I don't get it.

[Guest guest]

Moderator,

 

Please excuse my inability to "get it."

 

I see people discussing things here -- giving opinions, but when I ask

for the group's help in understanding a "scripture," it seems that I

am breaking some sort of "rule."

 

The way I see it, I am reading scriptures and a question arises in my

mind. I understand that self inquiry leads to a state where all

questions are invalid -- neti, neti, neti is the rule for final

understandings.

 

But, why then are others here "allowed" to express opinions? If all

that's allowed here is "cut and paste" quotes from Ramana Maharishi,

fine -- no problem, but I have his books, and they're all dogeared and

read many times over. I have quotes upon quotes upon quotes -- I am

always reading more too, but, bottom line, I am seeking a community

that's also done the "homework" of developing a conceputal perspective

on Ramana Maharishi's teaching -- a teaching which I find PERFECT in

every way. I don't know the "ways of this group," and if this space

is almost entirely devoted to bhakti instead of intellectual "cud

chewing," hey, I understand. Just spell it out for me.

 

What I want to know is where my "understanding" is at variance with

this -- presumably scholarly and dedicated "mostly" to bhakti --

group's opinions. Again, most "ashrams" in the world allow questions

-- what are the rules here?

 

If all that's done here is quotes and opinions by "a select few,"

please tell me. I am not an Internet troll. I don't have any agenda

except "advaita," and I came here expecting that my readings and true

dedication to Ramana Maharishi would allow me to integrate with this

community quickly. Yet, I find myself "stepping on invisible toes I

know not of."

 

Again, please give me a tutorial that gives me clarity. So far, the

short comments from you are far less than I -- seemingly -- need.

 

To start things off, is there a rule that no one can ask anyone here

their opinion such that the person must respond with their own words

as opposed to finding a quote that answers the question?

 

In either case, it seems that my question about whether that which the

word "being" and "absolute" are pointing "is" the same "thing" or not

can either be answered from an individual here or from a quote of

Ramana Maharishi that pertains to my question.

 

Yet the above doesn't seem to be allowed. I'm am truly confused.

 

Please help me.

 

Edg

[Guest guest]

Edg writes:

 

"Do you interpret this to mean that "Being" (self) and "The Absolute" ("Big"

self) are words for the same "thing?" I think "Being" is a thing. The

Absolute is not being or non-being."

------------------

 

Dear Edg,

 

I think part of what the Moderator is saying is that we are not here to

discuss whether Sri Ramana's statements are correct or not.

 

You have plenty of the books, you say, so you should be able to verify for

yourself that Sri Ramana quite often equates 'Being' with 'the Absolute'.

There is no 'self' and 'Big Self'. There is only Self, One without a

second. Or as verse 12 of the Forty Verses has it:

 

"The Real Self shines always alone, with neither things for Him to know, nor

persons to know Him, therefore He is only Consciousness; do not think that

he is non-being."

 

Likewise,

 

"The Absolute Being is what is - It is the Self." (Talk 106)

 

"The Absolute consciousness is our real nature." (Talk 199)

 

"There is only being in Self-Realisation, and nothing but being." (Talk 33)

 

"In that state [ie Reality] there is Being alone. There is no you, nor I,

nor he; no present, nor past, nor future. It is beyond time and space,

beyond expression."(Talk 17)

 

" Find out 'Who am I?' The pure 'I' is the reality, the Absolute

Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. (Talk 68)

 

 

In His explanation of the first stanza of 'The Forty Verses' (Sad Vidya),

Sri Ramana also states:

 

"...The first stanza is the auspicious beginning. Why should the subject

Matter of the piece be brought in here? Can knowledge be other than Being?

Being is

the core - the Heart. How then is the Supreme Being to be contemplated and

glorified? Only to remain as the Pure Self is the auspicious beginning. This

speaks of attributeless Brahman according to the jnana marga (method of

knowledge)."

(Talk 567)

 

For those not familiar with the first stanza, it is as follows:

 

"Can there be a sense of exitense without something that is? Is Real

Consciousness a thing other than That? Since that (Reality) dwell,

thought-free, in the Heart; how can It, - Itself named the Heart - be

meditated upon? And who is there, disctinct from It, to meditate on IT,

the Self whose nature is Reality Consciousness? Know that to meditate on It

is just to be at one with It within the Heart"

(from Laksmana Sarma's Sanskrit version translated into English)

 

Regards,

 

P.

