Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Hi Tyrone; I was trying to take the hard side of the argument. Rob is too smart for me. However although the " I " or " I Am " sense of conscious presence is the only meditation I am now doing, because it makes the most sense to me. However I am not 100 percent convinced that the aforesaid mental state facilitates all the other mental states. I will have to get some feedback from a philosophy professor friend when I get around to it. Maybe I will type in the philosophy of the " I Am " on google. The reason I still have some qualms about it is because that primary object is supposedly not present as an object in Ramana and Saradamma. So how can they still function like most of us do? U.G Krishnamurti says there is a declutching process. Therefore if that is true then there is still dualism at least available to them. Rob or Tyrone, I am sure will offer something on this too or anyone reading this. Anyway maybe this group just woke up. Metta, Alton Realization , tyrone martin <arunachala_1008> wrote: > Hi Alton > > i usually dont responde to the messages from my , just usually casually browse. because there is alot of serious philosophy goin on at the advaitin group, which theyre usually talkin about the same thin but in different ways. and well i dont know what goes on at this one. i really liked your first one about takin a pill or somethin so that we could attain nirvana instantly. very funny. and convincing. but anyways the title of this post caught my eye immediatly. Ramana wrong.? well im still not sure of which Ramana your talking about but i want to address what you said about the aham vritti cuz im not exactly sure what your implying. i understood your explanation of how the aham vritti is the first of its kind (vritti), but not sure what you meant by Ramana was wrong because of this?? > > warmest regards, > tyrone > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 Hi Alton, > However I am not 100 percent convinced that the aforesaid > mental state facilitates all the other mental states. What makes you so sure that your " aforesaid mental state " is the thing that Ramana is talking about? > I will have to get some feedback from a philosophy professor > friend when I get around to it. If I tell you " limes look green, " I'm not discussing philosophy. I'm making a generalization on the basis of my immediate experience. In the same way, it's possible that Ramana is not discussing philosophy here. Maybe he sees immediately that the I-thought must be active in order for representations of objects to be experienced, just as you or I see immediately that limes look green. On the other hand, let's suppose a Martian scientist comes to earth to study humans. And let's suppose that Martians are blind. If that scientist says exactly the same thing -- " limes look green " -- the statement is, at best, a conclusion based on scientific research, i.e., a kind of philosophy. In short, the statement that " limes look green " is a report of experience when you say it, but it becomes philosophy when the blind Martian says it. (This distinction isn't really so cut-and-dried in reality, but it's useful for purposes of discussion.) In the same way, it's possible that Ramana is mainly reporting his immediate experience when he tells us that thoughts can happen only when the I-thought is active. And it's possible that with regard to this issue, you and I are like the blind Martian. We are not equipped to see the matter directly, so we approach it as a matter for conjecture and deduction. But it does not necessarily follow that Ramana is making conjectures or deductions. Now let me switch gears. It so happens that this issue is one of the most famous questions in Western philosophy, because something very similar to Ramana's assertion lies at the heart of the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the chapter on the " synthetic unity of apperception. " I find it fascinating that Kant and Ramana seem to agree on this point. They were both *very* smart people.. I would hesitate to argue against them on this point unless I were sure that (a) I *really* understood what they are saying and (b) I had had the experience that Ramana is describing. I'm pretty sure that for me, neither (a) or (b) is true. Cheers old buddy, Rob Let me give you an example. - " Master of Change " <lostnfoundation <Realization > Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:44 AM Ramana was wrong.. Re: Self Inquiry Theory > Hi Tyrone; > I was trying to take the hard side of the argument. Rob is too smart > for me. > > However although the " I " or " I Am " sense of conscious presence is > the only meditation I am now doing, because it makes the most sense > to me. However I am not 100 percent convinced that the aforesaid > mental state facilitates all the other mental states. I will have to > get some feedback from a philosophy professor friend when I get > around to it. Maybe I will type in the philosophy of the " I Am " on > google. The reason I still have some qualms about it is because that > primary object is supposedly not present as an object in Ramana and > Saradamma. So how can they still function like most of us do? U.G > Krishnamurti says there is a declutching process. Therefore if that > is true then there is still dualism at least available to them. > Rob or Tyrone, I am sure will offer something on this too or anyone > reading this. > > Anyway maybe this group just woke up. > > Metta, > Alton > > Realization , tyrone martin > <arunachala_1008> wrote: > > Hi Alton > > > > i usually dont responde to the messages from my , just > usually casually browse. because there is alot of serious philosophy > goin on at the advaitin group, which theyre usually talkin about the > same thin but in different ways. and well i dont know what goes on > at this one. i really liked your first one about takin a pill or > somethin so that we could attain nirvana instantly. very funny. and > convincing. but anyways the title of this post caught my eye > immediatly. Ramana wrong.? well im still not sure of which Ramana > your talking about but i want to address what you said about the > aham vritti cuz im not exactly sure what your implying. i understood > your explanation of how the aham vritti is the first of its kind > (vritti), but not sure what you meant by Ramana was wrong because of > this?? > > > > warmest regards, > > tyrone > > > > > > > ..........