Thursday, October 23, 2008

Through Knowledge or Through Practice?

I started to compose a response to some of the comments that appeared under the previous post, but then decided to start a separate post to take advantage of the more refined formatting tools that new postings offer.

For those of you who have not been following the comments, there was a discussion over the last day or so about the vedantic approaches of Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda, and how their ideas had led some people from this tradition to disparage the teachings and even the attainments of Bhagavan. The piece that started the discussion was a long interview, with an American student of Swami Chinmayananda, which gave an interpretation of Who am I?, and of Bhagavan's teachings in general. For those who are interested, it can be found at: http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pages/HTML%20Books/Ramana's%20Teachings.htm.

My own response to this piece, along with the of comments of several readers of this blog, can be found in the
response section of the previous post, in entries dated October 22nd and 23rd. Ravi, one of the contributors to the discussion, read the original interview and then gave the following link (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j14/dayananda.asp?page=1), which is an interview between Andrew Cohen and Swami Dayananda. Now read on...


* * *

Thanks, Ravi, for the link to the interview with Swami Dayananda in What is Enlightenment? magazine. I remember discussing this article with the president of Ramanasramam many years ago, when the article first appeared in print. He was understandably annoyed by its rather patronising attitude towards Bhagavan and his spiritual attainments, but we have to accept that there are some people in the world who judge Bhagavan by their own peculiar criteria. This extract from the introduction to the Swami Dayananda interview sums up the most contentious issues:
In fact, both in his writings and in one of our dialogues with him, he [Swami Dayananada] even went so far as to express doubt about the realisation of the widely revered but unschooled modern sage Ramana Maharshi—adding that there may be millions of Indian householders with a similar level of attainment! While such statements initially took us by surprise, we would later discover through dialogues with a number of leading Western Advaita scholars that similar sentiments are held by many Advaita traditionalists. Even one of the living Shankaracharyas—the head of one of the four monastic institutions allegedly established by Advaita's founder, Shankara—also denies the validity of Ramana's attainment, apparently for the simple reason that someone who wasn't formally trained in Vedanta couldn't possibly be fully enlightened!
In the course of the interview Swami Dayananda explained the logic behind the last statement when he said:
We have no means of knowledge for the direct understanding of Self-realisation, and therefore Vedanta is the means of knowledge that has to be employed for that purpose. No other means of knowledge will work.

That is to say, without a thorough study of the vedantic texts and the arguments they lay out, Self-realisation is impossible. The corollary of this is that people such as Bhagavan who never underwent such a course of study cannot possibly be enlightened.

Bhagavan, of course, took an entirely different view, saying on many occasions that scriptural learning is often an impediment rather than an aid to a direct experience of the Self. Here is an interesting story narrated by Kunju Swami:
I once went to Sri Santhalinga Math at Peraiyur, near Coimbatore, for the kumbhabhishekam of the Peraiyur Temple, which was being performed by the Naltukottai Chettiars. At their invitation, sadhus from Kovilur Math, Sadhu Swami and his group from Palani, and other learned sadhus had come and were staying in the math. Some of them were known to me since they had previously come to have Sri Bhagavan’s darshan. After the kumbhabhishekam we had our meal and then started conversing. The sadhus who had known me earlier introduced me to the other sadhus, saying that I had come from Sri Ramanasramam.

On hearing this, the other sadhus said, ‘Since we have all come together, let us discuss something’.

They first asked me to explain akhandakara vritti [unbroken experience]. As I could remember clearly the explanation Sri Bhagavan had given when devotees raised this question in his presence, I quoted the appropriate verse from Ribhu Gita and explained it. Then the sadhus asked me about pratibhanda [the three obstacles: ignorance, doubt and wrong knowledge]. This too I explained with a verse from Vedanta Chudamani. The sadhus were pleased with my explanation.

