The nature of consciousness

[Russell Parr]

Any consciousness is single-minded by nature. Since you want to separate the absolute from the relative, the meditation upon the absolute you propose is of the conventional, *Epicurean* type. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but you shouldn't consider it to be anything more.

I said "single minded focus." A consciousness that juggles worldly desires and thoughts about God, for example, does not have single minded focus.

I do not separate the relative from the absolute, which is impossible. Relativity is finite, whereas the absolute is infinite. Therefore the absolute includes the relative, but the relative is not absolute.

You went through the trouble of finding the post where I said that, but couldn't quote the entire *sentence*? And then you accuse me of egotism and an inability to reason?

You mean the part that says not to become attached to attachments? "Non-attachment to attachment" still leaves attachment, thus leaving in place a roadblock to full enlightenment.

It doesn't need to be said in a discussion where it is not relevant. You're trying to discredit my character, i.e., a supporter of marriage like myself cannot have wisdom. You have demonstrated that you are prepared to abandon reason if your ego is at stake.

I brought it up not to defame you, but to encourage proper focus. If you want to get married, that's fine. You can be like the householders that Ramakrishna talks about. Just don't expect to become a full blown sage.

By the way, the sentence was quite *obviously* not meant to defend or support literal matrimony. It was a cheeky comparison between David Quinn's "thing" with Sue Hindmarsh (they have a son I believe) and Kierkegaard's exploration of ideal matrimony (spiritual love and partnership between man and woman) in some of his books, as well as a comment on the "marriage" between consciousness (husband) and unconsciousness (wife). Either you are too stupid even to understand the humour, or being deliberately obtuse.

Ah, but just before this you said that you are a supporter of marriage. Cheeky or not, that must have motivated you in some way to say what you did.

[jupiviv]

Then there's the famous question about the sound of a tree falling without anyone around to hear it.

If a sound were the necessary consequence of a tree falling, then it would be impossible to imagine one without the other.

My personal preference is to call it the fundamental ambiguity of existence.

If that is your personal preference then you cannot, by definition, consider it to be your personal preference.

It is indirect because we're not experiencing specific things but a necessary property of things. It is direct when we experience specific things.

There's only experiencing "necessary properties of things". That's because there are no really things as such. No "thingness", no inherent existence.

You're completely right - things necessarily have the properties they are caused to have, including consciousness. If I am caused to be ignorant of something that that is precisely what I am.

I argued against containers since you were referencing them. Containers arise only when a property is assigned. In other words: the moment an attribute is assigned, the object appears. But there's no "object" without attributes. Only in your wildest dreams.

Why are you lying? You just lost a great deal of respect in my eyes. BTW here is the post in question:

D - Although there are more definitions, it most of all means that "thing" is almost by definition uncategorised and unspecific. But a category is nearly the opposite of that in terms of the function of the word. Your first need things before you can organize those into composite things.

J - The category is distinct from the category of known things. Nor is it a "composite" thing formed of unknown things, if that's your implication.

D - What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties. Assigning properties to anything implies creating a container for it. In that sense a thing is nothing but a categorization.

Is a categorization not another thing? No, since such a thing does not exist without just being the categorization. And that would be a meaningless tautology. You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it. But only in some extremely illusionary way it does. It needs to be addressed considering the purpose of the forum.

Dislike of nonsense can also just indicate a dedication to truth. Leyla essentially had often the same problems with this topic as you appear to be having. It's a mystery why you two even disagreed so often. Maybe just because you were male. Meaning you actually are aware of internal subjectivity. If only you could see the external object as your own projection here, the extension of self, all what you desire and demand to be. All caused of course.

Yeah, brilliant insight.

What you seem to confuse here is the truth that because everything is a manifestation of absolute reality, since there's nowhere where it's not, we don't need to seek for it in special places or states.

We are caused to seek it wherever we happen to. Likewise for whether we discover it.

The only way to see unity through division is to know the illusion of the division inside out.

The reality of duality/division is precisely why unity can be seen through it.

[jupiviv]

I said "single minded focus." A consciousness that juggles worldly desires and thoughts about God, for example, does not have single minded focus.

You have no choice.

