Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 Turn off the radio. Notice that you exist. Who am I? Notice your thoughts. Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts, Like your moods or emotions. Be still. You know thought. Who knows thought? Which thought am I? Can I be thought? Who am I? Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke We are not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of manifestation. This time, after having said what had to be said there is this quiet. Indeed we are not two, Ben. --------------- Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda - Richard Clarke RamanaMaharshi Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33 Turn off the radio.Notice that you exist.Who am I?Notice your thoughts.Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts,Like your moods or emotions.Be still.You know thought.Who knows thought?Which thought am I?Can I be thought?Who am I?Copyright 2003 Richard ClarkeWe are not two,Richard Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 Ben, Well said. And I loved your copyright notice. Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote: > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of manifestation. > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this quiet. > > Indeed we are not two, > > Ben. > > --------------- > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > - > Richard Clarke > RamanaMaharshi > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33 > > > > > Turn off the radio. > Notice that you exist. > Who am I? > > > > Notice your thoughts. > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts, > Like your moods or emotions. > > Be still. > > You know thought. > Who knows thought? > > Which thought am I? > Can I be thought? > Who am I? > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke > > We are not two, > Richard > > > Sponsor > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 'we are not two' sounds kind of silly (yes, honestly, I am using a milder adjective), bcoz 'we' implies more than one and then it is immediatly contradicted.... also, if 'we are not two', why copyright? who's claiming copyright & who's copying... it is easy to talk the talk, but very difficult to walk the talk.... love to you all.. Murthy RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote: > Ben, > > Well said. And I loved your copyright notice. > > Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote: > > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of manifestation. > > > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this > quiet. > > > > Indeed we are not two, > > > > Ben. > > > > --------------- > > > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > > - > > Richard Clarke > > RamanaMaharshi > > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM > > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33 > > > > > > > > > > Turn off the radio. > > Notice that you exist. > > Who am I? > > > > > > > > Notice your thoughts. > > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts, > > Like your moods or emotions. > > > > Be still. > > > > You know thought. > > Who knows thought? > > > > Which thought am I? > > Can I be thought? > > Who am I? > > > > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke > > > > We are not two, > > Richard > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 More difficult it is to walk the walk, Nearly impossible it is to just walk. ps Richard I am looking forward to a copy of Freeway Zen, will you be uploading it to files section? - manof678 RamanaMaharshi Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:46 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Freeway Zen, 33 'we are not two' sounds kind of silly (yes, honestly, I am using a milder adjective), bcoz 'we' implies more than one and then it is immediatly contradicted....also, if 'we are not two', why copyright? who's claiming copyright & who's copying... it is easy to talk the talk, but very difficult to walk the talk....love to you all.. MurthyRamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote:> Ben,> > Well said. And I loved your copyright notice.> > Not two,> Richard> > --- In RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote:> > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of manifestation.> > > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this > quiet.> > > > Indeed we are not two,> > > > Ben.> > > > ---------------> > > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > > - > > Richard Clarke > > RamanaMaharshi > > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM> > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33> > > > > > > > > > Turn off the radio.> > Notice that you exist.> > Who am I?> > > > > > > > Notice your thoughts.> > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts,> > Like your moods or emotions.> > > > Be still.> > > > You know thought.> > Who knows thought?> > > > Which thought am I?> > Can I be thought?> > Who am I?> > > > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke> > > > We are not two,> > Richard> > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 The funny thing is, after I wrote my reply, I really hurt my foot, my little toe is bleeding, I cannot feel it and I can hardly walk! Sometimes suffering is so much fun! Warm regards, Ben. - ashtavakra RamanaMaharshi Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:15 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Freeway Zen, 33 More difficult it is to walk the walk, Nearly impossible it is to just walk. ps Richard I am looking forward to a copy of Freeway Zen, will you be uploading it to files section? - manof678 RamanaMaharshi Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:46 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Freeway Zen, 33 'we are not two' sounds kind of silly (yes, honestly, I am using a milder adjective), bcoz 'we' implies more than one and then it is immediatly contradicted....also, if 'we are not two', why copyright? who's claiming copyright & who's copying... it is easy to talk the talk, but very difficult to walk the talk....love to you all.. MurthyRamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote:> Ben,> > Well said. And I loved your copyright notice.