It occurred to me that I should know about the vedantic texts that were studied in the maths. I did not want to embarrass the ashram by being unable to discuss these matters when I was sent out by them as a representative. Sri Krishnananda Swami, who is presently the head of the Tirukhalar Math, and who was my boyhood friend, had also come to attend the kumbhabhishekam. He had taken lessons in Vedanta from Mahadeva Swami, the head of Kovilur Math. When I informed him of my intention, he said that sixteen texts, selected by Sri Narasimha Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri Math, were taken up for study. This swami had insisted that vedantins should not read secular literature and polemics.

My friend estimated that it would take many years for one to learn these texts in the proper way, so I asked him, ‘I want to learn all these texts, but not in the traditional way. I will read them by myself. It will be enough if you explain the portions I cannot follow. Is it then possible to learn their meaning within two months?’

Seeing my keenness he replied, ‘We will try to complete them all in three months. You must come to Tirukhalar, though, to study them’.

After telling my friend that I would come to study with him as soon as I could, I returned to Sri Ramanasramam.

A few days after my return to the ashram I told Sri Bhagavan about the events that had taken place in Peraiyur.

I concluded: ‘When people from other maths who have studied Vedanta find out that I have come from Sri Ramanasramam, they start asking me philosophical questions. I feel that if I do not give fitting answers to their questions, it will reflect badly on our ashram. Because of this I asked Sri Krishnananda of Tirukhalar to give me lessons on Vedanta. He has asked me to come to Tirukhalar and he has agreed to give me lessons on Vedanta, and to complete them as early as possible. I am now thinking of going of Tirukhalar to learn Vedanta.’

Sri Bhagavan replied with a mocking smile, ‘Now you are going to study Vedanta, then it will be Siddhanta, then Sanskrit, and then polemics.’

As he kept adding more and more subjects, I stood before him dumbfounded.

Seeing my depressed look Sri Bhagavan said, ‘It is enough if you study the One’.

He could see that his answer had puzzled me, so he added, with some compassion, ‘If you learn to remain within your Self as the Self, that will amount to learning everything. What Vedanta lessons did I take? If you remain as the Self, the echo from the Heart will be from experience. It will be in agreement with the scriptures. This is what is called “the divine voice”.’

On hearing Sri Bhagavan’s words, the desire to learn Vedanta in order to answer the questions of others left me for good. From that day onwards, if someone asked me questions related to Vedanta, I was able, through Sri Bhagavan’s grace, to get the appropriate answer from within. As Sri Bhagavan himself has written in Atma Vidya Kirtanam, verse three:

'Without knowing the Self, what is the use if one knows anything else? If one has known the Self, what else is there to know? When that Self that shines without differences in different living beings is known within oneself, the light of Self will flash forth. It is the shining forth of grace, the destruction of “I” and the blossoming of bliss.' (The Power of the Presence, part two, pp. 69-71)
In one of his responses to the last post Broken Yogi expressed a curiosity about how advaita Vedanta was perceived and taught in India nowadays, and in times past. I don't want to digress too much into this topic, but I would like to mention that the monasteries (maths) of the Tamil-speaking world have a syllabus of sixteen texts through which Vedanta is studied. These works are almost unknown outside the Tamil maths in which they are taught, and until recently copies of these texts were quite hard to find. Fortunately, the Kovilur Math (mentioned by Kunju Swami in the last story) is proposing to bring out all sixteen works in a Collected Tamil Vedanta Texts series entitled Kovilur Marabu Vedanta Noolgal. The first two volumes have already appeared and they contain the following works:

Nana Jeeva Vada Katalai, a very free rendering of a portion of the Taittriya Upanishad

Geeta Saara Talattu by Tiruvenkata Nathar

Sasi Vanna Bodham, by Tattvaraya

Maharaja Turavu, by Kumaradeva

Vairagya Satakam, by Santalinga Swami

Vairagya Deepam, by Perur Santalinga Swami


I mention these texts merely to show that the Tamil Vedanta tradition is substantially different from the Sanskrit one, where students are more likely to find themselves being instructed in the Upanishads and the works of leading Sanskrit commentators such as Gaudapada, Shankara and Suresvara.

