Subject: Of what use are
Ramana Maharshi :
"Of what use are disputes
about the world, saying that it is real, that it is an illusory appearance, that
it is conscious, that it is insentient, that it is happy, that it is miserable ?
All men alike love the Egoless State , which is won by turning
from the world and knowing the untainted real Self which
the assertions that It is one and that It is manifold."
conflict of teachings is only apparent, and can be resolved if one
practices self-surrender to God; this will lead to the Self, to which everyone
must come back in the end, because that is the Truth. The discord amongst
the creeds can never be got rid of by discussing their merits; for discussion is
a mental process. The creeds are mental - they exist in the mind alone, while
the Truth is beyond the mind; therefore the Truth is not in the
or The Upanishadic Lore in
the Light of the Teachings of
Bhagavan Sri Ramana
By 'Who' (K.
: T.N. Venkataraman
Ramanasramam , 1973
GARY MERRILL Reflections on
> Mind definition:
> "Mind" is
thought's way of convincing itself that it's
> an ongoing and
significant entity rather than the
> fragmented and transient
neural activity it actually
> is. Ego is thus at least twice
removed from it's
> actual nature as a mere
> bodily process. What is it that persists
and abides in
> the absence of thought?
I thought it might be
helpful to explore this further. First a look at the
definition and origin -
the story of the 'mind' concept.
n. memory; commemoration (arch); record
(obs); judgement; opininion; purpose
(Shakespear); inclination; attention;,
direction of the will; state of
thought and feeling; wits, right senses,
sanity; consciousness; intellect;,
that which thinks, knows feels and wills;
soul; personality; a thinking or
v. to remind (arch); to
bring to mind; to remember; to attend to; have care
of; to beware of; to be
Origin: OE: to think; Latin 'mens' meaning 'mind' and related to
Quite a story of knowledge! Mind could be said to be the
consciousness as registered in memory based on the recorded
experience - the known - and also the activity of this in time,
One of the questions that arises is 'Is there a
self or ego, separate from
mind?' and subesquently 'Can mind know mind?' The
questions are relevant
because we speak and behave as if there is a thinker
separate from thought
and as if there is an observer outside of observation.
From this arises the
whole battleground of will and conflict, because we
believe that there is a
'self' which is responsible.
JK said something
which I never really understood, something like
'Consciousness is its
content'. What I now understand by this is that there
is never an entity that
can extricate itelf from consciousness or the known
and stand outside of
itself. Put differently one would say Consciousness is
one, or all is
consciousness. If all is mind then mind will never know mind
and the division
between subject and object is only theoretical.
If the above is true (and
I believe it is), how can it seem otherwise? Here
I think comes in the active
aspect of mind, in time. The mind as memory is
active in minding what 'it
does. As if 'it' 'mind' were somehow a separte
'self' or 'soul'. So a view of
the world based on cause and effect arises,
The self identified with thought
(mind) and body allows this and enables the
construction of identity and
relationships. But the 'self' is never the
cause of the cause, never the
cause of itself, a first cause can't be found.
So if the mind or consciousnes
is whole, complete, it must be acausal. 'My'
efforts are then seen as
illusory and misplaced.
Lest this sound a negative, or fatalistic view
(and in a way it is!) then I
can only restate the positive of wholeness and
selflessness which is to
partake of this holiness. Not by choice but
understanding the way it is.
Dear Gary --
Can I notice, while reading each word,
that any seeming continuity of meaning, thought,
is utterly empty?
Can I notice that there is no movement from
to that moment?
If so -- then "noticing" and "all"
is the same ...
You wrote, asking of
>From: "Tony O'Clery"
>Subject: How much freespeech on
>As you are no doubt aware, I
have been put under moderation/censorship
>at the harshasatsangh. Mainly
for posting satirical responses on fraud
>gurus, to people touting them.
