A snippet from Nisargadatta/re:Werner some contemplation on the body

[Guest guest]

Hello Werner and other dear members,

 

Some thoughts:

I The body

It seems that the body finds its natural balance when it seen for it what it is.

Yes indeed, when the neurotic restrictions are understood and ended without any

effort but rather through inquiry or understanding -which is not an action of

the "me"- the I AM can freely operate through and in the body.

The body, surely, has its own intelligence and without the interference of an

illusory "me", this intelligence (which I call I AM) starts re-adjusting and

fine-tuning the body to become a vehicle for I AM simply expressing Itself as a

body and through the body .

I think it's an amazing realization to see the body is a child of the whole

cosmos. The body is the whole cosmos. Indeed, "we" as bodies are stardust.

And, in a way, I see (human)-bodies as highly advanced "bio-spaceships". Only

there are no pilots in the spaceships. I AM is the only pilot. Amazing.

 

II Bliss

About bliss: I think when the body functions in it's natural state it

automatically tunes in to the cosmic "primal energy" or sound which is nothing

other then the Bliss of Being or I AM. I guess this state is what is called

Garden of Eden or Paradise. I am pretty sure Krishnamurti was referring to

this. What else could it be?

III I AM and "I"

Still beyond that is "I" which has nothing to do with all this as it beyond the

waking state which is this body and universe. So in a way, the body IS the

waking state. The waking state IS the universe. And the Lord of the universe

and all the bodies in it is simply: I AM.

To go short: I AM is the manifest aspect of "I". And to dwell in the pure I AM

is to go beyond the I AM. I found out this is sadhana.

 

Love,

 

Ben.

 

 

 

 

wwoehr

RamanaMaharshi

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:03 AM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from Nisargadatta...

Hi Ben,This reminds me of J. Krishnamurti when he got his realization (what he

called "the process") one of the first remarks was "Oh this wonderful body, oh

this wonderful body").The denial and neglectance of the body is a

misunderstanding. Where else could rise, when realized the Self, all that

feelings of bliss and love than from the body ? I can't imagine that

consciousness alone will be able to produce bliss - it is the body.But when the

burden of the ego is gone, the body is freed from all those neurotic

restrictions and will live in it's full capacity and greatness and that is the

bliss we experience.WernerRamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine"

<ben.hassine@x> wrote:> Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from

Nisargadatta...Hello Miles,> > Yes. I understand and agree. I think what I like

to call I AM is this pulsating "I-I" feeling. This is called sphurana, am I

right? There is a lot of tension, pulsation and even "primal sound" in that

state. Beyond that is the Silence of "I" or Self.> My point was and is -I hope

I am not annoying you with all this- that the body is the gateway to this

sphurana. In a way the body is the temple where the Heart is the inner sanctum.

I have the strong intuition it is wrong to say "the body and the world are mere

illusions". You see, you would neglect all the beauty and significance of "I"

in it's manifest aspect. Why not embrace the body? In fact I AM embraces and

pervades "all that is". I AM is Love. And Love does not exclude. The screen (I

AM) would never neglect the pictures (body/mind/world) projected on it by the

light of "I".> I find it very hard to express this. My intention is to share

and communicate understanding, insight and to learn. Not to operate on an

egoic/intellectual level. Sri Ramana asked us to find out for ourselves. He

didn't ask us to parrot his words, recite them and blindly accept them as

"Truth".> > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya,> > Ben.> ----- Original Message

----- > Miles Wright > RamanaMaharshi > Sent:

Friday, July 25, 2003 3:15 PM> Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from

Nisargadatta...> > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya> > Hello Ben,> > >

> Yes what I called pure I AM is also called (aham)-sphuruna. Even sphurana has

> > to go/transform. In a way I was trying to point out that the sphurana or

I AM > > lives in the body, it seems to be the body. It can be understood by

feeling > > the body as a whole, as part of the whole of manifest

existence.> > My point is, if I may point out, that by merely saying "I am

not the body" one > > creates a false sense of dispassion or liberation.

