Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Then so many things happened. There was one man called Sivananda Saraswati in those days -- he was the evangelist of Hinduism. Between the ages of fourteen and twenty- one (I am skipping many of the unnecessary events) I used to go there and meet him very often, and I did everything, all the austerities. I was so young, but I was determined to find out if there was any such thing as moksha, and I wanted that moksha for myself. I wanted to prove to myself and to everybody that there cannot be any hypocrisy in such people -- "These are all hypocrites" -- so I practiced yoga, I practiced meditation, studied everything. I experienced every kind of experience that the books talked about -- samadhi, super-samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, everything. Then I said to myself "Thought can create any experience you want -- bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, melting away into nothingness - - all those experiences. So, this can't be the thing, because I'm the same person, mechanically doing these things. Meditations have no value for me. This is not leading me anywhere." Then, you see, sex became a tremendous problem for me, a young human boy: "This is something natural, a biological thing, an urge in the human body. Why do these people all want to deny this sex and suppress something very natural, something which is part of the whole thing, in order to get something else? This is more real, more important to me than moksha and liberation and all that. This is a reality -- I think of gods and goddesses and I have wet-dreams -- I have this kind of a thing. Why should I feel guilty? It's something natural; I have no control over this kind of thing happening. Meditation has not helped me, study has not helped me, my disciplines have not helped me. I never touch salt, I never touch chilies or any spices." Then one day I found this man Sivananada eating mango pickles behind closed doors -- "Here is a man who has denied himself everything in the hope of getting something, but that fellow cannot control himself. He is a hypocrite" -- I don't want to say anything bad about him -- "This kind of life is not for me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 I arrived at a point when I was twenty-one where I felt very strongly that all teachers -- Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna, everybody -- kidded themselves, deluded themselves and deluded everybody. This, you see, could not be the thing at all -- "Where is the state that these people talk about and describe? That description seems to have no relation to me, to the way I am functioning. Everybody says "Don't get angry" --- I am angry all the time. I m full of brutal activities inside, so that is false. What these people are telling me I should be is something false, and because it is false it will falsify me. I don't want to live the life of a false person. I am greedy, and non- greed is what they are talking about. There is something wrong somewhere. This greed is something real, something natural to me; what they are talking about is unnatural. So, something is wrong somewhere. But I am not ready to change myself, to falsify myself, for the sake of being in a state of non-greed; my greed is a reality to me." I lived in the midst of people who talked of these things everlastingly -- everybody was false, I can tell you. So, somehow, what you call 'existentialist nausea' (I didn't use those words at the time, but now I happen to know these terms, revulsion against everything sacred and everything holy, crept into my system and threw everything out: "No more slokas, no more religion, no more practices - - there isn't anything there; but what is here is something natural. I am a brute, I am a monster, I am full of violence -- this is reality. I am full of desire. Desirelessness, non-greed, non-anger -- those things have no meaning to me; they are false, and they are not only false, they are falsifying me." So I said to myself "I'm finished with the whole business," but it is not that simple, you see. Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these things. He found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He said "There is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called Ramana Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living human embodiment of the Hindu tradition." I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, and you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and then those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such thing as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are telling me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the same again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. They are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no difference between the religious experience and the sex experience or any other experience; the religious experience is like any other experience. I am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. They might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if you want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and again -- you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the answer is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to solve the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of going through all this." So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. Something will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to this man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions" - - because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world who can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" - -- that was my frame of mind at the time -- you know, (Laughs) I was so confident of myself. I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at all." There was another question which I don't remember. He answered in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." But I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me at all. But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is it that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, the question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those people - - Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap here: I don't want to leave without knowing the truth from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Hi Alton, Thank you for sharing this excerpt. It is one of the best illustrations of, 'Can you take it?' that I have seen. Ramana says here, 'I can give you, but can you take it?' just like the Zen master pouring tea for the questioner and continues to pour and pour overfilling the cup and the tea spilling everywhere. I feel Ramana was saying, 'How can you take it when you are 'full' of yourself?' (and, 'it can't be taken'). Obviously one has to 'give' before one can 'receive' - this cannot be 'giving to receive' because then one is still full of oneself. It has to be Innocent. There is no one to give - yet there is giving and because 'All is One' - it/Love has nowhere to go execpt back to 'you' - this is called receiving. (It never really went anywhere but it appears to do so - 'you' can see this only by 'not' being there - it's a paradox) If we won't open our Hearts - how will the Love get in or out? Love, james , "COMO KASHA" <lostnfoundation> wrote: > I arrived at a point when I was twenty-one where I felt very strongly > that all teachers -- Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna, everybody -- > kidded themselves, deluded themselves and deluded everybody. This, > you see, could not be the thing at all -- "Where is the state that > these people talk about and describe? That description seems to have > no relation to me, to the way I am functioning. Everybody says "Don't > get angry" --- I am angry all the time. I m full of brutal activities > inside, so that is false. What these people are telling me I should > be is something false, and because it is false it will falsify me. I > don't want to live the life of a false person. I am greedy, and non- > greed is what they are talking about. There is something wrong > somewhere. This greed is something real, something natural to me; > what they are talking about is unnatural. So, something is wrong > somewhere. But I am not ready to change myself, to falsify myself, > for