Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Dear Harsha, Verse 19 of the 40 Verses on Reality bears out your standpoint .Regards , in Him,Alan "The debate,'Does Free-will prevail or Fate?" Is only for those who do not know the root of both. Those who have known the Self, The common source of Free-will and of Fate, Have passed beyond them both and will not return to them ." Ramana Maharshi {Collected Works Swaminathan translation .0 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Interesting thoughts. Some two Iraqi dinars,.......in between. If they don't sit well on you Harsha, ...........hit the del key. - Harsha ; NondualitySalon ; RamanaMaharshi ; Nisargadatta Cc: advaitin Wednesday, September 17, 2003 05:55 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Fate V. Free Will Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no compromises. The apriori issue before that,........ is it not to ascertain just who is it, ......to whom the question whether fate or free will, .......is of relevance, and hence the subsequent resulting inquiry? Who is it that should not compromise? What is the existential reality of that entity? Otherwise, is it not akin the debate, .....whether the water is hot or cold,....the waters of the mirage lake in the desert? <LOL> It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of predetermination (or free will). What is the difference between the intensity and the external form it takes? You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal and have no standing what so ever! So you ask for an inquiry and then define what that inquiry is to result at.<LOL> Both "free will" and "predetermination", ........would they not be terms,.... of relevance only to a sense of a separated individual entity? And thus is it free will versus predetermination as the real question? Or is it an ascertaining as to whether a separated sense of individual entity has an independent existential reality, in the first place? People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is predetermined. While he does not state so, .....what Ramesh or Ramana or Nisargadatta or any body else states or does not state is quite immaterial. Either the entirety is apperceived in this moment, ..........or borrowed conceptualizing runs you. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of Self Knowledge. Goal? Strategy? LOL Take your feet off Harsha, have a rest. You are working too hard. It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. True. What do you say? That is important. And that would be relevant?:-)The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. :-) Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either philosophy useful. Since you suggested what anybody else says is irrelevant (as above), I suppose Ramana's indications also fall within that suggestion?:-) The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. Both are concepts, if that is what you are trying to say.It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. May I suggest, Harsha, there are no "minor" teacher and neither are there "major" teachers. There are no teachers, for there is none to be taught. There is only the functioning in the moment, as movement, appropriate to the moment, through notionaly separated and appropriately conditioned objects, ............ .......among which, ..... .......in one there is a prevailing sense of identity of himself/herself as a "seeker" ,....which thus births FOR IT,.. ...the identity of the other object as the "Guru", as the "Teacher", as the 'Sage", as the "Enlightened Master". Whereas in the object labled such, .............there being no prevailing sense of entitification, ...........there is neither the Guru-entity AND neither the the seeker-entity. A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. A true master is not interested in anything, for any sake. There being no "me",..............there is no "other",... for the sentient object labeled by popular media as a "sage". No "other" to teach, to instruct, to impart, to enlighten, to abet or to obstruct ...realization or whatever bromide you wish to use. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." The sense of investment, for anything, of anything,.......is always the hoopla of the entity. These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. Once all tools get laid aside, when seeing happens of their ineffectiveness or hollowness, ......the real seeking (so to say) starts. All tools, whether it is the concept of Consciousness as an candidate for self-identity, or standing on your head for 22 mins at Brahmamuhurtha,......are just hoopla of the conditioned mind. The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have consciousness as their source. Consciousness is as much a concept as any, Harsha. If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or free will. You will never see yourself as Consciousness. That's an unconditional guaranteed promise.<LOL> The absence of the presence of the "you" (which seeks to see) AND the absence of the absence of the presence of the "you", ..... ......is.... .......Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaaaaat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Thanks for the quote Alan. Sri Ramana always pointed to the Heart. Beyond endless words and concepts is the Heart. One's Own Being in Pristine Purity, as Absolute Awareness. Harsha Alan Jacobs wrote: Dear Harsha, Verse 19 of the 40 Verses on Reality bears out your standpoint .Regards , in Him,Alan "The debate,'Does Free-will prevail or Fate?" Is only for those who do not know the root of both. Those who have known the Self, The common source of Free-will and of Fate, Have passed beyond them both and will not return to them ." Ramana Maharshi {Collected Works Swaminathan translation .0 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of predetermination (or free will). You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal and have no standing what so ever! People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of Self Knowledge. It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either philosophy useful. The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have consciousness as their source. If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or free will. Love to all Harsha /join Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yes, Sandeep everything is a concept. Sri Ramana said to his attendant once, "I am not real Madhava". Anyway, this is your lucky day. Please treat yourself to three Allu Pakoras and one big Allu mutter Samosa with chuttney with a glass of Lassi for that effort Sandeep! :-). Did you say that your girth was expanding recently. I can send you my book, (Secrets of staying slim on a non conceptual diet). Love, Harsha Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: Interesting thoughts. Some two Iraqi dinars,.......in between. If they don't sit well on you Harsha, ...........hit the del key. ----- Original Message ----- Harsha To: ; NondualitySalon ; RamanaMaharshi ; Nisargadatta Cc: advaitin Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 05:55 PM Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Fate V. Free Will Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no compromises. The apriori issue before that,........ is it not to ascertain just who is it, .....to whom the question whether fate or free will, .......is of relevance, and hence the subsequent resulting inquiry? Who is it that should not compromise? What is the existential reality of that entity? Otherwise, is it not akin the debate, .....whether the water is hot or cold,....the waters of the mirage lake in the desert? <LOL> It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of predetermination (or free will). What is the difference between the intensity and the external form it takes? You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal and have no standing what so ever! So you ask for an inquiry and then define what that inquiry is to result at.<LOL> Both "free will" and "predetermination", ........would they not be terms,.... of relevance only to a sense of a separated individual entity? And thus is it free will versus predetermination as the real question? Or is it an ascertaining as to whether a separated sense of individual entity has an independent existential reality, in the first place? People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is predetermined. While he does not state so, .....what Ramesh or Ramana or Nisargadatta or any body else states or does not state is quite immaterial. Either the entirety is apperceived in this moment, ..........or borrowed conceptualizing runs you. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of Self Knowledge. Goal? Strategy? LOL Take your feet off Harsha, have a rest. You are working too hard. It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. True. What do you say? That is important. And that would be relevant?:-) The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. :-) Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either philosophy useful. Since you suggested what anybody else says is irrelevant (as above), I suppose Ramana's indications also fall within that suggestion?:-) The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. Both are concepts, if that is what you are trying to say. It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. May I suggest, Harsha, there are no "minor" teacher and neither are there "major" teachers. There are no teachers, for there is none to be taught. There is only the functioning in the moment, as movement, appropriate to the moment, through notionaly separated and appropriately conditioned objects, ........... .......among which, ..... .......in one there is a prevailing sense of identity of himself/herself as a "seeker" ,....which thus births FOR IT,.. ...the identity of the other object as the "Guru", as the "Teacher", as the 'Sage", as the "Enlightened Master". Whereas in the object labled such, .............there being no prevailing sense of entitification, ...........there is neither the Guru-entity AND neither the the seeker-entity. A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. A true master is not interested in anything, for any sake. There being no "me",..............there is no "other",... for the sentient object labeled by popular media as a "sage". No "other" to teach, to instruct, to impart, to enlighten, to abet or to obstruct ...realization or whatever bromide you wish to use. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." The sense of investment, for anything, of anything,.......is always the hoopla of the entity. These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. Once all tools get laid aside, when seeing happens of their ineffectiveness or hollowness, ......the real seeking (so to say) starts. All tools, whether it is the concept of Consciousness as an candidate for self-identity, or standing on your head for 22 mins at Brahmamuhurtha,......are just hoopla of the conditioned mind. The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have consciousness as their source. Consciousness is as much a concept as any, Harsha. If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or free will. You will never see yourself as Consciousness. That's an unconditional guaranteed promise.<LOL> The absence of the presence of the "you" (which seeks to see) AND the absence of the absence of the presence of the "you", ..... ......is.... .......Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaaaaat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2003 Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Excuse the less knowledge and not so good Enghlish.I come today to the List. Som questions, from this post from Harsha. Is OK? Thank you for answers. , Harsha wrote: > Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no > compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). > What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not > the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of > predetermination (or free will). If intensity of inquiry not for evaluation of doctrine of predetermination (or free will), what for intensity of inquiry? What for, inquiry? > > You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both > doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal >and have no standing what so ever! What means,.....both unreal? If this already the answer, inquiry for what? > > People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of > Self Knowledge. I agree, find oneself, not borrow answer. Plise no disrespect, want to know, you Harsha find yourself or you borrow answers? > > It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. How important? I inquiring, without answer, so what I say, how is important? > > The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. Scuse, what does "in one's own consciousness", mean? One and consciousness, is two? > > Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. >At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and > spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have >their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either > philosophy useful. Useful, not useful, is that inquiry? or inquiry is, which real, or both unreal? How can what unreal, useful for the real? > The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open >up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by >either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" >depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. Scuse, please explain. > > It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the > "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. But you ask for the same inquiry? > > A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. Maybe I incorrect, but I think Ramana tell only Consciousness. If he right, who inquire into nature of Consciousness? Who need tool? > The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have > consciousness as their source. Construct, not Consciousness also? >If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are >bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you >see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or >free will. If Ramana say only Consciousness, who to see you yourself are the Consciousness? Who untouched by fate or free will? In list description,you say blessed by Ramana. Grateful, you explain, Ramana dead 60 years ago, no? Thank you for answers. Pardon, no disrespect, trying to get answers. I do not much know, read Ramana a little , feel he knew, not borrow answers. Best wishes clownpercy (some time I work in circus but not joker, but everybody call me clownpercy, even when I serious. So I think good name, no?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2003 Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Hello Clownpercy, Thank you for your many questions. I do not have any answers for you today. Follow your heart. Love, Harsha > "clownpercy" <clownpercy > 2003/09/20 Sat PM 01:35:33 EDT > > Re: Fate V. Free Will > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." Ramana Maharshi Excuse the less knowledge and not so good Enghlish.I come today to the List. Som questions, from this post from Harsha. Is OK? Thank you for answers. , Harsha wrote: > Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no > compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). > What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not > the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of > predetermination (or free will). If intensity of inquiry not for evaluation of doctrine of predetermination (or free will), what for intensity of inquiry? What for, inquiry? > > You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both > doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal >and have no standing what so ever! What means,.....both unreal? If this already the answer, inquiry for what? > > People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of > Self Knowledge. I agree, find oneself, not borrow answer. Plise no disrespect, want to know, you Harsha find