Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Hi Everyone A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. Namaste Raphael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Oops!! Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. Kind regards, Gabriele , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00 wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > Namaste > Raphael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 PS: meant interaction, not inaction Suppement of the 40 verses, verse 39: " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it into action. Even if you apply it to all the three worlds, O Son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " So the guru is an exception. So choose him/her carfully! , " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert wrote: > > Oops!! > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > Kind regards, > Gabriele > > > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > > > Namaste > > Raphael > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Gabriele You write with much certainty. To be fair, this is what I use to think, that personal rights are vital for social order etc. And for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they should be respected? Also, for the realized person, can what is in the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and the world neither as a result of relization? I don't know how this disjunction can be made. This implies personal choice too does it not? But does that continue after total realization? As for defending oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did that with the robbers. Personally, I am not sure that a deep understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be thought. Namaste Raphael , " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert wrote: > > Oops!! > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > Kind regards, > Gabriele > > > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > > > Namaste > > Raphael > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 ---- Original message ---- >Date:  Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:30:02 -0000 >  " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert >Subject:  Re: Personal Rights >To:  > > > > PS: meant interaction, not inaction > > Suppement of the 40 verses, verse 39: > " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it > into action. Even if you apply it to all the three > worlds, O Son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " > > So the guru is an exception. So choose him/her > carfully! perhaps this may be of assistance... Abandoning intent Right intent Is no intent. When all is perfect, whole, Just as it should be – Only gratitude Remains. What intent can arise? Can any purpose spring up And be In the absence Of 'Me'? BOOM! yosy nnb > > , " sadhaka1960 " > <g.ebert wrote: > > > > Oops!! > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did > not deny but respected them. They are needed in > social structures and they need to be protected. > Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, > certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We > also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction > with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice > from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not > be practical, I guess. > > > > Kind regards, > > Gabriele > > > > > > , > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that > of personal rights. > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something > along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the > Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal > rights? > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was > surrender and then act from there in " oneness " > which, I would have argued, follows a natural > intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away > from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our > cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't > see how that leaves any room for personal rights, > which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of > personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is > probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the > robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall > correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights > it appears. > > > > > > Namaste > > > Raphael > > > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group > Messages in this topic (3) > Recent Activity: > * New Members 1 > Visit Your Group Start a New Topic > 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 all > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yosy Exactly. And very nicely put.:-) Would it not be bliss more than gratitude though, for if there is no other, to whom or what does one feel gratitude to or for then? Namaste Raphael , <yosyflug wrote: > > > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date:  Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:30:02 -0000 > >  " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert > >Subject:  Re: Personal > Rights > >To:  > > > > > > > > PS: meant interaction, not inaction > > > > Suppement of the 40 verses, verse 39: > > " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it > > into action. Even if you apply it to all the three > > worlds, O Son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " > > > > So the guru is an exception. So choose him/her > > carfully! > > > perhaps this may be of assistance... > > > Abandoning intent > > Right intent > Is no intent. > When all is perfect, whole, > Just as it should be †" > Only gratitude > Remains. > What intent can arise? > Can any purpose spring up > And be > In the absence > Of > 'Me'? > > > > BOOM! > yosy > > > nnb > > > > , " sadhaka1960 " > > <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > > > Oops!! > > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did > > not deny but respected them. They are needed in > > social structures and they need to be protected. > > Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, > > certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We > > also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction > > with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice > > from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not > > be practical, I guess. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > , > > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that > > of personal rights. > > > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something > > along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the > > Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal > > rights? > > > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was > > surrender and then act from there in " oneness " > > which, I would have argued, follows a natural > > intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away > > from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our > > cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't > > see how that leaves any room for personal rights, > > which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of > > personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is > > probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the > > robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall > > correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights > > it appears. > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > Raphael > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group > > Messages in this topic (3) > > Recent Activity: > > * New Members 1 > > Visit Your Group Start a New Topic > > 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 all > > Harsha > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Perhaps bliss is no more, no less than the one and only feeling remaining in the feeling of being alive, underneath and superimposed over & beyond any duality including gratitude or its lack. ~A , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00 wrote: > > Yosy > > Exactly. And very nicely put.:-) > > Would it not be bliss more than gratitude though, for if there is no other, to whom or what does one feel gratitude to or for then? > > Namaste > Raphael > > , <yosyflug@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > >Date:  Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:30:02 -0000 > > >  " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert@> > > >Subject:  Re: Personal > > Rights > > >To:  > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: meant interaction, not inaction > > > > > > Suppement of the 40 verses, verse 39: > > > " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it > > > into action. Even if you apply it to all the three > > > worlds, O Son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " > > > > > > So the guru is an exception. So choose him/her > > > carfully! > > > > > > perhaps this may be of assistance... > > > > > > Abandoning intent > > > > Right intent > > Is no intent. > > When all is perfect, whole, > > Just as it should be †" > > Only gratitude > > Remains. > > What intent can arise? > > Can any purpose spring up > > And be > > In the absence > > Of > > 'Me'? > > > > > > > > BOOM! > > yosy > > > > > > nnb > > > > > > , " sadhaka1960 " > > > <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Oops!! > > > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did > > > not deny but respected them. They are needed in > > > social structures and they need to be protected. > > > Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, > > > certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We > > > also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction > > > with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice > > > from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not > > > be practical, I guess. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that > > > of personal rights. > > > > > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something > > > along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the > > > Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal > > > rights? > > > > > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was > > > surrender and then act from there in " oneness " > > > which, I would have argued, follows a natural > > > intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away > > > from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our > > > cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't > > > see how that leaves any room for personal rights, > > > which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of > > > personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is > > > probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the > > > robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall > > > correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights > > > it appears. > > > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > > Raphael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group > > > Messages in this topic (3) > > > Recent Activity: > > > * New Members 1 > > > Visit Your Group Start a New Topic > > > 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 all > > > Harsha > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dear Sri Raphael, If there is a person an individual, then there is some thing that belongs and pertains to him. Self enquiry is for discovering that one is not a person, not an individual, but just Consciousness whose nature is Bliss. Is there one private moment in the life of Bhagavan Sri Ramana? Did he ever want a private moment? So, you are right indeed. When there is no thought at all but awareness only, just pure awareness, where is the question of having a thought of personal rights? Love, Yours in Bhagavan Ramamohan , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00 wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > Namaste > Raphael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dear Sri Raphael, I thought of adding a couple of lines more. For the one who is established in the Self the universe may appear or disappear, but one is the Self only. To put in a worldly language, the universe arises and subsides in the Self. For the one who is the Self nothing is apart from him. When one is every thing what does one want from what is in Him already. Such is the state. There is no person and none to seek personal rights because he is every thing. Love, Yours in Bhagavan Ramamohan , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00 wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > Namaste > Raphael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dear Raphael the way a HOLY BEING (my expression) lives hisher life can only be understood by another HOLY BEING the same way as being "enlightened" - i prefer much more "having lifted the curtain of NoKnowledge" - can only be recognized by another "illuminated" one. Regarding socalled personal rights - Sri Raman was incredible carefull to respect the way others believe they have to live their life I do not know your background - but socalled personal rights have never been respected by those in "power" - and especially nowadays where instead of LOVE false security and financial means are the core of most socalled humans. If you look around everywhere you will see that that is right. And believe me: after so many decades of trying to live consciously and doing my best to help to change the worldly situation a n d trying to find TRUTH i finally realized and accepted fullheartedly !!! that everything what IS is authentic. the world situation is the sum of the personal radiation of those who still cling to "world". And as Sri Ramana Maharshi stated: in my words what is not allowed