Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Dear I > Just because one uses a form of devotion doesn't mean that is the way > of all. If one wishes to use pictures and mountains or even bodily > forms for a point of concentration that is fine, but it is all > external. If you wish to regard the body as outside, when it is really also a part of self, all right. But the process of worshipping the form of Maharshi is certainly very much an inside process. It serves to purify the mind, melt it in love and ready it for enquiry. Also Maharshi has explained that his yoga is a synthesis of Bhakti and Jnana. > Ramana's teaching was all internal 'Who am I?', I'm sure he > had to tolerate people worshipping him as did many other Muktas, but > that doesn't mean it was his teaching. I don't think that Maharshi only just tolerated people worshipping him. He was full of love and compassion for people. But he never allowed pooja to be offered to his body, like other so called saints. > One has to distinguish between > the body and its prarabda and the Mukta/Self. Some people cannot > easily go within due to mental capacity so they worship things, as a > representation. Ramana didn't come to start a new religion, in fact he > didn't get involved so. Who is talking about a new religion? > > There is no Ramana anyway but in people's imaginations, as the same > with Jesus, Buddha etc------they were probably all Muktas, most with > prarabda that gave them the illusion of being a person. Ok, but if you go to Ramanashramam, you get the impression that there lived a man, a Jnani, called Ramana Maharshi. He existed in the Self. When you are able to realize the Self you will find that Ramana is no different from you. He is the Guru, working from within. And seeing that Ramana is no different from my Self and I exist, he also must exist. > Many even have impressions of omniscience in Gurus etc etc. This is > also misunderstood IMO. A guru can only have the siddhis that were > decided for the body by prarabda and that's all. When the Ego is gone > it is the Universal Consciousness that motivates the 'shell'. The UC > is universal and so therefore doesn't have value judgments. So a > 100,000 people karmically killed in say a hurricane is no different > from a hundred thousand ants killed by someone poisoning them in the > garden. The Self doesn't ever interfere, in this exchange and movement > of illusory energy. So gurus cannot be expected to display omniscience > to the nth degree. Ramana gave the permission to kill ants and mosquitos, but he would have never given the permission to kill people. > > An Avatar may be slightly different from a Mukta in that they are not > fully realised, but held off to return and help. However they usually > become Muktas once in the lifetime anyway,IMO. They also carry out the > prescribed task they have set out for themeslves and no more, > including which siddhis etc etc. I don't now as I have never met an avatar. I have had darshan of Sai Baba who calls himself an avatar, because I happened to be at Kodaikanal when he visited, but nothing there compelled me to ever see him again, same with Rajneesh back in 79. > > In the end result pictures, mountains, idols, guru- humans and all are > for concentration only. This is because the lower mind loves ritual > and this behaviour. Go Within is the teaching.......Ramana especially > taught this and didn't come to found a new religion of image > worshippers. Who am I? Ko-Ham. There is a mountain I know and love, whoever thinks of this, the red mountain, will attain moksha, because his ego gets killed. How can you not worship such a mountain? > > So yes I don't worship people, pictures, mountains, or any other > manifestation of illusion. I try to go within. Even praying achieves > nothing but a little peace of mind, it cannot change any karma. Only > meditation is really effective...........I am not saying stop > worshipping if at this state of one's mental capacity one needs it for > concentration.........but lets not forget what the concentration is > for...............ONS.............Tony. peace of mind is no small thing Meditation means concentrating on something. I never heard Ramana say that meditation changes you karmas. Your prarabdha cannot be changed anyway, you have to suffer it. But by practicing the vichara, by cutting out thoughts and remaining as much as possible as consciousness, the effects of that prarabhda do not effect you any more. That is called peace. Good luck Om Arunachala Shiva Chris > > > > > > /join > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 advaitajnana , christiane cameron <christianecameron@m...