Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Sri Ramana Mahrshi said, " If one surrenders completely, there will be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the thoughts are eliminated by holding on to the root thought " I " , or one surrenders to the Higher power. These are the only two ways to Realization. " What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking yourself the question Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this " I " signifies and points at? What does this objectless and unqualified " I AM " signifies and points at? " I AM That I AM " in the Bible is God. Moreover, When God addressed David telling him " Be still and know that I AM. " Man's I AM points to one thing. " I AM " points to the fact that man is CONNECTED to the core of the Experience he is living, man is not alone. Man is not alienated nor estranged. Man becomes only alienated and estranged when he qualifies I AM or objectifies I AM or limiting I AM to any quality. This connection, this unbreakable bond, is through Consciousness or Awareness or Witnessing Awareness. When this fact of being connected to the source of man's living experience sinks into man's heart, the way to SURRENDER is wide open and easy. The way to Surrendering to this Experience is at hand. Just like when a child holds the hand of his father or mother, he surrenders unconditionally to what they do. All what is done is GOOD. When Jesus Said " Our Father who is in Heaven… " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Hello, What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking > yourself the question > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this > " I " > signifies and points at? What does this objectless > and unqualified > " I AM " signifies and points at? It seems that it's not really asking over and over " Who am I? " This may express more of an attitude, an interface with the world and oneself. It may be in the nature of lessening the the sense of " I " am a big, solid " I " ! Simply asking the question over and over would put one into a state of trance, self-hypnotized, a lowering of consciousness and I doubt that's what Maharshi intended...at least that's the view I have of this at present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Mourad You mentioned " all tha is done is good " How do you view war, murder, rape etc, in this context? I see the necessity of such things from the point of view of cause and effect and karma, but is there any validity in terming things good (as distinct to bad), is this still not dualistic thought? Peace and love Raph , " mourad " <mourad_shamel wrote: > > > Sri Ramana Mahrshi said, " If one surrenders completely, there will > be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the thoughts > are eliminated by holding on to the root thought " I " , or one > surrenders to the Higher power. These are the only two ways to > Realization. " > > > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking yourself the question > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this " I " > signifies and points at? What does this objectless and unqualified > " I AM " signifies and points at? > > " I AM That I AM " in the Bible is God. Moreover, When God > addressed David telling him " Be still and know that I AM. " > > Man's I AM points to one thing. " I AM " points to the fact > that man is CONNECTED to the core of the Experience he is living, man is > not alone. Man is not alienated nor estranged. Man becomes only > alienated and estranged when he qualifies I AM or objectifies I AM or > limiting I AM to any quality. This connection, this unbreakable bond, is > through Consciousness or Awareness or Witnessing Awareness. When this > fact of being connected to the source of man's living experience > sinks into man's heart, the way to SURRENDER is wide open and easy. > The way to Surrendering to this Experience is at hand. Just like when a > child holds the hand of his father or mother, he surrenders > unconditionally to what they do. All what is done is GOOD. > > When Jesus Said " Our Father who is in Heaven… " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Dear Raph Everything that appears " bad " at the end it will turn " good " . This is the inherent wisdom that man has to cultivate during his life. mourad , " Raph " <beingnothing00 wrote: > > Mourad > > You mentioned " all tha is done is good " How do you view war, murder, > rape etc, in this context? > > I see the necessity of such things from the point of view of cause > and effect and karma, but is there any validity in terming things > good (as distinct to bad), is this still not dualistic thought? > > Peace and love > Raph > > , " mourad " mourad_shamel@ > wrote: > > > > > > Sri Ramana Mahrshi said, " If one surrenders completely, there will > > be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the > thoughts > > are eliminated by holding on to the root thought " I " , or one > > surrenders to the Higher power. These are the only two ways to > > Realization. " > > > > > > > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking yourself the > question > > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this " I " > > signifies and points at? What does this objectless and unqualified > > " I AM " signifies and points at? > > > > " I AM That I AM " in the Bible is God. Moreover, When God > > addressed David telling him " Be still and know that I AM. " > > > > Man's I AM points to one thing. " I AM " points to the fact > > that man is CONNECTED to the core of the Experience he is living, > man is > > not alone. Man is not alienated nor estranged. Man becomes only > > alienated and estranged when he qualifies I AM or objectifies I AM > or > > limiting I AM to any quality. This connection, this unbreakable > bond, is > > through Consciousness or Awareness or Witnessing Awareness. When > this > > fact of being connected to the source of man's living experience > > sinks into man's heart, the way to SURRENDER is wide open and easy. > > The way to Surrendering