Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 I like the guts you people have. There once was a Chinese ch'an master by the name of Yun-Men. One day he met an old lady who proclaimed to know and understand all the sutras. Yun-Men just stood there gazing at her in disbelieve: "What? All sutras and you cannot even read and write? Besides that there are hundreds of sutras and even I didn't read them all." "Yes, all sutras said the old lady." "Well", said Yun-Men, "what are they saying?" The old lady replied: "They all say: you will be saved. That is all. You will be saved." - Harsha RamanaMaharshi Monday, September 29, 2003 6:56 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter All shifts in perspective are false and have no reality whatsoever.The day of laughter is today! :-).Now! :-) :-).Love to allHarshaYamini Gourishankar wrote: Another shift in perspective shows this in a newlight...If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words withoutattaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes againbecause of "this mind's" habits/conditioning), itpoints to "this mind's" own areas ofhabits/conditioning. That then becomes an excellentopportunity to self gauge where this mind is workingtowards. :-)Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys theright meaning intended :-)loveYamini--- Harsha <harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:> srinivasan suryanarayan wrote:> > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya> >> > RamanaMaharshi,> "ramana.bhakta" wrote:> >> > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the> Quest, must be tackled.> >> > Sandeep <sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in> wrote:> >> > > By whom?> >> > By one who is given to endless chatter. You.> > > > om gurave namah> > suri> > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that> "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that his> last name indicates > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies.> > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is> nothing wrong with > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much> chattering can appear > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard to> say. There is a > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the> little chatter-ji.> > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has> found his way to > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and> understanding. Chatter > away, dear one.> > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is> Here and Now. Where > else would it be? :-).> > Love to all> Harsha> The New with improved product search Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to the ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based on scientific explanation to the formation of life( forming from elements and again merging in elements ).But this formation is limited to the body only. It does not explain the logic with which the accumulated vasanaas are carried from birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated by Greats like Sri Ramana is required to eliminate those vasanaas to be free from the habit of identification with the body( Realization ?).What is the state after that Realization could not be comprehended by one's present state of mind.Spirituality begins where science ends .. These postings remind me of Rajagopalachari 's remarks in the.inintroduction to Sankara's Bhajagovindam rendered by MS Subbulakshmi " Knowledge, if does not lead one to Bhakti is useless tinsel " Does he know of devotees whose eyes fill with tears the moment they utter the word Ramana, an expression of inexplicable joy and ecstacy ? Probably he would explain this with terminology of chemistry. Jai Sri Ramana Ramana Sarma The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Hi VRS, - vrs podury RamanaMaharshi Tuesday, September 30, 2003 01:45 AM [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based on scientific explanation to the formation of life( forming from elements and again merging in elements ).But this formation is limited to the body only. Sure. That was because, the question, if I recall correctly was on the issue of death. It does not explain the logic with which the accumulated vasanaasare carried from birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated by Greats like Sri Ramana is required to eliminate those vasanaas to be free from the habit ofidentification with the body( Realization ?). Who is identified with the body? Who is that, which thus then needs to dis-identify with the body? Do you know the body-mind organism will not survive for a moment, without this identification, and thus, in order to continue to be 'alive", needs this identification to continue. Whether the body-mind organism went by the name Ramana, or Budda or Jesus or Idi Amin. The identification with a particular body and it's name is not at all an issue. After all when Ramana, as a consequence of this very identification, noted pangs of hunger in "his" body, he asked for a banana split with strawberry flavour,...... ...... he did not ask his favourite disciple to go and partake some pulliharianam. Or when the dude noted a different set of pangs in his body at the time of Brahmamuhurtha, he did not once again ask his favourite disciple to go and move his bowels while undertaking atama vichara. He rapidly made a beeline himself to the appropriate place. When, during a discourse, somebody hailed Buddha, he did turn his illusory head towards the hailer in the audience. It is not the identification with the body, ......but the sense of entitification, the "me-self", which is nothing but the sense of a seperated individual self,.... ....... the sense of a "subject" apart from the array of it's cognized objects, making up his or her world,... .....it is this sense of separation, which arises out of a sense of personal doership... ...a sense of personal doership, which expresses itself as...... -I am a ramana-bhakt par excellence... -It is I which is doing the Atma vichara,.. -It is I which has to get rid of vasanas in order to obtain greater vasanas of the timeless variety,... -The Great Quest must be addressed by me,... -The thought in the moment, it is I which thought that thought... -The decision that was taken, it is I which decided so.... -The feeling that was expressed, it is I which felt so... -The action which got taken, it is I which acted thus... -The success (spiritual or otherwise), which happened as a consequence of the action I took, is my success, my experience, my realization...and hence there is no doubt I have realized the right side heart prattled by Ramana,..... and by PARAMBRAHMAN, I MUST be enlightened and will now defend my enlightenment, come what may.... -The failure which happened, is my failure, thus I am an epitome of misery and must double my efforts to seek to succeed and somehow get SatChitAnand etc etc The concretization of all these strands of prevailing belief system is the sense of the me-entity, the me-self.... And .....it is this sense of independent self, whose prevailing existence,...........makes the "wave" oscillate between the heights of the crest and the depths of the crash as troughs. It is only to a "wave", that the concept of "vasanas" travelling through life and birth is of relevance, .......thereby birthing the need of sadhanas to get rid of these self-assumed "vasanas". Round and round the mulberry bush. When asked once by one of his students puzzling over the teachings of egolessness, "Well then, if there is no self, what is it that reincarnates?" The Master laughed and answered.. "Neurosis," Know