Guest guest Posted February 2, 2002 Report Share Posted February 2, 2002 On the question of Self-Realization, I mentioned that (basically)a reality check involves the fact that a progression is common. Somebody replied that the time element associated with a progression is not always necessary. I did'nt say that. What I said or meant to say is that by way of example: (in Godman's book "No Mind, I am the Self"...biography of Laksmana, disciple of Ramana). Laksmana says that he spent some years...only a few...doing Sadhana; but then one day he Realized the Self, telling Ramana that he had done so. Therefore, TIME was involved and time IS involved for many people, statistically speaking; among all of the available data. If time is NOT involved (i.e. or is insignificant, say apparent weeks or months, fine, but not on this planet.) Again, this by no means implies that time MUST be involved. Factually, it IS involved in most people's lives whom I have encountered since 1966 in various traditions. To conclude, big difference between "MUST' and "IS" (is, meaning a statistic of life). Statistically, the chances of a person getting involved in a serious auto accident are higher if he/she drinks while driving. That's a statistic. That apparent time elapses for Sadhana until one can approach the Guru ; as Laksmana did and say "I have realized the Self"; is a fact of life. One can argue that time itself is a delusion and does not exist. Great...then put time into the context of a wave in the ocean of Being. Call time "something apparent"....i.e. a wave in/as Being. The wave still exists, as Being. During the "time" the aspirant conducted apparent "Sadhana", the person (say Joe, Mary); "thought" that "time" or "Sadhana" was separate from the Self. Thus, the delusion of time. However, the delusion itself is what continued, relatively speaking, even though time itself is a wave in the ocean of Being. If the aspirant had already REALIZED that time itself, and Sadhana itself, was "already" Being, ; then Enlightenment would have been instantaneous. This did not occur in Lakshman's case, nor did it occur in most people's. If there are many, or even MOST people in this group already Self- Realized, they have no need of this discussion. I'm concerned about the few people who post messages in this forum saying something like "I did self-inquiry and nothing happened". Why not? and why would I care? I can't explain why I'm introducing these concepts to the Ramana group, or why I'm introducing Ramana to the TM group. I just am. The impulse to do so came up and I'm riding this wave until it's expended. Thanks for your outstanding input. I'm learning a lot, believe it or not. Sincerely, jiva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2002 Report Share Posted February 2, 2002 Thank you for your comments Purushaz (Jivaji). Enjoying them. Can you reveal your secret identity? You sound like someone I know at Maharshi University in Iowa, like the Management department chair there. Hey, I love you guys. Just enjoying ribbing you all a bit. You aren't mad at us are you Jill? Love Harsha purushaz [purushaz] Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:30 AM PROGRESSION On the question of Self-Realization, I mentioned that (basically)a reality check involves the fact that a progression is common. Somebody replied that the time element associated with a progression is not always necessary. I did'nt say that. What I said or meant to say is that by way of example: (in Godman's book "No Mind, I am the Self"...biography of Laksmana, disciple of Ramana). Laksmana says that he spent some years...only a few...doing Sadhana; but then one day he Realized the Self, telling Ramana that he had done so. Therefore, TIME was involved and time IS involved for many people, statistically speaking; among all of the available data. If time is NOT involved (i.e. or is insignificant, say apparent weeks or months, fine, but not on this planet.) Again, this by no means implies that time MUST be involved. Factually, it IS involved in most people's lives whom I have encountered since 1966 in various traditions. To conclude, big difference between "MUST' and "IS" (is, meaning a statistic of life). Statistically, the chances of a person getting involved in a serious auto accident are higher if he/she drinks while driving. That's a statistic. That apparent time elapses for Sadhana until one can approach the Guru ; as Laksmana did and say "I have realized the Self"; is a fact of life. One can argue that time itself is a delusion and does not exist. Great...then put time into the context of a wave in the ocean of Being. Call time "something apparent"....i.e. a wave in/as Being. The wave still exists, as Being. During the "time" the aspirant conducted apparent "Sadhana", the person (say Joe, Mary); "thought" that "time" or "Sadhana" was separate from the Self. Thus, the delusion of time. However, the delusion itself is what continued, relatively speaking, even though time itself is a wave in the ocean of Being. If the aspirant had already REALIZED that time itself, and Sadhana itself, was "already" Being, ; then Enlightenment would have been instantaneous. This did not occur in Lakshman's case, nor did it occur in most people's. If there are many, or even MOST people in this group already Self- Realized, they have no need of this discussion. I'm concerned about the few people who post messages in this forum saying something like "I did self-inquiry and nothing happened". Why not? and why would I care? I can't explain why I'm introducing these concepts to the Ramana group, or why I'm introducing Ramana to the TM group. I just am. The impulse to do so came up and I'm riding this wave until it's expended. Thanks for your outstanding input. I'm learning a lot, believe it or not. Sincerely, jiva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2002 Report