attention

[Guest guest]

If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is

doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

 

Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer ?

 

thank you

 

Eruc

[Guest guest]

Dear Eruc,

 

The Self is "the unknown Knower of all the Known." Brahman never does

anything. The mind starts the inquiry, but finally only the Self

knows the Self.

 

Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44> wrote:

> If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is

> doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

>

> Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer ?

>

> thank you

>

> Eruc

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Eric,

> If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is

> doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

> Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer ?

Restless mind is movement. The mover is the one to be sought.

That which is unconditioned (the Self) is neither active nor passive.

The one who would see the Self, as passive, or as active, or, indeed, as

anything else, is the one to be sought.

Regards,

Miles

[Guest guest]

Dear Eric?

 

Please consider the following three verses from the

work entitled "Forty verses on Reality" by Sri Ramana

Maharshi:

 

1. From our perception of the world there follows

acceptance of a unique First Principle possessing

various powers. Pictures of name and form, the person

who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light

by which he sees: he himself is all of these.

 

2. All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the

world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one

Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can

say, 'The three are really three' only so long as the

ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one's own Being,

where the 'I', or ego, is dead, is the perfect State.

 

3. 'The world is real.' 'No, it, is a mere illusory

appearance.' 'The world is conscious.' 'No.' 'The

world is happiness.' 'No.' What use is it to argue

thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having

given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self

and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of

oneself and the ego.

 

 

--- scol202 <erici44 wrote:

 

> If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True

> Self, what is

> doing that - the mind, or the Self or something

> else?

>

> Do people see the Self as being a completely passive

> observer ?

>

> thank you

>

> Eruc

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks everyone

 

Rather than reply to each post and set off one of those interminable

non dual discussions, I'll just make the observation that even the

most cursory self enquiry can take us to very deep waters .

 

cheers

 

Eric

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <rclarke@s...> wrote:

> Dear Eruc,

>

> The Self is "the unknown Knower of all the Known." Brahman never

does

> anything. The mind starts the inquiry, but finally only the Self

> knows the Self.

>

> Not two,

> Richard

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44>

wrote:

> > If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is

> > doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

> >

> > Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer ?

> >

> > thank you

> >

> > Eruc

[Guest guest]

The classic rejoinder would be, ascertain to whom does the very question arise to?

 

 

There being nothing but the Self, no action can be other than the Self.

 

And the Self does not act.

 

 

Love

 

Avril

 

scol202 <erici44 > wrote:

If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is doing that -

the mind, or the Self or something else?Do people see the Self as being a

completely passive observer ?thank youEruc 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

[Guest guest]

maaruvathum, maaraathathum, nagarvathum, nagaraathathum, solvathum,

keetpathum, ellaam aruNaachlanee..

 

maaruvathu maaraathathai'th theedi, maaraathathaagi maarugirathu.

 

anbu...

 

RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya>

wrote:

> Hello Eric,

>

> The classic rejoinder would be, ascertain to whom does the very

question arise to?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric,

 

Some conceptual contribution.

 

RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44> wrote:

 

> If I move my focus from the false self to the True Self, what is

> doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

 

If at all there is a distinction as 'false' and 'true' selves and any

sense of movement, there must be a mind in operation. But mind by

itself is incapable of any movement. It's very existence depends on

the Self - not to mention any doing. There is no independent doer

with a mind at any stage whether one believes so or not. The

intrinsic and inseparable energy (Shakti) of the Self causes the

whole UNIverse to move. Your focus moving from false to true self is

just an event in that unitary and on going motion. Same is the case

when your focus moves towards a beautiful female passing by. No

difference at all - unless an independent doer is involved who thinks

doing self-enquiry is somehow superior to the other event.

 

>

> Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer?

>

 

By people do you mean the so called self-realized people? If so, a

few words may be said here. By convention, Self-realization is self

abidance. One "becomes" that which he always was. Self-realization

brings an end to the separate individuality and there can be no

question of one self seeing the other as a passive observer. At the

most you could say, "There is passive observation".

 

The word "Awareness" is used as a synonym for Self. What this

indicates is that whatever seen is seen (be aware of) by the Self. It

is the one eye that sees. One ear that hears. One doer that acts.

Through millions of sentient beings.

 

The mind-ego-doer is only a shadow popping up with every movement,

every perception, every sensation, every thought - identifying the

movement as his movement.

 

And, a realized being casts no shadows.

