tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post2989875110621818157..comments2024-03-20T13:24:11.422+05:30Comments on Arunachala and Ramana Maharshi: Sri Ramana ParavidyopanishadDavid Godmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10354181925332694222noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-8706757891153921552011-09-17T16:05:40.736+05:302011-09-17T16:05:40.736+05:30Zee,
Please get to the open thread.
Namaskar.Zee,<br />Please get to the open thread.<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-63200802007564673442011-09-17T15:39:18.391+05:302011-09-17T15:39:18.391+05:30Ravi,
1)What I understand is Buddha's desti...Ravi, <br />1)What I understand is Buddha's destination is 'End of Suffering'.<br />2)Vivekananda despite a verbal and personal class by the Paramahamsa on the same topic as per your posting raised it again in a lecture in America that Buddha denied the self or Brahman.This is simply and plainly wrong.Aurobindo too missed the point but Bhagawan and Thakur understood the point that Buddha was making.<br />*******Repeat Clipping-1********<br />MASTER (by signs): "Why atheist? He was not an atheist. He simply could not express his inner experiences in words...<br />MASTER: ..."Why should Buddha be called an atheist? When one realizes Svarupa, the true nature of one's Self, one attains a state that is something between asti, is, and nasti, is-not."<br />*******Repeat Clipping-2********<br />Questioner: "Friend Anuradha, when a Perfect One is describing him, in which of the four following instances does he describe him: After death a Perfect One is; or after death a Perfect One is not; or after death a Perfect One both is and is not; or after death a Perfect One neither is nor is not?<br />"Friends, a Perfect One in describing him describes him apart from these four instances."<br />When this was said they remarked: "This will be a new bhikkhu or an Elder who is foolish and inexperienced."<br />So Anuradha went to the Blessed One and told about this.<br />"How do you conceive this, Anuradha: do you see material form as the Perfect One?"—"No, Lord."—"Do you see feeling ... perception<br />... formations ... consciousness as the Perfect One?"—"No, Lord."<br />"How do you conceive this, Anuradha: do you see the Perfect<br />One as in material form?"—"No, Lord."—"Do you see the Perfect<br />One as apart from material form?"—"No, Lord."—"Do you see the<br />Perfect One as in feeling ... as apart from feeling ... as in perception ...<br />as apart from perception ... as in formations ... as apart from formations<br />... as in consciousness ... as apart from consciousness?"—"No,<br />"How do you conceive this, Anuradha: do you see this Perfect One<br />as having no material form, no feeling, no perception, no formations,<br />no consciousness?"—"No, Lord."<br /><br />"Anuradha, when a Perfect One is here and now unapprehendable<br />by you as true and established, is it fitting to say of him: 'Friends, when a Perfect One is describing<br />him, he describes him apart from the following four instances: After<br />death a Perfect One is; or after death a Perfect One is not; etc<br />"No, Lord."<br />"Good, good, Anuradha. ***What I describe, now as formerly, is suffering<br />and the cessation of suffering."***<br />"Why are these questions not answered by a Perfect One? Because<br />they all treat of a Perfect One after death in terms of form (and<br />the rest)" (S. 44:3). "Because they are asked by one who is not freefrom desire, love, thirst, fever, and craving for form (and the rest).Because they are asked by one who relishes form (and the rest)and also being and clinging and craving, and who does not know how<br />these things cease" (S. 44:6). "Such questions belong to the thicket of views ... the fetter of views: they are connected with suffering, anguish,despair and fever, and they do not lead to dispassion, fading, stilling,direct knowledge, enlightenment, Nibbana"."One who is a Perfect One is here and now unknowable, I say. So saying, so proclaiming, I have been baselessly,vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by certain monks and brahmans thus: 'The monk Gotama is one who leads away (to annihilation); for he describes the annihilation, the loss, the nonbeing,of an existing creature."<br />***********************************<br />The above clipping-2 is enough said.Even great ones like Vivekananda can get it wrong (at the time when they said it)sometimes and there are many similar mis-conceptions about Buddhism and these are two points of my original post.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-72017930656972571272011-09-17T13:21:56.670+05:302011-09-17T13:21:56.670+05:30Ravi,