to this Experience is at hand. Just like > when a > > child holds the hand of his father or mother, he surrenders > > unconditionally to what they do. All what is done is GOOD. > > > > When Jesus Said " Our Father who is in Heaven… " > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Dear Raph, Ramana's teaching expands what Mourad has written. To the surrendered devotee, everything that happens inside and out is 'grace' in one way or another. What appears to be 'bad' according to our egotism , invariably turns out to be for the best, although we cannot see it at the time. To resent what happens as 'bad' and only welcome what pleases us, is where we fail. When something happens which we think is bad, we first resent it, then later we accept it, because there is no alternative. But the best attitude is to 'will' what happens because all that happens is God's or Isvara's' will for our predestined karma, which is for our spiritual development. Thou art all and thy will be done , is a good maxim. For by willing what happens, we are in harmony with the divine will, and at peace, because we have surrendered at that moment. As Shakespeare wrote " there's nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. " As Mourad says 'in the end it will turn out good'. There is a hidden lesson in every event, we only realise it later. The higher wisdom, beyond the mind, knows what is best for us . The petty mind is only interested in pleasure, and that's its cardinal error. All best wishes and warm regards, Alan , " mourad " <mourad_shamel wrote: > > > > Dear Raph > > Everything that appears " bad " at the end it will turn " good " . This is > the inherent wisdom that man has to cultivate during his life. > > mourad > > , " Raph " <beingnothing00@> > wrote: > > > > Mourad > > > > You mentioned " all tha is done is good " How do you view war, murder, > > rape etc, in this context? > > > > I see the necessity of such things from the point of view of cause > > and effect and karma, but is there any validity in terming things > > good (as distinct to bad), is this still not dualistic thought? > > > > Peace and love > > Raph > > > > , " mourad " mourad_shamel@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sri Ramana Mahrshi said, " If one surrenders completely, there will > > > be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the > > thoughts > > > are eliminated by holding on to the root thought " I " , or one > > > surrenders to the Higher power. These are the only two ways to > > > Realization. " > > > > > > > > > > > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking yourself the > > question > > > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this " I " > > > signifies and points at? What does this objectless and unqualified > > > " I AM " signifies and points at? > > > > > > " I AM That I AM " in the Bible is God. Moreover, When God > > > addressed David telling him " Be still and know that I AM. " > > > > > > Man's I AM points to one thing. " I AM " points to the fact > > > that man is CONNECTED to the core of the Experience he is living, > > man is > > > not alone. Man is not alienated nor estranged. Man becomes only > > > alienated and estranged when he qualifies I AM or objectifies I AM > > or > > > limiting I AM to any quality. This connection, this unbreakable > > bond, is > > > through Consciousness or Awareness or Witnessing Awareness. When > > this > > > fact of being connected to the source of man's living experience > > > sinks into man's heart, the way to SURRENDER is wide open and easy. > > > The way to Surrendering to this Experience is at hand. Just like > > when a > > > child holds the hand of his father or mother, he surrenders > > > unconditionally to what they do. All what is done is GOOD. > > > > > > When Jesus Said " Our Father who is in Heaven… " > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Dear Mourad and Alan Yes, I certainly was not defending seeing things as bad as a function of ego mind or any other sense. Seeing things from the point of view of cause and effect and karma actually enables me to see things not bad in that sense as I used to. However, typically people speak of bad as the opposite to good, hence my question. And hence Shakespeare's point about not thinking in terms of good and bad at all. In that sense, I would say " turning out all for the best " is not in the best interests of the illusory I or ego, which is course going to " die " or fall away as a result of this! Would it turn out best for the human being itself, yes naturally, given it is the resolution of karma that would work to Self- realisation as the only true objective, nothing else mattering, finally. Yet in that sense, it is not the human being that realises Self-realisation, but the Self itself in and as that person? In which case, it truly turns out best for the Self alone. And this is not surprising, given it is all there is. Namaste Raph , " alan jacobs " <alanadamsjacobs wrote: > > > > > Dear Raph, > > Ramana's teaching expands what Mourad has written. To the surrendered > devotee, everything that happens inside and out is 'grace' in one way > or another. > > What appears to be 'bad' according to our egotism , invariably turns > out to be for the best, although we cannot see it at the time. > > To resent what happens as 'bad' and only welcome what pleases us, is > where we fail. > > When something happens which we think is bad, we first resent it, > then later we accept it, because there is no alternative. But the > best attitude is to 'will' what happens because all that happens is > God's or Isvara's' will for our predestined karma, which is for our > spiritual development. > > Thou art all and thy will be done , is a good maxim. > For by willing what happens, we are in harmony with the divine will, > and at peace, because we have surrendered at that moment. > > As Shakespeare wrote " there's nothing good or bad but thinking makes > it so. " As Mourad says 'in the end it will turn out good'. > > There is a hidden lesson in every event, we only realise