NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 61:
Some Ramana Maharshi quotes:
All that you need do is to find out the origin of the “I-thought” & abide there. Your efforts can extend only thus far. Then the Beyond will take care of itself.
The Ego-Self appears & disappears & is transitory, whereas the real Self is permanent.
You wrongly seem to identify the real Self with the Ego-Self. See if that mistake has come about. The Ego-Self does not exist at all.
To whom is the trouble ? The trouble also is imagined. Trouble & pleasure are only for the Ego.
Take care of yourself. Let the World take care of itself. See your Self. If you are the Body there is the gross World also. If you are spirit all is Spirit alone.
Do it yourself 1st then see if the question of others arises afterwards.
There is no goal to be reached, nothing to be attained. You are the Self. You exist always. No more can be predicated of the Self than that it exists.
Seeing God or the Self is only being the Self or yourself.
Seeing is being. You, being the Self, want to know how to attain the Self.
It is something like a man being somewhere & asking how many ways there are to reach the place & which is the best way for him. All that is required of you is to give up the thought that you are this Body & to give up all thoughts of the external things or the not-Self.
People say they aren’t able to know the all pervading Self.
Even the smallest child says, “l exist. I do. This is mine.”
Everyone understands that the thing “I” is always existent. Only when the “l” is there, is there feeling you are the Body.
Knowing one that is always “visible” is one’s own Self, is it necessary to search with a light ?
To say that we do not know the atma swarupa [the real nature of the Self] which is not different but which is in one‘s own Self is like saying, “l do not know myself.”
Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.
[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]
To Jupiter, and beyond the Infinite. “2001” movie
To Infinity, and Beyond ! Buzz Lightyear, Pixar character & toy “of the decade”
Fine-Tuned Universe 41:
[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]
Reasoning “forward” is much more problematic. Although we can imagine many possible mangers for the Birth of Life – deep “smokers” [~ volcanoes] in the abyssal depths, tidal pools, hot springs, & many others – and although each could plausibly produce primitive precursors to many of the reactions that now constitute cellular metabolism, we have no idea how these simple reactions might have blundered together to make the first proto-cell. Monkeys sitting at typewriters pecking out Shakespeare seems child’s play by comparison. For example, we still do not know:
What were the first catalysts ? Were they protein-analogs or RNA-analogs or minerals or some other species of which there is now no trace ?
How did the first networks form, & why did they persist ? One can imagine countless catalytic reactions that might have occurred, but how some of these reactions became self-sustaining networks is entirely obscure.
How could the process that stores the information that specifies the catalysts – the RNA or precursor of the primitive cells – have evolved ? The connection between RNA (or its younger, more evolved cousin, DNA) and the proteins that are catalysts, the enzymes, is not at all obvious; how the 2 co-evolved is even less clear.
How did the energetic cycles that power every cell emerge ? Why is there Potassium ion on the inside of the cell & Sodium ion on the outside? What was the origin of Chemi–osmosis the extraordinary complexity of the ATP–ases – the complicated aggregates of proteins that generate ATP using the free energy that derives from differences in the concentration of ions across membranes – how could they have evolved ? We simply do not know.
Nothing in the cell violates the Fundamental Laws of Physical Science. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the law that describes everything that occurs in the range of sizes relevant to Life, can sleep untroubled.
The flux of Energy – now (although not necessarily originally) produced in nuclear reactions in our Sun, transferred to the surface of Earth as sunlight, absorbed by plants in Photosynthesis, captured as Glucose & other compounds, used in the cell to generate the intermediates that make metabolism possible, & ultimately dissipated to Space by radiation as Heat – can evidently support Life. But how Life originated is simply not apparent. It seems so improbable ! The complexity of the simplest cell eludes our understanding – how could it be that any cell, even one simpler than the simplest that we know, emerged from the tangle of accidental reactions occurring in the molecular sludge that covered the pre–biotic Earth ?
We do not understand. It is not impossible, but it seems very, very improbable.
This Improbability is the crux of the matter. The scientific method can be paralyzed by problems that require understanding the very improbable occurrences that result from very, very large numbers of throws of the dice. Sometimes we can understand the statistics of the problem; sometimes we cannot. How likely is it that a comet will hit the Earth ? We now have good geological records. How likely is it that a Star will explode into a Nova ? There are many, many observable Stars, & we now understand the statistics of Nova formation quite well.
