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 401 – 600 of 966 Newer› Newest»Losing M. Mind;
"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?"
Well, so my thinking goes, Broken Yogi, the ego is unreal, whereas the source of the ego which is the Self is real. So seeking the source, is abiding in the source or abiding in the Self. (not saying your method is wrong) That is how my thinking goes. Nice on paper. I should probably restudy actual writings of Maharshi again, because I'm sure they say alot more, and each time read more will be understood. When you say we first examine the ego, though I am not sure I have heard Maharshi or any other jnani say anything like that. Because even when I ask Who am I? When I ask it deeply in a sincere way, it's success is in that even if temporarily the ego ceases to exist. But again, what is the ego, I don't even know what it is. The kind of deep experience I had around my teacher, that is such a deep stillness, and often even when I have a method in mind, or there is some kind of concentration going on, it is still just another kind of agitatoin. If only I could just "be still", and it didn't require the look of a sage. Maybe when they say the ego dissapears in knowledge, it's that egolessness is realized in a full experience of the expansive consciousness and supreme Bliss of the Self. My teacher always talks about reinstating happiness, identity, and reality within. Or realizing that they are within. In all ignorance I experience, reality, happiness, and identity are experienced as if they are without. When I'm worried, something external I'm imagining seems to have some reality to it. When I'm depressed, and long for some change in circumstances, or a better relationship with another, happiness is seen to be external. When I take myself to be a person, with a personality, identity is seen to be without. All these things seem useful to consider.
losing m. mind;
This is my teacher's latest response.
Dear Kassy,
Omm Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
Concentration is a mode of mind that derives its intensity from the
luminous Self, yet is placed within the context of thought or mental
attention. The concentration may be external, that is upon some object or
the breath, or internal, upon some mental conception or mental image, such
being of a spiritual character. The value of such lies in the abeyance of
other thoughts, though temporary, and the faith in the spiritual ideal
contemplated. Dharana (concentration) is not an end in itself, and the yogis
say that one should proceed to dhyana (meditation). Such should involve the
dissolution of the mind or the transcendence of thought. This, also, is not
the end, but one should then enter into samadhi, your questions about which
were answered previously. The highest and nonobjective form of meditation is
Atma-vicara (Self-inquiry), which reveals sahaja samadhi or sahaja sthiti,
absorption or steady abidance in the Innate as the Innate, which is
Self-Knowledge. Such inquiry and Knowledge are jnana. The inquiry, thus, is
not a mere shift of attention, or the repetition of a mental mode, but a
profound questioning of your very identity to inwardly discern your Being as
it truly is. Such inquiry is inherently mind-transcendent.
You may find it helpful to refer again to the previous comments in
several messages about happiness, detachment, and viewing things in
proportion. Otherwise, as you can observe with some reflection, an idea such
as a desire seems to occupy your entire experience, just as, if one places
the small tip of his smallest finger before his eye, it seems to occupy the
entire scene and blocks out the view of all else, for example large
mountains, the sky, the stars, etc. It is perfectly alright to read and
reflect upon the same passages again and again until the inner comprehension
dawns. Some books, such as Self-Knowledge, are intended for such use.
From another angle of vision, from what you have been relating in
your messages, you can see how even one idea can continually rise and appear
so important when you project even a drop of that which is of the Self upon
it: happiness, identity, and reality. If, with wise discrimination, the same
importance were placed upon Self-Realization, for the sake of the direct
experience of that full happiness, true identity, and absolute Reality, how
focused, intense and consuming would your spiritual practice become?
A tendency many times repeated may require sustained effort to be
destroyed. Such effort should be perseverance in knowledge in the form of
profound inquiry.
From still another perspective, if you are destined to be married or
have a companion in the future, all the anxious thought and craving
concerning it will amount to so much wasted time and purposeless suffering.
If you are destined to live singly, all that anxious thought and craving
will be a waste of precious time that could be spent more joyfully and
wisely. Either way, the depth and purpose of life is to be found and
fulfilled within.
Losing M. Mind
teacher's response cont.;
"Find within yourself that which is perfectly full regardless of
whether you are alone or in the company of others.
If the inner understanding is clarified, and thus one is endowed
with inquiry and detachment that blossom as Knowledge, the actions will
become harmonious of themselves.
Humility is essential.
It is natural for anyone who
Abides as the Self,
Inquires to know the Self,
Comprehends the vastness of Brahman,
Knows the Truth,
Perceives the magnitude and depth of the great sages,
Considers the significance of immortality,
Sees the approach of death,
Notices the fragility and precariousness of life,
Contemplates upon God,
Observes the play of his own mind,
Discerns the insignificance of his own thoughts,
Considers the immensity of this mere, entire universe,
Recognizes the smallness of his transient body,
Feels the fullness of love,
Experiences the magnificent perfection that is always,
Or who has found Grace.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome"
losing m. mind;
I should add, in my own experiences, Self-inquiry (whatever that is, I still don't really know), the important thing, the thing it hinges on is the deep contentment and Bliss, the peace and stillness. Without that, I can quite well parrot the words of Maharshi, but it's some how intellectual and hollow. I know that I have a deep understanding when I feel deeply at peace, and the world seems formless and dreamlike. When I started, I thought an intellectual understanding ahd some validity. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it has less then I thought. That's why it's important for me to deeply question what do these words mean in terms of experience, not just in terms of how I imagine them, as a string of logic, or concepts, but what is the ego, what is that experientially, how does that manifest for me. I guess more obviously Who am I? What is the significance of that question? Why did Maharshi pose it? As I was saying it seems like any jnani wants the devotee to Realize the same state right then and there, so they aren't giving a curriculum in terms of time, but from where the devotee is right there. In talks with ramana maharshi, it seems to me, maharshi is leading the devotee to the same Realization right then and there. Now the devotee, or one such as myself, may have alot of ignorant habits, that will take more then one satsang to completely clear up in a permanent way, or many satsangs, though I benefit from each. As I said in my account, when that teacher looked at me almost reading my mind, my entire being's agitation was stilled in such a deep way, that any worries were completely gone, I don't know any other antidote that has achieved such a stunniing result. I did have visuals important or unimportant of white ribbons flowing from his body. And this wasn't subtle, and it was consistant in his presence. And anytime he looked at me, it was so magical I can't even put it into words. But it must have been like that around maharshi as well. At this point, I just keep utilizing all these spiritual resources as much as I possibly can. Attemping what I understand of inquiry, satsang (right now in the form of correspondence), and following the instructions. don't they call that manana, sravana, and niddidyasana? Maybe in that order.
losing m. mind;
"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."
I'll tell you why I disagree. Because for one, when it is said be still, I'm pretty sure from all I've read and practiced, they are not talking about verbal silence, I'm not even sure they are talking about not thinking, but being free of ego. "Silence is that state in which no "i" arises". So not talking, or not talking about inquiry is not necessarily helpful, I think. Now, in my experience, and I'm pretty sure, only a jnani, only someone who knows this experientially and fully and permanently, only their words are true and valid instruction. So no ajnani can truly instruct in Self-inquiry or tell how to do it. My reasons for writing here, and it seems to me it is probably similar for others, is because of glowing inspiration from these teachings and wanting to discuss them. I think that is profoundly in the right direction. I also wanted to add, that a central tenet of these teachings, and a central aspect of Realization is the Realization that we are not the doer of actions. Everything I've read, heard and practiced suggest that inaction does not help in realizing this. Not talking does not help, much less talking about the teachings, or thinking about them. It's all helpful. I would say we definitely do not discuss atma-vichara for the same reasons of the minds ignorance, it's motivated strongly by intuiting how great it would be to be free of it.
Scott,
You are right to question everything. I'm not capable of helping you in your actual practice. Whatever works for you or doesn't is fine. As others have said, talk is cheap and practice is all that actually matters. As Ramana said:
"That trustworthy vichara exists neither in book learning nor in learning from others, but only in one's own sense of 'I'."
When I refer to ego I am of course merely referring to this sense of "I" that we all feel. Self-enquiry merely means to look at this sense of "I", nothing more really. The contents associated with "I", whether they are gross or subtle, have no meaning. My own interest is simply in learning that basic process of self-enquiry that applies under all conditions, that is a process of attention rather than of any particular thought, and that is essentially the same regardless of my mind's moods and content. In that way, self-enquiry is effective under all conditions, and there is no need to re-adjust it to conditions of mind or body. Even my personal success or failure in that regard is only another condition of mind under which to practice self-enquiry. Whatever those conditions might be, ego is always there, and can always be enquired of, regardless of apparent success or failure. I have come to distrust my own evaluation of what seems to succeed or fail in any event. Bliss is not the sign of success, and misery is not the sign of failure.
Ramana always said that the success of self-enquiry depends upon the strength of our own minds, and that therefore the development of simple strength of mind was the key to developing true and effective self-enquiry. However, he also explained that the best way to develop strength of mind was not to use the mind, but to let it be still and silent. He said that using the mind only weakens the mind. I try to keep that in mind when I practice.
Hi Broken Yogi,
Still not into the debate nor defending; and definitely not expressing opinions on other’s opinions :-)
( With apologies in case it was already known ) just thought to point out a factual position with respect to the “rajju-sarpa” (rope-snake) analogy used by you for the nature of the world and sadhana thereof; that the analogy cannot really be carried forward at all into any sort of deep analysis. This is a given, even if I say so myself, being oriented towards Advaita.
The “rajju-sarpa” analogy was blasted out of shape by the Masters of the non-dual schools and could not be logically defended by the best Advaitin minds; and in fact the “mrigatrishna” analogy had to be brought in to rationalize the position. Even then, there are gaps in the logical argument put forth, starting with - why should two separate and unconnected analogies be required to be taken simultaneously into account to explain the nature of the world ? Why not three then, or five, or an infinite number of analogies then ? etc etc. The literature is extensive and can be found in any standard work on Advaita or Dvaita.
And very simply, if an analogy fails on a basic count, its applicability is quite suspect on all counts.
Perhaps that is why Sri Bhagavan used this analogy only sparingly and only for the most simple explanations. He has in fact alluded to the inconsistencies several times, somewhere perhaps in “Talks” or “Day by Day”. If you like, one could dig out the exact references.
regards
Sorry, errata:
In my comment above, third para, first line should read, “……… Masters of the dualistic schools.”
salutations to all:
ravi/broken yogi(BY) etc etc.
as i said before, admire your faith… BY and ravi also articulate whatever thoughts they have extremely well :-) nonetheless, BY said (‘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.’)
let me ask this: to many here, this may look a bit preposterous, but authority has got little to do with loving – what ‘self-confidence’ did bhagavan have on the eventful july night in madurai? nothing at all… if one is so self-confident of what the ‘snake’ is, and which presumably can happen only if you also know the ‘rope’, then why self-enquiry? what are you enquiring for? to enquire with this so-called conviction in the result is just a superstition in something what we call the ‘self’, and just as to think after arriving at a conclusion is no thinking at all, to enquire after assuming what is unreal and what is real is no enquiry at all…
come on folks,to ALL of you out there: what is at present real to you? the ego or the self? for me, honestly, it’s the ego which is real for now, not that thing what you call the self… hahaha... if anyone of you claims that you have ‘known’ that the self alone is real, please mail me your address, for i will be much too glad to sit at your feet and listen :-) (but then, the realised neither argue nor justify, and thus will neither reply to my mail!) now bhagavan, whom we all love for different reasons, comes and says ‘no, it’s the self which is real and not the ego, and that fact will be evident when you try out ‘vichara’’… to love bhagavan has got nothing to do with accepting his conclusions before even trying out self-investigation.
as far as the statement on confidence by bhagavan, let’s see the context (excepting the instructions on self-enquiry, everything else what bhagavan spoke was addressed to a specific person or group subject to the questions/circumstances which prompted him to say whatever he said) – bhagavan spoke about having confidence for such a person or group, whose minds were continually rattled by doubts about the method’s efficacy and the fear of having wasted his time, precisely like the man who dug everyday the ground to see whether the seed he has sown has sprouted!
the beauty of bhagavan (& buddha) is that it is perfect for an agnostic or an atheist to realize the self without the baggage of a prior of faith or confidence… who knows, may be often much faster than the case of the so-called believers because the agnostic/ atheist works and assumes responsibility without abandoning it, the same abandon which the believers, who keep doing their will in the name of god’s will, hypocritically masquerade as surrender:-))... on the contrary, if one has that confidence about the elusive self, then one will precisely realize the projection of his own misplaced confidence :-)
losing m. mind;
"Bliss is not the sign of success, and misery is not the sign of failure."
Everything you said Broken Yogi was good except this on some level does strike me as true. I agree with you that success and failure are not really important when dealing with spirituality.
Peserverence, faith are more important. Inquiiry is not something you can really succeed or fail at, but just continue trying at. However, Bliss is the nature of the Self, and it seems taht it is something to be merged into.
Inquiry is not on the level of the mind. I'm not sure if it is even on the level of attention. But however, I think Bliss is always a good sign, a good thing in terms of this practice, and is the purpose of inquiry is to be at peace and content. Infact correspondence with that teacher has clarified for me that the happiness can be directly inquired into. "Where is the source of happiness?"
Which really is the same as the question "Who am i?"
It's especially noteable in the preamble of Who am I?, and marital garland of letters, and all of Maharshi's writings are infused with this Bliss. I don't believe this Bliss is only the end, this Bliss is also the means. When I hadn't had this clarified, inquiry was much more of a mental battle. My teacher said, "If the source of happiness is ascertained to be within you, dissolution of desire and fear is natural". I know that I need to inquire when I'm suffering mentally, because that is a sign of gross ignorance and a need to inquire deeper, which is not always easy.
The ego is never satisfied even when it gets what it wants it projects new desires out. Normally it's fulfillment is taken to be in objects of desire. When Bliss is seen to be within, that desire is satisfied. Sometimes here, it seems people take inquire to be purly a mental act of holding attention, or riveting attention, and what you describe even sounds a little like that.
But how long does it go on for? And the "I" you refer to, where is it to hold? I don't think it could be referring to holding attention to the "I" because when I do that, that is really just a mental battle that leads to headache. I remember Saradamma saying that she recommended devotion over inquiry because people who practice inquiry often end up in a thoughtless state but of tamas guna not sattva guna.
When inquiry is mental I end up in a state of tamas guna which is the lowest of the gunas and Saradamma said that it is not possible to help someone who is only tamasic. There needs to be rajas. I find it helpful to know that the aim of inquiry is not a state of stupor, it is a state of profound illumination and blissful contentment. So inquiry for me is finding that state within, by removing what veils it. The ego, the conceited notion of being a person with all sorts of drama is what veils it. So in a sense I do look at inquiry as completely giving no credence to the ego, "give no scope to any thought", Maharshi said in the quote ravi quoted. Well, the ego, or "I" is only a bundle of thoughts. To experience the natural state, I have to completely exist outside of being this bundle of thoughts. Battling, or even holding the "I" just does not seem to work at all. And from what Maharshi has said, it seems inquiries aim is tom immediately exist without it, or beyond it. Infact if I'm holding to the "I", who is doing the holding? The "I" just escaped attention. This could go on and on and on, but if Bliss is within, it seeems to be able to completely dissolve the whole process.
Commenting on Broken Yogis post of Sept 16th and referred to by Ravi.
" In surrender we are attracted directly to what is Real and in the process, the objective illusions evaporate, by not being paid attention/ energy to "
Speaking only from personal experience, which will not be the experience of all, taking into account the diversity of creation.
During the years that were spent in devotion, duty and later Japa, attention was not paid to illusions ( inner attachments ). Did not even know then, that inner attachments existed ! During those years thought was withrawn from external objects and focused exclusively on The Lord ( who was Master and Friend ). This prevented new attachments and weakened old ones. There was quietness for most of the time.
However there followed a period of unbearable pain and confusion and there was seemingly no way out, because no other path was revealed upto then .
Graciously directed to Arunachala, throwing myself at Bhagwans feet, saying " Having come here, help me " coming again and again in Faith, doing the Girpradakshina, reading books on Bhagwan, step by step direction was given on how to conduct the 'who am i ' enquiry, to dissolve inner attachments, which had been for so many years overlooked by adopting preliminary methods and which had not dissolved them ( in this case ).
Thoughts and emotions represent branches of a tree which had been temporarily cut, but the trunk remaining firm and strong, would produce new branches as and when conducive to growth.
This trunk was made up of many ideas of who i thought i was. All true and righteous ideas in accordance with dharma, but which were now causing an obstruction to inner peace ( because they were being invalidated ). It was only by this deep inward looking that these concepts were identified and surrendered for burning. So the surrender was not by 'not paying attention to them ', it was, quite to the contrary,by paying deep attention to expose them - and doing so in an aggressive way.
The illusion of 'i' is nothing but a bundle of self images ( concepts ). Somehow this effort, the identification and willingness to surrender precious self images ( which being the fruit of karma, were necessary, but had served their purpose ) exposes them for anhiliation, which which does not come from this effort. The sticks are dried by this effort and then they burn - it is finished. Ribhu Gita Chapter 26, which was Bhagwans favorite, deals exclusively on The Concept Free State.
Everything is Grace. Sarvam He Eta Brahman
David wrote on September 9,
'' 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'.''
I wonder how awareness can watch awareness.
Awareness just can be.
Watching is work of mind.
losing m. mind;
"You are right to question everything. I'm not capable of helping you in your actual practice. Whatever works for you or doesn't is fine. As others have said, talk is cheap and practice is all that actually matters. "
I guess what I was saying is that only a jnani knows how and what inquiry is because any inquiry that doesn't result in Realizatoin is perhaps not inquiry but an attempt at it. Talk may be cheap in other matters, but I have not heard Maharshi say that. Although when I started I may have thought like that. It's not cheap, because you want to know that what you are doing is fruitful, if it is in the spirit of actual Self-inquiry or not. And as many people have pointed out, the necessity of a sat-guru is so important, because otherwise I get caught up in the way my mind interprets the words through my own ignorance. (and can repeat them quite well, or form new sentences that sound Ramana-esque) If I didn't have any kind of contact with a Realized sage, it seems important to keep an open mind, and not think I understand even in correspondence with someone who is Realized. I don't understand, I still need clarification. And as my teacher said in his last response, and I don't think this contradicts Ramanas teachings, inquiry is not the reptition of a mental mode, it is a profound questioning. I can say I'm going to hold on to the "I", but where is "I", and what does "I" refer to? Because I don't see a disembodied letter I floating around. So I must be referring to the very sense of me. What else could it refer to. If anyone has anyother ideas please share. But maybe holding the "I", means keeping the attention on the sense of me, it's not a forceful or vigilant act, but a way of keeping in the Self, so that there are no attributes.(but the goal is to transcend or even dissolve or live without the sense of me) I also think, there are alot of teachings by Maharshi for instance Marital Garland of letters. It's pretty clear Maharshi abides in devotional Bliss.
"Bliss is not the sign of success, and misery is not the sign of failure."
Everything you said Broken Yogi was good except this on some level does strike me as true. I agree with you that success and failure are not really important when dealing with spirituality.
When we experience bliss, self-enquiry continues to question this experience, asking "Who is experiencing this bliss?", or " To whom is this bliss arising?" The same would go for misery, pain, frustration, joy, peace, etc. Self-enquiry is not concerned with any of these in themselves, but with the one to whom they arise. The realization self-enquiry leads to is "empty" of all these attributes. That does not mean such things will not arise. There will simply be no identification with them.
If we identify with bliss, we have ceased to enquire of the one to whom this bliss arises. If there is no such one who experiences bliss left, then there is no need to enquire, because there is no experience possible. Realization is not a state in which we experience great bliss, but the very reality that is beyond bliss or any other quality. It neither opposes nor relishes in bliss. It is simply beyond all experience, having penetrated the illusion of the experiencer. It is greater than bliss, therefore, and what it actually is, is beyond comprehension.
This is pretty basic to Ramana's teachings. I'm not suggesting bliss is a good or bad sign of anything. It is just something we experience, and thus something we tend to identify with or seek. It does not satisify self-enquiry, however, because it does not answer the question, "to whom is this bliss arising?". If our self-enquiry is satisfied by bliss, it never answers this question, and thus never actually completes itself.
S,
"the beauty of bhagavan (& buddha) is that it is perfect for an agnostic or an atheist to realize the self without the baggage of a prior of faith or confidence… who knows, may be often much faster than the case of the so-called believers because the agnostic/ atheist works and assumes responsibility without abandoning it, the same abandon which the believers, who keep doing their will in the name of god’s will, hypocritically masquerade as surrender:-))... on the contrary, if one has that confidence about the elusive self, then one will precisely realize the projection of his own misplaced confidence :-)"
Your arguments are very enjoyable, in that they exude great self-confidence and faith in the process of questioning oneself to the core. ;-)
That you feel even an agnostic or atheist could realize Bhagavan's teachings more quickly and directly than those with faith exhibits the very self-confident faith I have been trying to describe to you. So I think you need only look to yourself to see an example of this self-confidence and faith, which my words have failed to describe nearly as well as your own.
One simply cannot embark on the process of self-questioning without such self-confidence and faith. You clearly have that, and will clearly succeed at it. Ramana had that same kind of self-confidence and faith when he sat down to enquire of himself as well. He was determined to find the answer, and that determination is itself the very self-confidence I am speaking of. In his case, it only took a few minutes to complete. Your and my process may take longer, but it is essentially the same, and requires the same kind of self-confidence, which is not the same as belief in God or even belief in Ramana and his teachings, but belief in oneself, beyond any such externals. Ramana did not require books and conversations and guidance from without. He assumed that he already had within himself whatever was needed to answer this question fully and satisfactorily. Not all of us feel quite so self-confident, and thus we consult his and other books, and one another. But the point of all that is merely to gain the kind of self-confidence that Ramana had, such that we feel we can answer the question of self directly ourselves.
As for why would anyone even practice self-enquiry, if one's self-confidence in the "rope" were complete, of course one would not. One would already be realized in that case, and self-enquiry would be superfluous. Self-enquiry is for those who have some self-confidence, but who are still not entirely sure. Self-enquiry is the experiment by which one gains complete confidence, so to speak, just as a scientist does by performing a definitive test of his own hypothesis. The more one tests this hypothesis, the more one's confidence grows, but it still must be proven beyond all doubt. When all doubts are removed, there is no need for further testing. But until then, the presence of some uncertainty does not contradict the process of testing, but merely compels us to finish the inquiry.
Arvind,
I'm not familiar with the traditional advaitic arguments your refer to, but I agree that there are some rather obvious limitations to the snake/rope analogy if taken too far. However, I think at the level of our conversation and practice, the analogy is quite useful and appropriate. If you think not, I'm curious to know why. I am trying to argue from a very basic and simple level of understanding, not the rocket-science level of things. But I think the clarity gained from keeping things simple outweighs the value of the complexity of more abstruse arguments. Of course, I am a pretty simple guy, bordering on the simplistic, so take that into account. But I'm still curious as to what specific limitations in the snake/rope analogy you think apply to our discussion here.
"When we experience bliss, self-enquiry continues to question this experience, asking "Who is experiencing this bliss?", or " To whom is this bliss arising?" The same would go for misery, pain, frustration, joy, peace, etc. Self-enquiry is not concerned with any of these in themselves, but with the one to whom they arise. The realization self-enquiry leads to is "empty" of all these attributes. That does not mean such things will not arise. There will simply be no identification with them."
Preface; I am not Realized, but without disclaimers I'm going to speak authoritatively from my current understanding. In the future I won't disclaimer. here, I disagree with broken yogi. the Self is not empty of Bliss, the Self is Bliss. Broken Yogi already said, I believe correctly quoting Nisargadatta that love (which I think can also be called Bliss) even when love of individuals, love is real. Maybe the individuals aren't real. but the love itself is real. (to be distingiushed from the incomplete feeling of infatuation that implies a sense of need) The love could also be described as peace, contentment. The Bliss of the Self is not teh visceral Bliss such as when I drink caffeine, or the conceptual Bliss such as when I think about it. But Bliss is the nature of the Self, in the absence of any other experience or experiencer, in deep sleep, or death there is Bliss. unhappiness is from wrongly identifying as a person who has problems that mask the Bliss (which is the natural state). If I'm happy about something then that is to be questioned. The attachment to the object, person, situation, that should be questioned (primarily because there is the mistaken notion that my happiness is dependent on something objective), the notino of the individual, the person from whom that attachment came from should also be questioned.(because the ego masks the natural state of peace, contentment and bliss also) The happiness itself need not be questioned, because the happines is of the Self, is the Self. Happiness could be another name for the Self, objectless happiness, selfless happiness. The problem isn't that I'm happy, the problem is that I associate my happiness with an object (person, object, situation, relationship) that is to be gotten or maintained. A feeling of peace or Bliss starts to be experienced when the false egoic experience is starting to be relinquished, and questioned. Inquiry is not aiming at an empty state of anything. It is aiming at the perfect fullness, Being-Consciousness-Bliss which is the natural state, in the absence of anything else, an ego, egoic based experiences, the experience of a world seperate from the Self, this core 'experience' is ever-present, it is just masked by being an ego, who experiences a world. So a feeling of causeless Bliss, that I'm happy, and it doesn't matter what is happening, I'm just at peace, inner peace, this very much is a barometer of progress. I don't know where to find it, but I believe Maharshi explicitly says this, so if anyone wants to chime in. I believe someone asked him what is the measure of progress, and he did say that deep peace, and contenment. There is a reason the Self is described as sat-chit-ananda, and satyam-sivam sundaram. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, and The True, the Good and the Beautiful respectively. It is the eternal Existence (no birth no death), the infinite Consciousness (inclusive of everything), and the source of happiness or Bliss. Inquiry is questioning the things that seem to veil the obvious, basic truth in those descriptions of hte natural state. Questioning being localized or individualized, questioning as to the source of happiness being within, and questioning the ideas that make my existence seem non-eternal.
Ravi,
I'm not really sure what you are asking me to comment on regarding what I said about non-dual faith and surrender. Could you be more specific?
tp,
It's wonderful that you find such effectiveness and understanding through self-enquiry. My comments about surrender refer to the fact that while Ramana himself taught self-enquiry, he also acknowledged that for some the way of devotional surrender was equally effective and valuable. If in your case the path of surrender was not effective, and the path of self-enquiry was, does not mean that surrender is not a viable and true path for others.
I would cite the example of Muthra Sri Sarada in David's book "No Mind - I am the Self". Her Guru, Lakshmana Swami, realized the Self in Ramana's company through the practice of self-enquiry. He tried to teach this to Saradamma as well, but she was never attracted to it. Instead, she was drawn to devotional love and contemplation of her Guru, and the power of this devotion took her all the way through to realization, without ever engaging in self-enquiry. I asked David a question earlier in this thread about this process, and I'm sure he's still considering his reply.
I'm just offering my own conjecture as to how this process of non-dual surrender works in the case of realizers like Saradamma. Clearly, much of devotional practice is dualistic, and has the limitations of the dualistic approach. But even self-enquiry is dualistic, as Ramana himself freely admits. The point of self-enquiry is to turn dualism on its head, and bring about the self-destruction of the mind by turning attention from objects to self. I'm suggesting that the path of surrender can similarly be used to turn its own dualistic nature upon itself, by someone whose purposes are pure and clear, such as Saradamma. My sense of how this works has something to do with Saradamma's description of her own practice as "meditating on the Guru in one's own heart". In her case, she spontaneously began visualzing and meditating on her Guru in the heart, and this eventually resolved itself in complete heart-surrender to the point of self-realization. I'm not entirely clear about how that occurred in her case, in spite of reading David's book, but it appears to be a process of being directly attracted through love to That which is beyond the ego.
I infer that others might similarly be drawn to the devotional path in this manner, and that many in the past have realized in this way, despite the apparent dualism of much of the devotional traditions. Even while some, like Saradamma, expressed no specific desire to "realize" the non-dual, this came about anyway through sheer force of love for the Guru. So there's sometimes an element of "surprise", as expressed in Ravi's quote from Yogananda, that one's attraction to the Guru can lead one to an unexpected outcome that transcends the dualistic method itself, just as self-enquiry can lead to an outcome that transcends and burns up the very mind which engages in it.
"If we identify with bliss, we have ceased to enquire of the one to whom this bliss arises. If there is no such one who experiences bliss left, then there is no need to enquire, because there is no experience possible. Realization is not a state in which we experience great bliss, but the very reality that is beyond bliss or any other quality. It neither opposes nor relishes in bliss. It is simply beyond all experience, having penetrated the illusion of the experiencer. It is greater than bliss, therefore, and what it actually is, is beyond comprehension.
This is pretty basic to Ramana's teachings. I'm not suggesting bliss is a good or bad sign of anything. It is just something we experience, and thus something we tend to identify with or seek. It does not satisify self-enquiry, however, because it does not answer the question, "to whom is this bliss arising?". If our self-enquiry is satisfied by bliss, it never answers this question, and thus never actually completes itself."
Self-inquiry is sastisfied with Bliss, but is completely satisfied when an experiencer with the potential to suffer can no longer arise again. That is Realization. We don't need to identify with Bliss, because Bliss is the natural state, happiness is natural. It is only the false that covers it, and dulls it in a tamasic state. So the purpose of inquiry is to remove the cover, because the real identity is Bliss, not the word, but the natural state of peace. I do agree that is beyond all experience. Bliss is not an experience, it is in the absence of an experience, or an experiencer. It is an experience when it is remembered. Nonetheless, it is always good. Once it starts to get dulled that is when ignorance is becoming manifest, once suffering is experienced it is apparently completely veiled. We don't need to identify with or seek it, but remove the identity or seeking of anything else. The identity that seeks something else and views happiness, reality, and identity as external and objective is the ego. That is what is being questioned. I also agree it's beyond comprehension. The Bliss isn't comprehended, the ego is uncomprehended. But the Bliss can also be sought within, so that the seeking without or objectively ceases. So Bliss is not a neutral sign, it is a good sign. Bliss is also another name for devotion or love. Because love and devotion are also natural. That is why Maharshi in all those writings such as his hymns to arunachala is full of so much devotion, more then anyone else. A jnani is completley a bhakti. there is no difference between a jnani and a bhakti. There is no difference between inquiry and devotion. Inquiry is removing non-devotion and also simultaneously being possessed with devotion. Devotion is being possessed with devotion and removing non-devotion.
Who am I? preamble.
"Every living being longs always to be happy, untainted by sorrow; and everyone has the greatest love for himself, which is solely due to the fact that happiness is his real nature. Hence, in order to realize that inherent and untainted happiness, which indeed he daily experiences when the mind is subdued in deep sleep, it is essential that he should know himself. For obtaining such knowledge the inquiry 'Who am I?' in quest of the Self is the best means."
It is noteable that the first thing Maharshi talks about is what happiness is, and where it can be found, and the best method for attaining happiness being Self-inquiry.
I start to get peaceful and quiet because of the deep sense of peace and contentment where before there was neediness, dissatisfactoin and agitation if not just a general dullness. A form of concentration can be isntead of doing other things. But being at peace is not contrary to doing a job, or thinking about academic tasks, having conversations. I remember every jnani including Ramana saying you cannot tell a jnani by their actions, because it has nothing to do with their actions. If I obsessively concentrate on some object of concentration even a supposed "I", this interferes with the acctions going on naturally. But as peace and happiness are realized to be within, and the ego is questioned, that peace becomes all there is, all-pervasive, and then I would guess ultimately the only thing. But the quietness is not in fighting thought, or repressing emotion, or obsessive concentration, but in being at peace all the agitation naturally dissolves or goes away. The fears of external things goes away because they are no threat to my peace and happiness if it isn't falsely associated with even a living body. When it's associated with a living body, i fear death. I can't say I have completely transcended that "hoary" associatioin to quote Ravi, but I see a way. I associate happiness with a living body, with comfortable circumstances for the body. But is that where happiness is? Or is it the natural state of existence? Is all this other stuff, a world, a personality, good circumstances that are normally associated with happiness and hankered after where my happiness is? Or is happiness the natural state, formless bConsciousness, without objects and ever present. This doesn't seem to require obsessive concentration. The thinking is naturally subdued when there isn't this need for external things that can be threatened. i suppose the pure tamasic state is when I have all these misidentifications, but have the illusion of comfort that keeps me from examining or truly inquiring. So I'm in a state of dullness, thinking is subdued, but it is dull. Which is perhaps why Saradamma said it is better if a devotee has some rajas, agitation. take away teh good circumstances that are the crutch, and suddenly the seemingly mellow person is angry, or terrified. Perhaps this is easier to work with. I have found the Bliss to arise when I inquire into agitation. When I feel safe or O.K, and content but only because I have something that gives some feeling of security objectively, then I find it harder to deeply inquire and experiencce a natural state of Bliss. The association of comfort or happiness with a living body, comfortable circumstances has to be questioned, is that where happiness resides? Or is it always there. I can still take tylenol for a headache. Tormenting the body doesn't help by not taking Tylenol. But what if I can't take tylenol. Is happiness in a headache free body? Or is that a misidentifcation. What I'm finding is that the sense of individuality, or of a world seperate from the Self, myself, those things become less apparent the more my happiness is not dependent on circumstance. wherase obsessive concentration, redirecting attention, fighting thought and emotion (which I do engage in sometimes) are me wanting to be back in the safety of tamasic dullness.
