Please use the response section of this open thread to discuss any matters that are not comments on particular posts that I make. I am happy that readers want to use this blog to discuss such topics. However, please keep such comments on the open threads, and don't add them to other posts.
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Welcome
I propose to use this blog primarily to air my occasional musings on any matters relating to the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshi. There will also be occasional contributions about Arunachala, the sacred mountain where Sri Ramana spent all of his adult life.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
966 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 966 Newer› Newest»There have been some interesting comments here about self-enquiry - about whether one should focus on the inner feeling of 'I' or actively enquire into into its nature and source.
When I am asked about this I usually respond by giving Bhagavan's explanation of why self-enquiry works, and why other methods don't. Self-enquiry, according to Bhagavan, puts attention on the subject 'I' while meditation focuses on an object.
The individual 'I', according to Bhagavan, can only exist in association with objects: I am a person, I am angry, I am a lawyer, I remember my holidays, I see a mountain, and so on. In each case there is an association, a relationship, between the perceiver or knower 'I' and the object that is perceived, remembered or known.
When attention is withdrawn from these objects and allowed to inhere exclusively in the subject 'I', that 'I' can no longer sustain itself as an independent entity. If it fails to connect with any new object, it slowly subsides into its source, the Self. One therefore finds the source of the 'I' not by looking in a particular location or by studying it, but by preventing the 'I' from associating with any object.
If, without knowing this, you search for the source of the I', or launch an investigation into its nature, you are almost always creating an object (a possible location for the source of the 'I', for example) and focusing on it intensively. Focusing on a place or an an idea or a perception of what the 'I' might be sustains rather than eliminates the 'I'-thought.
The search for the source of the 'I' is only successful when the mind abandons its inclinations to look for or at anything outside the subjective awareness if 'I' or 'I am'.
Asking 'Who am I?', 'Who is the one who is having these thoughts?' is a powerful way of transferring attention from objects to the subject 'I'. However, for the reasons already stated, this transference does not take place if (a) the 'Who am I?' phrase is used as a precursor to look for the source in a particular place or (b) it is used as a springboard for mental analysis of the 'I'
Thank you very much David for the clarifications.
The confusion mainly comes because statements like "Trace the I to its source" normally hint at "doing something". For example, Sadhu OM tells that when there is a ray of light falling on the wall, the way to track it back to its source is to start tracking it backwards. Where as here, when we start with the feeling of I, there is nothing we can hold to start tracking it backwards. That makes things confusing.
However, from what Bhagavan says, the task is to just keep observing the I while keeping other thoughts at bay. There is nothing equivalent here of tracking back the light spot to its source.
Regards Murali
Friends,
A few aspects to be explored:
1.What happens to an 'Object' if one is not interested in it?Does it Remain an Object?
2.What happens to the 'subject' not interested in the 'Object'?Does it Remain a subject?
3.Is it possible for the 'Subject' to continue without 'Object'?
4.Is awareness of 'I am' a 'Subject'?
Namaskar.
Shiba said:
"And Bhagavan said that only ripe soul can do self-enquiry.I have no confidence in my ripness."
From what I gather from Bhagavan, if anyone has interest in Self Enquiry, it means the following
a. The person has the required ripeness
b. The person has accumualated enough punyam (merits)
How many people come across Self enquiry and how many of them get hooked onto this? (meaning very few)
I also understand that if you get interested in Self Enquiry, then your liberation is close by (either in this life or after a very few lives)
Regards Murali
Murali says:
From what I gather from Bhagavan, if anyone has interest in Self Enquiry, it means the following
a. The person has the required ripeness
b. The person has accumualated enough punyam (merits)
I am very happy to hear that.But I have not read such comments from Bhagavan,so I would like you to teach me the books or articles which contain such comments.
For me, Bhagavan's way to teach self-enquiry is somehow confusing.
And I would like to ask David,does your understanding of the way of self-enquiry derive from not only intellectual understandeing but also your experiences of practice of self-enquiry?I read your interviews but I have not read your experiences of practice very much.I am very interested in experiences of experts.It must be useful for novice like me.
regards shiba
"From what I gather from Bhagavan, if anyone has interest in Self Enquiry, it means the following
a. The person has the required ripeness
b. The person has accumualated enough punyam (merits)"
It does seem like there has to be a certain level of maturity, or getting the ego out of the way to be exposed to Self-inquiry, and have it resonate. There is some innate, intuitive awareness of the truth in that path. And when I talk to many people, many people are not anywhere close to coming to the place of wanting to trascend. But it also seems like I could easily go down the path of gross ignorance as long as I'm not Realized. Stuff still comes up, and I could maybe reverse some of the growth, if I give up on Self-inquiry and instead indulge in my agitation. But still there is the recognition in being interested in Self-inquiry, that it is so much better to abide in peace, in that itself, as that itself. it seems to me if, one is exposed to self-inquiry, if on some level it resonates as true, and that person is resolute to stick with it until Realization, then that person does not have many lifetimes to go. Most people who are attempting Self-inquiry already have some humility, if they recognize that they are still a sufferer, and want to transcend all suffering. How could one then fail? I have to say though, that for instance, when I was exposed to Self-inquiry, it seems very fateful, non-random, and seems to be evidence that there is some level of grace, or being exposed to the Self to feel that pull, but at the same time the ignorance that shows itself in me, is not the ignorance of maturity, it's sinful, agitated, rageful, fearful, cowardly, desirous. So while there may be that pull of the Self, the other tendencies have not been eliminated, and that is what I guess differs between myself and a Jnani. But it's I guess the patient recognizing they are sick, and I suppose that is maturity of a sorts. There is the reconigtion that there is suffering, there is recongition that in that suffering, I'm abiding in illusion, infact the me that I consider myself to be is illusion. the real Self is not prone to that suffering, or that false identity as a sufferer. Who am I? cuts through the red tape.
Shiba,
It is a Good suggestion by Peter pointing to Sri Bhagavan's other variation of 'Who Am I'?
"If one unceasingly meditates upon thant name ‘I-I’ with one’s attention on the feeling ‘I’, it will take one and plunge one into the source from which thought arises, destroying the ego . . . . ”
What this approach does is that it prevents taking 'Who Am I' as a QUESTION,as a Puzzle to be solved.Instead it focusses on the 'BEING'.
The Basic things that one needs to pay attention are:
1.Do not assume that the 'I' is unknown and needs to be Known.
2.Do not try to Know the 'I' or Hold onto it.
3.Do Not try to find out 'Who am I'? -Do not deploy 'Thought'.
4.Do not think that YOU are a 'Novice' and YOU will grow into 'Expert'.
JUST BE IT.
One is to pay attention to the Awareness of one's Existence as 'I am'-No expertise is called for here.To the extent that one's mind is free from the oscillations of thought caused by desire for objects and appearances, this sort of simple Attention is Facilitated.
Wish you the Very Best.
Salutations.
Apropos one's ripeness for self-enquiry, this is what Bhagavan had to say in Sri Ramana Gita, chapter 7, verses 8, 9, 10, 11:
Question: Who is considered fit for this enquiry? Can one by oneself know one’s own fitness?
[Bhagavan:] He whose mind has been purified through upasana and other means or by merit acquired in past lives, who perceives the imperfections of the body and sense-objects, and feels utter distaste whenever his mind has to function among sense-objects and who realises that the body is impermanent, he is said to be a fit person for self-enquiry.
By these two signs, that is by a sense of the transitoriness of the body and by non-attachment to sense-objects, one’s own fitness for self-enquiry can be known.
* * *
The more general topics of what constitutes ripeness, and who is qualified to attempt to realise the Self are covered in Padamalai, pages 256 to 259. If anyone reading this doesn't have a copy, I would be happy to post these few pages here.
"1.What happens to an 'Object' if one is not interested in it?Does it Remain an Object?
2.What happens to the 'subject' not interested in the 'Object'?Does it Remain a subject?
3.Is it possible for the 'Subject' to continue without 'Object'?
4.Is awareness of 'I am' a 'Subject'?"
For me, inquiry seems the most effective when it is straight to the point. The reason I'm inquiring is to end suffering, and that is it's central purpose. When this is clear, that I'm inquiring to find that my nature is not suffering, that it is Bliss itself, it is more effective. Why focus on the I and not on objects? Because the attachment to objects is what is causing a whole lot of suffering, because the objects are transient, and so bliss is severely compromised. As I've attempted this practice, and associated with experts to get sound advice. I think if I focus on not thinking about any objects. For instance, while "I went to the store" might involve subject and object it doesn't seem to really involve ego and object, it's not really a vasana, it seems. But there are lots of attachments that cause suffering, and I would guess all of us unrealized experience these quite abit. Or maybe dullness, where we are not blissful and stuck in routine habitual patterns of dullness. When there is intense agitation, I suppose rajas, then inquiry seems to be much more a sword of discrimination that can sever that attachment that intense cord tying me to the body and worries. On focusing on the I. Out of confusion I wrote Nome about that. And he said to continually discriminate the perceived from the perceiver. So focusing on the I, and the neti, neti approach seem to be identical. Because the perceiver is what is left over when everything transient has been eliminated, and that perceiver is pure consciousness, the real Self, I'm guessing. this perceiver, or the I, is not in a particular place, so that is what I was confused over. I would make intense concentrated attention on where is this I? But really, this is much more of a laid back approach that does seem to yield Bliss, because it severs the attachments when they arise. (which I also am guessing is what Maharshi meant by when any thought arises inquire "To whom did this thought arise?" It's just another way of saying it. I'm guessing he didn't really mean, that if I am doing a math problem on my homework I should obsessively inquire with each math problem, "To whom did this thought arise, but something much more red tape cutting. when I'm doing my math homework, and i'm sad about my girlfriend that dumped me, or I'm getting wound up with future ambitions and worries, each of these is a vasana. When the vasana arises, it can be intsantly eliminated by calling attention to it's unreality, that is a cord tying the real pure Cosnciousness with transient, objective phenomenon)
There is starting to be suffering, the suffering is attachment to the transient such as objects of desire, and the bodily life and not wanting the body to die. It's almost like a cord tying or bounding my blissful true nature as the real Self which is pure Consciousness without objects, to person, place and thing. The ego is maybe that cord the subject (individual) is the attachment to objects. When I inquire deeply who am I? and realize I'm not what is transient, but pure Blissful Consciousness non-attached, the personality dissolves because it's very manifestation was based on suffering attachment.
Murali said:
“I also understand that if you get interested in Self Enquiry, then your liberation is close by.”
. . . . nice sentiments Murali. Your claims or Ramanas??
Shiba said:
“I get anxious about my way of practice.”
Ramana’s practice is very very simple.
At the outset it is confusing for most, but after some time you work out that the only tool you actually have to work with is your “attention”. This being the case, what are you going to do with your only tool, “attention”?
Of all the multitude of practices, meditations, prayers, etc, that are available to you, Ramana argues that the only place worth putting your attention is upon the ‘I’.
Here’s an extended explanation:
Self enquiry is not designed to be used in a mantra like fashion.
The purpose of asking questions such as “who am I”, is to shift attention away from the thought chain and towards what metaphorically lies beneath thought: ones true nature, the Self, Silence, the ‘I’.
So when there are no thoughts, simply abide in Silence/ the ‘I’, and do not enquire. When there are thoughts, enquire “who am I”, or any derivative of that suits you.
With practice, such enquiry will begin to cut the thought chain and establish attention in Silence.
Ramana says this is as far as the practice extends, this is all we can do, the rest is out of our hands.
“All that you need do is to find out (the ‘I’s) origin and stay there (ie. abide in Silence). Your effort can extend only so far. Then the Beyond will take care of itself. You are helpless there. No effort can reach It.”
Hence, the practice is actually quite simple.
To repeat, when there are no thoughts, simply abide in Silence and do not enquire. When there are thoughts, enquire “who am I”, or any derivative of that suits you.
Also,
The ‘other practice’ recommended by Ramana, is I would propose, of equal validity to self-enquiry and perhaps more suited to those personalities who prefer a practice with more form or structure than the arguably more abstract self-enquiry practice.
Personally, I don’t mind the self-enquiry practice, but I do find I get a little stale in my application sometimes. Switching to the ‘other practice’ recommended by Ramana is a means by which I can recharge my batteries, so to speak, a means of reinvigorating my practice.
The ‘other practice’ I elude to, is referred to in “Be As You Are”, beginning at the bottom of page 202.
“Among the many 1000s of names of God, no name suits God so aptly and beautifully as the name ‘I’ or ‘I am’. If one unceasingly meditates upon that name ‘I-I’ with one’s attention on the feeling ‘I’, it will take one and plunge one into the source from which thought arises, destroying the ego . . . . ”
An excellent practice I think, and certainly not of lesser potency than self-enquiry. After all, didn’t Nisargadatta use ‘I am’ as his core practice?
Shiba also said:
“And Bhagavan said that only a ripe soul can do self-enquiry. I have no confidence in my ripeness.”
Ramana tells you to forget about such doubts. Rather, when the doubt arises, apply the practice as prescribed. Remember, a doubt is a thought, and the practice asks us to turn away from thought, and redirect our attention towards the ‘I’.
a Ramana quote:
“Without yielding to the doubt “Is it possible, or not?”, one should persistently hold on to the meditation on the Self. Even if one be a great sinner, one should not worry and weep “O! I am a sinner, how can I be saved?”; one should completely renounce the thought “I am a sinner”; and concentrate keenly on meditation on the Self; then, one would surely succeed.” (question 14, Who Am I?)
My personal view on this concern of yours is that if you are interested in the teachings of Ramana, then that is enough, you are ripe.
Good luck
Peter.
When I am asked about this I usually respond by giving Bhagavan's explanation of why self-enquiry works, and why other methods don't. Self-enquiry, according to Bhagavan, puts attention on the subject 'I' while meditation focuses on an object."
That makes senes, but at the same time, it also seems to me that aspects of other religions, and non-orthodox spiritualities and practices really contain within them the essence or atleast part of the essence of Self-inquiry. Even vipassana meditation, when I was doing that, I think that very easily led into Self-inquiry. Because it is far better to spend an hour a day turning the mind away from attachments to observing the breath. It seems to go along way, and is extremely benificial, because it does contain within it, turning the mind away from attachments. When things are bad, religious faith and surrender also seem to be really effective. If someone approaches whatever they do in life with sincerity, and kindness, and/or the earnestness to find out what is true that really contains within it the essence of Self-inquiry because they are, kindness and sincerity and devotion to the truth manifestations of the egoless Bliss of the Self.
Even when I was doing vipassana and had not heard of Self-inquiry, outside of spending an hour a day observing breath when thoughts arise, outside of that i really wanted to understand the nature of this existence. What is Real? who am I? How did this life come about? and what is it? What is anything? that actually is what led me into the biological sciences. I wanted to learn what life was in the scientific scheme. Now it's just to get a job and make money, because I got the answer of what life is at the chemical level. But inquiry had been activated prior to hearing of Maharshi. I remember thinking, what is this strange existence? Why is there anything as opposed to nothing? Nobodies answers were satisfactory. Maharshi I think hit the nail on the head for me. Because it focused on the subject. that it all arises from that, and that made pristine sense.
.
... David Godman, If anyone reading this doesn't have a copy, I would be happy to post these few pages here...
Please do so, I'm interested in that.
.
Clemens Vargas Ramos (1)
The following sequence of verses and comment is taken from Padamalai, pages 256-60. Entitled ‘Qualifications for Maturity’, it is a subsection of a chapter that discusses all aspects of grace, effort and spiritual ripeness. Since it is too long for the 4,000 character limit imposed by Blogger for comments, I have split it into sections.
21 When the mind, through the quality of extreme purity, merges in the Heart, it will attain perfection as peace.
22 If the mind that has become one-pointed, like the tip of darba grass, merges with the Heart, the experience of pure being, seemingly impossible to attain, will be very easily discovered.
23 Taking a thick fat crowbar [as a needle], it is not possible to stitch together extremely delicate silk cloth using very fine thread.
Editor’s comment: Question eleven of Vichara Sangraham asks, ‘Is Self-experience possible for the mind whose nature is constant change? One part of Bhagavan’s answer states:
Bhagavan: ‘…It is only by the mind that is impure and is under the influence of rajas and tamas that reality, which is very subtle and unchanging, cannot be experienced; just as a piece of fine silk cloth cannot be stitched with a heavy crowbar, or as the details of subtle objects cannot be distinguished by the light of a lamp-flame that flickers in the wind…’ (Self-Enquiry, The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, p. 12)
24 Whatever it is, nothing can be attained without the necessary fitness for it.
Balaram Reddy: There is a teacher and his disciples. The teacher gives the same instruction to all the disciples sitting before him. How is it that some disciples hear the teachings, put them into practice and make quick progress, while others hear and apply the teachings and make little or no progress?’
Bhagavan: ‘Some must have followed that line of teaching in their previous lives, while others may just have begun. Also, some are born more advanced and fit than others.’ (My Reminiscences, p. 3)
Question: Who is considered fit for this enquiry? Can one by oneself know one’s own fitness?
Bhagavan: He whose mind has been purified through upasana and other means or by merit acquired in past lives, who perceives the imperfections of the body and sense-objects, and feels utter distaste whenever his mind has to function among sense-objects and who realises that the body is impermanent, he is said to be a fit person for self-enquiry.
By these two signs, that is by a sense of the transitoriness of the body and by non-attachment to sense-objects, one’s own fitness for self-enquiry can be known (Sri Ramana Gita, chapter 7, verses 8, 9, 10, 11).
Bhagavan: The aspirant may be kritopasaka [one whose worship has culminated in a direct experience of a personal God] or akritopasaka [one whose worship has not]. The former is fit to realise the Self, even with the slightest stimulus: only some little doubt stands in his way; it is easily removed if he hears the truth once from the Master. Immediately he gains the samadhi state. It is presumed that he had already completed sravana, reflection, etc. in previous births; they are no more necessary for him. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 249)
Clemens Vargas Ramos (2)
25 Those fickle-minded people who have not done any sadhana before cannot gain a clear understanding from instructions alone.
26 Except for those who have completed everything and who have a mind that is free from desires, remaining still [summa iruttal] is not easy.
Question: In the practice of meditation are there any signs of the nature of subjective experience or otherwise, which will indicate the aspirant’s progress towards Self-realisation?
Bhagavan: The degree of freedom from unwanted thoughts and the degree of concentration on a single thought are the measure to gauge the progress. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 427)
Question: Is it possible for all people to hold on to that path of self-enquiry?
Bhagavan: It is true that it is only possible for mature minds, not for immature minds. For the latter, repetition of a prayer or holy name under one’s breath [japa], worship of images, breath-control [pranayama] visualising a pillar of light [jyotishtoma] and similar yogic and spiritual and religious practices have been prescribed. By those practices, people become mature and will then realise the Self through the path of self-enquiry. (Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 12th September, 1947)
Question: Swami, for gaining realisation, is the enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ the only way?
Bhagavan: Enquiry is not the only way. If one does spiritual practice [sadhana] with name and form, repetition of holy names [japa], or any of these methods with grim determination and perseverance, one becomes That. According to the capacity of each individual, one spiritual practice is said to be better than another and several shades and variations of them have been given. Some people are a long way from Tiruvannamalai, some are very near; some are in Tiruvannamalai, while some get into Bhagavan’s hall itself. For those who come into the hall, it is enough, if they are told as they step in, ‘Here is the Maharshi’, and they realise him immediately. For others they have to be told which route to take, which trains to catch, where to change, which road to turn into. In like manner, the particular path to be taken must be prescribed according to the capacity of the practiser. These spiritual practices are not for knowing one’s own Self, which is all-pervading, but only for getting rid of the objects of desire. When all these are discarded, one remains as one is. (Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 29th November, 1947 (volume 2, letter 22).
Clemens Vargas Ramos (3)
27 Without maturity [desirelessness] in the mind, the abiding experience of sahaja samadhi will not ripen.
28 Unless one has an extremely pure sattvic mind, it will be impossible to have darshan in the Heart of the reality that is jnana.
29 It is due to maturity of mind [chitta-paripaka] that what is very difficult for the many is extremely easy for the very few.
Bhagavan: We have to contend against age-long samskaras. They will all go. Only, they go comparatively soon in the case of those who have already made sadhana in the past, and late in the case of the others.
Question: Do these samskaras go gradually or will they suddenly disappear one day? I ask this because, though I have remained fairly long here, I do not perceive any gradual change in me.
Bhagavan: When the sun rises, does the darkness go gradually or all at once? (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 31st March, 1945)
30 Those very few who realise the Self through daiva gathi and get redeemed have minds that are fully mature.
Kunju Swami: In those early days of my stay at Skandashram, as I always used to remain close to Sri Bhagavan, I found that I could get all my doubts cleared merely by listening to all the answers to other devotees’ questions. Moreover, by listening to all these answers I was able to learn many new aspects of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings. I rarely had to ask a question myself. Usually, if I was waiting for an opportune moment to raise a question on some spiritual topic, another devotee would ask Sri Bhagavan that very same question. Sri Bhagavan’s answer would then clear the doubts of both of us. This method of acquiring knowledge is known in the scriptures as daiva gathi. A good example of daiva gathi can be found in Vasishtam where it is said that King Janaka got his doubts cleared and attained knowledge by hearing the conversation of some siddhas.
In books such as Vedanta Chudamani three ways of getting realisation, daiva gathi, viveka gathi and viraktha gathi, have been mentioned. To approach a Sadguru and to obtain knowledge by both learning the spiritual texts and by practising discrimination is called viveka gathi. Viraktha gathi is the instantaneous dawn of knowledge, like a bolt of lightning, irrespective of age and environment. Jnanis such as the Buddha, Pattinathar and Sri Bhagavan are examples of this viraktha gathi. Vasishtam, an authoritative text, proclaims, ‘Like fruit falling unexpectedly from above, true knowledge arises easily’.
A person who goes to have the darshan of a realised soul without any desire finds the latter answering the spiritual questions of his disciples. On hearing them, because of past merits, realisation dawns immediately like the lighting up of an electric bulb at the press of a switch. This is known as daiva gathi. The great karmas performed in many past births become the cause of attaining knowledge by any of the three ways mentioned above. Many other scriptural texts proclaim the same truth. (The Power of the Presence, part two, pp. 13-14)
Shiba,
I warmly recommend 'Guru Ramana' by Cohen.You should be able to download a PDF copy from the Ramansramam downloads.
This covers all the essential Teachings of Sri Bhagavan in an easily assimilable form .You will find a chapter on 'Maya' that you had wondered about.
Namaskar.
Ravi says:
1.Do not assume that the 'I' is unknown and needs to be Known.
2.Do not try to Know the 'I' or Hold onto it.
3.Do Not try to find out 'Who am I'? -Do not deploy 'Thought'.
4.Do not think that YOU are a 'Novice' and YOU will grow into 'Expert'.
Thank you for your comments.But I can't agree with your opinion 2.
I think I have to hold on to I-thought for preparation for self-enquiry.
I think David said in 'who am I?' of his version that Bhagavan resticted the meaning of self-enquiry to fixing in SELF.I have the same opinion. Such is the case, maturity must be needed for self-enquiry. To fix in SELF is apparently almost impossible for novice.
As to practice of concentrating on I-thought, maturity may not be needed so much, I hope.I rather suppose that it's problem of interest to the practice.It's my temporary conclusion about the problem of maturity.
''If one unceasingly meditates upon thant name ‘I-I’ with one’s attention on the feeling ‘I’, it will take one and plunge one into the source from which thought arises, destroying the ego . . .''
This is a verse of Guru Vachaka kovai. I think 'I-I' is wrong and 'I,I' is correct.
'I-I' is experience of SELf .The meaning of this verse is only repeating I,I,I... mentally with one’s attention on the feeling 'I' lead one to SELF, I think. Is it correct?
regards shiba
Scott,
"Why focus on the I and not on objects? Because the attachment to objects is what is causing a whole lot of suffering, because the objects are transient, and so bliss is severely compromised."
What happens when the attachment is not there?The questions have to be explored from this perspective.
Master TGN gives the example of a Train journey-A Seat or Berth is given to one.One is also provided with a personal Fan and Light that one may switch on or off as per one's convenience.One may put all these things to use without the desire to possess them.One may also enjoy the sights on the way looking out through the window.Only one should take care that he does not get out of the Train and stay stuck at one of those scenic spots.
One simply gets down at the destination.
In Like manner,one may live this life understanding the purpose for which it has been bequethed(Self Knowledge or God Knowledge), making use of all that Life has to offer without getting attached.No need to isolate oneself from The World.YOU ARE THE WORLD-THE OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST APART FROM YOU.
This is not only possible but this is the very purpose of this manifestation.
Namaskar.
You can judge whether you are fit for Vichara or not in a simply way.
If you can, you are fit.
If you cannot, you are not.
When I first tried Vichara, I was disturbed by other thoughts every five seconds and I could not continue. I had to give up.
So I took other Sadhanas. Among various Sadhanas, ceaseless mental japa during waking hours- including work hours - was most effective for me.
It took me several years before I could do ceaseless mental japa comfortably, and several more years before I could do Vichara comfortably.
I first met David's book 'Be as you are' fifteen years ago at a small bookshop in India. My first impression was 'This is good. It is simple. All I have to do is to ask 'Who am I?', then I can reach the goal.' I was such a fool.
But after all thease years, having had various Sadhanas and experiences, I have come back to the same place. It IS simple. All I have to do is to ask 'Who am I?'.
Shiba,
"I think I have to hold on to I-thought for preparation for self-enquiry."
See if we can approach it through surrender-Do not hold back.Let go.What remains that cannot be given up?
Salutations.
One of the people to ask maharshi a question that David Godman posted was Balaram Reddy. When I watched the Youtube documentary who am I?, he was interviewed, and he was one of the most compelling. He seemed to weave in and out of samadhi as he was talking, and talked about how when he closes his eyes often he sees the face of Maharshi.
Someone mentioned how 'attention' is the tool we have...And there were a few of Nome's responses that took me beyond the idea of shifting attention being inquiry.
"The inquiry is of the essence of Knowledge. It transcends thought, mental attention, sensory perception, and action. If you understand and adhere to the instruction expressed in Who am I?, your efforts will bear fruit. In that scripture, the Maharshi’s instructions succinctly, fully explain the nature of happiness, the nature of the Self, what the mind is and how to transcend thought, the nature of the world, detachment, Self-inquiry and much more.
Inquire, and, in the Knowledge of the Self, repose in Bliss."
"Focused, intense meditation to
know the Self yields freedom from the illusory limitations. This is to be
regarded as true concentrated meditation and not the mere riveting of mental
attention or the combating with thoughts. One should neither remain with the
thoughts nor fight with them, as if they were real entities or as if they
had any validity apart from the belief posited in them, but one should
inquire and know himself in thought-transcendent Knowledge."
"As you discern, peace and stupor are not to be equated. The former
is only a mode of tamas guna. Sattva guna is said to be the quality of the
meditating mind. Self-inquiry reveals the Self to be gunatita (beyond the
qualities)."
"Dullness in practice is due to lack of inquiry, especially
manifesting as the conjuring of delusion and adherence to the same. The
latter manifests as the illusion of continuity of ignorance. Here are two
points that ensure spiritual practice is sparkling. Be sure to actually
inquire, questioning you very sense of identity. Secondly, included in the
inquiry, destroy vasanas, as the Maharshi has instructed. Vasanas are
tendencies. They are the forms of the assumed ego. Examining your own mind
and experiences, hunt for tendencies and destroy them by inquiry. Even the
decision to do so will awaken one from the dream of ignorance, and actual
practice even more so. You can see this demonstrated, or at least alluded
to, in some of the dialogues recorded in Self-Knowledge and in some of the
satsang transcripts that appear in Reflections. One must, oneself, practice
in such a manner."
"Diligence and intensity of practice are important. If your mind
wanders to various kinds of thoughts, discern the motivation. What are you
looking for in them, and in what is that found? The seeking for happiness,
the attempt to know what is real, and search for identity are the same. Such
is fulfilled in the Knowledge of the Self.
Being is Bliss. Being is not an activity, mode of mind, or any
object. It is timeless and spaceless. It is eternal and infinite. In it, the
mind dissolves in the Knowledge of the mind's nonexistence. It is not merely
that the mind exhausts itself; that would result only in temporary quietude,
just as sleep follows waking activity. Inquiry may be said to return the
mind to its source, and pure Consciousness remains. In this return, all of
the mental tendencies of ignorance are eliminated by clear Knowledge, just
as darkness may be said to be eliminated by light. Likewise, the here and
now of the waking state are similar to that in a dream. The Self transcends
the past, the present, and the future. One destroys the illusory ignorance
by inquiring as to what one's real nature is (the significance of "Who am
I?"). Sri Ramana's instruction is to make one's vision nonobjective."
I found these helpful for making the inquiry more substantive.
Thank you ,Akira.
The description of your experience
is very interesitng.
'It took me several years before I could do ceaseless mental japa comfortably, and several more years before I could do Vichara comfortably.'
Ceaselessness of meditation is my aim now.I can't do meditation only for paticular hours.
And did you do japa 'I,I,I..'?
David
After reading your post Sept 4, 5:08pm, it struck me as to how incredibly unlikely it is that a person, randomly selected from the worlds population, will get past the ego
for these reasons:
1) of the billions of people on the planet only a very, very small percentage will encounter those teachings capable of liberating the practitioner
2) and of those who do encounter teachings with the power to liberate, even fewer will be moved by the value, or appreciate the value, of those teachings
3) and finally, even if 1) and 2) fall into place for a person, the likelihood of applying the teachings in a sincerely earnest manner decade after decade, is quite rare
Most reading this post will have 1) and 2) covered. It will be 3) that will be the challenge, including for myself; mind creates countless distractions.
Nisargadatta spoke about EARNESTNESS like a broken record. And I recall Papaji in a video say something to the effect that he rarely sees that all important ingredient in people, fire in the belly, . . . . . or is it heart!?
Perhaps Ramana also emphasised EARNESTNESS. Others may have some suitable quotes.
Peter.
Dear David, I so enjoy your most excellent blog site. With all due repect this constant mention of Nome who has a very troubled reputation and is another blowin
who has muscled in claiming Ramana
lineage!
Peter
1) of the billions of people on the planet only a very, very small percentage will encounter those teachings capable of liberating the practitioner.
The meeting with the Guru is not random. Those who have done the work or who have the fire for freedom will be attracted. That eliminates several billions and ensures that at least some of the ones who show up at the Guru's door have a good chance of real progress. Papaji used to say that one earned the right be be in the Sadguru's presence through meditation and hard work. Though there may be a number of curiosity seekers in a Guru's satsang, there will also usually be a core group that has fast-tracked itself by virtue of hard work and dedication.
2) and of those who do encounter teachings with the power to liberate, even fewer will be moved by the value, or appreciate the value, of those teachings.
Everyone progresses in the benign aura of the Satguru. There is a saying about this which I can't remember exactly but it states that the bad people become good, the good become even better, and the very good get liberation.
3) and finally, even if 1) and 2) fall into place for a person, the likelihood of applying the teachings in a sincerely earnest manner decade after decade, is quite rare.
