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 ... 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 [317] 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 ... 342
In some ways, to think Sex as a hinderance is the cause for the problem. If Sex is to be abhored, then it is questioning the very Nature/Self itself. Again, on enquiry, one will find that it is only an idea that sex is a problem. It is something so very common, its like as if on some ideas or misconceptions, one begins to abore passing the process of atending natures call. It is so very much necessary. whether or not the limited I concludes that attending natures call is good or bad, the body or the nature is least bothered about the opinion what the false I has about it (Sex).

Infact, in Vedanta, even Sex is considered a ritual, the act of Copulation is called "Garbha Daana" or Donation of Garbha or Life or Praana. In Shakti Upasana, what the Sadhaka widely sees as grace is the vital energy or what is called as 'Praana'. It is the same energy that transcends all or everything. What we understand by Self Enquiry, Shakthi Upasakas or more populaly, Sri Vidya Upasakas relate to the Self as the Shakthi Tatvam.

Take for example, the shastras of Shakthi cult, Soundarya Lahari, Devi Mahatmyam, Lalitha Sahasranamam, etc... in all these works one will find very exciting and explicit adoration of the Shakti, the Mother, the Goddess. In Lalitha Sahasranamam, the very 1st section deals with the "Sthoola Sharira" or Physical attributes of the Devi. It is intentional, to arouse the reader sensually, and then the Sahasranamam further explains the Praana or that vital energy that is the sensuality. Infact, the reader of the one who does Paarayana takes the position of Kama Deva, Verses like "Kaameshajnaata Soubhagya, Maardavoru Dvyaanvita", Only Kameshwaa is fortunate enough to know the details of the thighs of the Supreme Goddess." Kameswara prema rathna mani prathi pana sthani - "She who gave her breasts which are like the pot made of Rathna(precious stones) and has obtained the love of Kameshwara" just a couple for example is quoted here, Soundarya Lahari is veneration of the Beauty of the Goddess. It is very obvious, a real livelly or person who is "Alive" cannot but get aroused, this is the intention of Shakthi Upasakas, to get the sadhaka introduced to the vital energy, and then takes the Sadhaka - Kameshwara to itself - Fusion/Merging. How easier can it get than this Praana or Vital Energy? Sex is used as a way to reach the supreme reality, the Bindu - Centre of Sri Chakra.

But there are many who contest, these, ignorant say, it is wrong to see the goddess in this way, they amount it to lust, it is because lust is present in their mind, because for the one whom lust does not affect, He will not have any reservation in seeing the Goddess Mother and her beauty. They say one should not get aroused on Goddess, it is a sin to do so, which I feel is wrong and I strongly contest, getting aroused is a divine experience, closer to God, Shakthi, its the Vital energy, Praana, Oordhva. It is all about Feminity, the Sadhaka - Kameshwara getting fused into Shakti - energy which is considered feminine. It is not wrong to see Goddess and get aroused, it is most pristine expresion of Love or devtion to Beauty which is nothing but Shakti.  

It has to be understood, Sex - the word has become vulger in todays scenaio, but ancient Indians venerated the very act of the Sex. Even today in so many famous temples, we see explicit carvings on the Temple Gopurams, infact they even talk about various complications that we face in todays world, one can find one man having sex with more than one woman, Woman and Woman, etc... (I would like to keep away from this debate) but what I would like to stress here is the open-ness among our ancestors. For example, Draupadi is said to have had 5 Husbands. Infact Clonning was known to our ancient Ancestors. Dhritarashtra was said to have 100 sons - See Duryodhana's 100 brothers. It was clonning. It is a said fact that all brother of Duryodhana were alike in valor, strength and form.

Pandu, Pandavas father had two wives, and Kunti is said to have had sons from the Gods, Vayu - Bhima, Yama - Yudishra, etc... It signifies the open ness among our ancestors to have babies from who are referred as Gods on cases where one cannot have baby, refer Mahabharata why Pandu was cursed not to have baby. Sexual Problems prevailed even then and that did not stop them from having a baby.

But most importantly, what one has to notice in such diversity is the intention, they had children intently, with a purpose, for the very purpose of nature. Today, it has degraded to a state where couples say that their first baby was an accident, second, third, etc... were not planned, it just happened etc... - This is Un-cultured - This is Lust.

