Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 There is no reaching the Self. If the Self were to be reached it would mean that the Self is not here and now, but that it is yet to be obtained. What is got afresh will also be lost. What is not permanent is not worth striving for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 ---Dear Sandeep , One answer could be that the I, which imagines itself to be in bondage, is striving through Enquiry for Liberation ,from the mistaken idea that He is not already Self Realised . There is no reaching the Self. > > If the Self were to be reached it would mean that the Self is not here and now, > > but that it is yet to be obtained. > What is got afresh will also be lost. > > What is not permanent is not worth striving for. > > ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Hi Alan, - Alan Jacobs RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:32 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, inquiry of what? ---Dear Sandeep ,One answer could be Was not aware there was a question anywhere in that:-) that the I, which imagines itself to be in bondage, is striving throughEnquiry for Liberation ,from the mistaken idea that He is not already Self Realised . Sure. But that "I" which you allude to, is not the seeker's "I". For no such thingy exists, in the first place....to be in bondage and thus ever have the faintest possibility to ever get liberated. There only being the I, .......call it Self, call it Consciousness, call it Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, call it Bozo- the- Clown-with-a-scotchbottle....... ..........the seeking in the moment,...... in whatever form and through whatever appropriately conditioned instrument, .... ......can only be the play of the same That which-is. There is actually no static discrete seeker and no conceived sought, ....even Ramana's famous Self. There is just the movement of the now, in it's infinite variations, combinations, hues and shades. In the moment. Moment to moment to moment. And that is why there is no distinction whatsoever, between a seeking where the sought is a bottle of Remy Martin and the seeking of Self. Both, being divine nuances of the same movement in the moment, both going towards making up the totality of the hoopla of the Leela. Now since this very comment on the movement cannot perforce be outside the movement, ....this commentary, (any commentary) being a nuance of that very movement, ....... .........all commentaries, whether emanating through an instrument labeled "Ramana" or "Banka babu" or "X" , "Y", "Z",........ ...............all commentaries, all affirmations (a negation also being an affirmation).........are pure conjecturings. Aka the wonderings of a dreamed-up character of your last night sleep dream, ......who debates with another dreamed-up chacracter, ........on the shape of your nose. In that dream sequence of last night dream, he is explaining to the other character, , ...... that through intense japa and then some intense self-enquiry going on over decades, he, now a certified and qualified sage of 7th stage enlightenment-lineage, ...... ........he has actually seen the shape of Alan's (your) nose.<LOL> Pure unadulterated baloney. Look at the absurdity of speaking about the movement, teaching about it, instructing how to get it, methodologies,blah blah, blah.. ....when whether there is actually a movement taking place or not, ...that itself cannot be affirmed. Any affirmation will need the separation from the movement, which becomes an oxymoron. Apperceiving this, ...........one does whatever one is moved to do. In the moment. Moment to moment to moment. Without a stake in the doing. And without a stake,.......can there be a concern with the consequence of the doing, whatever that be? .........both the doing and the consequence being seen as nuances of the same movement in the moment. bzzt gim blim ba dum boop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 --- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc wrote: > Hi Alan, > - > Alan Jacobs > RamanaMaharshi > Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:32 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, inquiry of what? > > > ---Dear Sandeep , > > One answer could be > > Was not aware there was a question anywhere in that:-) Your question is in the E Mail heading you wrote. > > > > that the I, which imagines itself to be in bondage, is striving through > Enquiry > for Liberation ,from the mistaken idea that He is not already Self Realised .. > Sure. > > But that "I" which you allude to, is not the seeker's "I". > > For no such thingy exists, in the first place....to be in bondage and thus ever have the > faintest possibility to ever get liberated. Agreed .But the Seeker's I falsely imagines he is in bondage . > > There only being the I, .......call it Self, call it Consciousness, call it > Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, call it Bozo- the- Clown-with-a-scotchbottle....... > > .........the seeking in the moment,...... in whatever form and through whatever appropriately > conditioned instrument, .... > > .....can only be the play of the same That which-is. > > There is actually no static discrete seeker and no conceived sought, .....even Ramana's famous > Self. This and the last part of your exposition may be true as a description from another perspective . But The miserable seeker still imagines he is in bondage,play of the Lila or not, and ,like a tooth ache , wishes to be rid of the bondage feeling and so he strives for liberation ..Ramana said that one of the main obstacles to Self Realisation is the idea you are not already realised .This is caused by the impediment of the vasanas etc. Self Enquiry is the prescribed remedy by the Guru . Regards , Alan > ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 - Alan Jacobs RamanaMaharshi Thursday, September 04, 2003 09:55 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, inquiry of what? <SNIP> ButThe miserable seeker still imagines he is in bondage,play of the Lila or not, and ,like a toothache , wishes to be rid of the bondage feeling and so he strives for liberation. -------- Sure. I am not at all denying that such clowning does not happen, has not happened, or will not continue to happen in the future. All I am suggesting is that the "sense",...... that there is a remedy for the toothache, ...........out THERE (even a self inquiry is creating an out-there), ............for that 'sense",.............that toothache, never ends. Striving for liberation, through whatever means, through whatever methodologies, ...............is based on the apriori assumption, that one is bound in the first place, isn't it? Thus, the very act to strive for liberation, is the perpetuation of that apiori assumption. Can it ever succeed? It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-laces. Can