Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Era <mi_nok wrote: What does Sri Ramana mean when he says "I-I"? In the Tamil dialect that Ramana spoke, there is no equivalent word for "me". Ramana thus used "I" to denote the personal identified self-the "me" and used "I-I" to point to the un-identified, Universal Self. Love Avril Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 A: By the one Christ I mean the living God, awakeness, the Self, I am, I-I, etc... I have heard, but can quote no reference, that in the oldest Aramaic (Jesus' spoken language) manuscript, John 14.6 reads "I-I (eha eha) am the way the truth and the light" Interesting that near 2000 yrs later in another part of the world Ramana Maharshi, knowing nothing of Aramaic manuscripts would use the same construction in speaking of the Self, to be found by anyone by enquiring "Who am I?" Interesting that the translations would turn it into the personal and individual I. By individual appearances and personalities no more than that; transitory appearance, transparent masks, I mean that is all we are as material beings, without substance beyond the purely physical, except for the indwelling and universal Christ or Self, which is fundamentally all that is. I said "as I see it, and that's all that need be said because I have no interest in arguing or attemting to convince anyone that I am right. It is truly how I see the world, how I see people. A Dear A: I agree with your assessment. Christ is a beautiful symbol of how the ego must be sacrificed in order to merge with the God-head. A question for you, if you will: What does Sri Ramana mean when he says "I-I"? Does it mean "I am I"? Or, what do you think? Yes, I am I. It's I absolute, I without reference to or dependancy on anything. The hyphen is an artifact of writing it down. Ramana said I I . ""I am" is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement "I am that I am" in Exodus (Chapter 3)." Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 106, page 102. Another reflection, the rastas say "I and I" as you hear in reggae songs because "I and you" or "I and him" implies a division. D: Arunachala Siva : verses http://tinyurl.com/bes22 The Lamsa Bible [from arameic] <http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/LBP.htm> love, Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2005 Report Share Posted November 17, 2005 , "Era" <n0ndual@w...> wrote: > > > > > A: > > By the one Christ I mean the > living God, awakeness, the Self, > I am, I-I, etc... > > I have heard, but can quote no reference, that in the oldest Aramaic (Jesus' spoken language) manuscript, John 14.6 reads > "I-I (eha eha) am the way the > truth and the light" Interesting > that near 2000 yrs later in another part of the world Ramana Maharshi, knowing nothing of Aramaic manuscripts would use > the same construction in speaking > of the Self, to be found by > anyone by enquiring "Who am I?" > Namaste, You know I had that quoted to me so many times, by different fundamentalists. But it takes on a whole new meaning when it is eha- eha. I didn't know it was written like that...thank you, you learn something everyday..........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2005 Report Share Posted November 17, 2005 >What is I-I? In my own words, I think Ramana was refering to "I-I" as the "universal-I" which is the universal consiousness or existence, experienced when the mind is silenced. Having experienced that in meditation is not enlightenment; since the vasana's still continue to be their. Continuing to be as the experience self till the end; is enlightenment. I remember a famous cricketer Kapil Dev saying that "becoming a champion" is not mark/stage which one can claim that he/she has achieved it. The one continues to stay as "champion" will be called one, once he continued to retain this "championship" till the end. Essentially, when the world calls a person "champion", he is no more to experience it. The other way to look is that "The universal-I which is behind the FALSE 'I' or ego". The "I" behind this familiar "I" making it "I-I". Regards Dileep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 RamanaMaharshi, "dileepsimha" <dsimha@h...> wrote: [snip] > > The other way to look is that "The universal-I which is behind the > FALSE 'I' or ego". The "I" behind this familiar "I" making it "I-I". > > Regards > Dileep > Hello, Dileep: Yes, your analogy above makes perfect sense. The thought "I", or spoken "I", is merely a shadowy reflection of the true "I", or the Self. The body-mind is a modification of the true "I" and projects a thought-shadow which is the pseudo-"I" or illusory ego-"I". Hence, there is the Self, or the real "I", and, the thought "I", which is only an ephemeral modification of the real "I": the "I-I". Thanks. sincerely, dannyc 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.