The independent Tamil Vedanta tradition really began with Tattvaraya around the end of the sixteenth century. Bhagavan often told the story of Swarupananda, Tattvaraya's Guru, and he once included the Tamil advaita poem Sorupa Saram, Swarupananda's only known work, on a ‘six essential books’ reading list that he gave to Annamalai Swami. For those of you who have not read it before, I highly recommend it. There is a complete translation at: http://www.davidgodman.org/tamilt/sorupasaram.shtml.


I entitled this post 'Through Knowledge or Through Practice?' because there seems to be a fundamental division of opinion on this matter between the methods espoused by Swami Chinmayananada and Swami Dayananda on the one hand, and those promulgated by Bhagavan on the other. The former stress the necessity of undertaking a rigorous intellectual study of key vedantic texts, with little time set aside for practice or meditation, whereas Bhagavan minimised the importance of studying and instead recommended continuous inner enquiry. Swami Dayananda's ideas can be found in the interview I linked to earlier. Bhagavan's contrary views can be found in the following verses, which are taken from Padamalai, pages 300-305:


Scriptures

19

For all the myriad religious scriptures, the essential truth is only the supreme reality of consciousness.

20

The true love of the Vedas, the mother who declares your real nature to be ‘You are That’, is the bridge for you [to cross samsara].
Bhagavan: Each one knows the Self but is yet ignorant. The person is enabled to realise only after hearing the mahavakya. Hence the upanishadic text is the eternal truth to which everyone who has realised owes his experience. After hearing the Self to be Brahman, the person finds the true import of the Self and reverts to it whenever he is diverted from it. Here is the whole process of realisation. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 647)
21

Learning the jnana sastras is only an incidental cause for travelling the path to samadhi. You should understand that its value is limited.

22

It is the nature of the ignorant to feel proud and superior by mastering scriptural knowledge that consists of pretentious verbiage.

23

The rare benefit that accrues from the jnana sastras will only come to the jiva that possesses a longing to know the truth. Not for others.

24

Hoping to get a revelation of jnana through scriptural knowledge is like resolving to cross the ocean on an insignificant blade of grass.

25

The truth of the one who reads books is not in the books themselves. It is in the experience of [that] vedantic knowledge.
Question: Bhagavan, I have read much of the Vedas and the sastras but no Atma jnana [Self-knowledge] has come to me. Why is this?

Bhagavan: Atma jnana will come to you only if it is there in the sastras [scriptures]. If you see the sastras, sastra jnana [knowledge of the scriptures] will come. If you see the Self, Self-knowledge will shine. (
Living by the Words of Bhagavan, p. 217.)
True learning

26

When the mind, one-pointed and fully focused, knows the supreme silence in the Heart, this is [true] learning.

27

As a result of the knowledge obtained from this true learning, all false misery will fall away, and a profound peace will flourish.

28

Bear in mind that the benefit of scholarship is prompting the mind to turn about, enabling it to be captivated by the light of the Self.

29

The benefit of learning is simply to become established within the Heart, in the concept-free state of reality, which is your own nature.

30

As long as the holy feet do not touch and come to rest squarely upon the head [of the jiva] what benefit can scholarship give?

This verse is speaking obliquely of saktipata, the power that is transmitted by the Guru to the disciple.
Question: Saktipata is said to occur in karmasamya, i.e., when merit and demerit are equal.

Bhagavan: Yes. Malaparipaka [a mature state in which impurities are ready for destruction], karmasamya and saktipata mean the same. A man is running the course of his samskaras; when taught he is the Self, the teaching affects his mind and imagination runs riot. He feels helpless before the onrushing power. His experiences are only according to his imagination of the state ‘I am the Self”, whatever he may conceive it to be. Saktipata alone confers the true and right experience. When the man is ripe for receiving the instruction and his mind is about to sink into the Heart, the instruction imparted works in a flash and he realises the Self all right. Otherwise, there is always the struggle. (
Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no 275)
31

Only the learning of akhanda-vritti [unbroken experience], one’s truth, the substratum, is true learning.

