Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 , "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > , yosyflug <yosyflug@i...> wrote: > > > > - > > fuzzie_wuz > > > > Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:23 PM > > Re: letters and comments > > > > > > > > This "no one" is no one. No one to know. No one to seek. There is only > > this. Let it be. > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ) just can't help wondering how this "no one" fuzzie would react > if no one or other would kick it's non-existing butt... > > > yosy > > Dear Yosy, > > How long have you been on this Ramana list? And, you still identify > yourself with the body? > > You can kick this body or even kill it. But, it doesn't touch > "fuzzie". "Fuzzie" is just a thought, a dream. "Fuzzie" is not this > body. "Fuzzie" is only in your imagination. > > fuzzie>> You go, fuzzie!! In spite of all the endless nondual yacking and quacking that goes on here and on Nis and GR, you'd think by now that the yosymeister and her ilk would at least get it conceptually, if not get it REALLY. Then again, you have to remember that the seeds you sow sometimes fall on soil that's just too rocky to take root. Ah the life of jnani! It just doesn't get any better than This. Do it? All I can say is that "all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn." To those who have ears, let them hear......... Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Gary: All I can say is that "all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn."To those who have ears, let them hear.........Gary Anna: Now, that "all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn." is indeed a difficulty.... I Am/Self is the Known/Born; The I Am- No-Self/Unknown/Unborn can only be known by the KnownSelf/I Am. Would/could there be any other vehicle for this Knowing? Hence the confusion. The Unborn is the Ground of Being for This, The Known and the Unknown. The "something" from "nothing". Non-Duality is the Unborn from which all arises---Duality in all Forms, All That Is, All That Was, All That Will Be. I would say the Unborn is the end of the beginning...and the beginning of the end. The Unborn is also the Seer of the Seeing. Is this not so? Again I am as Nasruden, "I know at least 2 Nasrudens, one may say the wisest of things, the other well, I just never know what is going to come out of that mouth; the trouble is I never know which Nasruden is speaking." love, aka a. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 --- garyfalk1943 <falkgw wrote: > > You go, fuzzie!! > > In spite of all the endless nondual yacking and > quacking that goes on > here and on Nis and GR, you'd think by now that the > yosymeister and > her ilk would at least get it conceptually, if not > get it REALLY. Get what? Who should get what? > To those who have ears, let them hear......... > > Gary To those who have arms, let them wave....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 lol "two things have no end - stupidity of men and the cosmos; though i am not sure about the second" (albert einstein) thank you gary, who evidenty draws all his 'knowledge' from lists, books and such, for proving the point so nicely... you and fuzzie are a perfect match indeed. nasrudin caught a "non-dualist" picking fruit in his orchard. "what are you doing?" he asked the thief. "nothing" said the cheeky guy, "the trees, me, the fruit - all is one! so it is just the unity enjoying its unity..." nasrudin beat him soundly with his stick. "what are you doing?!" screamed the non-dualist. "nothing, really" said nasrudin. "all is one - the stick, my hand, your ass... unity within unity! how can you say "i" am doing anything?" and kept trashing the bastard... cleverness is not wisdom... i love clever guys like this who spout undigested slogans! words come cheap... yosy (a nightmare-like figment of gary, fuzzie and other clever guys imagination...) ps. "fuzzie" is a name; and since there is no nameless form or formless name, it is clear who/what 'fuzzie' identifies with... fuzzie wuzzie was a bear fuzzie wuzzie had no hair... wasn't really very fuzzy, wuz he? - garyfalk1943 Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:18 PM Re: letters and comments , "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:> , yosyflug <yosyflug@i...> wrote:> > > > - > > fuzzie_wuz > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:23 PM> > [ - Ramana Guru] Re: letters and comments> > > > > > > > This "no one" is no one. No one to know. No one to seek. There is only> > this. Let it be. > > > > fuzzie> > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> > ) just can't help wondering how this "no one" fuzzie would react> if no one or other would kick it's non-existing butt...> > > yosy> > Dear Yosy,> > How long have you been on this Ramana list? And, you still identify> yourself with the body? > > You can kick this body or even kill it. But, it doesn't touch> "fuzzie". "Fuzzie" is just a thought, a dream. "Fuzzie" is not this> body. "Fuzzie" is only in your imagination. > > fuzzie>>You go, fuzzie!!In spite of all the endless nondual yacking and quacking that goes on here and on Nis and GR, you'd think by now that the yosymeister and her ilk would at least get it conceptually, if not get it REALLY.Then again, you have to remember that the seeds you sow sometimes fall on soil that's just too rocky to take root.Ah the life of jnani! It just doesn't get any better than This.Do it?All I can say is that "all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn."To those who have ears, let them hear.........Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 dear Jim, not quite. the mind is the Self when the Self doesn't mind. And the bigger question is who's minding the show? love and peace anna - jimrasa Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:05 PM Re: Letters and Comments Dear Michael,This came to me to say after reading your message.....if it rings for you, great and if not....simply discard.mind is mindSelf is Selfmind can never figure itself outYours Truly,Jim--- In , michael bindel <michael_bindel> wrote:> > Letters and Comments> > Mindfulness> > I wonder if you could help me with a question I have been troubled with lately. I don't recall Bhagavan addressing this. My dilemma is this: How much attention to devote to my present experience, whether good or bad, being 'mindful' if you will. And when to turn from this experience and inquire 'To whom does this occur?' When done too early this technique can seem to reject being present in the world. I hope I have made myself clear. Any answer you could give would be appreciated. > > > Being mindful, being aware in the present, as you have mentioned, is useful for developing detachment. Detachment frees the mind and allows it to sink within, or to dissolve. When to turn from this practice to enquiry depends on the pakva (fitness) of the sadhaka. The Vichara technique does not reject "being present in the world," but rather provides a means to realize that you are present 'as' the world. Nothing will be separate. In short, being 'mindful' during your activities is good, but one should, with one-pointed mind, spend some time daily seeking the source of the mind. As this practice deepens, one will discover there is no such thing as 'mind', only the Self - Editor > > > > > > Why Creation?> > > > I have a burning question which won't leave me alone. After studying and doing some meditation for several years, I can't shake this. Why was all this creation in the FIRST place. It can't be because we need to become conscious of our true Self. Our Self already is conscious, was conscious and will always be conscious. In all the Maharshi's readings, he always ignores this type of question and says, "Just go inside and ask who it is that is asking the question." I have done this very thing for many months and the question subsides but doesn't leave me alone. I turned to the writings of Sri Aurobindo which helped to look at it from a total evolutionary process; but it still seems silly, at best, and vague as to 'why a creation?'- if this world we live in is an illusion anyway. Any help or suggestions for reading materials would be a blessing to me. Thank you for your indulgence. > > > "Why the creation in the first place?" That is a good question for the mind. But are we the mind? We, the created substance, are in an unfortunate position to try and understand what was on the Creator's mind when producing all of this, if there is such a thing as 'mind' at all for the Creator. No intellectual answer to this question can be correct, for the truth lies beyond the realm of the created - us, the individuals. So what to do? Either forget about the whole matter and go on with your normal life, or seek the solution to this question by trying to understand what it is that has been created -"me". "Me" or "I" is perfectly apparent to all, but what is not apparent is what this "I" is, where did it came from, where does it go, and what is its true nature. This investigation is worth pursuing, because the Maharshi and other sages from time immemorial have declared that the answer to this question resolves all other questions. Once we know our Self - not intellectually, but by> direct experience - then this nagging question about the purpose of creation is put to rest - Editor > > > > THE MAHARSHI> > > > > > > May/June 2002> Vol. 12 - No. 3> > > > Produced & Edited by> Dennis Hartel> Dr. Anil K. Sharma> > > > > > > > > > > > > Discover > Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!/join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Dear Jim it rings for "me" - or course "mind" is the i-thought "mind" is the ego mind is part of "maya" (illusion) all this can only be dissolved by GRACE Grace IS if we are ready for it a help on the way do not "mind" the thoughts which arise let them go "eternal" practice is needed for it b u t i t w o r k s then you feel GRACE GD LOVE in love in GD yours truly michael who never saw you bodily but is in touch with you........ LOVE IS ALL WHAT IS if you start loving yourself.....- jimrasa Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:05 PM Re: Letters and Comments Dear Michael,This came to me to say after reading your message.....if it rings for you, great and if not....simply discard.mind is mindSelf is Selfmind can never figure itself outYours Truly,Jim--- In , michael bindel <michael_bindel> wrote:> > Letters and Comments> > Mindfulness> > I wonder if you could help me with a question I have been troubled with lately. I don't recall Bhagavan addressing this. My dilemma is this: How much attention to devote to my present experience, whether good or bad, being 'mindful' if you will. And when to turn from this experience and inquire 'To whom does this occur?' When done too early this technique can seem to reject being present in the world. I hope I have made myself clear. Any answer you could give would be appreciated. > > > Being mindful, being aware in the present, as you have mentioned, is useful for developing detachment. Detachment frees the mind and allows it to sink within, or to dissolve. When to turn from this practice to enquiry depends on the pakva (fitness) of the sadhaka. The Vichara technique does not reject "being present in the world," but rather provides a means to realize that you are present 'as' the world. Nothing will be separate. In short, being 'mindful' during your activities is good, but one should, with one-pointed mind, spend some time daily seeking the source of the mind. As this practice deepens, one will discover there is no such thing as 'mind', only the Self - Editor > > > > > > Why Creation?> > > > I have a burning question which won't leave me alone. After studying and doing some meditation for several years, I can't shake this. Why was all this creation in the FIRST place. It can't be because we need to become conscious of our true Self. Our Self already is conscious, was conscious and will always be conscious. In all the Maharshi's readings, he always ignores this type of question and says, "Just go inside and ask who it is that is asking the question." I have done this very thing for many months and the question subsides but doesn't leave me alone. I turned to the writings of Sri Aurobindo which helped to look at it from a total evolutionary process; but it still seems silly, at best, and vague as to 'why a creation?'- if this world we live in is an illusion anyway. Any help or suggestions for reading materials would be a blessing to me. Thank you for your indulgence. > > > "Why the creation in the first place?" That is a good question for the mind. But are we the mind? We, the created substance, are in an unfortunate position to try and understand what was on the Creator's mind when producing all of this, if there is such a thing as 'mind' at all for the Creator. No intellectual answer to this question can be correct, for the truth lies beyond the realm of the created - us, the individuals. So what to do? Either forget about the whole matter and go on with your normal life, or seek the solution to this question by trying to understand what it is that has been created -"me". "Me" or "I" is perfectly apparent to all, but what is not apparent is what this "I" is, where did it came from, where does it go, and what is its true nature. This investigation is worth pursuing, because the Maharshi and other sages from time immemorial have declared that the answer to this question resolves all other questions. Once we know our Self - not intellectually, but by> direct experience - then this nagging question about the purpose of creation is put to rest - Editor > > > > THE MAHARSHI> > > > > > > May/June 2002> Vol. 12 - No. 3> > > > Produced & Edited by> Dennis Hartel> Dr. Anil K. Sharma> > > > > > > > > > > > > Discover > Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!/join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Discover Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM &; more. Check it out! 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.