Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 This is an excellent question to dwell upon and the answer provided by the editor gives some clues. It was helpful to me. Its absolutely right when the Ed. says Maharshi's personality had dissolved into the Absolute even when he was alive. So, logically, Steven's question would also be relevant even during the days when Maharshi was around in the physical state... i.e. before 1950. You know, this problem is somewhat solved in the case of Buddha... because the word Buddha is not just used to refer to Gautama, the Buddha, but in general to that state of being one is in when he/she has dissolved his/her personality with the Absolute. Can we use the word Maharshi the same way? Ramana, the Maharshi was not significant for himself even then, then would he be relevant to us now? Our Guru existed then and now, as the "Absolute"... call it Maharshi or Budhha or just God. Its more a sign of our state of evolution than anything else. Most of us (including me) get a lot of inspiration when we see Ramana's photo. Why? Because it instantly reminds us of the Absolute and makes us still. So, what is more important? The state or what caused it? The same happened before 1950 when people sat near his physical presence. The physical presence then or the figurative presence of the personality now... are just pointers for us. Because of our conditioning (yes conditioning) it triggers in us that stillness of mind and helps us go further towards the source. in the mind (and I guess here), this conditioning also vanishes and then, the personality Ramana becomes as irrelevant for us as it was for Him then. Tat tvam asi (You are that) Sachin P.S: I am surprised myself at having written this mail. I did not have all this in my mind when I started typing... it just flowed. I just felt an urge to reply. (I am sending the same reply to the other which forwarded Michael's mail below) ---- michael bindel 07/08/05 10:32:34 atma_vichara; ; millionpaths; namoramana; The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 I am Who goes before me I am Who follows after me therefore I am would include Maharshi as Who Marharshi is/was including who I am. "You" are That I Am. - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:29 AM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self This is an excellent question to dwell upon and the answer provided by the editor gives some clues. It was helpful to me. Its absolutely right when the Ed. says Maharshi's personality had dissolved into the Absolute even when he was alive. So, logically, Steven's question would also be relevant even during the days when Maharshi was around in the physical state... i.e. before 1950. You know, this problem is somewhat solved in the case of Buddha... because the word Buddha is not just used to refer to Gautama, the Buddha, but in general to that state of being one is in when he/she has dissolved his/her personality with the Absolute. Can we use the word Maharshi the same way? Ramana, the Maharshi was not significant for himself even then, then would he be relevant to us now? Our Guru existed then and now, as the "Absolute"... call it Maharshi or Budhha or just God. Its more a sign of our state of evolution than anything else. Most of us (including me) get a lot of inspiration when we see Ramana's photo. Why? Because it instantly reminds us of the Absolute and makes us still. So, what is more important? The state or what caused it? The same happened before 1950 when people sat near his physical presence. The physical presence then or the figurative presence of the personality now... are just pointers for us. Because of our conditioning (yes conditioning) it triggers in us that stillness of mind and helps us go further towards the source. in the mind (and I guess here), this conditioning also vanishes and then, the personality Ramana becomes as irrelevant for us as it was for Him then. Tat tvam asi (You are that) Sachin P.S: I am surprised myself at having written this mail. I did not have all this in my mind when I started typing... it just flowed. I just felt an urge to reply. (I am sending the same reply to the other which forwarded Michael's mail below) ---- michael bindel 07/08/05 10:32:34 atma_vichara; ; millionpaths; namoramana; The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 is you are you and me is me but you is me and me is you maharshi is me maharshi is you but you and i know ot him inside god is tree good is cow god is earth god is water, god is you god is me after all this HE is HE neither you not meAnna Ruiz <nli10u (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: I am Who goes before me I am Who follows after me therefore I am would include Maharshi as Who Marharshi is/was including who I am. "You" are That I Am. - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:29 AM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self This is an excellent question to dwell upon and the answer provided by the editor gives some clues. It was helpful to me. Its absolutely right when the Ed. says Maharshi's personality had dissolved into the Absolute even when he was alive. So, logically, Steven's question would also be relevant even during the days when Maharshi was around in the physical state... i.e. before 1950. You know, this problem is somewhat solved in the case of Buddha... because the word Buddha is not just used to refer to Gautama, the Buddha, but in general to that state of being one is in when he/she has dissolved his/her personality with the Absolute. Can we use the word Maharshi the same way? Ramana, the Maharshi was not significant for himself even then, then would he be relevant to us now? Our Guru existed then and now, as the "Absolute"... call it