The true purpose of scriptural knowledge

32

Mere scholarship derived from copious learning, without putting it into practice, will harm the well being of the jiva.
Bhagavan: Ancients have said that the superabundance of book knowledge is the cause of the rambling of the mind. That will not carry you to the goal. Reading of sastras and becoming pandits may give fame to a person but they destroy the peace of mind which is necessary for the seeker of truth and deliverance. A mumukshu [a seeker of deliverance] should understand the essence of the sastras but should give up the reading of sastras as that is inimical to dhyana [meditation]. It is like accepting the grain and discarding the chaff. There will be many big almirahs [cupboards] with many books. How many of them can be read? There are so many books and religions that one life is not enough to read all the books relating to even one religion. Whenever then is the time for practice? The more you read, the more you feel like reading further. The result of all this is to go on discussing with other people who have books and spend time thus but that will not lead to deliverance. What books had I seen and what Vedanta discourses had I heard except to close my eyes and remain peaceful and quiet during the first two years of my coming here? (Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 2nd July, 1949)
33

Even if one has huge amounts of book knowledge, it is of no use unless the inner attachment [the ego] is destroyed.

34

The excellence of the subtle intellect is only its ability to enter the Heart – that which possesses great nobility – not its ability to research and understand anything.
Question: Bhagavan, I would like to read books and find out a path whereby I can attain mukti but I do not know how to read? What shall I do? How can I realise mukti?

Bhagavan: What does it matter if you are illiterate? It is enough if you know your own Self.

Question: All people here are reading books but I am not able to do that. What shall I do?

Bhagavan: What do you think the book is teaching? You see yourself and then see me. It is like asking you to see yourself in a mirror. The mirror shows only what is on the face. If you see the mirror after washing your face, the face will appear to be clean. Otherwise the mirror will say there is dirt here, come back after washing. A book does the same thing. If you read the book, after realising the Self, everything will be easily understood. If you read it before realising the Self, you will see ever so many defects. It will say, ‘First set yourself right and then see me’. That is all. First see your Self. Why do you worry yourself about all that book learning? (
Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 1st February, 1946)
35

Everything that one has learned is total falsehood if it does not become a means for [mind-] consciousness to subside within the Self.
Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 143, Pozhippurai: The knowledge of scriptures should prompt one to reach the Heart, the source of the ego, by taking the grace of God to be the primary support in such a way that the ego ceases to be. If it does not [help in this way] the knowledge borne as a burden by those who behave as if they are the body, the illusory lump of flesh, is nothing but the swinging, fleshy beard of the goat.

Vilakkam: The grace of God is that which springs forth naturally in every being all the time. Since knowledge that does not help one to reach the Heart is totally useless, it has been compared to a goat’s fleshy beard. Until one reaches the Heart, the ego will not cease. Hence it has been said, ‘To reach the Heart in such a way [that] … the ego ceases to be’. Any effort to reach the Heart that relies primarily on ego-consciousness will be utterly futile. This is why it has been said, ‘by taking the grace of God to be the primary support’.
36

The benefit of learning should be nothing less than to dwell upon the gracious feet of the one whose form is the wealth of pure consciousness.

Pandits and scholars

37

Only those who are dwelling in the land of Atma-swarupa, which is consciousness, the supreme, are scholars. The rest are madmen.

38

Even though they have acquired knowledge of other things, what have those lowest of people really gained, they who have not learned to enquire into and know the state of the Self in a fitting manner?

39

He who sees an object as separate from consciousness cannot be a pandit who has known consciousness.
Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 132, Pozhippurai: Why do many of you who have moved with me call me a pandit? The indispensable mark that should be present as a characteristic of the true pandit is only knowing the one who has studied, right from the beginning, all the arts and sciences that are apart from himself in such a way that they cease, being known to be ignorance.

Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 133, Pozhippurai: By enquiring deeply within oneself, ‘Who is the one who has known all the arts and sciences?’ the ego that says ‘I am a knowledgeable one’ ceases immediately, without raising its head. Along with it, the knowledge of arts and sciences that was known by the ego also ceases. Only he who has unerringly known, as it really is, his true state, the Self that remains after this enquiry, is a pandit. How can someone with an ego, who has not known the Atma-swarupa, become a pandit?
40

What can be accomplished by intellectual mastery, which overcomes opponents through clever arguments, humbling them and preventing them from opening their mouths?

