Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Here's another quote from Sri Ramana about the heart that puts the previous quote in perspective. " I ask you to see where the 'I' arises in your body, but it is not really quite true to say that the 'I' rises from and merges on the right side of the chest. The Heart is another name for the reality, and it is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in or out for it since it alone is. so long as one identifies with the body and thinks that he is in the body, he is advised to see where in the body the 'I'-thought rises and merges again. " -- From " Day By Day With Bhagavan, " 23.5.46. - " alton slater " <lostnfoundation <Realization > Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:25 PM Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > D: For men like me, who have neither the direct experience of the > Heart not the consequent recollection, the matter seems to be > somewhat difficult to grasp. About the position of the Heart itself, > perhaps, we must depend on some sort of guesswork.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Here's another quote from Sri Ramana about the heart that > puts the previous quote in perspective. > > " I ask you to see where the 'I' arises in your body, but it is not > really quite true to say that the 'I' rises from and merges on the > right side of the chest. The Heart is another name for the reality, > and it is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in > or out for it since it alone is. so long as one identifies with the > body and thinks that he is in the body, he is advised to see where > in the body the 'I'-thought rises and merges again. " > > -- From " Day By Day With Bhagavan, " 23.5.46. Hey, that was pretty good, Rob. Cleared that up, nicely. This reminds me of a scene from that old movie, " Shootout at the Ramana Ranch. " Duelling Ramana quotes at twenty paces. At the end of the movie, they were carting out the dead Ramana quote slinger, singing: " As I walked out on the paths of Mt. Arunchula, as I walked out on Arunchala one day, I spied a young sadahka all dressed in white linen, all dressed in white linen and cold as the clay. 'I see by your outfit that you are a jnani,' these words he did say as I slowly walked by. Come sit down beside me and see where my I merges, for I'm struck in the Heart and I'm destined to die. " :-) Be well, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 People who want to know what Sri Ramana really said about the heart center can get a reasonably accurate idea from the relevant chapter in David Godman's anthology " Be As You Are. " - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:27 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Here's another quote from Sri Ramana about the heart that > > puts the previous quote in perspective. > > > > " I ask you to see where the 'I' arises in your body, but it is not > > really quite true to say that the 'I' rises from and merges on the > > right side of the chest. The Heart is another name for the reality, > > and it is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in > > or out for it since it alone is. so long as one identifies with the > > body and thinks that he is in the body, he is advised to see where > > in the body the 'I'-thought rises and merges again. " > > > > -- From " Day By Day With Bhagavan, " 23.5.46. > > > Hey, that was pretty good, Rob. > > Cleared that up, nicely. > > This reminds me of a scene from that old movie, > " Shootout at the Ramana Ranch. " > > Duelling Ramana quotes at twenty paces. > > At the end of the movie, they were carting out > the dead Ramana quote slinger, singing: > > " As I walked out on the paths of Mt. Arunchula, > as I walked out on Arunchala one day, > I spied a young sadahka all dressed in white linen, > all dressed in white linen and cold as the clay. > 'I see by your outfit that you are a jnani,' > these words he did say as I slowly walked by. > Come sit down beside me and see where my I merges, > for I'm struck in the Heart and I'm destined to die. " > > :-) > > Be well, > Dan ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > People who want to know what Sri Ramana really said about > the heart center can get a reasonably accurate idea from the > relevant chapter in David Godman's anthology " Be As You > Are. " Actually, I want to know what you say. You're living. He's dead and gone, and not all the protestations of all the true believers can bring him back. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (a) I say it's counterproductive to look for a heart center in the chest. (b) Einstein's dead too, but it remains true that e=mc^2. © Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as I know. :-) - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:42 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > People who want to know what Sri Ramana really said about > > the heart center can get a reasonably accurate idea from the > > relevant chapter in David Godman's anthology " Be As You > > Are. " > > Actually, I want to know what you say. > > You're living. > > He's dead and gone, and not all the protestations > of all the true believers can bring him back. > > :-) > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 c) Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as I know. Slater: I am. Dinosaurs please come back. The book was great. " If the Dinosaurs come back " . If anyone is interested, Kundalini discussion on this group. INTRINSIC_II/ Love Slater Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > (a) I say it's counterproductive to look for a heart > center