I was thinking ...

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

... gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

 

All this ego-business, that we are so intersted in to enquire into

and tear to pieces..

I wonder now, what is actually the point ?..

 

For example, Gary writes : "So is there anything substantial to base

memory on apart from other memories?

What is memory then but a conceptual picture, an idealized form."

He questions whether Time is just a concept.

It seems so. But how about, "memory, picture, substantial", are these

not Also concepts ?

If so, are we not still swimming in the same 'soup' ?

Saying that the soup-structure is not 'real', is part of the soup..

no?

 

But my question is .. what Is wrong with this 'soup' ?

I am identified with the body.. take care of it and if someone

attacks I will probably do what I can to protect it. It might be

Mother Nature's mechanics. What's wrong with that ?

... or with the brain's preference for this or that,.. or even making

a picture of a person who is always agressive, and so being on the

watch. In that might be involved anger even prejudice .. it does not

sound terribly nice .. but these soup-fragments Are there,

functioning for some purpose, to protect the inner universe that

extends to the skin. I do not recall, 'me'/ego putting these there.

And even if it did/does, apart from the ego's becoming a 4-letter

word, .. what's wrong with it ?

But then, there come the spiritual/enlightened ones, who tell

us :"Yes but listen.. living like that (as ego) might be good for the

protection of your personal universe, BUT it separates/isolates you

from THE Universe. So leave your ego, and become a beatiful and

blissful Universal Identity".

... and being tempted, the circus of 'spiritual' fragments looking at

and battling with and interpretting the 'not so spiritual' ones,

begins.

So now, one is still in the soup, and the difference between a

spiritual-soup and the normal-soup being that the spir.-soup has

incorporated a tribe of anti-normal-soup Anarchists .. which gives

its own extra aches to the head.

And the play goes on.

 

And I wonder, whether the anti-normal-soup 'spiritual' gang, is of

any benefit or brings a mere extra complication to life ?

 

Why let that gang in, to begin with ?!

 

You might say.. "well you have already answered that

yourself.. 'cause that's the way mother nature made you.. so what's

wrong with that .. why make a problem out of it ?"

But the fact is that one does make a 'problem' out of it..

and you might say "so what's wrong with that ?.. it is as it is".

 

Well maybe that's "the end of the famous rope"..

or maybe not.. maybe just a big despair-'headache'..

and you might say : "so why do you make a problem out of it ? ..

he he .."

So I just go home and turn on the TV.

Surrendering to my normal-soup.

But the 'spiritual gang' is watching too.. commenting.

But if I turn on the TV volume high enough,.. I cannot hear its

comments so clearly any longer.

And the neigbour's Mother Nature makes him to come and kick butt ..

Now, That's a problem !

 

So .. what then ?!

 

I can hear you whisper "this chap is certainly Not at the eotr.." ..

So I say "what's wrong with that ?".

And you say "your post says after all 'I was Thinking'.. well,

_That's_ your problem !"

Yes but, I thought you said why make problem out of anything ?!..

"Well, if you do not want to be the Universal Self, that's your

problem.."

So back to square one.

No ?!

 

That was a monologue..

comments welcome.

 

Regards,

jb.

[Guest guest]

JR,

 

One short answer to your question about what is "wrong" with

identification with ego is that this identification prevents you from

knowing as your ongoing experience the Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sat-

chit-ananda, which is a Hindu expression for the Absolute, or

Brahman, or God, or the Self) that you really are.

 

As long as you stand in your identity as a separate being, then you

will feel the effects of life and death, etc. This teaching says

that who we are is identical with the "Self" of all (again, the

Absolute, or Brahman, or God). The reason that we do not experience

this is our (mis)identification with body/ego/world. Eliminate this

misidentification and the "joy of being" becomes your

experience. So Ramana taught us to look inside and ask "Who am I?"

and to keep this up until the identification with ego-I is removed

and the "I-I" is all that remains.

 

Not two,

Richard

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, JB789@h... wrote:

> Hi,

>

> .. gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

>

> All this ego-business, that we are so intersted in to enquire into

> and tear to pieces..

> I wonder now, what is actually the point ?..

>

> For example, Gary writes : "So is there anything substantial to

base

> memory on apart from other memories?

> What is memory then but a conceptual picture, an idealized form."

> He questions whether Time is just a concept.

> It seems so. But how about, "memory, picture, substantial", are

these

> not Also concepts ?

> If so, are we not still swimming in the same 'soup' ?

