Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 It was quite different from the state of the mystic who is transported into ecstasy for a brief unaccountable while, after which the gloomy walls of the mind close round him again. Sri Bhagavan was already in constant, unbroken awareness of the Self and he has said explicitly that there was no more sadhana, no more spiritual effort, after this. There was no more striving towards abidance in the Self because the ego, whose opposition it is that causes strife, had been dissolved and there was none left with whom to strive. Further progress towards continuous, fully conscious Identity with the Self, established in fully normal outer life and radiating Grace upon those who approached him, was henceforth natural and effortless; and yet that there was such progress is indicated by Sri Bhagavan's saying that the soul was still seeking a fresh anchorage. Things such as emulation of the Saints and concern as to what his elders would think still show a remnant of practical acceptance of duality which was later to disappear. There was also a physical sign of the continuing process. A constant burning sensation was felt in the body from the time of the awakening until the moment when he entered the dinner shrine of the temple of Tiruvannamalai. >From Ramana Maharshi..by Osborne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 I have been advised to substitute the word progress and replace it with deepening. I notice that Sri Richard also uses deepening. Osborne used the word progress. My question is when did "progress go out of vogue? If Bhagvan made progress even after realization then why cant lowly Alton? TIA, Loving the Self, Alton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 Dear Alton, Sri Ramana did not make any further progress towards the Self after his unique experience in Madurai - it was complete in full - the ego had vanished forever and he remained as the pure Self - but outwardly there were changes in his life which found different interpretations in the Ramana-literature. So progress or deepening in atma vichara can't be applied on Sri Ramana. As for us: progress suggest perhaps more an outward movement based on own effort and implying success, deepening more an inward one with a more passive tendency and based more on grace. But both mean at least the same - call it as you like. We simply need to do - and at the same time let it happen. Why to think there is no progress? Why to think there is no deepening? If we let go this thought then all is fine - absolutely!! In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "Loving Sri Ramana" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > I have been advised to substitute the word progress and replace it with deepening. I notice that Sri Richard also uses deepening. > > Osborne used the word progress. My question is when did "progress go out of vogue? > If Bhagvan made progress even after realization then why cant lowly Alton? > > TIA, > Loving the Self, > Alton > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 Dear Gabriele: Thanks for your always erudite answers. While your at, are there differences in Self Realization? Like Ramana was all giving and did not deprive souls of his darshan, while Laksmana and Sarada seem not to be sharing in that medium? Also Laksmana seemed not to honor his mother called her "That Woman" while Ramana permanently released his mother from suffering upon her exiting the body? Are their larger Self's and smaller ones. I am sure that mine will be smaller upon realation. Anyone can jump in for my queries. Mahalo, Loving the Self, Alton RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > Sri Ramana did not make any further progress towards the Self after > his unique experience in Madurai - it was complete in full - the ego > had vanished forever and he remained as the pure Self - but outwardly > there were changes in his life which found different interpretations > in the Ramana-literature. > So progress or deepening in atma vichara can't be applied on Sri > Ramana. > > As for us: progress suggest perhaps more an outward movement based on > own effort and implying success, deepening more an inward one with a > more passive tendency and based more on grace. But both mean at least > the same - call it as you like. We simply need to do - and at the > same time let it happen. Why to think there is no progress? > Why to think there is no deepening? If we let go this thought then > all is fine - absolutely!! > > In HIM > Gabriele > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Loving Sri Ramana" <leenalton@h...> > wrote: > > I have been advised to substitute the word progress and replace it > with deepening. I notice that Sri Richard also uses deepening. > > > > Osborne used the word progress. My question is when did "progress > go out of vogue? > > If Bhagvan made progress even after realization then why cant lowly > Alton? > > > > TIA, > > Loving the Self, > > Alton > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Share Posted September 30, 2002 Dear Alton, > While your at, are there differences in Self Realization? In the Self there are no differences and grades - it is always completely as it is - but there is deepening in vichara, yes. > Like Ramana was all giving and did not deprive souls of his darshan, > while Laksmana and Sarada seem not to be sharing in that medium? > Also Laksmana seemed not to honor his mother called her "That Woman" > while Ramana permanently released his mother from suffering upon her > exiting the body? Jnanis seem to behave differently. Who can understand? Is it for us to understand their behaviour and judge or should we not simply turn to vichara? > Are their larger Self's and smaller ones. I am sure that mine will be > smaller upon realation. Anyone can jump in for my queries. The Self is neither large nor small - but all-including. But there are larger and smaller egos - LOL > Mahalo, > Loving the Self, > Alton Loving the Self is fine! In HIM Gabriele > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2002 Report Share Posted October 1, 2002 Dear Vicki > the progress that you try to define for us - i think - has nothing to do > with any outward movement , > any outward movemeny has no value , > and progress is not related to anthing outwardly > or to any kind of success ; Atma vichara is a merely inward movement, indeed. If the impression was given of an outward movement then that was wrong. > but why define something 'for us' when each one in this world is > on oneself and one's perception and understanding of everything is unique ? Was not meant as a definition - who could give a definition about atma vichara? in HIM Gabriele om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya 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.