Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 In a message dated 1/11/02 1:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, ramana.bhakta writes: << Please discuss Sri Ramana's teachings, please post your favourite quotes, please inform us of satsangs, please post quotes from Upanishads etc., Miles >> *OK, this is good timing then as some time ago I e-mailed the New York Ashram trying to find some information on if there is a Satsang in the Portland Oregon area. I haven't received a response and am very interested in finding out if there is one. I can't get this info anywhere... There are a few groups such as Gangaji etc. but I am not really interested in the other gurus, just Ramana... can anyone please help me? Satsang is important to me.... Thanks for any help. Poly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Dear Vicki, you are right. What is needed is more practice and not more words and endless debates about the truth, and what is absolute useless are polemics. Ramana's words and life give peace of mind. Everything is very clear. Not so with a special kind of debates on some lists which create confusions and endless reactions (not so much meaning this list here, because this here is more silent and meditative). The more one joins in such debates the more one loses the inner silence. Insteed of being "occupied" with self-enquiry one is occupied with creating concepts in the mind to express one'e agreement or disagreement. In HIM Gabriele Dear Miles, dear All, reconsidering my yesterday reaction - i want to apologize to those to whom that might have caused unpleasantness. on the other hand - i hope it was not in vain and that this list will continue remain what it is - dedicated to Ramana , his teachings and an opportunity for his devotees to be in touch with each other and keep focused on their sadhana and their Master. i think when one reaches the gates of self-enquiry and of Ramana's house, philosophy,polemics , endless debates about truth and the nature of reality, so all these simply drop off as an unnecessary luggage. there is everything that one needs, so simple , in so few words in Ramana 's teachings , in the Upanishads. So simple . i think that what is needed is practice not more words. what is undescribable is undescribable; to get lost in descriptions however beautiful they might be i think it is only a waste of time. we have our guide ,love for him in our hearts ,an open heart and mind offered to him ; to me this is enough. Hope that on this list the Master will continue to be Sri Ramana Maharshi only ,as it is natural to be to those who surrendered to him as Master,Guru, God, Self and everything that can be. Loving Him, vicki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Hello Sandeep, << sandeepc (Sandeep Chatterjee) Hiya Richard, This will probably get me the boot, but so be it.... < snip > San: "You" may be occupied with self-enquiry till you are blue in your face and nothing will happen. KKT: Agree but ... ----------------- San: Self-enquiry is never done. It happens. KKT: Does it << actually >> << happen >> to you or to someone you know? ----------------- San: It is with the apperception of the "shadow chasing the Self", that the real question of Who am I arises. And then arises the answer that there is no answer to that question, an answer which can be realized or experienced. For realizations and experiences are only by an entity. Till that time, Ramana and other's renderings of the benigness of Ramana's milieu (which is an account of yet another entity, etc) will remain a good bed time reading KKT: Very well said, but but but ... Does it actually happen to you ? ---------------- San: One Reality is a notion, a concept. Why? In order to cognize that "One Reality" and thus validate it, affirm it, there must be some "one", apart from that One Reality, to observer, to cognize it. Since that negates the very constructed meaning of One Reality, i.e. there is nothing apart from it, the term One Reality can only be a conceptual conjecture. Useful, functional, helpful in order to point, and pluck out other concepts, but that's about it. Let's take that concept for it is worth. Whatever happens, is a "happening" as an objective expression of that One Reality, pure subjectivity, Totality, Awareness not aware of itself, (take your pick). And thus all happenings are notional, which is what the dude in the diaper meant when he prattled "there is no creation, there is no destruction". Keeping this in mind, why can't their be opposition, why can't there be chaos? Phenomenality, the mosaic of happenings, is about opposition, is about chaos, is about "argument". That is how evolution happens, within the phenomenal context. ---------- As I saw this I disengaged from the argument, and will not pick it up again. San: So Richard, your sense of peace, is in withdrawl, is it? Not in the understanding that in the whirling storm of chaos, stillness is not disturbed? That peace of mind which can be disturbed by anything, let alone an argument, is worth nothing. That love for Ramana, which gets offended by a perceived abuse of Ramana, is no love. In total love, there is no more a lover left, which cognizes anything or anybody else apart from the Beloved. Whether anybody is raining praises or raining abuses on the Beloved, neither of them are of any relevance to the Lover, whose eyes, whose ears, whose heart is only for the Beloved. There is, as if no other world, except the Beloved. And this Love, finally transcends itself, as only the Beloved remains, no more any lover to even love the Beloved. Even the presence of the lover is seen as a contamination of the Love. Do you understand Vicki? < snip > KKT: Very well said Sandeep. But does it actually happen to you ? Please don't feel offense, this is not my intention. I've read many of your posts on different lists and enjoyed them very much. I put these questions because I've observed that those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks. Those talks are like << the dog chasing its tail >> An intellectual game or exercise! Again please don't feel offense. Peace & Love, KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Dear Vicki and Gabriele > you are right. What is needed is more practice and not more words and endless debates about the truth, and what is absolute useless are polemics. Ramana's words and life give peace of mind. Everything is very clear. Not so with a special kind of debates on some lists which create confusions and endless reactions (not so much meaning this list here, because this here is more silent and meditative). The more one joins in such debates the more one loses the inner silence. Insteed of being "occupied" with self-enquiry one is occupied with creating concepts in the mind to express one'e agreement or disagreement. < I certainly agree with this comment. When this newsgroup was new I remember engaging in something that seemed to become an argument (when I was just trying to express some of what I have learned about the nondual truth). I saw immediately that the argument created an inner sense of opposition in me. I also saw that this sense of opposition is one thing that greatly disturbs my inner peace. How can there be opposition in the One Reality? As I saw this I disengaged from the argument, and will not pick it up again. Again, as Gabriele said, this opposition is merely the clash of two sets of concepts. Are any of these concepts reality? Usually this kind of clash makes one more set in one's own concepts. My goal is to become free from all concepts. That is why all the self-inquiry. What is important to me is to keep up the practice. As Ramana said, practice until there is no longer a need for practice. I suspect that if there is even a hint of opposition left, then it is still time from practice. There can only be opposition when one stands as an individual. Am I an individual? Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Hiya Richard, This will probably get me the boot, but so be it....<s> - richard_clarke95125 RamanaMaharshi Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:05 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Dear Vicki and Gabriele > you are right. What is needed is more practice and not more words and endless debates about the truth, and what is absolute useless are polemics. Ramana's words and life give peace of mind. Everything is very clear. Not so with a special kind of debates on some lists which create confusions and endless reactions (not so much meaning this list here, because this here is more silent and meditative). The more one joins in such debates the more one loses the inner silence. Insteed of being "occupied" with self-enquiry one is occupied with creating concepts in the mind to express one'e agreement or disagreement. San: Gabriele, you yourself, once posted an extremely astute prattling, which I am repeating... If chasing one's shadow seems foolish What would be, shadow chasing the Self Asking "Who am I?" Sheng Hui "You" may be occupied with self-enquiry till you are blue in your face and nothing will happen. Self-enquiry is never done. It happens. It is with the apperception of the "shadow chasing the Self", that the real question of Who am I arises. And then arises the answer that there is no answer to that question, an answer which can be realized or experienced. For realizations and experiences are only by an entity. Till that time, Ramana and other's renderings of the benigness of Ramana's milieu (which is an account of yet another entity, etc) will remain a good bed time reading -------- Richard: I certainly agree with this comment. When this newsgroup was new I remember engaging in something that seemed to become an argument (when I was just trying to express some of what I have learned about the nondual truth). I saw immediately that the argument created an inner sense of opposition in me. I also saw that this sense of opposition is one thing that greatly disturbs my inner peace. How can there be opposition in the One Reality? San: One Reality is a notion, a concept. Why? In order to cognize that "One Reality" and thus validate it, affirm it, there must be some "one", apart from that One Reality, to observer, to cognize it. Since that negates the very constructed meaning of One Reality, i.e. there is nothing apart from it, the term One Reality can only be a conceptual conjecture. Useful, functional, helpful in order to point, and pluck out other concepts, but that's about it. Let's take that concept for it is worth. Whatever happens, is a "happening" as an objective expression of that One Reality, pure subjectivity, Totality, Awareness not aware of itself, (take your pick). And thus all happenings are notional, which is what the dude in the diaper meant when he prattled "there is no creation, there is no destruction". Keeping this in mind, why can't their be opposition, why can't there be chaos? Phenomenality, the mosaic of happenings, is about opposition, is about chaos, is about "argument". That is how evolution happens, within the phenomenal context. ---------- As I saw this I disengaged from the argument, and will not pick it up again. San: So Richard, your sense of peace, is in withdrawl, is it? Not in the understanding that in the whirling storm of chaos, stillness is not disturbed? That peace of mind which can be disturbed by anything, let alone an argument, is worth nothing. That love for Ramana, which gets offended by a perceived abuse of Ramana, is no love. In total love, there is no more a lover left, which cognizes anything or anybody else apart from the Beloved. Whether anybody is raining praises or raining abuses on the Beloved, neither of them are of any relevance to the Lover, whose eyes, whose ears, whose heart is only for the Beloved. There is, as if no other world, except the Beloved. And this Love, finally transcends itself, as only the Beloved remains, no more any lover to even love the Beloved. Even the presence of the lover is seen as a contamination of the Love. Do you understand Vicki? -------- Again, as Gabriele said, this opposition is merely the clash of two sets of concepts. Are any of these concepts reality? San: Is anything in phenomenality, anything else but a concept? This phenomenal context, in which a Ramana appears, and in which the devotion to Ramana appears, is itself a conceptual construct. What else but conceptualization can happen within a conceptual construct? Anything, anybody (including Ramana) has said, or conveyed about Truth or Reality, to somebody, anywhere, at any time, ever is a concept. ---------- Usually this kind of clash makes one more set in one's own concepts. My goal is to become free from all concepts. San: Whose goal is it? Is that not a concept, that there is a state to be achieved which is "free from all concepts". ---------- That is why all the self-inquiry. What is important to me is to keep up the practice. San: That is perfectly appropriate for "Richard", for practice, (whatever that be), is a happening THROUGH 'Richard", in the moment, not by "Richard". Appercieve, that "Richard" is an instrument. That 'Richard" does not live, but is lived. And then do whatsoever you wish. For what 'Richard" wishes to do or not to do, and that decision (which is a thought), if it gets actualized into an action, will be THE action, meant to be enacted through "Richard", in the moment. Whether that action be the practice of meditation or practice of dancing the hoopla. "Richard", being a notion, an inference, a concept, just cannot do otherwise, in the moment. ----------- As Ramana said, practice until there is no longer a need for practice. I suspect that if there is even a hint of opposition left, then it is still time from practice. There can only be opposition when one stands as an individual. San: Very true. For opposition is only by an "entity". However, do not suppose by withdrawing from an opposition, the entity has ended?