What does it mean to you?

[Ram]

Living Realization. What does it mean to you?

In recent threads, I thought that Jonatan and Jerry both put out some
good thoughts worth exploring, the crux of which seemed to me to be
"what is a meaningful or worthwhile life?"

I mean this is really where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? Maybe
not.

It seems that we are all in agreement that that there is inherent
oneness permeating this universal appearance which has as part of its
splendor multiplicity in unicity. My perception is that most of the
folks that post here regularly speak from actual experience and
understanding and aren't just parroting some lofty platitudes that we
have read or accumulated along life's short expressway to the body's
disappearance. So without doing the advaita shuffle, or the papaji
fever, or whatever, what's say we explore this topic a bit?

Seems to me that while one is a seeker (looking for answers), and an
aspirant (found some answers and is doing some sadhana), the purpose
or meaning of life has significance in that illusions, misconceptions,
false beliefs, whatever, are being dismantled. And then for some,
there seems to be a point where some degree of Self-knowledge dawns,
descends, is gained, obtained, attained, or however you want to say
it, and Life takes on a different meaning or dimension. And, there are
also a few that say that even the notion of one who has attained Self-
knowledge is also just a subtle state or attitude of mind(vritti) and
life has not been completely fulfilled as long as one takes any state
to be Reality. Even though it is not separate from Reality, it is
still a transient state (the state of "I Am").

From any one of these perspectives, the appearance of the multiverse
cannot be denied and is the experience of all living beings, even the
one who is Self-realized (Jnani). So what about this thing Life?

I just came across a dialogue of Shri Ramana Maharshi (no I won't call
him the "diaper dude," as I feel that is disrespectful to who He
really is, but that's just my feeling of reverence. To each his own.)

I think he addresses the issue quite nicely (and Mr. Godman has
actually done a pretty good job of translating the non-english words.)
which could be a good common basis for discussion, if any of youz guyz
is so inclined to read His words. Fair warning that comprehending what
is being discussed requires a little bit of mental concentation and
focus of intelligence. But this is a group about Advaita afterall,
last time I checked.

http://hinduism.co.za/jnani-.htm

Anyhooo, I thought that some good points were raised that could lead
to a meaningful thread on this 'discussion' group. But then again,
perhaps Shri Ramana sums it up sufficiently enough that no futher
discussion is necessary. I'll leave it up to you guys.

Since the threads here are supposed to start with a question, I guess
the question would be:

What does it mean to live a realized life? Or Life of Realization?Or
possibly from a different perspective, what is the meaning of life in
the world, if there is one?(meaning or world) "What is the Life of the
Jnani?" may be a better way of saying it, but I suspect that being a
Jnani may not be meaningful or significant for some.

Sorry, but words fail me. I feel that it is a subtle topic, but some
may think it to be more material. Maybe the bottom line is simply "Who
or what does one take oneself to be?"

Blah, blah, blah, the syllables come out, but what am I trying to
indicate? (To answer that question, I would probably have to say Self
enquiry.)

And/or, do you even give a shit?

[Rodger]

'What does it mean to you'?

Drop the t and what's left?

[Jerry Miller]

Great questions, Ram. And an interesting website/discussion, but one with for me a critical flaw. I quote, "Why worry about the world and what happens to it after Self-realisation?" For me, in whatever state I am in, and I am not about to name myself in any state, this is the whole problem with religions, philosophies, or other predicated ways of life--the assumption that there is an end to being. Call it heaven, nirvana, Brahman, or what you will, this willingness to see an ending point to existence makes no sense to me. My experience tells me there is no end, at least not one seeable from this plane, or from the next plane either. And this is why I cannot stay on the website (though here I be, an outsider looking in, not because I want to be an insider, but because I want to shake the box I am outside, and scream the silent scream "You are still in a box!" and hope that at least one being hears me enough to ask, "Could there really be more?"

 

I say there is more, that being "jnani" or "self-realized" or any label you want to put on yourself (your Self) is not an end, but only a step to a whole new plane, one not visible from this plane. In this evolution is my guide. We have advanced from single-celled beings to billion-celled beings. Do you think a single-celled being could have imagined a billion-celled being? I doubt it (they were genderless) could even have imagined a two-celled being. Yet it happened. Two single-celled beings got together and joined forces, and together they were more capable of survival than each was seperately. But could they have imagined adding a third cell? or joining with another two-celled being to become a four-celled being? Didn't matter what they could imagine, did it? It happened, and it is continuing to happen. Life evolves, and since all life is one Life, for me LIFE evolves.