you ever succeed? You are the very weight you are tryng to lift. In the very imagination that you refer to, ...........lies the issue. Ramana said thatone of the main obstacles to Self Realisation is the idea you are not already realised. Exactly what is being prattled above. See whether the suffering-self, the itching-self, the seeking-self, .................whether it has any existential reality, at all? The question of what it can do or not do, what can it attain or not attain, what it can reach or not reach, realize or not realize, ..........how to do/how not to do,..... in order to move towards all these imagined goals....... ........all this hoopla is moot, ................before establishing the first base, isn't it? Ramana's finest muttering was......before trying to find how to resolve the problem, see who is it,.. that has the problem. If just this one statement can truly be seen, I repeat truly and completely seen................the game is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Dear Sandeep ,it's fun having a verbal game with you .We completely agree on your last two sentences,however, -that says it all! All best wishes in the joy of our teaching , alan > - > Alan Jacobs > RamanaMaharshi > Thursday, September 04, 2003 09:55 AM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, inquiry of what? > <SNIP> > > > > > But > > The miserable seeker still imagines he is in bondage,play of the Lila or not, and ,like a > tooth > ache , wishes to be rid of the bondage feeling and so he strives for liberation. > > -------- > > Sure. > > I am not at all denying that such clowning does not happen, has not happened, or will not > continue to happen in the future. > > All I am suggesting is that the "sense",...... that there is a remedy for the toothache, > ...........out THERE (even a self inquiry is creating an out-there), ............for that > 'sense",.............that toothache, never ends. > > > Striving for liberation, through whatever means, through whatever methodologies, > ..............is based on the apriori assumption, that one is bound in the first place, isn't > it? > > Thus, the very act to strive for liberation, is the perpetuation of that apiori assumption. > > Can it ever succeed? > > It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-laces. > > Can you ever succeed? > > You are the very weight you are tryng to lift. > > > In the very imagination that you refer to, ...........lies the issue. > > > > > > Ramana said that > one of the main obstacles to Self Realisation is the idea you are not already realised. > > Exactly what is being prattled above. > > See whether the suffering-self, the itching-self, the seeking-self, .................whether it > has any existential reality, at all? > > The question of what it can do or not do, what can it attain or not attain, what it can reach > or not reach, realize or not realize, ..........how to do/how not to do,..... in order to move > towards all these imagined goals....... > > > .......all this hoopla is moot, ................before establishing the first base, isn't it? > > Ramana's finest muttering was......before trying to find how to resolve the problem, see who > is it,.. that has the problem. > > > If just this one statement can truly be seen, I repeat truly and completely > seen................the game is over. > > > > > > > ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Hi again, I thnik I see what you mean now, concerning striving for liberation and methodology. Nontheless, I would say suffering is real, even if the remedy is not what we think it is, a matter of technology, but more a matter of heart. Am I close? 4/9/03 10:54 AM +0530 Sandeep Chatterjee sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > All I am suggesting is that the "sense",...... that there is a remedy for > the toothache, ...........out THERE (even a self inquiry is creating an > out-there), ...........for that 'sense",.............that toothache, > never ends. > > Striving for liberation, through whatever means, through whatever > methodologies, ..............is based on the apriori assumption, that one > is bound in the first place, isn't it? > Thus, the very act to strive for liberation, is the perpetuation of that > apiori assumption. > Can it ever succeed? > > It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-laces. > > Can you ever succeed? > > You are the very weight you are tryng to lift. > > > In the very imagination that you refer to, ...........lies the issue. > Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 I have been answering as I follow this, so forgive me, but it is a way of introducing myself. This statement below is pleasing, soothing, worth remembering, and as I newcomer to Ramana and this group I shall remember it with pleasure. 4/9/03 7:29 AM +0100 Alan Jacobs alanadamsjacobs (AT) (DOT) co.uk wrote: >> Ramana's finest muttering was......before trying to find how to >> resolve the problem, see who is it,.. that has the problem. >> >> >> If just this one statement can truly be seen, I repeat truly and >> completely seen................the game is over. >> Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 --- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc wrote: > > - > Alan Jacobs > RamanaMaharshi > Thursday, September 04, 2003 09:55 AM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, > inquiry of what? > <SNIP> > > > > SNIP > Thus, the very act to strive for liberation, is > the perpetuation of that apiori assumption. > > Can it ever succeed? > Yes, it can succeed. It has succeeded. But I will also agree that at a certain stage one must give up one's efforts to become what ONE has always been. Love, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Hi John, RamanaMaharshi, chueewowee <chueewowee> wrote: > Hi again, I thnik I see what you mean now, concerning striving for > liberation and methodology. Nontheless, I would say suffering is real, even if the remedy is not what we think it is, a matter of technology, but more a matter of heart. Am I close? ------ The term "suffering" is very interesting. Typically we associate pain (physical or emotional/mental) with suffering. Suffering is not pain. Suffering is pain, unaccepted. With the advent of pain, suffering is the arising anguish "why me?". The unacceptance of the pain in the moment is suffering. That it should be otherwise than what it is, .......in that should, is the suffering. And thus you will see your seeking, no matter, couched in what language and finery, ......is nothing but a cop-out with a "should". Pain on the other hand is a natural phenomenon, occuring to the body- mind complex, irrespective of whether that object is labeled as a "sage" or a "clown". Pain, witnessed, is a natural cleansing mechanism. Suffering is to do with this notional me-entity. Why do I say that? Because all "shoulds" and "should-nots" have to do with the me-entity. Your other comment of the heart, .......sure, the heart is much closer than the intellect. But finally it is neither a matter of the intellect nor of the heart. Bhakti and Gyan, ........both drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Sandeep, are you saying there is no suffering or realisation/release, no ignorant person, and no-ne to suffer? Regards, JOhn Plum 4/9/03 6:07 PM +0000 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > Hi John, > > > RamanaMaharshi, chueewowee <chueewowee> > wrote: >> Hi again, I thnik I see what you mean now, concerning striving for >> liberation and methodology. Nontheless, I would say suffering is > real, even if the remedy is not what we think it is, a matter of > technology, but more a matter of heart. Am I close? > > > ------ > > The term "suffering" is very interesting. > > Typically we associate pain (physical or emotional/mental) with > suffering. > > Suffering is not pain. > > Suffering is pain, unaccepted. > > With the advent of pain, suffering is the arising anguish "why me?". > > The unacceptance of the pain in the moment is suffering. > That it should be otherwise than what it is, .......in that should, > is the suffering. > > And thus you will see your seeking, no matter, couched in what > language and finery, ......is nothing but a cop-out with a "should". > > > Pain on the other hand is a natural phenomenon, occuring to the body- > mind complex, irrespective of whether that object is labeled as > a "sage" or a "clown". > > > Pain, witnessed, is a natural cleansing mechanism. > > Suffering is to do with this notional me-entity. > > Why do I say that? > > Because all "shoulds" and "should-nots" have to do with the me-entity. > > > Your other comment of the heart, .......sure, the heart is much > closer than the intellect. > > But finally it is neither a matter of the intellect nor of the heart. > > Bhakti and Gyan, ........both drop. > > > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark > Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 > http://us.click./l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/UlWolB/TM > ---~-> > > > 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 > > Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Dear Friends, I am replying again to this entire series of posts. There have been and are many persons who "trumpet" the fact that the SELF is consciousness and that nothing need be done to be what ONE is. Some of these persons do give/have given satsang and tell their devotees/students/listeners that there is nothing to be done. For certain souls this is true; but for most it is not true. Ultimately you can, should, and will decide for yourSELF what you need to do or not do. But the point I want to make is this: I have read many of the discourses of these satsangs. And I recently attended a satsang that was given by a relatively popular american person. This person, after charging $75, would expound upon the "you are consciousness" argument "ad nauseum". And he could, and would, thwart and berate anyones' "would be" desire to utilize a method to realize the truth. What is disturbing about it to me is that many people are suffering from their "seeming" separation from the SOURCE. It is extremely unfortunate because methods exist that would help everyone who has a sincere desire. It is really quite easy for highly intellectual people to grasp the idea that the little "i" doesn't exist and that we are really the BIG "I" and that therefore nothing needs to be done. Well great. But there are a lot of people who are not helped by this. These "gurus" are a lot like our modern day psychologists. The patient does most of the talking and the "doctor" mostly listens. Then the "doctor" talks some. And in the end nothing happens because you cannot talk the patient out of his/her insanity. You cannot rationalize your way out of suffering. Even if the patient's suffering is from imagined or delusional causes they usually can't be talked out of it. Rationalization is baloney. This is why Ramana said that his real teaching was conveyed in silence. And if I may say so, there is more to IT than just CHIT (consciousness). Consciousness arises from an eternal, unborn, undying, immortal, all-powerfull and supersensual BLISS (ANANDA). And once experienced, it leaves no doubt as to what the SOURCE of everything is. The "i" thought arises from this BLISS. Consciousness arises from this BLISS and it is the source of SAT (existence). This BLISS is the uncaused cause and is the source of everything. According to TALKS, 28 November, 1935 Ramana had the following dialog: "D.: So it is. How to get Bliss? M.: Bliss is not something to be got. On the other hand you are always Bliss. This desire is born of the sense of INCOMPLETENESS. To whom is this sense of incompleteness? Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful. Now you are not so. Seek its source and find you are Bliss. "There is nothing new to get. You have, on the other hand, to get rid of your ignorance which makes you think that you are other than Bliss. For whom is this ignorance? It is to the ego. Trace the source of the ego. Then the ego is lost and BLISS remains over. It is eternal. You are That, here and now...That is the MASTER KEY FOR SOLVING ALL DOUBTS." SNIP Also, since I wrote the text above there had been another post on this group about suffering. The writer suggested that "Suffering is pain, unaccepted." I would suggest that SUFFERING is pain unabated. I suggest that SUFFERING is an opportunity to CHANGE. I suggest that SUFFERING, particularly emotional/psycho/spiritual suffering is an invitation from the SELF. A calling from the SELF if you will. Unfortunately people only progress when they are suffering/uncomfortable. When people are hungry should they accept their hunger? When people are oppressed is it wise to just accept that oppression? Most of the wonderful things that make our modern life easier are the product of someone who was suffering or uncomfortable. People were hot and they learned how to build homes and buildings that were cooler. People were cold and they learned how to make warmer dwellings and better clothes. They were sick and they learned medical procedures. And when persons longed for liberation some wise persons developed techniques that could lift the veil of MAYA. Love, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hi Michael, Interesting thoughts. Some few cents in between, for consideration.... - Michael Bowes RamanaMaharshi Friday, September 05, 2003 05:52 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Strive for what, inquiry of what? Dear Friends,I am replying again to this entire series of posts. There have been and are many persons who "trumpet" thefact that the SELF is consciousness and that nothingneed be done to be what ONE is. ----- "Nothing need to be done",...........is still assuming that there is an entity which needs to do nothing. "To be what One is", .........that statement can only arise from an assumption that one is to be One For the moment, taking the Self, or the Source or Consciousness or Bozo, as given. There is only the Self, .........that is already the case. There is no becoming because no unbecoming ever happened. Thus the hoopla of the seeking which apparently happens/is happening, .....no matter in what form, whether self-inquiry, whether Bhakti, whether standing on one's head,.......... ........can only be the hoopla of the Self. This is what is being prattled. The seeking that is happening in "Michael" or "X', or "Y" or "Z", whatever be the methodology, is really a functioning of Self, as an impersonal functioning, THROUGH a manifest conditioned psycho-somatic biological object, labeled by society as "Michael" or X, or Y or Z. The external expression of that functioning (seen as seeking), is a "fashioned" functioning, which then needs an appropriately conditioned, programmed apparatus, instrument, THROUGH which that "fashioned" functioning occurs in the moment. Moment to moment to moment. In essence, you Michael, cannot help but seek either a toy rattle to assuage your insecurities or do self-inquiry, or give up all that, concluding it's all bumkum. No "doing" is being judged as "wrong" or "unwarranted" or "inferior", "superior". What you do or don't do(which is also a doing), .........that it has nothing to do with the entity who is hell bent to reach that right-side Heart, .............that is being pointed. For that entity, .......to whom enlightenment, Moksha, Self-Realization (that's one oxy-moron, if there was one), Liberation, etc etc, ..... .......that entity for whom all the bromides are of profound relevance, ...............that entity is a notion, an ideation, an inference. Apperceiving this,..................is not an end-result of a striving process. Apperceving this, .................is the intuitive realizing (using inadequate words) of the total absurdity intrinsic in Ramana's prescription to inquire as to Who am I. The infinite depth of Ramana's beingness is revealed in the apperception of the absurdity, not in any answer that arises to that question. Apperceiving this................functioning will still carry on through the object, moment to moment to moment,........ till the object is "alive". The form of functioning would have changed. Seeking will still continue. After all Ramana, when noting the hunger pangs in "his" apparatus, did seek some bananas.he did not ask his favourite disciple to go have a Big Mac. And when noting a different impulse, Ramana did seek an appropriate outlet for the movements of the bowels. Some of these persons do give/have given satsang andtell their devotees/students/listeners that there isnothing to be done. ------- It is not there is nothing to be done. It is that nothing else can be done than the particular "doing" that is happening, in the moment, through you as a programmed apparatus of Impersonal functioning. Whether that "doing" in the moment, is grabbing a candybar from a kid and running .....or sitting in zazen, .....or whirling in ecstacy aka Sufi dervishes, or concluding that spirituality is for losers. For certain souls this is true; but for most it is not true. In that distinction, just a hint of distinction,........lo behold the world. Ultimately you can,should, and will decide for yourSELF what you need todo or not do. -------- Good. In the body-mind organism labeled "Michael", ........who is that "you" that is to decide? What have you ever decided in your life, which has been a result of your independent volition? If you are moved to, can you share one decision, preferably one that deeply impacted your life, and let's unravel it, to see just what volition you had over that decision. But the point I want to make is this: I have read many of the discourses of these satsangs. And I recently attended a satsang that was given by arelatively popular american person. This person,after charging $75, would expound upon the "you areconsciousness" argument "ad nauseum". -------- Yes, such clown-acts are dime a dozen. And he could,and would, thwart and berate anyones' "would be" desire to utilize a method to realize the truth. ------- LOL How do you thwart, berate a shadow? Whatis disturbing about it to me is that many people are suffering from their "seeming" separation from the SOURCE. It is extremely unfortunate because methods exist that would help everyone who has a sincere desire. No method is anything more than a hoopla. It is really quite easy for highly intellectual people to grasp the idea that the little "i" doesn't exist and that we are really the BIG "I" and that therefore nothing needs to be done. --------- Highly intellectual people, never get it.<LOL> Well great. But there are a lot of people who are not helped by this. These"gurus" are a lot like our modern day psychologists. The patient does most of the talking and the "doctor"mostly listens. Then the "doctor" talks some. And in the end nothing happens because you cannot talk the patient out of his/her insanity. Absolutely. You cannotrationalize your way out of suffering. Even if the patient's suffering is from imagined or delusional causes they usually can't be talked out of it. Again spot on. For it is sheer absurdity to talk to a shadow and try and convince it that it does not exist. So the logical question, that would arise, ..............why then this prattling, or the thousand prattlings over cyber-space. Prattlings are aimed not at any convincing, for there is no "other" to be convinced. Prattlings are signaturings on flowing water, ..........in the very signing,... is it's erasing. Prattlings once again as nuances of that same impersonal functioning happening through, once again an apparatus. In the moment. As right now. Rationalization is baloney. This is why Ramana said that his real teaching was conveyed in silence. Anything that is conveyable, whether in sound or in silence,...........is baloney.