Guest guest Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Hello Avril, Yes, the posting is from Ashtavakra Gita. It is also called Ashtavakra Samhita. Mind is constantly fed by senses and past experience. Intellect, with its reasoning and analysis provides fresh material and all this constitute thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. When our identity is confined to such thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. we say, 'I am happy, full of bliss, overjoyed, .......', 'I am sorrowful, despondent, grief stricken, .....', 'I am angry, frightened, scared....' and so on. In such expressions, the 'I' we refer to is the limited individual identifying with name, body, mind, intellect, etc. This limited 'I' still has its source of existence in limitless 'I' called Self or Parabrahman or whatever. When it identifies and associates with the mind, senses, et.al. they owe their existence to the limited 'I'. Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with. Now, the sense organs have sense objects to identify with and desire for them. When such desire is fulfilled, it leads to conditioned happiness and when not fulfilled, there is frustration, anger, (which are conditioned too) ..... acceptance and rejection, all this happen when the limited 'I' has identified with the mind, the sense organs.... The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. When there is no object to identify with, no 'other' to identify with, where is the grief or anger or happiness? How can a conditioned state exist? The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Instead, we are told to seek the source of the 'I' we commonly refer to so that we realise the limitless 'I' where there is no acceptance or rejection. Thus we refrain from refering to the 'I' of limited identity. I have tried to explain this in the best way I can. You should get an idea even if you see this as a hypothesis. Experience or living it, however, is a world apart. With love and best wishes, Nagaraja Avril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Hello Sidharta and everybody. I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Avril, It is quite humble of you to say that you are in the kindergarten of spirituality. If I ever think I have made some progress, along comes an experience for me to re-examine how much "progress" I have really made. In Zen they speak of having a beginner's mind. In other words, no matter how advanced you may be, always let go of your understanding and start at the very beginning each day. After all these nondual teachings are all about us reducing our knowledge, not gaining more knowledge. This is my humble opinion. The mind may never get to a stage of not desiring. But who you are is not the mind. If you discover this state, then you are beyond mind right away. Transcending the mind is the focus of all major eastern philosophies. To be in peace, it means you are no longer using knowledge or understanding or any mental faculties. Peace or desirelessness cannot be thought into being. How to get to this stage? In my experience for me to be in peace, I have to let go of all concepts, concerns, cares, ideas, questions, quests, etc. Anything in the mind, let it go. Don't even seek to clear the mind, that in itself will keep the mind from stilling itself. All the trash, all the stuff, let it be. Let the garbage stay right where it is. It will dissipate in time. Just be dedicated to sitting still, to being neutral. So no rejection, no acceptance. A disciple of Ramana Maharshi, whom I had the honor of visiting and following, by the name of Papaji, said "keep quiet. Don't activate the mind. Everything is passing into the past. Don't chase after it." Really this is not easy because our minds are habituated towards seeking and doing and tasting more and more things. Even gathering Ramana-knowledge is part of this acquisition tendency. Even my blabbering here on this forum is a form of this tendency, unless I choose to do this in a state of awareness in which I say Father you guide me and my words. So surrender, giving up control, giving up any perceived burdens, wishes, etc. Taking time to enter the place of no-time. Saying hello to your Friend called God, Bigger Self, non-ego, Universe. These are all ways to enter the state described in this passage that you have asked about. At least that is my humble, and possibly incorrect opinion. Why is all this of any importance to you? What do you really seek? I ask this not to offend you. Some people get into "spirituality" thinking it will make them happier, give them more stuff, stability in their life. But in fact spirituality may take your stuff away. And increase external instability. To find the real gold we have to be willing to give up the fake gold. It is as simple as that. Please know that if my words sound like preaching, that is my own limitation. I am trying to share something that words cannot touch. With best wishes to you, Ashish RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya> wrote: > Hello Sidharta and everybody. > > I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. > > I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. > > Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. > > Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? > I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. > > It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". > > I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? > > When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? > > And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? > > I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. > > Much love to everybody > > Avril > > > sdalakoti <sdalakoti@j...> wrote: > Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" > > "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." > "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." > "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." > When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." > Love > sidhartha > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > Sponsor > Click Here > > > Links > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > RamanaMaharshi > > Terms of Service. > > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Dear Avril, Nagaraj and Ashish have already given their beautiful views on the subject. I would just like to add two things: one regarding your humble submission of being in the K.G.-- the fact is that as Sadhaks we really donot know how far have we travelled. It is only the Guru who knows exactly. It is like boarding an aircraft. Only the captain knows how much distance has been covered. We realise only when we reach the destination. And second regarding the Mind. The inturned mind which gets absorbed in the self looses its earlier impurities and BECOMES the self itself. The mind which is supposed to refrain or be desireless etc. is in context with the outturned mind. Love sidhartha - Avril Sanya RamanaMaharshi Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:07 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Bondage and Liberation Hello Sidharta and everybody. I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I try to use a diferent font. You said" Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with." One of the questions which has always plagued me, is who is to do this enquiry? If the limited I, is false as Ramana says, how can the false ever enquire and reach the true? Or any enquiry that the false does, will it not be more false stuff? The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. Yes I see this. I also see that both happiness and grief are time-bound and are linked to the presence of something else. I am now wondering whether seeing this, the limited "I" goes into enquiry, spiritual enquiry, hoping that maybe that will lead to time-less happiness. And even get convinced that it has actually reached the source and is now blissfull. The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Please excuse my naivette in asking these questions. ...........Telling whom not to identify with mind? Which was really my original wondering? we realise the limitless 'I' Experience or living it, Can the limitless "I" be realized, or experienced? As an object? Somewhere I read Ramana saying that all experiences are only within the subject-object duality. And the Self cannot be objectivized into a realization or an experience. Which confused me then and still does. It seems I have a long way to go.