tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post2086295793722919240..comments2024-03-20T13:24:11.422+05:30Comments on Arunachala and Ramana Maharshi: Desire for the SelfDavid Godmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10354181925332694222noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-69116894126302066892011-09-07T21:30:24.758+05:302011-09-07T21:30:24.758+05:30Chapter 12 of Bhikkhu Ñanamoli's classic compi...Chapter 12 of Bhikkhu Ñanamoli's classic compilation, The Life of the Buddha according to the Pali Canon.<br />*******************************<br />The Paradox of Truth Teaching<br />*******************************<br />FIRST VOICE: <br />The Blessed One was once living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove. A deity called Rohitassa came to him late in the night, paid homage to him and asked: "Lord, the world's end where one neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears: is it possible to know or see or reach that by travelling there?"<br />"Friend, that there is a world's end where one neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears, which is to be known or seen or reached by travelling there -- that I do not say. Yet I do not say that there is ending of suffering without reaching the world's end. Rather it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perceptions and its mind that I describe the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world.<br /><br />"It is utterly impossible<br />To reach by walking the world's end;<br />But none escape from suffering<br />Unless the world's end has been reached.<br /><br />It is a Sage, a knower of the world,<br />Who gets to the world's end, and it is he<br />By whom the holy life has been lived out;<br />In knowing the world's end he is at peace<br />And hopes for neither this world nor the next."<br /><br />SN 2:36; AN 4:46<br /><br />-ZZeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-53876168004040846432010-11-17T09:00:36.268+05:302010-11-17T09:00:36.268+05:30Thank you so much, David for this blog, all your w...Thank you so much, David for this blog, all your work and sharing with us.<br><br>I feel that the reason that statements can be confusing is that the mind (past conditioning) is interpreting them.<br><br>How do we get behind and beneath the conditioning?<br><br>The mind creates space and time, a "me" over here and everything else "over there", and the "I am the body" idea.<br><br>Our language itself contributes to this conditioning, separating unity into parts and pieces.<br><br>If the mind is silent and humble and one sincerely asks the heart to see for one, hear for one, read and interpret for Truth, then the essence behind the words is understood.<br><br>The mind deals in "or". The heart knows "and".<br><br>Most spiritual/religious practice involves the addition of more concepts and ideas. Ramana's path involves a stripping away of everything in the realms of thought and language and feeling by actual direct experience - Where and how does the sense of "I" arise?.<br><br>All arises from within. One must track exactly, experientially, how that happens. Am I in the body or does the body idea arise in me? Are the boundaries real or just in the mind?<br><br>One may change one's language, internally, to match one's experience. "I went to the store, then came home." becomes "The body seemed to be moved through the mind, to the store and back."<br><br>One must stop reading about chocolate and discussing intellectual ideas about it, and actually dive into the chocolate (heart) and taste it first hand.....<br><br>The honest, sincere and unrelenting search for the Self illicits a response from within, which in turn acknowledges one's effort and contributes to further effort. Only a silent, humble mind will be gobbled up and dissolved by the Self.summahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08709272472448702350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-90783610804858089042010-11-17T09:00:34.727+05:302010-11-17T09:00:34.727+05:30Scott Fraundorf:A good quote that I think sums up ...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>A good quote that I think sums up the debate is "There will be no end to disputations", that is one of the Maharshi quotes I put on my shelf in marker.<br><br>That aside, I actually enjoy these debates (so don't stop, if you feel the urge to argue), and I was glad to see that a whole thread was created to deal with the issue of desire, full of pristine quotes. Both sides made nice points, although I felt more pulled to agreement with Broken Yogi. But that Maharshi quote is nice, in that it says, in my own words, no intellectual argument is going to result in some deeper understanding of the truth, but just go on ad infinitum.<br><br>Kind of makes me think of the scientific explanation of the world, or the religious explanation of the world.<br>"How did stars and galaxies come to be?"<br><br>"Because of the Big Bang?" "What caused the Big Bang?" or conversely, "Who created God? and Who created the One who Created God?" Ad Infinitum.<br><br> The other day, it occured to me the significance of "Silence is Eloquence eternal". One one hand, any confusion I suffer, mental silence is the best answer to resolve the doubts, answer the questions. So silence is the answer. Also Silence is eternal, in that before I woke up this morning, or before I was born, or before the Big Bang, any way you look at it, there was the bliss of silence. Diversity of forms, atoms, protein molecules, DNA, RNA, Carbon, Mercury, my mom, my friends, all came into being in the computer screen pixles of my imagination. But the bliss of silence is unperterbed. Now, one of these days, I'll realize that, and never forget. I'm not going to arrogantly speculate on what lifetime, or what ten minute period. And I can't hide an egotistical desire to be like that person who was excited they had a hundred lifetimes left, so that all the leaves fell off the tree, and they realized the Self immediately.