- While this is not a Ramana List, forwarding a dialogue elsewhere in cyber-space which may have an interest.-----------Hi VRS,Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based on scientific explanation to the formation of life( forming from elements and again merging in elements ).But this formation is limited to the body only.Sure.That was because, the question, if I recall correctly was on the issue of death.It does not explain the logic with which the accumulated vasanaas
are carried from birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated by Greats like Sri Ramana is required to eliminate those vasanaas to be free from the habit of
identification with the body( Realization ?).Who is identified with the body?Who is that, which thus then needs to dis-identify with the body?Do you know the body-mind organism will not survive for a moment, without this identification, and thus, in order to continue to be 'alive", needs this identification to continue.
Whether the body-mind organism went by the name Ramana, or Budda or Jesus or Idi Amin.The identification with a particular body and it's name is not at all an issue.After all when Ramana, as a consequence of this very identification, noted pangs of hunger in "his" body, he asked for a banana split with strawberry flavour,........... he did not ask his favourite disciple to go and partake some pulliharianam.Or when the dude noted a different set of pangs in his body at the time of Brahmamuhurtha, he did not once again ask his favourite disciple to go and move his bowels while undertaking atama vichara.He rapidly made a beeline himself to the appropriate place.When, during a discourse, somebody hailed Buddha, he did turn his illusory head towards the hailer in the audience.It is not the identification with the body, ......but the sense of entitification, the "me-self", which is nothing but the sense of a seperated individual self,.......... the sense of a "subject" apart from the array of it's cognized objects, making up his or her world,.......it is this sense of separation, which arises out of a sense of personal doership.....a sense of personal doership, which expresses itself as......-I am a ramana-bhakt par excellence...-It is I which is doing the Atma vichara,..-It is I which has to get rid of vasanas in order to obtain greater vasanas of the timeless variety,...-The Great Quest must be addressed by me,...-The thought in the moment, it is I which thought that thought...-The decision that was taken, it is I which decided so....-The feeling that was expressed, it is I which felt so...-The action which got taken, it is I which acted thus...-The success (spiritual or otherwise), which happened as a consequence of the action I took, is my success, my experience, my realization...and hence there is no doubt I have realized the right side heart prattled by Ramana,..... and by PARAMBRAHMAN, I MUST be enlightened and will now defend my enlightenment, come what may....-The failure which happened, is my failure, thus I am an epitome of misery and must double my efforts to seek to succeed and somehow get SatChitAnandetc etcThe concretization of all these strands of prevailing belief system is the sense of the me-entity, the me-self....And .....it is this sense of independent self, whose prevailing existence,...........makes the "wave" oscillate between the heights of the crest and the depths of the crash as troughs.It is only to a "wave", that the concept of "vasanas" travelling through life and birth is of relevance, .......thereby birthing the need of sadhanas to get rid of these self-assumed "vasanas".Round and round the mulberry bush.When asked once by one of his students puzzling over the teachings of egolessness,"Well then, if there is no self, what is it that reincarnates?"The Master laughed and answered.. "Neurosis,"Know this, .........no "wave", no matter what hoopla it gets upto,.........can know, realize, experience or obtain the Ocean.Just look at the situation, in this very moment.A "wave" (the sense of separated me-self), has no independent existential reality to know or realize, or experience,......... anything, .....let alone the Ocean.For in each moment, ........the "wave" does not dance, .....it is danced,..........as so.....in the moment.Moment to moment to moment.Yes, in a rare "wave",...........the identification by the Ocean, which makes the OCEAN believe itself to be a "wave",........that self-hypnosis, may end......... and the Ocean,.... as if,..... "recovers".... it's impersonal oceanic expanse.Such an "end",..........from the point of view of the "wave", the notional self,.......is non-volitional and acasual.From the point of view of the Ocean, the "recovery" is a hilarity, for no identification of impersonal to personal, ever took place, such that a "recovery" can actually take place.A pretence was no longer continued.Do you scream and rant and rave and go forthing around the mouth, at the person in a mirror looking at you, .......wanting to convince him or her, that you are "vrs podury"?Does that person ever become you or even realize the not-two-ness, between the you both?Just see, just see, just see.Instead of carrying Ramana on your head, ...........be "a" Ramana and apperceive the truth of the dude's chattering, when he muttered "There has been no creation, hence there is no destruction".What is the state after that Realization could not be
comprehended by one's present state of mind.Spirituality begins where science ends.Spirituality is the state of existing when all concepts of spirituality have,.. by themselves, got dropped.Concepts,........ whether "scientific" or whether "Ramanic".
These postings remind me of Rajagopalachari
's remarks in the.inintroduction to Sankara's
Bhajagovindam rendered by
MS Subbulakshmi " Knowledge, if does not lead one to
Bhakti is useless tinsel "And Bhakti, which does not lead to Jnan (which is the end of all knowledge and all Bhakti),........is mere intoxication with a toy-rattle.
Does he know of devotees whose eyes fill with tears the moment they utter the word Ramana, an expression of inexplicable joy and ecstacy ? Probably he would explain this with terminology of chemistry.It is those tears which expresses itself as this signature of flowing waters, in the form of this post.If you can see.This is RamanaThat is RamanaOut of Ramana, arose RamanaAnd when Ramana arose, what was left was still Ramana.Om RamanaOm RamanaOm Ramana
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Sandeep"
> While this is not a Ramana List,<snip>
> forwarding a dialogue elsewhere in
> cyber-space which may have an interest.
> Mr. Sandeeps postings are mostly based
> on scientific explanation to the formation
> of life( forming from elements and again
> merging in elements ).But this formation
> is limited to the body only.
> That was because, the question, if I
> recall correctly was on the issue of death.
> It does not explain the logic with which
> the accumulated vasanaas are carried from
> birth to birth and the 'sadhana' as enunciated
> by Greats like Sri Ramana is required to
> eliminate those vasanaas to be free from the habit of
> identification with the body( Realization ?).
> Who is identified with the body?
> Who is that, which thus then needs
> to dis-identify with the body?
> Do you know the body-mind organism will
> not survive for a moment, without this
> identification, and thus, in order to
> continue to be 'alive", needs this
> identification to continue.
Thanks, Sandeep, it was of interest.
I have a particular interest in how
the body is treated in light of 'enlightenment',
and this forwarded dialogue was good to read.
One comes across a lot of denial and denigration
of the body on the online spiritual lists.
It may be a reflection of the primarily western
membership, and the conditioned sense of the body
as impure as developed by growing up in a western
religious background. It seems that the nondual
attitude of 'no body' easily translates into
'bad body' in the west, particularly when one
is inclined through cultural Samskara to think
of it that way anyway.
I am finding that work in the body leads to a
great neutrality of body. The body, which can be so
solidified around identification with gender,
age, health, effort, etc., is androgynous in the
deepest sense. It is a lens, a great transparency,
through which information flows. It is also transient,
malleable, and no more solid than a thought.
I find that having an understanding of how this
works, even if it is an ongoing string of understandings,
sometimes seemingly conflicting, does not null the
possibility of experiencing the workings. In other words,
experience of the deepest sense does not preclude the
ability to have and enjoy a developing understanding
of the deepest sense.
Deduction and intuition are unitive functions,
two sides of the same coin, to deny one is to
emphasize the primacy of the other, is to tip