<LOL> And if I may say so, there is more to IT than just CHIT (consciousness). LOL Consciousness arises from an eternal, unborn, undying, immortal, all-powerfull and supersensual BLISS (ANANDA). And once experienced, it leaves no doubt as to what the SOURCE of everythingis. The "i" thought arises from this BLISS.Consciousness arises from this BLISS and it is the source of SAT (existence). This BLISS is the uncaused cause and is the source of everything. ----- Neat recepie, eh? The conceptualization of bliss as "bliss", whether articulated or not, .......is not bliss. Some two cents. If they don't sit well, hit the del key Rub-a-bub-dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hi Sandeep, You have indeed stirred up a hornet's nest. If I were to accept Tony's advice I have to keep mum because I still experience the dualistic world at the finite level, or that I am not a Jivanmukta. I am akin to a 'dream character' created by the Dreamer, an infinitesimal shadow in the Original (whatever you may call It). I cannot sit quiet for even a moment. None of the thoughts that flow out of my head appear to be designed and delivered by my effort or will, including the thought of liberation. Occassionally I remember Ramana's golden words "Summa Iru' or 'Be quiet'. Occassionally the mind also becomes quiet. There appear to be some rules followed by the 'Dreamer' in handling the dream and dream characters. As you rightly mentioned there is only one way either the Great Ramana or an ordinary mortal like me can deal with the digestive system, morsels go down from above and down and out. No other way. If anybody displays any variation it will be viewed with either wonderment or suspicion. May be the futile thought of enlightenment, spiritual practice, Sat Sanga etc have to be experienced by me, with the attendant frustrations, temporary states of calm, with subtle accretion to the Ego (that I am a follower of the spiritual path!?). After years of wandering I have now been made aware that realization is no great achievement. It is just that the shadow called 'mind' is sometimes shut off before the shadow called the body is broken down. This is one form of glorifying the mundane. Somebody is called a Martyr, another a Jihadi, a third a 'Sati'. But in all the cases death does end the restless dance of the shadow. The two glorious words used are 'Jivan mukti' and 'Videha Mukti'. So much for the achievement! By understanding the futility of the process can I do something drastically different, like drowning in Martinis? If I do, I will still be named and called a 'Yoga bhrashta'. If not I shall continue with these mindless wanderings. The fact of the matter is I don't choose, though I am made to feel at times that I have a choice and am the master of my body, mind and feelings. Big deal! So be it. Let us carry on. May we be guided by the spirit of Bhagvan Ramana! Sivaramakrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hi John, RamanaMaharshi, chueewowee <chueewowee> wrote: > Sandeep, are you saying there is no suffering or realisation/release, no > ignorant person, and no-ne to suffer? Yes The suffering entity which is assumed to be ignorant and thus is supposed to be suffering due to being a deluded ignoramus, ..... ........has no independent existential reality. The suffering and the ignorance and hence it's existence, is just like the suffering, ignorance and existence of the dreamed-up character, in your last night sleep dream. Today morning, awake, sipping a cup of tea, .....do you go about alleviating the suffering of that dreamed-up character, ........do you go about teaching that ignoramus dreamed-up character, some Advaitic wisdom? Sipping the tea, you smile at the antics, the great ado, the drama, the pathos, the ethos, of the all the characters of the dream of last night. A shadow does not exist when it does not fall A shadow does not exist, even when it does fall. And all your profound spiritual experiences, are dancing shadows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 5/9/03 11:09 AM +0000 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > > Yes > > The suffering entity which is assumed to be ignorant and thus is > supposed to be suffering due to being a deluded ignoramus, ..... > > .......has no independent existential reality. > > > > The suffering and the ignorance and hence it's existence, is just like > the suffering, ignorance and existence of the dreamed-up character, > in your last night sleep dream. > > Today morning, awake, sipping a cup of tea, .....do you go about > alleviating the suffering of that dreamed-up character, ........do > you go about teaching that ignoramus dreamed-up character, some > Advaitic wisdom? > > Sipping the tea, you smile at the antics, the great ado, the drama, > the pathos, the ethos, of the all the characters of the dream of last > night. > > > A shadow does not exist when it does not fall > A shadow does not exist, even when it does fall. > > And all your profound spiritual experiences, are dancing shadows. > OK, then , with respect, In what way is this different from Bhuddism, or even nihilism? And, to repeat, why can't temporary or conditioned things, be deemed real and existent? Or, are you teaching from a point of view of Absolute Truth? Is this wise? Respect, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hi Sivaramakrishna, Some few Iraqi dinars, in between... RamanaMaharshi, "mallela_srkrishna" <mallela_srkrishna> wrote: > Hi Sandeep, > > You have indeed stirred up a hornet's nest. If I were to accept > Tony's advice I have to keep mum because I still experience the > dualistic world at the finite level, or that I am not a Jivanmukta. ----- Even a Jivamukta, unless dead as a dodo, lives in duality. And deals with it exactly as you do. With one slight difference. There is no identification with one aspect of the duality, no identification with one pole of duality. What is your real issue, Sivaramakrishna? It is not the dualistic world. It is your preference of one aspect of the duality, as distincted with it's opposite. This distinction, is the source of all your issues, all your problems and hence drives all your seeking. That the enlightened world of existence is anything different to this dualistic world, this distinction drives your spiritual hoopla, which you proudly see it as profound seeking.<LOL> ---- > > I am akin to a 'dream character' created by the Dreamer, an > infinitesimal shadow in the Original (whatever you may call It). I > cannot sit quiet for even a moment. ----- Good. Be busy as a bee. Enlightenment is not forbidden to the bees.:-) ---- > None of the thoughts that flow > out of my head appear to be designed and delivered by my effort or > will, including the thought of liberation. Occassionally I remember > Ramana's golden words "Summa Iru' or 'Be quiet'. Occassionally the > mind also becomes quiet. ----- Excellent. The arising of thought, it's gathering energy into an external actualization of an action, invoking the resultant consequences, whether 'good" or "bad",.............all nuances of that one movement in the moment. ------- > > There appear to be some rules followed by the 'Dreamer' in handling > the dream and dream characters. As you rightly mentioned there is > only one way either the Great Ramana or an ordinary mortal like me > can deal with the digestive system, morsels go down from above and > down and out. No other way. If anybody displays any variation it >will be viewed with either wonderment or suspicion. ---- Well, there are idiots who develop an ability to constipate themselves, develop a huge stomach, filled with