RAMANA MAHARSHI'S SONG CELESTIAL STUDY GROUP / 24 / upadesa

[Guest guest]

, " upadesa " <maunna wrote:

>

> " yosyx " <yosyflug wrote:

>

> ... and teaches the sahaka to abandon

> > the mistaken identifying of the self with nama/rupa,

> > in whatever form. activity preformed by the body/mind

> > and senses alone, wihout any attachment, does not

> > affect in the slightest the " i-i " , the true self...

>

> Dear All,

>

> I just wanted to point out that Ego (Ahamkara) is NOT ONLY the sense

> of doership, but ALSO, the sense of incompleteness. So,

every " action "

> generated from Ego will have this sense of incompleteness also, the

> necessity to " acquire " the fulfillment that Ego will never have

since

> is apparent or illusory in nature.

> That's why the sense of doership will NEVER be lost on actions that

> involve Ego, for ex.: I want to rob my neighbor his bicycle because

I

> don't have money to buy one.

> In Yosyx statement: " whatever form activity performed " there is this

> misunderstanding, or let's put it this way, incomplete

understanding.

>

> As Alan pointed out, the fire of Knowledge will start dissolving,

not

> only the " sense of doership " but also will start revealing the

> fullfillment of Ananda, and THAT, will transform EVEN the actions we

> perform. We won't be prone anymore to perform actions that are in

> egoic behavior, since we will be connected to the fullfillment that

> the Whole gives.

>

> In many advaitic circles today, there is this notion that even Ego

is

> OK because is part of the Absolute, so we can perform any kind of

> action regardless its consequences since " we know " that every action

> is within the Self... Another trick of Ego to justify its sense of

> unfulfillment and... doership!!

>

> Krishna acts, as Peter pointed out, to the eyes of the ignorant. But

> his actions are ALWAYS Dharmic, since they are born from the

Absolute

> Understanding. As for the Absolute/Self/Brahman, there is no action

> " there " whatsoever...

>

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

>

 

 

 

dear mouna, allow to correct your " incomplete

understanding " . see, the apparent transformation

of " our " actions etc is akin to cutting off and

withering of the illusory tree of ahamkara, the 'ego';

the sense of doership. but jnana cuts directly at the

very root of the tree, which never exists in the first

place... " the true always is, the untrue never has

existence " (ch.2). like sun dispersing the morning

mists, the knowledge exposes the reality of non-existence

of 'my'self (ego) and thus obviously of any activity

whatsoever... in spite of apprent activities and engagements

of the senses and their objects etc, the all-containing, ever

whole and unaffected boundless truth/self/god is all that is,

was, and ever will be. regardless of appearances, all is

perfect always, and just as it should be.

 

there is no doer,

no " you " nor " me " .

in truth - all is " s/he " !

 

respectfully,

yosy

[Guest guest]

" yosyx " <yosyflug@> wrote:

>

> dear mouna, allow to correct your " incomplete

> understanding " . see, the apparent transformation

> of " our " actions etc is akin to cutting off and

> withering of the illusory tree of ahamkara, the 'ego';

> the sense of doership. but jnana cuts directly at the

> very root of the tree, which never exists in the first

> place... " the true always is, the untrue never has

> existence " (ch.2). like sun dispersing the morning

> mists, the knowledge exposes the reality of non-existence

> of 'my'self (ego) and thus obviously of any activity

> whatsoever... in spite of apprent activities and engagements

> of the senses and their objects etc, the all-containing, ever

> whole and unaffected boundless truth/self/god is all that is,

> was, and ever will be. regardless of appearances, all is

> perfect always, and just as it should be.

>

> there is no doer,

> no " you " nor " me " .

> in truth - all is " s/he " !

>

 

Dear Yosy, greetings!!

 

First of all, don't take personally the words " incomplete

understanding " . They were pointing to something else than Yosy's whole

understanding that proved to be quite deep in your poems.

 

That being said, I can't but agree 100% (or even 200% if that existed)

with what you have said.

My only commentary would be that your statement is coming from the

Absolute perspective. At that level, there is not even an " all " that

could be either a " he " , a " she " or even an " it " ...

Actions are perceived and performed at the Transactional/Relative

level, and from that level they are judged into Dharmic or Adharmic.

That is relative Teaching of the Gita, that's why Krishna wakes up

Arjuna and tells him: Take up your bow and fight!

The transactional/relative level is apparent, but nonetheless is the

one " we " are " in " communicating by email, " you " Yosy and " me " Mouna.

Within this level, adharmic actions are the ones that are performed

from the Ego standpoint (sense of doership + desires based on

unfulfillment), dharmic ones are the ones performed from the Natural

State, meaning in accordance with the Substance of the Absolute.

 

I think we are saying the same thing, only that I include the relative

level to study actions in general.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna