Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 When one of the devotees told Maharshi about his plans to leave his family and take sanyas, Maharshi discouraged him and said, that as long as there is an ego it does not matter where you go. You will just change from thinking yourself a sanyasi instead of a householder and ego might even gain in strength from the act. But a householder who performs his duties with detachment and without thinking himself a householder is the real sanyasi. it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi is NOT a sanyaasi and a householder who says he is NOT the householder is a sanyaasi'; the explanation of this statement as understood by this b/m/i shall be given in another posting if folks wish so.... to this b/m/i's knowledge, Maharshi never said 'I realized the Self' though he has said 'where can Bhagavan go? Do you think Bhagavan is this body ?' referring to "It's" all-pervading nature... the term Self may be interchangeable with other terms like Guru/God/Atman or even Shiva/Christ/Allah etc. etc.; but self is not interchangeable; in fact there is nothing other than self; remember Maharshi's "I-I"? the latter 'I' is the illusory ego (individual spirit or jivathmaa) that is non-exitent in deep sleep and is safely brought back at waking time... the former 'I' the source of the latter 'I' and continues to be there in all three states of deep sleep/dream/wakeful state.. love... RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" <mi_nok> wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" <mi_nok> wrote: > > this could be a linguistic question > > too... > > > > 1. > > > > -what does Sri Ramana mean by the > > *Self* with capital S ? > > > > 2. > > -is the term Self interchangable with > > Atman, or God? > > > > > > thanks, karta > > if someone states "I realized the Self" > > what does that mean? > > I thought that only Ramana did that.. Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Terms of Service <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Murthy, The approach of neti neti and the way it differs from vichara as taught by Maharshi is explained by Shri Sadhu Om in chapter 7 of The Path of Shri Ramana I. Have you read it? The ego is not the same as self. The ego is a bunch of thoughts and emotions that rise with the I-thought. The feeling I am a man, or renunciate or I am realized for that mattter is just another thought. “But the consciousness Iam is not another thought, its our being” Love chris Am 2/1/03 20:56 schrieb "manof678 <manof678 >" unter <manof678 >: yes, precisely; thanks for the event quote from Maharshi's embodied life... | <<< INWARD VIEW | OUTWARD VIEW >>> Universal | level subtle level gross level --------- ------------ ----------- SELF <--X-- spirit(ego/mind) -----> body sanyasi SELF <----- spirit(ego/mind) --X--> body householder | | | if the ego/mind still has attachment to the body/personality identified as 'sanyasi' that means the person hasn't relinquished the 'attachment' to the body; so they are not really a renuciate. if the ego/mind thinks and gradually "gets to know" that it is not the same as body that carries a title of 'householder' but is actually SAME AS SELF, then they are already a renunciate or a sanyasi... and sooner or later the individual ego will merge with the SUPREME SELF... duality is only upto the subtle plane; there is no individuality in the plane of SELF.. love.... RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > When one of the devotees told Maharshi about his plans to leave his family > and take sanyas, Maharshi discouraged him and said, that as long as there is > an ego it does not matter where you go. You will just change from thinking > yourself a sanyasi instead of a householder and ego might even gain in > strength from the act. But a householder who performs his duties with > detachment and without thinking himself a householder is the real sanyasi. > > > > > it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Terms of Service <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 this could be a linguistic question too... 1. -what does Sri Ramana mean by the *Self* with capital S ? 2. -is the term Self interchangable with Atman, or God? thanks, karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" <mi_nok> wrote: > this could be a linguistic question > too... > > 1. > > -what does Sri Ramana mean by the > *Self* with capital S ? > > 2. > -is the term Self interchangable with > Atman, or God? > > > thanks, karta if someone states "I realized the Self" what does that mean? I thought that only Ramana did that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi is NOT a sanyaasi and a householder who says he is NOT the householder is a sanyaasi'; the explanation of this statement as understood by this b/m/i shall be given in another posting if folks wish so.... to this b/m/i's knowledge, Maharshi never said 'I realized the Self' though he