Talk 1 from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
hay unos 650
@Nico citas a gente interesada?
que alguien cite al nuevo mercurio
hay unos 650
@Nico citas a gente interesada?
que alguien cite al nuevo mercurio
Interesantisimas CONVERSACIONES con Sri Maharshi Ramana
- Autor del tema _______
- Fecha de inicio
In yesterday’s answers, Sri Bhagavan said that the Self is pure
consciousness in deep slumber, and He also indicated the Self of the
transition from sleep to the waking state as the ideal for realisation.
He was requested to explain the same.
Sri Bhagavan graciously answered: The Self is pure consciousness in
sleep; it evolves as aham (‘I’) without the idam (‘this’) in the transition
stage; and manifests as aham (‘I’) and idam (‘this’) in the waking state.
The individual’s experience is by means of aham (‘I’) only. So he must aim
at realisation in the way indicated (i.e., by means of the transitional ‘I’).
Otherwise the sleep-experience does not matter to him. If the transitional
‘I’ be realised the substratum is found and that leads to the goal.
Again, sleep is said to be ajnana (ignorance). That is only in relation to
the wrong jnana (knowledge) prevalent in the wakeful state. The waking
state is really ajnana (ignorance) and the sleep state is prajnana (full
knowledge). Prajnana is Brahman, says the sruti. Brahman is eternal.
The sleep-experiencer is called prajna. He is prajnanam in all the three
states. Its particular significance in the sleep state is that He is full of
knowledge (prajnanaghana). What is ghana? There are jnana and
vijnana. Both together operate in all perceptions. Vijnana in the jagrat
is viparita jnana (wrong knowledge) i.e., ajnana (ignorance). It always
co-exists with the individual. When this becomes vispashta jnana (clear
knowledge), It is Brahman. When wrong knowledge is totally absent,
as in sleep, He remains pure prajnana only. That is Prajnanaghana.
Aitareya Upanishad says prajnana, vijnana, ajnana, samjnana are all
names of Brahman. Being made up of knowledge alone how is He
to be experienced? Experience is always with vijnana. Therefore the
pure ‘I’ of the transitional stage must be held for the experience of the
Prajnanaghana. The ‘I’ of the waking state is impure and is not useful
for such experience. Hence the use of the transitional ‘I’ or the pure ‘I’.
How is this pure ‘I’ to be realised? Viveka Chudamani says, Vijnana
kose vilasatyajasram (He is always shining forth in the intellectual
sheath, vijnana kosa). Tripura Rahasya and other works point out that
the interval between two consecutive sankalpas (ideas or thoughts)
represent the pure aham (‘I’). Therefore holding on to the pure ‘I’, one
should have the Prajnanaghana for aim, and there is the vritti present
in the attempt. All these have their proper and respective places and at
the same time lead to realisation.
Again the pure Self has been described in Viveka Chudamani to be
beyond asat, i.e., different from asat. Here asat is the contaminated
waking ‘I’. Asadvilakshana means sat, i.e., the Self of sleep. He is
also described as different from sat and asat. Both miccionan the same.
He is also asesha sakshi (all-seeing witness).
If pure, how is He to be experienced by means of the impure ‘I’? A
man says “I slept happily”. Happiness was his experience. If not, how
could he speak of what he had not experienced? How did he experience
happiness in sleep, if the Self was pure? Who is it that speaks of that
experience now? The speaker is the vijnanatma (ignorant self) and
he speaks of prajnanatma (pure self). How can that hold? Was this
vijnanatma present in sleep? His present statement of the experience
of happiness in sleep makes one infer his existence in sleep. How
then did he remain? Surely not as in the waking state. He was there
very subtle. Exceedingly subtle vijnanatma experiences the happy
prajnanatma by means of maya mode. It is like the rays of the moon
seen below the branches, twigs and leaves of a tree.
The subtle vijnanatma seems apparently a stranger to the obvious
vijnanatma of the present moment. Why should we infer his existence
in sleep? Should we not deny the experience of happiness and be
done with this inference? No. The fact of the experience of happiness
cannot be denied, for everyone courts sleep and prepares a nice bed
for the enjoyment of sound sleep.
This brings us to the conclusion that the cogniser, cognition and the
cognised are present in all the three states, though there are differences in
their subtleties. In the transitional state, the aham (‘I’) is suddha (pure),
because idam (‘this’) is suppressed. Aham (‘I’) predominates.
‘Why is not that pure ‘I’ realised now or even remembered by us? Because of
want of acquaintance (parichaya) with it. It can be recognised only if it is
consciously attained. Therefore make the effort and gain consciously.
consciousness in deep slumber, and He also indicated the Self of the
transition from sleep to the waking state as the ideal for realisation.