to happen will never happen regardless what you want do not want... what is allowed to happen will happen regardless what you want or do not want... regarding living nonduality in this dual world its really not possible for example convincing someone about our belief-system is futile b u t to live your life in a way that is authentic - thats the challenge everybody has to live - whenever heshe understands the real meaning of it tku for yoúr contribution all the best in Sri Ramana Maharshi michael - beingnothing00 Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Personal Rights GabrieleYou write with much certainty.To be fair, this is what I use to think, that personal rights are vital for social order etc. And for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they should be respected?Also, for the realized person, can what is in the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and the world neither as a result of relization? I don't know how this disjunction can be made. This implies personal choice too does it not? But does that continue after total realization? As for defending oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did that with the robbers.Personally, I am not sure that a deep understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be thought.NamasteRaphael , "sadhaka1960" <g.ebert wrote:>> Oops!!> Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the "world" - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > Kind regards,> Gabriele> > > , "beingnothing00" <beingnothing00@> wrote:> >> > Hi Everyone> > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights.> > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate.> > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no.> > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights?> > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in "oneness" which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway.> > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears.> > > > Namaste> > Raphael> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Anna That seems to be it, doesn't it? Lovely point. Raphael , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > Perhaps bliss is no more, no less than the one and only feeling remaining in the feeling of being alive, underneath and superimposed over & beyond any duality including gratitude or its lack. > > ~A > > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > Yosy > > > > Exactly. And very nicely put.:-) > > > > Would it not be bliss more than gratitude though, for if there is no other, to whom or what does one feel gratitude to or for then? > > > > Namaste > > Raphael > > > > , <yosyflug@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > > >Date:  Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:30:02 -0000 > > > >  " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert@> > > > >Subject:  Re: Personal > > > Rights > > > >To:  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: meant interaction, not inaction > > > > > > > > Suppement of the 40 verses, verse 39: > > > > " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it > > > > into action. Even if you apply it to all the three > > > > worlds, O Son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " > > > > > > > > So the guru is an exception. So choose him/her > > > > carfully! > > > > > > > > > perhaps this may be of assistance... > > > > > > > > > Abandoning intent > > > > > > Right intent > > > Is no intent. > > > When all is perfect, whole, > > > Just as it should be †" > > > Only gratitude > > > Remains. > > > What intent can arise? > > > Can any purpose spring up > > > And be > > > In the absence > > > Of > > > 'Me'? > > > > > > > > > > > > BOOM! > > > yosy > > > > > > > > > nnb > > > > > > > > , " sadhaka1960 " > > > > <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oops!! > > > > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did > > > > not deny but respected them. They are needed in > > > > social structures and they need to be protected. > > > > Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > > > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, > > > > certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We > > > > also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > > > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction > > > > with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice > > > > from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not > > > > be practical, I guess. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that > > > > of personal rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something > > > > along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the > > > > Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal > > > > rights? > > > > > > > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was > > > > surrender and then act from there in " oneness " > > > > which, I would have argued, follows a natural > > > > intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away > > > > from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our > > > > cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't > > > > see how that leaves any room for personal rights, > > > > which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of > > > > personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is > > > > probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the > > > > robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall > > > > correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights > > > > it appears. > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > > > Raphael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group > > > > Messages in this topic (3) > > > > Recent Activity: > > > > * New Members 1 > > > > Visit Your Group Start a New Topic > > > > 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 all > > > > Harsha > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dear Michael Quite. In my ersalier days, I was caught up with social change including " human rights " , but I later concluded that one cannot change other's minds more than they wish them to be changed and that most do not wished to be changed. Besides, I have enough to do with liberating myself anyway! However, it seems to me that living non duality in this world does not necessarily mean trying to change minds at all. It means it seems, just living, being, being realised and whatever action will happen, as you mentioned. But yes naturally, only a holy one will ever truly know the life of a holy one. Thank you Best wishes Raphael , " Michael Bindel " <michael.bindel wrote: > > Dear Raphael > > the way a HOLY BEING (my expression) lives hisher life can only be understood by another HOLY BEING > the same way as being " enlightened " - i prefer much more " having lifted the curtain of NoKnowledge " - can only be recognized by another " illuminated " one. > > Regarding