Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 --Dear Ellen you wrote: > > Thank you so much for all the postings I feel deeply supported by the words you share on this > site.... > > I wonder if any or all of you could assist me? Does the technique that Ramana Maharshi > espoused and taught bring you closer to becoming Enlightened (or whatever your description is of > letting go of ego and opening to the Light?). Yes -indisputably .Ramana Maharshi is universally acknowlefged as one of the Great Sages for a millenia .After all he could teach through silence which is very rare even amongst Sages .David Godman's Power of the Presence 3 vols gives many first hand accounts of enlightenment through his teaching .There are other records as well . It's all very well to state a 'higher truth' to > someone who unable to do what the truths say to do. Seems to me I experience that we then learn > and recite the laws and techniques,but cannot/do not? know them. I am wondering if you are > experiencing a feel of being more removed from your personalities/egos by using this technique > or, whether you are feeling more at one with All? The practice of self-surrender and Self Enquiry bring about remarkable changes and experiences which confirm the Truth of the teaching. > > Do you know of any of his 'followers' that became enlightened by using his technique? Yes, in the Godman Books already referred to etc. I recall > reading that he said that his Enlightenment experience was attained so easily and young because > he had practiced or gone through what he needed to do in other lives (terrible paraphrasing, > forgive me). This was what he said in his case .Any one who is called to his High Teaching through Grace is moving towards Self Realisation sooner or later depending on their tendencies,earnestness and willingness to apply the teaching .You will be guided . Still I would very much like to hear what your hearts say about this. My heart is full of love and gratitude to my Sat-Guru ,Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi . with every best wish in the joys of our teaching, in His Grace , 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 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hi Ellen, Maybe you (or the List itself) may not find these comments appealing. Some two cents in any case, hit the del key if they don't sit well on you:-) - Ellen Sutherland RamanaMaharshi Sunday, September 21, 2003 08:46 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 Hello All, Thank you so much for all the postings I feel deeply supported by the words you share on this site.... I wonder if any or all of you could assist me? Does the technique that Ramana Maharshi espoused and taught bring you closer to becoming Enlightened (or whatever your description is of letting go of ego and opening to the Light?). Neither Ramana's espousals or anybody's espousals can bring any entity, any self to become enlightened (letting go of the ego and opening to Light, as you define enlightenment) For that's an oxymoron. The letting go of the ego, is the antic of the very ego. There has never been an enlightened person. Ever. Yes, there have been the rare manifested sentient object, appropriately conditioned, ............in which no-volitionally, acausally, mysteriously, ..........there has been the "occurrence",(to use a conceptual term) when the sense of the entity, the "me" (which is not the ego), that sense of the individual and thus separated "self",........ ...... has got erased, with the apperception of the essential unicity. Popular media and the audience may label such a psycho-somatic apparatus, as a "Sage", or an " Enlightened Master" or a "Guru", but the entity to which all these labels have a meaning, a relevance, a connotation is no more in that sentient object. The erasure of the "self" is also a hilarity, since that "self" did not have an existential reality, in the first place, in order to get erased. Let's say, as much as can be said within words, a self hypnosis, created by the same self of itself, by itself, for itself, ....gets exposed. Identified Consciousness, in a rare object (the object itself being a "particular" objectivization of Consciousness), "recovers" it's Impersonality. This exposure, .......no external espousal, no technique, no methodology can enable. For the very basis of accepting that an external espousal, technique or methodology is a workable tool useful for exposing, is the perpetuation of the existential reality of the "self" to be enlightened or liberated or whatever term you wish to use. That "self" which is to be enlightened is itself a resultant concesquence of the hypnosis and thus the very basis to seek, through an external espousal, technique or methodology ,.... .......is the very perpetuation of the hypnosis. It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot straps. You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Yes, listening to espousals, inquiring till you are blue in your face, standing on your head in meditation, may get you experiences, many of which, on account of your personal investment in the particular hoopla, .............you