A person who admits the need for sex and who visits a prostitute is not to be seen down and has to be respected, its a sign of genuine-ity. Where as we have one set of people who talk about Brahmacharya, lo, lo blah blah ans pose themselves as exalted souls but have the desire lingering in their mind. Today, people are sex starved and Rape murder have increased because the very idea of prostitute is a sin. Prostitutes have a role to play in the society which has been playing very important role than the Nuclear deal between the US and India.

Prostitute were given proper and respectable identity by our ancestors. They were called as Apsaras. Infact, in Ramayana (Please see Valmiki Ramayana), when Soorpanaka falls in love with Rama and shows her interest in Rama, Rama respectfully rejects her offer for he is not interested, but said to her that she can approach Lakshmana if he is interested. But it was a different matter all together that Lakshmana was really not interested either, infact it is a lesser known fact that Lakshmana had never slept at all in the entire 14 year of exile he was with Rama. Rama had come with his wife to the forest whereas Lakshmana was not accompanied by his wife Urmila. Such was openness in our Vedic age.

When Arjuna goes away in search for Parashurama to learn and obtain divine weapons during the Vana Vasa of Pandavas, He is approached by various ladies/apsaras on this matter.

I would say, read the Puranas, Upanishads, Vedas, Vedanta, and see fr yourself and find out the reality about Sex.

Salutations to Sri Ramana.

a further more to add, some of Bhagawan's quotes. Also it is very important to be aware that the answers of Bhagawan in Talks and any of the books were exclusively for the questioner in the book and at various instances Bhagawan Himself has given different answers to same kind of questions to various devotees. When we read the questions and Answers of Bhagawan, we have to first ask ourselves, whether 'I', - doubter have the same question in him. At all times, Bhagawan's answers were tailor made according to the 'Pakva' of the Devotees.

At most, the Limited-I, or the False-I, what it can only do is to become aware of its own limitedness, that is all, there is nothing more the enquirer can do. A state of absolute 'giving-up', 'Sharanagati'.

D.: Is not affirmation of God more effective than the quest, “who am
I?” Affirmation is positive, whereas the other is negation. Moreover,
it indicates separateness.

M.: So long as you seek to know how to realise, this advice is given to
find your Self. Your seeking the method denotes your separateness.

D.: What is moksha (liberation)?

M.: Moksha is to know that you were not born. “Be still and know
that I am God.”
To be still is not to think. Know, and not think, is the word

That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The 'I' about
which the enquiry is made is also the ego. As a result of
enquiry, the ego ceases to exist and only the Self is
found to exist.

All doubts will cease only when the doubter and his source
have been found. Seek the source of the doubter, and you
will find that he is really non existent

Later Sri Bhagavan continued: It is said “I AM that I AM”. That
means a person must abide as the ‘I’. He is always the ‘I’ alone.
He is nothing else. Yet he asks “Who am I?” A victim of illusion
would ask “Who am I?” and not a man fully aware of himself.
The wrong identity of the Self with the non-self makes you ask,
“Who am I?”

Salutations to Sri Ramana

An entire chapter in Advaita Bodha Deepika is devoted to "Extinction of Mind" or "Mano Nasam"

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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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!

Dear I,

This last statement of yours is wonderful and how true!

"The difference between the words of a real Jnani and those who merely think they are Jnani's, lays in the clarity and impact of the real Jnani's statements, which go straight to the heart and that is because they are from experience."

Salutations to Sri Ramana

This is so beautifully put.

Dear I,

again here, I am simply re-iterating the 'I' that has written the post:
Yes. But we can play with concepts all we want.
'I' has no knowledge, where is the question of being jiva or being spirit or being whatever?
Suppose everything just happens, these words are just being spit out through 'i am'ness' through the fingers, but here is no thinker to think these words they are just happening spontaneously without any correction, without any planing. Can one define who is writing? You say this is Jiva, but it is your concept only, you see me as Jiva but am I? Are you too?
Is That, which of we can't speak in any words, can be said to be something or not be something? What is Self? When are you Jiva and when are you Self?
There is only knowledge and with knowledge or without knowledge - I AM, the difference is: knowing that you are and not knowing that you are. Only later you know that you are this or that, only after i am..