 

I also believe in spiritual evolution, as I have stated. When living beings first developed thinking brains (those things called minds that your group loves discussing) they had little or no consciousness of supreme beings, though because they did not understand the physical world they found themselves in, it did not take long before they were acknowledging/worshipping the spirits in the trees and clouds and animals and whatever. I give them full credit, they saw the spirits in all living beings, not like most people alive today who think only humans have spirits. But I digress. The evolution of spirits to gods to Gods to one God (whatever one might want to name these "beings") was on its way, and now we have agnosticism, atheism, non-theism, and whatever else we have on this world. They are all logical steps seen from the leading edge, but they were invisible to whomever was in the leading edge of the day. You (maybe we) (definitely "Me" meaning Life) are now in the leading edge. I challenge you to open your eyes to the possibility that there are yet more leading edges to discover. (And this challenge is not coming from "Jerry Miller," the present incarnation of the spirit I call "rawgod" which is what I have named my spirit on the next plane for easier discussion purposes, it is coming from my experience on that next plane.)

 

Have you gotten this far in my argument? I think by now many will have stopped reading. This is too upsetting to even consider. It is too rebellious. But is it revolutionary? Only you can decide that for yourself. Shri Ramana Maharshi himself says a jnani can appear crazy to ajnani. I am not saying I am jnani, nor am I saying I am ajnani, as some people would like to think (and who is to say they are wrong?), but I may be crazy. I don't think so.

 

If you have read this far, you are wondering what I mean by my experience on the next plane, and what I found there that could have led me to this crazy idea I m proposing, so I'll tell you a bit. (You'll have to ask for more.) In a very strange event my "I" travelled up the silver cord, and came to a wall. Instead of turning back, I dismantled the wall, and found myself in the most beautiful non-place I could ever have not imagined. (Description in words is obviously not possible.) I could have stayed in that place, and Jerry Miller would have been left a mindless hull (Would that have made me jnani?). But I said "No, I am not finished being Jerry Miller yet," and I was banished back beyond the wall, and I had no strength to break through it again. That was almost 40 years ago.

 

Just having been in that place changed me, but there was one thing more. I was instructed, if ever I should meet Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, I was to give him a message: "Your spirit is stagnating, it is time to move on."

 

It took many years for me to accept that my journey to the end of the silver cord was real, a part of me thought I was insane to even think it was real. It took even more years to start to understand it, and still more years to accept that understanding. And it was the message to Tenzin Gyatso that fueled my sight to look beyond everything I thought I knew and accepted. How many times did I ask myself, was that message real? What could it mean? How could I, a lowly human being, even think that I could have a message to the Dalai Lama? Shit, if I even ever met him, no way could I give the man a message like that?

 

But it got me thinking, and it got me thinking outside that box I didn't know I was in. And now I see what that message means, and while I might be shaking in my boots were I to stand before the Dalai Lama, I would deliver that message as it was given to me. And the Dalai Lama is part of Life, and one with Life, and is Life, so giving the message to you is giving the mesage to him: Life is stagnating, it is time to move on.

 

I don't know where I am going, I don't know how long it will take me to get there, I don't care if I never get there, wherever "there" is... I am moving on. I cannot stay in a place where there is an end. For me there is no end

[MarkJ]

The two 'realms' of living are changed dramatically and continue to
deepen.

The 'inner' realm is empty, detached, non-preferential, unaffected,
etc.

The 'outer' realm is subordinated to the needs of those around him/her
and all are seen as sacred. Contrived acts of service for reward are
replaced with affection and sincere servitude with no regard for
returned service.

Ramana quoted from the Yoga Sutras:

Question: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute
equality towards all?

Sri Ramana Maharshi:Yes.
"Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes)
become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards
the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the
wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the
jnani." (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37).

This is the same message that Jesus spoke when talking about he who
was 'born of the spirit' which is awakening.

For me, it is unnecessary to 'do' good deeds as the knowledge that a
good deed has been done is religion. 'I' do nothing but what I am is
living and that living is a spontaneous breathing that the 'I' sees as
adventure.

I have no need and nothing is more than enough so what ever is here
anyone can have. That is all I see as living what is called a
realized life.

