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 ... 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 [293] 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 ... 342
4381
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / ....from talks
« on: July 01, 2010, 04:35:17 PM »
If the ego identifies itself with the subtle mind, as in dream, the
perceptions are subtle also. But in sleep there are no perceptions.
Was there not the ego still? Unless it was, there cannot be the
memory of having slept. Who was it that slept? You did not say in
your sleep that you slept. You say it now in your wakeful state. The
ego therefore is the same in wakefulness, dream and sleep. Find
out the underlying Reality behind these states. That is the Reality
underlying these. In that state there is Being alone. There is no you,
nor I, nor he; no present, nor past, nor future. It is beyond time and
space, beyond expression.


Talks 17

4382
To my understanding, destruction of Ego is destruction of Mind itself. Ego is nothing but the 'I' thought, upon the rise of 'I' thought, Mind comes into picture, when the ego is naught, there is no mind at all.

Therefore Jnani does not have a mind. "There is no Jnani, there is only Jnanam"

It is only through the mind one surrenders, and when there is complete Surrender, there is no more mind or ego.

Mind is Ego.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4383
Dear I,

This is your projection:
there are only two possibilities: A person with merged mind said this. which is not possible. coz for him all projections ceased.
a person whose mind is not merged is saying what will happen when mind merges. in this case, how does he know?

both cases are meaningless.

simple point... merging of mind is not absence of projection. its just veiling power that is eliminated.

final merging or elimination of projection is videha mukti. not jeevan mukthi.


and this response is my projection.

As a whole, your projection and my projection is my projection to myself and similarly, As a whole, your projection and my projection is your projection to yourself.

So long these projections continue, so long there is mind which is not merged.

There is nothing more discuss or rather project :) from here.

Salutations to Sri Ramama

4384
Dear I,

Every thing that is being discussed is only a 'stand point' of view, which is only the mind's. It can never know the consciousness which is unlimited. whatever we try and say is only making it limited.

A Jivan Mukta does not have a body, as consciousness, 'it' is pervaded everywhere and everything. No one has body. since it is projection of mind, it exists as sanke in rope.

In the end, you speak from your perception and I speak from my perception.

There is no your perception and my perception. You are talking to yourself and I am talking to myself. There is no You and I.

Perception exists only for the mind. Perception is again just a projection. as long as the Mind exists, perception, projection, etc.. continues. When, Mano Naasam, all is naught.

The games of your perception, my perception etc.. continue for the mind, is it not the projection of the mind?

Quote
we can only speak from our standpoint. A Jeevan muktha has body and a Videha muktha has no body.

That everything is only the projection of the mind including the Jivanmukta and Videhamukta. When Mano Naasam, there is no Jivanmukta, no Videhamukta, No consciousness, no nothing or there is  Jivanmukta, there is Videhamukta, Consciousness everywhere, Aatman, Brahman.

These are all again the projections of mind.

This mind as to merge. this is Mano naasam. As long as there are projections of any type, mind has not merged.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4385
A Jeevan Muktha is said to have had release from body and still exist in the body for outsiders like ourselves. It is Videha muktha what you are talking about.

In Sadashiva Brahmendral, we have seen how his hands were chopped off and yet he continued to walk without even being aware of it. We all know how Ramana Maharshi had his tumor operated without even taking anesthesia.

It only appears for outsiders like ourselves that a Jivanmukta has prarabdha, that they have body, etc.., but they do not have any prarabdha or body.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4386
Dear I

When ego is burnt, still there is role playing, but one knows clearly that one is not ravana.
why should an enlightened person not continue playing the role of Ravana, knowing pretty well that there is only Rama?

Appearances are only projection of the mind, similarly, Ravana is a character projected by the mind. When the mind is merged into itself - Self, Ravana ceases to be, as there will be no mind for projection of Ravana.

You have to remain as Rama (actually not even reamaing, you are 'that' Tat Tvam Asi), There is no way you can continue playing the role of Ravana, that implies that mind is still there.