<LOL> In the withdrawl, is the entity. The entitification has not ended, so long there is a peace of mind, dependent on no rocks being hurled at it. The entitification has not ended, so long there is a state of "peace of mind", which is defined and hence has to be achieved. The entitification has not ended, so long there is not an understanding that "peace of mind" is an oxy-moron( a self negating hypothesis). The entitification has not ended, so long peace of mind is still relevant. For only to an entity, is enlightenment, awakening, apperception, realization, peace of mind, relevant. --------- Am I an individual? San: So long the question remains, yes. ------- Not two, San: Aaaah yes, good old Advaita. Can you see Richard, that Advaita is the biggest concept making the rounds. Ponder on that, and Ramana's fragnance will appear, authentically, for the first time. If anybody wants to walk more, I'll be at Yearning If nobody, that too is part of the perfection of the moment. For really the "walker" and the 'walked with", are not Two. Do you now get it scumpa? Laaaa deeee Daaaaa Daaaaa Deeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Dear List owner: Please do not boot San off this group. Those who do not want to read what he is presenting can just skip it or not answer. On some groups they ask WWJD or this one we should ask WWRD. Love, Alton - Sandeep Chatterjee RamanaMaharshi Saturday, January 12, 2002 8:47 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Hiya Richard, This will probably get me the boot, but so be it....<s> - richard_clarke95125 RamanaMaharshi Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:05 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Dear Vicki and Gabriele > you are right. What is needed is more practice and not more words and endless debates about the truth, and what is absolute useless are polemics. Ramana's words and life give peace of mind. Everything is very clear. Not so with a special kind of debates on some lists which create confusions and endless reactions (not so much meaning this list here, because this here is more silent and meditative). The more one joins in such debates the more one loses the inner silence. Insteed of being "occupied" with self-enquiry one is occupied with creating concepts in the mind to express one'e agreement or disagreement. San: Gabriele, you yourself, once posted an extremely astute prattling, which I am repeating... If chasing one's shadow seems foolish What would be, shadow chasing the Self Asking "Who am I?" Sheng Hui "You" may be occupied with self-enquiry till you are blue in your face and nothing will happen. Self-enquiry is never done. It happens. It is with the apperception of the "shadow chasing the Self", that the real question of Who am I arises. And then arises the answer that there is no answer to that question, an answer which can be realized or experienced. For realizations and experiences are only by an entity. Till that time, Ramana and other's renderings of the benigness of Ramana's milieu (which is an account of yet another entity, etc) will remain a good bed time reading -------- Richard: I certainly agree with this comment. When this newsgroup was new I remember engaging in something that seemed to become an argument (when I was just trying to express some of what I have learned about the nondual truth). I saw immediately that the argument created an inner sense of opposition in me. I also saw that this sense of opposition is one thing that greatly disturbs my inner peace. How can there be opposition in the One Reality? San: One Reality is a notion, a concept. Why? In order to cognize that "One Reality" and thus validate it, affirm it, there must be some "one", apart from that One Reality, to observer, to cognize it. Since that negates the very constructed meaning of One Reality, i.e. there is nothing apart from it, the term One Reality can only be a conceptual conjecture. Useful, functional, helpful in order to point, and pluck out other concepts, but that's about it. Let's take that concept for it is worth. Whatever happens, is a "happening" as an objective expression of that One Reality, pure subjectivity, Totality, Awareness not aware of itself, (take your pick). And thus all happenings are notional, which is what the dude in the diaper meant when he prattled "there is no creation, there is no destruction". Keeping this in mind, why can't their be opposition, why can't there be chaos? Phenomenality, the mosaic of happenings, is about opposition, is about chaos, is about "argument". That is how evolution happens, within the phenomenal context. ---------- As I saw this I disengaged from the argument, and will not pick it up again. San: So Richard, your sense of peace, is in withdrawl, is it? Not in the understanding that in the whirling storm of chaos, stillness is not disturbed? That peace of mind which can be disturbed by anything, let alone an argument, is worth nothing. That love for Ramana, which gets offended by a perceived abuse of Ramana, is no love. In total love, there is no more a lover left, which cognizes anything or anybody else apart from the Beloved. Whether anybody is raining praises or raining abuses on the Beloved, neither of them are of any relevance to the Lover, whose eyes, whose ears, whose heart is only for the Beloved. There is, as if no other world, except the Beloved. And this Love, finally transcends itself, as only the Beloved remains, no more any lover to even love the Beloved. Even the presence of the lover is seen as a contamination of the Love. Do you understand Vicki? -------- Again, as Gabriele said, this opposition is merely the clash of two sets of concepts. Are any of these concepts reality? San: Is anything in phenomenality, anything else but a concept? This phenomenal context, in which a Ramana appears, and in which the devotion to Ramana appears, is itself a conceptual construct. What else but conceptualization can happen within a conceptual construct? Anything, anybody (including Ramana) has said, or conveyed about Truth or Reality, to somebody, anywhere, at any time, ever is a concept. ---------- Usually this kind of clash makes one more set in one's own concepts. My goal is to become free from all concepts. San: Whose goal is it? Is that not a concept, that there is a state to be achieved which is "free from all concepts". ---------- That is why all the self-inquiry. What is important to me is to keep up the practice. San: That is perfectly appropriate for "Richard", for practice, (whatever that be), is a happening THROUGH 'Richard", in the moment, not by "Richard". Appercieve, that "Richard" is an instrument. That 'Richard" does not live, but is lived. And then do whatsoever you wish. For what 'Richard" wishes to do or not to do, and that decision (which is a thought), if it gets actualized into an action, will be THE action, meant to be enacted through "Richard", in the moment. Whether that action be the practice of meditation or practice of dancing the hoopla. "Richard", being a notion, an inference, a concept, just cannot do otherwise, in the moment. ----------- As Ramana said, practice until there is no longer a need for practice. I suspect that if there is even a hint of opposition left, then it is still time from practice. There can only be opposition when one stands as an individual. San: Very true. For opposition is only by an "entity". However, do not suppose by withdrawing from an opposition, the entity has ended?