(sigh) Anyway thank you Nagaraja Nagaraja Pani <swayanjata (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Hello Avril, Yes, the posting is from Ashtavakra Gita. It is also called Ashtavakra Samhita. Mind is constantly fed by senses and past experience. Intellect, with its reasoning and analysis provides fresh material and all this constitute thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. When our identity is confined to such thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. we say, 'I am happy, full of bliss, overjoyed, .......', 'I am sorrowful, despondent, grief stricken, .....', 'I am angry, frightened, scared....' and so on. In such expressions, the 'I' we refer to is the limited individual identifying with name, body, mind, intellect, etc. This limited 'I' still has its source of existence in limitless 'I' called Self or Parabrahman or whatever. When it identifies and associates with the mind, senses, et.al. they owe their existence to the limited 'I'. Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with. Now, the sense organs have sense objects to identify with and desire for them. When such desire is fulfilled, it leads to conditioned happiness and when not fulfilled, there is frustration, anger, (which are conditioned too) ..... acceptance and rejection, all this happen when the limited 'I' has identified with the mind, the sense organs.... The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. When there is no object to identify with, no 'other' to identify with, where is the grief or anger or happiness? How can a conditioned state exist? The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Instead, we are told to seek the source of the 'I' we commonly refer to so that we realise the limitless 'I' where there is no acceptance or rejection. Thus we refrain from refering to the 'I' of limited identity. I have tried to explain this in the best way I can. You should get an idea even if you see this as a hypothesis. Experience or living it, however, is a world apart. With love and best wishes, Nagaraja Avril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Hello Sidharta and everybody. I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Hello Ashish, Thank you. I believe I am in kindergarten, because of all these wonderings.:-) You say The mind may never get to a stage of not desiring. But who you are is not the mind. Yes, in my little kindergarten naiveté, I think mind and desire are the same. Sometimes the desire is for a toy, sometime for enlightenment. You say, who you are is not the mind. Reading that, I am now thinking, is it the same mind that is creating something which is not the mind? And then chasing it? To be in peace, it means you are no longer using knowledge or understanding or any mental faculties. This puzzles me. How did you type that email-post without using your faculties? How do you live life, without using knowledge, understanding or mental faculties? Or are you saying living and to be in peace, just cannot go together? Don't even seek to clear the mind, that in itself will keep the mind from stilling itself. This is very good.Thank you. Peace or desirelessness cannot be thought into being. Are you saying peace or desirelessness are more thougths? So no rejection, no acceptance. I wonder, how would ordinary living be with this no rejection, no acceptance. You come across a violent injustice being done, a young girl being attacked on the street by hoodlums, I am curious what would your no rejection, no acceptance, do in this situation. So surrender, giving up control, giving up any perceived burdens,wishes, etc This is now the new burden, at least for me.<LOL> It seems rather than giving up control, it is more to see just what control do I have over anything. Why is all this of any importance to you? What do you really seek? This is a very good question.I was with the question for quite some time. And the answer at the moment is that I don't know. I really don't know what is it that I seek. Or for what reason. Wait, that is not correct. What I don't know, is whether what I believe I am seeking and the reason for that seeking, is not the work of the same desiring mind. To find the real gold we have to be willing to give up the fake gold. This is one of areas where I am confused and must be the reason for the repeated failure to go to the next class from kindergarten.:-) On many occassions Ramana (I do not know whether other sages also), says there is nothing other than the Absolute, the Self, the I-I. In which case, can there be fake gold to be discarded? Everything is only gold, is it not? Thank you for your sharing,...no I did not felt preached to. However the wonderings, remain wandering. Love Avril innerhike <ash.mahajan (AT) worldnet (DOT) att.net> wrote: Avril,It is quite humble of you to say that you are in the kindergarten of spirituality. If I ever think I have made some progress, along comes an experience for me to re-examine how much "progress" I have really made.In Zen they speak of having a beginner's mind. In other words, no matter how advanced you may be, always let go of your understanding and start at the very beginning each day.After all these nondual teachings are all about us reducing our knowledge, not gaining more knowledge. This is my humble opinion.The mind may never get to a stage of not desiring. But who you are is not the mind. If you discover this state, then you are beyond mind right away. Transcending the mind is the focus of all major eastern philosophies. To be in peace, it means you are no longer using knowledge or understanding or any mental faculties. Peace or desirelessness cannot be thought into being.How to get to this stage?In my experience for me to be in peace, I have to let go of all concepts, concerns, cares, ideas, questions, quests, etc. Anything in the mind, let it go. Don't even seek to clear the mind, that in itself will keep the mind from stilling itself. All the trash, all the stuff, let it be. Let the garbage stay right where it is. It will dissipate in time. Just be dedicated to sitting still, to being neutral. So no rejection, no acceptance.A disciple of Ramana Maharshi, whom I had the honor of visiting and following, by the name of Papaji, said "keep quiet. Don't activate the mind. Everything is passing into the past. Don't chase after it."Really this is not easy because our minds are habituated towards seeking and doing and tasting more and more things. Even gathering Ramana-knowledge is part of this acquisition tendency. Even my blabbering here on this forum is a form of this tendency, unless I choose to do this in a state of awareness in which I say Father you guide me and my words.So surrender, giving up control, giving up any perceived burdens, wishes, etc. Taking time to enter the place of no-time. Saying hello to your Friend called God, Bigger Self, non-ego, Universe. These are all ways to enter the state described in this passage that you have asked about. At least that is my humble, and possibly incorrect opinion.Why is all this of any importance to you? What do you really seek?I ask this not to offend you. Some people get into "spirituality" thinking it will make them happier, give them more stuff, stability in their life. But in fact spirituality may take your stuff away. And increase external instability. To find the real gold we have to be willing to give up the fake gold. It is as simple as that.Please know that if my words sound like preaching, that is my own limitation. I am trying to share something that words cannot touch.With best wishes to you,AshishRamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya> wrote:> Hello Sidharta and everybody.