Maharshi or Budhha or just God. Its more a sign of our state of evolution than anything else. Most of us (including me) get a lot of inspiration when we see Ramana's photo. Why? Because it instantly reminds us of the Absolute and makes us still. So, what is more important? The state or what caused it? The same happened before 1950 when people sat near his physical presence. The physical presence then or the figurative presence of the personality now... are just pointers for us. Because of our conditioning (yes conditioning) it triggers in us that stillness of mind and helps us go further towards the source. in the mind (and I guess here), this conditioning also vanishes and then, the personality Ramana becomes as irrelevant for us as it was for Him then. Tat tvam asi (You are that) Sachin P.S: I am surprised myself at having written this mail. I did not have all this in my mind when I started typing... it just flowed. I just felt an urge to reply. (I am sending the same reply to the other which forwarded Michael's mail below) ---- michael bindel 07/08/05 10:32:34 atma_vichara; ; millionpaths; namoramana; The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt"> So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma banner|**| --> Visit your group "" on the web. Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 I am the walrus... - Vijaya Raghavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:42 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Beauty of HIM is you are you and me is me but you is me and me is you maharshi is me maharshi is you but you and i know ot him inside god is tree good is cow god is earth god is water, god is you god is me after all this HE is HE neither you not meAnna Ruiz <nli10u (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: I am Who goes before me I am Who follows after me therefore I am would include Maharshi as Who Marharshi is/was including who I am. "You" are That I Am. - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:29 AM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self This is an excellent question to dwell upon and the answer provided by the editor gives some clues. It was helpful to me. Its absolutely right when the Ed. says Maharshi's personality had dissolved into the Absolute even when he was alive. So, logically, Steven's question would also be relevant even during the days when Maharshi was around in the physical state... i.e. before 1950. You know, this problem is somewhat solved in the case of Buddha... because the word Buddha is not just used to refer to Gautama, the Buddha, but in general to that state of being one is in when he/she has dissolved his/her personality with the Absolute. Can we use the word Maharshi the same way? Ramana, the Maharshi was not significant for himself even then, then would he be relevant to us now? Our Guru existed then and now, as the "Absolute"... call it Maharshi or Budhha or just God. Its more a sign of our state of evolution than anything else. Most of us (including me) get a lot of inspiration when we see Ramana's photo. Why? Because it instantly reminds us of the Absolute and makes us still. So, what is more important? The state or what caused it? The same happened before 1950 when people sat near his physical presence. The physical presence then or the figurative presence of the personality now... are just pointers for us. Because of our conditioning (yes conditioning) it triggers in us that stillness of mind and helps us go further towards the source. in the mind (and I guess here), this conditioning also vanishes and then, the personality Ramana becomes as irrelevant for us as it was for Him then. Tat tvam asi (You are that) Sachin P.S: I am surprised myself at having written this mail. I did not have all this in my mind when I started typing... it just flowed. I just felt an urge to reply. (I am sending the same reply to the other which forwarded Michael's mail below) ---- michael bindel 07/08/05 10:32:34 atma_vichara; ; millionpaths; namoramana; The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma banner|**| --> Visit your group "" on the web. Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Anna This is too cryptic. Knowledge is simple. Looks like the poem bug has hit us all too hard. Have we forgotten the basics of simple communication? Sachin ---- Anna Ruiz 07/09/05 00:38:52 Cc: GuruRatings Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Oy vey Sachin.. Looks like you have been inoculated against the poem bug. Maybe also the humour and lightness of spirit bugs. Wei wu Oy vey - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 9:22 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Anna This is too cryptic. Knowledge is simple. Looks like the poem bug has hit us all too hard. Have we forgotten the basics of simple communication? Sachin ---- Anna Ruiz 07/09/05 00:38:52 Cc: GuruRatings Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Advaita vedanta Ramana maharshi Kundalini yoga Hatha yoga Bhagavad gita Sri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Well Sam, spontaneous poem is one thing and complicating a message for poetic effect is another. Also, humour is no excuse for inanity. Sachin ---- Sam 07/09/05 01:13:28 Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Oy vey Sachin.. Looks like you have been inoculated against the poem bug. Maybe also the humour and lightness of spirit bugs. Wei wu Oy vey - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 9:22 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Anna This is too cryptic. Knowledge is simple. Looks like the poem bug has hit us all too hard. Have we forgotten the basics of simple communication? Sachin ---- Anna Ruiz 07/09/05 00:38:52 Cc: GuruRatings Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Advaita vedanta Ramana maharshi Kundalini yoga Hatha yoga Bhagavad gita Sri /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 How about some healthy insanity?! - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 9:50 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Well Sam, spontaneous poem is one thing and complicating a message for poetic effect is another. Also, humour is no excuse for inanity. Sachin ---- Sam 07/09/05 01:13:28 Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Oy vey Sachin.. Looks like you have been inoculated against the poem bug. Maybe also the humour and lightness of spirit bugs. Wei wu Oy vey - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 9:22 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Anna This is too cryptic. Knowledge is simple. Looks like the poem bug has hit us all too hard. Have we forgotten the basics of simple communication? Sachin ---- Anna Ruiz 07/09/05 00:38:52 Cc: GuruRatings Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Advaita vedanta Ramana maharshi Kundalini yoga Hatha yoga Bhagavad gita Sri /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /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 July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Same way we have to have our 3rd eye open to feel and enjoy and awe himAnna Ruiz <nli10u (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: One splits into" two" to experience and love itself as a unique individuation of the manifestation of separation and that the "two" may make the journey home to remember and love One again. The double helix of Life. Love. love, anna - Emanuele De Benedetti Friday, July 08, 2005 2:52 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt"> So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 It is not only in that you see manifestation. HE says all is one, yet we all are different. See even leave man his blood is also nat same. Now my collegues say even 2 A+ need not map 100% That is beauty of creation, yet all ways lead to him. There is a old story. There was a priest and a guy who never believed in god living next door. All the priest was doing was good things and preaching and all. But after death the guy who said no god every day went to GOD. Why asked the priest in anger to lord YAMA he said because he did utter his name with conviction and belief and sincereity. You never did that VjEmanuele De Benedetti <e.debenedetti (AT) tiscali (DOT) it> wrote: The Impersonal Self manifests Itself through a personal Self that is: even if it is the Impersonal manifesting, it has colors and nuances that are specific of that body mind culture and not of another one. For example the quality of silence that I could perceive when I visited the cave in Arunacahala where Ramana dwelled for 6 years, or the kind of slighly different quality of silence that I could perceive in the darshan hall, were unique to Ramana (or would be better to say unique of the interaction between me and Ramana) I never perceived the same with others realized beings that had their own quality and colors of silence. The way he treated and loved animals like the cow, monkeys and squirrels also were quite unique to his manifestation. What is wrong if the Impersonal manifests in a personal way? personal is not synonymous with impure there is a clarified personality that can and it is used by the elightened ones it is the beauty of existence of a miriads of forms it is the Lila of the One through the Many. Marifa - michael bindel atma_vichara ; ; millionpaths ; namoramana ; Friday, July 08, 2005 7:01 AM The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt"> So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 Dear Sam, Surrender to him, you are nothing but a spec, i am also same of HIM. Surrender that is the shortest possible route to him. no ISam <S.Pasiencier (AT) planet (DOT) nl> wrote: I am the walrus... - Vijaya Raghavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:42 PM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self Beauty of HIM is you are you and me is me but you is me and me is you maharshi is me maharshi is you but you and i know ot him inside god is tree good is cow god is earth god is water, god is you god is me after all this HE is HE neither you not meAnna Ruiz <nli10u (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: I am Who goes before me I am Who follows after me therefore I am would include Maharshi as Who Marharshi is/was including who I am. "You" are That I Am. - Sachin Chavan Friday, July 08, 2005 3:29 AM Re: The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self This is an excellent question to dwell upon and the answer provided by the editor gives some clues. It was helpful to me. Its absolutely right when the Ed. says Maharshi's personality had dissolved into the Absolute even when he was alive. So, logically, Steven's question would also be relevant even during the days when Maharshi was around in the physical state... i.e. before 1950. You know, this problem is somewhat solved in the case of Buddha... because the word Buddha is not just used to refer to Gautama, the Buddha, but in general to that state of being one is in when he/she has dissolved his/her personality with the Absolute. Can we use the word Maharshi the same way? Ramana, the Maharshi was not significant for himself even then, then would he be relevant to us now? Our Guru existed then and now, as the "Absolute"... call it Maharshi or Budhha or just God. Its more a sign of our state of evolution than anything else. Most of us (including me) get a lot of inspiration when we see Ramana's photo. Why? Because it instantly reminds us of the Absolute and makes us still. So, what is more important? The