the sake of being in a state of non-greed; my greed is a reality > to me." I lived in the midst of people who talked of these things > everlastingly -- everybody was false, I can tell you. So, somehow, > what you call 'existentialist nausea' (I didn't use those words at > the time, but now I happen to know these terms, revulsion against > everything sacred and everything holy, crept into my system and threw > everything out: "No more slokas, no more religion, no more practices - > - there isn't anything there; but what is here is something natural. > I am a brute, I am a monster, I am full of violence -- this is > reality. I am full of desire. Desirelessness, non-greed, non-anger -- > those things have no meaning to me; they are false, and they are not > only false, they are falsifying me." So I said to myself "I'm > finished with the whole business," but it is not that simple, you > see. > > Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these things. He > found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), > skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He said "There > is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called Ramana > Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living human > embodiment of the Hindu tradition." > > I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have > seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for > people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; > because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, and > you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and then > those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such thing > as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are telling > me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the same > again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. They > are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in > experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no difference > between the religious experience and the sex experience or any other > experience; the religious experience is like any other experience. I > am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in > experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. They > might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in > doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if you > want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and again -- > you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the answer > is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to solve > the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of going > through all this." > > So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana > Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. Something > will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, Search in > Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to this > man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was > sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- how > can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting > vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man > help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I > looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, > your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained > a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of > questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not > disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the > questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions" - > - because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my > background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated > man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I > asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some > lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you > have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you > take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has > something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can > give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" > Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world who > can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven > years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take > it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" - -- that was my frame of > mind at the time -- you know, (Laughs) I was so confident of myself. > > I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked > him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free > sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at > all." There was another question which I don't remember. He answered > in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." But > I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- > the answers didn't interest me at all. > > But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- > that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is it > that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, the > question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those > people - - Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in > that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap > > here: I don't want to leave without knowing the truth from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Aloha James: Firstly a disclaimer. My IQ was recorded at 104 so I am no match for the genius' here. What I offer is just my view, which can change in a moment. To me realization is just to get a glimpse of who we are, but transformation is on a cellular level. I have not read Ramamas death experience, but would like to. Anyone here, please refer me to the most complete version of it? Nisaragadatta has stated that there may be tremendous pressure in the head, but that is because there is still identification with the body. Also, he has stated that some Yogis hold that "energy up by force. That is IMO most of the gurus today. UG got a lot of pain when that energy spontaneously came up after he finished his climb up the stairway to the Moksha door. Everyone gets some depending on your body and previous conditioning. I also hold the view that when the transformation occurs you are unable to have sex, but that is just a belief. Those gurus that ravished their followers are holding the energy up by force and it occasionally comes right down and they are compelled to go against their teachings of chastity. There is a whole long list of them including the Integral Yoga master that was accused of that by 14 of his nuns. There is nothing wrong with having sex with you followers if you are upfront about it. Thakar Singh, who also intimated us claimed that he was taking on the negativity of some of his female initiates. At least he did not lie about it in that way. Ramana is his "Talks" said to UG "I can give it but can you take it". UG almost could not. No pain no transformation. Loving you loving me loving you, Alton here in Hawaii without my beloved wife who is attending her sons thyroid cancer operation in LA. , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > Hi Alton, > Thank you for sharing this excerpt. > It is one of the best illustrations of, 'Can you take it?' that > I have seen. > > Ramana says here, 'I can give you, but can you take it?' just > like the Zen master pouring tea for the questioner and continues to > pour and pour overfilling the cup and the tea spilling everywhere. > > I feel Ramana was saying, 'How can you take it when you are > 'full' of yourself?' (and, 'it can't be taken'). > > Obviously one has to 'give' before one can 'receive' - this > cannot be 'giving to receive' because then one is still full of > oneself. It has to be Innocent. > > There is no one to give - yet there is giving and because 'All > is One' - it/Love has nowhere to go execpt back to 'you' - this is > called receiving. (It never really went anywhere but it appears to do > so - 'you' can see this only by 'not' being there - it's a paradox) > > If we won't open our Hearts - how will the Love get in or out? > > > > Love, > james > > > > , "COMO KASHA" <lostnfoundation> wrote: > > I arrived at a point when I was twenty-one where I felt very > strongly > > that all teachers -- Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna, everybody -- > > kidded themselves, deluded themselves and deluded everybody. This, > > you see, could not be the thing at all -- "Where is the state that > > these people talk about and describe? That description seems to have > > no relation to me, to the way I am functioning. Everybody says > "Don't > > get angry" --- I am angry all the time. I m full of brutal > activities > > inside, so that is false. What these people are telling me I should > > be is something false, and because it is false it will falsify me. I > > don't want to live the life of a false person. I am greedy, and non- > > greed is what they are talking about. There is something wrong > > somewhere. This greed is something real, something natural to me; > > what they are talking about is unnatural. So, something is wrong > > somewhere. But I am not ready to change myself, to falsify myself, > > for the sake of being in a state of non-greed; my greed is a reality > > to me." I lived in the midst of people who talked of these things > > everlastingly -- everybody was false, I can tell you. So, somehow, > > what you call 'existentialist nausea' (I didn't use those words at > > the time, but now I happen to know these terms, revulsion against > > everything sacred and everything holy, crept into my system and > threw > > everything out: "No more slokas, no more religion, no more practices > - > > - there isn't anything there; but what is here is something natural. > > I am a brute, I am a monster, I am full of violence -- this is > > reality. I am full of desire. Desirelessness, non-greed, non- anger > -- > > those things have no meaning to me; they are false, and they are not > > only false, they are falsifying me." So I said to myself "I'm > > finished with the whole business," but it is not that simple, you > > see. > > > > Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these things. > He > > found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), > > skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He said "There > > is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called > Ramana > > Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living human > > embodiment of the Hindu tradition." > > > > I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have > > seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for > > people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; > > because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, and > > you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and > then > > those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such thing > > as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are telling > > me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the same > > again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. > They > > are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in > > experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no difference > > between the religious experience and the sex experience or any other > > experience; the religious experience is like any other experience. I > > am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in > > experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. > They > > might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in > > doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if you > > want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and again > -- > > you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the > answer > > is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to solve > > the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of going > > through all this." > > > > So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana > > Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. Something > > will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, Search > in > > Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to this > > man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was > > sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- how > > can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting > > vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man > > help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I > > looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel > silent, > > your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained > > a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of > > questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not > > disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the > > questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions" > - > > - because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my > > background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated > > man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I > > asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some > > lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you > > have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you > > take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has > > something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can > > give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" > > Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world who > > can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven > > years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take > > it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" - -- that was my frame of > > mind at the time -- you know, (Laughs) I was so confident of myself. > > > > I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked > > him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free > > sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at > > all." There was another question which I don't remember. He answered > > in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." But > > I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- > > the answers didn't interest me at all. > > > > But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- > > that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is > it > > that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, the > > question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those > > people - - Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in > > that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap > > > > here: I don't want to leave without knowing the truth from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Namaste' Alton, Love to you, your beloved wife and especially her son during this time. Bless you All, OM Shanti Om james , "COMO KASHA" <lostnfoundation> wrote: > Aloha James: > Firstly a disclaimer. My IQ was recorded at 104 so I am no match for > the genius' here. What I offer is just my view, which can change in a > moment. > > To me realization is just to get a glimpse of who we are, but > transformation is on a cellular level. I have not read Ramamas death > experience, but would like to. Anyone here, please refer me to the > most complete version of it? > > Nisaragadatta has stated that there may be tremendous pressure in the > head, but that is because there is still identification with the body. > Also, he has stated that some Yogis hold that "energy up by force. > That is IMO most of the gurus today. UG got a lot of pain when that > energy spontaneously came up after he finished his climb up the > stairway to the Moksha door. Everyone gets some depending on your > body and previous conditioning. I also hold the view that when the > transformation occurs you are unable to have sex, but that is just a > belief. Those gurus that ravished their followers are holding the > energy up by force and it occasionally comes right down and they are > compelled to go against their teachings of chastity. There is a whole > long list of them including the Integral Yoga master that was accused > of that by 14 of his nuns. There is nothing wrong with having sex > with you followers if you are upfront about it. > > Thakar Singh, who also intimated us claimed that he was taking on the > negativity of some of his female initiates. At least he did not lie > about it in that way. > > Ramana is his "Talks" said to UG "I can give it but can you take it". > UG almost could not. No pain no transformation. > > Loving you loving me