You have to fully > > experience and accept the body a living thing, an

organic entity, to come to > > the pure I AM, or aham sphuruna and stay

there. Would you agree?> > > That which exists is 'aham'. When ahamkara

(ego-sense; lit. 'I' maker) dies, That-which-is, 'aham' (I am), exists as it

has always existed. The body is entirely dependent on the Self, the Self is

never dependent on the body. Sphurana is, indeed, the manifestation of this

Self in the body. It is identified with the Heart. From the Heart,

Consciousness arises, and spreads throughout the body. Then there is

consciousness of the objective universe. All this manifests from the Heart

initially. If this process is reversed, as one returns to the source, sphurana

is felt. This is the beginning of the revelation of Pure Consciousness. The

Self, awareness absolute, underpins even this. Indeed, an intellectual

statement such as 'I am not the body', while useful, operates at the same level

as 'I am not a teapot'. Surely, the 'I' who makes such declarations must be

enquired into. To merely say 'I am not this' is! not enough...one must mean it

....but then there is no 'I am not this', there is only 'aham', 'I am'.> >

Regards,> Miles > Sponsor >

> > > > > Community email

addresses:> Post message: RamanaMaharshi> Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi-> Un:

RamanaMaharshi> List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-owner> > Shortcut URL to this page:>

http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of

Groups 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

[Guest guest]

--- Dear Werner , Michael ,Ben and other dear members,

this is an interesting discussion on very subtle matters .My understanding is

that this Teaching

is not a denial of the body .The body is a divine instrument , the vehicle which

the Primal

Consciousness [brahman-God-Iswara] uses for the ordained part it HAS to play

in its Lila.

The substratum of the body is God, Divine , and Consciousness .This

Consciousness as Sat Chit

Ananda , is from the Primal Source [ Absolute Consciousness ], ours included

and contains all

the qualities of love, bliss , ananda , glory etc.

 

What is denied by the teaching is identification with the body as believing it

to be 'me' or who

I am . This 'I am the body notion ' blocks Self Realisation .After through

Enquiry , Surrender and

Grace this identification is dissolved , then the body experiences Absolute

Consciousness , with

all the qualities you describe ,and not just the Reflected Consciousess

consequent on an active

egotism still imagining that it is just the Body-Mind

 

.Perhaps we all agree from different angles ?

 

Regards and love in His Grace , Alan

>

> Some thoughts:

> I The body

> It seems that the body finds its natural balance when it seen for it what it

is. Yes indeed,

> when the neurotic restrictions are understood and ended without any effort but

rather through

> inquiry or understanding -which is not an action of the "me"- the I AM can

freely operate

> through and in the body.

> The body, surely, has its own intelligence and without the interference of an

illusory "me",

> this intelligence (which I call I AM) starts re-adjusting and fine-tuning the

body to become a

> vehicle for I AM simply expressing Itself as a body and through the body .

> I think it's an amazing realization to see the body is a child of the whole

cosmos. The body is

> the whole cosmos. Indeed, "we" as bodies are stardust.

> And, in a way, I see (human)-bodies as highly advanced "bio-spaceships". Only

there are no

> pilots in the spaceships. I AM is the only pilot. Amazing.

>

> II Bliss

> About bliss: I think when the body functions in it's natural state it

automatically tunes in to

> the cosmic "primal energy" or sound which is nothing other then the Bliss of

Being or I AM. I

> guess this state is what is called Garden of Eden or Paradise. I am pretty

sure Krishnamurti was

> referring to this. What else could it be?

> III I AM and "I"

> Still beyond that is "I" which has nothing to do with all this as it beyond

the waking state

> which is this body and universe. So in a way, the body IS the waking state.

The waking state IS

> the universe. And the Lord of the universe and all the bodies in it is simply:

I AM.

> To go short: I AM is the manifest aspect of "I". And to dwell in the pure I AM

is to go beyond

> the I AM. I found out this is sadhana.

>

> Love,

>

> Ben.

>

>

>

>

> wwoehr

> RamanaMaharshi

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:03 AM

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from Nisargadatta...

>

>

> Hi Ben,

>

> This reminds me of J. Krishnamurti when he got his realization (what

> he called "the process") one of the first remarks was "Oh this

> wonderful body, oh this wonderful body").

>

> The denial and neglectance of the body is a misunderstanding. Where

> else could rise, when realized the Self, all that feelings of bliss

> and love than from the body ? I can't imagine that consciousness

> alone will be able to produce bliss - it is the body.