From Talks with Sri Ramana maharshi.
D: How is god to be seen?
M: Within. If the mind is turned inward God manifests as inner consciousness.
D: God is in all---in all the objects we see around us. They say we should see god in all of them.
M: God is in all and in the seer. Where else can God be seen? he cannot be found outside He should be felt within. To see the objects, mind is necessary. To conceive God in them is a mental operation. But that is not real. The conscciousness within, purged of the mind, is felt as God.
D: There are, say, beautiful. it is beautiful to watch them. We can see God in them.
M: They are all mental conceptions.
D: There are more than colors. I mentioned colors only for example.
M: they are similarly mental.
D: There is the body also---the senses and the mind. The soul makes use of all these for knowing things.
M: The objects or feelings or thoughts are all mental conceptions. The mind rises after the rise of hte I-thought or the ego. Wherefrom does the ego rise? From the abstract consciousness of Pure intelligence.
D: Is it the soul?
M: Soul, mind or ego are mere words. There are no entities of the kind. Consciousness is the only Truth.
D: Then that consciousness cannot give any pleasure.
M: Its nature is Bliss. Bliss alone is. There is no enjoyer to enjoy pleasure.
Enjoyer and joy--both merge in it.
D: There are pleasure and pain in ordinary life. Should we not remain with only pleasure?
M: Pleeasure consists in turning and keeping the mind within; pain in sending it outward. There is only pleasure. Absence of pleasure is called pain. One's nature is pleasure---Bliss (ananda).
Noteable he said that the ego rises from abstract Consciousness or pure intelligence, which perhaps is in keeping with the statement in the other dialogue where he said we should keep our attention fixed on finding the source of the ego. Also noteable that he said that pleasure is our real nature, and also that Bliss is the Self. I found several occassions where he said Bliss is the Self. which suggests that the feeling of Bliss or peace or contentment is not to be dismissed.
I've decided perhaps I'll comment on Maharshi dialogues. Not as a Realized person who is fit to comment for other people but as part of my own sadhana. I'll quote the dialogues and then give my own understanding of what this means.
D: How is the mind to dive into the heart?
M: The mind now sees itself diversified as the universe. If the diversity is not manifest it remains in its own esence, that is the Heart. entering the Heart means remaining without distractions. The Heart is teh only Reailty. The mind is only a transient phase. To remain as one's Self is to enter the Heart.
Because a man identifies himself with the body he sees the world seperate from him. This wrong identification arises because he has lost his moorings and has swerved from his original state. He is now advised to give up all the false ideas, to track back his source and remain as teh Self. In that state, there are no differences. No questions will arise. All the sastras are meant only to make the man retrace his steps to the original source. He need not gain anything new. He must only give up his false ideas and useless accretions. Instead of doing it, he tries to catch hold of something strange and mysterious because he believes that his happiness lies elsewhere. That is the mistake. If one remains as the Self there is bliss. Probably he thinks that being quiet does not bring about the state of bliss. That is due to his ignorance. The only practice is to find out "to whom these questions arise"
D: How to control lust, anger, etc?
M: Whose are these passions? Find out.If you remain as the Self, there will be found to be nothing apart from the Self. There will be no need to control, etc.
D: If a person whom we love dies, grief results. Shall we avoid such grief by either loving all alike or by not loving at all?
M: If one dies, it results in grief for the one who lives. The way to get rid of grief is not to live. Kill the one who grieves. Who will remain then to suffer? the ego must die. That is the only way. The two alternatives amount to the same state. When all have become the One Self, who is there to be loved or hated?
Losing; it is noteable that in the first part he emphasizes that the state of the Self is bliss, and advises to track back his source, or to retrace his steps to the original source. In the dialogue ravi quoted Maharshi said to keep attention fixed on the search for the source of the 'I' So in all of these he is saying to find out the source it seems because that is the real Self. the ego emerges from the Self not the other way around. The Self is actually Bliss. In this dialogue he says that "He must only give up his false ideas and useless accretions. Instead of doing it he tries to catch hold of something strange and mysterious because he believes that his happiness lies elsewhere". Again, he is emphasizing that happiness is within. When he advises to inquire "whose are these passions?" he is referring to suffering tendencies (lust and anger), and directing back to the one who has them the ego. he did not say inquire into the sense of happienss, who has it?
Because happiness is the real identity. As he said, Bliss is the Self. He also said that entering the heart means remaining without distractions. That would be in accord with what he said in Ravi's quoted dialogue, "do not give scope to any thought". All the distractions should be first and foremost completely disregarded.
He says early on, the Heart is the only Reality, the mind is only a transient phase. So the Heart which he also specifically says is the same as the Self is everything, which also would mean the source referred to is inclusive of everything. which means the source is not in a specific location. Infact the ego has a particular location being associated with the body, atleast my ego. When I've experienced deeper Blissful experience, the ego/body association dissapears. what i mean is, the ego/individuality, who I feel I am seems to be in the body, or even behind the eyes, or in the body. The body is given this precedence in everything I see and I take it to be me, or that I am a person in a body. When the individuality dissolves, I become pervasive and there is only that pure Blissful Consciousness.
This also makes sense in light of the description of inquiry in Who am I? first ask "To whom did these thoughts arise?" This redirects back to the notion of individuality which seems to be associated with or in the body. The answer is "to me". That is the redirection. Now inquire Who am I? Now I'm guessing from all these dialogues with Maharshi, Who am I? is the same as finding the source. Because the source which is the Self is the real identity, not the notion of individuality, the person who seems to be in the body. so when there is a problem of some sort that is causing suffering. Redirecting back to the personality, and then what is the source of the personality. Since the attention is now on the source and not the personality, the persoanlity automatically dissolves, and the pure Consciousness remains, which is the Bliss. Which is why in the preamble he says Self-inquiry is the best means for happiness. Since "Bliss is the Self" as Maharshi said repeatedly. Bliss (or happiness or love) does not require further inquiry, just as the Self does not require further inquiry. Only the non-Bliss, non-happiness, non-Self is what is being removed as false. When I say the non-Self is removed. Clearly, in these teachings theere really is no non-Self, but the ego does not exist, and objects in the world only appear as non-Self when mentally objectified.
In the other dialogue I quoted, the devotee referred to the beauty of colors, and Maharshi said that colors as well as objects, and thoughts are all only mental conceptions. This accords with what I was kind of figuring out myself that thoughts in the context of these teachings do not only refer to verbal thoughts. So, "To whom did these thoughts arise?" Mean any experience, perception, object, verbal thought. However, happiness is the Self, Bliss is the Self so it can be left alone. The things inquiry is eliminating is what masks the Bliss or the Self and is false.
"I disagree with broken yogi. the Self is not empty of Bliss, the Self is Bliss. Broken Yogi already said, I believe correctly quoting Nisargadatta that love (which I think can also be called Bliss) even when love of individuals, love is real. Maybe the individuals aren't real. but the love itself is real."
I don't question the notion that love-bliss is real, only that whether it is real or not has nothing to do with self-enquiry. Self-enquiry is not concerned with our experience, but only with the one who experiences. The form of self-enquiry is not "Is this or that experience real, or unreal?", and if we find that it is real, we are satisfied with the enquiry. It only asks, regardless of whatever love-bliss may be experienced, "who is experiencing this love-bliss?", or "to whom is this love-bliss arising?"
If the object of our enquiry is merely to achieve some kind of state of mind in which we experience love-bliss, after which we abandon self-enquiry and are satisfied, then we are abandoning self-enquiry in favor of an experience. Even if love-bliss is real, it is constantly qualified by the ego, the experiencer, and becomes unreal and ephemeral to us. We do not comprehend the real nature of love-bliss so long as we merely experience it, because we don't know who we are in the midst of the experience, and it is only experienced as an object of our egoic attention.
This is the problem with the dualistic mind - even when it experiences love-bliss, it always turns it into an experience of the ego. Nisargadatta did not recommend that because love is real, that we should simply try to achieve a state of constant love-bliss. Like Ramana, he recommended that we find out who is the one who experiences love-bliss, and not cling to or identify with it. By letting go of all such identification and finding out who we really are, we find the true nature of love-bliss, rather than the egoic version that keeps us enslaved to experience.
I have nothing against love-bliss at all. I just think it's important to understand that when we experience such things, it doesn't mean self-enquiry is done. To the contrary, that is the time to intensify the enquiry into the one who experiences love-bliss. Otherwise we turn it into another form of egoic seeking, rather than transcendence of our egoity.
Whenever love-bliss is experienced, it is qualified by ego and objects. Self-enquiry is the method used to go beyond all such qualifications, by inspecting the root sense of being a self that experiences love-bliss. It undermines the entire craving for love-bliss, by undermining the very self that experiences such things.
As the Buddha once said:
No earthly pleasure
No heavenly bliss
Equals one infinitesimal part
Of the bliss of the cessation of craving
The love-bliss of the self is free of egoic cravings and the taint of mind, and is incomprehensible to us in our unrealized condition of egoic identification. What we experience as love-bliss is merely a taste of That. Self-enquiry is not satisfied with mere tasting, it wants to know who tastes these things. It turns out what we experience as love-bliss is merely a projection from the Self, and so long as we are engaged with that experience, we never actually know ourselves as we are. So it must be let go of, and we must continue to enquire into ourselves.
Bhagwan says, as recorded in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 272
" An external Guru is needed, because the desire intoxicated, infatuated mind , rushes out, without listening with Love, to the Truth, unceasingly proclaimed in The Heart by The Self, Being, Consciousness "
It was in this sate, full of inner attachments, that surrender to Bhagwan was made. Even though it was known that certain concepts and attachments were causing trouble, it was not known how they could possibly be detached or eradicated.
As mentioned previously, through investigation, it became clear, that there IS no individual " i" and so there is nothing like a ' doer '. Concepts are the root cause of creation and preservation and are finally destroyed , for That Peaceful concept free state to manifest. Proof of the pudding is, no more deep grief, lonliness, tenuous attachments, compelling responsibilities, phobias etc making possible firm abidance in The Self, which must be practiced by focussing deeper and deeper.
But constant, alert watching within, is imperitive to continue with firm abidance in The Self, The Source. This inward impartial ( non judgemental ) attention mysteriously functions somewhat like a laser that annhiliates what ever Its Light falls on. It is like sweeping with The Light, to anhiliate seeds or vasanas that sprout up from deep within The heart, ( Bhagwan called them atoms ! ) so that we may continue to see without seeing and hear without hearing, for we no longer see and hear through concepts.
The moment there is disturbance ( thoughts or emotions ), we know there is a concept in there that has caused the disturbance and it must be dealt with immediately. When after asking to ' which concept ? ( to which aspect of ' me ' ) ' like magic, when the concept is identified and focussed upon, the disturbance vanishes.
Self Abidance ( abiding within ) is possible in this state, with Love ( unlike before when love ( desires ) were for objects and people ) and The Lord was more like Master and Best friend ) as there was running backwards and forwards from the world to God ( Who was also perceived to be ' out there ! ).
Bhagwan says " The Gita says in Chapter 17 verse 7 ' of them , the best is the man of wisdom, constantly established in identification with Me and possessed of excellent devotion'
Each was instructed by Bhagwan, depending upon their inner maturity, which only a Gyani can accurately comprehend. this is merely sharing experience ( it is not the only experience ). Each genuine experience will be recognized by others who are struggling along the path and may turn out to be for them, a guiding hand.
salutations to all:
tp,
pardon me for asking, but your comments, while being nice, almost all the time give an impression as if you are done with ‘the problem’… let me ask the question straight: are you realized? if you are, then it’s a great privilege for everyone here in this forum to be talking to someone who is at the same state in which bhagavan supposedly was/is…
or, are you merely sharing your experiences as you are going through right now? (if it’s the latter, then that’s not the message one gets from your comments)… you seem to write with the authority what only the realized supposedly can… request you to not circumvent the question… this is a straight question requiring a straight answer :-)
"I don't question the notion that love-bliss is real, only that whether it is real or not has nothing to do with self-enquiry. Self-enquiry is not concerned with our experience, but only with the one who experiences. The form of self-enquiry is not "Is this or that experience real, or unreal?", and if we find that it is real, we are satisfied with the enquiry. It only asks, regardless of whatever love-bliss may be experienced, "who is experiencing this love-bliss?", or "to whom is this love-bliss arising?"'
Broken Yogi, if you are interested in the primary literature you can look at my previous posts where I quoted Mahashi specifically saying Bliss is the Self. (pretty much every dialogue I read, he stressed this) I should also add, if you read dialogues with maharshi, the process of inquiry is the entirety of Maharshi's questions and responses to devotees. It's not just "who is experiencing this?" and stopping there. As i was saying earlier and quoted Maharshi he emphasized finding the source which is the same as the Self.
On bliss; bliss does not come from the individual (it is the Self), the individual only limits bliss, or dulls it. Once an individual arises, seperates itself from the bliss, the bliss is less vibrant. Self-inquiry's aim is Self-Realization. It is not an interminable process where thoughts are continually questioned, it is 'aiming' at existing as the egoless Bliss of the Self without considering myself arrogantly seperate from it."dissolved like a salt doll in the ocean" the problem is the objectification of myself as an individual. A jnani does not have to continue doing self-inquiry because they are only That and nothing else. So Self-inquiry is not an endless process. Since the Self is all there is (and is as the Maharshi said Bliss), and the ego is unreal, Self-inquiry which is an investigation into Who am I? it's point is to Realize the Self, or the real (the Bliss), and see that the unreal is not real just like the rope-snake analogy you used earlier. So Self-inquiry is concerned with what is real. What is real (happiness) doesn't need my help and it is experienced as happiness. But I want to totally inquire to dissolve myself in that happiness. It doesn't require me thinking "I am happy", or "I am happy about". Once I'm happy about... there is the anxiety of losing, so already suffering is present as soon as there is the objectification. It is self-evident that existing as an individual, this conceited notion of an ego, is not pleasent, and it immediately stirs up all kinds of anxieties. each time this ego-entity seems to appear in the form of feeling like an individual, which for me right now is intermitten, and ot totally eradicated, there starts to be dullness and the Bliss is less unveiled. so I would specifically say, that the point of Self-inquiry is to Realize who I am, which is also what is real, which is also eternal. Maharshi says this repeatedly. If I'm happy, in and of itself, no problem. Rest in that happiness. If I'm happy about something, that should be questioned. Because that is an attacchment and the object of affection is transient. The preamble to Who am I? specifically said that the purpose of Self-inquiry is to realize untarnished happiness, such as experienced in deep sleep. It has no other purpose. And why would someone do it for any other reason? What other reason is there? What else does anyone want?
"Whenever love-bliss is experienced, it is qualified by ego and objects. Self-enquiry is the method used to go beyond all such qualifications, by inspecting the root sense of being a self that experiences love-bliss. It undermines the entire craving for love-bliss, by undermining the very self that experiences such things."
I don't agree that whenever love-bliss is experienced, it is qualified by ego and objects. The ego and objects are unreal, the love-bliss (the overpowering feeling) is real. remember, we are not talking about infatuation, we are talking about joy. Infatuation is need, and is associated with objects. Joy associated with objects or an ego is less joyful. Because there is the fear of losing what cannot last. I agree though that Self-inquiry's point is to get rid of all qualifications. On the last part I disagree. It undermines the entire craving for love-bliss by realizing that it is the nature of the Self, and so it is not something 'out there', or associated with objects. I already quoted Maharshi on this.
"No earthly pleasure
No heavenly bliss
Equals one infinitesimal part
Of the bliss of the cessation of craving
The love-bliss of the self is free of egoic cravings and the taint of mind, and is incomprehensible to us in our unrealized condition of egoic identification. What we experience as love-bliss is merely a taste of That. Self-enquiry is not satisfied with mere tasting, it wants to know who tastes these things. It turns out what we experience as love-bliss is merely a projection from the Self, and so long as we are engaged with that experience, we never actually know ourselves as we are. So it must be let go of, and we must continue to enquire into ourselves."
First off, i agree with the Buddha.
The craving is because it is believed that my happiness is tied up with an object, person, experience. That is what is to be inquired into. As I do that, the Bliss grows inside, and is less limited. As I already quoted bliss is not a projection the Self, Maharshi said, "Bliss is the Self", not just once in some hidden passage, but repeatedly and in almost every dialogue I read. craving is self-evidently not Bliss. If the Self is Bliss, then who we are is Bliss. So knowing ourselves as we are, is knowing ourselves as Bliss. If the Bliss should be let go of, then the Self must be let go of, and we must continue inquiring into ourselves which is the Self and Bliss. It seems easier to be satisfied with the Bliss once we are experiencing it as ourselves. and see the things that arise and disturb it as unreal.
Everything tp says resonates as extremely true. That is the thing, the deeper I get into feeling the inward Bliss, not the one associated with people and infatuation, certain things resonate more with taht experiential understanding then others. What tp says resonates very deeply with my own experiences. Did I post my teacher's response, I can't remember. It was really topical to my discussions with Broken Yogi.
If I already posted this, it doesn't need to be resposted.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
As you know, the Self is described as Sat-Cit-Ananda
(Being-Consciousness-Bliss). These are not three parts or aspects but three
terms combined that refer to one, indivisible Reality. In an Upanishad, the
same is described as Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam, which means the True, the
Knowledge, the Infinite. In other texts, it is referred to as
Satyam-Sivam-Sundaram, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Whatever there
is that is true, good, and beautiful, in whatever manner, wherever and
whenever, it is the Self that thus shines forth. It is that which is dear in
all and which is dear for all. It is that which is loved. When realized
conclusively, love exists as the indivisibility of Being and has no
opposite.
It is wise to continue to persevere in the questioning as to the
source of happiness until peaceful detachment, unmoved by craving and
aversions, expectations and fears, is constant and steady. The true Self is
always unattached, ever free, and bliss itself. Your vairagya (detachment,
dispassion) and jnana (knowledge) manifesting as deep inquiry are simply the
clarification regarding your actual identity. Free of misidentification, the
Self is the perfect fullness. Inquire, inquire, inquire. Like a light, there
will be no darkness for you.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
In this dialogue, I thought it was noteable that Maharshi specifically said the purpose of Self-inquiry is to discern what is real.
Mrs. Jennings, an American lady asked a few questions:
D: Is not affirmation of God more effective than the question, "Who am I?" Affirmation is positive, wherase the other is negation. Moreover, it indicates seperateness.
M: So long as you seek to know how to Realize, this advise is given to find your Self. Your seeking the method denotes your seperateness.
D: Is it not better to say 'I am the Supreme Being' than ask "Who am I?"
M: Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one.
D: Is not meditation better than investigation?
M: Meditation implies mental imagery, wheras investigation is for the Reality. The former is objective, wheras the latter is subjective.
D: There must be a scientific approach to this subject.
M: To eschew unreality and seek the Reality is scientific.
D: I mean there mmust be a gradual elimination, first of the mind, then of the intellect, then of the ego.
M: The Self alone is Real. All others are unreal. Teh mind and intellet do not remain apart from you.
The Bible says, "Be still and know that I a God" Stillness is the sole requisite for the Realization of the Self as God.
D: Will the West ever understand this teaching?
M: There is no question of time and space. Understanding depends on ripeness of mind. What does it atter if one lives in the East or in the West?
Sri Bhagavan referred the lady to a few stanzas in Truth Revealed (40 verses) and Thayumanavar. She retired.
So Self-inquiry is concerned with what is real. Putting it together, the Self is real, and the Self is Bliss. It also sounds like he is saying Self-inquiry or the question Who am I? is given because we consider ourselves to be seperate from the Self. So it's to dissolve the sense of seperateness and merge in Bliss, is how I interpret it.
"or, are you merely sharing your experiences as you are going through right now? (if it’s the latter, then that’s not the message one gets from your comments)… you seem to write with the authority what only the realized supposedly can… request you to not circumvent the question… this is a straight question requiring a straight answer :-)」- "
Ha, if he was do you think you would get a straight answer? I remember hearing or reading that Muruganar said there was no jivanmukti, there is only mukti. I've noticed the Realized who are Mukti alone, tend to say stuff along those lines, then claim as an individual that they are a jnani. It seems like the best way to ascertain whether someone is a jnani is to consult with the jnani within. If someone says something with authority that doesn't resonate with you, feel free to deal with the statments. I find it tiring to have to qualify everything I say that I'm an ajnani when my whole purpose is to realize the state of Self-Realization, and I don't want to be stuck in being a mere ego. I find it helpful to speak from the authority of what I understand and own it. Others are free to deconstruct it. I try to give others the same margin.
For Broken Yogi
Saradammas devotion and surrender was in the right direction. She focussed within and reaped the fruit of her sadhana.
Most of us immature sadhaks , at least initially, practice devotion and surrender to a God out there. Maybe that is why the ego remains strong and untouched. It needs a Sat Guru to appear and redirect us to turn ( focus ) within.
Finally we realize The Guru is The Self Within.
Hi Broken Yogi,
Thanks for the query. One will try to keep it simple. :-)
Simply put, you did not use a simple home-spun simile of your own, or one taken from a folk story or from grandma’s tales. You chose as an analogy a technical term from Indian philosophy. One which has its usage and applicability precisely defined over a 1000 years of philosophical discussions. We know exactly what “rajju-sarpa” can and cannot denote.
We know that “rajju-sarpa” is an analogy that can describe an aspect of the nature of the world, that’s all.
In poor light, when we see a rope lying on the floor it looks like a snake. But if someone tells us that, “Hey, it is only a rope”, the illusion is dispelled and we see the rope for what it is. And so, just like the snake was an illusion superimposed on the rope, the world is an illusion superimposed on its substratum, the Self.
As we all know, the great flaw in the analogy is, that when we are told that the world is an illusion superimposed on the Self, we find that unlike the snake which immediately disappeared, the world does not. The illusion of the world remains even after we know that it is an illusion. And therefore, other analogies have to be brought in to explain this and other aspects of the nature of the world.
And certainly, the snake analogy is not extendable to cover the deep philosophical and psychological basis of Self-enquiry, even if we leave aside the religious and spiritual aspects. And from reading some of your last few comments, it seems that you have gone and built the whole edifice of Sri Bhagavan’s vichara on it !
Here are some quotes from your last few comments, randomly picked up, just to give a flavour of what one believes is “stretching” the analogy just too far.
“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.”
[cont at part 2]
[part 2]
“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.”
“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.”
Hey, hold on, old friend, Sir, this snake of the parable simply and actually just disappears on one being simply told that it is actually a rope. The world, unfortunately, does not. The world simply does not similarly disappear to reveal its Substratum, except for the proverbial 1 or 2 of us out of a million, even after we know that it is an illusion; in fact, for most of us, not even after we do tapas, and sadhana, and puja, and self-surrender, or even Self-enquiry (as understood by us) for that matter.
Obviously, we need a deeper analysis than what “rajju-sarpa”, by itself can provide. As mentioned, Sri Bhagavan Himself used the “rajju-sarpa” analogy only very sparingly and usually qualified it with “mrigatrishna”, or the “water-in the-mirage” analogy. And He certainly did not use this analogy as a basis of His vichara. In fact, as we all well know, He generally stuck to “the world for the waking person is exactly like the dream to the dreamer” analogy. Now, could anything be really more simple than that ? :-)
regards
tp/Friends,
"Self Abidance ( abiding within ) is possible in this state, with Love ( unlike before when love ( desires ) were for objects and people ) and The Lord was more like Master and Best friend ) as there was running backwards and forwards from the world to God ( Who was also perceived to be ' out there ! )"
tp,I could not get this one-"out there"!Out where?is he not felt here ?
"so that we may continue to see without seeing and hear without hearing, for we no longer see and hear through concepts"
This sort of seeing and Listening seems to be the Key to Self Enquiry.
The other key thing is to take the 'I' without viewing it as Self or Ego as S has pointed(I think by BY as well,when it came to Practice).
one frees oneself from thoughts by asking 'To whom are these thoughts'-to'me'.This leads to a state of Ease with oneself-instead of resting here,one needs to remain turned inwards- and stay tuned for the Flash of 'I' to emerge from deep within - a non verbal 'who am I?'-This points to the SOURCE and is gone!one awaits the next 'Who am I'in a state of openness-and with each such hearing or seeing,one tends to go deeper-The Dog is tracing the Scent of the Master.
The 'Who Am I' is not to be originated by us as an act of volition,it needs to emerge from our depths as we remain in a state of listening-it is responded to by seeking its source.
This is how it is with me as of now.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
For S.
No. disturbances ( branches and leaves ) do occur occasionally, which is why it was mentioned that a constant alert watchfulness is required to immediately detect the underlying concept that caused the disturbance. when this is done, and the concept ( trunk ) is exposed, there is an immediate clearing of the disturbance, which would have otherwise lasted for days.
More and more periods of undisturbed silences than ever before. Assiduous practice of continued abidance in The Self is the key.
I appreciate the Ramana quotes you have posted. I simply do not see how they contradict anything I've said. When Ramana talks about the Self being bliss, he is not talking about an experience of bliss. When he talks about self-enquiry being a quest to find the real, he is not talking about an experience of the real. The method of self-enquiry is simply not the question, "Is this bliss I now feel real?". Again, it is not concerned with the reality of what is being experienced, but the reality of the one who experiences. It is not directed towards the objects of our experience, but towards the subject who experiences them.
We assume that when we experience love-bliss, that the one who experiences love-bliss exists. That remains the central issue in self-enquiry, not the reality of love-bliss. The ego is not to be sidestepped in self-enquiry merely by asserting the reality of the love-bliss we might feel at times. Whatever we feel, the one who feels it must be enquired into. This is not an endless process at all, but it is a persistent one. If we cease to enquire simply because we feel love-bliss, it will indeed be endless, because we will not have discovered our own real nature, we will merely feel love-bliss, and try to feel that all the time. However, all experiences are temporary and fade. Our experience of love-bliss will never be permanent, until we know ourselves directly.
The traditional advaitic definition of what is real is "That which is permanent, That which never changes, which is never born, and never disappears". Ramana agreed with this, as did Nisargadatta. The experience of love-bliss, on the other hand, always appears and disappears, as I'm sure you have noticed. In this fundamental sense, then, the experience of love-bliss is unreal. Love-bliss itself may be real, but our experience of it is unreal, because it is not permanent. The reason it is never permanent is because of the ego that experiences it. This is why Ramana recommends self-enquiry, rather than some method of trying to dwell in a state of love-bliss, and make that last forever.
Until we are realized, we are living under the delusion of egoity. Which means that until we are realized, everything we experience, even love-bliss itself, must be turned back upon the experiencer through self-enquiry. That is why all the non-dual traditions have always warned not to become trapped in absorbed states of bliss, but to go beyond even these. The method of self-enquiry keeps us from falling into that blissful trap, however pleasurable it might be. Otherwise, the process is prolonged indefinitely. For self-enquiry to end, it must persist even through the enticing experiences of bliss that may arise in the process. As long as there is someone experiecing love-bliss, self-enquiry is needed. If that one disapears, and only love-bliss remains as a permament condition of one's very Self, self-enquiry has completed its purpose and is no longer needed.
I don't think this point needs to be hammered home any further. If it doesn't resonate with you, there's nothing more to be said about it.
David, this post may be a duplicate. If so, just print one of them.
I appreciate the Ramana quotes you have posted. I simply do not see how they contradict anything I've said. When Ramana talks about the Self being bliss, he is not talking about an experience of bliss. When he talks about self-enquiry being a quest to find the real, he is not talking about an experience of the real. The method of self-enquiry is simply not the question, "Is this bliss I now feel real?". Again, it is not concerned with the reality of what is being experienced, but the reality of the one who experiences. It is not directed towards the objects of our experience, but towards the subject who experiences them.
We assume that when we experience love-bliss, that the one who experiences love-bliss exists. That remains the central issue in self-enquiry, not the reality of love-bliss. The ego is not to be sidestepped in self-enquiry merely by asserting the reality of the love-bliss we might feel at times. Whatever we feel, the one who feels it must be enquired into. This is not an endless process at all, but it is a persistent one. If we cease to enquire simply because we feel love-bliss, it will indeed be endless, because we will not have discovered our own real nature, we will merely feel love-bliss, and try to feel that all the time. However, all experiences are temporary and fade. Our experience of love-bliss will never be permanent, until we know ourselves directly.
The traditional advaitic definition of what is real is "That which is permanent, That which never changes, which is never born, and never disappears". Ramana agreed with this, as did Nisargadatta. The experience of love-bliss, on the other hand, always appears and disappears, as I'm sure you have noticed. In this fundamental sense, then, the experience of love-bliss is unreal. Love-bliss itself may be real, but our experience of it is unreal, because it is not permanent. The reason it is never permanent is because of the ego that experiences it. This is why Ramana recommends self-enquiry, rather than some method of trying to dwell in a state of love-bliss, and make that last forever.
Until we are realized, we are living under the delusion of egoity. Which means that until we are realized, everything we experience, even love-bliss itself, must be turned back upon the experiencer through self-enquiry. That is why all the non-dual traditions have always warned not to become trapped in absorbed states of bliss, but to go beyond even these. The method of self-enquiry keeps us from falling into that blissful trap, however pleasurable it might be. Otherwise, the process is prolonged indefinitely. For self-enquiry to end, it must persist even through the enticing experiences of bliss that may arise in the process. As long as there is someone experiecing love-bliss, self-enquiry is needed. If that one disapears, and only love-bliss remains as a permament condition of one's very Self, self-enquiry has completed its purpose and is no longer needed.
I don't think this point needs to be hammered home any further. If it doesn't resonate with you, there's nothing more to be said about it.
My moms cat is bothering me wanting attention. I thought these Shankara verses, a translation by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and my teacher were worth sharing. The book is Svatmanirupanam: The True definition of one's own self.
1 I bow to the revered guru's pair of feet, Which destroy the unbearable pair of opposites, The dust of which is the ash allaying The (malefic) planet of erroneous perception.
2 To the excellent guru, the compassionate (one), I bow, Who destroys all doubts, Whose feet instruct one in the nondual experience, The meaning of the word "That".
3. Scorched by the forest fire of samsara, Possessed of all practices, The disiple is enlightened by the Guru In perfect, accurate words, as to the definition of one's own (the true) Self.
4. "Oneself exists"---in this fact For whom does the doubt exist? Even in this, if there be doubt, He who has the doubt, indeed you are.
5. When one knows that "I am not,"
Truly, Brahman, indeed, it is that knows he is not;
Knowing that "I am," Brahman, indeed, it is that knows thus.
6. Brahman is only yourself. hence, "I am not Brahman"---this is only delusion. difference comes into being from delusion; All sorrows are rooted in that.
7. The pentad of troubles is not experienced by one who has discrimination of the pentad of sheaths. Hence it is that persons of skillful intellect Ever investigate the pentad of sheaths.
8. The pentad of sheaths of food, prana, Mind, [intellectual] knowledge and bliss, Existing one inside another, from discrimination, The shining Self experiences.
9. The body, known to be of the nature of food, Is a sheath, not the Self, for it is inert like a pot, Having an origin earlier, ceasing to exist later, And being an object of perception.
10. This sheath of the nature of prana, A kind of air inside the body and delimited by the body--- How can there be Self-hood for this, Connected, as it is, with the affliction of hunger and thirst?
11. Creating the sense of "I" in regard to the body, Creating the sense of "mind" in regard to the house and others, subject to likes and dislikes, This, the sheath of the nature of the mind, is not the Self.
12. In deep sleep, disappearing into itself, On awakening, pervading the entire body, Known by the name of [the sheath of] intellect, This reflection of Consciousness too, is not the Self.
13. That which believes, "I am happy," In the snatches of happiness while in the deep sleep state, Named as the sheath of bliss- How can that ego be the Self?
14. What shines as being the original being, That indeed is the Bliss, the Self of all, Because it is existent before and after, Being changeless and not affected [by anything else].
15. Beyond the annamaya (of the nature of food) [sheath] and others, if nothing else is experienced, There is no detraction from this---that There exists an experiencer of the annamaya and others.
16. Though it, of itself, experiences, It cannot be experienced; There can never even once be a doubt of nonexistence Of the Reality, which is of the nature of Knowledge.
17. The Self experiences the universe, But this (Self) is not experienced by the universe. the sun fully illumines all else, But is itself not illumined indeed.