has said 'where can Bhagavan go? Do you think Bhagavan is this body ?' referring to "It's" all-pervading nature... the term Self may be interchangeable with other terms like Guru/God/Atman or even Shiva/Christ/Allah etc. etc.; but self is not interchangeable; in fact there is nothing other than self; remember Maharshi's "I-I"? the latter 'I' is the illusory ego (individual spirit or jivathmaa) that is non-exitent in deep sleep and is safely brought back at waking time... the former 'I' the source of the latter 'I' and continues to be there in all three states of deep sleep/dream/wakeful state.. love... RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" <mi_nok> wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" <mi_nok> wrote: > > this could be a linguistic question > > too... > > > > 1. > > > > -what does Sri Ramana mean by the > > *Self* with capital S ? > > > > 2. > > -is the term Self interchangable with > > Atman, or God? > > > > > > thanks, karta > > if someone states "I realized the Self" > > what does that mean? > > I thought that only Ramana did that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 RamanaMaharshi, "manof678 <manof678>" <manof678> wrote: > it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi is > NOT a sanyaasi and a householder who says he is NOT the householder > is a sanyaasi'; > > the explanation of this statement as understood by this b/m/i shall > be given in another posting if folks wish so.... > > to this b/m/i's knowledge, Maharshi never said 'I realized the Self' > though he has said 'where can Bhagavan go? Do you think Bhagavan is > this body ?' referring to "It's" all-pervading nature... > > the term Self may be interchangeable with other terms like > Guru/God/Atman or even Shiva/Christ/Allah etc. etc.; but self is not > interchangeable; I thought that the term Self is the "self" of God, or Brahman and not interchangable with Atman/Guru/Christ etc. i need further clarification thanks, karta > in fact there is nothing other than self; remember > Maharshi's "I-I"? the latter 'I' is the illusory ego (individual > spirit or jivathmaa) that is non-exitent in deep sleep and is safely > brought back at waking time... the former 'I' the source of the > latter 'I' and continues to be there in all three states of deep > sleep/dream/wakeful state.. > > love... > > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" > <mi_nok> wrote: > > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5 <mi_nok>" > <mi_nok> wrote: > > > this could be a linguistic question > > > too... > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > -what does Sri Ramana mean by the > > > *Self* with capital S ? > > > > > > 2. > > > -is the term Self interchangable with > > > Atman, or God? > > > > > > > > > thanks, karta > > > > if someone states "I realized the Self" > > > > what does that mean? > > > > I thought that only Ramana did that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Karta , linguistic questions are useful to assist our intellectual understanding of Advaita , a necessary prerequisite for correct practice. 1. -what does Sri Ramana mean by the *Self* with capital S ? Be means the Real Self when used with a capital S.The term is interchangeable with Atman , God ,Brahman , Absolute Consciousness ,etc.Self with a small 's' is the ego ,wandering conceptual mind , I Thought etc. which screens off our knowledge of the Real Self .To identify with this false identity is ignorance which the Guru removes to reveal the Real Self ever present as presence .or our true nature as pure Consciousness-Awareness in which everything happens . 2. -is the term Self interchangable with Atman, or God? Yes.As explained above .There is an unfortunate ambiguity in the English language which uses the term 'self' to mean Real Self or petty ego depending on a capital letter .Such are the problems of linguistics .trust this is clear ., every best wish , In His Grace , Alan thanks, karta Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Satkarta , if someone states "I realized the Self" what does that mean? I thought that only Ramana did that.. All are capable of Realising the Self through the Sat-Guru's Grace , following his instructions in the practices of Surrender to the Self and Self Enquiry .The Gury [Ramana] removes the ignorance which veils the Self already there .Not only Ramana reached Self Realisation but s0 did many Great Sages in the past and his devotees who have faithfully followed his teachings in his lifetime and after his Maha Samahdi .Sages rarely claim to be Self Realised because saying 'I am Self Realised 'is an inherent contradiction .The 'I"which would claim Realisation is the "I"which has to be removed by atma -vichara or surrender .The Sage is implicitly recognised by his Presence and has no need to boast "I am Self Realised " .Robert Adams used to say that any one who goes around saying he is Self Realised isn't for this reason.All love