>

> But when the burden of the ego is gone, the body is freed from all

> those neurotic restrictions and will live in it's full capacity and

> greatness and that is the bliss we experience.

>

> Werner

>

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" <ben.hassine@x>

> wrote:

> > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from Nisargadatta...Hello Miles,

> >

> > Yes. I understand and agree. I think what I like to call I AM is

> this pulsating "I-I" feeling. This is called sphurana, am I right?

> There is a lot of tension, pulsation and even "primal sound" in that

> state. Beyond that is the Silence of "I" or Self.

> > My point was and is -I hope I am not annoying you with all this-

> that the body is the gateway to this sphurana. In a way the body is

> the temple where the Heart is the inner sanctum. I have the strong

> intuition it is wrong to say "the body and the world are mere

> illusions". You see, you would neglect all the beauty and

> significance of "I" in it's manifest aspect. Why not embrace the

> body? In fact I AM embraces and pervades "all that is". I AM is Love.

> And Love does not exclude. The screen (I AM) would never neglect the

> pictures (body/mind/world) projected on it by the light of "I".

> > I find it very hard to express this. My intention is to share and

> communicate understanding, insight and to learn. Not to operate on an

> egoic/intellectual level. Sri Ramana asked us to find out for

> ourselves. He didn't ask us to parrot his words, recite them and

> blindly accept them as "Truth".

> >

> > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya,

> >

> > Ben.

> > -

> > Miles Wright

> > RamanaMaharshi

> > Friday, July 25, 2003 3:15 PM

> > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from Nisargadatta...

> >

> >

> > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

> >

> > Hello Ben,

> >

> >

> > > Yes what I called pure I AM is also called (aham)-sphuruna.

> Even sphurana has

> > > to go/transform. In a way I was trying to point out that the

> sphurana or I AM

> > > lives in the body, it seems to be the body. It can be

> understood by feeling

> > > the body as a whole, as part of the whole of manifest

> existence.

> > > My point is, if I may point out, that by merely saying "I am

> not the body" one

> > > creates a false sense of dispassion or liberation. You have

> to fully

> > > experience and accept the body a living thing, an organic

> entity, to come to

> > > the pure I AM, or aham sphuruna and stay there. Would you

> agree?

> >

> >

> > That which exists is 'aham'. When ahamkara (ego-sense; lit. 'I'

> maker) dies, That-which-is, 'aham' (I am), exists as it has always

> existed. The body is entirely dependent on the Self, the Self is

> never dependent on the body. Sphurana is, indeed, the manifestation

> of this Self in the body. It is identified with the Heart. From the

> Heart, Consciousness arises, and spreads throughout the body. Then

> there is consciousness of the objective universe. All this manifests

> from the Heart initially. If this process is reversed, as one returns

> to the source, sphurana is felt. This is the beginning of the

> revelation of Pure Consciousness. The Self, awareness absolute,

> underpins even this. Indeed, an intellectual statement such as 'I am

> not the body', while useful, operates at the same level as 'I am not

> a teapot'. Surely, the 'I' who makes such declarations must be

> enquired into. To merely say 'I am not this' is! not enough...one

> must mean it ...but then there is no 'I am not this', there is

> only 'aham', 'I am'.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Miles

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> > Un: RamanaMaharshi

> > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

> >

> > Shortcut URL to this page:

> > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi

> >

> > Terms of

> Service.

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> Un: RamanaMaharshi

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi

>

>

>

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://uk.messenger./

[Guest guest]

Dear Alan,

 

Thank you, and I agree. For me sitting and typing is the celebration of "what

is". It's like joyfully singing bhajans. There is nothing to agree in a piece

of music. It's just music for the sake of music.

So it is with communicating through these dialogues. And I thank you all for

sharing insight and understanding. Who am I after all to agree or disagree?

 

Love,

 

Ben.