41

Even if one studies and knows in minute detail the subtlest of books, unless there is [nishkamya] punya it will be impossible for the mind to enter the Heart. ‘

'Punya’ here refers to the merits that come from spiritual practices performed without any thought of a reward.


215 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215
Bookworm said...

Baxishta

You say:
'the group. today i’d like to take the three laws of self-knowledge out of the field of the abstract and show how they apply to the actual events of “glimpsing the self” and “waking up”.'

In my humble opinion:
There are no laws of self-knowledge.
It is mind/ego that creates and sees laws and also 'appears' to have events of 'glimpsing the Self' and 'waking up, waking down' and waking whatever.
Married, householder, single...who cares?...doesn't matter.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

baxishta (micheal) has caused me to question my assumptions in a way that even the Great Broken Yogi's magical passive aggressive non-silence could not do.

Baxishta made some very interesting points about the Self being object not subject. I have no idea what is true, on contrare to B.Y. but Baxista's points are well considered.

All I know is that meditating on the source and nature of happiness seems to be working better then wrestling with thinking. And that is liberating to be freed from what I thought I knew, but didn't. But I guess arrogance of this nature, the best reply is passive aggressive silence (sigh) --I love sarcasm a bit too much for my own good.

I also like that Baxishta values experiences and glimpses, because rejecting them outright can seem not helpful. And it's interesting to think that the Self, or Brahman is an object making itself known cleansing us of delusions when it becomes apparent, if I understood correctly. The only object???? Does that make it the subject also? Then, is it an experience, or only when it's remembered???? No idea.

It's also weird how meditation can be really intense but there's this sticky feeling that Self-Realization is just a subtle shift in perspective rather then something striven for intensely, and then there are the "experiences", "glimpses", when it feels like I sink into a current and it doesn't so much matter what happens in the world, or with the body. Some people might tell me to discount those experiences, right them off. But clearly it's a good sign to be more at peace. I think I'm realizing the key for me is seeing that happiness is ever present, and that what happens in the world with tbe body is irrelevent to happiness. But I'm yet to completely and irrevocably transcend the body and things transient.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

""""No, I can't, because it isn't that simple. The simplest answer takes at least three words: "Yes and no"""" Broken Yogi playing devil's advocate.

I agree with bookworm, Ramana's take as far as I can gather, is that there were no places, persons things, there were no two for one to contemplate the other. The Objective World of many is invented. The Self isn't something seperate from what i'm experiencing now. There are no projections from it. It's all that exists. Thought, which isn't real, is making us believe in an objective world. There is no Self to look at, only stop thinking and be the Self. The Self that I already am, no over here, and over there, this is happening, past, future. All of that is thought, no thought, and it's gone, but not gone as in disappearing. Gone as in, the Self doesn't have dimensions, isn't a thing, a noun. Europe, America, Betelgeuse, places are thought. Broken Yogi, and Bookworm are thought. This is all just goes back to the basics, read slowly and meditatively 40 verses on Reality, and see how much of belief in an objective world can survive it. And why can't it survive, because you are making it up, and when you stop making it up, the sense of there being two, of there being him and her, over here and over there, disappears, which is why Maharshi kept stressing deep sleep. Because in deep sleep none of these exist, the Universe never happened, and yet it is real. To even talk of Jnanis, who are just not deluded into believing in multiplicity, is itself multiplicity, and we're caught up in the game again. What is that place where there is only me, and everything is me. Where there is no imagining of anything different, so there is nothing to lose. That is mySELF the true Sefl where I'm not imagining something other then myself. That's why its' called the SElf. The imagined Self is the self-concept. "I am so and so, I work at such and such, this and that happened to me. I'll never become enlightened, don't hold your breath" Inquiry is investigation to state the obviosu, this person I supposedly am, I am imagining. What of myself isn't in my own imagination? that is why it is the false I, because it is obviosuly on scrutiny not real. I just have taken it for granted that this self-image, the false I is me. No need to intellectually deconstruct it, just stop imagining it, and then I'm being myself, the Self, which has not form, identity, concept, time, past, future, not even events. Why would I want to be that Self? Because anythign I imagine is expecting of the Real something unreal, and I'm always going to be disappointed, or something is going to be scary because it upsets my illusions. So by not imagining what I've so far imagined, I'm pre-empting that process by deceasing the false I, before it actually has to be deceased. There is no good reason, I think anybody could come up with not to do this. Because anything else is just putting off that the body is going to perish, it is perishable. I don't want to be living in fear of the bodies death, I don't want to be attached and inventing needs that the body doesn't even have, and then being unhappy because I want something Not True to be True. For all these reasons, the false I no longer interests me.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Ravi, friend, I am impressed though that Ramana Maharshi has some fantastic allegories, that are also wonderful analogies, that work as both. But understood your point and agreed.