He was requested to explain the same.
Sri Bhagavan graciously answered: The Self is pure consciousness in
sleep; it evolves as aham (‘I’) without the idam (‘this’) in the transition
stage; and manifests as aham (‘I’) and idam (‘this’) in the waking state.
The individual’s experience is by means of aham (‘I’) only. So he must aim
at realisation in the way indicated (i.e., by means of the transitional ‘I’).
Otherwise the sleep-experience does not matter to him. If the transitional
‘I’ be realised the substratum is found and that leads to the goal.
Again, sleep is said to be ajnana (ignorance). That is only in relation to
the wrong jnana (knowledge) prevalent in the wakeful state. The waking
state is really ajnana (ignorance) and the sleep state is prajnana (full
knowledge). Prajnana is Brahman, says the sruti. Brahman is eternal.
The sleep-experiencer is called prajna. He is prajnanam in all the three
states. Its particular significance in the sleep state is that He is full of
knowledge (prajnanaghana). What is ghana? There are jnana and
vijnana. Both together operate in all perceptions. Vijnana in the jagrat
is viparita jnana (wrong knowledge) i.e., ajnana (ignorance). It always
co-exists with the individual. When this becomes vispashta jnana (clear
knowledge), It is Brahman. When wrong knowledge is totally absent,
as in sleep, He remains pure prajnana only. That is Prajnanaghana.
Aitareya Upanishad says prajnana, vijnana, ajnana, samjnana are all
names of Brahman. Being made up of knowledge alone how is He
to be experienced? Experience is always with vijnana. Therefore the
pure ‘I’ of the transitional stage must be held for the experience of the
Prajnanaghana. The ‘I’ of the waking state is impure and is not useful
for such experience. Hence the use of the transitional ‘I’ or the pure ‘I’.
How is this pure ‘I’ to be realised? Viveka Chudamani says, Vijnana
kose vilasatyajasram (He is always shining forth in the intellectual
sheath, vijnana kosa). Tripura Rahasya and other works point out that
the interval between two consecutive sankalpas (ideas or thoughts)
represent the pure aham (‘I’). Therefore holding on to the pure ‘I’, one
should have the Prajnanaghana for aim, and there is the vritti present
in the attempt. All these have their proper and respective places and at
the same time lead to realisation.
Again the pure Self has been described in Viveka Chudamani to be
beyond asat, i.e., different from asat. Here asat is the contaminated
waking ‘I’. Asadvilakshana means sat, i.e., the Self of sleep. He is
also described as different from sat and asat. Both miccionan the same.
He is also asesha sakshi (all-seeing witness).
If pure, how is He to be experienced by means of the impure ‘I’? A
man says “I slept happily”. Happiness was his experience. If not, how
could he speak of what he had not experienced? How did he experience
happiness in sleep, if the Self was pure? Who is it that speaks of that
experience now? The speaker is the vijnanatma (ignorant self) and
he speaks of prajnanatma (pure self). How can that hold? Was this
vijnanatma present in sleep? His present statement of the experience
of happiness in sleep makes one infer his existence in sleep. How
then did he remain? Surely not as in the waking state. He was there
very subtle. Exceedingly subtle vijnanatma experiences the happy
prajnanatma by means of maya mode. It is like the rays of the moon
seen below the branches, twigs and leaves of a tree.
The subtle vijnanatma seems apparently a stranger to the obvious
vijnanatma of the present moment. Why should we infer his existence
in sleep? Should we not deny the experience of happiness and be
done with this inference? No. The fact of the experience of happiness
cannot be denied, for everyone courts sleep and prepares a nice bed
for the enjoyment of sound sleep.
This brings us to the conclusion that the cogniser, cognition and the
cognised are present in all the three states, though there are differences in
their subtleties. In the transitional state, the aham (‘I’) is suddha (pure),
because idam (‘this’) is suppressed. Aham (‘I’) predominates.
‘Why is not that pure ‘I’ realised now or even remembered by us? Because of
want of acquaintance (parichaya) with it. It can be recognised only if it is
consciously attained. Therefore make the effort and gain consciously.
ATARAXIO
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 6 Mar 2017
- Mensajes
- 85.130
- Reputación
- 194.767
Ramana Maharshi - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
es.wikipedia.org
FRASES RAMANA MAHARSHI
Frases de RAMANA MAHARSHI: La mejor selección de frases, reflexiones, citas y pensamientos para estimular la iluminación espiritual y la sabiduría.
lailuminacion.com
No hay pasado, ni futuro. Sólo existe el presente. Ayer era presente para ti cuando lo experimentabas, y mañana será presente, cuando lo experimentes. Por ende, la experiencia sólo se produce en el presente, y más allá de la experiencia nada existe.
