Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 Unless you make tremendous efforts, you will not be convinced that effort will take you nowhere. The self is so self-confident that unless it is totally discouraged it will not give up. Mere verbal conviction is not enough. Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the self-image. (Nisargadatta in 'I am that') === D. : We are trying to stop thoughts. Gandhiji also says that thought is an obstacle to God's guidance. So it is the natural state. Though natural, yet how difficult to realise. They say that sadhanas are necessary and also that they are obstacles. We get confused. M. : Sadhanas are needed so long as one has not realised it. They are for putting an end to obstacles. Finally there comes a stage when a person feels helpless notwithstanding the sadhanas. He is unable to pursue the much-cherished sadhana also. It is then that God's Power is realised. The Self reveals itself. (from Talks, nr. 647) === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 Dear Miles, Good selections. Posted below are some "personal" remarks on this subject in general. If somebody is suggesting that doing 'sadhanas' (spiritual practices) will not take one anywhere, that implies more. That, by the same token, not doing sadhanas also will not take one anywhere. And more importantly, doing 'sadhanas' will not stop something that is bound to happen. Also, if someone is pointing out that personal doership just a notion, it indicates more. That if apparent volitional efforts are being made by so called seekers, even those are impersonal functioning irrespective of the fact that the seeker thinks otherwise. So it is not an invitation to drop the efforts but continuing the effort with detachment - the understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not the doer. What is observed is that, the advice to work without attachment is very shallow compared to the impact made by the understanding that I am not the doer, though they both suggest the same thing. So just play on, with whatever each thinks is suitable for him/her at this moment. Name it the game of purification or ripening if you like. <s> Murali RamanaMaharshi, "ramana.bhakta" <miles.wright@b...> wrote: > > Unless you make tremendous efforts, you will not be convinced that effort > will take you nowhere. The self is so self-confident that unless it is > totally discouraged it will not give up. Mere verbal conviction is not > enough. Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the > self-image. (Nisargadatta in 'I am that') > === > D. : We are trying to stop thoughts. Gandhiji also says that thought is an > obstacle to God's guidance. So it is the natural state. Though natural, yet > how difficult to realise. They say that sadhanas are necessary and also that > they are obstacles. We get confused. > > M. : Sadhanas are needed so long as one has not realised it. They are for > putting an end to obstacles. Finally there comes a stage when a person feels > helpless notwithstanding the sadhanas. He is unable to pursue the > much-cherished sadhana also. It is then that God's Power is realised. The > Self reveals itself. (from Talks, nr. 647) > === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2003 Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 Thanks for the post Murali. In this passage below does I refer to an ignorant me, as compared with say authentic self? 27/9/03 11:13 AM +0000 Murali murali (AT) grc2000 (DOT) com wrote: > So it is not an invitation to > drop the efforts but continuing the effort with detachment - the > understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not the doer. 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 RamanaMaharshi, chueewowee <chueewowee> wrote: > Thanks for the post Murali. In this passage below does I refer to an > ignorant me, as compared with say authentic self? > Pick whatever John. <LOL> Anything will fit there, if you don't insist that there has to be a doer. > 27/9/03 11:13 AM +0000 Murali murali@g... wrote: > > > So it is not an invitation to > > drop the efforts but continuing the effort with detachment - the > > understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not the doer. > > > > Regards, > > John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Murali, Thank you for your interesting response. > If somebody is suggesting that doing 'sadhanas' (spiritual practices) > will not take one anywhere, that implies more. > That, by the same token, not doing sadhanas also will not take one > anywhere. > And more importantly, doing 'sadhanas' will not stop something that > is bound to happen. Indeed. Although a radio signal may be beamed out to one and all, only those radios appropriately turned on, and tuned in, receive the signal. Sadhana is only turning oneself on, and tuning in. Or should that be turning oneself off to the incessant noise of the human condition. > That if apparent volitional efforts are being made by so called > seekers, even those are impersonal functioning irrespective of the > fact that the seeker thinks otherwise. So it is not an invitation to > drop the efforts but continuing the effort with detachment - the > understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not the doer. Indeed. Strictly speaking one would think absolutely no effort is needed. What does 'no effort' mean. It's bandied about in advaita circles...but what is 'no effort'. Is it a hanger that those in the 'know' hang their concepts on? In which case it means absolutely nothing. If we think all the time and talk all the time we very quickly become interested only in our own egocentric well-trodden pathways. Nothing else matters. We become besotted with the sound of our own internal, and external, voice. If I don't shut up on occasion, I'll never hear what you say. No effort... is 'shutting up'. This is what vichara is all about. 