 

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44>

wrote:

> If I move my focus from the false selfe to the True Self, what is

> doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

>

> Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer ?

>

> thank you

>

> Eruc

 

Dear All,

 

It is true that Bhagavan asks the devotee to seek the source of

the 'questioning thought'. But I suppose if one is already there the

question would not get posted to this group.

 

One way of addressing this question is to imagine oneself going

through the motions of the dream that haunted Bhagavan as a 'seeker'.

Imagine your body motionless and you are hovering over it and

watching it.

 

You would intuitively sense that there is only one source

of 'Consciousness' that is both inside and outside this body. This

source generates thoughts, it creates emotions, it restricts

consciousness (small c) to the confines of the space occupied by the

body, it experiences the world through the senses, it creates an

illusion of me and the rest of the world. It also raises the

thought 'how does one realise?' and also raises a series of thought

apparently in response. It is akin to Bhagavan's statement of a

thief, wearing a policeman's uniform and going out in search of the

thief.

 

In short so long as thoughts continue to haunt (it does not matter

to whom), there is no end. When the end happens there is no thought.

Nobody finds the Self. The Self or the Universal Consciousness (

Cosmic Consciousness - Einstien) exists Alone. Theists call it God

or Lord. Theists also say it is Omnipresent - admitting to Its

formless, infinite expansiveness. Some call it Father, others Mother

and still others Master. But it is indeed beyond form.

 

Realisation of the Self is nothing but Death of the Mind. The

Universal Force may let it happen!

 

best wishes

 

Sivaramakrishna

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "Murali" <murali@g...> wrote:

> Hi Eric,

>

> Some conceptual contribution.

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44>

wrote:

>

> > If I move my focus from the false self to the True Self, what is

> > doing that - the mind, or the Self or something else?

>

> If at all there is a distinction as 'false' and 'true' selves and

any

> sense of movement, there must be a mind in operation.

 

 

Sri Ramana made many many references to both of those concepts.

 

 

But mind by

> itself is incapable of any movement. It's very existence depends on

> the Self - not to mention any doing. There is no independent doer

> with a mind at any stage whether one believes so or not.

 

 

Why in that case do spiritual teachers instruct individuals

differently ??

 

 

The

> intrinsic and inseparable energy (Shakti) of the Self causes the

> whole UNIverse to move. Your focus moving from false to true self

is

> just an event in that unitary and on going motion. Same is the case

> when your focus moves towards a beautiful female passing by. No

> difference at all - unless an independent doer is involved who

thinks

> doing self-enquiry is somehow superior to the other event.

 

It's strange isn't it, that Sri Ramana took up almost all of his

spoken teachings time with the subject of self enquiry but never

mentioned looking at beautiful females at all. I wonder why ?

 

Was Sri Ramana known for looking at beautiful females himself ?

 

 

> >

> > Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer?

> >

>

> By people do you mean the so called self-realized people? If so, a

> few words may be said here. By convention, Self-realization is

self

> abidance. One "becomes" that which he always was. Self-realization

> brings an end to the separate individuality and there can be no

> question of one self seeing the other as a passive observer. At the

> most you could say, "There is passive observation".

>

> The word "Awareness" is used as a synonym for Self. What this

> indicates is that whatever seen is seen (be aware of) by the Self.

It

> is the one eye that sees. One ear that hears. One doer that acts.

> Through millions of sentient beings.

 

If that is the case, why aren't realised people omniscient ?

 

In my view, it's because they aren't God, that's why Jesus was fond

of saying "Only God...."

 

If so called realised individuals knew how the universe worked, they

wouldn't contradict themselves or each other and they would surely

be a lot more lucid than they are. They have a certain understanding

which they try to communicate to their students, that's all.

 

It's far too easy to take certain non dual formulae, make logical

extrapolations from them and turn them into dogmatic absolutes about

the nature of reality.

 

 

>

> The mind-ego-doer is only a shadow popping up with every movement,

> every perception, every sensation, every thought - identifying the

> movement as his movement.

>

> And, a realized being casts no shadows.

 

How do you know this, who told you ??

 

 

>

>

> Murali

 

cheers

 

Eric

 

P.S. don't take what I said personally in any way.You probably won't

because there is no such thing as an individual, so possibly I

shouldn't worry.