Mark

[Rodger]

'...there is no end,at least not one seeable from this plane...'

you caught the wrong flight? no worries...when it lands the flight
will be over and that will be the end. :)

if you could see an end,that would not be the end.

since there's no end,there's more.

moment to moment...one more to the next.

> > And/or, do you even give a shit?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[godszen]

"Jerry Miller" wrote:
> In a very strange event my "I" travelled up the silver cord, and came to a
> wall. Instead of turning back, I dismantled the wall, and found myself in
> the most beautiful non-place I could ever have not imagined. (Description in
> words is obviously not possible.) I could have stayed in that place, and
> Jerry Miller would have been left a mindless hull (Would that have made me
> jnani?). But I said "No, I am not finished being Jerry Miller yet," and I
> was banished back beyond the wall, and I had no strength to break through it
> again. That was almost 40 years ago.

since this event, have you changed, or are things still changing?

> Just having been in that place changed me, but there was one thing more. I
> was instructed, if ever I should meet Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama of
> Tibet, I was to give him a message: "Your spirit is stagnating, it is time
> to move on."

did you ever give him the message?

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Jai Shee Ram,



Very interesting Ram....some commenting in-between as below.

Snipping to reach the core of your exposition.

Ram wrote:

<SNIP>

>From any one of these perspectives, the appearance of the multiverse
cannot be denied and is the experience of all living beings, even the
one who is Self-realized (Jnani). So what about this thing Life?

I just came across a dialogue of Shri Ramana Maharshi (no I won't call
him the "diaper dude," as I feel that is disrespectful to who He
really is, but that's just my feeling of reverence. To each his own.)
  

:-)
Beyond reverence is love.
Raman would have giggled at the label.

I think he addresses the issue quite nicely

Yes.

<Snip>

Since the threads here are supposed to start with a question, I guess
the question would be:

What does it mean to live a realized life?

The  absence of  that very question.

As the diaper dude  prattles........for the Jnani.......there is nobody who is an Ajnani.

For the realized there is nothing as an un-realized state.

In the absence of the un-realized state, can there be a state of a realized living?

And thus the absence of the wondering  what would it mean to live such a life.

The absence of the wondering as to what happens when the rubber meets the road, for the rubber never left the road.


The body-mind organism as conditioned biological apparatus, serving as an instrument of actioning(it itself being an  actioning-in-motion)...

...whether labeled as  "Realized" or a "Bum-on-the-street"...

...will continue to play out its intrinsic momentum, and thus will be part of Life.

Till it is in the coalesced form.

And when the intrinsic momentum plays out, just like a clock whose winding has not been  re-wound....

..the manifest object de-coalesces  into the fundamental elements from which it emerged.


Dust to dust.



Till the winding plays out, the manifest conditioned  will need to partake food(and all the activities which allows the access of food)..

..it will shit out, it will  act from the instinct of self-preservation and thus jump out of the way of an onrushing bus, it will engage in sexual activity if the urge arises and there is a latent momentum to actualize that particular urge...

..it will respond conditionally to arriving impacting inputs, such that conditioned actions will play out through it....it will be impacted by consequences.......et al.

It will be subjected to be engaged in whatever that is needed to pay the bills, attend to responsibilities reposed by society.

If bills are generated.

Otherwise the good old route of setting up an Ashram and claim tax-deductions.

 

The play-out of the intrinsic momentum of one's "own" body-mind organism is witnessed, just like witnessing the going-ons of a next door-neighbour.


There is participation, full participation...... but no engagement.


There is functioning, as a nuance of the functioning which is the totality of the moment......

.....but there is no stake in the functioning.



There is relating at all levels, but no relationship is constructed around that relating.



The shining of the sun.........totally indifferent .......whether the shining doles out death or life.


Nothing is seen to be rightfully happening.

Nothing is seen to be amiss.


And solace is offered, assuaging of grief, comforting of sorrow, answering of quests and questions.....

....all are seen to have a place, all are seen to contribute towards "thickening of the plot" as the diaper dude put it.

 Or Life of Realization?Or
possibly from a different perspective, what is the meaning of life in
the world, if there is one?

Something has a meaning if that something is a means to something else.

Ergo that something has to be incomplete, something else is completion for it... and thus it has a meaning.

That which is in completion.....in the moment, moment to moment to moment.....the issue of it's meaning...... is meaningless.

This email response would have a meaning, if it was supposed to be a means for "Ram" for X, Y, Z to get the message.