'Shutting up' on occasion. Gradually this shutting up becomes a place of great joy. The sound of our own voice becomes an anathema. Then the sound of Being, sabdabrahman, shines through. One would think that shutting up would take no effort. Indeed this is the case but paradoxically only after the intense effort of slowing down, and stopping, the full-steam ahead train of thought. Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Thnaks Murali. 27/9/03 7:55 PM +0000 Murali murali (AT) grc2000 (DOT) com wrote: >> Thanks for the post Murali. In this passage below does I refer to > an >> ignorant me, as compared with say authentic self? >> > > > > Pick whatever John. > <LOL> > Ok, I'll take both. > Anything will fit there, if you don't insist that there has to be a > doer. I remember now. You're absolutley right to say this. I had that realisation once before, and especially liked it for its beauty. It was let go like all realisations. I like t the replies I've got on this group. Never had contact with a ramana associate before, that I've known. Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Dear Miles, Thanks for the reminder. This mind got a jolt to slow down and quieten. love Yamini --- "ramana.bhakta" <miles.wright wrote: > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > Dear Murali, > > Thank you for your interesting response. > > > If somebody is suggesting that doing 'sadhanas' > (spiritual practices) > > will not take one anywhere, that implies more. > > That, by the same token, not doing sadhanas also > will not take one > > anywhere. > > And more importantly, doing 'sadhanas' will not > stop something that > > is bound to happen. > > Indeed. > Although a radio signal may be beamed out to one and > all, only those radios > appropriately turned on, and tuned in, receive the > signal. Sadhana is only > turning oneself on, and tuning in. Or should that be > turning oneself off to > the incessant noise of the human condition. > > > That if apparent volitional efforts are being made > by so called > > seekers, even those are impersonal functioning > irrespective of the > > fact that the seeker thinks otherwise. So it is > not an invitation to > > drop the efforts but continuing the effort with > detachment - the > > understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not > the doer. > > Indeed. Strictly speaking one would think absolutely > no effort is needed. > What does 'no effort' mean. It's bandied about in > advaita circles...but what > is 'no effort'. Is it a hanger that those in the > 'know' hang their concepts > on? In which case it means absolutely nothing. If we > think all the time and > talk all the time we very quickly become interested > only in our own > egocentric well-trodden pathways. Nothing else > matters. We become besotted > with the sound of our own internal, and external, > voice. If I don't shut up > on occasion, I'll never hear what you say. No > effort... is 'shutting up'. > This is what vichara is all about. 'Shutting up' on > occasion. Gradually this > shutting up becomes a place of great joy. The sound > of our own voice becomes > an anathema. Then the sound of Being, sabdabrahman, > shines through. One > would think that shutting up would take no effort. > Indeed this is the case > but paradoxically only after the intense effort of > slowing down, and > stopping, the full-steam ahead train of thought. > > Miles > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Dear Miles, Noted your well put points. May I add a little more on that? We know, Bhagawan had categorically said that there is no other "direct method" than self-enquiry. Throughout his life he kept on suggesting this method to his "matured" devotees and encouraged them to pursue it. Now, the question is, how many of them did succeed in this endeavor? Even after persistent self-enquiry for 50-60 years where did they stand? Was there anything lacking? Faith? Earnestness? Effort? Then what is the problem? And, if this had been the case of those who basked in the direct rays of grace, what is the chance of you and me achieving (so to say) the task? Or is it that the method itself is defective? Being a devotee, I cannot disbelieve Bhagawan's words. He himself is the proof of what he preached. So it appears that there is something more to self-enquiry than what we generally understand. Let me mention here what Bhagawan had said replying to a devotee's inability to proceed in Self-enquiry - that "Manolaya" (stilling of the mind) is all that you can achieve yourself by your effort (or end of effort). For the ultimate realization, the Self has to annihilate the individual ego which is not in your hand. What does this imply? This implies that all our efforts and their effects are within the realm of mind only and can no way achieve a result beyond the mind. This also implies that it is the "Self" which realizes itself and not the individual self who is apparently making the effort. Then why did Bhagawan propagate the theory of Self-enquiry as a method? Note that Bhagawan had approved other methods as well, like japa (chanting of divine names), meditation, yoga etc. but added that ultimately everything would be culminated in Self-enquiry prior to realization. This point can be stated in another way that PRIOR TO REALIZATION, SELF-ENQUIRY WILL HAPPEN. So it was more like a description rather than prescription. A 'mind- annihilating-self-enquiry' just happens. Nobody can make it happen. The tricky mind has the knack of making every thing a tool to perpetuate itself. That's why one makes everything into methods, so that the mind can get involved and nourish itself. So real self-enquiry is not a method, and nobody can DO that but it happens by itself. All those stories of sounds, lights, silence or peace experienced are nothing but experiences of the mind and have no values at all except for the mind itself. And, effort or no-effort, the ultimate is not at all in our control. Once this is understood thoroughly, one will find that the same is the case with everything else in life, and it leaves one in a total helpless situation. That helplessness may turn into acceptance, freedom or surrender which in turn may trigger a process of dis- identification. These are just some conceptual understanding, which I thought, is worth sharing and not intended to discourage anybody. Murali RamanaMaharshi, "ramana.bhakta" <miles.wright@b...