It seems one can tout fraud gurus and
>their cults but not respond to
them. I posted as myself and as
>Humanzee, or rather Humanzeeananda guru
Sorry to say, I had no idea of your activities on HS. I pay it
>It is an interesting point that the poor are an asset to
>For without promises of service activity how would the cash
From my POV, the 'sharks' you point out, are exploiting the
of their victims. It is not need which makes one
is idealism. Idealism is simply another way of stating
is interesting to note, that idealism is 'taught' by the selfsame
to whom you point. I would point out that the situation
is universal. The
teaching/exampling of idealism is
simply the setup for later
"Teachers" who set up criteria for 'the attainment' attract
idealists; each 'student' is then 'meat on the hoof', and in the
of SB and many others, the 'touch' begins with sucking first of
resources (financial and all other material) and then finally
resources are gone, vampirically sucking the life-force
to the ultimate
depletion. The empty husk is finally carted away,
to make room for the next
round of victims.
My point is that this situation is nothing new;
idealism is the conditioning for the blindness which makes
deadly exploitation so easy, even inevitable.
>My main point
was Sai Baba and Muktananda, both of whom have
>affidavits in multiples
alleging molestation, including minors etc,
could detail an endless list of this sort of historical reality.
idealist goes 'shopping for fulfillment', and ends up in the
the one who advertises the most idealistic
product, and the fleecing begins.
Money first, then semen,
and finally blood, is extracted. Only the naive see
as anomalies. For the idealist/naive, the reality of life on
is a horror story of unparalleled proportions; that is why the
of reality, and the seeking of the stairway to heaven.
to the moderator, I would like to know in advance what the concept
freespeech means to this list?
>Obviously on harshasatsangh it
applies selectively, notwithstanding
I cannot speak of HS list, but the rules
here in NDS are simple:
No personal attacks
No domination of the
list by 'negative suggestion'.
As moderator, I am the one who makes the
I am sensitive to what is distractingly off-topic; persistent
postings will be pointed out.
I ask that any posting
be aimed to, or from, the nondual perspective
(regardless of whether there
actually can be such a thing as 'NDP').
Finally, there is a vast
difference between 'debating the
(subjectively perceived) 'facts', and
of personality. Self-moderation is particularly
called for in this area.
If you read carefully my comments and
replies to you, you may sense
that I am holding back or moderating myself, in
regards to my reportage
of the exploitation of the naive by those who
Tony, the teaching/exampling of idealism is the
ultimate abuse, abuse of
a magnitude to which sexual abuse is almost nothing
The race of vampires perpetuate themselves by the
inculcation of idealism;
and the unrequited (hungry) idealist may eventually
become a vampire; this
is another and prime example of the 'cycle of
The fact that humans have needs (hungers) makes the translation
into idealism quite easy. The natural hungers validate conditioned
and 'teachers' of idealism are careful to blur the line
between what is
organismic and what is conditioned. The whole manipulative
schema is an
ancient racket, designed to funnel the conditioned (primed) into
of the utterly unprincipled. SB and such ilk are simply the current
exploitation artists. The real need is to immunize children against
without inculcating cynicism in the process of doing
(And thus my reason for a clear understanding of what is called
The call to overcome ego is a tacit order to eschew autonomy.
the task of differentiating ego from identity will make clear the
situation. Ego is organismic, while identity is
Subject: Maha Yoga - the real Eye
The question whether forms
are real is therefore separately dealt with
by the Sage. He says
"If the self be with form, then the world and God would be so
But if the self be formless, then how and by whom are
forms to be seen ?
Is the spectacle ever otherwise than as the
seeing eye is ?
The real Eye is just the real Self ; It is
The meaning was explained by the Sage
himself as follows :
"If the eye that sees be the eye of flesh ,
then gross forms are seen:
if that eye be assisted by
lenses , then even invisible things are
have form; if the mind be the eye , then subtle forms are
thus the seeing eye and the object seen are of the
that is , if the eye be itself a form , it sees nothing but forms.
But neither the physical eye nor the mind
has any power of vision
of its own ; the real Eye is the
Self ; as He is formless , being
the pure and infinite
Consciousness , the Reality , He does not see
Forms are created by the very act of
or The Upanishadic Lore in the
Light of the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana
By 'Who' (K.
