Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 - garyfalk1943 Sunday, June 05, 2005 1:17 AM Ramana was not a jnani. What was he then? , "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> > > --- In , 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 saidbased 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? < courtesy snip of m.m.> The contradiction only occurs in the split-mindedness of the ajnani, not the jnani. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ lol says who? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Am I wrong? ^^^^^^^^^^^ yes. ^^^^^^^^^ Please correct me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ why? do 'you' deserve it? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gary^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yosyps. thank you, gary, for providing consistently a live illustration of intelectualizations and pretence versus directly verifiable experience... jai ramana! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Dearest Gary, in my pow, based on many teachers, masters or gurus met directly or read on books and internet, I would say that there is all the spectrum of consciousness around: some have no personality, though they manifest and express the way their conditionment taught them, even if they are not conditioned anymore, it could be called a clarified, purified persona, with no doer; some, I fear most, still retain some or much of their personality and comunicate through it their realisation. Often there is a split between what is comunicated in satsang where usually the personality is kept at bay and everyday life and personal relationships where the doer, or the conditionment can overcome the clarity of the realisation; difficult to say when, because the same action can be totally clean for one and not for another. And I totally agree with your statement: > 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. Now the persona will be played consciously as one of the faces of consciousness, while before it was seen as the only possible face, and identified with. If consciousness created so many faces would it be surprising that it could keep playing with them even after the full realisation? marifa - "garyfalk1943" <falkgw <> Sunday, June 05, 2005 1:17 AM Ramana was not a jnani. What was he then? > , "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 > > > > > > > > /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 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 meher baba: The Infinite Reality in the God-realized soul has the knowledge of its own Infinity; but such knowledge does not belong to the unrealized soul, still subject to the illusion of the universe. If God-realization were not a personal attainment, the entire universe would come to an end as soon as one man attained God- realization. This does not happen, because God-realization is a personal state of consciousness belonging to the one who has transcended the domain of the mind. Others continue to remain in bondage, and can attain it only by freeing their consciousness from the burden of the ego and the limitations of the individual mind. Thus God-realization has a direct significance only for the one who has emerged from the time-process. http://www.beezone.com/GodtoMan/chapter_iii_god_realizatio.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 - Emanuele De Benedetti Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:04 PM Re: Ramana was not a jnani. What was he then? And I totally agree with your statement:> 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no. the ideas of "a person", "seperateness" versus "non-separateness", etc do not arise. nor does the idea of "i" and "my own". what is, is; moment to moment to moment. the abidance in the self is most natural and efortless. "person" etc is an idea arising from identifying with a persona. ) an ant was asked: "do you know what god is like?sure" it replied. "we have two antennae; but god... god has four!" yosy 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.