In my somewhat limited experience, if you have the fire for freedom and you then have the good fortune to encounter a realised being who has the power to establish you in the Self, realisation comes relatively quickly. The teachers I have been with and written about all managed to realise the Self within three years of meeting their Gurus.
Friends,
I totally appreciate what David has expressed about Guru's Grace and Self Effort.They appear different to start with but are two sides of the same coin.
Thayumanavar in ' Obeisance to Mauna Guru' Says:
In a house of refreshment
Enough will be the choice
Of diverse things to eat.
Unto it the four ends of man -
dharma, artha, kama and moksha,
The ends that Vedas and Agamas declare
The critical path of jnana,
The methods of demonstration and inference -
Of such varieties is the choice made
That the clamor of I-ness is stalled.
Realizing the four paths
And their gradations from chariya to jnana
And cognizing the difference
Of anu paksa *[1] and sambhu paksa *[2]
And the functions of maya and the rest(karma & anava)
And overcoming the mental aberration
That gives the distortion of one and two -
''To stand thus is our tradition.''
Thus Thou declared. Oh! Parama Guru!
Oh! Mantra Guru! Oh, Yoga Tantra Guru!
Mauna Guru that comes in the line of Mula the Holy! "
FootNotes:
[1] anu paksa - Jivas striving to reach God.
[2] sambhu paksa - Jivas made to strive by God to reach Him.
-----------------------------------
Thayumanavar's Guru comes in the lineage of Tirumular-The Great one who composed the Tirumanthiram-A work which Sri Bhagavan recommended to be recited as part of the consecration/construction of Samadhis to the Great ones like Mastan Swami.
Namaskar.
Friends,
I wish to share this moving song by Thayumanavar from 'Obeisance To Guru':
So very diverse being my desires,
Like the crawling worm
I leave one and grasp another;
Possessed of a vacuous mind like that
I have not articulated Thy Grace;
Only duality I know a bit;
If someone uttered a word of a sudden,
My heart leaps to proclaim it louder
Than my ears heard it,
The flame from my stomach pit
Leaps to my heart
Lacking the power to know the inscrutable.
Like those affected by madness, I babble.
How to know the path of liberation?
How to look upon pleasure and pain
With indifference?
Yet, my Master!
I held my faith in that one Word you taught me
As the beacon light on top of hill.
Oh! Mantra Guru! Oh, Yoga Tantra Guru!
Mauna Guru that comes in the line of Mula the Holy!"
In this verse Thayumanavar refers to The Rage the Ego feels when someone says something unflattering!.This clouds the Heart and makes one mad.
Despite all shortcomings Thayumanavar gives this message of Hope!-"Yet, my Master!
I held my faith in that one Word you taught me
As the beacon light on top of hill."
The one word the Guru graciously gave him when as a young boy Thayumanavar 'Chanced'(Remember David's Post)to cross the Guru's Path,climbing the steps of the Hill temple of Lord Ganesa in Tiruchirappali.The Guru glanced at the boy and said-"Summa Iru" and went his way.Thayumanavar later grew up ,got married,seved as a minster in the King's Durbar and after a son was born to him and his wife died,retraced his 'Path'and the Hymns that he composed are among the finest ever composed-a beautiful blend and synthesis of all Traditions.
A seed sown by a Guru can never fail to sprout.
For those of us wondering whether we are as fortunate-I wish to refer to what Sri Bhagavan told Catherine Osborne when she asked Bhagavan to remember her.Sri Bhagavan said-'Bhagavan will remember Kitty if Kitty Remembers Bhagavan'!This is true for all of us.To remember the Guru is to dwell on his life and Teachings-Bhagavan's(or Jesus,The Buddha,etc) assurance is there.
This is a simple and sweet way of Sadhana-This is called 'Smarana' (Contemplation)and is less 'Straight Jacketed' than Japa.
-----------------------------------
No knowing when one of the potent seed of a Teaching will spring to Life!
Namaskar.
.
... David Godman, Padamalai extract ...
Thank you.
.
"The teachers I have been with and written about all managed to realize the Self within three years of meeting their Gurus."
David, do you know if any of Papaji's students became fully enlightened in his presence or in the years after he passed away? As far as I'm aware, Nisargadatta publicly proclaimed Maurice Frydman and Rudi, two of his students as enlightened.
Even though Papaji did make numerous proclamations in private letters to his students, I don't think he publicly announced any of them as enlightened, and so maybe he knew that their glimpse didn't ripen and stay with them. I suppose Papaji's grace continues to push his students towards enlightenment even in his physical absence.
If you know any enlightened master/s (or at least those who are enlightened in your opinion), who are willing to allow normal people to be in their presence, please let us know. I'm sure many of us here would love to spend time in his/her presence. I'm hoping that at least one enlightened student of either Ramana/Nisargadatta/Papaji is present today to guide people who are struggling to make some progress.
Dear Folks,
My compliments to David for giving us all such a great forum.
In the North there is a saying in Hindi, “chotta mu aur badi baat”, meaning, “Hey ! Small mouth and big talk”. Am conscious of the same when writing the following and apologize in advance for contradicting some pet theories of people.
If we limit Sri Bhagavan’s vichara to “holding on to the ‘I’ to the exclusion of all thoughts”, I believe we err grievously. This is NOT the vichara of Sri Bhagavan. This is the vichara of “Soham”, “That I am”. This is a vichara which is passive, lifeless and without energetic awareness. This vichara will keep the sadhaka on the surface only and will not develop enough intensity in her/him to enable diving deep-within. And much before the intensity required for the diving-within builds up, the sadhaka will either slip into the deep-sleep state, or if the person has advanced further, into a catatonic manolaya state. The sadhaka will later emerge out of that state and will find that an hour perhaps had flitted by as if a second, and that there was no awareness of either the body or the world. And then perhaps even feel happy that some success in sadhana was achieved. But, crucially, during this process, there was also NO AWARENESS itself. There has to be continuous awareness of Awareness, or a continuous “Consciousness” at all times, so to speak. We can carry on such “holding on to the ‘I’ within to the exclusion of all thoughts” for years and years and still nothing really meaningful will be achieved.
Which is the whole point of Sri Bhagavan’s “Koham” (“Who am I”) vichara. The interrogative edge of “Ka”, whether in the form of Whence, Who or What, given to the vichara, changes the neutral and passive and inert into something dynamic, active and energetic - which will not permit the lapsing of the sadhaka into the deep-sleep state. And thus she/he has a chance to reach the intensity required to dive-within, or to sink-down, deeper and deeper into the ‘I’. Is “Who am I” just a tool to be used once to focus attention on the ‘I’ and then abandoned immediately ? As far as formal thought is concerned, perhaps yes. But the interrogative sense of “who”, or “whence” is to be kept rotating within. Such continued “poking” of the ‘I’, the “knock-knock” at the ‘I’, the continued attempt to look behind the ‘I’, the continued, hopeless “search” for an un-locatable Source, keeps the sadhaka in “Consciousness”. This is what makes Sri Bhagavan’s vichara the samurai sword that it is, and not the pocket knife which “hold-on to the ‘I’” reduces it to.
Sri Bhagavan has Himself, overwhelmingly so, in verse after verse, and in phrase after phrase, stuck to defining Self-enquiry primarily as “seeking the Source of the ‘I’”. Rather than use “passive” words, He has always emphasized the interrogative and active principle with words such as, “search”, “seek”, “enquire”, and so on. Especially in His own, original works. It is only in the compilations of various “Talks” etc, and in specific contexts, and attuned to the requirements of specific devotees, He has sometimes mentioned things like “excluding thoughts is enough”, or, “holding on to the ‘I’-thought is enough”, and so on.
So how did Sri Bhagavan’s vichara as “seek the Source”, come to be interpreted as being “hold on to the ‘I’ with objects dissociated and wait for the rest to happen”. This is worthwhile to understand.
[ continued at part 2 ]
[ part 2 ]
This interpretation is the logical conclusion of the intellectual need to reconcile an unstable and irreconcilable position; which is - that the Self is beyond this world, It cannot be objectified; (in fact, It cannot even be subjectified); the instant we understand vichara as literally “seek the Source, or seek the Self”, we objectify the Self and thus the method must fail; and thus this could not have been what Sri Bhagavan meant.
And, instead, if we interpret the teaching as meaning “just hold on to, or dwell in the feeling of, the ‘I’ within, without associating with objects”, we are then somehow, in some vague, undefined manner, holding on to the subject alone, the ‘I’, and have thus not objectified the ‘I’ or the Self; and have also achieved the required focus on the ‘I’.
(Which is a complete misconception because what we have actually done is, anyway, objectified the intended subject, i.e objectified the “feeling of the ‘I’”, or the ‘I’ itself).
I must mention that this line of interpretation was first offered by a respected scholar and devotee. And the line of thinking has been carried forward by eminent personages in the field of Sri Bhagavan’s literature. And since it rationalizes and appears to reconcile what is really, ab initio, irreconcilable, it is popular and almost universally accepted now. And also it is relatively easy to do in practice. To give an idea, if on a scale we put this vichara of “dwell in the feeling of ‘I’ to the exclusion of all thoughts” at ONE, the “search for the source of ‘I’”, would come in at a MILLION.
Carrying on, as already mentioned, Sri Bhagavan almost always described the vichara process as “seeking the Source of the ‘I’”. Usually the conversation would go like this:
Swami, how to do vichara ?
Ask “Whence am I”. Seek the Source of the ‘I’ within
Swami, what then is the Source of the ‘I’ ?
Source of the ‘I’ is the Heart.
Swami, where is the Heart ?
The Heart for those who insist on a physical location within the body is the Heart on the right side of the chest. But actually the Heart has no location and is everywhere. The body is the Heart, within the body is the Heart, outside the body is also the Heart, the world is also the Heart, ALL is the Heart.
Swami how to then seek the Heart ?
By the vichara “Whence am ‘I’ and diving deep deep within.
And so on …
So what is Sri Bhagavan actually telling us by this round-in-a-circle conundrum ? He is basically saying that the position CANNOT BE reconciled. We have to deal with the contradiction as-it-is. We have throw all our questions and intellectual dissections away. We have to stop thinking about subjectivity or objectivity or whether the process of Self-enquiry will lead to making the ‘I’ into an object or not, or worrying about it. All that may indeed be relevant, but only in the realm of theory. As far as practice is concerned, we toss that aside to try to seek what cannot be sought. In fact we have to try to do that for which there is no method theoretically possible. It is truly a leap of faith.
My salutations to Srikantha and Maneesha (as written in her blog “I vent it all here ….”), who I believe are on the right track. Srikantha’s short comment of Aug 25, nicely covers the gist of the whole argument.
I must confess that the foregoing has been sitting in my PC for 3 days now, and one kept hoping it would go away. But it didn’t and one just had to put it up. Would clarify that the intention is not to create debate or to try to “win over” anyone from her/his fixed ideas. Sri Bhagavan speaks to each in her/his own language, and what is true and right for me is certainly not necessarily true and right for another. But then, there may be a few who are unsure of the process of vichara, who have still not been able to decide how to go about it, and to them this post may offer some insights.
Namaskars to all
8-5-46 day by day with bhagavan
Bhagavan: Why? If you can think about other things you can think about ‘I’ and where in your body it arises. If you mean that other thoughts distract you, the only way is to draw your mind back each time it strays and fix it on the ‘I’. As each thought arises, ask yourself: “To whom is thisthought?” Theanswer will be, “to me”; then hold on to that “me”.
I said I can't found no expression such as 'concentrating on I-thought' in 'Day by Day with Bhagavan', but I find such expression.I am sorry for my misunderstanding.
regards shiba
.
...Papaji's students ...
It may be interesting to read himself about this in "Nothing Ever Happened". I never read the book but I found an extract of it in the net (I believe it to be authentic). I have to admit that I felt a certain disgust because there I read something about spiritual "leeches".
.
As I've said, and with no expectation that people agree with me, though I have not found anywhere he has explicity claimed it, I strongly believe Nome to be a jnani from writing him, and having spent a little time in his presence. And he seems willing to see, correspond with normal people. In the pamphlet Timeless Presence he actually did give an account of his dissolution of the individual. I have found writing him, and being in his presence to be immensely helpful, and the grace to be very powerful in association with him. Even then, the onus is on me to practice, but he has deeply clarified what inquiry is and isn't, and continues to. He gives satsang in Santa Cruz, and the e-mail contact, where I send inquiry, spiritual related questions is sat@cruzio.com That aside, it really seems the way to find a jnani is earnest practice because the jnani is a manifestation of the Self. and the way I found Nome was through intensely practicing and wanting to get free.(I was not looking for a guru) It also seems like without that, it would be more difficult to recognize and also that finding a Realized spiritual teacher does not really have anything to do with the materialistic realm, and that it is the inward Self-inquiry that is the important part in finding a teacher.
Arvind/Friends,
Good to have arvind sharing his insights.
"So what is Sri Bhagavan actually telling us by this round-in-a-circle conundrum ? He is basically saying that the position CANNOT BE reconciled. We have to deal with the contradiction as-it-is. We have throw all our questions and intellectual dissections away. We have to stop thinking about subjectivity or objectivity or whether the process of Self-enquiry will lead to making the ‘I’ into an object or not, or worrying about it. All that may indeed be relevant, but only in the realm of theory. As far as practice is concerned, we toss that aside to try to seek what cannot be sought. In fact we have to try to do that for which there is no method theoretically possible. It is truly a leap of faith."
Interesting to see this perspective-that Self Enquiry is a leap of Faith.All the circumlocutions of Thought was inflated and then deflated!Wonder why we cannot start with surrender to God or Guru-Even if one starts in a tottering way,one may atleast have a sense of direction to start with.A Simple Prayer is quite potent.
"A magic leverage suddenly is caught
That moves the veiled Ineffable's timeless will:
A prayer, a master act, a king idea
Can link man's strenth to a transcendent Force"-Sri Aurobindo(Savitri)
"1) of the billions of people on the planet only a very, very small percentage will encounter those teachings capable of liberating the practitioner
2) and of those who do encounter teachings with the power to liberate, even fewer will be moved by the value, or appreciate the value, of those teachings
3) and finally, even if 1) and 2) fall into place for a person, the likelihood of applying the teachings in a sincerely earnest manner decade after decade, is quite rare
Most reading this post will have 1) and 2) covered. It will be 3) that will be the challenge, including for myself; mind creates countless distractions.
Nisargadatta spoke about EARNESTNESS like a broken record. And I recall Papaji in a video say something to the effect that he rarely sees that all important ingredient in people, fire in the belly, . . . . . or is it heart!?
Perhaps Ramana also emphasised EARNESTNESS. Others may have some suitable quotes."
The first part of this resonates with me as a wrong way to look at it. Because my exposure to the teachings in the form of the Self is constant (even before I heard of Maharshi or Self-inquiry). And since there is nothing apart from the Self. Yes, of all the people I've met in my life, which probably numbers in the thousands, one is fully Realized. (although that one is the only real one) so to look at it statistically, seems to be looking at something that utterly transcends and is invisible to a materialistic outlook. Because inquiry is dissolving my notion of being an individual, in the Self there are no other individuals. (much less unrealized) i feel like I have to start with that understanding, that there is only the Self. So when I say there are millions who will never be exposed to the teachings, I'm objectifying the Self into millions of people that don't exist, which I do sometimes. (not to mention the teachings in the form of the Self being the only thing that doesn't require suffering imagination are constant and ever present for everybody by definition, it's called the Self) Also I remember Muruganar said, "there is no jivanmukti, there is only mukti". Since there is only the Self, there is no individual that achieves Self-Realization, the individual is realized to not exist because it is just suffering imagination. This is also really pessimistic in light of the benefits that are gained from spiritual practice in terms of Bliss and grace which are available all the time. On comment number 3, admits of time, but the Self doesn't admit of time, there is only right now to inquire and discover the grace that is available. Yes, 5 minutes ago I was wallowing in all sorts of vasanas (literally). But now, that I've come to my senses (lol) I can see their unreality. The Self is, in my experience, and everything pertaining to the Self is in my experience, supernatural, it doesn't abide by the laws of physics, and statistics have no relation to it. Once I experience even a bit of the Bliss of the Self, all that is wiped out as a concern. In politics I can take a poll about who supports a political party, but the Self, and these teachings transcend that being the real nature of existence. And with inquiry, the thing is, it is not in my experiencce or from what I understand of the teachings a drawn out process. It's that I'm suffering, and i realize that what the suffering is based on is groundless, based in imagination, and immediately the natural peace and bliss makes itself available.
I haven't posted here in a while, but I do often follow the conversation, and the recent discussion of self-enquiry peaks my interest. The controversy over what self-enquiry is in practice, whether it means “holding onto the 'I'-thought” or “finding the Source of the 'I'-thought”, or something else, is an issue that matters to me. But in the context of this discussion, another point is even more important to remember, which is found in the commentary to verse 391 of David's recent translation of Guru Vachaka Kovai, in which Bhagavan says:
“That trustworthy vichara exists neither in book learning nor in learning from others but only in one's own sense of 'I' [aham].”
I think it's important to recognize how profound this statement is. To Bhagavan, self-enquiry is grounded entirely, not just partially but completely, in the inspection of our own sense of “I”. That is where we learn self-enquiry, that is the “Guru” of self-enquiry, not the scriptures, books, or discussions we have. Dare I say, not even Bhagavan's own words represent the genuine source of self-enquiry, though the outer Guru does indeed play a crucial role in pointing us towards the inner Guru who dwells in the “I am”. Unless, of course, one understands Ramana's true being to reside not in his outer bodily appearance, but in our very hearts. So to listen to the instructions of Ramana as the Guru who teaches self-enquiry does not really mean reading all his books on the subject and arguing about what they mean, it means listening to the teaching on self-enquiry that he gives from one's own heart of being, which for us means the sense of “I”.
So when Arvind suggests that simply “feeling the sense of 'I'” or “holding onto the 'I'-thought” isn't what Ramana taught, I have to ask, where else would one start? Ramana taught self-enquiry from that very position, and directed us to that very position of self. Even by asking us to find the Source of the “I”, we can only do that by beginning with the “I” and tracing its origins. Likewise, the notion that this is a passive approach simply isn't my experience. The opposite is the case. In contemplating the “I”-sense, the Guru comes alive in one's own heart and begins to teach us from that place. One's own awareness is shown more and more to be a living Being, a Divine Consciousness that goes far beyond the mere ego-sense. In fact, the ego-sense itself simply becomes translucent, and one can see beyond it to its Source, and feel the Divine Nature of one's own Being even as one contemplates the ego-sense itself through deeper and deeper feeling.
I cannot say that I am very good at “holding onto the sense of 'I'”, but I can say that feeling the “I” is the easiest way to feel the Source of the “I”. For others it may be different, but it's important to distinguish between our actual practice of self-enquiry and theoretical discussion of it as an intellectual argument. Bhagavan's teachings on self-enquiry were never intended to be intellectual in nature, but purely directed towards the actual practice of self-enquiry. Which is why he always directed people to literally look within, to ask about this “I”. And to do that in practice means to actually feel the sense of “I”, rather than to merely think about it and speculate logically about its meanings.
Likewise, all the questions and arguments we may have about what self-enquiry actually is can only be resolved in the practice of self-enquiry, which as Ramana said above does not exist in books or in conversation but only in the sense of “I”. So again, one must investigate the actual feeling sense of “I” to find out what self-enquiry is, and if one does, one will find a dynamic process of active instruction going on there, not just some passive process. The intellect by its very nature has only a passive role in any case, whereas it is the sense of Being and Awareness that becomes active through self-enquiry and leads us to understanding.
Anon said:
“I'm hoping that at least one enlightened student of either Ramana/Nisargadatta/Papaji is present today to guide people who are struggling to make some progress.”
Yes David, who alive today do you respect as carrying on these lineages . . . . . in all their glory??
* * * * *
Arvind said:
If we limit Sri Bhagavan’s vichara to “holding on to the ‘I’ to the exclusion of all thoughts”, I believe we err grievously.
Is “Who am I” just a tool to be used once to focus attention on the ‘I’ and then abandoned immediately ? As far as formal thought is concerned, perhaps yes. But the interrogative sense of “who”, or “whence” is to be kept rotating within.
We can carry on such “holding on to the ‘I’ within to the exclusion of all thoughts” for years and years and still nothing really meaningful will be achieved.
Arvind, a question for you.
Is there any need to seek something you have found? Or, stated another way, is there any need to seek the source of ‘I’, to ask “whence am I”, if you already sit quietly at the source?
It’s not a trick question, the answer clearly is, “no!, I don’t need to seek something I have found”.
Ramana, in “Who Am I?”, states:
1] The Self is that where there is absolutely no “I” thought. That is called “Silence”.
2] The conclusive teaching is that the mind should be rendered quiescent in order to gain release.
3] In order to quieten the mind one has only to inquire within oneself what one’s Self is. If one inquires “Who am I?”, the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. The mind becomes quiescent via the inquiry ‘Who am I?’
4] The very purpose of Self-inquiry is to focus the entire mind at its source.
My personal interpretation of these quotes is that to ‘gain release’ the mind must return to Silence, ie., become quiescent. Furthermore, inquiry is merely the tool that facilitates this return.
Hence, once quiescence has been established, inquiry can be set aside; simply abide in Silence. And as soon as attention wanders away from Silence, inquiry is once again employed until quiescence is re-established.
But you are right, each interprets the practice according to his own ability, and like you I make no attempt to win any over. Rather, just sharing my interpretation.
Peter
Friends,
What is the 'correct' way and what is 'not correct'?-we do encounter this thought from time to time.The striving MIND wants to be sure that it is moving towards its set goal.
It is useful to recall sri Ramakrishna's timeless message-His wonderful Life exemplified this-he says:
"Two things are necessary for the realization of God; faith and self-surrender. Man is ignorant by nature. Errors are natural to him. Can a one-seer pot hold four seers of milk? Whatever path you may follow, you must pray to God with a restless heart. He is the Ruler of the soul within. He will surely listen to your prayer if it is sincere. Whether you follow the ideal of the Personal God or that of the Impersonal Truth, you will realize God alone, provided you are restless for Him. A cake with icing tastes sweet whether you eat it straight or sidewise".
The very simplicity of this message is deceptive but truly that is all there to it.
One of the arguements that I have encountered is that only 'Self Enquiry' directs the mind inwards and plunging it into the source,destroys it.Any other form of dualistic worship sustains the mind and will not lead to destruction of Mind.
Arvind's latest post throws light on this paradox.As the mind falls quiet and one is free from the usual Disturbance and noise of the surface mind,one struggles for 'Motivation'.Self Enquiry becomes 'the leap of Faith' to sustain the 'active' principle as Arvind calls it.
Sri Ramakrishna puts it this way-"Bhakti is a woman. So she has access to zenana (inner apartments). Jnana can go only up to the visitor’s room."
Even if this Bhakti is dualistic-expressed as Love towards The Guru or any other aspect of God-This is not an 'Exercise in Concentration' as it is made out.It does plunge the mind(and whatever one is!) in the source.This is Gnana.
Namaskar
Friends,
I appreciate What Arvind is trying to say-That 'Self Enquiry' is not just getting free of Thoughts-It means going to the Depths of Being.I understand that what Arvind says is -The Mental sense of 'I am' that one senses when the external mind falls quiet is not the same as Awareness.By this 'Leap of Faith' Arvind seems to be emphasising that Devotion is implied in Self Enquiry-Not holding onto 'This' or 'That'.Here it becomes Self Surrender.
So is 'Quietude' same as 'Silence'?In quietude ,seeking is Stalled;In silence ,the seeking is not there.This is perhaps what Peter is referring to.
Broken Yogi(Good to see you back)-I totally appreciate what he has to say-I am moved to the core to read this-
"Dare I say, not even Bhagavan's own words represent the genuine source of self-enquiry, though the outer Guru does indeed play a crucial role in pointing us towards the inner Guru who dwells in the “I am”. ".Wonderful!
Again BY says-" One's own awareness is shown more and more to be a living Being, a Divine Consciousness that goes far beyond the mere ego-sense. In fact, the ego-sense itself simply becomes translucent, and one can see beyond it to its Source, and feel the Divine Nature of one's own Being even as one contemplates the ego-sense itself through deeper and deeper feeling.".
Thanks very much Arvind,Peter,Broken Yogi.
Salutations.
"Likewise, all the questions and arguments we may have about what self-enquiry actually is can only be resolved in the practice of self-enquiry, which as Ramana said above does not exist in books or in conversation but only in the sense of “I”. So again, one must investigate the actual feeling sense of “I” to find out what self-enquiry is, and if one does, one will find a dynamic process of active instruction going on there, not just some passive process. The intellect by its very nature has only a passive role in any case, whereas it is the sense of Being and Awareness that becomes active through self-enquiry and leads us to understanding."
It seems to me that the actual practice of Self-inquiry is very much conveyed in the verbal teachings of Ramana and other Jnanis, infact is the Self-inquiry in a sense. Reading the texts and dialogues with Maharshi is even sometimes more effective then when I try to do it on my own. I'm also not sure, not knowing what inquiry is, whether the intellect plays a passive or active role. Originally I would have said passive, but more and more the discrimination seems key, which is an active role it seems. I don't know whether it is intellectual. I guess it comes down to, what is Self-inquiry? And the discrimination seems central to what it is. Even the question Who am I? is an ascertaining of my real nature as some sort of non-objective Blissful consciousness. Broken Yogi, referred to it as a being somewhere, but it seems to be boundary-less. At this point, I couldn't tell you what my attempt at Self-inquiry looks like other then it is an attempt to transcend suffering and enter into deeper levels of blissful being. That seems to be the telltale sign of success. External events help it along by instilling the necessary humility that might not already be present. I try different methodologies, but it really isn't the methodologies that get me back into blissful being, it's for instance writing the sage I correspond with, honestly. Because in that, is an implied recognition of my own powerlessness to succeed at inquiry. That recognition that I as an individual is powerless to do anything, worthless, and that only in getting past the trap of the individual will there be genuinely positive experience. Association with a sage, is recognition of my powerlessness as an individual. I would say more then any other thing it is that, that brings on deeper experience. When I, as an individual wants peace, and strives it may have played some role, but it's really when I give up that that supernatural Bliss takes over. But then I try to stay there by not activating the mind. So far, I would say what I just described is what inquiry is it seems, the inquiry is the Self, the inquiry is the peace that takes over when the individual, and it's web of self-importance relinquishes itself.
Here is an excerpt from 'Naan yaar?' - the original Tamil version of
'Who am I?'
In the answer to question 11, Bhagavan replies:
***********************************************
piRa eNNangaL ezhundhaal avaRRai(avatrai) poortthi paNNuvadhaRku
etthaniyaamal avai "yaarukku uNdaayina?" enRu(endru) vichaarikka
vENdum. etthanai eNNangaL ezhinum enna? jaakkiradhaiyaai ovvOru
eNNamum kiLambumbOdhE "idhu yaarukku uNdaayiRRu(uNdaayitru)?"
enRu(endru) vichaaritthaal "enakku" enRu(endru) thOnRum(thOndrum).
"Naan yaar" enRu(endru) vichaaritthaal manam than piRappidatthiRku
thirumbividum; ezhuNdh eNNamum adangi vidum. ippadi pazhagap pazhaga
manadhiRku than piRappidatthil thangi NiRkum sakthi adhigarikkinRadhu
(adhigarikkindradhu)...
Here I give my own translation of this:
If other thoughts arise, without trying to fulfil them one must enquire/investigate
"to whom have these come?". So what if how many ever thoughts arise?
Vigilantly as each thought starts then & there if one enquires
"to whom has this come?", it will dawn as "to me".
If one asks/enquires "Who am I?" the mind returns to its birth-place.
The thought too subsides. With more & more practice like this,
the mind's strength/power to stay established in its birth-place increases...
************************************************
From this it seems that the question 'Who am I?' is like a tool to
turn the mind inward, a means to increase the mind's strength to
stay at its 'birth-place', rather than a continued, hopeless “search”
for an un-locatable 'Source'.
The aim is to try and stay at the source
and increase the power and strength to stay there.
The question 'Who am I?' is put only if & when there is a thought.
If there is no thought, to what shall we apply the questioning of
'to whom?'-'to me'-'who am i?'
I don't think vichara is about asking 'Who am I?' for the sake of asking it.
To me 'Who am I?' seems to be very much a question which is abandoned..
..until we are disturbed by the next thought.
>>The sadhaka will later emerge out of that state and will find that an hour
>>perhaps had flitted by as if a second, and that there was no awareness of
>>either the body or the world.
Such things have happened to devotees of Bhagavan, when Bhagavan kept his gaze
fixed at them for some time. One cannot dismiss that as manolaya.
Only, one must not long for such states.
I think of Bhagavan and say, "If I am doing vichara improperly, it is your job
to correct me!" And I do whatever I understand vichara to be.
There is inner guidance. Vichara is self-correcting.
The only thing that can give us better understanding is more & more practice.
Hi Folks,
Great to read all the responses. Happy to hear from my old friend Broken Yogi again.
Like mentioned, folks, I will not pick up the active debate, neither on hot points raised by others, nor in defence of mine. Apologies on that score. But, would be happy to clarify or expand on any point should anyone so require.
Peter, yours was a rhetorical query only.
Ravi, let me mention (have I mentioned this earlier ?), and tho’ my posts may suggest otherwise, that it has been my firm belief, always, that Devotion and Jnana are like the two engines of a twin-engined aircraft. Either one can make the plane fly, but with both engines firing, the plane flies smoother and faster. And the biggest secret is both the engines are identical, though their cowling-covers make them look different !
Namaskars to all
.
... Ravi, "Bhakti is a woman. So she has access to zenana (inner apartments). Jnana can go only up to the visitor’s room." ...
This is really nice. I love His sayings. I don't understand this as dismissing Jnana but as dismissing of false Jnanis. As a true Jnani He must have had a lot of experiences with misunderstandings.
Don't we forget:
"31. Among things conducive to Liberation, devotion (Bhakti) holds the supreme place. The seeking after one’s real nature is designated as devotion." (Sankara, Viveka Chudamani)
... that only 'Self Enquiry' directs the mind inwards ...
Yes, this is certainly a misunderstanding.
"Bhagavan: Enquiry is not the only way. If one does spiritual practice [sadhana] with name and form, repetition of holy names [japa], or any of these methods with grim determination and perseverance, one becomes That."
And:
"These spiritual practices are not for knowing one’s own Self, which is all-pervading, but only for getting rid of the objects of desire." (Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 29th November, 1947 (volume 2, letter 22)
Every practice leading to get rid of the objects of desire and to discover the nature of reality is the right way.
Enlightened people we had all over the world and all over the time - independent of cultures and religions. Many of them never knew the term "self" or "self enquiry". Nevertheless they reached the goal of life. They simply understand one day that this world they believed to see including their own person is nothing else then a temporary creation of the mind within eternal reality.
In such a vision there is no longer the place for what we normally call "body", "life" and "death".
.
Thankyou for the Swaminathan article. I remember reading ages ago that Chadwick was not overly impressed by Somerset Maugham who did not fully understand or appreciate Ramanas core teaching. As for Jung, he could have visited Ramana Maharshi but was too concerned that it may tarnish his scientific reputation. How sad to miss out on such a wonderful encounter!