it later. > The higher wisdom, beyond the mind, knows what is best for us . The > petty mind is only interested in pleasure, and that's its cardinal > error. > > All best wishes and warm regards, > > Alan > > > , " mourad " <mourad_shamel@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Raph > > > > Everything that appears " bad " at the end it will turn " good " . This > is > > the inherent wisdom that man has to cultivate during his life. > > > > mourad > > > > , " Raph " <beingnothing00@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Mourad > > > > > > You mentioned " all tha is done is good " How do you view war, > murder, > > > rape etc, in this context? > > > > > > I see the necessity of such things from the point of view of cause > > > and effect and karma, but is there any validity in terming things > > > good (as distinct to bad), is this still not dualistic thought? > > > > > > Peace and love > > > Raph > > > > > > , " mourad " mourad_shamel@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sri Ramana Mahrshi said, " If one surrenders completely, there > will > > > > be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the > > > thoughts > > > > are eliminated by holding on to the root thought " I " , or one > > > > surrenders to the Higher power. These are the only two ways to > > > > Realization. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking yourself the > > > question > > > > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this " I " > > > > signifies and points at? What does this objectless and > unqualified > > > > " I AM " signifies and points at? > > > > > > > > " I AM That I AM " in the Bible is God. Moreover, When God > > > > addressed David telling him " Be still and know that I AM. " > > > > > > > > Man's I AM points to one thing. " I AM " points to the fact > > > > that man is CONNECTED to the core of the Experience he is > living, > > > man is > > > > not alone. Man is not alienated nor estranged. Man becomes only > > > > alienated and estranged when he qualifies I AM or objectifies I > AM > > > or > > > > limiting I AM to any quality. This connection, this unbreakable > > > bond, is > > > > through Consciousness or Awareness or Witnessing Awareness. When > > > this > > > > fact of being connected to the source of man's living experience > > > > sinks into man's heart, the way to SURRENDER is wide open and > easy. > > > > The way to Surrendering to this Experience is at hand. Just like > > > when a > > > > child holds the hand of his father or mother, he surrenders > > > > unconditionally to what they do. All what is done is GOOD. > > > > > > > > When Jesus Said " Our Father who is in Heaven… " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Hello Asking is Inquiring. Ramana's way was Self-inquiry. What is the source of this " I AM " . advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote: > > Hello, > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking > > yourself the question > > Who Am I? What is the source of this " I' what this > > " I " > > signifies and points at? What does this objectless > > and unqualified > > " I AM " signifies and points at? > > It seems that it's not really asking over and over > " Who am I? " This may express more of an attitude, an > interface with the world and oneself. It may be in the > nature of lessening the the sense of " I " am a big, > solid " I " ! Simply asking the question over and over > would put one into a state of trance, self-hypnotized, > a lowering of consciousness and I doubt that's what > Maharshi intended...at least that's the view I have of > this at present. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Pranams, Yes, one has to be extremely careful in advaita as to what one means by I the Self. We are so well-entrenched in the false i - even though it is labeled a i-notion - it is more than a mere notion or concept that we need to let go of - it is verily who we are - the i who thinks, talks, eats, sleeps, dreams, desires, is sad, is happy, plans, breathes, etc. - this i is our very sense of individuality, nourished as it has been through millions of births from beginningless time! Letting go of one's individuality means dying to one's self as we now know it, see it, feel it. While our Masters like Bhagwan Ramana, and many other Seers may make it look simple, direct, even effortless, I think there is a grave danger into a seeker falling into a complacent trap of delving into a comfort zone. There is nothing more difficult in the world than letting go of our cherished notional individuality. Even the Gods fail in this, what to speak of mortals. Indra, the ruler of the Heavens, how much prowess he must have had to acquire that status - and yet he spends hundreds of years after approaching a Guru for self-knowledge and still finds himself incomplete, unable to pierce the barriers of his own notionality. Sage Narada, who has the darshan of Lord Narayana at a moments wish, and is the Rishi for the devas, who has completely mastered all the scriptures all the sciences in the world, has learnt all that is to know, still approaches Sage Vamana saying I am in a sea of sorrow for i lack knowledge of the Self. The Upanishads talk about these instances to point out just how hard it is to attain Self-realization. Our teachers out of sheer benevolence so as not to discourage us from coming to this field, from rejecting it or shunning it outright do tell us it is the gain of something already existent, it is a direct approach, etc - these are in the way of getting the child to the mountain he needs to climb - you are almost there - just a little longer, just a little more...etc...until the seeker has made sufficient progress to gain a sense of commitment to the journey, having been fully convinced of the ephemerality of the world. If after gaining such a commitment, the sheer magnitude of the task at hand is not appreciated, there is a real danger of self-effort becoming lax. Gaining knowledge of the Self is harder than emptying the entire Ocean drop by drop with a leaf