Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , ecirada <ecirada@> wrote: > > Matthew wrote: > > In the very popular line of Ramana Maharshi, > > where the Enquiry is " Who Am I? " > > great confusion exists, in fact persists > > due to the implication that we > > are not already That, and that we must > > find out who we are, as distinct from > > who we are >now<, as we are, the realization > > of which in fact dissolves our illusions > > and leaves us exactly where we are, > > as we are, here and now. > > We succumb to the imagined promise > > that when we discover the answer to > > the question " Who AM I? " , we will be > > somehow free, awake, realized or > > enlightend. And how many contemporary > > " practitioners " (fans would be more accurate) > > believe themselves to have used > > this Enquiry to the point of > > consummation and foolishly and > > occaisionaly dangerously assume, > > presume, themselves to have " gone beyond, > > beyond the beyond " and are now > > foolishly leading (not guiding or helping, leading) > > others to a similar fate, one of illusion, > > dream hubris, vanity, sin (having entirely missed the mark). > > > > M. > > > > > Harsha wrote an article on the difference between meditation > and inquiry, meditation-self-inquiry-and-self-realization > In the article he maintains that the question only serves as a means to > prevent the mind from straying, and that it isn't meant to get an answer. > The implication is that when an answer should arise nevertheless, it's > wrong, by definition. From that perspective, one might relabel that type > of inquiry to " incessant contemplation " (on the same subject). > > When as the article suggests, Ramana considered meditation a technique, > some might interpret that as if Ramana didn't know the distinction between > meditation and contemplation, nor between the various types of meditation. > > Apart from that, it looks like a Ramana group always evolves into a group > of bhaktas. An indication that Ramana might have been aware of that, is > that he didn't install a lineage with predictable hoopla of grandiosity > but left > his guru, who served him so well, for all followers, instead. Arunachala > is a > subset of nature / life-force/ environment in general and with the present > environmental scandals (including depletion of aquifers) in India that > might > be more than a hint for some - especially when knowing how much Ramana > cared for animals, whether from the wild or pets. > > Jan Namaste, Harsha and his satsangh are actually Bhaktas, it could be any image they are worshipping....If they really followed Ramana they wouldn't worship him...Ramana tolerated all kinds of stuff because he knew that's where people were at...If I run a country and tolerate muslims or masons that doesn't make me a muslim or a mason.. The so called 'Trick' im Who am I? is that first it is different in different languages Nan Yar? Secondly it is not a mantra or affirmation, it is a 'feeling' a feeling that has to be followed to the centre of the feeling........and then find the feeling is everywhere and everything....Intellectual speculation on nan yar is sterile... --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , Venugopal AK <akvenugopal@> wrote: > > > > --- On Thu, 14/5/09, billrishel <illusyn@> wrote: > <snip> > > Regardless of the type of path, VG, > > 99% doesn't cut it. > > > > Bill##VG##99% is wrong arithematic. One less than a million is more right.Shri Ramana Maharishi used to refer to himself as " It " - " Ithu " in tamil, as if it is an inert and inanimate thing. That is the pointer to the Vairagya, detachment he has developed.Once a devotee asked Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa : " Swamiji, have you seen God " Sri Ramakrishna : " Yes, offcourse " The devotee : " What shall I do to realise God ? " Sri Ramakrishna : " The same intense desire, that one who is drowning, will have for a breath of air, you must have that same intense desire to realise God " RegardsVG. Namaste, That is Ramana talking relatively to bhakatas again, or ultimately Ramana taught there is no God, or if there is he is as real as you aren't...That is from the upanishads anyway....Detachment has nothing to do with brahmacharya physically.. As Ramana says what is the point of a couple not having sex on the ashram if they still think about it? Rama and Krishan were wealthy yet detached....living in a cave only may help some, as desires and samskaras are also taken to the cave. It may be better to be detached amongst wealth and opulence... --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, And begins to genuinely enquire, One is merely bits and pieces of other people, Fragmented, Torn, In pieces. It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. Nobody can do it for us. Others see only themselves, And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. One must reclaim oneself Before one can lose oneself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > Fragmented, > > Torn, > > In pieces. > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > Nobody can do it for us. > > Others see only themselves, > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > One must reclaim oneself > > Before one can lose oneself. > ....as if there were a