18. That, this, like that, like this, this much, that much, and thus--- That which will not be so Should be understood to be Brahman; Otherwise, it would be an object and not directly experienced.
19. even though objects everywhere believed as "this," "this" can be disturbed (or contradicted), Reality, because of Existence, is undisturbable (uncontradictable) And is not beyond Awareness (direct experience).
20. Brahman, though not knowable (intellectually) Is not beyond Awareness, being self luminous, Brahman is Reality, Knowledge, Infinity thus is expressed its definition.
21. If there is conditioning by the power of the sheaths, the states of being jiva and Isvara come into being from the Self. If not, in their absence (because of their nonexistence) The Self shines in its real naturee, without distinctions.
22. If all that is seen is subject to contradiction, Nothing at all exists---if thus is the worldly decision, That which is determined to be none (of these) at all. Is, indeed, brahman, thus is the determination by the Veda-s.
23. Though this is so, to those devoid of reflection On aphorisms such as "That you are," This Self seems as if beyond awareness (invisible) though shining inwardly.
That is it for now...
I was just thinking about how not being the doer of actions, I thought that I could cease doing actions and taht would be enough to realize it. Maybe some of you are smarter. I thought of where I went wrong is perhaps that I was thinking the ego or me the individual could realize I'm not doing the actions. But it's in the absence of individuality there is no illusion of being the doer of actions. When I was around my teacher, when I showed up, not always when I was there, I felt egoity drop away in pure Being, and it felt like things were happening in a dream, and I had no control over them, and that I was ushered into his presence. Even though the dream events compensated by providing a logical explanation of how I got there.
Ceasing actions, or being lazy still maintains the illusion of being an individual that is the doer of actions, or in that case not doing the actions. I still make that mistake, thinking that inquiry is some kind of sit down and focus kind of activity. But attention, and focus, and sitting, all are still maintaining an ego, or a sense of doership. It's amazing to me that a jnani who is not the doer, and has no illusion of individuality would talk about spirituality or teach. You would think they would engage in normal activities, and i suppose they do. But teaching spiritually is not a normal activity. But perhaps really they don't teach. They state the obvious, and are doing normal things. Others who have a sense of doership and individuality feel the potency of the grace even around a seemingly normal acting individual who wears normal clothes and doesn't act in anyway odd, maybe even excessively down to earth and start to feel devotion and worship because even though the jnani acts normally, doesn't teach, doesn't put on any pretenses, they start to feel great peace in their presence, and ask questions. The jnani, the Self prompts the jnani to answer obvious questions from the standpoint of the obvious truth of the Self. Maybe that is what happens. Maybe that is how ashrams get built. It's the unrealized who recognize the greatness in someone who doesn't act odd in anyway, but who puts them in a great state of peace and nondoership where they feel how everything is ordained by providence.
Broken Yogi,
"We do not comprehend the real nature of love-bliss so long as we merely experience it, because we don't know who we are in the midst of the experience, and it is only experienced as an object of our egoic attention.
This is the problem with the dualistic mind - even when it experiences love-bliss, it always turns it into an experience of the ego. Nisargadatta did not recommend that because love is real, that we should simply try to achieve a state of constant love-bliss."
You have answered my query!In the path of Devotion and surrender,it is what Sri Ramakrishna so beautifully puts it in the parable of the Dyer and the Tub-How the Dyer had a tub and whatever color that one wants,he dips it into the tub and Lo!One gets that color.The Bhakta is like the one who is not satisfied with any color;he just wants his cloth to be dipped in the tub!
The Key thing is acceptance-The Bhakta accepts whatever is dished out to him as coming from God;whereas the Mumukshu(the one who is on the path of Knowledge)Rejects everything as Transitory and is after the one thing beyond rejection.Eventually it amounts to the same thing.
As Arvind had expressed,it is useful to fire on all the engines.This ofcourse depends on one's temperament.
Namaskar.
I guess Broken Yogi, I don't really know what inquiry is because I'm still in the learning phase. However, it seems far subtler then anything that can be understood with the intellect. when I inquire I'm trying to get at that subtlety, not a process I repetitively do over and over again. But there are some core things I take into account, in the Self, or the Realized state there is no tangible notion of being an individual, an ego, a person, a personality. Not only that, they are saying that that personality never existed but is a misperception. There are no egos. It is also called Being-Consciousness-Bliss, truth-Knowledge-Infinity, the true-the good and the beautiful. Reading Maharshi, I assume everything he says is the nature of inqury, so I don't assume that the one paragraph in Who am I? constitutes inquiry. even his translations of shankara's crest jewel of discrimination are inquiry. All of it has to be taken into account to get at this thing that is extremely subtle. From my experiences attempting inquiry, and from all I've read and heard, I assume that there is no rote method if repeated that will result in Realization because it transcends everything phenomenal, everything that could be experienced, every mental state, every shift of attention. But it is described as Being-Consciousness-Bliss, so in the absence of the worldly experience, there is Bliss, there is pure Consciousness, and Being that is not born and does not die. But as I quoted, Maharshi also emphasized repeatedly that it is delusional to consider happiness something to be external or found in any worldly object, happiness is within. Bliss is the Self. Bliss and the Self are also eternal. So I take inquiry to be the means to Realize the Self, and the reason for wanting to Realize the Self is because it is realized that happiness is the natural state of the Self. Peace is also of the nature of the Self because it is eternal, and if I'm attached to something transient, there is the fear of losing it. so for me Self-inquiry is the means to not get caught up in the causes of suffering. It has no other purpose. And of course this isn't trivial. Because there are so many vasanas, so many habits, and the habit is to get attached and to suffer, infact there is a whole life built up, a whole notion of individuality, not easily contradicted by becoming spiritual. The whole foundation has to be deconstructed. But all thsoe things become easier to transcend especially in contact with someone who is Realized, don't ask me how it works? The peace that is experiencced in the presence of 'someone' realized, the 'experience' of nondoership that is sometimes glimpsed, it is so beyond anything that I could describe intellectual, and it also so much simpler. David Godman describes how in the presence of Lakshmana Swami he went so much deeper then by his own efforts. But why? because normally, I'm thinking taht Self-Realization is somewhere I can get, or can beccome. And before sage experiences, I had a high esteem on my ability to succeed at inquiry without help. I also had many misconceptions about it.
even his translations of shankara's crest jewel of discrimination are inquiry. All of it has to be taken into account to get at this thing that is extremely subtle. From my experiences attempting inquiry, and from all I've read and heard, I assume that there is no rote method if repeated that will result in Realization because it transcends everything phenomenal, everything that could be experienced, every mental state, every shift of attention. But it is described as Being-Consciousness-Bliss, so in the absence of the worldly experience, there is Bliss, there is pure Consciousness, and Being that is not born and does not die. But as I quoted, Maharshi also emphasized repeatedly that it is delusional to consider happiness something to be external or found in any worldly object, happiness is within. Bliss is the Self. Bliss and the Self are also eternal. So I take inquiry to be the means to Realize the Self, and the reason for wanting to Realize the Self is because it is realized that happiness is the natural state of the Self. Peace is also of the nature of the Self because it is eternal, and if I'm attached to something transient, there is the fear of losing it. so for me Self-inquiry is the means to not get caught up in the causes of suffering. It has no other purpose. And of course this isn't trivial. Because there are so many vasanas, so many habits, and the habit is to get attached and to suffer, infact there is a whole life built up, a whole notion of individuality, not easily contradicted by becoming spiritual. The whole foundation has to be deconstructed. But all thsoe things become easier to transcend especially in contact with someone who is Realized, don't ask me how it works? The peace that is experiencced in the presence of 'someone' realized, the 'experience' of nondoership that is sometimes glimpsed, it is so beyond anything that I could describe intellectual, and it also so much simpler. David Godman describes how in the presence of Lakshmana Swami he went so much deeper then by his own efforts. But why? because normally, I'm thinking taht Self-Realization is somewhere I can get, or can beccome. And before sage experiences, I had a high esteem on my ability to succeed at inquiry without help. I also had many misconceptions about it. And there are certain things, like for instance if I shift attention to the 'I', who shifted attention to the 'I'? I did. Well Who am I? Because the I that was having attention shifted to it, could not have been the ego I, because the ego I is looking at the I. But what is the I? Who was the one who shifted attention? I can't shift attention to myself, because any thing I can shift attention to is not myself. So the 'I' I'm shifting attention is not the 'I'. The one shifting attention is the 'I'. But the Self lacks the sense of individuality, or the illusion of individuality ceases. Even though i don't know myself, because i can't find an 'I', there is no me that can be objectified. Nonetheless I do objectify myself as a personality. But that feeling of being a person, that cannot be me, because I'm observing the person. So inquiry for me is nto a rote method, but a figuring out. a figuring out what is true and what is real, when in Advaita Vedanta the definition of what is real is what is permanent. so what is permenant? Everything I see around me, even this blog is not permanet. Thoughts are not permanent, shifts of attention are not permanent, attempts at inquiry are not permanent. If there isn't any illusion of being an individual, of a world seperate from the Self, of attachments to the transient, then there is no need for spiritual practice beacuse the only thing real to me is the Self. Literally there is only this one Self. I inquire because there is a feeling of being an individual, there is a feeling of attachment to what is not eternal, there is a longing for what is external and objective. And all these cause suffering, or at the very least dull the enjoyment.
Arvind,
Thank you for your exposition on the tradition behind the rope/snake analogy. It would appear to me that Ramana uses the analogy in a different fashion from the tradition, and that this describes to some extent Ramana's own departure from the traditional approach, particularly in respect to his description of the method of self-enquiry, which according to David has no clear precedent in the adviatic tradition.
I find it interesting that, according to you at least, the traditional analogy turns upon a mere verbal instruction that the snake is actually a rope, whereas in Ramana's telling of the story, a villager brings a light to the dark road so that the snake can be illuminated, and once seen in the light, the snake disappears and the rope is seen clearly. This suggests to me the distinction between Ramana's teaching method and the traditional scriptural method of advaitic training. Ramana strongly recommends direct personal experience and direct personal investigation of the ego, and tends to dismiss mere scriptural study as lacking the power to actually illuminate and thus dispel the ego. There are a great many references in Guru Vachaka Kovai to his dismissal of the methodology of scriptural study, the use of Mahavakyas, and the mental assertion that the ego is an illusion. Instead, he recommends the method of direct self-enquiry, of direct inspection of the ego, and says that only this can actually dispel the ego, that mere intellectual study and second-hand learning cannot dispel the ego, no matter how much faith we might have in the scriptures.
So it would appear that you are right that the way I have used the rope/snake analogy differs from the traditional usage. However, I don't think I have used the analogy differently from Ramana. Nor do I think my usage of the analogy distorts Ramana's basic teaching on self-enquiry. It is of course not the only analogy one might use, but I think it illustrates Ramana's basic approach quite well.
If I were to offer my own criticism of the rope/snake analogy, it would be that it too easily lends itself to looking upon the ego as an object, rather than as a subject. Ramana taught that in the beginning of the practice of self-enquiry, one does indeed tend to inspect the feeling of "I" as an object, such as in the repetition of the name "I, I, I" by the devotee, and feeling this sense of "I" as if it were objective to him. However, as self-enquiry matures, it becomes a direct examination of the "I" as the subject, not as a feeling or sensation one views in the manner of an object. In that case, the rope/snake analogy begins to lose its power, unless one takes it metaphorically and applies it to the subject himself. Which is perhaps why Ramana did not use the analogy in describing the advanced practice of self-enquiry. In fact, he seemed to abandon all analogies at that point, since virtually all analogies preserve some kind of subject/object orientation, and that is simply not consistent with mature self-enquiry.
cont
cont.
However, as I said before, for the purposes of this conversation, I think the analogy is quite valid as a way to understand Ramana's method of self-enquiry. It is even useful, I think, in understanding the advanced practice of self-enquiry if one understands it metaphorically as applicable to the subject, rather than to the inspection of an object. If you think the analogy distorts Ramana's teaching on self-enquiry, I'd like to know how that is, but for the moment at least I can't see how it does. It is certainly a bit different from the traditional usage, but Ramana's teaching on self-enquiry is also quite different than the traditional approach, so it stands to reason that his use of the rope/snake analogy would also be different.
On reflection, another way in which the analogy could be seen as an immature one is that Ramana's teaching about the nature of ignorance is that it is essentially non-existent, that there is no such thing as ignorance, whereas the rope/snake analogy could be sloppily and literally interpreted as suggesting that there really is some kind of ignorance, or absence of light, which requires illumination. Again, I think that is a rather advanced understanding which may not be useful to beginners simply struggling to practice the basic of self-enquiry, but that is a personal matter beyond my powers to control. Those who are more advanced will not be disturbed by such analogies, and those who are not will certainly be helped, I presume. For me, at my immature level of understanding, the analogy has been quite useful. It may not be for others of a more advanced understanding, or who simply respond differently to this particular image.
Btw, I was looking for Ramana's own usage of the analogy in David's "Be As You Are", but the index, which says it is to be found on page 188, appears to be in error. I'm curious if you or anyone else knows where a direct quote from Ramana using this analogy is to be found. I know I've read it several times, but I can't recall where.
Hi Broken Yogi,
There seems to be nothing meaningful in “Day by Day” or “Letters”. “Talks” lists the following pages and I have taken the liberty of adding the Talk No. as the editions may be different.
Page 23; Talk No. 24, written hereafter as "23/24", 42/33, 97/99, 277/315, 286-7/323, 298-9/332, 371-2/399, 540/589
Perhaps 277/315 and 371-2/399 are the more relevant ones.
regards
Arvind,
I did a little more research on the rope/snake analogy, and it would appear that Shankara's original use of the story does include the notion of getting a lamp to actually see the rope, so even in the traditional version, it's not merely a matter of being told there is no snake, but of actually seeing the rope. That's also my memory of atma bodha deepika as well - the light of consciousness dispels the illusion of the ego.
The other distinction worth mentioning is that the three analogies - rope/snake, water/mirage, and dreaming/waking - are generally used to describe dualism of the world process, whereas Ramana is more concerned with the ego itself and he leaves the issue of the reality of the world for later. Self-enquiry, according to him, is not oriented towards comprehending the nature of the world, but only the ego presumption. When people asked what the reality of the world was, Ramana usually replied, "Find out the reality of yourself first, and then you can see what the reality of the world is". So he was not terribly concerned that we enquire about what is real in the world or in our experience, but only with what is real about ourselves.
His use of the rope/snake analogy was, I think, mostly in relation to the ego, not the world or dualism itself, as traditionally defined. It would be good to check the actual quotes, if I can find them. Perhaps I am using the analogy in my own creative way, I will have to see. In any case, the purpose of analogies is merely to put across a particular point, and I think the point the rope/snake analogy makes about the ego is quite apt. It is especially useful because we see the ego as an entity, just as we see a snake as an entity, whereas a rope has no sense of "entity" to it. So it points out how the entire notion of ourselves as egos being an entity is a false one, created by the imagination. The other two analogies are less personal and more abstract, not dealing with the issue of an entity at all, but with states of mind.
The general point being that our presumption of ourselves as entities is not real, but imaginary. One can take this analogy further, and say that on top of being an imaginary entity, this "entity" also dreams itself an entire world that it presumes exists as well, thus further complicating the illusion. Ramana's method of self-enquiry, however, does not much emphasize the dream-like nature of the world, but the illusion of the entity who dreams it. The idea being that if the dreamer is undone through direct investigation, the dream collapses as well, making it unnecessary to investigate the nature of the world-illusion.
Scott,
I too am just trying to understand the basics of self-enquiry and so I share your frustrations with the actual practice of it. I think Ramana's general recommendation about the higher philosophical issues about the nature of the Self is to simply put them aside for now and admit that we simply don't know these things with any certainty until we have actually realized, and that to realize we must simply do the practice of self-enquiry as he instructed. It can be very distracting to try to figure everything out ahead of time, and the truth is we simply don't know about these things, and have to find out directly.
Ramana certainly talked at times about such high philosophical matters, but I don't think it was with the intention that we form a conceptual view on that basis as if we could ever really understand what realization is about beforehand. It was more to simply give some basic context that allows us to relax those concerns and concentrate in the actual practice of self-enquiry, which is taught to some degree by books and words, but mostly by simply being attentive to the "I", as Ramana said himself. We will learn more from being attentive to our "I" than by any other method. That is where grace comes alive and instructs us directly, from beyond the mind. And that instruction is not in the form of any words, but something much more direct and basic. It occurs in silence, and we must listen to that silence to gain any genuine comprehension of the process.
Broken Yogi and Arvind (1)
When Be As You Are was published in London in the 1980s, the five main subdivisions were separated in the book by a blank white page. Though no numbers appeared on these pages, they were included in the pagination. That is to say, the page after the blank white page would have a number that was two ahead of the last page that had some text on it.
When an Indian edition was first brought out in the early 1990s, these five blank pages were removed, presumably to save money, but whoever did this forgot that the references in the index referred to the original page numbers of the western edition. Right now, if you are reading an edition published in India, references to the first section of the book will be correct; references to the second part will be one page out; references to the third section two pages out, and so on. I apologise to any readers who find the index largely useless. I have tried to get the publisher to correct the mistake, but no action is ever taken.
Apropos the snake-and-rope analogy, here is a passage in which Bhagavan alludes to the multiple analogies that Arvind referred to. I will add more quotes on this topic in subsequent numbered posts.
D.: In pure Advaita can evolution, creation or manifestation have any place? What about the theory of vivarta according to which Brahman appears as the world without forgetting its essential nature, like the rope appearing as snake?
M.: There are different methods of approach to prove the unreality of the universe. The example of the dream is one among them. Jagrat, svapna and sushupti are all treated elaborately in the scripture in order that the Reality underlying them might be revealed. It is not meant to accentuate differences among the three states. The purpose must be kept clearly in view.
Now they say that the world is unreal. Of what degree of unreality is it? Is it like that of a son of a barren mother or a flower in the sky, mere words without any reference to facts? Whereas the world is a fact and not a mere word. The answer is that it is a superimposition on the one Reality, like the appearance of a snake on a coiled rope seen in dim light.
But here too the wrong identity ceases as soon as the friend points out that it is a rope. Whereas in the matter of the world it persists even after it is known to be unreal. How is that? Again the appearance of water in a mirage persists even after the knowledge of the mirage is recognised. So it is with the world. Though knowing it to be unreal, it continues to manifest.
But the water of the mirage is not sought to satisfy one’s thirst. As soon as one knows that it is a mirage, one gives it up as useless and does not run after it for procuring water.
D.: Not so with the appearance of the world. Even after it is repeatedly declared to be false one cannot avoid satisfying one’s wants from the world. How can the world be false?
M.: It is like a man satisfying his dream wants by dream creations. There are objects, there are wants and there is satisfaction. The dream creation is as purposeful as the jagrat world and yet it is not considered real.
Thus we see that each of these illustrations serves a distinct purpose in establishing the stages of unreality. The realised sage finally declares that in the regenerate state the jagrat world also is found to be as unreal as the dream world is found to be in the jagrat state.
Each illustration should be understood in its proper context; it should not be studied as an isolated statement. It is a link in a chain. The purpose of all these is to direct the seeker’s mind towards the one Reality underlying them all. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 399)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (1)
When Be As You Are was published in London in the 1980s, the five main subdivisions were separated in the book by a blank white page. Though no numbers appeared on these pages, they were included in the pagination. That is to say, the page after the blank white page would have a number that was two ahead of the last page that had some text on it.
When an Indian edition was first brought out in the early 1990s, these five blank pages were removed, presumably to save money, but whoever did this forgot that the references in the index referred to the original page numbers of the western edition. Right now, if you are reading an edition published in India, references to the first section of the book will be correct; references to the second part will be one page out; references to the third section two pages out, and so on. I apologise to any readers who find the index largely useless. I have tried to get the publisher to correct the mistake, but no action is ever taken.
Apropos the snake-and-rope analogy, here is a passage in which Bhagavan alludes to the multiple analogies that Arvind referred to. I will add more quotes on this topic in subsequent numbered posts.
D.: In pure Advaita can evolution, creation or manifestation have any place? What about the theory of vivarta according to which Brahman appears as the world without forgetting its essential nature, like the rope appearing as snake?
M.: There are different methods of approach to prove the unreality of the universe. The example of the dream is one among them. Jagrat, svapna and sushupti are all treated elaborately in the scripture in order that the Reality underlying them might be revealed. It is not meant to accentuate differences among the three states. The purpose must be kept clearly in view.
Now they say that the world is unreal. Of what degree of unreality is it? Is it like that of a son of a barren mother or a flower in the sky, mere words without any reference to facts? Whereas the world is a fact and not a mere word. The answer is that it is a superimposition on the one Reality, like the appearance of a snake on a coiled rope seen in dim light.
But here too the wrong identity ceases as soon as the friend points out that it is a rope. Whereas in the matter of the world it persists even after it is known to be unreal. How is that? Again the appearance of water in a mirage persists even after the knowledge of the mirage is recognised. So it is with the world. Though knowing it to be unreal, it continues to manifest.
But the water of the mirage is not sought to satisfy one’s thirst. As soon as one knows that it is a mirage, one gives it up as useless and does not run after it for procuring water.
D.: Not so with the appearance of the world. Even after it is repeatedly declared to be false one cannot avoid satisfying one’s wants from the world. How can the world be false?
M.: It is like a man satisfying his dream wants by dream creations. There are objects, there are wants and there is satisfaction. The dream creation is as purposeful as the jagrat world and yet it is not considered real.
Thus we see that each of these illustrations serves a distinct purpose in establishing the stages of unreality. The realised sage finally declares that in the regenerate state the jagrat world also is found to be as unreal as the dream world is found to be in the jagrat state.
Each illustration should be understood in its proper context; it should not be studied as an isolated statement. It is a link in a chain. The purpose of all these is to direct the seeker’s mind towards the one Reality underlying them all. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 399)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (2)
Here is another discussion in which the multiple analogies are discussed, along with Bhagavan’s comments on the tantric view of the reality of the world:
One of the attendants asked: Sri Bhagavan has said: ‘Reality and myth are both the same’. How is it so?
M.: The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara’s philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright. What does he say? He says: (1) Brahman is real; (2) the universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe. He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The Universe is conceived to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong. The antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake). This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is known, the illusion of snake is removed once for all.
But they should take the conditioned superimposition also into consideration, e.g., marumarichika or mrigatrishna (water of mirage).
The mirage does not disappear even after knowing it to be a mirage. The vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. Sri Sankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations. The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart.
If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks. What is your reply? You must say the Self. If not, will the world appear in the absence of the cognising Self? Therefore the Self is the reality. That is his conclusion. The phenomena are real as the Self and are myths apart from the Self.
Now, what do the tantriks, etc., say? They say that the phenomena are real because they are part of the Reality in which they appear.
Are not these two statements the same? That is what I meant by reality and falsehood being one and the same.
The antagonists continue: With the conditioned as well as the unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of water in mirage is purely illusory because that water cannot be used for any purpose. Whereas the phenomenon of the world is different, for it is purposeful. How then does the latter stand on a par with the former?
A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply because it serves a purpose or purposes. Take a dream for example. The dream creations are purposeful; they serve the dream-purpose. The dream water quenches dream thirst. The dream creation is however contradicted in the waking state. The waking creation is contradicted in the other two states. What is not continuous cannot be real. If real, the thing must ever be real - and not real for a short time and unreal at other times.
So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are yet illusory.
Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself - that is to say, apart from the underlying Reality. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 315)
Ravi,
I'm not sure that I've really yet understood even the basics of the devotional non-dual approach. Accepting everything certainly seems to be a part of it, but even more, it seems to involve a direct surrender of the self-sense from the very heart of our being into the heart of God, the very Self. The desire of the bhakti is complete union, meaning non-separation, with the Beloved. So the bhakti gives up even himself, in order to achieve that union. How that occurs is beyond my comprehension, however. I'm not even sure of how the process parallels self-enquiry, though I gather it does. In the end, I assume, it becomes the same thing, but how it proceeds to that point seems mysterious to me.
Broken Yogi and Arvind (3)
In this dialogue Bhagavan discusses various interpretations of the snake-and-rope analogy and concludes that most of the arguments are pointless and pedantic hairsplitting:
M.: Is that all? There is no limit to polemics. Listen, They say the mahavakya Tattvamasi is common; another containing five words Tat tvam asi ati nijam is the most secret one taught by Dakshinamurti in Silence; corresponding to the five words they formulate five states.
Again look at Vichara Sagara; the author distinguishes adhara from adhishthana. According to him the rope is always adhara both when it looks like a snake and otherwise. The rope is adhishthana because it looks different from what it really is: that is common (samanya adhishthana). Again its appearance as the snake itself is visesha adhishthana. Then the question is raised: the adhishthana of Jiva is one; that of Isvara is another; how can these two adhishthanas become one? He replies, there are the same adhara for both the adhishthanas.
Furthermore he mentions several khyatis;
(1) asat-khyati: rope being present, there appears the snake which is not present there.
(2) sat-khyati: rope itself looking like snake.
(3) atma-khyati: rope remaining unidentified, the remembrance of snake, formerly seen elsewhere, creates the illusion.
(4) akhyati: totally unreal.
(5) anayatha-khyati: mental image of snake projected and seen as if it were in front of oneself.
(6) anirvachaniya-khyati: inexplicable.
Here he raises the question: Should the world be any one of these, whether illusory or unreal; it must be the result of previous experience. It must have been real at that time: real once, must be real always.
He answers it: the experience need not necessarily be real; not having seen a real snake, but only seeing a picture of it and gaining an impression, one can mistake a rope to be a snake. Thus the world need not be real.
Why waste time in such polemics? Only turn your mind inward and spend the time usefully. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 332)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (4)
Here are some interesting dialogues between Bhagavan and Swami Madhavatirtha, a vedantic pandit, which included several references to the snake-and-rope analogy:
Q: In my present state, is there sufficient faith, humility and surrender in me? If not, how to make them complete?
M: You are perfect and complete [poorna], so abandon the idea of incompleteness. There is nothing to be destroyed. Ahankara, the individual ‘I’, is not a real thing. It is the mind that makes the effort and the mind is not real. Just as it is not necessary to kill a rope that one imagines to be a snake, so also there is no need to kill the mind. Knowing the form of the mind makes the mind disappear. That which is forever non-existent is already removed. (The Power of The Presence, part one, p. 321)
Q: Just as in a rope the knowledge of the serpent is false, so in Brahman the knowledge of the world is false.
M: That is correct. It is not necessary to keep knowledge of a thing that is not real.
Q: It could be said the window has come out of the wood, but still it is not separate from the wood. If one can give up the knowledge of the work done on the wood, then it is wood only.
M: That is true.
Q: In a rope a snake is seen. It is possible to argue that, for the illusion to be effective, one must have seen a real snake at some other place and time in order to know what a snake looks like. Only then can the illusion occur. In the same way, if at some place the real world is seen, then only can an illusion of it appear in Brahman.
M: That [analogy] is known as anyatha khyati [an argument put forward by the Nyaya school of philosophy], but it has no validity.
Q: In the alatha-shanti of Gaudapada’s Karika [v. 97], it is said that if the slightest vaidharmata bhava [the attitude that there is something that exists other than the Self] remains, then oneness will not be established and the breaking of the veil that covers the Self will not take place. In that context, what is the meaning of vaidharmata?
M: In that verse the term vaidharmata should be understood to be parichinna bhava [an attitude of restriction]…
To remove the snake from the rope, it is not necessary to kill the snake. In the same way it is not necessary to kill the mind. By understanding the complete non-existence of the mind, the mind will go away. The experience that is without the seer and the seen, that is without time and space, is the real experience. (The Power of The Presence, part one, pp. 257-8)
Q: Some see a serpent in the rope, some a stick, some a garland, and some a flow of water, but the one who sees the rope as a rope has the true knowledge. The knowledge of the other witnesses is not true.
M: It is not necessary to think of the view of other witnesses. Those others are only in your imagination. Know the one who sees and all will be well.
Q: How?
M: In a dream many are seen, but they are all in the imagination of the one who sees. When you wake up from the dream, the dream and those in the dream will take care of their own prarabdha.
Q: Then there will be no others?
M: It is the same in the waking state. In Aparokshanubhuti [an advaitic work attributed to Sankara], the author says, ‘The sight should be fixed in that state in which there is no existence of seer, seeing and seen, and not on the tip of the nose’. (The Power of The Presence, part one, p. 251)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (5)
Here are the four verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai where the snake-and-rope analogy appears:
28 You who shrink from the world, trembling in fear! There is definitely no such thing as a real world. Therefore, to be afraid of the imaginary world that appears to be real is like fearing the imaginary snake [that is misperceived] in a coiled rope.
44 The world does not exist in the state of ultimate truth [paramartha]. Its appearance, its [apparently] existing nature in maya, is like the imagined appearance of a snake in a rope, a thief in a wooden post, and water in a mirage. Their essential nature is delusion.
90 The reality that is consciousness is indeed the Self. The world is objectified-consciousness, a distortion [within consciousness]. If a rope [truly] existed as consciousness, would it seek someone else – a separate being – to become a snake.
[Muruganar is saying here, somewhat elliptically, that a rope only becomes a snake when someone sees it, whereas consciousness doesn’t need an external witness to validate itself since it is self-validating.]
876 Until the appearance of the false snake goes, the rope, the underlying truth, will not shine. Similarly, until the appearance of the world, the superimposition, ceases, the substratum [adhistana], the true swarupa, will not reveal itself.
[The same idea appears in ‘Who am I?’
Bhagavan: If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and all action subsides, the perception of the world will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the knowledge of the snake, the superimposition, goes, so the realisation of [the] Self, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world, which is a superimposition, ceases. (Essay version, The Path of Sri Ramana Part One, p. 184)]
Broken Yogi and Arvind (6)
Here are some dialogues from Day by Day with Bhagavan that refer to the snake-and-rope analogy. Although the idea is not mentioned in the second quote, this particular reply is referred to by Bhagavan in the subsequent answer:
A visitor from Sind, very probably Kundanlal A. Mahatani of Hyderabad, Sind, (now Pakistan) asked: “It is said the world and the objects that we see are all unreal, like the snake in the rope. It is also stated in other places that the seer and the seen are the same. If the seer and the seen are same, then how can we say that the seen is unreal?”
B.: All that is meant is that the seen regarded as an independent entity, independent of the Self, is unreal. The seen is not different from the seer. What exists is the one Self, not a Seer and a seen. The seen regarded as the Self is real. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 19th March 1945)
Mr Mahtani asked Bhagavan, “It is said in Advaita Bodha Deepika; that the Supreme Self identifying itself with the mind appears changeful. How can the mind coming from maya which itself comes from the Self be able to alter or change the changeless Self?” Bhagavan answered, “There is in reality no change, no creation. But for those who ask, ‘How has this creation come about?’ the above explanation is given.” (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 7th January 1946, morning)
Mr. Mahtani again asked Bhagavan about his question (found recorded under 7-1-46). Bhagavan replied, “The very sentence you quote says that mind is a superimposition, that it has no reality but is like the appearance of the snake in the rope. The text also says the Supreme Self, when identified with the mind, appears changeful. To the seer, the ego, the Self seems changeful. But the Self is the same ever, unchanging and unchangeable. It is like this: There is a screen. On that screen first appears the figure of a king. He sits on a throne. Then before him in that same screen a play begins with various figures and objects and the king on the screen watches the play on the same screen. The seer and the seen are mere shadows on the screen, which is the only reality supporting these pictures. In the world also, the seer and the seen together constitute the mind and the mind is supported by, or based on, the Self.” (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 8th January 1946 afternoon)
Question: It is said that the world and the objects that we see are all unreal, like the snake in the rope. It is also stated in other places that the seer and the seen are the same. If the seer and the seen are the same, then how can we say that the seen is unreal?
Bhagavan: All that is meant is that the seen regarded as an independent entity, independent of the Self, is unreal. The seen is not different from the seer. What exists is the one Self, not a seer and a seen. The seen regarded as the Self is real. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 19th March, 1945)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (7)
Finally, a few stray quotes from other sources:
D.: Why should the objects drisya be eliminated? Cannot the Truth be realised even keeping the object as it is?
M.: No. Elimination of drisya means elimination of separate identities of the subject and object. The object is unreal. All drisya (including ego) is the object. Eliminating the unreal, the Reality survives. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, it is enough to remove the erroneous perception of the snake for the truth to be revealed. Without such elimination the truth will not dawn. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 25)
The previous stanza [Arunachala Ashtakam verse five] says: Once exposed to sunlight, a sensitive plate cannot take on images; similarly, the mind (the sensitive plate), after exposure in Your Light, cannot reflect the world anymore. Moreover, the Sun is of You only. Should his rays be so powerful as to prevent images being formed, how much more so should Your Light be? It is thus said that there is nothing apart from the One Being, Yourself.