state or what caused it? The same happened before 1950 when people sat near his physical presence. The physical presence then or the figurative presence of the personality now... are just pointers for us. Because of our conditioning (yes conditioning) it triggers in us that stillness of mind and helps us go further towards the source. in the mind (and I guess here), this conditioning also vanishes and then, the personality Ramana becomes as irrelevant for us as it was for Him then. Tat tvam asi (You are that) Sachin P.S: I am surprised myself at having written this mail. I did not have all this in my mind when I started typing... it just flowed. I just felt an urge to reply. (I am sending the same reply to the other which forwarded Michael's mail below) ---- michael bindel 07/08/05 10:32:34 atma_vichara; ; millionpaths; namoramana; The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self THE MAHARSHI January/February 2004Vol. 14 - No. 1 Produced & Edited byDennis HartelDr. Anil K. Sharma Letters and Comments The Maharshi and the Impersonal Self I have one question after reading this newsletter [Nov/Dec 2003 issue], and that is, what exactly does it mean to say that the Maharshi still exists as the Self. The Maharshi is there spoken of as if he had a specific identity to whom one could relate. The problem becomes obvious when one considers that if he has indeed merged with the Absolute, he could not be distinguishable from it as Maharshi. I don’t object to saying that he has merged with the Ocean of Being, or the Absolute; the confusion is that, having done so, he would no longer be Maharshi any more than any other who has thus merged. To speak of Maharshi, as opposed to Buddha, or Franklin Merrell-Wolff, etc., would be contradictory. So, does the Maharshi exist separate from the Self, or is he identified (if one can say this) as the Absolute, indistinguishable from it? To say that he still exists without a body, as if he were different from the Self, makes little sense. I don’t see how one can have it both ways. Can you have your Maharshi and the impersonal Self? Is the Self somehow aware as Maharshi...? What do you think? Steven, USA Did the Maharshi extend his guidance and grace to seekers while he was embodied? If you put this question to those who earnestly sought his company and guidance, undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Many felt his influence from both far and near during the years he resided at Arunachala. If that was so then, what obstructs the same guidance and grace now? The disappearance of a physical body, you say.For those with a limited vision of Reality the Maharshi ‘appeared’ to occupy a body and responded to seekers who sought his grace and guidance. This was perceived by the seekers and existed in accordance with the Divine scheme for the ultimate liberation of souls. We must remember that the Maharshi existed as the ‘Self’ alone. With our limitations we perceived him to be embodied. He was not a body or a personality. We identify our self with our limited body and mind. He did not. “Maharshi: The error lies in the identification of the Self with the body. If Bhagavan is the body you may ask that body. But understand him whom you address as Bhagavan. He is not the body. He is the Self.” The Maharshi was totally merged in the Absolute even before he arrived at Tiruvannamalai in 1896. There was no question of a body or personality for him then, even as there is no question of a body or personality for him now. For their own edification, seekers sought his company while he appeared in time and space and occupied a body. This was their perception only, from their limited level of understanding. As I already said, he was not a body then nor is he now. His parting words on the matter are telling: “People say I am going away. Go! Where can I go? I am here.” Therefore the question of the Maharshi merging in the Absolute at the time of death cannot be posed. He was and ‘is’ the Absolute now and always. The Maharshi was very reserved in expressing any outward signs of influence upon the spiritual state of those who came to him. Nevertheless he did so, and in dramatic ways; sheltered from public gaze, he acted within the consciousness of those seekers who approached him physically, or just mentally from a distance. Since his Mahasamadhi, I have heard untold number of testimonies from those who have experienced his presence and grace in dreams or in the waking state, or stories of rapturous encounters by simply looking at his photo. I have also seen and heard of marvelous occurrences of intervention which go far beyond the barriers of coincidence or rational thinking. But normally, for most devotees, his influence remains unobtrusive though potent, just as when he walked amongst us. mso-bidi-font-size: 7.0pt"> So, if the Maharshi responded to those who invoked his grace in the past while he appeared to occupy a body, what is it that obstructs this same response now that there is no body? We, as seekers and devotees, should sincerely inquire within and answer this question. Metaphysical explanations can perhaps satisfy the intellect, but not our burning need for a permanent peace, a resting place wherein mortality has lost its hold and the Eternal Being of Awareness remains unbroken.In 2003, can Sri Ramana Maharshi help you in this quest for freedom? Only you can answer that. –Editor Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma banner|**| --> Visit your group "" on the web. Sell on Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Advaita vedanta Ramana maharshi Kundalini yoga Hatha yoga Bhagavad gita Sri Mail for Mobile Take Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 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.