(No subject)

[Guest guest]

I would like some feedback on this from all who would like to respond.

 

We are all in agreement here that Ramana's life was the perfect demonstration.

We have all practiced Self Enquiry and all feel devotion to Ramana, so by no

means is this to instigate argument. I want to understand something very

specific here.

 

I know that Ramana Himself made reference to Laksmhi the cow and His mother as

having attained realization, along with others.

 

And we all approach Him as the realized one. No confusion here.

 

What I am looking at is that Ramana saying someone is realized is relevant to

the moment that He said it and who He was saying it to. How we take many of His

teachings may seem to differ in each of us here.

 

What I trust alone is when Ramana speaks directly to me. Even here the context

is only relevant to the moment and the context of how I hear what He is saying;

with filters or in complete clarity.

 

What I am being told and I share this with all of you here not to be validated

or confirmed in any way but simply because it is rising in what I would call

truth of obeying Ramana's word to me.

 

It has been brought to my attention by Ramana, that there is no way to call

someone Realized (this He is making relevant to me in this moment for His own

purpose). The reason He says He wants me to fully comprehend this is to let go

of this self definition in terms of being realized. He says all is the realized

Self, what else could be? This is what He is revealing in the heart right now...

this is not regurgitation of His statements read over the years in study. He is

urging me to let go completely of this idea, that there is a destination to

arrive at known as realization. This may sound contrary to some of His statments

and may be confirmed by other statements He has made. But that is also not the

point.

 

He has made it abundantly clear to me that only one in their own heart can

confirm that they are the eternal self. Now, as Ramana is the eternal self in

the heart, He can confirm from within. At this point it is no longer required to

call the one confirming this truth by the name of Ramana, as it is the eternal

with out the form any longer- do we really believe that when the eternal had the

form of Ramana, that the form interfered in any way? No, I believe we agree on

this matter, which is why we regard Ramana as the perfect demonstration of the

Eternal with a human form.

 

Yet, as this confirmation is made by ourself in the heart, we continue to refer

to the confirmer as Ramana out of respect and loyalty to the one we love; just

as Ramana continued to refer to Arunachala, and Papaji always had a picture of

Ramana behind him.

 

What I am getting at is that it can seem like tricky business when we interact

and especially with all the non dual teachers out there comming out of the wood

work, and the rising sense in ourselves to be teachers, if not in the

traditional sense, at the least in our day to day encounters.

 

I am expressing all of this with the intent to be completely honest and in turn

refine the communication process on these matters.

 

I know I have used a lot of words, and it may be a tendency of the mind to want

to articulate how one experiences being oneself, limited to language, and I am

more than happy to keep quiet and even go away from here if this is a

distraction. And I fully accept the notion of you all saying that this is just

the ramblings of one on their way to realization. But is this really how you all

see the matter? That we are heading to a final realization? Because again,

Ramana has told me to give up that notion of finality in order to fully uncover

what has always been, and could never be called an acomplishment.

 

Yours in Ramana and in Honesty,

 

Rafael Stoneman