This is the I. It has to go.  The I that is responding, discriminating, analysing has to go. It is so straight, whatever response the 'I' wants to give or post itself is the false I. it has to stop/die (not literally) the very need to continue to exist has to stop. The very need to live has to stop. The very need to respond has to stop. The very need to even stop has to stop.

Your response, I have no contentions. But still it is the false-I's only. Whatever conclusion one arrives, is, belongs to the false-I only. which is the Jiva.

Though the Jiva is talking about the Self and all, which is great in content, still it is not yet merged with the Paramatma.

I has to die or (since the word die gives totally different meaning), I has to merge.... this is dying.

Its like the space within the pot that is talking all about the space outside - "that it is not different from the space outside, that it need not die, etc...." it is still the Jiva that is saying all these, though whatever the Jiva says may be right.

The very need for liberation has to end, the very need to free oneself has to end, the very need to end has to end.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Dear I,

When any new devotee cam by and asked about the life of Bhagawan Ramana, He used to reply saying, read Arunachala Pancharatnam. It is said that Arunachala Pancharatnam is verily the Autobiography of Bhagawan Himself.

Infact, looking closer at the life of Bhagawan, one cannot but infer that His has been or seems like the path of Bhathi only, Absolutely Sharanagati. This is so evidently reflected in his Pancharatna and openly reflected in Arunachala Akshara mana Malai. Such love is mysterious and are the ways f the Jnanis.

there is no difference between Bhakthi Yoga and Jnana Yoga.

Jiva surrendering himself wholly is his/its own death which is Sharanagati.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

General topics / Re: Madhura Bhakti
« on: December 24, 2009, 01:49:09 PM »
Dear I,

I cant tell how much fortunate you are to have been grown up in such a town that has so much legend about its history compared to my generations, we are born in midst of TV, Concrete buildings, Money, all all the filth of corruption of Kali. No to deny that this existed in your days but there is quite a difference. People in the colony knew everybody each other. Today, people dont even have time to talk.

Those days there was Satsang between people naturally, but its a sad story today because Satsang is an event Management, Paid, costly. That simplicity and innocence of people seem to have lost today.

Yes Krishna Maadhuryam melts the heart. That boy, who is he? like Ramana, comes and verily pulls us with his twine like Yama Deva with his Death Twine or (Paasha Kairu in Tamil)

Salutations to Sri Ramana

General topics / Re: Madhura Bhakti
« on: December 24, 2009, 12:24:10 PM »
Talking about Tiruppavai and Andal,

In a place of Srivilliputtur in Tamil Nadu there was a great devotee called Vishnu Chitta. As we can guess by his name, he was an ardent devotee of Sriman Narayana. His house was surrounded by big garden and he took great care and put much effort earnestly in maintaining the various flowering plants. His daily routine was to make a big garland out of these flowers to adorn his Deity, Sriman Narayana. One day when he was digging the ground, he heard some bells ringing, tinkling sounds and he went closer and carefully pushed aside the plants and, he removed a very beautiful box and in it he found a cute and beautiful baby girl with a sweet angel like face. He took her into his arms and proceeded to his his house and as there were no females, it was difficult

for him to foster the baby, but as she was a God given gift he undertook the task enthusiastically. He brought her up with lot of love and affection. He named her as 'Godha' simply meaning "that which has been gifted by mother earth" (Kodai in tamil - "the beauty of rising out due to curly shining hair"). Vishnu Chitta began to call her 'Andal' which means, "one who attracts everybody" she was a darling of everybody.

She grew up and helped him in his daily chores. She would pluck flowers and made them into beautiful garlands. She would be so fascinated at the galands that she stealthily wore them on herself and put them back into the basket without anybody's knowldge. Vishnu Chita discovered thsi and he as deeply hurt. He was taken by grief an was shocked, because the garlands were menst for the lord. He warned the girl not to do such a thing again. His heart would not permit him to adorn this garland to Lord Vishnu, thus there was no garland that day. But he heard his Lord Vishnu say that the garland worn by Godha was filled with devotion so it is very much liked by Him. From that day on Vishnu  Chitta would adorn the Lord with the garland that has ben already worn by Godha. This is a very good example of the one who has realised Advaita, Non-Duality.