this, .........no "wave", no matter what hoopla it gets upto,.........can know, realize, experience or obtain the Ocean. Just look at the situation, in this very moment. A "wave" (the sense of separated me-self), has no independent existential reality to know or realize, or experience,......... anything, .....let alone the Ocean. For in each moment, ........the "wave" does not dance, .....it is danced,..........as so.....in the moment. Moment to moment to moment. Yes, in a rare "wave",...........the identification by the Ocean, which makes the OCEAN believe itself to be a "wave",.... .....that self-hypnosis, may end......... and the Ocean,.... as if,..... "recovers".... it's impersonal oceanic expanse. Such an "end",..........from the point of view of the "wave", the notional self,.......is non-volitional and acasual. >From the point of view of the Ocean, the "recovery" is a hilarity, for no identification of impersonal to personal, ever took place, such that a "recovery" can actually take place. A pretence was no longer continued. Do you scream and rant and rave and go forthing around the mouth, at the person in a mirror looking at you, .......wanting to convince him or her, that you are "vrs podury"? Does that person ever become you or even realize the not-two-ness, between the you both? Just see, just see, just see. Instead of carrying Ramana on your head, ...........be "a" Ramana and apperceive the truth of the dude's chattering, when he muttered "There has been no creation, hence there is no destruction". What is the state after that Realization could not becomprehended by one's present state of mind.Spirituality begins where science ends. Spirituality is the state of existing when all concepts of spirituality have,.. by themselves, got dropped. Concepts,........ whether "scientific" or whether "Ramanic". .. These postings remind me of Rajagopalachari's remarks in the.inintroduction to Sankara'sBhajagovindam rendered by MS Subbulakshmi " Knowledge, if does not lead one toBhakti is useless tinsel " And Bhakti, which does not lead to Jnan (which is the end of all knowledge and all Bhakti),........is mere intoxication with a toy-rattle. Does he know of devotees whose eyes fill with tears the moment they utter the word Ramana, an expression of inexplicable joy and ecstacy ? Probably he would explain this with terminology of chemistry. It is those tears which expresses itself as this signature of flowing waters, in the form of this post. If you can see. This is Ramana That is Ramana Out of Ramana, arose Ramana And when Ramana arose, what was left was still Ramana. Om Ramana Om Ramana Om Ramana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Dear, Your actions are based on your attachment to the PC, the Cyberspace, and everything around you. Leave of everything and listen once to the music of silence. It will then be more clear. And to add little bit more there's a need for everyone on a spiritual path to have a Guru. Had seen some comments on that. Like a child needs his mother to guide him in his initial steps a Satguru is needed at every stage of anyone's spiritual development and evolving into Brahman. Then there's no Guru, no disciple, no scriptures, no PC, no Cyberspace. Love, Durai. --- Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > Hi VRS, > > > - > vrs podury > RamanaMaharshi > Tuesday, September 30, 2003 01:45 AM > [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter > > > Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based on scientific explanation to the > formation of life( forming from elements and again merging in elements > ).But this formation is limited to the body only. > > Sure. > > That was because, the question, if I recall correctly was on the issue > of death. > > > > It does not explain the logic with which the accumulated vasanaas > are carried from birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated by > Greats like Sri Ramana is required to eliminate those vasanaas to be > free from the habit of > identification with the body( Realization ?). > > Who is identified with the body? > > Who is that, which thus then needs to dis-identify with the body? > > Do you know the body-mind organism will not survive for a moment, > without this identification, and thus, in order to continue to be > 'alive", needs this identification to continue. > > Whether the body-mind organism went by the name Ramana, or Budda or > Jesus or Idi Amin. > > The identification with a particular body and it's name is not at all an > issue. > > After all when Ramana, as a consequence of this very identification, > noted pangs of hunger in "his" body, he asked for a banana split with > strawberry flavour,...... > ..... he did not ask his favourite disciple to go and partake some > pulliharianam. > > Or when the dude noted a different set of pangs in his body at the time > of Brahmamuhurtha, he did not once again ask his favourite disciple to > go and move his bowels while undertaking atama vichara. > He rapidly made a beeline himself to the appropriate place. > > When, during a discourse, somebody hailed Buddha, he did turn his > illusory head towards the hailer in the audience. > > > It is not the identification with the body, ......but the sense of > entitification, the "me-self", which is nothing but the sense of a > seperated individual self,.... > > ...... the sense of a "subject" apart from the array of it's cognized > objects, making up his or her world,... > > ....it is this sense of separation, which arises out of a sense of > personal doership... > > ..a sense of personal doership, which expresses itself as...... > > -I am a ramana-bhakt par excellence... > > -It is I which is doing the Atma vichara,.. > > -It is I which has to get rid of vasanas in order to obtain greater > vasanas of the timeless variety,... > > -The Great Quest must be addressed by me,... > > -The thought in the moment, it is I which thought that thought... > > -The decision that was taken, it is I which decided so.... > > -The feeling that was expressed, it is I which felt so... > > -The action which got taken, it is I which acted thus... > > -The success (spiritual or otherwise), which happened as a consequence > of the action I took, is my success, my experience, my realization...and > hence there is no doubt I have realized the right side heart prattled by > Ramana,..... and by PARAMBRAHMAN, I MUST be enlightened and will now > defend my enlightenment, come what may.... > > -The failure which happened, is my failure, thus I am an epitome of > misery and must double my efforts to seek to succeed and somehow get > SatChitAnand > > etc etc > > > The concretization of all these strands of prevailing belief system is > the sense of the me-entity, the me-self.... > > > And .....it is this sense of independent self, whose prevailing > existence,...........makes the "wave" oscillate between the heights of > the crest and the depths of the crash as troughs. > > It is only to a "wave", that the concept of "vasanas" travelling through > life and birth is of relevance, .......thereby birthing the need of > sadhanas to get rid of these self-assumed "vasanas". > > Round and round the mulberry bush. > > When asked once by one of his students puzzling over the teachings of > egolessness, > "Well then, if there is no self, what is it that reincarnates?" > > The Master laughed and answered.. "Neurosis," > > > Know this, .........no "wave", no matter what hoopla it gets > upto,.........can know, realize, experience or obtain the Ocean. > > Just look at the situation, in this very moment. > > A "wave" (the sense of separated me-self), has no independent > existential reality to know or realize, or experience,......... > anything, .....let alone the Ocean. > > For in each moment, ........the "wave" does not dance, .....it is > danced,..........as so.....in the moment. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > Yes, in a rare "wave",...........the identification by the Ocean, which > makes the OCEAN believe itself to be a "wave",.... > > ....that self-hypnosis, may end......... and the Ocean,.... as if,..... > "recovers".... it's impersonal oceanic expanse. > > Such an "end",..........from the point of view of the "wave", the > notional self,.......is non-volitional and acasual. > > From the point of view of the Ocean, the "recovery" is a hilarity, for > no identification of impersonal to personal, ever took place, such that > a "recovery" can actually take place. > > A pretence was no longer continued. > > Do you scream and rant and rave and go forthing around the mouth, at the > person in a mirror looking at you, .......wanting to convince him or > her, that you are "vrs podury"? > Does that person ever become you or even realize the not-two-ness, > between the you both? > > Just see, just see, just see. > > > Instead of carrying Ramana on your head, ...........be "a" Ramana and > apperceive the truth of the dude's chattering, when he muttered "There > has been no creation, hence there is no destruction". > > > > What is the state after that Realization could not be > comprehended by one's present state of mind.Spirituality begins where > science ends. > > Spirituality is the state of existing when all concepts of spirituality > have,.. by themselves, got dropped. > > Concepts,........ whether "scientific" or whether "Ramanic". > > > . > These postings remind me of Rajagopalachari > 's remarks in the.inintroduction to Sankara's > Bhajagovindam rendered by > MS Subbulakshmi " Knowledge, if does not lead one to > Bhakti is useless tinsel " > > > And Bhakti, which does not lead to Jnan (which is the end of all > knowledge and all Bhakti),........is mere intoxication with a > toy-rattle. > > > > > Does he know of devotees whose eyes fill with tears the moment they > utter the word Ramana, an expression of inexplicable joy and ecstacy ? > Probably he would explain this with terminology of chemistry. > > > It is those tears which expresses itself as this signature of flowing > waters, in the form of this post. > > If you can see. > > > This is Ramana > That is Ramana > === message truncated === 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 29/9/03 9:50 AM +0530 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > And thus see the investment into the agenda by this notion, which as a > consequence creates the sanctity,.... for that notion,....the sancity of > the deeply held agenda. > Which then "runs" it. Completely plausible, yes this notion of an illusory serious self having an agenda, which then runs the self. You sound sorry dismissive of all these slavish selves, but that's what they do, isn't it? So, whom are you trying to enlighten with this wise talk, if anyone? 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 30/9/03 10:53 AM +0530 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > Who is that, which thus then needs to dis-identify with the body? It's not a question of giving names to who or what, nor of needs, or intellectual identification, but vision through the force and influence of vasanaas. 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 Hi John, - chueewowee RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, October 01, 2003 04:12 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The day of laughter 29/9/03 9:50 AM +0530 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote:> And thus see the investment into the agenda by this notion, which as a> consequence creates the sanctity,.... for that notion,....the sancity of> the deeply held agenda. > Which then "runs" it. Completely plausible, yes this notion of an illusory serious self having an agenda, which then runs the self. You sound sorry dismissive of all these slavish selves, but that's what they do, isn't it? Yes So, whom are you trying to enlighten with this wise talk, if anyone? A great question. If the notional self, is a notion, to whom are all these prattlings directed to? Who is supposed to get enlightened or wisened up by either these prattlings or the prattlings through Ramana or X, Y, Z. First of all, ..........to "John",..... John is not a notion.:-) And that is why,............... that very question that you posed,.............arose. The apperception (to use a conceptual term, as any) of the notionality of the self in the body-mind organism labeled "John Plum",................. ..........will be the immediate apperception of the Impersonal functioning, .................happening THROUGH the body-mind organism whether it is labeled "Sandeep" or "Ramana" or "Osama" or the infinite numbers of sentient AND non-sentient objects,........... making up this phenomenality. And thus the apperception that each "individual" movement, THROUGH the trillions and trillions of manifest objects, both sentient and non-sentient, ............ ..........each are nothing but nuances of that ONE movement in the same moment, THROUGH a specific manifest, and appropriately programmed, conditioned objects. There is no "one" to do any movement, spiritual or otherwise,...........with even the apparently static discrete sentient/non-sentient object, ........the physical body, .........the apparatus........... through which impersonal functioning operates,............itself being a nuance of that same movement. Medical Science confirms that every second, in an organism which is "alive", close to a million cells die, every second and are replaced by similar numbers. Every second. And with subtle and slight mutations in this frenzy of life and death at the cellular level, the architecture of the organism is in constant flow (normally termed as aging). Trees are born, trees die, and yet there is a sense of permanence to the forest. There is nothing like a "forest", just appears to be, .......appears to have a permanent entity. Flowing waters, every second, and yet there is a sense of permanence to the river. There is nothing like a "river", just appears to be, ......appears to have a permanent entity. Occurring thoughts, moment to moment, and yet there is a sense of permanence of a "thinker" There is nothing like a "thinker", like a "self", just appears to have a permanent entity. Eons back a dialogue with one of the members of this List on this very subject, .....may be of interest.... To whom is the sage talking?We are told by the sages that we do not exist as separate autonomous entities.To whom are they addressing their statements?In recognizing our plight, are they adding to our burden by even talking to us? ------ A valid question . A dialogue between a "sage" and a "seeker" is as much a functioning as any other functioning within phenomenality. In the phenomenal sense, it's the highest act of compassion. No other "acts" of compassion in phenomenality, come near about the underlying compassion of this milieu. So, if there is no seeker, to whom is the sage telling that there is no seeker and thus no seeking. To no one. The sage demolishes the sense of entitification "as a seeker" and in the process demolishes, for the seeker, the sense of "as a sage" And thus really there is no "sage" telling a "seeker" AND there is no "seeker" listening to a "Sage". There is only the delight in expounding, ..........the sheer exhilaration in the functioning of prattling, which requires the notionality of separation, the apparent separation between a speaker and a listener. As like any other functioning in phenomenality. ----------- Are they trying to convince us that we are not real by suggesting that we, as entities, can do nothing? --------- No sage ever tries to convince anybody for anything. No sage ever tries anything. Convincing somebody or something that it has no existential reality, is a hilarity. It's like screaming and ranting at your shadow that it does not exist.