Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Dear Rob: As Nisargadatta said: Some individuals are given the power.... I say you have been given superior brains. I will have to study more to reply, so please wait. Also, I may be getting older by not more mature. LOL. And just as soon as I Realize the Self, I would like you to me my spokesperson. Metta, Alton Realization , " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> 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 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...
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.