Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 , "Emanuele De Benedetti" <e.debenedetti@t...> wrote: snip>> > 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>> This is, I believe, exactly what I said in my original post on this subject, although obviously not half as well. Thanks for the clarification. Although I did not include here your entire message, nevertheless, I agree with it, and you, totally. Gary > > > - > "garyfalk1943" <falkgw@h...> > <> > 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...
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.