I love Ramana Maharshi

[Guest guest]

Hi Vicki,

 

I generally steer clear of controversies, but your words really bring

something up in me--the desire to understand the devotee's path. To

understand the way of Bhakti. When I hear you say that Ramana is Truth and

that no one else has the right to speak, on one hand I respect your devotion

and on the other hand I don't understand it (I guess using two hands

constitutes duality).

 

To me, Truth is not an object to be worshipped, but a seed that is meant to

blossom deep in the silence that is the heart of our being. Isn't the point

of Truth to remove our blindness, so that we, too, may see that Truth, may

be that Truth?

 

If we don't speak our own words, how will we know how deeply that seed has

taken root in our heart? (Although, I am aware that the nondual path is

especially susceptible to sophistry.)

 

If you don't mind my asking, could you speak a little about the devotee's

path. About the relationship between devotion and freedom.

 

I have accepted that I may never be able to truly appreciate the Bhakti

path, because it is not my own, but I would like to understand it.

 

With deep respect,

Julie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Vicki,

 

"If we don't speak our own words, how will we know how deeply that seed has

taken root in our heart?"

 

In rereading my own post, I see how easy it is to get lost in words. It may

seem like parroting to say, "who is blind?" but that really is the central

question. For I see that I can't speak truly about "my" blindness, for the

blindness comes in believing that there is a "me" who is blind and needs

freedom and grace to see.

 

To be cured of "my" blindness is to cease to be a person who either sees or

is blind.

 

And to look at my statement as quoted above, to judge how deeply the seed of

truth has taken root in my heart, is to judge how far the person I wrongly

believe myself to be has progressed.

 

Oy.

 

You may have the quicker path. Do you see devotion as a surrendering of your

separate self to Truth?

 

Namaste,

Julie

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vicki,

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote:

 

Dear Julie ,

 

I found everything that I feel and I think and what is happening to me

described in different books and scriptures . So I understood that

there is nothing new to say. There is nothing new to discover.

There is nothing new that can be added. So I discovered that anything

I would have liked to say it has already been said , last year ,

last century or five thousand years ago. So I have nothing to say.

This is why I don't speak too much.

This is why I keep quoting Ramana. He said everything .

There is nothing left for another to say.

 

Also , there are the Upanishads. Also there are scriptures

in other religions .If everything has been already said ,

what could we possibly add to this ?

 

 

 

 

KKT: Agree that there is

nothing new to say.

 

But if one really has true understanding

then the << EXPRESSION >> should be always new.

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

 

 

===============

 

When we bring our words - as spiritual seekers - they are actually

a reference to our present state of understanding.

 

But my present state of understanding is not yours , is not hers , is

not his ...

so on. So everyone who speaks points to where one's understanding is .

 

So I think we have to spare other people from bringing them too many

of our words because they have already their own , spoken loudly or

not.

 

Our words tell our master where we stay so that he could guide from

that level. But we can't impose our words and understanding on others

and when this happens there are controversies.

 

The path of devotion is to trust the master that he knows where you

stay and he guides you from there even against your own will or

desires.

 

Such trust can be said in our words surrender and it can't be without

love.

And this love when it happens is beyond everything worldly.

 

That is a kind of an answer , hope I answered you ,

 

vicki

[Guest guest]

Dear Vicki,

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote:

 

 

> But if one really has true understanding

> > then the << EXPRESSION >> should be always new.

 

 

Dear KKT,

 

I am back as I feel my answer incomplete.

 

I agree that the expression is always new.

And there is always the perfect expression - silence.

 

Imagine this:

I am alone lying down on a field of grass and looking at the sky.

I might notice nothing , I might just be there and notice nothing

unusual.

Suddenly a bird crosses before my eyes . As the bird is moving,

suddenly I might notice the immensity behind , the immensity of the

sky

that

I haven't noticed before. And I am grateful to the bird.

And I am grateful to the sky . And I am grateful to the silence.

 

Now imagine this :

 

I am alone lying down on a field of grass and looking at the sky.

I might notice nothing , I might just be there and notice nothing

unusual.

Suddenly a flock of birds is coming . And another. And another.

And another .Chirping this , chirping that .And another flock of birds

is

coming . Chirping this , chirping that. I see not the sky .

I hear not the silence.

 

The blessed immensity of the sky is hided behind.

I miss and long for seeing the immensity behind.

I beg the silence to reign again.

I miss that passing lonely bird so majestically pointing at it.

 

Love to all humankind lonely passing birds,

 

vicki

 

 

 

 

 

 

KKT: The << inside >> silence

is ever silence.

 

It has never been affected

by the birds.

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

 

 

PS. Thanks for your answer.

I understand what you mean

by the << passing lonely bird

so majestically pointing at it >>