I do not separate the relative from the absolute, which is impossible. Relativity is finite, whereas the absolute is infinite. Therefore the absolute includes the relative, but the relative is not absolute.

The absolute is the completion of the relative.

You mean the part that says not to become attached to attachments? "Non-attachment to attachment" still leaves attachment, thus leaving in place a roadblock to full enlightenment.

It's you, not the attachments.

I brought it up not to defame you, but to encourage proper focus. If you want to get married, that's fine. You can be like the householders that Ramakrishna talks about. Just don't expect to become a full blown sage.

A casual remark made weeks ago on a different thread does not constitute a valid argument. You are either stupid enough to believe that it does, or are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it, seeker of wisdom?

Ah, but just before this you said that you are a supporter of marriage. Cheeky or not, that must have motivated you in some way to say what you did.

I reiterate - stupid or obtuse?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Then there's the famous question about the sound of a tree falling without anyone around to hear it.

If a sound were the necessary consequence of a tree falling, then it would be impossible to imagine one without the other.

You're implying that the experience of "sound" (stimulation of the organs of hearing) equals the air movements necessary for the falling tree.

Obviously any organs of hearing have no direct relation to the tree falling. But one cannot claim the tree doesn't make sounds and as such wouldn't move air.

In any case, we're back to "imagining". My interest is in the existence of things beyond what we're imagining them to be.

My personal preference is to call it the fundamental ambiguity of existence.

If that is your personal preference then you cannot, by definition, consider it to be your personal preference.

Rather, my personal preference is, by definition, indeed my personal preference. And my preference for a wording is indeed causing ambiguity as well as the choice to do so. Unless you mean something else, in that case, please explain why A cannot be considered to be A.

There's only experiencing "necessary properties of things". That's because there are no really things as such. No "thingness", no inherent existence.

You're completely right - things necessarily have the properties they are caused to have, including consciousness. If I am caused to be ignorant of something that that is precisely what I am.

But my point was that "things" are not there to "have" anything when examined. By assigning properties, we start to see things. You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self. But that's the problem we all face.

Why are you lying?

D - What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties. Assigning properties to anything implies creating a container for it. In that sense a thing is nothing but a categorization.

Look, I just argued that "things do not exist" and then continue with "a thing is nothing but a categorization". Then does that mean I argue for the existence of categories? No, I argue against them as such just the same, like with any existence of things beyond what we do by creating the mental division, which is an illusion: we're not even really creating such division, we just desire that we're doing that, to give us what we need.

Like we splash water on the floor, causing a wet spot. We wipe up the water and gone is the spot. We cannot talk about splashing water on a dry spot so now it contains water. It's not defined, it does not pre-exists or post-exists like that in any way. Only after the water is on the floor, we can imply "spots" or a "pool" to refer to that collection of water. We can speak about it all we like but in reality there's only the water, which is only a thing because we have put properties like "wet" or "fluid" on it. There's no such thing as "the water" somewhere sitting existing as some Platonic shape. They reveal themselves inside the exchange or dialogue on it, how our mind conceives of it. That's all we really know about the material existence of the thing.

The only way to see unity through division is to know the illusion of the division inside out.

The reality of duality/division is precisely why unity can be seen through it.

There's nothing to see, as it would be appearance. You're imagining unity here still as some giant meta-thing which all other things remind you of.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: But my point was that "things" are not there to "have" anything when examined. By assigning properties, we start to see things. You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self. But that's the problem we all face.

Oh the irony of the precise idea that we have no precise ideas. "God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh." ~ Voltaire

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: But my point was that "things" are not there to "have" anything when examined. By assigning properties, we start to see things. You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self. But that's the problem we all face.

Oh the irony of the precise idea that we have no precise ideas.

But aren't you are declaring it a precise idea to make it ironic that way? But there's little precision and yet it's true; precision will get lost in approach.