To get Truth.

In the absence of that supposition, in the absence of Ram to reach Ayodha.....

....this email response is in completion.

And meaningless.


This email response is merely a nuanced expressing  of that which is always in completion.

In which there is none to respond, none to get responded to.

To thicken the plot.........there is the arising of the question and there is the responding of the question.

(meaning or world) "What is the Life of the
Jnani?" may be a better way of saying it, but I suspect that being a
Jnani may not be meaningful or significant for some.
  

A Jnani is meaningful or significant.. only for the Ajnani.

And since there has been no Ajnani ever.......there has been no Jnani ever.

Just a stream of sensations, notions, ideations, the resolution of these ideations and sensations.

Sorry, but words fail me. I feel that it is a subtle topic, but some
may think it to be more material. Maybe the bottom line is simply "Who
or what does one take oneself to be?"
  

Indeed.

It always boils down to that primary ideation.

And any answer arrived at to that question.... is once again more ideation.

The personal self is an ideation with a small i.

The Universal Self is an Ideation with a capital I.

"What is Nirvana", asked the eager seeker.

"Not to commit to the karma of life and death", replied the dude stroking his beard(Beards are customary, comes with the realized territory)

"What is the karma of life and death" asked the not-to-be-out-done seeker
(He had done all the round of all the spiritual Lists on the Internet.


"To wish for Nirvana is to commit to the karma of life and death" replied the dude,
eying the comely next-in-line seeker.

Blah, blah, blah, the syllables come out, but what am I trying to
indicate? (To answer that question, I would probably have to say Self
enquiry.)

And/or, do you even give a shit?
  

:-)

[godszen]

Ram wrote:
> Living Realization. What does it mean to you?

several things, but one that I'll mention now is

there's never a break in consciousness, it's constant

nothing escapes your awareness

[Jerry Miller]

Actually, Gary, there is no way to answer that. Every experience a person has in life changes them. I am still changing, yes. Is that experience still changing me? No way to say for sure, excpt possibly by answering your next question. Have I ever met the Dalai Lama? No. Have I ever sought a way to enter his presence? No. But after I finished that email I googled him, found a possible contact over the internet, and sent the message. Has it been received personally by the Dalai Lama? No way to know. Would he understand it if he got it? No way to know? Did I send him my phone number should he care to use it? Yes.

 

Is the event still changing me? I would have to say so. I wasn't sure, even before you asked the question. But my answer to Ram brought everything back to my conscious mind, along with the possible solution to the assumption I always had that it was a useless message, because I would never stand (or sit) in his presence. I may no longer have to do that.

 

But I have to confess a mistelling about that message. There were no words given to me, seeing as communication in the place I was at did not really use words. But that was my interpretation of the communication I was given, and it was how my mind chose to put it into words once I returned to this plane.

 

More I cannot say at this time?

[Rodger]

Jerry,

If words were not used for communication,could you attempt an
explanation as to how communication occured?

> >  did you ever give him the message?- Hide quoted text -

[Jerry Miller]

How do you describe the undescribable? Mental telepathy? Just knowing? What does it matter? The transmission is the important thing, not the method of transmission. Imagine being part of something different than yourself, and basically knowing everything that different thing knows. I'm not saying I know anything, just that that message was there in me, and I knew what it was, who it was intended for. It was kind of like running into someone from Bulgaria who knew another Canadian (or for you, another American). The person lives halfway across the continent, but they still say "Oh, do you know John Horner? Say Hi for me." Yeah, sure, I'll get right on that. That's what this was like. Another being, same plane. Yep, I'll run into him tomorrow...  Of course, at that time there was no internet, but there is now...

[Rodger]

Jerry,

How do you describe the undescribable?

I don't know.

As the undescribable?

If it's undescribable,what does it matter?

Transmission is important,I agree.

I would not rule out reception,however.

Thanks for responding.

If you should run into the Dali Lama,tell him I said
hi.But,first,maybe you should apologize for running into him.

:)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Beyond-I-AM]

Interesting thread starter indeed Ram. Seemingly a semi-veiled attempt
to provoke some enquiry into some vruttis that have been displayed.

Reading through the posts and the dialogue of the Maharshi, some
thoughts arose:

Is Brahman or Nirvana and 'end point'? Can it really be said to be the
end, or to have a beginning? If there is no end, was there a
beginning?