In Him , Alan Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Thanks Alan for the good explanation in this and earlier emails... love.... RamanaMaharshi, Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs> wrote: > Dear Satkarta , > > if someone states "I realized the Self" > > what does that mean? > > I thought that only Ramana did that.. > > All are capable of Realising the Self through the Sat-Guru's Grace , following his instructions in > the practices of Surrender to the Self and Self Enquiry .The Gury [Ramana] removes the ignorance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Murthy , thanks to you too -------------- Thanks Alan for the good explanation in this and earlier emails... love.... RamanaMaharshi, Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs> wrote: > Dear Satkarta , > > if someone states "I realized the Self" > > what does that mean? > > I thought that only Ramana did that.. > > All are capable of Realising the Self through the Sat-Guru's Grace , following his instructions in > the practices of Surrender to the Self and Self Enquiry .The Gury [Ramana] removes the ignorance Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 there wasn't any implication of ego being the SELF while still recognizing itself as an 'individual' ego; (but looked at from another point of view if EVERYTHING is SELF then the individual (and illusory) egos and their imaginary b/m/i and personality combination, the world, universe all are the same SELF, isn't it?) Of course I agree that from an absolute viewpoint nothing but self exists. That sentence of mine was a bit rash. (Rashness being one of this lady’s problems) I am writing here not from a Jnani’s viewpoint but from the viewpoint of the seeker. There is in my idea nor much point in discussing what the self is like, because it can be no more than a mental exercise as most of us never had more than the occasional glimpse of the self and Maharshi always said: “why worry about the experiences of the jnani, find out who you are. All sentient objects, and especially human beings, are endowed with this awareness of the 'I sense' only to look inward and find out that the 'I sense' is nothing but the Supreme and Unchanging SELF. The I-sense as far as I understand Maharshi’s teachings is the reflection of the self in its purest form. Everybody knows they exist, even in deep sleep. On waking second persons do arise. In my own words I put it like this. When I was a chid, then a teenager, then grown-up, now middle age, the sense of being I is always the same. You here people crying. I am now 60 but inside I feel the same as when I was 25. Hold on to that feeling of I and ask from where it comes from. the "inward view" (in the picture below that just came to mind as the email was being written) was supposed to indicate individual ego's (jivaathmaa's) sojourn to get to know its real nature which is nothing but the SELF. When that ultimate goal is reached, "two" distinct entities DO NOT become one (meaning jivaathmaa does not merge with paramaathmaa) but the ego (or the apparent feeling of separation) is wiped out for good; in other words what was already ONE appeared like two (dual) and the goal is said to have been reached when this 'illusory dual appearance' is wiped out; this is so, for the Jnani there are no others, no ego, they have never existed. Being only a reflection they never had any substance of their own. Like a wave in the ocean. somewhere in Bhagvan's teachings remember Him saying that the 'body/personality that remains after this state (till the praarabhdaa is burnt off) is like the 'rope-like' ash shape that remains even after the actual rope is already burnt off'; Yes, Mahrshi taught that after realization its like a wheel that goes on spinning for a while even though the motor has been turned off. Prarabdha has to be experienced , but no new karmas are generated by the Jnani. Well, again, this is all this writer's assimilation and it is indeed confusing for the intellect (yes, it is to the writer also); but will all become clear once we actualize it for ourselves; that is the TOTAL trust one needs to put in the Guru's Grace... Surrender is so easy and so hard. I remember very well when driven by shear desperation I was first able to surrender and hand my burden over to the Lord. And every day again and again i surrender i. I find trust in Bhagawan’s grace is hardest when it comes to experience bodily discomfort such as illness. I am not the body, that gets really difficult when there is pain. thus, all of what is said above is subject to (as well as available to)review and even contradiction by others.... I agree and welcome any objections. I am new in this group and after years of never talking to any other sadhaka there is kind of overflow. Thanks for bearing with me. I hope I don’t sound like I am lecturing or know it all. love.....and love RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > Dear