Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Hi, With Bhagavan's grace though I am much easily able to keep in touch with my self-awareness (my pure conscious) and see it not being affected by the thoughts of good or bad quality. There seem to raise a question (a thought) again to ask isn't this self-awareness just an awareness within and not an awareness which I feel in all leaving and non-leaving things. In other words isn't this awareness just localized to me as appose to being omni-present as its claimed to be? Though I have my own answers to this, I need to know if the rest of you feel that its a logically correct answer. Here are my answers 1. Since all leaving and non-leaving things are present only when there is a thought (in the state of awakeness or dream) this question remains a false question since none of these things really exist at the first place. 2. Since, like me all people have the same awareness as I do of the conscious and the experience is same across the board, the same awareness is present in all beings making it omni-present. Is such answers enough to conclude that I am omni-present or is there a higher state of awareness (which I am still missing) where I could literally feel myself in everything; like Bhagavan did in the humans and the animal alike. I think there is a higher state of awareness which we get aquainted to one practicing this self-enquiry futher. I could not find any of the people asking this to Bhagavan in any of their discusions with Bhagavan. Thanks & Regards Dileep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dileep, words from Sri Ramana: 6. As the Self shines fully of is own accord why is it not generally recogised like the other objects of the world by all persons? "Wherever particular objects are known it is Self which has known itself in the form of those objects. For what is known as knowledge or awareness is only the potency of the Self (atma sakti). The Self is the only sentient object. There is nothing apart from the Self. . . ." (Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, (3) Spiritual Instruction, Chapter II Practice, #6) In Bhagavan, Sister Judith, rainbowbird~ tsisqua unvgoladv Eastern Cherokee __ - In RamanaMaharshi, "simhadileep" <simhadileep> wrote: > > Hi, > > With Bhagavan's grace though I am much easily able to keep in touch > with my self-awareness (my pure conscious) and see it not being > affected by the thoughts of good or bad quality. There seem to raise > a question (a thought) again to ask isn't this self-awareness just an > awareness within and not an awareness which I feel in all leaving and > non-leaving things. In other words isn't this awareness just > localized to me as appose to being omni-present as its claimed to be? > > Though I have my own answers to this, I need to know if the rest of > you feel that its a logically correct answer. Here are my answers > > 1. Since all leaving and non-leaving things are present only when > there is a thought (in the state of awakeness or dream) this question > remains a false question since none of these things really exist at > the first place. > > 2. Since, like me all people have the same awareness as I do of the > conscious and the experience is same across the board, the same > awareness is present in all beings making it omni-present. > > Is such answers enough to conclude that I am omni-present or is > there a higher state of awareness (which I am still missing) where I > could literally feel myself in everything; like Bhagavan did in the > humans and the animal alike. > > I think there is a higher state of awareness which we get aquainted > to one practicing this self-enquiry futher. I could not find any of > the people asking this to Bhagavan in any of their discusions with > Bhagavan. > > Thanks & Regards > Dileep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 --- Floating bubble <sinkingstone wrote: Dear Ed, Osiyo! (Hello!) I like very much what you say here in your message; I especially like "enlightenment (is) when you pass beyond belief into a felt truth". Bhagan often describes Self-Realization as the highest "intuition"--in order to distinguish it from mere knowledge, as an irrefutable KNOWING of Truth. And I think this comes as a deeply felt experience. Wado! (Thanks!) both of you for these valuable discussions. With you in Bhagavan's loving presence, Sister Judith, rainbowbird~ tsisqua unvgoladv _______ > Hi, > > Having read your message, I had a few thoughts. 1. > I > think that ominpresence might be like the moon being > reflected in a thousand dew drops - thus it appears > in > all beings whilst remaining transcendent and > untouched. 2. I think this realtiy must be felt > within ones being in order to create the serenity of > trancendance (I guess where you no-lomger fear > death). > > I personally can see it and can think it, however Im > not sure I feel it - I guess that point could be > regarded as enlightenment, when you pass beyond > belief > into a felt truth. - > > Those were my reflections > > Ed > > > > > --- RamanaMaharshi wrote: > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > --------------------~--> > > Has someone you know been affected by illness or > > disease? > > Network for Good is THE place to support health > > awareness efforts! > > > http://us.click./UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM > > > --~-> > > > > > > There are 2 messages in this issue. > > > > Topics in this digest: > > > > 1. Efficacy of Bhakti > > swathi dora <doraksp > > 2. Is the self omni-present > > "simhadileep" > > <simhadileep > > > > > > > ______________________ > > > ______________________ > > > > Message: 1 > > Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:53:43 +0000 (GMT) > > swathi dora <doraksp > > Efficacy of Bhakti > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. > > > > When asked about the efficacy