<LOL> Convincing an entity that it can do nothing is still assuming the reality of an entity (which cannot do anything) "Doing" or "not doing" (which is also a doing),........ is not the issue. The sense of entitification is the issue.(so to say) It's a notional issue, so that you can delight with it, play with it, love it, hate it, seek it's meaning, pronounce it meaningless, seek it's concretization, seek it's dissolution, feed it, starve it, question it, silence it, stamp on it, dress it up. Whatever. Games come to existence, so that playing is possible,......... with this sense of entitification. It's like a king, who has conquered every land, every kingdom that the eye can see, that the mind can envisage. All the lands around him, is his. After the frolicking with all his queens is over, he is now sitting, twiddling his thumb. Now what to do? No thrills, about the planning of any conquests, no joy in getting the wherewithal's together for the conquest, no exhilaration about battle. All is his, already. So out of boredom he thinks about an idea. He will pretend a piece of his kingdom is not his. And he blows the bugle for battle, for now he has something to seek. God, am I alive, thinks he, girding his loins for another joust with his queens before proceeding for that primal orgasm of battle. The queens of course are quite happy with all this pretending business, as it saves them coming up with a headache, whenever the king is around. ----------------------- Thus John,............... these prattlings are by no-"one", ...............directed at no-body, ............for no purpose, whatsoever. When I am all there IS, what purpose can I ever have? As answered to Michael, in a separate post... Through this instrument, arises......... signaturings on flowing waters. In the moment. In the very stroke of the signing, is it's ending. To the multitude of boatsmen/women floating about, there is no noticing of the signature in the moment. To most, it invokes defensive posturings as they threaten, the very meaning of the personal investment and thus their existence. (You don't have to be genius to know where this is happening) To a few, there is a question of clarification, or a need for an expansion of that signature in the moment. To a rare few, there are tears of resonance. Each an expression of the innate conditioning-in-the-moment, which creates the particular quality of receptivity for the signature. And thus ..........nuances of the perfection of Totality, expressed individually as so. Signaturings continue to arise, in the moment. Or they don't. Laaaadeeee daaaaa daaaaa deeeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Hi John, - chueewowee RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, October 01, 2003 04:12 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The day of laughter 29/9/03 9:50 AM +0530 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote:> And thus see the investment into the agenda by this notion, which as a> consequence creates the sanctity,.... for that notion,....the sancity of> the deeply held agenda. > Which then "runs" it. Completely plausible, yes this notion of an illusory serious self having an agenda, which then runs the self. You sound sorry dismissive of all these slavish selves, but that's what they do, isn't it? Yes So, whom are you trying to enlighten with this wise talk, if anyone? A great question. If the notional self, is a notion, to whom are all these prattlings directed to? Who is supposed to get enlightened or wisened up by either these prattlings or the prattlings through Ramana or X, Y, Z. First of all, ..........to "John",..... John is not a notion.:-) And that is why,............... that very question that you posed,.............arose. The apperception (to use a conceptual term, as any) of the notionality of the self in the body-mind organism labeled "John Plum",................. ..........will be the immediate apperception of the Impersonal functioning, .................happening THROUGH the body-mind organism whether it is labeled "Sandeep" or "Ramana" or "Osama" or the infinite numbers of sentient AND non-sentient objects,........... making up this phenomenality. And thus the apperception that each "individual" movement, THROUGH the trillions and trillions of manifest objects, both sentient and non-sentient, ............ ..........each are nothing but nuances of that ONE movement in the same moment, THROUGH a specific manifest, and appropriately programmed, conditioned objects. There is no "one" to do any movement, spiritual or otherwise,...........with even the apparently static discrete sentient/non-sentient object, ........the physical body, .........the apparatus........... through which impersonal functioning operates,............itself being a nuance of that same movement. Medical Science confirms that every second, in an organism which is "alive", close to a million cells die, every second and are replaced by similar numbers. Every second. And with subtle and slight mutations in this frenzy of life and death at the cellular level, the architecture of the organism is in constant flow (normally termed as aging). Trees are born, trees die, and yet there is a sense of permanence to the forest. There is nothing like a "forest", just appears to be, .......appears to have a permanent entity. Flowing waters, every second, and yet there is a sense of permanence to the river. There is nothing like a "river", just appears to be, ......appears to have a permanent entity. Occurring thoughts, moment to moment, and yet there is a sense of permanence of a "thinker" There is nothing like a "thinker", like a "self", just appears to have a permanent entity. Eons back a dialogue with one of the members of this List on this very subject, .....may be of interest.... To whom is the sage talking?We are told by the sages that we do not exist as separate autonomous entities.To whom are they addressing their statements?In recognizing our plight, are they adding to our burden by even talking to us? ------ A valid question . A dialogue between a "sage" and a "seeker" is as much a functioning as any other functioning within phenomenality. In the phenomenal sense, it's the highest act of compassion. No other "acts" of compassion in phenomenality, come near about the underlying compassion of this milieu. So, if there is no seeker, to whom is the sage telling that there is no seeker and thus no seeking. To no one. The sage demolishes the sense of entitification "as a seeker" and in the process demolishes, for the seeker, the sense of "as a sage" And thus really there is no "sage" telling a "seeker" AND there is no "seeker" listening to a "Sage". There is only the delight in expounding, ..........the sheer exhilaration in the functioning of prattling, which requires the notionality of separation, the apparent separation between a speaker and a listener. As like any other functioning in phenomenality. ----------- Are they trying to convince us that we are not real by suggesting that we, as entities, can do nothing? --------- No sage ever tries to convince anybody for anything. No sage ever tries anything. Convincing somebody or something that it has no existential reality, is a hilarity. It's like screaming and ranting at your shadow that it does not exist.