gas with periodic breaking of the wind (good old farting)and proclaim that to be the sign of the divine Anhat nad (unstricken sound) And there are idiots who believe that. For a circus to be a total hoopla, a Leela, the Big Top must have all the clowning acts that are possible, isn't it? -------- > > May be the futile thought of enlightenment, spiritual practice, Sat > Sanga etc have to be experienced by me, with the attendant > frustrations, temporary states of calm, with subtle accretion to the > Ego (that I am a follower of the spiritual path!?). ---- Yes. That might well be the alotted role for the dreamed-up character labeled "Sivaramakrishna". And all the rice grains in China will stop you from undergoing that futility. ----- > > After years of wandering I have now been made aware that >realization is no great achievement. It is just that the shadow >called 'mind' is sometimes shut off before the shadow called the >body is broken down. The sense of entity, the "me", which is nothing but the sense of personal doership (I think, I do, I act, I am a spritual seeker, I am Ramana Bhakt, I am the great inquirer of "who am i", it is I who have experienced the right-side heart, etc etc etc),.. ......which is nothing but the sense of separation,..... .......this notionality of the "me", ......which mysteriously appears in all body-mind complexes labeled "humans" and to some extend in animals ...... ....this mysterious appearance,........mysteriously, acausally, non- voliotionally,.....ends. The ending of the notion, can only be a notional event, isn't it? And that is why the hilarity of awakening, the awakeining of that which never was asleep and that put to rest which never was.... ....Leaving behind an organism, in which there is pure functioning, in the moment, moment to moment to moment,.........with no tinting, no tainting. > > This is one form of glorifying the mundane. Somebody is called a > Martyr, another a Jihadi, a third a 'Sati'. But in all the cases > death does end the restless dance of the shadow. > > The two glorious words used are 'Jivan mukti' and 'Videha Mukti'. So > much for the achievement! > > By understanding the futility of the process can I do something > drastically different, like drowning in Martinis? If I do, I will > still be named and called a 'Yoga bhrashta'. If not I shall >continue > with these mindless wanderings. The mindless wanderings and the martinis are really no different.:-) > The fact of the matter is I don't choose, though I am made to feel at times that I have a choice and am the master of my body, mind and > feelings. Big deal! --- "I don't choose", ........there is still an I, which concludes that it does not choose.:-) The absence of the presence of the entity and the absence of the absence of the presence of the entity,..........is the pheromones of a well stirred martini. Travelling for few days, ......have fun you all out there. Ladeeee daaaaa daaaaa Deeeee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Isn't 'doing something', according to you, futile, so why choose martini's? what are trying to do? I don't understand. do you here follow a shankaya philosophy, or a baghavad gita sort of philosophy , where you are only part of the whole , not quantitively, but qualitively the same as the the ultimate; and do you believe in spiritual existence as a soul? 5/9/03 9:35 AM +0000 mallela_srkrishna mallela_srkrishna wrote: > By understanding the futility of the process can I do something > drastically different, like drowning in Martinis? If I do, I will > still be named and called a 'Yoga bhrashta'. If not I shall continue > with these mindless wanderings. Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 ---Dear Sandeep ,I fear you may have fallen into an ancient trap which Shankara warns aspirants about .There are Advaita Truths which point to the Absolute and they are Metaphysical , a kind of Para Vidya for the Sage or the Realised Being . But there is an Apara Vidya for the world of experience which is not metaphysicval but empirical, This gives people practical steps they may take if they sincerely wish to end the pain of separation -i.e. as ajnanis .In this way through intelligent effort they cooperate with the action of Grace .If you confuse the two Vidyas you may confuse others .Regards Alan ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 ---Dear Sandeep ,I fear you may have fallen into an ancient trap which Shankara warns aspirants about .There are Advaita Truths which point to the Absolute and they are Metaphysical , a kind of Para Vidya for the Sage or the Realised Being . But there is an Apara Vidya for the world of experience which is not metaphysicval but empirical, This gives people practical steps they may take if they sincerely wish to end the pain of separation -i.e. as ajnanis .In this way through intelligent effort they cooperate with the action of Grace .If you confuse the two Vidyas you may confuse others .Regards Alan ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Very eloquent expression Michael. All are destined to walk their walk and talk their talk in their way. I don't question your experience and respect what you say Michael. However, the term Sat-Chit-Ananda as an advaitic expression refers to one monolithic whole. Consciousness does not arise from Bliss, It Is It Self Bliss. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is One but only categorized and expressed as three from the perspective of the mind. Whether Sri Ramana refers to our nature as Existence, Awareness, Consciousness, or Bliss, it all means the same thing. The Sage is making the same point that we are the Self. Love to all Harsha Michael Bowes wrote: Dear Friends, I am replying again to this entire series of posts. There have been and are many persons who "trumpet" the fact that the SELF is consciousness and that nothing need be done to be what ONE is. Some of these persons do give/have given satsang and tell their devotees/students/listeners that there is nothing to be done. For certain souls this is true; but for most it is not true. Ultimately you can, should, and will decide for yourSELF what you need to do or not do. But the point I want to make is this: I have read many of the discourses of these satsangs. And I recently attended a satsang that was given by a relatively popular american person. This person, after charging $75, would expound upon the "you are consciousness" argument "ad nauseum". And he could, and would, thwart and berate anyones' "would be" desire to utilize a method to realize the truth. What is disturbing about it to me is that many people are suffering from their "seeming" separation from the SOURCE. It is extremely unfortunate because methods exist that would help everyone who has a sincere desire. It is really quite easy for highly intellectual people to grasp the idea that the little "i" doesn't exist and that we are really the BIG "I" and that therefore nothing needs to be done. Well great. But there are a lot of people who are not helped by this. These "gurus" are a lot like our modern day psychologists. The patient does most of the talking and the "doctor" mostly listens. Then the "doctor" talks some. And in the end nothing happens because you cannot talk the patient out of his/her insanity. You cannot rationalize your way out of suffering. Even if the patient's suffering is from imagined or delusional causes they usually can't be talked out of it. Rationalization is baloney. This is why Ramana said that his real teaching was conveyed in silence. And if I may say so, there is more to IT than just CHIT (consciousness). Consciousness arises from an eternal, unborn, undying, immortal, all-powerfull and supersensual BLISS (ANANDA). And once experienced, it leaves no doubt as to what the SOURCE of everything is. The "i" thought arises from this BLISS. Consciousness arises from this BLISS and it is the source of SAT (existence). This BLISS is the uncaused cause and is the source of everything. According to TALKS, 28 November, 1935 Ramana had the following dialog: "D.: So it is. How to get Bliss? M.: Bliss is not something to be got. On the other hand you are always Bliss. This desire is born of the sense of INCOMPLETENESS. To whom is this sense of incompleteness? Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful. Now you are not so. Seek its source and find you are Bliss. "There is nothing new to get. You have, on the other hand, to get rid of your ignorance which makes you think that you are other than Bliss. For whom is this ignorance? It is to the ego. Trace the source of the ego. Then the ego is lost and BLISS remains over. It is eternal. You are That, here and now...That is the MASTER KEY FOR SOLVING ALL DOUBTS." SNIP Also, since I wrote the text above there had been another post on this group about suffering. The writer suggested that "Suffering is pain, unaccepted." I would suggest that SUFFERING is pain unabated. I suggest that SUFFERING is an opportunity to CHANGE. I suggest that SUFFERING, particularly emotional/psycho/spiritual suffering is an invitation from the SELF. A calling from the SELF if you will. Unfortunately people only progress when they are suffering/uncomfortable. When people are hungry should they accept their hunger? When people are oppressed is it wise to just accept that oppression? Most of the wonderful things that make our modern life easier are the product of someone who was suffering or uncomfortable. People were hot and they learned how to build homes and buildings that were cooler. People were cold and they learned how to make warmer dwellings and better clothes. They were sick and they learned medical procedures. And when persons longed for liberation some wise persons developed techniques that could lift the veil of MAYA. Love, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Hi John, 5/9/03 11:09 AM +0000 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote:> > Yes> > The suffering entity which is assumed to be ignorant and thus is > supposed to be suffering due to being a deluded ignoramus, .....> > .......has no independent existential reality.> > > > The suffering and the ignorance and hence it's existence, is just like> the suffering, ignorance and existence of the dreamed-up character, > in your last night sleep dream.> > Today morning, awake, sipping a cup of tea, .....do you go about > alleviating the suffering of that dreamed-up character, ........do > you go about teaching that ignoramus dreamed-up character, some > Advaitic wisdom?> > Sipping the tea, you smile at the antics, the great ado, the drama, > the pathos, the ethos, of the all the characters of the dream of last > night.> > > A shadow does not exist when it does not fall> A shadow does not exist, even when it does fall.> > And all your profound spiritual experiences, are dancing shadows.> OK, then , with respect, In what way is this different from Bhuddism, or even nihilism? Any "ism" is essentially an organization which emerges, arises to establish and perpetuate the hold on the masses, after the dude has moved on. It is pure power-play, with not an iota of difference to a commercial organization. The essence of what any of the sages stated cannot be different. For there are no two Truths. Ramana's "there has been no creation, there has been no destruction" is akin to Buddha's There is doing, but no doer thereof; There is suffering, but no sufferer thereof; There is a Path, but none to traverse; There is Nirvan, but none to attain. On nihilism, a walking took place on this subject, elsewhere in cyber-space. If you have an interest, that walking has been sited at http://www.the-covenant.net/EOS16.htm And, to repeat, why can't temporary or conditioned things, be deemed real and existent? Anything can be deemed whatever your conditioning wishes it to be, ...........real, unreal. It just depends on what your conditioning takes to be the definition on real/unreal to be. Against the definition that real is that, which needs no other, for it's existential reality and vice versa, that is said to be unreal which needs an "other" to lend it, it's existential reality, ergo it has no independent existence of it's own .. .........invite you to re-look at your question. The psycho-somatic apparatus, labeled "John Plum", appears substantial, solid, is conditioned, temporary(your definition) ......but does it have an independent existence without a cognizer of it? As in the state of deep-sleep, when even "dreamer-John Plum" has ceased with the cessation of the dream. Or, are you teaching from a point of view of Absolute Truth? :-) First of all there is no teaching. For there is none to be taught. These are prattlings just like signatures on flowing waters. In the very signing, is it's erasure. Some rowing boatsman/woman, notices the erasing signatures. Some don't. Some are shaken to their core. Some are shaken to acute defensiveness. Some couldn't be bothered. All nuances of the functioning in the moment. Secondly the view of Absolute Truth is also a view and not Absolute Truth. The term "Absolute" is an oxymoron. For the term "Absolute" has only a relevance in relativity. And if Absoluteness is all there is, .............no relativity having any independent existential reality, ......anything which is relevant in this non-independent gestalt, ...............is a hilarity, is it not? Is this wise? ROFL Check with those who have walked with Sandeep. They will tell you Sandeep is the most un-wise character floating about. John, who cares what is wise, what is not. Just signaturings on flowing waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Dear Alan, ---Dear Sandeep , I fear you may have fallen into an ancient trap which Shankara warns aspirantsabout . :-) Love traps. Falling into them and the exploding them to their sub-ionic structures.