Ramprax,
"I think of Bhagavan and say, "If I am doing vichara improperly, it is your job
to correct me!" And I do whatever I understand vichara to be.
There is inner guidance. Vichara is self-correcting."
This is it!You cannot do better than this!
Namaskar.
@Broken Yogi,
"To Bhagavan, self-enquiry is grounded entirely, not just partially but completely, in the inspection of our own sense of “I”. That is where we learn self-enquiry, that is the “Guru” of self-enquiry, not the scriptures, books, or discussions we have. Dare I say, not even Bhagavan's own words represent the genuine source of self-enquiry, though the outer Guru does indeed play a crucial role in pointing us towards the inner Guru who dwells in the “I am”".
Excellent stuff. Thanks.
Ramos,
"This is really nice. I love His sayings. I don't understand this as dismissing Jnana but as dismissing of false Jnanis. As a true Jnani He must have had a lot of experiences with misunderstandings."
Quite true Ramos.Yes,Sri Ramakrishna is referring to ineffectiveness of all Intellectual approaches towards seeking Gnana.
"Enlightened people we had all over the world and all over the time - independent of cultures and religions. Many of them never knew the term "self" or "self enquiry". Nevertheless they reached the goal of life. "
Absolutely.How Brother Lawrence Realized God on seeing a Barren Tree shorn of Leaves!His Practice of The Presence of God is a wonderful book.
Namaskar.
@Clemens,
"I never read the book" Read the books (there are 3 in all) and I'm sure you'll change your mind about Papaji in spite of some of his comments. You can also see some of his satsangs on google video.
.
...The Practice of the Presence of God ...
You meant this?
The Practice Of The Presence Of God - Brother Lawrence's Conversations and Letters
.
Friends,
I wish to share this wonderful excerpt on Brother Lawrence from Wikipedia:
"As a young man, Herman's poverty forced him into joining the army, and thus he was guaranteed meals and a small stipend. During this period, Herman had an experience that set him on a unique spiritual journey; it wasn't, characteristically, a supernatural vision, but a supernatural clarity into a common sight.
In the deep of winter, Herman looked at a barren tree, stripped of leaves and fruit, waiting silently and patiently for the sure hope of summer abundance. Gazing at the tree, Herman grasped for the first time the extravagance of God's grace and the unfailing sovereignty of divine providence. Like the tree, he himself was seemingly dead, but God had life waiting for him, and the turn of seasons would bring fullness. At that moment, he said, that leafless tree "first flashed in upon my soul the fact of God," and a love for God that never after ceased to burn. Sometime later, an injury forced his retirement from the army, and after a stint as a footman, he sought a place where he could suffer for his failures. He thus entered the Discalced Carmelite monastery in Paris as Brother Lawrence.
He was assigned to the monastery kitchen where, amidst the tedious chores of cooking and cleaning at the constant bidding of his superiors, he developed his rule of spirituality and work. In his Maxims, Lawrence writes, "Men invent means and methods of coming at God's love, they learn rules and set up devices to remind them of that love, and it seems like a world of trouble to bring oneself into the consciousness of God's presence. Yet it might be so simple. Is it not quicker and easier just to do our common business wholly for the love of him?"
For Brother Lawrence, "common business," no matter how mundane or routine, was the medium of God's love. The issue was not the sacredness or worldly status of the task but the motivation behind it. "Nor is it needful that we should have great things to do. . . We can do little things for God; I turn the cake that is frying on the pan for love of him, and that done, if there is nothing else to call me, I prostrate myself in worship before him, who has given me grace to work; afterwards I rise happier than a king. It is enough for me to pick up but a straw from the ground for the love of God."
Brother Lawrence retreated to a place in his heart where the love of God made every detail of his life of surpassing value. "I began to live as if there were no one save God and me in the world." Together, God and Brother Lawrence cooked meals, ran errands, scrubbed pots, and endured the scorn of the world.
He admitted that the path to this perfect union was not easy. He spent years disciplining his heart and mind to yield to God's presence. "As often as I could, I placed myself as a worshiper before him, fixing my mind upon his holy presence, recalling it when I found it wandering from him. This proved to be an exercise frequently painful, yet I persisted through all difficulties."
Only when he reconciled himself to the thought that this struggle and longing was his destiny did he find a new peace: his soul "had come to its own home and place of rest." There he spent the rest of his 80 years, dying in relative obscurity and pain and perfect joy.
----------------------------------
"It is enough for me to pick up but a straw from the ground for the love of God."-This Karma,Bhakti and Gnana!To even think of these Great souls is a Blessing.
The key thing to note is that seeing an object outside need not pull the mind outside.On the contrary,it may turn the mind inward.It all depends on the "bhava" with which it is done.
Salutations.
"This is really nice. I love His sayings. I don't understand this as dismissing Jnana but as dismissing of false Jnanis. As a true Jnani He must have had a lot of experiences with misunderstandings."
I feel alot safer declaring someone to be a jnani, then I do saying that someone is a false jnani. For the obvious reason, that atleast then I'm saying something nice about someone. And I notice that Ramana didn't even feel comfortable saying mean things about people who tried to poison him as long as they were still alive. I hardly live up to that, but it tells me what it means to be Realized, is total equanimity. But there is another reason, and that I suspect, but could be wrong, that being in the presence of a jnani is self-revealing, it becomes obvious because of the grace. Many people knew that Ramana was a jnani. They were ajnanis, but it seems to me that all those people in Power of Presence knew that Ramana was a jnani. Because they had unequivocal experiences of what the teachings mean, as well as just flat out supernatural experiences that do not occur in the presence of frauds. Another thing is, I suspect there may not be any fake jnanis. I imagine there may be some misguided folks who think they are enlightened, but the only way that seems possible is not having some idea what enlightenment means, or thinking that some more trivial, common state or experience is the highest spiritual state possible. I knoew I'm not Realized because I still suffer even if I do sometimes expereince transcendent states, they are not permanent, and only occassionally egoless.
But they prompt me to practice harder, to try to understand harder. The teacher I correspond with, and have visited, and who alot of my experiences around him remind me of those described in Power of Presence, I initially felt very iffy about and there is scandle about him on the internet. (true or not) But I trust the experience, the grace, the peace, before a bunch of facts. "If my guru frequented the toddy shop..." So anyway, taht says to me, I'm more likely to be wrong about who isn't a jnani, then who is. When I was first into Ramana Maharshi a couple years ago, I was at first really skeptical of Nisargadatta maharaj, and thought that perhaps papaji was misguided. What shifted, and the same with teacher i corresponded with, is that my states, and moods changed, but their expression of the truth is constant, unchanging. every footage of Papaji he speaks clarity. Same with Nisargadatta Maharaj. Same with historical figures such as shankara, Ramakrishna, the Buddha, and Jesus, stuff even in the old testemant. I only need to open a book of shankara, or Ramakrishna, or Talks with Ramana Maharshi to get distilled truth. same with Papaji on Google video.
"Wrote:「Friends,
I appreciate What Arvind is trying to say-That 'Self Enquiry' is not just getting free of Thoughts-It means going to the Depths of Being.I understand that what Arvind says is -The Mental sense of 'I am' that one senses when the external mind falls quiet is not the same as Awareness.By this 'Leap of Faith' Arvind seems to be emphasising that Devotion is implied in Self Enquiry-Not holding onto 'This' or 'That'.Here it becomes Self Surrender."
This makes sense in light of my own experiences with inquiry. ('i am') I'm assuming cannot be anything imagined. I always assume that since the real Self is inclusive of everything, when I think of I, or I am, I think of the body. But the abiding or stayiing with I am, I have a feeling that that is referring to something mroe direct. Of realizing the Self that is not limited to a body. Is it? Or does it mean somehow holding on to the subjective sense of 'I" which is smoething I imagine to be located inthe body. I would think it couldn't be that, because Maharshi was teachings something much more direct. I take Self-inquiry at this point to be the direct path to Realize myself as pure Consciousness expanisve enough to include everything, and not limited to within the body, not how I conceive myself as an individual. That is exactly what is at issue, and what Self-inquiry dissolves or transcends. what Ravi says strongly resonates with me. Because the spiritual maturity implied in Self-inquiry, the Bliss or devotion are of the nature of the Self. Why jnanis are extremely devoted bhaktis. Because the Bliss of the Self is the devotion, the love. Marital garland of letters comes to mind. Infact, the happiness, the Bliss, the devotion I see as being mayb the ultimate means to Realization, and what differentiates it from a dull tamasic stupor-ish, or intellectually superior state. Self-inquiry is merely discriminating what is that love and devtion and bliss of pure Being, and what is an ego-tistic obstacle to merging with that, and then getting rid of the obstacles.
Friends,
Does empirical Reality has any significance?Is it only an appearance that is valid only as long as the perceiver is there-or as in ajati vada view-It never exists!
This is a subject where even Sages have differed;This is only as it should be.Knowledge of the Essence of Truth is onething but comprehending the Totality of the Infinite is another.
Sri Ramakrishna refers to this by saying that the Infinte Brahman is like a mountain of Sugar and even a Sage Like Sukadeva is at the most a Big ant who could carry at the most two or three grains of sugar!
With this introduction,I wish to share the Following Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo(I am aware that sri Bhagavan had different view than sri Aurobindo).I will have to split this into seperate posts.This is what Sri Aurobindo Says:
"The methods described in the account are the well-established
methods of Jnana Yoga – (1) one-pointed concentration followed
by thought-suspension, (2) the method of distinguishing
or finding out the true self by separating it from mind, life, body
and coming to the pure “I” behind; this also can disappear into
the impersonal Self. The usual result is a merging in the Atman
or Brahman – which is what one would suppose is meant by
the Overself, for it is that which is the real Overself. This Brahman
or Atman is everywhere, all is in it, it is in all, but it is in
all not as an individual being in each but is the same in all – as
the Ether is in all. When the merging in the Overself is complete,
there is no ego, no distinguishable I, nor any formed separative
person or personality. All is an indivisible and undistinguishable
Oneness either free from all formation or carrying all formations
in it without being affected; one can realise it in either
way. There is a realisation in which all things are moving in
the one Self and this Self is there stable in all beings; there is
another more complete and thorough-going in which not only
is it so but all are vividly realised as the Self, the Brahman, the
Divine. In the former, it is possible to dismiss all beings as creations
of Maya, leaving the one Self alone as true – in the other
it is easier to regard them as real manifestations of the Self,
not as illusions. But one can also regard all beings as souls, independent
realities in an eternal Nature dependent on the one Divine.
These are the characteristic realisations of the Overself
familiar to the Vedanta."
Friends,
Sri Aurobindo(Continued):
There are a thousand ways of approaching
and realising the Divine and each way has its own
experiences which have their own truth and stand really on a
basis one in essence but complex in aspects, common to all but
not expressed in the same way by all. There is not much use in
discussing these variations; the important thing is to follow
one’s own way well and thoroughly. In this yoga, one can realise
the psychic being as a portion of the Divine seated in the
heart with the Divine supporting it there – this psychic being
takes charge of the sadhana and turns the whole being to the
Truth, the Divine, with results in the mind, the vital and the
physical consciousness which I need not go into here – that is
the first transformation. We realise next the one Self, Brahman,
Divine, first above the body, life, mind and not only within the
heart supporting them – above and free and unattached as the
static Self in all and dynamic too as the active Divine Being and
Power, Ishwara-Shakti, containing the world and pervading it as
well as transcending it, manifesting all cosmic aspects. But what
is most important for us is that it manifests as a transcending Light,
Knowledge, Power, Purity, Peace, Ananda of which we become
aware and which descends into the being and progressively replaces
the ordinary consciousness itself by its own movements
– that is the second transformation. We realise also the consciousness
itself as moving upward, ascending through many planes,
physical, vital, mental, overmental to the supramental and Ananda
planes.
Friends,
Sri Aurobindo(concluding):
This is nothing new; it is stated in the Taittiriya
Upanishad that there are five Purushas, the physical, the vital,
the mental, the Truth Purusha (supramental) and the Bliss Purusha;
it says that one has to draw the physical self into the vital
self, the vital into the mental, the mental into the Truth self, the
Truth self into the Bliss self and so attain perfection. But in this
yoga we become aware not only of this taking up but of a pouring
down of the power of the higher Self, so that there comes in
the possibility of a descent of the supramental Self and Nature
Integral Yoga and Other Paths
to dominate and change our present nature and turn it from nature
of Ignorance into nature of Truth-Knowledge (and through
the supramental into nature of Ananda) – this is the third or supramental
transformation. It does not always go in this order, for
with many the spiritual descent begins first in an imperfect way
before the psychic is in front and in charge, but the psychic development
has to be attained before a perfect and unhampered
spiritual descent can take place, and the last or supramental
change is impossible so long as the two first have not become full
and complete. That’s the whole matter put as briefly as possible."
-----------------------------------
In Sri Aurobindo's Yoga-The Empirical Reality ceases to be just Empirical but is part and parcel of Divine manifestation.
Namaskar.
First of all, it's nice to see old friends such as Arvind, Ramprax and Broken Yogi commenting again. Welcome back!
Second, I am having problems getting through to Google, although I can connect easily with any other site I need. This situation has unfortunately coincided with a big increase in the number of people who are making comments. Apologies if there are occasionally delays; most of the time I just can't get through to Blogger to post the comments.
Third, Ramprax made a comment a few days ago:
'I think of Bhagavan and say, "If I am doing vichara improperly, it is your job to correct me!" And I do whatever I understand vichara to be. There is inner guidance. Vichara is self-correcting.'
Excellent sentiments!
I should like to relate two well-know incidents from the ashram kitchen and then extrapolate the conclusions to the realm of self-enquiry.
Egg plants had been cut and the spiky ends were about to be thrown away. Not even the cows would eat them. Bhagavan, though, insisted that they be turned into a vegetable dish. A devotee was deputed by Bhagavan to stir a pot of these inedible and probably indigestible leftovers. He faithfully stayed at his post stirring away, even when the 'vegetable' was reduced to a charred and sticky mess at the bottom of the pot. Just before the meal was to be served, Bhagavan reappeared. He seemed delighted that the devotee had stuck to his task, even though it seemed that the food had been ruined. Bhagavan added a few condiments and the contents of the pot miraculously transformed themselves into a tasty vegetable dish.
On another occasion, when Bhagavan was cooking, something was about to be burned unless immediate action was taken.
He called out, 'Take the plate from the stove!' and the devotee immediately obeyed and removed it with his bare hands, even though it was a heavy iron plate that had been sitting on a blazing fire. When he looked at his hands afterwards, the devotee was amazed to discover that his hands had not been burnt.
What is the relevance of these stories to the practice of self-enquiry? Bhagavan has given us very specific instructions on how to practise self-enquiry. If we follow them to the letter, without attempting to analyse, query or vary them, we naturally invoke his grace in our attempts to succeed. If we take matters into our own hands, thinking that we have found a better way, I suspect that the grace is somehow withdrawn because we have shown a lack of faith in Bhagavan's instructions.
I know some people (at least one has posted on this thread) who say that, when attention wanders, one should simply revert to the feeling of 'I', without going through the rigmarole of asking 'Whose attention has wandered?' - 'I' - 'Then who am I?' These people think that Bhagavan's enquiry can be done simply by a quick transfer of attention from the distraction to the one who was distracted.
In the same vein there is a western devotee of Bhagavan who has laboured long and hard in his writings and on his site to convince other devotees that the method of self-enquiry is really 'awareness watching awareness'.
When I do self-enquiry, irrespective of how quiet I might be, I always make a point of asking 'Who am I?' at regular intervals, and often when I do it, I see a picture of Bhagavan's smiling face inside me.
Self-enquiry is never easy, and Bhagavan himself has said that one cannot extinguish the 'I' without the grace of the Self. By following Bhagavan's instructions to the letter, and by having faith in his words, I like to feel that I have the wind of his grace behind me. Knowing that I could not succeed by my own efforts, I stick to the script and leave the rest to Him.
David,
" By following Bhagavan's instructions to the letter, and by having faith in his words, I like to feel that I have the wind of his grace behind me."
Wonderful post!The cooking of the Brinjal stem and the other involving the Hot Plate-What lessons!I am reminded of Padmapada who when Sri Adi Sankara beckoned him simply walked over the River to be at his service!It looks like wherever he stepped a Lotus Flower bore his weight and ensured his crossing the River.
This is the strongest aid in the Path-The Faith in the Grace of the Guru.
Namaskar.
.
Brother Lawrence: This source ist completey free and with no restrictions and offers different formats of this eBook:
Practice of the Presence of God
.
Scott,
"The teacher I correspond with, and have visited, and who alot of my experiences around him remind me of those described in Power of Presence.... But I trust the experience, the grace, the peace, before a bunch of facts. "If my guru frequented the toddy shop..."
I totally appreciate what you have expressed.I do find Master Nome's Approach/writings quite clear and faithful to Sri Bhagavan and Sri Sankara.There will always be detractors.Should it matter?
Wonderful posts by you;Particularly I love the way you have mentioned how Reading works of the Great ones-How their words are more potent than our Efforts at Self Enquiry!This is quite true and Sri Bhagavan recommended reading Ribhu Gita for this reason.I also enjoyed reading the way you have written about Devotion as implied in Self Enquiry.
Wishing you the Very Best.
Namaskar.
Those are good stories, David. I always like to use the basic questions, “Who am I?” or “To whom is this arising?” when I have trouble directly feeling into “I”-sense due to distractions, or just because it seems right and reminds me of Bhagavan. I never thought about it in the way you describe, as a way to follow precise instructions, but that makes sense. Actually, the reason I like the basic form of the questions is because it's very easy to do it that way, and anything more complicated gets me confused. I find the more I do enquiry the less able I am to do anything complicated at all!
Another approach I find useful is something that's even more basic than the verbal questions, which is just giving some raw attention to my own mind. Nisargadatta once said - I don't have the exact quote but it's so basic I don't think I can screw it up - that if you just give attention to your mind, without any particular purpose, just observe it plainly, its nature and structure will be shown to you. His idea was that attention has a power within it that we don't usually appreciate, but it's very powerful and we should make use of it as often as we can. I look at it in the sense of that famous analogy Bhagavan always used of the snake and the rope. Putting attention on something is like bringing light to that dark roadway we think the snake is lying in. If we put that light on our own minds, on our egos, we start to see what's really going on there. So sometimes when I'm just being an idiot who can't even fruitfully ask “Who am I?” with any effectiveness, I just bring basic attention to my own mind, to my sense of self, and that seems to help put me back on track, to the point where I might actually be able to use the questions properly, and so forth.
cont.
I read those AWA websites a while back and always wanted to ask you what you thought of them. In some ways I actually really liked them, in that they had a lot of killer quotes from Ramana and Muruganar and so forth that were really very helpful to me, and included many things I hadn't read before. It really helped me consider just what self-enquiry actually was, and why it was so central. I just couldn't quite figure out what their beef was with actually doing Ramana's self-enquiry as he taught it, and why they had to abstract out this “awareness watching awareness” idea as if it could be separated from the basic practice of self-enquiry in the whole context of Ramana's teachings. The actual exercises they gave seemed absurd, but the emphasis on awareness as primary was pretty good. I just see that in the context of basic Advaita, as a way of simply bringing the inherent light of our own consciousness to bear on the self, which is really what self-enquiry is all about anyway.
At least that's my sense of why self-enquiry works. However it's described or whatever steps one follows, it seems that the basic principle is one of bringing the inherent light of consciousness to bear on this question of self, this phenomena of ego. As Ramana says, the ego is like an uninvited guest at a wedding. When we question him, he turns and runs away, and suddenly you can't find him anywhere. This is the same as looking closely for the snake. Simply by looking, we are bringing a light to the dark road, and the snake begins to fade away, and the rope begins to emerge from the darkness. The closer we look for the snake, the further away it gets, until it is gone, and the rope begins to be seen more and more clearly. It's hard to accept that attention has that much power to to it, that it can unlock the secrets of the universe if we simply use it. It takes a certain basic faith to just give one's own mind and sense of self some basic attention, and patiently let that develop into self-enquiry in a natural way, using the guidance of those who have done it best.
The interesting thing to me about all this is that attention is most powerful when it is shorn of thought, when it is just raw, plain attention examining the mind, rather than intellectual attention trying to figure it out. I find that the question “who am I?” works best when the attention which asks the question and examines the self, the mind, and its relations, is just simple and plain, without any intellectual component to it at all. I had been so accustomed all my life to think of attention as an intellectual enquiry requiring a lot of brainpower and analysis, when in fact it's just the opposite, it's much more powerful without any of that, when it's just simple examination of oneself and one's mind by raw, unthinking attention.
Anyway, thanks again for your commentaries here. I wonder if you ever made any headway with a question I asked you a while ago about meditating on the Guru in one's heart, in reference to a quote from the very end of “No mind – I am the Self”. Take your time, to be sure. I just thought I'd remind you that I haven't forgotten about it, and that it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts about it.
Broken Yogi
Can you repeat the question? It is definitely no longer in my in tray
David,
Thanks for your explanation. It merely confirms the need for faith, even when doing Self Enquiry.
Personally, I follow what you had suggested by quoting Bhagavan's advice to Kunju Swami. If enquiry does not work, I immediately switch to 'nama japa', or read a random passage from a book on Bhagavan.
Somehow, this serves to quieten the noise in my head and almost always leads me back into enquiry.
I still cannot do enquiry for more than ten minutes, and therefore I read, repeat Bhagavan's name or look at His picture in no particular sequence.
If all else fails, I call a fellow devotee and speak to him for a brief while on anything concerning Bhagavan.
Long way to go...
Ramos,
Thanks very much.The Book(Practice of The Presence of God) that I had read a long time back was a small one-It just had the words of Brother Lawrence and not that of the Narrator.
Here is an excerpt:
"As for my set hours of prayer, they are only a continuation of the same exercise. Sometimes I
consider myself there, as a stone before a carver, whereof he is to make a statue: presenting myself
thus before GOD, I desire Him to make His perfect image in my soul, and render me entirely like
Himself.
At other times, when I apply myself to prayer, I feel all my spirit and all my soul lift itself up without any care or effort of mine; and it continues as it were suspended and firmly fixed in GOD,
as in its centre and place of rest.
I know that some charge this state with inactivity, delusion, and self-love: I confess that it is a
holy inactivity, and would be a happy self-love, if the soul in that state were capable of it; because in effect, while she is in this repose, she cannot be disturbed by such acts as she was formerly accustomed to, and which were then her support, but would now rather hinder than assist her."
There cannot be a better description of Self Surrender than this.
Namaskar.
I pondered more over Arvind's point & Bhagavan's answer in 'Naan yaar?'
which I had posted in my previous comment.
I feel I might have assumed some things that are wrong.
1. That 'holding on to/staying with the I-thought/feeling' is somehow
the same as 'mind returning to and staying at the source/birth-place'.
2. That 'who am i?' can be asked only when thoughts come.
I had said, "If there is no thought, to what shall we apply the
questioning of 'to whom?'-'to me'-'who am i?'"
I quite carelessly added 'who am i?' to that.
While we can apply 'to whom?-'to me' reasoning only when we have
some other thought, the 'who-am i?' question can be put only when
the attention is already on the 'I'.
Even when there is no other thought, there is still the 'I'.
May be, Arvind is right about not holding on to the 'I' when the
attention is there. The question 'who am i?'/'whence am i?' must
be put precisely when all our attention is on the 'I'.
Bhagavan says, "If one asks/enquires 'Who am I?' the mind returns
to its birth-place."
May be the returning to the birth-place is so fleeting for
an unripe mind like mine that I will never detect the effect of
asking the question.
It seems I get stuck out alot at the branches of agitation. I'm not in a calm, peaceful state to begin with. David, I've kind of wondered if you've struggled with that at all. My guess would be no. That seems to be the hardest part, is intense states of agitation. But the question who am I? is something I forget about it's importance. And it seems to be the most effective, because it instantly dissolves (that is the best word I can find) the subject, the individual, and grace is experienced. That is the most crude way I can describe it.
"that if you just give attention to your mind, without any particular purpose, just observe it plainly, its nature and structure will be shown to you. His idea was that attention has a power within it that we don't usually appreciate, but it's very powerful and we should make use of it as often as we can. "
How do I observe the mind without any particular purpose? What is the mind? I don't even know that. I suppose it's the thoughts. How do I observe the thoughts, when I am a thought? Maybe that's what Maharshi meant by the I-thought. Maybe that is the point, if observe a thought without any particular purpose, it's clear that the thought is not something that is tangible, and disappears when i observe it. Who am I? atleast as I've asked it in the last 5 minutes has a similar effect to the glance of a sage. It completely stills the mind. There is complete stillness. The thing taht is intimidating about that stillness is that there is no purpsoe left. Nothing to do. No more drama, no more battles, nothing to be gained, nothing. On non-doership, for instance as i'm writing this, and putting the Who am I? question to myself periodically, one of the doubts is should I be able to post a comment here. It appears so, it just won't be coming from either an overly intelletual, or agitated state, but from the clarity of that stillness, which I suppose would then infuse everything that is done, and make it more effectual. The thing that seems the most problematic or hardest to give up, is taht there is nothing more to be gained (no desires to be fulfilled), just that perfect stillness. like water without a ripple. It seems important with inquiry to not have any idea what things mean, to realize I don't know. My reaction to statements made about inquiry, are things like what is the mind? What is thought? I don't even know that. There is the sense of thoughts coming, but there is nothing tangible there. It reminds me of N. Krishnamurti Ayer's reaction to Maharshi. "What do you mean by state?" asked the Maharshi. And Krishnamurti Ayer went through a similar line of questioning that ended in a deep state, where he couldn't continue, couldn't access thought. When I was around that supposedly Self-Realized person, there was a similar overbearing peace that felt almost painful it was so weighty. But all this is from being this ego. The question Who am I? appears to have some power to end the whole process. The difficulty is the conviction to really do it, and still everything perhaps because the intellectual processes and agitation are so addictive. I don't even know if in the Self there is no thought, the stillness isn't of thought. It's a perfect stillness of Being, my entire Being and it's agitated vibrations are stopped as if something caused the ripples on the lake to cease to ripple. Maybe thoughts are ripples of agitation are thoughts that disturb that pure Being. Which is why it can't be reached by more agitated waves in the form of action. And why they say, inquiry is not an action? It's not another thought-driven willed movement that creates more agitated ripples in pure Being. Who am I? Self-Inquiry stills the lake because it is the still lake. Who am I? is the Self.
Who am I? it appears is not a question asked by an ego. It's the Self's question that dissolves the ego. If the ego was asking it, it would be a method, and it would imply progress. 'I've been asking Who am i? for 5 years and I'm so much wiser'. that is not my experience. Who am I? appears to be the direct method to realize egoless being immediately. and requires being asked with that intention.
salutations to all: (part 1)
indeed it’s nice to once again see broken yogi, arvind, ramprax etc. in the blog…felt really nice to listen to the views of all those extraordinarily sincere folks out there discussing about ‘vichara’, which i believe is one of the most important purposes of this forum :-) …went back and browsed at random some of the earlier posts & comments on self-enquiry…got to read yet again the post ‘dialogue on self-enquiry’ & ‘robert adams on self-enquiry’…
today morning, after going through the aforementioned posts, tried sort-of the same thing that ramprax, arvind, broken yogi, and david were suggesting and referring to…the quality of vichara was definitely better :-) undoubtedly, self-enquiry is a self-correcting process, seems to get better when it is attempted again and again and again… it’s a great opportunity indeed to get advice from so many excellent enquirers…
the only thing where i hopelessly differ is my ‘attitude’ towards bhagavan and vichara… neither do i have the sublime humility nor the unflinching faith that almost all of you possess in such abundant measure - of course, am & will keep trying & trying & trying to the best of my abilities to practise the vichara as taught by bhagavan, but wouldn’t request or plead or pray to bhagavan to ‘help’ me’; instead would like to tell bhagavan (and even abuse bhagavan, after all he is the only one whom i can abuse to the fullest measure, and the only way he can abuse me back is rid me of my ‘i’!):
[“freedom is my birthright, and you better make me realize this ‘true’ nature asap, or else……… (some threat, hahahahahahaha…) the very fact i have come to you ought to be enough evidence of my being ripe enough to “be”, and in case you think am not, it’s completely & wholly your ‘headache’ to render me ripe enough to be eaten in toto…am trying to do whatever little i can, it’s high time you start ‘doing’ what you are supposed to be doing…am no longer going to be deceived by your unfathomable silence or your disarmingly benign smile!” etc. etc.] (or some such thing)
{Continued in Part 2:}
{continued from part 1}
salutations to all: (part 2)
humility & faith: the very awareness of humility leaves me anything but humble (in my opinion, and am not saying in my ‘humble’ opinion :-))… humility cannot be cultivated, and ‘humble’ words may have little to do with humility… perhaps, it’s something natural to one who can even temporarily abide in the self, and it’s only the others who happen to come across such a person label him or her as humble etc.
likewise, when it comes to this thing called faith, for sure i simply don’t have the faith of ravi, nandu, ramprax, arvind, murali, and the several others who write here…on the contrary, one of the prime reasons why am drawn to self-enquiry is that it doesn’t demand anything like faith in anything like a god or stuff like that (i have no clue whatsoever about that weird thing called ‘self-surrender’) …yes, i love bhagavan, but why am i trying out vichara if not because of ‘faith’ - not necessarily; i love studying math but don’t know why i like it; it’s not because i have faith in math; i love the violin but don’t know why i like it, not because i have faith in the violin :-) …
likewise, for reasons unknown to me, am drawn to vichara, and as i said early on, in a pretty hopeless & helpless way…yes, will keep trying what i like, and perhaps, if i keep doing that, arunachala & bhagavan, will be happy to knock at my door and forcibly establish me their ‘state’…hahahahahaha (well, that speaks for my ‘humility’, and ‘faith’ too!)
keep writing, it’s wonderful to know all of you :-)))
David,
I'm referring to an exchange we had on the thread "Relations with the Guru" from last year, at this address:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3961358105214008284&postID=3073668095641716581
I had asked about the distinctions between the dualistic and non-dualistic approach to the Guru, and tried to clarify my question with an excert from "No Mind":
I'm just wondering how non-dual meditation on the Guru occurs. Or any other form of genuinely non-dual relationship to the Guru.
So yes, Saradamma didn't practice self-enquiry, she practiced rememberance of Lakshmana's name and form. And yet, it appears based on her instruction about this that it isn't the ordinary, dualistic kind of remembrance that she practiced or recommends. I'm thinking of this passage in particular form p. 220 of "No Mind":
"I realized the Self by meditating on Swamy's form. In the beginning I used to do japa of 'Hare Lakshmana' but later I stopped and concentrated on his form alone. After some time I was able to sustain Swamy's image in my mind continuously with no other thoughts intruding. As my practice progressed I was even able to visualize him outside the body. Eventually a point was reached when no matter where I looked I saw only Swamy. This practice was good, but the best results came from meditating on him in the Heart.
If you want to meditate on me or Swami it is not good to think of us as objects separate from you. Meditate on us in the Heart for we are really inside you, not outside you. In the later stages of my sadhana I always used to meditate on Swamy in the Heart. Sometimes he would fill my being so completely that I could actually feel that I was Swamy. My face would feel as if it had taken on the shape of Swamy's face and there was a feeling that Swamy had entered or taken over my whole body. By meditating on Swamy in this way I could feel that Swamy and I were one and not separate.
Swamy and I are in your Heart: meditate on us in the Heart and you will discover that we are not apart from you. When you look at our bodies you are only looking at an image created by your mind. Meditate on us in the Heart and you will discover that we are your own Self.
Question: When you say 'meditate on us in the Heart', do you mean that I should visualize an image in the Heart-centre in the same way that you used to do before you realized the Self?
Saradamma: No, that is not real Heart meditation; it is just an exercise in concentration. Meditating in the Heart really means that you should make the mind go back into the Heart so that you can experience the bliss of the Self there. If you are thinking about anything, even mine or Swamy's form, then the mind is still active. If you can give up all thoughts and make the mind completely silent and still, then it will automatically sink into the Heart. Meditation in the Heart really begins when the mind rests quietly in the Heart, absorbed in the bliss of the Self."
I hope you can better understand what I am asking about. This meditation on the Guru in the Heart is certainly rather mysterious, and Saradamma's answer to the questioner seem to contradict to some degree her own previous statement. Perhaps contradictions like this are impossible to avoid. Still, I wonder if you have any understanding of what she means by this "meditation on us in the Heart" that could clarify this matter of non-dual meditation on the Guru. What, in practice, is she trying to describe?
In your reply, you said:
"I started to reply to your other queries on name-and-form meditation, but I soon found myself in the middle of another huge essay. I am still assembling my thoughts (and my supporting quotations) on this one. When I have finished, it will be my next post."
I gather you became subsumed by other work and forgot to get back to this question. I'm just curious what your thoughts were on the matter, if this re-awakens them.
"I hope you can better understand what I am asking about. This meditation on the Guru in the Heart is certainly rather mysterious, and Saradamma's answer to the questioner seem to contradict to some degree her own previous statement. Perhaps contradictions like this are impossible to avoid. Still, I wonder if you have any understanding of what she means by this "meditation on us in the Heart" that could clarify this matter of non-dual meditation on the Guru. What, in practice, is she trying to describe?"
Well, I got the impression that the Heart is just another name for the Self, so then the Heart would not be confined to the body. To meditate on the guru in the Heart? would that be the same as meditation on the Self, or that the guru is the Self. I have a tendency when I'm thinking of the Self, or trying to understand it, to imagine consciousness being more expansive then limited to the body, that the ego, or my sense of being an individual is what is limiting me to the body. During the day, when I'm practicing, I'm more often trying to stay peaceful. But when I read about meditating in the Heart or when I attempt to imagine the Self, a deeper peace immediately comes over me, a refreshing peace. So meditating on the guru in the Heart, might that be realizing that the guru is that expansive cconscciousness and peace. Because she explicitly said that imagining the guru physically within is not what is implied. And she also said that as she concentrated on Lakshmana Swami's form, there came a time where everything was Lakshmana swami. When I was at satsang with the supposedly Realized person I was with, in his presence, my consciousness would expand to encompass the room, I just mean it ceased to be limited to within the body, and not in any far fetched way (my vision was still out from the eyes), but it was extremely refreshing, the room was also radiating white light, which could be because the walls were white, but things were radiant. And everytime he looked at me, immediately it became expansive, and refreshing again, my being stilled of agitation. When I was in that state, it became clear that this teacher was that consciousness and i even brought that up in my question to him. His actions seemed in some inexpainable way to be from that consciousness. so meditating on the guru in the heart, and the question Who am I? Again, it all comes down to being the same thing doesn't it? Because in any case, there is the Realization of the Blissful Consciousness and the dissolution of the suffering individual. So when I'm saying that the consciousness became expansive and also blissful at the same time, it's as if the normal limitations on consciousness that confine it as an individual in a body were eased up on, it's not that the vantage point of looking out from the eyes changed. I can't think of any other meaning to meditating on teh guru in the heart.
Broken Yogi,/Friends,
It is quite interesting that BY has brought out the excerpt from Sarada ma's Biography-This is Exactly what I have tried to express in my post on 8th of this month in this very thread.
"Even if this Bhakti is dualistic-expressed as Love towards The Guru or any other aspect of God-This is not an 'Exercise in Concentration' as it is made out.It does plunge the mind(and whatever one is!) in the source.This is Gnana."
I am keen to have David's response to BY's query.
Namaskar.
S./Friends,
Enjoyed reading S's ultimatum to Sri Bhagavan!Better prove yourself or Quit!
Humour apart,Integrity is one of the Key things and whoever has this rare quality is no ordinary soul.I recall how Naren used to complain to Sri Ramakrishna that he felt nothing whereas other disciples experienced ecstatic states;Sri Ramakrishna said that water in small puddles would splash all over if a cow steps over it,whereas even if an elephant steps into a River there will not be a ripple!
I also enjoyed reading his Take on 'Humility' and more so 'Humble Opinion'-In the net parlance it is IMHO-in MY humble OPINION-The Humour is obvious.
Yes,Humility cannot be cultivated;it can be imbibed.In the language of Mathematics/Engineering Humility falls in the realm of Digital-when one becomes a Zero or a One.This is when the mind is divested of OPINIONS,all that it knows,and remains OPEN AND WIDE.Any other thing is mere convention at its best or Pretence at its worst.
Request that S. should chip in more often.
Namaskar.
I agree with Nandu. The advice given by Ramana to Kunju Swami is invaluable.
In regard to Losing my minds comment. I do still feel that vichara "who am I?' is still the ego asking and questioning. The self only "makes itself known" when there is total peace and quiet.
Nandu Narasimhan said:
"Personally, I follow what you had suggested by quoting Bhagavan's advice to Kunju Swami. If enquiry does not work, I immediately switch to 'nama japa', or read a random passage from a book on Bhagavan."
For me too, this is what happens. 60 minutes of Self Enquiry and Nama Japa rest of the time. I could not do Self Enquiry more than 5 to 10 minutes initially. In one of the postings, David gave his own personal experience that he used to determine initially that he is not going to get up from his seat irrespective of what his body/mind says. Eventually, he is able to sit all day long. I followed this method and within a week, I was able to sit 1 hour without an urge to getup.
Also, I found that the urge to getup flares up when somewhere in the mind, there is a doubt that self enquiry is not proceding well. I try to overcome this feeling in exactly the same way David pointed out i.e., do as Bhagavan told and assume that it is correct. Who am I to judge whether it is proceding correctly or not? Once this feeling takes hold, I found that staying in one seat for a long time works.
1 hour is not a long time for the task at hand but for my mind, it is.
I remember Thakur saying that when he was about to sit for meditation, he used to see the statue of Bhairava on the wall of Dakshineswar temple and tell his mind that he is going to sit like that statue for the entire day. The urge to get up is common even to Mahapurusha like Thakur.
Regards Murali
On meditating on the guru in the heart. when I was reading Saradamma's quotes just now, I had something cmoe to me. What it seems they are saying is to meditate on Saradamma, and Lakshmana Swami as the real Self. Do not meditate on themm as objects. There was a very clear message there it seems about abiding in non-objectivity and the Bliss of hte Self. That is who Lakshmana Swami and Saradamma are. The reason perhaps for meditating on them, is because they are Realized, and inside us, we know when a jnani speaks to us, they are speaking to the Self, the Self is speaking to itself, and so tehre is that recognition. So meditating on an ajnani as the Self wouldn't work. When there is devotion to a truly Realized jnani, when there grace has shown you that that's what and who they are. When they've looked at you with that glance, and there's been taht recognition of something so deep and profound and stilling, it is remembered. And so when I meditate on a jnani as the Self both the internal and external are covered. And when people speak of the Heart, or when saradamma speaks of the Heart, the Heart to me means I'm assuming Being, Consciousness, Bliss. It is not referring to a phyical heart, even the so-called spiritual heart on teh right side. It is speaking about the Self, Brahman, siva. God, Guru, and self being the same. If I devote too much to the form, the form is just another object appearing in consciousness, as she said. Even that is still pretty profound, but perhaps as a guru, she's taking the devotee one step further, to abidance as the Self, by devoting and merging with the guru as Being Consciousness Bliss, as the Heart, then there follows Realization. That's what is making sense to me now.
I think that is where I was confused the first time I read those quotes. I was like "how do I go back into the source?" And viewed it as I've got to fight the outward going mind and force it back toward it's source. But it almost seems like dissolution is a more apt term. Dissolution of the individual into the Bliss of the Self. Sinking into the heart, does not mean physically or downward. It's more like to me it seems expanding to pervade the heart. No longer being trapped or limited. Because the heart being the Self is everything and everyone, so merging into the Heart is merging into the Self, dissolving into pure Blissful being which is inclusive of everything and everyone. 'eternal and infinite' Lakshmana Swami and Saradamma are that, and with them you can count on them not having the ego notion or being trapped or limited, or speaking from that point of view. they are speaking as the Self inclusive of everything. Worshipping them them in the Heart means worshipping them as that pure Blissful Being, eternal, and infinite, knowing that they are not mere mortals, they are Brahman itself.
Dear David,
:)
Tell me why is this not Self Inquiry:
When ever I arises in mind, merge it into Consciousness.
:)
Love!
Silence
"I agree with Nandu. The advice given by Ramana to Kunju Swami is invaluable.
In regard to Losing my minds comment. I do still feel that vichara "who am I?' is still the ego asking and questioning. The self only "makes itself known" when there is total peace and quiet."
I've been really obnoxious about posting, so David godman can not post or delay to post things that I'm writing if I've gotten too out of hand. It was just that this one triggered a response. and the guage I've been using, is I write if it comes from inspiration from teh teachings, and/or a deep feeling of Bliss and peace. (but I also don't want to drown out other people's voices) Well, the reason I was prone to saying the Self asks Who am I? not the ego is because all agitation is stilled or it was when I did it this morning and so there's not an agitated one left over to ask the question. I've heard many people say that when asking Who am I? there shouldn't be a verbal answer. And it seems that that is the same as that space that is talked about between thoughts. I particularly remember Robert Adams talking about how the Self is the space between thoughts. So the way I was doing it was asking Who am I? and letting it answer itself. I was feeling agitation as I often do, after there was this blissful pillow of peace. That peace is the nature of the Self. and it is a fulfilling peace, and it is a largely individual-less peace. Since the egos activities are not really left over, who else could really pose the question but the real self? And perhaps it is even the real Self that prompts the question when anybody does it, even if it doesn't seem to work. That question seems to be a really powerful one. Maybe even the key to the universe.
Sometimes what I hear from people suggests that maybe inquiry is aimed at holding off thoughts, or stopping thinking. I used to think so. At some point it becamse clear to me that what inquiry aims at is the ego, not the thinking. And so when I was asking Who am I? it was to still the entire sense of agitation, suffering, repetative thinking. To just become completely still in peace. It's a way of ending the whole process since it's based on something illusory, this false individual. Even if it seems to exist, and I sometimes imagine it, teh key word is that it is imaginged. Even that it perhaps doesn't have to be repressed or destroyed. But as soon as I realize it is imaginary this false sense of who I am, the whole story of my life and it's problems is imaginary, it's ability to cause agitation, suffering, repetative thinking is ended with just a single asking of the question who am I? Even still, I haven't Realized the Self, and even though I see the power in that question. When Lakshmana Swami asked it and completely and permanently relinquished the individual into the Bliss of the Self. The difference, i'm guessing between when he asked the question, and my asking of it, is that all the vasanas had already been gotten rid of, inquried into dissolved, and so even when the question is asked deeply it still may have to be asked over and over again until all the vasanas have been uprooted.
Hi Ramprax,
Re: Your post above on Sep 9th
It takes a very rare type of courage to introspect into one’s own cherished ideas, and then to be able to put up on a public forum a remark such as, “I feel I might have assumed some things that are wrong”. Especially so, when it concerns spiritual beliefs, always deeply held, sometimes fanatically so. (Not that for a moment even am I suggesting that you were actually “wrong” in any way. What you were earlier expressing were your honest beliefs).
It is the hallmark of a true seeker, one who will go a long way on the Path.
For what its worth, you have my deep respect.
Ravi, what I love about Ramakrishna and the anecdotes you quote of him, is that I love him for the same reasons I like ramana maharshi. Yes, one could say that perhaps (I don't know) Ramakrishna stressed the devotional approach, while ramana stressed the inquiry approach. But from every quote you've shared of Ramakrishna, and what I know of Ramana, they both have that same saavy, mischevious way (by virtue of their Realization) of not allowing themselves to get pigeonholed into a point of view. And both have a humor to their quotes.
Friends,
Faith and Self Enquiry-David's excellent post can be appreciated and substantiated by this excerpt from 'I am That' .Maharaj says:
"What the mind invents,the mind destroys.But the real is not invented and cannot be destroyed.Hold on to that over which the mind has no power.What I am telling you about is neither in the past nor in the future.Nor is it in the daily life as it flows in the now.It is timeless and the total timelessness of it is beyond the mind.My Guru and his words: 'You are myself' are timelessly with me.In the beginning I had to fix my mind on them,but now it has become natural and easy.The point when the mind accepts the words of the Guru as true and lives by them spontaneously and in every detail(Sri Annamalai swami!-Ravi)of daily live,is the threshold of Realization.In a way it is salvation by faith,but the faith must be intense and lasting.
-----------------------------------
This is the answer to BY's query as to what Sri Sarada Amma had expressed-i.e not to concentrate the mind on one particular detail but to soak with all one's heart,mind and whatelse-become one with the Guru.
Arvind/Ramprax/S?Friends,
"It is the hallmark of a true seeker, one who will go a long way on the Path."
Hope this is not true!Perhaps the Path would become shorter and nonexistent!(Just kidding.S effect-imbibed from him!).
Namaskar.
.
... "It is the hallmark of a true seeker, one who will go a long way on the Path."
Hope this is not true!Perhaps the Path would become shorter and nonexistent!(Just kidding.S effect-imbibed from him!). ...
By the way - a true spiritual path brings about joy in itself. There is no need of rushing and therefore no suffering. Offering all our troubles on the way to God means that we even have joy in our troubles. I found even the first step on the path to be extremely joyful although later on it was mixed up with worry sometimes.
.
Scott,
You have beautifully captured the 'mischief' and humour of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Bhagavan.
In The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,Chapter 37,Master And Narendra,Saturday March 7,1885 Sri Ramakrishna is at his inimitable best!It is truly amazing how this fun and frolic will suddenly give way to something profound!
"Sri. Ramakrishna was in the happiest mood with his young and pure-souled devotees.. He
was seated on the small couch and was doing funny imitations of a kirtani(Songstress who sings devotional songs with story telling). The devotees
laughed heartily. The kirtani is dressed lavishly and covered with ornaments. She sings
standing on the floor, a coloured kerchief in her hand. Now and then she coughs to draw
people's attention and blows her nose, raising her nose-ring, When a respectable gentleman
enters the room she welcomes him with appropriate words, still continuing her song. Now
and then she pulls her sari from her arms to show off her jewels.
The devotees were convulsed, with laughter at this mimicry by Sri Ramakrishna. Paltu
rolled on the ground. Pointing to him, the Master said to M.: "Look at that child! He is
rolling with laughter." He said to Paltu with a smile: "Don't report this to your father, or he
will lose the little respect he has for me. You see, he is an 'Englishman."(An Educated person who goes more by Reason than Faith-which he dismisses as superstition).
MASTER (to the devotees): "There are people who indulge in all kinds of gossip at the
time of their daily devotions. As you know, one is not permitted to talk then; so they make
all kinds of signs, keeping their lips closed. In order to say, 'Bring this', 'Bring that', they
make sounds like 'Huh', 'Uhuh'. All such things they do! (Laughter.)
"Again, there are some who bargain for fish while telling their beads. As they count the
rosary, with a finger they point out the fish, indicating, That one, please.' They reserve all
their business for that time! (Laughter.)
"There are women who come to the Ganges for their bath and, instead of thinking of God,
gossip about no end of things. 'What jewels did you offer at the time of your son's
marriage?'- 'Has so-and-so returned from her father-in law's house?' - 'So-and-so is
seriously ill.' - 'So-and-so went to see the bride; we hope that they will offer a magnificent
dowry and that there will be a great feast.' - 'Harish always nags at me; he can't stay away
from me even an hour.' - 'My child, I couldn't come to see you all these days; I was so busy
with the betrothal of so-and-so's daughter.'
"You see, they have come to bathe in the holy river, and yet they indulge in all sorts of
worldly talk."
The Master began to look intently at the younger Naren and went into samadhi. Did he see
God Himself in the pure-souled devotee?
The devotees silently watched the figure of Sri Ramakrishna motionless in samadhi. A few
minutes before there had been so much laughter in the room; now there was deep silence,
as if no one were there. The Master sat with folded hands as in his photograph.
After a short while his mind began to come down to the relative plane. He heaved a long
sigh and became aware of the outer world. He looked at the devotees and began to talk with
them of their spiritual progress.
MASTER (to the younger Naren): "I have been eager to see you. You will succeed. Come
here once in a while. Well, which do you prefer-jnana or bhakti?"
THE YOUNGER NAREN: "Pure bhakti."
MASTER: "But how can you love someone unless you know him? (Pointing to M, with a
smile) How can you love him unless you know him? (To M.) Since a pure-souled person
has asked for pure bhakti, it must have some meaning."
-----------------------------------
There is an endearing term in Tamil-The Lord is called MAAYAN(Derived from the Word 'Maya') or MAMAAYAN(Great Bewitcher).
Ramakrisha in that anecdote reminds me alot of Papaji. I watched one of the full satsang videos they have on Google Video if you type in Papaji avi. It reminds of that partly because it seems that someone rolling on the ground in laughter is not an uncommon sight around someone who is Realized. And Papaji points at him similarly and says something like, "ahh, you came here 5 weeks ago totally serious and were talking about all the meditations you had engaged in", "now look at him". And everyone laughs, and that person laying on the ground cackles even louder. It's similar also for the reason that Papaji was very much emphasizing bhakti and I think it seems he talked alot less about Self-inquiry. (though clearly they are the same and simultaneous) There was also a mirthful almost party-like atmosphere around him. In this particular video he had this group play some particularly bad music all the while laughing. It seemed like everyone was comfortable with a normally unusual lack of ostentation, or willingness to embarress themselves. I would think if you spent alot of time around someone like that, the tendency to suffer would be greatly alleviated.
I was just thinking, that if any person practices or attempts to practice inquiry for a couple years, the bhakti (devotional) side will really manifest itself. Partly for the reason that there is a recognition, that these sages have accomplished something so beyond my powers as an individual to accomplish, and also because the ego is normally in the way of that recognition of powerlessness. when I started inquiry, I thought I can do this on my own, and so devotion, or needing a guru were less apparent. Perhaps the guru appears in someone's life when they realize how much they really need one, when they give up believing that "I can do this on my own", which atleast for me is a fallacy. Also that giving up that self-reliance is in itself giving up the ego, and holding the luggage on my head, when I should put it on the luggage rack
I decided, since it's been so helpful to me, I'm going to post one e-mail exchange between me and Nome periodically or even everday I post. (I believe he is fully Realized, a jnani, it's O.K. if others don't) In this one I asked a question about a teacher that I felt had showed sadism in regards to animals. He responded:
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for both of your recent messages.
It is good that you are delving into the four requisites (sadhana)
for Realization and the application of them in your own spiritual practice.
It is also beneficial to deepen your practice by examining the previous
views of spiritual practice, Realization, and yourself in order to discard
limitations, while retaining that which is fruitful.
When in ignorance, beings use the instruments of action (body,
speech, and mind) in foolish and karma-producing ways, because of their
delusion. Due to that delusion, they do not even perceive how deluded their
views and activities are. The very basis, that of doing unto others as one
would have others do unto oneself, is not grasped by them. Such dwell in
their own suffering, oblivious of the nature of the true Self and even the
purpose of life. Deserving of compassion, even the compassion they do not
show toward others, they are like characters in a dream who are, themselves,
dreaming and talking in their sleep.
The resolution comes from Knowledge of the Self, which is
transcendent of the bodies of all and is not confined or defined by life or
death. This shines as immovable peace and eternal freedom.
If the desire for Liberation is strong and consistent, all that is
needed will manifest within you.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
"Deserving of compassion, even the compassion they do not
show toward others, they are like characters in a dream who are, themselves,
dreaming and talking in their sleep." I just want to emphasize how profound I just found that. I never really noticed the full implication. I'm dreaming in this waking state, and the people i perceive as 'evil' or 'mean' or 'sadistic' are other characters in the dream who are dreaming and talking in their sleep. wow!
Maybe, just maybe,the illusion of individuality is dark matter ( the desire to hold everything together and make it appear as an individual entity ) and thoughts that emanate from it, is expanding dark energy. when attention ( The Self or even the 'who am I 'question ) shines on the individual feeling of 'i' It transforms it back into Itself and thoughts automatically disappear. But this stage is reached by many ( including myself )only after intense sadhana has already been performed by other methods to quieten and rein in the expanding or outgoing energy of thought. otherwise it is not possible to look dispassionatly without judgements and emotions either at the thoughts or the ' i '. The Guru then appears, to direct us inwards, back to our home. He shows us The Way by exposing what we are not and Powerfully draws us back to Himself. As Christ says " no man cometh unto Me unless The Father in Heaven draw him "
Scott,
" the bhakti (devotional) side will really manifest itself. Partly for the reason that there is a recognition, that these sages have accomplished something so beyond my powers as an individual to accomplish, and also because the ego is normally in the way of that recognition of powerlessness. "
Yes Scott.The interesting thing is that Bhakti is causeless-There is no reason for its existence.This is what our Friend S has expressed-"yes, i love bhagavan, but why am i trying out vichara if not because of ‘faith’ - not necessarily; i love studying math but don’t know why i like it; it’s not because i have faith in math; i love the violin but don’t know why i like it, not because i have faith in the violin :-) …"
likewise, for reasons unknown to me, am drawn to vichara, and as i said early on, in a pretty hopeless & helpless way…!"
This is a deep statement.This is why Sri Ramakrishna says(in the previous post)-" Since a pure-souled person
has asked for pure bhakti, it must have some meaning."
Namaskar.
Ramos/Friends,
Ramos had mentioned how even the first step itself is joyous.Here is an excerpt from an article by sri A R Natarajan:
"Another common fear expressed is that effective spiritual practice is possible only in the atmosphere surrounding the physical proximity of the Satguru. Grant Duff used to complain about it when he was away from Sri Ramanasramam.
An English devotee echoing the general feeling expressed the fear whether it would be possible at all for her to be steadfast in practice at her home far away from the Maharshi. When such thoughts were expressed Ramana would remind that every one is free to remember his presence in the heart. Confidence in the time-space transcending, limitless nature of the Guru would enable one to invoke his presence wherever on may be, in whatever situation one may find oneself in life.
Given this confidence in the Guru, the flame of longing is bound to remain unflickering. Who can then be stopped from the joyous trip inward? Who can be denied the exhilaration, the bliss of the inner journey itself? The tasting of such bliss would make one return for more of the experience, till at last the bloom of life bursts forth in all its natural fullness."
Please read the article here:
http://living.oneindia.in/yoga-spirituality/vedanta/power-mind-partii.html
It may take a little bit of a search to locate the Part 1 of this article.Sri Natarajan is a Great devotee and his writings bring out that understanding and devotion in a refreshing fashion.
Namaskar.
First part of Sri Natarajan's article:
http://living.oneindia.in/yoga-spirituality/vedanta/power-mind.html
This was a Nome response about Christianity and hell. Soon after practicing inquiry I got really guilty or nervous about past sins, and worried about supernatural things like hell. So I wanted to see how he would address it. Someone mentioned, that there was a negative reptutation/gossip about Nome, and you are free to take that at it's word or not. But i have found this correspondence extremely helpful and worth sharing. I would almost say they are too good not to share. So 1 a day.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste.
Self-Knowledge and Self-inquiry are of the nature of Reality, which
knows no sectarian division. It is like asking if God is a Hindu or
Christian. The humor of such is obvious. The same holds true for the nature
of Jesus.
Vedanta has excellently preserved, in experience and scripture,
these essential teachings. Perhaps this is due to the absence of "heresy
hunting," with its concomitant book burning, violence, malice etc. carried
out by those who have not a clue as to the real nature of God, worship,
wisdom, etc. but who nonetheless masquerade as "religious." Or it may be due
to the abundance of sages who have appeared in this ancient spiritual
tradition.
Heaven and hell are according to the conceiver or perceiver of them.
For those who experience such, such appear to be real. For those who know
all is in the mind, they appear as states or modes of mind. They thus rid
themselves of the errors that form the hell and find the heaven within. For
those who abide as the Self, there is only That, God, and nothing else
whatsoever.
The value of the ritual or form of worship is according to the one
who practices it. See Saddarshanam and Upadesha Saram (both by the Maharshi)
for a profound understanding of the relation of worship with name and form
to the practice of what is formless or the worship of the formless. Yes, the
final worship, puja, oblation, offering, etc. is Self-Realization.
Nonetheless, Sri Muruganar performed puja with a Siva-lingam, and Sri
Ramanasramam conducts much worship (puja), holy text recitations (Veda
Parayana and the Tamil Parayana), etc., and there is at the center of its
premises at Arunachala the Matribhutesvara Temple in traditional style with
traditional worship offered by the priests.
So, worship in any form is good if it diminishes the ego. It is best
to know what you worship, for thus your worship is in Truth.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
we have to delve deep into ourselves questioning the 'self'; the self that we think is our personality. For it is this false
belief that we have a personality and that we are individuals separate and apart from God, that brings fear; it is the darkness; the great delusion; the lie. It is as if we are here and God is there, which implies that there are places where God is not !!! But everything is God
Continuously ask " who AM I ?; who IS this who presumes to think, hear, see, reason etc " in an aggressive intimidating manner (whenever we are confronted by thoughts and emotions,).This investigation, interrogation within, is the force that exposes the Truth, that there is no " other " It is unreal ( like a shadow; you go to catch it and it flees ) hen questioned.
It is like a shoal of fishes. The big fish from afar sees it as one single monster fish. It is hungry, so it swims close to the shoal and dives into it. This diving is The Enquiry " Who am I ? " The little fish are scattered and the shoal is found to be only a collection of little fishes, that then get dispersed and eaten up.The big fish finds itself in the ocean. So with the enquiry into who we are. It is seen that who we thought we were, is just a bundle of ideas of who we think we are; the roles we have chosen to play, like the many little fishes in the shoal. Expose the role and it is seen for what it is. Just a role that we have chosen to act out. If we don't see the role, it grows stronger. When looked at, it weakens.
Science today confirms that when an electron is observed, it transforms ! The role playing is over and the actor suddenly knows who he really is.
When the unreal has vanished, the Real shines forth in all Its Glory. We find that we are That. The Masters cannot give us That, for we are it already. They can only help us by their instruction to see the illusion and by The Power of Their Presence, help to absorb the illusion back into Themselves, The Source.
This is The Way brought to us anew, to our generation by Bhagwan, teaching us The Way back to realizing that we ARE The Father; that there is no other, so that we can state as Jesus Christ did " I and The Father are One ".
Our Lord Jesus Christ said that we must forsake
all we have, even the ' self ', but did not clearly spell out how
to do this ( or if He did, we do not have those Words of specific instruction ).Bhagwan showed us how, by teaching us to enquire within.
Whenever a thought appears He said, ask " To whom ? " The answer will be to " me " Look intently at this "me " within and try to go deeper beyond it, to find out from where it arises. This intense inward looking will transform it into its Source from where it arose.
But before we can do this, if our self images are too strongly associated with this " me " it will be necessary to examine each self image and understand it for what it is. Just an idea of our own creation, which we desire to have validated by others, because it is precious to ourselves, for we derive immense pleasure from fulfilling it. It is usually the invalidation from others that causes suffering. If the suffering is unbearable intense, it is only then that we become willing to relinquish that self image, to be in a state of non suffering. So, may we welcome suffering. It is an opportunity to recognize that we still have some desire for something within ( however legitimate that desire may be, like being appreciated as the devoted wife, mother, friend, employer, leader etc etc or it may be wanting to be with certain people or places ).
When every concept ( self image ) has been identified and surrendered we will find that we ARE THAT Concept Free Natural, Peaceful, Eternal State in The Heart. "That I Am "as opposed to ' this i am '. We are Home.
I feel, when we are 'holding onto the "I"', as long as we are pondering about its nature, about the nature of this consciousness, it is same as vichara. Anything other than this, I feel is giving mental picture about the Self, which is wrong; for one, the Self cannot be "thought" of and two, the literal meaning of "enquiry" is also lost. If we do have a picture of it, we are not enquiring on our nature, which is the purport of enquiry; instead, we are assuming it to be of some nature that mind makes up; to call it as meditation is more appropriate, i think.
This is where the very question "Who am "I"" hits the nail on its head, i guess. "Tho whom" is to get back the attention. "Whon am I" is literlly enquiring into the nature of the consciousness, which includes "wherefrom does the "I" arise".
This is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.
And, I agree more than 100% with Ramprax when he says "Vichara is self-coirrecting". Vichara somehow fine-tunes itself as we go along the path!
Blessed are we to get such an all-powerful Master! Blessed are we for having been shown this more then excellent path! Glory to Arunachala-Ramana!
@David,
"Everyone progresses in the benign aura of the Satguru. There is a saying about this which I can't remember exactly but it states that the bad people become good, the good become even better, and the very good get liberation."
I guess you were referring to below extract from Day by Day(9-3-46 Morning):
"Bhagavan: As already explained, Guru not being physical
form, his contact will continue after his form vanishes. If one
jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by or benefit all people in the world and not simply his immediate disciples.
All the people in the world are divided into his disciples,
bhaktas, those who are indifferent to him and those who are
even hostile to him and it is said in the following verse that all
these classes will be benefited by the existence of the jnani.
From Vedanta Chudamani: (Tamil verses)
The gist is: ‘Four classes of people are benefited by jivanmuktas.By his faith in the jivanmukta, the disciple attains mukti, the bhakta who worships his Guru attains merit, the indifferent
who have seen the sacred life of the jivanmukta acquire desire
for righteousness and even the sinners (i.e., the hostile in the
first verse) get rid of their sins by the mere fact of their having
had darshan of such saints.’ God, Guru and the Self are the
same. After your bhakti to God has matured you, God comes
in the shape of Guru and from outside pushes your mind inside,
while being inside as Self he draws you there from within. Such
a Guru is needed generally, though not for very rare and
advanced souls. One can go to another Guru after his Guru
passes away. But all Gurus are one, as none of them is the
form. Always mental contact is the best."
"Bhagavan: As already explained, Guru not being physical
form, his contact will continue after his form vanishes. If one
jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by or benefit all people in the world and not simply his immediate disciples.
All the people in the world are divided into his disciples,
bhaktas, those who are indifferent to him and those who are
even hostile to him and it is said in the following verse that all
these classes will be benefited by the existence of the jnani.