yourself or you borrow answers? > > It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. How important? I inquiring, without answer, so what I say, how is important? > > The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. Scuse, what does "in one's own consciousness", mean? One and consciousness, is two? > > Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. >At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and > spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have >their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either > philosophy useful. Useful, not useful, is that inquiry? or inquiry is, which real, or both unreal? How can what unreal, useful for the real? > The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open >up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by >either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" >depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. Scuse, please explain. > > It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the > "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. But you ask for the same inquiry? > > A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. Maybe I incorrect, but I think Ramana tell only Consciousness. If he right, who inquire into nature of Consciousness? Who need tool? > The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have > consciousness as their source. Construct, not Consciousness also? >If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are >bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you >see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or >free will. If Ramana say only Consciousness, who to see you yourself are the Consciousness? Who untouched by fate or free will? In list description,you say blessed by Ramana. Grateful, you explain, Ramana dead 60 years ago, no? Thank you for answers. Pardon, no disrespect, trying to get answers. I do not much know, read Ramana a little , feel he knew, not borrow answers. Best wishes clownpercy (some time I work in circus but not joker, but everybody call me clownpercy, even when I serious. So I think good name, no?) /join "Love itself is the actual form of God." Sri Ramana In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 On 9/20/03 at 5:35 PM clownpercy wrote: ºExcuse the less knowledge and not so good Enghlish.I come today to ºthe List. Welcome, Percy. º ºSom questions, from this post from Harsha. º ºIs OK? Sure, anyone can respond. º ºThank you for answers. Just responses, you're not at the tax office ;-) º º º, Harsha wrote: º> Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be ºno º> compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own ºmind). º> What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is ºneeded not º> the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of º> predetermination (or free will). º º ºIf intensity of inquiry not for evaluation of doctrine of ºpredetermination (or free will), what for intensity of inquiry? The heat of the intensity evaporates the aquatic state of the questioner, and with that, the question. º ºWhat for, inquiry? º It keeps you busy with relaxation. º> º> You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both º> doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal º>and have no standing what so ever! º º ºWhat means,.....both unreal? The foot of a barren woman's son is unreal as the arm of that' barren woman's daughter. Neither can be licked by the barren woman's dog. º ºIf this already the answer, inquiry for what? Yes, since there is but the Self, the inquiry is that too. º º> º> People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything ºis > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, ºrelying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the ºgoal is that of > Self Knowledge. º º ºI agree, find oneself, not borrow answer. Of course! Borrow the words, but arrange them either by free will or predestination. How to know the difference? Ask God? º ºPlise no disrespect, want to know, you Harsha find yourself or you ºborrow answers? The truth can't be borrowed, words can, answers too. º º º º> º> It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter ºis quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. º ºHow important? The question is ambiguous: there isn't a functional difference between an "anyone else" or a "you". IOW, irrelevant is important. º ºI inquiring, without answer, so what I say, how is important? No, how isn't important either. º º º> º> The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must ºtake place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. º º ºScuse, what does "in one's own consciousness", mean? º ºOne and consciousness, is two? Good question! The term "own consciousness" suggests the possibility of "other consciousness" and separation between them. º º º> º> Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. º>At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and º> spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have º>their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either º> philosophy useful. º º ºUseful, not useful, is that inquiry? or inquiry is, which real, or ºboth unreal? Terms like "real" and "unreal" are mutually dependent. The taste of sugar doesn't change when a label like "real" or "unreal" gets added. º ºHow can what unreal, useful for the real? A matter of taste, like the reincarnation issue: it's either denied or acknowledged, but gets rarely investigated (inquired) as there's not much literature to borrow from to start with an investigation. º º º º> The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open º>up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by º>either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" º>depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. º º ºScuse, please explain. º Enjoying the daily traffic jam in the car is supposed fate (can't be avoided when keeping the job needed for a living) whereas turning on the car radio is supposed to be free will. º º> º> It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the º> "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain ºconsistency in their responses. º º ºBut you ask for the same inquiry? Inquiry in the sense "who am i" only serves when thinking there is such an "i" entity. º º º> º> A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their ºown sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." ºThese are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry ºinto the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the ºtool. º º ºMaybe I incorrect, but I think Ramana tell only Consciousness. That depends on how terms are translated from Ramana's native language into English. The term "Self" is frequently used and in all Western languages easily gets linked to selfishness with a capital S. º ºIf he right, who inquire into nature of Consciousness? The "i" entity asks "who am i?" when instructed that. º ºWho need tool? Good question! No tool is required as when the mental frenzy subsides for no apparent reason, the silence speaks for itself. The "shock" therapy of Zen is based on that. º º º º> The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have º> consciousness as their source. º ºConstruct, not Consciousness also? You could have read, consistency is only an issue for minor teachers ;-) º º º>If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are º>bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you º>see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or º>free will. º º ºIf Ramana say only Consciousness, who to see you yourself are the ºConsciousness? Good question! That would require many minds, one asking, the other answering: yes, we are one unbroken consciousness. º º ºWho untouched by fate or free will? The Self is defined that way. º º ºIn list description,you say blessed by Ramana. ºGrateful, you explain, Ramana dead 60 years ago, no? Wouldn't know that - mind-bodies come and go, what stays is the show. º ºThank you for answers. ºPardon, no disrespect, trying to get answers. You've got some. º ºI do not much know, read Ramana a little , feel he knew, not borrow ºanswers. Well, not quite. Various scriptures were recited to him, he recognized their truth from experience and when deemed of value, commented/translated. To my knowledge, mainly texts on Advaita so he borrowed at least some of the lingo. º ºBest wishes Tnx. º º ºclownpercy (some time I work in circus but not joker, but everybody ºcall me clownpercy, even when I serious. So I think good name, no?) It's funny! Did you enquire if Indian elephants have free will when not having to perform, or are they then under the sway of fate? Most important, do the elephants know that? At least this shows that the supposed free will of man to (ab)use the elephants is the supposed fate of the elephants who have to perform the tricks. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Thasnk you for answers. You give answers which Percy need more time to understand. Plise, no disrespect some more time. Barren woman, cannot have baby, yes? So you mean as ghost, arm of barren woman daughter ? No real? Why not no licking by barren woman dog. She cannot make baby but she can buy dog, from puppy seller, no? On elephants, Percy am not knowing. I only work as do this do that, do everything at single time. Lot of sad in circus, animal and man. ecirada <ecirada > wrote: On 9/20/03 at 5:35 PM clownpercy wrote:ºExcuse the less knowledge and not so good Enghlish.I come today to ºthe List.Welcome, Percy.ººSom questions, from this post from Harsha.ººIs OK?Sure, anyone can respond.ººThank you for answers.Just responses, you're not at the tax office ;-)ººº, Harsha wrote:º> Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be ºno º> compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own ºmind). º> What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is ºneeded not º> the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of º> predetermination (or free will).ºººIf intensity of inquiry not for evaluation of doctrine of ºpredetermination (or free will), what for intensity of inquiry?The heat of the intensity evaporates the aquatic state of the questioner,and with that, the question.ººWhat for, inquiry?ºIt keeps you busy with relaxation.º> º> You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both º> doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal º>and have no standing what so ever!ºººWhat means,.....both unreal?The foot of a barren woman's son is unreal as the arm of that' barren woman's daughter.Neither can be licked by the barren woman's dog.ººIf this already the answer, inquiry for what?Yes, since there is but the Self, the inquiry is that too.ºº> º> People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything ºis > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, ºrelying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the ºgoal is that of > Self Knowledge.ºººI agree, find oneself, not borrow answer.Of course! Borrow the words, but arrange them either by free will or predestination.How to know the difference? Ask God?ººPlise no disrespect, want to know, you Harsha find yourself or you ºborrow answers?The truth can't be borrowed, words can, answers too.ºººº> º> It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter ºis quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important.ººHow important?The question is ambiguous: there isn't a functional difference betweenan "anyone else" or a "you". IOW, irrelevant is important.ººI inquiring, without answer, so what I say, how is important?No, how isn't important either.ººº> º> The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must ºtake place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity.ºººScuse, what does "in one's own consciousness", mean?ººOne and consciousness, is two?Good question! The term "own consciousness" suggests the possibility of "other consciousness" and separation between them.ººº> º> Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. º>At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and º> spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have º>their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either º> philosophy useful.ºººUseful, not useful, is that inquiry? or inquiry is, which real, or ºboth unreal?Terms like "real" and "unreal" are mutually dependent.The taste of sugar doesn't change when a label like "real" or "unreal"gets added.ººHow can what unreal, useful for the real? A matter of taste, like the reincarnation issue: it's either denied or acknowledged,but gets rarely investigated (inquired) as there's not much literature to borrow fromto start with an investigation.ººº º> The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open º>up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by º>either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" º>depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence.ºººScuse, please explain.ºEnjoying the daily traffic jam in the car is supposed fate(can't be avoided when keeping the job needed for a living) whereas turning on the car radio is supposed to be free will.ºº> º> It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the º> "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain ºconsistency in their responses.ºººBut you ask for the same inquiry?Inquiry in the sense "who am i" only serves when thinking there issuch an "i" entity. ººº> º> A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their ºown sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." ºThese are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry ºinto the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the ºtool.ºººMaybe I incorrect, but I think Ramana tell only Consciousness.That depends on how terms are translated from Ramana's native languageinto English. The term "Self" is frequently used and in all Western languages easily gets linked to selfishness with a capital S.ººIf he right, who inquire into nature of Consciousness?The "i" entity asks "who am i?" when instructed that.ººWho need tool?Good question! No tool is required as when the mental frenzy subsidesfor no apparent reason, the silence speaks for itself.The "shock" therapy of Zen is based on that.ººº º> The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have º> consciousness as their source.ººConstruct, not Consciousness also?You could have read, consistency is only an issue for minor teachers ;-)ººº>If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are º>bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you º>see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or º>free will.ºººIf Ramana say only Consciousness, who to see you yourself are the ºConsciousness?Good question! That would require many minds, one asking, the otheranswering: yes, we are one unbroken consciousness.ºººWho untouched by fate or free will?The Self is defined that way.ºººIn list description,you say blessed by Ramana.ºGrateful, you explain, Ramana dead 60 years ago, no?Wouldn't know that - mind-bodies come and go, what stays is the show.ººThank you for answers.ºPardon, no disrespect, trying to get answers.You've got some.ººI do not much know, read Ramana a little , feel he knew, not borrow ºanswers.Well, not quite. Various scriptures were recited to him, he recognized their truth from experience and when deemed of value, commented/translated. To my knowledge, mainly texts on Advaita so he borrowed at least some of the lingo.ººBest wishesTnx.ºººclownpercy (some time I work in circus but not joker, but everybody ºcall me clownpercy, even when I serious. So I think good name, no?)It's funny! Did you enquire if Indian elephants have free will when not having to perform,or are they then under the sway of fate? Most important, do the elephants know that?At least this shows that the supposed free will of man to (ab)use the elephants is the supposed fate of the elephants who have to perform the tricks.Jan/join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Thank you Harsha you say you have no answer today. I wait tomorrow. Also what meaning you say follow your heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 On 9/20/03 at 10:15 PM Percy Lander wrote: Hello Jan, Thasnk you for answers. You give answers which Percy need more time to understand. Don't worry, once arrived, understanding will pass too. Plise, no disrespect some more time. Barren woman, cannot have baby, yes? Depends on applied technology, like cloning. So you mean as ghost, arm of barren woman daughter ? No real? Existing within the constraints of memory. Why not no licking by barren woman dog. She cannot make baby but she can buy dog, from puppy seller, no? The barren woman's dog can lick anything but not her unborn kids. On elephants, Percy am not knowing. That's a bit odd, when connecting to the Internet via an ISP in Mumbai. India is supposed to be a pro-elephant country, with Ganesha as the god with an elephant head. But i could be wrong, as the country shows bhaktas coexisting with untouchables: a cultural inconsistency showing a potential for much violence that will go one-way unless properly addressed. I only work as do this do that, do everything at single time. Next time, try a married time to know the difference. Lot of sad in circus, animal and man. "John Doe" is a circus of conflicting thoughts, most of the time. One of nature's bloopers as the joke goes, and jokes are loved by all ppl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Hello Jan, I read many times. Thank you for the answers. ecirada <ecirada > wrote: On 9/20/03 at 5:35 PM clownpercy wrote:ºExcuse the less knowledge and not so good Enghlish.I come today to ºthe List.Welcome, Percy.ººSom questions, from this post from Harsha.ººIs OK?Sure, anyone can respond.ººThank you for answers.Just responses, you're not at the tax office ;-) ==== Haha. Tax office not wait for answers. They go chop chop with your money. More answer, more chop chop. ====ººº, Harsha wrote:º> Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be ºno º> compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own ºmind). º> What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is ºneeded not º> the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of º> predetermination (or free will).ºººIf intensity of inquiry not for evaluation of doctrine of ºpredetermination (or free will), what for intensity of inquiry?The heat of the intensity evaporates the aquatic state of the questioner, and with that, the question. ====== So you say, answer not important? What makes possible for intensity to be hot up? It happen by itself? ===== ººWhat for, inquiry? ºIt keeps you busy with relaxation. ====== Haha.I likes this answer, busy with relaxation. ====º> º> You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both º> doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal º>and have no standing what so ever!ºººWhat means,.....both unreal?The foot of a barren woman's son is unreal as the arm of that' barren woman's daughter.Neither can be licked by the barren woman's dog.º ==== Barren woman, is real? ===== ºIf this already the answer, inquiry for what?Yes, since there is but the Self, the inquiry is that too.º ===== You mean Self inquire into Self? Not small self, as small self a ghost, yes? ====== º> º> People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything ºis > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, ºrelying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the ºgoal is that of > Self Knowledge.ºººI agree, find oneself, not borrow answer.Of course! Borrow the words, but arrange them either by free will or predestination.How to know the difference? Ask God? ====== I feel, if feeling having free will, that feeling predestination. ====== ººPlise no disrespect, want to know, you Harsha find yourself or you ºborrow answers?The truth can't be borrowed, words can, answers too.===== You say, no saying original? ======ºº> º> It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter ºis quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important.ººHow important?The question is ambiguous: there isn't a functional difference betweenan "anyone else" or a "you". IOW, irrelevant is important. ===== What mean I, is not knowing seeker, what he say, how importnat, what he say. He do not know nothing. ==== ºI inquiring, without answer, so what I say, how is important?No, how isn't important either. ==== Yes, I feel same. ====ººº> º> The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must ºtake place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity.ºººScuse, what does "in one's own consciousness", mean?ººOne and consciousness, is two?Good question! The term "own consciousness" suggests the possibility of "other consciousness" and separation between them. ==== Yes, I feel same.You say much better than Percy.Thank you ======ºº> º> Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. º>At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and º> spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have º>their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either º> philosophy useful.ºººUseful, not useful, is that inquiry? or inquiry is, which real, or ºboth unreal?Terms like "real" and "unreal" are mutually dependent.The taste of sugar doesn't change when a label like "real" or "unreal" gets added. ======= The word Useful confuse Percy. Only Consciousness, how Only Consciousness find something useful, something not useful. ===== ººHow can what unreal, useful for the real? A matter of taste, like the reincarnation issue: it's either denied or acknowledged,but gets rarely investigated (inquired) as there's not much literature to borrow from to start with an investigation.º ===== I feel, investigateding is itself, unreal. Only Consciousness, then investigated what? What not Only Consciousness, for Consciousness to investigated? Is incorrect, Mr Jan? ====== º º> The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open º>up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by º>either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" º>depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence.ºººScuse, please explain.ºEnjoying the daily traffic jam in the car is supposed fate(can't be avoided when keeping the job needed for a living) whereas turning on the car radio is supposed to be free will. === So free will to shout at traffic or listen to car radio? In this, no predestination? I feel, if already angry before traffic jam, then lot of shouting. If already feeling nice, then listen to car radio. ====== ºº> º> It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the º> "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain ºconsistency in their responses.ºººBut you ask for the same inquiry?Inquiry in the sense "who am i" only serves when thinking there is such an "i" entity. ======= Lubista! Believe ghost real and then close door with chairs to keep ghost away. So you say Saint Harsha believe in ghost? ====== ººº> º> A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their ºown sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." ºThese are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry ºinto the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the ºtool.ºººMaybe I incorrect, but I think Ramana tell only Consciousness.That depends on how terms are translated from Ramana's native language into English. The term "Self" is frequently used and in all Western languages easily gets linked to selfishness with a capital S. ===== Yes many places, Ramana say Self. Self and Consciousness, maybe I feel same for Ramana. =========ººIf he right, who inquire into nature of Consciousness?The "i" entity asks "who am i?" when instructed that. ====== Ghost try to find itself? A foolish idea, no? ======ººWho need tool?Good question! No tool is required as when the mental frenzy subsides for no apparent reason, the silence speaks for itself. ===== Lubista! The silence know itself, no ghost ever know silence. Is correct? ==== The "shock" therapy of Zen is based on that. ==== I hear Zen, but know less than know Ramana. ======= ººº º> The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have º> consciousness as their source.