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

apologies for posting the below in tamil text without any

translation; the text occurred to me suddenly as I read the other

members' posting on this topic and I just posted my response without

thinking through as I had very short time for typing/updating; here

is the translation:

 

maruvathum : that which changes and

maaraathathum : that which does not change and

nagarvathum : that which has movement

nagaraathathum : that which is unmoving and

solvathum : that which says and

keetpathum : that which hears and

ellaam : all these are

aruNaachalanee : sri. aruNaachalaa

 

"maaruvathu maaraathathai'th theedi, maaraathathaagi maarugirathu"

should actually read:

 

"maaraathathu maaruvathaagi maaraathathai'th theedi, maaraathathaagi

maarugirathu"

 

to mean:

 

the Unchanging (Self) manifests as 'that which changes' (the

world/God/Soul) only to seek the 'Unchanging' (ItSelf) to become

the "Unchanging" and again to manifest as the apparent 'changing'.

 

this means the eternal and the 'all-alone' Unchanging Self is

pretending to be the changing illusory ego/mind that seeks the

Unchanging Self to become ItSelf and then again to manifest as the

apparently 'changing ego' in an Eternal Cosmic Cyclical Play.

 

if you want to instantialize this:

 

boy venkataraman (from boy venkataraman's point of view) sought

aruNaachalaa to become/be 'the unmoving' "aruNa'achalaa'" and ended

up (from our point of view) with a form of Sri. ramaNa maharshi.

 

all the above are definitly coming out of this struggling ego and

not out of any personal experience yet.

 

love to all, Murthy

RamanaMaharshi, "manof678" <manof678>

wrote:

> maaruvathum, maaraathathum, nagarvathum, nagaraathathum,

solvathum,

> keetpathum, ellaam aruNaachlanee..

>

> maaruvathu maaraathathai'th theedi, maaraathathaagi maarugirathu.

>

> anbu...

>

> RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya

<avrilsanya>

> wrote:

> > Hello Eric,

> >

> > The classic rejoinder would be, ascertain to whom does the very

> question arise to?

> >

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44> wrote:

 

 

>

> Sri Ramana made many many references to both of those concepts.

>

 

 

What was shared in the earlier post was "MY" conceptual understanding

and was not quoting Sri Ramana verbatim. If you want to approach

your doubts through Sri Ramana's teaching, I would suggest you re-

read Sri Ramana many many times over. What is observed is that with

each reading, the emphasis is shifted more and more towards the

impersonal aspects. And the more the understanding sinks in, the more

the questions are dropped. Not because they are answered, but they

become irrelevant. Like the relevance of the quest to know the

temperature of mirage water.

 

 

>

> Why in that case do spiritual teachers instruct individuals

> differently ??

>

 

Simply because the questioners are "different individuals".

 

Since a continuous personality is not maintained in a sage(to be

specific) there is no vested interests for the sage. His responses

will be formulated just to cater to a demand at a particular moment.

A seeker with a burning question is very much a person with a goal

and is looking for some way out. An answer will be given (or not)

depending on precisely what is required for that seeker in that

moment. The answer to the same question for another seeker may be

entirely different. And same seeker may get a different answer at a

later time for the same question.

 

 

 

<SNIP>

> > doing self-enquiry is somehow superior to the other event.

 

>

> It's strange isn't it, that Sri Ramana took up almost all of his

> spoken teachings time with the subject of self enquiry but never

> mentioned looking at beautiful females at all. I wonder why ?

>

> Was Sri Ramana known for looking at beautiful females himself ?

>

 

 

As mentioned earlier they are "MY" comments and need not put Sri

Ramana to be responsible for that.

 

Secondly, the whole idea is to project the impersonal mode of

functioning where there is no sense of individuality and there by

nobody to have an agenda or classify as good or bad and superior or

inferior.

 

 

>

> If that is the case, why aren't realised people omniscient ?

>

 

 

Make a distinction here. What is your concept of realized people? If

you are referring to the body/mind organism which we see and identify

as a sage, then that body/mind is exactly like you and me or any

other body/mind. It has a small brain and limited memory and a

collection of relative knowledge which is very much restricted to the

capacity and efficiency of that instrument.

 

A sage is one who has transcended the identification with a body/mind

as the self and merged back to the absolute Self.

 

It may be clear with an example. Suppose you are in sleep and

dreaming. The whole world is recreated in your dream. So much of

substances. So many beings. Each of then think and act separately.

Each of them has their own limited knowledge. Many events happen. But

all the creation is contained within your(dreamer's) consciousness.