I think you mis-understand what I said....Ravi,<br /> I think you mis-understand what I said.Please go through all my previous 5 or 6 topics that I cut n pasted from Nanamolis' book.<br /><br />Both the Paramahamsa and the Maharshi and all Realized people unanimously agree that 'Reality is beyond words.Despite that if there is a word called 'self' or 'Self' it is only for the purposes of explaination to us.Dakshinamurthy did not use words like Self or substratum.In the discussion about after death that Buddha had(where are you Ramana) he clearly points out that such discussion is useless as we cannot grasp 'Reality'.Bhagawan too very often said where will I go(when I die); you think I am this body.<br /><br />I have also posted other postings from Nanamoli's book.In one of them Buddha says he knew lot more but only told us as much as is necessary for our practise.He repeatedly remained silent on all topics like God,Cosmology,self etc that he felt were not helpful to practise towards end of suffering.Bhagawan too repeatedly told that all knowledge learning is mere husk and to many questions he simply said all that we many not know; all we can be sure is there is 'I' and find out that.In a similar fashion; to all such questions Buddha sometimes remained silent and at other times said there is suffering and follow the Damma to end suffering.<br /><br />Please read all the 5 or 6 topics that I posted from Nanamoli's book.<br /><br />-ZZeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-75474317473597058972011-09-17T08:19:40.895+05:302011-09-17T08:19:40.895+05:30zee,
The man at the Mofussil bus stop was crying a...zee,<br />The man at the Mofussil bus stop was crying aloud-"come here one and all!This bus is Leaving.This will get you out of this place quickly.It is leaving right now.Come,Board this bus.This bus is Excellent.The Journey will be comfortable"<br />The Person who heard this asked him-"Where is it heading for"?<br />The Man replied :"We will talk about it later.You know you have to leave this place behind.Just board this bus".<br /><br />The Difference between Buddhist position and the Classical Vedanta is just this-Vedanta also emphasises that you are going to the Right Place,i.e your own Home,the Self.<br />Don't you think that if we talk about the path,i.e'what was that ancient path, that ancient trail? It was this<br />Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say: right view, right intention, right<br />speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,<br />right concentration.",it is only logical and necessary that we need to talk about the 'Destination' as well?Did Buddha miss this?<br />A Pathwithout a <b>destination</b> is a chimera.<br />In this sense the classical Vedanta position is not only more 'logical' but also inspiring for one and all.(it is for people from all walks of life,and not just for the 'Renunciants' as Buddhism primarily is;Even in its most catholic form,in Buddhism there is a schism between a Householder and the Renunciant.This lead to its adopting some of the pale shadows of its parent Religion that it prided itself to have abandoned).<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-33594775910439372632011-09-17T08:11:39.369+05:302011-09-17T08:11:39.369+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-10872766544555769292011-09-17T07:05:26.668+05:302011-09-17T07:05:26.668+05:30zee,
"and I know this by experience.In that m...zee,<br />"and <b>I know this by experience.</b>In that moment all concepts however varied including greatest Gods, greatest divinity and lowest degradation and all concepts, all mental formations, including 'I', Self, all emotions, all perceptions I mean anything that you know and can imagine are just dihevelled and mere concepts.One of the things you would notice is the value/measure concept is gone i.e whether the concept is Ramana or a vile person or a Kali or a Bimbo they have exactly the same value or no value."<br />What is the 'Experience' you are talking about?Why mention a 'moment'?!What is it now?Is the value measure 'gone' or that it gets the 'Right value'(rtam).There is no value in the value measure getting obliterated.Even sleep does that!<br />Namaskar.<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-49331948037900141182011-09-17T06:34:20.129+05:302011-09-17T06:34:20.129+05:30zee,