What does, "Why worry about the world" really mean? Rather than being
a callous and cold ambivelence, perhaps it is pointing to and engaged
aloofness.

When someone says they are silently screaming "You're still in the
box," what is one's form when outside the box? I liked the story about
the silver coil, and I hear the statement, but wonder what is vaguely
being presented as perhaps being "more." I would like to know what is
meant by this. It seems worth exploring what is more than what is, and
for whom? What did the form of the one outside the box take? Was it
astral, conceptual, imagined? And I have to ask in all seriousness,
was this experienced while tripping on LSD? Many (including myself)
have had this experience while on LSD, and it pretty much matches what
most would call "near death" experiences, but outside of looking back
at the "experience" from within one's thoughts and concepts about what
it was, was it really a representation of Truth, or only imagined to
be true?

While there does indeed seem to be an evolution of biological single-
celled organisms to very complex billion-celled beings which are all
an integral part of this thing called "Life," what does that have do
with personal growth or spiritual evolution, other than seem to point
to the somewhat orthodox buddhist question, "Did God create man, or
did man create God?"

As for the question about jnani or ajnani, Ramana quite rightly says
that for the jnani there is no ajnana, yet for the purpose of
instruction, he still used the labels and recognized ajnana, even
knowing it not to be true. I find this quite interesting. He also
mention that "Turya is Turyatita." Again an interesting statement in
that he does mention both. If there was nothing to Turyatita, then why
even mention it all? Is there something being indicated by the
distinction that he made? Siddharameshwar Maharaj talks about how it
is only when one has stabilized in Turya, that the significance of
Turyatita can be spontaneously be realized, from and by Turya, and not
by the mind or the jiva.

I can also relate to the relevance of telling the Dalai Lama that he
is stagnating. I also spent many years with various lamas and
collected many concepts about what is true from the tibetan buddhist
perspective, and found that I was stagnating in my spiritual growth.
Much of the tibetan buddhists are afflicted with what I call the
"bodhisattva disease." And many who have left that path still hold to
many of those beliefs about reincarnation for the benefit of so-called
"others." If this type of belief is looked at through the lense of
what is contained in the Diamond Sutra, they would be equated to be
somewhat equivelant to a similar level of belief as nichiren shoshu
buddhism.

I, like Markj, resonate to the quote of Ramana's that "Friendship,

kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural
to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless,
happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all

such things are natural characteristics of the jnani." That being
said, it raises the interesting question again about the perspective
of equality of the jnani, while he clearly makes the distinction about
"affection towards the good," and "kindness towards the helpless,"
"forgiveness towards the wicked," etc. I think this is a very poignant
point that he is making. This is the difference between the "living
realization" that ram was indicating about where the rubber meets the
road, and mere armchair philosophizing about how everything is one. Or
one could say that it is a sign of the difference between a living
avatar and a learned fool.

Mark also said "I have no need and nothing is more than enough so what
ever is here anyone can have." Very nice. It reminds me of something
Nisargadatta Maharaj once said. During the time of British rule,
someone asked him (to paraphrase), "Maharaj, doesn't it bother you how
the Indians are oppressed by the British and ravage the resources of
our country?" Maharaj responed by example. He said, "If I take a 10
rupee note out of the shirt pocket on the left side and put it into
the shirt pocket on the right side, of what concern is to me?"

I got a good laugh from the comment: "since there's no end,there's
more."
Such statements are essentially meaningless. The concepts of more and
less, end and beginning are only examples of the mind running rampant
with a sense of "know-it-all"ness. Sure to get a rise, no doubt.

I very much enjoyed reading Sandeeps comments as usual. I trust he
recognized my prior provactive statements as pariksaneṃ to find out
where he was coming from. The question arose when reading; what
constitutes the watch not being wound? Non-action of non-action? Who
is there to not do the winding? Akarma, Nishkarma, the Prarabdha of no
doer? If no doer, then what is prarabdha? Some may say the script, or
the winding down of the clock not being wound, but the main point
seems to come down to what constitutes the "not winding"? As ram said
in another thread, this seems to be the dismantling, or unbundling of
the knowt of subtle body, the "seed of the cycle of birth and death."

While "To wish for Nirvana is to commit to the karma of life and
death," is no doubt true, if such a desire is earnest, is there any
more noble or worthwhile desire? The desire that if earnestly pursued,
leads to desirelessness?