In the present stanza [Arunachala Ashtakam verse six] the tiny dot = the ego; the tiny dot made up of darkness = the ego consisting of latent tendencies, the seer or the subject or the ego rising, it expands itself as the seen, the object or the antahkaranas (the inner organs). The light must be dim in order to enable the ego to rise up. In broad daylight a rope does not look like a snake. The rope itself cannot be seen in thick darkness; so there is no chance of mistaking it for a snake. Only in dim light, in the dusk, in light darkened by shadows or in darkness lighted by dim light does the mistake occur of a rope seeming a snake. Similarly it is for the Pure Radiant Being to rise up as the Ego - it is possible only in Its Light diffused through darkness. This darkness is otherwise known as the Original Ignorance (Original Sin). The Light passing through it is called Reflected Light. The Reflected Light on its own merits is commonly known as the Pure Mind or Isvara or God. Isvara is well-known to be unified with Maya: in other words the Reflected Light is Isvara…
Just as a rope-snake cannot be seen in broad daylight, nor rope itself in thick darkness, so also the world appears neither in the samadhi state of Self-shining pure Being or in deep sleep, swoon, etc. Only in Reflected Light (Light mixed with Darkness or knowledge soiled by Ignorance) can the world, not independent of its Source, seem to rise up, flourish and be resolved. Its diversity too cannot be exclusive of the Reality, the original Source. Here a play is going on in which the One Single Being becomes manifold is objectified and then withdrawn. There must be a Sakti (Power) to do it, and wonderful too! She cannot also be independent of Her origin. In the Self-shining Pure Being this Sakti cannot be seen. Nevertheless, Her actions are only too well-known. How sublime! (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 323)
D: It is stated that the existence of the world is false, an illusion, Maya, but we see the world day after day. How can it be false?
B: By false it is meant that the conception of the world is a superimposition on reality, as the idea of a snake is superimposed on the reality of a rope, in darkness (in ignorance). That is Maya, illusion. (Crumbs from His Table, p. 41)
M. There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone.
D. Why so?
M. For the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real, your mind will always be after it. If you take the appearance to be real you will never know the Real itself, although it is the Real alone that exists. This point is illustrated by the analogy of the ‘snake in the rope’. As long as you see the snake you cannot see the rope as such. The non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly non-existent as such. (Maharshi’s Gospel, pp. 58-9)
Broken Yogi and Arvind (8)
Having reviewed all the occasions when Bhagavan spoke or wrote about the snake-and-analogy, my conclusion is that he accepted it as a useful analogy, even though several philosophical systems have pointed out that it is an incomplete one.
Bhagavan himself accepted that the analogy was not perfect, but that did not stop him from using it to illustrate key points in his own teaching:
(a) that the world cannot be seen either in the darkness of sleep or in the full light of the Self, but only in the dim light that exists when the world picture is projected.
(b) that the world itself is only perceived through an error perception.
David and Arvind,
Thank you both for the many quotes. At the risk of beating a dead snake with a polemical rope, I realize in reading these that even Ramana rarely used the rope/snake analogy to directly describe the illusion of the ego superimposed upon the Self, but generally applied it in the traditional manner, to the world illusion itself.
It would appear that having read of this analogy many times, I was somehow inspired in the course of practicing self-enquiry to see it as a meaningful way of understanding the illusion of the ego, and made a number of my own additions or modifications to the analogy to describe my own understanding of self-enquiry - notions which I think have a faithful relationship to Ramana's basic teachings on self-enquiry, but which I now see were not explicitly taught in that manner. My apologies if I have misused the analogy, though I hope I have not distorted the underlying teachings on self-enquiry in the process.
The only direct mention Ramana makes to the rope/snake analogy in relation to the ego itself occurs in an extraordinary passage Arvind cited on pp. 286-289 of Talks. It's too long to quote in its entirety here, but I'll post this excert:
In the present stanza, the tiny dot=the ego; the tiny dot made of darkness=the ego consisting of latent tendencies; the seer or subject or the ego rising, it expands itself as the seen, the object or antakaranas (the inner organs). The light must be dim in order to enable the ego to rise up. In broad daylight a rope does not look like a snake. The rope itself cannot be seen in thick darkness; so there is no chance of mistaking it for a snake. Only in dim light, in the dusk, in light darkened by shadows or in darkness lighted by dim light does the mistake occur of a rope seeming a snake. Similarly it is for the Pure Radiant Being to rise up as the Ego - it is possible only in Its Light diffused through darkness. This darkness is otherwise known as the Original Ignorance (original Sin). The light passing through it is called Reflected Light. The Reflected Light on its own merits is commonly known as the Pure Mind or Isvara or God. Isvara is well-known to be unified with Maya; in other words the Reflected Light is Isvara.
The other name - Pure Mind - implies impure mind also. It is the rajasic or active mind or the ego; this too can be projected from the former satvic mind through another reflection only; that the ego is the product of the second darkness (avidya). Then comes the tamasic or the dull mind in the shape of antakaranas (the inner organs); this appears as the world.
The fundamental idea here is that the illusion of the ego, like the snake in the rope, arises in the Self only due to "Original Ignorance" - an interesting idea indeed.
The entire passage is worth reading, for those who have Talks. It concludes with a call for self-enquiry:
Now what is this "I"-thought (the ego)? Is it the subject or the object, in the scheme of things?
Insasmuch as it witnesses all other objects in the waking and dream states, or at any rate we think that it does so, it must be considered to be the subject. On realizing the Pure Self, however, it will be an object only.
Whose is this "I"-thought (the ego)? This investigation forms the vichara (self-enquiry).
Broken Yogi,
"We will learn more from being attentive to our "I" than by any other method. That is where grace comes alive and instructs us directly, from beyond the mind. And that instruction is not in the form of any words, but something much more direct and basic. It occurs in silence, and we must listen to that silence to gain any genuine comprehension of the process."
This is the crux of the matter.All other analogies are academic explanations only.They never come into play for Practical use.
There is no need to negate the False 'I' or affirm the True 'I';hence no need to wonder whether rejection happens first or the other way round,etc.No need to wonder whether the 'Ego' is enquired into or The Self.All this needs to be set aside.(Along with the various theories of Snake ,Rope,etc).
One ceases to be the Talker and doer ; listen to the intimations of the Self.This is 'Intuitive'.
-----------------------------------
"from being attentive to our "I"
It is more accurate to say -Being attentive to the Intimations of 'I';no 'our' or 'My' in this.
This is why it is said that The Adi Guru Dakshinamurthy teaches in Silence and only indicates through Chinmudra.All talk and theory is dismissed with the Chinmudra;The Rest of the Teaching takes place in Silence only.
Namaskar.
For Ravi
When we begin sadhana do we not all worship a God ' out there ' ? by going to places of worship and ' offering ' prayers and other forms of worship ? If God was perceived to be within from the very beginning, there would be no places of worship. This is what was meant.
It took A Sad Guru ( Bhagwan ) to turn the attention exclusivly to The Self within. For this a certain maturity was needed and karmas completed ( so that it would become possible for the outgoing mind to turn inward ), which is why, maybe, in my case it took almost a life time. Isn't it said that when the student is ready, the Teacher appears !
By seeing without seeing and hearing without hearing, is meant that when there are no concepts of " right and wrong " " likes and dislikes " etc, then, the cosmic creation is seen, as it is, without disturbance - without our own ideas colouring it. But this is not usually the case because we all have our own ideas ( concepts ) about things..
Which is why, we all view the same object differently. We all react to the same situation in different ways. All pleasure and pain is due to trouble making concepts.
tp,
You are blessed.You have received Sri Bhagavan's Grace in abundance.
Wish you the Very Best.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
This is the crux of the matter.All other analogies are academic explanations only.They never come into play for Practical use.
There is no need to negate the False 'I' or affirm the True 'I';hence no need to wonder whether rejection happens first or the other way round,etc.No need to wonder whether the 'Ego' is enquired into or The Self.All this needs to be set aside.(Along with the various theories of Snake ,Rope,etc).
One ceases to be the Talker and doer ; listen to the intimations of the Self.This is 'Intuitive'.
I am the last to suggest that all verbal teachings and instruction should be set aside as unnecessary. Perhaps for those who are highly mature this is the case. Unfortunately, I am not one of them. I am a beginner as it is in even understanding the spoken dharma; it regards to the silent teaching, I am a pure neophyte. Perhaps the day will come when I can set aside all these teachings and insturctions about self-enquiry and so forth. I trust I will know when that is, or fate will determine the hour for me. For now, however, I gain much from the written teachings of Ramana and others, even if it is in practice alone that it begins to make genuine sense.
I believe that it is wholy necessary for me to attend to both the inner and the outer Guru, the spoken teachings and those given in silence, without exclusively concentrating upon either. They are both equal forms of Grace that serve unique and irreplaceable purposes for me. If they had no purpose, Ramana and teachers like him never would have spoken in the first place. Since they did, it makes sense to honor their efforts by applying myself to understanding what they taught, not just intellectually, but in practice. Since analogies such as the rope and snake were part of those teachings, it is valuable to understand what they meant by such tools of instruction. To merely dismiss these instructions as unnecessary would be to dishonor the teachers who have offered them to us for our enlightenment.
I recall a wonderful interview with David on his website, in regards to Nisargadatta's instruction. He was engaging Nisargadatta in some sort of intellectual questioning, and at one point Nisargadatta interrupted to say that David did not understand the purpose of his verbal instructions. It was not, he made clear, to create intellectual arguments to be discussed and argued about as points of debate. Rather, his instructions were literal seeds that he was placing in David's, and whoever else was listening, deeper mind, to ripen and mature within us until it emerged in the full flower of realization. He made it clear that unless these teachings were understood and appreciated in that manner, they would not flower and become truly meaningful to us.
The point being, I took it, that we need to keep this im mind even as we discuss these teachings. That there is a way for us to use discussion of these teachings to cultivate these seeds growing within us, and that is the proper way to engage in discussion of the dharma, not merely as an argument about various philosophical or even practical matters. If we cultivate these precious seeds given to us by Ramana, they will flower within us. If not, they will lay dormant until we are able to give them the proper care and watering and nutrients. In that way, discussion of the dharma can be genuinely fruitful, rather than merely frustrating or distracting us from genuine practice.
"I too am just trying to understand the basics of self-enquiry and so I share your frustrations with the actual practice of it. I think Ramana's general recommendation about the higher philosophical issues about the nature of the Self is to simply put them aside for now and admit that we simply don't know these things with any certainty until we have actually realized, and that to realize we must simply do the practice of self-enquiry as he instructed. It can be very distracting to try to figure everything out ahead of time, and the truth is we simply don't know about these things, and have to find out directly. "
My point though, is that I don't even know what Self-inquiry is to embark on, so trying to understand what Ramana was getting at in high philosophical matters is important, I think. (such as your argument about rope-snake) I'm not arguing with you, but that's why there is intention put on it. When I read ramana, I don't get anywhere that self-inquiry is a specific method. Except that in those dialogues I quoted he repeatedly said to find the source of the ego. but he didn't explain it as a rote method. For any kind of devotee asking a question he approached it in a different way. Also, the ways I've attempted inquiry as a rote method have been mental. and they do not transcend the mental level. There is no sign that they would ever transcend the mental level. But the Self and it's Realization do. So inquiry must not be a mental game. even saradamma said that in No Mind, I am the Self I believe, or that's how I understand what she said. She even recommended devotion over inquiry for that reason. She also said a thoughtless state can be achieved that is purly tamasic, which is the wrong direction. Both her and Lakshmana Swami said a jnani is sattvic. My teacher said that Self-REalization transcends the gunas or is gunatita. But I think Saradamma and Lakshmana Swami were talking about how a jnani in the world manifests as pure sattva. My point is, that as I practice one way, it seems important to adjust. A feeling of intense mentl concentration and dullness I don't think has anything to do with Self-inquiry. So, mainly because this teacher, who I know in my heart is a jnani, with very little doubt has been the one who raelly emphasizes what you put as the "high philosophical matters". But from an experiential understanding. That's why I was talking about the Bliss. Because a feeling of peace, contentment and Bliss, a feeling of harmoniousness, even if it's objectified as an experience, is sattvic, and pure. It's in the absence of the grosser impurities such as intense desire, anger, sadness, fear. or it is an absence of rajas and tamas (inertia and agitation) When I was saying it is a sign of success, I meant a sign that what is actually beiing done is Self-inquiry. If it is mental concentration and dullness. And the joyful harmony is missing, that tells me that I am in a tamasic state, a state of dullness, or inertia. Which from everything I've read I take to be the worsed of the gunas. saradamma said someone in dullness or inertia only cannot be helped. There has to be some agitation. I guess my point is, that there is some way to guage success, and that is an increase in the sattvic tendency, harmony, purity, joy. Because as Lakshmana swami and saradamma said, a jnani is pure sattva.
"Ramana certainly talked at times about such high philosophical matters, but I don't think it was with the intention that we form a conceptual view on that basis as if we could ever really understand what realization is about beforehand. It was more to simply give some basic context that allows us to relax those concerns and concentrate in the actual practice of self-enquiry, which is taught to some degree by books and words, but mostly by simply being attentive to the "I", as Ramana said himself. We will learn more from being attentive to our "I" than by any other method. That is where grace comes alive and instructs us directly, from beyond the mind. And that instruction is not in the form of any words, but something much more direct and basic. It occurs in silence, and we must listen to that silence to gain any genuine comprehension of the process."
First off, The silence is what I was referring to as Bliss.
Secondly, attention to the "I". But how do you be attentive to the
"I"? The I is who I take myself to be right? Or do you mean by something else I. Assuming you mean, what I think it means, the core sense of indviduality. How do you isolate that to keep attention on it? And if you manage to keep attention on it, how could it be the I, becase the I is looking at it. So the I couldn't be over "there", it couldn't be what is being observed. And if you are keeping attention on an 'I', then how could you be keeping attention on an 'i"? There is still duality. Only the object is imagined, and the subject is still there. In a way maybe that's the point, there is no way to observe yourself. I kept takling about the personality, but the personality is still not myself, it is something objective that can be observed. But when I observe my personality, whose observing? The 'I' again. The 'I' is the one looking, so how to look at it? So what do you mean by keep attention on the 'I'. And where does Maharshi say to do this? Where is this described as what Self-inquiry is? I'm not being sarcastic, so if someone has the quotes, because maybe he further elaborates. If I keep attention on what I imagine to be an I. For instance, the i at the beginning of sentences. "I- do this, do that, think this", that is just a thought, it's not the I. I can observe thoughts, but I can't observe myself. I really got that from those Shankara verses. What I got was that the core sense of existence is always there. The whole universe is known by it, it is known by nothing in the universe. that is why this kind of attention shifting which is still dualistic in nature for me produces a tamasic dullness. Inquiry is supposed to get beyond "I" and "that". But when I keep attention on what I think is the "I", there is still subject, object. Only the object is a subtle object, something thought about or imagined, as opposed to a gross object. Inquiry I think is deeper then that. My question to you, is how do you know what you are doing is Self-inquiry?
Another response from my teacher;
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your recent messages.
Peace is of the very nature of the immutable Self. Misidentification
appears to disturb it or veil it. Self-Knowledge, revealed by Self-inquiry
destroys the misidentifications, which are only ignorance and not true.
Repression does not succeed in the destruction of ignorance. It is
like holding a piece of wood under the surface of water. As soon as the hold
is released, the wood bobs to the surface again. Likewise is it with the
suppression of thoughts, inclusive of those that you refer to as emotions.
Without true Knowledge, they reappear. Of course, indulgence in the delusion
is also unsuccessful and represents no true freedom. Sri Bhagavan says that
such is like pouring kerosene on a fire in the attempt to extinguish it.
Neither side of the dualism can substitute for actual inquiry to know
oneself.
The intensity in any bondage or suffering derives from you. Turn
that into the intensity for Liberation, and, applying it to fervent, keen
inquiry, you will pass beyond all suffering and bondage. If you discern the
causes of the suffering, which are invariably one's own misidentifications
and attachments, you can abolish it in the blissful realization of who you
really are.
Cessation of thinking is not the same as Knowledge of the Self, or
Self-Realization, though in the latter the nonexistence of thought is
self-evident. Thoughts may stop in deep sleep, in some anesthetized states,
etc., but such does not result in Self-Realization. Self-Realization
transcends every state and mode of mind.
Health and sickness pertain to the body. They are unrelated to the
Self and to spiritual practice.
If you suffer from loneliness in any form, the answer lies within.
All are only in the Self. The Self is never lonely, though it exists without
another. Practice so as to completely dissolve the misidentifications and
their concomitant differentiation, and thereby your joy will be full and
unending. Self-inquiry is the practice. Surrender on a path of deep bhakti
(devotion) can bring the same result as the path of jnana (Knowledge)
because of its dissolution of the ego, attachments, and such.
The tradition of Vedanta describes practice in terms of sravana
(listening), manana (reflection) and nididhyasana (profound meditation).
Listening, or receiving spiritual instruction, usually occurs in satsang. In
addition, the reading of appropriate books can assist in this. In the
present time, it seems, CDs and DVDs can also assist, as described by you.
The general advice is that the seeker should do all that is possible to
support the essential introspection, making the first two continual and the
third continuous.
I hope that you find the above helpful and that you find the
imperishable bliss within you.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
"28 You who shrink from the world, trembling in fear! There is definitely no such thing as a real world. Therefore, to be afraid of the imaginary world that appears to be real is like fearing the imaginary snake [that is misperceived] in a coiled rope."
This suggests to me that in Self-inquiry the world, and all in it should be dismissed as unreal.
"M: You are perfect and complete [poorna], so abandon the idea of incompleteness. There is nothing to be destroyed. Ahankara, the individual ‘I’, is not a real thing. It is the mind that makes the effort and the mind is not real. Just as it is not necessary to kill a rope that one imagines to be a snake, so also there is no need to kill the mind. Knowing the form of the mind makes the mind disappear. That which is forever non-existent is already removed. (The Power of The Presence, part one, p. 321"
So specifically he says abandon the idea of incompleteness, this seems to accord with happiness being within. On the second part, he seems to be saying that an investigation, thorough and sincere should be made to understand that the mind, which I take myself to be, or have, is unreal, and does not exist. Not just looking for it, or keeping attention on it, but understand that it is unreal. Keeping attention on what I imagine to be myself or the I-individual, would probably not suffice to understand that the mind that is doing these activites, even supposedly 'inquiring' activities is unreal. Or I shift attention inwardly, the mind enaging in this shifting of atttention is unreal.
"M.: There are different methods of approach to prove the unreality of the universe. The example of the dream is one among them. Jagrat, svapna and sushupti are all treated elaborately in the scripture in order that the Reality underlying them might be revealed. It is not meant to accentuate differences among the three states. The purpose must be kept clearly in view.
Now they say that the world is unreal. Of what degree of unreality is it? Is it like that of a son of a barren mother or a flower in the sky, mere words without any reference to facts? Whereas the world is a fact and not a mere word. The answer is that it is a superimposition on the one Reality, like the appearance of a snake on a coiled rope seen in dim light.
But here too the wrong identity ceases as soon as the friend points out that it is a rope. Whereas in the matter of the world it persists even after it is known to be unreal. How is that? Again the appearance of water in a mirage persists even after the knowledge of the mirage is recognised. So it is with the world. Though knowing it to be unreal, it continues to manifest.
But the water of the mirage is not sought to satisfy one’s thirst. As soon as one knows that it is a mirage, one gives it up as useless and does not run after it for procuring water."
See, I take all these things to be instructin in Self-inquiry. Inquiry is not a rote method, it is these "high philosophical matters". Here, it seems he is saying to realize that the world is like a mirage. Not that this is the result of practice, but that it is the practice itself.
And also that if you know it to be a mirage. If I know the transient perception of the world is dreamlike and unreal, I don't tie my happiness up with it. as he said, you know the mirage does not really have the ability to quench one's thirst. this isn't auxillary to Self-inquiry in my opinion, it is Self-inquiry. Especially since he said the world is a superimposition on the Reality, just like the snake on the rope. Knowing that the world is draemlike and unreal, is the same as knowing myself. Because knowing myself is not referring to the ego, or the sense of individuality. Myself is the Reality. The world is the superimposition on teh Reality, or the superimposition on myself. Normally I do put my happiness on it, because i do believe the perceptions that I see have the ability to quench my thirst, so I pursue the dream objects, want relationships with the dream people, and enjoy my dream circumstances. But mainly because i believe they can quench my thirst for satisfaction. But if it's the mirage version of satisfaction whereas a mirage has water, then satisfaction does not derive from the mirage. Where does satisfaction derive? The answer would be the reality. So again, happiness within. My point was that Self-inquiry is everything Maharshi said.
"Rather, his instructions were literal seeds that he was placing in David's, and whoever else was listening, deeper mind, to ripen and mature within us until it emerged in the full flower of realization. He made it clear that unless these teachings were understood and appreciated in that manner, they would not flower and become truly meaningful to us. "
And I think that is happening here as well, as we all share our understandings with eachother, even if in the form of a debate, for one the subject material, Ramana's teachings will take us deeper, and also there is a grace here on this site, and in the maturity of David Godman. this is a wonderful place to debate even if someone is trying to prove they know better, because of the atmosphere here, and the way it is moderated. It will take us deeper then our initial stance, and plant seeds.
Broken Yogi,
"discussion of the dharma can be genuinely fruitful, rather than merely frustrating or distracting us from genuine practice."
I agree with you.I think,I have expressed this a couple of Days Back, this very idea.
I have only expanded what you have expressed(Silence ,etc)-I have only taken it to its utmost limits.There is no oblique reference to whatever has been discussed by you regarding the Analogies or to belittle it in any manner.
Yes,I found a Gem in what you expressed when you talked about Silence and all the rest simply fade away before it.
Please continue your discusions and insights which I have always enjoyed and benefitted from.
Namaskar.
"No. Elimination of drisya means elimination of separate identities of the subject and object. The object is unreal. All drisya (including ego) is the object. Eliminating the unreal, the Reality survives."
He basically says here, it seems, that the ego is also an object. It is not the subject. which is perhaps why if there is a search for the subject that is at the core of all these experiences. The 'I' cannot be all these things, because they are 'objective' to the 'I'. Even the ego, or my sense of individuality, or personality, is objective to myself. I can be aware of the ideas of who i think I am, what I feel like as a person. But the real subject is not an object and cannot be objecified. So if I search for myself, anything I can objectify, or observe, is not myself. Eliminating the unreal. Well, what is unreal. In this teaching anything that is not permanent. So everything non-permanent can be eliminated. that is what my teacher said to me. That not only is the transient unreal, it is not "you", he said. Since the Reality is left, when all the transient is now considered unreal, and not me. The Reality which is myself is still there. Perceptions, people, objects, a world, thoughts, a personality, individuality, an ego all thesea are transient. So knowing myself, and eliminating the unreal are the same. Because myself is what is real, not just theoretically but experientially. He started off with saying that drisya (whatever that is) is eliminating all the identities of subject and objecct. But he followed it up by saying the ego is an object. That fits with what I was coming to in asking about how to keep attention on the 'I' Because if I try to keep attention on what I think is the 'I'. Whose keeping the attention. The I. So the 'I' could not be the object of attention that I imagined to be the 'I'. The I that I imagined, or the personality I imagine for myself is the ego, it is an object, and it can be observed in my awareness. But the subject cannot be observed for who is doing the observing? it seems like the key is realizing Who I am, as the subject, that I am not an object. The subject is the Self, the false subject or ego is an object because it can be observed. so that would mean that when Maharshi says Bliss is the Self, Bliss is the nature of maybe a way of putting it, is the real observer. Unhappiness comes from taking objects including a notion of individuality, or ego, which is also an object, Maharshi says it specifically to be real, but also the other objects.
More of the True Definition of One's own Self by Adi Shankara.
23. Though this is so, to those deoid of reflection on the aphorisms such as "That you are,"
This Self seems as if beyond awareness (invisible), Though shining inwardly.
24. Therefore, by an inquiry into the meaning of the words, And reflecting upon the meaning of the aphorism. By the greatness of the Grace of the Master, one attains A direct Awareness, in an instant, of the Self.
25 superimposing on the Self, without differentiation, The functions of the body, senses, and such, The knowledge of being the experiencer of "doership" and such, Could be the ostensible meaning of the word "you."
26. The witness that shines distinct From the body, ego andd senses--- The knowledge of this is said to be The denoted meaning of the word "you."
27. The material cause of the entire manifest universe, To be known by the words of the Vedic conclusions, Endowed with omniscience and such--- Consciousness is the ostensible meaning of the word "That."
28. Free of various conditionings, transcending the universe, Immaculate, without a second, decayless, to be cognized by (direct) experience--- Consciousness is the denoted meaning of the word "That."
29. Being of the same ccategory Or as the attribute and the object (qualified) Or as the apparent and denoted, Such are the words and meaning and their mutual connection.
30. Interpreting words admitting of diverse modes To be in a siilar mode Is "bringing into the same category"---Thus say those versed in interpretation.
31. Immediate visibility, invisibility, Absolute Perfection and being with a second, Are mutually contradictory---Hence there should be only the denoted meaning.
32.Where the primary meaning becomes unacceptable due to other reasons proving to be an obstacle, the mode which is intended for not nullifying the primary meaning Is indeed said to be the denoted meaning.
33. The mode which discards all ostensible meanings And is attended by a different meaning. As in "the hamlet on the Ganges," will be the jahat-laksana, And such should not be adopted here.
34. The mode (of interpretation) which applies to another object, Without discarding the apparent meaning---as in "the red runs," Is said to bee the ajahat (laksana) And should not be adopted here.
35. Jahat-ajahat is that which excludes in part the ostensible meaning, And denotes a part--- as in "He is Brahman." This mode should be adopted in this case.
36. The sentence, "He is this Brahman"
Discading the immediacy and invisibility of the places and such, Denoting only the characteristic of "brahmin,"
Expresses the identity of the two word meanings.
37. Likewise, "That you are" and such, Discarding immediacy and invisibility and such, And making Consciousness the thing aimed at, Express clearly by the word, "are," the identity.
38. The meaning expressed by the great aphorism Showing identity in this way ---that this is I---For those who have this direct Awareness, The Veda-s declare freedom from sorrow.
39. Mostly, a call to action is seen In words of injunction, wordly and Vedic. How, indeed, can a meaning expressing a conclusion such as "That you are" become one (an injunction)?
40. Injunction alone does not generate action; Knowledge of desired objects can also do so. People commence activity by Knowledge such as "the king goes," [or] "a son has been born"
41. Though the Self eternally illumines, According to the words of the Veda-s declaring identity, For people devoid of the Grace of the Master, It is not possible to have direct Awareness.
42. "Avoiding prohibied rites, practicing the prescribed [rites], And stainless in one's mind, One attains Knowledge by oneself; [So,] why the Guru?"---You should not think thus.
43. By rites alone, Knowledge does not arise, Without a Guru, the abode of compassion. Only one with a Teacher can know---Thus is the conclusion of the meaning of the Veda-s.
Scott,
I too have struggled with these same questions many times. Clearly it is not a merely intellectual problem, it is something that confronts us all in the actual attempt to practice self-enquiry. Attention by its very nature requires a subject and an object of attention. So self-enquiry is not merely looking upon the self as an object, but finding a way to invert attention, such that we are no longer looking at objects, but allowing awareness itself to stand alone, aware of itself directly, rather than as an object. One of the notions that is helpful at the "awareness watching awareness" website is just this simple notion that we are, even as egos, simply awareness, and that we can be directly aware of ourselves for that reason, without resorting to the deluding process of attention to oneself as an object.
I believe that Ramana did not insist that we begin self-enquiry in some rarefied state that transcends attention, however. He was quite clear that any fool could practice it, simply by beginning to put attention on the basic feeling of self and seeing it for what it was. In that sense, the beginner will simply feel into this basic sense of self, this "I"-feeling we have, without trying to invert attention in any more sophisticated manner than that. So as you say, we may end up at first merely observing ourselves as an object. This is not advanced self-enquiry, but it is indeed still self-enquiry.
One has to begin with where one actually is, and for most of that means being addicted to objects, even to making oneself an object of attention. This is a necessary beginning for almost all of us. And it is by beginning here and simply being attentive to ourselves, to the structure of our own minds, that we begin to see and feel how the process leads beyond the limitations of the mind, by Grace if no other explanation is plausible. For Grace to lead us beyond attention, however, we must give it a chance, and we do that by merely observing ourselves without stressful impositions or ideas of what we ought to be doing. Merely feeling this sense of "I" is all that we need do, and if we persist, we will begin to see how it is possible to invert the entire structure of the mind, of attention to objects, such that we can contemplate ourselves as subjects, as awareness itself, and see that what we have presumed ourselves to be, this "I"-feeling, is not real, is not who we really are.
cont.
cont.
In other words, even if we merely begin, as Ramana often instructed, by repeating "I, I, I" to ourselves as a way to feel into this I-sense, it has a profound effect on us. It's also relatively easy, in that we always have an I-sense, a feeling of "I", no matter what is going on, and it's not really that difficult to find this feeling. It's the core sense of being aware, of noticing anything at all. Which is why Ramana suggests that when we are distracted by something, that we simply ask ourselves "to whom is this arising?" The point of that question is not to get us to think about the philosophical issues raised, but merely to return to feeling this "I"-sense in the midst of whatever is going on. By persisting in returning our feeling and attention to the "I"-sense, awareness begins to open up, and we slowly grow an ability, subtle at first, to simply be this "I"-sense, rather than to observe it as an object.
The faculty of feeling is essential in this regard, since feeling, rather than mere "looking", acts as a bridge beyond attention. We can feel things as objects, and we can feel our "I"-sense as an object, but we can also feel our very being, and thus, if we persist in simply feeling the "I"-sense, it begins to open us to the simple feeling of our own being, our essential awareness. We can begin to feel our sense of egoity as it arises, not merely as an object, but as our own subjective egoic awareness. And when we begin to feel ourselves as egoic awareness, we have created a bridge to our basic feeling of being, which transcends the ego. But this requires persistence, and patience, and not going crazy trying to figure it all out or jump to the end. It requires faith above all, because there is a kind of "leap" that must occur by Grace, to get us over the hump of egoic objectivity into the subject who is aware. That is one reason the Guru is essential, but it is far from the last reason.
There's no need to twist oneself into knots trying to figure out the grand philosophical issues surrounding all this. That only helps to the degree that it allows us to put those nagging questions aside and simply attend to our own mind and the basic struggle with the "I". It is best not to struggle at all, but simply to feel and observe and allow Grace the room to manifest itself in our own awareness, as the self-enquiry itself going on in us. It is not important to know if we are doing self-enquiry "right", it is merely important to persist in attending to our feeling of "I", and allowing that to mature into something more profound through patience and silence. At least that is what I have found most useful for me. I have only an inkling of these things myself, but it is at least a growing inkling, and I'm grateful for that.
I wanted to say a few more things on a purely personal level about the snake/rope analogy. One reason I relate to that analogy so well is that it has so many basic correspondences to my own experience. I'm thinking of that long period in my own childhood when I was very afraid of the dark. Like many other children, I used to lie in bed at night before going to sleep, looking around the room at various things dimly seen on the floor, and imagining them to be alligators and snakes and monsters of all kinds. I was certain that monsters lived in the dark space under my bed, and even if a part of my mind knew that these things weren't real, I was scared nonetheless.
Getting up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night was a terrible ordeal. I had to summon the courage to run across the room to the door where the light-switch was, and then, on returning, I had to turn the light switch off and brave the monsters of the dark to get back to bed. I remember turning the light swich on and off and seeing the clothes on my floor turn into creatures in the dark that seemed so real to me, I couldn't help but be afraid.
So this kind of analogy has many real resonances with me. When I look at my ego even now, it is relatively easy to conjure up monsters in my imagination to populate my mind with. It is easy to see myself as one of those monsters, and to fear myself and what I have created in my mind as my "self". The process of going beyond that requires not merely reminding myself that this isn't true, but of actually "turning on the light", using the native power of awareness itself, the light of awareness, to dispel these illusions. Fortunately the light switch is not somewhere else, on the other side of the room. Awareness itself is the light, the lamp of consciousness, which illuminates the room of the mind. If we give it a chance by simply turning our attention on the ego, it will show us that it was never there to begin with, that the monstrous ego we thought was impossible to get rid of was never actually there at all. As the light in the room begins to grow, we begin to see that the room is devoid of monsters. And that is a growing relief.
Mentally reminding myself that these egos are unreal is not enough - I actually have to turn awareness and feeling on the ego to see that the illusion is not real. That is what self-enquiry is to me - slowly turning on the light in the room. If I were braver and bolder I could perhaps turn the light up more quickly, but it seems I have to grow my courage more slowly than most.