ººConstruct, not Consciousness also?You could have read, consistency is only an issue for minor teachers ;-)ººº>If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are º>bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you º>see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or º>free will.ºººIf Ramana say only Consciousness, who to see you yourself are the ºConsciousness?Good question! That would require many minds, one asking, the otheranswering: yes, we are one unbroken consciousness. ===== one unbroken consciousness, yes same as Ramana say Only Consciousness. So no thing away from Consciousness, to know Consciousness. This I feel. Is incorrect? =======ººWho untouched by fate or free will?The Self is defined that way. ==== OK =====ºººIn list description,you say blessed by Ramana.ºGrateful, you explain, Ramana dead 60 years ago, no?Wouldn't know that - mind-bodies come and go, what stays is the show. ===== Show, ok like circus show? Only this List a show, or all a show? ====== ººThank you for answers.ºPardon, no disrespect, trying to get answers.You've got some.ººI do not much know, read Ramana a little , feel he knew, not borrow ºanswers.Well, not quite. Various scriptures were recited to him, he recognized their truth from experience and when deemed of value, commented/translated. To my knowledge, mainly texts on Advaita so he borrowed at least some of the lingo. ===== Yes. After first guy say Advaita, all who say Advaita, has to borrow. Thank you Mr Jan for answers. They help very much. Best wishes to you and your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 ecirada <ecirada > wrote: On 9/20/03 at 10:15 PM Percy Lander wrote: Hello Jan, Thasnk you for answers. You give answers which Percy need more time to understand. Don't worry, once arrived, understanding will pass too. Plise, no disrespect some more time. Barren woman, cannot have baby, yes? Depends on applied technology, like cloning. So you mean as ghost, arm of barren woman daughter ? No real? Existing within the constraints of memory. Why not no licking by barren woman dog. She cannot make baby but she can buy dog, from puppy seller, no? The barren woman's dog can lick anything but not her unborn kids. On elephants, Percy am not knowing. That's a bit odd, when connecting to the Internet via an ISP in Mumbai. ======= Yes, I come to India, know more about Ramana. Some time staying Mumbai. In this city, many public computer stations to connect to Internet. Soon I try to go to Tirucharanpali. ====== India is supposed to be a pro-elephant country, with Ganesha as the god with an elephant head. ===== Yes, few days ago, this festival happen. Only show, I feel. Who have bigger size elephant god? ======= But i could be wrong, as the country shows bhaktas coexisting with untouchables: a cultural inconsistency showing a potential for much violence that will go one-way unless properly addressed. =========== Yes, lot of religious trouble, speaking with people and reading the papers. ===== I only work as do this do that, do everything at single time. Next time, try a married time to know the difference. ==== Haha I feel, married time, no difference. ====== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Hi Perry, On 9/21/03 at 9:04 AM Percy Lander wrote: Hello Jan, ecirada <ecirada > wrote: On 9/20/03 at 10:15 PM Percy Lander wrote: Hello Jan, Thasnk you for answers. You give answers which Percy need more time to understand. Don't worry, once arrived, understanding will pass too. Plise, no disrespect some more time. Barren woman, cannot have baby, yes? Depends on applied technology, like cloning. So you mean as ghost, arm of barren woman daughter ? No real? As (un)real as the observing apparatus. Existing within the constraints of memory. Why not no licking by barren woman dog. She cannot make baby but she can buy dog, from puppy seller, no? No baby via the default way, she can take stray dog from the streets of from the refuge. The barren woman's dog can lick anything but not her unborn kids. On elephants, Percy am not knowing. That's a bit odd, when connecting to the Internet via an ISP in Mumbai. ======= Yes, I come to India, know more about Ramana. Nice! Some time staying Mumbai. Big city with many cars and traffic jams no? In this city, many public computer stations to connect to Internet. Internet cafes. Soon I try to go to Tirucharanpali. Happy journey! ====== India is supposed to be a pro-elephant country, with Ganesha as the god with an elephant head. ===== Yes, few days ago, this festival happen. Only show, I feel. Who have bigger size elephant god? Elephant projection by lasers, in the sky, can beat the competition! And no dung either ;-) ======= But i could be wrong, as the country shows bhaktas coexisting with untouchables: a cultural inconsistency showing a potential for much violence that will go one-way unless properly addressed. =========== Yes, lot of religious trouble, speaking with people and reading the papers. One holy more holy than other holy no? ===== I only work as do this do that, do everything at single time. Next time, try a married time to know the difference. ==== Haha I feel, married time, no difference. best time is merry time! :-) ====== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 I try to cut to keep mail small, not become big elephant. <Cut> So you say, answer not important? Silence doesn't come up with answers. ===== I feel the same. Silence do not need to ask question, or inquire. ===== What makes possible for intensity to be hot up? Dissatisfaction with the situation "as experienced". ===== I buy a dictionary to learn new words from your mail Mr Jan. My enghlish become better, maybe not my spirituality. Only Consciousness or Self, then dissatisfaction also by Self with what it create. No ghost can dissatisfy or satisfy. Whether ghost try inquiry, meditation, worshing elephant-god or camel-god. Is correct? It happen by itself? Often, like my case and that of a friend. ======= Lubista! It happen by itself, cannot be done by ghost, is correct? What name your friend? ===== ººWhat for, inquiry? ºIt keeps you busy with relaxation. ====== Haha.I likes this answer, busy with relaxation. Relaxation, a growth industry :-) ==== Haha Very busy industry. ===== <cut> ==== Barren woman, is real? The woman is as real as the structure observing her ( like her dog for instance). ======= I walk about 60 mins thinking this. The computer station people, charge me for this as I forget to cancel the connection. I feel Saint Harsha and him inquiry into Free will/predestination, as real as Percy. Both ghost, making ghostilee talks. ======== Barren is a property, becoming apparent after experimentation. ===== Ghost try very hard to make baby, produce ghost baby and believe it real baby. Ghost try to inquire free will or predestination and believe conclusion is real. Is correct? ======== ºIf this already the answer, inquiry for what?Yes, since there is but the Self, the inquiry is that too.º ===== You mean Self inquire into Self? Ultimately, yes, and this shows the issue of reductionism. ==== This word not possible Percy to understand. The small dictionary also not have it. ======== Not small self, as small self a ghost, yes? There is no small self apart from the thought that there is one (or that there are many). ====== Thought make real for Saint Harsha to believe in ghost and then him beleive ghost can inquire, is correct? Thought make Saint Harsha believe him exist, make Percy believe him exist, make inquiry exist, make this all show exist. Is correct? Same for Self? Thought make even Self exist, is correct? ========= <cut> ====== I feel, if feeling having free will, that feeling predestination. Feeling gone, issue nonexistent. ====== Percy never succeed in making any feeling go away, before it agree to finish herself. I feel, (feeling again) feeling having free will, that feeling continue or stop only by predestination. Feeling having free will, is ghost. And then ghostilee stories, ghostilee inquiry, ghostilee show. Only Consciousness watch fun-show it create, I think Ramana say same also, no?. ========== <cut> ===== You say, no saying original? 