From Vedanta Chudamani: (Tamil verses)
The gist is: ‘Four classes of people are benefited by jivanmuktas.By his faith in the jivanmukta, the disciple attains mukti, the bhakta who worships his Guru attains merit, the indifferent
who have seen the sacred life of the jivanmukta acquire desire
for righteousness and even the sinners (i.e., the hostile in the
first verse) get rid of their sins by the mere fact of their having
had darshan of such saints.’ God, Guru and the Self are the
same. After your bhakti to God has matured you, God comes
in the shape of Guru and from outside pushes your mind inside,
while being inside as Self he draws you there from within. Such
a Guru is needed generally, though not for very rare and
advanced souls. One can go to another Guru after his Guru
passes away. But all Gurus are one, as none of them is the
form. Always mental contact is the best."」-
that sends chills down my spine. There is something so eerily amazing about that. It just occured to me how profound that is that a realized sage benefits not only their immediate devotees but the entire world, everyone in it. This is perhaps obnoxious, but when I was in Santa cruz visiting that teacher I visit. Santa Cruz had a different feel then Portland, where I had come from, and somewhere in my over imaginitive mind, I speculated that the persence of this spiritual "teacher", that grace permeated the whole town so strongly. Because there was something very celebratory in their night life, that was magical. But that's just my over-active imagination (smile). My dad is a theoretical physicist, and I recall things about physics not that my dad told me, but how every electrong 'knows' what every other electron in the entire universe is doing. this entire universe is so huge. But in the grace of bliss, there is some beauty in that intuition that there is nothing apart.
Eerily, I wasn't aware, that tp had made that comment about electrons.
This was a more recent response...Kassy by the way is a name I go by with friends (as well as scott). I was suffering health anxieties, and he also addressed fear of rejection, wanting acceptance.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
In the realization that the Self is not the body is found immense
freedom and peace. The body is not the Self and, therefore, one should not
misidentify with it. The body, though, is a temple, and should be treated
accordingly. The body is a transient image in an unreal dream. The body is
also to be regarded as an instrument to be used for divine service. The body
is mere, inert matter. The body's lifetime is a precious opportunity not to
be wasted. What pertains to a body is of no lasting significance. The body,
itself, is a wondrous manifestation of the Supreme. One should not
misidentify, and one should know the Self.
Better than oscillating between tamas and rajas, inertia and
agitation, is steady inquiry in quest of the Self. If there are problems
with the health of the body, better than dully pursuing previous habits and
engaging in repetitive anxiety in the mind is to learn and discover how to
care for your temple, your instrument, while liberating yourself from the
tendency to misidentify with it.
Several times, you have described your worry about acceptance and
the fear of rejection. They are two sides of the same idea. No one and
nothing can give you what is innately yours, which is the happiness and love
that you seek. When you finally look within and discover the treasure of
Bliss-Consciousness, which is your very Being, you will see how needless was
the worry and how false were the fears. Growing in wisdom within and thus
attaining detachment from worldly illusions, you will joyfully comprehend
the dissolution of bondage. Knowing your nature beyond the notion of
existing as a person, you will find the perfect fullness, the infinite and
the eternal. By profound inquiry to know yourself, you must discern the
ignorant concepts for what they are, and, being concerned with the Reality
rather than the miniscule imaginings surrounding an unreal ego, become
absorbed in the real Self.
May you always abide in the Knowledge of the immutable Self and thus
be ever happy at heart.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
Just one more example came to mind, while observing the banyan tree concerning the illusionary 'i' ( incidentally the one at the northern point of Arunachala where the ' merging " is observed,) . The banyan tree has only one original. primal trunk ( The Self - The Eternal I ) From It emerge the branches, leaves etc ( cosmic creation ). From these branches descend roots ( thoughts, ideas, emotions, memory, abstract thinking etc ) that lie close to one another but are separate. On reaching the ground they take root and all these components merge to form a new trunk ( the illusionary "i"). similarly, there is only One, from which creation has emerged. The individual creations are formed by our own imagination, that also creates the appearance of an individual " i" ( the secondary trunks ). see it, as it truly is - and the illusion is gone.
From afar,a lion perceives a herd of zebras to be long grass. This illusion has been created to offer protection to zebra, when they remain close together in a herd. It is only on approaching the herd and looking carefully ( the enquiry ) that individual zebras may be spotted, especially if one of them decides to move away from the herd. Similarly, it is only when we look keenly within and question the "i", that we will be able to detect the different components of this so called individual personality, realizing that there is no one else in there !In fact everything is in us. Bhagwan says "Realization is realizing the unreal to be unreal !". Advaita is pure scientific investigation.
sometimes it comes to mind, that maybe, just maybe, the neutron represents The Self. The proton, The initial vibration that sets the laws in place ( Ganesh, the first born ) They remain still, dense and immobile. Electromagnetism in its pure form is The Light ( Subramaniam, the second born - The Atman ) from which invisible and visible creation have emerged in the form of electrons, which can ionize to aquire positive and negative charges ( likes and dislikes - the disturbed, active mind, full of desires ). Only when the spin of electrons has slowed ( by sadhana or 'effort' as Bhagwan would say ), can The Power or Grace completely deionize and cause these electrons ( thoughts ) to be neutral. this neutral immobile State is Brahman
.
Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God:
German translation: Bruder Lawrence, Die Übung der Gegenwärtigkeit Gottes. Regeln für ein Heiliges Leben.
This book is a pearl. It offered me peace and insights. I recommend it to everyone.
Thanks to Ravi for his unintentional mention of it.
.
Hi folks,
Srikantha had said above, “AFTER reaching this 'I-am' (ego) awareness, isn't seeking the very source from where this I-thought arises, the true Self-enquiry? Please clarify”.
I never wrote precisely on the specific point of precedence itself, and left it as saying that Srikantha was on the right track (as he was at least saying that the true Self-enquiry is seeking the Source). Then, Ramprax above has also commented, “May be, Arvind is right about not holding on to the 'I' when the attention is there. The question 'who am i?'/'whence am i?' must be put precisely when all our attention is on the 'I'”.
Which is not what I intended to convey and sincerely apologize for not being more precise earlier. Actually, the following, slightly modified now, was a part of my previous post itself but was 1 of the 3 points scrapped as the post was too long already. And this point one feels is important enough to be put up now as an explanatory post (can already hear the groans all around !).
So, is “dwelling in the feeling of ‘I’ to the exclusion of all thoughts” to be done as a precursor to our enquiry proper of “seeking the Source” ? Are we to wait to first establish ourself in the ‘I’ and then put the query “Who am I ?”. No, it is the other way around. The latter is the act required which leads to the former, as an automatic outcome.
I believe that Sri Bhagavan wanted us to make a clean leap of faith into the abyss. To jump straight into the vichara, “Whence am I”, or “Who am I”, whether or not you have the faintest idea of what to do, or how. The idea being to just sit and wrestle with the “search for the Source”, as you have understood it from His direct instructions, not even mindful whether you were centred in the ‘I’ or not, or whether thoughts are gone or not, or whether the ‘I’ is being objectified or not. Grace would take care of everything else. We are NOT to first wait till practice develops in “holding on to the ‘I’ to the exclusion of all thoughts”, and then start the search. The leap of faith into vichara proper comes first. Otherwise it is no longer a leap of faith.
If you have paused at the brink to check out the abyss, to shine a torch into it to see how deep it is, and whether there is a safety net or not, you have then made a calculated mental assessment of the risks and rewards thereof. And the rewards will then come at the measured pace commensurate with the extent of your “investment”; not the sweeping, total wipe-out of the flood of Divine Grace.
I believe that when the sadhaka jumps straight into the vichara, “search for the Source”, she/he will spend some time flitting between periods of clumsy calmness, then wayward thoughts, then the ‘I’ slipping away, then coming back again and so forth. A sort of a chaotic, uncontrollable, switching from one position to the other, which may go on for a while, maybe even for a couple of years and more. Which leads the sadhaka to perhaps conclude that he/she is really getting nowhere. And it is for such a sadhaka primarily, I believe, that Sri Bhagavan has said that – the sadhaka cannot gauge the extent of progress made himself/herself and so should not be bothered when no success is apparent; it will be taken care of by itself. “It will all come right in the end”.
It is then that vichara is a short-cut to Liberation. We all keep in mind that the goal is Self-realization. But we forget that we must have It in this life itself, nay here and now itself, or, since It has not already happened now, at least in the very next moment to come. Our quest is not to steadily chug along on a very long spiritual road, hitting milestone after milestone, but never reaching our Destination; for we know not when this life will suddenly end. And then who knows what the next life will bring ?
regards
Friends,
I wish to share a couple of Hymns of Thayumanavar.
1.Destroying the dark forest of anava,
Breaking the stubborn rock of ahankara,
Levelling the rugged land of heart
Into a broad open field,
Planting the seed of silentness
That transcends Earth and other elements,
Irrigating with waters of devotion,
And until the plants come up,
Guarding them direct
From maya bird's attack -
Thus did Thy devotees
Harvest and enjoy the fruits of devotion
And were redeemed.
Now, it is Thy gracious responsibility ever
To guard the path in our march
Towards joining those devotees of yours.
Thou who art of turiya form
That reveals itself in the mystic space
That none knows!
Oh! Thou, Param that is Bliss
Encompassing in Pervasive Fullness,
The Universes many and Spaces vast!
2.'Never are you the master of thy action,
So helpless are you.'
So saying, in silentness Thou came
And took charge of my life, body and possessions
And claimed me as your own.
From that moment on,
Illusory became time and space,
Illusory became the desire for objects illusory,
Illusory became the attachment
That holds the illusory body as real,
Illusory of all became the ''I'' that is illusory.
And so
No more the maya that is pitch dark,
No more the occasion for the twin karmas to creep in,
No more the mind,
No more the cognates of that mind.
No more the coming, no more the going,
No more the tenses that speak of
''That time'' and ''This time.''
All transcendent beyond consciousness!
Oh! Thou, Param that is Bliss
Encompassing in Pervasive Fullness,
The Universes many and Spaces vast!
-----------------------------------
As Sage Nammalvar said-aRRadu paRRu enil uRRadu vIDu -meaning 'Home is Attained when the Attachments are sundered'.There is no other shortcut.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
Arvind's take Vichara may be his personal approach-I am not sure that Sri Bhagavan recommended it.
For onething,Sri Bhagavan has been thoroughly rational as far as the Effort part is concerned-Vichara and Self Surrender are two variants that he clearly advocated.Mysticism was always played down by him.
I do not practise the Vichara way,but I get the sense of it-It is essentially one of unifying the various strands(Thoughts,Desires,Sensations) of the Thread of Being by the power of Attention(purified Buddhi)on the Root of the 'I' Sense.In this process,the attachments drop away and to this extent the Substratum shines of its own accord and is perceived as Peace and Bliss.
Sri Annamalai Swami clearly said that he sort of eased into Self.He used to say the moment one starts Self Enquiry(with earnestness)Peace is experienced here(He would touch his Chest).
Irrespective of the beginning,Vichara and Surrender converge beyond the phase of Self Effort.
I would recommend APPALAM song of Sri Bhagavan.He has detailed all the components that go into this Practice.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
That's very interesting Ravi, related to that, a dilemma that I still have and haven't solved related to Self-inquiry is whether to aim for a thoughtless state, or first and foremost an egoless state. and from what you said, especially your quote of Annamalai Swami, easing into Self-inquiry, it seems the egoless state is primary. If there is thoughtlessness, it is a result of egolessness not the other way around. And because of this, I find it really tricky to engage in Self-inquiry. Because if I'm aiming for an egoless state, particularly a state of deep abiding peace, and not primarily a thoughtless state, how do I set out to do something that isn't just a mental effort. This is a dilemma I haven't resolved, and it's moment by moment how I resolve it. I usually take it first and foremost, the good sign, the sign of depth is this overwhelming peace, which is what I interpret to be what grace is. It's a mystery how to bring it about, and no specific method has worked. I write my spiritual teacher, I ask Who am I? Sometimes I negate the transient perceptions, and/or eliminate the momentary identity that is taken on. this kind of has no end in sight. Right now, I feel very peaceful. some of that is from writing that teacher. It's also because of those methods. But I don't mess with thought, I try to let activities mental and physical go on. If I'm watching Twilight Zone (like I was), I enjoy the enjoyment, the thoughts that are giong on. But when there is even a slight sensation that my peace is disturbed by longings, or fears, somehow my thoughts led down that trajectory, I by any method that works dissolve insofar as obvious, teh cause of the departure from peace. Once i'm out of peace, then it's much more tricky to get it back. And some of hte effort seems overly mental. I think this pretty much covers what inquiry has meant to me. When I was watching Twilight Zone, there was deep admiration for the imaginitiveness, adn the deep spiritual truths dealt with, I woulld say that devotion spontaneously manifested. Things like this, I don't mess with. If there is any joy, enjoyment, devotion, those are signs of the Self it seems, they are really precious. they are also the purpose of self-inquiry. egolessness and joy seem inextricably woven. Joy is egoless, and egolessness is joy.
Friends,
Please find the translation of Appalam song with a nice commentary-Michael James is a sincere devotee and seems to have a decent knowledge of Tamil as well.
Please visit:
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2009/06/appala-pattu-explanatory-paraphrase.html
Please compare this to the Thayumanavar songs that I have posted.
Namaskar.
@Ravi
"Sri Annamalai Swami clearly said that he sort of eased into Self.He used to say the moment one starts Self Enquiry(with earnestness)Peace is experienced here(He would touch his Chest).
Irrespective of the beginning,Vichara and Surrender converge beyond the phase of Self Effort."
Agree, Ravi. One does experience something in the chest area, the moment SE starts well.
To me, starting well is by a reaffirmation of surrender to Bhagavan, with a request to guide me in SE. Personal experience has shown that the times this surrender is genuine, SE happens beautifully.
Nandu
Scott,
"whether to aim for a thoughtless state, or first and foremost an egoless state. "
Best is not to aim for either.All aims are mental projections only.
"Once i'm out of peace, then it's much more tricky to get it back. And some of the effort seems overly mental."
Quite true.Yet,this is how it will be!This is the ebb and flow of the Gunas.The best way is to have a well organised routine everyday and stick to it as much as possible.One has to stick it out through patience;even if one is not able to make positive headway,one should still remain oriented in the positive direction.Sadhana time invested during these dry periods is always helpful and over a period of time,one would develop a poise and equanimity that will shorten these periods and help deepen the Sadhana;The Fruit of this is devotion.Once we have this wonderful gift,all the rest is bound to happen.
"If there is any joy, enjoyment, devotion, those are signs of the Self it seems, they are really precious. they are also the purpose of self-inquiry."
These are definitely positive signs of encouragement.
Wish you the very Best.
This was Nome's response as to whether love is in relationship or not. It was in response to romantic difficulties. It was so good that I taped a printed version of it to my wall. It's noteable his not veering away from the central message that love is the Self.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your message.
Love may be said to be the unitary "feeling" of Being; that is, it
is of the very nature of the indivisible Self. One who revels in the Self is
the same in a crowd or in a solitary place, with close friends or without,
married or single, and so forth and so on.
That which is truly desired by all is the Bliss of the Self, which
is undivided Being. Finding that within, all desires dissolve for the one
who knows. The Being of the Self is ever-existent. It is not born when the
body is born and does not perish with the death of the body. It exists:
realize it within you and do not postpone your bliss.
Love in the form of desire, wishing for someone or something else to
provide the happiness that is actually innate, is mired and entangled in
delusion. If it is in the form of the desire to make the other or others
happy, too, it is higher because of less egotism. If it is the wish for
others to be happy with no regard for the ego, it is better. If it is in the
form of the perfect fullness of the Self, with no notion of ego or other, it
is true and without a veil. Such a one experiences neither desire nor fear
and rests content within.
I hope that the above is helpful for you. Reflect upon its meaning
and inquire to know yourself. You will thus be ever happy and at peace.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
As to the issue of whether self-enquiry in the form "who am I?" comes first, or whether it comes after we have concentrated ourselves in the "I", I think we must understand that enquiry begins without any preconception of there being any differentiation between the ego-"I" and its source.
Bhagavan has of course taught that the ego-"I" is mot the true Self, but is a false sense of Self, and that the true Self is actually the source, the "I-I". However, self-enquiry is not, itself, to be practiced with these thoughts in mind. After all, they are just thoughts, even if true thoughts. Self-enquiry begins with simple awareness of thoughts, not with "true thoughts". So we are to put aside all these ideas about the goal and nature of self-enquiry when we actually practice it, because these ideas are just thoughts also.
Self-enquiry proceeds by simply and consciously examining whatever we directly feel our self to be. Of course, in the begining that will be the ego-"I" sense of self. Self-enquiry simply examines this sense of ego, not because this is some sort of necessary state before self-enquiry can begin, but because we are identified with the ego. If we are not identified with the ego, self-enquiry will of course proceed directly to the source, the Self. But im the case of most of us, who are identified with ego, self-enquiry will examine the egoic sense of self first, naturally and without having to impose some sense of how the process is supposed to proceed.
We feel ourselves as egos, so self-enquiry accepts that and examines this ego-sense. In the course of examining the ego-sense, we begin to see that there is no such thing. The admonition to "hold onto the I-thought" simply refers to the intensificaiton of this direct examination of our own self, which to us is this ego-sense. Th ego is always running about and never staying still, it never lets us examine itself directly. Self-enquiry "holds onto" ego-sense only to examine it directly and plainly. Of course, when it does so, it discovers there is nothing there, nothing to hold onto. The more the ego is held onto, the more we see its non-existence, and the source stands out more powerfully as our real being and nature. In this way, self-enquiry naturally progesses from "holding onto the I-sense" to "seeking the source" without any conceptual ideation about this guiding us. It happens simply due to the nature of self-enquiry itself, and the illusory nature of the I-sense. We begin by examiing an illusion, and through that examination we discover that it is an illusion, which allows us to see through that illusion to what is true, and thereby we become more and more established in truth than in illusion. Eventually, the illusion of the ego is burned up entirely by our examination of it, and all that reamins is the true Self.
cont.
cont.
That is simply how it happens. One has to go through that process directly and naturally. One cannot "shorten" the process by directly "seeking the source" without having first examined the illusion of ego which is masking that source. That's just one of the ego's thoughts, a thought which enables the ego to survive the process of self-enquiry intact. Who is thinking that thought? It's the ego. So in the midst of thinking such thoughts, self-enquiry ignores their content and directs us back to the one to whom this thought is arising, the ego. In this way whatever fancy and manipulative thoughts the ego has, even about self-enquiry, are turned back upon the ego, and we are directed to examine this egoic self-sense directly. This undermines ego, because ego cannot survive on its own. It requires thoughts, objects, ideas, inferences, all kinds of distractions to survive. Ifwe are directly back continually to ego itself, and not to its ideas and thoughts, then ego begins to fade and become translucent, and finally, transparent, and the source naturally is seen as our very being until it utterly replaces the ego-sense.
We simply have to be wary of the ego's capacity to invent all kinds of rationalizations for its continued existence. THe ego would like us to seek all kinds of things as ojects, including the Self. What it doesn't want is for us to turn that search back upon the ego, because it cannot survive direct examination. Of course, truly seeking the Self, the source, means examining the self that we already assume ourselves to be, which means examining this plain ego. They are both in the "self" position\, so to truly exaime the one requires that we deal with the other, to the degree that we are identified with this false ego.
"Agree, Ravi. One does experience something in the chest area, the moment SE starts well."
When Self-inquiry becomes easier for me, it brings on a great sense of peace and joy, it starts feeling like all is well, and breathing becomes easier. I think that is what is noticeable in the chest area. I was playing a car racing video game with my dad. and when I started to get nervous or stressed in the intensity of the race, inquiring Who am I? created this sense of balanced peace, hand-eye coordination function so much better. It reminds me of Papaji's story about being in the army, and how his awareness of the Self caused him to be an excellent sharp shooter. It's not always easy how to tell how to inquire deeply. But what is causing the dullness, or worse agitated suffering is always attachments whatever they are. Inquiry is aiming at an attachmentless, joyful state. It seems to me anyway that attempting inquiry it always aimed at breaking the attachments that dull the natural blissful peaceful experience. It's also like david godman said riding a bike, or in this video game, I crash, but I back up and continue down the racing track. Any effort or attempt that isn't directly breaking the attachments that dull experience, or cause suffering is not the direct inquiry. Perhaps, the Bliss really is the inquiry, and inquiry is always a merging with that Bliss.
I was just thinking about how the 'Our Father' or Lords Prayer, is really good. Specifically the line, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". Often in a Christian context, it seems like it can be taken to mean, what doctrinal errors have i commited. But in the context of these teachings it has deep meaning. Possessed by ego, I violate other people's boundaries, and they violate mine. "forgive us", is appealing to something outside the ego, call it grace, God, the Self, it's appealing to something outside of the individual will. Also "thy will be done as it is in heaven", maharshi has quoted that. It's an awareness that everything that happens is because of providence or scripted. It's a little more 3-dimensional (then a written script), but the individual will does not influence events but is a pawn in them. When I error externally based on my individual desires, it strengthens vasanas. It strengthens attachments both to the desires and the consequences of desires. Who am I? is meant to sever that connection. But Lords Prayer helps with that. Sometimes because many of my friends are more atheistic then I am at this point, sometimes I wish there was a way to convey these things without people being turned off by mention of God, or religious-talk. But then again, the Self is more understandable. There is the Bliss of knowing myself, without all my egoic delusions. God is the Self acting outside of my individual will. Taking myself as an individual, I call upon God, because God is the fountain of grace.
It also seems like some things have to be discarded as irrelevent to inquiry. facial tension is something that I experience alot, and I can get caught up in it. This is irrelevent to the inquiry. Action or inaction is irrelevent to inquiry. I have a tendency to want to be completely physically still and want to focus and not respond to the world when attempting inquiry. thinking or non-thinking seems like perhaps even this is irrelevent to inquiry. adrenylin or no adrenylin is irrelevent. What is relevent is the deep sense of peace in the heart. that peace is veiled by attachments. The attachments are the vasanas. The peace and the attachments that veil peace are what are relevent to inquiry. But actually perhaps it could even be said that the attachments are irrelevent to inquiry, and only the deep sense of peace and contentment is relevent to inquiry. (and taht is supposedly ever present) so doing actions, or ceasing actions (for instance making inquiry a sitting meditation), conversation or no conversation. so I go through the normal activities of my day, respond normally, even have anxious reactions, but if there is a sense of longing, or fear, or anger, usually those are about something, that is why the term bondage makes so much sense. Dwelling on things and being stuck in the past. But it can't be a knee jerk repression of those things so I feel good. It has to be a dismissal of those things and going deeper. But not deeper in a direction, and not in a way that is antithetical to the actions. It seems like the guage of depth or success is simply the contentment, the deep sense of joyful peace that doesn't require things to be different then they are. I'm sitting at home, and my clothes are dirty and uncomfortable. (not now). It's so much easier to take care of things and get them done. but the key is that even if things aren't ideal, my fingernails need to be cut, there are things upcoming I have to take care of school-wise. What is relevent is not what is or isn't happening phenomenally, but the deep sense of peace and contentment, and removing, dissolving, the veils to that. The Who am I? question similar to the Lord's prayer seems to reveal grace, that sense of peace, but inquiry also dissolves the personality taht is trapped in the bad veiling habits.
Broken Yogi,
Wonderful post.yes,one needs to take oneself as one is,not as 'ego' or 'little self'.Drop all borrowed ideas and be naked.Not think of oneself but be oneself.
Salutations.
'"whether to aim for a thoughtless state, or first and foremost an egoless state. "
Best is not to aim for either.All aims are mental projections only.'
I'm trying to ascertain within myself is this true. Because it doesn't resonate with me as true. Any attempt at inquiry I've ever made starts with an aim, a very clear aim, and that is to find out the cause of the suffering and solve the problem at it's root. Anytime I've attempted to practice inquiry there is always a reason for it, and something that is very much sought after to be accomplished, and that is to be free of the egoic causes of my suffering is what drives self-inquiry. It's kind of like the preamble to Who am I? "every living being longs to be happy", and it is only a recognition that his/her real nature is happiness. Sometihng along those lines. What I understand from Maharshi's teachings is that the causes of my unhappiness are not in external causes, I'm not unhappy because of politics or because of love-life, I'm unhappy because of ego-conjured unhappiness. The attempt at Self-inquiry is a recognition that there is a happier, better way to exist that doesn't require a change in circumstances, doesn't require averting changes in circumstances, that happiness lies within. I can say that now, because I am happy and not because of...Self-inquiry seems atleast in my own practice of it, to have a very clear aim, and that is to clear up all ignorance, all delusive mental suffering.
Scott,
"Any attempt at inquiry I've ever made starts with an aim, a very clear aim, and that is to find out the cause of the suffering and solve the problem at it's root. "
I understand what you are trying to say.What I mean is 'finding the cause' is not the same as 'seeing the problem'.The Former is intellectual whereas the later is 'actual'.If we can see the problem,it is easier to rid oneself of it.One simply GETS RID OF IT and does not AIM to get rid of it.
Namaskar.
.
...All aims are mental projections only. ... Because it doesn't resonate with me as true. ...
I understand the intention of this statement not as to dismiss self enquiry, LMM, but as a description of a final state of self enquiry. The need for self enquiry stems from maya, and a broader understanding of maya reveals that an enquiry into the products of maya is like "looking for the traces of a bird in the sky" (Sankara?). To know that all maya-thoughts are movements of prakriti means that the need to enquire into the causes of this in the end is needless and useless.
This statement (...mental projections only...) resonates well with a famous statement of the german christian Master Eckhart. I try to translate it:
"Man should not be satisfied with an imaginary God because as soon as the image disappears that God disappears too."
.
Losing M. Minds Sept 13th post says it all -
" several times, we may worry about acceptance and the fear of rejection. They are two sides of the same idea. No one and nothing can give us what is innately ours, which is the happiness and love that we seek. When we finally look within and discover the treasure of Bliss-Consciousness, which is our very Being, we will see how needless was the worry and how false were the fears.
Growing in wisdom within and thus attaining detachment from worldly illusions, we will joyfully comprehend the dissolution of bondage. Knowing our nature beyond the notion of existing as a person, we will find the perfect fullness, the infinite and the eternal. By profound inquiry to know ourselves, we must discern the ignorant concepts for what they are, and, being concerned with the Reality rather than the miniscule imaginings surrounding an unreal ego, become absorbed in the real Self."
thank you for summing it up so well.
For those who have wandered far away from The Source having indulged in wild imaginings and who are lost in the forest of delusion and are seeking to find our way back home; where the 'i' is so strongly attached to thoughts, concepts and emotions, so that to feel it as simply 'i' is absolutely impossible, it IS necessary to " discern the ignorant concepts for what they are " before we furthur progress can be made. The 'i' is now felt in The Heart, alone and free in all Its Fullness
Scott,
"Anytime I've attempted to practice inquiry there is always a reason for it, and something that is very much sought after to be accomplished, and that is to be free of the egoic causes of my suffering is what drives self-inquiry. It's kind of like the preamble to Who am I? "every living being longs to be happy", and it is only a recognition that his/her real nature is happiness. Sometihng along those lines."
Scott,it is truly helpful to be objective about Self Enquiry and to recognize the benefits of this practice.This will help one to pursue the practice with enthusiasm and persevere.
Everyone of us want unalloyed happiness;all of us want to get rid of the least vestige of misery.
Self Enquiry is valuable towards actualising this primeval desire.
What I have tried to play down is the extrapolation of the mind that equates Happiness as a STATE of Thoughtlessness or Egolessness,etc and trying to pursue and achieve these as Aims.
Wish you the very Best.
tp,
Thanks very much for sharing with understanding and compassion.
Namaskar.
I understand the intention of this statement not as to dismiss self enquiry, LMM, but as a description of a final state of self enquiry. "The need for self enquiry stems from maya, and a broader understanding of maya reveals that an enquiry into the products of maya is like "looking for the traces of a bird in the sky" (Sankara?). To know that all maya-thoughts are movements of prakriti means that the need to enquire into the causes of this in the end is needless and useless."
You know, I'm not an expert, so I feel out of my league responding to this. However, again, this does not resonate with me as true. The recognition that thoughts are prakriti (I had to look that up), meaning of, or related to maya I think. The recognition of maya for what it is, inclusive of the thoughts and perceptions, that is exactly what my attempt at inquiry is meant to look like. To recognize maya (illusion) as illusion. Self-inquiry is a deep look into what isn't maya, the real Self. That teacher that I correspond with clarified things for me, I believe that from what I've read Self inquiry does not come from maya, has nothing to do with maya, that discernment of illusion as illusion does not come from illusion. It comes from reality. It is grace that allows the rope to be discerned to be a rope. That grace is of the Self. But I think more aptly, that grace which in my own experience is a deep contenment is the real Self. Maybe on a thought level, it becomes clear. For instance when I write that teacher, I usually experience grace and in his response. The grace usually manifests as Self-inquiry becoming easier. why? Because things become more clear. I'm not Self-Realized, or not abiding in a deep state of Bliss (all the time) because I believe in the truth of my vasanas. I believe I need things objectively. When grace is experienced, even the Self inquiry on the thought level, even the question who am I? And the discernment comes much easier. My point is I think Self inquiry is the llight that illuminates the rope as a rope and not a snake. It is not the thinking inquiry, "Is it a snake? No, it's a rope". That is the mental aspect of inquiry that naturally follows when there is enough light to see that it is. This is my current experience of Self inquiry. When there is not enough light, it is almost a desperate mental attempt that fails. When grace is starting to experience which may be partly because of the intense attempt, suddenly it becomes easy and clear.
As to the 'tracks in the birds of the sky" My teacher used taht Shankara quote to emphasize that his own Self-Realization was universal and attainable by anyone.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your several messages.
There are innumerable modes of mind. One self-luminous Consciousness
knows all of them. Savikalpa means "with differentiation." Nirvikalpa means
"without differentiation." Various yogis and rishis have employed these
terms in various ways. For some, savikalpa signifies samadhi with some
aspect of perception or thought, such as upon the indivisible nature of
Existence, and such, while nirvikalpa is that in which all perception and
thought is absent. In the short text entitled Drg-drsya-viveka (The
Discrimination of the Seer and the Seen), Adi Sankara, the wondrous Acarya,
defines savikalpa samadhi in terms of means of entrance, such as meditation
on the unreality of the world, and such, and further delineates interior and
exterior kinds of these, while nirvikalpa samadhi entails entrance without
differentiation, with the essence of the samadhi being the same in all. The
same description is found in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi and is
reiterated in the glossary of Ribhu Gita and the Song of Ribhu. Certainly,
the distinctions and the questions regarding such do not arise in samadhi.
Abide as the Self, and samadhi is found to be the natural, innate (sahaja)
state.
Whenever the ego dissolves and in proportion to its dissolution,
higher experience shines. If the ego emerges and in proportion to the
misidentifications and attachments conjured up, the higher experience fades.
First the ego is imagined, and the experience is considered objective rather
than one's very Existence. Then it becomes memory. Then, it fades, unless
one practices. Therefore, Self-inquiry should be ardently practiced until
the notion of individuality is impossible.
Along with detachment from action, detachment from the results of
action, contemplation upon transience, and discrimination regarding
happiness, the very idea of being a performer of action (kartrtva), which
involves misidentification with the body, senses, and mind, should be
questioned.
