Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 `...Bliss is not something to be got. On the other hand you are always Bliss. This desire [for Bliss] is born of the sense of incompleteness. To whom is this sense of incompleteness? Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful. Now you are not so. What has interposed between that Bliss and this non-bliss? It is the ego. Seek its source and find you are Bliss. Bhagvan Sri Ramana Maharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 , " purnimamujumdar " <purnimamujumdar wrote: > > `...Bliss is not something to be got. > On the other hand you are always Bliss. > This desire [for Bliss] is born of the sense of incompleteness. > To whom is this sense of incompleteness? > Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful. > Now you are not so. > What has interposed between that Bliss and this non-bliss? > It is the ego. > Seek its source and find you are Bliss. > > Bhagvan Sri Ramana Maharshi > the femail wich is us is alwase in bliss...let us try to with her form.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Raanen's previous posting has been corrected with his agreement for spelling etc. Alan The Divine Mother which is in us is always in bliss... let us try to BE with her form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 , " raanan_goder " <raanan_goder wrote: > > , " purnimamujumdar " > <purnimamujumdar@> wrote: > > > > `...Bliss is not something to be got. > > On the other hand you are always Bliss. > > This desire [for Bliss] is born of the sense of incompleteness. > > To whom is this sense of incompleteness? > > Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful. > > Now you are not so. > > What has interposed between that Bliss and this non-bliss? > > It is the ego. > > Seek its source and find you are Bliss. > > > > Bhagvan Sri Ramana Maharshi > > > the femail wich is us is alwase in bliss...let us try to with her form.. > Namaste, This bears out what I have been saying---Ramana talked mainly of Iswara/Saguna/Sakti etc, as that was the mentality of many of his audience. Bliss is the last impediment as it is of the mind/iswara/sakti/saguna. Ramana also said that Iswara was as real as you are.........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 , " Tony OClery " wrote: >> Ramana talked mainly of Iswara/Saguna/Sakti etc, as that was the mentality of many of his audience. Bliss is the last impediment as it is of the mind/iswara/sakti/saguna. Ramana also said that Iswara was as real as you are.........Tony<< Dear Tony, Both Ramana and Sankaracharya stated that our true nature, Atman, is none other than the unborn Brahman (nirguna Brahman). This is the essence of ajatavada, is it not? This is the natural state (sahaj stithi) unrealised by us and realised and 'abided in' by the jnani. Jiva (the individual) and Ishwara (the personal god, saguna brahman) are appearances in the field of empirical existence, i.e., duality. Both jiva and Ishwara as appearances are relative realities, relative truths. It would be quite absurd for either Ramana or Sankaracharya to assert that our true nature, our " real self " , is but an appearance, a relative reality, nor did either of them assert this. It is the same unborn Brahman that appears as the individual jiva, the world, and as Ishwara (saguna brahman). This is the heart of Ramana's teaching. With regards to Bliss, Ramana distinguishes between the Bliss which is our true nature (Atman, Brahman) and temporary blissful states of consciousness experienced by the jiva due to the anandamaya kosa. It is the latter that are usually referred to as an impediment when the individual jiva becomes attached to such transient states of mind. In Talks, Ramana explains: M.: The common man is aware of himself only when modifications arise in the intellect (vijnanamaya kosa); these modifications are transient; they arise and set. Hence the vijnanamaya (intellect) is called a kosa or sheath. When pure awareness is left over it is itself the Chit (Self) or the Supreme. To be in one's natural state on the subsidence of thoughts is bliss; if that bliss be transient - arising and setting - then it is only the sheath of bliss (Anandamaya kosa), not the pure Self. What is needed is to fix the attention on the pure 'I' after the subsidence of all thoughts and not to lose hold of it. This has to be described as an extremely subtle thought; else it cannot be spoken of at all, since it is no other than the Real Self. Who is to speak of it, to whom and how? (Talks: 624) Best wishes, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > > > , " Tony OClery " wrote: > > >> Ramana talked mainly of Iswara/Saguna/Sakti etc, as that was the > mentality of many of his audience. Bliss is the last impediment as it is of > the mind/iswara/sakti/saguna. Ramana also said that Iswara was as real as > you are.........Tony<< > > Dear Tony, > > Both Ramana and Sankaracharya stated that our true nature, Atman, is none > other than the unborn Brahman (nirguna Brahman). This is the essence of > ajatavada, is it not? This is the natural state (sahaj stithi) unrealised > by us and realised and 'abided in' by the jnani. > > Jiva (the individual) and Ishwara (the personal god, saguna brahman) are > appearances in the field of empirical existence, i.e., duality. Both jiva > and Ishwara as appearances are relative realities, relative truths. It would > be quite absurd for either Ramana or Sankaracharya to assert that our true > nature, our " real self " , is but an appearance, a relative reality, nor did > either of them assert this. It is the same unborn Brahman that appears as > the individual jiva, the world, and as Ishwara (saguna brahman). This is > the heart of Ramana's teaching. > > With regards to Bliss, Ramana distinguishes between the Bliss which is our > true nature (Atman, Brahman) and temporary blissful states of consciousness > experienced by the jiva due to the anandamaya kosa. It is the latter that > are usually referred to as an impediment when the individual jiva becomes > attached to such transient states of mind. In Talks, Ramana explains: > > M.: The common man is aware of himself only when > modifications arise in the intellect (vijnanamaya kosa); these > modifications are transient; they arise and set. Hence the vijnanamaya > (intellect) is called a kosa or sheath. When pure awareness is left > over it is itself the Chit (Self) or the Supreme. To be in one's natural > state on the subsidence of thoughts is bliss; if that bliss be transient > - arising and setting - then it is only the sheath of bliss (Anandamaya > kosa), not the pure Self. What is needed is to fix the attention on > the pure 'I' after the subsidence of all thoughts and not to lose hold > of it. This has to be described as an extremely subtle thought; else > it cannot be spoken of at all, since it is no other than the Real Self. > Who is to speak of it, to whom and how? > (Talks: 624) > > Best wishes, > Peter Namaste, Peter, You are still talking of Saguna concept.. ...Sankara never taught beyond the Self...the unborn etc is Saguna the God within but at the same time separate........I am talking of Nir Guna Brahman or Para Advaita. Ultimately there is no Saguna but many followers totally confuse Saguna with Nir Guna and assume that somebody made a mistake when they wrote NirGuna as it cannot be positively described.. Ramana and Sankara only talk about what can be talked about Saguna. Saguna of the projected Bliss, Sakti Iswara etc etc........Sakti or even prakriti are Bliss the supreme bliss of illusion and delusion. That is what I am saying even the appearance, projection and projector didn't happen..........That is Ajativada even ParaAdvaita a phrase I coined myself to explain my ramblings....... That is the fatal mistake of most sadhakas to continually identify the unborn Saguna as NirGuna, hence my treatment on the Advaitin site for daring to say that the Brahman of Pralaya is Saguna because of the potentialiy.............Wake up and smell the Gunas that is the delusion...........Cheers Tony. 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.