An excerpt from Vivekananda's 'Inspir...zee,<br />An excerpt from Vivekananda's 'Inspired Talks':<br />"Christs and Buddhas are simply occasions upon which to objectify our own inner powers. We really answer our own prayers.<br /><br />It is blasphemy to think that if Jesus had never been born, humanity would not have been saved. It is horrible to forget thus the divinity in human nature, a divinity that must come out. Never forget the glory of human nature. We are the greatest God that ever was or ever will be. <b>Christs and Buddhas are but waves on the boundless ocean which I am. Bow down to nothing but your own higher Self.</b> Until you know that you are that very God of gods, there will never be any freedom for you."<br />Is this a 'Concept'?Is this a 'Trap'?Does it sound like 'Buddha'?Does it sound like 'Ramana'?<br /><br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-70577173013565937142011-09-17T06:11:57.310+05:302011-09-17T06:11:57.310+05:30zee,
I suspect that you are still struggling to un...zee,<br />I suspect that you are still struggling to unlearn 'UG'.All your defence of 'Buddha' is just your mind trying to justify 'UG'.It goes like this-'UG' is validated by 'Buddha'.'Buddha' is validated by 'Ramana'.(Perhaps the purpose of your posts here or is it the other way round!)-----> Net result------->'UG' is validated----->Zee(z)is validated.<br />Can we forget all these 'images' and can we be oneself,without any of this knowledge?Try this.Then one need not validate 'this' or 'That'.This is Sri Bhagavan's position.This is what Vivekananda said.This is what Sri Aurobindo has said in that Quote from my previous post.<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-57846245896764386212011-09-17T06:00:07.635+05:302011-09-17T06:00:07.635+05:30Zee,
" yes they have fallen into the trap whi...Zee,<br />" yes they have fallen into the trap which Buddha was painfully urging not to.They probably were only responding to a trap that many Buddhists themselves have fallen into."<br />....<br />"So going by this I can only pity in a sense these super Thought-castles like Vivekananda or Aurobindo that it will take much longer and much more difficult for them to dismantle."<br /><br />How much longer!(concept!).How we hug onto our 'concepts'!Don't you see from what I have posted that these great ones are completely conversant with 'Truth' and are only challenging the philosophical position of 'Buddhism' that no substratum like 'Self'needs to be admitted.<br />The Buddhist position is that there is no 'screen' on which the 'images' are projected.The classic vedanta position is that 'Screen' alone exists.This position of vedanta is there from ancient times and is subsequently held by all the Great ones down to the present day.This has not been a 'Hindrance' as you are trying to project(pitying vivekananda or aurobindo!You need to pity Bhagavan also!He maintains this position!He also may not have read the Book that you are now reading!).<br />Both Vivekananda and Aurobindo did not depend on 'Books'!They had 'First hand 'experience of what they called 'Self'(which you are thinking is a 'concept'!).<br />Here is what Sri Aurobindo says in The Synthesis of Yoga:<br />"<b>Nothing can be taught to the mind which is not already concealed as potential knowledge in the unfolding soul of the creature. So also all perfection of which the outer man is capable, is only a realising of the eternal perfection of the Spirit within him. We know the Divine and become the Divine, because we are That already in our secret nature. All teaching is a revealing, all becoming is an unfolding. Self-attainment is the secret; self-knowledge and an increasing consciousness are the means and the process.</b>" <br />Do you think that this is a 'concept'?If so ,go beyond this 'Concept' and if you find that this is 'False',do let me know.Even a little 'sadhana' will help us to understand this 'position' that no amount of 'Book reading' would clear.<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-77804365486118755552011-09-17T03:04:09.924+05:302011-09-17T03:04:09.924+05:30Ravi,
You quoted the Paramahamsa:
"When one r...Ravi,<br />You quoted the Paramahamsa:<br />"When one realizes Svarupa, the true nature of one's Self, one attains a state that is something between asti, is, and nasti, is-not...This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are attributes of Prakriti. The Reality is beyond both."<br />********************************<br />That is exactly what the Buddha is pointing to.Nothing more nothing less.Contrast the above words to those of Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda and yes they have fallen into the trap which Buddha was painfully urging not to.They probably were only responding to a trap that many Buddhists themselves have fallen into.