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 - Nagaraj

Pages: 1 ... 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 [290] 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 342
4336
Dear I,

I agree with you, over the past few thousands of years, Woman had to/ still are having to suffer. I totally agree with you. Men with their ego and power, have put down the woman so that they may not be out shined in any ways.

I don't have a convincing answer to your question! But you see, when we enquire who am I, there is neither man nor woman, this 'I' is neither of them. Apparently, we should perhaps learn to see it as not woman or men but only the Good and Bad.

But the hidden truth is that Woman progress much faster even spiritually than men because they are more steadfast in their usual lives. We only know of few realised people who have become famous by virtue of their poems or songs. But there are many realised souls who are not known to us, they remain hidden in the mundane worldly life for it is not necessary to appear different like a sage to (be realised) in such hidden people, I am sure there are more woman than men.

Definitely Woman are far more wiser than men.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4337
Humour / Re: Where am I?
« on: July 14, 2010, 07:19:08 PM »
Dear I,
 :D very nicely put into Humor section...

But you see, when we ask to whom is this thought 'where am I' is, the answer would be 'to me' and then eventually, its Who am I in the end... 'I'
 ::)

Salutations to Sri Ramana


4338
             :) Krishna said that in the 18th chapter. After saying everything else.
he did not say that first .

:) if Sraddha is just faith, then he should have just said this one line and thats it!
but he did not say.
he taught him 17 chapters. in the last chapter, one of the last few verses he says this!

Coz its not possible to surrender without understanding.
meanwhile Arjuna asks lots of questions.

Sraddha translates to proper openness or availability to questioning and finding out. open mind.

do you really see why sraddha is required? suppose i am realized and i want to teach a vaishnavite. he wont accept anything i say until and unless i tell him its vishnu. do u get this? that means he is not ready to put aside his pet ideas.
same with our own philosophies.

The reason so many people remain unenglightened even after hearing his verse is that they have not understood the true meaning. coz they have not systematically understood the previous verses. the preparation and availability is not there.

Thats precisely what I am telling, You can only drop intelligence after you acquire it. Even after being told all thee chapters. Krishna only asks him to surrender. We have to drop our intelligence some time or other.

As for why some people remain unenlightened even after hearing his verse ... etc... it is not of my concern. As far as I am concerned Bhagavan only asked us to focus on 'I' he never asked us to enquire why other people remain un enlightened.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4339
To my humble understanding, Shraddha is total abidance, faith is the closest word for it.

In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:

sarva-dharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
moksayisyami ma sucah

Abandon all Dharmas and just surrender unto Me. I shall cleanse you from all sins and deliver onto your liberation.

No Vedanta is going to help us eventually, we have to drop it all. We have to surrender completely. Bhagavan attained freedom only through deep deep bhakti like those of Nayanmars and not even through Jnana.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4340
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: No need to worry
« on: July 14, 2010, 05:46:39 PM »
We have to use our mind to do Self Enquiry and transcend the mind itself
We have to use a thorn to remove another thorn from our body

Similarly, we do rituals to remove our Ajnaana and go even beyond them and finally reach the abode of Vaikuntha!

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4341
Dear I,

There is one very popular saying - Vinaasakaale Vipareeta Buddhi. in a man's worst time his mind goes beserk. Yudhishtira was a Kshtriya. It is in a Kshtriya's blood to never accept defeat, never say "NO" to a challenger. In tamil we have this word 'Chabalam' I don't know its english translation. He could not say No when he was thrown a challenge. Though he was hesitant first, through the tricks of Shakuni, he was coaxed and made to accept. As for Krishna, he was not around then.

The significance is that, when we remember God always, we will never run into any troubles. When we forget God, only then we run into various troubles. Perhaps the inner significance of Krishna's absence is only this. If he were around, i.e. if Pandavas remembered God, Krishna would have been present there and he would have saved them.

But hindsight, after this, Pandavas always remembered God and Krishna was always with them. Remember how He saved them in the forest from the wrath of Sage Durvasa? How He helped them to win the battle and their kingdom.

Mahabharata is the 5th Veda. There is so much significance in it.

Similarly, in Ramayana, Same things happens even here, Didn't Rama know, that the deer was only a Rakshasa? and he left Sita in care of Lakshmana and goes, and eventually when the Rakshasa cries in the voice of Rama, Sita gets scared and sends Lakshmana into the forest. Didn't Lakshmana knew beforehand that nothing could happen to Sri Rama.

But there are deep significances to everything, if Sita had not sent them, Ravana would not have been killed
If Manthaara had not played her role, Rama would not have gone to the forese and Ravana could not have killed.

These are all Deva Rahasya. We can never know them completely, we can only know their significance.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4342
Dear I
Dear Nagaraj,
          :)
But what if the process of enquiry is itself mistaken ?

Love!
Silence

There is what is called 'Shraddha' or 'faith' When we drop our intelligence, we shall reach there (faster) than we imagine.

Sharanagati is inevitable, be it through Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga or Karma Yoga.