It is beneficial to wisely examine in order to destroy the root
cause, along with the manifest thoughts, etc. of "problems." It is worthless
to bemoan oneself, which involves the repetitive adherence to unexamined
ideas, or to ascribe outer causes for one's own imagined ignorance, bondage,
or unhappiness. So, continue to inwardly discern the inner Bliss of Being
that is the actual source of happiness and love. Truly discern ignorance as
ignorance, and it will be gone.
While sadness or despair may be a starting place for spiritual
aspiration, such as expressed by Rama in the opening portion of Yoga
Vasishta, it vanishes, along with the ideas constituting such, as soon as a
deep inquiry commences, as expressed in the entirety of the remainder of
that scripture and countless other texts.
Anger (krodha) is rooted in kama (desire) and avidya (ignorance).
Destruction of the ignorant root is essential for freedom from it.
Redirection of the anger, let alone, at the Maharshi, is not advisable. By
doing such, the preposterous and presumptuous character of doing so may seem
so starkly evident that it affords some relief from or temporary abeyance of
the anger, but the causes will still be left intact to resume later, and,
moreover, such redirection is fraught with far too many errors and delusions
than can be elaborated upon here in this message. Destruction by true
Knowledge is fruitful, and the fruit endures. If you must redirect, redirect
the anger, or the intensity lent to the anger, at the anger, itself, intent
upon no longer carrying on with such illusion.
The above answers a number of questions and points raised in your
messages of the last three weeks or so. I hope that you find these answers
and comments helpful.
May you abide absorbed in the Bliss of the Self, and, by the Grace
of Sri Bhagavan, remain in the steady Knowledge of That, as That, itself.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
In this response he mentions redirecting anger at the maharshi. I had read somewhere that maybe Maharshi had advised that because it's safer to be angry at him then at someone else because of his purity. So that is what my teacher is referring to. In tp's last response he quoted my quote of this teacher who I have found extremely helpful and is an expert where I am not. And when I say expert, I mean experientially not intellectually though apparently taht as well.
I think tp knows what he is talking about.
"I understand what you are trying to say.What I mean is 'finding the cause' is not the same as 'seeing the problem'.The Former is intellectual whereas the later is 'actual'.If we can see the problem,it is easier to rid oneself of it.One simply GETS RID OF IT and does not AIM to get rid of it."
Well, in my case it starts out with an aim, yes ultimately the point I think is to get rid of it. But it starts off with an intention, a resolve.
"Scott,it is truly helpful to be objective about Self Enquiry and to recognize the benefits of this practice.This will help one to pursue the practice with enthusiasm and persevere.
Everyone of us want unalloyed happiness;all of us want to get rid of the least vestige of misery.
Self Enquiry is valuable towards actualising this primeval desire.
What I have tried to play down is the extrapolation of the mind that equates Happiness as a STATE of Thoughtlessness or Egolessness,etc and trying to pursue and achieve these as Aims.:
That makes sense, in that thoughtlessness and egolessness are words that are kind of mental. Whereas when I hear the word happiness, or contemplate causeless Bliss, I feel that deeply. Or devotion. My point in that earlier comment was mroe that it seems that the point is to be free of the suffering caused by what I think is true about myself and what I think is true about the world. And that previously I considered it the aim was to achieve a thoughtless state, and usually in my practice ended up in a vigilantly concentrated repressive stupor. I had read who am I? and those things, on some level really felt the truth of those writings, but it shows how easy it is to go astray without expert help.
Ramos,
"This book is a pearl. It offered me peace and insights. I recommend it to everyone."
Yes Ramos.The Practice of the Presence of God is an excellent Book and valuable to all seekers.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
I've always appreciated your devotional point of view, and on a personal level I am more comfortable with bhakta and being around bhaktis than with the standard approach of western advaitism, which is often lacking in that attitude.
At the risk of answering my own question to David about non-dual devotion to the Guru, and the general path of surrender, I have a view on these things which derives from a number of sources, including both Ramankrishna and Nisargadatta. One of the most important things I've ever read is Nisargadatta's answer to a devotee who asked him if there was anything real in our experience at all, or was it all just an illusion. Nisargadatta said that yes, the love we feel for one another is real, even if the bodies and world and all the images in our mind are unreal.
To me, this is the core of what the path of surrender/bhakti is about. The bhakta recognizes that love is real, is in reality the only real experience we have in this illusory world, and his path is to concentrate himself in this love, regardless of what arises. He recognizes that it is not truly the object of his love that is real, but only the love itself. So he may have a Divine Image that he loves, a chosen Ishta Devatma, an image of the Self, that he relates to - even a Guru who seems to embody that Ishta Devatma - but he understands that these are merely outer representations of this inner love, and that none of those outer representations are actually real in themselves. It's the love that is real. So the bhakta is in love with love itself, with the real experience at the core of love, which is in the heart, in the self-position, not in the object of one's love. So maybe this is what Saradamma is referring to when she talks about worshiping the Guru in one's own heart.
In that sense there is a difference between the path of self-enquiry and the path of self-surrender. In self-enquiry, we examine the illusion of the ego and in so doing it evaporates into thin air and we are left with the real. In surrender, we are attracted directly to what is real, and in the process, the objective illusions that are associated with it evaporate by not being paid any attention or energy. By becoming more and more concentrated in the real, in love, the world and its illusions falls away, until that is all that remains. In some ways they are polar opposite approaches, but in the real sense they have the same outcome, even the same method of becoming more and more concentrated in the Self position.
I don't always know which approach I'm more drawn to. You could say both, since they are not exclusive to one another and work in symbiosis. The more the practice of self-enquiry lets us see through the illusions of the ego, the more we see the love that pervades reality. And the more we experience that love, the more we see through the illusions of the ego. Slowly perhaps, and with many mistakes along the way, but the path is self-correcting.
It seems like devotion and inquiry are really one method. There are not two methods to Self-Realization. There is not an inquiry that isn't loving from start to finish. For instance if I perform inquiry in a detached intellectual fashion without love, without genuine love, there will be no progress. Because inquiry is a direct method to realize that state of unitary love that Broken Yogi talks about. And devotion is inquiry, because the feeling of devotion is what the question Who am I? is referring to. It reveals the eternal peace that has never changed. If I feel a sense of selfless love, it is the result of discerning inquiry that has removed the concepts that have veiled it. I guess ultimately the result of inquiry, and devotion is That, what they call Brahman, the Self, where is just that one unitary existance,as Broken Yogi quoted of Nisargadatta, the feeling of love is what is real. merging in teh bliss of devotion or inquiring to realize there is nothing besides that are the same thing.
Broken Yogi,
Thanks very much.your understanding of what Sri Sarada Amma has said is what I have tried to express in my earlier post by quoting Sri Nisargadutta Maharaj.Yes,there is no conflict between Self Enquiry and Bhakti approaches in the sense that they lead one to same end.
I did not want to quote Sri Ramakrishna.Now I will do so.See how simply and beautifully he expresses this.(This is from one of the mails that I wrote to a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna who was finding that sometimes she was attracted towards Sri Ramakrishna,sometimes towards The Holy Mother Sri Sarada Devi and sometimes towards Vivekananda.She had known the concept of Ishta Devata and was in despair viewing this as a switching of loyalties and doubting her Devotion and love.)
"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna has been a hot favourite of mine over the Decades! It ushers one into the charming presence of Sri Ramakrishna; does not matter where one is physically,just dip into the pages of this wonderful book and we are in the haloed presence of one of the rarest of Avatara Purushas to have graced the Terra Firma.As for the Teachings, the way Sri Ramakrishna drives home subtle Truths in such a homely and easily assimilable fashion through tales and parables,is truly wonderful.
Yet,this very simplicity is deceptive and hides an astonishing depth and sweep that will become apparent only as one progresses in Sadhana and develops Insight.
I will just take this example to illustrate this aspect.Towards the end of Chapter 4(Advice to Householders)Sri Ramakrishna throws up this riddle:
"Well, can you explain this state of my mind? Once I was going from Burdwan to
Kamarpukur in a bullock-cart, when a great storm arose. Some people gathered near the
cart. My companions said they were robbers. So I began to repeat the names of God, calling
sometimes on Kali, sometimes on Rama, sometimes on Hanuman. What do you think of
that?"
Even a person like Sri M is foxed and wonders-"Was the Master hinting that God is one but is addressed differently by Different Sects?".
It is only in chapter 33(With Various Devotees)the Master unveils the Deep Implication and in what a fashion!He says:
"Once, while going to Kamarpukur, I was overtaken by a storm. I was in the middle of a
big meadow. The place was haunted by robbers. I began to repeat the names of all the
deities: Rama, Krishna, and Bhagavati. I also repeated the name of Hanuman. I chanted the
names of them all. What does that mean? Let me tell you. While the servant is counting out
the money to purchase supplies, he says, 'These pennies are for potatoes these for eggplants,
these for fish.' He counts the money separately, but after the list is completed, he
puts the coins together."
Continued....
Broken Yogi,
Continuing...
What does Sri Ramakrishna mean by this utterly simple parable of the servant counting the coins seperately at first and then putting it all together?We may try to understand this through Sri Aurobindo's FOUR AIDS chapter:
"The Hindu discipline of spirituality provides for this need of the soul by the conceptions of the Ishta Devata, the Avatar and the Gum. By the Ishta Devata, the chosen deity, is meant, -- not some inferior Power, but a name and form of the transcendent and universal Godhead. Almost all religions either have as their base or make use of some such name and form of the Divine. Its necessity for the human soul is evident. God is the All and more than the All. But that which is more than the All, how shall man conceive? And even the All is at first too hard for him; for he himself in his active consciousness is a limited and selective formation and can open himself only to that which is in harmony with his limited nature. There are things in the All which are too hard for his comprehension or seem too terrible to his sensitive emotions and cowering sensations. Or, simply, he cannot conceive as the Divine, cannot approach or cannot recognise something that is too much out of the circle of his ignorant or partial conceptions. It is necessary for him to conceive God in his own image or at some form that is beyond himself but consonant with his highest tendencies and seizable by his feelings or his intelligence. Otherwise it would be difficult for him to come into contact and communion with the Divine.
Even then his nature calls for a human intermediary so that he may feel the Divine in something entirely close to his own humanity and sensible in a human influence and example. This call is satisfied by the Divine manifest in a human appearance, the Incarnation, the Avatar-Krishna, Christ, Buddha. Or if this is too hard for him to conceive, the Divine represents himself through a less marvellous intermediary, -- Prophet or Teacher. For many who cannot conceive or are unwilling to accept the Divine Man, are ready to open themselves to the supreme man, terming him not incarnation but world-teacher or divine representative.
This also is not enough; a living influence, a living example, a present instruction is needed. For it is only the few who can make the past Teacher and his teaching, the past Incarnation and his example and influence a living force in their lives. For this need also the Hindu discipline provides in the relation of the Guru and the disciple. The Guru may sometimes be the Incarnation or World-Teacher; but it is sufficient that he should represent to the disciple the divine wisdom, convey to him something of the divine ideal or make him feel the realised relation of the human soul with the Eternal.
The Sadhaka of the integral Yoga will make use of all these aids according to his nature; but it is necessary that he should shun their limitations and cast from himself that exclusive tendency of egoistic mind which cries, "My God, my Incarnation, my Prophet, my Guru," and opposes it to all other realisation in a sectarian or a fanatical spirit. All sectarianism, all fanaticism must be shunned; for it is inconsistent with the integrity of the divine realisation.
On the contrary, the Sadhaka of the integral Yoga will not be satisfied until he has included all other names and forms of Deity in his own conception, seen his own Ishta Devata in all others, unified all Avatars in the unity of Him who descends in the Avatar, welded the truth in all teachings into the harmony of the Eternal Wisdom."
How Sri Ramakrishna has expressed-Counting the coins seperately and putting it all together!
Broken yogi,
To the Hindu psyche there is no conflict between God with form and Formless god-No need to be reminded what is true and eternal.
In the Usual Pooja also a pinch of turmeric powder moulded into a cone with a drop of water will be invoked as lord Ganesa.After all the worship with love and devotion,the same moulded Ganesa is dissolved and watered down!The Ancients understood the need for the humans to CONCRETISE all that is true,subtle;this is a powerful way to channelise the energies,and thickening the Love and Devotion.
Great Saints have taken recourse to this approach.The Other way of viewing it is NOTHING IS UNREAL-Otherwise it cannot come into shape even momentarily!
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi,
"I've always appreciated your devotional point of view"
This has been arrived at after 'going around'!I do not want to elaborate-for me the Way of Attention lead to Peace.Yet I found that INTENSITY and the ANANDA elements were not there.The Bhakti approach ensures this.It automatically ensures Peace as well.Ultimately all these seperate coins(Sri Ramakrishna!)would be put together!
Namaskar.
this was in response about difficulties with school, or "functioning". My teacher responds:
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
The analogies given by Sri Bhagavan concerning the train and the
luggage and the temple tower and the carved figure pertain to the unreality
of the ego and the falseness of the conception of being the performer of
action.
Activity is not bondage and is not the cause of suffering. The "I am
the doer" idea is limitation and causes suffering. Mere cessation of bodily
actions does not yield Liberation. If inaction is grasped with fear as the
cause, the fear will only intensify or endure. The result is indolence and
not spiritual peace. In such a mode of mind, concepts about external sources
of happiness and suffering, and misidentification of the Self with the body,
are delusions left intact.
Action without attachment, as taught in Bhagavad Gita, Yoga
Vasishta, and other holy texts, is correct. Such is easily attained by those
who know the source of happiness within. They then inquire to realize the
Self as bodiless Being. Being beyond the identification with the body, they
remain at peace and free even when the body acts. The body acts; the Self
abides still.
You may wish to continue to consider what was mentioned in a
previous email regarding self-centered thoughts.
It may also be helpful to consider what you presently regard as a
troubling situation for yourself contrasted with the phenomenal hardships
faced by other people around the world. It may provide some perspective.
The Gita declares, Let a man lift himself up; let him not lower
himself.
Surrender is to God. Giving up in frustration and reacting by
entertaining a mental mode of apathy has nothing to do with the deep
devotion in which the perfect fullness shines.
The above is mentioned in the hope that it will clarify, inspire,
and encourage.
May your meditations be deep and the spiritual freedom that you find
suffuse the entirety of your life.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
This one was one where my teacher responded about the performer of action notion. It was in response to a letter about school difficulties functioning.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
The analogies given by Sri Bhagavan concerning the train and the
luggage and the temple tower and the carved figure pertain to the unreality
of the ego and the falseness of the conception of being the performer of
action.
Activity is not bondage and is not the cause of suffering. The "I am
the doer" idea is limitation and causes suffering. Mere cessation of bodily
actions does not yield Liberation. If inaction is grasped with fear as the
cause, the fear will only intensify or endure. The result is indolence and
not spiritual peace. In such a mode of mind, concepts about external sources
of happiness and suffering, and misidentification of the Self with the body,
are delusions left intact.
Action without attachment, as taught in Bhagavad Gita, Yoga
Vasishta, and other holy texts, is correct. Such is easily attained by those
who know the source of happiness within. They then inquire to realize the
Self as bodiless Being. Being beyond the identification with the body, they
remain at peace and free even when the body acts. The body acts; the Self
abides still.
You may wish to continue to consider what was mentioned in a
previous email regarding self-centered thoughts.
It may also be helpful to consider what you presently regard as a
troubling situation for yourself contrasted with the phenomenal hardships
faced by other people around the world. It may provide some perspective.
The Gita declares, Let a man lift himself up; let him not lower
himself.
Surrender is to God. Giving up in frustration and reacting by
entertaining a mental mode of apathy has nothing to do with the deep
devotion in which the perfect fullness shines.
The above is mentioned in the hope that it will clarify, inspire,
and encourage.
May your meditations be deep and the spiritual freedom that you find
suffuse the entirety of your life.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
"In that sense there is a difference between the path of self-enquiry and the path of self-surrender. In self-enquiry, we examine the illusion of the ego and in so doing it evaporates into thin air and we are left with the real. In surrender, we are attracted directly to what is real, and in the process, the objective illusions that are associated with it evaporate by not being paid any attention or energy. By becoming more and more concentrated in the real, in love, the world and its illusions falls away, until that is all that remains. In some ways they are polar opposite approaches, but in the real sense they have the same outcome, even the same method of becoming more and more concentrated in the Self position."
Again, it seems to me that there is absolutely no difference between surrender and inquiry. They are not two different methods. "I can realize by either the path of surrender or of inquiry", which are different means to the same end. On the contrary, they are one method. My reasoning goes as follows. when I inquire deeply by asking Who am I? which I sometimes ask deeply enough to work. It always works but sometimes it is asked with perhaps greater sincerity. When I do that, the ignorance is immediately cleared up and great peace remains. What I am really doing when I ask Who am I? is surrendering the false notion of individuality. And when I surrender I'm seeing that the individual doesn't exist. Surrendering doesn't only require inquiry, it is inquiry. And inquiry is surrender. Even when I surrender my burdens or what I'm attached to. The ego does not in my experience seem to exist apart from it's attachments. Giving up the attachments is surrendering the individuality. When I ask Who am I? I am surrendering the individual who has attachments. When I surrender, I'm surrendering the attachments of the individual. It could be looked at as two different things only if there were attachments seperate from the ego. But the ego arises in the form of attachments in the form of bondage. When I surrender, I'm ascertaining my real identity as pure Blissful Being, so surrendering is asking Who am i? because it reveals the real Existence.
In satsang, I asked my spiritual teacher, I said that I like to isolate methods. Perhaps eliminating the non-eternal as transient, or inquiring Who am I? or looking for the source of happiness. He said that it was fine that I was doing that (paraphrasing), but they will ultimately be realized to be one method. One thing that may be a phraasing of his alone, and not put this way by Maharshi is that happiness, reality, and identity are erroneously attributed to be external or objective. Inquiry returns happiness, identity and reality to their source. So where is the source of happiness, Who am I? and What is eternal? Can be looked at as three different questiosn. But again they are really the same question. And the answer Being-Consciousness-Bliss is also one answers becaues they are 3 different descriptions of what is only one unitary consciousness that encompasses those qualities.
.
I would like to inform you and german readers of this blog that a german translation of the Mahabharata (based on Kisari Mohan Ganguli,1883-1896) is coming. The First Book already is finished. More informations on this website:
Pushpak - Der strahlende Wagen des Geistes
.
The more I attempt inquiry the more I realize that inquiry is the Self. It's not an action apart from the Self. It's not mental effort away from the SElf. In inquiry there is only the Self. Inquiry is ceasing to misidentify with the causes of suffering and being the Self. That's why it seems to me, that going to the root of the suffering that is caused by identifying with, and not being the Self, and instead being at peace, which is what I think is meant by "be still". It doesn't mean "don't think". Although you can try. Be my guest. But really there it is me fighting with me. One me trying to stop the thoughts that are also me. So it's a neverending fight to try to "not think". Be still is I think more aptly described as be at peace, do not conjure up and suffer the tangents of attachments. Be still of ego, be still of attachments, be without suffering, be at peace, be still. Be still does not mean don't think, and it also doesn't mean don't move. It doesn't mean don't plan. It doesn't mean don't do your job, or be affectionatee with loved ones. Inquiry is the Self. Abiding as the Self is inquiry, but there is not another person to abide as the Self. And there is no where to go to abide as the Self, because the Self is everything and everybody. So it doesn't matter what I do or say, or where I am, I am always the Self. And everything I perceive, think, everything experienced is the Self. But they aren't apart from the Self, because these experiences are not apart from me. That seems really easily seen to be true. If I take myself to be ani individual, then I'm this individual in the body. If I don't take myself to be that, then I am everything around me, but that everything is only the Consciousness, and even Consciousness is only a word. It's that there si always experience. Ego is when it is of something. So inquiry is when I'm no longer abiding, when there is a dissolution of the causes of suffering. I was previously a person, and that person was suffering from things far away, attachments, things that are wanted, that are not there. External things that are threatening. Immediately the question Who am I? re-establishes myself as pure blissful Being, without those attachments that the personality was based on. But sometimes the question isn't asked. Sometimes it is a recognition that I'm suffering from imagination, and a shift to pure Blissful Being, or more aptly the disapperance of what is not Blissful, what is not the Self, what is imagination, the imagination ceases, I'm abiding in Bliss without imagination, that existence, the experience is inquiry. The pure Blissful Being is the inquiry. And when I stay in it, I'm abiding as the Self, and i'm practicing inquiry. As far as aims, aims, resolve are necessary. There has to be the resolve to not continue suffering, there has to be being tired of suffering and wanting an end to this tireless imagination. So to inquire, has an intention behind it. That intention I suppose is based on that abiding as the Self in Bliss without all the exhausting imagination is alot nicer. That intention is a recognition in itself of my real identity which is not inclusive of suffering.
And... There is no other way to be happy. Because in attachment, either I get what i want or I don't, but in the case of getting it, if I'm attached, I fear it's loss, and so I am not happy. If I don't, I'm unhappy because I'm unsatisfied. So there is no way to be happy other then knowing my true identity as the Self. Which is why, attempting inquiry, and I say attempting because anything besides knowing my real identity, abiding in Bliss without attachment is only a mental exercise, and not really inquiry, though it may comprise an attempt at it, and that attempt is based on the intuition that my real nature is the Self. So all attempts are good. But this is why, Self-inquiry or Maharshi's teachings are the ultimate anecdote to all problems including mental illnesses. I've taken psychiatric medication a little, and I can honestly say, Self-inquiry goes much deeper, and acheives a much more intense and permanent sense of peace, and has the power to resolve tremendous worldly problems.
Scott,
"it seems to me that there is absolutely no difference between surrender and inquiry."
This seems to be correct.This is when the enquiry deepens perhaps as you have said;Definitely not as long as the external mind and thoughts are battled with.
In the Appalam Song ,Sri Bhagavan says that the Blackgram of Ego that grows in the Five Koshas(Physical,Vital(prana),Mental,Supramental(Vijnana) and Ananda is to be powdered.
Yet in practice,BY is right that Self Enquiry starts with focus on Rejection of all that is not the 'i' and turn attention towards 'i'.Self Surrender is focussing(???!may be not focussing!) on what is not the 'i'!Eventually as one progresses,the convergence is bound to happen.
(Sri Ramakrishna's -Servant counting the coins and putting it all together!)
Namaskar.
Scott,
" Be still does not mean don't think, and it also doesn't mean don't move. It doesn't mean don't plan. It doesn't mean don't do your job, or be affectionatee with loved ones."
Wonderful to read your posts.Master Nome's guidance is clear and compassinate.One needs to soak into this understanding -Like a piece of iron placed near the magnet displays Magnetism.Yet it needs to be rubbed with the magnet for a sufficient period of time to become a Magnet.This is all sadhana is about.
Wish you the very Best.
Ravi says: "This seems to be correct.This is when the enquiry deepens perhaps as you have said;Definitely not as long as the external mind and thoughts are battled with.
In the Appalam Song ,Sri Bhagavan says that the Blackgram of Ego that grows in the Five Koshas(Physical,Vital(prana),Mental,Supramental(Vijnana) and Ananda is to be powdered.
Yet in practice,BY is right that Self Enquiry starts with focus on Rejection of all that is not the 'i' and turn attention towards 'i'.Self Surrender is focussing(???!may be not focussing!) on what is not the 'i'!Eventually as one progresses,the convergence is bound to happen.
(Sri Ramakrishna's -Servant counting the coins and putting it all together!)"
But see, that is what I'm not so sure about. Because what is the "i", there is no "i" in my body. the letter "i" is nowhere. What is meant by the i. and the only thing "i" could mean (I think) is non-objective being, meaning I don't objectify something as seperate from me. Normally, there is me, and there is the world around me. me and the world around me is what constitutes what is normally considered life. I took surrender to not be surrendering "me". But surrendering what is not me. I give up my attachments, my wanting to be something to be a certain way, but I also give up the objectified attributes such as the personality in all it's guises, so that there is only me. When nothing is objectified. The sense of me, what I'm guessing is what the i-thought is referring to is not objectifying something, and me then is only being, and it's blissful. When I surrender all that is not me, which includes the body, because the body is something objective, when I give it all up, the me is no longer objectified or objectifying and expands to include everything. there's no where to turn inward. If I ask who am I? and give up all the attributes in teh form of the individual personality including the things that are exteranlly attached to, or desired. It really is the same thing, because in both cases I'm giving up all that is "not me". I am not the world around me, I'm not the people in it, I am not the body because it appears to me as an object, I'm not the personality (or it's accomplishments and failures). I can either surrender all these things, or I can inquire to see that they are not me. Either way, I'm simply giving up the objectification, and what is left is the real me, which is pure Being, pure Consciousness, and pure Bliss. You had said (paraphrasing) "inquiry is rejection of all that is not the "i" and turning attention toward the "i"" Is there anywhere that Maharshi says to turn attention toward the "I"? I'm asking. Because it doesn't seem like there is anything to turn attention toward. Inquiry, I'm guessing, is ascertaining my real existence to be that pure Consciousness, which is pure Bliss. There is nothing objective to focus on. (because Maharshi's philosophy I don't believe admits of anything to focus on) Who am I? has an answer, but it's not a verbal one, its' the pure stillness, and grace of Being. I can surrender everything objective and it really means the same thing.
You say, "self-surrender" is focusing on what is not the i. Is it? I guess the false sense of individuality, or the false personality is supposed to be surrendered, but really that is not me. It's just another objective thing. so in either case, inquiry or surrender I'm giving up what is objective, and abiding only as that pure Self. "ever abide in bliss without a trace of a concept, in that itself as that itself" repeated the Ribhu Gita.
Scott,
"Because what is the "i", there is no "i" in my body."
This needs to be Felt not thought.To truly say-There is no 'I' in the Body-one should not be conscious of one's Body.We should be able to feel that 'I am eating through so many mouths' like Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Bhagavan.Only then we can be sure that 'I am not the Body'.Right now it is -I DO NOT THINK I AM THE BODY.
The Key thing is to hold onto whatever one feels naturally and put the attention on that.
It is in fact easier to dissassociate from Thoughts and Feelings-But much more difficult to get rid of Body Consiousness,because of the deep seated nature due to hoary association.
Namaskar.
Namaskar.
Scott,
" I took surrender to not be surrendering "me". But surrendering what is not me."
There is no such discrimination in surrender-One has to stop thinking about 'I' and 'Mine'.Only As Jesus Said-"Thy will be done.Thy Kingdom come'.
Namaskar.
Scott/Friends,
What is true surrender?This is an excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Master:"God has put you in the world. What can you do about it? Resign everything to Him.
Surrender yourself at His feet. Then there will be no more confusion. Then you will realize
that it is God who does everything. All depends on 'the will of Rama'."
Story of "the will of Rama"
A DEVOTEE: "What is that story about 'the will of Rama'?"
MASTER: "In a certain village there lived a weaver. He was a very pious,soul. Everyone
trusted him and loved him. He used to sell his goods in the market-place. When a customer
asked him the price of a piece of cloth, the weaver would say: 'By the will of Rama the
price of the yarn is one rupee and the labour four annas ; by the will of Rama the profit is
two annas . The price of the cloth, by the will of Rama, is one rupee and six annas .' Such
was the people's faith in the weaver that the customer would at once pay the price and take
the cloth. The weaver was a real devotee of God. After finishing his supper in the evening,
he would spend long hours' in the worship hall meditating on God and chanting His name
and glories. Now, late one night the weaver couldn't get to sleep. He was sitting in the
worship hall, smoking now and then, when a band of robbers happened to pass that way.
They wanted a man to carry their goods and said to the weaver, 'Come with us.' So saying,
they led him off by the hand. After committing a robbery in a house, they put a load of
things on the weaver's head, commanding him to carry them. Suddenly the police arrived
and the robbers ran away. But the weaver, with his load, was arrested. He was kept in the
lock-up for the night. Next day he was brought before the magistrate for trial. The villagers
learnt what had happened and came to court. They said to the magistrate, 'Your Honour,
this man could never commit a robbery.' Thereupon the magistrate asked the weaver to
make his statement.
'The weaver said: 'Your Honour, by the will of Rama I finished my meal at night. Then by
the will of Rama I was sitting in the worship hall. It was quite late at night by the will of
Rama. By the will of Rama I had been thinking of God and chanting His name and glories,
when by the will of Rama a band of robbers passed that way. By the will of Rama they
dragged me with them; by the will of Rama they committed a robbery in a house; and by
the will of Rama they put a load on my head. Just then, by the will of Rama the police
arrived, and by the will of Rama I was arrested. Then by the will of Rama the police kept
me in the lock-up for the night, and this morning by the will of Rama I have been brought
before Your Honour.' The magistrate realized that the weaver was a pious man and ordered
his release. On his way home the weaver said to his friends, 'By the will of Rama I have
been released.'
"Whether a man should be a householder or a monk depends on the will of Rama.
Surrender everything to God and do your duties in the world. What else can you do? A
clerk was once sent to prison. After the prison term was over he was released. Now, what
do you think he did? Cut capers or do his old clerical work?
"If the householder becomes a jivanmukta, then he can easily live in the world if he likes. A
man who has attained Knowledge does not differentiate between 'this place' and 'that place'.
All places are the same to him. He who thinks of 'that place' also thinks of 'this place'.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar
"This needs to be Felt not thought.To truly say-There is no 'I' in the Body-one should not be conscious of one's Body.We should be able to feel that 'I am eating through so many mouths' like Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Bhagavan.Only then we can be sure that 'I am not the Body'.Right now it is -I DO NOT THINK I AM THE BODY.
The Key thing is to hold onto whatever one feels naturally and put the attention on that.
It is in fact easier to dissassociate from Thoughts and Feelings-But much more difficult to get rid of Body Consiousness,because of the deep seated nature due to hoary association.
Namaskar."
Agreed, I think.
Just to clarify, my point wasn't that I'm egoless, or have Realized the Self, or am free of the "I am the body" notion. (and yes, I get that being free of I am the body notion is not thinking it, I am the body or I am not the body. It is that hoary association you speak of) But I was working through what inquiry is for me, what makes sense about it. So when I said there is no "i" in the body, I was attempting to understand what "I" is referring to, or where it is to turn attention to. (the immediate question that arises is who is the one that turns attention because that would be the crux of it, there would be no "i" apart from the one that's looking for it) I could imagine taht many people including myself when told turn attention toward "I" are turning toward something imaginary in a concentrated fashion. .
Done that, and it isn't very fruitful. But abiding inthe space where the personality-sense does not arise. because the personality-sense is false. But turning the attention toward the "I" implies there is somewhere to turn attention toward, or that it is somehow physically inward. That is how I took it. But then the thief escapes attention. Turning attention does not seem like it could have anything to do with inquiry, the question who am I? calls attention to that this sporadically appearing personality that arises in the morning and has a slew of problems is unreal. But it can be dealt with immediately. and slaying the vasanas as they leave the fort I'm guessing referst to immediately catching the false personality sense as soon as it arises. Dissolving it in pure Being, and abiding as pure Being. when the personality sense vanishes, even temporarily, even if the root is still present, that personality-sense is the vasana, it is also the "I am teh body" idea. It is also "I am the doer". It all arises from the sporadically appearing personality.