44. The Veda-s, either because of being beginningless Or because of being pronouncements of the Supreme Lord, Beccome the highest standard of authority; Knowledge does not arise on its own, or from others (authorities).
45. That which does not depend upon anything else, Upon which all proofs depend, That sentence of the Veda-s is the proof In the comprehension of Brahman and others transcending the senses.
46. Those who strive by means of proof To attain Knowledge, which gives rise to such proof, Are indeed "great ones"
47. The Veda-s are beginningless, And the One who makes this clear is Isvara (the Lord), the self-lumious Atma (the Self). Keeping in view the manifestation of this (by Isvara) It has been said by the great ones that they (the Veda-s) are the highest authority.
48. In seeing forms, no other cause than the eye is seen. Like that, in realizing the unseen, No other cause equal to the Veda-s can make us know.
49. If the meaning established in the Veda-s Is shown in some treatises, Such is merely an explanatory repitition And does not become an authority in the least.
50. Of the Veda-s, having two parts, some portion Establishes only the dual, And another well known part Expounds only the nondual, real thing.
51. The nondual alone is the Truth. The dual, superimposed on the Truth, is not the Truth. [It is] like silver on the mother-of-pearl And as the shimmering of water in a mirage.
52. If tehre be (the thought of) "superimposition" Of the nondual on the unreal and dual," It is not possible at all, because Superimposition is of the unreal on the real
53. If tehre be superimposition of both, There being no difference of one from the other, Superimposition cannot be on nothing; Hence, the truthfulness of the nondual should be accepted.
54. Nonduality, not understood by immediate perception and such, Is to be established by the Veda-s. duality does not need to be established, It being concluded, on its own, by worldly means.
55. Nonduality is of the nature of happiness. duality will always be intolerable sorrow. The Veda-s establish what is purposeful: "That, indeed, is this."
56. What is established by the word of the Veda-s--- A real thing that is nondual And of the nature of bliss--- "Its inherent natuer is jiva-hood (individuality)," some say.
57. If the inherent nature of that revered As the brilliant be jiva-hood (individuality_, it (individuality, jiva-hood) will not get destroyed even for a moment, Like the heat and light of fire.
58. Just as iron becomes golden [When] acted upon by some chemical, Likewise this jiva (individual), by the power of spiritual effort,Attains the Supreme state---so opine some.
59. It is not correct that this (jiva, individual) becomes That (Supreme); Ass the power of the chemical Passes away after a lapse of time, So does the golden color on the iron reach destruction.
60. Likewise, endowed with variegated charicteristics of happiness and sorrow,
this jiva-hood (individuality), also, would only appear As if it had reached [the state of being the Supreme[ by the power of effort, But [its nature] will not be destroyed.
61. Hence, if it be jiva (the individual) by its nature, It will always thus be jiva istelf. If it is the Supreme Self, it will thsu be Only the Supreme Self--- this will be the right conclusion.
62. Even if the jiva (individual) attains, by the strength of effort, Similarity with the Supreme, Even that, however much, indeed perishes With the lapse of time---thus it has been decided by all.
63 therefore, destroying, by one's own Knowledge, one's own body and the great delusion-filled samsara (repetitive cycle of birth and death} One remains by oneself, the perfect, And nothing else remains.
Enough for now.
Broken Yogi,
"The faculty of feeling is essential in this regard, since feeling, rather than mere "looking", acts as a bridge beyond attention."
Wonderful post by you.Feeling is akin to 'touching'.More than seeing and hearing,the sense of touch breaks the gap between subject and object.
It is 'thought' that brings about seperation as Subject and Object.'Feeling' bridges and obliterates the Gap.You were wondering how devotion would lead to Nondual awareness.When Love becomes pure(without thought)the Lover and the Beloved are not there,ONLY LOVE IS.This Love is Sivam-or God or Self.
This is why Sri Ramakrishna says that Devotion is a woman,she has access to Zenana!
Duality is simply the Product of Thought.
Namaskar.
Broken Yogi, everything you said makes alot of sense, and that is pretty much what my attempt at inquiry looks like. At the same time, and I think you do too, there is the thinking about where this is going, trying to figure out what Ramana means just so that I'm clear. and then also trying to conform my practice, or make it compatable with the end. But you did make a good point, (not that it was your only one), about kind of developing this feeling for just being, the 'I', instead of looking at it as an object of attention. I think that is the faculty that I've been most trying to develope. One obstacle is big vasanas, one's that manifest as intense emotional suffering. don't know if they are common for other people. Those are some of the biggest obstructions to actually inquiring in a way that is 'deep' for lack of a better word. (it is difficult to just turn away from them, and just be, when they seem so real) In those cases, I have found writing my teacher, because the grace is intense in writing him, and usually he kind of draws me out, until I just can't go on with personal effort any longer, then I kind of give in, start feeling intense and soothing grace, and find an e-mail in my inbox from SAT. (society of abidance in truth). The one's I've been posting. the grace isn't as intense as it was in his presence. Which at times was so intense that perhaps an analogy could be used is electricity coursing through my body. It was buzzing through me. (it was amazingly not subtle) For me, what I just wrote above, is what my practice looks like. Many things i've been talking about were things I got from him. Even on bliss, in satsang, he responded that bliss can never be wrong, so there is no need to question it. And he's said that it is wise to leave thought, rather then fighting with it like it is real. Eliminate the non-eternal, in that Maharshi quote he said the same thing, to eliminate the unreal. And as I've went back and read Maharshi it makes so much more sense in light of this correspondence. I'll see things Maharshi says, and it will be verification, because it's the direction this teacher was pointing me in. My guess is, that the key thing is to have the spiritual, or inquiry intention. I don't know how to do it completely, but my intention is to free myself of ego, and to just be. I was re-reading what I wrote, I often do that, and it occured to me on how the big vasanas are hard to turn away from. tp made an interesting point, and yeah tp, hmm, that it doesn't involve turning away from them, but aggressively almost peering into them is what I understood of what he said. Peering into them and seeing their unreality. My teacher says similar things such as deeply investigating, and clearing up self-definitions. He speaks about inquiry in a way that suggests that it is maybe an aggressive practice also. I don't really practice Self-inquiry aggressively, because I haven't figured out how. But I suppose one way, is what is the self-definition that is responsible for this state of mind or experience, and dismissing it as unreal. As Maharshi said, eliminate the unreal.
Broken(integrated)Yogi/Friends,
"simply attend to our own mind and the basic struggle with the "I". It is best not to struggle at all, but simply to feel and observe and allow Grace the room to manifest itself in our own awareness, as the self-enquiry itself going on in us. It is not important to know if we are doing self-enquiry "right", it is merely important to persist in attending to our feeling of "I", and allowing that to mature into something more profound through patience and silence. "
This is right on Dot.It is actually that simple.
Namaskar.
Scott,
"45. That which does not depend upon anything else, Upon which all proofs depend, That sentence of the Veda-s is the proof In the comprehension of Brahman and others transcending the senses."
I understand that the translation 'Proof' is not quite appropriate.The word 'Pramanam' is to be translated as 'Means of Knowledge'-It may imply 'Reliable' 'Independent of Subjectivity' etc.
Sri Sankara is Referring to the Vedas as an independent Means of Knowledge.This is the whole point of Swami Dayananda taking recourse to an extreme position-where he almost dismissed Sri Bhagavan as a Mystic!
You may Read about Pramanam here:
http://arshavidyadehradun.blogspot.com/2009/07/pramanam-swami-paramarthananda.html
A sincere and serious study itself is Practice!Sri Sankara validates this.This is what is discussed in the thread Knowledge and Practice.
Namaskar
Scott/Friends,
Tirumular is the Great sage whose work Tirumanthiram was highly regarded by Sri Bhagavan.Thayumanavar's Guru comes in the lineage of Tirumular.
The Following verse fom Tirumanthiram is a classic.Interestingly ,I found this translation on Master Nome's website!
Here is that verse:
The ignorant think that love and Sivam are two.
They do not know that love is Sivam.
knowing that love is Sivam,
they abide in the love that is Sivam.
-The Tirumantiram (Tirumular)
This is from a magazine-Reflections March-April 2005.You may download from this site.
http://www.satramana.org/Reflections_Web_MarAp_2005.pdf
It also has a very interesting conversation between Nome and other devotees on Self Enquiry.
Namaskar
Dear friends
Losing M. Mind -
Yes. Awareness IS The Light and It is within. Turning It onto whatever is within ( thoughts, emotions and feeling of 'i' ) will dissolve or absorb them into Itself, which is why, for advanced Sadhakas whose ' i' is somewhat freed from concepts, following the ' i' to The Source works. The ' i' is naturally and without effort IN The Source.
However, for others, who are still attached to inner concepts, we enquire into ourselves; THIS 'i', which we are NOT, but think we are. we do this to detect ideas about who we think we are.
For example, ideas like ' i am this man or woman; devoted spouse; dutiful parent ; responsible bread winner ; great leader, intellectual, major domo, know all etc etc.' The disturbing feeling usually originates from the idea, that ' i am that special person, how can you say or do this to me !!!!! '
It is this brush with invalidation of who we think we are, that brings on inner disturbances. Once it is comprehended that our self image is only a silly idea of our own making,( even though it conforms to dharma, artha and kama ) and is not a universally true idea perceived by all, for if it was, it would not have been invalidated in the first place; and that this idea is the root cause of disturbance ( which we do not want ) for it obstructs the experience ( feeling ) of The Peaceful Self, then it is easy to WANT to surrender the idea so that we may experience That idea free Peaceful State ). THAT I AM instead of this i am.
When the idea is surrendered, then, The Light of Awareness within, transforms it into Itself '
This happens powerfully in The Presence of A Jnanai or at Arunachala for The Site Itself is The Eternal Guru manifested for pulling back into Itself all that we think we are, which are just ideas about ourselves.
For Ravi
That is why Bhagwan appreciated and so readily agreed with Avvaiyar ( the poet saint ) when she wrote that dharma, artha and kama have to be forsaken for Moksha. We cannot struggle to dissolve concepts and still feel dutifully bound by the first three stages. When concepts drop, the three automatically fall off. It is written, that duties drop off by themselves and even though the desire to do things is gone, things get done automatically.
"I understand that the translation 'Proof' is not quite appropriate.The word 'Pramanam' is to be translated as 'Means of Knowledge'-It may imply 'Reliable' 'Independent of Subjectivity' etc."
You know, I don't know sanskrit.
this is sanskrit right?
The sentence was...
na apeksate y at
that in which does not depend upon
anyat
anything else
yat-apeksante-akhilani manani
which all proofs depend upon
vakyam tat-nigamanam
that sentence of the Veda-s
manam
is the proof
brahma-adi
of brahman and others
ati-indriya-avgatau
the comprehension transcending the senses.
so proof was a translation of manam. What is the difference between pramanam and manam or is there a difference? Because evidently in this specific verse, the word is manam
It was rearranged as
That which does not depend upon anything else, Upon which all proofs depend, That sentence of the Veda-s is the poof In the comprehension of Brahman and others transcending the senses.
I'm re-posting it because I was adding to it, forgetting I had already posted it.
"I understand that the translation 'Proof' is not quite
appropriate.The word 'Pramanam' is to be translated
as 'Means of Knowledge'-It may imply 'Reliable'
'Independent of Subjectivity' etc."
You know, I don't know sanskrit.
this is sanskrit right?
The sentence was...
na apeksate y at
that in which does not depend upon
anyat
anything else
yat-apeksante-akhilani manani
which all proofs depend upon
vakyam tat-nigamanam
that sentence of the Veda-s
manam
is the proof
brahma-adi
of brahman and others
ati-indriya-avgatau
the comprehension transcending the senses.
so proof was a translation of manam. What is the difference
between pramanam and manam or is there a difference?
Because evidently in this specific verse, the word is manam
It was rearranged as
That which does not depend upon anything else, Upon which
all proofs depend, That sentence of the Veda-s is the
poof In the comprehension of Brahman and others transcending the senses.
I should also add, that 'means of knowledge', 'reliable', and
'independent of subjectivity' seem to me to be the essence of
the word proof, and proof is or seems a more eloquent word in
english, then means of knowledge, reliable, or independent
of subjectivity. I suppose the question is, does this
translation of the sentence get at the meaning Shankara
intended?
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
A good approach to spiritual practice, in the understanding that its
joy and freedom are surpassed only by the final Realization, is that no kind
of bondage is insuperable, being only illusory, and the true Self is ever
present, yet whatever time is required to completely destroy the bondage is
happily well-spent.
As you deepen the inquiry, the distinction between activity and
inactivity of the body, senses, etc. will completely disappear, for the Self
is ever the same, unborn and imperishable.
It is not difficult to correctly, precisely pursue realization of
the Self, for every step you make in that direction reveals peace and bliss,
just as, contrariwise, a step into delusion yields the suffering that
reminds one to go back the way she came. The Grace is always there; one has
only to inquire to experience it. In one sense, the efforts made are
infinitesimal in contrast to the magnitude of Grace, the Truth of the Self,
of the nature of Sat-Cit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss). So, it is a
case of Grace for the sake of Grace. That is the real Existence; the ego is
nothing at all.
May your inquiry continue to deepen so that you abide steadily in
the Self, as the Self, the self-luminous Reality.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
I'd like to ask about the word 'I'-thought.
I understand that 'I'-thought is translation of Aham-Vritti.
This term appears quite often in'Talks'.
What I want to ask is the origin of this translation, that is, who started to use the term 'I'-thought originally, and if Bhagavan confirmed this translation.
Did Bhagavan himeself use this English term 'I'thought?
Regards,
My teacher did a commentary on Maharshi's first work 'Self-inquiry'. There was a point where I realize that most of what I say is tainted with the delusion of self-importance, illusory self-importance, and that words of jnanis have so much more weight then my own. Although it is good I think to reflect on their words, and the debates and discussions here are really good for that.
I'm going to randomly pick a verse, which I believe is Arthur Osborne's translation, and then my teacher's commentary. I'm posting it because I found it amazing.
Disciple: Is Self-Experience possible for the mind, whose nature is constant change?
Maharshi; Since sattva guna (the constituent of prakriti that makes for purity, intelligence, etc.) is the natue of the mind and since the mind is pure and undefiled like ether, what is called "mind" is, in truth, of the nature of knowledge.
When it stays in that nature (ie., pure) state, it has not even the name "mind". It is only the erroneous knowledge that mistakes one for another that is called mind. What was (originally) the pure sattva mind, of the nature of pure knowledge, forgets its knowledge-nature on account of nescience, gets tranfromed into teh wordl under the influence of tamo-guna (ie. the consituent of prakriti that makes for dullness, inertness, etc.), being under the influence of rajo-guna (ie., the constituen of prakriti that makes for activity, passinos, etc.),
imagines "I am the body, etc.; the world is real, "acquires the consequent merit and demerit through attachment, aversion, etc., and, through the residual impressions (vasana-s) thereof, attains birth and death.
But the mind that has got rid of its defilement through action without attachment performed in many past lives, listens to the teaching of scripture from a true guru reflects on its meaning, and meditates to gain the natural state of the mental mode of the form of the Self, ie., of the form "I am Brahman," which is the result of the continued contemplation of Brahman.
Commentary:
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Prostrations to the true guru, the divine sage, who shines with the immortal Knowledge of the Self. He reveals the mind to be an empty illusion. He reveals pure homogeneous Consiousness to be the one reality He destroys inertia and agitation and then causes the sattvic mind, inclined toward the Light of Knowledge, to dissolve into its real nature -- that Absolute Consciousness. He destroys the confusion regarding the real and unreal. He, who is the Self dwelling in the hearts of all, shows the unreal to be ever nonexistent and the Real ever to be.
Those who seek the truth turn their minds inward in order to Realize the Self. the Realization, or Knowledge, of the Self is of the nature of direct, non-conceptual, nonobjective experience. The Self is formless, not to be perceived as a gross or subtle object, and utterly transcendent of all thought. The mind is involved in notions, is composed of thought---with each thought being of an objective character, gross or subtle--- and is characcterized by constant change. Therefore, teh earnest disciple supplicates to the Guru for illumination as to how the changeful can experience the changeless, teh form the formless, the notional the non-conceptual?
The Maharsih, with His inexhaustible Grace and Perfect Wisdom that knwos no bounds, begins to explain the answer to the great mystery.
All manifeestation or prakriti is said to be of the three guna-s or qualities: tamas, inertia and dullness; rajas, active, agitated, and passionate; and sattva, pure, endowed with the light of Knowledge, characterized by wakeful peace. Of all the manifestations, the mind is the subtlest. It is declared to be of the nature of sattva.
When the mind is still, intense, and serene, it is in its true state. Its stillness is teh its uncreated nature, its intensity is the ever-shining reality of pure Consciousness, and its serenity is immutable Being.
If the nature of the mind is known, purley as it is, it is found to be like space, for it is without limmit, of no form, all-pervading, containing all, colorless and shapeless, immeasurable, and indivisible. Such mind is really pure Consciousness. Consciousness is itself Knowledge.
There is nothing else that knows other than Consciousness. Consciousness is the only knower. It is Knowledge itself. In truth, it is the only known. In Self-realization the three are not three; one Consciousness alone is, and that is self-effulgent. There is no ignorance in it and no division into qualities. It is declared to be Supreme Knowledge.
The natural state of mind is that which is free of all ignorance. Ignorance alone is the cause of imagined bondage, duality, and differentiation---inclusive of the dualistic, binding notion of a differentiated mind In the Knowledge free from ignorance, tehre is no individual mind. The mind in its natural state is pure Conscioiusness. It has neither form nor name. How can we call That a "mind"?
What, tehn, is referred to by the term "mind? It is simply "erroneous knowledge that mistakes one for another". the confounding of the real and unreal is the mind. The confounding of the ego and the Self is the mind.
The confounding of thought for knowledge is the mind. the superimposition of objective characteristics upon the nonobjective Self is the mind. Misidentification is the mind.
The pure Sattvic mind, which is Consciousness alone, is able to realize "Self-experience". The Realization is the repose in its own nature. The mind's original state is That. That is immutable. The original is the evver present, but, in delusion, it appears otherwise.
The very same mind, in nescience forgets its own nature and is plagued by rajas and tamas. Rajas displays itself as agitation in the mindst of space-like serenity as thought, desires, etcc. in the midst of the vast, space-like stillness of the Self.
The mind is tamas, that is as inertia, itself appears as the world, inclusive of the form of the body, in the midst of the worldless, bodiless Self, while the imagination of rajas manifests the notion of the belief that one is the body and the world is real."
That's enough for now, it's many pages longer
Yes. Awareness IS The Light and It is within. Turning It onto whatever is within ( thoughts, emotions and feeling of 'i' ) will dissolve or absorb them into Itself, which is why, for advanced Sadhakas whose ' i' is somewhat freed from concepts, following the ' i' to The Source works. The ' i' is naturally and without effort IN The Source.
However, for others, who are still attached to inner concepts, we enquire into ourselves; THIS 'i', which we are NOT, but think we are. we do this to detect ideas about who we think we are.
For example, ideas like ' i am this man or woman; devoted spouse; dutiful parent ; responsible bread winner ; great leader, intellectual, major domo, know all etc etc.' The disturbing feeling usually originates from the idea, that ' i am that special person, how can you say or do this to me !!!!! '"
Here I have trouble, because most of the ideas I have about myself are subtle. If you asked me if I was male, I would say that I am biologically, but it's concept I'm invested in. Am I nice? yes, I am nice. That's a self-concept. Shy? Have difficulies socially? Self-concepts. So these would be things to investigate I suppose. And yes, I am prone to that.
"It is this brush with invalidation of who we think we are, that brings on inner disturbances. Once it is comprehended that our self image is only a silly idea of our own making,( even though it conforms to dharma, artha and kama ) and is not a universally true idea perceived by all, for if it was, it would not have been invalidated in the first place; and that this idea is the root cause of disturbance ( which we do not want ) for it obstructs the experience ( feeling ) of The Peaceful Self, then it is easy to WANT to surrender the idea so that we may experience That idea free Peaceful State ). THAT I AM instead of this i am."
That makes alot of sense. So when I feel agitation, it is because my idea of myself is threatened because others don't agree with it, or the world is not being nice to me, my idea of me. And there is this disturbance rooted in my self-concepts. And then I want to surrender those ideas, and it seems crucial too. But even being invalidated and feeling disturbancce, there is some desire to surrender those self-concepts but sometimes strong enough, and there is resistance in the form of anger, or anxiety to the invalidation.
"When the idea is surrendered, then, The Light of Awareness within, transforms it into Itself '"
So surrender the idea of myself, and then the disturbance is gone int he form of the world not validating my self-concepts. And the Light of Awareness wthin, transforms it, the idea, into itself.
"This happens powerfully in The Presence of A Jnanai or at Arunachala for The Site Itself is The Eternal Guru manifested for pulling back into Itself all that we think we are, which are just ideas about ourselves."
I am not near Arunachala, but because of some of the 'experiences' around my teacher which were intense I suspect he really is a jnani. That's why I write him. Are you one? (just kidding)
tp,
The Topic of Dharma is a vast one-I am not just now motivated enough to write much.
I will however point out a few verses in the Gita that beautifully and clearly bring this aspect(The Collective Aspect):
1)Verse 3-18:
naiva tasya krtenartho
nakrteneha kascana
na casya sarva-bhutesu
kascid artha-vyapasrayah
"A self-realized man has no purpose to fulfill in the discharge of his prescribed duties, nor has he any reason not to perform such work. Nor has he any need to depend on any other living being."
Please note what Lord Krishna says-Nor has he any reason not to perform such work!He clearly acknowledges that Self Realized are not under any sort of compulsion.
Yet,see what follows!
2)verse 3-20:
karmanaiva hi samsiddhim
asthita janakadayah
loka-sangraham evapi
sampasyan kartum arhasi
"Kings such as Janaka attained perfection solely by performance of prescribed duties. Therefore, just for the sake of educating the people in general, you should perform your work."
3)Verse 3-21:
yad yad acarati sresthas
tat tad evetaro janah
sa yat pramanam kurute
lokas tad anuvartate
"Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues."
4)Verse 3-22:
na me parthasti kartavyam
trisu lokesu kincana
nanavaptam avaptavyam
varta eva ca karmani
"O son of Pritha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything—and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties."
The above verse is so forceful that it just cannot escape anyone's Attention.
-----------------------------------
One of the Greatest Exemplars of the above aspect is The Sage Of Kanchi-His talks are available in Tamil in 8 Volumes(The English Translation is available but that cannot match the Original).
The Principles of Dharma are part and parcel of Vedas-They are not just concepts!They are the distilled Essence of Wisdom of Sages discovered and recommended for the collective good of not just Humanity but All Things Living as well as Environment as a Whole-Founded on the Basic Fact of Interdependence of Life. There is nothing abitrary about this.
Ever wondered why Bharat Varsha is such a Fertile Ground for spiritual Regeneration and sustenance?It is simply beacause of this fact that Irrespective of whether one is Dvaitist,Visishtadvaitist or Advaitist or Any other,Dharma is the Highest Common Factor!
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Hi Folks,
Some further musings on Self enquiry (can hear all the groans again ! ):
[ Folks, please, it is my earnest request you should really attack these and my other comments; the logic applied, the line of reasoning etc etc. Honestly, I would appreciate the savage criticisms (in terms of substance, not adjectives !) the more. After all, how else can one reassess and refine one’s ideas ? ]
I think all of us can agree that Sri Bhagavan was an extraordinarily intelligent person; and further, His basic intelligence was taken into uncharted territory because of His “Jnanatva”. We can safely believe that He knew the meanings of words and what sense they would convey to the sadhaka; that He knew that the Supreme Self is beyond the expressible and cannot be conveyed by mere language. :-)
We have all read how He would go to great lengths to correct the chanting of shlokas in His presence. How He said that even a slight mis-pronunciation was like a physical hurt for Him. And we know with what print-like precision He would painstakingly and slowly write down even the most mundane of things. His corrections of write-ups submitted by others, even those done by Him in English – a language He was not really at-home with, are a marvel of pithy and precise expression; not one extra or inappropriate word is used.
And we know simplicity and perfection defined His “personality”. He would endeavour to do everything with simple items at hand, with the minimum of wastage and as perfectly as possible. Even if it be mundane things like making a walking stick or a coconut cup, He would spend hours in cutting and polishing them so that they were perfectly round or perfectly smooth.
So does anyone here seriously think that a “person” with such attributes could conceivably write, in His instructions to His beloved devotees, anything other than what He precisely and EXACTLY meant ? Would He write something like “do this”, when the correct way, or the only way, to “do this” was actually to “do that and that” ? Wouldn’t He simply have written “do that and that” instead, and be done with ? Why would He stick to “do this”, again and again, in all His works ? After all, He did not have any particular dogma to protect, or a particular school to uphold, or any group to please.
So let us consider His direct words to us. What is He actually saying ?
Though we could also pick up Upadesa Undiyar for instance, I believe we need Ulladu Narpadu. It is an extraordinary work due to a very special reason. If we look at Sri Bhagavan’s non-devotional works, this is the only work which was done without a setting or a given context; and without it being a set of responses to queries put to Him by devotees. And it is long enough to cover in detail the whole gamut of ideas He wanted to convey. He had a free hand here. He was requested by Sri Muruganar to write out, as He deemed fit, some verses that expressed His teachings. Sri Ganapati Muni was also in the picture because we read how he chose 2 verses to make them the invocatory verses. And then Sri Muruganar arranged the lot into the order that the 40 verses are in today. We all know the story. And given a free hand over 40 odd verses, He could pick and choose, and polish and set each word and line and verse in the manner He wanted.
Ulladu Narpadu is nothing but a complete treatise of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings, actually in His own words, exactly as He meant to convey them. The verses read together emphasize certain aspects of sadhana or de-emphasize them, exactly as was meant by Sri Bhagavan. Meaning thereby, that we have to ALSO take the verses in totality, to understand and appreciate what they convey when taken as a set of 40 and not individual verses. (Because, certainly, it is possible to pick up a line, or even a whole verse, which can, when read in isolation, be “interpreted” as saying something different, and which can then be used to bolster our own pet theory).
[cont at part 2]
[part 2]
[Am not for a moment saying that important compilations like “Talks” etc are to be ignored. Far from it. But we have to keep in mind that each piece of advice therein has a specific context and is suited to a particular type of devotee. And we will be in a better position to understand the finer sub-shades in His teaching once we have our feet firmly grounded in a work like Ulladu Narpadu.]
I believe no serious devotee of Sri Bhagavan’s, who wishes to understand and practice vichara, can make do without Ulladu Narpadu. It has to be a bedside companion, to be read and pondered over, again and again.
And, of course, the verses ALSO clearly delineate how to do vichara. There are by my count at least 7 verses that directly describe vichara. Each of them mention, basically, “seek the Source of the ‘I’, or “seek the place where the ‘I’ rises”.
In these specific verses on practice, Sri Bhagavan does not say “hold on to the ‘I’, or dwell in the ‘I’ with no thoughts, that is all that is required”.
He does not say “seek the ‘I’, that is all that is required”.
And, wonder of wonders, He does not even say “just BE STILL”.
He does not even directly and simply say “seek the Self” and be done with. After all, the place where the ‘I’ rises is the Self, so why did Sri Bhagavan not simply say “seek the Self”; why did He instead go about expressing the process as the roundabout “seek the place where the ‘I’ rises ?
Obviously, logically, because when it comes to the practice of vichara, there is some very small but critical difference in all of the above. And this is not just hair splitting and trying to be cute on detail. As already mentioned, Sri Bhagavan was a paragon of simplicity and perfection. And His own words written as a set of instructions to His devotees, given the constraints of human language, would be as precisely and exactly formulated as was possible.
It is my humble submission that if we ponder over some of these questions we may get a clue as to what vichara is all about. We have to ask ourselves, is the vichara we are doing now, actually the same as given by Sri Bhagavan ? If what we are doing is a little different, then where did we pick up the altered practice ? Was it our own interpretation or did we read it somewhere ? This process, for a sadhaka, is as much a part of vichara as the actual activity of vichara itself. Each one of us has to analyse thus and with His Grace always available, I believe we will find appropriate answers.
[Let me add here that we need to simply throw into the dustbin the idea that, “seeking the Source is all right, but its too hard, I don’t understand how; I will start with what Mr. X has explained as being a good preliminary practice. Then we will see.” Our Guru is who, Mr. X or Sri Bhagavan ? And when we have the courage to make Self-realization the goal of life, we must too have the courage to stick to hard, tough practice as told by the Guru.]
I thought to leave one quote here from Ulladu Narpadu; one which I have always found stunning when pondered over. This is a translation by Sri TMP Mahadevan and is a little differently done than the standard Sri Ramanasramam one, and the others. This verse, unlike all the others, does not, “seek the place where the ‘I’ rises; it says, staggeringly, “seek the place where the ‘I’ does NOT rise.
Verse 27:
“The state where the ‘I’ does not rise, is the state where we are ‘that’. Without seeking the place where the ‘I’ does not rise, how is one to attain Self-loss consisting in the non-rise of ‘I’ ? Without attaining that, say, how is one to abide in one’s own state where one is ‘that’ ?”
Now ‘that’ folks ( pun intended ! ), is really worth pondering over.
Regards
Broken Yogi/Friends,
I came across this debate on Adhyasa(Avidya).Pl visit:
http://www.sankaracharya.org/library/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf
Namaskar.
Arvind,
Wonderful post by you.You have set the premise of Sri Bhagavan's Life and Teaching so beautifully in a few words!
". Each of them mention, basically, “seek the Source of the ‘I’, or “seek the place where the ‘I’ rises”.
In these specific verses on practice, Sri Bhagavan does not say “hold on to the ‘I’, or dwell in the ‘I’ with no thoughts, that is all that is required”.
He does not say “seek the ‘I’, that is all that is required”.
And, wonder of wonders, He does not even say “just BE STILL”.
He does not even directly and simply say “seek the Self” and be done with. After all, the place where the ‘I’ rises is the Self, so why did Sri Bhagavan not simply say “seek the Self”; why did He instead go about expressing the process as the roundabout “seek the place where the ‘I’ rises ?"
What is the nature of this seeking?Request you to throw some light on this.
Namaskar
Scott/Arvind,
"What is the difference between pramanam and manam or is there a difference? Because evidently in this specific verse, the word is manam"
Scott,My knowledge of Sanskrit may be a wee better than yours!
I will request Arvind to throw some light on this.
Coming to 'Means of Knowledge'-It means that The Study of these Texts is itself 'Practice' or Sadhana.This is different than 'Proof'.A 'Proof' of some Fact need not give you 'Means' to experience the Fact.It may give one Faith or conviction.
Arvind,Your service is solicited!
Namaskar.
Arvind, it strikes me as you said, that with the perfect way that Maharshi did everything, why would he instruct anyone to just do something repetitvely over again? That is kind of what I was thinking about self-inquiry, that it isn't a task to be done in a repetitive way. Every statement I raed of Maharshi's seems to be a direct instruction how to realize the Self immediately. Everything is kind of instructing the devotee from their own standpoint how to see that there is only the Self. (I should add, when I use the Self, sometimes I forget the depth of what that means) When I was reading the Shankara verses, and my teacher's introduction. There was something that really struck me about how the Self really is ourself, because there is no other self. It was kind of like what I was almost seeing when questioning what attention to the 'I' means, and hwo the one giving attention to the supposed 'I' is the Self that is being sought, which further atleast temporarily helped me understand what it means that the real Self can never be objectified. I can't objectify myself, because as soon as I objectify myself, it's not myself, the one who is objectifying is. and in a way maybe Self-inquiry is attempting to Realize that I am the one who is looking. And that can't be objectified. What I'm objectifying as me, is not me. I imagine who I am, but I can't imagine myself, or find myself. that self that is seeing the duality is the real Self. So...I am the Self, so the thinking goes. Pehaps in a way, it's like who is looking? I am. Well, who am i? there was that line in the Shankara verses, something like, even if you doubt your existence. You obviously know you exist to be doubting. And that existence is sat (Existence). The existence is unquestionable, that existence is the existence talked about in these teachings. Because how can I cease to exist. Or atleast that's how it's expressed. Attachments and desires are tricky, and maybe why in a way they have to be weakedened to a point, to proceed in a deep manner as tp said, is that maybe I can accept that my existence is eternal, timeless, objecless, in theory, it makes sense. But when I want something even if it is illusory, or could be illusory. There is happiness tied up with smoething that appears. What I'm saying is a mix of deeper revelation and sometimes where I stray into intellectually trying to figure it out.
