery of them all.

And at the risk of seeming senile by constantly repeating myself,...

...it is a mystery so perplexing that I have often wondered if even the Greater Soul of this particular universe (God) knows the answer.
_______

[Walker]

These typical nonduality sages are basically all saying the same thing in a myriad of different ways, trying to earn themselves the position of Jesus status, worthy of Idolization..In other words, they're all just bleating parrots, echoing out the same old story infinitely in as many different ways one can come up with, forever eternally.

Believe what you want, it's all flavored to meet with your own specific taste. But ultimately, it's anything but profound or original or of any significance.

Are you also just a “parrot” feeding your ego like the sages and the saints? Or, are you better than that?

[Walker]

Do you think he wears a nappy because he's full of shit?

Are you also full of “shit,” feeding your ego by saying what you say? Or, are you better than that?

[Dontaskme]

Are you also just a “parrot” feeding your ego like the sages and the saints? Or, are you better than that?

Yes, I'm also a 'parrot'' feeding an ego, and not better than they.

[Dontaskme]

Are you also full of “shit,” feeding your ego by saying what you say? Or, are you better than that?

Yes, I'm also full of ''shit'' feeding an ego, and not better than they.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you think he wears a nappy because he's full of shit?

Are you also full of “shit,” feeding your ego by saying what you say? Or, are you better than that?

You can feed your ego by kissing guru ass, by mocking gurus and even by being a guru. Or, perhaps, especially.

[Walker]

Do you think he wears a nappy because he's full of shit?

Are you also full of “shit,” feeding your ego by saying what you say? Or, are you better than that?

You can feed your ego by kissing guru ass, by mocking gurus and even by being a guru. Or, perhaps, especially.

Interesting that Iwannaplato confuses basic decency and kindness with, “kissing ass,” and that Iwannaplato confuses a sat-guru with ego-attachment. This indicates Iwannaplato doesn't know what he's talking about. I suggest focusing more on understanding what you don't understand, so that you may understand, instead of spouting off about what you don't understand.

Here's a good start. When a woman comes into your presence, you stand and take off your hat to say hello. That's basic manners, not kissing a woman's ass. That might come later, if you have this good start.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting that Iwannaplato confuses basic decency and kindness with, “kissing ass,”

I was asserting it and I haven't notice you having basic decency as a value except when it suits you. Which is why I suspect it is something else. And that guru who tweedles in here every now that then was clearly missing some marbles, even if part of that is cultural deficits AND how he's been both coddled and tortured since childhood. But you treated him as, yeah, some special entity.

and that Iwannaplato confuses a sat-guru with ego-attachment.

Oh, SAT-guru. Oh, little upa-guru knows his prefixes.
Is any of this real to you? Like have you ever met gurus? Cause your reactions all seem rather booky idealist.
I've met these people both in the US and in India. I know what their good at and as weak at from direct experience.

This indicates Iwannaplato doesn't know what he's talking about. I suggest focusing more on understanding what you don't understand, so that you may understand, instead of spouting off about what you don't understand.

I'm sure what I am saying goes against the ideals in your mind.

Here's a good start. When a woman comes into your presence, you stand and take off your hat to say hello. That's basic manners, not kissing a woman's ass.

Good example. Since you treat women like trash.

Here's a mild example, but I'm too lazy to go digging....

If guns weren't so emotional and unpredictable they would be much easier to control.

No wait ... that's women.

And then there's direct women-hate you've aimed at don'taskme.
You're sexist, though of course quite capable of trash talking anyone. You've defended the half-wit guru who comes here by engaging in nastiness that would get you thrown out of an ashram - which is part of why I think this is all booky idealism and weak-disciplined dabbling. Maybe you've done darshan once or twice and managed some fits of meditation that fizzle out after a couple of months.

And you don't even know enough to know the latter, and you don't have the introspective skills and memory of your own behavior to avoid telling people to treat gurus with respect with an example of treating women with respect.

So, sorry. You're projecting your own lack of knowledge not realizing how silly it looks to someone who actually does know what he's talking about.

You can post some clever rebuttal for (likely nonexistent) people in the gallery reading our exchange. But you won't fool me. That's the remarkable thing. You put these guys on a pedestal, but you know so little about their world and values, you don't even know how little you fit it.

[Walker]

...

Walker knows a thing or two, but there’s no need to enter Iwannaplato's Spiritual Materialism world.

Iwannaplato is what's called a spiritual tourist. This means Iwannaplato’s knowledge is from the outside, looking in, like a tourist passing judgment, using his knowledge and expectations as baseline. There's plenty of con-artists in India, you may have encountered those who kissed your ass by showing you what you needed to see, for whatever reason you harbor that need.

Walker’s knowledge is from the inside, looking out. Walker uses all kinds of references as examples and illustrations of principles: Music, movie scenes, memes, pictures, poety ... and also the words of others who are up to the caliber of what Walker knows, and knew, before seeking confirmation, for purposes of a common source of reference, for folks to discuss.

How Walker realized is not an appropriate topic for this online venue, as you often demonstrate.

[Harbal]

Walker knows a thing or two,

There's a rumour going round that he might even know as many as three things.

[Walker]

Oh, SAT-guru. Oh, little upa-guru knows his prefixes.

What's that word Iwannaplato used? Slime. Yeah, aren't you the slimy one.

[Walker]

Walker knows a thing or two,

There's a rumour going round that he might even know as many as three things.

I wrote that just for you, Harbal. Big softball. Oh yeah, I got your number. You've got too much heart to be a hard-core slimer, like Slick there.

Predicting your comment adds a little extra something to this ...

[Harbal]

Walker knows a thing or two,

There's a rumour going round that he might even know as many as three things.

I wrote that just for you, Harbal. Big softball. Oh yeah, I got your number. You've got too much heart to be a hard-core slimer, like Slick there.

Predicting your comment adds a little extra something to this ...

Well, I would hate to disappoint you.