socalled personal rights - Sri Raman was incredible carefull to respect the way others believe they have to live their life > I do not know your background - but socalled personal rights have never been respected by those in " power " - and especially nowadays where instead of LOVE false security and financial means are the core of most socalled humans. > If you look around everywhere you will see that that is right. > And believe me: > after so many decades of trying to live consciously and doing my best to help to change the worldly situation a n d trying to find TRUTH i finally realized and accepted fullheartedly !!! that everything what IS is authentic. > > the world situation is the sum of the personal radiation of those who still cling to " world " . > And as Sri Ramana Maharshi stated: > in my words > > what is not allowed to happen will never happen > regardless what you want do not want... > what is allowed to happen will happen > regardless what you want or do not want... > > regarding living nonduality in this dual world > > its really not possible > for example > convincing someone about our belief-system is futile > > b u t > > to live your life in a way that is authentic - thats the challenge everybody has to live - whenever heshe understands the real meaning of it > > tku for yoúr contribution > > all the best > > in Sri Ramana Maharshi > > michael > - > beingnothing00 > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:23 AM > Re: Personal Rights > > > > Gabriele > > You write with much certainty. > > To be fair, this is what I use to think, that personal rights are vital for social order etc. And for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they should be respected? > > Also, for the realized person, can what is in the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and the world neither as a result of relization? I don't know how this disjunction can be made. This implies personal choice too does it not? But does that continue after total realization? As for defending oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did that with the robbers. > > Personally, I am not sure that a deep understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be thought. > > Namaste > Raphael > > , " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > Oops!! > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > > > Kind regards, > > Gabriele > > > > > > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > > > > > Namaste > > > Raphael > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Dear Ramamohan I agree and thank you. Love Raphael , " Ramamohan " <srmnanduri wrote: > > Dear Sri Raphael, > I thought of adding a couple of lines more. For the one who is established in the Self the universe may appear or disappear, but one is the Self only. To put in a worldly language, the universe arises and subsides in the Self. For the one who is the Self nothing is apart from him. When one is every thing what does one want from what is in Him already. Such is the state. There is no person and none to seek personal rights because he is every thing. > Love, > Yours in Bhagavan > Ramamohan > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > > > Namaste > > Raphael > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Rafael did you come across the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi be aware that we are NOT the doer the DOER is only SELF due to my experiences this is IT continue looking at yourself from the point of view of the "non-judging observer" tell me are you able to watch your thoughts and to "know" where from they come??? yours in bhagavan michael - beingnothing00 Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:39 PM Re: Personal Rights Dear MichaelQuite.In my ersalier days, I was caught up with social change including "human rights", but I later concluded that one cannot change other's minds more than they wish them to be changed and that most do not wished to be changed. Besides, I have enough to do with liberating myself anyway!However, it seems to me that living non duality in this world does not necessarily mean trying to change minds at all. It means it seems, just living, being, being realised and whatever action will happen, as you mentioned.But yes naturally, only a holy one will ever truly know the life of a holy one.Thank youBest wishesRaphael , "Michael Bindel" <michael.bindel wrote:>> Dear Raphael> > the way a HOLY BEING (my expression) lives hisher life can only be understood by another HOLY BEING> the same way as being "enlightened" - i prefer much more "having lifted the curtain of NoKnowledge" - can only be recognized by another "illuminated" one.> > Regarding socalled personal rights - Sri Raman was incredible carefull to respect the way others believe they have to live their life> I do not know your background - but socalled personal rights have never been respected by those in "power" - and especially nowadays where instead of LOVE false security and financial means are the core of most socalled humans.> If you look around everywhere you will see that that is right.> And believe me:> after so many decades of trying to live consciously and doing my best to help to change the worldly situation a n d trying to find TRUTH i finally realized and accepted fullheartedly !!! that everything what IS is authentic. > > the world situation is the sum of the personal radiation of those who still cling to "world". > And as Sri Ramana Maharshi stated:> in my words> > what is not allowed to happen will never happen> regardless what you want do not want...> what is allowed to happen will happen> regardless what you want or do not want...> > regarding living nonduality in this dual world> > its really not possible> for example> convincing someone about our belief-system is futile> > b u t> > to live your life in a way that is authentic - thats the challenge everybody has to live - whenever heshe understands the real meaning of it> > tku for yoúr contribution> > all the best> > in Sri Ramana Maharshi> > michael> - > beingnothing00 > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:23 AM> Re: Personal Rights> > > > Gabriele> > You write with much certainty.> > To be fair, this is what I use to think, that personal rights are vital for social order etc. And for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they should be respected?> > Also, for the realized person, can what is in the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and the world neither as a result of relization? I don't know how this disjunction can be made. This implies personal choice too does it not? But does that continue after total realization? As for defending oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did that with the robbers.> > Personally, I am not sure that a deep understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be thought.> > Namaste> Raphael> > , "sadhaka1960" <g.ebert@> wrote:> >> > Oops!!> > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the "world" - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > > > Kind regards,> > Gabriele> > > > > > , "beingnothing00" <beingnothing00@> wrote:> > >> > > Hi Everyone> > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights.> > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate.> > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no.> > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights?> > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in "oneness" which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway.> > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears.> > > > > > Namaste> > > Raphael> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Michael Yes, I was aware of not being the doer. Yes, thoughts are watched as they arise. Sometimes, when the practice is deep, the mind becomes almost continually silent, but as yet, the mind is not continually quiet without irrelevant or I based thoughts outside practice. So I suppose I do not " know " from where they come in the absolute sense, I only know by Bhagawan's teachings. Namaste Raphael , " Michael Bindel " <michael.bindel wrote: > > Rafael > > did you come across the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi > > be aware that we are NOT the doer > the DOER is only SELF > > due to my experiences this is IT > > > continue looking at yourself from the point of view of the " non-judging observer " > > tell me > > are you able to watch your thoughts and to " know " where from they come??? > > > yours in bhagavan > > > michael > - > beingnothing00 > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:39 PM > Re: Personal Rights > > > > Dear Michael > > Quite. > > In my ersalier days, I was caught up with social change including " human rights " , but I later concluded that one cannot change other's minds more than they wish them to be changed and that most do not wished to be changed. > > Besides, I have enough to do with liberating myself anyway! > > However, it seems to me that living non duality in this world does not necessarily mean trying to change minds at all. It means it seems, just living, being, being realised and whatever action will happen, as you mentioned. > > But yes naturally, only a holy one will ever truly know the life of a holy one. > > Thank you > > Best wishes > Raphael > > , " Michael Bindel " <michael.bindel@> wrote: > > > > Dear Raphael > > > > the way a HOLY BEING (my expression) lives hisher life can only be understood by another HOLY BEING > > the same way as being " enlightened " - i prefer much more " having lifted the curtain of NoKnowledge " - can only be recognized by another " illuminated " one. > > > > Regarding socalled personal rights - Sri Raman was incredible carefull to respect the way others believe they have to live their life > > I do not know your background - but socalled personal rights have never been respected by those in " power " - and especially nowadays where instead of LOVE false security and financial means are the core of most socalled humans. > > If you look around everywhere you will see that that is right. > > And believe me: > > after so many decades of trying to live consciously and doing my best to help to change the worldly situation a n d trying to find TRUTH i finally realized and accepted fullheartedly !!! that everything what IS is authentic. > > > > the world situation is the sum of the personal radiation of those who still cling to " world " . > > And as Sri Ramana Maharshi stated: > > in my words > > > > what is not allowed to happen will never happen > > regardless what you want do not want... > > what is allowed to happen will happen > > regardless what you want or do not want... > > > > regarding living nonduality in this dual world > > > > its really not possible > > for example > > convincing someone about our belief-system is futile > > > > b u t > > > > to live your life in a way that is authentic - thats the challenge everybody has to live - whenever heshe understands the real meaning of it > > > > tku for yoúr contribution > > > > all the best > > > > in Sri Ramana Maharshi > > > > michael > > - > > beingnothing00 > > > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:23 AM > > Re: Personal Rights > > > > > > > > Gabriele > > > > You write with much certainty. > > > > To be fair, this is what I use to think, that personal rights are vital for social order etc. And for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they should be respected? > > > > Also, for the realized person, can what is in the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and the world neither as a result of relization? I don't know how this disjunction can be made. This implies personal choice too does it not? But does that continue after total realization? As for defending oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did that with the robbers. > > > > Personally, I am not sure that a deep understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be thought. > > > > Namaste > > Raphael > > > > , " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > > > Oops!! > > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana did not deny but respected them. They are needed in social structures and they need to be protected. Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > > Surrender does not contradict to personal rights, certainly not. This is a wrong understanding. We also certainly need to defend ourselves if needed. > > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not be practical, I guess. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > , " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is that of personal rights. > > > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying something along the lines of cast all one's cares onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide one's fate. > > > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for personal rights? > > > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was surrender and then act from there in " oneness " which, I would have argued, follows a natural intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I can't see how that leaves any room for personal rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought anyway. > > > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to the robbers after they struck the first one, if I recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal rights it appears. > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > Raphael > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:48:19 -0000 > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00 >Subject: Re: Personal Rights >To: > > > > Michael > > Yes, I was aware of not being the doer. > > Yes, thoughts are watched as they arise. Sometimes, > when the practice is deep, the mind becomes almost > continually silent, but as yet, the mind is not > continually quiet without irrelevant