All events happen within your consciousness. It is your consciousness

that holds the entire knowledge of all the individuals combined and

much more.

 

The sage is that Consciousness which holds all the knowledge of all

universes and much more.

 

 

 

> In my view, it's because they aren't God, that's why Jesus was fond

> of saying "Only God...."

>

 

 

YOUR view at THIS moment is noted. And concept of "God" is a matter

of personal definition.

 

 

>

> If so called realised individuals knew how the universe worked,

they

> wouldn't contradict themselves or each other and they would surely

> be a lot more lucid than they are. They have a certain

understanding

> which they try to communicate to their students, that's all.

>

 

I have expressed above "MY" views on knowledge of realized

individuals and how a response happens through them. There are no

standard rules how a body/mind of a sage should behave. The body/mind

of a sage or a sinner is just an instrument for actions to happen. It

is the same Self acting through the sage and the sinner. If the

body/mind of a sage is destined to communicate some understanding, it

is the destiny of that body/mind instrument to do so. If one sage

contradicts with another or one is not very lucid in his expressions -

the reason is the same.

 

 

>

> It's far too easy to take certain non dual formulae, make logical

> extrapolations from them and turn them into dogmatic absolutes

about

> the nature of reality.

>

 

Very true. What else can a conceptual entity living in an ocean of

concepts do? Nevertheless at times, certain concepts may force one to

look in certain direction. Which may make one fall into a state of

beingness untouched by concepts.

 

 

 

> > The mind-ego-doer is only a shadow popping up with every

<SNIP>

> > And, a realized being casts no shadows.

>

> How do you know this, who told you ??

>

 

That's a secret! But I will tell you if you promise to keep it with

you. It was someone by the name Sri Ramana. <lol>

 

 

> cheers

>

 

> Eric

>

> P.S. don't take what I said personally in any way.You probably

won't

> because there is no such thing as an individual, so possibly I

> shouldn't worry.

 

 

That is wonderful Eric. See how the knowledge that there is nobody

here (<lol>) made your worries about me disappear. Just imagine what

will happen if you take it that there is nobody there as well!!!!!!

 

 

Cheers to you too.

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

>RamanaMaharshi, Eric wrote:

> P.S. don't take what I said personally in any way.You probably

> won't because there is no such thing as an individual, so possibly I

> shouldn't worry.

>RamanaMaharshi, Murali wrote:

> That is wonderful Eric. See how the knowledge that there is nobody

> here (<lol>) made your worries about me disappear. Just imagine what

> will happen if you take it that there is nobody there as well!!!!!!

Thank you Eric and Murali.

Sri Ramana wrote:

ahamayamkuto bhavaticinvatah /

ayipatatyaham nijavicAraNam //

'Where does this 'I' come from?' For one who enquires...

Aha!... the 'I' falls away. This is self-enquiry.

(Upadesa Saram, v.9)

: )

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "Murali" <murali@g...> wrote:> Hi Eric,>

> Some conceptual contribution.> > RamanaMaharshi,

"scol202" <erici44> wrote:> > > If I move my focus from the false self to

the True Self, what is > > doing that - the mind, or the Self or something

else?> > If at all there is a distinction as 'false' and 'true' selves and any

> sense of movement, there must be a mind in operation. Sri Ramana made many

many references to both of those concepts.But mind by > itself is incapable of

any movement. It's very existence depends on > the Self - not to mention any

doing. There is no independent doer > with a mind at any stage whether one

believes so or not.Why in that case do spiritual teachers instruct individuals

differently ??

In the presence of a Guru/Master/sage, each gets what each needs to get in that moment.

It is all the undifferentiated Self, but in appearance, the undifferentiated

Self appears as the many.

One of that "many", being the appearance of Guru and the other being the

appearance of one type of seeker.

Another type of seeker, another getting, which may appear to be different

separate, but is all the same undifferentiated Self, in play.

In play, both as the Guru and as the particular seeker, as well as the communion

which happens in that moment.

 

> > > > Do people see the Self as being a completely passive observer?> > > >

By people do you mean the so called self-realized people? If so, a > few words

may be said here. By convention, Self-realization is self > abidance. One

"becomes" that which he always was. Self-realization > brings an end to the

separate individuality and there can be no > question of one self seeing the

other as a passive observer. At the > most you could say, "There is passive

observation".> > The word "Awareness" is used as a synonym for Self. What this

> indicates is that whatever seen is seen (be aware of) by the Self. It > is

the one eye that sees. One ear that hears. One doer that acts. > Through

millions of sentient beings. If that is the case, why aren't realised people

omniscient ?

