I Am That

[Steppingfeet]

I remember, he comes from the Ramana Maharishi school of thought. And we have a resident expert on Ramana Maharishi. GLB do you know who I might be talking about ?? hint hint !!!

Maybe the one who I am talking about can compare and contrast Law of One with 'Who Am I' ? Much appreciated

Great question for (and challenge to) my slumping, sagging, weary brain, thefool!

What I have read of Ramana Maharshi leads me to believe that his enlightenment was genuine. (As if I know what enlightenment is!) He knew and had become unity, dissolving that fictitious twist of perception known as the ego or separate self into an ocean of indivisible, boundless oneness. From there he spoke without wavering in the slightest.

His method of self-inquiry is in perfect congruency with the Law of One, though he spends virtually no time on cosmology, philosophy, or other metaphysical speculation. To each and every question he was asked by the many seekers who came to him, his response was almost uniformly same: Who wants to know?

He assured others they needed only to find the self. In so doing, they would find that there was only self and nothing else. Though he didn't say the words, he would have corroborated the statement, "All is One".

One of my favorite lines of his comes when he says that even illusion is illusory. From his perspective, there is no ignorance, there is no doubt, there is no imprisonment, there is no separation, there is no illusion. These are what amount to "ideas" that we spin into an identity. He says that we are the self that we seek, right here and right now, fully, 100%. Like a lady who goes around looking for a necklace already around her neck, we seek the truth we already possess. He sums it up this way: "There is no greater mystery than this: ourselves being the Reality, we seek to gain Reality."

And goes on to provide a method of regaining the self, which he would not call "regaining" (because it was never lost in the first place) but losing the non-self, or ego. As he puts it, we need only to get rid of this individual "I", that phantom of reality which has no actual substance, and we will be the single, only truth, namely, who we already are.

I find his teaching perfectly compatible and congruent with the Law of One. Indeed, both forms of thought mutually strengthen and affirm each other.

Ramana though is much more focused. If Ra responded to Don the way that Ramana did to those who approached him, the Law of One would have been a lot shorter and a lot less interesting. To Don's many excellent and penetrating questions, Ra would have said, "Who wants to know? Find out who is asking and then see if there are any questions."

The Law of One communicates the same quintessential truth of unity, but given the nature and method of questioning, that essential, core truth is somewhat obscured, not so much by irrelevant, discardable rubble, but rather among the many sparkling and wondrous multi-faceted gems of thought. It is not as easy to develop the desire and energy for one-pointedness and the end to multiplicity while reading the Law of One as it is while reading Ramana Maharshi. At least in my experience.

Longer than I wanted this to be but shorter than i could have been! I wrote a paper on Maharshi, drawing both from his work and the Law of One, that i am someday going to post to my dusty blog on Bring4th.

Great quotes and thoughts in this thread!

Love/Light,
GLB