Self....that was solid enough to reclaim. however, my dearest Timmy... in the word of an immortal non-entity, nnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! Love, Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > Fragmented, > > Torn, > > In pieces. > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > Nobody can do it for us. > > Others see only themselves, > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > One must reclaim oneself > > Before one can lose oneself. who's " everyone else " .. the inquiring self wants to know.. so self ensnared and enamored with " itself " .. " it " will never know. nor know the " it " which doesn't know. don't " you " " know " it " ? of course " you " do.. and " you " can't stop telling everyone just how much " you " know " it " . a magnificent madness..and obsession too. L0L! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > who's " everyone else " .. > > the inquiring self wants to know.. First Bob asks everyone else who he is, Then he asks everyone else who is everyone else. The issue is precisely " everyone else " , and... This is a false enquiry. There is no enquiring self until " Who/what am I " becomes the question. Until then, there is only fumbling in the dark. > a magnificent madness..and obsession too. It may look magnificent to some, and pitiful to others. It certainly suggests darkness here, lack of interest in self-enquiry, in knowing what one is, in being the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > who's " everyone else " .. > > > > the inquiring self wants to know.. > > First Bob asks everyone else who he is, > > Then he asks everyone else who is everyone else. > > The issue is precisely " everyone else " , and... > > This is a false enquiry. There is no enquiring self until " Who/what am I " becomes the question. > > Until then, there is only fumbling in the dark. > > > a magnificent madness..and obsession too. > > It may look magnificent to some, and pitiful to others. > > It certainly suggests darkness here, lack of interest in self-enquiry, in knowing what one is, in being the truth. nice try. bad excuse. unreasonable logic. forget it. you don't have it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > Fragmented, > > Torn, > > In pieces. > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > Nobody can do it for us. > > Others see only themselves, > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > One must reclaim oneself > > Before one can lose oneself. > Very aptly and appropriately put! However: I celebrate the freedom to be unfree As well And THAT freedom Explains all the suffering and torment And permits me to celebrate it, As well. Not that I expect it to " work " For others... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > > > Fragmented, > > > > Torn, > > > > In pieces. > > > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > > > Nobody can do it for us. > > > > Others see only themselves, > > > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > > > One must reclaim oneself > > > > Before one can lose oneself. > > > > > > Very aptly and appropriately put! > > However: > > > I celebrate the freedom to be unfree > > As well > > > And THAT freedom > > Explains all the suffering and torment > > > And permits me to celebrate it, > > As well. > > > Not that I expect it to " work " > > For others... very aptly inept. considering where it comes from... understandable too. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > > > Fragmented, > > > > Torn, > > > > In pieces. > > > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > > > Nobody can do it for us. > > > > Others see only themselves, > > > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > > > One must reclaim oneself > > > > Before one can lose oneself. > > > > > > Very aptly and appropriately put! > > However: > > > I celebrate the freedom to be unfree > > As well > > > And THAT freedom > > Explains all the suffering and torment > > > And permits me to celebrate it, > > As well. > > > Not that I expect it to " work " > > For others... Freedom is to be free of freedom. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Until one stops asking everyone else who they are, > > > > > > And begins to genuinely enquire, > > > > > > One is merely bits and pieces of other people, > > > > > > Fragmented, > > > > > > Torn, > > > > > > In pieces. > > > > > > It is up to oneself to reclaim one's own existence, one's own Being. > > > > > > Nobody can do it for us. > > > > > > Others see only themselves, > > > > > > And so each self is really constructed out of other selves, > > > > > > Fragmentary, divested, scattered, broken. > > > > > > One must reclaim oneself > > > > > > Before one can lose oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > Very aptly and appropriately put! > > > > However: > > > > > > I celebrate the freedom to be unfree > > > > As well > > > > > > And THAT freedom > > > > Explains all the suffering and torment > > > > > > And permits me to celebrate it, > > > > As well. > > > > > > Not that I expect it to " work " > > > > For others... > > > Freedom is to be free of freedom. > > > - Dan - > And to be free To not be free Of freedom And to be free To be free With freedom As well 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.