The attribute of omniscience, needs the assumption of the many points at which

the simultaneous awareness.

Hence the question, why are realized people not omniscient, for all points of existence?

There are no realized people.

Where is the "many" left, after the undifferentiated Self, recognizes its undifferentiation?

And thus, can there be a relevance of the term omniscience for the undifferentiated Self?

 

In my view, it's because they aren't God, that's why Jesus was fond of saying

"Only God...."If so called realised individuals knew how the universe worked,

they wouldn't contradict themselves or each other and they would surely be a

lot more lucid than they are. They have a certain understanding which they try

to communicate to their students, that's all.

So you assume that Truth is some lucid un-contradictory logic?

Some logical cause-effect equation, which given the same conditions, will always

produce the same effect?

Can logic be applied, when I am the sinner, I am the act of sinning, I am the

saviour and I am the act of salvation, all in simultaneous time?

 

Love

Avril Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the translation.manof678 <manof678 > wrote:

Dear All:apologies for posting the below in tamil text without any translation;

the text occurred to me suddenly as I read the other members' posting on this

topic and I just posted my response without thinking through as I had very

short time for typing/updating; here is the translation:maruvathum : that which

changes andmaaraathathum : that which does not change andnagarvathum : that

which has movementnagaraathathum : that which is unmoving andsolvathum : that

which says andkeetpathum : that which hears andellaam : all these

arearuNaachalanee : sri. aruNaachalaa"maaruvathu maaraathathai'th theedi,

maaraathathaagi maarugirathu" should actually read:"maaraathathu maaruvathaagi

maaraathathai'th theedi, maaraathathaagi maarugirathu" to mean:the Unchanging

(Self) manifests as 'that which changes' (the world/God/Soul) only to seek the

'Unchanging' (ItSelf) to become the

"Unchanging" and again to manifest as the apparent 'changing'.this means the

eternal and the 'all-alone' Unchanging Self is pretending to be the changing

illusory ego/mind that seeks the Unchanging Self to become ItSelf and then

again to manifest as the apparently 'changing ego' in an Eternal Cosmic

Cyclical Play.

 

Yes.

And even this pretending, as if.

For really neither the changeless, becoming the changing,

nor the changing becoming the changeless.

 

if you want to instantialize this: boy venkataraman (from boy venkataraman's

point of view) sought aruNaachalaa to become/be 'the unmoving' "aruNa'achalaa'"

and ended up (from our point of view) with a form of Sri. ramaNa maharshi.

 

Whereas, there was never a boy-venkataraman, as separate from Arunaachalaa, in the first place.

Just an illusion of separation, in which appears all the hectic vigrous activity

to bridge that separation.

And finally the end of the hectic vigrous illusory activity, when the illusion breaks.

The appearing of the illusion and the breaking of the illusion, itself, as -if.

 

 

all the above are definitly coming out of this struggling ego and not out of any

personal experience yet.

 

All experiences are of the ego.

That which is held to be an impersonal experience, is again the ego believing it as so.

Love

 

Avril Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "Murali" <murali@g...> wrote:

> RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Sri Ramana made many many references to both of those concepts.

> >

>

>

> What was shared in the earlier post was "MY" conceptual

understanding

> and was not quoting Sri Ramana verbatim. If you want to approach

> your doubts through Sri Ramana's teaching, I would suggest you re-

> read Sri Ramana many many times over. What is observed is that with

> each reading, the emphasis is shifted more and more towards the

> impersonal aspects. And the more the understanding sinks in, the

more

> the questions are dropped. Not because they are answered, but they

> become irrelevant. Like the relevance of the quest to know the

> temperature of mirage water.

 

 

Thanks for your kind reply

 

 

 

As I said, Sri Ramana often engaged at the level in which I framed

the question. To be honest, there is never a straight forward reply

to the question framed which tells me that no one (including sages)

knows the answer although they indulge in speculation (no doubt in

response to questions asked).

 

The teachings of Sr Ramana and Sri Nisargadatta (for example) are

actually very simple as far as I can see. In essence to seek what is

beyond one's individuality. The technicalities of the

soul/awareness/consciousness/mind/body structure and interaction are

something else altogether. I haven't seen an online discussion that

succesfully got beyond definitions of these things.