of grass! No less! See how the Gita talks and Shankara talks about such a Seer. A Seer views his own body like a corpse - if it were to shrivel and die it would make not one iota of a difference to him - what then to speak of any near and dear ones, if he had any. He views the world as nothing but a play. He is unconcerned, unattached to anything, dwelling in his own nature - the entire riches of the Universe to him are worthless. He is indifferent to the status of his body and its needs. IN the words of the GitA - he is totally free from harsha---from elation; amarsha---intolerance; bhaya---fear; ca udvegaih---and anxiety of any sort. It is the rarest treasure - to be found only at the pinnacle of spiritual perfection, and available only to that rare person who succeeds in the steepest path to climb. Even spiritual giants like MadhavAcharya and RamanujAcharya could not get themselves to accept Advaita - why?? - because advaita demands nothing short of a complete surrender of one " self " - total death, annihilation in toto. I give myself up, and I gain God. They stopped short, preferring the easier path of proximity - be near Him, enjoy Him, admire Him, but " i " want to be there too - " i " cannot die - not so fast, not so soon, not even for the Lord, my true Self. As if this were not enough there is one more paradox to contend with. Effort is not going to get you this knowledge either!! It is not a matter of purusha-tantra but vastu-tantra. Effort pertains to the self that is notional Effortlessness pertains to the being, the awareness, that is Real. Effort betrays the very veiling of what is effortless - and yet not " efforting " is in itself a effort that only veils more. The reason is the very Ego that makes all these Efforts is also the Ego that needs to be dissolved so a vision of the Self, of the Lord be gained. So if i set out to dissolve this concept of the Ego or my concepts of the world, God, etc the very i that is setting to dissolve all this is verily the only i that needs to be dissolved, it is also the only i that can get dissolved - everything else - all the neti neti in the world being part of Ishwara srshti. So something besides my intellect needs to be involved in this process. And that something else is Grace - the Grace of the very Self to which have i the seeker have a severe longing for, and an undying devotion to. Self-knowledge is not a matter of repetition - it is not even a matter of memory. It is not that i have to keep remembering this fact that " i am brahman " every single moment of the day. Nor is it a matter of brainwashed dissociation - " i am not angry - i am awareness that is illumining the angry mind " - this kind of conscious thinking or dwelling upon is not Self-realization. Self-knowledge is also not a matter of denial, even if be of the non-self. neti neti does not mean i simply persist in my efforts to deny the world, or deny my feelings, emotions, - if i go on denying everything all through my life i will only end up wasting it away in an ashen sea of nothingness. It is not about repeatedly proclaiming i am awareness, nor even is it to arrive at a rationally thought-out conclusion that i am awareness. Dissolution of the ego - needs a purified mind and a focussed intellect - the Ego can only be dissolved in the fire of knowledge the ocean of devotion - Its dissolution has to be both total, and irreversible. in that dissolution alone the Real Self shines forth on its own accord. Because my intellect by itself is not adequate in this task - this is where Shruti comes in, as the only valid pramAna - it is verily a mirror to mySelf - since scriptures come in, naturally grammar, logic, concepts, language, etc all come in to play - So the various arguments the mind puts forth to reject self-knowledge are put to rest. At the same time any comfort zones the mind may slip into in complacency at a task pre-accomplished are also shaken off. Constantly is this knowledge stirred into the mind, every concept churned over and over. Simply resorting to " who am i? " even in the silent recesses of your mind, will never be enough. the " i " asking the question " who am i? " will ever be veiling the reality of the Self that never has a question to begin with. In the Bhagwan's (Ramana) own words - Ahami naasha bhaajyaham aham tayaa Sphurathi Hrut Svayam parama poorna sat When I-thought or Ego is destroyed, the pure I shines forth on its own as the Supreme and perfect (full) Existence. then what??..listen.. Bandha Muktyatheetham param sukham Vindhathi iha jeevah thu daivikah The Individual Jeeva (who has acquired the knowledge of the Self) realizes the Divine Lord who is Supreme, Blissful and beyond both bondage and liberation here in this world itself. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote: > Hello, > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking > > yourself the question > > Who Am I? > > It seems that it's not really asking over and over > " Who am I? " This may express more of an attitude, an > interface with the world and oneself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > In the Bhagwan's (Ramana) own words - > Ahami naasha bhaajyaham aham tayaa > Sphurathi Hrut Svayam parama poorna sat > > When I-thought or Ego is destroyed, > the pure I shines forth on its own > as the Supreme and perfect (full) Existence. > > then what??..listen.. > > Bandha Muktyatheetham param sukham > Vindhathi iha jeevah thu daivikah > > The Individual Jeeva (who has acquired the knowledge > of the Self) realizes the Divine Lord who is Supreme, > Blissful and beyond both bondage and liberation here > in this world itself. > Dear Mr Shyam: The last verse you quoted, actually verse number 29 of Upadesa Saram of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, the translation you use, is a little confusing to me, since it has a certain flavor of dualism, as if the individual jeeva, once attaining the knowledge of the Self, realizes the Divine Lord who is Supreme as separate from itself... To my understanding, the knowledge of the Self