Anonymous said...

"""""Likewise, close inspection reveals (the world of experience to be an unconscious projection) of the I-I. When this projection becomes conscious, there is only the Self, regardless of what the "I" may like to think.""""

I don't think this is true, the projection, the world of experience doesn't become conscious, it utterly disappears. There's no saving it. That's why this can't be talked about in such disconnected intellectual terms. Because the "I", is not something seen as outside you. What Maharshi called the false I, is what you consider to be you, when you say I. So it's not something seperate that can be intellectually deconstructed, because the one doing the deconstructing, is the Intellectual I. Both prevent a direct confrontation with the existiance of myself, which has to go. (referring to 40 verses) These are just nice tricks to save yourself, which has to go extinct.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Good point Ravi

Bookworm said...

Broken Yogi

I asked:
Are there two Selfs? ...one that we are... and one to experience it?

It was a simple question and you could have answered it with just one word.

I don't know why you needed to give such a long answer and am not totally sure what your answer is.

I suppose that is because you are not totally sure either... otherwise why the stuff about the egoic 'I', witness and mind.

Ravi said...

Scott,
"may be, the Chatak Bird has been debunked by the Great Bookworm."
Friend,Who is Bookworm?!

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

Oh no, here I'm going into dangerous territory. I appreciate that Ramana Maharshi's analogies hold up on close scrutiny (the rope/snake, the elephant and the chain), it does appear, as great as Ramakrishna is , may be, the Chatak Bird has been debunked by the Great Bookworm.

Anonymous said...

Scott Fraundorf:

I guess, it depends on how you use the word 'experience', but in the vernacular I have always used it connotates someone who experiences, and what they experience. (subject/object)

In that sense, I don't think one can experience the Self, because there is no one to experience it. Although, I guess it could also be argued that even the person, the ego, illusory though it may be, is a projection from the Self as well. Either way, from what I understand experience as in being someone experiencing someone, experiencing something is not what the Self is referring to. It's not something you can say about 'the other day something so cool happened', I can do that when referring to eating potato chips, or bungi jumping, or tripping on LSD (experiences)

The Self, cleverly named is That, instead of being myself, which is limited.

Now that I've read further, I see you agree, and this was pointless. Although, I have trouble using the word experience for awareness, because the awareness is what is left over when there is no experience (because I have never used 'experience' for something undefinable, but something that is talked about.

"This happened to me, It was so cool, etc....") It's awkward anyhow using the word experience, because the way I first understood Maharshi's teachings, it was exactly what I was afraid of, death. When I feared death, I feared death of the individual, death of the I, precisely what has to die, for REalization of the Self.

So in the sense of experiences, Realization would be more, to my understanding like having died and gone to heaven (since it's blissful and pristine). THere is no longer a person. All experiences I've ever heard about required a subject/object. For Broken Yogi, is there a subject/object in relation to the Self?

This aside, I wonder what either Ravi or Clemens is going to respond to Bookworm's sarcastic comments about the bird who won't drink the water all around him, because it's poisoned????????? There must be some fresh water somewhere around for the bird to drink. But then perhaps it is on the low end of the Bell Curve of Evolutionary statistics. How ever will this get resolved? Oh my!