I've heard many of these sages say that surrendering the ego is the ultimate surrender. papaji explicitly said this in a satsang vid on youtube. Surrender your "I" he said. "Don't go to church saying I pray, I meditate. Go to satsang but without this I" he had said. (paraphrasing) I think he meant go there without this sense of being an individual. He didn't mean obsessively leave out "I" in sentences. So surrender means surrendering the ego I think. In that case that fits with what I'm saying about surrender and inquiry being perfectly identical from start to finish. Infact if they aren't, surrender or inquiry is probably not what is going on. Because in inquiry I'm Realizing the Self, which is not the ego, so in inquiring into the Self, I give up the ego as false, infact the point of inquiry is to get rid of the ego. because it is not me. I am the Self, I am Brahman. I am not the ego. I am not the body, I am not the personality which is the ego, the world is not me. Who am I? I'm what remains. That is the preamble of Who am I? So in the case the question Who am I? and the act of surrender are identical. Not at some later date, but immediately.
David,
I read an account in 'Nothing Ever Happened', of how Papaji instructed the family of Vinayak Prabhu not to indulge in any form of spiritual practice and to leave all the responsibility for their spiritual advancement to him. This seems to be the best situation a sadhaka can hope for - to stop being one! I don't think this luxury was extended to any of even Sri Ramana's devotees. Have their been instances where Sri Ramana has instucted a disciple to stop doing any practice and leave everything to him?
"This needs to be Felt not thought.To truly say-There is no 'I' in the Body-one should not be conscious of one's Body."
I think I disagree. Maharshi had said in Talks. "where would you leave it?" The body doesn't appear in sleep. Although perhaps you are right, because I'm not sure whether a jnani is aware of anything. But I guess then the point is to investigate it myself. the jnani is not an object out there. It seems unnecessary to be unaware of the body. I rememeber some quotes by Maharshi about samadhi. and he had classified one as I think being unaware of the body and the world. But said that you could wake up from it in 1,000 years and be in the same state you were when it started. In sahaja, I'm guessing is the natural state where the ego has been ccompletely rooted out. I don't believe in sahaja there is unawareness of the world or the body. My teacher had said, "the jnani isn't unaware of hte world, he is aware that the world does not exist". That is a distinction. And I'm guessing what is meant by that, is that the world is not something apart from the formless Consciousness it appears, there is only that one reality. The world is also a transient image.
A response from my teacher:
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. So, Sri Bhagavan said that our "greatest glory is where
'we' cease to exist." Inquiry to discover the nonexistence of the ego is
this cessation.
If you fully draw upon that which is innately within, the Truth of
the Maharshi's' statement that God, Guru, and Self are one and the same
becomes abundantly clear.
A keen awareness of mortality is very helpful for the motivation to
deeply, consistently inquire and remain nonattached to all things. Such is
clearly evident in the story of the Maharshi's Self-Realization, the story
of Naciketas in the Katha Upanishad, and others. It appears in Timeless
Presence, too.
May you ever abide in the Truth of the egoless, blissful, immortal
Self.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
"Wonderful to read your posts.Master Nome's guidance is clear and compassinate.One needs to soak into this understanding -Like a piece of iron placed near the magnet displays Magnetism.Yet it needs to be rubbed with the magnet for a sufficient period of time to become a Magnet.This is all sadhana is about.
Wish you the very Best."
Thank you, very kind words.
Anonymous
David,
I read an account in 'Nothing Ever Happened', of how Papaji instructed the family of Vinayak Prabhu not to indulge in any form of spiritual practice and to leave all the responsibility for their spiritual advancement to him. This seems to be the best situation a sadhaka can hope for - to stop being one! I don't think this luxury was extended to any of even Sri Ramana's devotees. Have their been instances where Sri Ramana has instructed a disciple to stop doing any practice and leave everything to him?
* * *
Bhagavan generally taught that both effort and grace were required for spiritual progress. Devaraja Mudaliar wanted to leave everything to Bhagavan and do nothing himself, and he cited the traditional analogy of the kitten who has to be carried everywhere by its mother as support for his stance.
On one occasion he asked Bhagavan if it was true that he had once told a devotee, 'Being taken up by the Guru is like travelling first class on the train. You can go to sleep, secure in the knowledge that you are moving towards your destination. At the appropriate time, the guard will wake you up and tell you that you are about ton reach your destination.'
Bhagavan refused to confirm that he had ever said this, possibly because he felt that Devaraja Mudaliar ought to put in a bit of work himself and not rely exclusively on divine grace. Bhagavan did, in fact, say this to a devotee, and the story was recorded by Krisha Bhikshu.
On another occasion he told someone, 'Just keep quiet. Bhagavan will do the rest.'
This is not quite the same as advising a devotee to do nothing but trust in the Guru since keeping quiet undoubtedly requires some effort.
Scott,
"I rememeber some quotes by Maharshi about samadhi. and he had classified one as I think being unaware of the body and the world. But said that you could wake up from it in 1,000 years and be in the same state you were when it started."
This is called Jada Samadhi.One is also unaware of himself-something like a prolonged sleep.The animals that hybernate do this sort of a Trick.
What I have mentioned is that the Gnani has got rid of Body Consciousness and is Aware.When the Clothes covering the body fall of,The Gnani simply may not notice it;This does not mean that he cannot notice it.It is also possible that the Body may fall off and the Gnani does not notice it.That is the degree of Freedom.
Namaskar.
Friends,
I came across this excerpt from 'Day By Day With Bhagavan' Page 80:
"One Mr. Joshi, introduced by our Chaganlal Yogi, put the
following questions and Bhagavan gave the following answers:
Question 1: When I think ‘Who am I?’, the answer comes
‘I am not this mortal body but I am chaitanya, atma, or
paramatma.’ And suddenly another question arises — ‘Why
has atma come into maya?’ or in other words ‘Why has God
created this world?’
Answer: To enquire ‘Who am I?’ really means trying to
find out the source of the ego or the ‘I’ thought. You are not to
think of other thoughts, such as ‘I am not this body, etc.’ Seeking the source of ‘I’ serves as a means of getting rid of all other thoughts. We should not give scope to other thoughts, such as
you mention, but must keep the attention fixed on finding out
the source of the ‘I’ thought, by asking (as each thought arises)
to whom the thought arises and if the answer is ‘I get the thought’
by asking further who is this ‘I’ and whence its source?"
-----------------------------------
Looks like this 'I' is quite troublesome to deal with!
Namaskar.
Anonymous/David/Friends,
The story of Girish Gosh and Sri Ramakrishna is quite absorbing.
"One day in the course of a conversation Sri Ramakrishna told Girish that along with his work he must remember God at least in the morning and in the evening. He looked at Girish as if expecting a reply. "That is a very simple thing to do," Girish thought, "but I am a busy man with no fixed hours for food or sleep. I shall surely forget to remember God at those stated hours. So, how can I promise that?"
Sri Ramakrishna read his mind and said, "All right, if you cannot do that, then remember God before meals and at bed-time."
Girish was not willing to promise even that- such was the irregularity of his life, and besides he was by nature opposed to any hard and fast rule and the slightest restraint was galling to him. Sri Ramakrishna realised his perplexity and said finally, "So you are unwilling to agree to this even. All right, give me your power of attorney. Henceforth, I assume responsibility for you. You need not do anything."
Girish heaved a sigh of relief. He felt happy to think that Sri Ramakrishna had assumed his spiritual responsibilities. But poor Girish then could not realise that he also, on his part, had to give up his freedom and make of himself a puppet in Sri Ramakrishna’s hands.
The master began to discipline Girish according to this new attitude. One day Girish said about a trifling matter, "Yes, I shall do this."
"No, no!" the Master corrected him. "You must not speak in that egoistic manner. You should say, ‘God willing, I shall do it.’ " Girish understood. Thenceforth he tried to give up all idea of personal responsibility and surrender himself to the Divine Will. Girish understood that he had given up his freedom and had made himself the Master’s captive. Thenceforth he tried to give up all idea of personal responsibility and to become a willing instrument of the Divine Will. The sincerity of Girish in this respect was beyond comparison. His mind began to dwell constantly on Sri Ramakrishna. This unconscious meditation in time chastened Girish’s turbulent spirit."
You may read the article 'Add the God Principle in our daily lives-2,
http://www.hinduism.co.za/stories-.htm
-----------------------------------
What it meant to give the 'power of attorney' Girish found much later!I will post a little later.
Namaskar.
Every time ANY thought appears, ask ' from WHICH IDEA did that thought arise? ' The idea or concept is a root which has to be enquired into ( focussed upon and investigated ) The 'i' consists of many roots which give meaning and direction to life and we function through them for almost a life time. For example having money, power, character, responsibilities, respectibility, virtue etc. These things make us feel ' i am this '. They are in accordance with dharma, artha and kama, and for most of us, HAVE to be played out, for the desire to play them out are vasannas that have resulted from karma. We play them out with one hand and hold onto God with the other ( as Sri Ramakrishna put it ), carrying on with devotion, japa, pranayama etc.
Finally and usually, only after having experienced intense suffering ( due to these ideas which seem so right ), we are forced to examine these ideas of who we think we are; our karma having been played out, we are now on our way to Moksha. Bhagwan has said all the three have to be surrendered for Moksha and the way, is to enquire into these ideas. How can one surrender something without knowing what is to be surrendered ? Sometimes it becomes impossible to surrender certain concepts for it would be against dharma to do so and we are bewildered beyond what we can bear.
One throws oneself at Bhagwans feet at Arunachala and " the damp cloth automatically dries " as Bhagwan so beautifully put it. Our investigation into ideas resulting in identifying them and willingness to surrender them for Moksha ( which incidentally is the last stage of devotion )is the effort we make to see that the cloth is not presented dripping wet. Bhagwan's Grace, which is Arunachala does the rest. Beloved Arunachala. Beloved Bhagwan.
Anonymous/David/Friends,
Girish Gosh(Continued)---
Days rolled on.The Master passed away.Girish faced grief and pain as he also lost his wife and son.But at every point his mind reminded him as before:'Sri Ramakrishna has allowed these things to happen because they are good for you.You gave the responsibility to him and he accepted it.He did not give you any written assurance on the path on which he would lead you.Now he is leading you along this path,considering it to be easy for you.You have no reason to refuse it nor any right to complain.'
As time passed Girish began to understand more and more the hidden meaning of the power of attorney.Did he now comprehend its whole meaning?When asked about this,Girish replied:'There is still much to understand!Did I realize then that there was so much in the power of attorney?Now,I see that there is a limit to the time one may spend practicing Meditation,japa and austerities,but the work of a person who has given the power of attorney is unending.Now he has to watch every step and with every breath determine whether he is depending on God and performing those actions by his power or by the power of his own rascal ego!'
What a journey from a Wayward drunkard and debaucher to a Life dedicated to God!
-----------------------------------Namaskar.
'Question 1: When I think ‘Who am I?’, the answer comes
‘I am not this mortal body but I am chaitanya, atma, or
paramatma.’ And suddenly another question arises — ‘Why
has atma come into maya?’ or in other words ‘Why has God
created this world?’
Answer: To enquire ‘Who am I?’ really means trying to
find out the source of the ego or the ‘I’ thought. You are not to
think of other thoughts, such as ‘I am not this body, etc.’ Seeking the source of ‘I’ serves as a means of getting rid of all other thoughts. We should not give scope to other thoughts, such as
you mention, but must keep the attention fixed on finding out
the source of the ‘I’ thought, by asking (as each thought arises)
to whom the thought arises and if the answer is ‘I get the thought’
by asking further who is this ‘I’ and whence its source?"'
Who is this I, and whence is it's source? So perhaps that question can be asked of the personality. How did this sense of individuality, the personality ,that I arise, or who is it, and whence is it's source? Whence is it's source? Does it have one? Is the point that it doesn't exist? Or that it does and
I should abide in the source from which the personality (the ego) arises, and keep my attention fixed, the key thing is, though I believe people have been saying to keep attention on the 'I', or hold the "i". But that's not what Maharshi says. He says keep attention on it's source. That's a mysterious objective. What is the source of the personality, the ego, the I.
Maybe it's because if the source of the I is held, the i will merge into it. If I hold onto the I, what good does that do? Ego holds onto ego, ego fights ego. That can go on forever and cause a headache, dullness. But if I hold onto it's source. That's going deeper then the sense of individuality. That is probably the key in how it transcends a mental battle. So when something arises.
Who does it arise to? Is directing perhaps back to the personality, the ego for which it is arising. Now the question is, what is the ego's source, and holding the source, not the ego, not the "I", but it's source. That is such a huge difference. I arises, whence is it's source? What does whence mean?
From what source or origin? Even as I write, thoughts arise, there is the personality thinking about these things. Whence is it's source. From where does it's source arise? Or just where is it's source? I think it's saying where is the source of the I, not where is the origin of the source? Is that a correct use of whence?
That's the thing, these little things matter so much. It's not just semantical. You can spend years doing inquiry improperly. Technically, I imagine this is not instruction for a long-term practice. Practically, for most of us it probably will be because of long-standing habits. And even a deep glimpse or experience, I've had some, does not mean things aren't going to return.
But Maharshi is 'looking' from the perspective of the Self, (whatever that is), Brahman, that is all that is real to him, that is who he is, and he has no belief in anything else, no experience of anything apart from that, even if illusory. Brahman is all he expereinces, and all he is. So when maharshi gives a response, I don't think he's telling people how to stay in bondage for a long while and slowly progress.
He's giving instructions that if followed as deep as they are intended will immediately result in REalization, not in 5 minutes, but immediately. So if it's not, it seems helpful to analyze it, and see what he was getting at. One problem, I fret, is that, were the translators Realized, I would think that could potentially make a difference, unless like David GOdman, he's a brilliant translator and makes up for it.
But it's important that the words carry the intention of the one who was Realized in saying them. If there is a slight mix up of the word, source for something else, based on what that person thinks was meant based on their own not quite accurate view, based on taking themselves to be an individual even a spiritual one.
But I'm assuming the translation is good. So I think what he's saying, is all other thoughts should be disregarded because he says, "we should not give scope to other thoughts" I don't think that means for the next 5 years holding thoughts at bay. That means right now, from this moment on, the thoughts I've been thinking for the past 30 years are null and void, and are to be completely ignored as having any reality.
What else could it mean if he's speaking of directly realizing what he experiences. "but keep the attention fixed on finding the source of the 'I' thought". So disregard all thoughts, past, pressent, future, my whole life, all my experiences, everything, everyone I know, everything, completely disregard it, it is not good for me, and it will not help me.
And now, keep my attention fixed on finding the source of the 'I' thought. I asked Nome (my spiritual teacher) what is meant by I-thought, or I asked him if my intuition was correct that it refers to the sense of me. He said that it was. So it's not a disembodied 'I' somewhere. I needed that clarified. the sense of me, is the personality, as I'm writing this, there is this personality that is writing, that is thinking, that I perceive in someway even though it is not visual.
I'm assuming that is what is referred to by the I-thought. So what is it's source, and Maharshi says to keep my attention on finding it's source. There is the personality, I now that I've disregarded everything, keep my attention on finding it's source. That is so much deeper then "holding onto the "i"". He is giving instructions taht lay bare how to REalize right this moment. "by asking as each thought arises, "to whom does this thought arise?" and if the answer is I get the thought. Who is this 'I', and whence is it's source?
I should add, that makes sense, because if you hold onto I, or make yourself aware of the personality and hold it, you are still stuck. You can' transcend the personality by dealing with the personality. But here, it seems, he's calling attention first to the personality that is having the thought or experience, referring back to the one who is having it. For me, it seems helpful to be aware of the personality I take myself to be. The personality or ego is not really an object, it's not something that can be held. But is something I can make myself aware of, so I'm not taking it for granted. But that is not enough. He is saying, to search for the source of the personality. For instance I have a negative thought, I did in the last 5 minutes, there is the personality, which is who I take myself to be. What is the source of the persoanlity, while the actions are going on, has the potential it seems to take one beyond the ego, and I think that is what maharshi is getting at. The actinos presumably will still go on. While my attention is not on the personality, but aware of the personality and searching for it's source, perhaps to get so much deeper then the personality, or the "i". I just don't like calling it the "i", because I like to be literal when I'm trying to understand something so difficult to understand.
Scott/Friends,
Scott, I read this entry in your Blog and posted a response.I am just copying it here:
Interesting to see your comments.Is the 'I' limited to personality?Personality is more associated with Humans-more related to mental images that they carry about themselves.The 'I'(Mental) associated with this can be relatively easy to detach.
The 'I' is also associated with just 'Life'-the instinct for self preservation.This is displayed by all other living beings-insects,birds,animals-The instinct to preserve the 'I' and preserve 'Life'.This is at Vital(Pranamaya Kosha)level.Any threat to this 'I' is responded to with 'Fear'.No personality is associated with this.
Similiarly there is the 'I' associated with Vijnanamaya Kosha and Anandamaya kosha Who feels peace,happiness and enjoys the Bliss.This is at a very subtle level and may not be noticed as 'I'.
The 'I' that one tends to deal with is at a 'Conscious' level.What about the 'I' who is in sleep who responds to an outside stimuli and responds and wakes up-This is at the subconscious level.(We may say that 'I' is absent!)
My understanding of Sri Ramana's Appalam song is that Self Enquiry is to deal with all these levels(5 Koshas)to arrive at(Words!) pure Being-Sat chit Ananda.Truly it requires a good deal of maturity and prior Sadhana-Sri Bhagavan had clearly mentioned this.All the same the fact that one is finding this approach helpful and inspiring means one is ready for it!
-----------------------------------
This is to understand the enormous scope of the task at hand-Perhaps it may help to go about it in a more objective way-to understand that 'self effort' is only a tiny contribution (although quite necessary)towards achieving this objective-Only Grace can help bridge the Gap.Also that this 'self effort' is also an act of that Grace only.
When the understanding leans towards this-This is the way of Surrender.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
tp,
"How can one surrender something without knowing what is to be surrendered ?"
I recall your early post where you had mentioned that Sri Bhagavan showed us'How', whereas Jesus did not!
The path of devotion is not a 'path'.There is no 'how' about it.It is the 'mind' that asks for the way,the 'how',the processes-what is to be dropped,what is to be retained,etc.
There are these different approaches,laying emphasis on one or the other aspect and suitable for different temperaments-although the principles of Dharma are the same-Truthfulness,Ahimsa,etc.
It is not that the other 3 purusharthas are abandoned in Moksha-in Fact it is only when the moha(delusion) is Kshaya(Destroyed),i.e in Moksha that the other three purushartas can be truly manifested.They can be put to use for collective good;prior to this it may be only operative in a limited way.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
tp,
"One throws oneself at Bhagwans feet at Arunachala and " the damp cloth automatically dries " as Bhagwan so beautifully put it. Our investigation into ideas resulting in identifying them and willingness to surrender them for Moksha ( which incidentally is the last stage of devotion )is the effort we make to see that the cloth is not presented dripping wet. Bhagwan's Grace, which is Arunachala does the rest. Beloved Arunachala. Beloved Bhagwan."
Beautiful.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
Was thinking today about this false distinction between trying to find the "I" and trying to find the source of the "I". The reason we think there is a difference is because we think there is a difference between the "I" and its source. In reality, however, there is no distinction, and so there is no basis for seeing these two quests as being different.
The analogy of the rope and the snake make this clear. What is the source of the snake? The source of the rope is the rope. In ignorance, we see the rope as a snake, so the rope is the source of the snake. But since the snake doesn't exist except as an illusion in the mind, looking for the snake will only find the rope. We put light on the snake, and that light reveals the true source of the snake, the rope. There is no other process for looking for the source of the snake, other than to shine a light on it. The snake doesn't come from somewhere else. It isn't hiding in some place other than where the rope is. So we can't look for it anyplace other than where we see the snake.
The same with ego. The Self is not somewhere else. It isn't even hiding "behind" the ego, such that we might engage in some process of going around the ego to find the source, the Self. They are the same thing, it is only that in ignorance we have seen taken the Self to be an ego. And then somehow we try to pretend that these two things exist in opposition to one another, as if that were possible.
We think the rope is fighting the snake, or vice-versa. It just perpetuates the problem to pretend this is what is going on. It makes the ego seem real to presume that it can hide the Self, and that the way is to seek the Self as if it were somewhere other than the ego. The problem is not the ego, the problem is ignorance. Shine a light on the situation, and ignorance is dispelled. That light is our own consciousness.
" ' i ' came to feed on Thee
But Thou has fed on 'me ' !
Now, I AM Peaceful
O Arunachala -
Bhagwan Aksharamanimalai
Bhagwan taught and guided step by step to look within. Having identified the concepts that constitute the 'i ' and showing willingness to surrender them, thus forsaking all ( withrawing energy from them ) so that they lose their 'stickiness ' or are no longer tied ( knotted ), THEN and only then, the 'i' is no longer perceived ( for its constituents are no longer there; there is no longer anything that can be knotted together ). Bhagwan often referred to the 'knot' between The Self and physical matter ( body ) that says ' i '.
In this atate, who is there to even enquire ? A thorn ( self enquiry ) has been used to remove a thorn and both are thrown away, says Bhagwan. The enquiry that comes from thought can only investigate into thoughts and ideas ( things that are on the same level . The investigation dissolves the concept ' i ' in The Light of Knowledge.
Then, THAT which remains and which is ever present, is experienced. THAT stillness and Peace at The Sourcemancani
salutations to all:
scott, ravi, tp, etc. etc.
my apologies if am offending anyone because that’s definitely not my intention…the following are some stray thoughts, and thus need not be logically coherent :-)
am just taking this as an illustration, and guess scott, ravi, and many others also may have voiced their thoughts so beautifully, yet this thing sets me thinking… tp recently wrote: ‘then, that which remains and which is ever present, is experienced. that stillness and peace at the source’…: tp, how do you know what ‘that’ that is? how is it possible to know what that darn ‘that’ is? who knows, ‘that’ that may be the biggest illusion of the same mind or the ego which all of us are so fond of bashing (perhaps ego is having the last laugh at this self-deprecating sardonic humor! :-)…for me, this is not faith, but rather jumping to a conclusion based on the record of someone else, even if that be bhagavan himself…one may argue, that if i have a problem with faith, then why do or even try ‘vichara’? here is a man, whom we call bhagavan, who was most lovable and reveled in freedom…
now, i haven’t met bhagavan, and even those who came and asked him, bhagavan may have said, “abide in the ‘source’ through vichara and you will be what i am”…isn’t it? this is like someone saying, ‘if you wish to genuinely appreciate the beauty of, say, calculus, don’t read cookbooks, instead slog through courant’s great texts’…faith is in buying or borrowing the book, and it ends there…the rest will get revealed as one reads through it…the only pre-requisite for it is the ‘desire to see the art that math is’… but without mastering the book, if one starts talking about the happiness that such mastery provided or how awesome calculus is, that’s not faith…that’s hallucinating oneself…
so, i would dare say, that if one desires to be free, and if one has happened to come to bhagavan, faith has done it’s job if one has taken up self-enquiry… what it will lead to doesn’t require any faith… self-effort is enough… in this context, ravi had said that even self-effort is grace… i have no clue about grace, but i understand in my own way what effort is… if at all, there is grace, the effort will beget it whether you like it or not…self-effort is everything, and if you agree that what you call grace is impartial, will then come of it’s own… (continued)
salutations to all:
(continued)…
the reason am writing this that perhaps, we are too much lost in expressing and articulating about vichara, and still worse about the so-called final state’, that we simply keep thinking of new and novel ways of expressing instead of just doing… are we caught up in admiring the so-called self without trying to find out what it is? are we mistaking admiring bhagavan as the same as trying to do what he says… oh no!, don’t get me wrong, am not saying we shouldn’t discuss, after all this is a superb forum, just saying what came to me…
it’s wonderful to share one’s experiences, but such things don’t happen on a daily basis…it’s like, again to give an analogy, talking about the greatness of dostoyevsky all the time from what you hear from others or reading the wikipedia entry on him without reading and pondering over say, ‘the brothers karamazov’…to read the book and digest takes time and effort, and perhaps now and then, one may come across strong flashes of understanding dostoyevsky’s version of existentialism but that might not happen everyday, so i vainly surmise!… even a cursory look at the lives of great men shows us, at least to me, that anything worthwhile is often lots of drudgery (doing?) with a little bit of inspiration (faith?)…
all these variety of examples of saying what’s happening when we try vichara are just countless ways to describe something and get lost in those creative descriptions… but what’s wrong with examples? didn’t thakur give a whole litany of examples? haha…but that’s because he was thakur, and perhaps he knew what he was talking :-) there was perhaps a certainty in him what no doubt could assail… that ‘sannidhi’ may have left many silent & speechless
ok, spoken enough…sorry folks, if i offended anyone…if at all you think it’s worthwhile, do spare a thought… :-))
tp,
" Having identified the concepts that constitute the 'i ' and showing willingness to surrender them"
The Basics are the same-Pleasure,Possession,position and power.These are the manifestations of 'I' and mine.This is not hard to 'identify';one is unwilling to give it up.This is all there to it.It becomes more complex when one outwardly gives up and inwardly pursues it.This is what leads to complexity.The mind finds them as 'concepts' and the 'Heart' finds itself tied up in knots.
Jesus wiped out at one stroke all the four when he said-Verily I say to you, if ye may not be turned and become as the children, ye may not enter into the reign of the heavens.
He said-The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.
Next he said-Seek and you shall find;Knock and it shall open.
Self Enquiry seems more clear because one is supposed to be familiar with oneself!This familiarity vanishes the moment one is seeking the source of the 'I'!At this stage the difference between what Jesus said and What Sri Bhagavan has said vanishes.
-----------------------------------
The question is-are we thirsty?
Namaskar.
"now, i haven’t met bhagavan, and even those who came and asked him, bhagavan may have said, “abide in the ‘source’ through vichara and you will be what i am”…isn’t it? this is like someone saying, ‘if you wish to genuinely appreciate the beauty of, say, calculus, don’t read cookbooks, instead slog through courant’s great texts’…faith is in buying or borrowing the book, and it ends there…the rest will get revealed as one reads through it…the only pre-requisite for it is the ‘desire to see the art that math is’… but without mastering the book, if one starts talking about the happiness that such mastery provided or how awesome calculus is, that’s not faith…that’s hallucinating oneself"
I agree, that is why I think it is important to be honest with oneself about what one understands. It's fine to try to figure out calculus, or if one understands derivatives, but not integrals, saying that. And then asking how to do integrals, or trying to figure it out. That seems to be the best way to go about it. In my last post, I was taking a talk with ramana (from someone else's comment) and attempting to understand what he was getting at. That seems to me to be a healthy approach. An unhealthy approach may be to talk expertly about integrals when I don't understand them, and I'm just parroting the words. There is a tendency it seems, that people don't like to admit what they don't understand. And I dare say, that none of us here, understands what inquiry is, and if we talk as if we know what it is, we are probably as S. is saying deluded. (because I don't think inquiry is a practice that exists apart from Realization, it is only done correctly if it results in Realization) Now, if we tihnk we understand or understand some of it, or maybe last night one of us gets it completely, it should be fine to share that also, I would think. But I don't think any of us really gets it completely. Also as I was saying it's pretty clear that each statement made by Maharshi or anyone who has realized the Self (whatever that is, because I don't have a direct experience besides maybe a few 'glimpses'?) was an instruction meant to fully illuminate the questioner. Before, I had taken it as a long-drawn out practice. But it's interesting to analyze a statement made by Maharshi as a direct instruction for full Realization. I have noticed sometimes, and it's fine, and I could be wrong, a tendency to correct people, that perhaps, maybe does not come from understanding, because understanding I assume is Realization. There is no pre-Realization understanding of inquiry. That's why it almost seems better, not to assume I understand, but to take it apart, and figure out what could be meant, so that my practice is more fruitful. Although sometimes I state things authoritatively as I'm trying to understand them , because it is something that seems correct experientially at that moment. And it also invites people to share there understandings that may differ.
S,
You are right on the basics. True faith means engaging in the experimental investigation of one's own self, not simply believing what Bhagavan says. We must begin that investigation without knowing where it will lead. The concepts in our mind about moksha, liberation, enlightenment, must be put aside and we must find out for ourselves the truth of these things.
And yet faith does not merely come from outside us, it comes from within us as well. If I have a faith in the process of self-investigation, it comes not merely from having read books, but from an intuition deep within myself, which led me towards certain books and teachers to be sure, but which has its own power that is not merely the result of what others have said, even Ramana and other realizers.
Even so, even a little bit of familiarity with Ramana and others like him, and even a little bit of practice of self-enquiry, can both awaken and confirm our own intuitive faith. This is important, because without this awakening of genuine faith within us, we simply won't have the strength or sureness to carry on the investigation to its completion - whatever that is. Self-confidence is essential to the process, and this must be learned and acquired through practice, not just study. We don't get anywhere from books alone, it's true. But on the other hand, without the words of those who have travelled this path successfully themselves, it would be much harder for us. If everyone had to reinvent the wheel before going for a drive, we wouldn't get very far.
And you are quite right that we can't merely assume that what Ramana or others say is true. We have to find the proof ourselves and confirm it. Words alone are unsatisfying, and that's why we are driven to practice, not merely to bask in the glow of what others have found.
And yet one simply cannot discount the power of faith and devotion. We have to be reminded that the investigation of the self is a devotional exercise, not an intellectual one. It is about finding true love, true happiness, true feeling. It breaks the heart open.
One of my former teachers once said to me, "Even a little bit of wisdom casts out great fear." This is quite true. We don't need to be great realizers ourselves to see the basic truths of the way. But of course we can't rest there either. We must find that source of faith in ourselves which takes us beyond mere belief into true knowledge.
I have been mulling over whether or not to put this for a few days now.
I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to say this, but after talking
with S(Yes, S!) I decided to put this.
If we are trying to set up an ISO 9001:2009 standard for atma-vichara I
don't think we'll ever succeed, because it wouldn't lend itself to such
an excercise!
When we go watch a movie with friends we sit, watch & enjoy the movie
from start to finish. But if it so happens that the friend sitting next
to us has watched the movie before, we start getting restless & want to
know from them 'what will happen next?', 'what is that guy gonna do?',
etc. The movie is meant to be watched as it unfolds. Even though we know
this we ask these questions to our friend just because we know that he
knows the answers.
Are we drawn into discussing atma-vichara because of the same tendency
of the mind? Maybe, we should just sit quiet and watch the movie as
scenes unravel. Maybe we should just do vichara.
The answers will come in due course.
Broken Yogi says; ""Was thinking today about this false distinction between trying to find the "I" and trying to find the source of the "I". The reason we think there is a difference is because we think there is a difference between the "I" and its source. In reality, however, there is no distinction, and so there is no basis for seeing these two quests as being different.""