Godha was so devoted to Lord Vishnu that she always uttered his name as 'Ranganatha' and considered Him as her husband. She grew up to a marriageable age. She vowed that she would not marry any one bu her Sri Ranganatha. This perturbed Vishnu Chitta very much and was worried. But Godha Devi did not lose hope, in the month of Margasshirsha (now) she got up early at Brahma Muhurtam and had cold water bath and observed the Vratam in order to please Sri Ranganatha. one night, Vishnu Chitta, in his dream, Sriman Narayana advised him to give Godha in mariage to Him. Godha Devi beautifully dressed like a bridegroom reached the temple of Lord Vishnu in Sriragam. The marriage was conducted on a very grand scale.

She was always immersed in sweet thoughts of Sri Ranganatha and got herself a position as a 'Devi' eigible for prayer. This great devotion of hers is a wonderful eample of Madhura Bhakthi, which made her exempplary in the history of Lord Ranganatha and remaining as his beloved.

She composed the famous Tiruppavai which is sung in most temples in Tamil Nadu wih great ferver.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

General topics / Re: Madhura Bhakti
« on: December 24, 2009, 12:21:21 PM »
Dear I,

yes, Krishna Leelas are verily nectar - Amrut. sinking in Krishna Consciousness would result in attaining the Self.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

General topics / Madhura Bhakti
« on: December 24, 2009, 10:25:16 AM »
Once Balakrishna, stealthily entered the house of a milkmaid and brought down the milk pot held in the suspended net sling. In the mean while he heard the footsteps of Gopika. In a split, Balakrishna broke open the pot and the milk was split all over the floor. He drenched His tiny feet in the milk an ran out hurriedly leaving a trail of His footprints behind. The Gopika entered the scene and got irritated at the sight of the split milk. She wailed, Oh Lord! How to get along with with this disastrous Balakrishna? Day by day He is crossing all limits. Swearing thus she followed the fresh footprints of the tiny feet and caught the thief, who was awaiting for her. Overcome by anger she raised her hand to slap him. Balakrishna pretended as if in fear, and slyly looked at her (just like the graceful eyes of our beloved Ramana)

Gopika struck by the graceful frightened look, felt helpless and defeated. The hands, which were raised, to beat suddenly grabbed Him and embraced Him. she covered Him with shower of kisses.

Why did this "Chitta Chora" the thief of Chittam, leave His footprints openly? The reason is cleaar, so that the milkmaid could come face to face with Him, with the help of His footprints. By this act He enlightened the world the eternal truth that one can reach Him only through the refuge of His Feet. Following His footsteps is the right path for liberation.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Dear I,

(I) posted this reply in the topic "Where are the Jnanis... ?"

"On your query whether there is anyone else on the plannet. My "I' answer is No. There is no one else apart from your (I) Self.

Yes there is an Ashram for Jananis or meditation centre or a church where people talk about all these things. exactly like a sort of working group... doing some practice, disscuss etc... It is in YOU (I) itself. Its the Discussion and doubting analysing etc... everything - between 'I' and 'I'

There is only I everywhere. All that is seen heard everything is the I. nothing apart from it"

A further thought flashed to (me) and (I) felt a need to post it here as a new topic

As said earlier, there is only I everywhere. All that is seen heard everything is the I. nothing apart from it. This is true as long as the Jiva (I) is there because only Jiva sees (I) everywhere but not the Brahman or the Self for the Self does not see anything because the Self itself is.

Jiva is.... as long there is one who holds any knowledge of Self.

Self does not hold any knowledge for it itself is knowledge.

In Ramana Hridayam, of 'Who' ...... verbatim

38. The two statements, " 'I do not know myself' and 'I know myself', are equally ridiculous. Does anyone, anywhere have two selves, so that the self can become an object of knowledge to himself? Know from the common experience of all men alike that the real Self is only one.

39. The man overcome by illusion, not having attained his own natural state by realizing the Truth through the Quest and abiding as That which is ever shining within the Heart of all beings as the Real Self, disputes (saying)'There is something real', 'No (it is not)', 'It has form', 'it does not', 'it is One', 'It is in two parts', 'it is neither'.

