Gary Falk was not a jnani. What was he then?

06-05-2005, 07:03 PM

--- In HarshaSatsangh (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Emanuele De Benedetti"
wrote:
snip>>

> Now the persona will be played consciously as one of the faces
> of consciousness, while before it was seen as the only possible
face,
> and identified with.
> If consciousness created so many faces
> would it be surprising that it could keep playing with them
> even after the full realisation?
>
> marifa>>

This is, I believe, exactly what I said in my original post on this
subject, although obviously not half as well.

Thanks for the clarification.

Although I did not include here your entire message, nevertheless, I
agree with it, and you, totally.

Gary

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "garyfalk1943"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 1:17 AM
> Subject: [HarshaSatsangh - Ramana Guru] Ramana was not a jnani.
What was he
> then?
>
>
> > --- In HarshaSatsangh (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "fuzzie_wuz"

> > wrote:
> >> I agree with Yosy. This whole guru ego trip of "I'm a jnani and
> > you're
> >> not" is about as dualistic as it gets.
> >>
> >> No one is enlightened. To say someone is personally enlightened
or
> >> personally realized is an oxymoron. There is no
separate "person" to
> >> realize anything; that is enlightenment. No one owns it; no one
> >> possesses it. It just is.
> >>
> >>

> >>
> >> fuzzie
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In HarshaSatsangh (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, yosyflug
> > wrote:
> >> >

there is no 'jnani'. though apparently possessing name and
> > form,
> >> this is only in the eyes of the beholder. the jnani ceased to
exist
> > as
> >> an individual; it is the ever-present, all pervading truth/self
> > coming
> >> through this particular name and form. though apparently an
> >> individual, there is no persona there - only the unlimited
> >> consciousness/love shining unobstructed.
> >> >
> >> > yosy
> >
> > First of all, is yosy saying what he said above on the basis of
his
> > own unmediated realization of "jnana" or is yosy saying what he
said
> > based on his own intellectual understanding of the subject.
> >
> > 1. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of his own
> > unmediated realization of "jnana" and what it means to
> > be "a" "jnani", then clearly he needs to go back and clarify his
> > realization at least a little more. His dharma eye is not yet
> > crystal clear.
> >
> > 2. If yosy is saying what he is saying on the basis of
intellectual
> > understanding, however "valid" on the basis of logic and reason,
then
> > that's OK, as long as he acknowledges that like an Alan Watts,
> > perhaps, the intellectual understanding is as good as it gets, the
> > only "thing" lacking though, is the direct, unmediated experience
of
> > what "jnana" really is, i.e., non-conceptually is.
> >
> > Clearly, Ramana had a persona and WAS a person. Are you saying
here
> > that he was not kind, compassionate towards humans and animals,
etc.
> > Did he eat and shit like the rest of us? Did he turn when some
one
> > called him by name? Or was he merely an empty shell, without any
> > personality or persona whatsoever? You mean to say there was no
> > Ramana left anymore after his realization and there was only God
> > shining through the "hollow reed" that once was a guy called
Ramana?
> >
> > Can't you see how ridiculous it is to project onto Ramana,
> > Nisargadatta, or even the great Ribhu himself, what YOU, yosy or
> > fuzzie or gary or harsha or anybody, for that matter THINKS
a "jnani"
> > is or SHOULD be?
> >
> > So Ramana, therefore, was "only the unlimited/consciousness love
> > shining obstructed" (yosy's words). No more persona. No more
> > personality. No more likes and dislikes. No more moods or
> > preferences. No more things he enjoyed more than other things he
> > enjoyed less or even not at all.
> >
> > Ramana became a mindless robot, empty of all sense of I AM, merely
> > the empty shell of God. 100% God or Unlimited Consciousness Love-
> > Light shining unobstructed, without ANY, not even the slightest
TRACE
> > of anything that can be in way defined as "personal".
> >
> > Ramakrishna himself prayed to the Mother to retain the slightest
wisp
> > of ego so that he could go on enjoying the vast delight he had in
> > worshipping her.
> >
> > Did not Ramana continue to "worship" or pay honor to Arunachala
after
> > his realization, just as Nisargadatta continued to perform arati
> > services (if that's the correct terminology) to his guru right up
> > until his (Nisargadatta's) death?
> >
> > I know Nisargadatta often got angry and lashed out and was
addicted
> > to beedies which contributed, no doubt, to his getting cancer.
> >
> > Didn't Ramana have any habits of behavior that could be
> > considered "personal" in any way?
> >
> > Was not Ramakrishan a jnani, just as much as he was a bhakta?
> > Was not Nisargadatta and his guru both jnanis?
> > Is not Ramana one of the very greatest jnanis of the modern era?
> >
> > Pray tell, yosy and fuzzie, what are you people talking about?
> >
> > As far as what fuzzie says, clearly, in Ramana's case, as in
> > Nisargadatta's case and in Ramakrishna's case, we are not talking
> > about "guru trips" of lording it over others, playing power games
and
> > manipulating jivas for either financial or sexual advantage.
> >
> > Sure, anyone who comes on with the "I'm a jnani and you're not, so
> > therefore you have to sign up for my mega-euro satsang in Kovalam
or
> > where ever in order to better put yourself in a position to "get"
> > what I "have" " is not someone that any one with a healthy dose of
> > viveka would have ANYTHING to do with.
> >
> > You're mixing up apples and oranges here, I'm afraid. Wasn't
> > Ramana's message essentially, "the only thing really that
separates
> > me from you in any way is the thought you have that 'I am not
> > enlightened'" and the removal of that thought-splinter with the
thorn
> > of jnana and then to throw them BOTH away the ONLY thing a person
had
> > to "do" in order to realize his or her essential nature?
> >
> > If I am off the mark here, then by all means PLEASE enlighten me.
> >
> > My ego is not at stake. I'm not afraid of being wrong or
misguided
> > or cloudy in my understanding.
> >
> > To say that there is no "one" to be enlightened is in NO way
> > contradictory with the continued existence of a "persona" or
> > a "personality" called Ramana, Ramakrishna, or Nisargadatta.
> >
> > The issue is clearly one of separation vs. the realization that
> > there never was any separation to begin with, no?
> >
> > A jnani is he or she who realizes that "from the beginning not a
> > thing exists" (Hui-neng). No separation, no thing-ness, all one.
> >
> > What's so bad about a little personality to spice up the lila here
> > and there, anyway?
> >
> > Why can't Ramana be a jnani and still retain some sense
> > of "personhood" without that personhood equating to ego-centricity
> > and spiritual one-upmanship?
> >
> > I can still be a person and realize my own non-separateness at the
> > same time, just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
> >
> > The contradiction only occurs in the split-mindedness of the
ajnani,
> > not the jnani.
> >
> > Am I wrong? Please correct me.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HarshaSatsangh/join
> >
> > HarshaSatsangh Magazine and Website is at
> >
> > http://www.harshasatsangh.com
> >
> > "Love itself is the actual form of God."
> >
> > Sri Ramana
> >
> > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >