Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Professor N. R. Krishnamoorthy Aiyer 's first visit to Ramana Maharshi. It is a very funny account. Harsha Professor Krishnamoorthy Aiyer speaks in his old age: I am now ninety-two years old and I first met the Maharshi in the summer of 1914. I had a question for the Maharshi. At that time I was an agnostic. I thought nature could take care of itself, so where is the need for a Creator? What is the use of writing all these religious books telling 'cock and bull' stories, which do not change the situation. I wanted to put to him straight questions: is there a soul? Is there a God? Is there salvation? All these three questions were condensed into one: Well sir, you are sitting here like this - I can see your present condition - but what will be your future sthiti ? The word sthiti in Sanskrit means 'state' or 'condition'. The Maharshi did not answer the question. "Oho," I thought, "you are taking shelter under the guise of indifferent silence for not answering an inconvenient question!" As soon as I thought this the Maharshi replied and I felt as if a bomb had exploded under my seat. "Sthiti, what do you mean by the word sthiti!" he exclaimed. I was not prepared for that question. "Oho, this man is very dangerous, very dangerously alive. I will have to answer with proper care," I thought. So I said to myself, "If I ask him about the sthiti or 'state' of the body it is useless: the body will be burned or buried. What I should ask him was about the condition of something within the body. Of course, I can recognize a mind inside of me." Then I was about to answer "By sthiti, I mean mind," when it struck me what if he counter-questions with "What is mind?" This I am not prepared to answer. As all this was passing through my mind he was sitting there staring at me with a fierce look. I then questioned within me, "What is mind? Mind is made up of thoughts. Now, what are thoughts?" I landed in a void. No answer. I then realised that I could not present a question about a mind which did not exist! Up to that point, the mind was the greatest thing that existed for me. Now I discovered it did not exist! I was bewildered. I simply sat like a statue. Two pairs of eyes were then gripping each other: the eyes of the Maharshi and my eyes were locked together in a tight embrace. I lost all sense of body. Nothing existed except the eyes of the Maharshi. I don't know how long I remained like that, but when I returned to my senses, I was terribly afraid of the man. "This is a dangerous man," I thought. In spite of myself, I prostrated and got away from his company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Dear Harsha: Thank you for posting this wonderfully funny account:-) On my knees to Bhagavan, Joyce ....still laughing... - Harsha Friday, October 03, 2003 10:25 AM Professor N. R. Krishnamoorthy Aiyer Professor N. R. Krishnamoorthy Aiyer 's first visit to Ramana Maharshi. It is a very funny account. Harsha Professor Krishnamoorthy Aiyer speaks in his old age: I am now ninety-two years old and I first met the Maharshi in the summer of 1914. I had a question for the Maharshi. At that time I was an agnostic. I thought nature could take care of itself, so where is the need for a Creator? What is the use of writing all these religious books telling 'cock and bull' stories, which do not change the situation. I wanted to put to him straight questions: is there a soul? Is there a God? Is there salvation? All these three questions were condensed into one: Well sir, you are sitting here like this - I can see your present condition - but what will be your future sthiti ? The word sthiti in Sanskrit means 'state' or 'condition'. The Maharshi did not answer the question. "Oho," I thought, "you are taking shelter under the guise of indifferent silence for not answering an inconvenient question!" As soon as I thought this the Maharshi replied and I felt as if a bomb had exploded under my seat. "Sthiti, what do you mean by the word sthiti!" he exclaimed. I was not prepared for that question. "Oho, this man is very dangerous, very dangerously alive. I will have to answer with proper care," I thought. So I said to myself, "If I ask him about the sthiti or 'state' of the body it is useless: the body will be burned or buried. What I should ask him was about the condition of something within the body. Of course, I can recognize a mind inside of me." Then I was about to answer "By sthiti, I mean mind," when it struck me what if he counter-questions with "What is mind?" This I am not prepared to answer. As all this was passing through my mind he was sitting there staring at me with a fierce look. I then questioned within me, "What is mind? Mind is made up of thoughts. Now, what are thoughts?" I landed in a void. No answer. I then realised that I could not present a question about a mind which did not exist! Up to that point, the mind was the greatest thing that existed for me. Now I discovered it did not exist! I was bewildered. I simply sat like a statue. Two pairs of eyes were then gripping each other: the eyes of the Maharshi and my eyes were locked together in a tight embrace. I lost all sense of body. Nothing existed except the eyes of the Maharshi. I don't know how long I remained like that, but when I returned to my senses, I was terribly afraid of the man. "This is a dangerous man," I thought. In spite of myself, I prostrated and got away from his company./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 October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 --- Lady Joyce <shaantih wrote: > Dear Harsha: > > Thank you for posting this wonderfully funny > account:-) > > On my knees to Bhagavan, > > Joyce > > ...still laughing... > SNIP -----------------reply follows------------------------- Dear Friends, Yes, this is a very interesting tale. But what is even more interesting to me is the remainder of the story. The entire account can be found at: http://www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc109a.htm Many of you may have already read the full account. This first portion deals with the confounding of the Professor's intellect. But the rest of the tale relates an account of the "silent teaching" of the Maharshi which results in the awakening of the Professor's kundalini. It is my personal opinion that spiritual realization is not possible without the awakening of the kundalini and therefore it is of the utmost interest to me. Love, michael The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Dear Michael, These stories are reposts. I was going to post the second version as well, which is in the archives of this list in May of 2000. Rob Sacks saw these stories here and on the Ramana Maharshi list and put the one on the professor on his website Realization.org. All of these stories are originally from the official Sri Ramana website (from the Newsletters). I enjoy telling and retelling them and sometimes edit them to make them more readable. Sri Ramana's views on Kundalini are well known to his devotees. Love to all Harsha ------- Dear Friends, Yes, this is a very interesting tale. But what is even more interesting to me is the remainder of the story. The entire account can be found at: http://www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc109a.htm Many of you may have already read the full account. This first portion deals with the confounding of the Professor's intellect. But the rest of the tale relates an account of the "silent teaching" of the Maharshi which results in the awakening of the Professor's kundalini. It is my personal opinion that spiritual realization is not possible without the awakening of the kundalini and therefore it is of the utmost interest to me. Love, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 --- Harsha wrote: SNIP > I enjoy telling and retelling them and sometimes > edit them to make them > more readable. Yes I enjoy hearing them again as well. > Sri Ramana's views on Kundalini are well known to > his devotees. Sri Ramana's views on Kundalini are not known to me as I am not exactly a student of the Ramana literature. I would be casually interested in hearing of Ramana's views on kundalini; but I am more interested in living persons' experiences. And truly, I am most interested in what you (the devotees) say for yourSELF. Love, michael The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 , Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > Namaste All, Spiritual Awakening may not be possible without Kundalini, but Realisation is beyond it........ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Dear Michael, Many people here have spoken about the Kundalini Shakti and the Goddess. The archives are full of such posts. If you go to Volume II of the HS Magazine, it contains some of my writings on Kundalini, Heart, and Self-Realization. Love to all Harsha "Love itself is the actual form of God." Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Dear Tony, What is Realisation? Love, michael --- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: > , Michael Bowes > > <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > > > > Namaste All, > > Spiritual Awakening may not be possible without > Kundalini, but > Realisation is beyond it........ONS...Tony. > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Thank you. Love, michael --- harsha wrote: > Dear Michael, > > Many people here have spoken about the Kundalini > Shakti and the Goddess. The archives are full of > such posts. > > If you go to Volume II of the HS Magazine, it > contains some of my writings on Kundalini, Heart, > and Self-Realization. > > Love to all > Harsha > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Ramana Maharshi > > > > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 , Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > What is Realisation? > Yes!! Exactly!! *joyous laugh* > Love, > > michael > Love, kheyala > --- Tony OClery <aoclery> wrote: > > , Michael Bowes > > > > <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > > > > > > > Namaste All, > > > > Spiritual Awakening may not be possible without > > Kundalini, but > > Realisation is beyond it........ONS...Tony. > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product search > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 , Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > Dear Tony, > > What is Realisation? > > Love, > > michael Namaste Michael, Kundalini Sakti is actually the Goddess Prana, is her energy. There is nothing but Kundalini, everything is Kundalini. It is all in the mind and therefore not ultimately real. Realisation is when you wake up and realise that you never existed as a person, there is no kundalini or creation only Nirguna.....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Dear Tony and ALL, --- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: > , Michael Bowes > > Kundalini Sakti is actually the Goddess Prana, is > her energy. There > is nothing but Kundalini, everything is Kundalini. I would say that everything is Brahman (Universal SELF) and SHAKTI is the energy that manifests it. > It is all in the mind and therefore not ultimately > real. What is mind? And why does something apparently exist; but isn't real? If it isn't "real" then it must be "really unreal". My point is that why does something, anything have to be categorized as "real" or "unreal"? What difference can it possibly make. If you admit the existence of "mind", then don't you have to deal with it? And if so how can it make any difference as to whether it is real or unreal. Sri Ramana Maharshi reportedly said that the world is SELF. Sri Ramakrishna reportedly said that Vedantists consider the world to be unreal; but after the realization of Brahman they know that it is Brahman alone that has become the world, the 24 cosmic principles, all living beings and the universe. This is my experience--mind included. > Realisation is when you wake up and realise that you > never existed as > a person, there is no kundalini or creation only > Nirguna.....ONS...Tony. > Who is the "you" who doesn't exist? Is it the you who wrote the post? If so does the post exist? :-) Also, I agree that there isn't any creation--only Brahman. And Tony, something I have sometimes wondered; but never asked you: What does ONS mean? Love, michael The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 , Michael Bowes > is my experience--mind included. > > > Realisation is when you wake up and realise that you > > never existed as > > a person, there is no kundalini or creation only > > Nirguna.....ONS...Tony. > > > Who is the "you" who doesn't exist? Is it the you who > wrote the post? If so does the post exist? :-) > Also, I agree that there isn't any creation--only > Brahman. > > And Tony, something I have sometimes wondered; but > never asked you: What does ONS mean? > Love, > > michael Namaste Michael IMO, One has to be careful whether one is talking relatively or absolutely, as the apples and oranges can confuse. Of course the 'you' doesn'nt exist or the post ultimately..Om Namah Sivaya....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Michael wrote... And Tony, something I have sometimes wondered; butnever asked you: What does ONS mean? OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya OM Namah Shivaya Love,michael Love, Joyce, who is not here to hear this... Who did not write this... And who did not send this... The New Shopping - with improved product search /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Your use of is subject to the Attachment: (application/octet-stream) Amazing Grace - Ram Dass - Om Namah Shivaya.lnk [not stored] 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.