<br><br>None of that matters, I seek understanding of the words of ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, Annamalai Swami, Lakshmana Swami, you name it, because I'm looking for refuge, and existing as an individual is not safe. Because the body is so incredibly fragile, the notion of the individual even more so. Not to mention that notion of who the individual is, is capable of so much harm and selfishness, is fending off real love while seeking for approval, is a Great Sinner, spoiling salvation. So I welcome it's dissolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-15187250049605883202010-11-17T09:00:32.632+05:302010-11-17T09:00:32.632+05:30Dear Friends, :) Desire for Self, is a desire...Dear Friends,<br> :) <br><br>Desire for Self, is a desire for "Completeness". Infact, all desires are directly or indirectly this. As it is said in Brihadaranyaka upanishad: "Even a wife loves her husband and a husband loves her wife is all an expression of Desire for Self".<br><br>So Self desire is actually a desire for completeness. <br>When one knows one is Complete the desire goes away, along with all other desires. <br><br>So essentially one has to be educated that one is complete. This education starts with hearing that one is complete: Sravanam, Then understanding how one is complete, Mananam and then meditating on oneself as complete Nidhidhyasam.<br><br>When one has not heard, or one heard but has not understood --- There is longing For Sense of Completeness. <br><br>Once understood... one has to meditate that one is Complete. Here, one cannot have "Desire for Self", coz already one has understood one is the Self! So if ever the desire arises... he roots it out by directing one's attention towards the Self. <br><br>So desire for self is good to lead one to Nidhidhyasam ... but once one understood... one has to root out this desire also.<br>It is what was told to Papaji: That Desire for Self is a vehicle that brings one to Sri Ramana ... and then one can drop that desire... as its purpose is served.Udaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01716759935902145448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-88368605160861506442010-11-17T09:00:32.205+05:302010-11-17T09:00:32.205+05:30When the love for the Self is intense, authentic a...When the love for the Self is intense, authentic and wholehearted and expressed by Vichara and Surrender...<br>Who cares about get results, goals?<br>For me there are two meanings for "desire" in Ramana's teachings.<br>I think that Ramana teached intense DESIRE for the Self, when the Way is the Goal.Vichara and Surrender sincere is the Goal by itself.No duality.<br>And when Ramana condemn the desire...<br>Is only the desire for the Self, like a "way" or "technique" to achieve something other than Self. <br>Seek another goals, not the Self or "Inner Feeling of I" included "spiritual goals" like liberation or enlightenement is not the Real Desire for the Being and Vairagya. There is duality.<br>Its my humble point of view.celio leitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02274966067973017232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-68855145626532744792010-11-17T09:00:29.122+05:302010-11-17T09:00:29.122+05:30....Ravi: Only a truly humble person like the prof....<br><i>...Ravi: Only a truly humble person like the professor can instil the same quality in others.<br>What the Professor expressed,he truly lived. Humility cannot be developed but it can be imbibed. ...</i><br><br>That's really true. Devotion is all what is needed. "How long does one have to reason about the text of the scriptures? As long as one does not have the direct realization of God. How long does the bee hum? As long as it does not sit on a flower. When it sits on a flower to drink honey, it doesn’t make any sound. The truth is that one may talk with others even after God-realization. But this conversation only revolves around the divine Bliss of God – it is like a drunkard crying, ‘Victory to Kali.’ Besides, even a bee hums indistinctly after sipping honey from a flower.” (Kathamrita)<br><br>Momentarily I'm reading sufi texts. Besides - reading them is like reading the vedanta. They are both singing out of the same experience and philosophy. In one of this texts (Abd al-Qadir as-Sufi, The Path of Love) the author says (I try to translate it): <br><br>"Knowledge ist hot - not cold and dry. Therefore the laughing of the buddhist masters is dry/cold because they do not have the wisdom of the tears. The prophet said: 'God, give me the gift of a crying eye.' And his warning was: 'If you would know what I know you wouldn't laugh but cry'. Crying is a sign of freedom."