> > I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful.> > I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List.> > Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self.> > Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra?> I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything.> > It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.".> > I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire?> > When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain?> > And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting?> > I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much.> > Much love to everybody> > Avril> > > sdalakoti <sdalakoti@j...> wrote:> Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita"> > "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything."> "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry."> "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences."> When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything."> Love> sidhartha > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-> Un: RamanaMaharshi> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner> > Shortcut URL to this page:> http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > Sponsor> Click Here> > > Links> > To visit your group on the web, go to:> RamanaMaharshi/> > > RamanaMaharshi> > Your use of is subject to the > > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger NowCommunity email addresses: Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Avril, > One of the questions which has always plagued me, is who is to do this > enquiry? > If the limited I, is false as Ramana says, how can the false ever enquire and > reach the true? > Or any enquiry that the false does, will it not be more false stuff? As one dives into a lake seeking something fallen into it, so should one dive into the Heart with one-pointed mind, restraining speech and the breath, giving up all thought about the world and seeking 'Whence does arise the ego-sense?' and thus should become aware of the Real Self, the Transcendental being. (Sri Ramana Hrdayam; v33, K. Lakshmana Sarma) This verse states very clearly that any enquiry should be into the ego. The Self requires no enquiry. Sri Maharshi states this in various places, e.g: 'Whose is this 'I'-thought (the ego)? This investigation forms the vichara.' 'The functions of the waking state are those of the ego which is synonymous with the 'I'. Find out who this 'I' is. On doing so and abiding as 'I', all these doubts will be cleared.' 'See wherefrom the thought arises. It is the mind. See for whom the mind or intellect functions. For the ego. Merge the intellect in the ego and seek the source of the ego. The ego disappears.' (from Talks) 'If the first person, I, exists, then the second and third persons, you and he, will also exist. By enquiring into the nature of the I, the I perishes. With it you and he also perish. The resultant state which shines as Absolute Being, is one's own natural state, the Self.' (v. 14 of Ulladu Narpadu) Vichara is an enquiry into the source of ignorance. Regards, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Who is to do this enquiry? The same entity that says I am eating, I am walking, I am talking, I was sleeping, etc. has to do the enquiry. Beginning enquiry with a hope, expectation or with a pre-supposition like after 15 minutes of enquiry a certain state is to be experienced, breathing should be of a certain kind, attainment of peace of mind, etc. will only serve as hindrance and will not take enquiry anywhere. Don’t even expect that there is time-less happiness or an exalted state. The practical part of enquiry is to forget all teachings that is heard and read, direct the focus of attention seriously and intensely on finding the source of one’s being, one’s existence. True and false will resolve themselves in due course. When you start from town X to a familiar town Y and when you reach town Y, it is clear that you are in town Y. yes"> There is no need to be convinced. Similar is the case when the source is reached. Bhagavan did not have to develop any conviction on the aftermath of the ‘experience of death’. Here again, the source is ever present and not alien. Telling whom not to identify with mind? Telling the same entity which says I see, I listen, I like, my mind is peaceful, my mind is disturbed, etc. There is a person witnessing a sport. The players are involved in the sport whereas the witness is merely watching, not getting involved. The moment the witness jumps into the arena and is one of the players, he has to follow all the rules of the game, undergo pleasure and pain, physical exertion, mental agony and so on. Then, he ceases to be a witness. The nature of senses is to seek the sense objects. I am sure you have exercised your discretion whether or not to yield to the desires of sense objects. yes"> You may or may not have entertained such thoughts. Whoever exercised the discretion or entertained such thoughts is told not to identify with mind. Have you found difficulty in staying outside your thoughts? If I am speaking and you are listening, you are an outsider to my audible thoughts. Similarly, are you finding it difficult to stay as an outsider to your thoughts for a short period, say, for a couple of minutes? Do you feel cessation of thoughts is cessation of your existence? Can the limitless ‘I’ be realized or experience as an object? I must confess that the terms realization, attainment, reaching and experience are commonly used to denote abiding in Self and I meant Self abidance when I used these words. I agree that the limitless ‘I’ cannot be realized or experienced or attained as an object. As long as there is the seer, there is something seen. I do not know you sufficiently enough to tell within my understanding why the confusion has continued. But a mind of satwic disposition with clarity of thought and pure intellect will certainly make these points clear and help take up practice in the right earnest. It is the rajasic mind that often leads to confusion. I would strongly dissuade you to think that you have a long way to go. As long as we do not know how far we have progressed, it is a blessing in disguise. It keeps us going without having to stop to have a look at where we are and get struck there. In Bhagavan, NagarajaAvril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Thank you Nagaraja. I try to use a diferent font. You said" Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with." One of the questions which has always plagued me, is who is to do this enquiry? If the limited I, is false as Ramana says, how can the false ever enquire and reach the true? Or any enquiry that the false does, will it not be more false stuff? The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. Yes I see this. I also see that both happiness and grief are time-bound and are linked to the presence of something else. I am now wondering whether seeing this, the limited "I" goes into enquiry, spiritual enquiry, hoping that maybe that will lead to time-less happiness. And even get convinced that it has actually reached the source and is now blissfull. The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Please excuse my naivette in asking these questions. ...........Telling whom not to identify with mind? Which was really my original wondering? we realise the limitless 'I' Experience or living it, Can the limitless "I" be realized, or experienced? As an object? Somewhere I read Ramana saying that all experiences are only within the subject-object duality. And the Self cannot be objectivized into a realization or an experience. Which confused me then and still does. It seems I have a long way to go.(sigh) Anyway thank you Nagaraja Nagaraja Pani <swayanjata (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Hello Avril, Yes, the posting is from Ashtavakra Gita. It is also called Ashtavakra Samhita. Mind is constantly fed by senses and past experience. Intellect, with its reasoning and analysis provides fresh material and all this constitute thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. When our identity is confined to such thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. we say, 'I am happy, full of bliss, overjoyed, .......', 'I am sorrowful, despondent, grief stricken, .....', 'I am angry, frightened, scared....' and so on. In such expressions, the 'I' we refer to is the limited individual identifying with name, body, mind, intellect, etc. This limited 'I' still has its source of existence in limitless 'I' called Self or Parabrahman or whatever. When it identifies and associates with the mind, senses, et.al. they owe their existence to the limited 'I'. Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with. Now, the sense organs have sense objects to identify with and desire for them. When such desire is fulfilled, it leads to conditioned happiness and when not fulfilled, there is frustration, anger, (which are conditioned too) ..... acceptance and rejection, all this happen when the limited 'I' has identified with the mind, the sense organs.... The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. When there is no object to identify with, no 'other' to identify with, where is the grief or anger or happiness? How can a conditioned state exist? The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Instead, we are told to seek the source of the 'I' we commonly refer to so that we realise the limitless 'I' where there is no acceptance or rejection. Thus we refrain from refering to the 'I' of limited identity. I have tried to explain this in the best way I can. You should get an idea even if you see this as a hypothesis. Experience or living it, however, is a world apart. With love and best wishes, Nagaraja Avril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Hello Sidharta and everybody. I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Dear Avril, In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than say we are not the mind it might be better to say that the mind is an aspect of us.As you so rightly point out our mental faculties are important in our daily activities,but there comes a time when the mental faculty usurps its position as servant and along with its cohorts the emotions and the body becomes the ruler of the kingdom.Our sense of "i" is then limited to the mind and body and we feel seperate from everything else.In truth we are universal and are all the parts plus the substratum -and this is the situation when we dream. All the characters plus the plots ,plus the consciousness in which it all occurs all come from our own mind.On top of this is the magic veil where it all seems totally real (even when it is completely bizarre) and we forget we are dreaming. Of course because our essential nature is unlimited there comes a time when our limited vision of ourself becomes intolerable and we become seekers. It is within that search that our vision of our self is transformed. The search is often precipitated because Happiness being our true nature we begin to realize that the happiness we seek in the external world can never quench our thirst. regards, michael dillon >Avril Sanya <avrilsanya >RamanaMaharshi >RamanaMaharshi >Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Bondage and Liberation >Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:58:56 +0000 (GMT) > > >Hello Ashish, > >Thank you. >I believe I am in kindergarten, because of all these wonderings.:-) > >You say >The mind may never get to a stage of not desiring. But who you are is not >the mind. > >Yes, in my little kindergarten naiveté, I think mind and desire are the >same. >Sometimes the desire is for a toy, sometime for enlightenment. > >You say, who you are is not the mind. >Reading that, I am now thinking, is it the same mind that is creating >something which is not the mind? >And then chasing it? > >To be in peace, it means you are no longer >using knowledge or understanding or any mental faculties. > >This puzzles me. >How did you type that email-post without using your faculties? >How do you live life, without using knowledge, understanding or mental >faculties? > >Or are you saying living and to be in peace, just cannot go together? > >Don't even seek to clear the mind, that in itself will keep the mind from >stilling itself. > >This is very good.Thank you. > > >Peace or desirelessness cannot be thought into being. > >Are you saying peace or desirelessness are more thougths? > > >So no rejection, no acceptance. > >I wonder, how would ordinary living be with this no rejection, no >acceptance. > >You come across a violent injustice being done, a young girl being attacked >on the street by hoodlums, I am curious what would your no rejection, no >acceptance, do in this situation. >So surrender, giving up control, giving up any perceived burdens,wishes, >etc > >This is now the new burden, at least for me.