> > Not two,> Richard> > --- In RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote:> > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of manifestation.> > > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this > quiet.> > > > Indeed we are not two,> > > > Ben.> > > > ---------------> > > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > > - > > Richard Clarke > > RamanaMaharshi > > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM> > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33> > > > > > > > > > Turn off the radio.> > Notice that you exist.> > Who am I?> > > > > > > > Notice your thoughts.> > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts,> > Like your moods or emotions.> > > > Be still.> > > > You know thought.> > Who knows thought?> > > > Which thought am I?> > Can I be thought?> > Who am I?> > > > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke> > > > We are not two,> > Richard> > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Dear Ben, Yes, when I have posted it one page at a time, I will post a pdf files that contains the whole document. Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote: > More difficult it is to walk the walk, > Nearly impossible it is to just walk. > > ps Richard I am looking forward to a copy of Freeway Zen, will you be uploading it to files section? > - > manof678 > RamanaMaharshi > Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:46 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Freeway Zen, 33 > > > 'we are not two' sounds kind of silly (yes, honestly, I am using a > milder adjective), bcoz 'we' implies more than one and then it is > immediatly contradicted.... > > also, if 'we are not two', why copyright? who's claiming copyright & > who's copying... > > it is easy to talk the talk, but very difficult to walk the talk.... > > love to you all.. Murthy > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" > <rclarke@s...> wrote: > > Ben, > > > > Well said. And I loved your copyright notice. > > > > Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote: > > > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of > manifestation. > > > > > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this > > quiet. > > > > > > Indeed we are not two, > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > --------------- > > > > > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > > > - > > > Richard Clarke > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM > > > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Turn off the radio. > > > Notice that you exist. > > > Who am I? > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice your thoughts. > > > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts, > > > Like your moods or emotions. > > > > > > Be still. > > > > > > You know thought. > > > Who knows thought? > > > > > > Which thought am I? > > > Can I be thought? > > > Who am I? > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke > > > > > > We are not two, > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Dear Murthy, Sometimes this seems paradoxical. Yes. The "sign off" that I use comes from my own deep experience. (though as a seeker rather than a sage, this experience came and went, so it does not represent where I always "stand.") I used the simpler "Not two" for a while, then added the "We are" as an attempt to reduce the distance between the apparent you and the apparant I. I want the chance to find a publisher. That is why I assert the copyright. The other alternative I have is to simply not share the material, and wait to see if I can get it published. I make no claim of being a sage. Just another seeker, who is serioius about practice, and who has been blessed with studying Ramana's teachings under the guidance of a wonderful teacher. Hope you find the material somewhat of use. Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "manof678" <manof678> wrote: > 'we are not two' sounds kind of silly (yes, honestly, I am using a > milder adjective), bcoz 'we' implies more than one and then it is > immediatly contradicted.... > > also, if 'we are not two', why copyright? who's claiming copyright & > who's copying... > > it is easy to talk the talk, but very difficult to walk the talk.... > > love to you all.. Murthy > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" > <rclarke@s...> wrote: > > Ben, > > > > Well said. And I loved your copyright notice. > > > > Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "ashtavakra" <ashta@x> wrote: > > > I am the infinite ocean of bliss behind the mirror of > manifestation. > > > > > > This time, after having said what had to be said there is this > > quiet. > > > > > > Indeed we are not two, > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > --------------- > > > > > > Copyright Sat-Chit-Ananda > > > - > > > Richard Clarke > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > Monday, April 07, 2003 4:41 PM > > > [RamanaMaharshi] Freeway Zen, 33 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Turn off the radio. > > > Notice that you exist. > > > Who am I? > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice your thoughts. > > > Notice any thought. Notice collections of thoughts, > > > Like your moods or emotions. > > > > > > Be still. > > > > > > You know thought. > > > Who knows thought? > > > > > > Which thought am I? > > > Can I be thought? > > > Who am I? > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2003 Richard Clarke > > > > > > We are not two, > > > Richard > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Dear