Describing the nature of things is not supposed to create yet another thing, now labelled "its nature". Obviously not! The language therefore has to be very precise, in terms of internal structure, not external meanings, to make sure that there's no contradiction. It goes back to that first line of Tao Te Ching which addresses the issue by A. speaking in a negative, B. employing poetic devices to create sufficient ambiguity and C. remaining still logical. The idea that the "truth is spoken as well unspoken, but they'll never match" counters completely the suggestion that things equal ultimate reality. The reverse is true: they're exactly the things which are not. Even while ultimately nothing can "be not", that doesn't mean there's no delusion in terms of meaning, in the context of conceptualization and path. But through knowing what something is not, deeper understanding can still occur eventually. Although it will remain ambiguous because of the lack of anything more than a poetic positive description, label, boundary or concept. Logic is not as much idea as it's a method. With logic one can reason to insanity just as easily. It's not a description of anything nor does it provide one. The will or desire is still key here.

[jupiviv]

You're implying that the experience of "sound" (stimulation of the organs of hearing) equals the air movements necessary for the falling tree.

No. Try again.

My personal preference is to call it the fundamental ambiguity of existence.

If that is your personal preference then you cannot, by definition, consider it to be your personal preference.

Rather, my personal preference is, by definition, indeed my personal preference. And my preference for a wording is indeed causing ambiguity as well as the choice to do so. Unless you mean something else, in that case, please explain why A cannot be considered to be A.

Ambiguity can only be identified if clarity exists. If ambiguity is fundamental, nothing can be identified including ambiguity. In light of this, I was hoping *you* would explain why A != A to me.

There's only experiencing "necessary properties of things". That's because there are no really things as such. No "thingness", no inherent existence.

You're completely right - things necessarily have the properties they are caused to have, including consciousness. If I am caused to be ignorant of something that that is precisely what I am.

But my point was that "things" are not there to "have" anything when examined. By assigning properties, we start to see things. You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self. But that's the problem we all face.

If things are created as containers by being assigned properties then *demonstrate* it. Assign the properties "supermodel", "hopelessly in love with jupiviv" and "located within viewing distance of jupiviv" to a thing, thereby creating it. And don't give me that bullshit about things being "real only for you".

Look, I just argued that "things do not exist" and then continue with "a thing is nothing but a categorization". Then does that mean I argue for the existence of categories?

Well yes, unless you think A != A, which you just asked *me* to explain.

No, I argue against them as such just the same, like with any existence of things beyond what we do by creating the mental division, which is an illusion: we're not even really creating such division, we just desire that we're doing that, to give us what we need.

Mental divisions are illusions compared to *what*? Nothing, by definition, if we believe that the only divisions are mental. But then, compared to what are the divisions mental rather than external to mind? Again nothing, because of the aforesaid reason.

But aren't you are declaring it a precise idea to make it ironic that way? But there's little precision and yet it's true; precision will get lost in approach.

She said she doesn't believe that idea, so obviously that is where she sees the irony! But how can *you* reconcile this precise identification of a declaration of a precise idea with the idea that nothing is precise?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ambiguity can only be identified if clarity exists.

Like truth can only be identified if there's possibility of falsehood. And the ultimate reality if there's another kind. And wisdom if there's ignorance.

So if I'd say that appearing ambiguous is a fundamental property of reality-as-object, it means simply that appearances of clarity on any matter would not be reality but something else. Lets call it illusion. Are illusions themselves not caused? Of course, that shows them to be also ambiguous in terms of them being "completely" true or "completely" false because the context and interpretation will for ever shift. Truth arises in a context.

Look, I just argued that "things do not exist" and then continue with "a thing is nothing but a categorization". Then does that mean I argue for the existence of categories?

Well yes, unless you think A != A, which you just asked *me* to explain.

If A is said not to exist and B = A then B does not exist either. The reason to add description is explaining why it has no existence, nothing inherent, fixed, physical or being anywhere.

Mental divisions are illusions compared to *what*? Nothing, by definition, if we believe that the only divisions are mental. But then, compared to what are the divisions mental rather than external to mind? Again nothing, because of the aforesaid reason.

Compared to what is not mental, not illusionary and non-divisional. The mind allows to make that leap, although it comes up "empty" obviously.

[Russell Parr]

You have no choice.

I have my days.

The absolute is the completion of the relative.

The relative is complete within itself. The relative cannot, in any way, fulfill the absolute.

It's you, not the attachments.

Are attachments delusional or not?

