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 - cefnbrithdir

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Dear Anil

Thank you for your reply to my post. It is me that should apologise for being unaware of what was going on.  I am pleased  we are now in a different place.

I posted because I went through a 24-36 hr  period of feeling I had really glimpsed what Bhagavan was saying about objects as a help to vichara.

It was terribly simple - a clarification  that this understanding of object can  be helped by considering its  grammatical meaning.

This seemed like  an aide to discrimination; of what we are doing with our minds in vichara; of where our minds should try to stay. That is all we can do  - the rest is grace in its own time.

Our minds are creating objects (which we can detect grammatically) almost all the time. Even "the source" is a created object in our thinking. Yet for a short time we can put our minds in the place where we are aware  we have stopped doing this. Perhaps that itself is an object but it seems different.

 The force of Bhagavan's Talk 398 came through to me in that he was saying "Start from the position that there are no objects. Because indeed there  aren't any. You don't have to think. You do think because you are making the error of thinking there are objects. But there aren't any. Stop this error and go from there".

I am not in the same place as I was earlier now ! But  - at the risk of creating another object - it is not forgotten.


Dear Anil

"There is only the Self. Thoughts can function only if there are objects. But there are no objects.
The habit makes us believe that it is difficult to cease thinking. If the error is found out, one would not be fool enough to exert oneself unnecessarily by way of thinking "  Talks 398.

This has really got through to me. No objects. Just that.

And we know when our minds are (unnecessarily/foolishly/harmfully) trying to create them.

We may be able to  "step back" and help those  creating them perhaps more obviously than ourselves - but only when we are  secure in that Reality, when we continue to know there are still no objects.

Thank you.

Thank you for this and so much else.


General topics / Re: What is this Ego?
« on: December 28, 2012, 08:32:24 PM »

Dear Beloved Abstract

You have prompted me to add  that the opposite of "I am separate from God" is not " I am not separate from God". With that  you are still left with an objectifying "I".   "I am" is another matter.


Dear Sanjay

But I was not thinking about dreams or snakes which are not real.

But Siva and Shakti and their unity are Real are they not ?  (Amritanubhava)


Dear Sanjay

Do I understand correctly that "activating" is not the same as movement or should I say vibration ? Shakti and Maya are not equivalent are they ?  When movement is involved maya more readily shows itself but does not the jnani see stillness and movement as one ?

Thank you.


Dear Subramanian Sir

What then leaves the body (together  with the Self)  that allows continuing karmic imprints to continue ?

Dear Subramanian Sir

Thank you. I did think that Bhagavan's response, quoted by Ravi, was specific to the question asked - and included that in my earlier post but then for doubtless different reasons took it out !

I realise with some irony that my desire to post stemmed from not being sufficiently settled as to whether Bhagavan was responding specifically, which you have kindly confirmed he was,  or whether his words were addressing  something I needed to attend to  or had not properly understood myself.

Another lesson !  But I am smiling.


Dear Subramanian Sir

 And yet all the revelations and teachings of Bhagavan, the Vedas, Tripura Rahasya - which I am presently reading - may help quieten the mind on an intellectual level and faith gives no room to doubt.

I know that Bhagavan would likely advise someone suffering from doubt to ask "Who is the doubter" "From where does doubt come". But would not  faith in knowledge precluding any doubt prior to Knowledge be preferential. One less thing for Self Inquiry to have to deal with.

Am I right in thinking that this is  what you meant by "Intellect is helpful only to the extent of what Self Inquiry is" ?

Thank you

General Discussion / Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:12:32 PM »

To simplify horribly it seems to me that in  the East  you have been brought up with the concept of ignorance,  in the West  we have been brought up with the concept of fear. Getting rid of ignorance is not easy - getting rid of fear is not easy either.

"The Maharshi has particularly appealed to me because of his extreme politeness and gentleness. He is gentle to a degree that surpasses gentleness. My visit to the Sage of Arunachala has been the greatest event in my life"

Grant Duff

General Discussion / Re: Rough Notebook-Open Forum
« on: November 06, 2012, 05:15:38 PM »
Here is an excerpt from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi:

17th September, 1938 Talk 515.