<LOL> Alan, let's leave the Shankaras, the Buddhas, the Ramanas of the world, aside. For all you know, they might been doped to the gills, muttering some spucatum tauri. There is you sitting across in front of a PC, and there is moi at this end. Even though there is really no you and moi, but since you appear convinced about "Alan's" independent existential reality, let it be so. Now let's walk, in openness, in a spirit of evaluation, discernment, without any apriori conclusion borrowed from some assumed icon of authority. And let's see what is the situation. OK? There are Advaita Truths which point to the Absolute and they are Metaphysical , a kind of Para Vidya for the Sage or the Realised Being. If I suggest for your consideration that there is no ParaVidya, because there is no Avidhya, in the first place? That there is no state of realized beingness, because the state of unrealized beingness has not occurred (for it to then become realized),.........then? That the "ignorant", "suffering" and thus "seeking" entity, is a mere notion, an inference, an ideation, with no existential reality, to imbibe "Ramanic" wisdom or any other "Advaitic" wisdom, ........then? And that, this notional entity, can be ascertained whether it is a notion or not. And while I suggested that we keep all the so called icons aside, ......since you are devoted to Ramana, let me give you one of his bromides on the very nuance that is being prattled above.... On being asked, ........since he was already enlightened, why could he not just wave his pinkie and enlightened the whole of humanity, the dude evidently replied "When you wake up from a dream, do you go about searching for the dream-characters to awaken them?" But there is an Apara Vidya for the world of experience which is not metaphysicval but empirical. :-) Call it whatever, dear Alan. The mind cannot deny the waking world of experience, while awake................and it cannot deny the dreamed-world of experiences, while asleep. Both these "created" worlds, disappear when the mind/entity, disappears in the state of deep-sleep, when even dreaming ceases. Created worlds, ..........which appear and disappear in time, ...........of what great import are they? That is the invitation to see, not in the terminologies This gives people practical steps they may take if they sincerely wish to end the pain of separation -i.e. as ajnanis .In this way through intelligent effort they cooperate with the action of Grace. Sure, such hoopla carries on, all over. All the time Am not denying the occurrence of such hooplas. Inviting you to apperceive the essence of the hoopla, no matter how profound they appear to be, and no matter which icon of authority has prescribed the particular hoopla. If you confuse the two Vidyas you may confuse others . LOL Are you confused? If yes, let's walk in togetherness to unravel the confusion. If not, who is the "other" that you are bothered about, where they will be confused or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Dear Alan, ---Dear Sandeep , I fear you may have fallen into an ancient trap which Shankara warns aspirants about . ----- :-) Love traps. Falling into them and the exploding them to their sub-ionic structures.<LOL> Alan, let's leave the Shankaras, the Buddhas, the Ramanas of the world, aside. For all you know, they might been doped to the gills, muttering some spucatum tauri. There is you sitting across in front of a PC, and there is moi at this end. Even though there is really no you and moi, but since you appear convinced about "Alan's" independent existential reality, let it be so. Now let's walk, in openness, in a spirit of evaluation, discernment, without any apriori conclusion borrowed from some assumed icon of authority. And let's see what is the situation. OK? --------- There are Advaita Truths which point to the Absolute and they are Metaphysical , a kind of Para Vidya for the Sage or the Realised Being. ------- If I suggest for your consideration that there is no ParaVidya, because there is no Avidhya, in the first place? That there is no state of realized beingness, because the state of unrealized beingness has not occurred (for it to then become realized),.........then? That the "ignorant", "suffering" and thus "seeking" entity, is a mere notion, an inference, an ideation, with no existential reality, to imbibe "Ramanic" wisdom or any other "Advaitic" wisdom, ........then? And that, this notional entity, can be ascertained whether it is a notion or not. And while I suggested that we keep all the so called icons aside, ......since you are devoted to Ramana, let me give you one of his bromides on the very nuance that is being prattled above.... On being asked, ........since he was already enlightened, why could he not just wave his pinkie and enlightened the whole of humanity, the dude evidently replied "When you wake up from a dream, do you go about searching for the dream-characters to awaken them?" --------- But there is an Apara Vidya for the world of experience which is not metaphysicval but empirical. ----- :-) Call it whatever, dear Alan. The mind cannot deny the waking world of experience, while awake................and it cannot deny the dreamed-world of experiences, while asleep. Both these "created" worlds, disappear when the mind/entity, disappears in the state of deep-sleep, when even dreaming ceases. Created worlds, ..........which appear and disappear in time, ...........of what great import are they? That is the invitation to see, not in the terminologies --------- This gives people practical steps they may take if they sincerely wish to end the pain of separation -i.e. as ajnanis .In this way through intelligent effort they cooperate with the action of Grace. ------ Sure, such hoopla carries on, all over. All the time Am not denying the occurrence of such hooplas. Inviting you to apperceive the essence of the hoopla, no matter how profound they appear to be, and no matter which icon of authority has prescribed the particular hoopla. --------- If you confuse the two Vidyas you may confuse others . ----- LOL Are you confused? If yes, let's walk in togetherness to unravel the confusion. If not, who is the "other" that you are bothered about, whether they will be confused or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Dear Sandeep ,with respect , I feel you are a bit like a dentist who says to his patients -your tooth ache and pain are quite imaginary ,so forget it .Who would go to such a dentist ?I would rather go to one who treats me -so in the case of the pain of suffering from 'separation' I would rather practice Self Enquiry and have it extracted then endlessly "chat" about it .Regards ,Alan ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk 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.