<LOL> In the withdrawl, is the entity. The entitification has not ended, so long there is a peace of mind, dependent on no rocks being hurled at it. The entitification has not ended, so long there is a state of "peace of mind", which is defined and hence has to be achieved. The entitification has not ended, so long there is not an understanding that "peace of mind" is an oxy-moron( a self negating hypothesis). The entitification has not ended, so long peace of mind is still relevant. For only to an entity, is enlightenment, awakening, apperception, realization, peace of mind, relevant. --------- Am I an individual? San: So long the question remains, yes. ------- Not two, San: Aaaah yes, good old Advaita. Can you see Richard, that Advaita is the biggest concept making the rounds. Ponder on that, and Ramana's fragnance will appear, authentically, for the first time. If anybody wants to walk more, I'll be at Yearning If nobody, that too is part of the perfection of the moment. For really the "walker" and the 'walked with", are not Two. Do you now get it scumpa? Laaaa deeee Daaaaa Daaaaa Deeeeee Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Dear Richard, I remember this incident. And I am glad you have continued with us. I re-iterate ... ========= Message 63: Richard, Indeed Self-enquiry is the worthwhile pursuit. Engaging in polemics is a waste of time. 'Only turn your mind inwards and spend time usefully.' If you practice Self Enquiry eventually it is found to be both the path and the goal. Please continue to talk of spiritual practice if you are so moved. There are various ways to practice Self-Enquiry which many would discuss. Miles ========= Thank You, Miles --------- > When this newsgroup was new I > remember engaging in something that seemed to become an argument > (when I was just trying to express some of what I have learned about > the nondual truth). I saw immediately that the argument created an > inner sense of opposition in me. I also saw that this sense of > opposition is one thing that greatly disturbs my inner peace. How can > there be opposition in the One Reality? As I saw this I disengaged > from the argument, and will not pick it up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Its ok with me if someone quotes the realized being, but when they just preach it seems a waste of time to me. I want to know also San. Did it happen to you or are you posting what you read from another or just you beliefs? Thanks in advance. Love, Alton - phamdluan RamanaMaharshi Saturday, January 12, 2002 10:20 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Hello Sandeep, << sandeepc (Sandeep Chatterjee) Hiya Richard, This will probably get me the boot, but so be it.... < snip > San: "You" may be occupied with self-enquiry till you are blue in your face and nothing will happen. KKT: Agree but ... ----------------- San: Self-enquiry is never done. It happens. KKT: Does it << actually >> << happen >> to you or to someone you know? ----------------- San: It is with the apperception of the "shadow chasing the Self", that the real question of Who am I arises. And then arises the answer that there is no answer to that question, an answer which can be realized or experienced. For realizations and experiences are only by an entity. Till that time, Ramana and other's renderings of the benigness of Ramana's milieu (which is an account of yet another entity, etc) will remain a good bed time reading KKT: Very well said, but but but ... Does it actually happen to you ? ---------------- San: One Reality is a notion, a concept. Why? In order to cognize that "One Reality" and thus validate it, affirm it, there must be some "one", apart from that One Reality, to observer, to cognize it. Since that negates the very constructed meaning of One Reality, i.e. there is nothing apart from it, the term One Reality can only be a conceptual conjecture. Useful, functional, helpful in order to point, and pluck out other concepts, but that's about it. Let's take that concept for it is worth. Whatever happens, is a "happening" as an objective expression of that One Reality, pure subjectivity, Totality, Awareness not aware of itself, (take your pick). And thus all happenings are notional, which is what the dude in the diaper meant when he prattled "there is no creation, there is no destruction". Keeping this in mind, why can't their be opposition, why can't there be chaos? Phenomenality, the mosaic of happenings, is about opposition, is about chaos, is about "argument". That is how evolution happens, within the phenomenal context. ---------- As I saw this I disengaged from the argument, and will not pick it up again. San: So Richard, your sense of peace, is in withdrawl, is it? Not in the understanding that in the whirling storm of chaos, stillness is not disturbed? That peace of mind which can be disturbed by anything, let alone an argument, is worth nothing. That love for Ramana, which gets offended by a perceived abuse of Ramana, is no love. In total love, there is no more a lover left, which cognizes anything or anybody else apart from the Beloved. Whether anybody is raining praises or raining abuses on the Beloved, neither of them are of any relevance to the Lover, whose eyes, whose ears, whose heart is only for the Beloved. There is, as if no other world, except the Beloved. And this Love, finally transcends itself, as only the Beloved remains, no more any lover to even love the Beloved. Even the presence of the lover is seen as a contamination of the Love. Do you understand Vicki? < snip > KKT: Very well said Sandeep. But does it actually happen to you ? Please don't feel offense, this is not my intention. I've read many of your posts on different lists and enjoyed them very much. I put these questions because I've observed that those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks. Those talks are like << the dog chasing its tail >> An intellectual game or exercise! Again please don't feel offense. Peace & Love, KKT Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Hiya KKT, Since, still allowed here..<LOL> <SNIP> KKT: Very well said Sandeep. But does it actually happen to you ? San: There is no entity to which anything happens. Entitification is the "taking delivery" of whatever is happening through a body-mind complex, through an instrument, in the moment. This sense of possession, is the sense of personal doership, the I love Ramana, I am doing self-enquiry, I feel benedicted reading renderings of Ramana's prattlings, or X, Y, Z etc etc. Thus any claim for anything, any feeling, any experience, any realization, can only be by an "entity". And thus hilarious. With this back ground, let's revisit your question. Can there be a claim, a cognition, an observation, which could serve as an answer to your question? And yet, there can well be a judgement by an "other", judgement that "it's all hot air", no authencity ( as has been appropriately posted here) or the judgement in the form of tears of gratitude. Both have to do with the "other", nothing to do with the "judged". ---------- Please don't feel offense, this is not my intention. San: I know. Hence a response arose. ------- I've read many of your posts on different lists and enjoyed them very much. <s> I put these questions because I've observed that those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks. San: Talk, indeed leads to no where. Ceasing to talk, also leads nowhere. Experience, no matter what, also leads no where. That there is somewhere to reach, this notion, leads nowhere. Reaching is not possible by an entity, which is nothing but the "held" notion that "those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks" The end of the entitification, is the reaching, speaking in a notional manner. And this the entity cannot bring about, no matter what effort it does.