An aspirant is instructed to find who he is. If he does so, he will take no interest in discussing such matters as the above. Find the
Self and rest in Peace."


Dear Ravi

Thank you for this. It was just what I wanted to hear after dipping into a 2008 David Godman blog on a discourse by  Robert Adams. His Foundation have also  recently sent his University Discourses - the second chapters is  all about "akashic records".

Why is this the way to teach aspirants ? Are not these matters for us  just (unreal) distractions and (unreal) objects in the same way that any other externality that takes away our vichara or bhakti might be ?


Dear Anil

I too am very pleased for you but what came over to me  was what has disturbed your peace. If your office colleague left his body in almost identical circumstances the following day then all the more so  must you be regard yourself as a survivor.  And we learnt how problematic this can be for many who have lived in circumstances where  others have not done so.
The question is "Why me ?" - and that must be true for all of us who have experienced the grace to know of Bhagavan and become his prey. Yet we know from him that this is the wrong question  - the "me" must be dissolved in his presence. That our time has not yet come for our sojourn here must encourage us further to do the little we can do according to his word.

Thank you for your sharing - it is indeed very good that you are with us.

The only benefit is that one forgets everything and immerses in the bliss of Self - the bliss that passeth understanding.

Arunachala Siva.

Dear Subramanian Sir

Do you understand bliss and peace as meaning different things or as different ways of talking  about the same  ?

"that passeth understanding"  so reminds me of Paul writing to the Philippians 

" And the peace of God, which passeth  all understanding, will keep (in a state of settlement and security) your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus......"  and   "whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me - put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you".

Thank you


Dear Anil

"Suppose one is walking down a busy road towards one's  destination........"

So much to read since - just wanted to share that the shortest logion in the Gospel of Thomas (logion 42) simply reads

"Jesus said: Become passers-by".


Dear Anil

"Welcome to the Ultimate and Straight Path of Atma- Vichara....You challenge them (rising thoughts) by repeatedly asking yourself "Who am I ?" Who is the person who is having all these thoughts..."

It could well be that we are all understanding the same thing but there is the doubt that we are not or going down the wrong path and that is where it seems these slight differences in words - and critically our reaction to them - can make a difference.

I know this is not an intellectual exercise but I still find it difficult to think about the thought "Who am I ?"

In "Nan Yar"  - which I understand is literally "I am who ?" - you see even that could make a difference in how your response ! - and in Michael James commentary  we have

"This practice of jnana- vichara is described by Sri Ramana in verse 19 of Upades Undiyar:

    When [we] scrutinise within [ourself] 'what is the place in which it [our mind] rises as I ' [this false] 'I' will die. This [alone] is jnana- vichara.

James continues

" What Sri Ramana describes in this verse as our ezhum idam, the 'rising place' or source of our mind or finite sense of 'I' , is our own essential self, our adjunct-free consciousness 'I am'. When we scrutinise our essential self-conscious being, 'I am' which is the source from which our limited adjunct-bound 'I' rises, this "I will die", that is, will cease to exist as such, because we will discover that it is truly nothing other than our adjunct-free self-consciousness."

This fits well with me but I appreciate that I am more  scutinising a source rather than asking anything. It does become clear  that any other focus of mind - any other thoughts - is a distraction from this.

( I come from a Christian background; Bhagavan has illumined Jesus's teaching so much for me, but so wishing to convey this to others I am constantly forming sermons in my mind in an effort to explain this in some imagined forum. There may be worse things for my mind to be thinking about  but ultimately I know that  this too is a great distraction and needs more discipline. Indeed it is all Ego ! I did then think that this too is a forum....... I suppose a type of lectio divina but it needs its place.  Of course it could be that this is how I am eventually meant to use my mind - but this is when there being no sense of doership makes all the difference).

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5