We have to drop all our intelligence and stand stripped naked completely. Helplessly.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4343
Quote
When the expresser is still present, how can we talk about the Truth?
If expresser should not be present after Realization. Then u cannot have all these teachings.
Ramana who realized should have left immediately or vanished!
And that is what is being talked about. The Expresser need not be dismissed for Self Realization.
Even as a person playing role of a ravana, need not stop playing the role when he knows he is the one playing the role and not the role.
:)
I would care to check these details after (Self Realisation)

For now, I do not know. I am not a Jnani yet to say, what it would be like after Self Realisation. I would rather (see it myself) after the role of Ravana has ended. I would not speculate about it now. Whether Ramana should have left immediately or vanished - it does not matter to me, He has only asked us to focus on the 'I'. the rest is not in our hands as He says -

"All that you need to do is to find out its origin and abide there. Your efforts can extend only thus far. Then the Beyond will take care of itself. You are helpless there. No effort can reach it."

I would continue with enquiry. Whether the Expresser should be present or not present, I don't know now, as for now, as per the words of Bhagavan I continue to enquire Who am I (Expresser)

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4344
In Mahabharatha, there is a parable which stands testimony to Yudhishtra’s  inherent greatness when compared with Duriyodhana. One day Duriyodhana is summoned and asked to bring one good man from the earth. In the evening a disillusioned Duriyodhana returns, grumbling about how there isn’t one decent man left on the face of the earth. The very same day, Yudhishtra returns, shaking his head in utter dismay, genuinely unable to spot ONE BAD man, on which endeavour he was sent!! Each saw in the world what he found himself to be. Much as Duriyodana tried to rule the kingdom and prove his supremacy, it is proven beyond doubt that he must have been a tormented man, unhappy with himself on the core level. While Yudhishtra was intrinsically happy and contented even when he was in the forest, divested of the kingdom and the honours of a princely life!

This would be the greatest test of true spirituality – when one is unable to judge or condemn another human being, unable to hate, regardless of how different or even obnoxious he may be, it is only THEN that the individual is truly spiritual.

Every incidents that may result in raising our temper is the biggest grace of Guru, every people who test our patience are verily our Parama Guru. External divisions exist only for our upliftment alone. All sorrows, pains and worries are the greatest of Grace of Guru.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4345
But one thing to appreciate here is the Guts of Ghandhi, He did not hide all these supposed to be secrets.There lies his wisdom.

all most all of us cannot do it.

4346
Dear I,

Precisely -

When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, but
should inquire 'To whom do they arise?'   It does not matter
how many thoughts arise.  As each thought arises, one should
inquire with diligence, 'To whom has this thought arisen?'  The
answer that would emerge would be 'To me'.  Thereupon if one
inquires 'Who am I?', the mind will go back to its source; and
the thought that arose will become quiescent.  With repeated
practice in this mannter, the mind will develop the skill to stay
in its source......


Therefore, the question 'Where from this thought arises or To
whom has this thought arisen' is not wrong.  It is the first step
to understand that I-thought is the primary thought, after which
other thoughts arise.  Bhagavan Ramana says in Answer 10,
that the thought 'Who am I?' will destroy all other thoughts,
and like the stick used for stirring up the burning pyre, it will
itself in the end get destroyed.
 Then, there will arise Self-
realization.   [/b]
Arunachala Siva.

Salutations to Sri Ramana


4347
Dear I,

:) you are here attacking the expression. The problem is with expressing that Truth. you are asking "who is expressing"
do you get this?
you are not, here, talking about the truth value of the statement. you are just attacking by saying that the one who is expressing is mithya.
coz all expressions are of mind, its true that is mithya.
Ramana is mithya too , but Ramana releases.

There lies the whole point ... When the expresser is still present, how can we talk about the Truth? when the expresser is still to merge itself? Truth is beyond expressions, beyond words, what ever we try to say about it is only reducing it and there is only possibility of misleading 'others'.

Thats why they say, no one has authority to change the Vedas or Shastras. Similarly, one "expresser" cannot give the essence or meaning to the state of consciousness Consciousness shines all by 'it'self like the Sun, it does not need another light to reflect its glory.

Even to clear doubts and questions amongst ourselves, there has to be some boundary, beyond which we should stop ourselves from venturing in to it. We should rather stick to our enquiry for since we ourselves are still making the journey and when we try to explain to others about the Consciousness or the state of a (Jnani), it will be as good as showing a torch light pointing towards the moon, which itself derives its light from the Sun.

Bhagavan's words themselves carry its salvation, whatever light we may try and show upon His Holy words, we are only misinterpreting them and misguiding 'others' as well.

Which is why, in this context, Bhagavan has said -

“My” implies the “I”, which owns the senses. You take your existence for granted; at the same time ask others to prove it to you. Similarly you admit the certainty of your senses, which see others, whilst denying all certainty. You see how you contradict yourself. The fact is that there are no others: there is no such a person as “you”. Each man, although addressed as “you”, styles himself as “I”. Even the confirmation you demand from others comes only from the “I”. “You” and “they” occur only to the “I”, without which they are meaningless.