Once the mind is merged into Self, there will/should not be any appearances, i.e. no more any projections. There will only be Rama and Rama everywhere. No more roles, characters, etc...

If it is so, that the Ravana role continues, and even if that role does not affect us as Rama, then still it is only projection of the Mind. Therefore Mind has still not merged.

After enlightenment, realising that the cinema is not real, why do you still want to sit and watch the movie that is not there? movie still being continued - do you not think that still mind is there projecting the universe?

Mind has to merge, this is Mano Naasam! which is - absolutely no projections at all and no continuing of movies or characters or is it even the enlightenment that the roles can continue and that it cannot affect you anymore.

These are my humble views

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4387
Dear I,

I am of the opinion that Mano Naasam has to happen, in the sense I has to merge within Self. Mano Naasam is the extinction of this limited 'i'

Once it happens, there cannot be appearances. Those appearances are merely creations of the mind. upon extinction of mind, they cease to be. After Mano Naasam, there cannot be external appearances at all and I am unable to accept the idea or thought that external appearances will continue to exist and that they will cease to affect the consciousness. For this argument, there has to be two, which is not true. When consciousness alone is, what else can be?

Mind comes into existence upon the sprouting of 'I' thought. Manam is verily the Ahamkara. Mind is not different from I. That being the case, upon realisation how can it be said that appearances continue to be and it cannot touch me? it only indicates that Mano Naasam has not yet happened!

Bhagavan has said somewhere, I am unable to recollect in tamil, which goes something like: "Adu Udiyaada nilai... - meaning where there is no arising.. that...

Mano Naasam is the complete annihilation of 'i'

In Arunachala Ashtakam 2, penned by Bhagavan Himself says:

2
Enquiring within "Who is the seer?" I saw the seer disappearing
and That alone which stands for ever. No thought
arose to say "I saw". How then could the thought arise to
say "I did not see?" Who has the power to explain all this
in words, when even You (as Dakshinamurti) conveyed this
of yore in silence only? And in order to reveal by silence,
Your state transcendent, now You stand here, a Hill
resplendent soaring to the sky.

7
Until there is the I thought there can be no other thought.
When other thoughts arise, ask "To whom? To me? Where
does this 'I' arise?" Thus diving inwards, if one traces the
source of the mind and reaches the Heart, one becomes
the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. There is no more
dreaming of such as in and out, right and wrong, birth and
death, pleasure and pain, light and darkness, O boundless
ocean of Grace and Light, Arunachala dancing the dance
of stillness in the dancing Hall of the Heart.

In Upadesa Saaram 18. he says:

Thoughts alone make up the mind;
And of all thoughts the ‘I’ thought is the root
What is called mind is but the notion ‘I’.

Ulladu Naarpadu 26

When the ego rises all things rise with it. When the ego is
not, there is nothing else. Since the ego thus is everything,
to question ‘What is this thing?’ is the extinction of all things.

Therefore Mind is verily the ego, when the ego is not there are no appearances.

.....Just to quote a few...

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4388
19-21. D.: Things experienced can be thought of and
cognised. But things unexperienced cannot be cognised even if
thought of.

M.: Now listen. Experienced or unexperienced things can
be cognised. As things already experienced at a distant place are
thought of and cognised, so also things unexperienced can be
thought of and cognised, on hearing from others, such as the
Mount Meru of bright gold.
Though eyes and ears are closed, yet visions and sounds can
be thought of and cognised. Though in dark, one can still think
of an object and cognise it. Even without eyes and ears the blind
and the deaf cognise forms and sounds on thinking of them.
Therefore, already known or unknown, all that is thought of can
be apprehended. This is the affirmative proposition.

22. D.: What is negation?
M.: In the absence of mind, in swoons, deep sleep or
trance there is no thinking and consequently nothing is seen.
Not only in these states but also in waking, if one does not
think, there is no phenomenon.