<LOL> Convincing an entity that it can do nothing is still assuming the reality of an entity (which cannot do anything) "Doing" or "not doing" (which is also a doing),........ is not the issue. The sense of entitification is the issue.(so to say) It's a notional issue, so that you can delight with it, play with it, love it, hate it, seek it's meaning, pronounce it meaningless, seek it's concretization, seek it's dissolution, feed it, starve it, question it, silence it, stamp on it, dress it up. Whatever. Games come to existence, so that playing is possible,......... with this sense of entitification. It's like a king, who has conquered every land, every kingdom that the eye can see, that the mind can envisage. All the lands around him, is his. After the frolicking with all his queens is over, he is now sitting, twiddling his thumb. Now what to do? No thrills, about the planning of any conquests, no joy in getting the wherewithal's together for the conquest, no exhilaration about battle. All is his, already. So out of boredom he thinks about an idea. He will pretend a piece of his kingdom is not his. And he blows the bugle for battle, for now he has something to seek. God, am I alive, thinks he, girding his loins for another joust with his queens before proceeding for that primal orgasm of battle. The queens of course are quite happy with all this pretending business, as it saves them coming up with a headache, whenever the king is around. ----------------------- Thus John,............... these prattlings are by no-"one", ...............directed at no-body, ............for no purpose, whatsoever. When I am all there IS, what purpose can I ever have? As answered to Michael, in a separate post... Through this instrument, arises......... signaturings on flowing waters. In the moment. In the very stroke of the signing, is it's ending. To the multitude of boatsmen/women floating about, there is no noticing of the signature in the moment. To most, it invokes defensive posturings as they threaten, the very meaning of the personal investment and thus their existence. (You don't have to be genius to know where this is happening) To a few, there is a question of clarification, or a need for an expansion of that signature in the moment. To a rare few, there are tears of resonance. Each an expression of the innate conditioning-in-the-moment, which creates the particular quality of receptivity for the signature. And thus ..........nuances of the perfection of Totality, expressed individually as so. Signaturings continue to arise, in the moment. Or they don't. Laaaadeeee daaaaa daaaaa deeeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 OK thanks Sandeep. 1/10/03 9:39 AM +0530 Sandeep sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in wrote: > Games come to existence, so that playing is possible,......... with this > sense of entitification. > > It's like a king, who has conquered every land,.......... Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Reality is always present...ego or not. Love, michael --- "ramana.bhakta" <miles.wright wrote: > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > Talk 146 from which your wonderful quote comes also > tells us... > > 'Reality is simply the loss of the ego. Destroy the > ego by seeking its > identity. Because the ego is no entity it will > automatically vanish and > Reality will shine forth by itself. This is the > direct method. Whereas all > other methods are done, only retaining the ego.'In > those paths there arise > so many doubts and the eternal question remains to > be tackled finally. But > in this method the final question is the only one > and it is raised from the > very beginning. No sadhanas are necessary for > engaging in this quest.' > > Let's be clear...the final question, the Quest, must > be tackled. > > Miles > --------- > > Can Ramana be more clearer, than this,.......... > when a muttering arose > through that instrument.... > > There is no greater mystery than this - > that being the Reality ourselves, we seek to gain > Reality. > > We think that there is something binding our Reality > and that it must be > destroyed before the Reality is gained. > > It is so ridiculous. > > A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your > effort. > > That,...... which is on the day of > laughter,......... is also now. > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 By you. --- Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, > "ramana.bhakta" > <miles.wright@b...> wrote: > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > <SNIP> > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the Quest, > must be tackled. > > > > > By whom? > > > <SNIP> > > > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear Friends, Harsha is correct. Sandeep is nothing but an instrument. He himself has said that no one (including himself) has any control over anything. His endless, meaningless and purposeless babbling isn't his own doing. He isn't to blame. Long ago, I attended a satsang with Baba Ram Das (Richard Alpert). He offered a very interesting observation about possible difference between some "mental cases" and enlightened beings. Often times "mentals" have some realization; but they can only relate to their own condition. Whereas, enlightened beings can relate to everyone. He gave this example: There was a man and wife. They were of an advaitic persuasion and they had an agreement. One night the husband would wash the dishes and the next night the wife would wash them. One night it was the husbands turn; but he didn't wash the dishes. His wife confronted him and said: "You were supposed to wash the dishes tonight; but you didn't." He said: "It doesn't really matter because it's ALL ONE." It's ALL ONE. There's no doubt. But there are practical matters that we need to attend to. We need to relate to the persons around us in a way that is meaningful for them. When we have an urgent need we need to attend to it. Even our friend Sandeep admits that one must answer the call of nature. And indeed we must. There are other calls that we should answer. So when your heart or mind calls to you, answer the call. Don't be disuaded by someone who says that there is nothing to be done. It is idiotic, I said IDIOTIC, to chatter on and on saying that there is nothing to be done. If there was nothing to be done, then you wouldn't be around. Listen to your heart, follow your own intuition and you can never go wrong. Love, michael --- Harsha wrote: > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote: > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > > RamanaMaharshi, > "ramana.bhakta" wrote: > > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the > Quest, must be tackled. > > > > Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > > > > > By whom? > > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You. > > > > om gurave namah > > suri > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that his > last name indicates > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies. > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is > nothing wrong with > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much > chattering can appear > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard to > say. There is a > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the > little chatter-ji. > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has > found his way to > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and > understanding. Chatter > away, dear one. > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is > Here and Now. Where > else would it be? :-). > > Love to all > Harsha > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear Friends, The words of our friend Sandeep are true. There isn't any problem with what he says. He offers his perspective; but there doesn't seem to be a point to his prattlings. He has a mind; but no heart. Love, michael --- Yamini Gourishankar <yaminigs wrote: > Another shift in perspective shows this in a new > light... > > If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words without > attaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes again > because of "this mind's" habits/conditioning), it > points to "this mind's" own areas of > habits/conditioning. That then becomes an excellent > opportunity to self gauge where this mind is working > towards. :-) > > Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys the > right meaning intended :-) > > love > Yamini > > > --- Harsha wrote: > > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote: > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, > > "ramana.bhakta" wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the > > Quest, must be tackled. > > > > > > Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > > > > > > > By whom? > > > > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You. > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > suri > > > > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that > > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that > his > > last name indicates > > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies. > > > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is > > nothing wrong with > > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much > > chattering can appear > > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard > to > > say. There is a > > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the > > little chatter-ji. > > > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has > > found his way to > > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and > > understanding. Chatter > > away, dear one. > > > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is > > Here and Now. Where > > else would it be? :-). > > > > Love to all > > Harsha > > > > > > > The New with improved product > search > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear Michael, I understand where you are coming from. I was being somewhat humorous and did not mean to be that tough on Sandeep and hope did not hurt his feelings. Sandeep, I wish for you Rasgullas and Gulabjamans. Because this list is devoted to Sri Ramana, some of Sandeep's postings may appear out of place. As Milesji has reminded us, the list has a certain purpose and a charter. But every one is doing according to their nature. All of us. Bhagavan Ramana has said the same thing. Sri Krishna said that also in the Gita. No one can help but to act according to their nature. I feel much love for you Michael and also Sandeep and for all devotees of Bhagavan. I feel fortunate to be in all your company. Lots of love Harsha Michael Bowes wrote: Dear Friends, Harsha is correct. Sandeep is nothing but an instrument. He himself has said that no one (including himself) has any control over anything. His endless, meaningless and purposeless babbling isn't his own doing. He isn't to blame. Long ago, I attended a satsang with Baba Ram Das (Richard Alpert). He offered a very interesting observation about possible difference between some "mental cases" and enlightened beings. Often times "mentals" have some realization; but they can only relate to their own condition. Whereas, enlightened beings can relate to everyone. He gave this example: There was a man and wife. They were of an advaitic persuasion and they had an agreement. One night the husband would wash the dishes and the next night the wife would wash them. One night it was the husbands turn; but he didn't wash the dishes. His wife confronted him and said: "You were supposed to wash the dishes tonight; but you didn't." He said: "It doesn't really matter because it's ALL ONE." It's ALL ONE. There's no doubt. But there are practical matters that we need to attend to. We need to relate to the persons around us in a way that is meaningful for them. When we have an urgent need we need to attend to it. Even our friend Sandeep admits that one must answer the call of nature. And indeed we must. There are other calls that we should answer. So when your heart or mind calls to you, answer the call. Don't be disuaded by someone who says that there is nothing to be done. It is idiotic, I said IDIOTIC, to chatter on and on saying that there is nothing to be done. If there was nothing to be done, then you wouldn't be around. Listen to your heart, follow your own intuition and you can never go wrong. Love, michael --- wrote: > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote: > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > > RamanaMaharshi, > "ramana.bhakta" wrote: > > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the > Quest, must be tackled. > > > > Sandeep <sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in> wrote: > > > > > By whom? > > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You. > > > > om gurave namah > > suri > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that his > last name indicates > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies. > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is > nothing wrong with > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much > chattering can appear > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard to > say. There is a > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the > little chatter-ji. > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has > found his way to > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and > understanding. Chatter > away, dear one. > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is > Here and Now. Where > else would it be? :-). > > 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 That's all true Sandeep; but so what? What does all that mean to someone who hasn't realized it? The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear Michael, Is that you my friend? Why do you say things like that? Love to All, Ben. - Michael Bowes RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:34 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter Dear Friends,The words of our friend Sandeep are true. There isn'tany problem with what he says. He offers hisperspective; but there doesn't seem to be a point tohis prattlings.He has a mind; but no heart.Love,michael--- Yamini Gourishankar <yaminigs > wrote:> Another shift in perspective shows this in a new> light...> > If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words without> attaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes again> because of "this mind's" habits/conditioning), it> points to "this mind's" own areas of> habits/conditioning. That then becomes an excellent> opportunity to self gauge where this mind is working> towards. :-)> > Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys the> right meaning intended :-)> > love> Yamini> > > --- Harsha <harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:> > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote:> > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya> > >> > > RamanaMaharshi,> > "ramana.bhakta" wrote:> > >> > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the> > Quest, must be tackled.