Disciples of Ramana Maharshi

[egodust]

Ken Stewart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:55:41 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone here prove that they are NOT Self-realized?
>
> realize (r=EA=B4e-l=ECz=B4) verb
> realized, realizing, realizes verb, transitive
> 1.      To comprehend completely or correctly.
>
> The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third
> Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
> version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
> reserved.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ------------------------
>
> So, "Self-realization" is comprehending the Self.
>
> Comprehension of the Self is not always occurring, and the point of
> sadhana or self-enquiry, as advocated by Ramana Maharshi, is to remove
> the lack of comprehension, so that comprehension is occurring 24 hours
> a day.
>
> Again I fail to see what this has to do with this thread.
>
>
> Namaskar,
>
> Ken
>
> kstuart at mail.telis.org

As Bhagavan always tells us:  "Are there two selves? One to comprehend the
other?"

The entire Quest implied via "Who am I?" is to expose the fallacy of the
limited [ego] self "who's attempting to realize everything."  The whole idea
of there being a 'Witness' is a very fundamental blunder.  Just as we attempt
to locate the presumed big Mind, so equally becomes our failure to finally
locate the presumed amazing ego!  These things only thrive because we don't
investigate them.

(That we're duped into thinking the Mind is big or the ego amazing is because
there surely is a component within each that's effulgent with Reality, and
that's nothing other than the Substratum 'universal' Self.  We obviously
know this.  So where's the problem?  Is this a dvaita list?)

namaskar.

>From  Tue Oct 22 15:34:08 1996
Message-Id: <TUE.22.OCT.1996.153408.GMT.>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:34:08 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: Disciples of Ramana Maharshi
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at tamu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <M.102296.110447.82 at ddi.digital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:04:47 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:

>Ken Stewart wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:55:41 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >Can anyone here prove that they are NOT Self-realized?
>>
>> realize (r=EA=B4e-l=ECz=B4) verb
>> realized, realizing, realizes verb, transitive
>> 1.      To comprehend completely or correctly.
>>
>> The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third
>> Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
>> version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
>> reserved.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>> ------------------------
>>
>> So, "Self-realization" is comprehending the Self.
>>
>> Comprehension of the Self is not always occurring, and the point of
>> sadhana or self-enquiry, as advocated by Ramana Maharshi, is to remove
>> the lack of comprehension, so that comprehension is occurring 24 hours
>> a day.
>>
>> Again I fail to see what this has to do with this thread.
>>
>>
>> Namaskar,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> kstuart at mail.telis.org
>
>As Bhagavan always tells us:  "Are there two selves? One to comprehend the
>other?"
>
>The entire Quest implied via "Who am I?" is to expose the fallacy of the
>limited [ego] self "who's attempting to realize everything."  The whole idea
>of there being a 'Witness' is a very fundamental blunder.  Just as we attempt
>to locate the presumed big Mind, so equally becomes our failure to finally
>locate the presumed amazing ego!  These things only thrive because we don't
>investigate them.
>
>(That we're duped into thinking the Mind is big or the ego amazing is because
>there surely is a component within each that's effulgent with Reality, and
>that's nothing other than the Substratum 'universal' Self.  We obviously
>know this.  So where's the problem?  Is this a dvaita list?)

So, according to this logic, why bother to have an advaita list at
all?

Why should Ramana have ever said anything at all?

While all your statements are true, I think you are still missing
something....  perhaps someone else out there understands what I am
getting at?


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org