Ramana Maharshi - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
FRASES RAMANA MAHARSHI
Frases de RAMANA MAHARSHI: La mejor selección de frases, reflexiones, citas y pensamientos para estimular la iluminación espiritual y la sabiduría.
No hay pasado, ni futuro. Sólo existe el presente. Ayer era presente para ti cuando lo experimentabas, y mañana será presente, cuando lo experimentes. Por ende, la experiencia sólo se produce en el presente, y más allá de la experiencia nada existe.
Talk 315 from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
ramana-talk-mailer.appspot.com
One of the attendants asked: Sri Bhagavan has said: ‘Reality and myth
are both the same’. How is it so?
M.: The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara’s philosophy
as maya vada without understanding him aright. What does he say?
He says: (1) Brahman is real; (2) the universe is a myth; (3) Brahman
is the universe. He does not stop at the second statement but continues
to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The Universe
is conceived to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong.
The antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake).
This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is
known, the illusion of snake is removed once for all.
But they should take the conditioned superimposition also into
consideration, e.g., marumarichika or mrigatrishna (water of mirage).
The mirage does not disappear even after knowing it to be a mirage.
The vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. Sri
Sankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations.
The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear.
It must be known to be Brahman and not apart.
If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks. What is
your reply? You must say the Self. If not, will the world appear in
the absence of the cognising Self? Therefore the Self is the reality.
That is his conclusion. The phenomena are real as the Self and are
myths apart from the Self.
Now, what do the tantriks, etc., say? They say that the phenomena
are real because they are part of the Reality in which they appear.
Are not these two statements the same? That is what I meant by
reality and falsehood being one and the same.
The antagonists continue: With the conditioned as well as the
unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of water in
mirage is purely illusory because that water cannot be used for any
purpose. Whereas the phenomenon of the world is different, for it is
purposeful. How then does the latter stand on a par with the former?
A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply because it serves a
purpose or purposes. Take a dream for example. The dream
creations are purposeful; they serve the dream-purpose. The
dream water quenches dream thirst. The dream creation is however
contradicted in the waking state. The waking creation is contradicted
in the other two states. What is not continuous cannot be real. If
real, the thing must ever be real - and not real for a short time and
unreal at other times.
So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are yet illusory.
Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself - that is to say, apart
from the underlying Reality.
Mr. Greenlees: Bhagavan said yesterday that, while one is engaged in
search for “God within”, outer work would go on automatically. In the
life of Sri Chaitanya it is explained that while he sought Krishna (the
Self) during his lectures to students, he forgot where his body was and
went on talking of Krishna. This rouses doubt whether work can safely
be left to itself. Should one keep part-attention on the physical work?
M.: The Self is all. Now I ask you: Are you apart from the Self? Can
the work go on apart from the Self? Or is the body apart from
the Self? None of them could be apart from the Self. The Self is
universal. So all the actions will go on whether you engage in them
voluntarily or not. The work will go on automatically. Attending
to the Self includes attending to the work.
D.: The work may suffer if I do not attend to it.
M.: Because you identify yourself with the body, you consider that
the work is done by you. But the body and its activities, including
the work, are not apart from the Self.
What does it matter whether you attend to the work or not? Suppose you
walk from one place to another place. You do not attend every single
step that you take. After a time, however, you find yourself at your
destination. You notice how the work, i.e., walking, goes on without
your attention to it. Similarly it is with other kinds of work.
D.: Then it is like sleep-walking.
M.: Quite so. When a child is fast asleep, his mother feeds him in sleep.
The child eats the food quite as well as when well awake. But the
next morning he says to the mother “Mother! I did not take food
last night”. The mother and others know that he did. But he says
that he did not. He was not aware and yet the action had gone on.
Somnambulism is indeed a good analogy for this kind of work.
Take another example: A passenger in a cart has fallen asleep. The
bulls move or stand still or are unyoked on the journey. He does not
know these occurrences, but finds himself in a different place after
he wakes up. He has been blissfully ignorant of the occurrences on
the way, but his journey has been finished.
Similarly with the Self of the person. He is asleep in the body. His waking
state is the movement of the bulls, his samadhi is their standing still
(because samadhi = jagrat sushupti) i.e., to say, he is aware of but not
attached to actions. So the bulls are in harness but do not move. His
sleep is the unyoking of the bulls, for there is complete suspension of
activities corresponding to the release of the bulls from the yoke.