in the chest. > > (b) Einstein's dead too, but it remains true that e=mc^2. > > © Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as > I know. > > :-) > > > - > " dan330033 " <dan330033> > <Realization > > Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:42 PM > Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > > > > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > > People who want to know what Sri Ramana really said about > > > the heart center can get a reasonably accurate idea from the > > > relevant chapter in David Godman's anthology " Be As You > > > Are. " > > > > Actually, I want to know what you say. > > > > You're living. > > > > He's dead and gone, and not all the protestations > > of all the true believers can bring him back. > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > Email addresses: > > Post message: Realization > > Un: Realization- > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > http://www.realization.org > > ................................................ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > (a) I say it's counterproductive to look for a heart > center in the chest. > > (b) Einstein's dead too, but it remains true that e=mc^2. > > © Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as > I know. > > :-) Well, I guess you just haven't been around. And if you think the truth that you are can be summed up by an equation -- guess again! :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Realization , " alton slater " <lostnfoundation> wrote: > c) Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as > I know. > > Slater: I am. Dinosaurs please come back. The book was great. " If > the Dinosaurs come back " . > > > If anyone is interested, Kundalini discussion on this group. > INTRINSIC_II/ > > Love Slater I think you should, instead, invite everyone to a Dinosaurs Coming Back group. Instead of promoting feel-good spiritualized silliness, you could just outright be silly! More simple, direct, and satisfying! Love, Danielsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 > Instead of promoting feel-good spiritualized silliness, > you could just outright be silly! > > More simple, direct, and satisfying! > > Love, > Danielsan Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 .. > > Instead of promoting feel-good spiritualized silliness, > you could just outright be silly! > > More simple, direct, and satisfying! > > Love, > Danielsan Feel-good spiritualized silliness Is the way to go for goat billiness Why cant you let things announce Just like it is and not pounce We goats are happy seeking and pronouncing We dont need you so called " Realized " trouncing Love, Slatersan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 > Feel-good spiritualized silliness > Is the way to go for goat billiness > > Why cant you let things announce > Just like it is and not pounce > > We goats are happy seeking and pronouncing > We dont need you so called " Realized " trouncing > > Love, > Slatersan Who's pouncing on whom? Being trounced by realization is a good thing. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Dear Dansan: I smell a Realized bean (sic) Are you? Will you tell us all about it. Everything we wanted to know and were just plain scared of it? Or are you one of those who has trepidations about a guilty EGO? Any person some person thanks in retreat or advanced. Love, Slatersan. Realization , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Feel-good spiritualized silliness > > Is the way to go for goat billiness > > > > Why cant you let things announce > > Just like it is and not pounce > > > > We goats are happy seeking and pronouncing > > We dont need you so called " Realized " trouncing > > > > Love, > > Slatersan > > Who's pouncing on whom? > > Being trounced by realization is a good thing. > > :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Realization , " alton slater " <lostnfoundation> wrote: > Dear Dansan: > I smell a Realized bean (sic) > Are you? Will you tell us all about it. Everything we wanted to know > and were just plain scared of it? > Or are you one of those who has trepidations about a guilty EGO? > Any person some person thanks in retreat or advanced. > Love, > Slatersan. I like dialogue about topics like this, Alton, I think they're fun -- and I'll do my best to answer. I'd enjoy hearing how you'd answer what you just asked, as well, if you'd care to. Realization I don't consider to be a personal possession in any way, shape, or form. And if one asks a question about realization from being outside of it, one precludes the actuality of this truth. What I mean is, to see a realized being outside of oneself doesn't really do much good, just perpetuates a stance that precludes the actuality of " this " as is. What answer could a being assumed to be outside give, that would make clear that nothing is outside, and no knowledge from an outside source is required? It is as if the ocean were asking a fish the question, " What is the nature of water? " while believing that water is something that the ocean lacks and needs to get into. Whatever the fish might say, would give an idea of how water is experienced while swimming through it. But couldn't give to the ocean what the ocean already is -- all the water simultaneously, neither in need of, or wanting of getting or having water, or an explanation of what water is. If the fish said, " But you already are the ocean, " wouldn't it be funny if the ocean would say, " Oh yes, I just need to keep that fish around to remind me of this, and I need to keep remembering that there's nothing I need to do or get, because I already