<br /><br />In the words:"...all things are not-self(anAtma)" he means that things do not have an existence of their own; i.e impermanent and dependent<br /><br />I agree that no amount of book reading(mental concepts) are anywhere near the actual experience and I know this by experience.In that moment all concepts however varied including greatest Gods, greatest divinity and lowest degradation and all concepts, all mental formations, including 'I', Self, all emotions, all perceptions I mean anything that you know and can imagine are just dihevelled and mere concepts.One of the things you would notice is the value/measure concept is gone i.e whether the concept is Ramana or a vile person or a Kali or a Bimbo they have exactly the same value or no value.The 'I' is also completely imaginery sustained by other concepts. But once you are back in the game all rules of the game and characters are back in their place.<br /><br />So going by this I can only pity in a sense these super Thought-castles like Vivekananda or Aurobindo that it will take much longer and much more difficult for them to dismantle.They are simply piling more and more floors on their 'Though-castles'.All their ideas and experiences how ever great and varied and knowledgeable they are they are just mere thoughts/ideas including the concept of Compassion becuase that is the last trick the mind will play on you to keep going.This is how it will seem at that moment.<br /><br />But once you are back in the game they all hold true and revered. None of this will help in any way other than forming more mental concepts as no description is close to the experience in that moment.<br /><br />So Buddha was right to insist on not forming any concepts as that will only hinder and not help.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-80293311643381729722011-09-16T23:18:09.087+05:302011-09-16T23:18:09.087+05:30zee/Friends,
"the second lesson is 'Sourc...zee/Friends,<br />"the second lesson is 'Source of Knowledge' is paramount."<br /><br />The source of knowledge is not 'Books'.<br /><br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-60523758778022105872011-09-16T23:15:00.869+05:302011-09-16T23:15:00.869+05:30zee/Friends,
MASTER (to Narendra): "What did ...zee/Friends,<br />MASTER (to Narendra): "What did Buddha preach?"<br />NARENDRA: "He did not discuss the existence or non-existence of God. But he showed<br />compassion for others all his life.<br />"A hawk pounced upon a bird and was about to devour it. In order to save the bird, Buddha<br />gave the hawk his own flesh."<br />Narendra's enthusiasm about Buddha<br />Sri Ramakrishna remained silent. Narendra became more and more enthusiastic about<br />Buddha.<br />NARENDA: "How great his renunciation was! Born a prince, he renounced everything! If<br />a man has nothing, no wealth at all, what does his renunciation amount to? After attaining<br />Buddhahood and experiencing Nirvana, Buddha once visited his home and exhorted his<br />wife, his son, and many others of the royal household to embrace the life of renunciation.<br />How intense his renunciation was! But look at Vyasa's conduct! He forbade his son<br />Sukadeva to give up the world, saying, 'My son, practise religion as a householder.' "<br />Sri Ramakrishna was silent. As yet he had not uttered a word.<br />NARENDRA: "Buddha did not care for Sakti or any such thing. He sought only Nirvana.<br />Ah, how intense his dispassion was! When he sat down under the Bodhi-tree to meditate,<br />he took this vow: 'Let my body wither away here if I do not attain Nirvana.' Such a firm<br />resolve!<br />"This body, indeed, is the great enemy. Can anything be achieved without chastising it?"<br />SASHI: "But it is you who say that one develops sattva by eating meat.You insist that one should eat<br />meat."<br />NARENDRA: "I eat meat, no doubt, but I can also live on rice, mere rice, even without<br />salt."<br />After a few minutes Sri Ramakrishna broke his silence. He asked Narendra, by sign,<br />whether he had seen a tuft of hair on Buddha's head.<br />NARENDRA: "No, sir. He seems to have a sort of crown; his head seems to be covered by<br />strings of rudraksha beads placed on top of one another."<br />MASTER: "And his eyes?"<br />NARENDRA: "They show that he is in samadhi."<br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />So,it is all about our own views!All this simply boils to our belief that we understand everything and Aurobindo and vivekananda simply 'missed' by reading wrong books!(Book knowledge?!!!);Had they but read the 'Right' book,they would have atleast been been better 'informed'!<br />Namaskar.Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-83078030753861988682011-09-16T23:09:36.649+05:302011-09-16T23:09:36.649+05:30zee/Friends,