(This does not mean Gabriele, that efforts do not happen) For that is like trying to pull your self by your boot-straps. You are the very weight you are trying to lift. Or trying to seek freedom. In the very seeking for freedom, is the perpetuation of the apriori assumtpion that one is bound, in the first place. The very seeking is bondage. The wonder of awakening, the awakening of that which never was asleep and that put to rest which never was. Doooobeeee Dooobeeee Doooooooo ---------- Those talks are like << the dog chasing its tail >> An intellectual game or exercise! Again please don't feel offense. San: Okey, since you ask me not to.<s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Hiya Alton, - Alton Slater RamanaMaharshi Sunday, January 13, 2002 02:02 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Its ok with me if someone quotes the realized being, but when they just preach it seems a waste of time to me. I want to know also San. Did it happen to you or are you posting what you read from another or just you beliefs? San: Who gives a damn. Anybody, saying, or conveying through any other means, anything about Truth, to somebody, anywhere, at any time, ever, is a concept. <SNIP> Rub-a-bub-dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Dear Sandeep, Thanks for replying to my question. Do you know why I wrote this previous post? It's very simple. When I read Vicky's post, I thought that you owe her an apology. But instead of making an apology, you continue to argue. And this revolts me. I've never thought that you have ill intention towards her in your posts. But even if you have good intention but your words hurt, especially when the person being hurt expresses sincerely from her heart then I think you have to apologize. An apology, it's very simple, my dear Sandeep. And this is COMPASSION. Sorry if it sounds like preaching (preaching is very easy :-)) but this is not my intention here. Your reaction makes me think that you don't live what you preach. But but but ... (again but :-)) you have the freedom to act as you please. And I respect your freedom like I enjoy my freedom of reading and enjoying your beautiful words :-)) So life continues ... Peace & Love, KKT ============== << sandeepc (Sandeep Chatterjee) Hiya KKT, Since, still allowed here..<LOL> <SNIP> KKT: Very well said Sandeep. But does it actually happen to you ? San: There is no entity to which anything happens. Entitification is the "taking delivery" of whatever is happening through a body-mind complex, through an instrument, in the moment. This sense of possession, is the sense of personal doership, the I love Ramana, I am doing self-enquiry, I feel benedicted reading renderings of Ramana's prattlings, or X, Y, Z etc etc. Thus any claim for anything, any feeling, any experience, any realization, can only be by an "entity". And thus hilarious. With this back ground, let's revisit your question. Can there be a claim, a cognition, an observation, which could serve as an answer to your question? And yet, there can well be a judgement by an "other", judgement that "it's all hot air", no authencity ( as has been appropriately posted here) or the judgement in the form of tears of gratitude. Both have to do with the "other", nothing to do with the "judged". ---------- Please don't feel offense, this is not my intention. San: I know. Hence a response arose. ------- I've read many of your posts on different lists and enjoyed them very much. I put these questions because I've observed that those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks. San: Talk, indeed leads to no where. Ceasing to talk, also leads nowhere. Experience, no matter what, also leads no where. That there is somewhere to reach, this notion, leads nowhere. Reaching is not possible by an entity, which is nothing but the "held" notion that "those endless talks seem leading nowhere if one does not << experience >> what one talks" The end of the entitification, is the reaching, speaking in a notional manner. And this the entity cannot bring about, no matter what effort it does.(This does not mean Gabriele, that efforts do not happen) For that is like trying to pull your self by your boot-straps. You are the very weight you are trying to lift. Or trying to seek freedom. In the very seeking for freedom, is the perpetuation of the apriori assumtpion that one is bound, in the first place. The very seeking is bondage. The wonder of awakening, the awakening of that which never was asleep and that put to rest which never was. Doooobeeee Dooobeeee Doooooooo ---------- Those talks are like << the dog chasing its tail >> An intellectual game or exercise! Again please don't feel offense. San: Okey, since you ask me not to. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Dear Sri Sandeep, You wrote: Hiya Richard, This will probably get me the boot, but so be it....<s> ====== Our list owner is dear sri Miles and it is a blessing to be a member of this group. Please be assured that nobody in this group gets the boot. Once in while, some vendors (selling astrological prediction, political manifesto or their personal agenda) stray in and are gently persuaded and told that this group is no market. All the members here as serious sadhaks trying to practice the path shown to us by Sri Ramana ad share our experiences to reinforce our devotion and clarify our vichara. Arugments to establish the superiority of one ego over another, quarrels to settle scores etc. don't take place here. Perceptions may differ as our experiences vary and our awareness limited but the underlying current behind all communications is 'Love", not anger, not abuses (of prattling, of dudes) etc. I assure you, this is true of the commumnications of dear sri Alton, dear sri Vicki, dear sri Gabriele, dear sri Richard and dear sri Miles and all the other members. The boundless compassion of Bhagavan Sri Ramana flows through their words. You are indeed blessed that you have strayed into this group. It is by Bhagavan's Grace. You might have noticed that your mails have not generated many admirers for the cleverness reflected in your dialectics. Your mails were perceived as more in the nature of 'Disruptions'. It would be good to silently observe the dialogs and exchanges of members to understand their words and perceptions. If you are able to get in tune with the group your future mails will be of benefit to the group in their sadhana and will be received well. You may then feel that you belong here. Let us recall the words of Bhagavan sri Ramana: Supplement to Reality in Forty Verses: Verse No.36 ++ "Those who are not learned (They) are saved from the misfortune