<LOL> >It seems rather than giving up control, it is more to see just what control >do I have over anything. >Why is all this of any importance to you? What do you really seek? > > >This is a very good question.I was with the question for quite some time. >And the answer at the moment is that I don't know. >I really don't know what is it that I seek. >Or for what reason. > >Wait, that is not correct. > >What I don't know, is whether what I believe I am seeking and the reason >for that seeking, is not the work of the same desiring mind. > >To find the real gold we have to be willing to give up the fake gold. > >This is one of areas where I am confused and must be the reason for the >repeated failure to go to the next class from kindergarten.:-) > >On many occassions Ramana (I do not know whether other sages also), says >there is nothing other than the Absolute, the Self, the I-I. > >In which case, can there be fake gold to be discarded? > >Everything is only gold, is it not? > >Thank you for your sharing,...no I did not felt preached to. >However the wonderings, remain wandering. > >Love > >Avril > > > >innerhike <ash.mahajan wrote: >Avril, > >It is quite humble of you to say that you are in the kindergarten of >spirituality. If I ever think I have made some progress, along comes >an experience for me to re-examine how much "progress" I have really >made. > >In Zen they speak of having a beginner's mind. In other words, no >matter how advanced you may be, always let go of your understanding >and start at the very beginning each day. > >After all these nondual teachings are all about us reducing our >knowledge, not gaining more knowledge. This is my humble opinion. > >The mind may never get to a stage of not desiring. But who you are >is not the mind. If you discover this state, then you are beyond >mind right away. Transcending the mind is the focus of all major >eastern philosophies. To be in peace, it means you are no longer >using knowledge or understanding or any mental faculties. Peace or >desirelessness cannot be thought into being. > >How to get to this stage? > >In my experience for me to be in peace, I have to let go of all >concepts, concerns, cares, ideas, questions, quests, etc. Anything >in the mind, let it go. Don't even seek to clear the mind, that in >itself will keep the mind from stilling itself. All the trash, all >the stuff, let it be. Let the garbage stay right where it is. It >will dissipate in time. Just be dedicated to sitting still, to being >neutral. So no rejection, no acceptance. > >A disciple of Ramana Maharshi, whom I had the honor of visiting and >following, by the name of Papaji, said "keep quiet. Don't activate >the mind. Everything is passing into the past. Don't chase after >it." > >Really this is not easy because our minds are habituated towards >seeking and doing and tasting more and more things. Even gathering >Ramana-knowledge is part of this acquisition tendency. Even my >blabbering here on this forum is a form of this tendency, unless I >choose to do this in a state of awareness in which I say Father you >guide me and my words. > >So surrender, giving up control, giving up any perceived burdens, >wishes, etc. Taking time to enter the place of no-time. Saying >hello to your Friend called God, Bigger Self, non-ego, Universe. >These are all ways to enter the state described in this passage that >you have asked about. At least that is my humble, and possibly >incorrect opinion. > >Why is all this of any importance to you? What do you really seek? > >I ask this not to offend you. Some people get into "spirituality" >thinking it will make them happier, give them more stuff, stability >in their life. But in fact spirituality may take your stuff away. >And increase external instability. To find the real gold we have to >be willing to give up the fake gold. It is as simple as that. > >Please know that if my words sound like preaching, that is my own >limitation. I am trying to share something that words cannot touch. > >With best wishes to you, > >Ashish > > >RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya> >wrote: > > Hello Sidharta and everybody. > > > > I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just >beautiful. > > > > I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined >this List. > > > > Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the >postings on the Nature of Self. > > > > Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? > > I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. > > > > It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject >or accept or feel happy or angry.". > > > > I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? > > > > When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting >anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? > > > > And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? > > > > I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not >know much. > > > > Much love to everybody > > > > Avril > > > > > > sdalakoti <sdalakoti@j...> wrote: > > Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" > > > > "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for >anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on >anything." > > "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or >reject or accept or feel happy or angry." > > "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. >It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense >experiences." > > When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is >bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting >anything." > > Love > > sidhartha > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: RamanaMaharshi > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Sponsor > > Click Here > > > > > > Links > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > Terms of >Service. > > > > > > > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends >today! Download Messenger Now > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > >Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > Sponsor >Click Here > > > Links > > >RamanaMaharshi/ > > >RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >Download Messenger Now _______________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Namaste all of you,I must confess feeling a bit overwhelmed, being in the spotlight of so many.<LOL>And would like to thank all of you, for your wise words and kind views.Since I have a low-speed connection, I am trying to combine my responses in one post. I hope no one will mind this.Miles, thank you for your post on Shree Ramana's saying. It is not so much of what is to be enquired, but that,.. who is to do the enquiry.Sidhartha, you said "The inturned mind which gets absorbed in the self looses its earlier impurities and BECOMES the self itself. The mind which is supposed to refrain or be desireless etc. is in context with the outturned mind"Maybe I have understood it totally incorrectly, but as per Shree Ramana, (in fact from the very recent post from Viorica),.......there is no mind. No mind to refrain, be desireless or be turned in any direction.Nagaraja, your post, made me pause for quite some time, and this is what I noted, not so much as thoughts but like a feeling, which I am finding it very difficult to put into words.But will try and ask your indulgence, if it all comes out as simplistic and kindergarten-ish. Nagaraja Pani <swayanjata (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Namaste Avril,Who is to do this enquiry?The same entity that says I am eating, I am walking, I am talking, I was sleeping, etc. has to do the enquiry. The feeling that came, was that there is no such entity, but it is more like a sense of feeling that it is I who is doing all these activities that you mention. In an other reply, I had mentioned in another post, that for some time, what has occupied me, is to find out, is there anything over which I have any control, which would then allow me to make the statement, it is I who is doing the eating, walking, even doing Shree Ramana's method of Self-enquiry.Beginning enquiry with a hope, expectation or with a pre-supposition like after 15 minutes of enquiry a certain state is to be experienced, breathing should be of a certain kind, attainment of peace of mind, etc. will only serve as hindrance and will not take enquiry anywhere. Don’t even expect that there is time-less happiness or an exalted state. The practical part of enquiry is to forget all teachings that is heard and read, direct the focus of attention