Broken Yogi said...

bookworm

You say:

"One cannot experience the Self.
It is the mind which experiences
things."

Yes, the mind can only experience "things", objects of awareness. But we are not the mind, we are, in reality, the Self. So we can experience the Self, because we are the Self. We simply cannot experience the Self through the mind. This means that experiences of the Self require the cessation, at least temporarily, of the mind, so that instead of experiencing objects, we experience what we really are.

Part of the problem here is the use of the word "experience". If you define experience as "mind", as a subject being aware of an object, then of course one cannot "experience" the Self. But there is a more fundamental experience than mind. A more basic understanding of the term "experience" is that it simply references to awareness itself, which is constant in the midst of all subject-object experiences. Awareness of objects is what we call "mind", but awareness itself is not inherenly limited to or by objects. Awareness is prior to objects, and it is not absent in the Self. To the contrary, the Self is awareness itself, the very nature of our own awareness and experience.

So the Self is not devoid of awareness, it merely recognizes that there are no objects, that what the mind perceives as objects are in reality only the Self, that the mind itself has no reality, but has only superimposed its dualistic vision upon the primal experience of awareness itself.

So you are right to say:

"You are and can only Be the Self."

But that is precisely why we can experience the Self. Cutting out the middleman, the mind, makes such experience possible, whereas you are trying to argue that it makes it impossible, that the Self is some kind of unconscious mass that is unaware of itself, rather than being of the very nature of awareness, and thus inherenly aware of itself as pure awareness.

In summary, then, of course we must be able to not only "be" the Self, but to know and experience ourselves as That, or the Self is not consciousness, but some kind of inert object incapable of self-awareness, which would be a total contradiction and negation of the Self.

Zee said...

NARRATOR ONE. What is the "Dhamma" that was "well proclaimed"
by the "Supreme Physician"? Is it an attempt to make a complete
description of the world? Is it a metaphysical system?
FIRST VOICE. The Blessed One was once living at Savatthl in Jeta's
Grove. A deity called Rohitassa came to him late in the night, paid
homage to him and asked: "Lord, the world's end where one neither
is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears: is it possible
to know or see or reach that by travelling there?"
"Friend, that there is a world's end where one neither is born nor
ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears, which is to be known or
seen or reached by travelling there—that I do not say. Yet I do not
say that there is ending of suffering without reaching the world's
end. Rather it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perceptions and
its mind that I describe the world, the origin of the world, the cessation
of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world.
"It is utterly impossible
To reach by walking the world's end;
But none escape from suffering
Unless the world's end has been reached.
"It is a Sage, a knower of the world,
Who gets to the world's end, and it is he
By whom the holy life has been lived out;
In knowing the world's end he is at peace
And hopes for neither this world nor the next."
S. 2:36; A. 4:46
***********************************
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/katha1/katha1_verses1-2.html

KATHA UPANISHAD
1.2.23 nᾱyam ᾱtmᾱ pravacanena labhyo na medhayᾱ, na bahunᾱ śrutena: yamevaiṣa vṛṇute, tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ᾱtmᾱ vivṛṇute tanῡṁ svᾱm.
Yama: This Atman cannot be attained by study of the Vedas, nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. To him this Atman reveals Its true nature.

Zee said...

Sayings by Jillellamudi Amma on Sadhana
from the book 'Mother of All' by Richard Schiffman
****************************
1)Anything that you do in your daily routine with attention and care is a spiritual discipline.You ofthen hear it said that (the Supreme) is real.You fell that teaching children, providing for the household,defending clients and so on is worldly and that spritual practice is something apart from this.But I say that if you do everything as his work, as He would have you do it, then there is nothing more to be desired.

2)I dont say that you shouldn't do any sadhana.I only say that you should do whatever you can.In my youth I felth that cooking rice and churning curds was sadhana and boiling milk to the right degree was yoga.The hearth, broom, kithen knife, mortar and pestle are for a housewife what Vedas are to a pundit.