Nonetheless, I feel this deep inquiry or questioning is in the spirit of Self-inquiry, I'm not sure how direct it is to what Maharshi advocated. But as I was saying, I think as Arvind was pointing out The 40 verses contain Maharshi's teachings. Self-inquiry is Maharshi's teachings, so all of it is pointing to what Self-inquiry is. It seems like Self-inquiry is just the attempt to Realize that it's true, however that looks for anybody. Which makes sense why Papaji would say, I prescribe no method. And Maharshi did advocate as has been pointed out intense effort. But I'mm thinking from my own attemtps he did not mean in a methodical way, but in a deeply investigative way. I don't know what I'm going to find, but I'm investigating into what is me. Who am I? And I couldn't be the things that I normally consider me, because those are imagined. But what is the imagination based on. The senses and thought, and what are they based in? A brain. And who knows about a brain? I do. What is it that knows about a brain? Who is the one asking these questions? because there is only the Self, which means only the subject is real. Not hte imagined subject, not the personality, individuality, but the observer who I feel is me. who is that? There is kind of a chilling realization, that I can never isolate me, because anything I look at it, or think about, or put attention on, or hold, it cannot be me. So what am I? Personality notions arise, and seem to be at the center. But who is looking at the feeling of ego? There were lines from Talks. Like one devotee talked about how a blank prevails, and Maharshi said, the Consciousness overlooking the Blank is the Self. Because the Self is what overlooks everything. I am always looking over everything, even who I think I am. In Shankara's verses, there was a line about how the self knows the whole universe, but nothing in the universe knows it.
.
HOLD ONTO THE I
I try to describe self enquiry in a simple way. I'm sorry for my bad English. This is only a fraction of what I could say to this issue. I cannot answer to comments.
Self enquiry or "hold onto the I" is no feeling of something, it is a knowing of something, it means knowledge. It is not a "feeling of I" as it is put sometimes.
A simple example of the problem and the path to the solution:
You wake up in the morning. Your mind whispers: "I slept and now I am awake. I am here, and this is a place I know. All this is known to me as this and that. Now I have my work to do."
All this are false ideas we need to realize as such. Why?
1. You havn't slept - the body slept.
2. You are not awake - you are beyond sleeping and waking.
3. The place where you are is not known - not to you, not to anyone else. Try to describe it.
4. You have no work to do. What is the sense in saying: "I'm drinking my coffee. I'm cleaning my body. I'm going to work"? It is not your coffee, it is not your body, it is not your work. There is simply drinking, cleaning and going. Your acts are acts of the body, not yours. And the body is not yours simply because it falls ill and dies some day - without asking you.
5. What you call your I is a false I - it is not your real I. It is a thing.
6. All what you can think about, your "known" and "not known", is false as such. The best way to describe this is perhaps like the tibetans do: "All our thoughts are golden ornaments in absolute consciousness."
Self enquiry means to realize this as the truth and to act according to this truth. The first step to liberation is the clear realization of this false I. The second step is to act according to this understanding - to eradicate completely the sense of "I" and "mine". In the end it is like flying in outer space - there is nothing you can keep hold of. In this space you can see one day that what we call "world" and "I" is nothing else then fireworks in consciousness.
Many people - spiritual people too - don't like this kind of description because they fear to loose the world they believe to see. They try to bring the "I" back to "reality". Yet it is the truth.
20 oder 30 years later no one will know what you, who you are dead now, ever tried to gain in that world you once believed to live in. Can you now answer to me the question what you will be when you are dead?
.
For Ravi
Yes Ravi, you are right. The only thing is, that at the end stage, dharma is performed with no feeling of ' i '. It is not a compulsion any more. All the vasanas that once compelled desire and action drop off.
Till then compulsions will remain and we are compelled to do.
A stage is arrived at when, if these are things to be done, they will be executed without compulsive ideas that bind and attach.
This is a gift which is cherished.
respectfully yours
Arvind,
Thanks for bringing up these important questions. It's great to read Ulladu Narpadu again. However, I think you are mistaken if you see this work as Ramana's definitive instructions on the practice of self-enquiry, or as in some way superceding any other instruction he gave on the subject.
In fact, it is perhaps precisely because it was NOT a work written in response to devotees, but only an expression of his own state of realization, that it is particularly ill-suited as a guide for the actual practice of self-enquiry. It expresses the position of one for whom self-enquiry is not necessary at all, who dwells permamently in that Condition in which the "I" never arises at all, and is thus not at all meant to be a guide to its practice. It merely exhorts all to practice self-enquiry, without defining the practice in any but the most basic manner. One would presume that those who obey that exhortation would resort to his more detailed instructions on the practice of self-enquiry, to be found elsewhere.
So I'm not exactly sure that this text is the proper source to look at to define Ramana's instructions on self-enquiry. The presence or absence of certain phrases or forms of instruction in the text are not indicative of their value or lack thereof in the actual practice of self-enquiry.
It is clear that he directs us to find the Source of the "I", but the process is not defined or explained further. One can draw many inferences from this phrase, but it is best I think to refer to Ramana's more detailed instructions and descriptions of self-enquiry elsewhere to understand his use of this phrase, rather than to pretend that its meaning is self-evident to any but the rare few, who upon hearing it, were directly able to find the Source of the "I" without further instruction. For the rest of us, fortunately, Ramana wrote and spoke and responded to devotees' needs for clarification with a wealth of further instruction. I am not aware of him ever suggesting we ignore those instructions, and instead only attend to Ulladu Narpadu.
IN summary, I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Clearly, you take exception to a number of things people have said here about self-enquiry, and are presenting Ulladu Narpadu as a form of counter-argument. Fine and well, but you have not explicitly said what argument you are actually trying to make. I get it that you object to the phrase "holding onto the "I"-thought", and yet I don't see that its absence in Ulladu Narpadu has any great meaning, given the brief nature of its mention of self-enquiry. I'm not personally an advocate of "holding onto the "I"-thought, simply because it's not something I'm either drawn to do or remotely capable of doing, but it's certainly a phrase I think Ramana has used at times in describing self-enquiry, and so I gather it has its uses and purposes.
Similarly with many other phrasings and forms of instruction that you seem to object to. I don't mind the attitude of aggressive examination of Ramana's instructions on self-enquiry, but I don't think reducing his teaching to the few mentions of it in Ulladu Narpadu is in any way definitive, or even a productive way to go about learning the true practice of self-enquiry.
If you wish to be more detailed and examine the various understandings people here have developed, and which undoubtedly include many faults and alterations of Ramana's own instruction, that would be a very valuable enterprise, and I encourage you to continue in that vein. It would help if you were more specific, however.
Hi Ravi, [ & folks, no bouquets please, only brickbats wanted !]. :-)
You give me far too much credit for knowing Sanskrit. What little one knows is just picked up, perforce, from having to understand abstruse Sanskrit texts, that all.
Am sorry was not really following your particular conversation with LMM, but have read back a few comments and one hopes one has the context right.
Basically, mAna comes from the root “mA” (as does pra-mAna), which as we all know (as it is used in “mA-yA”), means “to measure”; and thus mAna means - a measure, a standard, a demonstration, a proof.
Whereas pra-mAna would be “(means of) measuring”, or “(means of) proof”. It also is a technical term, with fine shades of meaning, with respect to the classical Indian theories of Perception; which are some of the most complex arguments one can find anywhere in the world.
But in the verse mentioned here, there is a subtle and elegant triple play between “mAnAni”, “nigamAnAm” and “mAnam”:
nApekshate yadanyadyadpekshantekhilAni mAnAni
vAkyam tan nigamAnAm mAnam ……
In the first use as “mAnAni”, an alternate, derived root-word “mAn” is actually applicable instead of the root “mA”. Then “mAnAni” means “notion”, or “concept”. “nigamAnAm” is sort of a technical word without applicability of roots and which in conjunction with vakya means “a saying or quotation from the Vedas”. And for the third usage, the root “mA” as described earlier is applicable and thus it means “measure” or “proof”.
The verse should thus possibly read:
That which does not look to (depend upon) anything else,
Yet to which all concepts (or notions) look to (depend upon),
That saying of the Vedas is the proof ……
regards
Arvind/Scott,
Thanks very much Arvind.It is clear that you do have a good grasp of Sanskrit(inadvertantly you seem to have admitted it when you refer to the need forunderstanding Abstruse Texts!)
Essentially Sri Sankara seems to be relying more on the authority of the Vedas than on his own indisputable direct Knowledge of The Self.(Verses 44-50)However,he seems to differentiate between Dual and Nondual aspect in Vedic Texts.
The Link that I have provided(Debate on Adhyasa)makes for interesting reading in this context.
The visishtadvaitist also make use of this Authority of the Vedas to back themselves as also the Dualist!
Namaskar.
Ramos,
"Can you now answer to me the question what you will be when you are dead?"
Wihout going into the spiritual aspects,from a pure occult point of view,it depends on the individual.Many of the near death exerience of Persons indicate that they are in a position to see their Body lying lifeless,etc.So,The experiences do not come to naught.
You may find a Full chapter in 'Autobiography of a Yogi' devoted to this.
Namaskar.
Ramos/Friends,
This Excerpt from Letters from Ramanasramam is interesting:
4th April, 1948
(171) KAILASA
This morning a devotee brought an old copy of the Peria
Puranam and gave it to Bhagavan. Reading the story about
Sundaramurti going to Kailasa, Bhagavan said, “It seems that
Letters from Sri Ramanasramam 379
Sundaramurti found that after his own arrival, the Chera Raja
had arrived on horseback almost immediately. The Raja asked
him, ‘How did you come here without my calling’?” So saying
Bhagavan read a verse from it. A Tamil youth, who was
present, said, “Where is that Kailasa, Swami?” “Kailasa! It is
at the very place where we are. First of all, tell me where we
are?” said Bhagavan.
“That’s not it, Swami. The Kailasa of which you have
just read, that Sundaramurti had gone to; does it really exist?
If so, where is it? Please favour me with a proper reply,” said
the young man.
“I have told you already,” said Bhagavan. “We have come
here now. From here we will go to some other place. If all
this is true, then that also is true. There, also, a Swami will
be found seated on a raised pedestal. Just like this there will
be devotees around. They ask something; he replies
something. That will also be like this. If you look at the thing
from the point of view of the body, that is how it is. If, however,
you look at it from the point of view of truth, wherever we
are, it is Kailasa. There is no question of its being born or
growing or dying. When we realize that there is nothing
real in this world, Kailasa is everywhere.”
Compare this with What Sri Yukteswar tells Yogananda in Autobiography of A Yogi regarding Life after Death.
Namaskar.
"Essentially Sri Sankara seems to be relying more on the authority of the Vedas than on his own indisputable direct Knowledge of The Self.(Verses 44-50)"
That is not how I took it. I can't imagine a jnani relying on something besides his direct knowledge. I thought what he was saying is that the Vedas were also the words of the Self also.
I thought I would do another verse from Self-Inquiry and my teacher's commentary on it.
Disciple: What is the reason for absence of mental strength?
The Maharhsi: The means that make one qualified for enquiry are meditation, yoga, etc. One should gain proficiency through graded practice, and thus secure a stream of mental modes that is natural and helpful.
When the mind that has in this manner become ripe listens to the present inquiry, it will at once realize its true nature, which is the Self, and remain in perfect peace, without deviating from that state. To a mind that has not become ripe, immediate realization and peace are hard to gain through listening to enquiry. Yet, if one practices the means for mind-control for some time, peace of mind cane be obtained eventually.
Commentary :
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Teh means of sadhana through inquiry resulting Realization of Self have been described in detail by Sri Bhagavan. By such Realization one abides in illimitable peace. The turning of the mind inward by inquiry into the Self will bring the experience of considerable peace.
A mind desirous of transcending itself, of the dissolution of its own form, is ripe. A mind that finds peace in the Presence of the Guru and yearns to completely experience what He reveals is ripe. A mind that is undaunted and single-pointedly adheres to the instruction of the Guru is ripe.
A mind that does not follow its own notions or modes is ripe. Such a mind naturally engers into Knowledge without delay when listening to the wisdom and the inquiry revealed by the Guru.
For a ripe mind, even while listening, simultanously reflection (manana), profound continuous meditation (nididhyasana) and absorption in samadhi are occuring.
Inquiry is the formless path yielding the Realization of the formless Self. If the seeker feels that it is impossible to practice any of what has been revealed thus far by the Maharshi, it is incumbent upon the seeker to do whatever is necessary to make the miind ripe enough to practice that which directly results in Realization.
Though the disciple requested to know the reason for the absence of strength of mind, Sri Bhagavan's response to him is that of a directive to engage in meditation, yoga, etc., of any type that will engender a ripe mind in him.
Though meditation upon the formless is best, meditation upon a form is better then none at all. Though jnana, the path of Knowledge, the essence of which is SElf-inquiry, is best, better is it to pursue any form of yoga than none at all. Though the ideal state is one free of all mental modes, a stream of beneficial, spiritually inclined modes far suppasses diffusion and the random vagaries and conjurings of a mind that has neither jnana nor yoga. "Etc." in the text refers to ny form of worship, contemplation, or meditation.
Whatever the spiritual practice pusued, it should be practiced with one's utmost energy and attention. Thus, one gains proficiency with introverting the mind. Whatever be the effort or time expended on acquiring introversion of mind, such is well spent. ripeness of mind should be attained without delay. To turn the mind outward is merely to prolong suffering and to postpone Bliss. Such a mind does not inquire even when presented with the opportunity and does not retain the wise instuction even when heard repeatedly. For such a mind the ever-present Peace seems remote and the Self, though the one Reality, is not Realized.
enough for now.
This was my teacher's first response
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your message. It is good that you are attempting to practice Self-inquiry.
As is explained in Bhagavad Gita and elsewhere, krodha (anger) is rooted in kama (desire), which is rooted in avidya (ignorance). One who knows this destroys the tendencies constituting the personality and its repetitive suffering.
If the source of happiness in ascertained to be within you, dissolution of desire and fear is natural. The root of duality is the ego-notion. None of this is truly you.
Grace transcends the ideas of inner and outer, of oneself and another, and its infinity is endlessly experienced by those who remain free of the ego.
In the inquiry “For whom is thought?” the objectifying outlook is abandoned, and the thought subsides, and, as one inquires “Who am I?” clear Knowledge of one’s true identity shines and the very sense of existence previously falsely associated with the thought returns to it origin, the Self. Therefore, question the definitions you imagine for yourself.
The ego, being an illusion, is powerless. It cannot know anything. The potency of spiritual practice derives from the Self, which is of the nature of Consciousness.
The consideration of whether or not Nome is a jnani is irrelevant to your inquiry. Sri Bhagavan has said that the realized can take care of themselves, and you should take care of yourself.
If you find what is said here helpful, make good use of it. If it is not understandable by you, you may discard it as so much prattle or set it aside to be picked up at a later time by you.
May the tendency to consider the illusory person as if real be relinquished by you, and, diving within, may you deeply inquire to know the true Self, of the nature of nondual Being-Consciousness-Bliss, and thereby abide in lasting peace and imperishable happiness.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
Broken Yogi,
Thanks for your post. Your aggressive comments on my “musings on Self-enquiry” are most welcome, and I will not give rejoinders to any of those. But I will protest, with genuine sadness, that in your eagerness to put me down, you have taken pot-shots at a Divine work like Ulladu Narpadu, as well.
“…….. I think you are mistaken if you see this work as Ramana's definitive instructions on the practice of self-enquiry, or as in some way superceding any other instruction he gave on the subject ”
“ …… that it is particularly ill-suited as a guide for the actual practice of self-enquiry. It expresses the position of one for whom self-enquiry is not necessary at all, who dwells permamently in that Condition in which the "I" never arises at all, and is thus not at all meant to be a guide to its practice.”
“ ……. So I'm not exactly sure that this text is the proper source to look at to define Ramana's instructions on self-enquiry.”
“…… but I don't think reducing his teaching to the few mentions of it in Ulladu Narpadu is in any way definitive, or even a productive way to go about learning the true practice of self-enquiry. (etc etc)
For me, Ulladu Narpadu, if at all is “superceded”, it is only by Aksharamanamalai and the Ashtakam, which, despite my best efforts, move me to tears. Anyhow, these and the direct compositions of Sri Bhagavan like Upadesa Undiyar and all the hymns on Sri Arunachala form a part of “scripture”, on par with the Vedas, the Upanisads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ribhu Gita, the Ramayana and so on. Not for nothing are they part of the Parayana done in Sri Ramanasramam each day as per the weekly cycle, and which was being done even when Sri Bhagavan was in the body.
And just so it may not be said, that even if Ulladu Narpadu is “scripture”, that does not mean it contains instructions for the sadhaka; judge for yourself whether these verses (or, for that matter any of the 40 verses) are intended for one “for whom Self-enquiry is not necessary at all” or “ill-suited as a guide for the actual practice of Self-enquiry” (your words):
14. If the first person exists, then the second and the third persons will also exist. If, by an ENQUIRY into the truth of the first person, the first person ceases, then the second and the third persons will (also) cease: all will shine as one. The state of being so is one’s true nature.
23. This body will not say ‘I’. In sleep, no one will say ‘I am not’. After the ‘I’ rises, all rises. Enquire with a keen mind WHENCE this ‘I’ rises.
27. The state where the ‘I’ does not rise, is the state where we are ‘That’. Without SEEKING the place where the ‘I’ does not rise, how is one to attain Self-loss consisting in the non-rise of ‘I’ ? Without attaining that, say, how is one to abide in one’s own state where one is ‘That’ ?
28. Just as one would dive to recover something that has fallen into water, even so, one should, with a keen mind, dive into oneself, controlling speech and breath, and FIND THE PLACE WHENCE the swell ‘I’ rises. Thus should you know.
29. Without mouthing the word ‘I’, to SEEK with the mind turned inward as to WHENCE the ‘I’ rises is, verily, the path of knowledge. Other than this, the contemplation of the form ‘this I am not: that I am’ is but an auxiliary; it is not enquiry.
[ at 2 ]
[ 2 ]
30. When the mind, turning inward, INQUIRES ‘Who am I?’ and reaches the Heart, that which is ‘I’ sinks crestfallen, and the one reality appears of its own accord as ‘I’, ‘I’. Though it appears thus, the ‘I’ is not an object; it is the whole. That verily, is the Self which is real.
32. While the scriptures proclaim ‘That thou art’, without ENQUIRING as to what one is and abiding (as the Self), to contemplate ‘That I am, not this’ is because of lack of strength. For, one is always ‘that’.
----------
And lest be it said that I ignored all the other important literature related to Sri Bhagavan, which are not direct compositions of His, I had said:
“[Am not for a moment saying that important compilations like “Talks” etc are to be ignored. Far from it. But we have to keep in mind that each piece of advice therein has a specific context and is suited to a particular type of devotee. And we will be in a better position to understand the finer sub-shades in His teaching once we have our feet firmly grounded in a work like Ulladu Narpadu.]”
Best wishes
Arvind,
I'm sorry if my comments on Ulladu Narpadu have offended you. Rest assured that I am not motivated to take pot shots at you, nor to denigrate Ulladu Narpadu. I agree with you that Ulladu Narpadu is a great form of scripture on a par with the Upanishads. I find it beautiful and inspiring to. It's approach to self-enquiry, however, is inspirational rather than instructive. The quotes you have cited which refer to self-enquiry only confirm that view, in my opinion. It lays a very bried basis for self-enquiry, and a very brief rationale for why self-enquiry should be practiced. Yet it seems to lack any but the most general instruction in the practice of self-enquiry. I cannot see it as a manual for the practice of self-enquiry, and that is not a criticism of Ulladu Narpadu, since I don't see that as Ramana's intention in writing Ulladu Narpadu. I'm not sure that even you do. I'm not sure how it answers any of the questions raised here on this forum, or how it resolves the difficulties people have voiced about their practice of self-enquiry. If you think it does, the burden is upon you to explain how. I welcome your aggressive criticisms, as you said you welcome ours. Please don't take any of this personally. It is of course not meant that way.
"Thanks for bringing up these important questions. It's great to read Ulladu Narpadu again. However, I think you are mistaken if you see this work as Ramana's definitive instructions on the practice of self-enquiry, or as in some way superceding any other instruction he gave on the subject.
In fact, it is perhaps precisely because it was NOT a work written in response to devotees, but only an expression of his own state of realization, that it is particularly ill-suited as a guide for the actual practice of self-enquiry. It expresses the position of one for whom self-enquiry is not necessary at all, who dwells permamently in that Condition in which the "I" never arises at all, and is thus not at all meant to be a guide to its practice."
I don't really see a difference in what Ramana responded to devotees and his writings, for instance those in Collected Works. Everything Ramana wrote were instructions that the Self is all. Instructions on how to Realize the Self is all, is the same as instruction that the Self is all. Because that is what the practice is meant to Realize. Self-inquiry is meant to Realize the Self. Everything he said was clarification on what the Self is, and how to Realize that it is the only thing. So the disctinction you draw is not one that actually exists.
"It merely exhorts all to practice self-enquiry, without defining the practice in any but the most basic manner. One would presume that those who obey that exhortation would resort to his more detailed instructions on the practice of self-enquiry, to be found elsewhere."
I don't see any distintion there. All of his teachings ae equally detailed on how to Realize the Self. There is no practice of Self-inquiry apart from Realizing taht there is the One Self experientially. Ramana was the one Self, because there was no separate individual point of view, he could only utter things from that standpoint. It was kind of like in the Shankara verse, if it is jiva, it is always jiva. If it is Brahman, it is always Brahman. There is no indirect form of Self-inquiry.
"So I'm not exactly sure that this text is the proper source to look at to define Ramana's instructions on self-enquiry. The presence or absence of certain phrases or forms of instruction in the text are not indicative of their value or lack thereof in the actual practice of self-enquiry."
As I said, I think everything Maharshi said or wrote was instruction in how to Realize what he Realized. There isn't some practicce of Self-inquiry apart from that. For isntance in 40 verses, just reading it is sadhana, because it describes what is real, and what is not real. 40 verses on Reality is what it is called. A verse where he talks about how the screen, the seer of the screen, and the light by which the screen is seen are the same. That is instruction on how to realizze it, it was not written for any other purpose. Ramana didn't write to gloat in his own state, I imagine if there weren't devotees that needed cclarification he wouldn't have written it, but just basked silently in the Self.
"It is clear that he directs us to find the Source of the "I", but the process is not defined or explained further. One can draw many inferences from this phrase, but it is best I think to refer to Ramana's more detailed instructions and descriptions of self-enquiry elsewhere to understand his use of this phrase, rather than to pretend that its meaning is self-evident to any but the rare few, who upon hearing it, were directly able to find the Source of the "I" without further instruction. For the rest of us, fortunately, Ramana wrote and spoke and responded to devotees' needs for clarification with a wealth of further instruction. I am not aware of him ever suggesting we ignore those instructions, and instead only attend to Ulladu Narpadu."
There is not Ulladu Narpadu, and then the descriptions of how to practice Self-inquiry to Realize it, Ulladu Narapadu being for the Realized, the rest being for thoes wwho don't. If there is something you don't understand, and for me, tehre are certainly things I don't understand experientially, I think rather then dismissing thsi text as not true instruction, perhaps ask what you don't understand. If no one else knows, I'm sure David Godman would clear it up. If ulladu narpadu (isn't that 40 verses?), is not understood, then probably the practicce of Self-inquiry is not fully understood. Just as if something he said in Talks or in Who am I? or Day by Day was not understood. There is no pre-eminence to Ulladu Narpadu. They all are complete and have everything necessary that is needed for an aspirant to know. But not understanding something, just seems like a sign that deeper self-questioning is needed, and also perhaps help from others. As I was saying, if we haven't realzied the SElf, there is no understanding of Self-inquiry, only a jnani can teach Self-inquiry. Only a sat-guru understands it. Since the Self is all there is, there is no Self-inquiry apart from it. tp's story really illustrates that, how he started out with the more dualistic worshipping, which was absolutely probably necessary at that point, and may be for me. Because it is necessary to call on an outside power. At some point he got the strength as he put it to examine self-concepts by the light of awareness because the attachments had been weakened.
I was going to post 40 verses, it is so packed with instruction. everything made alot more sense then it did last time. I have to say, it is definitely complete instruction. That first line about the person who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light by which he says, he is all of them. That saying there contains the entirety of his instruction, as do all the other verses. But he approaches it from different angles. But that means I suppose, everything I see, and experience is what I see on the screen, I am the person who sees, and there is the light by which i perceive everything including thought, and perception, others. I am all of them. Just even meditating on that. See, that is Self-inquiry just to meditate on that statement. And God, the Self and the World, are all the same. so Realizing the I-less state where God, the Self and the World are one, is as he put it, "alone the perfect state". But yeah, it seems like reading 40 verses periodically to frequently is maybe really good if not important for spiritual practice. I see my understanding of it grow. My teacher responded in satsang to me, when I said that when I get deeper and get really blissful, he said by what light do I know of hte brightness of the room. And I take that to mean, the true Self. And in this verse he had said, the screen, the light, and the seer are the same. Self-inquiry is meant to get at that truth, it's meant to be something that maintains the illusion of a separate me doing it. Oh, I've been practicing Self-inquiry for 5 years, I'm really good at it. Realizing what it is pointing at, is the only understsanding of it. Self-inquiry is like as the metaphor goes, someone points at the moon, and me seeing where he is pointing. Who am i? is pointing at the nondual Self. But if it is asked with the intention to see that the screen, the seer, and the light are one. That seems to be what it is getting at.
"One simply cannot embark on the process of self-questioning without such self-confidence and faith. You clearly have that, and will clearly succeed at it. Ramana had that same kind of self-confidence and faith when he sat down to enquire of himself as well. He was determined to find the answer, and that determination is itself the very self-confidence I am speaking of. In his case, it only took a few minutes to complete. Your and my process may take longer, but it is essentially the same, and requires the same kind of self-confidence, which is not the same as belief in God or even belief in Ramana and his teachings, but belief in oneself, beyond any such externals. Ramana did not require books and conversations and guidance from without. He assumed that he already had within himself whatever was needed to answer this question fully and satisfactorily. Not all of us feel quite so self-confident, and thus we consult his and other books, and one another"
I realize this was an older quote. But I feel pretty strongly contrariwise to the message here. That it's the opposite. The self-confidence and faith needed for Self-Realization is not faith in ourselves as individuals that we ccan do it beyond help from anyone else. The reason Ramana realized the Self was not because his individuality was so strong, that he no longer needed anyone else, or to read books, but because his individuality was so weak that it took very little to ccause it be completely given up. And for instance in relationship to a guru, it is becaue the guru has given up the individuality ccompletely and abides in the real Self without egoity, because of that they are our real egoless Self, and we only need merge with the Consciousness of the guru, in other words give up our self-confidence in ourselves as individuals, and cease to exist as individuals into the real Self. Like in 40 verses with Reailty, God, the Self, and the World are one. So the same would apply to God. Worship of God, until there is only God, is giving up the individual, giving up the self-confidence. reading the words of jnanis, reading them religiously, is associating with the Consciousness that those words are apart of. And it's felt as soon as those texts are read. So feeling unable, and needing to read more Maharshi dialogues, or Who am I? or 40 verses is a sign of loss of confidence in ourselves as individuals, and that we can only rely on the teachings, until there is only these teachings. Anyway it goes, I'm giving up myself to the Self. That's why even doing good things for others ccan help because in it, I realize the unitary Being of the Self, in that good feeling of helping others.
In regards to Ramana's teachings on the practice of self-enquiry, I would regard Guru Vachaka Kovoi to be the authoritative scriptural source for Ramana's instruction on the practice of self-enquiry. In part this is due to its being written in conjunction with an actual devotee, and in part because Ramana closely reviewed and edited every line, and even offered commentary on it. It is far more than a brief inspirational text, it offers many direct and practical instructions on self-enquiry. As an example"
384. The mind should discontinue its habit of perpetually moving outwards in its unlimited way, pointlesly enquiring "Who are you?" and "Who is he?" It should turn within, holding itself as the object [of attention] and without interruption zealously enquire "Who am I?" This alone will confer the ultimate benefit.
385.When one ceaselessly enquires "Who am I?" the body-ego completely perishes through the attention that penetrates to the core of oneself. There, reality will rise and flourish as "I-I", terminating the differences that, like the azure blue of the sky, are mere appearances.
386. By means of the question, "Who is the questioner?" all the questions that one asks, which arise through duality, will die at their very source. That question, "Who is the questioner?" becoming the invincible Brahmaastram, will obliterate the appearance of 'otherness' that manifests in the darkness of ignorance.
I could quote more, but since everyone here I trust has a copy of GKK, it's easy enough to read on offline.
One small point being that here Ramana clarifies what he means by the egoic mind "holding itself as the object" without interuption. Such clarifications are not the purpose of Ulladu Narpadu, which does not diminish its value or greatness, but does place it within context as an inspirational text, not a practical one.
I just wanted to add. In Marital Garland of Letters for isntance, Maharshi considered Arunachala everything and himself nothing. And he became evidently really knowledgable on different scriptures because they verified the state of individual-less egolessness he was experiencing. My teacher said that those texts such as Who am I? and the Ribhu gita, for those who abide in the Self, they never run dry. Why again, because the consciousness of the SElf and all it's manifestations is the only thing that exists. My sense of individuality is unreal and foolishly abided in. so the teachings become more engaging, the more I abide deeply with less delusion. For a jnani there would be only joyous satsang.
I guess another way to put it would be giving up self-confidence, for Self-confidence. Confidence in the real Self, the nondual Self, the joyous, egoless Self, and even the poetic expressions written by those who abide in the Self. Giving up my sense of self-importance, individuality, accomplishment for the joy of Being.
Scott,
I am not trying to suggest that there is some discrepency between Ramana's teachings in Ulladu Narpadu and elsewhere. Clearly there is not. Ramana's teaching on self-enquiry is the same throughout his many works and talks. It is only that if one is looking for detailed descriptions of self-enquiry to guide one's practice, I don't think Ulladu Narpadu is the source one would turn to. Each of Ramana's works serves its purposes, as do all his talks and instructions, and one simply cannot expect a short treatise of 40 verses to serve the purpose of providing a detailed instruction on the practice of self-enquiry.
Nor, frankly, do I see that the verses Arvind has cited from Ulladu Narpadu contradict any of the views that have been expressed on this forum, as he evidently does. So I am at a bit of a loss to understand the basis for Arvind's criticisms of people here, since Ulladu Narpadu does not seem to offer any contradictory viewpoint that I can see. It appears that the sole basis of his criticism is that since Ulladu Narpadu does not use some of the phrasings employed by Ramana in his other writings and talks, those phrasings are invalid or inferior. That is a highly dubious claim not backed up by reason or demonstration, and certainly not backed by Ramana himself. Ulladu Narpadu is far too brief a work to burden it with that kind of responsibility or authority, and there is no evidence that Ramana intended it to be read in that manner.
Arvind/Broken Yogi/Friends,
I do see BY's view on Instruction vs inspiration.
I also see that Arvind is keen to point out a very vital part of Self Enquiry-Seeking the source of 'I'.
What is Sri Bhagavan's Magnum opus?I do not think that it was ever uttered or written or compiled.
His Greatest Teaching is the Life that he lived.Further this teaching is for ever going on in silence,but may be because we are so busy with our own ideas and preoccupations,we never for a moment care to listen.Even a casual look at Sri Bhagavan's photographs brings this aspect.
The vital step in Self Enquiry ,perhaps is to Realize Deeply that Thinking cannot lead one anywhere and one has to get to the listening Mode.Listen to the whispers from the Self(one's depth).This is seeking the source of 'I'.
coming to the usefulness of Instructions-there is no limit to the variety that the mind can conjure as obstacles-and no book of instructions can be exhaustive.All the same,it is indeed useful to find some close match from any of the instructions that seem to answer to one's doubt.
-----------------------------------
Arvind,I am sure has something vital to share regarding seeking the source of 'I'.I request him to throw more light on this Vital aspect.
Namaskar.
"And for instance in relationship to a guru, it is becaue the guru has given up the individuality ccompletely and abides in the real Self without egoity, because of that they are our real egoless Self, and we only need merge with the Consciousness of the guru, in other words give up our self-confidence in ourselves as individuals, and cease to exist as individuals into the real Self. Like in 40 verses with Reailty, God, the Self, and the World are one."
If all these are One, why distinguish between individual self-confidence and transcendental Self-confidence? If the distinction is illusory, why insist upon it as real? The confidence of the individual is dependent on the Self. So the best approach would seem to be not to renounce self-confidence, but to investigate and renounce the illusory distinction between self and Self through self-enquiry. One will find the self-confidence which allows us to engage in self-enquiry comes not from the ego, but from the Self, as the ego is seen to be an illusion that has np power of its own. All power and confidence comes from the Self, it was only a false attribution that made us think it came from the ego.