Translation of the opening lines of S...zee/Friends,<br />Translation of the opening lines of Sri Bhagavan's Atma Vidya Keerthanam- 'Ayye athi sulabham,Atma Vidai ayye athi sulabham':<br />Lo, very easy is Self-Knowledge,<br />Lo, very easy indeed.<br /><br /><b>Even for the most infirm<br />So real is the Self</b><br />That compared with it the amlak<br />In one's hand appears a mere illusion.<br /><br /> <br /><b>True, strong, fresh for ever stands<br />The Self</b>. From this in truth spring forth<br />The phantom body and phantom world.<br />When this delusion is destroyed<br />And not a speck remains,<br />The Sun of Self shines bright and real<br />In the vast Heart-expanse.<br />Darkness dies, afflictions end,<br />And bliss wells up.<br /><br />This is the 'Hinduism' position that both Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda had pointed out regarding the <b>'Self'.</b><br />By Buddha's own admission,he did not take this position,for whatever be the reason.The Reasons that are mentioned in the excerpt from the 'pali' canon(for Buddha's silence) seem quite flimsy and cannot be attributed to Lord Buddha.They do not do him any credit.The Lord simply kept quiet because the self is something beyond description.<br />You also need to know that Swamiji was a Great admirer of Lord Buddha.<br />Here is an excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:<br />Narendra entered the room and took a seat. Sashi, Rakhal, and one or two other devotees<br />came in. The Master asked Narendra to stroke his feet.He also asked him whether he had<br />taken his meal.<br />MASTER (smiling, to M.): "He went there [referring to Bodh-Gaya]."<br />Buddha's doctrines<br />M. (to Narendra): "What are the doctrines of Buddha?"<br />NARENDRA: "He could not express in words what he had realized by his tapasya. So<br />people say he was an atheist."<br />MASTER (by signs): "Why atheist? He was not an atheist. He simply could not express his<br />inner experiences in words.<br />The meaning of Buddha<br />Do you know what 'Buddha' means? It is to become one with Bodha, Pure Intelligence, by<br />meditating on That which is of the nature of Pure Intelligence; it is to become Pure<br />Intelligence Itself."<br />NARENDRA: "Yes, sir. There are three classes of Buddhas: Buddha, Arhat, and<br />Bodhisattva."<br />MASTER: "This too is a sport of God Himself, a new lila of God.<br />"Why should Buddha be called an atheist? When one realizes Svarupa, the true nature of<br />one's Self, one attains a state that is something between asti, is, and nasti, is-not."<br />NARENDRA (to M:): "It is a state in which contradictions meet. A combination of<br />hydrogen and oxygen produces cool water; and the same hydrogen and oxygen are used in<br />the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe.<br />"In that state both activity and non-activity are Possible; that is to say, one then performs<br />unselfish action.<br />"Worldly people, who are engrossed in sense-objects, say that everything exists-asti. But<br />the Mayavadis, the illusionists, say that nothing exists-nast. The experience of a Buddha is<br />beyond both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. "<br />MASTER: "This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are attributes of Prakriti. The Reality is<br />beyond both."<br />The devotees remained silent a few moments.<br />continued...Ravihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-70319311018515910132011-09-16T21:42:36.020+05:302011-09-16T21:42:36.020+05:30The difference between Buddhism
and Hinduism is th...The difference between Buddhism<br />and Hinduism is that to the former the human soul is nothing,<br />to the latter it is everything. The whole universe exists in the<br />spirit, by the spirit, for the spirit; all we do, think and feel is for<br />the spirit.<br />-Sri Aurobindo in page-48 of his book 'Essays in Philosophy and Yoga'<br />*******************************************************<br />....And, of course, with all this I can [not] understand his doctrine. You know he denied that there was any soul in man — that is, in the Hindu sense of the word. Now, we Hindus all believe that there is something permanent in man, which is unchangeable and which is living through all eternity. And that in man we call Atman, which is without beginning and without end. And [we believe] that there is something permanent in nature [and that we call Brahman, which is also without beginning and without end]....