Guest guest Posted March 1, 2000 Report Share Posted March 1, 2000 On 3/1/00 at 6:56 PM Parisi & Watson wrote: ¤>"Anand Natarajan" <anandn ¤> ¤> ¤>Sri Ramana Maharshi once asked someone, ¤>"How do you know that you are not realized ?" ¤ ¤ ¤Is it possible to be realized without, um, realizing it? It isn't possible not to be realized; what is possible is to forget one is realized; Self-realization is a recognition of Self and one is baffled, how It could have been overlooked all the time Forget who you THINK you are (identifications like name, profession, family, likes/dislikes, fear, shame, guilt etc.) for just a moment and what shines as pristine clarity is who you "really" are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2000 Report Share Posted March 1, 2000 >"Jan Barendrecht" <kvy9 >It isn't possible not to be realized; what is possible is to >forget one is realized; Self-realization is a recognition of >Self and one is baffled, how It could have been overlooked all >the time Forget who you THINK you are (identifications like >name, profession, family, likes/dislikes, fear, shame, guilt >etc.) for just a moment and what shines as pristine clarity is >who you "really" are... I understand that, but I would think the point here is not who or what you are, which never changes, but rather whether you _realize_ what you are. You can _be_ something without realizing it (a hero, for instance, to take a more mundane example), but I don't think you can _realize_ that you are something without, in fact, realizing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 Greetings frank, here's a verse from W B Yeats (from memory) that I think captures your idea nicely: Considering that all hatred driven hence, The soul recovers radical innocence And learns at last that it is self-delighting Self-appeasing, self-affrighting, And that it's own sweet will is heaven's will. Regards Patrick frank wrote: > what matters is finding and being > the Self. what matters is the ability to belly-laugh > at the sometimes colossal terror wielded by the Mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Parisi & Watson wrote: > "Parisi & Watson" <niche > > >"Anand Natarajan" <anandn > > > > > >Sri Ramana Maharshi once asked someone, > >"How do you know that you are not realized ?" > > > Is it possible to be realized without, um, realizing it? What will be realised ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 The question we have to ask ourselves is "What right does the ego or the mind (whichever you prefer) have to judge what is or what is not realization ?". The mind or the intellect cannot judge or reach the Self. By the Ramana way , 'All you need to Realize the Self is Be perfectly still". Whatever the mind says be it that you have realized or that you have not realized , both are false. Therefore look for the doubter and stay there. Thus the mind will not assume things. A disciple once came and told Lao Tzu(The founder of Taoism) ,"Master , I have reached.". The master immediately replied, "If you have reached then you have not reached". Om, Anand on Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:56:25 Parisi & Watson wrote: >>Sri Ramana Maharshi once asked someone, >>"How do you know that you are not realized ?" >Is it possible to be realized without, um, realizing it? A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 WHAT IS THE URL ??? THANKS BILL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 IF YOU KNOW YOU KNOW IF NOT NOT BILL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 WHO IS FORGETING THERE NO ONE TO FORGET !!!! THANKS BILL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2000 Report Share Posted March 2, 2000 There has been lot of discussions on the Physics of Realization. Who realizes what, is always in the mind of an earnest seeker? Here is my understanding, for whatever it is worth. Identification of I am with 'this' - which is an object of my perception that is the body, mind and intellect - is the ahankaara or ego that Frank eluded to in his explanation. In principle, if one askes ' who realizes?' the immediate answer is, it is the one who is asking the question. Here the physics of the problem gets muddled if one looks for - a subject- object relationship in the one who realizes and the object of realization. Since the nature of the problem is such that subject itself is the object of realization, in principle, one cannot realize as long as one is loking of some realization - This is stated simply as 'as long as the seeker and the saught one and the same, any seeking on the part of the seeker is bound to fail, since in the very seeking, the seeker has assumed that the sought is not there in sight'. Then what is realization? - It is only a ralization that I am not 'this' but I am what I am which is nothing but existence-consciousness-bliss that I am. Realization is neither an action not there is a subject-object relation. Hence it is self-realization. Bhagawaan Ramana puts this so-called 'process' beautifuly in his Upadeshasaara - ahami naashabaaji ahamaham taya| spurati hRitswayam paramapuurNasat|| When that "I am this' - aham vRitti or 'I thought" falls when one inquires who is this 'I' - it falls since it is false; then in the very core of ones personality -'hRit', "I amI am" - swayam spurati - raises spontaneously or effortlessly -this I am is different from previous ' I am' - since it is 'paramam' 'puurNam' and 'Sat-swaruupam". It is 'supreme' - since there is nothing beyond that. It is 'Full' - No more limitations associated with 'this' and 'that' It is 'the very nature of one own existence - It can not fall - like the previous "i am this' etc. It is immediate (no mediate means) and 'Now' not - later - not Brahma kalpaantara- which are in the realm of time. Jivanmukta does not have to wait - these are the concepts coming from Dwaita literature - where there is 'processes' and sequential steps - hence by definition time bound. brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati is the Vedic teaching - knower of brhman becomes brahman - This cannot happen if it is objective knowledge - knower of chemistry does not become that chemistry. Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman only if that is self-knoweldge or self-realization. Hari Om! Sadananda >"f. maiello" <egodust >advaitin >advaitin >Re: The Physics of Realization >Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:32:26 -0500 > >Parisi & Watson wrote: > > > > ... I would think the point here is not who or what you > > are, which never changes, but rather whether you _realize_ what you are. >You > > can _be_ something without realizing it (a hero, for instance, to take a > > more mundane example), but I don't think you can _realize_ that you are > > something without, in fact, realizing it. > > >this is the common and greatest obstacle >diverting--or SEEMING to divert!--our >connection to our [everpresent] Self. >viz. the idea of Self-realization being a >hands-on, concrete-reasonable grasp of the >nature of the Self-Being. > >this is a good example as to why i came to >prefer vedanta over other methods pertaining to >[albeit equally valid] metaphysical approaches... >because it accurately explains/categorizes >areas in psychology [that the others either >are vague about, or bypass altogether]. > >this will help set up my point: >(taken from an extract from my notes) > >In Vedanta, one will find a number of ways that mind can be defined >and broken down into components having certain characteristics. The >most >useful, in my opinion, is the following: Overall, within the total >field >of awareness of the individual is postulated the antahkarana (mechanism >housing the four internal organs of perception): 1. manas (thinking; >logic); >2. chitta (memory; instinct); 3. buddhi (intuition; discrimination); and >4. >ahamkar (ego). > >my point: the manas/ahamkar is where we ordinarily >and *erroneously* believe the advent of realizaton >will take place. it *cannot*! > >it takes place (in the form of a continuum) within >the buddhi/ahamkar. > >i'm sure this will raise eyebrows. mentioning ahamkar. >implying that ego remains intact in the process. > >this relates to what sri patrick was referring to, >that the idea of ethics cannot survive in an egoless >society. the popular misnomer is that the ego will be >utterly destroyed. i disagree. it will be *sublimated*. >a semblence of it remains in tact for the jivanmuktha. >how else can (s)he function?! this is the purport of >the term jivatman (the bridge between jiva and atman), >and it will remain...in fact, i believe it remains as >long as the manvantara (brahman's leela) is engaged, >whether incarnate in a physical vehicle or not. this >i believe is part of the [ultimately inscrutable] plan >of isvara. however, it really doesn't matter seeing >it this way or not. what matters is finding and being >the Self. what matters is the ability to belly-laugh >at the sometimes colossal terror wielded by the Mind! > >namaste ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 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.