.
... What is Sri Bhagavan's Magnum opus?I do not think that it was ever uttered or written or compiled. [...] but may be because we are so busy with our own ideas and preoccupations,we never for a moment care to listen. Even a casual look at Sri Bhagavan's photographs brings this aspect. ...
It is great to read this words. One can have the feeling that they are really scraping the barrel now (do you say so? I consulted a dictionary to express it this way...).
Ramana once said: "All the problems only the bookworms have."
What is the "self" so often mentioned here as the goal or source of everything? On my part I don't have the least idea of *what* or *who* this is. There are a lot of words about it, but words don't nourish.
Is it really the question to know "what" it is and "how" to get to it? Then you should know that the journey of your mind will never end.
There are two kinds of self enquiry in my understanding:
* The one for beginners - people lost in ego concepts of what this world is and what they are themselves believe to be. They enquire into the ego, the non-self - to get rid of it. Ego is all our bad emotions, our irrational ideas, our desires to get (including the "self") and to avoid something.
* The one for the people taking themselves back. They enquire into the nature of the self which is an enquiry with answers but with no words to discuss.
Kondor in On Robert Adams again said: "And the doubts begin anew." This is more important then the question of "what the self is or should be". Ramana once said: "It is because of the doubts that the mind is restless. Practice until all doubts are vanished."
How to fight the doubts? One way is impossible: To think again and again about things being illusory, or to cry for help, or to pretend to know already all what one needs to know. One way often is described as "the path of not knowing anything". It is good to remember this when the war of words rages.
I often say that no one needs to *discuss* all this matters because we have the sayings of the sages; we have the tradition, we have the scriptures. Why discuss something? Some sentences in "Be as you are" or "Talks" dispel any doubts and completely clarify difficult questions. When this doubts one day come back - and they *will* come back - then reading this anew helps - until the day when all doubts are gone.
Therefore I don't participate in discussions any longer - it is senseless. It is a misunderstanding of the problem demanding that we take ourselves back und listen to the sages but not discuss about it. The sages and holy ones will answer your questions and not anyone else. They have trustworthy knowledge - your knowledge is false. Ramana never "discussed" or "debated" - he clarified things. His mind was free from the inner conflict of ego thoughts. I would even prefer to say that talks on his part (and of all sages and holy ones) where like breathing, praying or singing.
Self enquiry also means to be aware of our unconscious tendencies in talking about something, like for example a hidden desire to "socialize". The truth you are looking for is to be found in yourself - not on the marketplace. And this was meant literally - not metaphorical.
.
Broken Yogi, on self-confidence. What you said makes sense. That all confidence is from the Self. Although I have to question that. Conceit probably does not come from the self since it is invested in a strong self-image. You were saying something along the lines of that Ramana had the self-confidence that he didn't need anyone else, or to read any books. And that not needing someone else, or to read any books is a sign of self-confidence. and I was saying that I think the opposite is true. That Ramana's individuality was so weak, that he wasn't relying on 'himself' the individual, and infact it took very little for the whole thing to dissolve in the Self. And I was mentioning that he considered Arunachala to be his guru, and himself to be nothing in comparison. This is really evidenced in his hymns to Arunachala. Also how Ramana praises humility, the absence of egoity. self-confidence could potentially be referring to conceit, or investment in self-images. whereas I was saying confidence in the Self, it's not me who is confident. It's that power that I'm giving myself up to.(though in agreement, that the more I give in my self-concepts the more self-confident my behavior) Especially in the form of a sage who is the Self, because they have completely relinquished their individuality. It seems important to see the words of the sage, or jnanis as being the truth, and worth seeking out in writing, or in person, and that my own individual opinions are full of delusion in comparison, as long as I consider myself to be an individual, everything coming from that is wrong. It's like in tp's story, there starts to be disturbance when the self-images are not validated by the world. "how can they do this to me?" And this starts to the process of seeing that these self-images are not real, so that there is no more disturbance. In a way what I'm saying, is taht the confidence in those self-images has to be shaken. Once they are shaken, there starts to be less self-reliance and more reliance on the Self in the form of teachings of the Realized. It's not that I progress to the point I don't need them, but that I completely give up myself, and rely entirely on the teachings or the Truth. As my teacher said, and I thing aptly, paraphrasing, 'some devotees ask if there is a point where the guru is no longer necesssary, and I tell them there becomes a time where the devotee is no longer necessary'.
My interpretation is that the devotee gives themselves up so that there is only the guru. Bceause the guru is the Self. An individual self-confidence would probably be in the wrong direction.
Two shorter responses from my teacher... I should mention Timeless Presence is the story of this teacher's inquiry and Self-Realization. The relevane is that he suffered from life threatening asthma in his teens when he was practicing Self-inquiry.
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. The value of wearing vibhuti is known by those who do so.
Transcendence of the triads, in which the ego is dead, is the inner
adornment with the holy ashes of Siva.
Earnest practice of the helpful instructions is, indeed, wise
thankfulness.
It would be better to say that the disciple is unreal, a mere
misconception, and thus vanishes than to say such of the Guru, who is the
Self, Brahman. The Maharshi indeed exists and alone exists. So, it is
imperative to know him as he is. To accomplish that, one must first know
oneself. Thus, true Knowledge dawns, and devotion wells up and overflows.
Grace remains as Being.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
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
"Nor, frankly, do I see that the verses Arvind has cited from Ulladu Narpadu contradict any of the views that have been expressed on this forum, as he evidently does. So I am at a bit of a loss to understand the basis for Arvind's criticisms of people here, since Ulladu Narpadu does not seem to offer any contradictory viewpoint that I can see. It appears that the sole basis of his criticism is that since Ulladu Narpadu does not use some of the phrasings employed by Ramana in his other writings and talks, those phrasings are invalid or inferior. That is a highly dubious claim not backed up by reason or demonstration, and certainly not backed by Ramana himself. Ulladu Narpadu is far too brief a work to burden it with that kind of responsibility or authority, and there is no evidence that Ramana intended it to be read in that manner."
First off, isn't ulladu narpadu, the 40 verses on Reality? If it is, it seems pointless to argue over it's importance in the scheme of things. But clearly, it is a beautiful work, and contains the entirety of Maharshi's teachings as it was intended when written for Muruganar. It is complete in itself. If that is not self-evident to you, then there is nothing to say. But basically what I love about it, subjectively, is that it approaches the Reality of the Self from many different angles, the ones we would probably have. And explains what the Self is. It is also describes how to inquire to Realize that there is only the Self. But yes, the same is true of Who am I? Self-inquiry, Guru vachaka Kovai, hymns to Arunachala. Talks with Ramana Maharshi, Day by Day, everything in Collected Works, the translations of Shankara works. Everything Maharshi wrote is complete in itself. there is something nice about the pithy way 40 verses lays it out, very simply.
I would even suggest that since you seem resistant to it's importance, you read it more, because maybe it contains some aspect of the Truth, or is explained in some way that you aren't yet wiling to see. I'm not saying that condescendingly, the same is true for me. There are aspects of the teachings I haven't fully internalized, otherwise I would be Realized.
"I'm not sure how it answers any of the questions raised here on this forum, or how it resolves the difficulties people have voiced about their practice of self-enquiry. If you think it does, the burden is upon you to explain how."
Each of the 40 verses is a line of instruction. this is why I find it helpful.
'i If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.'
My unrealized interpretation and why it helps me. This one is saying that the core existence is the Heart, and it cannot be mentally contemplated, you can only be it. And being it is when I don't think to disturb it.
"ii. Those who know intense fear of death seek refuge only at the feet of the Lord Who has neither death nor birth. Dead to themselves and their possessions, can the thought of death occur to them again? Deathless are they."
Similar to what I was saying about I cease being an individiaul and only the teachings matter. Because of fearing the horrors of death, and loss, I seek refuge in these teachings, and ultimately the real Self. My fear of the world and fear of death causes me more and more to rely on the guru, or the Lord, and give myself up as an individual.
"1. From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of a unique First Principle possessing various powers. Pictures of name and form, the person who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light by which he sees: he himself is all of these."
The unique first principle would be the real Self, it is who I am in the absence of all the other stuff. The screen on which everything appears, the light which lights the screen, and me the viewer are the same. So I am not different then what appears where normally I take myself to be only some of what appears my thinking, and that I reside in a body. But here the light which allows perceptions, and thoughts to happen, the perceptions adn thoughts themselves appearing on the screen of consciousness, and myself the viewer are the same.
"2. All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can say, 'The three are really three' only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one's own Being, where the 'I', or ego, is dead, is the perfect State."
So, as long as I take myself to be a me, God is something I contemplate as driving events and being distinct from me as a being. Just like in the other verse, I cnosider the world to be apart from me. I am a person in the world. It is saying the one reailty, the Self, Brahman, absolute consciousness appears as me, the soul, appears as god driving my life and events in the world, and the world seem all different from eachother. But they are all the one Reality. Literally.
"3. 'The world is real.' 'No, it, is a mere illusory appearance.' 'The world is conscious.' 'No.' 'The world is happiness.' 'No.' What use is it to argue thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego."
I suppose he is saying all these disputes over happiness and the world cease when I give up the objective outlook, and as he said, know the Self and lose all of my notions.
"4. If one has form oneself, the world and God also will appear to have form, but if one is formless, who is it that sees those forms, and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity."
If I take myself to have form, the world and god also have form, but if I am formless and inclusive of everything, how could there be something apart from me to see as apart. Without the eye can any object be seen? this seems to be saying that myself, not the objectified version is seeing everything, and it is infinite, or not limited. Kind of what I was coming to that I cannot objectify myself, because whatever I objectify is not myself. The objectification arises to myself. so I can never see myself, i can see the body, I can feel my personality or thoughts about myself, but myself I can't know in that way. Which I think is the meaning of the question Who am I?
"5. The body is a form composed of the five-fold sheath; therefore, all the five sheaths are implied in the term, body. Apart from the body does the world exist? Has anyone seen the world without the body?"
I am not sure what the five-sheaths are. They are not the five senses, because they include the mind. But he is saying that maybe that all these mental states do not arise apart from the body. And without these mental states is there a world?
6. The world is nothing more than an embodiment of the objects perceived by the five sense-organs. Since, through these five sense-organs, a single mind perceives the world, the world is nothing but the mind. Apart from the mind can there be a world?
Same thing, this is pretty straight forward. But you can see how he is laying the frame-work of inquiry, what is necessary to understsand in inquiring. Because in inquiry I am inquiring to see that these things mentioned in 40 verses are true.
I think the punk band, the Subhumans were my guru before I was exposed to Maharshi. I listened to their lyrics like scripture. One came to mind, "they call it paranoia, you can't laugh it away, until you start to realize everyone is the same. People hide their problems under faces of contempt, they hide it until it kills them, and no one is exempt, not even you" All their lyrics were like that. And i remember that I was on a train with some people, a freight train, and I wrote it in marker on the wall, and this woman that was with us, really took offense to "everyone is the same". I also have to say, they were the least ostentatious, most self-effacing rock band I had ever seen. And remind me a little of music around Papaji. But because of their honesty, people liked them with almost a spiritual fervor. And i would say I felt religious devotion to them, mainly for the clarity of the lyrics. People like that lead singer are people that give me pause as to whether they are jnanis.
"If all these are One, why distinguish between individual self-confidence and transcendental Self-confidence?"
Because individual self-confidence still emphaizes self-importance and that there is a difference between god, the world, and the soul. there has to a distinct person, or soul, for their to be individual self-confidence. Is that the case?
Hi Ravi, sincere apologies for not picking up your query.
Hi Folks,
Thought to do some “musings on GVK”.
[ Only brickbats wanted please ! But, only directed at me and NOT the holy works. ]
I believe that if there was one disciple of Sri Bhagavan’s of whom one can have absolutely no doubt of being Self-realized, it was Sri Muruganar. Anyone who has read with humility and attention the sublime verses of Ramana Sannidhi Murai, the Anubhuti incl. the Prasadam, the Jnana Bodha, and of course, GuruVachaka Kovai, and the other works, can say this with certitude.
We all know that his nature and demeanor matches up too, to that as expected of a true disciple of his Master. He was a completely unassuming person and one who chose to live like a shadow to his Guru, with no individual presence at all. I believe he was a fully ripe devotee right from the start and to him the primary teaching of “Summa iru” or “Be still” was directly applicable. At some stage, in Sri Bhagavan’s presence, Sri Muruganar effortlessly realized the Self without having to even do Self-enquiry.
And, very importantly, as a disciple of Sri Bhagavan he chose not to become a Guru himself in his own right, and thus, even as per classical definitions, his words carry the same authority as his Guru’s, nay, are in fact the actual words of his Guru.
Yet it is not GVK that one spoke about in my comment earlier, even though the same line of reasoning would apply for it too.
Folks, you know, a very long time ago, I read the 100,000 verses of the Mahabharata. It is scripture, the fifth Veda. It was written by Sri Ved Vyasa, also the compiler of the Vedas, who is, as we all know, the primary “human” Guru and who epitomizes “Guru-ness”. He wrote it with such a complex construction of syllables, words and poetic aesthetics, that even Lord Ganesha, the embodiment of Wisdom, took several moments to understand each verse, before writing them down. The Mahabharata contains within it EVERYTHING. Contrary to what people might believe, the actual story takes up just a fraction of the verses. The rest comprises basically the collected wisdom of the srutis and smrttis by way of the various discourses, of Sri Bhishma, of Sri Vidur and so on; and also, only for those who know, every Mantra possible, for rain, for fire etc, hidden beneath the descriptions of battlefield situations. And of course, it also contains the Bhagavad Gita.
In the Bhagavad Gita, as we know, the Lord Himself, distilled out the essence of all the Mahabharata, and more, and made it available to all in a mere 700 verses; mere, when compared to 100,000.
[ at part 2 ]
[ 2 ]
Things changed after one came to Sri Bhagavan, but till then one would re-read the Mahabharata sometimes; read it for the delightful imagery and poetics; for the brilliant expositions of Sri Bhishma and Sri Vidur; and for detailed expositions on obscure items that even the Bhagavad Gita does not cover.
But when it came to aspects concerning scriptural and spiritual issues, practice, and day to day sadhana, one would stick to the Bhagavad Gita. It contains everything required in an accessible form and is, after all, a direct exposition by Lord Krishna. In fact, if one’s feet are not grounded in the Bhagavad Gita and one goes to into the rest of the Mahabharata, one will get diffused and lost. It is quite difficult to come to grips with the core of the teaching in the vast ocean that is the Mahabharata.
And so it is with a work like Ulladu Narpadu and GVK as well.
GVK is the full poetic flow of a Master Poet as shot out in a flood of Divine rapture almost. It has the most complex poetic constructions in the purest classical Tamil; not even the most accomplished of scholars can claim to understand it in the first few reads. And, since it is a poetic masterpiece, much like the Mahabharata in my analogy above, what could be said in 1 line is said in 4; and what could be said in 1 verse is said in many. This is in-built in the nature of the work. And if we try to unlock its secrets, without having our feet grounded in the basics, we will struggle.
And so, when the Lord Himself gave His teachings in 42 verses, quite complete, precise and sharp, a ready-to-use-samurai-sword at hand, I will use these as my primary source of learning. And I will go through the 1253 verses of the GVK also; but as reference - if further clarification is required, if there is a particular teaching I need to study more, and so on.
Ulladu Narpadu like the Bhagavad Gita, remains at my bedside. GVK, like the Mahabharata, is in my book-shelf.
Namaskars
[ PS: folks, all analogies have drawbacks and cannot be extended beyond a point. The foregoing is my own home-spun effort just to illustrate a point, that’s all.]
salutations to all:
agree with arvind, yet this my opinion – just as one can read any number of texts in advaita, the essence can be said in one simply pithy sentence – ‘brahma satyam, jagan mithya, jivo brahmaiva naaparaha’ (brahman is real, the world is false, jiva and brahman are one and the same)… likewise, whichever be the right manual or scripture or whatever else, we all agree that, the essence of vichara is just this – ‘seek the source and abide in the self’… as long as this fundamental issue is constantly there somewhere within us, then, no matter what one does as practice or reads as scripture or anything else, the means may take care of the ends… everything else is just peripheral…
it’s not because of the so-called right method that our vichara isn’t effective… on the contrary, the more one looks for the ‘right’ method, the more will one be wasting one’s time in unnecessary interpretations or dreamy speculations or verbose nonsense (exactly as this very sentence!; self-referential?)… the ability to do vichara is a simple function of the purity of our mind… the purer the mind, do it in whatever way it suits you, the better might it become for being the fodder to be consumed by the self… this is what strikes me everytime when i read bhagavan saying ‘self-enquiry is for the pakkuvi or a ripe soul’... now folks, please don’t say meaningless sentences like ‘there is no becoming, only being’ or that ‘the mind is a fictitious non-entity’, or ‘vichara hasn’t got anything to do with ability’ etc. etc…. firstly, this is how i understand it to be; secondly, if am not mistaken, none of you are realised to talk about abstract things like ‘being’, ‘effortless effort’, or ‘no-mind’, which in any case none of us understand (am not judgmental, just opinionated :-)), isn’t it? if anyone ‘truly’ does, let me know – will be more than happy to keep my mouth shut and listen & only listen :-)
everytime, we feel like saying something uncharitable about the ‘mind’, it might be good to remember what the upanishad says ‘mana eva manushyaaNaam kaaraNam bandha mokshayet’ (the mind alone is the cause of bondage as well as freedom)… hahaha
"And so it is with a work like Ulladu Narpadu and GVK as well.
GVK is the full poetic flow of a Master Poet as shot out in a flood of Divine rapture almost. It has the most complex poetic constructions in the purest classical Tamil; not even the most accomplished of scholars can claim to understand it in the first few reads. And, since it is a poetic masterpiece, much like the Mahabharata in my analogy above, what could be said in 1 line is said in 4; and what could be said in 1 verse is said in many. This is in-built in the nature of the work. And if we try to unlock its secrets, without having our feet grounded in the basics, we will struggle.
And so, when the Lord Himself gave His teachings in 42 verses, quite complete, precise and sharp, a ready-to-use-samurai-sword at hand, I will use these as my primary source of learning. And I will go through the 1253 verses of the GVK also; but as reference - if further clarification is required, if there is a particular teaching I need to study more, and so on.
Ulladu Narpadu like the Bhagavad Gita, remains at my bedside. GVK, like the Mahabharata, is in my book-shelf.
Namaskars"
First off, to S., very unrealized here (as in I conjure up suffering regularly), and no pretenses, so don't take it any other way. But also maybe it is important not to define myself which is the exact things I'm trying to overcome, and also that I am trying to root out those causes. So that is why I don't like to preface everything with that, which seems to reinforce it. And as I said, sometimes it seems easier just to speak authoriatively from my own understanding, if I'm wrong some one will question it. If I speak too authoritatively people will question it. I don't worry about that, but to convey my own understanding unself-consciously.I didn't think it was directed at me, but if I do seem to fit the pattern you are talking about I'm explaining my motives.
On what arvind was saying, it makes me immediately want to go back and read GVK, because it seems to me, like 40 verses, it resonates on some deep level. On both 40 verses and GVK it does not seem important to understand it intellectually, but that the words convey grace. That is, if it is a good translation. That makes a big difference. My intuition tells me, jnanis do not say things in such a way that makes it difficult to understand ever, they don't write things ostentatiously but to help others understand because there is no other point. Just to write good poetry is not a motive I would think a jnani would have. Though their verses tend to be the most remembered. (Rumi for instance) And it is important to let it work it's magic. because when it was first written in it's language, tamil? I would guess, that it was very graceful and full of that grace for anyone who reads it. (though I'm sure David Godman's translation is really good) I really don't see with Maharshi a curricula, that this text is intended for beginners, whereas this one is intended for advanced practicers. But if there is sometihng to that, it happens naturally. For instance, I was interested in Who am I? at first, and when I read talks, I skipped the parts where he talked about the gunas, or told ornate stories. I probably would not have been terribly interested in Marital Garland of Letters, or hymns to arunahcala. Between 40 verses and Who am I? both that were available free on the internet. I liked Who am I? because it appealed to my intellect, and 40 verses did not appeal to me as much. But it starts with who am I? but the other stuff, it's appeal increases, and it seems more necessary.
Amusing discussion of Ulladu Narpadu. I seem to have been misconstrued somehow as disrespecting this work of Ramana's, when that is simply not my view or intention. Ulladu Narpadu occupies a rare position in Ramana's oevre, being a distillation of his entire teaching in 40 verses. It is of great value and inspiration.
However, those who call it "complete", and yet who have not realized the Self through the study of it, need to explain how they are qualified to make that judgment. There may indeed be people for whom reading Ulladu Narpadu is enough to bring them to full realization of the Self. I, sad to say, am not one of them. Thus, it is certainly not complete for me, or for the vast majority of Ramana's students. Ramana himself surely knew this, which is why he wrote and taught in so many other texts and talks and conversations over the years. I have faith that Ulladu Narpadu contains the essence of the way, and its brief description of self-enquiry seems to contain the essence of the practice of self-enquiry. But most of us, especially myself, need more than the nere essence of self-enquiry. Some greater explanation and exposition is needed. Which, of course, Ramana supplied in great detail over his entire lifetime to anyone who asked, without taking some kind of offense.
I have never heard of Ramana suggesting that beginners simply study Ulladu Narpadu and ask no further questions. He encouraged people to study self-enquiry to whatever degree they felt was necessary for them to get a feel for what it is in practice. He welcomed questions about it, and never put anyone down for asking how the practice should be done or what it's meaning was. So I don't understand the attitude of some here that look down upon those who are trying to understand self-enquiry, who ask questions, who discuss the various issues involved, the various ideas that Ramana used to teach self-enquiry, and the general framework of a student learning within the context of a friendly conversation. Most of Ramana's instruction took the form of friendly conversations with those who had questions for him. Most of GVK, Padamalai, and so on, were compiled from these friendly conversations into more formal texts of poetic and scriptural quality. So I simply fail to understand how any student of Ramana's could condemn or criticize or look down on those who engage in friendly discussions of Ramana's teachings. To revere Ramana's teachings, to place them on a pedestal of worship, but to take a critical stance towards those who actually engage those teachings in the manner that Ramana himself originated them - friendly conversation - is I think disrespectful not only to devotees, but to Ramana himself.
cont.
What purpose does it serve to worship these as scripture, if one does not live them in relationship with others in the same generous spirit that Ramana himself generated them in? Ramana frequently said that the life of self-enquiry is a gregarious one, not one lived in isolation, apart from others, in a cave or silent retreat somewhere. He certainly did not live apart, but kept his doors open 24 hours a day to any devotee who needed to speak with him. He did not put himself, or his writings, on a pedestal to be worshipped. He wanted his teachings to be practiced, engaged, lived, and yes, discussed as needed.
The same is true of self-enquiry itself. Self-enquiry, he repeatedly said, is not learned through scripture, but through practice. The Guru's role is not merely to write something beautiful and complete that we cherish and worship in itself, but to guide us in the actual practice of those words, both through his own words, and through his silent instruction. But in the end, it is up to us to actually practice them. As he says in GVK:
391. The enquiry of those who do not enter the Heart and directly encounter the Self that remains established within the sheaths but instead attempt to learn about it in the famous jnana sastras is merely scriptural enquiry. Can it be self-enquiry? No.
Bhagavan: One's self is within the five sheaths, whereas the scriptures are outside them. Therefore, enquiring in the scriptures about oneself, who is to be enquired into, setting aside the five sheaths, is futile.
Bhagavan: That trustworthy vichara is found neither in book learning nor in learning from others but only in one's own sense of "I" [aham].
I am not interested in discussion about which writings of Ramana's are the best or most important or where they should be placed in one's room. I am only interested in how they are practiced. What else about them even matters?
I'm not goint to disclaimer that I'm unrealized and don't know what I'm talking about, probably not, but am earenstly trying to figure it out. (laugh) I talk authoritatively because I'm working it out. Anyway...
I was just thinking about the question who am I? And that it is perhaps a literal question in this context. It's not a question that isn't direct. It really is asking Who am I? But really Who am I? Because there is this feeling of me looking out on the world. But even the notion of me, I'm looking at that too, so it isn't me. Me is who is even looking at the thoughts, it is not the thoughts. But normally I take myself to be a train of thoughts, and I take myself to be in a body. there is the comfy feeling of this is me, and I'm so familiar, but those are thoughts, and I'm aware of those thoughts also. So I can't be the thoughts. Anything I'm aware of, is me looking at it, including the idea of myself, so Who am I? And I guess that it is the way to access pure Being, and why Maharshi advocated it. Because if I realize myself, that I'm aware of, I'm not something I'm that I'm aware of. Where the ego, or personality, or thoughts is something I'm aware of. Whose aware? And if I'm the one whose aware, but not an object of awareness, like I normally take myself to be as an ego. there is nothing else to be aware of. Because I guess as Maharshi said, it's the ego that everything arise from, which perhaps means that in most cases it is the personality who i take it to be me, is an object in my awareness. I am aware of who I think I am. But this object is thoughts about other objects. So if who am I? is asked deeply enough perhaps there are no objects because there is no personality, individual notion to be aware of something else. Because when I'm the one aware, and not an object in awareness, that beccomes all pervasive because it doesn't involve objects.
The ego isn't aware, because it's an object in my awareness. Which is prehaps why my teacher said, "the ego being an illusion is powerless, it can't know anything. The potency of spiritual practice derives from the Self which is of the nature of Consciousness"
Scott,
Regardng this matter of self-confidence, isn't self-enquiry precisely the tool which cuts through any kind of egoic presumption about the self-confidence we have, and reminds us that it only comes from the Self?
In other words, self-enquiry is a radical practice. It does not require us to relinquish our confidence because it is of the "wrong" origin. To the contary, if we are feeling proud, self-enquiry only asks "who is proud?" It does not tell us to stop being proud, but only to find out the true source of this self-confidence. We find out that our ego is not the source of anything in our lives. The self-confidence we feel is not to be attributed to the ego, but to the Self. THere is no "egoic self-confidence" and "true self-confidence. There is only self-confidence, upon which we may overlay an egoic illusion, assuming that it comes from the ego, rather than the Self. This is merely a misperception to be corrected, not a form of self-confidence that must be destroyed or disavowed.
Humility is not the opposite of self-confidence. Ramana was not humble in that respect. He did not lack self-confidence. Even as a young man, he was very strong, capable, and self-confident. When he sat down to enquire that one time, he did so with great strength of mind and self-confidence in his ability to carry through the question to its end, to the very core of his being. He did not waffle or beg for help like someone unsure of themselves. This was not because he lacked humility, but because he had an innate and natural self-confidence, gained through many lifetimes of struggle and sadhana.
Humility does not mean having a poor self-image. I recall Papaji talking about how it's certainly best to have no self-image at all, but if one is going to have a self-image, one might as well have a strong and self-confident one. He certainly did. He sometimes said, "Why not think of yourself as "the greatest of the great?" In fact, at his first encounter with Ramana, he was very proud and haughty. And yet, he was also only a few short months from realization. He never became "humble" in the sense of having low self-esteem or a self-deprecating demeanor. And even though Ramana would at times say he was nothing, and that Arunachula was everything, he never showed any sign of a lack of self-confidence in his life.
Think of a great athlete with great self-confidence in his abilities. If he is identified with the body, he may be very egoically "proud" of his abilities and achievements. Or, he may simply thank God for them and say that he owes them all to God. In both cases, he will show the same self-confidence in himself. It is only that in the second case he understands that the source of his strength is not his own ego, but his greater Self, the God who is his true Source. For the first athlete to learn the lessons of the second, he need not renouce his self-confidence, he needs only to see that the ego he attributed his talents to does not exist, and is not thr real source of those talents - it is merely the body, which depends upon a greater Power. There is no need for the athlete to become weak and self-effacing. He needs merely to acknowledge his true Source. The same could be said of someone like Papaji, who was a great spiritual "athlete". He did not need to become a self-effacing weakling, but merely to find the true Source of his pride and strength. Self-confidence is merely a sign of the Self, regardless of who possesses it or what their delusions might be. The self-confidence need not be gotten rid of, only the delusions about its source. If one practices self-enquiry, in other words, one grows in self-confidence. One need not make a show of it, but the quiet strength ath accrues to those whose practice is sincere is simply indomnitable.
This discussion is too intellectual for me.
Just a personal thing - these days when I read something and don't understand , or when I get caught up in theory, I put everything aside and pray to Bhagavan.
Invariably, I find that an explanation comes within a short while after that. Either as some old saying of Bhagavan that pops up in my head, or a comment in a thread right here.
A slightly dim-witted way, but it works for me. The way of the intellect did not. At least for me.
"Think of a great athlete with great self-confidence in his abilities. If he is identified with the body, he may be very egoically "proud" of his abilities and achievements. Or, he may simply thank God for them and say that he owes them all to God. In both cases, he will show the same self-confidence in himself. It is only that in the second case he understands that the source of his strength is not his own ego, but his greater Self, the God who is his true Source. For the first athlete to learn the lessons of the second, he need not renouce his self-confidence, he needs only to see that the ego he attributed his talents to does not exist, and is not thr real source of those talents - it is merely the body, which depends upon a greater Power. There is no need for the athlete to become weak and self-effacing. He needs merely to acknowledge his true Source. The same could be said of someone like Papaji, who was a great spiritual "athlete". He did not need to become a self-effacing weakling, but merely to find the true Source of his pride and strength. Self-confidence is merely a sign of the Self, regardless of who possesses it or what their delusions might be. The self-confidence need not be gotten rid of, only the delusions about its source. If one practices self-enquiry, in other words, one grows in self-confidence. One need not make a show of it, but the quiet strength ath accrues to those whose practice is sincere is simply indomnitable.」- "
Thank you for your clarification, and good analysis. Sounds like bliss, infact the self-confidence you describe does sound like behavior eminating from a sense of inward happiness or Bliss. (but I want to go so far as to say is Bliss, because then it doesn't carry with it the distinction of internal and external) That is why I practice Self-inquiry to get rid of a poor self-image. Because just like the Who am I? preamble it is not my nature or necessary, and also the attribution of happiness to an experience I don't currently have or have access to, and longing for it and feeling depressed, is not wise. Instead I realize Bliss is my nature and is within. The self-confidence you would describe is the result. I would agree, and I did say that, that even though humility grows, my behavior becomes more self-confident. Because it's the fear that causes a lack of self-confidence, the happiness based on others approval, when it is really innate whicch there are starting be strong intuitions of Realizing this and feeling that inward Bliss. The kindd that is spoken of in countless Maharsih texts, and in Muruganar poetry. What I previously said is a moot point, with your mention of how the athlete reailzes his talent comes from god and not the ego.
Nandu,
You are Blessed.This is like Lord Ganesa going round his parents to claim the Fruit of Knowledge.
The Other way is to Go round the world like Lord Subhramanya on his Peacock.(we are on the lookout for a peacock)
-----------------------------------
I wish to elaborate on the word 'Intellectual'-and here I think I understand why S had been sending pointers-'Ego Bashing' 'No Mind'etc.
The whole point in Self Enquiry-especially ENQUIRY is not to take anything for Granted-not to take for granted- that there is the 'Ego' which is unreal,There is the 'Mind' that is different than the 'Self'(one Needs to take care that one has to keep the Caps lock pressed while keying in the letter'S' or else it will be 's'!),etc,etc.ONE SIMPLY IS-This is all that Sri Bhagavan said-that no one doubts that he is.It is only when one tries to figure out WHAT and HOW one is, that like the blind men and the Elephant,various views are brought forth and often these are at loggerheads with each other.One then tries to figure out which is the Only correct one,etc.
To sort out matters,Sri Bhagavan had recommended self enquiry-to SEE and not THINK 'Who am I'.
I am reminded of that incident narrated by that Great Devotee Eleanor Pauline Noye-How she saw Sri Bhagavan pick up 3 grains of Rice that lay strewn on the Ground and saved them for use!I wish to ask whether this teaching is found in Guru Vachaka Kovai or Ulladu Narpadu.
If Sri Bhagavan's attitude towards '3 grains of Rice' is such,how is one to account for the idea of Dismissing the world as unreal-as if one has a measure of REALITY!
This is not to discourage any intellectual discussion,etc but one should always keep in Mind Sri Bhagavan's GREAT DISCLAIMER-that the nondual attitude should not be brought into play while dealing with the world!A reverential attitude is a Great Help and to truly understand anything one has to LOVE the thing.To LOVE is not to be ATTACHED.To understand the World or self or mind,one should be free from Prejudice.
The Ajnani cannot dismiss the 'world' and the Jnani does not dismiss the world(World is Brahman).To behave as if one has packed his bags to leave the world -while taking care not to miss a single meal that may be cooking in the kitchen-well one cannot imagine a greater folly than this!This is what I(CAPS LOCK!) term 'intellectual'.