Here is an interesting defn. of Forms from the Book, The
Game of God,
Recovering Your True Identity, (The Big Book for Humans
FORM: any observable entity; a thing apparently
distinct from everything else by virtue of its being surrounded
Sounds also like a pretty good explanation
of the origin of dualism. As each thing or
is defined by separating from what it is not, an
arises with it. What has no opposite?
"What has no opposite" has
to know, hence nothing to say -- no one
to be known by, hence no
way to appear.
This is speechless, unknowing, and
"This" can be nowhere else --
midst of all forming and losing of form,
is "this" --
which has never appeared to anyone,
nor can ever
Excuse me for jumping in in the middle of the thread.
finding it incomprehensible that Sivananda would call a
failure, I checked his book. Quoting from Sivananda's textbook
on Sadhana, he
says, "Brahmacharya is the key-note of success in every walk
of life. It is
absolutely necessary for spiritual advancement." "The life of
is not inconsistent with the maintenance of celibacy. As soon
householder has one child, to continue the line the wife becomes his
Whether a person has one or two children, or whether the wife
mother, friend, sister, lover, or all of them, doesn't matter.
the power of sexual/life energy is what matters. Celibacy -- or
life energy -- in all matters, not only sex, will lead to
Sivananda says, "The secret of
renunciation is renunciation of egoism,
mineness and desires.
Abandoning wife, children, property, house, relations
and friends does not
constitute real renunciation. Objects do not bind you.
It is 'mineness'
(Mamata) that binds you to this Samsara or cycle of births
As long as objects do not bind, a person can do whatever they
married, buy cars, whatever. Remaining celibate, life energy is
As far as service, or helping others,
Sivananda says, "Because the mind wants
variety, you should engage it with
some noble, benevolent work for the good
of others. Service alone will bestow
upon you everything. Through service
alone you can have
However, he also said, "...selfless service is not needed
for the advanced
class." So, Jan may be in that class, and Tony may be in the
one that does
service. Who knows? Does anyone really
In the book "practice of yoga" there are some issues regarding
"miserable mundane life".
It's about how the illusion of a separate self
tries to immortalize itself by taking certain
ºWhether a person has one or two children, or whether the wife
ºmother, friend, sister, lover, or all of them, doesn't matter.
ºthe power of sexual/life energy is what matters. Celibacy -- or
ºlife energy -- in all matters, not only sex, will lead to
Interestingly, Sivananda doesn't say what
would generate natural brahmacarya.
Ramana was one of the examples of that -
without a former practice of yoga.
ºAs long as objects do not bind, a person can do whatever they want.
ºmarried, buy cars, whatever. Remaining celibate, life energy is
Desires do bind and without
them, tendencies will act out spontaneously...
ºAs far as service,
or helping others, Sivananda says, "Because the mind
should engage it with some noble, benevolent work for the good
Service alone will bestow upon you everything. Through service
ºalone you can
The chapter on karma yoga
ºHowever, he also said, "...selfless service is not needed for
ºclass." So, Jan may be in that class, and Tony may be in the
one that does
ºservice. Who knows? Does anyone really
Once i read a letter of someone considering
herself abused - observing that
many were benefited by that teacher
nevertheless, her action against that teacher took that into
That was one of the best examples of selfless service i came across...
making more victims than there already are... But you are right, no one
So if the mind or consciousnes is whole, complete, it must be acausal.
efforts are then seen as illusory and
My dearest and
I love your eloquence. Perhaps the efforts are also part
of the whole. Can
anything really be out of place? If one thing is out of
everything is out of place.
But there is only this place.
You also said Gary: Lest this sound a negative, or
fatalistic view (and in a
way it is!) then I
can only restate the positive
of wholeness and selflessness which is to
partake of this holiness. Not by
choice but understanding the way it is.
Yes, I love that. Thanks Gary. Being
That. Being Whole. Being Here. All
Love to all
ok that's it!
meet YOU in the alley
even when i'm not
PISsed, i'm still tough
yup! this is how it
stupid bastards always manifesting as
Will the day bring?
Will it be
Or, will it be monsters?
And who the fuck!!,
HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace? or WAR? - loveya -