But how likely is it that a newly formed Planet, with surface conditions that support liquid Water, will give rise to Life ? We have no clue, & no convincing way of estimating. From what we do now know, the answer falls somewhere between “impossibly unlikely” & “absolutely inevitable.” We cannot calculate the odds of the spontaneous emergence of cellular Life on a plausible pre–biotic Earth in any satisfying and convincing way.
Calculus for Yogis, part 4
There are many ways to approach e but one easy way is to look at how simple increase occurs, how, as afore mentioned above, the Derivative, the rate of growth d y / d x for ex happens to numerically equal the value of y = ex itself. This describes that common situation of “the more you got, the more you get.” Wealth grows faster & faster the larger the amount or principal grows as et also.
A savings account, compounded continuously, grows that et way which Einstein called “the most amazing thing in the Universe”, which was kind of a joke because he was privy to many amazing things about the Universe. Some say that we “cannot get our heads around” the Exponential function because a Brain–Mind neuro-circuit “functions” in Exponential functions & like an eyeball, cannot see itself, but only a reflection or photo of an eyeball.
Weatherby way out on the high steep artwork early on in the flat part and reset the scale we get the same appearance so it’s always rising the same way but it always looks like from your present point that the pass was very flat and slow in the future getting incredibly steep this is the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere the rising temperature of the planet in average temperature of the planet in climate change the rising population the rising various pollutants and so on as mentioned increasing bank accounts rise that way and decreasing bank accounts descend according to E to the X into the minor sex which is also the dissent of radioactivity over time in a sample of radioactive material or if that is a pure element or pure isotope
So if we know that d y / d x happens to be numerically equal y when y = ex we must wonder about this curious number e which, as it happens can be determined in various mysterious ways, such as the following:
e = lim (1 + 1/ x)x
x => ∞
Both a “limit”, like the preceding, & infinite series to be soon mentioned, “converge”, rather than “blow up”, for x smaller than 1. When we evaluate e itself by setting x = 1 in ex , we get: e ~ 2.72, e = 2.718281828 … and then no other repetition occurs right away. But that early repetition of 18281828 allows us to actually remember e to great accuracy because it’s got that 18281828 pattern.
The succeeding numbers vary and are not generally repeating in such a Transcendental number where the number the different numerals goes on forever. And yet we can say the number in itself has a distinct value, as in saying that e is the value of parenthesis one plus one over x , all to the x in the Limit that x goes to Infinity. Now that’s all more abstract than “the more you got, the more you get.” & that the rate of increase numerically equals the value of the function itself.
Then optional notation to augment the Infinite series – Polynomial approach that here follows will be veritably “opaque” to the uninitiated but it deserves mention because of its elegance. The “factorial” for 5, for instance, is 5! = 5×4×3×2×1 = 120. That same kind of “count dawn” works generally, with the quirky Zero case here being:
0! = 1! = 1
Much as for the Zeroth Power, the initiated might appreciate that for m = n :
1 = m ! (m – n) ! = n ! (n – n) ! = n ! (0) ! = n ! / 1 = n !
This behavior or definition for 0 ! is necessary for calculating Probability with factorials.
The “factorial” is about the most rapidly growing function of an Integer, & it simplifies even the first few terms of an Infinite series, & more so a generic term.
That’s the easy part, because the other useful optional notation to augment the Infinite series – Polynomial approach for use with the generic term is a “Summation” indicated by “Sigma”, the Greek capital letter “S”, namely Σ :
Σ n = 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. [like it or not, take it or not – optional]
Both a “limit” above & the Infinite series to be soon mentioned, “converge”, rather than “blow up”, for x smaller than 1. In the case of infinite series, an approximate value results after a limited number if terms.
For example & for practice, one Series of simple terms suggests modification of the shortcut approach to estimating “uncertainties” in Arithmetic.
