Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yosi, you know I love your posts and your heart as the heart of the Eternal Self, but let's not get caught in these traps without complete honesty: "EnlightenmentMeansNot describingNor discussing"What else could you possibly be doing with the above statement but discribing and discussing enlightenment!? It is far more worth while for me to formally acknowledge that discussing and discribing are perfectly relevant. I understand to taste and to be. of course. Agreed. Thank you for reading and listening. Rafael Yosy Flug <yosyflug Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:34:34 PMRe: (unknown) / self realization, enlightenmentrafaelstoneman wrote:>>> 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>EnlightenmentMeansNot describingNor discussingWhat enlightenmentIs.It is so simpleIt’s a shame to admitEven the lowest of the baseKnow it.Yet the most profound intellectCan but glimpseA mere reflectionOf its depths.No amount of wordsCan describe the tasteOf honey.Eat!The enlightened ask notThey areThe answer.yosy--- is supported by . New articles are added there on a continuous basis. Please register at . You will be kept updated and get the new articles which are posted on the site very nicely formatted in your e-mail.Friends, after registering at , if you wish to contribute your writing to the site, please let me know. Your articles should be original, well written, using subtitles, and be carefully proofread and polished. For a list of topics considered, please go to and take a look at the site. Thanks. Namaste and love to allHarsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 rafaelstoneman wrote: > > > 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 > Enlightenment Means Not describing Nor discussing What enlightenment Is. It is so simple It’s a shame to admit Even the lowest of the base Know it. Yet the most profound intellect Can but glimpse A mere reflection Of its depths. No amount of words Can describe the taste Of honey. Eat! The enlightened ask not They are The answer. yosy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Rafe Stoneman wrote: > > > Yosi, you know I love your posts and your heart as the heart of the > Eternal Self, but let's not get caught in these traps without complete > honesty: > " Enlightenment > Means > Not describing > Nor discussing " > What else could you possibly be doing with the above statement but > discribing and discussing enlightenment!? hehe nothing... > It is far more worth while for me to formally acknowledge that > discussing and discribing are perfectly relevant. I understand to > taste and to be. of course. Agreed. > Thank you for reading and listening. > Rafael you are welcome. letting it be moment to moment, yosy > > ------ > ** Yosy Flug <yosyflug > *To:* > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:34:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: (unknown) / self > realization, enlightenment > > rafaelstoneman wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment > Means > Not describing > Nor discussing > What enlightenment > Is. > It is so simple > t’s a shame to admit > Even the lowest of the base > now it. > Yet the most profound intellect > Can but glimpse > A mere reflection > Of its depths. > No amount of words > Can describe the taste > Of honey. > Eat! > The enlightened ask not > They are > The answer. > > > yosy > > > 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.