will term and even totally believe,............. to be "profound". All experiences, including what is labeled as "Samadhi" are within the gestalt of the hypnosis. And of no import, for what happens in time, ends in time. The much trashed and vilified term ego, is interesting. The wide consensus appears to be, that ego is the source of all problems, all griefs and if it can just be stamped out if existence, bliss can be grabbed. That bliss is of relevance only to an entity, only to a self, is not to be highlighted, ofcourse. And thus is born the spiritual bazaar, with stamping-out techniques, espousals and potions. Whereas the truth is that without the ego, the physical body-mind organism would not survive a single second. The occurrence of the exposure of the self-hypnosis may or may not coincide with the "death" of the apparatus in which the occurrence happened. History, for obvious reasons as minimal records of events, when the coincidence happened. When it did not and the apparatus continued to be alive, as per it's allotted role, as in the case of Ramana or Buddha or any the dudes that lived after the occurrence, the ego continued blazing it all it's glory. Ego is nothing but an identification with the name and form of a particular body-mind apparatus, as distinct and separate from names and forms of other body-mind apparatuses. Without this identification, and this distinction, the psycho-somatic apparatus will not survive for a moment. When Ramana or Buddha noted hunger pangs in "their" bodies, they did not ask a favourite disciple to eat a banana, (or whatever) to assuage the hunger pangs. Or take a shit in the morning when a different pang was noted. When Ramana was hailed "Hey Bhagwan", he turned his attention to the direction of the speaker. When an "enlightened sage", finds himself or herself in front of a speeding bus, he does not dwell in the oneness of all, but hauls the identified organism out of the way of the speeding bus, fairly rapidly. So what ends, in the sense of an ending, in what is usually termed as "enlightenment"? It is the end of the "me", which is the sense of a individual subject, separated from it's array of cognized objects, making up it's world. This sense of separation, is essentially the prevailing sense of personal doership. I Ellen, am a seeker, and I am to do this and this and not that and that, in order I Ellen become enlightened,..... is the prevailing sense of personal doership. In a sentient object, labeled by society as a "Sage", there is a witnessing of the functioning happening in the moment, moment to moment to moment, THROUGH "his" body-mind apparatus, ..............as you Ellen would be witnessing the going -ons of your neighbour. The witnessing of the unicity appearing as duality, as the infinite multiplicity, each as an objective unique and conditioned expression of the unicity. Thus it is said the Yogi dreams and is a witness to the dreaming. It's all very well to state a 'higher truth' to someone who unable to do what the truths say to do. Seems to me I experience that we then learn and recite the laws and techniques,but cannot/do not? know them. Spot on Ellen. That's all that happens even in the case when there is a belief that knowing Ramana has happened. I am wondering if you are experiencing a feel of being more removed from your personalities/egos by using this technique or, whether you are feeling more at one with All? A removal from personality, no matter how couched or perfumed in words, is yet another personality. The feeling I am now ParamBrahman, is yet another identity. For ParamBrahman,............."Parambrahman",................has no relevance, no meaning. The end of a need for an identity, any identity and hence the end of seeking one, ........... .................AND,............. the absence of the absence of seeking, .......... .........is .............. Rub-a-bub-dub. Some two cents............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Ellen, Probably others have answered your questions. Sri Ramana shines like the Sun. His simple words have power beyond comprehension and directly convey the Truth of the Heart. That is my experience. Have you read Miles article on Sri Ramana as the Living Teacher. Some of Sri Ramana's devotees were the greatest yogis and sages of the day. Read their accounts. So many of them, Kunju Swami, Annamalai Swami, so many. They humbly were content to stay in Sri Ramana's shadows. You should have absolutely no doubt. Sri Ramana's words are pure grace and lead to knowledge of the Heart and Self-Realization. Love to all Harsha Ellen Sutherland wrote: Bhagavad Gita 8 Hello All, Thank you so much for all the postings I feel deeply supported by the words you share on this site.... I wonder if any or all of you could assist me? Does the technique that Ramana Maharshi espoused and taught bring you closer to becoming Enlightened (or whatever your description is of letting go of ego and opening to the Light?). It's all very well to state a 'higher truth' to someone who unable to do what the truths say to do. Seems to me I experience that we then learn and recite the laws and techniques,but