> wrote: > Dear > > I > > Just because one uses a form of devotion doesn't mean that is the way > > of all. If one wishes to use pictures and mountains or even bodily > > forms for a point of concentration that is fine, but it is all > > external. > > If you wish to regard the body as outside, when it is really also a > part of self, all right. But the process of worshipping the form of > Maharshi is certainly very much an inside process. It serves to purify > the mind, melt it in love and ready it for enquiry. Also Maharshi has > explained that his yoga is a synthesis of Bhakti and Jnana. > > > > Ramana's teaching was all internal 'Who am I?', I'm sure he > > had to tolerate people worshipping him as did many other Muktas, but > > that doesn't mean it was his teaching. > > I don't think that Maharshi only just tolerated people worshipping him. > He was full of love and compassion for people. But he never allowed > pooja to be offered to his body, like other so called saints. > > > One has to distinguish between > > the body and its prarabda and the Mukta/Self. Some people cannot > > easily go within due to mental capacity so they worship things, as a > > representation. Ramana didn't come to start a new religion, in fact he > > didn't get involved so. > > Who is talking about a new religion? > > > > There is no Ramana anyway but in people's imaginations, as the same > > with Jesus, Buddha etc------they were probably all Muktas, most with > > prarabda that gave them the illusion of being a person. > > Ok, but if you go to Ramanashramam, you get the impression that there > lived a man, a Jnani, called Ramana Maharshi. He existed in the Self. > When you are able to realize the Self you will find that Ramana is no > different from you. He is the Guru, working from within. And seeing > that Ramana is no different from my Self and I exist, he also must > exist. > > > Many even have impressions of omniscience in Gurus etc etc. This is > > also misunderstood IMO. A guru can only have the siddhis that were > > decided for the body by prarabda and that's all. When the Ego is gone > > it is the Universal Consciousness that motivates the 'shell'. The UC > > is universal and so therefore doesn't have value judgments. So a > > 100,000 people karmically killed in say a hurricane is no different > > from a hundred thousand ants killed by someone poisoning them in the > > garden. The Self doesn't ever interfere, in this exchange and movement > > of illusory energy. So gurus cannot be expected to display omniscience > > to the nth degree. > > Ramana gave the permission to kill ants and mosquitos, but he would > have never given the permission to kill people. > > > > An Avatar may be slightly different from a Mukta in that they are not > > fully realised, but held off to return and help. However they usually > > become Muktas once in the lifetime anyway,IMO. They also carry out the > > prescribed task they have set out for themeslves and no more, > > including which siddhis etc etc. > > I don't now as I have never met an avatar. I have had darshan of Sai > Baba who calls himself an avatar, because I happened to be at > Kodaikanal when he visited, but nothing there compelled me to ever see > him again, same with Rajneesh back in 79. > > > > In the end result pictures, mountains, idols, guru- humans and all are > > for concentration only. This is because the lower mind loves ritual > > and this behaviour. Go Within is the teaching.......Ramana especially > > taught this and didn't come to found a new religion of image > > worshippers. Who am I? Ko-Ham. > > There is a mountain I know and love, whoever thinks of this, the red > mountain, will attain moksha, because his ego gets killed. How can you > not worship such a mountain? > > > > > So yes I don't worship people, pictures, mountains, or any other > > manifestation of illusion. I try to go within. Even praying achieves > > nothing but a little peace of mind, it cannot change any karma. Only > > meditation is really effective...........I am not saying stop > > worshipping if at this state of one's mental capacity one needs it for > > concentration.........but lets not forget what the concentration is > > for...............ONS.............Tony. > > peace of mind is no small thing > > Meditation means concentrating on something. I never heard Ramana say > that meditation changes you karmas. Your prarabdha cannot be changed > anyway, you have to suffer it. But by practicing the vichara, by > cutting out thoughts and remaining as much as possible as > consciousness, the effects of that prarabhda do not effect you any > more. That is called peace. Good luck > > Om Arunachala Shiva > Namaste Chris, Some points. I didn't say prarabda can be changed, I just talked about meditation. Prarabda can be overcome by Moksha but the body/mind still has to carry out the prarabda. I didn't know that Ramana said it was ok to kill other beings,??? unless in some form of self defence.?????????Do you have the quote?(prarabda karma of the mind again). When I said he tolerated, I meant just that he couldn't stop them worshipping so why fight it? If that is their mental capacity. They still are doing it right now! There is no synthesis of jnana and bhakti in the enquiry 'Whom am I?' in the commonly understood sense of devotion. Unless you mean merging with the Sakti. Which is the ultimate goal of devotion. Ramana said people use pictures of gurus and worship them for concentration only. This is the same thing as hills or any other object. Yes you are right about nothing being outside but then in illusion it appears this way, and as Sankara said --it is real whilst one is in it-----we have to deal with it. Again there are different levels of capacity as Ramana said when talking of Ajatavada, which he indicated is the ultimate truth. Again one has to understand that the body of a Mukta operates on prarabda karma and so does the operating mind of such. The Self doesn't individualise in a Mukta, otherwise it isn't the Self. A mukta can only carry out the prarabda karma in action and that includes the teachings, unless one is being taught by absolute silence. For that is the Self. To conclude; The body of the Mukta operates on prarabda, and would behave exactly the same way if Moksha hadn't taken place. Seeming errors, human misunderstanding etc etc. That is why the teaching of Silence or Self is the Truth. For they do not belong to the prarabda mind of the mukta's erstwhile body. Ramana can err--------the Self cannot..............ONS........