---Excuse me: Ramana's Enlightenment day was 7-17-1896.
In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [email protected], "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 [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".
> > >
> > >
> >
>