Thanks for the much needed and welcome diversion guys. A good read,
and enjoyable stream of fingers meeting keyboard.

[Beyond-I-AM]

You refer to the word religion like it's a four-letter word. While I
understand and agree with what I think you mean, from another
perspective, religion, or dharma, is something in this world that
definitely has its place. The notion that it is good or bad, right or
wrong, is just a arbitrary concept. Without religion, or a sense of
dharma, what would this world be like? Surely rigid religiously held
beliefs are a limitation in spiritual growth, but I would postulate
that without the presence of religion in this world appearance, none
of us would have been inspired to pursue more than a life of mundane
existence. Even at the most mundane level, above and beyond the
necessity for some moral code of conduct, religion is a means for the
upliftment of common people. As I think I have read in prior threads,
"everything in its place."

Namaste

On Sep 1, 10:48 pm, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The two 'realms' of living are changed dramatically and continue to
> deepen.
>
> The 'inner' realm is empty, detached, non-preferential, unaffected,
> etc.
>
> The 'outer' realm is subordinated to the needs of those around him/her
> and all are seen as sacred.  Contrived acts of service for reward are
> replaced with affection and sincere servitude with no regard for
> returned service.
>
> Ramana quoted from the Yoga Sutras:
>
> Question: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute
> equality towards all?
>
> Sri Ramana Maharshi:Yes.
> "Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes)
> become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards
> the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the
> wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the
> jnani." (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37).
>
> This is the same message that Jesus spoke when talking about he who
> was 'born of the spirit' which is awakening.
>
> For me, it is unnecessary to 'do' good deeds as the knowledge that a

> good deed has been done isreligion.  'I' do nothing but what I am is

> > And/or, do you even give a shit?- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

hello Beyond-I-AM

I don't intend any negative connotation in my reference to religion.
I only use the term to point out the development of moral and
spiritual systems. I don't have a preference or aversion to the
religious.

I don't assign a good or bad value to it.

It is necessary now for culture to control its limits and conduct.
Like a bit in a horses mouth or splint on a plant. It makes living in
this existence easier among large groups of people.

>Without religion, or a sense of dharma, what would this world be like? - Probably the same way it was before religion.

What is the mundane level? - work, eat, sleep. What is the spiritual
level? - work, eat, sleep.

Would murder be more prevalent without a fear of hell? Maybe. It
doesn't seem to matter at the moment murder happens though.

Does what we are really care about these codes of ethics and morals
and traditions that have been built? Does what we are really care how
an appearance rises and dissipates?

You don't need to answer those questions.

Mark

[Mahakali]

What's your opinion on organized religion i.e. religion as an
organization/institution, for example, RC, Bhuddism or Islam ?

Kali

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Beyond-I-AM]

Agree, no need to answer, but since it's what's happening/not
happening at the moment, why not?

You say you don't intend any negative connotation to the reference to
religion, but did you really give any consideration to the connotation
that was being conveyed by your words, before your reponse, whether
the connotation was intended or not?

"What is the mundane level? - work, eat, sleep. What is the spiritual

level? - work, eat, sleep." If you conceive it to be that way, well,
that is your conception. Outside of the connotation of the statement,
if work, eat, and sleep is only what is thought of as being spiritual,
with all of its connotations, it really only amounts to the mundane.
You can say that they are the same, and on one level that is true,
however it seem overly simplistic to equate the meanings behind the
words of the Ramana quote as not having a deeper meaing. Why does he
bother to make the distinction, while all the while knowing they are
not true? There is deeper meaing to be found upon investigation/
enquiry.

Does what we are really care about these codes of ethics and morals
and traditions that have been built? Does what we are really care how
an appearance rises and dissipates?"

Yes and no. You can act unethically and immorally according to your
definitions of those terms if you wish, but how does that make this
body and life that you have been given any more than merely the level
of the beasts? No, appearances arise and fall, but the meaning to a
realized life is such that we are blessed to be able to live a life of
meaning and benevolence that beasts cannot conceive. If one such as
yourself has the understanding that seems to be apparant, you are in
position to give meaning to life in ways that can be reflected in
ethics and propriety that can offer an upliftment of all that you come
into contact with, either covertly or overtly.

Arjuna felt such a dilema about going to battle because he didn't want
to kill his cousins. Shri Krishna kindly informed him that his was a
deluded view, and that the He himself was the only killer.