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 > > > > Dear Tony, > Some points. > > I didn't say prarabda can be changed, I just talked about meditation. > Prarabda can be overcome by Moksha but the body/mind still has to > carry out the prarabda. you wrote praying cannot change karma, only meditation is really effective (in changing karmas) please express yourself more clearly then, if that is not what you meant. > > I didn't know that Ramana said it was ok to kill other beings,??? > unless in some form of self defence.?????????Do you have the > quote?(prarabda karma of the mind again). Please be careful. I never never wrote that Ramana said it was ok to kill living beings. How could I. I said, Bhagavan gave permission to kill ants (when building) and mosquitos (in the cowshed). This is a very sloppy way of communicating and I find that extremely disturbing as it distorts my words and even in a sense questions Maharshi. > > When I said he tolerated, I meant just that he couldn't stop them > worshipping so why fight it? If that is their mental capacity. They > still are doing it right now! How can you possibly know Maharshi's attitude on the matter. What audacitiy. And who is " they " > > There is no synthesis of jnana and bhakti in the enquiry 'Whom am I?' > in the commonly understood sense of devotion. Unless you mean merging > with the Sakti. Which is the ultimate goal of devotion. > This is bull. Who is talking about synthesis of jnana and bhakti in the enquiry. The enquiry is one method. The synthesis is in the way the methods of bhakti and jnana (enquiry) were both employed by Maharshi to reach the goal. > Ramana said people use pictures of gurus and worship them for > concentration only. This is the same thing as hills or any other > object. Yes some people to, but others also melt their hearts in love and surrender when they look at pictures of their beloved Guru and that may result in realization or pave the way there. > > Yes you are right about nothing being outside but then in illusion it > appears this way, and as Sankara said --it is real whilst one is in > it-----we have to deal with it. > > Again there are different levels of capacity as Ramana said when > talking of Ajatavada, which he indicated is the ultimate truth. > > Again one has to understand that the body of a Mukta operates on > prarabda karma and so does the operating mind of such. The Self > doesn't individualise in a Mukta, otherwise it isn't the Self. A mukta > can only carry out the prarabda karma in action and that includes the > teachings, unless one is being taught by absolute silence. For that is > the Self. Sorry, no! The teachings of Maharshi were not prompted by his prarabdha. As his mind is dead, his words spring directly from the Self. > > To conclude; The body of the Mukta operates on prarabda, and would > behave exactly the same way if Moksha hadn't taken place. Seeming > errors, human misunderstanding etc etc. That is why the teaching of > Silence or Self is the Truth. For they do not belong to the prarabda > mind of the mukta's erstwhile body. As I say no no no. > > Ramana can err--------the Self cannot..............ONS........Tony. Ramana is Self how can he err. Praradha pertains to Maharshi's body, not to his speech. Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance. Om Arunachala Shiva Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 advaitajnana , christiane cameron <christianecameron@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Tony, > > > Some points. > > > > I didn't say prarabda can be changed, I just talked about meditation. > > Prarabda can be overcome by Moksha but the body/mind still has to > > carry out the prarabda. > > you wrote praying cannot change karma, only meditation is really > effective (in changing karmas) > > please express yourself more clearly then, if that is not what you > meant. > > > > I didn't know that Ramana said it was ok to kill other beings,??? > > unless in some form of self defence.?????????Do you have the > > quote?(prarabda karma of the mind again). > > Please be careful. I never never wrote that Ramana said it was ok to > kill living beings. How could I. I said, Bhagavan gave permission to > kill ants (when building) and mosquitos (in the cowshed). This is a > very sloppy way of communicating and I find that extremely disturbing > as it distorts my words and even in a sense questions Maharshi. > > > > When I said he tolerated, I meant just that he couldn't stop them > > worshipping so why fight it? If that is their mental capacity. They > > still are doing it right now! > > How can you possibly know Maharshi's attitude on the matter. What > audacitiy. And who is " they " > > > > There is no synthesis of jnana and bhakti in the enquiry 'Whom am I?' > > in the commonly understood sense of devotion. Unless you mean merging > > with the Sakti. Which is the ultimate goal of devotion. > > > This is bull. Who is talking