Still another example: Scenes are projected on the screen in a
cinema show. But the moving pictures do not affect or alter the
screen. The seer pays attention to the pictures and ignores the
screen. They cannot remain apart from the screen. Still its existence
is ignored. So also the Self is the screen on which the pictures,
namely activities, are going on. The man is aware of the latter,
ignoring the former. All the same he is not apart from the Self.
Whether aware or unaware the actions will continue.
D.: There is an operator in the cinema.
M.: The cinema show is made out of insentient materials. The screen,
the pictures, lamp, etc., are insentient and require an operator, a
sentient agent. In the case of the Self, it is consciousness itself and
therefore self-contained. There cannot be an operator apart.
D.: Protested that he did not confuse the body with the operator as
the above answer would imply.
M.: The functions of the body were kept in mind involving the need
for the operator. Because there is the body - a jada object - an
operator, a sentient agent, is necessary.
Because people think that they are jivas, Sri Krishna has said that
God resides in the Heart as the operator of the jivas. In fact there
are no jivas and no operator. The self comprises all. It is the screen,
the pictures, the seer, the actor, the operator, the light and all else.
Your confounding it with the body and imagining yourself as the
actor amounts to the seer being represented as an actor in a cinema
picture. Imagine the actor in the picture asking if he could enact a
scene without the screen. Such is the case of the man who thinks
of his acting apart from the Self.
D.: It is like asking the spectator to act in the cinema picture.
Somnambulism seems to be desirable.
M.: There is the belief that the crow rolls only one iris into either eye
to see any object. It has only one iris but two eye sockets. Its sight
is manipulated according to its desire.
Or again the elephant has one trunk with which it breathes and
does work such as drinking water, etc.
Again serpents are said to use the same apparatus for either seeing
or hearing.
Similarly the actions and states are according to one’s point of
view. Sleep waking or waking sleep or dreaming sleep or dreaming
wakefulness are about the same.
D.: We have to deal with a physical body in a physical waking world.
If we sleep while work is done or work when sleep overtakes us,
the work will go wrong.
M.: Sleep is not ignorance; it is your pure state. Wakefulness is not
knowledge; it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep; there is
total ignorance in waking. Your real nature covers both, and extends
beyond. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance.
Sleep, dream and waking are only modes passing before the Self.
They proceed whether you are aware or not. That is the state of the
Jnani in whom pass the states of waking, samadhi, deep sleep and
dream, like the bulls moving, standing or being unyoked when the
passenger is asleep as aforesaid. These questions are from the point
of view of the ajnani; otherwise these questions do not arise.
D.: Of course they cannot arise for the Self. Who would be there to
ask? But unfortunately I have not yet realised the Self.
M.: That is just the obstacle in your way. You must get rid of the idea
that you are an ajnani yet to realise the Self. You are the Self. Was
there ever a time when you were apart from the Self?
D.: So it is an experiment in somnambulism .... or in daydreaming.
Bhagavan laughed.
search for “God within”, outer work would go on automatically. In the
life of Sri Chaitanya it is explained that while he sought Krishna (the
Self) during his lectures to students, he forgot where his body was and
went on talking of Krishna. This rouses doubt whether work can safely
be left to itself. Should one keep part-attention on the physical work?
M.: The Self is all. Now I ask you: Are you apart from the Self? Can
the work go on apart from the Self? Or is the body apart from
the Self? None of them could be apart from the Self. The Self is
universal. So all the actions will go on whether you engage in them
voluntarily or not. The work will go on automatically. Attending
to the Self includes attending to the work.
D.: The work may suffer if I do not attend to it.
M.: Because you identify yourself with the body, you consider that
the work is done by you. But the body and its activities, including
the work, are not apart from the Self.
What does it matter whether you attend to the work or not? Suppose you
walk from one place to another place. You do not attend every single
step that you take. After a time, however, you find yourself at your
destination. You notice how the work, i.e., walking, goes on without
your attention to it. Similarly it is with other kinds of work.
D.: Then it is like sleep-walking.
M.: Quite so. When a child is fast asleep, his mother feeds him in sleep.
The child eats the food quite as well as when well awake. But the
next morning he says to the mother “Mother! I did not take food
last night”. The mother and others know that he did. But he says
that he did not. He was not aware and yet the action had gone on.
Somnambulism is indeed a good analogy for this kind of work.