<br>.Clemens Vargas Ramoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07193114321240935018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-53379570842427752632010-11-17T09:00:26.789+05:302010-11-17T09:00:26.789+05:30Scott,Not that this is about who is right and who ...Scott,<br><br>Not that this is about who is right and who is wrong, but for my part I find Ramana's words on the subject more convincing than Haramurthy's. I thought the quotes I brought up were rather devastating to Haramurthy's arguments. I think he is of course free to argue as he wishes, but I don't think he can make a case that Ramana agrees with him about renunciation. Likewise, I think the quotes David cites in this post clearly state Ramana's views on the importance of desire for the Self. Haramurthy is agains free to disagree with Ramana, but I'm not sure why anyone would find him more convincing on the subject. <br><br>As for Papaji, I think you are mistaken there. Papaji was working at a very demanding job in the city, either Bangalore or Chennai, when he met Ramana, sending almost all his money to his immediate family for their support. He continued in this job for the next five years, only visiting Ramanashram on weekends. So he had not abandoned his family during this time. He was still living as a householder, away from the ashram, and fulling supporting his family. When Ramana sent him away, it was to take care of his entire extended family, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, over 30 people, who were trapped in the newly forming Pakistan and whose lives were threatened by the anti-Hindu massacres taking place there. Ramana sent Papaji there on a rescue mission, telling him not to fear. Papaji travelled by train to Pakistan, witnessing terrible massacres on both sides along the way, hoping he would not be recognizes as a Hindu, and somehow, miraculously managing to transport his entire extended family back to India, then settling them in, working day and night to support them, and gradually over the years helping them to get jobs, start businesses, and get on their own two feet. Finally, after several years, he thought he was free to be a renunciate and returned to Ramanashram with that intention. Instead of becoming a renunciate, however, he met a guy who offered him a job managing several mining operations in central India. He felt that Ramana was directing him to take this job so he did so, realizing it was simply not his prarabda to be a formal renunciate. So for the next fifteen years he worked managing a highly difficult mining business in the jungles of India, again sending most of his money back to his family. Finally he retired with a pension that enabled him to live freely for the rest of his life. The story is all in David's biography of Papaji.<br><br>Now, it's certainly true that Papaji was a 100% renunciate utterly dedicated to God-Realization, but that's exactly the point. Such renunciation is in the mind, not in one's outward actions, except to the degree that he sacrificed the fruit of his actions for the sake of others, at least to some serious degree. To outward appearances Papaji was just another busy householder struggling to earn a living and support his family. The central point is that renunciation is of the mind and ego, and we should not be concerned about the rest of it. Instead, we need to simply accept our born destiny and station in life, live our responsibilities and duties, and not identify with that. Haramurthy seems to think there is some kind of progressive path that leads to greater and greater outer renunciation as a sign of one's maturation, and that householders are thus at an inferior stage than sadhus. This is of course one of the many traditional ideas that Ramana rejected. Now, maybe Ramana was wrong and the traditional view is right, but I think what Ramana teaches makes more sense. If that is rationalizing my own life choices, so be it. I will have to endure the judgments of my betters, I suppose.Broken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-18676131261461887852010-11-17T09:00:25.511+05:302010-11-17T09:00:25.511+05:30AnonymousHaramurthy is no more 'advanced' ...Anonymous<br><br>Haramurthy is no more 'advanced' or 'right' than than yourself or Broken yogi are.<br>If you desire ..then you desire.<br>If you don't...then you don't.<br><br>We all have our different fate.<br>What will be will be.<br><br>Surrender or enquire..whatever.<br><br>Trust.Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00859175677786233955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-86278101632567097602010-11-17T09:00:24.958+05:302010-11-17T09:00:24.958+05:30This isn't strictly on topic but this question...This isn't strictly on topic but this question has been bothering me for a while. <br><br>Does realizing the self automatically lead to perfect moral decision making? I ask this because Osho was clearly no saint and yet it is reported by many he had the presence of the self (how else did he work up such a following?)?<br><br>The same is said about UG Krishnamurti and his attitude was entirely the opposite of Bhagavan. <br><br>It is possible to for a person to realize the self but the provisional ego remain conceited? Perhaps it was the humbleness of Ramana's personality coupled with the presence of the self that made him so great? <br><br>The answer to this question determines the desirability of the Self in my opinion. Maybe the focus should on morality first before desiring the self.<br><br>--MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-26993187061161689342010-11-17T09:00:23.879+05:302010-11-17T09:00:23.879+05:30Everyone, please, I am not Haramurthy posting quer...Everyone, please, I am not Haramurthy posting queries and points on the sly in this thread as Scott may have thought. I am here, as I was in my post above, as “UV”.<br><br>Broken Yogi,<br><br>You have stated something which I agree with: <br><br>***I do not regard Ramana's advice about renunciation as applying merely to beginners. It is often over-exagerated that Ramana had one teaching for beginners and another for the mature. This is really not the case. Yes, he gave some individuals one instruction based on their personal needs, and others quite opposite instructions, but that is generally on the level of practical matters, not genuinely spiritual matters. Most famously, when asked for a practice he always suggest self-enquiry, regardless of the maturity of the questioner. Most of his spiritual instructions were to be applied universally, regardless of the individual's maturity. Their maturity would only define how well they might be able to practice the instruction.