Or the grove just left the Buddha.
No…the grove is Buddha.
-Who is the grove?
– Buddha?
What is Buddha?- the grove
Hope that clears things up. 
People don’t exist. Only in your own mind, do other people exist.
For example, if you think of your mother right now, she only exists as a flawed packet of memories in the mind. This packet also contains fictitious projections into the nonexistant future.
And similarly, in your mother’s mind, her OWN identity is also fictitious.
People don’t exist. Only in your own mind, do other people exist.
For example, if you think of your mother right now, she only exists as a flawed packet of memories in the mind. This packet also contains fictitious projections into the nonexistant future.
And similarly, in your mother’s mind, her OWN identity is also fictitious.
......and when we have reached that realisation of oneness - it's all fictitious, concept, mind - then it is clear that there is no objective reality in this domain against which to define fictitious, concept or mind, and so the concepts vanish, including the concept of one's identity. 'What is left' may be called Reality by some, the Self by others, or they may decline to name it at all, which may be less misleading.
We-ell…
Ramana Maharshi. 
There is no recipe for THAT of which we speak.
Different traditions use words in different ways, and on this basis dismiss only caricatures of one other.
Freedom is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realise your true nature. There are many windows to this realisation, and why should there not be, since it is one’s birthright, it is who or what one truly IS? It’s the illusion that needs the special teachers!!
chinna
all of you misunderstood. 
We-ell…
Ramana Maharshi.
There is no recipe for THAT of which we speak.
Different traditions use words in different ways, and on this basis dismiss only caricatures of one other.
Freedom is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realise your true nature. There are many windows to this realisation, and why should there not be, since it is one’s birthright, it is who or what one truly IS? It’s the illusion that needs the special teachers!!
chinna
I already agreed with re: inner guru and world as external guru. But I would not agree that Maharshi was enlightened. This thread is about buddhism. According to buddhism, Maharshi obtained deep level of samadhi, but did not exit samsara. His samadhi was at the level of the god realm or possibly within the four formless realms. The Buddha stated that his samadhi was beyond all realms.
Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism’s estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi’s samadhi is also recognised by his followers as ‘beyond all realms’. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can’t be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.
You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.
chinna
Discussion about what Maharshi meant by “self-realization” aside… Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.
According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.
There are many reports of buddhist practitioner attaining high realization in a variety of ways. However, buddhahood, which is beyond realization, involving actualization of wisdom power, requires specific methods.
What comes to my attention re Maharshi is that his realization came from bliss of encountering the linga. Bliss a feeling and is in the desire realm. If Maharshi use bliss as a support to go beyond all realms, then that would not be self-realization, but the realization of emptiness.
This brings us back to the point of this thread. If Maharshi realized emptiness, then he would have attained the rainbow body, because realization of emptiness involves the dissolution of one’s elements (which arise due to attachment) into the nature of wisdom.
I do not rule out that non-buddhists attain rainbow body. But I do assert that emptiness is the basis of the rainbow body, because emptiness is the basis of total non-attachment to all possible concepts.
Ösel Dorje
Osel,
Can you describe specifically what the Buddha’s omniscience actually entails, with supporting evidence?
I am not knowledgeable in this area.
Well I don’t have time to do research and provide citations, but it involves knowledge of the three times, past and future lives of all sentient beings, the relationships between all phenomena, knowing the minds of all beings, knowing the methods for attaining buddhahood, and knowing how to teach any level of dharma for all the different capacities of sentient beings. Most importantly he acts spontaneously, without thinking or planning, for the benefit of any being under any circumstances.
Hi Chinna,
No need to apologise!
So far nothing in this thread has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is just an endless round of ‘who has read more books than so-and-so’, ‘who has accumulated the most amount of mental knowledge’, 'who has done the most number of hours of meditation in one week… , ‘who’s teacher is more enlightened than someone else’s teacher’, ‘my sect is better than your sect’, and so on ad infinitum.
All of this has nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught, and in fact is the very antithesis of his teaching. In a nutshell, this is the worst kind of spiritual materialism. It isn’t even the beginning of the spiritual path.
Even if this were a Buddhist discussion (which it is not), all the forum members would be free to participate, as Buddhists naturally welcome discussion and contributions from spiritual practitioners of every tradition.
Christi
Hi Chinna,
No need to apologise!
So far nothing in this thread has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is just an endless round of ‘who has read more books than so-and-so’, ‘who has accumulated the most amount of mental knowledge’, 'who has done the most number of hours of meditation in one week… , ‘who’s teacher is more enlightened than someone else’s teacher’, ‘my sect is better than your sect’, and so on ad infinitum.
All of this has nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught, and in fact is the very antithesis of his teaching. In a nutshell, this is the worst kind of spiritual materialism. It isn’t even the beginning of the spiritual path.
Even if this were a Buddhist discussion (which it is not), all the forum members would be free to participate, as Buddhists naturally welcome discussion and contributions from spiritual practitioners of every tradition.
Christi
Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.
Thank you Christi
I have feeling this thread may go on for another 13 pages… 
FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don’t just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha’s sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don’t talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.
Discussion about what Maharshi meant by “self-realization” aside… Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.
According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.
Ösel Dorje
[/quote]
You are clearly unacquainted with the Maharshi’s siddhis. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, because in the tradition of advaita, a focus on Siddhis is frowned upon, and regarded as sign of immaturity, and so little is recorded. Texts cannot resolve this question, except for one whose faith is placed in revelation or authority. Advaita vedanta has a rather different perspective. Your knowledge and faith in your tradition’s perspectives is awesome, but the reifying of concepts makes a deeper discussion with conflicting perspectives problematic.
chinna
Great!
gri
Discussion about what Maharshi meant by “self-realization” aside… Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.
According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.
Ösel Dorje
You are clearly unacquainted with the Maharshi's siddhis. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, because in the tradition of advaita, a focus on Siddhis is frowned upon, and regarded as sign of immaturity, and so little is recorded. Texts cannot resolve this question, except for one whose faith is placed in revelation or authority. Advaita vedanta has a rather different perspective. Your knowledge and faith in your tradition's perspectives is awesome, but the reifying of concepts makes a deeper discussion with conflicting perspectives problematic. chinna [/quote] This is where you inform us. Buddhism teaches there are siddhis shared between buddhas and non-buddhas: many hindu yogis can do them, flying, disappearing, etc. The special buddhist siddhi is omniscience
Ramana’s omniscience is well attested. I have come across no examples of his flying or disappearing, which I feel he would have regarded as pointless. Indeed, I imagine he’d have regarded the omniscience as pointless too, ultimately.
chinna
Everyone will achieve buddhahood. <-Lord Jigten Sumgon
Osel,
I have a weird question.
What is the relationship between the syllable/sound AUM, and a Buddha’s omniscience?
I have a reason why I am asking, and no it has nothing to do with hinduism Brahman.