So, also, when we try and communicate, thinking we are communicating or rather explaining to others the meanings of the teachings of Bhagavan and the (state) of Jnani, we are actrually only talking to ourselves, and by way of expression, we are only misguiding 'others' while actually, we are still only grinding the essence within ourselves.

Only a lamp can light another lamp. Before we light other lamps, our lamps need to be lit first.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4348
Quote
have a question to ask,
Suppose, we accept that a Jnani has thoughts and mind and that the movements of thoughts continue to be and just that a Jnani is not affected by them, in such a case, where from are these thoughts originating? are they originating by some unknown force or something? that a jnani is aware of those thoughts and through his wisdom he is unaffected by them?
That is a wrong question. The thoughts being mithya, have no true existence. Their origin is mithya too!
Quote


How can anything orginate from what is Mithya? Mithya being illusion? It is originating from the ego which is still there

Quote

To my humble understanding, Jnani does not have thoughts or mind, or rather Jnani himself is mind or thoughts. He is not a cogniser of thoughts or mind that they don't trouble him at all.
how can Jnani be thought? Thought is changing. Mitha. Jnani is Consciousness SAT. Consciousness is space in which thoughts appear and disappear.

Who is the 'I' that is saying that a Jnani is Consciousness SAT? Who is the 'I' that is saying that Consciousness is space in which thoughts appear and disappear?

First lets find out its source then we can discuss about the Space or Consciousness... at that (stage)

Quote
Still I would say, I don't know the state of a Jnani nor I am able to accept the state of realisation as quoted from any verses. It is irrelevant to the scope of our sadhana.
How can that be the case? if you are thinking that all thoughts have to be stopped to be a jnani... thats a different ball game.
however to remain unaffected by thoughts is different.
the sadhana in both the cases varies a lot!

I am more concerned about the 'I' that comes to various conclusions about whether thoughts have to be stopped or it need not be stopped, etc... Who is the 'I' that says, it can remain unaffectd by thoughts.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4349
Dear I

Dear Nagaraj,

The ideas about mind, thoughts and ego have been explained
by Bhagavan Ramana in Verses 15 to 26 of Upadesa Undiyar.
I am of the view, this is His final view on the matter.

Arunachala Siva.

My entire arguement over several other posts regarding this matter is only to show light about the fact that  one cannot know the state of a jnani. Be it, if they are words of Bhagavan, David Godman or Annamalai Swami. because the one who 'knows' is only the lesser 'I'

Even though, we may for the sake of knowledge, we may use the words of Bhagavan, Annamalai Swami, David Godman, Muruganar, etc.. or even for that matter any reference from Upanishads, still it they are only words in the end and it is the mind that uses the words of a jnani and itself.

For that matter, verses from Ramana Hridayam, Ulladuy Naarpadu specially in verses 30 - 35, Bhagavan speaks other wise.

My entire contention is about our mind, each one concluding the state of Brahma Jnani to be fixed by our own knowledge or understading - it is only this that I have been trying to bring light.

Most times, whenever we try to concluded the state of a Jnani, I bring in a counter arguement or posting to illustrate that it is still not this, not this - neti neti.

Still I would say, I don't know the state of a Jnani nor I am able to accept the state of realisation as quoted from any verses. It is irrelevant to the scope of our sadhana.

Let the world decide about the states of a jnani, I only focussed only on holding on the substratum of the 'I' that is concluding all these.

only a jnani can know a jnani's state.

I am not yet a jnani to conclude or affirm the truth relating to a jnani even though they are from the verses of Bhagavan. The mind that evaluates the state of a jnani is but just ego. that needs to be enquired upon

I remain, with my ignorance. I shall not say or affirm the truth of the words of a jnani. I am not one. I do not profess to know the truth, my effort of counter question in my various postings to different members was only to illustrate neti neti.... it is still the false 'I'.

To me, within me, even if I accept the verses from Upadesa undiyar, verses 15 - 26  to be final. Who am I to affirm it, ?? who is this I? I stick to this fundamental source of it.

'I' am nobody to affirm the sayings of a jnani. I do not know. I continue my enquiry.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4350
I have a question to ask,

Suppose, we accept that a Jnani has thoughts and mind and that the movements of thoughts continue to be and just that a Jnani is not affected by them, in such a case, where from are these thoughts originating? are they originating by some unknown force or something? that a jnani is aware of those thoughts and through his wisdom he is unaffected by them?

To my humble understanding, Jnani does not have thoughts or mind, or rather Jnani himself is mind or thoughts. He is not a cogniser of thoughts or mind that they don't trouble him at all.

There cannot be duality. There cannot be a Jnani and mind (that it may not affect Him) There is only Jnani or there is not even Jnani but only Jnanam - as said by Bhagavan

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Pages: 1 ... 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 [290] 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 342