1/(1 – x) = 1 + x + x 2 + x 3 + x 4 …. for small x]
The same pattern holds for decimals. but is perhaps most easily seen for fractions of .99 & 1.01. The approximate rule for “uncertainties” states that we keep the same number of “significant figures” as in 1.0/.99 ~ 1.0 whereas 1.0/.99 ~ 1.01 is more meaningful, even though a ratio of 2 figures goes to an approximation with 3 figures. But this treatment follows:
1/ .99 = 1/(1 – .01) ~ 1 + .01 + .0001 ~ 1 + .01 = 1.01
Likewise, for a fraction of 1.01:
Correspondingly, the “same number of significant figures” yields as in 1.00/1.01 ~ .990 whereas 1.0/1.01 ~ .99 is more meaningful, even though a ratio of 3 figures goes to an approximation with 2 figures. But again, this treatment follows:
1/(1 + x) = 1 – x + x 2 – x 3 + x 4 …. for small x
1/1.01 = 1/(1 + .01) ~ 1 – .01 + .0001 ~ 1 – .01 = .99
Aside from the series treatment, the consistency in both cases follows a 1% “uncertainty” & % –uncertainty is the truer rule.
In a similar vein, we can familiarize ourselves with Polynomial series with 2 similar approximations:
1/(1 – x)2 = 1 + 2 x + 3 x 2 + 4 x 3 + 5 x 4 …. for small x
1/(.99)2 = 1/(1 – .01)2 ~ 1 + .02 = 1.02
1/(.99)3 = 1/(1 – x)3 = 1 + 3 x + 6 x 2 + 10 x 3 + 15 x 4 for small x
1/(1 – .01)3 ~ 1 + .03 = 1
To indicate these 2 Polynomial series in the above-mentioned “Summation” “Sigma” notation:
1/(1 – x) = Σ x n / n = 1 + x + x 2 + x 3 + x 4 …. for small x
n = 0
1/(1 + x) = – Σ x n / n = – x – x 2 / 2 – x 3 / 3 – x 4 / 4 …. small x
n = 0
1/(1 – x)2 = Σ n x n –1 = 1 + 2 x + 3 x 2 + 4 x 3 + 5 x 4 …. small x n = 1
1/(1 – x)3 = 1/2 Σ (n–1) n x n –2 = 1 + 3 x + 6 x 2 + 10 x 3 + 15 x 4
n = 1
= 0 + 1/2 x 1 x 2 x x0 + 1/2 x 2 x 3 x x1 + 1/2 x 3 x 4 x x 2 + 1/2 x 4 x 5 x x 3 + 1/2 x 5 x 6 x x 4
Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:
The basic premise of Non-Duality is that the Absolute exists & that the Absolute is identical with oneself. Therefore, Self-Knowledge is equated with the Realization of the Absolute. The basic premise of spiritual practice is that one knows that the Absolute exists & that realizing the Absolute is of utmost importance. This realization is Self-Realization. What is need for this Self-Knowledge, or Realization, is the relinquishment of the assumptions or concepts, that yield the Illusion of Bondage & Suffering. Knowledge of one’s Being, as it is, yields enduring Freedom & Peace. The true Self transcends the limitations of any kind of Individuality, Time, Birth, & Death. The Self is impersonal & is not confined to any Body or Individual.
One’s approach to one’s spirituality, meditation, & this Non-Dual Knowledge is of paramount importance, for the approach very much determines the experience. How one views anything determines how it appears to him. Clarification of one’s understanding of oneself causes one to arrive at Self-Knowledge. To know this as being so, is itself the dawning of that Self-Knowledge. Deep meditation dissolves the Ego, Ignorance, & Bondage of one who ardently meditates. Self-Inquiry within oneself to know oneself reveals the true Self to be limitless Consciousness, Absolute Being, & unconditioned Bliss.
This one’s very Existence. One should continue meditating on the Teaching of Self-Knowledge by the practice of Self-Inquiry until one conclusively realizes the Self & abides without the least trace of Ignorance or Bondage. Listening (sravana), reflection (manana), & deep meditation (nididhyasana) are said to constitute ways of practicing Self-Knowledge. Self-Inquiry: “Who am I ?”, knowing oneself free of mis-identification, & steady Abidance as the Self always, these are the inner experiences of listening (sravana), reflection (manana), & deep meditation (nididhyasana).
The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:
or with Caps-sensitive:
Duplicates have been available on:
[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]
“There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.” – the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome – Ajata Vada
for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see: www.ajatavada.com/