 

-

Alan Jacobs

RamanaMaharshi

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:10 PM

Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from Nisargadatta/re:Werner some

contemplation on the body

--- Dear Werner , Michael ,Ben and other dear members,this is an interesting

discussion on very subtle matters .My understanding is that this Teachingis

not a denial of the body .The body is a divine instrument , the vehicle which

the PrimalConsciousness [brahman-God-Iswara] uses for the ordained part it

HAS to play in its Lila.The substratum of the body is God, Divine , and

Consciousness .This Consciousness as Sat ChitAnanda , is from the Primal

Source [ Absolute Consciousness ], ours included and contains allthe qualities

of love, bliss , ananda , glory etc.What is denied by the teaching is

identification with the body as believing it to be 'me' or whoI am . This 'I

am the body notion ' blocks Self Realisation .After through Enquiry , Surrender

andGrace this identification is dissolved , then the body experiences Absolute

Consciousness , withall the qualities you describe ,and not just the Reflected

Consciousess consequent on an activeegotism still imagining that it is just the

Body-Mind.Perhaps we all agree from different angles ?Regards and love in His

Grace , Alan > > Some thoughts:> I The body> It seems that the body finds its

natural balance when it seen for it what it is. Yes indeed,> when the neurotic

restrictions are understood and ended without any effort but rather through>

inquiry or understanding -which is not an action of the "me"- the I AM can

freely operate> through and in the body. > The body, surely, has its own

intelligence and without the interference of an illusory "me",> this

intelligence (which I call I AM) starts re-adjusting and fine-tuning the body

to become a> vehicle for I AM simply expressing Itself as a body and through

the body .> I think it's an amazing realization to see the body is a child of

the whole cosmos. The body is> the whole cosmos. Indeed, "we" as bodies are

stardust. > And, in a way, I see (human)-bodies as highly advanced

"bio-spaceships". Only there are no> pilots in the spaceships. I AM is the only

pilot. Amazing.> > II Bliss> About bliss: I think when the body functions in

it's natural state it automatically tunes in to> the cosmic "primal energy" or

sound which is nothing other then the Bliss of Being or I AM. I> guess this

state is what is called Garden of Eden or Paradise. I am pretty sure

Krishnamurti was> referring to this. What else could it be?> III I AM and "I">

Still beyond that is "I" which has nothing to do with all this as it beyond the

waking state> which is this body and universe. So in a way, the body IS the

waking state. The waking state IS> the universe. And the Lord of the universe

and all the bodies in it is simply: I AM.> To go short: I AM is the manifest

aspect of "I". And to dwell in the pure I AM is to go beyond> the I AM. I found

out this is sadhana.> > Love,> > Ben.> > > > > wwoehr > To:

RamanaMaharshi > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:03 AM>

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from Nisargadatta...> > > Hi Ben,> >

This reminds me of J. Krishnamurti when he got his realization (what > he

called "the process") one of the first remarks was "Oh this > wonderful body,

oh this wonderful body").> > The denial and neglectance of the body is a

misunderstanding. Where > else could rise, when realized the Self, all that

feelings of bliss > and love than from the body ? I can't imagine that

consciousness > alone will be able to produce bliss - it is the body.> >

But when the burden of the ego is gone, the body is freed from all > those

neurotic restrictions and will live in it's full capacity and > greatness and

that is the bliss we experience.> > Werner> > > --- In

RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" <ben.hassine@x> > wrote:> >

Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from Nisargadatta...Hello Miles,> > > > Yes.

I understand and agree. I think what I like to call I AM is > this pulsating

"I-I" feeling. This is called sphurana, am I right? > There is a lot of

tension, pulsation and even "primal sound" in that > state. Beyond that is

the Silence of "I" or Self.> > My point was and is -I hope I am not annoying

you with all this- > that the body is the gateway to this sphurana. In a way

the body is > the temple where the Heart is the inner sanctum. I have the

strong > intuition it is wrong to say "the body and the world are mere >

illusions". You see, you would neglect all the beauty and > significance of

"I" in it's manifest aspect. Why not embrace the > body? In fact I AM

embraces and pervades "all that is". I AM is Love. > And Love does not

exclude. The screen (I AM) would never neglect the > pictures

(body/mind/world) projected on it by the light of "I".> > I find it very hard

to express this. My intention is to share and > communicate understanding,

insight and to learn. Not to operate on an > egoic/intellectual level. Sri

Ramana asked us to find out for > ourselves. He didn't ask us to parrot his

words, recite them and > blindly accept them as "Truth".> > > > om namo

bhagavate sri ramanaya,> > > > Ben.> > - >

> Miles Wright > > RamanaMaharshi > > Sent:

