---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 [email protected], "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [email protected], "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". > > > > >