> > >> > > Sandeep <sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in> wrote:> > >> > > > By whom?> > >> > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You.> > > > > > om gurave namah> > > suri> > > > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that> > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that> his> > last name indicates > > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies.> > > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is> > nothing wrong with > > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much> > chattering can appear > > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard> to> > say. There is a > > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the> > little chatter-ji.> > > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has> > found his way to > > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and> > understanding. Chatter > > away, dear one.> > > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is> > Here and Now. Where > > else would it be? :-).> > > > Love to all> > Harsha> > > > > > Do you ?> The New with improved product> search> > The New with improved product search 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 ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 - Harsha RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, October 01, 2003 08:28 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter Dear Michael,I understand where you are coming from. I was being somewhat humorous and did not mean to be that tough on Sandeep and hope did not hurt his feelings. :-) Afraid Harsha you are not noticeable enough, to be able to achieve that. Sandeep, I wish for you Rasgullas and Gulabjamans.Because this list is devoted to Sri Ramana, some of Sandeep's postings may appear out of place.As Milesji has reminded us, the list has a certain purpose and a charter.But every one is doing according to their nature. All of us.Bhagavan Ramana has said the same thing. Sri Krishna said that also in the Gita. No one can help but to act according to their nature.I feel much love for you Michael and also Sandeep and for all devotees of Bhagavan. Harsha, ever heard the term, baloney? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: ----- Original Message ----- Harsha To: RamanaMaharshi Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 08:28 PM Subject: Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter Dear Michael, I understand where you are coming from. I was being somewhat humorous and did not mean to be that tough on Sandeep and hope did not hurt his feelings. :-) Afraid Harsha you are not noticeable enough, to be able to achieve that. Sandeep, I wish for you Rasgullas and Gulabjamans. Because this list is devoted to Sri Ramana, some of Sandeep's postings may appear out of place. As Milesji has reminded us, the list has a certain purpose and a charter. But every one is doing according to their nature. All of us. Bhagavan Ramana has said the same thing. Sri Krishna said that also in the Gita. No one can help but to act according to their nature. I feel much love for you Michael and also Sandeep and for all devotees of Bhagavan. Harsha, ever heard the term, baloney? You may not believe it Sandeep but its true. I feel much love for you. 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 Dear Ben and ALL, I say what I feel. Life is sometimes harsh. I think that we all know that. I am life, and sometimes I am harsh as well. I offer no apologies. Life offers none. This is the way things are. Love, michael --- Ben Hassine <ben.hassine wrote: > Dear Michael, > > Is that you my friend? Why do you say things like > that? > > Love to All, > > Ben. > - > Michael Bowes > RamanaMaharshi > Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:34 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter > > > Dear Friends, > > The words of our friend Sandeep are true. There > isn't > any problem with what he says. He offers his > perspective; but there doesn't seem to be a point > to > his prattlings. > > He has a mind; but no heart. > > Love, > > michael > > > --- Yamini Gourishankar <yaminigs > wrote: > > Another shift in perspective shows this in a new > > light... > > > > If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words > without > > attaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes > again > > because of "this mind's" habits/conditioning), > it > > points to "this mind's" own areas of > > habits/conditioning. That then becomes an > excellent > > opportunity to self gauge where this mind is > working > > towards. :-) > > > > Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys > the > > right meaning intended :-) > > > > love > > Yamini > > > > > > --- Harsha wrote: > > > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote: > > > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, > > > "ramana.bhakta" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the > > > Quest, must be tackled. > > > > > > > > Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > > > > > > > > > By whom? > > > > > > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You. > > > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > > suri > > > > > > > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted > that > > > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > > > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out > that > > his > > > last name indicates > > > his natural tendencies. Everyone has > tendencies. > > > > > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. > There is > > > nothing wrong with > > > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too > much > > > chattering can appear > > > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. > Hard > > to > > > say. There is a > > > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is > the > > > little chatter-ji. > > > > > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep > has > > > found his way to > > > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and > > > understanding. Chatter > > > away, dear one. > > > > > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality > is > > > Here and Now. Where > > > else would it be? :-). > > > > > > Love to all > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product > > search > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product > search > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: > RamanaMaharshi- > Un: > RamanaMaharshi > List owner: > RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > Terms of Service. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release > 9/1/2003 > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear Michael, I am glad you took the trouble to reply. Yes life can be harsh. My own life is filled with stupidity and brutality. And there is nothing I can do. In the middle of all the turmoil we unknowingly stumble upon the Friend. Or He finds us. I just wanted you to know I am still around and am struggling to hold on, doing the little I can. Just like you. Just like all of us. Love, Ben. - Michael Bowes RamanaMaharshi Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:26 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter Dear Ben and ALL,I say what I feel.Life is sometimes harsh. I think that we all knowthat. I am life, and sometimes I am harsh as well. Ioffer no apologies. Life offers none. This is theway things are.Love,michael--- Ben Hassine <ben.hassine (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote:> Dear Michael,> > Is that you my friend? Why do you say things like> that?> > Love to All,> > Ben.