Friday, July 25, 2003 3:15 PM> > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet

from Nisargadatta...> > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya> > >

> Hello Ben,> > > > > > > Yes what I called pure I AM is also called

(aham)-sphuruna. > Even sphurana has > > > to go/transform. In a way I

was trying to point out that the > sphurana or I AM > > > lives in the

body, it seems to be the body. It can be > understood by feeling > > >

the body as a whole, as part of the whole of manifest > existence.> > >

My point is, if I may point out, that by merely saying "I am > not the body"

one > > > creates a false sense of dispassion or liberation. You have >

to fully > > > experience and accept the body a living thing, an organic >

entity, to come to > > > the pure I AM, or aham sphuruna and stay there.

Would you > agree?> > > > > > That which exists is 'aham'. When

ahamkara (ego-sense; lit. 'I' > maker) dies, That-which-is, 'aham' (I am),

exists as it has always > existed. The body is entirely dependent on the

Self, the Self is > never dependent on the body. Sphurana is, indeed, the

manifestation > of this Self in the body. It is identified with the Heart.

>From the > Heart, Consciousness arises, and spreads throughout the body. Then

> there is consciousness of the objective universe. All this manifests >

from the Heart initially. If this process is reversed, as one returns > to

the source, sphurana is felt. This is the beginning of the > revelation of

Pure Consciousness. The Self, awareness absolute, > underpins even this.

Indeed, an intellectual statement such as 'I am > not the body', while

useful, operates at the same level as 'I am not > a teapot'. Surely, the 'I'

who makes such declarations must be > enquired into. To merely say 'I am not

this' is! not enough...one > must mean it ...but then there is no 'I am not

this', there is > only 'aham', 'I am'.> > > > Regards,> > Miles >

> Sponsor > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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 the Terms of > Service.> > >

Sponsor > > > >

> > > Post message:

RamanaMaharshi> Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi-> Un:

RamanaMaharshi> List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-owner> > Shortcut URL to this page:>

http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of

Groups is subject to the > >

______________________Want to

chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

http://uk.messenger./Community email addresses: 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

[Guest guest]

Yes dear friends,

 

This is all like the beautiful music of the birds

singing in the trees.

 

regards,

 

michael

 

--- Ben Hassine <ben.hassine wrote:

> Dear Alan,

>

> Thank you, and I agree. For me sitting and typing is

> the celebration of "what is". It's like joyfully

> singing bhajans. There is nothing to agree in a

> piece of music. It's just music for the sake of

> music.

> So it is with communicating through these dialogues.

> And I thank you all for sharing insight and

> understanding. Who am I after all to agree or

> disagree?

>

> Love,

>

> Ben.

>

> -

> Alan Jacobs

> RamanaMaharshi

> Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:10 PM

> Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from

> Nisargadatta/re:Werner some contemplation on the

> body

>

>

> --- Dear Werner , Michael ,Ben and other dear

> members,

> this is an interesting discussion on very subtle

> matters .My understanding is that this Teaching

> is not a denial of the body .The body is a divine

> instrument , the vehicle which the Primal

> Consciousness [brahman-God-Iswara] uses for the

> ordained part it HAS to play in its Lila.

> The substratum of the body is God, Divine , and

> Consciousness .This Consciousness as Sat Chit

> Ananda , is from the Primal Source [ Absolute

> Consciousness ], ours included and contains all

> the qualities of love, bliss , ananda , glory etc.

>

> What is denied by the teaching is identification

> with the body as believing it to be 'me' or who

> I am . This 'I am the body notion ' blocks Self

> Realisation .After through Enquiry , Surrender and

> Grace this identification is dissolved , then the

> body experiences Absolute Consciousness , with

> all the qualities you describe ,and not just the

> Reflected Consciousess consequent on an active

> egotism still imagining that it is just the

> Body-Mind

>

> .Perhaps we all agree from different angles ?

>

> Regards and love in His Grace , Alan

> >

> > Some thoughts:

> > I The body

> > It seems that the body finds its natural balance

> when it seen for it what it is. Yes indeed,

> > when the neurotic restrictions are understood

> and ended without any effort but rather through

> > inquiry or understanding -which is not an

> action of the "me"- the I AM can freely operate

> > through and in the body.