23-25. D.: Even in waking it cannot be so. Objects of
direct cognition even if not thought of, are apprehended.
M.: No. What you say is not true. Everyday experience
teaches us otherwise.

D.: How?
M.: When a man is keenly attentive to something, he does
not answer when someone calls. Later he says ‘I was intent on
something else; I could not hear; I could not see; I was not
aware’ etc. It is therefore clear that without attention objects of
direct cognition cannot be apprehended.

26-28. D.: Cannot the objects of direct cognition be
apprehended, without attention?
M.: Though in direct contact with the senses, objects
cannot be cognised without attention to them. Though the
necklace is in contact with the body, because the wearer is
not attentive, its presence is not known; being unaware of
it, she even misses the ornament and searches for it. Though
in touch with the body of the wearer the necklace is missed
for want of attention.
Again a patient writhing with pain can be made to forget
it by drawing his attention to something else; similarly the grief
of bereavement is forgotten by attention being directed to other
matters of interest.
It is obvious that without attention, even the objects of
direct cognition cannot be recognised.
29-31. From this it follows that the cognition of anything
experienced or not, however it may be, can only be of the form
of thought. Therefore the perception of things has been signified
by various terms in Vedanta, such as cognition as this and that,
will, thought, mode of mind, intellect, latency, reflected
consciousness, the heart-knot, the seen, illusion, the individual,
the world, the all, God etc.

D.: Where has it been said that this knowledge is the all?
On the other hand it is said that maya became the all.
M.: Yes. Maya is the knowledge which is spoken of. Only
this objective knowledge goes under the different names, maya,
avidya, bondage, impurity, darkness, ignorance, the mind, the
cycles of repeated births and deaths etc.

D.: Be it so, what has this got to do with the extinction of
the mind?
M.: Listen. You must understand that the knowledge
signified by all these terms is only the mind.
32-33.

D.: Who else says so?
M.: Vasishta has said to Rama: ‘Whatever objective
knowledge manifests as this and that, or not this and not that,
or in any other manner, it is only the mind. The mind is nothing
but this manifest knowledge’.

34. D.: Let it be so. How can the mind be extinguished?
M.: To forget everything is the ultimate means. But for
thought, the world does not arise. Do not think and it will not
arise. When nothing arises in the mind, the mind itself is lost.
Therefore do not think of anything, forget all. This is the best
way to kill the mind.

35-37.D.: Has anyone else said so before?
M.: Vasishta said so to Rama thus: ‘Efface thoughts of all
kinds, of things enjoyed, not enjoyed, or otherwise. Like wood
or stone, remain free from thoughts.
Rama: Should I altogether forget everything?
Vasishta: Exactly; altogether forget everything and remain
like wood or stone.
Rama: The result will be dullness like that of stones or
wood.
Vasishta: Not so. All this is only illusion. Forgetting the
illusion, you are freed from it. Though seeming dull, you
will be the Bliss Itself. Your intellect will be altogether clear
and sharp. Without getting entangled in worldly life, but
appearing active to others remain as the very Bliss of Brahman
and be happy. Unlike the blue colour of the sky, let not the
illusion of the world revive in the pure Ether of Consciousness-
Self. To forget this illusion is the sole means to
kill the mind and remain as Bliss. Though Shiva, Vishnu, or
Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not
possible without this one means. Without forgetting
everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore
altogether forget everything.’

38-39. D.: Is it not very difficult to do so?
M.: Though for the ignorant it is difficult, for the
discerning few it is very easy. Never think of anything but the
unbroken unique Brahman. By a long practice of this, you will
easily forget the non-self. It cannot be difficult to remain still
without thinking anything. Let not thoughts arise in the mind;
always think of Brahman. In this way all worldly thoughts will
vanish and thought of Brahman alone will remain. When this
becomes steady, forget even this, and without thinking ‘I am
Brahman’, be the very Brahman. This cannot be difficult to
practise.
40. Now my wise son, follow this advice; cease thinking
of anything but Brahman. By this practice your mind will be
extinct; you will forget all and remain as pure Brahman.
41. He who studies this chapter and follows the instructions
contained therein, will soon be Brahman Itself!