> ----- Original Message ----- > Michael Bowes > RamanaMaharshi > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:34 PM> Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter> > > Dear Friends,> > The words of our friend Sandeep are true. There> isn't> any problem with what he says. He offers his> perspective; but there doesn't seem to be a point> to> his prattlings.> > He has a mind; but no heart.> > Love,> > michael> > > --- Yamini Gourishankar <yaminigs >> wrote:> > Another shift in perspective shows this in a new> > light...> > > > If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words> without> > attaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes> again> > because of "this mind's" habits/conditioning),> it> > points to "this mind's" own areas of> > habits/conditioning. That then becomes an> excellent> > opportunity to self gauge where this mind is> working> > towards. :-)> > > > Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys> the> > right meaning intended :-)> > > > love> > Yamini> > > > > > --- Harsha <harsha (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:> > > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote:> > > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya> > > >> > > > --- In RamanaMaharshi,> > > "ramana.bhakta" wrote:> > > >> > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the> > > Quest, must be tackled.> > > >> > > > Sandeep <sandeepc (AT) bom3 (DOT) vsnl.net.in> wrote:> > > >> > > > > By whom?> > > >> > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You.> > > > > > > > om gurave namah> > > > suri> > > > > > > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted > that> > > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > > > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out> that> > his> > > last name indicates > > > his natural tendencies. Everyone has> tendencies.> > > > > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter.> There is> > > nothing wrong with > > > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too> much> > > chattering can appear > > > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps.> Hard> > to> > > say. There is a > > > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is> the> > > little chatter-ji.> > > > > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep> has> > > found his way to > > > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and> > > understanding. Chatter > > > away, dear one.> > > > > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality> is> > > Here and Now. Where > > > else would it be? :-).> > > > > > Love to all> > > Harsha> > > > > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product> > search> > > > > > > > Do you ?> The New with improved product> search> > > Sponsor > > > > > > > Community email addresses:> Post message: RamanaMaharshi> Subscribe: > RamanaMaharshi-> Un: > RamanaMaharshi> List owner: > RamanaMaharshi-owner> > Shortcut URL to this page:> > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of Groups is subject to the > Terms of Service. > > > ---> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.> Checked by AVG anti-virus system> (http://www.grisoft.com).> Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release> 9/1/2003> The New Shopping - with improved product search 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 ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Dear all, Sandeep has what he wants. He has all your attention. Love, Durai. --- Ben Hassine <ben.hassine wrote: > Dear Michael, > > Is that you my friend? Why do you say things like that? > > Love to All, > > Ben. > - > Michael Bowes > RamanaMaharshi > Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:34 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] The day of laughter > > > Dear Friends, > > The words of our friend Sandeep are true. There isn't > any problem with what he says. He offers his > perspective; but there doesn't seem to be a point to > his prattlings. > > He has a mind; but no heart. > > Love, > > michael > > > --- Yamini Gourishankar <yaminigs wrote: > > Another shift in perspective shows this in a new > > light... > > > > If "Sandeep" mails are read for "his" words without > > attaching a name/form/ego to it (which comes again > > because of "this mind's" habits/conditioning), it > > points to "this mind's" own areas of > > habits/conditioning. That then becomes an excellent > > opportunity to self gauge where this mind is working > > towards. :-) > > > > Might be poor choice of words, hope it conveys the > > right meaning intended :-) > > > > love > > Yamini > > > > > > --- Harsha wrote: > > > srinivasan suryanarayan wrote: > > > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, > > > "ramana.bhakta" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's be clear...the final question, the > > > Quest, must be tackled. > > > > > > > > Sandeep <sandeepc wrote: > > > > > > > > > By whom? > > > > > > > > By one who is given to endless chatter. You. > > > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > > suri > > > > > > > > > In defense of Sandeep, it should be noted that > > > "Chatterji" is Sandeep's > > > last name. Sandeep himself has pointed out that > > his > > > last name indicates > > > his natural tendencies. Everyone has tendencies. > > > > > > Chatter-Ji. The one who loves to chatter. There is > > > nothing wrong with > > > chattering. We love Chatterji. I suppose too much > > > chattering can appear > > > as too much chattering and overdone perhaps. Hard > > to > > > say. There is a > > > little chatter-ji in all of us. Mind itself is the > > > little chatter-ji. > > > > > > In any case, due to his good merit, Sandeep has > > > found his way to > > > Bhagavan's list. Let us be compassionate and > > > understanding. Chatter > > > away, dear one. > > > > > > Yes, the day of laughter is now! :-). Reality is > > > Here and Now. Where > > > else would it be? :-). > > > > > > Love to all > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product > > search > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product search > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release 9/1/2003 > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Sandeeps's heart, I would say (but not attempt to prove) is there and in fine condition. Unless words exchanged here are confined to technical issues and methods, Sandeep has a role to play, with all his heart, not to expose it on a map, or with a song of beatitude. The 'beyond method' aspect is a demanding role, and invites, even demands, a heart. It is a largely thankless and nitty role because it invites incredulity. Therefore it demands his persistence, egolessness, resourcefulness, dedication, ingenuity and a sense of fun. So, the role demands a big heart. 1/10/03 7:34 AM -0700 Michael Bowes rmichaelbowes wrote: > He has a mind; but no heart. Regards, John Plum 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 9:43 PM -0700 durai muhil muhild wrote: > Dear all, You too also want our attention?, > > Sandeep has what he wants. He has all your attention. > > Love, or just to give us information and love.... Regards, John Plum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Dear, Just all the love to everyone. Thanks. Loving, Durai. --- chueewowee <chueewowee wrote: > > > 1/10/03 9:43 PM -0700 durai muhil muhild wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > You too also want our attention?, > > > > > Sandeep has what he wants. He has all your attention. > > > > Love, > > > or just to give us information and love.... > > > > Regards, > > John Plum The New with improved product search 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.