is Being the Self (Brahman), meaning that realization is the dissolution of the notion of being separate from the Supreme. There are two other translations (shown below) that establishes clearly that the jeeva that has acquired the knowledge of the Self IS HIMSELF indeed the Supreme Reality. Is that what you had in mind?, or maybe I misunderstood your posting. QUOTE 1 from Upadesa Undiyar by Sadhu Om and Michael James: " In the Sanskrit version of this verse, the meaning of which is, `The soul [jiva] who attains here the supreme bliss which transcends bondage and liberation, is indeed divine [daivikah]', Sri Bhagavan has made no direct mention of `abiding in the service of God', which is the central idea in the original Tamil version of this verse. However, Sri Bhagavan once explained that the word `daivikah' (divine) which He used in the Sanskrit version of this verse is intended to imply `one whose actions are the actions of God', because he who has attained the state of supreme bliss has lost his individuality and is hence not other than God, the one supreme reality. " QUOTE 2 from 'Talks on Upadesa Saram' by Swami Dayananda: His translation of this verse runs as follows: " The limitless hapiness (that is the Self) is beyond bondage and liberation. The individual with divine qualities indeed attain it here and now (as a result of teaching). Thank you for your time, Regards, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > Self-knowledge is not a matter of repetition - it is > not even a matter of memory. It is not that i have to > keep remembering this fact that " i am brahman " every > single moment of the day. Dear Mr Shyam, it's me again, hi: How do you explain these words by Sri Nissargadatta Maharaj under the light of your statement? " When I met my Guru, he told me: " You are not what you take yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense 'I am', find your real Self. " I obeyed him, because I trusted him. I did as he told me. All my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence. And what a difference it made, and how soon! My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his advice and in a comparatively short time I realized within myself the truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- unbound. I simply followed (my teacher's) instruction which was to focus the mind on pure being 'I am', and stay in it. I used to sit for hours together, with nothing but the 'I am' in my mind and soon peace and joy and a deep all-embracing love became my normal state. In it all disappeared -- myself, my Guru, the life I lived, the world around me. Only peace remained and unfathomable silence. " NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ, " I Am That " Thanks again for your time and attention Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > Simply resorting to " who am i? " even in the silent > recesses of your mind, will never be enough. the " i " > asking the question " who am i? " will ever be veiling > the reality of the Self that never has a question to > begin with. > Hello Sri Shyam, me again, hope you don't mind: The above statement, needs to be put into context, meaning that it might be true for the " unprepared seeker " , but it might be incorrect to state it for the " ripe soul " , as Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's words declare: Extract from " living by the words of Bhagavan " by Annamalai Swami (page 26): " In the years that followed I had many other spiritual talks with Bhagavan but his basic message never changed. It was always, 'Do self-enquiry, stop identifying with the body and try to be aware of the Self which is our real nature'. Prior to these early conversations I had been spending several hours each day performing elaborate pujas and anushtanas. When I asked Bhagavan if I should continue with them he replied, 'You need not do any of these pujas any more. If you practise self-enquiry, that alone will be enough'. How to figure out if one is a ripe soul or not is another subject to discuss, but apparently for the one who is ready and qualified, atma-vichara (if done properly) is more than enough. Thanks again, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Hello Freind Shayam This is an excellent exposition of man's pathetic condition. The amount of work ahead of him is huge. Man's sole assignment is Realization. Anything that sways man away from his assignment is ego. Now, the crucial question, HOW this is accomplished? A total transformation has to occur. A total change in man's perspective has to occur. I am sorry, I know that it is very difficult or even impossible to draw a path that one can follow from A to Z. Any way, I will try. It is a change from the personal prespective to the objective prespective. Then from the objective prespective to the impersonal prespective. The world when examined will appear in perfect tune with the adopted prespective. From the personal prespective, the world will appear where I am, is at the center, and everything else revolves around me. It is very pleasing to adopt and become glued to the personal prespective. From the objective prespective, the world will show its ugly face. Man has no security, there is nothing to secure man, to the extent that man cannot live there any longer, it is no longer a dwelling place. This will push the seeker forward to the impersonal prespective, where man is no more, there is no need to be secure, and God is everywhere. This is a very silly oversimplification to the path, but it touches the core of the ego -which we want to dissolve. It touches the pleasures we are deriving from our present personal prespective and the seubject of security. I hope that someone might draw the way in better terms. All I can say that although it is the most arduous assignment assigned to man, yet it can be carried out. h advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams, > > Yes, one has to be extremely careful in advaita as to > what one means by I the Self. > > We are so well-entrenched in the false i - even though > it is labeled a i-notion - it is more than a mere > notion or concept that we need to let go of - it is > verily who we are - the i who thinks, talks, eats, > sleeps, dreams, desires, is sad, is happy, plans, > breathes, etc. - this i is our very sense of > individuality, nourished as it has been through > millions of births from beginningless time! > > Letting go of one's individuality means dying to one's > self as we now know it, see it, feel it. While our > Masters like Bhagwan Ramana, and many other Seers may > make it look simple, direct, even effortless, I think > there is a grave danger into a seeker falling into a > complacent trap of delving into a comfort zone. There > is nothing more difficult in the world than letting go > of our cherished notional individuality. > > Even the Gods fail in this, what to speak of mortals. > Indra, the ruler of the Heavens, how much prowess he > must have had to acquire that status - and yet he > spends hundreds of years after approaching a Guru for > self-knowledge and still finds himself incomplete, > unable to pierce the barriers of his own notionality. > > Sage Narada, who has the darshan of Lord Narayana at a > moments wish, and is the Rishi for the devas, who has > completely mastered all the scriptures all the > sciences in the world, has learnt all that is to know, > still approaches Sage Vamana saying I am in a sea of > sorrow for i lack knowledge of the Self. The > Upanishads talk about these instances to point out > just how hard it is to attain Self-realization. > > Our teachers out of sheer benevolence so as not to > discourage us from coming to this field, from > rejecting it or shunning it outright do tell us it is > the gain of something already existent, it is a direct > approach, etc - these are in the way of getting the > child to the mountain he needs to climb - you are > almost there - just a little longer, just a little > more...etc...until the seeker has made sufficient > progress to gain a sense of commitment to the journey, > having been fully convinced of the ephemerality of the > world. If after gaining such a commitment, the sheer > magnitude of the task at hand is not appreciated, > there is a real danger of self-effort becoming lax. > Gaining knowledge of the Self is harder than emptying > the entire Ocean drop by drop with a leaf of grass! No > less! > > See how the Gita talks and Shankara talks about such a > Seer. > A Seer views his own body like a corpse - if it were > to shrivel and die it would make not one iota of a > difference to him - what then to speak of any near and > dear ones, if he had any. He views the world as > nothing but a play. He is unconcerned, unattached to > anything, dwelling in his own nature - the entire > riches of the Universe to him are worthless. He is > indifferent to the status of his body and its needs. > IN the words of the GitA - he is totally free from > harsha---from elation; amarsha---intolerance; > bhaya---fear; ca udvegaih---and anxiety of any sort. > > It is the rarest treasure - to be found only at the > pinnacle of spiritual perfection, and available only > to that rare person who succeeds in the steepest path > to climb. > > Even spiritual giants like MadhavAcharya and > RamanujAcharya could not get themselves to accept > Advaita - why?? - because advaita demands nothing > short of a complete surrender of one " self " - total > death, annihilation in toto. I give myself up, and I > gain God. They stopped short, preferring the easier > path of proximity - be near Him, enjoy Him, admire > Him, but " i " want to be there too - " i " cannot die - > not so fast, not so soon, not even for the Lord, my > true Self. > > As if this were not enough there is one more paradox > to contend with. Effort is not going to get you this > knowledge either!! It is not a matter of > purusha-tantra but vastu-tantra. > > Effort pertains to the self that is notional > Effortlessness pertains to the being, the awareness, > that is Real. > > Effort betrays the very veiling of what is effortless > - and yet not " efforting " is in itself a effort that > only veils more. > > The reason is the very Ego that makes all these > Efforts is also the Ego that needs to be dissolved so > a vision of the Self, of the Lord be gained. So if i > set out to dissolve this concept of the Ego or my > concepts of the world, God, etc the very i that is > setting to dissolve all this is verily the only i that > needs to be dissolved, it is also the only i that can > get dissolved - everything else - all the neti neti in > the world being part of Ishwara srshti. > > So something besides my intellect needs to be involved > in this process. And that something else is Grace - > the Grace of the very Self to which have i the seeker > have a severe longing for, and an undying devotion to. > > Self-knowledge is not a matter of repetition - it is > not even a matter of memory. It is not that i have to > keep remembering this fact that " i am brahman " every > single moment of the day. Nor is it a matter of > brainwashed dissociation - " i am not angry - i am > awareness that is illumining the angry mind " - this > kind of conscious thinking or dwelling upon is not > Self-realization. Self-knowledge is also not a matter > of denial, even if be of the non-self. neti neti does > not mean i simply persist in my efforts to deny the > world, or deny my feelings, emotions, - if i go on > denying everything all through my life i will only end > up wasting it away in an ashen sea of nothingness. It > is not about repeatedly proclaiming i am awareness, > nor even is it to arrive at a rationally thought-out > conclusion that i am awareness. > > Dissolution of the ego - needs a purified mind and a > focussed intellect - the Ego can only be dissolved in > the fire of knowledge the ocean of devotion - Its > dissolution has to be both total, and irreversible. > in that dissolution alone the Real Self shines forth > on its own accord. > > Because my intellect by itself is not adequate in this > task - this is where Shruti comes