Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 , "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > 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 First of all, is yosy saying what he said above on the basis of his own unmediated realization of "jnana" or is yosy saying what he said based on his own intellectual understanding of the subject. 1. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of his own unmediated realization of "jnana" and what it means to be "ajnani", then clearly he needs to go back and clarify his realization at least a little more. His dharma eye is not yet crystal clear. 2. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of intellectual understanding, however "valid" on the basis of logic and reason, then that's OK, as long as he acknowledges that like an Alan Watts, perhaps, the intellectual understanding is as good as it gets, the only "thing" lacking though, is the direct, unmediated experience of what "jnana" really is, i.e., non-conceptually is. Clearly, Ramana had a persona and WAS a person. Are you saying here that he was not kind, compassionate towards humans and animals, etc. Did he eat and shit like the rest of us? Did he turn when some one called him by name? Or was he merely an empty shell, without any personality or persona whatsoever? You mean to say there was no Ramana left anymore after his realization and there was only God shining through the "hollow reed" that once was a guy called Ramana? Can't you see how ridiculous it is to project onto Ramana, Nisargadatta, or even the great Ribhu himself, what YOU, yosy or fuzzie or gary or harsha or anybody, for that matter THINKS a "jnani" is or SHOULD be? So Ramana, therefore, was "only the unlimited/consciousness love shining obstructed" (yosy's words). No more persona. No more personality. No more likes and dislikes. No more moods or preferences. No more things he enjoyed more than other things he enjoyed less or even not at all. Ramana became a mindless robot, empty of all sense of I AM, merely the empty shell of God. 100% God or Unlimited Consciousness Love- Light shining unobstructed, without ANY, not even the slightest TRACE of anything that can be in way defined as "personal". Ramakrishna himself prayed to the Mother to retain the slightest wisp of ego so that he could go on enjoying the vast delight he had in worshipping her. Did not Ramana continue to "worship" or pay honor to Arunachala after his realization, just as Nisargadatta continued to perform arati services (if that's the correct terminology) to his guru right up until his (Nisargadatta's) death? I know Nisargadatta often got angry and lashed out and was addicted to beedies which contributed, no doubt, to his getting cancer. Didn't Ramana have any habits of behavior that could be considered "personal" in any way? Was not Ramakrishan a jnani, just as much as he was a bhakta? Was not Nisargadatta and his guru both jnanis? Is not Ramana one of the very greatest jnanis of the modern era? Pray tell, yosy and fuzzie, what are you people talking about? As far as what fuzzie says, clearly, in Ramana's case, as in Nisargadatta's case and in Ramakrishna's case, we are not talking about "guru trips" of lording it over others, playing power games and manipulating jivas for either financial or sexual advantage. Sure, anyone who comes on with the "I'm a jnani and you're not, so therefore you have to sign up for my mega-euro satsang in Kovalam or where ever in order to better put yourself in a position to "get" what I "have is not someone that any one with a healthy dose of viveka would have ANYTHING to do with. You're mixing up apples and oranges here, I'm afraid. Wasn't Ramana's message essentially, "the only thing really that separates me from you in any way is the thought you have that 'I am not enlightened'" and the removal of that thought-splinter with the thorn of jnana and then to throw them BOTH away the ONLY thing a person had to "do" in order to realize his or her essential nature? If I am off the mark here, then by all means PLEASE enlighten me. My ego is not at stake. I'm not afraid of being wrong or misguided or cloudy in my understanding. To say that there is no "one" to be enlightened is in NO way contradictory with the continued existence of a "persona" or a "personality" called Ramana, Ramakrishna, or Nisargadatta. The issue is clearly one of separation vs. the realization that there never was any separation to begin with, no? A jnani is he or she who realizes that "from the beginning not a thing exists" (Hui-neng). No separation, no thing-ness, all one. What's so bad about a little personality to spice up the lila here and there, anyway? Why can't Ramana be a jnani and still retain some sense of "personhood" without that personhood equating to ego-centricity and spiritual one-upmanship? I can still be a person and realize my own non-separateness at the same time, just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time. The contradiction only occurs in the split-mindedness of the ajnani, not the jnani. Am I wrong? Please correct me. Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 , "garyfalk1943" <falkgw@h...> wrote: > , "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > 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 > > First of all, is yosy saying what he said above on the basis of his > own unmediated realization of "jnana" or is yosy saying what he said > based on his own intellectual understanding of the subject. > > 1. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of his own > unmediated realization of "jnana" and what it means to > be "ajnani", then clearly he needs to go back and clarify his > realization at least a little more. His dharma eye is not yet > crystal clear. > > 2. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of intellectual > understanding, however "valid" on the basis of logic and reason, then > that's OK, as long as he acknowledges that like an Alan Watts, > perhaps, the intellectual understanding is as good as it gets, the > only "thing" lacking though, is the direct, unmediated experience of > what "jnana" really is, i.e., non-conceptually is. > > Clearly, Ramana had a persona and WAS a person. Are you saying here > that he was not kind, compassionate towards humans and animals, etc. > Did he eat and shit like the rest of us? Did he turn when some one > called him by name? Or was he merely an empty shell, without any > personality or persona whatsoever? You mean to say there was no > Ramana left anymore after his realization and there was only God > shining through the "hollow reed" that once was a guy called Ramana? > > Can't you see how ridiculous it is to project onto Ramana, > Nisargadatta, or even the great Ribhu himself, what YOU, yosy or > fuzzie or gary or harsha or anybody, for that matter THINKS a "jnani" > is or SHOULD be? > > So Ramana, therefore, was "only the unlimited/consciousness love > shining obstructed" (yosy's words). No more persona. No more > personality. No more likes and dislikes. No more moods or > preferences. No more things he enjoyed more than other things he > enjoyed less or even not at all. > > Ramana became a mindless robot, empty of all sense of I AM, merely > the empty shell of God. 100% God or Unlimited Consciousness Love- > Light shining unobstructed, without ANY, not even the slightest TRACE > of anything that can be in way defined as "personal". > > Ramakrishna himself prayed to the Mother to retain the slightest wisp > of ego so that he could go on enjoying the vast delight he had in > worshipping her. > > Did not Ramana continue to "worship" or pay honor to Arunachala after > his realization, just as Nisargadatta continued to perform arati > services (if that's the correct terminology) to his guru right up > until his (Nisargadatta's) death? > > I know Nisargadatta often got angry and lashed out and was addicted > to beedies which contributed, no doubt, to his getting cancer. > > Didn't Ramana have any habits of behavior that could be > considered "personal" in any way? > > Was not Ramakrishan a jnani, just as much as he was a bhakta? > Was not Nisargadatta and his guru both jnanis? > Is not Ramana one of the very greatest jnanis of the modern era? > > Pray tell, yosy and fuzzie, what are you people talking about? > > As far as what fuzzie says, clearly, in Ramana's case, as in > Nisargadatta's case and in Ramakrishna's case, we are not talking > about "guru trips" of lording it over others, playing power games and > manipulating jivas for either financial or sexual advantage. > > Sure, anyone who comes on with the "I'm a jnani and you're not, so > therefore you have to sign up for my mega-euro satsang in Kovalam or > where ever in order to better put yourself in a position to "get" > what I "have is not someone that any one with a healthy dose of > viveka would have ANYTHING to do with. > > You're mixing up apples and oranges here, I'm afraid. Wasn't > Ramana's message essentially, "the only thing really that separates > me from you in any way is the thought you have that 'I am not > enlightened'" and the removal of that thought-splinter with the thorn > of jnana and then to throw them BOTH away the ONLY thing a person had > to "do" in order to realize his or her essential nature? > > If I