of bhakti, Sri > > Bhagavan said : So long as there is vibhakti, > there > > must be bhakti. So long as there is viyoga, there > > must be yoga. So long as there is duality, there > > must be God and devotee. Similarly also in > vichara. > > So long as there is vichara, there is duality too. > > But merging into the Source there is unity only. > So > > it is with bhakti too. Realising the God of > > devotion, there will be unity only. God too is > > thought of in and by the Self. So God is identical > > with the Self. If one is told to have bhakti for > God > > and he does so straightaway, it is allright. But > > there is another kind of man who turns round and > > says : "There are two, I and God. Before knowing > the > > far-off God, let me know the more immediate and > > intimate 'I'." For him the vichara-marga has to be > > taught. There is in fact no differance between > > bhakti and vichara. ( From Talk 154 ). > > > > Dora > > > > India Matrimony: Find your life > > partneronline. > > > > [This message contained attachments] > > > > > > > > > ______________________ > > > ______________________ > > > > Message: 2 > > Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:15:28 -0000 > > "simhadileep" <simhadileep > > Is the self omni-present > > > > > > Hi, > > > > With Bhagavan's grace though I am much easily > able > > to keep in touch > > with my self-awareness (my pure conscious) and > see > > it not being > > affected by the thoughts of good or bad quality. > > There seem to raise > > a question (a thought) again to ask isn't this > > self-awareness just an > > awareness within and not an awareness which I feel > > in all leaving and > > non-leaving things. In other words isn't this > > awareness just > > localized to me as appose to being omni-present as > > > its claimed to be? > > > > Though I have my own answers to this, I need to > > know if the rest of > > you feel that its a logically correct answer. Here > > are my answers > > > > 1. Since all leaving and non-leaving things are > > present only when > > there is a thought (in the state of awakeness or > > dream) this question > > remains a false question since none of these > things > > really exist at > > the first place. > > > > 2. Since, like me all people have the same > > awareness as I do of the > > conscious and the experience is same across the > > board, the same > > awareness is present in all beings making it > > omni-present. > > > > Is such answers enough to conclude that I am > > omni-present or is > > there a higher state of awareness (which I am > still > > missing) where I > > could literally feel myself in everything; like > > Bhagavan did in the > > humans and the animal alike. > > > > I think there is a higher state of awareness > which > > we get aquainted > > to one practicing this self-enquiry futher. I > could > > not find any of > > the people asking this to Bhagavan in any of their > > discusions with > > Bhagavan. > > > > Thanks & Regards > > Dileep > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________ > > > ______________________ > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: > > RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: > > RamanaMaharshi > > List owner: > RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > ------ > > Links > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > === message truncated === All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Simhadileep, Probably you wouldnt find an answer to this question because Baghwan used to say find out who you are then you will get all answers ( or no more questions will arise ). When vicahara is done and thought cease to be active and there is just a pure awareness of the life force and you go little bit further on and merge into the force then there is bliss. In this state there is no questions at all. Only when this state is not there and mind becomes active then based on the experience you can conclude this same force is exisitng and driving everything in this world.... everything cognizbale is based on this single bottom line. This is what I could add at this point based on my experiences. Regards, Mahesh RamanaMaharshi, "simhadileep" <simhadileep> wrote: > > Hi, > > With Bhagavan's grace though I am much easily able to keep in touch > with my self-awareness (my pure conscious) and see it not being > affected by the thoughts of good or bad quality. There seem to raise > a question (a thought) again to ask isn't this self-awareness just an > awareness within and not an awareness which I feel in all leaving and > non-leaving things. In other words isn't this awareness just > localized to me as appose to being omni-present as its claimed to be? > > Though I have my own answers to this, I need to know if the rest of > you feel that its a logically correct answer. Here are my answers > > 1. Since all leaving and non-leaving things are present only when > there is a thought (in the state of awakeness or dream) this question > remains a false question since none of these things really exist at > the first place. > > 2. Since, like me all people have the same awareness as I do of the > conscious and the experience is same across the board, the same > awareness is present in all beings making it omni-present. > > Is such answers enough to conclude that I am omni-present or is > there a higher state of awareness (which I am still missing) where I > could literally feel myself in everything; like Bhagavan did in the > humans and the animal alike. > > I think there is a higher state of awareness which we get aquainted > to one practicing this self-enquiry futher. I could not find any of > the people asking this to Bhagavan in any of their discusions with > Bhagavan. > > Thanks & Regards > Dileep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Hi To me the message seems here to say that its only a mental decision one