<br />-Swami Vivekananda in 'Complete Works:Buddhistic India'<br />http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_3/Buddhistic_India<br />********************************************************<br /><br />From the below post which is a direct translation from the Pali Canon SN 44:10 both Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda got the wrong notion from reading the wrong books.I repost the discussion on self again:<br /><br />Chapter 12 of Bhikkhu Ñanamoli's classic compilation, The Life of the Buddha according to the Pali Canon.<br />********************************<br /><br />On another occasion the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. Then he asked: "How is it, Master Gotama, does self exist?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "How is it, then, Master Gotama, does self not exist?" And for a second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and went away. Not long after he had gone the Venerable Ananda asked the Blessed One: "Lord, how is it that when the Blessed One was questioned he did not answer?"<br /><br />"If, when I was asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of eternalism. And if, when I was asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of annihilationism. Again, if, when asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists,' would that have been in conformity with my knowledge that all things are not-self? And if, when asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' then confused as he already is, Ananda, the wanderer Vacchagotta would have become still more confused, assuming: 'Surely then I had a self before and now have none.'"<br /><br />SN 44:10<br /><br />So Buddha did not want to encourage concepts/views/mental formations of self.There are so many such misconceptions about the Buddha.Also calling Buddhism un-vedic could have been a fightback for identity and livelihood.Both Buddhism and Vedas are about the 'Anta' i.e Enligthenment.It is shocking how even great spiritual and encyclopediac store houses of knowledge can get it wrong sometimes.The above clipping also shows how similar was Buddha's practical wisdom to that of Ramana Maharshi.Sri Saradamma also said if anyone asked her what is the capital of a state(mundae or worldly knowledge) she would not know but if it wan anything to do with 'Self' she would know it(not exact words).So next time :<br />(1)when big people talk of worldly knowledge make sure and <br />(2)the second lesson is 'Source of Knowledge' is paramount.<br /><br />-Z<br /><br />September 16, 2011 9:29 PMZeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-4117481620922311912011-09-16T21:29:08.648+05:302011-09-16T21:29:08.648+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-8591675433975615162011-09-07T20:32:31.930+05:302011-09-07T20:32:31.930+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 /> <br />On another occasion the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. Then he asked: "How is it, Master Gotama, does self exist?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "How is it, then, Master Gotama, does self not exist?" And for a second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and went away. Not long after he had gone the Venerable Ananda asked the Blessed One: "Lord, how is it that when the Blessed One was questioned he did not answer?"<br /><br />"If, when I was asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of eternalism. And if, when I was asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of annihilationism. Again, if, when asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists,' would that have been in conformity with my knowledge that all things are not-self? And if, when asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' then confused as he already is, Ananda, the wanderer Vacchagotta would have become still more confused, assuming: 'Surely then I had a self before and now have none.'"<br /><br />SN 44:10<br /><br />-ZZeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529540057558347821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-76992514097186722182011-09-07T19:40:55.406+05:302011-09-07T19:40:55.406+05:30The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wo...The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus: "How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?"<br /><br />"The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more."<br /><br />"So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more: the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the holy life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? 'This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.' That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the holy life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So, bhikkhus, let your task be this: 'This is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this the cessation of suffering, this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.'"<br />SN 56:31<br /> <br />-ZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-34935572039376561802011-09-01T12:15:44.942+05:302011-09-01T12:15:44.942+05:30Magic
