Guest guest Posted May 3, 2005 Report Share Posted May 3, 2005 The thought came to make this post. Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? sundar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Dear sundar, This is my first reply for a post on this site. My sincere apologies if there's some thing wrong in this reply and I welcome all comments. 1. Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? Thought can't be independent of 'I'. There should be something which is attending this thought and that something is 'I'(this is some thing as; when we hold an object there should be some thing which holds this object and that some thing which holds this object can be your hand or some other part in your body which can hold the object). Without this 'I' the body is said to be dead. This is the 'I' which makes the body active and alive. 2.Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? According to the scriptures the 'I' is the one which is covered by five koshas. Mind(manomaya kosha) and the body(annamaya kosha) also come in these five koshas and covering(sheath) the 'I'(paramatma). So I does not come between the body and the force, it is the one which is supplying the power(so called force) to the body for implementing the thought. 3. Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. It is not the Thought which is starting the actions in the brain and the limbs, it is the one 'I' attending this thought which starts the action in the brain and the limbs. 4. Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? The answer to question can satisfy a person only when he is able to view his koshas (five) differently from the 'I'. This is my perception and this is what I learned from my guru and experienced. 5. Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? I don't see this as a valid argument since when one realizes the whole universe is relying on an unique force which is in one and all as 'I' one can't think that anything on the universe can exist with out this 'I'. Yours in Sadguru's Feet, Ranjith. --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca wrote: The thought came to make this post. Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? sundar Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Our Shortcut URL: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a> RamanaMaharshi/ RamanaMaharshi Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Dear Sundar, I see the question slightly differently... It is not so much a question of whether a thought needs an 'I' for it to exist; it is more a question of 'who' it is that is aware that the thought has arisen - for whatever reasons and causes. Thoughts, whether gross or subtle are objects to awareness. The investigation is into the nature of the subject, the cogniser, the 'I', awareness-being and its Source. Just some thoughts... Peter RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of sundar22ca 04 May 2005 03:53 RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] Where is the need for this 'I'? The thought came to make this post. Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? sundar Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Our Shortcut URL: http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a> ------------------- This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca wrote: > The thought came to make this post. > Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? > > Can not this thought be an act of some independent > (of 'I') force? > Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & > the force? > > Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. > > Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed > necessary? > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > > > sundar > Sounds interesting in theory. I am not assuming anything. It is perhaps very true that we are just a bundle of thoughts, feelings and words. I think the emotional content too is chemically induced.Sexual feelings,anxiety all of it is written into our biological and genetic program. Sometimes I wonder what purpose life serves.What are we doing here? I think even the great Ramana had no answers to these questions.Life is so short. I am 54 and with some luck I have another 20 years at the most. Even according to Ramana all of this is unreal and every detail of our lives is already preordained. In fact I believe this to be true because I had not initiated most of the important events in my life but they just happened. What seems unjust however is karma which is believed to hold us in its thrall for an indefinete number of life times. Do these forums serve any purpose in resolving the difficult questions of life. I think not! All our questions are resloved only when we realize the self. I am just rambling away with no point to get to. I think it would be much better if death is final in every sense. It would make thing so much easier.Sometimes I like subscribing to the scientific point of view. alakeshwar > > > Discover Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover./online.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Dear Ranjith, After reading your response, i realise that i have been misunderstood. The 'I' that i was referring to is the ego or the false self. i meant to say that for the 'force' causes the thoughts. The brain (computer) runs & instructs the limbs & the action take place. There is no need for the ego in all this. Hence the title of the post. sundar RamanaMaharshi, Ranjith Kumar S V V <ranjith_svv> wrote: > Dear sundar, > > This is my first reply for a post on this site. My > sincere apologies if there's some thing wrong in this > reply and I welcome all comments. > > 1. Can not this thought be an act of some independent > (of 'I') force? > Thought can't be independent of 'I'. There should > be something which is attending this thought and that > something is 'I'(this is some thing as; when we hold > an object there should be some thing which holds this > object and that some thing which holds this object can > be your hand or some other part in your body which can > hold the object). Without this 'I' the body is said to > be dead. This is the 'I' which makes the body active > and alive. > > 2.Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & > the force? > According to the scriptures the 'I' is the one > which is covered by five koshas. Mind(manomaya kosha) > and the body(annamaya kosha) also come in these five > koshas and covering(sheath) the 'I'(paramatma). So I > does not come between the body and the force, it is > the one which is supplying the power(so called force) > to the body for implementing the thought. > > 3. Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. > It is not the Thought which is starting the > actions in the brain and the limbs, it is the one 'I' > attending this thought which starts the action in the > brain and the limbs. > > 4. Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed > necessary? > The answer to question can satisfy a person only > when he is able to view his koshas (five) differently > from the 'I'. This is my perception and this is what I > learned from my guru and experienced. > > 5. Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > I don't see this as a valid argument since when one > realizes the whole universe is relying on an unique > force which is in one and all as 'I' one can't think > that anything on the universe can exist with out this > 'I'. > > Yours in Sadguru's Feet, > Ranjith. > > --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca> wrote: > > > The thought came to make this post. > Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? > > Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of > 'I') force? > Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & > the force? > > Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. > > Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > > > sundar > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: > RamanaMaharshi- > Un: > RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Our Shortcut URL: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" > rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a> > > > > > Links > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Dear Peter, I agree with you about the importance of self enquiry and remaining in the Self. The false self (i) is really of no practical use. In fact, it is the cause for a lot of misery. This is what I meant by the title. sundar RamanaMaharshi, "Peter M." <not_2@b...