***<br><br>But then in the context of desire you go on to say:<br><br>***He felt he was too mature for what Ramana was saying. Sooner or later, I think we all find out that this is not the case. And that is what I think is generally going here with those who object to Ramana's instruction on desire for the Self. The ego objects to it, thinking it is above such obvious dualisms.***<br><br>You are obviously supporting your position again – that is necessary to have a ‘conscious’ desire for the Self right till the very end for achieving Self-realization. <br><br>This creates confusion in me. My query is – in which context did Sri Ramana then give the instruction, ‘have no desire for the Self’? It is already shown that this teaching was given as often, if not more often, as was the teaching, ‘have a desire for the Self’. Why did Sri Ramana at all give such a useless instruction to anyone? If the desire for the Self is such a crucial and imperative need for Self-realization, and all that is required in a devotee, why give an opposite instruction which is likely to lead the devotee astray? What were the ‘personal needs’ of those devotees which required such an instruction from Sri Ramana? It cannot be that the instruction, ‘do not have a desire for the Self’ was given to beginners. Then obviously, they would not start sadhana at all, would they? Certainly, it is a given, that desire for the Self is required in the beginner. So then - whom was the almost dangerous instruction, ‘have no desires for the Self’ directed at? Is it that Sri Ramana hated certain devotees so much that it was thought they must be fed the incorrect instruction so as to keep them bound in this world? :-) Why would a great Jnani like Sri Ramana tell any devotee, ‘have no desire for the Self’, when this instruction as per your logic, would certainly deny that person any chance of Self-realisation?<br><br>Grateful if you would explain this further. Thank you<br><br>UVAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-73463177454953331092010-11-17T09:00:23.572+05:302010-11-17T09:00:23.572+05:30Scott Fraundorf:Broken Yogi, you are right. I am o...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>Broken Yogi, you are right. I am overflowing with something, is it desire for the Self? And it is an irony. To be quite honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this debate, but I also don't think it's a terribly important question (to me). It's obvious, that Surrendering, and finding that my sense of being an individual is illusory is the foremost goal. No, I don't think it's desire in the sense of there is a desier-er and a desired. (normally desire as I've heard it implies that) And if it is a feeling of desire, that the SElf evokes, why label it, if I'm already free of such duality? Such words. I only feel it when the sense of there being a subject and object is tenuous, I don't feel this sense of grace, what you call desire, when I'm immersed (fully) in the sense o f being an individual, a subject. As to whether this is post-modern Andrew Cohen, or classical advaita, I could care less since my goal is not to be "spiritual". I am trying to free myself of the narratives I trap myself in, that oppress me. I also don't think I'm qualified to evaluate Andrew Cohen's maturity, even though he reminds me of a car salesman that looks like Heraldo, (thats how he effects my easily prejudiced ego) it has nothing to do with me, and everything I think about him is just thought, imagination. Andrew Cohen as I know him is not a real entity but a figment I invented. Do we really want to abide in what we imagine, how we constrict, control, and oppress others, with what we think of them? Go for it. <br><br>How's that for postmodern, I did attend liberal arts college once? Should I quote Deleuze and Guattari, Derrida, Foucault? Use the word "liminal". <br><br> And Papaji, I wasn't sure about initially, but it was my mind and ego evaluating him, gossiping about him. Reading what David Godman had to say about Papaji, I changed my mind, key word mind. Something I'm trying to be done with, it's clearly delusional, when I'm an individual. The ego is powerless to know anything. Everything I think is wrong, because it is thought. And as to desire, desire in the sense of subject/object hasn't done me a whole lot of good. But this desire for the Self, but it's not really desire for the SElf, as desire to be free of my desires, my fears, my sense of being an individual in a world of individuals. I have no interest in co-opting, or culturally appropriating, no doubt my colonizing ancestors have done enough of that, the cultural relics of people in other parts of the world. So I try to steer clear of using alot of sanskrit in what I say. I'm not trying to be "advaita" or be "sadhu". I'm using the tools I got from Maharshi to free myself from what I wasn't free of, because it made alot of common sense. If people want to win intellectual arguments with eachother, so be it. I surrender, you win. I'll be the first to call myself "stupid, selfish, arrogant, wimpy, crazy, delusional" to disarm such accusations. Broken Yogi, as you said, your arguments were devestating, so were Haramurthy's but they were exactly that. Are they helping you? "there will be no end to disputations"--Bhagavan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-32345464172493163922010-11-17T09:00:22.875+05:302010-11-17T09:00:22.875+05:30Scott Fraundorf:I'm sorry delusional me, got c...