cannot/do not? know them. I am wondering if you are experiencing a feel of being more removed from your personalities/egos by using this technique or, whether you are feeling more at one with All? Do you know of any of his 'followers' that became enlightened by using his technique? I recall reading that he said that his Enlightenment experience was attained so easily and young because he had practiced or gone through what he needed to do in other lives (terrible paraphrasing, forgive me). Still I would very much like to hear what your hearts say about this. Sincerely, Ellen avinASi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam | vinASam avyayasyA 'sya na kaScit kartum arhati || (2.17) 8 --- Know That (Self), by which all of this is pervaded, is indeed imperishable. No one is able to effect the destruction of the Immutable. --- If all manifest diversity is stripped away, or even if it appears to remain... the single, eternal, unbroken 'I-I' consciousness flows. As a rope perceived as a snake is never really a snake, so the mistaken diversity of the universe persists until that self-evident, Self-knowledge is realised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hello, Thank you for the commentary - 'not versed in the Bhagavad Gita, but what little I've read doesn't seem to be this writing, or, am I mistaken about your 'subject line?' Are these your commentaries? I have actually read them somewhere before...? And, as far as the delete button goes, I'm on this list to share and learn and your thoughts/views are welcome as others are. How helpful is it though to confound? I mean what is the purpose of saying that what I or we are doing is useless and merely an egoic trick? It's part of the great paradox that we take our 'self' to find our 'Self' or, have I misunderstood you? Ellen Neither Ramana's espousals or anybody's espousals can bring any entity, any self to become enlightened (letting go of the ego and opening to Light, as you define enlightenment) For that's an oxymoron. The letting go of the ego, is the antic of the very ego. There has never been an enlightened person. Ever. Yes, there have been the rare manifested sentient object, appropriately conditioned, ............in which no-volitionally, acausally, mysteriously, ..........there has been the "occurrence",(to use a conceptual term) when the sense of the entity, the "me" (which is not the ego), that sense of the individual and thus separated "self",........ ...... has got erased, with the apperception of the essential unicity. Popular media and the audience may label such a psycho-somatic apparatus, as a "Sage", or an " Enlightened Master" or a "Guru", but the entity to which all these labels have a meaning, a relevance, a connotation is no more in that sentient object. The erasure of the "self" is also a hilarity, since that "self" did not have an existential reality, in the first place, in order to get erased. Let's say, as much as can be said within words, a self hypnosis, created by the same self of itself, by itself, for itself, ....gets exposed. Identified Consciousness, in a rare object (the object itself being a "particular" objectivization of Consciousness), "recovers" it's Impersonality. This exposure, .......no external espousal, no technique, no methodology can enable. For the very basis of accepting that an external espousal, technique or methodology is a workable tool useful for exposing, is the perpetuation of the existential reality of the "self" to be enlightened or liberated or whatever term you wish to use. That "self" which is to be enlightened is itself a resultant concesquence of the hypnosis and thus the very basis to seek, through an external espousal, technique or methodology ,.... .......is the very perpetuation of the hypnosis. It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot straps. You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Yes, listening to espousals, inquiring till you are blue in your face, standing on your head in meditation, may get you experiences, many of which, on account of your personal investment in the particular hoopla, .............you will term and even totally believe,............. to be "profound". All experiences, including what is labeled as "Samadhi" are within the gestalt of the hypnosis. And of no import, for what happens in time, ends in time. The much trashed and vilified term ego, is interesting. The wide consensus appears to be, that ego is the source of all problems, all griefs and if it can just be stamped out if existence, bliss can be grabbed. That bliss is of relevance only to an entity, only to a self, is not to be highlighted, ofcourse. And thus is born the spiritual bazaar, with stamping-out techniques, espousals and potions. Whereas the truth is that without the ego, the physical body-mind organism would not survive a single second. The occurrence of the exposure of the self-hypnosis may or may not coincide with the "death" of the apparatus in which the occurrence happened. History, for obvious reasons as minimal records of events, when the coincidence happened. When it did not and the apparatus continued to be alive, as