> wrote: > Dear Sundar, > > I see the question slightly differently... > > It is not so much a question of whether a thought needs an 'I' for it to > exist; it is more a question of 'who' it is that is aware that the thought > has arisen - for whatever reasons and causes. > > Thoughts, whether gross or subtle are objects to awareness. The > investigation is into the nature of the subject, the cogniser, the 'I', > awareness-being and its Source. > > Just some thoughts... > > Peter > > > > > RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] > On Behalf Of sundar22ca > 04 May 2005 03:53 > RamanaMaharshi > [RamanaMaharshi] Where is the need for this 'I'? > > The thought came to make this post. > Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? > > Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? > Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? > > Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. > > Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > > > sundar > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Our Shortcut URL: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" > rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a> > Links > ------------------- > This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Please Edit your posts before submitting: Moderator ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dear Sundar, 1. The 'I' that i was referring to is the ego or the false self. From your statement we can infer that there is true self and false self(say, but in reality there is only one self which is crystal clear, but for the sake of discussion we will assume this). The self is called false self when it gets along with the body (I can illustrate this with an example; The river GANGA is very pure at the place of it's birth i.e himalayas, it is crystal clear and has no impurities in it.. but the same GANGA in Haridwar or Kasi is impure and muddish, so from this example we can say that the water(which is pure first) when it flows down is getting along with other substances and getting impure. In the same way the SELF(I) which is pure and crystal clear is turning as FALSE SELF when it gets involved in these wordly activities and the only way for the SELF to get involved with the worldly activities is identifying it self with the body which we call as the FALSE self or ego). 2. The brain (computer) runs & instructs the limbs & the action take place From this statement I can infer your perception about self. I see that you are identifying your self as brain since it is the one which instructs the limbs and the action takes place.. You took the best example of Computer.. we can relate the Computer with our Body... we can say the processor in the computer which performs and controls all the tasks is equal to brain in our body... but one thing we have to realise is that computer can't run with out POWER which is universally same... this is the same with the body also. with out power the computer can't work and it is inactive.. the same way with out the 'I' in the body, the body is inactive as one can see the difference between a body which is alive and a body which is dead.. in the dead body the brain is inactive since it has no power i.e. there is nothing which provides power to the brain.. so we have to find that one which is providing power and that power(shakti) is 'I'. Your's in Sadguru's feet, Ranjith. --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca wrote: Dear Ranjith, After reading your response, i realise that i have been misunderstood. The 'I' that i was referring to is the ego or the false self. ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Dear Sundar, Thank you for explaining further. Sorry I misunderstood your meaning. Peter RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of sundar22ca 06 May 2005 02:44 RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Where is the need for this 'I'? Dear Peter, I agree with you about the importance of self enquiry and remaining in the Self. The false self (i) is really of no practical use. In fact, it is the cause for a lot of misery. This is what I meant by the title. sundar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca > wrote:> The thought came to make this post.> Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? Only if there prevails a sense of claim about the arising thought. The sense of ownership, whether of an arising thought or the ensuing actions resulting from the thought,whether mental like a decision or physical as an physical action, infers the "owner" which is the "I" or the "me". > > Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? The sense of ownwerhsip whichi infers the "me", is again an attribute of thought. > Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & > the force? There is no need for anything to happen. And happenings happen. As the moment Moment to moment to moment. > > Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. Yes, through the complex neuro-spatial system. > Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed> necessary? To whom is that very question of relevance? > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? A lay-off of something is possible, if that something has an existential reality? Does the "I" or the "me" have an existential reality in the first place, for it to be got rid off? Love Avril Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Dear Sundar, Question : Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of 'I') force? Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & the force? Your question is a real good argument provided it raises from a study experience that "The consious itself manifest as mind/ego/thoughts; and this consious by itself does not have an attribute called 'I', and can stay all by itself without any such transformation of mind/ego". On the other hand if this an intellectual decision, then the likelihood of its sticking with you for every thought which rises in you are pretty mild. In Sadana, experience (niddidhyasa) and dwelling (mannana) on post expriences pays rich dividents then compared to just sravana (hearing) or mannana (intellectual thinking on what was heard). Queation : Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? Your argument reminds me a quote which Bagavan Ramana use to make, the gist of it is "Its foolish for somebody to carry his/her luggage on her head when traveling in a train, since the train carrying the person, can very much carry his/her load". This means its foolish for us to think that these thoughts are mine (ego) when its truly belongs to the supreme consious which is not just in the so called me but in all objects. So, thoughts raisin in me is only to fullfill the accomplishments of the universe as a whole and not merely to fullfil the needs of the ego centric me. Secondly, by experience one can realize that the consious does not realize a second thing other than itself in samadhi; it does not realize anything such as TIME/SPACE/MATTER. It does not stand-up and say 'I' like an ego does; so its wrong to attach an I to a thought coming out of this consiousness. Dileep > > > > --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca> wrote: > > > > > > The thought came to make this post. > > Should there be an 'I' behind this thought? > > > > Can not this thought be an act of some independent (of > > 'I') force? > > Is there really a need for an 'I' between the body & > > the force? > > > > Thought starts actions in the brain & the limbs. > > > > Why should an 'I' be automatically assumed necessary? > > > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > > > > > > sundar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: > > RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: > > RamanaMaharshi > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Our Shortcut URL: > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ramanamaharshi" > > rel="tag">ramanamaharshi</a> > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Avril, Thanks for pointing out the subtility that was missed. Do you see a difference between a sense of smell (for example) felt by the body and an "i" sense? "i" may not have an existential reality. But, "i sense" seems to be still felt. sundar RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya> wrote: > > > --- sundar22ca <sundar22ca> wrote: > > > > > > Isn't this a powerful argument to lay-off this 'I'? > > > > A lay-off of something is possible, if that something has an existential reality? > > Does the "I" or the "me" have an existential reality in the first place, for it to be got rid of? > > > > Love > > > > Avril > > > > > > > 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.