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 September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 hey Rob and hey Alton i think the mental state or postion taken in the mind that come before all others is called the bindu in sanskrit. though i am in the same boat, i dont fully understand how reality is seen from a non dual perspective. but i think a big part is in the chakras, and the ajna chakra, which has also been made synonomous by some of the yoga writers with the pineal gland loaced in the brain , right behind the eyes. and well some scientitsts have made discoveries that it also controls factors of identity of the individual. but all of that is in the air, not very concrete. oh ya and how the jivamuktas keep on living in this world , well i got a quote to help: "Questioner: Sri Bhagavan has written that one should not show advaita (non- duality) in one¹s activities. Why so? All are one. Why differences?Bhagavan: If you saw someone molesting a woman would you let him go, thinking, "All is one?" There is a scriptural story about this. Some people once gathered together to test whether it is true, as said in the Bhagavad Gita, that a jnani (sage) sees everything as one. They took a brahmin (a member of the highest Hindu caste system), a cow, an elephant and a dog to the court of King Janaka, who was a jnani. When all had arrived, King Janaka sent the brahmin to the place of brahmins, the cow to its shed, the elephant to the place allotted to elephants, and the dog to its kennel. He then ordered his servants to take care of his guests and feed them all appropriate food. The people asked, "Why did you separate them individually? Is not everything one and the same for you?""Yes, all are one," replied Janaka, ³but self-satisfaction varies according to the nature of the individual. Will a man eat the straw eaten by the cow? Will the cow enjoy the food that a man eats? One should only give what is satisfactory to each individual, whether person or animal. Although the same man may play the role of all the characters in a play, his actions will be determined by the role that he is playing at each moment. In the role of a king, he will sit on a throne and rule. If the same person takes on the role of a servant, he will carry the sandals of his master and follow him. His real self is neither increased nor decreased while he plays these roles. The Jnani never forgets that he himself has played all these roles in the past.²~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~From the booklet, "BHAGAVAN RAMANA ANSWERS 100 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS," compiled by A. R. Natarajan, published by Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning, Bangalore. the last line is very interesting part for the theory of karma, that the jnani has played all the roles,. i wonder if the literal meaning is that the jnani individual has actually incarnated as 'x' amount of things which are seemingly infinite, or just that jnani knows that all individuals are within him , and can draw from that knowledge to deal with things in the world. all i try to do is put myself at the door of the Lord, and be patient if i wonder away, i have to bring myself back. till the light of nirvana comes through. ~tyrone om namah shivayaRob Sacks <editor wrote: Hi Alton,> However I am not 100 percent convinced that the aforesaid > mental state facilitates all the other mental states. What makes you so sure that your "aforesaid mental state"is the thing that Ramana is talking about?> I will have to get some feedback from a philosophy professor > friend when I get around to it. If I tell you "limes look green," I'm not discussing philosophy. I'm making a generalization on the basis of myimmediate experience.In the same way, it's possible that Ramana is not discussingphilosophy here. Maybe he sees immediately that the I-thoughtmust be active in order for representations of objects to beexperienced, just as you or I see immediately that limes look green.On the other hand, let's suppose a Martian scientist comes to earth to study humans. And let's suppose that Martians areblind. If that scientist says exactly the same thing -- "limes lookgreen" -- the statement is, at best, a conclusionbased on scientific research, i.e., a kind of philosophy.In short, the statement that "limes look green" is a report of experience when you say it, but it becomes philosophy when the blind Martian says it. (This distinction isn't reallyso cut-and-dried in reality, but it's useful for purposes ofdiscussion.)In the same way, it's possible that Ramana is mainly reportinghis immediate experience when he tells us that thoughts canhappen only when the I-thought is active. And it's possiblethat with regard to this issue, you and I are like the blindMartian. We are not equipped to see the matter directly,so we approach it as a matter for conjecture and deduction.But it does not necessarily follow that Ramana is makingconjectures or deductions.Now let me switch gears. It so happens that this issue isone of the most famous questions in Western philosophy,because something very similar to Ramana's assertion liesat the heart of the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the chapter on the "synthetic unity of apperception."I find it fascinating that Kant and Ramana seem to agree onthis point. They were both *very* smart people..I would hesitate to argue against them on this point unlessI were sure that (a) I *really* understood what they are sayingand (b) I had had the experience that Ramana is describing.I'm pretty sure that for me, neither (a) or (b) is true.Cheers old buddy,RobLet me give you an example. - "Master of Change" <lostnfoundation<Realization >Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:44 AM Ramana was wrong.. Re: Self Inquiry Theory> Hi Tyrone;> I was trying to take the hard side of the argument. Rob is too smart > for me.> > However although the "I" or "I Am" sense of conscious presence is > the only meditation I am now doing, because it makes the most sense > to me. However I am not 100 percent convinced that the aforesaid > mental state facilitates all the other mental states. I will have to > get some feedback from a philosophy professor friend when I get > around to it. Maybe I will type in the philosophy of the "I Am" on > google. The reason I still have some qualms about it is because that > primary object is supposedly not present as an object in Ramana and > Saradamma. So how can they still function like most of us do? U.G > Krishnamurti says there is a declutching process. Therefore if that > is true then there is still dualism at least available to them.> Rob or Tyrone, I am sure will offer something on this too or anyone > reading this.> > Anyway maybe this group just woke up.> > Metta,> Alton> > Realization , tyrone martin > <arunachala_1008> wrote:> > Hi Alton> > > > i usually dont responde to the messages from my , just > usually casually browse. because there is alot of serious philosophy > goin on at the advaitin group, which theyre usually talkin about the > same thin but in different ways. and well i dont know what goes on > at this one. i really liked your first one about takin a pill or > somethin so that we could attain nirvana instantly. very funny. and > convincing. but anyways the title of this post caught my eye > immediatly. Ramana wrong.? well im still not sure of which Ramana > your talking about but i want to address what you said about the > aham vritti cuz im not exactly sure what your implying. i understood > your explanation of how the aham vritti is the first of its kind > (vritti), but not sure what you meant by Ramana was wrong because of > this?? > > > > warmest regards,> > tyrone> > > > > > > ..........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...
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.