loving you, > Alton here in Hawaii without my beloved wife who is attending her > sons thyroid cancer operation in LA. > > > > , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > > > Hi Alton, > > Thank you for sharing this excerpt. > > It is one of the best illustrations of, 'Can you take it?' > that > > I have seen. > > > > Ramana says here, 'I can give you, but can you take it?' just > > like the Zen master pouring tea for the questioner and continues to > > pour and pour overfilling the cup and the tea spilling everywhere. > > > > I feel Ramana was saying, 'How can you take it when you are > > 'full' of yourself?' (and, 'it can't be taken'). > > > > Obviously one has to 'give' before one can 'receive' - this > > cannot be 'giving to receive' because then one is still full of > > oneself. It has to be Innocent. > > > > There is no one to give - yet there is giving and > because 'All > > is One' - it/Love has nowhere to go execpt back to 'you' - this is > > called receiving. (It never really went anywhere but it appears to > do > > so - 'you' can see this only by 'not' being there - it's a paradox) > > > > If we won't open our Hearts - how will the Love get in or > out? > > > > > > > > Love, > > james > > > > > > > > , "COMO KASHA" <lostnfoundation> > wrote: > > > I arrived at a point when I was twenty-one where I felt very > > strongly > > > that all teachers -- Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna, everybody -- > > > kidded themselves, deluded themselves and deluded everybody. > This, > > > you see, could not be the thing at all -- "Where is the state > that > > > these people talk about and describe? That description seems to > have > > > no relation to me, to the way I am functioning. Everybody says > > "Don't > > > get angry" --- I am angry all the time. I m full of brutal > > activities > > > inside, so that is false. What these people are telling me I > should > > > be is something false, and because it is false it will falsify > me. I > > > don't want to live the life of a false person. I am greedy, and > non- > > > greed is what they are talking about. There is something wrong > > > somewhere. This greed is something real, something natural to me; > > > what they are talking about is unnatural. So, something is wrong > > > somewhere. But I am not ready to change myself, to falsify > myself, > > > for the sake of being in a state of non-greed; my greed is a > reality > > > to me." I lived in the midst of people who talked of these things > > > everlastingly -- everybody was false, I can tell you. So, > somehow, > > > what you call 'existentialist nausea' (I didn't use those words > at > > > the time, but now I happen to know these terms, revulsion against > > > everything sacred and everything holy, crept into my system and > > threw > > > everything out: "No more slokas, no more religion, no more > practices > > - > > > - there isn't anything there; but what is here is something > natural. > > > I am a brute, I am a monster, I am full of violence -- this is > > > reality. I am full of desire. Desirelessness, non-greed, non- > anger > > -- > > > those things have no meaning to me; they are false, and they are > not > > > only false, they are falsifying me." So I said to myself "I'm > > > finished with the whole business," but it is not that simple, you > > > see. > > > > > > Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these > things. > > He > > > found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), > > > skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He > said "There > > > is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called > > Ramana > > > Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living > human > > > embodiment of the Hindu tradition." > > > > > > I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have > > > seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for > > > people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; > > > because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, > and > > > you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and > > then > > > those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such > thing > > > as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are > telling > > > me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the > same > > > again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. > > They > > > are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in > > > experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no > difference > > > between the religious experience and the sex experience or any > other > > > experience; the religious experience is like any other > experience. I > > > am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in > > > experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. > > They > > > might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in > > > doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if > you > > > want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and > again > > -- > > > you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the > > answer > > > is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to > solve > > > the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of > going > > > through all this." > > > > > > So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana > > > Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. > Something > > > will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, > Search > > in > > > Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to > this > > > man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was > > > sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- > how > > > can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting > > > vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this > man > > > help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing > happened; I > > > looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel > > silent, > > > your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that > remained > > > a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of > > > questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not > > > disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the > > > questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some > questions" > > - > > > - because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my > > > background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated > > > man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I > > > asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after > some > > > lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever > you > > > have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can > you > > > take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has > > > something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can > > > give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take > it?" > > > Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world > who > > > can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven > > > years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can > take > > > it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" - -- that was my frame > of > > > mind at the time -- you know, (Laughs) I was so confident of > myself. > > > > > > I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I > asked > > > him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free > > > sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at > > > all." There was another question which I don't remember. He > answered > > > in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." > But > > > I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- > > > > the answers didn't interest me at all. > > > > > > But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- > > > that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What > is > > it > > > that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, > the > > > question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those > > > people - - Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is > in > > > that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap > > > > > > here: I don't want to leave without knowing the truth from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.