1. Predestination doesn't allow for anything original 2. The number of possibilities regarding impression is finite so what seems original is one of those possibilities. ====== Percy is simple. Percy understand this, no original. ===== <cut> What mean I, is not knowing seeker, what he say, how importnat, what he say. He do not know nothing. For a scientist, expression has to be such that it is clear for a reader and the reader can take the experiment. How the reader, after a successful experiment, describes it, doesn't matter, unless it prevents other readers from taking the experiment no? ==== Percy do not know to comment. ======= <cut> ======= The word Useful confuse Percy. Only Consciousness, how Only Consciousness find something useful, something not useful. A term like "useful" is the other side of the coin called "useless". All concepts can be arranged this way. like heat & cold, beautiful & ugly etc. Properties and behavior can be observed while thoughtless, concepts live as thoughts only. ===== Yes, I feel the same. Feel, when make something useful, make something useless (as you say). Making separate, useful and uesless, only ghostilee thinking. is incorrect Mr Jan? ===== ººHow can what unreal, useful for the real? A matter of taste, like the reincarnation issue: it's either denied or acknowledged,but gets rarely investigated (inquired) as there's not much literature to borrow from to start with an investigation.º ===== I feel, investigateding is itself, unreal. It's a mental activity, to find what isn't subjected to activity. ===== But ghost, can him find that? I feel, not. Feel, ghost only exist in mind of Consciousness and it come or go, if Consciousness want him come or go. ======= Only Consciousness, then investigated what? The activity of investigating ;-) ===== What means ;-)? Scuse, Percy need to make it simple, for him to understand. Investigating only ghostilee show, is correct? Answer Yes, then Investigating the investigating, more ghostilee show, no? ======= What not Only Consciousness, for Consciousness to investigated? Is incorrect, Mr Jan? The better alternative would be to describe without distinctions like little, big and super "i"s but instead, a term like naked awareness to denote it can never be an object of investigation, ===== Lubista! This I arrive last night but cannot find words to say. You have very good words to say the same. ======= nor the investigating subject nor can it be separated from any movement (activity that is, for sentient creatures). ====== Lubista! All show Only Consciousness playing little game. Yes? ========= <cut> Enjoying the daily traffic jam in the car is supposed fate(can't be avoided when keeping the job needed for a living) whereas turning on the car radio is supposed to be free will. === So free will to shout at traffic or listen to car radio? In this, no predestination? Even when considering, a creature's activity is the resultant of its history, the possibility to "just give up" always is present. As all sentient creatures and insentient matter are but modifications of stardust, what could it matter? ===== It not matter. ======= I feel, if already angry before traffic jam, then lot of shouting. Not so, when close to a woman, mid twenties, smiling at you. ===== Percy seeing smiling at him, mid twenty woman, still shout Beruka and try to jump out of car, quickly,to come close to smiling woman. Haha ===== If already feeling nice, then listen to car radio. That ends when suddenly a big camaro presses in just in front of you. ====== What I feel, shout curses, shout Beruka at smiling woman, listen to car radio and then shout because a dojick come in your lane, from next lane, all not matter. Only Consciousness, shout, smile, cut lane,fight with fist, break dojick head, then go together have beer, together make love with similing woman, all only Consciousness making show. ======= ºº> º> It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the º> "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain ºconsistency in their responses.ºººBut you ask for the same inquiry?Inquiry in the sense "who am i" only serves when thinking there is such an "i" entity. ======= Lubista! Believe ghost real and then close door with chairs to keep ghost away. So you say Saint Harsha believe in ghost? Wouldn't belief in a ghost be a matter of predestination? ;-P ====== Yes.I feel Yes. I say up in this mail I feel, (feeling again) feeling having free will, that feeling continue or stop only by predestination. ===== <cut> Ghost try to find itself? A foolish idea, no? Yes, and it takes long to discover, it was but the imagination. ====== I feel sometime, never discover and die believing in ghostilee show is real. -------- <cut> one unbroken consciousness, yes same as Ramana say Only Consciousness. So no thing away from Consciousness, to know Consciousness. This I feel. Is incorrect? What cannot be a subject nor an object nor separated, isn't easy to express in everyday language. ======= Last night Percy ask himself, if Ramana right Only Consciousness, can Consciousness need to inquire and know Consciousness? And then I remember, Ramana saying (maybe Ramana, maybe somebody other ghost not sure), the eye see everything but the eye not see itself. You say the same, no? ===== <cut> Thank you again, many times. Soon I get travel-ticket to go to Ramana Ashram. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 On 9/21/03 at 9:54 PM Percy Lander wrote: Hello Mr Jan, I try to cut to keep mail small, not become big elephant. <Cut> Hi Percy, same here, snipping where possible. [..] What makes possible for intensity to be hot up? Dissatisfaction with the situation "as experienced". ===== I buy a dictionary to learn new words from your mail Mr Jan. My enghlish become better, maybe not my spirituality. Perhaps at the ashram it could get better. Only Consciousness or Self, then dissatisfaction also by Self with what it create. Some questions are answered better with questions. If both arms and legs are the Self, why does it make a difference in walking? Try it out... No ghost can dissatisfy or satisfy. Another experiment: fast for a week and see if there is a sense of dissatisfaction from it. Whether ghost try inquiry, meditation, worshing elephant-god or camel-god. Is correct? Ramana underwent a kind of spontaneous death process, which brought insight. Kind of summary of the Kathopanishad: give up notions, like when falling asleep. It happen by itself? Often, like my case and that of a friend. ======= Lubista! It happen by itself, cannot be done by ghost, is correct? What name your friend? Her dog is named Layca :-) [...] ======== Barren is a property, becoming apparent after experimentation. ===== Ghost try very hard to make baby, produce ghost baby and believe it real baby. Until a situation arises where it is forgotten. Ghost try to inquire free will or predestination and believe conclusion is real. Is correct? Yes, when truly interested, experiments would be set up to find out. Unfounded belief influences behavior mostly as a limitation, or suppression, or superstition, like when the earth was flat, it was possible to fall off the edge. [...] ===== You mean Self inquire into Self? Ultimately, yes, and this shows the issue of reductionism. ==== This word not possible Percy to understand. Summarize to the bare minimum. The small dictionary also not have it. ======== Not small self, as small self a ghost, yes? There is no small self apart from the thought that there is one (or that there are many). ====== Thought make real for Saint Harsha to believe in ghost and then him beleive ghost can inquire, is correct? You would have to ask Harsha - but Ramana talks on the "i" thought as well. Jokingly, the "i" could be called the mind-body coordinates: it has the same relevance. Thought make Saint Harsha believe him exist, make Percy believe him exist, make inquiry exist, make this all show exist. Is correct? No, there is no compulsion to interpret thoughts or feelings: those "things" already are the responses