seriously and intensely on finding the source of one’s being, one’s existence. True and false will resolve themselves in due course. When you start from town X to a familiar town Y and when you reach town Y, it is clear that you are in town Y. There is no need to be convinced. Similar is the case when the source is reached. The feeling that overcame, was that source can never be reached. I cannot explain any more, this feeling. Bhagavan did not have to develop any conviction on the aftermath of the ‘experience of death’. Here again, the source is ever present and not alien. Telling whom not to identify with mind? Telling the same entity which says I see, I listen, I like, my mind is peaceful, my mind is disturbed, etc. There is a person witnessing a sport. The players are involved in the sport whereas the witness is merely watching, not getting involved. The moment the witness jumps into the arena and is one of the players, he has to follow all the rules of the game, undergo pleasure and pain, physical exertion, mental agony and so on. Then, he ceases to be a witness. The nature of senses is to seek the sense objects. I am sure you have exercised your discretion whether or not to yield to the desires of sense objects. You may or may not have entertained such thoughts. Whoever exercised the discretion or entertained such thoughts is told not to identify with mind. Again, I remained with your last statement, Nagaraja, for a long time. And wondered, is the issue not to identify with the mind, or is it to find out, does the mind at all exist? I do not know the answer. Have you found difficulty in staying outside your thoughts? If I am speaking and you are listening, you are an outsider to my audible thoughts. Similarly, are you finding it difficult to stay as an outsider to your thoughts for a short period, say, for a couple of minutes? Do you feel cessation of thoughts is cessation of your existence? The real difficulty I find is trying to understand what you mean by the term "your existence". For the real issue for me has been to answer just what is my existence. "Staying outside your thought", appears to me as one more thought. Can the limitless ‘I’ be realized or experience as an object? I must confess that the terms realization, attainment, reaching and experience are commonly used to denote abiding in Self and I meant Self abidance when I used these words. I agree that the limitless ‘I’ cannot be realized or experienced or attained as an object. As long as there is the seer, there is something seen.I do not know you sufficiently enough to tell within my understanding why the confusion has continued. But a mind of satwic disposition with clarity of thought and pure intellect will certainly make these points clear and help take up practice in the right earnest. It is the rajasic mind that often leads to confusion. I must confess, though I have come across these terms, I really don't know what is the difference between satwic mind and a rajasic mind. Specially when Shree Ramana says, there is no mind to start with.(sigh) I would strongly dissuade you to think that you have a long way to go. OK.It sure feels nice to hear that, though I think, quite untrue.:-) As long as we do not know how far we have progressed, it is a blessing in disguise. It keeps us going without having to stop to have a look at where we are and get struck there. I am curious, how as per you, is progress to be measured. Thank you, once again, all of you. Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Thank you for your reply. You said. In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than say we are not the mind it might be better to say that the mind is an aspect of us. I liked this. But then as per Ramana, there is no mind. Whether that non-existing mind sees this or not. And so Avril is back to back of the class.<sigh> On the rest, I liked it very much. Apologize for the following foolish question. If Source is all there is, if Self is all there is, then what you say of the usurping, the limitation of the sense of "i" to mind and body, the feeling of separation, the parts and the substratum, the dream, the feeling of it all being intolerable, the thirst and the seeking to quench the thirst, would it not all be of the Source, of the Self? I do not know. I look to hear from you. Thank you. michael dillon <michael_dillon_108 (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote: Dear Avril,In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than say we are not the mind it might be better to say that the mind is an aspect of us.As you so rightly point out our mental faculties are important in our daily activities,but there comes a time when the mental faculty usurps its position as servant and along with its cohorts the emotions and the body becomes the ruler of the kingdom.Our sense of "i" is then limited to the mind and body and we feel seperate from everything else.In truth we are universal and are all the parts plus the substratum -and this is the situation when we dream. All the characters plus the plots ,plus the consciousness in which it all occurs all come from our own mind.On top of this is the magic veil where it all seems totally real (even when it is completely bizarre) and we forget we are dreaming.Of course because our essential nature is unlimited there comes a time when our limited vision of ourself becomes intolerable and we become seekers. It is within that search that our vision of our self is transformed.The search is often precipitated because Happiness being our true nature we begin to realize that the happiness we seek in the external world can never quench our thirst.regards,michael dillon Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Dear Avril, In a way i am reluctant to say much because all that needs to be said has been said by Bhagavan-what can i add?In the history of religious revelation the answers to specific questions as found in "Talks" etc are very unique. Again with reference to mind i have to say that the salient feature is that in self-realization we lose the "i am the mind "experience.Mind may continue as thoughts but not as the "i" thought.Mind may also continue as that which functions as rational or functional. As i said before the mind.which is just a bundle of thoughts,assumes the "i" mantle and the practise of vichara-self-enquiry- chips away at this false concept until the "i" again becomes universal.Everything is the SElF-not just the mind and body. With regard to the dream analogy-yes everything arises from the SELF.But it is like waves on the ocean , nothing is ever seperate from the Source. For me as someone both drawn to advaita but also initially confused by it Ramana cleared all my doubts.One thing he said when talking about fate versus free -will, he said that such questions only reveal the limitations of the mind. We have to remember that Self-Realization is a transcendental experience,but that in that experience all doubts are resolved.You have the right to investigate these matters intellectually as far as you want and need,but at the same time i have found it beneficial to find a spiritual practise that induces a current of peace.Once that current is there you can then employ the vichara technique with minimal distraction.That combined with the potent words and image of Bhagavan plus the beautiful tales associated with his life will slay any doubts or queries you have. I lay this humbly at your feet. Regards michael dillon >Avril Sanya <avrilsanya >RamanaMaharshi >RamanaMaharshi >Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Bondage and Liberation >Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:49:20 +0000 (GMT) > >Dear Michael, > >Thank you for your reply. > >You said. >In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than say we are not the >mind it might be better to say that the mind is an aspect of us. > >I liked this. >But then as per Ramana, there is no mind. >Whether that non-existing mind sees this or not. > >And so Avril is back to back of the class.