about synthesis of jnana and bhakti in the > enquiry. The enquiry is one method. The synthesis is in the way the > methods of bhakti and jnana (enquiry) were both employed by Maharshi to > reach the goal. > > > Ramana said people use pictures of gurus and worship them for > > concentration only. This is the same thing as hills or any other > > object. > > Yes some people to, but others also melt their hearts in love and > surrender when they look at pictures of their beloved Guru and that may > result in realization or pave the way there. > > > > Yes you are right about nothing being outside but then in illusion it > > appears this way, and as Sankara said --it is real whilst one is in > > it-----we have to deal with it. > > > > Again there are different levels of capacity as Ramana said when > > talking of Ajatavada, which he indicated is the ultimate truth. > > > > Again one has to understand that the body of a Mukta operates on > > prarabda karma and so does the operating mind of such. The Self > > doesn't individualise in a Mukta, otherwise it isn't the Self. A mukta > > can only carry out the prarabda karma in action and that includes the > > teachings, unless one is being taught by absolute silence. For that is > > the Self. > > Sorry, no! The teachings of Maharshi were not prompted by his > prarabdha. As his mind is dead, his words spring directly from the > Self. > > > > To conclude; The body of the Mukta operates on prarabda, and would > > behave exactly the same way if Moksha hadn't taken place. Seeming > > errors, human misunderstanding etc etc. That is why the teaching of > > Silence or Self is the Truth. For they do not belong to the prarabda > > mind of the mukta's erstwhile body. > > As I say no no no. > > > > Ramana can err--------the Self cannot..............ONS........Tony. > > Ramana is Self how can he err. Praradha pertains to Maharshi's body, > not to his speech. > > Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance. > > > Om Arunachala Shiva > > Chris Namaste Chris, There is no point in this ball game. I am not trying to establish a position or justify my behaviour. So let me say this again IMO. Whether a person realises moksha or not, the prarabda karma would still play out in their life in exactly the same way. The Mukta doesn't talk as the Self for the Self cannot individualise and still be the Self. That is why Ramana talked of teaching by 'Silence'/Self. So Muktas can be 'fallible' as they still talk as the body/mind and it is subject to prarabda. Remember the body-mind is there as long as the body. Again if you check Ramana talking of pictures, in this case it was one of a Sai Baba, more than likely Shirdi Baba. He said that it was a point of concentration and useful in that way. The same would apply to mountains or any other form. I know his attitude from simply reading what he said about things. With regard to getting emotional and devotional about a picture. Is that not concentration? Providing it leads one in the way of Moksha. However Ramana's teaching was 'Who am I?' simple as that. All the rest was just steps on the way to that enquiry. A Mukta-body cannot talk as the Self---------think about it, the Self is Universal not particular, that is the Ego. In some way when a person becomes realised and loses the ego the residual mind is energised by the Universal but no new karma or mind is added. I believe this is the mistake people make in worshipping Gurus as God incarnate. This is a step on the way but really only as a Sadhana, it has to be let go of when one goes within. The Guru pushes from outside but it is the Inner Consciousness that pulls us in-------so to speak-------'Who am I?'. We are as Maharaj would say Praneaswara or Sakti. So the step is to merge with the Sakti which results in realisation of Nirguna at the same time. This can be done with bhakti-----yes but only bhakti that has lost the ego. The other steps are part of purification/sadhana, but the real work is 'Who am I?'. Everything else is only a step. Ramana is a body/mind and it can err. The Self is something else otherwise why bother doing the prarabda. I have no doubt that a Sadhaka such as Ramana would have a purified mind. However there is Prarabda!!!!!!!!!Again that is why -------'The teaching of Silence'. I'm sorry if this upsets you Chris or anybody else, but it is my prarabda to write it and yours to read it.......Love and ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 - Friends, --Well, this has been a year of challenges, in a most intimate way, right into what I value most, namely " that relationship with what is perceived as truth. " it is about time to face total responsabilitie, to truly stand on my own. get my stomach quizzy, and feel the vertigo because of a huge space now vibrating empty. Still the need to communicate and be kept in check. It is wonderfull to connect with you, my understanding and progress still depending on the work and connections I will make. Lots more reading to do. for me if this year isn`t about truly coming to grip with all I have understood, well then it will never happen, change is now, and my longing is as fresh and wiggly as a fish caught out of its pond Wishing us all theimmersion in Timelessness... Patricia _________________________ Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger. 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.