am off the mark here, then by all means PLEASE enlighten me. > > My ego is not at stake. I'm not afraid of being wrong or misguided > or cloudy in my understanding. > > To say that there is no "one" to be enlightened is in NO way > contradictory with the continued existence of a "persona" or > a "personality" called Ramana, Ramakrishna, or Nisargadatta. > > The issue is clearly one of separation vs. the realization that > there never was any separation to begin with, no? > > A jnani is he or she who realizes that "from the beginning not a > thing exists" (Hui-neng). No separation, no thing-ness, all one. > > What's so bad about a little personality to spice up the lila here > and there, anyway? > > Why can't Ramana be a jnani and still retain some sense > of "personhood" without that personhood equating to ego-centricity > and spiritual one-upmanship? > > I can still be a person and realize my own non-separateness at the > same time, just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time. > > The contradiction only occurs in the split-mindedness of the ajnani, > not the jnani. > > Am I wrong? Please correct me. > > Gary To Gary the Eman, If you had read Ramana, he repeatedly told everyone he was not that body. Yet, here you are referring to some old bag of bones and callin' it "Ramana". What's up with that? I thought you knew better than that. There is no individual self. This is attested to by Ramana, by Nisargadatta, by the Gita, by "fuzzie", and many others. Since there is no individual self, there is no one to be enlightened or to be realized, i.e. no jnani. End of story. This is not rocket science. What is the problem? 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" <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > , "garyfalk1943" <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > , "fuzzie_wuz" <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > First of all, is yosy saying what he said above on the basis of his > > own unmediated realization of "jnana" or is yosy saying what he said > > based on his own intellectual understanding of the subject. > > > > 1. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of his own > > unmediated realization of "jnana" and what it means to > > be "ajnani", then clearly he needs to go back and clarify his > > realization at least a little more. His dharma eye is not yet > > crystal clear. > > > > 2. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of intellectual > > understanding, however "valid" on the basis of logic and reason, then > > that's OK, as long as he acknowledges that like an Alan Watts, > > perhaps, the intellectual understanding is as good as it gets, the > > only "thing" lacking though, is the direct, unmediated experience of > > what "jnana" really is, i.e., non-conceptually is. > > > > Clearly, Ramana had a persona and WAS a person. Are you saying here > > that he was not kind, compassionate towards humans and animals, etc. > > Did he eat and shit like the rest of us? Did he turn when some one > > called him by name? Or was he merely an empty shell, without any > > personality or persona whatsoever? You mean to say there was no > > Ramana left anymore after his realization and there was only God > > shining through the "hollow reed" that once was a guy called Ramana? > > > > Can't you see how ridiculous it is to project onto Ramana, > > Nisargadatta, or even the great Ribhu himself, what YOU, yosy or > > fuzzie or gary or harsha or anybody, for that matter THINKS a "jnani" > > is or SHOULD be? > > > > So Ramana, therefore, was "only the unlimited/consciousness love > > shining obstructed" (yosy's words). No more persona. No more > > personality. No more likes and dislikes. No more moods or > > preferences. No more things he enjoyed more than other things he > > enjoyed less or even not at all. > > > > Ramana became a mindless robot, empty of all sense of I AM, merely > > the empty shell of God. 100% God or Unlimited Consciousness Love- > > Light shining unobstructed, without ANY, not even the slightest TRACE > > of anything that can be in way defined as "personal". > > > > Ramakrishna himself prayed to the Mother to retain the slightest wisp > > of ego so that he could go on enjoying the vast delight he had in > > worshipping her. > > > > Did not Ramana continue to "worship" or pay honor to Arunachala after > > his realization, just as Nisargadatta continued to perform arati > > services (if that's the correct terminology) to his guru right up > > until his (Nisargadatta's) death? > > > > I know Nisargadatta often got angry and lashed out and was addicted > > to beedies which contributed, no doubt, to his getting cancer. > > > > Didn't Ramana have any habits of behavior that could be > > considered "personal" in any way? > > > > Was not Ramakrishan a jnani, just as much as he was a bhakta? > > Was not Nisargadatta and his guru both jnanis? > > Is not Ramana one of the very greatest jnanis of the modern era? > > > > Pray tell, yosy and fuzzie, what are you people talking about? > > > > As far as what fuzzie says, clearly, in Ramana's case, as in > > Nisargadatta's case and in Ramakrishna's case, we are not talking > > about "guru trips" of lording it over others, playing power games and > > manipulating jivas for either financial or sexual advantage. > > > > Sure, anyone who comes on with the "I'm a jnani and you're not, so > > therefore you have to sign up for my mega-euro satsang in Kovalam or > > where ever in order to better put yourself in a position to "get" > > what I "have is not someone that any one with a healthy dose of > > viveka would have ANYTHING to do with. > > > > You're mixing up apples and oranges here, I'm afraid. Wasn't > > Ramana's message essentially, "the only thing really that separates > > me from you in any way is the thought you have that 'I am not > > enlightened'" and the removal of that thought-splinter with the thorn > > of jnana and then to throw them BOTH away the ONLY thing a person had > > to "do" in order to realize his or her essential nature? > > > > If I am off the mark here, then by all means PLEASE enlighten me. > > > > My ego is not at stake. I'm not afraid of being wrong or misguided > > or cloudy in my understanding. > > > > To say that there is no "one" to be enlightened is in NO way > > contradictory with the continued existence of a "persona" or > > a "personality" called Ramana, Ramakrishna, or Nisargadatta. > > > > The issue is clearly one of separation vs. the realization that > > there never was any separation to begin with, no? > > > > A jnani is he or she who realizes that "from the beginning not a > > thing exists" (Hui-neng). No separation, no thing-ness, all one. > > > > What's so bad about a little personality to spice up the lila here > > and there, anyway? > > > > Why can't Ramana be a jnani and still retain some sense > > of "personhood" without that personhood equating to ego- centricity > > and spiritual one-upmanship? > > > > I can still be a person and realize my own non-separateness at the > > same time, just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time. > > > > The contradiction only occurs in the split-mindedness of the ajnani, > > not the jnani. > > > > Am I wrong? Please correct me. > > > > Gary > > > To Gary the Eman, > > If you had read Ramana, he repeatedly told everyone he was not that > body. Yet, here you are referring to some old bag of bones and callin' > it "Ramana". What's up with that? I thought you knew better than that. > > There is no individual self. This is attested to by Ramana, by > Nisargadatta, by the Gita, by "fuzzie", and many others. Since there > is no individual self, there is no one to be enlightened or to be > realized, i.e. no jnani. End of story. > > This is not rocket science. What is the problem? > > fuzzie devi: you always seem to leave out that while there is no individual self..there is the Universal Self...:-) 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" <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > To Gary the Eman, > > If you had read Ramana, he repeatedly told everyone he was not that > body. Yet, here you are referring to some old bag of bones and callin' > it "Ramana". What's up with that? I thought you knew better than that. >> Gary: Every guru worth his "love-offerings" has said that "I am not the body" to his disciples and anybody else who would listen, for thousands of years. I'm quite familiar with that. I realize as well that neither Ramana, Ramakrishna, nor you nor I are the bag of bones and psychological makeup called the body/mind complex. That goes without saying. << > There is no individual self. This is attested to by Ramana, by > Nisargadatta, by the Gita, by "fuzzie", and many others. Since there > is no individual self, there is no one to be enlightened or to be > realized, i.e. no jnani. End of story.>> I think you're confused here. What you probably mean to say is that there is no SEPARATE self. You have a very distinct personality as do I. Are you denying this? << > This is not rocket science. What is the proble There's absolutely no problem. Ramana was a jnani. So was Nisargadatta. So was Ramakrishna. That's not rocket science either. Do you see a problem there? Gary > 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.