And then again, "maybe God threw the dice once too often," even though
snake-eyes was the only roll that turned up. The eyes of Shesha
shining through. So much for chance. Only Shesha, the remainder and
support of all.

Kill, but don't be the killer, afterwards serve the prison terms or
swing from the gallows, but you are not the one confined, or the one
swinging from the gallows pole.

"just another saturday night, and I ain'got no body."

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

Thank you for responding

I do appreciate the rich stories found in scriptures and don't find
pleasure in insulting any one who holds their religion dear.

I intended to be plain and direct about religion. When the idea of
'religion' comes to mind here its image is similar to a mechanism to
me. I don't despise it or adore it. I recognize its purpose and use
but don't have any use for it here. This comes from one who was
devout for many years. The connotation I would like to all ways
convey is that there isn't any attachment either way here but that
doesn't mean I don't step on toes when I dance because I am an awkward
dancer and communicator. If toes need mending I will gladly do so.

I agree that when reality is seen and submitted to it is easily shared
which is not inherent in beasts. In my opinion any sense of
responsibility is cultural but there is a natural affection to life
that is displayed. The greatest teachers encouraged their disciples
to share there gift in order to bless mankind. I don't hold to any
such devotion but it is clear that the Self responds to 'others' need
appropriately in a way that is spontaneous and simple with out care
for reciprocation and I have no way of taking credit for that. When a
man asks me for water, I give him water.


Mark

> > > > > Jnani?" may- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[empty2]

I trust no-one is denigrating my enlightened cat?

> > > > > > From any- Hide quoted text -

[godszen]

living realization means that I am an open door to the absolute

[empty2]

>I trust no-one is denigrating my enlightened cat?

Actually, this was said somewhat seriously......

from posts above:

"You can act unethically and immorally according to your
definitions of those terms if you wish, but how does that make this
body and life that you have been given any more than merely the level
of the beasts?"

"I agree that when reality is seen and submitted to it is easily
shared
which is not inherent in beasts"

Who's to say, really? I seem to remember there being a cow and a white
peacock resident at Ramana's Ashram whom he said had come there to
live out their last physical incarnation.....yes/no?

And what of Ganesha, Hanuman, Garuda and countless other divine
'enlightened' beasts? What about Kaka Bhusundi, the crow who chose to
keep the same body in which he realized.......

For all we know, all other species could be enlightened.....totally
inocent and most definitely in the moment now, undistracted by
thoughts, they certainly don't seem to suffer as we do, being half
here and the other half wondering why.

So there may be reason to object to the 'spiritual chauvinism'
displayed above!

"To the Jnani, there exists no such thing (person, thing or beast?)as
an Ajnani"

> > > > > > > it, and Life takes on a different meaning or- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

'It seems worth exploring what is more than what is,and for whom'.

I submit that,like now,everyone knows what more is.

What can be more than what is,and can what is ever be more than now?

Can what is be explored,or is what is exploring?
(Consciousness cannot be defined,consciousness defines...Thought
cannot reach that which expresses thought...)

[MarkJ]

"I agree that when reality is seen and submitted to it is easily
shared
which is not inherent in beasts"

I am not discounting any condition or state that animals live in and
actually are by nature. When I wrote 'shared' I was responding to the
comment about 'offer an upliftment' which to me means attempting to
communicate what is known about reality in order to help or comfort.
I say that is easily shared because of the level of intimacy since it
is your self you are referring to. I also don't see that as my
personal marching order to look for situations where I can share
anything but if asked I respond and that response is easy.

I have two cats and while I do not count them as Ajani, I have not
witnessed any attempt by them to communicate their experience as Self
to my family in a way that can be understood as language. I do
witness the natural way in which they live in harmony with their
environment and their detachment from most things humans hold dear.

No attempt here to insult or degrade. Only an attempt to meet on
common ground with Beyond-I-AM.

Mark

> > > > > > > On Sep 1, 7:11 am, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:...
>
> read more »

[empty2]

"No attempt here to insult or degrade"

Yes, of course. I was really disputing BIA's description of beasts.
Sorry.

Mind you, my cat staring sometimes feels like sharing....

(:)

> > > > > > > > and all are seen as sacred.  Contrived- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I added that for drama.

Just keeping the air clear for us to breath together.

My cat almost looks like it winks at me sometimes.