<sigh> > >On the rest, I liked it very much. > >Apologize for the following foolish question. > >If Source is all there is, if Self is all there is, then what you say of >the usurping, the limitation of the sense of "i" to mind and body, the >feeling of separation, the parts and the substratum, the dream, the feeling >of it all being intolerable, the thirst and the seeking to quench the >thirst, would it not all be of the Source, of the Self? > >I do not know. > > >I look to hear from you. > >Thank you. > > >michael dillon <michael_dillon_108 wrote: > > >Dear Avril, >In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than >say we are not the mind it might be better to say that the mind is an >aspect >of us.As you so rightly point out our mental faculties are important in our >daily activities,but there comes a time when the mental faculty usurps its >position as servant and along with its cohorts the emotions and the body >becomes the ruler of the kingdom.Our sense of "i" is then limited to the >mind and body and we feel seperate from everything else.In truth we are >universal and are all the parts plus the substratum -and this is the >situation when we dream. All the characters plus the plots ,plus the >consciousness in which it all occurs all come from our own mind.On top of >this is the magic veil where it all seems totally real (even when it is >completely bizarre) and we forget we are dreaming. >Of course because our essential nature is unlimited there >comes a time when our limited vision of ourself becomes intolerable and we >become seekers. It is within that search that our vision of our self is >transformed. >The search is often precipitated because Happiness being our >true nature we begin to realize that the happiness we seek in the external >world can never quench our thirst. >regards, >michael dillon > > > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >Download Messenger Now _______________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 michael dillon <michael_dillon_108 (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote: Dear Avril, In a way i am reluctant to say much because all that needs to be said has been said by Bhagavan-what can i add?In the history of religious revelation the answers to specific questions as found in "Talks" etc are very unique. Again with reference to mind i have to say that the salient feature is that in self-realization we lose the "i am the mind "experience.Mind may continue as thoughts but not as the "i" thought.Mind may also continue as that which functions as rational or functional. As i said before the mind.which is just a bundle of thoughts,assumes the "i" mantle and the practise of vichara-self-enquiry- chips away at this false concept until the "i" again becomes universal.Everything is the SElF-not just the mind and body. With regard to the dream analogy-yes everything arises from the SELF.But it is like waves on the ocean , nothing is ever seperate from the Source. For me as someone both drawn to advaita but also initially confused by it Ramana cleared all my doubts.One thing he said when talking about fate versus free -will, he said that such questions only reveal the limitations of the mind. We have to remember that Self-Realization is a transcendental experience,but that in that experience all doubts are resolved.You have the right to investigate these matters intellectually as far as you want and need,but at the same time i have found it beneficial to find a spiritual practise that induces a current of peace.Once that current is there you can then employ the vichara technique with minimal distraction.That combined with the potent words and image of Bhagavan plus the beautiful tales associated with his life will slay any doubts or queries you have. I lay this humbly at your feet. Regards michael dillon>Avril Sanya <avrilsanya >> RamanaMaharshi>RamanaMaharshi>Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Bondage and Liberation>Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:49:20 +0000 (GMT)>>Dear Michael,>>Thank you for your reply.>>You said.>In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than say we are not the >mind it might be better to say that the mind is an aspect of us.>>I liked this.>But then as per Ramana, there is no mind.>Whether that non-existing mind sees this or not.>>And so Avril is back to back of the class.<sigh>>>On the rest, I liked it very much.>>Apologize for the following foolish question.>>If Source is all there is, if Self is all there is, then what you say of >the usurping, the limitation of the sense of "i" to mind and body, the >feeling of separation, the parts and the substratum, the dream, the feeling >of it all being intolerable, the thirst and the seeking to quench the >thirst, would it not all be of the Source, of the Self?>>I do not know.>>>I look to hear from you.>>Thank you.>>>michael dillon <michael_dillon_108 (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote:>>>Dear Avril,>In my ignorance i might like to suggest that rather than>say we are not the mind it might be better to say that the mind is an >aspect>of us.As you so rightly point out our mental faculties are important in our>daily activities,but there comes a time when the mental faculty usurps its>position as servant and along with its cohorts the emotions and the body>becomes the ruler of the kingdom.Our sense of "i" is then limited to the>mind and body and we feel seperate from everything else.In truth we are>universal and are all the parts plus the substratum -and this is the>situation when we dream. All the characters plus the plots ,plus the>consciousness in which it all occurs all come from our own mind.On top of>this is the magic veil where it all seems totally real (even when it is>completely bizarre) and we forget we are dreaming.>Of course because our essential nature is unlimited there>comes a time when our limited vision of ourself becomes intolerable and we>become seekers. It is within that search that our vision of our self is>transformed.>The search is often precipitated because Happiness being our>true nature we begin to realize that the happiness we seek in the external>world can never quench our thirst.