of those who are learned but have no humility. They are saved from the clutches of the monster of pride, from the the disease of wandering mind and mouth, and from running about seeking wealth and fame. Know it is not from one evil alone that they are saved. ++ Namo Ramana Suri ______________________ Looking for a job? Visit India Careers Visit http://in.careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Hi Suri, Thank you for your comments... <SNIP> You might have noticed that your mails have not generated many admirers for the cleverness reflected in your dialectics. Your mails were perceived as more in the nature of 'Disruptions'. San: LOL. And you think, I am here to gather admirers and have mails under the name of "Sandeep" be seen to be anything else but as "disruptions? You know suri, Ramana was a great disrupter. Of sleeping. ------- It would be good to silently observe the dialogs and exchanges of members to understand their words and perceptions. If you are able to get in tune with the group your future mails will be of benefit to the group in their sadhana and will be received well. You may then feel that you belong here. San: Thank you for your suggestion. -------- Let us recall the words of Bhagavan sri Ramana: Supplement to Reality in Forty Verses: Verse No.36 ++ "Those who are not learned (They) are saved from the misfortune of those who are learned but have no humility. They are saved from the clutches of the monster of pride, from the the disease of wandering mind and mouth, and from running about seeking wealth and fame. Know it is not from one evil alone that they are saved. ++ Namo Ramana San: Here's one classic, I'll give you, from the dude in the diaper. Why so many idiots in this world? In order to thicken the plot. Thank you, everybody. Have fun. Hastlavista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 In a message dated 1/13/2002 3:10:45 PM Central Standard Time, glee writes: > There are plenty of other lists where such methods and mind debates are more > welcome. Sandeep already has his own list, and he ought to respect the > wishes of this list to remain true to its stated purpose. > > Gloria * I agree with this statement. Poly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 RamanaMaharshi, "Sandeep Chatterjee" <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hiya Richard, > > This will probably get me the boot, but so be it....<s> > <big snip> Sandeep, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the way that you take apart what I write and attempt to point beyond the mental conceptions and idennntifications involved in the writing. I sometimes wonder at all the words, but upon reflection find that I appreciate what seems to be a sincere effort to point to something that is beyond/behind/within all the words. I come to this newsgroup as a sincere and practicing seeker, one who is blessed with an impecable teacher (Nome at SAT in Santa Cruz). It does not bring any ego reaction when someone points out that I am not standing in the freedom of a Sage. I don't engage in the argeument since I have learned that for my own practice, inquiry and meditation is far better than even the best of arguments. Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Dear Vicky, I am one of those who used to get offended by Sandeep's remarks on other lists and in private discussions. But I faced him daringly and put forth questions and listened. I tried to convince myself that let him try to hurt or use abusive language and all that is going to get offended is just *MY* images and nothing else. And to a great extend it worked out well and I started to understand what he is trying to convey. Now, if you have observed closely, you would have found that whatever Sandeep has been "prattling" is not different form what those sages - who you quote freely- had said earlier. And it is not different from what Githa or the Upanishads preach either. Of course the tone is different and the style is different. The only other difference is that Ramana Maharshi (and others) had been so compassionate to address each and every devotee based on the level of his/her awareness and offer what is suitable for that particular devotee in that particular moment. But Sandeep is ruthlessly asking us to take a quantum leap to have an understanding of utter reality (conceptual) which we are trying to "achieve" by a slow ripening through the process of spiritual practices and contemplation. And above all Sandeep never condemns any of the practices and efforts but confirms they all are perfect if they happened in a particular moment. The questioning is only on the 'doer' and what else was Mharshi's question to each and everyone who were lucky to be in his physical presence? As a matter of fact I don't know anything about the person Sandeep. And of course there is no need to compare Sandeep with Maharshi. And remember you don't (and you cannot) ask Shankara whether he was self- realized or not, but just read his wise words. And according to Sandeep Ramana Maharshi was/is/will be the best ever player in the field of Advaita. The way I see it is simple. There are messages coming into my mailbox. Some are tagged "From Ramana Maharshi" and some "From Sandeep Chatterjee" and so on. I read the content and try to digest the "concepts". If I get emotionally overcharged by the "From" tag then I will be disbelieving Bhagavan's own words that Ramana Maharshi is not the six feet tall figure clad in just a loin clothe. (Nevertheless there is a photo of Maharshi is hanging on my bedroom wall and I fall into sleep seeing that face and I wake up to see that face) I try to consider any incident, any dialogue, any message or any intuition that causes a (conceptual) movement in consciousness as the grace of Ramana Maharshi. So Sandeep's "conceptual two bits" are nothing but Ramana's grace flowing towards me through the instrument labeled Sandeep. One could easily miss it by not reading it or being extremely sensitive to WORDS. And by hurting and offending and abusing Sandeep is reminding you again and again that 'YOU' are still very much there. After 'walking' with Sandeep a few times, I have noticed that my 'love' for 'Ramana' has not only intensified but I am able to understand him better - from a different perspective. And whatever 'sadhanas' I have been doing have become more meaningful. Thought I will share this... Murali RamanaMaharshi, "vioricail" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > Sandeep, > > i am not angry with you anymore because of the past. > > but please listen and consider - your emails are abusive > and hurting , and because i , as a human being - still am > quite sensitive ,i have no other alternative at the moment > but totally ignore your emails and i shall read none of > your dialogues on this list. > > kindly asking from other members of the group to let me > know when the tone of Sandeep's emails changes so i can > consider reading his words again. > > thank you, > vicki > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Murali: I'm sure by reading your words that you wont mind me interjecting. For me it is whose words I resonate with. Ramana's and