Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Ken Stewart wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:04:47 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>
> >Ken Stewart wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:55:41 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Can anyone here prove that they are NOT Self-realized?
> >>
> >> realize (r=EA=B4e-l=ECz=B4) verb
> >> realized, realizing, realizes verb, transitive
> >> 1.      To comprehend completely or correctly.
> >>
> >> The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third
> >> Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
> >> version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
> >> reserved.
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >> ------------------------
> >>
> >> So, "Self-realization" is comprehending the Self.
> >>
> >> Comprehension of the Self is not always occurring, and the point of
> >> sadhana or self-enquiry, as advocated by Ramana Maharshi, is to remove
> >> the lack of comprehension, so that comprehension is occurring 24 hours
> >> a day.
> >>
> >> Again I fail to see what this has to do with this thread.
> >>
> >>
> >> Namaskar,
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> kstuart at mail.telis.org
> >
> >As Bhagavan always tells us:  "Are there two selves? One to comprehend the
> >other?"
> >
> >The entire Quest implied via "Who am I?" is to expose the fallacy of the
> >limited [ego] self "who's attempting to realize everything."  The whole idea
> >of there being a 'Witness' is a very fundamental blunder.  Just as we attempt
> >to locate the presumed big Mind, so equally becomes our failure to finally
> >locate the presumed amazing ego!  These things only thrive because we don't
> >investigate them.
> >
> >(That we're duped into thinking the Mind is big or the ego amazing is because
> >there surely is a component within each that's effulgent with Reality, and
> >that's nothing other than the Substratum 'universal' Self.  We obviously
> >know this.  So where's the problem?  Is this a dvaita list?)
>
> So, according to this logic, why bother to have an advaita list at
> all?
>
> Why should Ramana have ever said anything at all?
>
> While all your statements are true, I think you are still missing
> something....  perhaps someone else out there understands what I am
> getting at?
>
>
> Namaskar,
>
> Ken
>
> kstuart at mail.telis.org


Good point.  Why say anything at all?

Because we, acting out as jivas, aren't in charge.  Never have been.  The
hiranyagarbha Isvara (Creator God of this world) directs the events, including
the acts of the [relative] so-called jivanmukthas.

Here's what I wrote at the bottom of my homepage:
http://digital.net/~egodust

DISCLAIMER:  All the writings herein by "egodust"--as implied by the name--
are not traceable to any individual that can be identified as being their
generator...and the apparent identity of "egodust" is, alongside the
information disseminated on the web, irrelevant...especially in light
of the fact that such information shared is, in his view, unnecessary.
Furthermore, "egodust" claims that the process by which this is happening
is incomprehensible to him; and that the merits of whether or not it
[the alleged metaphysical knowledge] is reflective of, or pointing toward,
'the truth' is left solely for the reader to determine.

                          *********************

Consider this:

Society puts a hypnotic spell on each of us, "Your name is 'so and so'
and you are mortal, weak, ignorant, and lost."  And we not only believe
this, we perpetuate it.  We mentally playback these lies every day,
until we seem to become them!

The way out of this is to question it.

There's a concept in Toltec mysticism referred to as "the tonal of the
times."  What this means is the current sociological belief system of
a given culture.  It implies that there is nothing absolute or universal
about it; rather it's an arbitrary and fleeting interpretation of Life.
Merely contemplating such a thing can lead us to the insight that our
Life conception, without and within, has a remarkably wide range of
possibility; and for us to settle upon a given interpretation is a
bit foolish, to say nothing of self-defeating.

Beyond this, viz. attaching ANY interpretation to Life, is the shift
into the transcendental hub of the Absolute Itself, where pure Being
is apprehended by pure Consciousness, yielding pure Bliss.  And this
is referred to as sahaja samadhi, the natural state--because it is
our very nature, sans the tyrant Mind.  Only the Mind spawns the
moment-to-moment information that we AREN'T That!  Let the Dead Mind
bury its Death...effortlessly.

peace.peace.peace

Namaste.