per it's allotted role, as in the case of Ramana or Buddha or any the dudes that lived after the occurrence, the ego continued blazing it all it's glory. Ego is nothing but an identification with the name and form of a particular body-mind apparatus, as distinct and separate from names and forms of other body-mind apparatuses. Without this identification, and this distinction, the psycho-somatic apparatus will not survive for a moment. When Ramana or Buddha noted hunger pangs in "their" bodies, they did not ask a favourite disciple to eat a banana, (or whatever) to assuage the hunger pangs. Or take a shit in the morning when a different pang was noted. When Ramana was hailed "Hey Bhagwan", he turned his attention to the direction of the speaker. When an "enlightened sage", finds himself or herself in front of a speeding bus, he does not dwell in the oneness of all, but hauls the identified organism out of the way of the speeding bus, fairly rapidly. So what ends, in the sense of an ending, in what is usually termed as "enlightenment"? It is the end of the "me", which is the sense of a individual subject, separated from it's array of cognized objects, making up it's world. This sense of separation, is essentially the prevailing sense of personal doership. I Ellen, am a seeker, and I am to do this and this and not that and that, in order I Ellen become enlightened,..... is the prevailing sense of personal doership. In a sentient object, labeled by society as a "Sage", there is a witnessing of the functioning happening in the moment, moment to moment to moment, THROUGH "his" body-mind apparatus, ..............as you Ellen would be witnessing the going -ons of your neighbour. The witnessing of the unicity appearing as duality, as the infinite multiplicity, each as an objective unique and conditioned expression of the unicity. Thus it is said the Yogi dreams and is a witness to the dreaming. It's all very well to state a 'higher truth' to someone who unable to do what the truths say to do. Seems to me I experience that we then learn and recite the laws and techniques,but cannot/do not? know them. Spot on Ellen. That's all that happens even in the case when there is a belief that knowing Ramana has happened. I am wondering if you are experiencing a feel of being more removed from your personalities/egos by using this technique or, whether you are feeling more at one with All? A removal from personality, no matter how couched or perfumed in words, is yet another personality. The feeling I am now ParamBrahman, is yet another identity. For ParamBrahman,............."Parambrahman",................has no relevance, no meaning. The end of a need for an identity, any identity and hence the end of seeking one, ........... .................AND,............. the absence of the absence of seeking, .......... .........is .............. Rub-a-bub-dub. Some two cents............. 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 September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Dear Ellen, As Ramana would have said ...Why bother about others techniques, if others have attained enlightment etc. You(as I) feel a strong sense of that existance as "I". Go to its roots and figure out who this "I" is. There is no technique to know "myself". This mind has a strong sense of "I". Simply trace the source of this "I". When the need for external support is felt, seek whoever appeals to you..(Ramana, Buddha,or others). Many of the "enlightened beings" stay silent that this world will never get to know. "Ramana" became known because of "other humans around". love Yamini --- Ellen Sutherland <lovelite wrote: > Bhagavad Gita 8Hello All, > > Thank you so much for all the postings I feel > deeply supported by the words you share on this > site.... > > I wonder if any or all of you could assist me? > Does the technique that Ramana Maharshi espoused and > taught bring you closer to becoming Enlightened (or > whatever your description is of letting go of ego > and opening to the Light?). It's all very well to > state a 'higher truth' to someone who unable to do > what the truths say to do. Seems to me I experience > that we then learn and recite the laws and > techniques,but cannot/do not? know them. I am > wondering if you are experiencing a feel of being > more removed from your personalities/egos by using > this technique or, whether you are feeling more at > one with All? > > Do you know of any of his 'followers' that became > enlightened by using his technique? I recall > reading that he said that his Enlightenment > experience was attained so easily and young because > he had practiced or gone through what he needed to > do in other lives (terrible paraphrasing, forgive > me). Still I would very much like to hear what your > hearts say about this. > Sincerely, > Ellen > > avinASi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam | > vinASam avyayasyA 'sya na kaScit kartum arhati || > > (2.17) 8 > --- > Know That (Self), by which all of this is > pervaded, is indeed imperishable. > No one is able to effect the destruction of the > Immutable. > --- > If all manifest diversity is stripped away, or > even if it appears to remain... the single, eternal, > unbroken 'I-I' consciousness flows. As a rope > perceived as a snake is never really a snake, so the > mistaken diversity of the universe persists until > that self-evident, Self-knowledge is realised. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hi Ellen, - Ellen Sutherland RamanaMaharshi Monday, September 22, 2003 08:25 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 Hello, Thank you for the commentary - 'not versed in the Bhagavad Gita, but what little I've read doesn't seem to be this writing, or, am I mistaken about your 'subject line?' You had used the thread to pose a question. Which invoked a response. That's all. Incidentally the essence of Bhagvad Gita is the same, as that invoked response. Krishna commenting on Arjun being aghast at the possibility of his revered and loved relatives getting killed by his hands, the dude with the flute replies " I have already killed them, you Arjun are a nimit, an instrument for that act to get enabled." Are these your commentaries? There is writing but no author thereof. There is saying/commenting, but no speaker/commentator thereof. I have actually read them somewhere before...? That is not surprising. The essence of any saying from any object in which apperception has occurred, is that invoked response which appeared as some signs on your PC screen. Whether that object went by the name Ramana, Jesus, Buddha, LaoTzu , Nisargadatta, Masood, or Arabi. And, as far as the delete button goes, I'm on this list to share and learn and your thoughts/views are welcome as others are. How helpful is it though to confound? :-) Confounding is the gateless gateway. What is it that you are confounded about? I mean what is the purpose of saying that what I or we are doing is useless and merely an egoic trick? That it is useful and that it can and has reached you somewhere, anywhere is the trick of the me-entity. It's part of the great paradox that we take our 'self' to find our 'Self' or, have I misunderstood you? There is only the Self (a statement which is an oxymoron, but let's take it for the time being) If there is the only Self, ...........the "self" for which liberation, enlightenment, ParamBrahman, etc etc, is relevant and hence it seeks all these bromides, ....... ........that "self" can only be a creation appearing as a consequence of the Self pretending to be the "self", is it not? Thus the "self" can never find, become, reach, attain, realize, experience the Self. Only Self can cease pretending otherwise. As the British physicist Bohm stated, "The Universe is more in the nature of a thought" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hi Yamini. Just few comments, in-between . - Yamini Gourishankar RamanaMaharshi Monday, September 22, 2003 10:57 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 Dear Ellen,As Ramana would have said ...Why bother about otherstechniques, if others have attained enlightment etc. You(as I) feel a strong sense of that existance as"I". Go to its roots and figure out who this "I" is.There is no technique to know "myself". This mind hasa strong sense of "I". The mind is the very sense of the "I", as the "me-entity". "has" connotes a possession which in turn connotes a duality. And the mind, whose darting restlessness is to be quietened come what may, seeming to be the rally cry in the spiritual bazaars, ..................that mind... .....that mind is essentially a notion, inferred by the mnemonic impressions of past experiences. Which makes the me-entity, .........the one for whom enlightenment, liberation, realization, Moksha, etc etc being of profound relevance and thus the endless seeking, the endless round and round the mulbbery bush,............ ...that entity, can only be a notion, an inference, an ideation. The erasure of a notion, can only be another notional event. Simply trace the source of this "I". When the need for external support is felt, seekwhoever appeals to you..(Ramana, Buddha,or others). Many of the "enlightened beings" stay silent that this world will never get to know. "Ramana" became known because of "other humans around". Yes, Ramana "became" Maharishi, because of the audience, otherwise he was just minding his own business, bothering nobody. To the object which was known as "Ramana",...........the connotation of "Ramana" (and all that it stood for), the term "Maharishi", "enlightened Sage", ............all this was of no relevance. The "me", to which all these terms are of relevance, was no more in that particular sentient object. A sage is a sage till he believes he is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hello Yamini and Alan, Thank you for your helpfulness, and the beautiful words... It seems that the best thing for me to do is to do is the most obvious; stop the questions and do the practice and trust Maharshi's advice and guidance..peace to you Ellen Hello Sandeep, Thank you also for your words; I don't feel I understand what it is you are conveying in this last paragraph; and the rest well fair enough, except we must begin where we are - illusory or not - and then move to the place where we