Murthy, > > The approach of neti neti and the way it differs from vichara as taught by > Maharshi is explained by Shri Sadhu Om in chapter 7 of The Path of Shri > Ramana I. Have you read it? > > The ego is not the same as self. The ego is a bunch of thoughts and > emotions that rise with the I-thought. The feeling I am a man, or renunciate > or I am realized for that mattter is just another thought. “But the > consciousness Iam is not another thought, its our being” > > Love > chris > > > > > > Am 2/1/03 20:56 schrieb "manof678 <manof678>" unter > <manof678>: > > > yes, precisely; thanks for the event quote from Maharshi's embodied > > life... > > > > | > > <<< INWARD VIEW | OUTWARD VIEW >>> > > Universal | > > level subtle level gross level > > --------- ------------ ----------- > > SELF <--X-- spirit(ego/mind) -----> body sanyasi > > SELF <----- spirit(ego/mind) --X--> body householder > > | > > | > > | > > > > if the ego/mind still has attachment to the body/personality > > identified as 'sanyasi' that means the person hasn't relinquished > > the 'attachment' to the body; so they are not really a renuciate. > > > > if the ego/mind thinks and gradually "gets to know" that it is not > > the same as body that carries a title of 'householder' but is > > actually SAME AS SELF, then they are already a renunciate or a > > sanyasi... and sooner or later the individual ego will merge with the > > SUPREME SELF... > > > > duality is only upto the subtle plane; there is no individuality in > > the plane of SELF.. > > > > love.... > > > > RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > >> > When one of the devotees told Maharshi about his plans to leave > > his family > >> > and take sanyas, Maharshi discouraged him and said, that as long as > > there is > >> > an ego it does not matter where you go. You will just change from > > thinking > >> > yourself a sanyasi instead of a householder and ego might even > > gain in > >> > strength from the act. But a householder who performs his duties > > with > >> > detachment and without thinking himself a householder is the real > > sanyasi. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Terms of Service > > <> . Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Terms of Service <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 Dear Miles, its wonderful to read about the various journeys to Bhagawan’s feet. > I find trust in Bhagawan’s grace is hardest when it comes to experience bodily > discomfort such as illness. I am not the body, that gets really difficult when > there is pain One can embrace (surrender to) the pain as an expression of Self or Grace. The depths of pain and fear can act as an effective catalyst for deep vichara. You are so right . And Bhagawan gave his own example in the months before the Mahasamadhi. A small anekdote: Some people came up to Skandashram to look for Maharshi, who did not make himself known to them. Later on Echammal asked for the reason of his behaviour. He said: what do you want me to do. Shall I carry a sign around my neck saying I am the Swamy? At the feet of Arunachala Shiva love from Berlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 yes, precisely; thanks for the event quote from Maharshi's embodied life... | <<< INWARD VIEW | OUTWARD VIEW >>> Universal | level subtle level gross level --------- ------------ ----------- SELF <--X-- spirit(ego/mind) -----> body sanyasi SELF <----- spirit(ego/mind) --X--> body householder | | | if the ego/mind still has attachment to the body/personality identified as 'sanyasi' that means the person hasn't relinquished the 'attachment' to the body; so they are not really a renuciate. if the ego/mind thinks and gradually "gets to know" that it is not the same as body that carries a title of 'householder' but is actually SAME AS SELF, then they are already a renunciate or a sanyasi... and sooner or later the individual ego will merge with the SUPREME SELF... duality is only upto the subtle plane; there is no individuality in the plane of SELF.. love.... RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > When one of the devotees told Maharshi about his plans to leave his family > and take sanyas, Maharshi discouraged him and said, that as long as there is > an ego it does not matter where you go. You will just change from thinking > yourself a sanyasi instead of a householder and ego might even gain in > strength from the act. But a householder who performs his duties with > detachment and without thinking himself a householder is the real sanyasi. > > > > > it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 not yet; Sadhu Om's works haven't been read yet; perhaps, Grace will guide to those in the imminent visit to Ramanasramam later this month... appreciate your remarks on how vichara and neti neti approach differs; there wasn't any implication of ego being the SELF while still recognizing itself as an 'individual' ego; (but looked at