Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Dear Miles, A few words from Ribhu Gita (The sanskrit Ribhu Gita published by SAT in 1995), that I think illustrate this posting from Talks: >From Chapter 1 10. Then addressing Nidagha, Ribhu said: I shall tell you about the defination of Self, which is not available in the triad of time--past, present,and future-- 11. ever the most secret of the secret, by summarizing what has been expounded by Siva. There is nothing that can be talked about as non- Self, neither the mind as non-Self, nor the world as non-Self. Be of the certitude that there is nothing that is non-Self. 12. By the absence os sankalpas (ideas, fixed concepts, etc.) by the elimination of all forms, by the conviction of there being only Brahman, be of the certitude that there is nothing that is non-Self. 13. In the absence of mind, there is no thinking; in the absence of the body, there is no aging. With the conviction of there being only Brahman, be of the certitude that there is nothing that is non-Self. .... 19. The Guru, indeed, does not exist; truly there is no disciple. There being only Brahman alone, be of the certitude that there is nothing that is non-Self. .... 32. I am Consciousness, and there is no non-Self. Be of this certitude. Thus in breif, the defination of the Self has been told to you. RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > > 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Hi Gloria, G: 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? "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." J: That's really good. I'm always mystified by the use of the capital S. "Self" seems so remote - something to be attained by a "self" apart from a Self...laugh! If you get my drift. A small self is going to hanker after a capital S self and have many conceptions about "it". "Self" has a being-somewhere-else quality about it. There is much banging on about "not-self" by Buddhists but the Buddha refused to make any diffinitive statements. Love, Joyce-incognito-as-one-of-the-Joyces 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.