Richard: my observations were not meant to hurt anyone's feelings and if they have, I apologize unconditionally; the apparent paradox to my mind is this: if a seeker is still seeking, the only goal is to wipe out the ego; then the question arises why go in a direction to satisfy or pamper the ego by seeking to publish one's work, especially something that is purportedly to guide/help others in seeking....; if others (who still see 'two' and not 'one' ) feel something deserves publishing they would, wouldn't they ? sharing of what one has read from masters and how that has helped them personally in their seeking is sligtly better (again, this is not my judgement call, rather a point of view when seen from a perspective of trying to satisfy one's ego), though, here too, "the need for recognition" of the individual ego is still apparent. on another note, when I started with these groups, I tried writing without the use of the words 'I' or 'me' or 'mine'; a practicing friend who had just read Nisargadatta's work gave that idea to me and I thought that is a good way of suggesting to myself that 'I' is unimportant and should be wiped out; but, you know what, I am sure most readers of my posting got totally confused or tired of the style and I realized, for practical interaction, it is kind of pointless to resort to such superfluous conventions... if these groups have to be satsangs (and not 'asat'sangs), I think it is better people share what they experience in their seeking and any influence they may have had from their master(s) either directly (personally) or thru books and other sources.. well, again, that is my 'ego''s opinion and my ego has let my personality down many times... lol thanks and love to you all, Murthy RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote: > Dear Murthy, > > Sometimes this seems paradoxical. Yes. The "sign off" that I use > comes from my own deep experience. (though as a seeker rather than a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Murthy, Thank you for your comments. No feelings were hurt. Even if feelings were hurt, then I have learned that this can be used for practice. The "feelings" are just ideas of this personal sense of I, that is inquired into to find that, first it is just and idea, then later (I have heard and read from the sages) never existed in the first place. You certainly are right about what can happen with ego-I ideas when writing and publishing. It is easy for this to feed the ego. I think what happens depends on the motivation of the writer and where they stand in their own spiritual practice. My intent in writing is sharing precious teachings that I have learned and spent years practicing. I have a living teacher. Many seekers do not. I want to share the grace that I have received. The meditations I included in "Freeway Zen" are all mediations that I have practiced, so what is included was first inquiry approaches that I have been taught by my teacher (except for the mindfulness exercises), then also reflect my own actual practice. Also in my own practice I tried for a few weeks to eliminate the word "I." It made for peculiar syntax when speaking, but was interesting in that I became even more aware of how "I" permeates thought. I asked my teacher about this, and he did not encourage it as a focus of practice. So I dropped the approach. An approach that I was taught that seems powerful, is to "catch" a thought, any thought, and look in that thought to see how it revolves around the I- thought. As I have done this meditation, I see clearly that each thought does, in fact, revolve around the I-thought. If you have not done this meditation, maybe it would be of value to you. What I try to focus on in my practice is what is beneficial for my practice. I have found that arguments, disputes, criticism of others, upset at others and such do not further my practice. I have also found that asserting of ego does not further practice in any way. So as I look at the choices that I make now, I find that I make fewer choices that support ego. As you have pointed out, writing for others is a funny thing. It is VERY easy for this to turn into ego-fodder, "Oh, I am so smart" or such. We know that this is fool's gold though. Even with this understanding, I find that I want to share with other seekers. I want to share, not to establish myself (this ego-I) as some kind of "authority," but rather out of love for the teaching, and gratitude for the grace that I have received. The danger in doing any of this is that I am sending energy and attention on something other that my own realization. Enough for now. Now two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "manof678" <manof678> wrote: > Dear Richard: > > my observations were not meant to hurt anyone's feelings and if they > have, I apologize unconditionally; > > the apparent paradox to my mind is this: > > if a seeker is still seeking, the only goal is to wipe out the ego; > then the question arises why go in a direction to satisfy or pamper > the ego by seeking to publish one's work, especially something that > is purportedly to guide/help others in seeking....; if others (who > still see 'two' and not 'one' ) feel something deserves publishing > they would, wouldn't they ? > > sharing of what one has read from masters and how that has helped > them personally in their seeking is sligtly better (again, this is > not my judgement call, rather a point of view when seen from a > perspective of trying to satisfy one's ego), though, here too, "the > need for recognition" of the individual ego is still apparent. > > on another note, when I started with these groups, I tried writing > without the use of the words 'I' or 'me' or 'mine'; a practicing > friend who had just read Nisargadatta's work gave that idea to me and > I thought that is a good way of suggesting to myself that 'I' is > unimportant and should be wiped out; > > but, you know what, I am sure most readers of my posting got totally > confused or tired of the style and I realized, for practical > interaction, it is kind of pointless to resort to such superfluous > conventions... > > if these groups have to be satsangs (and not 'asat'sangs), I think it > is better people share what they experience in their seeking and any > influence they may have had from their master(s) either directly > (personally) or thru books and other sources.. > > well, again, that is my 'ego''s opinion and my ego has let my > personality down many times... lol > > thanks and love to you all, Murthy > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" > <rclarke@s...