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>I'm sorry delusional me, got confused, and thought Broken yogi was Haramurthy. I guess B.Y. is the advanced one. Haramurthy a mere beginner, novice. I, well I don't know what i am, I'm going to stay with that. It seems like the safest place. And I've got school work to do, How can I maintain the serenity of being nondual in a physics lab, Who hates physics labs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-8919927651810815272010-11-17T09:00:20.893+05:302010-11-17T09:00:20.893+05:30Scott Fraundorf:"""""Even...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>"""""Even Papaji's first reaction to Ramana's instruction was to object to it. He felt he was too mature for what Ramana was saying."""""<br><br>Let that sink in, Broken Yogi, that was you, pointing you in the right direction. I had the same experience at Society For Abidance in Truth with Nome, oddly, I have it with Haramurthy's comments. Initially I objected to it, until my ignorance was sufficiently cleared to see where it was coming from. As Nome, said, although I agree with Ravi (beautifully innocent Ravi), trust Maharshi over anybody else, "Anger (kroda) is rooted in Desire which is rooted in avidya (ignorance)" You and Me, we're Papaji reacting negatively to Maharshi, because we can't see through the facade. Papaji just saw Maharshi as lazy, that's all he saw, until he had the Experience, and saw what was True! The facade in this case, is our own egos, and an illusion seen by our minds of Post-Modern, liberal arts college words. If you would like, like I always did, to know what would Maharshi say to me, how would he laugh at my ego, the ridiculous things i hold up as my self, the strained look holding up the tower, read Haramurthy's posts, and don't object to them, because i know you feel in your heart the way I did, but let them penetrate and cleanse you. Bookworm, that was what i thought. trust how you feel, not how your mind's react. Does it make you feel an itching guilt? Like I'm reacting with my ego, my ego is threatened, let it be threatened, let it be threatened so deeply that it never comes back. Make friends with the Self, it is our friends, not our "evil" minds, wanting to survive the onslaught. Maybe I'm mad, I'm the only one who sees it this way, but I look at everyone's reactions and it was the same as my initial one, what is different from me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-5413021958371950492010-11-17T09:00:20.133+05:302010-11-17T09:00:20.133+05:30Scott,I think I'll let Haramurthy speak for hi...Scott,<br><br>I think I'll let Haramurthy speak for himself. We are all jnanis posing as mere intellects.<br><br>What I would emphasize about the wisdom of Ramana's attitude about realization, is that it is not a matter of action, which of course is what karma means, but of renouncing mind and ego. This cannot be emphasized enough. To Ramana, there is no action which amounts to renunciation, regardless of the traditional attitude. Thus, looking at one's actions, or one's options for action, is futile and does nothing to resolve the matter or further one's renunciation. I of course feel that total renunciation is necessary, and that this renunciation is evident in all of the most serious practitioners and realizers. But it is not evident in their actions. Rather, it is evident in their minds. It is certainly true enough that the body follows the lead of the mind, but this does not mean that the actions of the body are where renunciation is to be found. To renounce mind and ego means to renounce action. It means to no longer see oneself as the sum of one's actions. It recognizes that all actions is only the mind.<br><br>It's like Hui Neng's comment about the flag. Maybe you know this story. Hui Neng overheard two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One monk argued that it was the flag that was waving, the other than it was the wind that was waving. Hui Neng interruped and said, "It is your mind that waves". This approach clears up everything. One's actions are merely mind in movement - thought and desire, in other words. Renunciation of the body and world means nothing, because they are only the mind moving. So we have to take a step back and renounce the mind, renounce the ego, and not be concerned with our life in the world. We need to simply let our lives be at ease, not a battleground for either egoic attainment or renunciation of the ego. As long as we see the world and our actions in it as real and something to "renounce", we are only perpetuating the problem. <br><br>Regarding Papaji, of course I feel he was a genuine jnani, fully realized. But he did not sanction the traditional notion of renunciation either. In fact, he often said that one of the reasons he didn't live as a renunciate outwardly was because he had numerous past lives in which he lived as a sadhu, and to make up for that he lived this life as a householder. He pointed out that he had wasted his time in those past lives, confusing outer renunciation with the real thing. His renunciation had nothing to do with his karmas, his actions, which corresponded to those of a householder and businessman. Renouncing one's karmas doesn't mean changing one's actions and putting on a robe, it means renouncing the very idea that this is what matters. Once that is done, who knows what God has in store for us. We may become monks, we may become millionaires, it makes no difference. There is a power which then animates the body and lives us, and that produces our actions. It no longer has anything to do with our will or desires. It is, as Ramana says, God's will and God's desires then.Broken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-68289616951865642702010-11-17T09:00:18.379+05:302010-11-17T09:00:18.379+05:30Scott,I feel no offense at anything you've sai...Scott,<br><br>I feel no offense at anything you've said. I enjoy "disputations" even if they don't ultimately lead anywhere. They at least get me to focus attention on these teachings, which in itself is what brings me the inner peace you speak of. I don't think it helps to try to divine where our peace and blessings come from. In my view, it comes not from someone else's writings, but from the mere act of putting attention on matters of the Self. But you can sort that out for yourself. If you think one or another poster here is a secret jnani, or highly mature, or more intelligent than others, that is fine. I just don't see how it actually changes anything for you. You are still you, and you have to find out the truth for yourself, of yourself. And that of course is up to you. For me, I'm not much concerned about other people's state of mind. Clearly I have different responses to some people than you, and that's just the way it is. But I don't think any of our personal responses to one another really amount to anything of serious value. It only matters how we respond to ourselves. If we keep our personal attention there, it matters not what transpires in our dialog, and we can thus be free to speak our minds. I hold nothing against you for speaking your mind. It can be a good way to empty the mind, and see how meaningless the contents of our minds are. Don't you think?Broken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-49333146269087289712010-11-17T09:00:15.885+05:302010-11-17T09:00:15.885+05:30Broken Yogi,good that you seem to have stopped get...Broken Yogi,<br><br>good that you seem to have stopped getting hooked up on takings things too personally in a somewhat self-defeating manner; don't worry about expressing criticism (didn't actually experience anything as being properly criticism, least of all at a personal level; may be something was missed; and didn't understand, how the word "devastating", which doesn't belong to my vocabulary, entered the room; perhaps there are different cultural subtexts at work).<br>You ask:<br><br>"What is the point of either post-modernism or advaita if we end up taking ourselves and our ideas so seriously that we lose the spirit of the whole affair?"<br><br>This mode of formulating your question already implies the answer to it.<br>But there may be other modes of seeing and experiencing one's engagement with spirit crystallised into language. In fact, intelligently performing a human life has much to do with appreciating and differentiating what has been literally and suggestively expressed in terms of linguistic symbols by other consciousnesses in different cultures at different times.<br>Depending on one's capacity, one may almost directly access what somebody, say a poet or philosopher, had expressed many centuries ago. Yet, of course, somebody endowed with learning and correlated capacities of reading (say, old Sanskrit texts) may get unhealthily identified and take the whole too seriously. On the other hand, someone lacking such capacities may deeply resent it and compensate his sense of inferiority with derisive articulations.<br><br>Ramana Maharshi became fluent in several languages and acquainted himself with the knowledge of many works, some of these difficult to understand even by specialised scholars. Both passively and actively he was an accomplished connoisseur (in Indian terms: a sahridaya) of various types of spiritual literature, not least of that written in old Tamil.<br>It is very much thanks to the literary accomplishments of David that we are presently becoming more and more aware of this fact. And David justly emphasises that we cannot properly understand Ramana without Muruganar. In connection with Muruganar he displayed expressive sides of himself that had disappeared from view until very recently. There was no-one else able so perfectly to reflect Ramana on so many different levels, while intimately collaborating with him, as did Muruganar. If anybody is entitled to be called a spiritual brother of Ramana, it is Muruganar; and happily he was a highly prolific poet (it sometimes being even difficult to tell, which formulation is Ramana's and which Muruganar's).<br>What we gather is this: good there is a raw diamond, the state of one's indestructible prime nature, but there is also the possibility of refinement, of allowing the diamond to assume many facets of shining beauty and intelligence.<br>What to do .... , if an awakened being cannot help overflowing with intricate (in form and meaning) poetic expressions ... and when the sahridaya-ship of another awakened one cannot help being moved to tears many centuries later.Haramurthynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-85405675506607592932010-11-17T09:00:14.699+05:302010-11-17T09:00:14.699+05:30Ruaire,"Ravi stop playing pretend Guru and ju...Ruaire,<br>"Ravi stop playing pretend Guru and just answer the question please."<br>Friend,what do you want to know?Please visit the 'Vichara' Thread in this Blog and you will find what you are seeking.It will tell you the Name of my Guru and more about him.Let me add that knowing about someone is different than knowing someone.So,give allowance for this difference.<br>Best Regards.Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-23259893937784708792010-11-17T09:00:14.524+05:302010-11-17T09:00:14.524+05:30Scott Fraundorf:Now that I see the error of my way...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>Now that I see the error of my ways, I can see that my initial intuition about Haramurthy's comments was correct, and that on this, the subject of renunciation, Broken Yogi was absolutely right about that elitist, cultlike point of view. And I'll trust that intuition over any "experience" I may have from any peace of writing in the future.