or I based > thoughts outside practice. So I suppose I do not > " know " from where they come in the absolute sense, I > only know by Bhagawan's teachings. > > Namaste > Raphael well, my friends, let me tell you... mind may crawl mind may aspire mind may renounce and mind may desire. mind may be seeing and mind may be blind mind can be seeking, and mind can find. . . mind plays it's games. but i don't mind. jai jai jai ramana-ji! _()_ yosy ps. btw, the above is from the book " BOOM! " nnb > > , " Michael > Bindel " <michael.bindel wrote: > > > > Rafael > > > > did you come across the words of Sri Ramana > Maharshi > > > > be aware that we are NOT the doer > > the DOER is only SELF > > > > due to my experiences this is IT > > > > > > continue looking at yourself from the point of > view of the " non-judging observer " > > > > tell me > > > > are you able to watch your thoughts and to " know " > where from they come??? > > > > > > yours in bhagavan > > > > > > michael > > - > > beingnothing00 > > > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:39 PM > > Re: > Personal Rights > > > > > > > > Dear Michael > > > > Quite. > > > > In my ersalier days, I was caught up with social > change including " human rights " , but I later > concluded that one cannot change other's minds more > than they wish them to be changed and that most do > not wished to be changed. > > > > Besides, I have enough to do with liberating > myself anyway! > > > > However, it seems to me that living non duality in > this world does not necessarily mean trying to > change minds at all. It means it seems, just living, > being, being realised and whatever action will > happen, as you mentioned. > > > > But yes naturally, only a holy one will ever truly > know the life of a holy one. > > > > Thank you > > > > Best wishes > > Raphael > > > > , " Michael > Bindel " <michael.bindel@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Raphael > > > > > > the way a HOLY BEING (my expression) lives > hisher life can only be understood by another HOLY > BEING > > > the same way as being " enlightened " - i prefer > much more " having lifted the curtain of NoKnowledge " > - can only be recognized by another " illuminated " > one. > > > > > > Regarding socalled personal rights - Sri Raman > was incredible carefull to respect the way others > believe they have to live their life > > > I do not know your background - but socalled > personal rights have never been respected by those > in " power " - and especially nowadays where instead > of LOVE false security and financial means are the > core of most socalled humans. > > > If you look around everywhere you will see that > that is right. > > > And believe me: > > > after so many decades of trying to live > consciously and doing my best to help to change the > worldly situation a n d trying to find TRUTH i > finally realized and accepted fullheartedly !!! that > everything what IS is authentic. > > > > > > the world situation is the sum of the personal > radiation of those who still cling to " world " . > > > And as Sri Ramana Maharshi stated: > > > in my words > > > > > > what is not allowed to happen will never happen > > > regardless what you want do not want... > > > what is allowed to happen will happen > > > regardless what you want or do not want... > > > > > > regarding living nonduality in this dual world > > > > > > its really not possible > > > for example > > > convincing someone about our belief-system is > futile > > > > > > b u t > > > > > > to live your life in a way that is authentic - > thats the challenge everybody has to live - whenever > heshe understands the real meaning of it > > > > > > tku for yoúr contribution > > > > > > all the best > > > > > > in Sri Ramana Maharshi > > > > > > michael > > > - > > > beingnothing00 > > > > > > Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:23 AM > > > Re: > Personal Rights > > > > > > > > > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > You write with much certainty. > > > > > > To be fair, this is what I use to think, that > personal rights are vital for social order etc. And > for humanity at large, that may be necessary. But > can you tell me where Sri Ramana actually says they > should be respected? > > > > > > Also, for the realized person, can what is in > the Heart NOT be put into daily action? What about > love then? Is that not to be put into daily life and > the world neither as a result of relization? I don't > know how this disjunction can be made. This implies > personal choice too does it not? But does that > continue after total realization? As for defending > oneself, it did not seem to me that Sri Ramana did > that with the robbers. > > > > > > Personally, I am not sure that a deep > understanding of all this is that obvious, as may be > thought. > > > > > > Namaste > > > Raphael > > > > > > , > " sadhaka1960 " <g.ebert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Oops!! > > > > Of course there are personal rights and Ramana > did not deny but respected them. They are needed in > social structures and they need to be protected. > Btw. Ramana's father was a kind of pleader. > > > > Surrender does not contradict to personal > rights, certainly not. This is a wrong > understanding. We also certainly need to defend > ourselves if needed. > > > > Don't put advaita into daily life and inaction > with the " world " - freely cited now - a good advice > from the supplement of the 40 verses. This would not > be practical, I guess. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > > > > , > " beingnothing00 " <beingnothing00@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone > > > > > > > > > > A topic that I am currently pondering on is > that of personal rights. > > > > > > > > > > I recall our beloved Sri Ramana saying > something along the lines of cast all one's cares > onto the Divine and let it be for Him to decide > one's fate. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I driven action seems to be a no no. > > > > > > > > > > If this is true, what does it mean for > personal rights? > > > > > > > > > > For me, until recently, the thought was > surrender and then act from there in " oneness " > which, I would have argued, follows a natural > intelligence that say, would get a wife to walk away > from a husband who beats her. > > > > > > > > > > But ultimately, if we are casting off all > our cares onto the Absolute in total surrender, I > can't see how that leaves any room for personal > rights, which it seems, are based on the I thought > anyway. > > > > > > > > > > It seems in total realization, the thought > of personal rights seems to go out the window. Which > is probably why Sri Ramana offered his other leg to > the robbers after they struck the first one, if I > recall correctly. Very counter intuitive to personal > rights it appears. > > > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > > Raphael 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.