45. I shall (here) state clearly the truth among the three contentions, that Deliverance is with form, that It is without form,  that It is both ways; True Deliverance is just the utter extinction of him, named 'I', who thus investigates the truth among these contentions.

is also said by jiva (I)

Salutations to Sri Ramana.

Dear I,

Please see carefully, and you (I) will get it. You reason "how can I ever be dead? It can't, this is not possible" I ask who is the one that is reasoning this? is it not the Jiva 'I'

It is the Jiva (I) that is posing for the Self/Consciousness. You (I) further reason out "I is ever there, the question is, who you think this 'I' is... is it a body? is it a soul? or is it awareness? or is it all of them? this is a thought."

I am trying to put your(my) (I) focus on the (I) Jiva who is holding this knowledge.

Its the Jiva (I) itself which is saying "You are That which sees the notion of 'I' arising and subsiding."

Again when you (I) reason that "Everything is consciousness, consciousness knows itself, consciousness plays itself. Is there Jiva and is there consciousness? Or is there ONLY consciousness and wrong knowledge which says that 'I' (consciousness) is this form (body) (which is true but wrong in a sense that it can't be defined only by form)." is just what the Jiva.

Here again, the Jiva (I) itself is posing as the consciousness.

Its only Jiva that is ignorent and it is Jiva again that also has knowledge of Consciousness. This is Avidya

Consciousness cannot know itself. But what is happening is that under the umbrella of Self defined Self Realised knowledge of consciousness, Jiva (I) continues to go about.

This (I) has to go.

In terms of Bhakti yoga, there is no "Sharanagati" yet here in this knowledge. It is only still partial surender.
And in terms of Jnana yoga the Self is still not reached the last stage of what (I) consider Mahavakya of Sri Ramana Maharshi:

"First the Self sees itself as objects, then
the Self sees itself as void, and finally
the Self sees itself as Self. Only in the last stage, there is no seeing, for seeing is being here."

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Dear I,

But the kind of effort needed here is slightly different from conventional Sadhanas. Here a Sadhaka has to put effort or perform Sadhana to attain (actually there is no attaining) the (state) of Non Sadhana or absolute effortlessness. Sadhana to Non Sadhana which is the natural Self.

Biggest irony is that one has to put a lot of effort "to think" and actually no effort "to not think" at all. Therefore a Sadhana, what ever it may be, has to lead one to effortlessness. This is the "Mauna" of Dakshinamurthy or "Chumma Iru" or "Be Still" of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

It may appear logically since the effortlessness implies no Sadhana, but one should not get caught in logical Tarka. One has to surrender completely to a Guru.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Dear I,

Let me tell you why 'I' has to die. Die - meaning literally not dying, we are on the same platform as far as dying is concerned.

The one that is holding this knowledge that 'I' is jada is the same Jiva who is also holding the knowledge that it itself is Self. Its the same Jiva that is saying "I am Consciousness" "I am Self" and that I cannot affect me. Who is having this knowledge.

To quote from Advaita Bodha Deepika:

"Suppose a poor begger who was ignorant of the fact that a king residing in a for was the emperor of the world, later knew it. How does this newly acquired knowledge improve his position?"

When you say, let 'I' continue... self/consciousness is never bound. who is it that is saying this? who is it that has this knowledge? is it the 'I' or the Self/Consciousness?

How can the knowledge that the consciousness is not bound, and by this quote, you 'I' understand that you are the consciousness, and that what ever 'I' does, it cannot affect you be enough? who is this I that is saying this is this not the 'I' Jiva?

If you say that it is the knowledge of the witness that is saying all the above? Does the unchanging witness saying all these?

Why 'I' say that 'I' has to die(not really die) is that the very point or knowledge mentioned by 'I' follows that it is the individual soul, Jiva, the 'I' or false 'I' that is having this knowledge.

Infact, it is the false 'I' itself that is telling here that nothing can affect the Self or consciousness.

Therefore it is only the Jiva  'I' that is having the knowledge or ignorance. It is Jiva itself that says that it is consciousness and that the 'I' cannot affect the self.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Pages: 1 ... 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 [317] 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 ... 342