Take another example: A passenger in a cart has fallen asleep. The
bulls move or stand still or are unyoked on the journey. He does not
know these occurrences, but finds himself in a different place after
he wakes up. He has been blissfully ignorant of the occurrences on
the way, but his journey has been finished.
Similarly with the Self of the person. He is asleep in the body. His waking
state is the movement of the bulls, his samadhi is their standing still
(because samadhi = jagrat sushupti) i.e., to say, he is aware of but not
attached to actions. So the bulls are in harness but do not move. His
sleep is the unyoking of the bulls, for there is complete suspension of
activities corresponding to the release of the bulls from the yoke.
Still another example: Scenes are projected on the screen in a
cinema show. But the moving pictures do not affect or alter the
screen. The seer pays attention to the pictures and ignores the
screen. They cannot remain apart from the screen. Still its existence
is ignored. So also the Self is the screen on which the pictures,
namely activities, are going on. The man is aware of the latter,
ignoring the former. All the same he is not apart from the Self.
Whether aware or unaware the actions will continue.
D.: There is an operator in the cinema.
M.: The cinema show is made out of insentient materials. The screen,
the pictures, lamp, etc., are insentient and require an operator, a
sentient agent. In the case of the Self, it is consciousness itself and
therefore self-contained. There cannot be an operator apart.
D.: Protested that he did not confuse the body with the operator as
the above answer would imply.
M.: The functions of the body were kept in mind involving the need
for the operator. Because there is the body - a jada object - an
operator, a sentient agent, is necessary.
Because people think that they are jivas, Sri Krishna has said that
God resides in the Heart as the operator of the jivas. In fact there
are no jivas and no operator. The self comprises all. It is the screen,
the pictures, the seer, the actor, the operator, the light and all else.
Your confounding it with the body and imagining yourself as the
actor amounts to the seer being represented as an actor in a cinema
picture. Imagine the actor in the picture asking if he could enact a
scene without the screen. Such is the case of the man who thinks
of his acting apart from the Self.
D.: It is like asking the spectator to act in the cinema picture.
Somnambulism seems to be desirable.
M.: There is the belief that the crow rolls only one iris into either eye
to see any object. It has only one iris but two eye sockets. Its sight
is manipulated according to its desire.
Or again the elephant has one trunk with which it breathes and
does work such as drinking water, etc.
Again serpents are said to use the same apparatus for either seeing
or hearing.
Similarly the actions and states are according to one’s point of
view. Sleep waking or waking sleep or dreaming sleep or dreaming
wakefulness are about the same.
D.: We have to deal with a physical body in a physical waking world.
If we sleep while work is done or work when sleep overtakes us,
the work will go wrong.
M.: Sleep is not ignorance; it is your pure state. Wakefulness is not
knowledge; it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep; there is
total ignorance in waking. Your real nature covers both, and extends
beyond. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance.
Sleep, dream and waking are only modes passing before the Self.
They proceed whether you are aware or not. That is the state of the
Jnani in whom pass the states of waking, samadhi, deep sleep and
dream, like the bulls moving, standing or being unyoked when the
passenger is asleep as aforesaid. These questions are from the point
of view of the ajnani; otherwise these questions do not arise.
D.: Of course they cannot arise for the Self. Who would be there to
ask? But unfortunately I have not yet realised the Self.
M.: That is just the obstacle in your way. You must get rid of the idea
that you are an ajnani yet to realise the Self. You are the Self. Was
there ever a time when you were apart from the Self?
D.: So it is an experiment in somnambulism .... or in daydreaming.
Bhagavan laughed.
Talk 313 from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
ramana-talk-mailer.appspot.com
Nico
Será en Octubre
- Desde
- 6 Sep 2006
- Mensajes
- 43.143
- Reputación
- 141.320
Por un lado te diría que este tema iría mejor en "Conspiraciones" (pese al feo y limitado nombre es un subforo de temas varios y se ajusta a esta temática). En el principal desentona un poco.
Por el otro, tendría que adelantarte que, a esta altura, más que ponerme a descular orientales (que son magníficos pero corresponden a su entorno cultural, histórico y social), prefiero descular la Biblia donde encuentras EXACTAMENTE los mismos principios, pero mejor adaptados a nuestra parte de la civilización.
Para qué me voy a poner a estudiar el sistema operativo del iPhone si tengo un Android... los dos hacen más o menos lo mismo (aunque podamos discutir si alguno es mejor que el otro). Lo cierto es que meterte a profundizar en la filosofía y metafísica oriental, cuando perteneces a un entorno cultural occidental, es como estudiar el sistema operativo del móvil que no tienes.
