Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Joey_

Pages: [1] 2 3
From Gospel of Thomas:

 Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth."

This remains me of Ramana saying that a wise person stays under the shade of the tree to shelter himself from the heat. And an unwise person keeps going back and forth.

Issue #2 :-> In this website Dr Zakir Naik a famous international speaker raises many concerns over this sacred book.

According to wikipedia Zakir Naik said:

"If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "If he is terrorizing America — the terrorist, biggest terrorist — I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist."

General topics / Re: Should I kill a wounded bug?
« on: August 07, 2011, 06:29:45 PM »

Dear Joye,

I shall only quote what Sri Bhagavan said in an identical situtation:

Just because you kill the bug, you won't be denied of moksha.
Just because you leave it atleast as injured creature, you will
not be conferred moksha.  If you leave it as it is, after some time,
the wounded legs or wings will start functioning normally. This is
Nature's cure.

Arunachala Siva.   
Awesome! Thank you. I didn't know there was anything Ramana said about this kind of subject. I hope his words will come true in this case :)

General topics / Should I kill a wounded bug?
« on: August 07, 2011, 05:19:00 PM »
In the morning I saw something green in my pillow and I just thought it was a small garbage. So I grapped it with my fingers and saw that it was a small bug. I accidentaly injured its feet so that it cannot walk anymore. I feel bad about it and I don't know what I should do. Should I kill it because it may be in pain?

I remember reading that Bhagavan said that there is something beyond sat-chit-ananda. And He also said:

"The final stage of samadhi has to be reached in which one becomes ananda or one with reality. In this state the duality of enjoyer and enjoyment ceases in the ocean of sat-chit-ananda or the Self."

General topics / Re: What foods and spices to avoid?
« on: July 18, 2010, 12:57:14 AM »
Dear Joey,

Bhagavan Ramana has said Sattvic food in moderate quantities.
He meant by that all types of animal flesh including eggs must
be avoided.  Regarding 'hot food', He never said anything in particular.  The Asramam food even today, is moderately hot, though
chillies and pepper are used. The Asramam avoids garlics right from Bhagavan Ramana.  He approved coffee, tea and milk.

Arunachala Siva.

I remember reading that Bhagavan said that salt and carrots are also bad for the mind. If they cause restlesness in the mind, then how come chilies and other spicy/hot spices won't cause restlesness.

General topics / What foods and spices to avoid?
« on: July 14, 2010, 04:58:31 PM »
I know that meat is non sattvic food, but is there other foods that Bhagavan strongly suggested to be avoided? And are there some foods that He considered aid to spiritual life? And also, I like to use black pepper and hot chilie-sauces in food I eat, but do they cause restlessness in mind? And what about coffee and tee, are they bad for us?


That which can be objectified can be watched - awareness watches the object.

How can Awareness/Self be watched? Who is watching? It just IS.

These explanations are at the root of all errors .... 'are there two, one to watch the other'.

Self-enquiry is NOT this method. Self-enquiry is holding onto and remaining as Self/Awareness of Being. A subtle but profound difference.

Whatever can be objectified is not Self, it is just another thought, another figment of the imagination.

So do you disagree with these quotes? Aren't they from Sri Ramana himself?

418. The only true and full Awareness is Awareness of Awareness. Until Awareness is Awareness of itself, it knows no peace at all.

52. If mind turned towards Awareness and concentrating on Awareness, seeks the Self, the world made up of ether and other elements is real, as all things are Awareness, the one sole substance of true Being.

There is already a topic about the author Michael Langford, who coined this term 'awareness watching awareness', but I would like to hear your opinion on his interpretation of Self-Attention.

Michael Langford describes the way he came to this conclusion like this.

 "... (I wondered) If “I AM” is this present awareness, just the awareness that is now looking at this room, then paying attention to the I AM is just: My awareness watching my awareness.

Atleast in my opinion this sounds true and is logical. And this is how he describes the practice itself: "Turn your attention away from thought and watch the watcher, see the seer."

When he first found this out, he asked Sri V. Ganesan (grand nephew of Sri Ramana) about this practice and he approved it saying that he calls it 'attention attending to attention'. Michael Langford also backs this interpretation by giving quotes from "The garland of Guru's sayings", by Sri Muruganar:

The only true and full awareness is awareness of awareness.
Till awareness is awareness of itself
, it knows no peace at all.”

“Is it not because you are yourself Awareness, that you now perceive This universe?
If you observe awareness steadily, this awareness itself as Guru will reveal the Truth.”

" If with mind turned towards Awareness and concentrating on Awareness, one seeks the Self, the world made up of ether and other elements is real, as all things are Awareness, the one sole substance of true Being."

" If instead of looking outward at objects, you observe that looking, all things now shine as I, the seer. Perception of objects is mere illusion."

"The ego image moves reflected in the mind's waves. How to stop this movement, how to regain the state of stillness? Don't observe these movements, seek the Self, instead.  It is wisdom to gain and abide in silence."

Also Michael James says that Michael Langford's intepretation is correct.

"The witness is that which says "I know". The person says "I do". Now, to say "I know" is not untrue, it is merely limited. But to say "I do" is altogether false, because there is nobody who does; all happens by itself, including the idea of being a doer. The universe is full of action, but there is no actor. There are numberless persons small and big and very big, who, through identification, imagine themselves as acting, but it does not change the fact that the world of action (mahadakash) is one single whole in which all depends on, and affects all. The stars affect us deeply and we affect the stars. Step back from action to consciousness, leave action to the body and the mind; it is their domain. Remain as pure witness, till even witnessing dissolves in the Supreme."

- I Am That

Dear Subramanian, i thought that aham vritti ('I'-thought/first mental mode) meant the thinker or the ego.

and Nisargadatta never mentioned aham-vritti (i believe)

I'm already pretty sure about this, but wanted to get your assurance. So is the 'I'-thought same as sense 'I am' that Nisargadatta talks about.

E: I put this accidentaly here, it should be in "General topics".

General topics / Re: Guilt
« on: June 02, 2010, 02:54:32 PM »
I found another wonderful quote from Sri Bhagavan about guilt and free will.

"When the mind is absorbed, in work or otherwise, and the thinking mind is not active it may be said that the mind is in control temporarily, only to become active again. When, through the deep understanding that “God is the doer and no ‘one’ has any control over thoughts and actions” the thinking mind is totally annihilated, then it can be said that the thinking mind in that body-mind organism is dead and only the working mind remains."

General topics / How to do effort?
« on: May 16, 2010, 05:21:34 PM »
Ramana Maharshi said that His method can be summed: "Be Still" and as He said "To be still is not to think". Bhagavan also said that this takes tremendous effort. But to me it seems that to think takes effort and one doesn't need to do anything to be still or remain without thoughts. So how can we make effort to be still?

Oh, So when Bhagavan said: "Let us cherish that Self, which is the reality, in the Heart." the Heart actually means heart-center?

Editing: I now found a quote from Bhagavan about the subject  :)

Q: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of consciousness and as identical with the Self.
What does the Heart exactly signify?

A: Call it by any name, God, Self, the Heart or the seat of consciousness, it is all the same. The point to be grasped is
this, that Heart means the very core of one’s being, the centre, without which there is nothing whatever. The Heart is
not physical, it is spiritual. Hridayam equals hrit plus ayam; it means ‘this is the centre’. It is that from which thoughts
arise, on which they subsist and where they are resolved. The thoughts are the content of the mind and they shape the
universe. The Heart is the centre of all. That from which beings come into existence is said to be Brahman in the
Upanishads. That is the Heart. Brahman is the Heart.

Pages: [1] 2 3