Nisagadatta's words juice me up. San's are just a distraction or word game,if I respond. Those who react to his words are aware that it is their attachments that bring on their aversions. In time they will jettison them. Aloha, Alton - murali_mel RamanaMaharshi Sunday, January 13, 2002 7:17 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Polemics Dear Vicky, I am one of those who used to get offended by Sandeep's remarks on other lists and in private discussions. But I faced him daringly and put forth questions and listened. I tried to convince myself that let him try to hurt or use abusive language and all that is going to get offended is just *MY* images and nothing else. And to a great extend it worked out well and I started to understand what he is trying to convey. Now, if you have observed closely, you would have found that whatever Sandeep has been "prattling" is not different form what those sages - who you quote freely- had said earlier. And it is not different from what Githa or the Upanishads preach either. Of course the tone is different and the style is different. The only other difference is that Ramana Maharshi (and others) had been so compassionate to address each and every devotee based on the level of his/her awareness and offer what is suitable for that particular devotee in that particular moment. But Sandeep is ruthlessly asking us to take a quantum leap to have an understanding of utter reality (conceptual) which we are trying to "achieve" by a slow ripening through the process of spiritual practices and contemplation. And above all Sandeep never condemns any of the practices and efforts but confirms they all are perfect if they happened in a particular moment. The questioning is only on the 'doer' and what else was Mharshi's question to each and everyone who were lucky to be in his physical presence? As a matter of fact I don't know anything about the person Sandeep. And of course there is no need to compare Sandeep with Maharshi. And remember you don't (and you cannot) ask Shankara whether he was self- realized or not, but just read his wise words. And according to Sandeep Ramana Maharshi was/is/will be the best ever player in the field of Advaita. The way I see it is simple. There are messages coming into my mailbox. Some are tagged "From Ramana Maharshi" and some "From Sandeep Chatterjee" and so on. I read the content and try to digest the "concepts". If I get emotionally overcharged by the "From" tag then I will be disbelieving Bhagavan's own words that Ramana Maharshi is not the six feet tall figure clad in just a loin clothe. (Nevertheless there is a photo of Maharshi is hanging on my bedroom wall and I fall into sleep seeing that face and I wake up to see that face) I try to consider any incident, any dialogue, any message or any intuition that causes a (conceptual) movement in consciousness as the grace of Ramana Maharshi. So Sandeep's "conceptual two bits" are nothing but Ramana's grace flowing towards me through the instrument labeled Sandeep. One could easily miss it by not reading it or being extremely sensitive to WORDS. And by hurting and offending and abusing Sandeep is reminding you again and again that 'YOU' are still very much there. After 'walking' with Sandeep a few times, I have noticed that my 'love' for 'Ramana' has not only intensified but I am able to understand him better - from a different perspective. And whatever 'sadhanas' I have been doing have become more meaningful. Thought I will share this... Murali RamanaMaharshi, "vioricail" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > Sandeep, > > i am not angry with you anymore because of the past. > > but please listen and consider - your emails are abusive > and hurting , and because i , as a human being - still am > quite sensitive ,i have no other alternative at the moment > but totally ignore your emails and i shall read none of > your dialogues on this list. > > kindly asking from other members of the group to let me > know when the tone of Sandeep's emails changes so i can > consider reading his words again. > > thank you, > vicki > > Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Dear Vicky, I am one of those who used to get offended by Sandeep's remarks on other lists and in private discussions. But I faced him daringly and put forth questions and listened. I tried to convince myself that let him try to hurt or use abusive language and all that is going to get offended is just *MY* images and nothing else. And to a great extend it worked out well and I started to understand what he is trying to convey. Now, if you have observed closely, you would have found that whatever Sandeep has been "prattling" is not different form what those sages - who you quote freely- had said earlier. And it is not different from what Githa or the Upanishads preach either. Of course the tone is different and the style is different. snipped rest... -- Dear Murali, It is kind of you to put in a good word for Sandeep and explain how you got over feeling offended. The distinction you made between content and the manner in which it is presented is very important. Clearly both are important to Vicki. If I have understood her correctly, Vicki's stated objection to Sandeep's methods includes primarily his assumption of the role of a teacher to her, thus interfering with her already chosen teacher in Sri Ramana. There is no compelling reason for Vicki to follow in your footsteps with regard to your interpretation of Sandeep's methods. On the contrary, there is a compelling reason to respect her stated intentions to remain with Ramana alone as her teacher. Secondly, I am quite familiar with the school of thought that justifies harsh methods with the reason you describe as: "And by hurting and offending and abusing Sandeep is reminding you again and again that 'YOU' are still very much there." This is utter nonsense. There is no good reason for accepting abuse or justifying it as an effective technique, this is simply unproven. Being beaten down to a state of nonresistance to abuse is just passive helplessness, no different than battered woman syndrome. The ego is still there, just not reacting out of fear. This is not the same as voluntary relinquishment of ego due to insight from self enquiry. If no self or no doer is just conceptual prattling of ideas, then what else can result except intellectual understanding of the concept by the mind? Even an accurate map is not the territory. The use of a more confrontative teaching style might work in person in an atmosphere of trust, but it is inappropriate in the context of an email list, especially when the "teacher" has not been accepted by the student. There are plenty of other lists where such methods and mind debates are more welcome. Sandeep already has his own list, and he ought to respect the wishes of this list to remain true to its stated purpose. Gloria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Dear Vicki, I really don't want to start another set of arguments on this list and break the serenity prevailing here. But since you have pointed out a few things I would try to respond in as few words as possible. RamanaMaharshi, "vioricail" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > i think that no one has to accept being offended in any kind > of relationship. You are absolutely right. So why are you accepting it and getting offended? Treat them as garbage and let it pass. Do not even try to respond. And you need not announce that you are going to avoid such mails. Just ignore it. >every time somebody began offending me in my > life actually brought the end of that relationship. > If that keeps happening it is high time that you look into why you are getting so easily offended. > > do you really think it is necessary to face daringly somebody, > especially in an virtual on-line relationship ? > to me it seems a waste of energy to no purpose. > why not preserve our energy to face problems we have > as individuals in the world ?(work,house,family...) > That's what I did. It is not at all necessary for you to do the same if you think your only choices are to be offended or not. > > you say ' let him try to hurt ' , > i would say ' let him try to hurt NOT ' . > why hurt at all ? why abusive language at all ? > do you find this at Ramana ? > do you find this in the Upanishads , in the Gita ? > i think not. > I have no control over what he does. There are paths in which all these can be accommodated. And believe me, it is that language and arrogance that jolted me and resulted in further enquiry. Same thing merely offended you. Sandeep or XYZ cannot be or act like anybody else. And probably you won't find 'this' anywhere else. > > And to a great extend > > it worked out well and I started to understand what he is trying to > > convey. > > was this Ramana's way of conveying ? > i think not. > It is not. No body is trying to imitate Ramana's way. By the way if I quote some thing from Ramana and post it as of XYZ, how will you treat it? And if I take a few of XYZ's words and post it as Ramana's? > > > > Now, if you have observed closely, you would have found that > whatever > > Sandeep has been "prattling" is not different form what those > sages - > > who you quote freely- had said earlier. And it is not different > from > > what Githa or the Upanishads preach either. > > dear Murali , yes , ok. > but, as KKT said , but,but,but.... > Hope those buts will stop somewhere > Of course the tone is > > different and the style is different. > > of course it is different. > just wondering why , does it has to be ? > speaking of myself only , reading certain passages > from the Upanishads bring me tears to my eyes , > tears cleansing the soul. how wonderful ! > what a treasure ! > i am in no need of a different style. > I can't answer that why and probably nobody can. But by all means stay with what suits you. > > > > The only other difference is that Ramana Maharshi (and others) had > > been so compassionate to address each and every devotee based on > the > > level of his/her awareness and offer what is suitable for that > > particular devotee in that particular moment. > > the only other difference , you say. > but it is fundamental! how much loved is he and will ever > be for this , and not only for this , but for every single > detail of his life. > The postings were addressed to a group of devotees of various levels of spiritual evolution. Some got offended. Some kept quiet. Some walked along. Appropriate for each one in that particular moment. > > > But Sandeep is > > ruthlessly > > i am asking again : why ruthlessly ? where is ruthlessness > in the teachings ? where ? am i blind ? i don't see this > in sages' teachings or in the old scriptures. May be Sandeep is a new scripture altogether Well, I have heard some of you asking Sandeep whether he had had the realization of what he is preaching (so to say). It seems that, if he answers 'Yes' you will accept his concepts and if the answer is 'No' then you will reject the same. Think about it. The concepts in question remain the same. Does it really matter who Sandeep is for you to accept it or reject it? And does it really matter in what language he is saying it? Now for argument sake assume that in Sandeep there is no personal entity. If so what benefit does he get by ruthlessly asking you to make a quantum leap? Is it not pure compassion to take you to a new conceptual level instantly instead of going through years of spiritual practices? Now, even if there is a personal entity in Sandeep, how does it matter if his words can still take you to the same new height? > > what else was Mharshi's question to each and everyone > > who were lucky to be in his physical presence? > > we are lucky too , he is still present ; > to turn to him in one's heart are not fantasy stories or > metaphorical words , he makes himself known and reveals > himself to those who turn to him truely in their hearts. > he is a ever living guiding guru. > Oh yes. Ramana is still very much present. He was present even before Venkata Ramana was born. He was the one who manifested through all those sages through out the history. Through Budhha to Jesus to Shankara to Mohamed to Ramakrishna to Nisargadatta to the contemporaries. It is the same grace. Call it Ramana. It is the same Ramana who had called me to his feet. It is the same Ramana who decides what event, what thought what action is appropriate for me in this moment for my (spiritual) evolution. If one understand this much, to understand the rest is not difficult that even any undesirable event can and will happen only by his grace. With that knowledge how can anyone get offended by anything at all when everything is happening by the grace of Ramana? I believe that this is real surrender. And this is real freedom as well. > > Ramana - player ?! > oh no , God himself , one of the the most blessed incarnations > ever. > > > > to me is also very simple. what comes from Ramana > comes from Self. > > > I try to consider any incident, any dialogue, any message or any > > intuition that causes a (conceptual) movement in consciousness as > the > > grace of Ramana Maharshi. So Sandeep's "conceptual two bits" are > > nothing but Ramana's grace flowing towards me through the > instrument > > labeled Sandeep. > > but Ramana' grace can flow directly to you from him !, > there is no need of any intermediary . ask it from Him, > why should we bring in others between us and God ? > > > > One could easily miss it by not reading it or being extremely > > sensitive to WORDS. And by hurting and offending and abusing > Sandeep > > ????? > dear Murali , are you accepting being hurt , offended and abused ? > is this a path to Self-realization ? > from my knowledge - it is not. > > > After 'walking' with Sandeep a few times, I have noticed that > > my 'love' for 'Ramana' has not only intensified but I am able to > > understand him better - from a different perspective. And > > whatever 'sadhanas' I have been doing have become more meaningful. > > > love Ramana without apostrophes , love freely , > you love God . it is a most beautiful love > ever since. > > > > > > Thought I will share this... > > > Murali > > > > thank you for sharing , we are lucky to be here , > so lucky. > > vicki Nothing more to say... Thank you Murali 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.