Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 Nisargadatta, " viorica weissman " <viorica@z...> wrote: > > > " Retain at heart the sense of non-duality > but never express it in action. " > > Sri Ramana Maharshi ------------------------ I don't understand this. Who is to express anything in action. It is all One movement. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 Yes. What Ramana may be pointing to is what Taoists call " wu wei " or nonaction. However, wu wei is also evident as seamless action, that is, action that moves unselfconsciously without any separation from a situation. So, the full statement is " wei wu-wei " , the action of non-action. Taking wise words of instruction as something to retain at heart, as some kind of " sense of nonduality " to be kept, is a way of trying to avoid loss. This is the dilemma of the spiritual aspirant, who will never " know " until everything thought " spiritual " is released, until whatever sense of nonduality has been retained, or can be retained, dissolves, along with the " retainer. " What can be retained is old, depends on someone keeping it. What is new has never been known, will never be found, is not the result of keeping " wise words " with oneself. Jesus said, " Don't try to keep new wine in old wineskins. " (I guess we're lucky to have bottles these days :-) This is simply a matter of " readiness " , as nothing can occur out of synch with " totality " ... To think of nonduality as something that can be expressed or not expressed is rather funny. Is there something else expressing? A nonduality that can be kept in one place but not expressed someplace else? -- Dan Nisargadatta, " elizabeth_wells2001 " <elizabeth_wells2001> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " viorica weissman " <viorica@z...> wrote: > > > > > > " Retain at heart the sense of non-duality > > but never express it in action. " > > > > Sri Ramana Maharshi > > ------------------------ > > I don't understand this. > > Who is to express anything in action. > > It is all One movement. > > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 --- viorica weissman <viorica wrote: > > > " Retain at heart the sense of non-duality > but never express it in action. " > > Sri Ramana Maharshi Ah, i want to hear moooore..as this is presently my main point...all comments welcomed...forget all the intellectual games, just spek up, thanks, i need some guidance...well i do not...but I think that if talked about my understanding will deepen ...ha this is crazy but anyhow...chat on, please. caiti Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 --- vioricail <viorica wrote: > and Self-realization is a 'privilege' of the sages > and of 'other' very rare 'souls' , and not what is > going on on the Internet ; > > i have to use the " ' " since many understand the > teachings as a war declaration to words. > > unfortunately. ??? Now, I do not understand THAT (no joke here attempted) caiti Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 very,very sorry for all the terrible typos, guys, iron your brains caiti Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 Yes El, Utter spucatam tauri. So much so, the dude in the diaper would not have prattled such. Chikoooo Chikoooo Chikooooo Sandeep - elizabeth_wells2001 Nisargadatta Thursday, December 13, 2001 02:41 AM Re: Ramana Maharsi - non-duality Nisargadatta, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote:> > > " Retain at heart the sense of non-duality> but never express it in action."> > Sri Ramana Maharshi------------------------I don't understand this.Who is to express anything in action.It is all One movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Hiya Vickki, - viorica weissman Nisargadatta Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:46 PM Re: Ramana Maharsi - non-duality Hi Sandeep , i wonder is there other sage in this century drawing peoples' love so strong even now when he is not in a body anymore ? there are many who doubt 'is this what Ramana said ?' San: Vickki, the dude in the diaper was one of the brightest light that ever shown in phenomenality. Ever. However, you know the dude prattled in Tamil, a language which is extremely difficult for a translation to be effected into vernacular Tamil, let alone into a second language. And let alone into a non-India language like English. Secondly the translators were invaribly not in the same space of beingness as Ramana and often what is attributed to Ramana, is plain bull-shit. Filtered versions, through conditioning-in-the-moment. Not that it is only the case with Ramana, but with any dude who is no more around to clarify and correct the understanding when words are trying to describe "that" which conceives "words" itself. For example, the dude that prattled "there is no creation, there is no destruction", cannot prescribe a code of conduct, no matter how many text or stanzas of Ramana, you throw at me indicating to the contrary. A significant percentage of I AM That, supposedly to have been a chronicle of the prattlings of the dude with the Beedi, is bumkum nonsense I love Ramana, but if he was in front of me, even "there is no creation, there is no destruction" would not get prattled. Arrogance of Sandeep? So be it. Amen. ----------- but was there a single time when Ramana didn't speak to the being in front of him identifying himself/herself with his/her mind and didn't he speak so to help and be clearly understood ? didn't he care that his devotees would understand him right ? San: Oh indeed. That's what happens with all true sages. But if you are not physically present in that milieu, in that