from the mind-body. For a young child, the sense of "i" is rudimentary, as is the case for some native (not Westernized) ppl. Same for Self? Thought make even Self exist, is correct? Thought always is response to a stimulus. The Self doesn't think. ========= <cut> ====== I feel, if feeling having free will, that feeling predestination. Feeling gone, issue nonexistent. ====== Percy never succeed in making any feeling go away, before it agree to finish herself. A temporary suspension of feeling can be known, it happens when falling asleep, when anesthetics are administered. I feel, (feeling again) feeling having free will, that feeling continue or stop only by predestination. Feelings only seem tenacious: some, like fear, shame, guild, embarrassment can vanish permanently from the mind-body. This regards the issue of transformation. Feeling having free will, is ghost. An experiment can show, the will to hold the breath for 1 minute works, despite feeling out of breath. The feeling gets so strong that breathing resumes. The adjective "free" is meaningless: will is confined within the constraints of compulsion. And then ghostilee stories, ghostilee inquiry, ghostilee show. A doggy chasing its tail no? Only Consciousness watch fun-show it create, I think Ramana say same also, no?. Not without reason, there's a term like "the play of Maya". ========== [...] The word Useful confuse Percy. Only Consciousness, how Only Consciousness find something useful, something not useful. A term like "useful" is the other side of the coin called "useless". All concepts can be arranged this way. like heat & cold, beautiful & ugly etc. Properties and behavior can be observed while thoughtless, concepts live as thoughts only. ===== Yes, I feel the same. Feel, when make something useful, make something useless (as you say). Making separate, useful and uesless, only ghostilee thinking. is incorrect Mr Jan? Yes, adjectives are the "feel" words, making up the taste of for instance a bread, but do not describe the breadness. ===== ººHow can what unreal, useful for the real? A matter of taste, like the reincarnation issue: it's either denied or acknowledged,but gets rarely investigated (inquired) as there's not much literature to borrow from to start with an investigation.º ===== I feel, investigateding is itself, unreal. It's a mental activity, to find what isn't subjected to activity. ===== But ghost, can him find that? I feel, not. Feel, ghost only exist in mind of Consciousness and it come or go, if Consciousness want him come or go. What can happen is like a stalemate in chess: a conclusion that thinking by itself cannot solve a thing. Giving up efforts then is easy, ======= Only Consciousness, then investigated what? The activity of investigating ;-) ===== What means ;-)? Scuse, Percy need to make it simple, for him to understand. Investigating only ghostilee show, is correct? What else is there to investigate but phenomena, as the absence of phenomena getting observed, is a phenomenon by itself? Answer Yes, then Investigating the investigating, more ghostilee show, no? Recursion runs the universe as it were. ======= What not Only Consciousness, for Consciousness to investigated? Is incorrect, Mr Jan? The better alternative would be to describe without distinctions like little, big and super "i"s but instead, a term like naked awareness to denote it can never be an object of investigation, ===== Lubista! This I arrive last night but cannot find words to say. You have very good words to say the same. ======= nor the investigating subject nor can it be separated from any movement (activity that is, for sentient creatures). ====== Lubista! All show Only Consciousness playing little game. Yes? Yes, it's game, never the same. ========= <cut> [..] What I feel, shout curses, shout Beruka at smiling woman, listen to car radio and then shout because a dojick come in your lane, from next lane, all not matter. Only Consciousness, shout, smile, cut lane,fight with fist, break dojick head, then go together have beer, together make love with similing woman, all only Consciousness making show. With the airco in the car, sleeping is easy, guy behind will give wake up signal :-) ======= [...] <cut> ======= Last night Percy ask himself, if Ramana right Only Consciousness, can Consciousness need to inquire and know Consciousness? How could Consciousness have needs when it is everything already? And then I remember, Ramana saying (maybe Ramana, maybe somebody other ghost not sure), the eye see everything but the eye not see itself. You say the same, no? Something similar, there are many sayings, expressing the same. "Light can never see nor reflect itself, yet it illumines every object." ===== <cut> Thank you again, many times. My pleasure! Soon I get travel-ticket to go to Ramana Ashram. A pleasant visit, and take a few pics to share on the list please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Dear Sandeep, I am joining this discussion a little late because I have been travelling; but I would like to ask you a question. I notice that sometimes you offer a reply to someone and then you suggest to them that if they don't like your comment or specifically in this instance "If they don't sit well on you Harsha, ...........hit the del key." Can't people respond to you, or disagree with you, or have a discussion with you? Your suggestions about using the "del" key seem a little arrogant to me. Are you above everyone else? I'm truly interested in your reply even though it may be quite unintelligible. Love to ALL, michael --- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc wrote: > Interesting thoughts. > > Some two Iraqi dinars,.......in between. > > If they don't sit well on you Harsha, ...........hit > the del key. > SNIP The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Hi Michael, - Michael Bowes RamanaMaharshi Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:00 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Fate V. Free Will Dear Sandeep,I am joining this discussion a little late because I have been travelling; but I would like to ask you a question.I notice that sometimes you offer a reply to someone and then you suggest to them that if they don't like your comment or specifically in this instance "If they don't sit well on you Harsha, ...........hit the del key." Can't people respond to you, or disagree with you, or have a discussion with you? Sure. What is not of interest is a debate, where an attempt is to convince an "other". For neither your agreement, nor your disagreement, has any meaning, Michael. So the immediate thought, why does Sandeep bother to prattle, on this List or any where in cyber-space or non-cyber-space? Through this instrument, arises......... signaturings on flowing waters. In the moment. In the very stroke of the signing, is it's ending. To the multitude of boatsmen/women floating about, there is no noticing of the signature in the moment. To most, it invokes defensive posturings as they threaten, the very meaning of the personal investment and thus their existence. To a few, there is a question of clarification, or a need for an expansion of that signature in the moment. To a rare few, there are tears of resonance. Each an expression of the innate conditioning-in-the-moment, which creates the particular quality of receptivity for the signature. And thus ..........nuances of the perfection of Totality, expressed individually as so. Signaturings continue to arise, in the moment. Or they don't. Your suggestions about using the "del" key seem a little arrogant tome. Sure. That might well seem to be,..... for Michael. Are you above everyone else? If you can specify who that "every one else",...is,........then I could reply. I'm truly interested in your reply even though it may be quite unintelligible. :-) When you have apriori concluded about a forthcoming reply, .............there is no "true interest" in the reply.. There is only looking for validation of the apriori conclusion. That is called round and round the mulberry bush. 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.