 

The question jumped into my head and I posed it here, perhaps on

reflection I should have enquired further rather than asking others.

 

 

 

 

"It may be clear with an example. Suppose you are in sleep and

dreaming. The whole world is recreated in your dream. So much of

substances. So many beings. Each of then think and act separately."

 

In a dream, the characters are paper thin actors with no independent

existence. In the dream of God, we are all individuals.

 

 

"The sage is that Consciousness which holds all the knowledge of all

universes and much more."

 

Do you think that a sage could answer questions about quantum

mechanics or geology ? Again, what you are implying is that a sage

is God (namely omniscient).

 

For me, a sage is someone who has reconnected with the eternal part

of himself. They aren't the Creator any more than a nationalist is

necessarily the president of his country. Further, in my opinion it

is extremely dangerous to believe everything that a sage says is the

truth.

 

 

 

"It is the same Self acting through the sage and the sinner. If the

body/mind of a sage is destined to communicate some understanding, it

is the destiny of that body/mind instrument to do so. If one sage

contradicts with another or one is not very lucid in his expressions -

the reason is the same.

"

 

Again you say this with absolute conviction. I don't happen to

believe that, otherwise the sage would be omniscient. Destiny has

nothing to do with at all.

 

I must say I find the aspect of identification of the sage with

Divinity and worship very unappealing. For me, a realised human being

is still a human being, dead or alive.

 

 

 

 

 

cheers

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric,

 

RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44> wrote:

 

>

> In a dream, the characters are paper thin actors with no

independent

> existence. In the dream of God, we are all individuals.

>

 

Is that how you feel while in a dream?

 

It is a matter or point of reference. While dreaming, the point of

reference of reality is dream itself and hence everything appeared

real. You as a dream character were as real as you are now. But at

the same time your real existence was that of the dreamer himself.

For the time the dream was on, you forgot this fact and identified

yourself as the dream character. You were not aware of this until you

woke up. But, at no stage you were really the dream character. And at

NO stage you were NOT the dreamer.

 

Now, when woke up, the reference of reality becomes the waking-state

and dream becomes a holistic illusion confined to the extent of your

consciousness. What the sages suggest is that there is yet another

waking up from this waking state and the point of reference becomes

the absolute reality, from where the waking state appear as just

another dream.

 

Some seekers take this as possibility and enquire further. Some

reject it outright. Appropriate for both as that is exactly how they

are programmed to take it.

 

 

>

> Do you think that a sage could answer questions about quantum

> mechanics or geology ? Again, what you are implying is that a sage

> is God (namely omniscient).

>

 

A sage - which you think is a sage – is not omniscient.

 

We are habituated to think that "I am the body/mind called Murali"

or "I am the body/mind called Eric" etc. And we apply the same

mistake on the sage. As mentioned earlier, do not get confused with

the body/mind of the sage with The Sage which is synonymous with Self

or God if you prefer. The body/mind of the sage or anybody else is

just a mechanical instrument wired to respond to stimuli based on a

dynamic programming (conditioning). If that instrument has high IQ

and good memory it may answer a lot many questions.

 

But it is the Self that brought out the quantum theories through a

body/mind called Max Planck. It is the same Self, which answers

questions through the body/mind of a geologist. And it was the same

Self, which worked out havoc through Hitler. A pale example will be

electricity flowing through very many equipments doing many different

activities as programmed by their creator.

 

The only difference if you want to point out between the functioning

body/mind of sage and another is that through the sage, the Self

operates without any resistance at all where as through the other

a "me" interlopes with every action or thoughts there by creating an

apparent doer or sufferer which really is not there, like the blue of

the sky.

 

>

> Further, in my opinion it

> is extremely dangerous to believe everything that a sage says is

the

> truth.

>

 

Any word spoken is not truth.

 

A sage just spills out pointers to truth and radiates the essence of

pure beingness.

 

>

> Again you say this with absolute conviction. I don't happen to

> believe that, otherwise the sage would be omniscient. Destiny has

> nothing to do with at all.

>

> I must say I find the aspect of identification of the sage with

> Divinity and worship very unappealing. For me, a realised human

being

> is still a human being, dead or alive.

>

 

Appropriate for you at this moment.

 

But, mind you, no Sage needs your identification or worship. It is

YOU who find it beneficial or otherwise to worship a Sage. As long as

you are attached to your body, physical worship may be beneficial. As

long as you are attached to your mind, mental worship may be

beneficial. When you are neither the body nor the mind, who will

worship whom?

