My interpretaion of the writting here is it is sincere, respectfull but it is all about that paradox where yes it is real even though it is relative but it is not real as well
Great that you are reading from Ramana- My Guru would say you can never go wrong with Ramana, but no one is going to get there through reading, eating, living in a correct vastu, etc It is a living Guru that will get you there because they have been through it all and are capable of navigating. If the guru is enlightened and the disciple is surrendered, then if a question is asked of the Guru, it would not be unusual for the guru to ask the disciple to answer it based on his own experience. This is because a real progress unfolds where there answers become known though direct experience, and this is why as one further on the path, while there may have been many questions in the begining, they all fall away as the progress takes place. So sorting out this topic in an intellectual way will be quite a limited endeaver in my path- it get sorted out to a point this way, then one will be directed to go within to a stilled mind and know the answers that way --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Excuse me: Ramana's Enlightenment day was 7-17-1896. > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> wrote: > > > > ---You're confusing "unreal" with "non-existent". Relative > existence > > (i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are > > unreal, but the relative things, people, etc; are not "non- > > existent". They exist, but not as agreed upon by those ignorant of > > the Self. > > Your Guru still exists, does he not?...as a person, an individual, > > apart from other Gurus? > > Cf. Flanagan's interesting ideas on why a relative universe exists > > at all. Actually his line of questioning parallels similar themes > > current in physics: "Why the universe"? Nobody knows for sure but > > from a statistical point of view, the probability that something > > exists (something relative) is more probable (in fact, infinitely > > more probable), then nothing existing. > > Ramana never said he didn't exist, relatively speaking. In his > > context, the new "I" is the Self; but the "I" may ALSO refer to the > > individual, Ramana Maharshi. > > (1) > > In the first context, explaining what occurred when he Realized the > > Self on 7-17-1879: "Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from > > that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various > notes > > of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti note > that > > underlies and blends with all the other notes. Whether the body > was > > engated in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centere4d > > on "I". > > (2) > > Then, after this experience, we find statements like this: "I used > > to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of > > Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the 63 Saints, and as I stood > there > > waves of emotion overwhelmed me". > > > > So what is the referent to this (2) "I". Obviously, it's a > body/mind > > that was standing motionless for a long time, is it not? One could > > say that this body of Ramana's was "unreal" but it definitely > > existed, otherwise he wouldn't have talked about it along with the > > pronoun "I". So who or what is the "me" that Ramana mentioned, and > > how can you say there's no "me" when Ramana says there is? Again, > > the "me" is the body/mind and the capacity to emote. > > Then, in his farewell letter to Nagaswami, Sri Bhagavan's > brother, > > he writes [translated]: "In search of my Father I have, in > obedience > > to his command, started from here". So what is the referent here? > > Again, Ramana referst to himself, as a body traveling from his > home > > at that time to Arunachala. The "Father" in this context is > > Arunachala-Shiva. > > Thus, the "I"/me still exists, but true, such entities are > > not "real" in the sense of being separate from the Self. However, > > they are not "non-existent". > > If everything relative were non-existent, then only Consciousness > > would exist with no BODIES capable of evolving from the maggot > state > > through the boar stage, through the Bush stage, etc...only to > > realized that the whole contraption was "unreal". Nevertheless, > the > > maggots, boars, Bushes, etc, still exist. > > There are two possible ultimate scenarios: a universe of ONLY > > Consciousness, with nothing relative. OR: A universe that is > > Consciousness, with relative manifestations inseparable from the > Self. > > #2 is the scenario we have, rather than #1. Get used to it. If > your > > Guru wants NOT to be an individual, let his body just die to be > eaten > > by Conquerer Worms, and no more relative existence. > > An alternative for Buddhas is to use various transformation bodies > > to continue uplifting various creatures in their evolutionary > journal > > from the maggot stage, the boar stage, etc. > > If your Guru simply wants "no existence", so be it. Ramana never > > said he didn't exist! His use of the "I" word and the "me" word is > in > > the context of the body as referent. > > Of course, the "Me" can't gain realization but that's another > topic, > > closely related. > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > > I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of the snake > and > > string it clears it up- > > > > > > The significant thing is a process of ilimination for what is > > transcient and what is eternal. > > > All that which is transcient has a reality to it but short lived > > and therefore no reality so a > > > paradox > > > > > > Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly enlightened was > > there. She was saying > > > the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but yet It is there > > > > > > It again points to the headline of this post- as I said earlier, > > you will see these comments > > > from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such as Ramana > > Maharishi- I don't think you > > > will find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is not know to him > > > > > > There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master is > enlightened > > or not. For those open > > > to this, examination can show why this possibility exists one way > > or the other- then it > > > explains why one is confused, or why one has not heard or > > understood these things which > > > Ramana talks about, or very significant is that the disciple is > not > > going to go further than > > > the Guru. > > > > > > There are two newly enlightened one's in my path this year. By > > comparrison, Nityananda, > > > the guru of Muktananda left his body early and stated there is > not > > one that came seeking > > > eternal Liberation, but rather seeking out guidance for a > > better "Me" > > > > > > Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life > time > > but the master has to be > > > enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it > is > > essencial to be working > > > one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness > > which is ego ( identification of > > > mind and body as being the self, or the small self is the > existence) > > > > > > If one is using the inner Guru, visions, revelatiuons, form of > > inner Guru of some Guru, it is > > > fiultered through this ego. Ego will fight tooth and nail to keep > > it 's throne, Outter Guru is > > > the light that has already traversed the path to enlightenment > and > > has the know how to > > > guide one in this darkness- out of it > > > > > > The formula for enlightenment is surrender to this Guru which is > > consciousness, not mind > > > and body- 0r put it this way, one is surrendering to > consciosness. > > Faith is involved. If one > > > is intent on argueing, intent that they will use their own inner > > guru, intent that they will do > > > their own navigating- then this process is obviously not for them. > > > > > > in such a case, all that is said from this camp here is good luck > > with your journey, may it > > > bring all that you are looking for > > > > > > > > > Hridaya Puri > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <tertonzeno@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!. > > > > The statement, "There's only the One" is a true statement, but > > it's > > > > incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is saying that. > The > > Guru > > > > doesn't "have" a body....he is a body/mind as an individual as > > > > opposed to other individuals, in the relative sense. > > > > A more complete statement would be "There's only One, which > > > > expresses Itself as many, without losing the nonduality". > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