> Saying that the soup-structure is not 'real', is part of the soup..

> no?

>

> But my question is .. what Is wrong with this 'soup' ?

> I am identified with the body.. take care of it and if someone

> attacks I will probably do what I can to protect it. It might be

> Mother Nature's mechanics. What's wrong with that ?

> .. or with the brain's preference for this or that,.. or even

making

> a picture of a person who is always agressive, and so being on the

> watch. In that might be involved anger even prejudice .. it does

not

> sound terribly nice .. but these soup-fragments Are there,

> functioning for some purpose, to protect the inner universe that

> extends to the skin. I do not recall, 'me'/ego putting these there.

> And even if it did/does, apart from the ego's becoming a 4-letter

> word, .. what's wrong with it ?

> But then, there come the spiritual/enlightened ones, who tell

> us :"Yes but listen.. living like that (as ego) might be good for

the

> protection of your personal universe, BUT it separates/isolates you

> from THE Universe. So leave your ego, and become a beatiful and

> blissful Universal Identity".

> .. and being tempted, the circus of 'spiritual' fragments looking

at

> and battling with and interpretting the 'not so spiritual' ones,

> begins.

> So now, one is still in the soup, and the difference between a

> spiritual-soup and the normal-soup being that the spir.-soup has

> incorporated a tribe of anti-normal-soup Anarchists .. which gives

> its own extra aches to the head.

> And the play goes on.

>

> And I wonder, whether the anti-normal-soup 'spiritual' gang, is of

> any benefit or brings a mere extra complication to life ?

>

> Why let that gang in, to begin with ?!

>

> You might say.. "well you have already answered that

> yourself.. 'cause that's the way mother nature made you.. so what's

> wrong with that .. why make a problem out of it ?"

> But the fact is that one does make a 'problem' out of it..

> and you might say "so what's wrong with that ?.. it is as it is".

>

> Well maybe that's "the end of the famous rope"..

> or maybe not.. maybe just a big despair-'headache'..

> and you might say : "so why do you make a problem out of it ? ..

> he he .."

> So I just go home and turn on the TV.

> Surrendering to my normal-soup.

> But the 'spiritual gang' is watching too.. commenting.

> But if I turn on the TV volume high enough,.. I cannot hear its

> comments so clearly any longer.

> And the neigbour's Mother Nature makes him to come and kick butt ..

> Now, That's a problem !

>

> So .. what then ?!

>

> I can hear you whisper "this chap is certainly Not at the eotr.." ..

> So I say "what's wrong with that ?".

> And you say "your post says after all 'I was Thinking'.. well,

> _That's_ your problem !"

> Yes but, I thought you said why make problem out of anything ?!..

> "Well, if you do not want to be the Universal Self, that's your

> problem.."

> So back to square one.

> No ?!

>

> That was a monologue..

> comments welcome.

>

> Regards,

> jb.

[Guest guest]

The conceptulisation of recognising the true identity

was done after thousands of years of brooding over the

question. Even Upanishads did not solve the mystery in

one go. They started asking" who am i?", the reply was

" neti, neti"- " i am not this , i am not this"

 

If u r the body, then why say" my body( is aching all

over)" it is the body which is aching. once u sleep,

where is the ache gone?

 

It is my vital air, it is my buddhi, it is my sheath

of memory or chitta, it is my mind... in fact, it my

soul that is crying for identification.. huh huh... so

where does that take me? i am not even my soul???

 

If i hv identified with the soul and enjoy the

awareness that i am soul, then, why soul is said to be

" sthanu"... and more over, this is called rasasvada

and is a hurdle in attaining the true moksha.

 

Upanishads are really the para vidya... the removal of

ignorance which is obtained only through learning

about the Brahman.

 

 

And the soul is sometimes " karma sakshi" ( as in the

upananishads where one bird is eating the fruits and

the other bird is merely watching) or " buddhi sakshi"

( as told in Gita) or the soul is one with god.

 

If god is benevolent and we have personal god, does it

mean that He wants to bend the rules that he has put

for the sake of some bhajans and things like that/(

please mind that i am not rejecting the bhakti marga

but the concept of bhakti marga is totally differnt

than what is being preached now.." ananya chintayanto

mam... " are ,we devotees , doing that????)

The greatest part of Upanishads is they even exhort

the person not to go for rituals of the vedic origin

and reject that the rituals can get u only residence

of certain lokas( good worlds) and that too

temporarily and hence, should not be gone after by a

real seeker of Brahman.