A casual remark made weeks ago on a different thread does not constitute a valid argument. You are either stupid enough to believe that it does, or are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it, seeker of wisdom?

It is relevant to enlightenment, no less. But if it's such a touchy subject for you, fine, I'll leave it alone. You've got no chance for enlightenment anyway as long you misunderstand the nature of existence.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: But my point was that "things" are not there to "have" anything when examined. By assigning properties, we start to see things. You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self. But that's the problem we all face.

movingalways: Oh the irony of the precise idea that we have no precise ideas.

Diebert: But aren't you are declaring it a precise idea to make it ironic that way? But there's little precision and yet it's true; precision will get lost in approach.

Describing the nature of things is not supposed to create yet another thing, now labelled "its nature". Obviously not! The language therefore has to be very precise, in terms of internal structure, not external meanings, to make sure that there's no contradiction. It goes back to that first line of Tao Te Ching which addresses the issue by A. speaking in a negative, B. employing poetic devices to create sufficient ambiguity and C. remaining still logical. The idea that the "truth is spoken as well unspoken, but they'll never match" counters completely the suggestion that things equal ultimate reality. The reverse is true: they're exactly the things which are not. Even while ultimately nothing can "be not", that doesn't mean there's no delusion in terms of meaning, in the context of conceptualization and path. But through knowing what something is not, deeper understanding can still occur eventually. Although it will remain ambiguous because of the lack of anything more than a poetic positive description, label, boundary or concept. Logic is not as much idea as it's a method. With logic one can reason to insanity just as easily. It's not a description of anything nor does it provide one. The will or desire is still key here.

How about the will to precision is always present, however, when it is believed that precision can actually be found/expressed, the logic of insanity is present. The logic of insanity is the confusion of the relative (the caused appearance) with the absolute (will-to-cause). Will is not a thing, not is the caused appearance a thing. Therefore the nature of will-to-cause and the nature of the appearance cannot be known.

Referring again to the metaphor of the map and the territory, ignorance is a map of will-to-cause as is wisdom a map of will-to-cause. Where the map of ignorance 'makes the crooked places', the map of wisdom 'makes the crooked places straight.'

Harkens back to the concepts of nirvana and parinirvana, nirvana suggesting the causation of the extinguishing of the map of ignorance in concert with suggesting the causation of the map of wisdom with parinirvana suggesting the causation of the extinguishing of both. Another way of saying this is that maps are extinguished by will-to-cause but the territory, will-to-cause is not.

[jupiviv]

Like truth can only be identified if there's possibility of falsehood. And the ultimate reality if there's another kind. And wisdom if there's ignorance.

Category error in the first and second sentences. The third one is correct.

The reason to add description is explaining why it has no existence, nothing inherent, fixed, physical or being anywhere.

Existence is not inherent existence. Anyone who thinks so himself believes in inherent existence, for reasons stated previously.

You're asserting too many times what you think truth is and what you think others think it is without providing any actual proof for these claims. This is remarkable for someone also claiming that nothing really exists.

Mental divisions are illusions compared to *what*? Nothing, by definition, if we believe that the only divisions are mental. But then, compared to what are the divisions mental rather than external to mind? Again nothing, because of the aforesaid reason.

Compared to what is not mental, not illusionary and non-divisional. The mind allows to make that leap, although it comes up "empty" obviously.

*Your* mind may allow you to make that leap, but not mine. Which if it comes up "empty" as you say is logically impossible. If Emptiness *excludes* finite things, then we should be in perfect agreement about everything.

[jupiviv]

You have no choice.

I have my days.

A fine example of non-attachment!

The absolute is the completion of the relative.

The relative is complete within itself. The relative cannot, in any way, fulfill the absolute.

Then the absolute is relative to the relative, which makes it identical with the relative.

It's you, not the attachments.

Are attachments delusional or not?

Delusions are incomplete thoughts that cannot - by definition - reflect reality or create it. Wives and children are neither incomplete thoughts nor the products of them.

A casual remark made weeks ago on a different thread does not constitute a valid argument. You are either stupid enough to believe that it does, or are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it, seeker of wisdom?

It is relevant to enlightenment, no less.

It's not, because my opinion of marriage does not change the intellectual requirements for enlightenment.

