Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 I'm somewhat confused by this recent statement: ......... "We reiterate that all posts on this list are devoted to Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, his life, his writings, his works and anything directly connected with him." .......... Is it the policy of this group to enforce the understanding of Sri Bhagavan as inhabiting a particular localized body that lived during a certain time period? By "his life" does it refer to the activity of his body? Et cetera... Is it held true here that Sri Bhagavan is the very self of all? If so, then how can there be anything directly connected with him (which implies various types of disconnect) or not (which suggests that He is not the true self of all)? Sometimes it seems to me that those who preach nondualism behave in a dualistic way, and others who preach dualism behave in a nondualistic way. A rather interesting phenomenon, I would say. Is the 'discussion' here supposed to emphasize Ramana's physical form, his teachings, or "his" ultimate self; and is the enforcement of posting rules here consistent with that? Isn't Sri Bhagavan he who sometimes seems to disturb our minds as well as he who seems to give us peace? These questions raise another: What is the relationship between Sri Bhagavan and material nature? Sincerely, Pandu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 I seem to agree with Pandu. Shri Bhagvan was very liberal and accomodated all shades of opinion. He also answered questions according to the leanings of the questioners. Of course this forum should not be used to promote any particular cult or belief which is not tune with the teachings of Maharishi. Love brij Pandu das <Pandu108.bms > wrote: I’m somewhat confused by this recent statement: ........ “We reiterate that all posts on this list are devoted to Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, his life, his writings, his works and anything directly connected with him.” ......... Is it the policy of this group to enforce the understanding of Sri Bhagavan as inhabiting a particular localized body that lived during a certain time period? By “his life” does it refer to the activity of his body? Et cetera... Is it held true here that Sri Bhagavan is the very self of all? If so, then how can there be anything directly connected with him (which implies various types of disconnect) or not (which suggests that He is not the true self of all)? Sometimes it seems to me that those who preach nondualism behave in a dualistic way, and others who preach dualism behave in a nondualistic way. A rather interesting phenomenon, I would say. Is the ‘discussion’ here supposed to emphasize Ramana’s physical form, his teachings, or “his” ultimate self; and is the enforcement of posting rules here consistent with that? Isn’t Sri Bhagavan he who sometimes seems to disturb our minds as well as he who seems to give us peace? These questions raise another: What is the relationship between Sri Bhagavan and material nature? Sincerely, Pandu Religion and spirituality Ramana maharshi Visit your group "RamanaMaharshi" on the web. RamanaMaharshi How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Shri Pandu Das said: -- Is it the policy of this group to enforce the understanding of Sri Bhagavan as inhabiting a particular localized body that lived during a certain time period? By "his life" does it refer to the activity of his body? Et cetera... Is it held true here that Sri Bhagavan is the very self of all? If so, then how can there be anything directly connected with him (which implies various types of disconnect) or not (which suggests that He is not the true self of all)? Sometimes it seems to me that those who preach nondualism behave in a dualistic way, and others who preach dualism behave in a nondualistic way. A rather interesting phenomenon, I would say. Is the 'discussion' here supposed to emphasize Ramana's physical form, his teachings, or "his" ultimate self; and is the enforcement of posting rules here consistent with that? Isn't Sri Bhagavan he who sometimes seems to disturb our minds as well as he who seems to give us peace? These questions raise another: What is the relationship between Sri Bhagavan and material nature? Sincerely, Pandu ----- Das Saheb, So many questions are raised, as if without a breather. Who is asking all these questions? Self wouldn't be asking since, a statement: "His teachings, His Life", would be then seen to be originating from Self only. It is Pandu Das, the body-mind, that has raised so many queries and thus "His teachings, His Life" is correct. And Das saheb regarding the question "What is the relationship between Sri Bhagavan and material nature?", you may have come across Vamadeva's teaching: "I became the Moon, I became the Sun"? I am referring to Bhagwan The Self. Regards, Atanu Banerjee Om Namah Shivayya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Well, a single written or spoken word itself denotes duality. You lose touch with Bhagwan the moment you (or I) hit the keyboard... or rather the moment the thought we are about to write generates in our mind. But, we have obtained this birth due to past Karma and cannot evade it. We can still live it being in awareness and hence non-attached. And communication is an aspect of human life. As long as one realises the communicator is a shadow projected on the screen of Self, should it matter? Sachin ---- brij sachdeva 05/11/06 10:28:41 RamanaMaharshi Re: [RamanaMaharshi] policies and philosophy I seem to agree with Pandu. Shri Bhagvan was very liberal and accomodated all shades of opinion. He also answered questions according to the leanings of the questioners. Of course this forum should not be used to promote any particular cult or belief which is not tune with the teachings