Mark

> > > > > > > > upliftment of...
>
> read more »

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Hi BIA,

<SNIP>
As for the question about jnani or ajnani, Ramana quite rightly says
that for the jnani there is no ajnana, yet for the purpose of
instruction, he still used the labels and recognized ajnana, even
knowing it not to be true. I find this quite interesting. He also
mention that "Turya is Turyatita." Again an interesting statement in
that he does mention both. If there was nothing to Turyatita, then why
even mention it all? Is there something being indicated by the
distinction that he made? Siddharameshwar Maharaj talks about how it
is only when one has stabilized in Turya, that the significance of
Turyatita can be spontaneously be realized, from and by Turya, and not
by the mind or the jiva.
  

The immanence appercieving its simultaneous transcendence.

<SNIP>
I, like Markj, resonate to the quote of Ramana's that "Friendship,
kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural
to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless,
happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all
such things are natural characteristics of the jnani."

Yes.

But the form of the expression of that affection, that kindness, that friendship, that forgiveness
is not one single norm.

Gentleness was the form of Ramana, Buddha, Jesus(the last did kick some ass on some occasions).

Ma Tzu out of the same kindness, threw a disciple to ground, from 2 storeys up.
And then himself jumped on top of the broken body of the groaning disciple.

Nisargadatta, who kept prattling that there is none to get it,  was extremely "gentle" in throwing out seekers who did not get it within the first few occasions.


The affection of Dakshinamurthy was in complete silence.

In Jnaneshwar the apperception of no-other, nevertheless took the form of Bhavna and Bhakti.

 

<SNIP>

That being
said, it raises the interesting question again about the perspective
of equality of the jnani, while he clearly makes the distinction about
"affection towards the good," and "kindness towards the helpless,"
"forgiveness towards the wicked," etc. I think this is a very poignant
point that he is making. This is the difference between the "living
realization" that ram was indicating about where the rubber meets the
road, and mere armchair philosophizing about how everything is one. Or
one could say that it is a sign of the difference between a living
avatar and a learned fool.
  

BIA..... is there really a difference between the two?

Sure, within the gestalt of phenomenality.......consequent results of actions occurring through either objects,
may be vastly different.

Different characters, acting differently, exuding a different personal milieu around themselves, resulting in vastly different events....

...all making up the ado of the last night sleep dream drama....

...today morning awake sipping from a hot cup of tea...

<SNIP>

I very much enjoyed reading Sandeeps comments as usual. I trust he
recognized my prior provactive statements as pariksaneṃ to find out
where he was coming from. The question arose when reading; what
constitutes the watch not being wound?

The absence of any sense of distinction.
And the absence of this absence of any sense of distinction.
 
Which is not in the realm of thought.

 Non-action of non-action? Who
is there to not do the winding?

In the sense of a winding being wound tighter and in the sense of this winding getting un-winded....

...there is none other than the winding....

... winding itself up into a tizzy.

Or chilling out.


It is only for the sense of an entity that the eternal question persists eternally.........aka "Who"

 Akarma, Nishkarma, the Prarabdha of no
doer? If no doer, then what is prarabdha?

A neat doctrine........to thicken the plot.

After all if the script needed characters to go through the hoops of de-karming...

(whatever be the specific song and dance)....

...you got to ram the tenet of past karma, down their throats.

And the hoops are needed to be hooped  for a circus show to be complete.

 

 Some may say the script, or
the winding down of the clock not being wound, but the main point
seems to come down to what constitutes the "not winding"? As ram said
in another thread, this seems to be the dismantling, or unbundling of
the knowt of subtle body, the "seed of the cycle of birth and death."

While "To wish for Nirvana is to commit to the karma of life and
death," is no doubt true, if such a desire is earnest, is there any
more noble or worthwhile desire?

The noblest and most worthwhile desire is still a desire.

Which needs a sense of distinction to prevail.

Again, all part of the song and dance.

So no issue with desires.

Whether it is for a bottle of Dark Rum.

Or a Million Euros(The dollar is worthless)

Or good old 9th level Enlightenment.
 

Incidentally this very noblest and most worthwhile desire of Nirvana et al.....
....would be viewed by an Investment Banker on Wall Street as stuff for losers, escape clauses for those
who could not hack it in the real world. :-)

 The desire that if earnestly pursued,
leads to desirelessness?
  

:-)

How goes everything in the land of Siam?
2 decades back I was a constant visitor.