>regards,>michael dillon>>>>>> Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >Download Messenger Now_______________Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadbandCommunity email addresses: Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 I am about a week behind in reading my mail. I do not know if this has been stated in the later e-mail i would read but this is what I have to say ' the way to find your self is to rise above your own intellect.' Close your eyes to your question and hold Ramana Maharishi in your heart.He will answer your question.Your devotion has to be extreme.I below reproduce what Sri Ramakrishna conversed with Swami Vivekananda TRUTH OF SCRIPTURES—A CONVERSATION BETWEEN SWAMI RAMAKRISHNA AND SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ....And once when the Master was worshipping the Divine Mother, Vivekananda bluntly asked Him, "What is true and what is not true in the scriptures? There are so many contradictions!" And being a scholar and having a memory hundred, hundred, hundred percent, he would quote, from various scriptures, the passages which contradict each other. And Ramakrishna looked at him and said, "Devotion is not for those who think too much. It is a special gift; a devotee doesn't question." "But how can you tell then?Ahh, you can. When there is a question in my heart," says Sri Ramakrishna, "I just go to Her, to the Divine Mother, and I just ask Her. I don't have to ask anybody, I don't have to ask myself. How do I know? I don't know. Ahh, She knows everything. So when I ask Her, She tells me and there is no mistake then." Vivekananda, passionately and almost impudently, "But how do you know that you are not deluded?!" Ramakrishna, "You don't, but I do. The "how" disappears when you have the answers which are so concrete and so clear-cut and so above and beyond the intellect that the questions do not arise any more." As a matter of fact, that question of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna had to answer through the Divine Mother. He went to Her rather disturbed and says, "Mother, You know what? He doesn't believe me!" And then He closed his eyes and He saw graphically, in picture forms, all the answers. And then He came to Vivekananda again and told him about it. He also said that the scriptures are seemingly contradicting, certain passages - one passage contradicts another, sometimes, because it is written or uttered at certain occasions, by certain sages, who were facing certain problems, and therefore, to approach them intellectually is just to waste your time. You have to rise above the intellect and to harmonize the seeming contradictions. All this I tell you because, when you listen to Devi Mahaatmayam, you also will be, of course, confronted by many questions or by puzzlements, which you will not be able to solve. You have to just quieten down your intellect and go beyond it, which, of course, you cannot do. But [smiling] that's your worry! You have to gradually expand the consciousness. Please read this and see what you can put in action. Ravi Sankar ZambiaAvril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Thank you Nagaraja. I try to use a diferent font. You said" Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with." One of the questions which has always plagued me, is who is to do this enquiry? If the limited I, is false as Ramana says, how can the false ever enquire and reach the true? Or any enquiry that the false does, will it not be more false stuff? The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. Yes I see this. I also see that both happiness and grief are time-bound and are linked to the presence of something else. I am now wondering whether seeing this, the limited "I" goes into enquiry, spiritual enquiry, hoping that maybe that will lead to time-less happiness. And even get convinced that it has actually reached the source and is now blissfull. The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Please excuse my naivette in asking these questions. ...........Telling whom not to identify with mind? Which was really my original wondering? we realise the limitless 'I' Experience or living it, Can the limitless "I" be realized, or experienced? As an object? Somewhere I read Ramana saying that all experiences are only within the subject-object duality. And the Self cannot be objectivized into a realization or an experience. Which confused me then and still does. It seems I have a long way to go.(sigh) Anyway thank you Nagaraja Nagaraja Pani <swayanjata (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Hello Avril, Yes, the posting is from Ashtavakra Gita. It is also called Ashtavakra Samhita. Mind is constantly fed by senses and past experience. Intellect, with its reasoning and analysis provides fresh material and all this constitute thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. When our identity is confined to such thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. we say, 'I am happy, full of bliss, overjoyed, .......', 'I am sorrowful, despondent, grief stricken, .....', 'I am angry, frightened, scared....' and so on. In such expressions, the 'I' we refer to is the limited individual identifying with name, body, mind, intellect, etc. This limited 'I' still has its source of existence in limitless 'I' called Self or Parabrahman or whatever. When it identifies and associates with the mind, senses, et.al. they owe their existence to the limited 'I'. Through enquiry when the source of this limited 'I' is sought, it leads to an 'I' whose identity is not limited to anything to such an extent that there is no 'other' to be identified with. Now, the sense organs have sense objects to identify with and desire for them. When such desire is fulfilled, it leads to conditioned happiness and when not fulfilled, there is frustration, anger, (which are conditioned too) ..... acceptance and rejection, all this happen when the limited 'I' has identified with the mind, the sense organs.... The relative states of feeling happy or sorrow or angry or grief or acceptance or rejection are thus conditioned. When there is no object to identify with, no 'other' to identify with, where is the grief or anger or happiness? How can a conditioned state exist? The purport of Ashtavakra Gita here is not asking the mind to shun desire but telling us not to identify with mind. Instead, we are told to seek the source of the 'I' we commonly refer to so that we realise the limitless 'I' where there is no acceptance or rejection. Thus we refrain from refering to the 'I' of limited identity. I have tried to explain this in the best way I can. You should get an idea even if you see this as a hypothesis. Experience or living it, however, is a world apart. With love and best wishes, Nagaraja Avril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: Hello Sidharta and everybody. I discovered Shri Ramana, some time back and it was/is just beautiful. I am still in the kindergarten of spirituality and have just joined this List. Reading up and specially would like to thank Viorica for all the postings on the Nature of Self. Is the following excerpts from the sage Ashtavakra? I have only heard about sage Ashtavakra, not read anything. It is said below "When the mind does not desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry.". I wonder whether the mind can ever, not-desire? When it is said below to refrain from accepting and rejecting anything, I am wondering who is being asked to refrain? And whether refraining is not again in some sense another rejecting? I apologize if these are some silly questions, as I said, I do not know much. Much love to everybody Avril sdalakoti <sdalakoti (AT) jkpm (DOT) jkmail.com> wrote: Excerpts from "Ashtavakra Samhita" "It is bondage when the mind desires or grieves for anything,rejects or accepts anything,feels happy or angry on anything." "Liberation is attained when the mind doesnot desire or grieve or reject or accept or feel happy or angry." "It is bondage when the mind is attached to any sense experience. It is liberation when the mind is detached from all sense experiences." When there is no "I" there is liberation; when there is"I" there is bondage.Considering this, easily refrain from accepting or rejecting anything." Love sidhartha Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now 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.