am the ocean. " Well, no, none of that is necessary. To already always be the ocean has nothing to do with the idea or words, " I always already am the ocean. " That doesn't add anything to ocean-ness. Also, all the water is already included, as is. All of it. None of it needs to be changed, or made into something different. There isn't more water in one spot, and less water in another spot. Of course, this is difficult for us humans. It means there isn't more water in " Ramana " than in " Adolph. " But the point is just that Ramana wasn't looking to get water, but Adolph had an insatiable desire to try to get more and more water (power) if possible. Most of us are trying to get more water in some form or other. Very few are so clear as to know the water exactly as it is, without any need to grab or hold. Yet, if one is clear, then that one includes all the water simultaneously, and isn't any more inclusive of Ramana and any less inclusive of Adolph. Sorry for running on like this, it's very late here, and I tend to run on when a bit tired. So, lots of love, gotta get some sleep now :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Wow Dan: What great clarity. I will get back later, Slater Realization , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Realization , " alton slater " > <lostnfoundation> wrote: > > Dear Dansan: > > I smell a Realized bean (sic) > > Are you? Will you tell us all about it. Everything we wanted to > know > > and were just plain scared of it? > > Or are you one of those who has trepidations about a guilty EGO? > > Any person some person thanks in retreat or advanced. > > Love, > > Slatersan. > > I like dialogue about topics like this, Alton, > I think they're fun -- and I'll do my best to answer. > > I'd enjoy hearing how you'd answer what you just asked, > as well, if you'd care to. > > Realization I don't consider to be a personal > possession in any way, shape, or form. > > And if one asks a question about realization from being outside > of it, one precludes the actuality of this truth. > > What I mean is, to see a realized being outside of oneself > doesn't really do much good, just perpetuates a stance > that precludes the actuality of " this " as is. > > What answer could a being assumed to be outside give, > that would make clear that nothing is outside, > and no knowledge from an outside source is required? > > It is as if the ocean were asking a fish the question, > " What is the nature of water? " while believing that > water is something that the ocean lacks and needs > to get into. > > Whatever the fish might say, would give an idea of how > water is experienced while swimming through it. > > But couldn't give to the ocean what the ocean already > is -- all the water simultaneously, neither in need of, > or wanting of getting or having water, or an explanation > of what water is. > > If the fish said, " But you already are the ocean, " > wouldn't it be funny if the ocean would say, > " Oh yes, I just need to keep that fish around to > remind me of this, and I need to keep remembering > that there's nothing I need to do or get, > because I already am the ocean. " > > Well, no, none of that is necessary. To already always > be the ocean has nothing to do with the idea or words, > " I always already am the ocean. " That doesn't add > anything to ocean-ness. Also, all the water is already > included, as is. All of it. None of it needs to be > changed, or made into something different. There isn't > more water in one spot, and less water in another spot. > > Of course, this is difficult for us humans. It means there > isn't more water in " Ramana " than in " Adolph. " > > But the point is just that Ramana wasn't looking to get > water, but Adolph had an insatiable desire to try to > get more and more water (power) if possible. > > Most of us are trying to get more water in some form or > other. Very few are so clear as to know the water exactly > as it is, without any need to grab or hold. Yet, if one > is clear, then that one includes all the water simultaneously, > and isn't any more inclusive of Ramana and any less > inclusive of Adolph. > > Sorry for running on like this, it's very late here, and > I tend to run on when a bit tired. So, lots of love, > gotta get some sleep now :-) > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 I like dialogue about topics like this, Alton, I think they're fun -- and I'll do my best to answer. I'd enjoy hearing how you'd answer what you just asked, as well, if you'd care to. ***Slater: I don't have any desire to Realize because it would only be an experience out of one's true nature. But I do want to master the technology that would give me the mental power and skills to not have any unwanted discursive thoughts and reactions. I want to destroy not Realize. The old sages' teachings are somewhat enslaving and with new technology that will soon appear, one will upload all their pesky mental tendencies and recordings that created them. When that is accomplished the Self (blissful attention) will shine as bright as 6 suns. Realization I don't consider to be a personal possession in any way, shape, or form. ***Slater: Even if you did, would it matter? And if one asks a question about realization from being outside of it, one precludes the actuality of this truth. ***Slater: Some of us need role models to motivate us to attend to practice, which most of the sages recommend. What I mean is, to see a realized being outside of oneself doesn't really do much good, just perpetuates a stance that precludes the actuality of " this " as is. ***Slater: Are you saying that seeing a Realized being