 

Your breath is always saying " soham"- i am that and

yet u r not able to capture the divine brahman

residing within u.

 

 

 

 

The real brhaman resides in all of us. " isa vasya

midam sarvam" , " sarvam khalvidam brahma", " anthas

charasi bhutesu, guhayam vishwa murthishu",' sahasra

seersham devam viswaksham viswa sambhuvam.... how many

more quotations do u need to authorise this? yet,

people ask how do i know????

 

How do i know internet exists unless i buy a modem

and a net connection???

 

How do i capture the ever existing and ubiquitous

super high way of info unless i hv a pc and the

proper browser????

 

 

Ha... how do u capture god , the ever exisiting, more

ubiquitous than ether.." anora neeyan, mahito

maheeyan" unless u tune ur mind....

 

there is no dvaita.. in the beginning,there is only

one... " ekameva advitiyam"

 

 

kishore

 

 

_________________

*NEW* Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW*

Visit http://in.mobile./smsmgr_signin.html

[Guest guest]

JB & Friends,

 

Doesn't it seem likely that when the Buddha and all Yogic Masters

refer to "duhka", the pain or unsatisfactoriness of life, that they

are refering to the very problem you are reflecting by reflecting on

it? If you look at it from this perspective, rather than that of

becoming "one with the Universe", you arrive at the seminal moment in

spiritual life. Would you like to take a vacation from the mind? If

you succeed in doing so, you might find that you would like to take a

longer vacation from the mind. And so on. does this mean that there

is nothing to see or do? I don't think so, but then again, that's

only thinking. Etc.

 

yours in the bonds(of the mind),

eric

 

 

, JB789@h... wrote:

> Hi,

>

> .. gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

>

> All this ego-business, that we are so intersted in to enquire into

> and tear to pieces..

> I wonder now, what is actually the point ?..

>

> For example, Gary writes : "So is there anything substantial to

base

> memory on apart from other memories?

> What is memory then but a conceptual picture, an idealized form."

> He questions whether Time is just a concept.

> It seems so. But how about, "memory, picture, substantial", are

these

> not Also concepts ?

> If so, are we not still swimming in the same 'soup' ?

> Saying that the soup-structure is not 'real', is part of the soup..

> no?

>

> But my question is .. what Is wrong with this 'soup' ?

> I am identified with the body.. take care of it and if someone

> attacks I will probably do what I can to protect it. It might be

> Mother Nature's mechanics. What's wrong with that ?

> .. or with the brain's preference for this or that,.. or even

making

> a picture of a person who is always agressive, and so being on the

> watch. In that might be involved anger even prejudice .. it does

not

> sound terribly nice .. but these soup-fragments Are there,

> functioning for some purpose, to protect the inner universe that

> extends to the skin. I do not recall, 'me'/ego putting these there.

> And even if it did/does, apart from the ego's becoming a 4-letter

> word, .. what's wrong with it ?

> But then, there come the spiritual/enlightened ones, who tell

> us :"Yes but listen.. living like that (as ego) might be good for

the

> protection of your personal universe, BUT it separates/isolates you

> from THE Universe. So leave your ego, and become a beatiful and

> blissful Universal Identity".

> .. and being tempted, the circus of 'spiritual' fragments looking

at

> and battling with and interpretting the 'not so spiritual' ones,

> begins.

> So now, one is still in the soup, and the difference between a

> spiritual-soup and the normal-soup being that the spir.-soup has

> incorporated a tribe of anti-normal-soup Anarchists .. which gives

> its own extra aches to the head.

> And the play goes on.

>

> And I wonder, whether the anti-normal-soup 'spiritual' gang, is of

> any benefit or brings a mere extra complication to life ?

>

> Why let that gang in, to begin with ?!

>

> You might say.. "well you have already answered that

> yourself.. 'cause that's the way mother nature made you.. so what's

> wrong with that .. why make a problem out of it ?"

> But the fact is that one does make a 'problem' out of it..

> and you might say "so what's wrong with that ?.. it is as it is".

>

> Well maybe that's "the end of the famous rope"..

> or maybe not.. maybe just a big despair-'headache'..

> and you might say : "so why do you make a problem out of it ? ..

> he he .."

> So I just go home and turn on the TV.

> Surrendering to my normal-soup.

> But the 'spiritual gang' is watching too.. commenting.

> But if I turn on the TV volume high enough,.. I cannot hear its

> comments so clearly any longer.

> And the neigbour's Mother Nature makes him to come and kick butt ..