moment, don't trust somebody's report of it, even if it is the dude himself or herself. The only way to know what Ramana spoke or did not speak, is to be "a" Ramana. So to say. ---------- one should treat a mother as a mother , a guru as a guru , San: Any behaviour or action that arises out of a "should", has a stench, Vickki. Appropriate if it happens, but you cannot perfume it. ------one shouldn't bring bitterness to another ; true teaching is not aggressive ; in this one movement people scream in pain and don't understand the one movementand most of them can't identify themselves with the one movement. San: You and I have walked much. Have a look at what you have shared there, in light of the walking. If you care to, that is. Otherwise, Amen. ---------they are to be treated as Ramana did. at this moment in my life i care about this and i value and loveRamana even more ; San: Sure. The issue is not Ramana or X, Y, Z. ------- did he care about how his words sound or did he care to help that particular being to understand ? San: Ramana has moved on, let him be. ----------- if i explain something to my son i use my normal way of speaking or i choose other words to be sure that he understands me ? San: Sure. Whatever. ----- i don't have to tell you how easy it is to speak as if . San eh? Come again. ----- i rather wish to be friends whenever possible , San: Was that a general statement, or was that directed to me personally?<s> If personally, naaaaah Vickki, what's the fight about? Ramana would have danced the hoopla, if I went Dooooo Beeeee Dooooo, in front of him. Love that guy, Vickki. Dude of the first waters. Chikooooo Chikooooo Chikoooooo Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Dear Viorica -- Do you really believe this? > and Self-realization is a 'privilege' of the sages > and of 'other' very rare 'souls' , and not what is > going on on the Internet ; Or is it meant as sarcastic wit? Not sure, but in any case: The Self is never unrealized. How could it be? How is Self to unrealize itself? By becoming something else, other than itself? Where would this other something take place? There is no realization that is a privilege of a few, and only very few seem able to " know " this. How funny! Everyone else is scrambling around, trying to be someone and get something. Because the Self is never unrealized, it isn't a Self at all. It has no Self to know about or to " get " . Another very funny thing, this no-self self. > > i have to use the " ' " since many understand the > teachings as a war declaration to words. There is only war. And in that, there is eternal peace. By which is meant, there is nothing that is not flux and change, and in that reality as it is, is the unchanging ... > unfortunately. Fortunately, Dan > > greetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Nisargadatta, " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Yes El, > > Utter spucatam tauri. > > So much so, the dude in the diaper would not have prattled such. > > Chikoooo Chikoooo Chikooooo > > > Sandeep Indeed, and this is the limitation of all " appeals to authority " ... Along with whatever droppings from the beloved authority, one gets to wallow in a continuum of spucatam, some of the bovine type, not to mention much from the " evasive bluebird of happiness " :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Hi Vicki -- > i think that Sri Ramana Maharshi's concern with explaining > the truth with exactly the words suited to that human being > sitting there in front of him and no concern at all about > how others over 70 years will analyze his sentences - so his > concern about being correctly understood that very moment and > and his concern with helping and guiding and pushing when > one was suited - to self-enquiry and actually to practice , > to direct experience , so all this -what is it but a perfect > example of wei wu wei ? Impossible to know for sure, and if so construed, there is a strong aspect of " faith. " If what you, Vicki, are doing is not-doing, then no faith is necessary. The entire Reality is evidence of " nondoing " with no faith required. Self-evident. It is not Ramana's perfect not-doing and others poor not-doing. It is the unimpeded not-doing of the entire shebang, including " Ramana " and " someone seeking something from Ramana " and the drop of cow dung that was stepped in on the way to visit Ramana. I wonder if you are aware of the duality construed when regarding Ramana as somehow more evidence of " perfection " than others? Although, of course, this kind of idealization is ages old, and found in every culture I've ever learned about. One question worth asking might be, " is idealization not a form of self-separation? " Now, idealization may well be appropriate when it occurs, and as it seems to occur in various cultures, it probably is an aspect of " the human condition. " None the less: the ideal is always separated from the less than ideal. There is striving toward the ideal and away from the less-than-idea. In this striving is continued " the striver " ... A thought about quoting authorities (which I have done from time and time, and have no problem with): As is always the case when dealing with a long-past interaction, whether it be one second or many years, there is no telling what exactly occurred. And if one reflects on whether words have or lack a perfect fit, one attempts to function separately from " presentness " ... In/as " presentness " what is to fit with what? Thus, any event construed as " past " is an aspect of a conceptual duality, past and present. Whatever I or you say spontaneously now, won't confer or reveal " now " , anymore than anything else. So, asked the ultimate metaphysical question, Chou-chou responded, " that tree in the yard. " > This is what a true master does - helps one understand > one's own nature in one's own words and gives the push to > practice, to self-enquire , and helps with his presence > all those who ask for help. Actually, there is someone who knows far more than the true master. This is like beating a drum to find out if there's anyone in town who has a drum to sell you. > The perfect Master , the perfect words, the perfect atitude, > the perfect means (enquiry into one's nature) at the proper > time make the perfect wei wu wei. Are there ingredients to make wei wu wei? Or is wei wu-wei what is, spontaneously and unsplit, requiring no ingredients? When there are ingredients, there is a doing, something to be added into a situation. When nothing is added or subtracted, there is wei wu-wei. Is there then something not perfect, something out of place, something that needs to be perfected, to become more perfect than it is, through the addition of " a perfect sage and his words " ? Or is it, that when no longer required or wanted, such words are " fulfilled " ? > > this is Ramana Maharshi . Actually, this is you, Vicki, a living body, saying nice things about a body long dead, which spoke certain words that were once recorded, and which may or may not have been recorded and interpreted accurately. > when people doubt his words , i only i love him even more , Does wei wu-wei depend on whether or not certain words are believed? Whose are the words? From whence did the statement originate? > thank you, Yes, and thank you, too. Namaste, Dan > vicki > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Nisargadatta, " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > did he care about how his words sound or did he care to help that particular being to understand ? > > > San: > > Ramana has moved on, let him be. > > ----------- " The Internet is a poor place for the Bhakta. Generally, bhakti will not be appreciated or understood in a verbal/conceptual format such as mailing lists. 'In-person' satsang is invariably better for the Bhakti. " -- The 13Dec2001 Upanishad (i just wrote it now ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Hiya, - fewtch Nisargadatta Friday, December 14, 2001 07:59 AM Re: Ramana Maharsi - non-duality Nisargadatta, "Sandeep Chatterjee" <sandeepc@b...> wrote:> did he care about how his words sound or did he care to help that particular being to understand ? > > > San:> > Ramana has moved on, let him be.> > -----------"The Internet is a poor place for the Bhakta. On the contrary. Generally, bhakti will not be appreciated or understood in a verbal/conceptual format such as mailing lists. That bhakti which seeks to be appreciated or understood, is not bhakti. That's a bargain. No problem with bargains either. 'In-person' satsang is invariably better for the Bhakti." "In-person" satsang as conceptual, as virtual as the Web. No difference, whatsoever. -- The 13Dec2001 Upanishad (i just wrote it now ;-). The 14Dec2001 Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Nisargadatta, " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > " In-person " satsang as conceptual, as virtual as the Web. > No difference, whatsoever. Reading words on a screen differs in quality from talking live 'in person' to some dude or dudesse... even the bum on the streetcorner can tell you that. > The 14Dec2001 Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo Do dahh dee da dee day dahh doo dumm dee doo... wazzat? Better than not posting at all? A " personal style? " > > Sandeep Oh? yes, recognizably ;-). Cheers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 viorica wrote: > > hi Caiti > what i wanted to say is , among other things - > wouldn't it > be simpler and more natural for oneself to be true to > oneself ? > to accept everything as it is , even a human body > conditioning, > to acknowledge it and live with it in peace ? Yes indeed, thank you for your clear reply. namaste caiti Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at or bid at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 > Hi Dan , > > it is me , vicki, a living body saying nice things about > a body long dead ???? > > not at all ! > > i was never talking about a body long dead ! > > Ramana Maharshi is not a dead body to his devotees . > > and Sri Ramanasramam and Ramana Maharshi himself while in the > body took great care about how his words were recorded . > great care ! > > > and no body dead long. > > you are so sure of yourself that what you say is so , > how ? you can't be , you cannot know ; > > almost everybody is so sure of oneself that he is right , > that he understands Reality , that he/she understands > what is in other minds , that the other has still an ego > while he/she is beyond one's ego/mind...,how ? > > how ? you supposed something about me, > you assumed , you imagined , and you were wrong. > > > vicki Hi Vicki, Contrary to what you may assume, I haven't supposed anything about you. I simply engaged in a dialogue. Can you read between the lines? Between the lines is something like: What is living, is " now " , is beyond " now " and isn't trying to give itself a name ... You the living, don't need the dead ... So -- I am sure that what I say, isn't so ... Not only is there nothing final to be found in disputations, there is nothing final to be found. Certainly not in my words, nor my certainty, nor, certainly, in yours :-) Only you, before you were born, is " the final " ... -- 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.