We were talking about magic as we drove ...Magic <br /><br />We were talking about magic as we drove along a crowded Sunday highway <br /><br />when the whirl of wings made me turn and a flock of geese flew over our car so low I could see their feet tucked under them. <br /><br />For a moment the rustle of their presence over our heads obscured everything <br /><br />and as they disappeared you said, "I see what you mean."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-49352579405845206702011-09-01T08:19:03.727+05:302011-09-01T08:19:03.727+05:30fantastic, thankyou David
Thankyou Master Guru Sr...fantastic, thankyou David<br /><br />Thankyou Master Guru Sri Ramana MaharshiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-56600157494175122052011-09-01T08:17:58.506+05:302011-09-01T08:17:58.506+05:30fantastic, thankyou so muchfantastic, thankyou so muchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-46030430174451689482010-10-18T17:45:34.671+05:302010-10-18T17:45:34.671+05:30Bhaava Translation:Take-2
************************...Bhaava Translation:Take-2<br />*************************<br />Ihamu vidichi phalamulimpugaa galavani mahini palku vaari matamu kalla.<br />Ihamulona baramu nosaguta kaanaro<br /><br />-Yogi Vemana on 'Reality' in Telugu<br />***********************************<br />Bhaava Translation:By 'Bhaava Translation' I mean the emphasis is on the style and the punch(punch line) rather than on word to word translation; retaining the meaning all the while:<br /><br />Great many fruits, will you find, if you abandon 'THIS'(Ihamu);he who postulates this as a great theory, his philosophy is bogus.<br />Can't you see that the question of ‘THAT’(Para) arises only in ‘THIS’(Iha)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-9680902605585359912010-10-18T05:17:49.276+05:302010-10-18T05:17:49.276+05:30Ihamu vidichi phalamulimpugaa galavani mahini palk...Ihamu vidichi phalamulimpugaa galavani mahini palku vaari matamu kalla.<br />Ihamulona baramu nosaguta kaanaro<br /><br />-Yogi Vemana on 'Reality' in Telugu<br />***********************************<br />Denying 'THIS'(Ihamu) will lead you to great fruits;he who postulates this as a great theory, his philosophy is bogus.<br />Can't you see that from 'THIS'(Ihamu) comes 'THAT'(Paramu)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-53463315198764586112010-05-07T15:43:07.202+05:302010-05-07T15:43:07.202+05:30Dear Anonymous. I think you are confusing Humphrey...Dear Anonymous. I think you are confusing Humphrey's with Chadwick(Sadhu Arunachela). It was Chadwick that wrote about Ramana's final days and the pain he suffered and endured.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-28804633872325956832010-05-07T06:54:58.361+05:302010-05-07T06:54:58.361+05:30Would you be willing to share your correspondence ...Would you be willing to share your correspondence with Dr. Friessen?<br /><br />There are quite a few things I am not quite clear on he acquired some of the information. <br /><br /> For example Friessen makes a reference to Humphrey's recording Ramana was groaning in pain when no one was around, I have never heard of this before. <br /><br />I am positive the discussion you had with Dr. Friessen was about more important subject matter regarding the Maharishi, is there any chance we could be privy to it?<br /><br />Thank you for keeping this blog activeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961358105214008284.post-74627298948085110402010-05-02T17:48:59.548+05:302010-05-02T17:48:59.548+05:30Thanks David,
Your note clarifies. Just referred ...Thanks David,<br /><br />Your note clarifies. Just referred to your edition of Guru Vachaka Kovai verses 1098 and 1099 and Shri S S Cohen's notes on Forty Verses on Reality. <br /><br />The key on " Bhavana" explains the verse very well. Imagination or suspension of it definitely doesn't indicate maturity of the devotee. It is " Bhavana" that explains.<br /><br />In your book Power of Presence ( Book 2), you quote Bhagavan " Bhakthi is mother of Jnana". Beautiful........ Bhavana is the outpouring in Bhakthi.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Regards<br />RamaRamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791420390845156418noreply@blogger.com