realize we have no beginnings - - and not only think this awarenes, but know it. I have re-read your mailings and will continue to ponder your words. But I have a burning question do you/did you practice Ramana Maharshi's searching for the 'I'? Ellen Attachment: [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hi Sandeep, Well said...Thanks. love Yamini --- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc wrote: > Hi Yamini. > > Just few comments, in-between . > - > Yamini Gourishankar > RamanaMaharshi > Monday, September 22, 2003 10:57 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 > > > Dear Ellen, > > As Ramana would have said ...Why bother about > others > techniques, if others have attained enlightment > etc. > You(as I) feel a strong sense of that existance as > "I". Go to its roots and figure out who this "I" > is. > > There is no technique to know "myself". This mind > has > a strong sense of "I". > > The mind is the very sense of the "I", as the > "me-entity". > > "has" connotes a possession which in turn connotes > a duality. > > And the mind, whose darting restlessness is to be > quietened come what may, seeming to be the rally cry > in the spiritual bazaars, ..................that > mind... > > ....that mind is essentially a notion, inferred by > the mnemonic impressions of past experiences. > > Which makes the me-entity, .........the one for > whom enlightenment, liberation, realization, Moksha, > etc etc being of profound relevance and thus the > endless seeking, the endless round and round the > mulbbery bush,............ > > ..that entity, can only be a notion, an inference, > an ideation. > > The erasure of a notion, can only be another > notional event. > > > Simply trace the source of this "I". When the > need for external support is felt, seek > whoever appeals to you..(Ramana, Buddha,or > others). > > Many of the "enlightened beings" stay silent that > this world will never get to know. "Ramana" became > known because of "other humans around". > > Yes, Ramana "became" Maharishi, because of the > audience, otherwise he was just minding his own > business, bothering nobody. > > To the object which was known as > "Ramana",...........the connotation of "Ramana" (and > all that it stood for), the term "Maharishi", > "enlightened Sage", ...........all this was of no > relevance. > > The "me", to which all these terms are of > relevance, was no more in that particular sentient > object. > > A sage is a sage till he believes he is one. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 - Ellen Sutherland RamanaMaharshi Tuesday, September 23, 2003 02:40 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 ---- ---------- Hello Sandeep, Hi Ellen, Thank you also for your words; I don't feel I understand what it is you are conveying in this last paragraph; ----- Rarely a sent message is kept. So you will have to resend whatever you wish to be clairified. :-) --------- and the rest well fair enough, except we must begin where we are - illusory or not - and then move to the place where we realize we have no beginnings - - and not only think this awarenes, but know it. -------- Whatever you say. ------- I have re-read your mailings and will continue to ponder your words. ------- Do that, if you are so moved. Then forget the signatures on flowing waters. That which truly works, .............works,.................. despite you or your pondering, your intention to begin or your conceptions as to where you are supposed to reach. -------- But I have a burning question do you/did you practice Ramana Maharshi's searching for the 'I'? -------- No. The apperception of the absurdity of searching, not just Ramana's prescription, but any prescription, was in the moment. And yet let me say Ramana was one of the finest expression of,......... that which expresses. Very nice picture of the Lotus flower, Ellen. Did you know it is the Lotus flower which is used in the East for all religious ceremonies? Not the rose, not the Aster, not the tulip, but the Lotus. The Lotus flower is a symbol. It is always born in dirt, mud, it continues to live in the midst of all dirt. And yet none of the dirt stains it's beauty. The Lotus flower is a symbol of a living. A living of in the world (and all that being "in" entails), but not of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 > >Dear Sandeep, Ellen wrote: ------------------------- > Hello Sandeep > I have re-read your mailings> > -------- > > But I have a burning question do you/did you practice Ramana > Maharshi's searching for the 'I'? > You replied: -------- > > No. > > The apperception of the absurdity of searching, not just Ramana's > prescription, but any prescription, was in the moment. > > And yet let me say Ramana was one of the finest expression > of,......... that which expresses. In this event ,Sanddep congratulations! If your 'apperception' has given you Self Realisation through Grace without Sadhana! . Howeveri f you do not feel you are yet a Jivan Mukti than perphaps Atma Vichara might be useful and the 'apperception ' seen to be another another illusion . Regards and best wishes , Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 Grace, for me who dwells in the world. I like that. I do not know what you are talking about, 'Jivan Mukti'. What is this 'other than me'? How can you meaningfully name the indescribable? 