 

 

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

Let me just remind you of what you actually wrote

 

"It may be clear with an example. Suppose you are in sleep and

dreaming. The whole world is recreated in your dream. So much of

substances. So many beings. Each of then think and act separately."

 

plus

 

"The sage is that Consciousness which holds all the knowledge of all

universes and much more." That is omniscience.

 

 

Avoiding the discussion by reverting to some advaitan absolutism

which could only be known (if at all) by someone WHO IS REALISED just

isn't helpful .

 

I said I wouldn't get involved in any discussion. I only replied to

your message because it annoyed me, but not as much as your last one

did.

 

 

"Appropriate for you at this moment.

 

But, mind you, no Sage needs your identification or worship. It is

YOU who find it beneficial or otherwise to worship a Sage. As long as

you are attached to your body, physical worship may be beneficial. As

long as you are attached to your mind, mental worship may be

beneficial. When you are neither the body nor the mind, who will

worship whom?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Murali" <murali@g...> wrote:

> Hi Eric,

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "scol202" <erici44>

wrote:

>

> >

> > In a dream, the characters are paper thin actors with no

> independent

> > existence. In the dream of God, we are all individuals.

> >

>

> Is that how you feel while in a dream?

>

> It is a matter or point of reference. While dreaming, the point of

> reference of reality is dream itself and hence everything appeared

> real. You as a dream character were as real as you are now. But at

> the same time your real existence was that of the dreamer himself.

> For the time the dream was on, you forgot this fact and identified

> yourself as the dream character. You were not aware of this until

you

> woke up. But, at no stage you were really the dream character. And

at

> NO stage you were NOT the dreamer.

>

> Now, when woke up, the reference of reality becomes the waking-

state

> and dream becomes a holistic illusion confined to the extent of

your

> consciousness. What the sages suggest is that there is yet another

> waking up from this waking state and the point of reference becomes

> the absolute reality, from where the waking state appear as just

> another dream.

>

> Some seekers take this as possibility and enquire further. Some

> reject it outright. Appropriate for both as that is exactly how

they

> are programmed to take it.

>

>

> >

> > Do you think that a sage could answer questions about quantum

> > mechanics or geology ? Again, what you are implying is that a

sage

> > is God (namely omniscient).

> >

>

> A sage - which you think is a sage – is not omniscient.

>

> We are habituated to think that "I am the body/mind called Murali"

> or "I am the body/mind called Eric" etc. And we apply the same

> mistake on the sage. As mentioned earlier, do not get confused with

> the body/mind of the sage with The Sage which is synonymous with

Self

> or God if you prefer. The body/mind of the sage or anybody else is

> just a mechanical instrument wired to respond to stimuli based on a

> dynamic programming (conditioning). If that instrument has high IQ

> and good memory it may answer a lot many questions.

>

> But it is the Self that brought out the quantum theories through a

> body/mind called Max Planck. It is the same Self, which answers

> questions through the body/mind of a geologist. And it was the same

> Self, which worked out havoc through Hitler. A pale example will be

> electricity flowing through very many equipments doing many

different

> activities as programmed by their creator.

>

> The only difference if you want to point out between the

functioning

> body/mind of sage and another is that through the sage, the Self

> operates without any resistance at all where as through the other

> a "me" interlopes with every action or thoughts there by creating

an

> apparent doer or sufferer which really is not there, like the blue

of

> the sky.

>

> >

> > Further, in my opinion it

> > is extremely dangerous to believe everything that a sage says is

> the

> > truth.

> >

>

> Any word spoken is not truth.

>

> A sage just spills out pointers to truth and radiates the essence

of

> pure beingness.

>

> >

> > Again you say this with absolute conviction. I don't happen to

> > believe that, otherwise the sage would be omniscient. Destiny has

> > nothing to do with at all.

> >

> > I must say I find the aspect of identification of the sage with

> > Divinity and worship very unappealing. For me, a realised human

> being

> > is still a human being, dead or alive.

> >

>

> Appropriate for you at this moment.

>

> But, mind you, no Sage needs your identification or worship. It is

> YOU who find it beneficial or otherwise to worship a Sage. As long

as

> you are attached to your body, physical worship may be beneficial.

As

> long as you are attached to your mind, mental worship may be

> beneficial. When you are neither the body nor the mind, who will

> worship whom?

>

>

>

> Murali