Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 the editor says: >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deeds and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a potent teaching in itself – Editor This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani and cannot know why a jnani does something. In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping of whatever he/she is worshipping without second motives. There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita "I adore Myself" Why the Self should not adore ItSelf? What else should it adore? And why should have any second motives for that? Joy is joy is joy and that's it. As for the choice of Arunachala, well, that was his guru, nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self, such a joy in loving form to form, jnana is not synonymous with dryness, or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms Marifa michael bindel ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, June 03, 2005 7:22 PM Why Arunachala? Letters and Comments Why Arunachala? For the past one year I have been keenly reading about Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi and his teaching on the Internet and from the books as well. I was wondering why Bhagavan had given so much importance to the Arunachala Hill. Being a Jnani he should have shown indifference to all worldly manifestations. By worshipping, praising, doing Girivalam, etc., what does a Jnani gain? Is this not duality or am I missing some points? Can someone please comment on this? The same question was put directly to Sri Ramana Maharshi by a Muslim Professor, Dr. Syed. I will let Bhagavan speak for himself in the following quote extracted from the Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi: 273. Dr. Syed asked: I have been reading the Five Hymns. I find that the hymns are addressed to Arunachala by you. You are an Advaitin. How do you then address God as a separate Being? M.: The devotee, God and the Hymns are all the Self. D.: But you are addressing God. You are specifying this Arunachala Hill as God. M.: You can identify the Self with the body. Should not the devotee identify the Self with Arunachala? D.: If Arunachala be the Self why should it be specially picked out among so many other hills? God is everywhere. Why do you specify Him as Arunachala? M.: What has attracted you from Allahabad to this place? What has attracted all these people around? D.: Sri Bhagavan. M.: How was I attracted here? By Arunachala. The Power cannot be denied. Again, Arunachala is within and not without. The Self is Arunachala. Also a devotee walking with the Maharshi up on the Hill heard him say: "Someone has written from abroad asking for a stone from the holiest part of the Hill. He does not know that the whole Hill is sacred. It is Siva Himself. Just as we identify ourselves with a body, so Siva has chosen to identify with the Hill. Arunachala is pure Awareness in the form of a Hill. It is out of compassion to those who seek Him that He has chosen to reveal Himself in the form of a Hill visible to the eye. The seeker will obtain guidance and solace by staying near this Hill." What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, deeds and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a potent teaching in itself – Editor THE MAHARSHI January/February 2002 Vol. 12 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Discover Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & 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 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 , "Emanuele De Benedetti" <e.debenedetti@t...> wrote: > the editor says: > > >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deeds and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a potent teaching in itself - Editor > > This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani > > and cannot know why a jnani does something. > > In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping of whatever he/she is worshipping > > without second motives. > > There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita > > "I adore Myself" > > Why the Self should not adore ItSelf? > > What else should it adore? > > And why should have any second motives for that? > > Joy is joy is joy and that's it. > > As for the choice of Arunachala, > > well, that was his guru, > > nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru > > more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self, > > such a joy in loving form to form, > > jnana is not synonymous with dryness, > > or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms > > > > Marifa > YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and form, this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to exist as an individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self coming through this particular name and form. though apparently an individual, there is no persona there - only the unlimited consciousness/love shining unobstructed. yosy - Emanuele De Benedetti Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:48 PM Re: Why Arunachala? the editor says: >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deeds and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a potent teaching in itself – Editor This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani and cannot know why a jnani does something. In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping of whatever he/she is worshipping without second motives. There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita "I adore Myself" Why the Self should not adore ItSelf? What else should it adore? And why should have any second motives for that? Joy is joy is joy and that's it. As for the choice of Arunachala, well, that was his guru, nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self, such a joy in loving form to form, jnana is not synonymous with dryness, or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms Marifa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and you're not" is about as dualistic as it gets. No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened or personally realized is an oxymoron. There is no separate "person" to realize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no one possesses it. It just is. fuzzie , yosyflug <yosyflug@i...> wrote: > there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and form, this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to exist as an individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self coming through this particular name and form. though apparently an individual, there is no persona there - only the unlimited consciousness/love shining unobstructed. > > yosy > > > - > Emanuele De Benedetti > > Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:48 PM > Re: Why Arunachala? > > > the editor says: > > >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deeds and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a potent teaching in itself - Editor > > This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani > > and cannot know why a jnani does something. > > In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping of whatever he/she is worshipping > > without second motives. > > There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita > > "I adore Myself" > > Why the Self should not adore ItSelf? > > What else should it adore? > > And why should have any second motives for that? > > Joy is joy is joy and that's it. > > As for the choice of Arunachala, > > well, that was his guru, > > nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru > > more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self, > > such a joy in loving form to form, > > jnana is not synonymous with dryness, > > or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms > > > > Marifa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:43 PM Re: Why Arunachala? I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and you'renot" is about as dualistic as it gets. No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened orpersonally realized is an oxymoron. There is no separate "person" torealize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no onepossesses it. It just is. :)fuzzie Fuzzie, you know I love you, thru and thru, someone I just met yesterday, gave me 'her song and her rhythm, her particular way'. I wrote you my interpretation, in homage for her living words, which was perfectly perfect in what I've been doing, with ya all along. Say 'It just is' is enough/not enough. And this "It Just Is" is all we go got too, but Life/God has soul, and rhythm, spirit and song, inside and outside and this and that, that is the non-dual thing in your no-thing That's what realization's 'bout. Unless fuzzie wuzzie is really just fuzzie and all that about 'nothing'. It's a dancing of dance and singing of song, loving the word who is behind the fuzzie Who speaks. Yourself in everyform-on. Can't do anymore hey, say rosieposie still asking her warm caricature artist, can fuzzie come out and play? Don't do the fuzzie caricature, and, oh by the way, Who is Fuzzie? (wuzziehe/she) Love, Roseposieisalittlenosey , yosyflug <yosyflug@i...> wrote:> there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and form,this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to exist asan individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self comingthrough this particular name and form. though apparently anindividual, there is no persona there - only the unlimitedconsciousness/love shining unobstructed.> > yosy > > > - > Emanuele De Benedetti > To: > Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:48 PM> Re: Why Arunachala?> > > the editor says:> > >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is alwaysshowing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deedsand even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is apotent teaching in itself - Editor> > This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani> > and cannot know why a jnani does something.> > In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping ofwhatever he/she is worshipping> > without second motives.> > There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita> > "I adore Myself"> > Why the Self should not adore ItSelf?> > What else should it adore?> > And why should have any second motives for that?> > Joy is joy is joy and that's it.> > As for the choice of Arunachala,> > well, that was his guru,> > nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru> > more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self,> > such a joy in loving form to form,> > jnana is not synonymous with dryness,> > or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms> > > > Marifa/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 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Agreed, my dear consciousness/love Marifa - yosyflug Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:38 PM Re: Why Arunachala? there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and form, this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to exist as an individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self coming through this particular name and form. though apparently an individual, there is no persona there - only the unlimited consciousness/love shining unobstructed. yosy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Fuzzie, it looks like you have something against gurus. Sure all is Self, but in the world of forms some forms know they are the Self and some forms not. This is a fact anybody can see. And I tell you, in my experience sometimes it's easier to love Self through a form of a guru than to love Self directly. Ramana is a clear example of that. As a friend of mine, a realised advaita teacher, said: I am you but you are not me yet, and this not to put himself on a pedistal it is just a fact that some do not yet recognize their divine being, though in the eyes of the guru all are such, no separation. Marifa - "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz <> Saturday, June 04, 2005 11:43 PM Re: Why Arunachala? >I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and you're > not" is about as dualistic as it gets. > > No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened or > personally realized is an oxymoron. There is no separate "person" to > realize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no one > possesses it. It just is. > > > > fuzzie > > > , yosyflug <yosyflug@i...> wrote: >> there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and form, > this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to exist as > an individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self coming > through this particular name and form. though apparently an > individual, there is no persona there - only the unlimited > consciousness/love shining unobstructed. >> >> yosy >> >> >> - >> Emanuele De Benedetti >> >> Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:48 PM >> Re: Why Arunachala? >> >> >> the editor says: >> >> >What a Jnani does is only for the sake of others. He is always > showing us the way to final emancipation by his actions, words, >deeds > and even more so in his silence. That is why to study his life is a > potent teaching in itself - Editor >> >> This is just a point of view because the editor is not a jnani >> >> and cannot know why a jnani does something. >> >> In my pow the jnani is totally enjoying the worshipping of > whatever he/she is worshipping >> >> without second motives. >> >> There is a verse in Ashtavakra Gita >> >> "I adore Myself" >> >> Why the Self should not adore ItSelf? >> >> What else should it adore? >> >> And why should have any second motives for that? >> >> Joy is joy is joy and that's it. >> >> As for the choice of Arunachala, >> >> well, that was his guru, >> >> nobody after enlightenment stop loving his guru >> >> more than everything else, even knowing that it is his very Self, >> >> such a joy in loving form to form, >> >> jnana is not synonymous with dryness, >> >> or ignoring the powers at work in the universe of forms >> >> >> >> Marifa > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > fuzzie_wuz > > Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:43 PM > Re: Why Arunachala? > > > I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and you're > not" is about as dualistic as it gets. > > No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened or > personally realized is an oxymoron. There is no separate "person" to > realize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no one > possesses it. It just is. > > > > fuzzie > > > Fuzzie, you know I love you, thru and thru, someone I just met yesterday, > gave me 'her song and her rhythm, her particular way'. > > I wrote you my interpretation, in homage for her living words, which was perfectly perfect in what > I've been doing, with ya all along. > > Say 'It just is' is enough/not enough. And this "It Just Is" is all we go got too, but Life/God has soul, > and rhythm, spirit and song, inside and outside and this and that, that is the non-dual thing in your no-thing > > That's what realization's 'bout. Unless fuzzie wuzzie is really just fuzzie and all that about 'nothing'. > It's a dancing of dance and singing of song, loving the word who is behind the fuzzie Who speaks. > > Yourself in everyform-on. > > Can't do anymore hey, say rosieposie still asking her warm caricature artist, can fuzzie come out and play? > Don't do the fuzzie caricature, and, oh by the way, Who is Fuzzie? (wuzziehe/she) > > Love, Roseposieisalittlenosey > I'm right here, Anna. You're always asking me to come out. But, where is Anna? You hide behind your ambiguous, cryptic emails, always making sure that whatever you write can never be decoded. If I confront you directly, you won't respond. What are you afraid of, Anna? Why are you always hiding, creating a cloud, a fog around yourself? fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Sunday, June 05, 2005 8:47 AM Re: Why Arunachala? , "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote:> > - > fuzzie_wuz > To: > Saturday, June 04, 2005 5:43 PM> Re: Why Arunachala?> > > I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and you're> not" is about as dualistic as it gets. > > No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened or> personally realized is an oxymoron. There is no separate "person" to> realize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no one> possesses it. It just is. > > > > fuzzie> > > Fuzzie, you know I love you, thru and thru, someone I just metyesterday,> gave me 'her song and her rhythm, her particular way'.> > I wrote you my interpretation, in homage for her living words,which was perfectly perfect in what> I've been doing, with ya all along.> > Say 'It just is' is enough/not enough. And this "It Just Is" isall we go got too, but Life/God has soul, > and rhythm, spirit and song, inside and outside and this and that,that is the non-dual thing in your no-thing> > That's what realization's 'bout. Unless fuzzie wuzzie is reallyjust fuzzie and all that about 'nothing'. > It's a dancing of dance and singing of song, loving the word whois behind the fuzzie Who speaks.> > Yourself in everyform-on.> > Can't do anymore hey, say rosieposie still asking her warmcaricature artist, can fuzzie come out and play?> Don't do the fuzzie caricature, and, oh by the way, Who is Fuzzie?(wuzziehe/she)> > Love, Roseposieisalittlenosey > I'm right here, Anna. You're always asking me to come out. But, whereis Anna? You hide behind your ambiguous, cryptic emails, always makingsure that whatever you write can never be decoded. If I confront youdirectly, you won't respond. What are you afraid of, Anna? Why are youalways hiding, creating a cloud, a fog around yourself? fuzzie DearOne, When have I never responded? You have never chosen to confront me. Your questions are not mine, they belong to you. They are yours. I have never been in hiding, you just thought this was true. It is fuzzie who thinks I am cryptic and seeks words in thoughts of decode. My sun is not obscured, it is you who is the cloud... love, anna Ollie Ollie Oxen Free, you're It!! /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...
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.