3)Telling people todo this or that is easy and nodding at such advice is also easy.But shouldn't it be possible to do it?In my view , only what you can actually do should be called a sadhana.There are no easy or difficult paths.There is only the path that comes naturally to you.Whatever comes naturally is your individual way.Each of us can only do what we have come to do.In my view one path is as good as the next.Do whatever is best, for it is God who inspires and impels you through your own mind.

4)When people ask me to show them a way, I say only, "The urge to find a way has arisen and that urge will itself disclose the way when the destined moment arrives."That which produced the question will itself produce the answer in time.But meanwhile, if you wish to discuss it as a pasttime, then we shall do so.Having spiritual discussion is then a kind of hobby.Everyone finds joy in his own hobby-the player in the game,the student of philosophy in philosophical talk.But such talk is merely an entertainment; it leads nowhere.

5)Follow the way that you have chosen.Where is the question of a 'good' way to the Self?When everything you see is That, where is the question of a way?

Chakri said...

********************************
visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa
translated by Bhikku Nanamoli
Free book on internet www.bps.lk
********************************
Rebalance and avoid being a
Psycho/Obsessed,Fundamentalist,Terrorist, Pre-mature Fruit,Stagnant, Double life Guru etc.Any severe imbalance in the Five Strenghts for a beginner produces one of the above[Zee's words]

Maintaining balanced faculties is equalizing the [five] faculties of
faith(Sraddha),energy(Veerya),
mindfullness(sati),concentration(Samaadhi),Wisdom(Prajna)

For if his faith faculty is strong and the others weak, then the energy
faculty cannot perform its function of exerting, the mindfulness faculty its
function of establishing, the concentration faculty its function of not distracting,
and the understanding faculty its function of seeing. So in that case the faith
faculty should be modified either by reviewing the individual essences of the
states [concerned, that is, the objects of attention] or by not giving [them] attention
in the way in which the faith faculty became too strong. And this is illustrated
by the story of the Elder Vakkali (S III 119).
[http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.8-Vakkali-S-s22.87-piya.pdf ]

46. Then if the energy faculty is too strong, the faith faculty cannot perform its
function of resolving, nor can the rest of the faculties perform their several
functions. So in that case the energy faculty should be modified by developing
tranquillity, and so on. And this should be illustrated by the story of the Elder
Sona (Vin I 179–85; A III 374–76).
Sona Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.055.than.html

So too with the rest; for it should be understood
that when anyone of them is too strong the others cannot perform their several
functions.
[contd…]

Chakri said...

[…contd]
47. However, what is particularly recommended is balancing faith with
understanding, and concentration with energy. For one strong in faith and
weak in understanding has confidence uncritically and groundlessly. One
strong in understanding and weak in faith errs on the side of cunning and is as
hard to cure as one sick of a disease caused by medicine. With the balancing of
the two a man has confidence only when there are grounds for it.
Then idleness overpowers one strong in concentration and weak in energy, since
concentration favours idleness. [130] Agitation overpowers one strong in energy
and weak in concentration, since energy favours agitation. But concentration
coupled with energy cannot lapse into idleness, and energy coupled with
concentration cannot lapse into agitation. So these two should be balanced; for
absorption comes with the balancing of the two.
48. Again, [concentration and faith should be balanced]. One working on
concentration needs strong faith, since it is with such faith and confidence that
he reaches absorption. Then there is [balancing of] concentration and
understanding. One working on concentration needs strong unification, since
that is how he reaches absorption; and one working on insight needs strong
understanding, since that is how he reaches penetration of characteristics; but
with the balancing of the two he reaches absorption as well.
49. Strong mindfulness, however, is needed in all instances; for mindfulness
protects the mind from lapsing into agitation through faith, energy and
understanding, which favour agitation, and from lapsing into idleness through
concentration, which favours idleness. So it is as desirable in all instances as a
seasoning of salt in all sauces, as a prime minister in all the king’s business.
Hence it is said [in the commentaries (D-a 788, M-a I 292, etc)]: “And mindfulness
has been called universal by the Blessed One. For what reason? Because the
mind has mindfulness as its refuge, and mindfulness is manifested as protection,
and there is no exertion and restraint of the mind without mindfulness.”

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215   Newer› Newest»