Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 I recently read a Tolle quote that stated that the mind cannot function without time. So may we conclude that the Ego "I" needs the concept of time to function also and since time is just a concept and not real, the ego is also not real. Aoha, Alton RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Who am I? Paragraph 2 > > `Who am I?' I am not this physical body, nor am I the five organs of > sense perception, I am not the five organs of external activity, nor > am I the five vital forces, nor am I even the thinking Mind. Neither > am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely the > subtle vasanas (latencies of the mind) which being free from the > functional activity of the sense organs and of the mind, and being > unaware of the existence of the objects of sense perception. > > COMMENTS FROM A SEEKER: > > We are told that Realization is something that we are, not something > that we somehow acquire or gain. Realization is then a process of > releasing those things that obscure our own nature. It is often > described as bringing a light into a dark room. Where did the > darkness go? > > Right away Ramana instructs to seeker to engage in a practice of > negation. The rope that appears as a snake so long as one holds to > the idea of rope-as-snake. When the rope-as-snake is thoroughly > eliminated, it is a rope, and forever to be a rope. Was the snake > ever real? > > As Ramana instructs in negation, he directs that the seeker proceed > from gross to subtle. First is the body, then the senses, then > the "organs of action" (hands, feet, mouth, doer, etc.), then > the 'vital forces' (prajna), then the mind, then the tendencies that > lay quiet during deep sleep. > > I would have to notice that included within this list is NOT the ego- > I. This confused me for some time. Now I understand that this ego- I > is like an inchworm. It must hold to something to exist, it has no > existence of its own. If you watch the ego-I in action, you may > notice that it identifies with this, then that, then something else. > Until enough discrimination is achieved, the ego-I's identifications > seem continuous. Take away all support and what happens? If you > notice that the ego-I is not continuous, then who are you when the > ego-I is not active? > > *********** > > I would invite others on this group to add their comments of their > own understanding, or their questions. I want to invite us all into a > deeper practice of inquiry. > > The translation that I am using is the one from Osborn's "Collected > works of Ramana Maharshi." > > We are Not two, > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 Dear Alton, Ramana talks about Being as not in any of the three times (past, present or future). Being is what is left when ego-I (and mind) are discarded. Another thing for you to look at: The mind depends on ego-I. If you look closely at EACH THOUGHT, you will find within that thought the i- notion. No more I-notion, no more mind. One thing that can be confusing when sages talk about realization is that they are "describing" something that cannot be described. The way to listen to this kind of instruction is with the traditional approach: Listen, Reflect, deeply meditate. What is intended is for you to have the experience so described. Then it "makes sense." It then becomes Self-knowledge. Realization comes through Knowledge, not any act. This Self-knowledge operates at the same level as your knowledge that you exist. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > I recently read a Tolle quote that stated that the mind cannot > function without time. So may we conclude that the Ego "I" needs the > concept of time to function also and since time is just a concept and > not real, the ego is also not real. > Aoha, > Alton > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 Dear Richard: Your idea about this is even better than I imagined. I'll continue to ask not so bright questions because you will educate us. Mahaho, Alton RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > > Ramana talks about Being as not in any of the three times (past, > present or future). Being is what is left when ego-I (and mind) are > discarded. > > Another thing for you to look at: The mind depends on ego-I. If you > look closely at EACH THOUGHT, you will find within that thought the i- > notion. No more I-notion, no more mind. > > One thing that can be confusing when sages talk about realization is > that they are "describing" something that cannot be described. The > way to listen to this kind of instruction is with the traditional > approach: Listen, Reflect, deeply meditate. > > What is intended is for you to have the experience so described. > Then it "makes sense." It then becomes Self-knowledge. Realization > comes through Knowledge, not any act. This Self-knowledge operates > at the same level as your knowledge that you exist. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > I recently read a Tolle quote that stated that the mind cannot > > function without time. So may we conclude that the Ego "I" needs > the > > concept of time to function also and since time is just a concept > and > > not real, the ego is also not real. > > Aoha, > > Alton > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.