outside of oneself precludes her/him from being the unicity? What answer could a being assumed to be outside give, that would make clear that nothing is outside, and no knowledge from an outside source is required? ***Slater: The stuff I read from the souls of Ramana and Nisargadatta gave answers and directions to remove obfuscations that continue the ILLUSION. It is as if the ocean were asking a fish the question, " What is the nature of water? " while believing that water is something that the ocean lacks and needs to get into. ***Slater: This fish asks and sometimes gets answers from the ocean that gives him faith and hope. Whatever the fish might say, would give an idea of how water is experienced while swimming through it. ***Slater: Yes, but if the fish is deluded by separateness, then the answer may somehow short out his defensiveness and the " explosion my occur. But couldn't give to the ocean what the ocean already is -- all the water simultaneously, neither in need of, or wanting of getting or having water, or an explanation of what water is. If the fish said, " But you already are the ocean, " wouldn't it be funny if the ocean would say, " Oh yes, I just need to keep that fish around to remind me of this, and I need to keep remembering that there's nothing I need to do or get, because I already am the ocean. " ***Slater says that. So what. It is only intellectualizations. Well, no, none of that is necessary. To already always be the ocean has nothing to do with the idea or words, " I always already am the ocean. " That doesn't add anything to ocean-ness. Also, all the water is already included, as is. All of it. None of it needs to be changed, or made into something different. There isn't more water in one spot, and less water in another spot. ***Slater: So Dan you are in the " do nothing " camp.? Of course, this is difficult for us humans. It means there isn't more water in " Ramana " than in " Adolph. " But the point is just that Ramana wasn't looking to get water, but Adolph had an insatiable desire to try to get more and more water (power) if possible. ***Slater: Ramana may have been in repose and soon will desire to go to higher levels as Sri Aurobindo says there are. My Buddhist teaches said that Ramana was at a very high state of Universal Consciousness, but not finished as far as the Buddhist model goes. Most of us are trying to get more water in some form or other. Very few are so clear as to know the water exactly as it is, without any need to grab or hold. Yet, if one is clear, then that one includes all the water simultaneously, and isn't any more inclusive of Ramana and any less inclusive of Adolph. ***Slater wants to completely destroy his existence although living an extraordinary gifted life in paradise, because he knows that it will surely end in disaster. To do the aforesaid he will take his attention off all objects appearing in consciousness until his personage is defunct. Sorry for running on like this, it's very late here, and I tend to run on when a bit tired. So, lots of love, gotta get some sleep now :-) ***Slater: Who is this dualistic guy that has to say " sorry " . Love, Roshi Slater Slaters disclaimer. He may not be a match for this guy Dan who evidentally holds multiple PHD'S -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 > And if you think the truth that you are > can be summed up by an equation -- > guess again! Oh, come on. You know I don't believe anything of the kind. The main value of Ramana Maharshi's recorded talks, in my opinion, is that they advocate a strategy for noticing something which cannot be conveyed by an equation or any other symbols. The value of these writings was unchanged by his death. A typical conversation went like this: Visitor: What is realization? What is to be realized? RM: Find out for yourself. Visitor: How? RM: Pay attention to " I " instead of the things the " I " is seeing. - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Friday, December 12, 2003 2:32 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > (a) I say it's counterproductive to look for a heart > > center in the chest. > > > > (b) Einstein's dead too, but it remains true that e=mc^2. > > > > © Nobody is trying to bring anybody back, so far as > > I know. > > > > :-) > > Well, I guess you just haven't been around. > > And if you think the truth that you are > can be summed up by an equation -- > guess again! > > :-) > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > And if you think the truth that you are > > can be summed up by an equation -- > > guess again! > > Oh, come on. You know I don't believe anything of > the kind. > > The main value of Ramana Maharshi's recorded talks, in > my opinion, is that they advocate a strategy for noticing > something which cannot be conveyed by an equation > or any other symbols. The value of these writings was > unchanged by his death. > > A typical conversation went like this: > > Visitor: What is realization? What is to be > realized? > > RM: Find out for yourself. > > Visitor: How? > > RM: Pay attention to " I " instead of the things the " I " > is seeing. > > *****Slater: If the " I " cant see itself than all you find are sensations that are perceived by the knowing faculty of the mind. But if you come in with a trace capacity like Ramana did and few do, then you can go into Samadhi and maybe short out the mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 > > *****Slater: If the " I " cant see itself than all you find are > sensations that are perceived by the knowing faculty of the mind. If that's really all that's there, then why are you convinced that you're an " I " ? What creates that impression? > > But if you come in with a trace capacity like Ramana did and few do, > then you can go into Samadhi and maybe short out the mind. I assume you meant to type " trance. " One of the interesting things about Franklin Merrell-Wolff, the author that you and I talked about recently in private emails, is that he got this method to work without ever going into a trance. (In other words, he was never in a state where thoughts or perceptions stopped.) - " alton slater " <lostnfoundation <Realization > Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:25 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 > Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > > And if you think the truth that you are > > > can be summed up by an equation -- > > > guess again! > > > > Oh, come on. You know I don't believe anything of > > the kind. > > > > The main value of Ramana Maharshi's recorded talks, in > > my opinion, is that they advocate a strategy for noticing > > something which cannot be conveyed by an equation > > or any other symbols. The value of these writings was > > unchanged by his death. > > > > A typical conversation went like this: > > > > Visitor: What is realization? What is to be > > realized? > > > > RM: Find out for yourself. > > > > Visitor: How? > > > > RM: Pay attention to " I " instead of the things the " I " > > is seeing. > > > > *****Slater: If the " I " cant see itself than all you find are > sensations that are perceived by the knowing faculty of the mind. > But if you come in with a trace capacity like Ramana did and few do, > then you can go into Samadhi and maybe short out the mind. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > > *****Slater: If the " I " cant see itself than all you find are > > sensations that are perceived by the knowing faculty of the mind. > > If that's really all that's there, then why are you convinced > that you're an " I " ? Slater again: I am not intellectually convinced that I am an " I " , but experiencially that I am an " I " , because I seem to act on what the thoughts keep instructing me to do or not act when I think those thoughts are from some other " I " fragments that I wont accept totally as me. > > What creates that impression? > > > > But if you come in with a trace capacity like Ramana did and few do, > > then you can go into Samadhi and maybe short out the mind. > > I assume you meant to type " trance. " One of the interesting > things about Franklin Merrell-Wolff, the author that you and I > talked about recently in private emails, is that he got this method > to work without ever going into a trance. (In other words, he > was never in a state where thoughts or perceptions stopped.) Slater again: You told me that the book was not worth reading so how can you believe what he presented? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 > Slater again: I am not intellectually convinced that I am an " I " , > but experiencially that I am an " I " , because I seem to act on what > the thoughts keep instructing me to do or not act when I think those > thoughts are from some other " I " fragments that I wont accept > totally as me. Ramana Maharshi might reply: " Who is this 'me' you talk about who gets instructed? " The point being that before you can have this conversation with yourself, you must already believe that you are an " I " who has thoughts. > Slater again: You told me that the book was not worth reading so how > can you believe what he presented? What I actually said about the book is that it's difficult to read and that my interest in it was due to a small aspect of it, and therefore, I didn't recommend it to you. None of that has anything to do with whether I believed what the author said. I *did* believe what he said. In fact he strikes me as probably the most meticulous observer and reporter on this subject of any author that I've encountered. - " alton slater " <lostnfoundation <Realization > Sunday, December 14, 2003 5:17 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > Slater again: I am not intellectually convinced that I am an " I " , > > but experiencially that I am an " I " , because I seem to act on what > > the thoughts keep instructing me to do or not act when I think those > > thoughts are from some other " I " fragments that I wont accept > > totally as me. > > Ramana Maharshi might reply: " Who is this 'me' you talk > about who gets instructed? " > > The point being that before you can have this conversation > with yourself, you must already believe that you are an " I " > who has thoughts. > > > Slater again: You told me that the book was not worth reading so how > > can you believe what he presented? > > What I actually said about the book is that it's difficult to read and > that my interest in it was due to a small aspect of it, and therefore, > I didn't recommend it to you. > > None of that has anything to do with whether I believed what the > author said. I *did* believe what he said. In fact he strikes me > as probably the most meticulous observer and reporter on this > subject of any author that I've encountered. slater*** So you are saying that this guy has the same exact Realization as Ramana? Is his mind silent except when asked questions or reading as Ramana said about himself? If the above answer is yes then can he give transmissions like Ramana? If not then how can his Realization be equal to Ramanas? TIA. Love, Slater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 > slater*** So you are saying that this guy has the same exact > Realization as Ramana? I didn't say that. > Is his mind silent except when asked > questions or reading as Ramana said about himself? Where did Sri Ramana say this? It doesn't sound familiar to me. Merrell-Wolff says that his mind was often active after realization in ways that fascinated him. He also says that at the moment of realization his mind was active. In fact, he believes that in his case, mental activity was a causal factor leading to realization. He has a lot of interesting things to say about thoughts and mental silence and their relation to consciousness-without-an-object, which is his name for the Self. > > If the above answer is yes then can he give transmissions like > Ramana? He says that susceptible people were often affected in his physical presence by a " current " that he himself felt. It sounds like the same phenomenon that occurred around Sri Ramana. Neither of them regarded it as a " transmission, " so far as I know. - " alton slater " <lostnfoundation <Realization > Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:52 PM Re: Ramana The heart is the Self #4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > > And if you think the truth that you are > > can be summed up by an equation -- > > guess again! > > Oh, come on. You know I don't believe anything of > the kind. I didn't say you believed that, Rob. I simply responded to you posting A. Einstein's formula as a relevant example of truth. And it's an " if " " then " observation -- I certainly didn't say that I know what you believe or don't believe. If the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it? :-) > The main value of Ramana Maharshi's recorded talks, in > my opinion, is that they advocate a strategy for noticing > something which cannot be conveyed by an equation > or any other symbols. The value of these writings was > unchanged by his death. > > A typical conversation went like this: > > Visitor: What is realization? What is to be > realized? > > RM: Find out for yourself. > > Visitor: How? > > RM: Pay attention to " I " instead of the things the " I " > is seeing. Citing Ramana to say this and referring people to records of his talks doesn't help much, because he's not alive to respond to those people. You, on the other hand, are here and can speak to what works for you. Ramana is dead. And who knows what is working for him now, or where? Here you are, a living one, who can say what works for you. How has the teaching you cited worked for you? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 > slater*** So you are saying that this guy has the same exact > Realization as Ramana? I didn't say that. slater: Then is he? If your answer is no, then there is no standard Realization. It all is in the imagination of the Jiva; Which I truly believe at this time, subject to my own " transformation " . > Is his mind silent except when asked > questions or reading as Ramana said about himself? Where did Sri Ramana say this? It doesn't sound familiar to me. Slater: I believe it is in the current book I am posting from, " The Spiritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi " . I could try to find the exact passage, but then you have said a lot of this stuff in not authentic. Merrell-Wolff says that his mind was often active after realization in ways that fascinated him. He also says that at the moment of realization his mind was active. In fact, he believes that in his case, mental activity was a causal factor leading to realization. He has a lot of interesting things to say about thoughts and mental silence and their relation to consciousness-without-an-object, which is his name for the Self. > > If the above answer is yes then can he give transmissions like > Ramana? He says that susceptible people were often affected in his physical presence by a " current " that he himself felt. It sounds like the same phenomenon that occurred around Sri Ramana. Neither of them regarded it as a " transmission, " so far as I know. slater: When that guy come is writhing in pain from a snake bite and no one dared to interfere and Ramana just looked at him until he fell to sleep, he had to know that some incredible power was coming through him. Do you also think that story about the snake bit is spurious? Also in " Talks " Ramana said to U.G. " I can give it but can you take it " If that is not " transmission " then my name is mud. Rob, I know what your comment will be. hehehehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Dan said: " Citing Ramana to say this and referring people to records of his talks doesn't help much, because he's not alive to respond to those people. You, on the other hand, are here and can speak to what works for you. Ramana is dead. And who knows what is working for him now, or where? Here you are, a living one, who can say what works for you. How has the teaching you cited worked for you? " -- Dan slater: This is so good Dan. I am going to either quote you or use it for myself. Thanks, slater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Realization , " slater " <lostnfoundation> wrote: > Dan said: " Citing Ramana to say this and > referring people to records of his talks doesn't > help much, because he's not alive to respond > to those people. > > You, on the other hand, are here > and can speak to what works for you. > > Ramana is dead. And who knows what is working for him now, > or where? > > Here you are, a living one, who can say > what works for you. > > How has the teaching you cited worked for you? " > > -- Dan > > slater: This is so good Dan. I am going to either quote you or use > it for myself. > Thanks, > slater Okay, Slater. Glad you liked it! Welcome, Dan 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.