Fw: [RamanaMaharshi] The non-self also exists in the Self.

[Guest guest]

The last line of this really made me grin!

Still, one hears so much about this non-self, no-self...wondering what

people might make of this passage?

Gloria

- Miles Wright

RM List

Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:33 AM

[RamanaMaharshi] The non-self also exists in the Self.

D. : Ribhu Gita speaks of so many objects as unreal, adding at the end

that they are all Brahman and thus real.M. : Yes. When you see them as

so many they are asat, i.e., unreal. Whereas when you see them as

Brahman they are real, deriving their reality from their substratum,

Brahman.D. : Why then does Upadesa Sara speak of the body, etc., as

jada i.e. insentient.M. : Inasmuch as you say that they are the

body, etc., apart from the Self. But when the Self is found this

body, etc., are also found to be in it. Afterwards no one will ask

the question and no one will say that they are insentient.D. : Viveka

is said to be discrimination between the Self and the non-self. What

is the non-self? M. : There is no non-self, in fact. The non-self

also exists in the Self. It is the Self which speaks of the non-self

because it has forgotten itself. Having lost hold of itself, it

conceives something as non-self, which is after all nothing but

itself.Then the discussion between the protagonists of various

theories became warm. (from Talk; 310)

Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi- Un:

RamanaMaharshi- List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

on 1/14/03 2:03 PM, Gloria Lee at glee wrote:

> The non-self also exists in the Self.The last line of this really made me

> grin!

> Still, one hears so much about this non-self, no-self...wondering what

> people might make of this passage?

> Gloria

 

Hi Gloria,

I think he is saying that when the Self looses it's true identity and

falsely assumes one (as ego) then the whole duality arrises, the real or

true or absolute position is presumed lost and "things" now become

*apparently* seperate, when in fact all is in the Self.

 

The difference in language is a simple matter of language, Maharshi

describes the "absolute Ground of Being" to be the Self, whereas someone

else (like Guatama) choses simply to call "it" Notself.

What do you think?

 

Shawn

 

 

 

> -

> Miles Wright

> RM List

> Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:33 AM

> [RamanaMaharshi] The non-self also exists in the Self.

>

>

>

> D. : Ribhu Gita speaks of so many objects as unreal, adding at the end that

> they are all Brahman and thus real.

>

> M. : Yes. When you see them as so many they are asat, i.e., unreal. Whereas

> when you see them as Brahman they are real, deriving their reality from their

> substratum, Brahman.

>

> D. : Why then does Upadesa Sara speak of the body, etc., as jada i.e.

> insentient.

>

> M. : Inasmuch as you say that they are the body, etc., apart from the Self.

> But when the Self is found this body, etc., are also found to be in it.

> Afterwards no one will ask the question and no one will say that they are

> insentient.

>

> D. : Viveka is said to be discrimination between the Self and the non-self.

> What is the non-self?

>

> M. : There is no non-self, in fact. The non-self also exists in the Self. It

> is the Self which speaks of the non-self because it has forgotten itself.

> Having lost hold of itself, it conceives something as non-self, which is

> after all nothing but itself.

>

> Then the discussion between the protagonists of various theories became warm.

>

> (from Talk; 310)

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

>

>