27/9/03 6:26 AM +0000 Alan Adams-Jacobs alanadamsjacobs (AT) (DOT) co.uk wrote: > If your 'apperception' has given you Self Realisation through > Grace without Sadhana! . > Howeveri f you do not feel you are yet a Jivan Mukti than > perphaps Atma Vichara might be useful and the 'apperception ' > seen to be another another illusion . Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 Should I give up all teachings and searchings, even in my ignorance, or should I use a little 'subterfuge' or mundane technique first, to weaken ignorance? You know, like two sticks (of ignorance) rubbing each other, to produce (reveal?) fire which consumes the stick. Like, how can this little me give up all the falsity and fear in one breath..what should I turn to that I recognise if I am lost? "We cannot know thy nature. Thou alone knowest what thou art, Thyself knowest Thyself, by Thyself. The mind cannot reach Thee -What can poor understanding know? " 27/9/03 4:07 AM +0000 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > > But I have a burning question do you/did you practice Ramana > Maharshi's searching for the 'I'? Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 - chueewowee RamanaMaharshi Saturday, September 27, 2003 02:18 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bhagavad Gita 8 Should I give up all teachings and searchings, even in my ignorance, or should I use a little 'subterfuge' or mundane technique first, to weaken ignorance? Do whatever you are moved to, John. Whatsoever. Pursue the teaching with full gusto. Or seeing the absurdity of it all, give it all up. Knowing that in either the pursuit or in the cessation of the pursuit,(whaetver be the form and nature of the pursuit) ............ ......in BOTH the activities,...........the instrument of functioning, labeled by society as "John Plum",.......through which the functioning (in the nature of pursuit/cessation of pursuit),.... is happening, in the moment..... ......that instrument does not live, ...... .......that instrument is "lived". In the moment. Moment to moment to moment. "Lived",.........exactly as "living" is happening in the moment. Knowing that the very need to look to weaken the ignorance, ........is the very ignorance, ........do whatsoever you are moved to weaken the ignorance. You know, like two sticks (of ignorance) rubbing each other, to produce (reveal?) fire which consumes the stick. Sure. Except the sticks don't have an existential reality, to be consumed. The good old rope appearing to be a snake, whereas not only there is no snake, even the rope has no independent existential reality, either. Like, how can this little me give up all the falsity and fear in one breath.. Who else is asking that question "how", but the "me"?:-) The "how" is a hoopla in time, ........it is the "how" which births time. And any answer to any "how",........is again within time, .............and hence of no import. Apperception of this, ......if it is to happen.....is in the moment. Or not. what should I turn to that I recognise if I am lost? That question .......can only arise to a me-entity, isn't it? With the dissolution of the sense of entity (so to say),.....who is left......to whom "lost" be of relevance, ........when the very concept of "home" is of no relevance? You can only conclude about being lost,if you have a re-conceived notion of what or where is home, is it not? No "home" is ever reached, found, experienced, attained. The distinction between what is "home" and what is not-"home", ..........that distinction is no more. That distinction is no more, because the entity to which this distinction, (any distinction),.......can be of relevance, ........... ......that entity is no more (so to say). As an Upanshidic dude sang,...... some 5,000 years ago......... No answers received..... All questions, dropped. In the apperception.....that......where one is, ................is exactly where one was to be in this moment,.. .......and it is so for any moment, ........whether it was the moments in the past or the moments to arise...... .......and that all the Maharishis in the Brahmand could not have altered that fact........ ...can you ever be lost, John? See this,..............and do whatsoever you are moved to in the moment. bigger> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 27/9/03 7:29 PM +0530 Sandeep Chatterjee sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > In the apperception.....that......where one is, ................is > exactly where one was to be in this moment,.. > ......and it is so for any moment, ........whether it was the moments in > the past or the moments to arise...... > ......and that all the Maharishis in the Brahmand could not have altered > that fact........ > ..can you ever be lost, John? > > > Thanks Sandeep. > See this,..............and do whatsoever you are moved to in the moment. OK then. Regards, John Plum 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.