I don't know the answer, but I'll tell you why I think you could be wrong, from practice. Is because I believe the "I" does not refer to the Self. Does not refer to the Absolute Self, or Brahman. Granted, the Self is our real Self I believe. So it's not somewhere else as you said. But the "I" is I'm taking it to be the sense of a personality, a sense of the individual I think I am, that in my own experience resides within the body. When I was analyzing that quote by Maharshi. He directed back to the I, through the question, "to whom has this arisen?" But he didn't stop there, he seemed to indicate that we should find the source of the I. the I and the source I believe are different. Because the I, the sense of being an individual does not exist, is false, it is like the snake superimposed on the rope. The snake does not exist, just like the "I" does not exist, only the rope exists. Now, I would assume the source, and the I, do not really exist in different places (just like the snake and rope are in the same place). But in trying to find the source of the individual notion, or the ego, it took me a step beyond the ego, or transcending the ego which I believe is the aim of inquiry. The source of the I, I don't believe is in a specific location, or is localized at all, teh source actually encompasses everything around and includes everything, and is pure Consciousness. To S., this is my sharing my understanding, my reasoning, and it's like working calculus problems. I may not have gotten them right, but I'm developing my understanding.
Broken Yogi says; ""The analogy of the rope and the snake make this clear. What is the source of the snake? The source of the rope is the rope. In ignorance, we see the rope as a snake, so the rope is the source of the snake. But since the snake doesn't exist except as an illusion in the mind, looking for the snake will only find the rope. We put light on the snake, and that light reveals the true source of the snake, the rope. There is no other process for looking for the source of the snake, other than to shine a light on it. The snake doesn't come from somewhere else. It isn't hiding in some place other than where the rope is. So we can't look for it anyplace other than where we see the snake.""
But, in the Maharshi quote he didn't stop with looking for the snake. Because when I look for my personality, look for my ego, there is a sense of personality that I experience and can become aware of. But what is the source of the ego? What is the source of the snake? it is the rope? I think that is what he was getting at. because there is the illusion taht I am a person, and it is so quite convincing, and I'm easily immersed in it. (and that individual-sense is located in the body, whereas the source the Self is not and includes everything) When I redirect back to the one who has the experiences, or is typing right now? There is the sense of me. When I look for the source, even though the source is the only Self that exists, it takes me a level beyond grappling with the mind and i become more expansive then localized. Because it so easily becomes grappling with mind, and I don't actually get free of it. And even looking for the ego, can become grappling with the ego. But if I look for the source of the ego, I forget about the ego, and it ceases to exist to me, and I start to experience Bliss. Where as if I only look for I, or abide as I, the I is still treated as something real.
Broken Yogi says; ""The same with ego. The Self is not somewhere else. It isn't even hiding "behind" the ego, such that we might engage in some process of going around the ego to find the source, the Self. They are the same thing, it is only that in ignorance we have seen taken the Self to be an ego. And then somehow we try to pretend that these two things exist in opposition to one another, as if that were possible.""
Broken Yogi says; ""The analogy of the rope and the snake make this clear. What is the source of the snake? The source of the rope is the rope. In ignorance, we see the rope as a snake, so the rope is the source of the snake. But since the snake doesn't exist except as an illusion in the mind, looking for the snake will only find the rope. We put light on the snake, and that light reveals the true source of the snake, the rope. There is no other process for looking for the source of the snake, other than to shine a light on it. The snake doesn't come from somewhere else. It isn't hiding in some place other than where the rope is. So we can't look for it anyplace other than where we see the snake.""
But, in the Maharshi quote he didn't stop with looking for the snake. Because when I look for my personality, look for my ego, there is a sense of personality that I experience and can become aware of. But what is the source of the ego? What is the source of the snake? it is the rope? I think that is what he was getting at. because there is the illusion taht I am a person, and it is so quite convincing, and I'm easily immersed in it. (and that individual-sense is located in the body, whereas the source the Self is not and includes everything) When I redirect back to the one who has the experiences, or is typing right now? There is the sense of me. When I look for the source, even though the source is the only Self that exists, it takes me a level beyond grappling with the mind and i become more expansive then localized. Because it so easily becomes grappling with mind, and I don't actually get free of it. And even looking for the ego, can become grappling with the ego. But if I look for the source of the ego, I forget about the ego, and it ceases to exist to me, and I start to experience Bliss. Where as if I only look for I, or abide as I, the I is still treated as something real.
Broken Yogi says; ""The same with ego. The Self is not somewhere else. It isn't even hiding "behind" the ego, such that we might engage in some process of going around the ego to find the source, the Self. They are the same thing, it is only that in ignorance we have seen taken the Self to be an ego. And then somehow we try to pretend that these two things exist in opposition to one another, as if that were possible.""
I don't know if I agree with the ego being the same as the Self. Because in Advaita Vedanta, or Maharshi's teachings, the gist I get, is that the ego is unreal, but taken to be real, and that there is only the Self which is described as Being Consciousness Bliss. The process I was describing in how I understood Maharshi's instructions in that dialogue did not include going around the ego, and looking for the Self that might be somewhere. I was following his instructions in that dialogue, and he said to keep the attention fixed on the soruce of the 'I' by inquiring to whom has that thought arisen? and whence is it's source, something along those lines. He did not say keep attention fixed on the I. Why might he not do that? And I would guess because the I is not real. and the goal of such inquiry is to transcend the mode or state where I take the I to be real, where I take myself to be an I, an individual, a personality and all the drama that affords.
""We think the rope is fighting the snake, or vice-versa. It just perpetuates the problem to pretend this is what is going on. It makes the ego seem real to presume that it can hide the Self, and that the way is to seek the Self as if it were somewhere other than the ego. The problem is not the ego, the problem is ignorance. Shine a light on the situation, and ignorance is dispelled. That light is our own consciousness.""
I'm assuming that there is only the Self, it is pure Being, expansive Conscciousness, and always Blissful. It includes everything, and I already am the Self. But often there is this sense of individuality which seems unlike the real Self to be localized. It is behind my vision, it is in my body, it is a personality, it gets mixed up in drama, and it is who I take myself to be. I think that is what Maharshi is referring to by the "I". If I fix my attention on the "I", it keeps me localized, and keeps me from transcend it. But if look for it's source, it's source is the real Self, even if I imagine that source to be in a given location, it doesn't matter, beccause the Self perhaps reveals itself as my real Blissful experience. And that is my experience, and that is why I attempt inquiry is to understand deeper how to abide in Bliss. In the Ribhu Gita every verse in chapter 26 ends with, or many of them, "ever abide in bliss, without a trace of a concept, in that itself, as that itself". Maharshi's instructions are I assume how to do that.
My teacher responded about dislike and judgement of others.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your recent messages.
If you perceive the needlessness of the ignorance that is the cause
of what you may find deplorable, you will be endowed with compassion rather
than be swept up in anger, hatred, etc., which are rooted in delusion.
Furthermore, by the realization of the divine Self within you, you will see
the same Self in all and everywhere.
It is also quite useful to not employ the mind in sweeping
generalizations of people, such as the formation of opinions about them. Are
all people of a certain category conceived in the mind like that? Has one
even met all of them, let alone been able to know them? Even simple
questions can unravel the absurd tendencies of manifested ignorance.
The craving for acceptance and the fear of rejection are two sides
of the same erroneous concept regarding the source of happiness.
However you practice, for final Realization, you must know yourself.
How else is one to know the Self except by constant profound inquiry? If you
find various methods of meditation helpful to acquire concentration, then
use the concentration thus gained to dive into Self-inquiry. The inquiry,
though, is always available and does not depend on any preliminary method.
Self-Knowledge alone is Liberation from all of the imagined bondage.
May you continuing earnest efforts bear the fruit of steady
Knowledge of the Self, so that you abide in lasting peace and bliss.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
Losing M. Mind
tp says; "Bhagwan taught and guided step by step to look within. Having identified the concepts that constitute the 'i ' and showing willingness to surrender them, thus forsaking all ( withrawing energy from them ) so that they lose their 'stickiness ' or are no longer tied ( knotted ), THEN and only then, the 'i' is no longer perceived ( for its constituents are no longer there; there is no longer anything that can be knotted together ). Bhagwan often referred to the 'knot' between The Self and physical matter ( body ) that says ' i '."
Everything tp has written seems to demonstrate a very pure undertanding.
tp says; "In this atate, who is there to even enquire ? A thorn ( self enquiry ) has been used to remove a thorn and both are thrown away, says Bhagwan. The enquiry that comes from thought can only investigate into thoughts and ideas ( things that are on the same level . The investigation dissolves the concept ' i ' in The Light of Knowledge."
Again, very pure understanding. And what tp is Knowledge? My teacher says that as well. He talks about how it's Knowledge that is the key. I take Knowledge to be that bliss is within, that the sense of individuality, and the problems that stem from the world are things that are unreal and need not be a trouble.
tp says; "Then, THAT which remains and which is ever present, is experienced. THAT stillness and Peace at The Sourcemancani"
This resonates very strongly with me, as what makes sense. The stillness and peace are the barometer of whether I'm "succeeding" as it were. David Godman quotes Arthur Osborne, inquiry being a win-win situation, either you get really peaceful and quite or you get enlightened. The seeking the source of the ego, not the ego, is seeming to be the key. Because the ego, even though illusion, arises out of the Self, so seeking the source of the ego, Bliss starts to take over, everything else including the causes of the problems start to seem to be something that comes out of the source, and so they are dependent on the source, not the other way around. The source is the source of happiness, not the things extraneous to the source. Then once the Bliss starts to take over, the Source starts to encompass everything, so that there is no object apart from that Source. That is what seems to be higher experience. I'm experiencing this sort of Bliss right now. It seems to me that, from this standpoint, vasanas will arise again, if there are still vasanas. They will start to become problems again, but there gets to be more and more confidence in this source of Bliss within, and that is what leads to Realization, when the confidencce is complete. That's my guess.
S,
1."the ego which all of us are so fond of bashing"
I do agree with you.Who else does sadhana!This 'Ego' needs to be encouraged!
2.Coming to Grace-how to know?One knows when it gets withdrawn!
one will be going through motions(Drudgery as you have put it) ;there will not be the quickening of the Spirit.Then the 'Self Effort' that goes towards invoking this Grace is itself Grace as well.As Manikkavachakar says-Avan aruLal avan ThaL vanagi(To Worship Him through His Grace).
It is akin to easy breathing vs laboured breathing of an asthmatic.
3."faith is in buying or borrowing the book"
This logic works if one has to acquire or gain some thing new.what if one has to unlearn?It requires Faith to give up all that one has acquired and values.
What is the nature of this Faith?It is like the LIGHT in the penumbral region of our soul(Reminded of the Agnostic's prayer!).It is what makes one aware of the Darkness of the Umbra and keeps one oriented one towards the Source of Light.Without this one is Blind!
If this Faith becomes intense it concentrates into LIGHT-'Thy Faith has made Thee Whole'.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar
@Broken Yogi,
That was a wonderful post on the method of Self-enquiry. I specially liked the part where you talked about the switch from trying to find the source. I feel that is very much correct.
Let me just try to put down my understanding. When we start trying to hold-on to the I, as you said, we cannot, as we realize there is nothing to hold-on to. Because, the very "holding on" needs one thing holding onto another, i.e., the "i" is holding on to something that is not the "i". So, there is no "holding on" to the "i". That is what, I guess, Bhagavan also referred to as the thief turning to a police. You can never catch the thief as the one who is searching is same as being the object searched. The "i" tries to "hold" on to itself, which actually cannot happen other than just being the “i”; when that happens there is no trying to hold to the “i”, you just are. The situation is like this - We know there is a thief around as something is missing, but the police is not able to locate the thief. Since the presence of thief is already known, how else to catch him other than trying to run behind him? By tracing back to how it all happened; which is basically tracing the source of the thief, "i".
Scott,
I could well be wrong, but I think the difference we are talking about is precisely the illusion that self-enquiry dispels.
It is of course true that when we use the word "I" to refer to ourselves, we are not referring to the Supreme Self. So there is an apparent distinction in our experience that we have to investigate. Self-enquiry looks at this apparent "I" of our bodily personality, and tries to see what is there, what it actually is. In the course of that investigation, we see that there is no such person, no "I" at all, just an illusion. What we find instead is the Self. The more we see that the "I" is a mirage, the more we see through this mirage to the real "I-I", the Self. That "I-I" is what Ramana calls the source, the real Self. That is the source of the "I" in the same way that the rope is the source of the snake.
So the question arises, what is changed by "seeking the source of the ego" instead of simply investigating the ego directly? I suggest that in practice there is no difference at all. To seek the source of the ego means that we have to first examine the ego, since they are in the very same place, as the very same phenomena. Where would one look for the source of the ego, other than in the very place the ego is felt by us and experienced by us?
If it sometimes helps us in our practice to ask, "What is the source of the 'I'", rather than merely "who am I?", that's fine. But none of that actually changes the process of attention in self-enquiry that accompanies these verbal directions. It may help us focus ourselves on the ego itself, rather than on the ego's associations. It may help us focus on the ego intensely enough that we can see through the ego to its real source and nature, the Self. Sometimes in self-enquiry we may mistakenly focus on the ego as an object, as if it were a real thing, and this only increases its illusory existence to us, and that becomes counterproductive. So it's important to remind ourselves to see through the ego, and not merely to take it to be real. In that sense, seeking the source of the ego is a good way of understanding the process of self-enquiry.
cont.
Friends,
I do not practice Self Enquiry as an exclusive Practice.That passage that I have posted from Day By Day with Bhagavan-it seems that the Mind turned outwards is Ego;The same mind turned TOTALLY inwards(uLmukha )is the Self.
Looking(or any other word!) for the source seems to intensify this INWARD TURNING making it Total; the intention is not NOT on finding the source.
This Process seems to be achieving a two fold objective-1.Preventing the mind from its natural tendency to spread outwards and 2.To turn it totally inwards.
What is the FUEL for this?Mumukshatva-Desire for Freedom
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
cont.
I simply object to the notion that this is any different from self-enquiry itself, or investigation of the "I". Thinking of these two as distinct from one another can lead to the illusion that there is a difference between the ego and its source. When we use the word "source" in common language it always refers to some thing or place different than itself. If we look for the "source of the Nile", to give one famous instance of its usage, we travel thousands of miles through desert and jungle to find some hidden lake far away from the place the river flows into the sea. If we use that language to describe the ego and its source, it gives the impression that there is some long journey by which we must trace the flow of this river of "ego" back to its source, involving a long "inward" struggle to find its distant source, and when we get there, we will be liberated. Ramana always cautioned against this kind of understanding, pointing out that what we seek is already right here, is already our own nature, and not to be found elsewhere. Which is why he directs us to find the true Self right here, where we are, by simply investigating the "I". Finding the source of the "I" means looking at the "I" until we see through the illusion, and is thus no different from self-enquiry.
The source of the ego is in exactly the same position as the ego, just as the source of the snake, the rope, is in exactly the same position as the snake. They are the same "thing", the same "being", it is only ignorance which makes us think our real Self is an ego. To the ego, they are completely different, and that is why we have to investigate the ego directly to see if this difference is real, if it actually exists, or if it is the result of mere ignorance. Otherwise, the ego will only emphasize the difference, and try to reify those differences by getting us to seek the source of the ego in some other place or process.
Ramana is clear that shining the light of investigation on the ego reveals that it is not real, that what we think of as the ego is in reality only the Self. So looking for the source of the ego means to look at the ego directly until it is clear that it isn't there at all, that it is actually the Self, that we are actually the Self, and not an ego. Our deepest fears are simply not true, and are dispelled simply by examining ourselves in the light of day. That light is both our own nature and our Guru. Bhagavan is merely the light shining upon us, revealing our real nature - if we are attentive to this process occurring not just outwardly through his life and teachings, but within us as well.
I went read thru David's reply again after my prev. post, where he mentions about possible "objectification" of the Source, when searching for one. But is not "focussing" on the inner feeling of "i" too objectifying the "i"? If there is focussing, there is triads again. I do not see absence of objectification unless we just be: No thought, no effort. Again, is that the way? 'Coz, I feel that this actually leads to manolaya than manonasa.
Also, since we consider ourselves to be the ego, the Source will be an object. The subject is the "i". As long as there is identification with the "i", as long as there is a sense of seperation, there will be the triads associated, i feel.
Scott,
Master Nome's mails are quite inspiring and lucid.Thanks very much for posting them here.
Namaskar.
Maneesha,
I agree with you about the impossibility of "holding on" to the ego. The effort undoes itself, as what one grasps onto turns to dust and wind. Similarly with "focusing" on the ego as an object. The whole point of self-enquiry is to turn attention back upon itself, on the subject, not to turn the subject into another object.
This only goes to show the difficulties that come from describing the Self, and the process of self-enquiry, with common language. When Ramana used words like "holding onto the "I"-thought", or "focusing on the 'I'", or "looking within" or "inverting attention" he was simply trying to use ordinary vernacular language to describe a process that ordinary vernacular language was not designed for. Ordinary language always contains a subject and an object, and all verbs act upon an object. So when Ramana uses any kind of verb to describe self-enquiry, the conventions of langauge assume it to be an object, rather than a subject. There's no grammatical construct which allows a verb to act upon a subject. So when Ramana uses the verbs "hold" or "focus" or "invert" or "look" or "seek", they invariably conjure up the image of a subject acting upon an object. And yet the whole point of self-enquiry is of a subject acting upon itself, not upon an object.
Ramana tries to explain the distinction as clearly as possible, but language always tends to return us to object relations, even when we are referring to the Self or the ego, which are subjects, not objects. Hence, we can always tend to turn self-enquiry into an investigation into an inner object, which it is not. It's not like looking for some bindu of light within the inner realms. It's an attempt to "focus" on the subject-consciousness itself, thus short-circuiting the system, in an attempt to bring down the whole machine.
Language, after all, is the invention of egos involved in subject-object relations, and it is contructed to re-inforce that view of reality. Ramana likes to keep things simple and ordinary, so he uses vernacular speach as much as possible, but even technical sanskrit has this same problem. We have to take these words with their intended usage, and remind ourselves that we cannot make any of it into literal acts of acting or viewing an object, but of directly feeling our own subjective nature as we are. In that sense it takes no effort at all, except the effort of turning about our entire viewpoint. Which, it turns out, means breaking certain deeply ingrained habits of mind. So it's not quite the same as just doing nothing, except to the degree that doing nothing means not doing things we are addicted to doing, which takes not just effort, but insight.
salutations to all:
ravi/broken yogi etc.:
admire your faith even though I may not possess the faith that you do… the quote referred to by BY is also there in the gitaa (‘svalpamapyasya dharmasya trAyatE mahatO bhayAt’ – ‘even a little practice will save one from the great fear’); for me, the ‘practice of dharma’ is the ‘svadharma’ of self-enquiry… the practice and the effort, however little it may be, shall bring in all that faith might have otherwise brought in… the danger of effort is vanity (which is completely ruled out in vichara :-), none can get vain because of doing vichara, for it will be a contradiction)…the danger of faith is fanatical superstition or sentimental nonsense, and this danger is, in my opinion, if far greater magnitude…
for me, it’s self-effort alone that matters, not self-confidence… ‘self-confidence’ is more like a modern day cliché… a student who is well-prepared will be confident, and if he isn’t, will still do well in the exam, but the student who is only self-confident or has been fed doses of ‘confidence’ will flunk the exam regardless of his superior self-confidence…people more often attribute their success to self-confidence in hindsight, and what did help them to succeed wasn’t that confidence but effort with an inexplicable element of chance (probability)…
ravi quoted, ‘avan aRuLale avan thaaL vanNangI’ from manikkavasagar (i love tiruvachakam, a work straight from the heart (the heart is just a way of expressing and has got nothing to do with the ‘hrdaya’ that bhagavan spoke about because i know nothing of that ‘heart’ :-))… am not disputing that, and the reason am not is because it comes from manikkavasagar…if bhagavan or sambandar says ‘all they did was because of grace’, i agree because i safely presume they were exactly describing what saw…on the other hand, i can see only effort, nothing called grace…
if grace is like the ‘high wind in the seas’ (this is the best description i have ever heard and it comes, as well know, from thakur), it is simply there…that’s all…those who put effort (like the one who ‘best unfurls his sails’) harvests the best from such grace…there is no mercy element in grace whatsoever… bhagavan and other mahatmas in their poetry may write which might lead us to equate mercy with grace, but that’s poetic license, in exactly the same way, as they keep talking about themselves as a dog etc etc.
a work that bhagavan so highly admired and recommended emphasizes and eulogises primarily self-effort (namely the yoga vaasishtha) :-)
I am convinced that the 'i' or the mind cannot be caught... what to do next, how to catch - i am confused... :(
And i came across this "comment" in David's GVK for V504:
"The jnana Guru of everyone is the Supreme Self that is always revealing its own truth in every Heart through existence-consciousness ‘I am, I am’. The granting of being-consciousness by him is initiation into jnana. The grace of the Guru is only this Self-awareness that is one’s own true nature. It is the being-consciousness by which he is unceasingly revealing his existence. This divine upadesa is always going on naturally in everyone. As this upadesa alone is what reveals the natural attainment of the Self through one’s own experience, the mature ones need at no time seek the help of external beings for jnana-upadesa. The upadesa obtained from outsiders in forms such as sounds, gestures and thoughts are all only mental concepts. Since the meaning of the word updaesa is only “abiding in the Self” or “abiding as the Self”, and since this is one’s own real nature, so long as one is seeking the Self from outside, Self-realisation cannot be attained. Since you are yourself the reality that is shining in the Heart as being-consciousness, abide always as a sthitta prajna having thus realize your own true nature. This firm abidance in the experience of the Self is described in the Upanishads by such terms as ‘the import of mahavakyas’, ‘Supreme silence’, ‘Being Still’, ‘Quiescence of mind’ and ‘Realisation of one’s true nature’." (From Sri Ramana Darsanam, p 38-9)
S,
"a work that bhagavan so highly admired and recommended emphasizes and eulogises primarily self-effort (namely the yoga vaasishtha)"
This is true.I have heard that Swami Ramatirtha considered Yoga vasishta as his guru.
Self Effort and Grace are not mutually exclusive.There is no question of abandoning Effort;nor is Grace is something that can be appreciated only by the Likes of sri Bhagavan or Manikkavachakar.
"There are moments when the Spirit moves among men and the breath of the Lord is abroad upon the waters of our being; there are others when it retires and men are left to act in the strength or the weakness of their own egoism. The first are periods when even a little effort produces great results and changes destiny; the second are spaces of time when much labour goes to the making of a little result. It is true that the latter may prepare the former, may be the little smoke of sacrifice going up to heaven which calls down the rain of God's bounty."-Sri Aurobindo
This is experienced by artists,poets-how the inspiration dries up and they have to plod.They may not call it as Grace but as inspiration, muse or by any other word.This is not as scarce as it is made out to be-Like they say 99% perspiration and 1% of inspiration!
-----------------------------------
Namaskar
Broken Yogi,
Please review your post on september 16th where you have said:
"In that sense there is a difference between the path of self-enquiry and the path of self-surrender. In self-enquiry, we examine the illusion of the ego and in so doing it evaporates into thin air and we are left with the real. In surrender, we are attracted directly to what is real, and in the process, the objective illusions that are associated with it evaporate by not being paid any attention or energy."
I wish to have your views after the recent discussions .
Yogananda's Whispers from Eternity
"O Divine Hart, I ran after Thee, equipped with spears of selfish desires. Thou didst fly! I raced after Thee in the plane of loud prayer. It crashed to the earth of my restlessness, and the noise frightened Thee away from me! Stealthily I crept upon Thee with the dart of my concentration. But my hand shook with unsteadiness, and Thou didst bound from me, and Thy feet echoed—“Without devotion thou art a poor, poor marksman!” With firmness of devotion, as I held the dart of meditation, I heard Thy divine steps resound again—“I am beyond thy mental dart; I am beyond!” At last in despair, I entered the cave of celestial love and, lo! Thou, the Divine Hart, camest willingly within."
-----------------------------------
S,
Regarding self-confidence, the ego of course has a form of self-confidence that is based on the ego itself - meaning association with objects, the body, the mind, etc. This is the illusory "snake" that we sometimes find very convincing, and scary to boot. Everywhere we look, we can find this "snake", within ourselves and in the outer world, if we only look superficially at ourselves and the world. We can find it in anything and everything we do, including self-inquiry, and conclude that all is in vain. But all we have done in that case is confirm the ego's illusions, rather than examine their core presumption.
Self-enquiry goes to the core of the ego, and begins by examining that core assumption of the snake. If it doesn't, then it isn't genuine self-enquiry. If all we do is describe the snake, and how big its fangs are and how poisonous its venom is, we have not done self-enquiry. We must face up to the snake, and not be frightened of its alleged powers and strength. We must be willing to stand still and silent even as it hisses and strikes at us. This is how we see that it is not real, that it is imagined, a dream snake, a false impression.
This requires a profound kind of self-confidence that is not based on believing in the snake, but the opposite, of having the intuition that the snake is unreal and cannot harm us. This is what that saying means, "Even a little wisdom casts out great fear". Ordinary self-confidence comes from the belief that we are each powerful snakes ourselves, and that we can hiss and strike with the best of them. But this is false self-confidence, as it is based on an illusion. Genuine self-confidence comes from the intuition that we are not a snake at all, but a rope - that we are not mortal egos, but immortal consciousness, that the snake cannot hurt us, that if we stand still and silent and simply challenge the snake's credentials, it will fade to nothingness. Such self-confidence is what is required for the practice of self-enquiry and its realization.
If we lack that faith and self-confidence, if instead we believe in the snake and its powers and fear it as something real and threatening to us, we will not be able to practice self-enquiry effectively. We will practice "snakery"- instead. We may even grow in our prowess as imaginary snakes, but it will always be an imaginary attainment. The self-confidence we gain in that case is illusory, based on belief in the power of the snake, rather than in the power of the rope that we are.
There are many warnings about the ego in spiritual literature, and they all amount to a belief that there really is a snake lurking within us that we must fear and be wary of. Ramana's path has nothing to do with that kind of fearful approach. He recommends that we boldly and self-confidently examine this snake directly, and see that it is actually a rope. Otherwise, we only give the illusory snake more power over us. All kinds of fears and illusions will arise in the process. The snake may get very agitated if we look at it directly, and try to scare us away. But if we have self-confidence, we will hold to the process of enquiry, examining this snake without fear, until it's excited hissing and striking fades away, and we see that it was never a snake at all, but a rope.
I can't recall where I read it, but there's a passage somewhere in Ramana's books, an introduction I think, where this issue of self-confidence is spoken of. Maybe David knows where it comes from, or other quotes on the subject. As I recall, it speaks of how Ramana said it's highly essential that we have confidence in our own realization, otherwise it will never come about. I wish I cold quote it accurately, but my memory is imprecise.
Friends,
In the Discussions on the method and process(Ramprax has given the seed thought for some of the future gurus to offer certifications in Self Enquiry,like the ones in the IT industry!)it looks like the story of Ceaser came,saw and conquered!
The SELF seems to be a pretty dumb thing that has no say and is content to be aloof.The EGO somehow finds himself turned from an ugly duckling into a swan and he seems to be fully conscious of this metamorphosis,at the same time wondering whether he ever was the ugly duckling all along!
The entire approach is Result Oriented-that one attempts and arrives at a Final Result,and All is well that ends well type of an ending!
Approaching it differently,if Self Surrender is annuling the idea of Doership(NOT DOING!)in loving devotion,and if Self Enquiry and Self Surrender are two approaches that lead to the same thing-I was curious to find when in Self Enquiry ,the RESULT orientation gets dropped.
-----------------------------------
S,
Sri Ramakrishna on 'unfurling Sails'-As I said that Thakur is deep and the apparent simplicity is deceiving and I am sure you understand this-This means to OPEN oneself to the divine Grace and without this opening up, one is simply Rowing or paddling.This sort of Effort is necessary and has to be in the Right direction as well.
The Yoga Vasishta Stresses on this aspect of Effort in the Right Direction(so it is not a case of Perspiration only!Hard work is no longer considered a virtue even in ordinary parlance).
-----------------------------------
tp,
You said it well when you mentioned that beautiful couplet from Akshara Mana Malai-
' i ' came to feed on Thee
But Thou has fed on 'me ' !
Now, I AM Peaceful
O Arunachala -
Bhagwan Aksharamanimalai"
This is the crux of Self Enquiry or Self Surrender!You are Truly Blessed.
As Ramprax said so simply,No process can be laid out for this.
-----------------------------------
These discussions are certainly helpful to check out gaps in our understanding;also one need not feel that because the discussions are on,sadhana is not done!That on account of the Talking,the doing is not there!
Namaskar.
Losing M. Mind. ""It is of course true that when we use the word "I" to refer to ourselves, we are not referring to the Supreme Self. So there is an apparent distinction in our experience that we have to investigate. Self-enquiry looks at this apparent "I" of our bodily personality, and tries to see what is there, what it actually is. In the course of that investigation, we see that there is no such person, no "I" at all, just an illusion. What we find instead is the Self. The more we see that the "I" is a mirage, the more we see through this mirage to the real "I-I", the Self. That "I-I" is what Ramana calls the source, the real Self. That is the source of the "I" in the same way that the rope is the source of the snake.""
Broken Yogi, what you say seems valid to me (and certainly well said in light of the teachings), the only thing is, that what works for me shifts. And sometimes one thing seems to work really well, and then doesn't. No method that I have tried as a method has worked consistently. When I say it works, I mean that it gets me to see somewhat beyond my limited self-centered notions, and to a deeper state of peace. For me, in my more successful experiences as of late, it has not been a seeking the ego to find out what it's nature is, that it's nature is really the Self, or that it doesn't exist as a separate ego which I think is what you are saying. When there is a feeling of actual ego dissolution no matter how temporary, it has been a sense of ego, individuality, that I seem to carry within me dissolves or becomes less apparent, and a much deeper Consciousness enevelopes, like being filled with a very soothing, contentment. (it can't really be described, and there is no way for me to will that state or achieve it by a consistent method, if anything it's just the stubborn intention of wanting to transcend what seems to be petty suffering and ego) That is what i am going for. What resonated with me about the idea of actually seeking the source of the ego, rather then seeking the ego, is that it treats the ego which is a source of trouble and discontentment as if it never existed. But of course, when I tried to make it a method, it didn't really continue working. And then it comes back to, the effort to transcend the causes of suffering as they manifest is what I'm back to doing. Because the way I look at it, teh Self transcends my drama and suffering largely because it is the substratum of consciousness that doesn't admit of a "my" to have drama. I would say the biggest obstacle is that any method seems to be able to produce a state of dullness, or tamas guna. But last night, somehow, and I'm not sure how, I was in a state where there was only Bliss, and my whole previous life ceased to matter, and there was no "objective" world. I think those are good expereinces, but many things can shake me out of them. The deepest experiences have really come from teh correspondencce with that teacher, because his responses are so to the point of my core vasanas, and so in a way they act like gate-keepers. I don't know about you Broken Yogi, or any of the rest of you. But I'm not at a point where I've completely transcended gross ignorance and am working on the subtle. Sometimes like last night, that was pretty deep. But when ignorance emerges, it's gross ignorance. Like this bestial, angry, lustful, sad, longing, discontent, ungrateful, selfishly fearful, and cowardly ignorance. Granted to a large extent I recognize the delusiveness of it, my teacher's responses function as gate-keepers. They are clear, solid soldiers in words when the ego wants to emerge into gross ignorance in a way. Really I think it is the transcendence of gross ignorance that even allows deep experiences, samadhi-like experiences to emerge.
Post a Comment