in, as the only > valid pramAna - it is verily a mirror to mySelf - > since scriptures come in, naturally grammar, logic, > concepts, language, etc all come in to play - So the > various arguments the mind puts forth to reject > self-knowledge are put to rest. At the same time any > comfort zones the mind may slip into in complacency at > a task pre-accomplished are also shaken off. > Constantly is this knowledge stirred into the mind, > every concept churned over and over. > > Simply resorting to " who am i? " even in the silent > recesses of your mind, will never be enough. the " i " > asking the question " who am i? " will ever be veiling > the reality of the Self that never has a question to > begin with. > > In the Bhagwan's (Ramana) own words - > > Ahami naasha bhaajyaham aham tayaa > Sphurathi Hrut Svayam parama poorna sat > > When I-thought or Ego is destroyed, > the pure I shines forth on its own > as the Supreme and perfect (full) Existence. > > then what??..listen.. > > Bandha Muktyatheetham param sukham > Vindhathi iha jeevah thu daivikah > > The Individual Jeeva (who has acquired the knowledge > of the Self) realizes the Divine Lord who is Supreme, > Blissful and beyond both bondage and liberation here > in this world itself. > > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam > > --- Steve Stoker otnac6 wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > What does Sri Ramana means by incessantly asking > > > yourself the question > > > Who Am I? > > > > It seems that it's not really asking over and over > > " Who am I? " This may express more of an attitude, an > > interface with the world and oneself. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Dear Mouna-ji PranAms. Thank you for your valuable comments and even more so for the sublime and Divine words of the Maharshi. The Maharshi has put is most beautifully when he says " `one whose actions are the actions of God', because he who has attained the state of Supreme Bliss has lost his individuality and is hence not other than God, the One Supreme Reality. " Earlier in that same post I had expressed this same sentiment - " dissolution of the Ego has to be both total, and irreversible - in that dissolution alone the Real Self shines forth on its own accord " and Bhagwan's verses were quoted to support this contention alone. Hence the translation I provided is valid ONLY in a nondual context, as you have very rightly pointed out " realization is the dissolution of the notion of being separate from the Supreme " .... Duality which is ever mithyA is extinguished simultaneous with extinction of the Ego. I recall another of Maharshi's words here in this context - " The Divine gives light to the mind and shines within it. Except by turning the mind inward and fixing it in the Divine, there is no other way to know Him through the mind. " Humble pranAms Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Mouna <solracartist wrote: > advaitin , Shyam > <shyam_md wrote: > > > > > Dear Mr Shyam: > The last verse you quoted, actually verse number 29 > of Upadesa Saram > of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, the translation you > use, is a little > confusing to me, since it has a certain flavor of > dualism, as if the > individual jeeva, once attaining the knowledge of > the Self, realizes > the Divine Lord who is Supreme as separate from > itself... To my > understanding, the knowledge of the Self is Being > the Self (Brahman), > meaning that realization is the dissolution of the > notion of being > separate from the Supreme. > There are two other translations (shown below) that > establishes > clearly that the jeeva that has acquired the > knowledge of the Self IS > HIMSELF indeed the Supreme Reality. > Is that what you had in mind?, or maybe I > misunderstood your posting. > > QUOTE 1 from Upadesa Undiyar by Sadhu Om and Michael > James: > " In the Sanskrit version of this verse, the meaning > of which is, `The > soul [jiva] who attains here the supreme bliss which > transcends > bondage and liberation, is indeed divine > [daivikah]', Sri Bhagavan has > made no direct mention of `abiding in the service of > God', which is > the central idea in the original Tamil version of > this verse. However, > Sri Bhagavan once explained that the word `daivikah' > (divine) which He > used in the Sanskrit version of this verse is > intended to imply `one > whose actions are the actions of God', because he > who has attained the > state of supreme bliss has lost his individuality > and is hence not > other than God, the one supreme reality. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Hence the translation I provided is valid ONLY in a > nondual context... Dear Shyamji, pranams Thanks for your reply. (This List is a blessed spot in the digital world...) Yours in All, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 Pranams Mouna-ji I was out of town - so apologies for the late reply. The difference here is between the seeker and the realized Master. During your sadhana, of course one has to constantly and continuously strain to maintain discrimination between what is real and what is seemingly real. But even if one were to be very successful in doing this for the most part, it is still eons away from the effortless abidance in Being that a Realized Master has - in the latter's case the very ego-sense has vanished without a trace. Then, and only then, is there no effort - because the entity that would effort is no longer. The sentences you have quoted have extraordinarily highlighted the two most important qualities - " faith " - not the very pregnant words - " i trusted him " - and committment - note the words - " tenaciously and not to swerve for even a moment " - only to the rare One, who has the twin wings of supreme faith and single-pointed committment - shraddha and purushartha-nischaya - does the Ego break-free from its own shackles. Shyam --- Mouna <solracartist wrote: > advaitin , Shyam > <shyam_md wrote: > > > Self-knowledge is not a matter of repetition - it > is > > not even a matter of