> > The body, surely, has its own intelligence and

> without the interference of an illusory "me",

> > this intelligence (which I call I AM) starts

> re-adjusting and fine-tuning the body to become a

> > vehicle for I AM simply expressing Itself as a

> body and through the body .

> > I think it's an amazing realization to see the

> body is a child of the whole cosmos. The body is

> > the whole cosmos. Indeed, "we" as bodies are

> stardust.

> > And, in a way, I see (human)-bodies as highly

> advanced "bio-spaceships". Only there are no

> > pilots in the spaceships. I AM is the only

> pilot. Amazing.

> >

> > II Bliss

> > About bliss: I think when the body functions in

> it's natural state it automatically tunes in to

> > the cosmic "primal energy" or sound which is

> nothing other then the Bliss of Being or I AM. I

> > guess this state is what is called Garden of

> Eden or Paradise. I am pretty sure Krishnamurti was

> > referring to this. What else could it be?

> > III I AM and "I"

> > Still beyond that is "I" which has nothing to do

> with all this as it beyond the waking state

> > which is this body and universe. So in a way,

> the body IS the waking state. The waking state IS

> > the universe. And the Lord of the universe and

> all the bodies in it is simply: I AM.

> > To go short: I AM is the manifest aspect of "I".

> And to dwell in the pure I AM is to go beyond

> > the I AM. I found out this is sadhana.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Ben.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > wwoehr

> > RamanaMaharshi

> > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:03 AM

> > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: A snippet from

> Nisargadatta...

> >

> >

> > Hi Ben,

> >

> > This reminds me of J. Krishnamurti when he got

> his realization (what

> > he called "the process") one of the first

> remarks was "Oh this

> > wonderful body, oh this wonderful body").

> >

> > The denial and neglectance of the body is a

> misunderstanding. Where

> > else could rise, when realized the Self, all

> that feelings of bliss

> > and love than from the body ? I can't imagine

> that consciousness

> > alone will be able to produce bliss - it is

> the body.

> >

> > But when the burden of the ego is gone, the

> body is freed from all

> > those neurotic restrictions and will live in

> it's full capacity and

> > greatness and that is the bliss we experience.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

> > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben

> Hassine" <ben.hassine@x>

> > wrote:

> > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet from

> Nisargadatta...Hello Miles,

> > >

> > > Yes. I understand and agree. I think what I

> like to call I AM is

> > this pulsating "I-I" feeling. This is called

> sphurana, am I right?

> > There is a lot of tension, pulsation and even

> "primal sound" in that

> > state. Beyond that is the Silence of "I" or

> Self.

> > > My point was and is -I hope I am not

> annoying you with all this-

> > that the body is the gateway to this sphurana.

> In a way the body is

> > the temple where the Heart is the inner

> sanctum. I have the strong

> > intuition it is wrong to say "the body and the

> world are mere

> > illusions". You see, you would neglect all the

> beauty and

> > significance of "I" in it's manifest aspect.

> Why not embrace the

> > body? In fact I AM embraces and pervades "all

> that is". I AM is Love.

> > And Love does not exclude. The screen (I AM)

> would never neglect the

> > pictures (body/mind/world) projected on it by

> the light of "I".

> > > I find it very hard to express this. My

> intention is to share and

> > communicate understanding, insight and to

> learn. Not to operate on an

> > egoic/intellectual level. Sri Ramana asked us

> to find out for

> > ourselves. He didn't ask us to parrot his

> words, recite them and

> > blindly accept them as "Truth".

> > >

> > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya,

> > >

> > > Ben.

> > > -

> > > Miles Wright

> > > RamanaMaharshi

> > > Friday, July 25, 2003 3:15 PM

> > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] A snippet

> from Nisargadatta...

> > >

> > >

> > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

> > >

> > > Hello Ben,

> > >

> > >

> > > > Yes what I called pure I AM is also

> called (aham)-sphuruna.

> > Even sphurana has

> > > > to go/transform. In a way I was trying

> to point out that the

> > sphurana or I AM

>

=== message truncated ===