[Guest guest]

10.0pt">I think I understand what Edg is talking about. Personally I’m

not attached to either advaita or dvaita, nor have I read all of Ramana’s

books, which is partly why I haven’t written anything here in a few

months. A few days ago I completed the three-part book “Talks with Ramana”

that’s very graciously available on the web. Anyway, since I can

relate to the difficulty of being a newcomer in this sort of discussion group,

I’d just like to say a few words on this subject.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Personally I’ve found Ramana’s books to be very

comforting. They often relax my mind and put me at ease. I’ve

also felt at times that I need to read between the lines, so to speak, to get

his meaning. Is it not true that he often indicates the supreme truth by

silence? Yet we have books just full of words. We talk about advaita,

but language implies a combination of oneness and duality. So if we’re

going to derive genuine advaita through language, it is because the language

hints at something that cannot be said outright.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">For instance, in the quote, “"The Absolute consciousness is

our real nature," there are several implications. There are two

objects, consciousness and nature, which are equated using the word “is.”

Consciousness is qualified by the adjective “absolute,” and nature

is qualified by the word “real.” Also, “absolute

consciousness” is objectified with the word “the,” and the

self is diversified with by the word “our.” Somehow, through

all these words, “we” are supposed to reach a state of quiet which

cannot be precisely described.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Regarding the matter of moderation, I obviously have no status or

authority here; but I don’t know what use this group could be if the

content of the books cannot be discussed. I mean, when I want to read the

books, I just read them. It’s a lot easier than reading a little

quote each day. However, if this group offers the opportunity to share

our understandings of Ramana’s teachings and learn from each other, then

I think that would be very enriching in my life. I hope no one minds my

saying.

10.0pt">

10.0pt">Sincerely,

10.0pt">Pandu

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

Thats a very good mail.Panduji has expressed very nicely his feelings.Its right

too much of words creates lot of arguments and thats why bhagawan has rightly

pointed mouna/silence as the best language.

Regarding the dwaita,adwaita,duality and non duality concepts,its my humble

opinion (after reading bhagawans works),its something that has to be realised

by experience.And before experiencing any of the such state, a discussion may

end up in differences.So i think if ever such a doubt arises,i prefer to do

more enquiry and find out for myself what the actuality is.The answers to all

questions may be in mere practise of self enquiry and not in intellectual

discussions and arguments.Expecting the comments of panduji and others.

thanks

vijay

[Guest guest]

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">

color:navy">Some valuable thoughts from Vijay and Pandu.

mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">Best wishes,

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">Peter

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">

EN-US">

bold">RamanaMaharshi

[RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of vijaysk (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in

07 April 2006 07:18

RamanaMaharshi

RE: [RamanaMaharshi] I

don't get it.

12.0pt">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">Hi everyone,

mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">Thats a very good mail.Panduji has

expressed very nicely his feelings.Its right too much of words creates lot of

arguments and thats why bhagawan has rightly pointed mouna/silence as the best

language.

mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW"> Regarding the

dwaita,adwaita,duality and non duality concepts,its my humble opinion (after

reading bhagawans works),its something that has to be realised by

experience.And before experiencing any of the such state, a discussion may end

up in differences.So i think if ever such a doubt arises,i prefer to do more

enquiry and find out for myself what the actuality is.The answers to all

questions may be in mere practise of self enquiry and not in intellectual

discussions and arguments.Expecting the comments of panduji and others.

"Courier New";mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">thanks

mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">vijay

mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

"Courier New";mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-ZW">

[Guest guest]

--- vijaysk wrote:

 

> Hi everyone,

> Thats a very good mail.Panduji has expressed very

> nicely his feelings.Its

> right too much of words creates lot of arguments and

> thats why bhagawan has

> rightly pointed mouna/silence as the best language.

> Regarding the dwaita,adwaita,duality and non

> duality concepts,its my

> humble opinion (after reading bhagawans works),its

> something that has to be

> realised by experience.And before experiencing any

> of the such state, a

> discussion may end up in differences.So i think if

> ever such a doubt

> arises,i prefer to do more enquiry and find out for

> myself what the

> actuality is.The answers to all questions may be in

> mere practise of self

> enquiry and not in intellectual discussions and

> arguments.Expecting the

> comments of panduji and others.

> thanks

> vijay

Dear Vijay,

I am curious to know how you do the enquiry ? I

think it would be better for group members to share

with us their experiences ..as well as to tell us how

they practice Ramana's teachings. This will be helpful

to all and our satsangh will be more fruitful.

alec

 

>