from another point of view if EVERYTHING is SELF then the individual (and illusory) egos and their imaginary b/m/i and personality combination, the world, universe all are the same SELF, isn't it?) All sentient objects, and especially human beings, are endowed with this awareness of the 'I sense' only to look inward and find out that the 'I sense' is nothing but the Supreme and Unchanging SELF. In other words, the "duality" is a deliberate creation (in fact, a blessing) to realize the "Unity"; without the duality, for ex. in insentient or gross objects (like a rock), there is no possibility of realizing the "unity" though such insentient objects are also nothing but the same Supreme and Unchanging SELF. the "inward view" (in the picture below that just came to mind as the email was being written) was supposed to indicate individual ego's (jivaathmaa's) sojourn to get to know its real nature which is nothing but the SELF. When that ultimate goal is reached, "two" distinct entities DO NOT become one (meaning jivaathmaa does not merge with paramaathmaa) but the ego (or the apparent feeling of separation) is wiped out for good; in other words what was already ONE appeared like two (dual) and the goal is said to have been reached when this 'illusory dual appearance' is wiped out; somewhere in Bhagvan's teachings remember Him saying that the 'body/personality that remains after this state (till the praarabhdaa is burnt off) is like the 'rope-like' ash shape that remains even after the actual rope is already burnt off'; Well, again, this is all this writer's assimilation and it is indeed confusing for the intellect (yes, it is to the writer also); but will all become clear once we actualize it for ourselves; that is the TOTAL trust one needs to put in the Guru's Grace... thus, all of what is said above is subject to (as well as available to)review and even contradiction by others.... love..... RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > Dear Murthy, > > The approach of neti neti and the way it differs from vichara as taught by > Maharshi is explained by Shri Sadhu Om in chapter 7 of The Path of Shri > Ramana I. Have you read it? > > The ego is not the same as self. The ego is a bunch of thoughts and > emotions that rise with the I-thought. The feeling I am a man, or renunciate > or I am realized for that mattter is just another thought. ³But the > consciousness Iam is not another thought, its our being² > > Love > chris > > > > > > Am 2/1/03 20:56 schrieb "manof678 <manof678>" unter > <manof678>: > > > yes, precisely; thanks for the event quote from Maharshi's embodied > > life... > > > > | > > <<< INWARD VIEW | OUTWARD VIEW >>> > > Universal | > > level subtle level gross level > > --------- ------------ ----------- > > SELF <--X-- spirit(ego/mind) -----> body sanyasi > > SELF <----- spirit(ego/mind) --X--> body householder > > | > > | > > | > > > > if the ego/mind still has attachment to the body/personality > > identified as 'sanyasi' that means the person hasn't relinquished > > the 'attachment' to the body; so they are not really a renuciate. > > > > if the ego/mind thinks and gradually "gets to know" that it is not > > the same as body that carries a title of 'householder' but is > > actually SAME AS SELF, then they are already a renunciate or a > > sanyasi... and sooner or later the individual ego will merge with the > > SUPREME SELF... > > > > duality is only upto the subtle plane; there is no individuality in > > the plane of SELF.. > > > > love.... > > > > RamanaMaharshi, ccameron@t... wrote: > >> > When one of the devotees told Maharshi about his plans to leave > > his family > >> > and take sanyas, Maharshi discouraged him and said, that as long as > > there is > >> > an ego it does not matter where you go. You will just change from > > thinking > >> > yourself a sanyasi instead of a householder and ego might even > > gain in > >> > strength from the act. But a householder who performs his duties > > with > >> > detachment and without thinking himself a householder is the real > > sanyasi. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > it is said 'a sanyaasi(renunciate) who says he/she is a sanyaasi > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Terms of Service > > <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 thanks for all input love, karta The teaching of nonduality The metaphysics of nonduality By now you may be getting the impression that we will be questioning the reality of all objects in this course, and if you are, you will be correct. No object will be excluded from this examination because until you understand that no object is real and all are conceptual, you will not be free. The statement of nonduality is that Consciousness is all there is. Advaita, the Sanskrit word for nonduality, means absence of both duality and nonduality. There is neither duality nor nonduality in Consciousness, since both are nothing but concepts. This means that Consciousness cannot be objectified ---rather, it is transcendent to all objectification. Consciousness includes all existence, all absence of existence, and all that transcends both existence and non-existence. All separation is conceptual, thus, all objects are conceptual.