Eckhart Tolle

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am talking about peace and bliss and attachments and the differences between self and no self .. All that which I have experience / realizations of.

What you have been speculating about is completely false . You are simply making it all up to suit your agenda here .

Please discuss the holes that you see ..


x daz x

I have already stated it.

Originally Posted by God-Like

All that which I have experience / realizations of.

The 'I' here is the problem, if I may say so.

Originally Posted by ajay00

A policeman who does not do his allotted duty of preventing crime and arresting criminals out of cowardice, lethargy or indifference will be creating karma for himself.

Same is the case of a doctor who fails to administer medicine to a patient promptly at time as part of his duties, and he will be incurring karma for himself.

Krishna was a Kshatriya prince in those times, whose duties including ruling, administering, maintaining law and order, and soldiering.

For Krishna, ending the tyranny of greedy despots, was a duty on his part, and he had performed it.

It's hard to understand what attachments and beliefs you are talking about here in relation to Krishna.

If police-man sees a thief trying to rob a woman, he will not try to reason it out as 'attachments and beliefs' as you stated. He will stop the robbery or he will be failing in his duties and can even lose his job and reputation.



Krishna, as a Kshatriya prince, only prevented despots from carrying on with their tyrannical rule selfishly, and slayed them in battle.

If a policeman shoots dead a murderer on the verge of committing an another murder, he is not doing it out of attachments or beliefs, but in consideration of his allotted duties.

If a policeman shoots dead a non-violent protester campaigning against unjust government or social policies , that would be a violation of his allotted duties.

All what you said doesn't nullify / negate attachment / beliefs or self identity .

All that I have said that is needed as a combination .

You are not showing me anything to bolster your own beliefs about attachment . In fact you are doing the opposite .




x daz x

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by sky123

I wonder why Krishna had to kill.... couldn't he just imprision him.
It has to be attachment to his beliefs that killing is justified and the only solution. Beliefs can be blinding.

Everybody is missing the point!

The whole essence of the Bhagavad-Gita is that nobody is doing any "killing" and nobody is doing any "dying".

Arjuna had exactly the same doubts as you..as God-like..Arjuna didn't want to fight, until Sri Krishna made it very clear to him that the whole issue was NOT about what Arjuna wanted or did not want or any preference that mankind may have in accordance with the dharma.

If Krishna had said to Arjuna "okay then, let's do it YOUR way... let's just turn our chariot around and go home" it would not have stopped the kauravas (opposing army) from carrying out the war anyway...with or without them.

...and there would be no Bhagavad-Gita to tell the story.

Originally Posted by ajay00

I have already stated it.

Please refresh me ..

Originally Posted by ajay00

The 'I' here is the problem, if I may say so.

Lol ..

So there is no I AM present now?


x daz x

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by lomax

You're wrong again.
I'm not stopping my thoughts.I recognize that i'm not my thoughts.
This is something you have to experience on your own,otherwise you can't understand what we're talking about.

This is wisely put by Lomax.

It is not the mere stopping of thinking and emoting, but the witnessing of them dispassionately that is emphasized here. This witnessing will slow down and cease the incessant and compulsive thinking and emoting, that is responsible for endless worrying or tension, and corresponding psychosomatic ailments.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Please refresh me ..





Lol ..

So there is no I AM present now?


x daz x

You are confusing the state of 'I am' (which is the same as the Self or awareness), with the smaller self or ego.

There is a major distinction between the two. This is why the higher Self is written with a capital S while the smaller self (ego) is written with lowercase s.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Everybody is missing the point!

The whole essence of the Bhagavad-Gita is that nobody is doing any "killing" and nobody is doing any "dying".

Arjuna had exactly the same doubts as you..as God-like..Arjuna didn't want to fight, until Sri Krishna made it very clear to him that the whole issue was NOT about what Arjuna wanted or did not want or any preference that mankind may have in accordance with the dharma.

If Krishna had said to Arjuna "okay then, let's do it YOUR way... let's just turn our chariot around and go home" it would not have stopped the kauravas (opposing army) from carrying out the war anyway...with or without them.

...and there would be no Bhagavad-Gita to tell the story.

I don't have any doubts, I know what attachments are in reflection of beliefs and actions .

For Krishna to have thoughts about reality and about dying or not dying then there is an attachment to those beliefs .

It's not about what is right or wrong as a belief system, it is a matter of fact that there is a belief system in tact and acted upon .

This is attachment .


x daz x

Originally Posted by ajay00

You are confusing the state of 'I am' (which is the same as the Self or awareness), with the smaller self or ego.

There is a major distinction between the two. This is why the higher Self is written with a capital S while the smaller self (ego) is written with lowercase s.

So what am I confused about exactly based upon what I have actually said?


x daz x

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I don't have any doubts, I know what attachments are in reflection of beliefs and actions .

For Krishna to have thoughts about reality and about dying or not dying then there is an attachment to those beliefs .

It's not about what is right or wrong as a belief system, it is a matter of fact that there is a belief system in tact and acted upon .

This is attachment .


x daz x

This is not attachment but adherence to morality and ethics.

If Krishna did not perform his duties in adherence to moral value systems and ethical understanding, the likes of Kamsa and Duryodhana would have continued with their tyrannical regimes with the notion of might being right rather than the other way around. The law of the jungle would have prevailed instead of civilization and virtue.


Abraham Lincoln fought for the abolition of slavery similarly when the south refused to abolish it inspite of the laws the government had legislated in this regard.

Originally Posted by ajay00

It was not, as God-like stated, that he did not know toothbrush or how to brush his teeth or tie his shoelaces in Awareness.

All this shows deficiency in understanding of advaita/nonduality.

What are you implying that I have said regarding teeth brushing?

I have said that pure awareness itself cannot brush teeth or know what teeth is .

Pure awareness requires the mind-body-self combination to know teeth and brush teeth . Such action are ego driven through attachments .

Pure awareness doesn't entertain ego or attachments , only self does .

So please tell me about my confusion .




x daz x