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4389
14. D.: That thoughts pertain to things already experienced
is understandable. But how to think of those not so experienced
unless they are reminiscences of things already experienced? One
can never think of things not experienced. How then can we say
— to think of things not already experienced is ‘thought’?
15. M.: Yes, it is quite possible. To think of things not
experienced is also thought. Objects unexperienced appear as
such only after thinking.

D.: How can the things not already experienced come
within the orbit of thought?
M.: By the process of positive and negative induction
(anvaya, vyatireka), all mental imagery must be said to be
thought-forms, whether already experienced or not.

16-17. D.: How do you apply the positive and negative
induction here?
M.: Whether existent or non-existent, already experienced
or not so experienced, whatever and however something is
thought of, it is apprehended. The mere thought of it amounts
to apprehension. This is the positive induction.
Real or unreal, experienced or not, however it may be,
whatever is not thought of, is not apprehended. This is negative
induction. From this process also it follows that thought is
apprehension.

18. D.: How can mere thought of anything be its
apprehension also? Things are apprehended directly by the senses
or by recall of past experiences to the mind. On the other hand,
things unheard of or unseen cannot be apprehended by simple
thinking of them. Therefore the logical conclusion that mere
thought of anything is its apprehension, does not hold.
M.: You are not right. How can you say that things not
directly cognised by the senses are not apprehended? The
pleasures of heaven though not already enjoyed, are vividly
pictured in our minds. This is owing to our knowledge of the
shastras which depict them. Though not experienced they appear
to us as delights not experienced.

4390
5-10. D.: What is the nature of mind?
M.: To think this and that. In the absence of thought, there
can be no mind. On the thoughts being extinguished the mind
will remain only in name like the horn of a hare; it will vanish as
a non-entity like a barren woman’s son, or a hare’s horn, or a
flower in the sky. This is also mentioned in the Yoga Vasishta.

D.: How?
M.: Vasishta says: ‘Listen, O Rama, there is nothing to
speak of as mind. Just as the ether exists without form, so also
the mind exists as the blank insentience. It remains only in
name; it has no form. It is not outside, nor is it in the heart. Yet
like the ether, the mind though formless fills all’.

D.: How can this be?
M.: Wherever thought arises as this and that, there is the
mind.

D.: If there be mind wherever there is thought, are thought
and mind different?
M.: Thought is the index of the mind. When a thought
arises mind is inferred. In the absence of thought, there can be
no mind. Therefore mind is nothing but thought. Thought is
itself mind.

D.: What is ‘thought’?
M.: ‘Thought’ is imagination. The thought-free state is
Bliss Supreme (Sivasvarupa). Thoughts are of two kinds; the
recalling of things experienced and unexperienced.

11. D.: To begin with, please tell me what is ‘thought’.
M.: Sages say that it is nothing but to think of any external
object as this or that, is or is not, this-wise or that-wise, etc.

12-13. D.: How is this to be classified under the heads of
things experienced and unexperienced?
M.: Of objects of senses, such as sound, already experienced
as ‘I saw — I heard — I touched etc.’ to think of them as
having been seen, heard, touched is the recollection of things
already experienced. To call to mind unexperienced objects of
senses is the thought of unexperienced things.

4391
Dear I,

This is not new, it may have been posted before, but regarding the Mano Nasa, there is an entire chapter in ABD

MANONASA

THE EXTINCTION OF THE MIND

1. In the previous chapter, having taught the realisation of
the non-dual Brahman, the master now treats of the extinction
of the mind as the sole means of realising Brahman.
M.: Wise son, leave off the mind which is the limiting
adjunct giving rise to individuality, thus causing the great malady
of repeated births and deaths, and realise Brahman.