> wrote: > > Dear Murthy, > > > > Sometimes this seems paradoxical. Yes. The "sign off" that I use > > comes from my own deep experience. (though as a seeker rather than > a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Here's a beautiful way of looking at sharing: My teacher says give away everything that you know now from a space of gratitude. In that giving, you empty yourself and make room for what you don't know. What I have learned is to look inside for the most beautiful feeling, for the deepest most beautiful feeling and to live from that feeling. Just now, it seems like that may be what you talk about as diving into the heart. I'm not sure. I only know that something pulls me to this group and even though I just read words on my computer, the feeling is of spaciousness and more. I am following what I don't know. Thank you for sharing and being open to all. Love Linda Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Linda, Thank you for your comments. I just naturally want to share what I have received. I have reflected and meditated about this, and as far as I can discriminate, I do this sharing not for reasons of ego, but rather as a way to give back gifts that I have gotten. I DO NOT want to strengthen this ego. And that can be a danger in such sharing. I also feel like this teaching is precious, and that in this electronic sangha, we are all seekers together in the deepest and most wonderful quest. Wea are not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, linda levy <lindalevel> wrote: > Here's a beautiful way of looking at sharing: > My teacher says give away everything that you know now > from a space of gratitude. In that giving, you empty > yourself and make room for what you don't know. > > What I have learned is to look inside for the most > beautiful feeling, for the deepest most beautiful > feeling and to live from that feeling. Just now, it > seems like that may be what you talk about as diving > into the heart. I'm not sure. I only know that > something pulls me to this group and even though I > just read words on my computer, the feeling is of > spaciousness and more. I am following what I don't > know. Thank you for sharing and being open to all. > Love Linda > > > > Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more > http://tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear All: OK, looks like I HAVE managed to hurt lot of feelings and quite a few sincere souls; first, let me repeat there wasn't any intention to hurt anyone at all; but I recognize that it has come out that way by the words I used and the way I said those words; I pondered about all these replies during my drive all the morning and here is the net result: a. MY UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGIES to Richard, Alan and everyone else in the group if I have hurt them by my statements. b. Having said that and feeling relieved, I wish to make a statement which I hope will not create more hurt feelings: in my understanding, the power of discrimination is an inevitable charecterictic of the individual ego in a worldly environment. in my understanding, it is ok to apply that power to judge one'w own actions and thoughts and decide what is 'good' and what is 'bad'; this is essential even in "seeking" to know what is 'unreal' and drop them one by one. it is not ok to apply that power to judge others' actions and thoughts unless they (the others) are related to the individual in some way or their actions/thoughts might impact the individual in some way; again, this is my understanding. so using this principle, based on my discriminating power applied on my actions and thoughts, any sharing or writing I do in the field of spiritual seeking shall never be copyrighted and sold by myself; if others copy, reproduce, distribute, sell or do anything with what I share, that shall be neither encouraged nor stopped by me. Again, this is my individual position and a matter of "thinking aloud". Being an occassional writer myself (on other topics), I do understand how writers feel about their work and hence I repeat I am very sorry about what came out in my words earlier about Richard and others. I am sorry to bother you all with this but thought I will conclude this discussion in a pleasant note by clarifying my position. thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts and love you all seekers, Murthy RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote: > Dear Linda, > > Thank you for your comments. > > I just naturally want to share what I have received. > > I have reflected and meditated about this, and as far as I can > discriminate, I do this sharing not for reasons of ego, but rather as > a way to give back gifts that I have gotten. I DO NOT want to > strengthen this ego. And that can be a danger in such sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dear Murthy, Again, no hurt feelings here. I also appreciate and respect your perspective that any spiritual writing that you do shall not be copyrighted and will be freely available. That is a wonderfully high perspective. I also have to say that I value you as another sincere seeker and as a member of this electronic sangha. Thank you for your words and contribution. Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "manof678" <manof678> wrote: > Dear All: OK, looks like I HAVE managed to hurt lot of feelings and > quite a few sincere souls; > > first, let me repeat there wasn't any intention to hurt anyone at > all; but I recognize that it has come out that way by the words I > used and the way I said those words; I pondered about all these > replies during my drive all the morning and here is the net result: > > a. MY UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGIES to Richard, Alan and everyone else in > the group if I have hurt them by my statements. > > b. Having said that and feeling relieved, I wish to make a statement > which I hope will not create more hurt feelings: > > in my understanding, the power of discrimination is an inevitable > charecterictic of the individual ego in a worldly environment. > > in my understanding, it is ok to apply that power to judge one'w own > actions and thoughts and decide what is 'good' and what is 'bad'; > this is essential even in "seeking" to know what is 'unreal' and drop > them one by one. > > it is not ok to apply that power to judge others' actions and > thoughts unless they (the others) are related to the individual in > some way or their actions/thoughts might impact the individual in > some way; again, this is my understanding. > > so using this principle, based on my discriminating power applied on > my actions and thoughts, any sharing or writing I do in the field of > spiritual seeking shall never be copyrighted and sold by myself; if > others copy, reproduce, distribute, sell or do anything with what I > share, that shall be neither encouraged nor stopped by me. > > Again, this is my individual position and a matter of "thinking > aloud". Being an occassional writer myself (on other topics), I do > understand how writers feel about their work and hence I repeat I am > very sorry about what came out in my words earlier about Richard and > others. > > I am sorry to bother you all with this but thought I will conclude > this discussion in a pleasant note by clarifying my position. > > thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts and > love you all seekers, Murthy > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" > <rclarke@s...> wrote: > > Dear Linda, > > > > Thank you for your comments. > > > > I just naturally want to share what I have received. > > > > I have reflected and meditated about this, and as far as I can > > discriminate, I do this sharing not for reasons of ego, but rather > as > > a way to give back gifts that I have gotten. I DO NOT want to > > strengthen this ego. And that can be a danger in such sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 ---Dear Murthy , You haven't upset any feelings .We are all free to give our point of view and others including myself will reply with their own points of view to share equally .I think the point of view you have about copyright and authorship to be a valid one , but it is for each writer to decide for his or herself how he or she deals with such matters .There is no general rule ,in my oppinion . All love , in Sri Bhagavan's Grace , Alan Dear All: OK, looks like I HAVE managed to hurt lot of feelings and > quite a few sincere souls; > > first, let me repeat there wasn't any intention to hurt anyone at > all; but I recognize that it has come out that way by the words I > used and the way I said those words; I pondered about all these > replies during my drive all the morning and here is the net result: > > a. MY UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGIES to Richard, Alan and everyone else in > the group if I have hurt them by my statements. > > b. Having said that and feeling relieved, I wish to make a statement > which I hope will not create more hurt feelings: > > in my understanding, the power of discrimination is an inevitable > charecterictic of the individual ego in a worldly environment. > > in my understanding, it is ok to apply that power to judge one'w own > actions and thoughts and decide what is 'good' and what is 'bad'; > this is essential even in "seeking" to know what is 'unreal' and drop > them one by one. > > it is not ok to apply that power to judge others' actions and > thoughts unless they (the others) are related to the individual in > some way or their actions/thoughts might impact the individual in > some way; again, this is my understanding. > > so using this principle, based on my discriminating power applied on > my actions and thoughts, any sharing or writing I do in the field of > spiritual seeking shall never be copyrighted and sold by myself; if > others copy, reproduce, distribute, sell or do anything with what I > share, that shall be neither encouraged nor stopped by me. > > Again, this is my individual position and a matter of "thinking > aloud". Being an occassional writer myself (on other topics), I do > understand how writers feel about their work and hence I repeat I am > very sorry about what came out in my words earlier about Richard and > others. > > I am sorry to bother you all with this but thought I will conclude > this discussion in a pleasant note by clarifying my position. > > thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts and > love you all seekers, Murthy > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" > <rclarke@s...> wrote: > > Dear Linda, > > > > Thank you for your comments. > > > > I just naturally want to share what I have received. > > > > I have reflected and meditated about this, and as far as I can > > discriminate, I do this sharing not for reasons of ego, but rather > as > > a way to give back gifts that I have gotten. I DO NOT want to > > strengthen this ego. And that can be a danger in such sharing. > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Plus For a better Internet experience http://www..co.uk/btoffer 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.