Share Posted February 2, 2002 , "purushaz" <purushaz> wrote: > On the question of Self-Realization, I mentioned that (basically)a > reality check involves the fact that a progression is common. > Somebody replied that the time element associated with a progression > is not always necessary. I did'nt say that. What I said or meant to > say is that by way of example: (in Godman's book "No Mind, I am the > Self"...biography of Laksmana, disciple of Ramana). Laksmana says > that he spent some years...only a few...doing Sadhana; but then one > day he Realized the Self, telling Ramana that he had done so. > Therefore, TIME was involved and time IS involved for many people, > statistically speaking; among all of the available data. If time is > NOT involved (i.e. or is insignificant, say apparent weeks or months, > fine, but not on this planet.) Again, this by no means implies that > time MUST be involved. Factually, it IS involved in most people's > lives whom I have encountered since 1966 in various traditions. To > conclude, big difference between "MUST' and "IS" (is, meaning a > statistic of life). Statistically, the chances of a person getting > involved in a serious auto accident are higher if he/she drinks while > driving. That's a statistic. That apparent time elapses for Sadhana > until one can approach the Guru ; as Laksmana did and say "I have > realized the Self"; is a fact of life. One can argue that time itself > is a delusion and does not exist. Great...then put time into the > context of a wave in the ocean of Being. Call time "something > apparent"....i.e. a wave in/as Being. The wave still exists, as > Being. During the "time" the aspirant conducted apparent "Sadhana", > the person (say Joe, Mary); "thought" that "time" or "Sadhana" was > separate from the Self. Thus, the delusion of time. However, the > delusion itself is what continued, relatively speaking, even though > time itself is a wave in the ocean of Being. If the aspirant had > already REALIZED that time itself, and Sadhana itself, was "already" > Being, ; then Enlightenment would have been instantaneous. This did > not occur in Lakshman's case, nor did it occur in most people's. If > there are many, or even MOST people in this group already Self- > Realized, they have no need of this discussion. I'm concerned about > the few people who post messages in this forum saying something > like "I did self-inquiry and nothing happened". Why not? and why > would I care? I can't explain why I'm introducing these concepts to > the Ramana group, or why I'm introducing Ramana to the TM group. I > just am. The impulse to do so came up and I'm riding this wave until > it's expended. Thanks for your outstanding input. I'm learning a > lot, believe it or not. Sincerely, jiva But the fact remains that when the Self is realized we can see once and for all that there was never anyone progressing. That person was always illusory. The progression happens on that side, but when we get to the other side, we can see that it never was. I don't remember anyone saying "I did self-inquiry and nothing happened". On the other hand, I've come across more than one person on USENET who said "I spent thousands of dollars on TM and nothing happened." This isn't to say that there aren't folks here frustrated with self-inquiry or that there aren't marvelous successes that have come out of TM. The folks on this list represent a wonderful array of spiritual practices. The great thing about sadhana is that you can make up your own. You can go with something straight out of the bottle or you can create a concoction of a few or many different approaches. Self-inquiry is another approach employed or added to others. TM would be another approach employed in the same way. But the fact is that we are all already the Self, even if we all haven't recognized it. The Self is always closer to us than our own breath. When clarity comes, and it can come out of the thousands of practices available, then the Self can be seen. TM is a practice that can establish clarity as readily as others, but at an exorbitant price. There are other methods, equally efficacious, that are entirely free. Those who can afford the convenience of TM may get their money's worth out of it. The rest of us have the benefit of the spiritual association of this list and others like it to rely upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2002 Report Share Posted February 2, 2002 >>> harsha 02/02/02 07:59 AM >>> Thank you for your comments Purushaz (Jivaji). Enjoying them. Can you reveal your secret identity? You sound like someone I know at Maharshi University in Iowa, like the Management department chair there. Hey, I love you guys. Just enjoying ribbing you all a bit. You aren't mad at us are you Jill? Love Harsha Hi Harsha and all, No, I am not mad at all--how can I be?? With all your kind words of late, and my new cyberboyfriend and all, who can be angry? I have been swamped with work the past days, but have wanted to stay engaged with this discussion. First I want to apologize to Jiva, whose initial posts I criticized too harshly. They touched off some deep ambivalence in myself about the TM organization on several levels, including the feeling of absence of support over the years of very challenging kundalini activity. So I have taken this recognition as a chance to review some of those experiences. Sorry, Jiva, for my earlier words. I just read Jerry's post about mantras and power. I had started to write a long post the other day about my experiences with mantra in relation to kundalini opening, and it is related to Jerry's points, so maybe I will finish that and send it. But it gets personal and that makes me nervous, so I might not. I feel very grateful to this list right now, for things I can't quite name but that echo Mazie's words. Jill 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.