memory. It is not that i have > to > > keep remembering this fact that " i am brahman " > every > > single moment of the day. > > Dear Mr Shyam, it's me again, hi: > > How do you explain these words by Sri Nissargadatta > Maharaj under the > light of your statement? > > " When I met my Guru, he told me: " You are not what > you take > yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the > sense 'I am', find > your real Self. " I obeyed him, because I trusted > him. I did as he told > me. All my spare time I would spend looking at > myself in silence. And > what a difference it made, and how soon! > My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' > tenaciously and > not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my > best to follow his > advice and in a comparatively short time I realized > within myself the > truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his > teaching, his > face, his words constantly. This brought an end to > the mind; in the > stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- > unbound. > I simply followed (my teacher's) instruction which > was to focus the > mind on pure being 'I am', and stay in it. I used to > sit for hours > together, with nothing but the 'I am' in my mind and > soon peace and > joy and a deep all-embracing love became my normal > state. In it all > disappeared -- myself, my Guru, the life I lived, > the world around > me. Only peace remained and unfathomable silence. " > > NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ, " I Am That " > > Thanks again for your time and attention > Mouna > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 Pranams Mouna-ji Atma-vichArA without a pramAna I am afraid is not going to be enough. This subject has been dealth with at length before on this forum - suffice to say that without an appropriate means of knowledge, Self-knowledge is impossible to attain. And since this knowledge is not avaiable for any other means, one has to acquire it only from the Shruti - the Scriptures - - at least this is the general rule. Now if one has immense faith in one's Guru, such as the Maharshi, then the latter's achArya-upadesha of tat tvam asi, when appropriately handled and taught, may itself perhaps lead one towards Self-knowledge, if as you say the mind is ripe, and the intellect attuned, and there is sufficient dispassion, devotion and effort - however in my humble opinion, it is always going to be more prudent to approach a traditional Guru who is familiar with the teaching tradition or sampradaya in this regard. If there is no pramAna either in the form of Shruti VakyA nor in the form of AchArya-Upadesha, then a million lifetimes of a phantom Ego enquiring by itself of itself to dissolve into the " dis " covery of its Real substratum will I daresay prove insufficient. Humble pranAms, Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Mouna <solracartist wrote: > advaitin , Shyam > <shyam_md wrote: > > > Simply resorting to " who am i? " even in the silent > > recesses of your mind, will never be enough. the > " i " > > asking the question " who am i? " will ever be > veiling > > the reality of the Self that never has a question > to > > begin with. > > > Hello Sri Shyam, me again, hope you don't mind: > The above statement, needs to be put into context, > meaning that it > might be true for the " unprepared seeker " , but it > might be incorrect > to state it for the " ripe soul " , as Bhagavan Ramana > Maharshi's words > declare: > > Extract from " living by the words of Bhagavan " by > Annamalai Swami > (page 26): > " In the years that followed I had many other > spiritual talks with > Bhagavan but his basic message never changed. It was > always, 'Do > self-enquiry, stop identifying with the body and try > to be aware of > the Self which is our real nature'. > Prior to these early conversations I had been > spending several hours > each day performing elaborate pujas and anushtanas. > When I asked Bhagavan if I should continue with them > he replied, 'You > need not do any of these pujas any more. If you > practise self-enquiry, > that alone will be enough'. > > How to figure out if one is a ripe soul or not is > another subject to > discuss, but apparently for the one who is ready and > qualified, > atma-vichara (if done properly) is more than enough. > > Thanks again, > Mouna > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > Pranams Mouna-ji > The sentences you have quoted have extraordinarily > highlighted the two most important qualities - " faith " > - not the very pregnant words - " i trusted him " - and > committment - note the words - " tenaciously and not to > swerve for even a moment " - only to the rare One, who > has the twin wings of supreme faith and single-pointed > committment - shraddha and purushartha-nischaya - does > the Ego break-free from its own shackles. and > Atma-vichArA without a pramAna I am afraid is not > going to be enough. Dear Shyamji, Pranams. Again thank you for this clarification of your postings under the light (or darkness!) of my doubts. If ever some of the points you raised are still not completely clear in my mind, I take that only to be a question of not enough manana on my part. Can't thank you enough for this exchange. Yours in All, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 PranAms Hsin-ji That was very beautiful - I would humbly disagree with you that anyone could draw it any better! personal --> objective --> impersonal Beautiful!! Hari OM Shyam --- hsin_shang <hsin_shang wrote: > > Hello Freind Shayam > > It is a change from the personal prespective to the > objective prespective. > Then from the objective prespective to the > impersonal prespective. > This is a very silly oversimplification to the > path, but it touches the > core of the ego -which we want to dissolve. > I hope that someone might draw the way in > better terms. > > All I can say that although it is the most arduous > assignment assigned > to man, yet it can be carried out. > > h 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.