> Now, That's a problem !

>

> So .. what then ?!

>

> I can hear you whisper "this chap is certainly Not at the eotr.." ..

> So I say "what's wrong with that ?".

> And you say "your post says after all 'I was Thinking'.. well,

> _That's_ your problem !"

> Yes but, I thought you said why make problem out of anything ?!..

> "Well, if you do not want to be the Universal Self, that's your

> problem.."

> So back to square one.

> No ?!

>

> That was a monologue..

> comments welcome.

>

> Regards,

> jb.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

.. gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

 

 

 

*I thought you did it quite nicely!

Poly

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear jb,

a very nice "monologue" of you! I like it and it brought me to laugh and I

thought, I will do like you and puting on the TV and sink in the "normal soup"

of life. Difficulties grow up, if one try to seperate the normal and spiritual

life and discriminate the normal as not spiritual. There is only one "soup" - I

would say - if there is a "soup" at all. The soup is all right. Enjoy it and

from time to time you may ask the question: Who am I and what is this soup?

There is nothing new to achieve, only to discover what already is.

Gabriele

 

 

-

JB789

RamanaMaharshi

Friday, October 26, 2001 3:06 PM

[RamanaMaharshi] I was thinking ...

 

 

Hi,

 

.. gee, this one is difficult to put in words ..

 

All this ego-business, that we are so intersted in to enquire into

and tear to pieces..

I wonder now, what is actually the point ?..

 

For example, Gary writes : "So is there anything substantial to base

memory on apart from other memories?

What is memory then but a conceptual picture, an idealized form."

He questions whether Time is just a concept.

It seems so. But how about, "memory, picture, substantial", are these

not Also concepts ?

If so, are we not still swimming in the same 'soup' ?

Saying that the soup-structure is not 'real', is part of the soup..

no?

 

But my question is .. what Is wrong with this 'soup' ?

I am identified with the body.. take care of it and if someone

attacks I will probably do what I can to protect it. It might be

Mother Nature's mechanics. What's wrong with that ?

.. or with the brain's preference for this or that,.. or even making

a picture of a person who is always agressive, and so being on the

watch. In that might be involved anger even prejudice .. it does not

sound terribly nice .. but these soup-fragments Are there,

functioning for some purpose, to protect the inner universe that

extends to the skin. I do not recall, 'me'/ego putting these there.

And even if it did/does, apart from the ego's becoming a 4-letter

word, .. what's wrong with it ?

But then, there come the spiritual/enlightened ones, who tell

us :"Yes but listen.. living like that (as ego) might be good for the

protection of your personal universe, BUT it separates/isolates you

>from THE Universe. So leave your ego, and become a beatiful and

blissful Universal Identity".

.. and being tempted, the circus of 'spiritual' fragments looking at

and battling with and interpretting the 'not so spiritual' ones,

begins.

So now, one is still in the soup, and the difference between a

spiritual-soup and the normal-soup being that the spir.-soup has

incorporated a tribe of anti-normal-soup Anarchists .. which gives

its own extra aches to the head.

And the play goes on.

 

And I wonder, whether the anti-normal-soup 'spiritual' gang, is of

any benefit or brings a mere extra complication to life ?

 

Why let that gang in, to begin with ?!

 

You might say.. "well you have already answered that

yourself.. 'cause that's the way mother nature made you.. so what's

wrong with that .. why make a problem out of it ?"

But the fact is that one does make a 'problem' out of it..

and you might say "so what's wrong with that ?.. it is as it is".

 

Well maybe that's "the end of the famous rope"..

or maybe not.. maybe just a big despair-'headache'..

and you might say : "so why do you make a problem out of it ? ..

he he .."

So I just go home and turn on the TV.

Surrendering to my normal-soup.

But the 'spiritual gang' is watching too.. commenting.

But if I turn on the TV volume high enough,.. I cannot hear its

comments so clearly any longer.

And the neigbour's Mother Nature makes him to come and kick butt ..

Now, That's a problem !

 

So .. what then ?!

 

I can hear you whisper "this chap is certainly Not at the eotr.." ..

So I say "what's wrong with that ?".

And you say "your post says after all 'I was Thinking'.. well,

_That's_ your problem !"

Yes but, I thought you said why make problem out of anything ?!..

"Well, if you do not want to be the Universal Self, that's your

problem.."

So back to square one.

No ?!

 

That was a monologue..

comments welcome.

 

Regards,

jb.

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi

Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

Un: RamanaMaharshi-

List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi