Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 - yosyflug Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:24 PM Re: Why Arunachala? / anna - Anna Ruiz Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:30 AM Re: Why Arunachala? - 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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ) hi rosie posie.... there is never a 'ramana', 'fuzzie', 'anna' or 'yosy'. the self is all that was, is and shall be. it is only 'it' playing apparently all the roles, manifesting according to the demands of time, place and people. each manifestation unique, precious and unrepeatable. the jnani apparently 'plays his/her role' without any illusory identification with the apparent name and form; s/he is simply being his/her true self. just like an actor playing the role of rama in a stage play does not forget his 'real' identity... "the true always is; the untrue never has existence" (the bhagawadgita) yosy We all know that here. Don't we? One Self playing all "selves" That's not the question nor the answer, It Is What It Is, Is It Not? Tell me Yosy, who did you fall in Love with? The Living Word of I Am? Spoken in/and/thru as Ramana. It's the *Relationship* that gives/is given out of Love Of Self and 'Other'. It's a discourse of Love. The height, breadth and depth, the inside and out. No-thing but Love Loving Itself, as all play of forms. And This is the "It Is What It Is" Who clearly speaks and is heard. And it is not the dryest of words. Love, anna , 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 > >/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 - Anna Ruiz Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:30 AM Re: Why Arunachala? - 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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ) hi rosie posie.... there is never a 'ramana', 'fuzzie', 'anna' or 'yosy'. the self is all that was, is and shall be. it is only 'it' playing apparently all the roles, manifesting according to the demands of time, place and people. each manifestation unique, precious and unrepeatable. the jnani apparently 'plays his/her role' without any illusory identification with the apparent name and form; s/he is simply being his/her true self. just like an actor playing the role of rama in a stage play does not forget his 'real' identity... "the true always is; the untrue never has existence" (the bhagawadgita) yosy , 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 - Anna Ruiz Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:08 AM Re: Why Arunachala? / anna ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ) hi rosie posie.... there is never a 'ramana', 'fuzzie', 'anna' or 'yosy'. the self is all that was, is and shall be. it is only 'it' playing apparently all the roles, manifesting according to the demands of time, place and people. each manifestation unique, precious and unrepeatable. the jnani apparently 'plays his/her role' without any illusory identification with the apparent name and form; s/he is simply being his/her true self. just like an actor playing the role of rama in a stage play does not forget his 'real' identity... "the true always is; the untrue never has existence" (the bhagawadgita) yosy We all know that here. Don't we? One Self playing all "selves" That's not the question nor the answer, It Is What It Is, Is It Not? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are you asking? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tell me Yosy, who did you fall in Love with? The Living Word of I Am? Spoken in/and/thru as Ramana. It's the *Relationship* that gives/is given out of Love Of Self and 'Other'. It's a discourse of Love. The height, breadth and depth, the inside and out. No-thing but Love Loving Itself, as all play of forms. And This is the "It Is What It Is" Who clearly speaks and is heard. And it is not the dryest of words. Love, anna ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anna, love, 'i' fell in love with love... and 'i' love every moment of it. all including... lol and there is only one knowing: being. words come cheap... in love yosy , 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 > > 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.