2. D.: Master, how can the mind be extinguished? Is it not
very hard to do so? Is not the mind very powerful, restive and
ever vacillating? How can one relinquish the mind?
3-4. M.: To give up the mind is very easy, as easy as crushing
a delicate flower, or removing a hair from butter or winking
your eyes. Doubt it not. For a self-possessed resolute seeker not
bewitched by the senses, but by strong dispassion grown
indifferent to external objects, there cannot be the least difficulty
in giving up the mind.

D.: How is it so easy?
M.: The question of difficulty arises only if there is a mind
to leave off. Truly speaking, there is no mind. When told ‘There
is a ghost here’ an ignorant child is deluded into believing the
existence of the non-existent ghost, and is subject to fear, misery
and troubles, similarly in the untainted Brahman by fancying
things that are not, as this and that, a false entity known as the
mind arises seemingly real, functioning as this and that, and
proving uncontrollable and mighty to the unwary, whereas to
the self-possessed, discerning seeker who knows its nature, it is
easy to relinquish. Only a fool ignorant of its nature says it is
most difficult.

4392
basically, Self enquiry is only for the character in the movie.

It is not for .....  'that' which does not need to affirm itself; says this limited i

4393
Dear I,

In total agreement with your points, I would like to bring in my views in the same example quoted by you:

suppose i am watching a movie and have taken myself to be a character  in it and am suffering. So, a sage comes on the screen and says "U r not this, u r that, and points his finger out" ... and if i just get out! Do i have to stop the movie?
is not the teaching in the movie too? is not the instruction "u r not this, but that which is outside", its for mind.
Silence

when the sage comes on the screen and says u are not this, you are not that and etc... and what ever you decide to do:
1 Stop the movie,
2 continue the movie
3 follow the sage
4 not listen the sage
5 do self enquiry
6 letting the movie continue by allowing the assitant director to decide on the next scenarios believing that it cannot affect me, etc...

these are still part of the movie itself. These are all the various courses the mind has, as options in the movie, as the director. These are "Freewill" which the i believes it has, which it can use to do what i wants to.

Movie is in reality, not there at all, movie exist only for the mind alone which is non-self. In ignorance, the character itself, is the one which has created the movie and various scenarios and also the sage who comes and says you are not this you are that is just another character in the movie created by the mind again to make the movie more interesting, thats all.

Once the character discards his dress knowing its limitedness - means there is no more i at all, no director at all, there is no more movie anymore. Movie existed only for the mithya i.

The instruction "u r not this, but that which is outside", its for mind." is itself just Mithya as well. It is just a story in the movie, which the i gets identified with whereby 'i' mistakenly takes these instruction for itself and begins to enquire who am i, I am the Self, I am this and I am that. these are all again just illusions. There is no need for self enquiry as well.

There is no movie at all.

Appearance is only for the 'i' mind alone. as long as the mind exists appearances will continue, as appearances are all the creations of the mind alone. Where there are no appearances and where only awareness/consciousness/Self alone IS, is real. Where appearances still are, the sage asks him to enquire its nature.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4394
General topics / Re: some questions -
« on: June 28, 2010, 04:03:52 PM »
Dear I,

You are correct, thanks for your response. but I had that question in march 2009. I see "That" which has not changed all through passage of time so long which is consciousness. all along the ignorance was made believed that it was mine. but the 'I' which had those ignorance is limited.

'I' am simply aware of i's limitedness

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4395
The very entity which also says that mind cannot be killed is mind itself.

In the snake and rope example, snake is an illusion - Mithya and the rope is Asat.

> Awareness need not affirm itself.
> its verily the mind itself that says itself as awareness. It is true though that sadness cannot affect the awareness but the very fact of affirming itself as awareness and that nothing can affect it is mind itself. Therefore, the mind which is still existing after having realised its limitedness is affirming to itself that it is awareness, as a way to affirm itself its presence, which will eventually end sometime or other.

Awareness is completely pure. Why is there a need to affirm that I am awareness? and to whom is this made?

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Pages: 1 ... 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 [293] 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 ... 342