But if it's such a touchy subject for you, fine, I'll leave it alone. You've got no chance for enlightenment anyway as long you misunderstand the nature of existence.

You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

[Russell Parr]

Delusions are incomplete thoughts that cannot - by definition - reflect reality or create it. Wives and children are neither incomplete thoughts nor the products of them.

All attachments, including towards a woman or children, are delusional, period. Again, if it is your fate to marry and reproduce, that's fine and natural. It will make full enlightenment virtually impossible, though, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

It's not, because my opinion of marriage does not change the intellectual requirements for enlightenment.

Enlightenment is just as experiential as it is intellectual. The intellect can only take one so far. It is desire and attachment that keep one from experiencing nature in purest way possible. Enlightenment is only possible when all things are completely renounced. The fact of the matter is, most of humanity just isn't built for it.

Anyway, this conversation is only degrading, so I think I'll be done here.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If Emptiness *excludes* finite things, then we should be in perfect agreement about everything.

What would emptiness *include* then, according to you? In the end my disagreement was only with what and how you were asserting things.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

All attachments, including towards a woman or children, are delusional, period. Again, if it is your fate to marry and reproduce, that's fine and natural. It will make full enlightenment virtually impossible, though, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

In my view such a statement indicates how profoundly one has become infected by rigid, reductionist views that literally dominate mind, intellect, and understanding. It is a radical inversion into and an investment in a closed loop of 'reasoning'. It can't be reasoned with since by its absoluteness it defines what is true and right. This is where the QRStian error leads, inevitably. Radical stupidity dressed up as genius.

A Spider-Child is born!

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: All attachments, including towards a woman or children, are delusional, period. Again, if it is your fate to marry and reproduce, that's fine and natural. It will make full enlightenment virtually impossible, though, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

While it is true that attachments towards a woman (or a man) or children are delusional once they are in place they can be powerful fuel for awakening and non attachment as well as providing the means for awakening one's spouse and children to non attachment.

Russell: Enlightenment is just as experiential as it is intellectual. The intellect can only take one so far. It is desire and attachment that keep one from experiencing nature in purest way possible. Enlightenment is only possible when all things are completely renounced. The fact of the matter is, most of humanity just isn't built for it.

The reason renouncement is even necessary is because of the fundamental error of thing perception, the root cause of desire/attachment. Is it possible to be with spouse and children (conventionally speaking) without perceiving them as subjects or objects? Yes.

I'm not sure which is the hardest attachment to relinquish, attachment to spouse and children or attachment to metaphysics. In my personal experience, it is the latter.

[Russell Parr]

In my view such a statement indicates how profoundly one has become infected by rigid, reductionist views that literally dominate mind, intellect, and understanding. It is a radical inversion into and an investment in a closed loop of 'reasoning'. It can't be reasoned with since by its absoluteness it defines what is true and right. This is where the QRStian error leads, inevitably. Radical stupidity dressed up as genius.

A Spider-Child is born!

Your viewpoint is what would necessarily result for one who is so mired, and in fact comfortable, in his attachments that he is repulsed by the path. The spider analogy actually fits you better, as you've made a bed in your own cocoon of windings.

[Russell Parr]

While it is true that attachments towards a woman (or a man) or children are delusional once they are in place they can be powerful fuel for awakening and non attachment as well as providing the means for awakening one's spouse and children to non attachment.

It is the suffering that the attachments cause that are fuel for awakening and non attachment.

The reason renouncement is even necessary is because of the fundamental error of thing perception, the root cause of desire/attachment. Is it possible to be with spouse and children (conventionally speaking) without perceiving them as subjects or objects? Yes.

I won't argue with that. One can certainly have a family and still have spirituality.

I'm not sure which is the hardest attachment to relinquish, attachment to spouse and children or attachment to metaphysics. In my personal experience, it is the latter.

The latter attachment remains necessary as long as the former attachment is still in effect. For this reason, it is for the one without these things that recurring renouncement is unnecessary and moksha is more easily attained and sustained.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
While it is true that attachments towards a woman (or a man) or children are delusional once they are in place they can be powerful fuel for awakening and non attachment as well as providing the means for awakening one's spouse and children to non attachment.

Russell: It is the suffering that the attachments cause that are fuel for awakening and non attachment.

Yes, delusion = suffering, suffering = fuel for wisdom.

Quote:
movingalways: The reason renouncement is even necessary is because of the fundamental error of thing perception, the root cause of desire/attachment. Is it possible to be with spouse and children (conventionally speaking) without perceiving them as subjects or objects? Yes.

Russell: I won't argue with that. One can certainly have a family and still have spirituality.

What do you mean by 'have spirituality?'

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Your viewpoint is what would necessarily result for one who is so mired, and in fact comfortable, in his attachments that he is repulsed by the path. The spider analogy actually fits you better, as you've made a bed in your own cocoon of windings.

That would be true from the only perspective that you can conceive. Which is my point. But the evolution of consciousness in our realm, the purpose and end of consciousness, and thus enlightenment and illumination, are not states or qualities or ends that you control by your limiting definitions. Your definitions are in fact very shallow, very incomplete, and (as I say) destructive, not creative. The thing to get clear about is 1) why these definitions are stressed, 2) why they are so rigid and reductionist, and 3) why they have come about?

None of this makes sesne to you, naturally, because you are locked within the rigid 'logical' definitions that cocoon, so to speak, your understanding. Your understandings are not really yours, but are borrowed and received. They are definitions of an old religious order.

[Russell Parr]

What do you mean by 'have spirituality?'

I mean one can still value and practice spirituality, and reap benefits as a result.

[Russell Parr]

That would be true from the only perspective that you can conceive. Which is my point. But the evolution of consciousness in our realm, the purpose and end of consciousness, and thus enlightenment and illumination, are not states or qualities or ends that you control by your limiting definitions. Your definitions are in fact very shallow, very incomplete, and (as I say) destructive, not creative.

I ask you, then, who does control how these things are defined? What makes my definitions "in fact" shallow, incomplete, destructive, uncreative? Are you implying that you control definitions, or are these merely your own opinions, based on your own premises, values, and experiences?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

idées fixes. It is a bizarre phenomenon when you face it from the other side.

[Russell Parr]

Moving , today I just so happen to come across the following while reading The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, and perhaps you(or anyone) may have some thoughts to share, like if you can relate or if it seems impractical or exaggerated in any way?

From pg. 326:

"[...]If a man enters the world after realizing God, he does not generally keep up physical relations with his wife. Both of them are devotees; they love to talk only of God and pass their time in spiritual conversation. They serve other devotees of God, for they know that God alone has become all living beings; and, knowing this, they devote their lives to the service of others."

Neighbour: "But, sir, such a husband and wife are not to be found anywhere."

Master [Sri Ramakrishna]: "Yes, they can be found, though they may be very rare. Worldly people cannot recognize them. In order to lead such a life both husband and wife must be spiritual. It is possible to lead such a life if both of them have tasted the Bliss of God. God's special grace is necessary to create such a couple; otherwise there will always be misunderstanding between them. In that case the one has to leave the other. Life becomes very miserable if husband and wife do not agree. The wife will say to her husband day and night: 'Why did my father marry me to such a person? I can't get enough to eat or to feed my children. I haven't clothes enough to cover my body or to give to my children. I haven't received a single piece of jewelry from you. How happy you have made me! Ah! You keep your eyes closed and mutter the name of God! Now do give up all these crazy ideas.' "

Devotee: "There are such obstacles, certainly. besides, the children may be disobedient. There is no end of difficulties. Now, sir, what is the way?"

Master: "It is extremely difficult to practise spiritual discipline and at the same time lead a householder's life. There are many handicaps: disease, grief, poverty, misunderstanding with one's wife, and disobedient, stupid, and stubborn children. I don't have to give you a list of them.
"But still there is a way out. One should pray to God, going now and then into solitude, and make efforts to realize Him."

Neighbour: "Must one leave home then?"

Master: "No, not altogether. Whenever you have leisure, go into solitude for a day or two. At that time don't have any relations with the outside world and don't hold any conversation with worldly people on worldly affairs. You must live either in solitude or in the company of holy men."

[Pam Seeback]

Deleted post.