> wrote: > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > Dear Murali, > > Thank you for your interesting response. > > > If somebody is suggesting that doing 'sadhanas' (spiritual practices) > > will not take one anywhere, that implies more. > > That, by the same token, not doing sadhanas also will not take one > > anywhere. > > And more importantly, doing 'sadhanas' will not stop something that > > is bound to happen. > > Indeed. > Although a radio signal may be beamed out to one and all, only those radios > appropriately turned on, and tuned in, receive the signal. Sadhana is only > turning oneself on, and tuning in. Or should that be turning oneself off to > the incessant noise of the human condition. > > > That if apparent volitional efforts are being made by so called > > seekers, even those are impersonal functioning irrespective of the > > fact that the seeker thinks otherwise. So it is not an invitation to > > drop the efforts but continuing the effort with detachment - the > > understanding (be it intellectual) that I am not the doer. > > Indeed. Strictly speaking one would think absolutely no effort is needed. > What does 'no effort' mean. It's bandied about in advaita circles...but what > is 'no effort'. Is it a hanger that those in the 'know' hang their concepts > on? In which case it means absolutely nothing. If we think all the time and > talk all the time we very quickly become interested only in our own > egocentric well-trodden pathways. Nothing else matters. We become besotted > with the sound of our own internal, and external, voice. If I don't shut up > on occasion, I'll never hear what you say. No effort... is 'shutting up'. > This is what vichara is all about. 'Shutting up' on occasion. Gradually this > shutting up becomes a place of great joy. The sound of our own voice becomes > an anathema. Then the sound of Being, sabdabrahman, shines through. One > would think that shutting up would take no effort. Indeed this is the case > but paradoxically only after the intense effort of slowing down, and > stopping, the full-steam ahead train of thought. > > Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Murali wrote: These are just some conceptual understanding, which I thought, is worth sharing and not intended to discourage anybody. Murali Words can only affect those who are interested in words. Bhagavan's real teaching is in silence. Silence reveals It Self as One's Own Being. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 RamanaMaharshi, Harsha wrote: > Words can only affect those who are interested in words. > Bhagavan's real teaching is in silence. > Silence reveals It Self as One's Own Being. > > Love to all > Harsha Yes, you are so correct Harsha. But that Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never speaks about self- enquiry. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never does self-equiry. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never speeks to anybody for he alone is. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never does anything but actions happen because he is. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, knows nothing though he is the knowledge. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, needs nothing ever as he is Poornam.(Complete) And that Bhagawan, whose language is silence, is what "I am". Conceptually speaking, of course. <s> Murali Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Murali wrote: Yes, you are so correct Harsha. But that Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never speaks about self- enquiry. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never does self-equiry. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never speeks to anybody for he alone is. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, never does anything but actions happen because he is. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, knows nothing though he is the knowledge. That Bhagawan, whose language is silence, needs nothing ever as he is Poornam.(Complete) And that Bhagawan, whose language is silence, is what "I am". Conceptually speaking, of course. <s> Murali Yes. All True Murali. When mind merges in the Heart, Speech and Silence are the same. Action and Inaction are the same. The ancient sages described it as Sat-Chit-Ananda-Nityam-Poornum. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 1/10/03 2:04 PM +0000 Murali murali (AT) grc2000 (DOT) com wrote: > > And that Bhagawan, whose language is silence, is what "I am". > > > > Conceptually speaking, of course. > <s> > > Murali Words are not necessarily merely raising concepts or memories, but communications between people. Your words in this thread are succinct. They do the job well. So perhaps you are inviting all the world to see Murali as you are really are, Bhagawan-in- Murali? I wonder, I even hope so! Thanks. 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.