Author Topic: Speaking of Ghosts  (Read 1830 times)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Speaking of Ghosts
« on: November 12, 2009, 10:35:29 AM »
Ghosts are always 'seen' at nights, and not in a broad daylight
in the bus stand.  Ghosts are always wearing white silky dresses.
They sing.  They call you.

But the ego-ghost is something special. It is always within us.
It need not be seen outside.  It is working overtime day and night,
until you go into deep sleep. 

Now we know that some of the ghosts are exorcised by Tantriks.
After emptying your pocket, they say that your ghost is gone.
But this ego-ghost can never be exorcised by Tantriks.  Because
they themselves have got a  big sized ego-ghost within themselves.
This ego-ghost can be exorcised only by an un-exrcisable Arunachala
ghost.  This Arunachala-ghost is the most powerful of all ghosts.
He will simply tear open the ego-ghost and merges with you. Then
you become the Arunachala-ghost!

Bhagavan Ramana speaks about this ego-ghost and Arunachala
ghost in Verse 71 of Sri Arunachala Aksharamana Malai:

Peytanam vida
vida peyap pidittu
enaip peyan akkinai
en arunachala!

Arunachala!  Exorcising me of the ghost of the ego holding
sway over me from beginningless time, You, Brahman, the
formelss ghost, beyond being exorcised have possessed me
with a firmer grip, into another ghost of Your own form.
What a wonderful power have You got!

The ego centric mind which is a ghost, is exorcised by Arunachala-ghost and one becomes Arunachala ghost which is Arunachala
Swarupam.

Bhagavan Ramana says in Talks No. 275:  "A mad man clings
to samskaras whereas a Jnani does not.  This is the only one
difference between the two."             
 
                (Commentary from T.R. Kanakammal's book)

Arunachala Siva.

Chuck Cliff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: Speaking of Ghosts
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2009, 01:06:34 PM »
Dear Subramaniam,

It's not clear what is translated as "ghost" here -- what else does it mean, or is it the context only that calls for the word?

English "ghost" and Danish "gaest" have the same root meaning as "guest", i.e. "visitor" -- which is why we used to say "Holy Ghost" (now, almost always Holy Spirit). 

I suppose Reality seems to be a "visitor", an experience, that is as long as the sleeper is dreaming of waking up.
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round, and a promise in the evening, when the sun goes down.

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: Speaking of Ghosts
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2009, 01:14:53 PM »
Dear Chuck Cliff,

This Ghost, means only "apparitions", and does not refer to the
Ghost, in the sense that Christian theology speaks.  It is only
an apparition, Pey in Tamil.  Bhagavan Ramana uses the word
Ahanthai Pey - the Ghost of Ego.  Shakespeare uses in this
sense in the Tempest.  Macbeth also contains this apparition,
to mean only a form visible to the mind that is deluded.
Holy Spirit in the Christian trimuvarite is a different thing.

I think I have made it somewhat clear to you. 

Arunachala Siva.   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: Speaking of Ghosts
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2009, 01:54:50 PM »
I took some time to check up the translations of Arthur Osborne
and Prof. K. Swaminathan.  Osborne translates it as Ghost.  Prof.
K. Swaminathan uses the word "evil spirit."  Bhagavan Ramana
uses it in this sense only.  Shakespeare also uses the phrase,
"insubstantial pageant".

When asked to explain the concept of first sin in Christianity,
Bhagavan Ramana once said that it is nothing but ego.  That
way, the ego is the evil spirit.  Arunachala Ghost, mentioned
in the Verse should be the Holy Spirit.

Arunachala Siva.