should make, having experienced him alone existing and all others including the 'I' is a nothing but a thought and really nothing else exists apart from the self to see or experience this omni-presence. Then I wonder how Ramana could feel one with a monkey, cow or a human. How he could understand there feelings and could realize whether somebody achieved moksha or not, like in the case of his mother or the cow. I feel there is a certain state of being completly enlightened where all such questions will fall off due to such a blissful experience, which we are yet to have got it 100%. Thanks Dileep RamanaMaharshi, "thckry_jdth" <thckry_jdth> wrote: > > > > Dileep, words from Sri Ramana: > > 6. As the Self shines fully of is own accord why is it not generally recogised like the other objects of the world by all persons? > > "Wherever particular objects are known it is Self which has known itself in the form of those objects. For what is known as knowledge or awareness is only the potency of the Self (atma sakti). The Self is the only sentient object. There is nothing apart from the Self. . . ." > > (Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, (3) Spiritual Instruction, Chapter II Practice, #6) > > > In Bhagavan, > Sister Judith, > rainbowbird~ > tsisqua unvgoladv > > Eastern Cherokee > > __ > - In RamanaMaharshi, "simhadileep" <simhadileep> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > With Bhagavan's grace though I am much easily able to keep in touch > > with my self-awareness (my pure conscious) and see it not being > > affected by the thoughts of good or bad quality. There seem to raise > > a question (a thought) again to ask isn't this self-awareness just an > > awareness within and not an awareness which I feel in all leaving and > > non-leaving things. In other words isn't this awareness just > > localized to me as appose to being omni-present as its claimed to be? > > > > Though I have my own answers to this, I need to know if the rest of > > you feel that its a logically correct answer. Here are my answers > > > > 1. Since all leaving and non-leaving things are present only when > > there is a thought (in the state of awakeness or dream) this question > > remains a false question since none of these things really exist at > > the first place. > > > > 2. Since, like me all people have the same awareness as I do of the > > conscious and the experience is same across the board, the same > > awareness is present in all beings making it omni-present. > > > > Is such answers enough to conclude that I am omni-present or is > > there a higher state of awareness (which I am still missing) where I > > could literally feel myself in everything; like Bhagavan did in the > > humans and the animal alike. > > > > I think there is a higher state of awareness which we get aquainted > > to one practicing this self-enquiry futher. I could not find any of > > the people asking this to Bhagavan in any of their discusions with > > Bhagavan. > > > > Thanks & Regards > > Dileep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Dileep, > In other words isn't this awareness just > localized to me as appose to being omni-present as its claimed to be? > Though I have my own answers to this, I need to know if the rest of > you feel that its a logically correct answer. Will the one who is curious about omnipresence ever experience such a thing?... No!...the upadhi [limitation] of individuality precludes it. So what is the point of pursuing such a question? It makes for polemics and no more. Rather, one should take this experience of awareness/existence and trace it to its source. > Then I wonder how Ramana could feel one with a monkey, cow or a > human. How he could understand there feelings and could realize > whether somebody achieved moksha or not, like in the case of his > mother or the cow. Indeed. Once one starts to wonder about these things they become self-perpetuating. > I feel there is a certain state of being completly enlightened where > all such questions will fall off due to such a blissful experience, > which we are yet to have got it 100%. The 'I' that feels this is the sole barrier. > A short state of mano-nasha. > This is a spuradic instance where-in you loose the touch with this > consious too and you are in an undefinable void. Which, you can only > realize after waking up from that state. Usually this is a state > where you dont quite know how long you were in that state but you > will be aware of being in that state only. This to me sounded almost > equal to deep sleep (but I found that I was not soring after > enquiring others). What you describe here is manolaya. --------- layavinASane ubhayarodhane | layagatampunarbhavatinomrtam || Abeyance and destruction are the two types of control. That which is in abeyance comes back again, not that which is destroyed. (Upadesa Saram; 13) --------- There is no short state of manonasha that would be manolaya. If mind comes back it has not been destroyed. 'Many fear that with the destruction of the mind, they themselves will cease to exist. But manonasa [destruction of the mind] is nothing to be feared. What we conceive of now as mind is only a combination of rajas and tamas. By their elimination the mind becomes pure. Such a mind is one's own swarupa [real nature]. The activities of one whose mind has been purified by Self-attention will continue to be done. He will even appear to do the work with greater attention and involvement. Yet he is unaffected and always stays in the felicity of non-dual bliss.' (related by Viswanatha Swami in Power of the Presence) Whether mind appears to dominate or not, Self-awareness (the Heart) is eternally the natural state. The mind is merely a transient phase. Self-enquiry brushes the gossamer-like curtain of limitation aside. (cf. Talks; 252) Kind Regards, Miles 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.