of Maharishi.. Love brij Pandu das <Pandu108.bms > wrote: I?m somewhat confused by this recent statement: ......... ?We reiterate that all posts on this list are devoted to Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, his life, his writings, his works and anything directly connected with him.? .......... Is it the policy of this group to enforce the understanding of Sri Bhagavan as inhabiting a particular localized body that lived during a certain time period? By ?his life? does it refer to the activity of his body? Et cetera ... Is it held true here that Sri Bhagavan is the very self of all? If so, then how can there be anything directly connected with him (which implies various types of disconnect) or not (which suggests that He is not the true self of all)? Sometimes it seems to me that those who preach nondualism behave in a dualistic way, and others who preach dualism behave in a nondualistic way. A rather interesting phenomenon, I would say. Is the ?discussion? here supposed to emphasize Ramana?s physical form, his teachings, or ?his? ultimate self; and is the enforcement of posting rules here consistent with that? Isn?t Sri Bhagavan he who sometimes seems to disturb our minds as well as he who seems to give us peace? These questions raise another: What is the relationship between Sri Bhagavan and material nature? Sincerely, Pandu How low will we go? Check out Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates.. Religion and spirituality Ramana maharshi Visit your group "RamanaMaharshi" on the web. RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Yes, with the first thought comes duality. As long as there is the illusion of thought and someone that is thinking, I want to think thoughts that will help me see that the mind (and ego and any ideas of 'individuals') is just illusion, something objective that is always known by the Self. Not two, Richard Original Message: ----------------- Sachin Chavan chavansachin (AT) hotmail (DOT) com Thu, 11 May 2006 10:58:03 +0530 RamanaMaharshi Re: [RamanaMaharshi] policies and philosophy Well, a single written or spoken word itself denotes duality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 I can respect this. In experience I find my consciousness filled with thoughts and feelings, some subtle and others more gross. Sometimes I conceptualize truth in spiritual relationships and at other times I feel inclined to dissolve the conception of relationships. Often my feeling of nonduality appears objective, like another conception. So at least lately I am not so inclined to imagine that my conception of truth is any better than imagination. Whatever it is, it seems that I cannot experience it as it is. Instead there are just various sensations that paint a distorted picture of reality. Perhaps Ramana Maharshi did not have this problem. Yet due to the distorted lens through which I experience what is, I cannot even relate to him as he is, because while he may speak without the distortion of first thought, my thought is there to corrupt my hearing. Thus I cannot really judge whether his view of reality is true, or if another's teachings are better. It almost seems as though no one can communicate the ultimate to me. Of course, this would also be within the realm of speculation on my part. Often it seems that the real teaching comes from within me, bouncing off of others for my perception. Then as I consider what I've written, I see so many distinctions, between some times and others, between grades of reality, some distance for bouncing, between others and myself, and all these seem to be rooted in my desire for perception. So it seems that there is some truth, but my desire to perceive it puts it at a distance from me. It is like a dream where I chase after a vague treasure but find it always beyond my reach. I long to wake up from this dream, but instead sleep is calling me to dream deeper. There seems to be no end to this mystery, but Ramana gives some hope, and that is nice. Sincerely, Pandu das RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] On Behalf Of Richard Clarke Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:54 AM RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] Re: policies and philosophy Yes, with the first thought comes duality. As long as there is the illusion of thought and someone that is thinking, I want to think thoughts that will help me see that the mind (and ego and any ideas of 'individuals') is just illusion, something objective that is always known by the Self. Not two, Richard Original Message: ----------------- Sachin Chavan chavansachin (AT) hotmail (DOT) com Thu, 11 May 2006 10:58:03 +0530 RamanaMaharshi Re: [RamanaMaharshi] policies and philosophy Well, a single written or spoken word itself denotes duality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 RamanaMaharshi, Pandu das <Pandu108.bms> wrote: > > I can respect this. In experience I find my consciousness filled with thoughts and feelings, some subtle and others more gross. -------Perhaps Ramana Maharshi did not have this problem. Dear Pandu Das Ji, We all have thoughts. Difference between a sage and non-sage is that in case of the sage, the thought is not mistaken as a thought belonging to the body-mind. Thoughts are the forms of Sarvesvara - Pragnya -- the third pada of the Self. Maharshi once said: there is no activity more valuable than the activity of meditatiing on the source of I. It is only when we feel that thoughts pertaining to objects are more urgent/more interesting etc., than the Self, then problems persist. But this is the fundamental problem that needs overcoming with iron will. Let us strive, knowing the Maharshi's saying that one positive step of the ego is rewarded by ten steps of the Atma. Regards. 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.