<br><br>Haramurthy's writing wrongly or rightly, does have an arrogant streak that seems dangerous to me, manipulative, somewhat frightening. And I take back any good vibes that could come from such writing.<br><br>Maharshi as I said, never tried to make people feel stupid, I'll go with that, and in the future, not trust the words of someone who takes an abusive tone, that doesn't prop up the people they are talking to, because that garbage, verbiage is not a good road, but a dangerous one. Nonetheless I don't judge Haramurthy, but I'm just going to distance myself from that tone, those words, and take the lesson that trying to put others down, and make others feel dumb, and attack people's self-esteem is never a spiritual thing, or a good thing in any philosophy point of view that has a shred of decency to it, it's also a good sign that I'm NOT in the presence or talking to a jnani, because whatever may be said about Maharshi and he certainly as B.Y said did say that "householders are even more likely to become jnanis than sadhus" End of argument. If I ever jokingly make a critique count on that I'm that I'm trying to be in good humor, and not put down, because even my own illumination is not helped by people who abuse me. Never has. Just creates an insecure Ego, hinged on need for outside approval, been there done that<br><br>Reading power of presence for the first time, I'm even more in love with Maharshi then I ever have been before. So human, so powerful, so in touch, something I strive for is to be free of the illusions that seperate me from his state. The illusions that make me not feel the happiness within that is unaffected, untouched by the evil of this world, the cruelty, the megalomania, which I'm just as much prey to. I just joked to a friend I and every other human being is both Ghandi and Hitler at the same time. Ghandi when we're tapped into that source of happiness inside (so much so that a police baton is not a bother), Hitler when we are caught up in our illusions, and believe our line of logic is fact, and want to kill millions of people to validate our words, concepts.<br><br>Haramurthy, truly nothing personal. I'm so ignorant, I go between thinking someone is Enlightened, and then mean-spirited. That is why I shouldn't get caught up in my "meta-narratives" of others as you probaly full well know. But dive within, to where there are no others. No place to judge or be judged. I for one cannot judge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-54358444667483176502010-11-17T09:00:14.034+05:302010-11-17T09:00:14.034+05:30Scott Fraundorf:I don't know about you all, bu...Scott Fraundorf:<br><br>I don't know about you all, but I'm going to stop playing saint as one of the people said.<br><br>"""True, Kabir as well as many other saints of the nirguna Sant tradition could be highly ironic and bitingly sarcastic in their pronouncements -- as could Poonjaji (contagiously) -- but to cheaply vilify this feature as "cockiness" is above all to deprive oneself of valuable insights into suggestive nuances of spiritual expressions.""""<br><br>That is a pretty good point, so never mind, I'm not going to villify anyone as cocky. truth is we all have alot to learn. If those statements are biting, sarcastic, and mean, I trust that everyone here can handle it, and if like me they can't, well then it's a good learning experience in not caring about other people's "states of mind", and worrying about my own Self-Awareness-ness. No longer will i try to judge whether someone is a "secret jnani", although it's so tempting for one as ignorant as me, to do that, with my overactive, though intricate imagination. Maharshi I noticed, didn't play up this "jnani/ajnani" difference as much as his devotees, did he? And wasn't trying to make it a far off goal. If It is one in a billion, a far off lottery that Realize the Self, how does knowing that help me to earnestly investigate what is true? Putting myself down as an ignorant jiva. (which admittedly I am) I'm not going to play these games which have nothing to do with bringing things back when my mind shoots out with it's arrogant projections, and abiding as I with nothing attached, no needs, no fears, happiness within. there I go playing saint again. My habitual addiction to sounding good, feigning a humility I hardly posess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-840608994862711912010-11-17T09:00:13.829+05:302010-11-17T09:00:13.829+05:30Ramos,""I have no rest, but in a nook, w...Ramos,<br>""I have no rest, but in a nook, with the Book."<br>Wonderful!This evokes Feelings of Humility,Industry,Steadfastness!Very much akin to the Spirit of the Great 63 Saivaite Saints(Nayanmars,whose story Sri Bhagavan used to narrate with Great feeling)and the Alwars,Vaishnavite Saints who yearned to chant the Divine Name at the time of Departure from the Terra Firma and for Ever and Ever!No 'Rest in Peace' type of a cliche!Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-797102470934388062010-11-17T09:00:09.810+05:302010-11-17T09:00:09.810+05:30Ravi'Friends,Where are we right now? Is it Des...Ravi<br><br>'Friends,Where are we right now? Is it Desire for the SELF or Desirelessness that will take us towards Self Realisation?'<br><br>Maharshi: Realisation is already there. The state free from thoughts is the only real state. There is no such action as Self Realisation. Is there anyone who is not realising the Self? Does anyone deny his own existence? Speaking of realisation, it implies two selves - the one to realise, the other to be realised. What is not already realised, is sought to be realised. Once we admit our existence, how is it that we do not know our Self?<br>D.: Because of the thoughts - the mind.Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00859175677786233955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-31087142477542213822010-11-17T09:00:08.779+05:302010-11-17T09:00:08.779+05:30HaramurthyWhy do you defend and place so much impo...Haramurthy<br><br>Why do you defend and place so much importance and emphasis on<br>method, practice and Special Agent<br>Viveka.<br><br>'Haramurthy Wrote:<br>David, quoting above Bhagavan’s words, makes us aware of the importance of distinguishing between sad-asad-viveka, as the presupposition that takes us closer “towards Self Realisation” (this being what Ravi asked about), and final “Abidance in the Self” (brahma- or atmanishtha).Sad-asad-viveka thus corresponds to drg-drshya-viveka, the discrimination between pure awareness and mind, also referred to as the discrimination between Self and non-self. This presupposition of viveka for coming closer at all to Abidance in the Self –- where finally no doubt any longer necessitates the counteragent viveka.'<br><br><br><br>Haramurthy...it is all 'mind/intellect stuff' and Special Agent Viveka is disposable.<br>Being (it's a Heart thing) is what is important.<br><br>I mean... can you come closer to Self?<br>How far away from ...Self or the Being you are ...are you Haramurthy.<br><br>It is the mind/intellect that discriminates and you know what Ramana used to say about the mind.<br><br>Just Be (it's a Heart thing)Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00859175677786233955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-91216392127399433692010-11-17T09:00:07.065+05:302010-11-17T09:00:07.065+05:30Ravi"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of ...Ravi<br><br>"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? "-Jesus,The Christ.(My Master is very fond of this!).<br><br>Ravi<br>Shouldn't that be?<br><br>"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? "-Jesus.Christ.(My Master who is such an embarrassment to me I cannot name...is very fond of this!).Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00859175677786233955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-28393314852588944242010-11-17T09:00:06.851+05:302010-11-17T09:00:06.851+05:30Scott Fraundorf;I wonder about the fact that for m...Scott Fraundorf;<br><br>I wonder about the fact that for me, my struggles with Inquiry are imbued with my own somewhat heroic at times struggles with difficult personal circumstances. <br><br>Is that the same for others? I'm all for people's intellectual discussions, and clarifications, but it sometimes reminds me of questions put to Maharshi in talks. What is the difference between this and that kind of samadhi? questions without peronal investment. This is not a criticism, but just an intersting phenomena I notice.<br><br>I can't talk about Maharshi, Inquiry, or anything relating to it, without putting a personal anecdote into the story because otherwise it would make no sense without that context. Infact I only looked in the "spiritual" direction to cope with overwhelming odds against me in all theatres of life, and Inquiry found me, I didn't find it, because i wasn't looking for practices. In a way, I can joke, it's like Maharshi saved the day in the knick of time.<br><br>The only reason I bring this up, is sometimes the intensity of what I'm bringing to the table seems to be alienated from the more "intellectual" discussions that others are having. I would like to find a way to be more involved in those intellectual discussions without giving up the intensity, the personal anecdotes involved in my experiences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-85769310856707288802009-01-24T19:06:00.000+05:302009-01-24T19:06:00.000+05:30.To share it with you, friends, from our contempor....<BR/><BR/>To share it with you, friends, from our contemporary vedanta master <A HREF="http://www.vidya-ashramvidyaorder.org/" REL="nofollow">Raphael</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>ASPARSAYOGA</B><BR/><BR/>A. Is yoga, then, not used for Advaita Vedanta?<BR/><BR/>Raphael: The yoga that rests upon psycho-physical aspects, Advaita goes beyond it; there is no yoga higher than comprehension.<BR/><BR/>He whose mind and heart are fused and pointed at comprehending goes directly to the center of Being. Yet Advaita does have, if I may use the expression, its own yoga which is called Asparsayoga.<BR/><BR/>Asparsa means without contact, without relations, without support. It is a yoga which is experienced by means of that threefold knowledge we have been talking about. Thus, it is a very specific yoga.<BR/><BR/>Brahman or the Absolute has no supports, because the Absolute rests upon itself alone; being One-without-a-second it cannot have any relation with anything. Therefore, Asparsayoga is the appropriate yoga for Brahman nirguna; it is the yoga of Non-duality; it is the yoga of the true sanyasin.<BR/><BR/>A. Who invented this yoga?<BR/><BR/>R. It was not invented, it is described in the Upanisads but the person who made it known was Gaudapada.<BR/><BR/>Gaudapada, under the influence of the Narayana Principle itself, revealed this yoga to men eagerly looking for Knowledge-realization. He immortalized it in the karika-verses which he added to the Mandukya Upanisad and which, in turn, were commented by the great Teacher Sankara. Thus, this Upanisad is extremely important for the non-dualistic Vedanta, because the two greatest exponents of Non-dualism converge here to codify and co-ordinate what we might call Advaita-asparsa, just as Patañjali co-ordinated the classical Rajayoga. Today this yoga is still taught by those disciples scattered around the world and who are linked to the chain or the asram of Gaudapada and Sankara, but they are just a few.<BR/><BR/>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com