=A0Since no object is real, no object exists. In fact, existence itself is only conceptual We use concepts in order to be able to communicate with each other about Consciousness. In actuality, there is only Consciousness and there is nothing but Consciousness. Some sages sometimes refer to Consciousness as God or Totality There are no separate individuals, and there is no separate "I". It is the illusion of separation which makes us think there is a world that is separate from us. Since there is no separate "I", there is no ability volition, or freedom to think, feel or act separately. Everything that appears to happen, including all thoughts and actions of the "individual", happens completely spontaneously (causelessly). Indeed, the manifestation itself, including the illusion of physical causation, appears completely spontaneously. For the purposes of communication, we may sometimes say that all that appears to happen, including all thinking, feeling and doing, is done by Consciousness, Totality, or God. The danger in this is that we may be inclined to think erroneously of Consciousness as an object or entity to which we might ascribe human emotions and intentions. For example, we may then be tempted to ask, "Why did God create suffering?" or, "Why is God doing this to me?" However, in fact, Consciousness is not an object or entity that has emotions or intentions. Consciousness functions completely impersonally. Consciousness does not and cannot "do" anything, because there is nothing but Consciousness, so there is nothing separate for Consciousness to act on, to feel, or to think about. Ignorance is the result of Consciousness identifying with the concept of a separate "I", resulting in an illusory I-entity which is separate from all other objects and entities, and which is erroneously accompanied by the belief that it has the power to do, think, and choose. Self-realization awakening, and enlightenment are terms applied to the disappearance of this sense of personal doership and responsibility simultaneously with the realization that there is nothing but Consciousness. Awakening is experienced as absolute total, and timeless freedom and peace, either with or without activity Simultaneously there is the deep intuitive conviction that our true nature is pure unmanifest Awareness-Presence, or pure Subjectivity, and that it transcends all phenomena. Because of this, it is without limits. Other terms which we shall use for pure Awareness-Presence are the Self, Noumenality, Truth, That, or I-Am. Truth is not something that can be conceptualized or described, but it can be pointed to. Enlightenment, or awakening, is the natural result of spiritual evolution. Before enlightenment, the movement outwards towards the world and separation is driven by desire, fear and suffering, while the movement inwards towards Truth is driven by intuition and apperception (inner awareness), decreasing interest in the external, and the urge to know one's true nature. It is accompanied by an increasing sense of freedom, wholeness, and peace. These are not true movements because there is no place to go, for Consciousness is always What-We-Are, but initially they may be experienced as movement. The perception that we are separate and that we are what is doing, perceiving and thinking is a movement outward, while understanding and inner awareness are movements inward. Before enlightenment, the inward and outward movements alternate with each other because neither can be sustained indefinitely by itself. Whereas phenomenal events occur in time and appear to obey the law of causality, awakening or enlightenment obeys no laws of phenomenality and therefore it occurs from outside of time and cannot be predicted, achieved attained, or provoked. from a faculty.edu. page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Chris, > I find trust in Bhagawan¹s grace is hardest when it comes to experience bodily > discomfort such as illness. I am not the body, that gets really difficult when > there is pain One can embrace (surrender to) the pain as an expression of Self or Grace. The depths of pain and fear can act as an effective catalyst for deep vichara. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 Hi Karta, Very interesting. It says a faculty.edu page - which faculty and who wrote it ? Vic >"satkartar5 <mi_nok" <mi_nok >RamanaMaharshi >RamanaMaharshi >[RamanaMaharshi] Re: questions about the "Self" >Sun, 02 Feb 2003 01:15:25 -0000 > >thanks for all input > >love, karta > >The teaching of nonduality > >The metaphysics of nonduality >By now you may be getting the >impression that we will be questioning > the reality of all objects in this >course, and if you are, you will be >correct. No object will be excluded > from this examination because until >you understand that no object is real >and all are conceptual, you will not be > free. > >The statement of nonduality is that >Consciousness is all there is. > >Advaita, the Sanskrit word for >nonduality, means absence of both >duality and nonduality. There is >neither duality nor nonduality in >Consciousness, since both are nothing > but concepts. This means that >Consciousness cannot be objectified ---rather, it is transcendent to all >objectification. Consciousness >includes all existence, all absence >of existence, and all that transcends > both existence and non-existence. > >All separation is conceptual, thus, >all objects are conceptual.=A0Since >no object is real, no object exists. > In fact, existence itself is only >conceptual We use concepts in order >to be able to communicate with each > other about Consciousness. > >In actuality, there is only >Consciousness and there is nothing >but Consciousness. > >Some sages sometimes refer to >Consciousness as God or Totality >There are no separate individuals, and > there is no separate "I". It is the > illusion of separation which makes > us think there is a world that is >separate from us. Since there is >no separate "I", there is no ability > volition, or freedom to think, feel > or act separately. Everything >that appears to happen, including >all thoughts and actions of the >"individual", happens completely >spontaneously (causelessly). Indeed, >the manifestation itself, including >the illusion of physical causation, >appears completely spontaneously. >For the purposes of communication, >we may sometimes say that all that >appears to happen, including all >thinking, feeling and doing, is >done by Consciousness, Totality, or >God. > >The danger in this is that we may >be inclined to think erroneously of Consciousness as an object or entity > to which we might ascribe human >emotions and intentions. For example, > we may then be tempted to ask, "Why > did God create suffering?" or, "Why > is God doing this to me?" However, in > fact, Consciousness is not an object > or entity that has emotions or >intentions. > >Consciousness functions completely impersonally. Consciousness does not > and cannot "do" anything, because >there is nothing but Consciousness, >so there is nothing separate for Consciousness to act on, to feel, or > to think about. > >Ignorance is the result of >Consciousness identifying with the >concept of a separate "I", resulting > in an illusory I-entity which is >separate from all other objects and >entities, and which is erroneously accompanied by the belief that it has > the power to do, think, and choose. > >Self-realization awakening, and >enlightenment are terms applied to the disappearance of this sense of >personal >doership and responsibility simultaneously > with the realization that there is >nothing but Consciousness. > >Awakening is experienced as absolute >total, and timeless freedom and peace, > either with or without activity >Simultaneously there is the deep >intuitive conviction that our true >nature is pure unmanifest >Awareness-Presence, or pure >Subjectivity, and that it transcends >all phenomena. Because of this, >it is without limits. Other terms >which we shall use for pure Awareness-Presence are the Self, >Noumenality, Truth, That, or I-Am. >Truth is not something that can be conceptualized or described, but it >can be pointed to. Enlightenment, or awakening, is the natural result of >spiritual evolution. > >Before enlightenment, the movement >outwards towards the world and >separation is driven by desire, fear > and suffering, while the movement >inwards towards Truth is driven by >intuition and apperception (inner >awareness), decreasing interest in >the external, and the urge to know >one's true nature. > >It is accompanied by an increasing >sense of freedom, wholeness, and >peace. These are not true movements >because there is no place to go, >for Consciousness is always >What-We-Are, but initially they may >be experienced as movement. The >perception that we are separate and >that we are what is doing, perceiving >and thinking is a movement outward, >while understanding and inner >awareness are movements inward. > >Before enlightenment, the inward >and outward movements alternate with >each other because neither can be >sustained indefinitely by itself. > >Whereas phenomenal events occur in >time and appear to obey the law of >causality, awakening or enlightenment > obeys no laws of phenomenality and >therefore it occurs from outside of >time and cannot be predicted, achieved > attained, or provoked. > >from a faculty.edu. page > > > _______________ Surf together with new Shared Browsing http://join.msn.com/?page=features/browse&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=74&DI=1059 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.