Sri Ramana Maharshi is no more

I have read enough Maharshi for now. It will be more useful to allow the concepts to play out than keep reading reiterations of similar points, and I will possibly return to the books another time.

The core part of his inquiry is this question "who is I?" and to draw all other questions also to this fundamental issue.

The question "Can I be enlightened?" would be answered by him; "Who is this I to be enlightened?" - always drawing to the root issue.

Further to this central point is the reminder that this true I that is to be "achieved" is very much not something to be achieved at all.. As, again, Who is it to be achieved by? and further, if it were something that could be achieved then it could also be lost. The wisdom arising from this is that it is instead 'ever present' and it is then rather a matter of casting off that which keeps the person from it, uncovering that which is already present and always was.

Maharshi uses the word 'God' in a few ways. The Hindus have a fantastic language for this inquiry:

Brahman is the supreme, unknowable god

Ishwara is a personal god, very much like the Christian god but rather than just one and wars over who that is, they call any god that you relate to on a personal level Ishwara.

Atman is the god in us all, the true self, it is exactly the same as Brahman except that we can know Atman but never know Brahman.

And the list goes on..

Maharshi then will use the word God quite often and for my own benefit, as I feel the word god to be both tainted and vague, I use 'Tao' for the ultimate; and 'Real I' for Atman, Tao or Brahman (interchangeably). I will also use the term 'little I' or a similar phrase when referring to the I we most often think is us and refer to when talking English.

While Maharshi was a dedicated monk in these matters from a very early age and reached a point of recognized Enlightenment and sagehood he was able to remind interested people how this act of uncovering the true self is just as well carried out in the "real world" - That one can be married, have a job, operate in the world of objects, yet still work towards and meet the real I. Also in doing this the person could then continue in the world of objects as a sage.

This wisdom is echoed in other Hindu texts and very much so in Taoism. In fact very very much so in Taoism that seems more able to hold to the root of the world without getting lost in spiritual nonsense.

This is the path I recognize as most suitable to myself. I do not wish to lock myself away in a monastery as to be honest I would consider it a cop out. I am very taken by the idea, and I feel I see it in action, that we can alter the shape of the world we see to be real by working to uncover the true I.

Concepts such as "The Secret" are very much reaffirmations of the false little mini ego I and reach for transient goals. The result of genuine sagehood is instead to operate in the world as a human detached form the false I. Instead then, with recognition of the true I, the sage actually perceives a different world. Not one of strain but one of perfection.

The world seen is a reflection of the I who looks upon it. One seeking for the ego sees one kind of world, one seeking for the little I sees another, one living wholly from the true I is effectively, in the Kingdom of God, In Heaven, and to avoid such tainted language - A real person of Tao.