Having said this(i am wary of using 'That' lest it fuel Arvind or S to 'pun'! )I do enjoy the discussions that are going on and understand that they do help.Please do continue.
Namaskar.
.
I found again this nice place in "Talks" I have spoken of:
"A simple man, not learned, is satisfied with japa or worship. A Jnani is of course satisfied. The whole trouble is for the book-worms.
Well, well. They will also get on."
TALKS 336
.
Dear Nandu,
I admire you for your devotion. You are a true devotee of Bhagavan.
Dear Clemens,
I love the quote. Thank you for posting.
Evidently the Ribhu Gita (Sanskrit translation) that Papaji is holding in a picture is the Ramamoorthy, Nome translation.
This is chapter 11, Description of the Topic of the Bliss of the Self.
Ribhu: Listen! All is only Brahman. I say, in the name of Siva, this is the truth, this is the trtuh. O Master of yoga! There is nothing else whatsoever.
2. The unreal is not even an atom; all this, surely, is not even an atom. The body, too, is not even an atom. There is nothing else whatsoever.
3. All is only the Self, the pure Self. All is only Consciousness without a second. The Self is eternal, spotless and pure. There is nothing else whatsoever.
4. If the Self is considered as merely atomic in dimension, all is not even an atom. Absence of sankalpa, too, is a mere atom. There is nothing else whatsoever.
5. Sankalpa is only Consciousness. Consciousness is the higest state. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
6. The syllable Om is only Consciousness. Consciousness itself is all. Bliss is the supreme measure.. All this that is seen is nothing.
7. I myself am also Bliss. I am, myself, changeless Consciousness. Bliss is the supreme measure All this that is seen is nothing.
8. I myself am the mysterious SElf. I myself am the intersticesless. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
9. I am, myself, the Supreme Brahman. I myself am the teacher of teachers. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
10. I am, myself, the support of all. I am, myself, happiness beyond happiness. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
11. I am, myself, the great Light. I am of the Self of all. Bliss is hte supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
12. I myself am the satisfied Self. I myself am the attributeless. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
13. I myself am the perfectly full Self. I myself am the ancient. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
14. I myself am the peaceful Self. I myself am permanent. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
15. I myself am everywehre. I myself am the well-established. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
16. I myself am the jiva (individual soul). I myself am higher than the highest. Bliss is the surpeme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
17. I myself am the meaning of the great aphorisms. I myself am Sankara. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
18. I myself am the hard to see. I myself am the illuminator. Bliss is the supreme measure. All this that is seen is nothing.
19. I myself am myself---only myself I myself am my Self. I myself am the great Bliss. I myself am full of Consciousness.
It really seems like I am onto something as far as self-inquiry. It comes from reading on all these things and thinking about them. And I've already said it, but I can't help repeating it, because maybe it has some validity. That the question Who am I? is getting at the fact that the real Self can never be an object of my attention. That infact I, myself, can never be an object of my attention. yet I do conceive of myself. Only the conception, or feeling of myself is not myself. How could it be? Since it is me that is aware of it. So, "to whom has this thought arisen?" is redirecting attention on the sense of a personality that there is, in that thought or experience, in that moment, who am I that is involved in this experiencee, or interaction. "The thought arises to me?" which as the ego we have a very definite idea of who that is. Or even a less definite idea. But we have the feeling of who we are. Then the question, Who am i? is that this entity could not be me, since it arises to me. So who am I? Who is the real, myself? 'will the real me please stand up', but if it stands up, it is not me beause it is me that is aware of it. That it all arose to, thoughts preceptios, and that is maybe, I'm guessing the real Self, it is all-pervasive. But as I've heard it expressed, there is no all for it to pervade. Because it gets rid of of the solidity of egoity it seems, there is immediately a very peaceful, blissful feeling that overtakes me. Kind of maybe like the Thayamanavar poem, about the bliss being like honey.
Ch.11 cont.
39. Death and birth are unreal. Sentience and insentience are unreal. All the world, is, indeed, unreal. The concept of oneself is unreal.
40. Forms are all unreal. The idea of an auspicious state is uneal. "I" ever is unreal. "You" is also unreal.
41. Everywhere there is unreality. the moving and non-moving are unreal. All beings are unreal. All results of action are unreal.
42. All the universe is unreal. All attributes are unreal. All the rest is unreal. All that is dual is unreal.
43. All sin is unreal. The triad of sravana and others (listening, reflection, and one-pointed profound meditation) is unreal. Single categories and multiple categories are ever unreal.
44. All power is unreal. All things are ever impermanent. Gods and others are unreal. All purpose is unreal.
45. Sama is always unreal; sama is ever unreal. The doubt-ful is unreal. The fight between gods and demons is unreal.
46. The concept of Isvara is unreal; Worship is unreal. Time and space are unreal. The concept of holy shrines and such is unreal.
47. Dharma and adharma arising therefrom, as also their definitions, are unreal; all activities are unreal. The misapprehension as oneself and another is unreal.
48. The concept of existence of the mind is also unreal. The gross body is unreal; the subtle body is also unreal. I say, in the name of Siva, all I say is truth, the truth.
49. Heaven and hell are unreal; happiness arising therefrom (from heaven) is unreal. All grasping is unreal; al that is of the form of the graspable is unreal.
50. "Shining like truth" is unreal. I say, in the name of Siva, it is all unreal. All that is of the nature of the present is unreal; all that is of hte nature of the past is unreal.
51. What is said to be the future is unreal, too. This is the truth, teh truth, I say in the name of Siva. Of this world, the beginning is unreal, the middle is unreal, and the end is unreal.
52. The probable is always unreal. Ever, there is no doubt that it is unreal. Knowledge, ignorance, and what is to be known are ever unreal.
53. The universe is ever unreal. The inert is ever unreal. The seen is ever unreal. These are like the horns of a horse.
54. though is ever unreal. The existence of sheaths is unreal. All mantra-s are unreal. Tehre is no doutb that this is the truth. This is the truth.
55. There is no world apart from the Self. There is nothing of the non-Self, ever. Anything apart from the Self is uneral. This is the truth--the truth. There is no doubt of this.
56. There is no happiness apart from the Self. There is nothing else apart from the Self. There is nowhere to go apart from the Self. One should remain forever in the Self.
57. There is nothing anywhere apart from the Self. There is not a blade of grass apart from the Self. There is nothing whatever apart from the Self. There is nothing apart from the Self at any time.
58. This explanation of the Bliss of hte Self has been expounded to you by me. Whichever wise man hears this once, himself becomes Brahman.
59. this gives instant Liberation from bondage by being heard even once. By understanding the meaning of this treatise, one is liberated from everything.
60. Suta:
Worship with a commited heart the full, the true, the great Isvara. One who does so interruptedly becomes, here in this world, ever Brahman, with the divine Truth of the Self, eternal and without agitation of the mind. He exists, with knots cut asunder, in Isvara, at the pure feet of Siva, and shines inwardly. He becomes restful inside and surely becomes, after death, the entire universe.
GVK:
758. The best way of quelling the movements of the mind that, as the perceiver, the objects perceived and the act of perception, runs far and wide, is that of employing the mind to see itself through itself.
759. Since reality shines radiantly within you as the Self, only that Self deserves to be known by you. For enquiry into your real nature as it actually is in the Heart, the infallible guide is the true light of the Self ['I am'] that cannot be rejected.
Bhagavan: To realize that you yourself are the Self, why do you require any light other than being-consciousness, the light of the Self?
Hi Folks,
Many thanks David, once again, for this wonderful forum and taking the trouble of moderating the same. And thus, a little ant, an insignificant, unknown, unimportant non-entity called “arvind” can also put down his occasional musings, and convictions, and be heard by many learned and wise people.
I remember how, when composing Anma Vidai, Sri Bhagavan added the last, fifth verse, specifically mentioning Sri Arunachala, saying - how can He be missed out ? And there were some fine stories earlier by S. and others on their first sight / visit to Sri Arunachala.
And so, one thought to relate a story on Sri Arunachala; a true story; of something that happened on my first trip there.
One had come in the month of June then, staying in Sri Ramanasramam. And it was HOT; really HOT. And one bright and sunny day, after breakfast, one headed out for Skandasramam and Virupaksha from the back gate.
Was determined not to wear footwear on holy Arunachala. Coming from N. India, where footwear is generally worn even inside the house, one was actually quite unused to walking barefoot; and the softer than normal soles tend to get sore and blister quickly. But I had reasoned that if I go to a temple of Lord Siva, I remove shoes. And here I am walking ON Lord Siva; so how can I wear shoes ? ( And Sri Bhagavan Himself had never worn any footwear ). I suppose this dilemma may have struck a lot of people who walk up Sri Arunachala. And for me, an answer was to be forthcoming quickly, in Sri Arunachala’s inimitable style.
Also, one must admit, one was confident and sanguine about one’s ability to handle the heat and even pain; “pain borne for the Lord”, or so one naively thought.
Those days the path up from behind Sri Ramanasramam was quite bereft of any shelter by way of trees or other vegetation. But in the morning, the sun was still comfortable, and the stones, lovely and comfortingly warm.
Anyhow, I had a wonderful time at the 2 sites. Had carried an apple or two for lunch, so one did not need to rush back for the 11.30 gong at SRA. And so, started back at 2 pm or so. Completely dumb that.
Initially the path was not so bad. Closer to Skandasramam there was some vegetation around. And it was only after one-third distance that the path became bare rock-stones with no trees at all. And in the hot sun, the stones were furnace-hot. Within minutes my feet were in tatters. It was so hot that forget walking, one could not even stand anywhere without hopping about. I had a bottle of water and so decided to keep wetting my feet and walking on, in the hope of finding a sheltered stretch. Big mistake. Made another 100m or so when the water ran out. Now I was even more in the middle of it. Now I could neither go forward nor back, nor did I have water to drink. And so, simply decided that my backside was more suited for the spanking and found a rock to sit on, a large burning rock by the path, right in the open sun.
[cont at 2]
[ 2 ]
Of course, one had been praying away all this while. One even remembered how Sri Bhagavan had mentioned the Surya Mantra to Sri Jagadeeswara Sastri and one tried that too ! But there was a lesson to be taught to me still. The confidence bit had disappeared long ago. And now one was confused, nauseous and so hot that one thought that one would literally melt away into the red fire-like rock on which one was sitting.
I had been cooking like this for perhaps an half-hour, maybe 45 mins, when one saw coming down from a spur in front of me, a wizened, old shepherd, slightly bent and walking with the help of a long stick, a stick like that of Gandhiji’s in popular pictures. I picked him up from quite a distance away and it took him 10 minutes to come down to me, slowly, his form swaying in the heat haze. He came and sat down, close, right next to me on the rock.
He was medium-tall, darkish, aged, with very short snow-white hair. He was wearing a loose vest-sort-of white shirt many sizes too small, and a very short lungi perhaps; mostly bare-bodied. He smelt of the trees, and it actually felt as if a big, tall, leafy tree had walked up and sat down next to me. Automatically, I looked down at his feet and saw - he was wearing, without socks, a pair of brand new, spotless, gleaming blue and white, “air” padded sports-shoes; the ones that cost Rs. 5,000/- !!!
By this time my lower jaw was reaching my chest. He did not say a word and my jaw was anyway now stuck to my chest. He gave the briefest of what I can only describe as a wistful, meaningful smile, the slightest of nods, and then he got up and quickly walked away.
He was gone even before my jaw came back to meet its upper member. And it was to be a great regret later that I did not catch him then and there and hang on to him for dear life; whoever he had been.
For I found that immediately thereafter, my head cleared up and it felt much cooler. And that I could easily walk the hot, burning stones all the way back to Sri Ramanasramam.
And I learnt my lessons. The naiveté with respect to pain and heat went; and I knew it was alright for me to wear footwear on the Hill if needed. I STILL DONT, but now I keep a pair of slippers in my bag for emergency use, along with the bottle of water etc, when I am on the Hill.
And who was he ? Funnily enough, though I can recall all the other details about him, I just cannot remember the features of his face; except that he had smiled. Was he just a villager-shepherd on the Hill ? To whom some kindly visitor-devotee had given his own pair of sports-shoes ?
I wonder …...
Conocete a ti mismo ! Cuidados !
Hello everybody,
David wrote on September 17, 2009 4:53 PM :
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.
It seemed to me that the path of surrender advocated by Bhagavan implied the absence of effort. You surrender everything to God : which means you have no more desires of your own, nowhere to go, you are just happy with whatever god gives you, you don't want more than what he gives, you just want what he gives, wheter it is suffering or bliss. Actually it seemed to me that, when you have surrendered, suffering becomes blissful, as you accept it as a gift of god, not wanting not to suffer, but being very happy to want what God wants.
So, as, when you have surrendered, you have no desires, nowhere to go, it seemed to me there is no place for an effort, which implies wanting to attain something.
It seemed to me that effort was part of the path of self-enquiry. But that the path of surrender implied no effort at all, as you leave everything to God. You become passive, in the hands of the divine will.
Any comments on this ? Do you think this is the right way to understand Bhagavan's teachings ?
Thanks,
Mana
My teacher wrote a essay booklet called "Four Requisites for Realization and Self-Inquiry". It him expounding on the 4 requirements mentioned in both the shankara and Maharshi versions of Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
So maybe I'll share a passage.
"Discrimination refers to the ability to discern what is true and what is not true. It may commence with deep thinking or contemplation, yet as it becomes clear and firm, it is a matter of actual inner experience.
It may start with what is very basic, yet continues to be instrumental in the Knowledge until Realization itself. Unless a person discerns the source of happiness, is there much of a possibility of finding that happiness, let alone retaining with out subsequent loss?
Unless a person disccerns the purpose of life, will it be fulfilled? It is only for a person exercising keen discrimination regarding what constitutes Realization that a corresponding clear way of realizing will become evident.
Otherwise, the seeker will practice in a random fashion that more often than not will correlate to unexamined ignorant tendencies rather then serve to destroy such delusive patterns of conceptualizing. How will it be possible for one to know oneself without releasing the misidentifications that currently bind or obscure him?
And how will it be possible to thoroughly release such misidentifications unless they are discerned as being such rather than being assumed to be one's actual nature, which is the Absolute Self?
Discrimination enables one to know Reality as it is. If ignorance consists of taking the Real to be unreal and the unreal to be real, one must discern which is real and which is unreal in order to be free of ignorance.
Freedom from ignorance is true Knowledge, the nonconceptual wisdom that sees Reality as it is. This discrimination cannot be a sensory activity. As long as one assumes that the senses determine what is, so long one imagines a supposed external world to be existent and objects to be real. The senses display only minute sensations---minute and momentary no matter how varied, complex or large they may appear to be---and not the ever-present Existence as it is.
Four requisites cont.
The senses are incapable of determining the real nature of the Existence that is the Self. One cannot expect to see the formless Self, to hear the silent Self, etc. Moreover, what is real must always be so in order to be real. The transient senses are incapable of perceiving the eternal Reality. the Self which one seeks to realize is the eternal Reailty.
Therefore, the inquiry utilizing discriminatino to know the Self is not a sensory activity, does not depend on the senses, eliminates the belief in the validity or reality of the sensory "perceptions", and reveals the sense-transcendent Self. It is in this light that Sankara's statement that discrimination is the understanding that Brahman (the vast Absolute) is reality and the material world is false (mithya) becomes experientially understood.
Though discrimination may commencce with thinking, in actual practice, it does not remain as just thought. The Self is not a thought; nor is it all the thoughts gathered together. To confound though with the Self is ignorancce. No thought can be the ever-existent, limitless, utterly formless, and eternal. No thought is actually Consciousness, which is the Self.
discrimination discerns the Self and thus reeals its freedom from thought. With discrimination, one comprehends that Consciousness is the unaffected Witness of all thought and cannot be a thought, and, by this discrimination, one is no longer bound by thought. Profound discrimination reveals the existence of Consciousness alone and the fact that there is really no such existent thing as thought.
The process of discernment, from the most basic to the finest discrimination, actually uses something inherent in and natural to everyone. Everyone knows if he is happy or not. everyone knows that he exists. How is it that everyone has this intrinsic discernment? It is because Knowledge is of the very nature of the Self. Teh aspirant for Liberation ccan very well use this intrinsic ability, an ability that is interior and unfailing, for the purpose of inquiring to know the Self.
The path of Self-Knowledge is, itself, composed of Knowledge. the inquiry to become undefined is in perfect accord with it, for to remain undefined is to be in one's natural state. this requisite of discrimination, likewise, is of hte nature of Knowledge. Advancement in this path is a matter of Knowledge, and the spiritual expereiences from beginning to Realization, are of the nature of Knowledge.
Four requisites cont.
"To cmmence discrimination, one may start meditation with what are seemingly simple questions, such as, "What is the source of happiness? What is eternal? What is real? Who am I?" Though simple and basic, these questions remain extremely useful continually in the practice. The significance of these questions deepens in direct proportion to the depth of discrimination. The discrimination may very well manifest as a sorting process, with more emphasis usuallly on the negation of what is not eternal, not Reality, or not the Self, resulting in the eternal Reality of the Self being left unobscured and self-evident by virtue of discrimination.
The discrimination should also be applied to one's view of Realization in order to free such of dualitic conceptions. Furthermore, the discrimination must be applied to one's own practices in order to sort out what is actually fruitful and what not in the effort to realize the Self. Considering how short life is and how important it is to apply oneself fully, it is imperative to, again and again, clarify ones comprehension of the path so that effort is wisely applied and fruitful.
The distinguishing of what is helpful and what is a hindrance to spiritual development is a result of discrimination. The spiritual discernment of what is actually beneficial and what is deleterious, the law of karma, as well as transcendene of karma, which can occur only in Knowledge and not physically or in bodily terms, are a result of discrimination.
The distinguishing of the causes of emotional moods and how to liberate oneself from them is a result of discrimination. The discernment of mental tendencies and concepts and disidentifying from them is a matter of discrimination. The destruction of the manifest egoistic tendencies or misidintifications and the realization of the absence of ego altogether is of the naturee of discrimination. All the aspects of liberating oneself from misidentifications, or superimpositions of the non-Self upon the Self, and ascertaining what is true about the Self depend upon the ability called, "spiritual discrimination".
That's enough for now, tired of typing. But I've found this work to be extremely full of clarity.
A more recent response from my teacher:
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your recent messages.
It is wise to continue to distinguish the eternal from the non-eternal, disidentifying and remaining detached from the latter so that the former is revealed as the very nature of your Being.
Ardent inquiry to know the Self as transcendent of the mind, along with a keen cognizance of life and death, eliminates tamas. Awareness of the precious opportunity for Liberation and deep devotion also bring on out of inertia.
Yes, knowledge of happiness being within frees one from rajas.
Knowledge of the Self beyond all states and modes even transcends sattva.
May you abide firmly in the Knowledge of the Self, full or bliss and peace.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
Hi,
Some nice points in the discussion based on Arvind's 'Musings', though do not want to get into Ulladu Narpadu Vs GVK, et. al.
Arvind says: "And we know with what print-like precision He would painstakingly and slowly write down even the most mundane of things. His corrections of write-ups submitted by others, even those done by Him in English – a language He was not really at-home with, are a marvel of pithy and precise expression; not one extra or inappropriate word is used."
Wonderful! A long time devotee of Maharshi narrated this to me. When Sadhu Arunachala (Major Chadwick) submitted his English translation of 'Essence of Bhagavad Geeta', Maharshi proof read the text and substituted certain words with such precision, that Major was stunned about His hold on English language and its Grammar. Though negligible in its word meaning, it rendered perfection to the slokas.
Ravi says: "His Greatest Teaching is the Life that he lived."
I am posting this passage by Prof N.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyer, from one of the chapters of 'Moments Remembered':
Sri Ganesan asks "What has Bhagavan taught you?"
Professor Aiyer said: "I observed the personal habits of Sri Bhagavan and tried to follow His example. One noticed in Bhagavan's daily life, personal cleanliness, tidiness of dress, habitual wearing of vibhuti and kumkum on forehead; equal sharing of all enjoyments with those around one; strict adherence to a time schedule; doing useful work however 'low' it be; never leaving a work unfinished; the pursuit of perfection in every action; incessant activity except while sleeping or resting after a spell of hard work; never considering oneself superior to others; speaking the truth always, or strict silence if the expression of a truth would hurt or lower the reputation of others; perfect self-help, never asking another to do a piece of work which can be done by oneself; taking full responsibility for failure, if any, without shifting the blame on others; accepting success and failure with equanimity; never disturbing the peace of another; leaving the leaf or plate clean after eating; complete non-interference in the affairs of others; never worrying about the future.
These are the lessons Sri Ramana taught by example to His devotees. We should try to follow the example of the Maharshi with all the strength of body, mind and spirit.
Of what the Maharshi taught in the realm of spirit words fail and I dare not write"
Thanks! This has been a nice Satsang.
Mana,
I think one of the reasons Bhagavan was reluctant to endorse the notion of "no-effort", and at the same time be reluctant to say that surrender required effort, is that the way of surrender he endorsed was actually a form of what I believe he called "counter egoic effort".
In other words, the basic problem of the egoic life is that it is always engaged in an effort of some kind - an effort to survive, to seek happiness, to gain objects of one kind or another, to justify its own existence, etc. The life of the ego is one of highly stressful effort, and the result is suffering. The problem with taking tha attitude of effortless surrender, however, is that our egoic effort is largely unconscious and something we are addicted to without much conscious intention. If we merely cease to consciously apply egoic effort, that does not eliminate our unconscious egoic efforts. It can just make us lazy and tamasic. So Bhagavan often described the need for "counter-egoic effort", to undo these unconscious egoic efforts that are already in place in us.
Think of the egoic effort as something like a clenched fist. If you clench your fist for a very long time, the muscles become cramped and stiff, and it's very hard to open your hand. So even the simple act of opening one's hand, of ceasing the egoic effort of closing it, requires some effort and re-training of the muscles, until they can flex open again with natural ease. Similarly, the egoic pattern needs retraining and effort to reverse its course. The "knots" must be consciously opened after lifetimes of unconscious clenching.
It's not that only effort does this. Grace is still the leading principle of surrender and opening. It's just that Grace requires our own conscious participation. It requires that we consciously surrender our old patterns of egoic effort, and engage instead in a counter-egoic effort of opening ourselves from the heart. So it requires some basic effort to even surrender effort.
"Sri Ganesan asks "What has Bhagavan taught you?"
Professor Aiyer said: "I observed the personal habits of Sri Bhagavan and tried to follow His example. One noticed in Bhagavan's daily life, personal cleanliness, tidiness of dress, habitual wearing of vibhuti and kumkum on forehead; equal sharing of all enjoyments with those around one; strict adherence to a time schedule; doing useful work however 'low' it be; never leaving a work unfinished; the pursuit of perfection in every action; incessant activity except while sleeping or resting after a spell of hard work; never considering oneself superior to others; speaking the truth always, or strict silence if the expression of a truth would hurt or lower the reputation of others; perfect self-help, never asking another to do a piece of work which can be done by oneself; taking full responsibility for failure, if any, without shifting the blame on others; accepting success and failure with equanimity; never disturbing the peace of another; leaving the leaf or plate clean after eating; complete non-interference in the affairs of others; never worrying about the future."
I think some of my interest in Maharshi and inquiry and jnanis comes from being a graceless, oblivious clutz about many endeavors. And there has been a slow awakening to that this perfect gracefulness in action comes from being in that state where there is no world and no ego, that things just go on. Quotes like this prove that this, indeed, is the perfect state. As i've mentiond I see this kind of perfect selfless grace in President barack obama, and famous quarterback Joe Montana. And so there is this connection that superb success, but selfless success doing the duty well comes from abiding in the Self. and the people that are the people that everyone heroizes as the Great people, and wants to emulate. The kind who don't let fame go to their heads have some serious grace going through them. I notice that in both those cases taht I mentioned and certainly with Maharshi. Huge fame, but being completely oblivious to praise and renown. So it seems like, if you really want to do something incredibly heroic in this life, aim sincerely for Self-Realization, and deeply inquire into the Self. This quote is proof in the pudding.
Arvind/Srikantha/Broken Yogi/Friends,
Arvind's maiden visit to Tiruvannamalai made for interesting reading.Request him to share more.I enjoyed reading his visit to Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra's Samadhi at Nerur posted almost a year back.
Professor Iyer's response to sri Ganesan reveals the impact of Being in the Presence Sri Bhagavan.
Every small act of a Great one is pregnant with Truth and will rub on the discerning devotee who was fortunate to witness it.
Broken Yogi's way of expressing fundamentals is quite refreshing.Surrender does not at all mean giving up efforts.This is like 'Everything Happens by the Will of Rama' story of the weaver that I have posted a few days back in this thread.
Broken Yogi's reference to the 'knots' requiring conscious participation on the seeker's part to open oneself to Grace is indeed the'unfurling of sails' that Sri Ramakrishna had spoken of(quoted by S.).The Recalcitrant nature of Knots is not something that can be dissolved easily-a stalemate like condition may prevail for a long period and this requires a persistent and patient effort.
I recall that our Friend 'Silence' in one of his posts in this thread, made a passing reference to this-by way of putting a question to LMM -whether he can Learn 'Swimming'through Self Enquiry.
Namaskar.
Dear Brothers,
Today is the auspicious occasion of Vijayadasami. On this day, any endeavour which needs heroic efforts are initiated. Sages like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Shirdi Sai baba etal used to give lot of importance to this day.
On this day, let us re-dedicate ourselves in our sadhana and the following dialogues between Bhagavan and Paul Brunton always inspire me.
------------------------------
On another visit he finds me in a pessimistic mood. He tells me of the glorious goal which waits for the man who takes to the way he has shown.
“But, Maharshi, this path is full of difficulties and I am so conscious of my own weakness,” I plead.
“That is the surest way to handicap oneself,” he answers unmoved, “this burdening of one’s mind with the fear of failure and the thought of one’s failings.”
“Yet if it is true — ?” I persist.
“It is not true. The greatest error of a man is to think that he is weak by nature, evil by nature. Every man is divine and strong in his real nature. What are weak and evil are his habits, his desires and thoughts, but not himself.”
-------------------------
“Pursue the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ relentlessly. Analyse your
entire personality. Try to find out where the I-thought begins.
Go on with your meditations. Keep turning your attention
within. One day the wheel of thought will slow down and an
intuition will mysteriously arise. Follow that intuition, let your
thinking stop, and it will eventually lead you to the goal.”
-------------------------
“Unless and until a man embarks upon this quest of the true
Self, doubt and uncertainty will follow his footsteps throughout
life. The greatest kings and statesmen try to rule others, when in
their heart of hearts they know that they cannot rule themselves.
Yet the greatest power is at the command of the man who has
penetrated to his inmost depth. There are men of giant intellects
who spend their lives gathering knowledge about many things.
Ask these men if they have solved the mystery of man, if they
have conquered themselves, and they will hang their heads in
shame. What is the use of knowing about everything else when
you do not yet know who you are? Men avoid this enquiry into
the true Self, but what else is there so worthy to be undertaken?”
---------------------------
Regards Murali
My teacher's latest response
Dear Kassy,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Thank you for your several messages.
You need not have any worry concerning whether or not it is
appropriate to write what you have written to me. If such writing benefits
your practice, perhaps as a means for gaining better perspective, use it.
The explicit details represent no harm.
Some of what you have written is, indeed, pointing in the right
direction. Yet, better than guessing, even intelligently, at the state of a
jnani, how the jnani views such-and-such, what the Self may be, what
Self-Realization may be, etc. is to experientially inquire and directly
realize. For otherwise, whether cloudier or clearer, it remains an idea, and
the Truth of Absolute Being, the self-luminous infinite Consciousness, and
the perfect fullness of Bliss are undoubtedly transcendent of any idea.
In your messages, you expressed how you have been engaging in
somewhat of a debate on certain websites. At some time, you may wish to
consider the value of such. Whether your viewpoint or that of another
prevails in such a debate, ask yourself what purpose it serves. Is this the
best use of your time and effort? If you are inspired, is this the best way
to share what you have found? Does such debate help your practice or deepen
your experience at all?
From your fears regarding bodily discomfort, pain, etc., as
described by you, you can discern the need for actual, deep, thorough
inquiry to liberate yourself from suffering. An intellectual grasp of ideas
thought to correspond to the real essential teaching does not have the
capacity to reveal that freedom, to unveil the innate Bliss, or bestow
lasting peace. Therefore, more profoundly assimilate what has been said and
written, in satsang, correspondence, and in sacred books, by persevering
inquiry that uproots the misidentifications by which you falsely define
yourself. Self-critical examination of your mind (not egotistical
self-judgment that depresses) is helpful, just as the humility that is
natural for anyone who is aware of the scope of That is superior to futile
confidence rooted in the ego's assertion. Therefore, joyfully and ardently
seek to know your Self, which is utterly free of the ego-notion
(individuality) and far, far beyond the tiny concerns of the phantom-like
personality and the illusory moods and modes of an unreal mind.
May you be ever happy at heart, discovering how imagined your
pseudo-bondage is and finding the purpose of life fulfilled within you---
the immortal Bliss of the illimitable Self.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
.
... Master Nome: (...) what the Self may be, what Self-Realization may be, etc. (...) whether cloudier or clearer, it remains an idea. (...) If you are inspired, is this the best way to share what you have found? ...
Keep staying in that inner room of not knowing anything and watch your mind trying to escape from this room. By a european master this is called the "fire of awareness".
.
Murali/Friends,
Murali,Thanks very much for those encouraging words of Sri Bhagavan.A search in Secret India by Paul Brunton is a book that introduced Sri Bhagavan to many.Apart from his experiences with Sri Bhagavan,
I particularly enjoy reading the way Paul brunton meets Yogi Ramiah,Paul Brunton's encounter with the Sage of kanchi(then Shankaracharya of Kanchi),his meeting with Master Mahasaya.I never tire of going through these passages over and over again.
Namaskar.
A few more thoughts on the snake/rope analogy.
First, the traditional criticisms of this analogy seem to stem from the application of the analogy to the phenomenal world-appearance. The criticism seems founded on the fact that even when it is pointed out that the world is an illusion, the appearance of the world persists. That is why they supplement the snake/rope analogy with the water/mirage or the dream analogies. Even in realization, it is often said that the world illusion still persists, except that it is recognized as the Self.
However, if the snake/rope analogy is applied merely to the ego, rather than to the world-appearance, these difficulties do not arise. In realization, the ego illusion is truly vanquished and does not arise again. It does not persist past the moment of its disillusionment. Only the rope of the Self is seen, not the snake of the ego. An example of using the rope/snake analogy in relation to the ego is found in Annamalai's teachings:
This ‘little self’ will give way to the real Self only when you meditate constantly. You cannot wish it away with a few stray thoughts. Try to remember the analogy of the rope which looks like a snake in twilight. If you see the rope as a snake, the real nature of the rope is hidden from you. If you see only the rope, the snake is not there. Not only that, you know that there never was a snake there. When you have that clear and correct perception that the snake never at any time existed, the question of how to kill the snake disappears. Apply this analogy to the ‘little self’ that you are worrying about. If you can understand that this ‘little self’ never at any time had any existence outside your imagination, you will not be concerned about ways and means of getting rid of it.
In the case of the most profound realization, it could be said that the perception of the world does not even continue. Instead, only the Self is seen. The world is recognized as the Self, even as it appears. So the true realizer does not see a “world”, he sees the Self. Further, I'm reminded that Ramana has clearly stated that, though he teaches according to the level of maturity of the student, and thus often will teach the various vadas of drishti, his own experience is only of the Ajata Vada, at all times, regardless of what he might appear to us to be “experiencing”. In which case, even the “dream” analogy is inapplicable to the post-realization state.
To Ramana, it would appear that the entire so-called appearance of the world is merely “uncreated Brahman”. Even so, the rope/snake analogy seems to hold so long as one applies it to the issue of “non-duality/duality”. In other words, even the appearance of the world is not itself the “snake”, it is duality that is the snake. Thus, when the snake of duality is seen through, and the rope is seen to be the only non-dual reality, this is the equivalent of seeing that there is no ego, no world, and no dualism, but only the One, uncreated Self, and that dualism does not persist at all. The appearance of the world does not persist as dualism, it persists only as the Self, it's true nature, the “rope” of reality. So in that sense, the rope/snake analogy is sufficient in itself.
Friends,
I wish to share this excerpt from Guru Ramana by S S Cohen:
22nd February, 1949
A well-educated North Indian came forward,
prostrated to Sri Bhagavan and sat in the front line. He asked
in excellent English:
Visitor. What is the cause and origin of the universe?
Bh. Have you no worries of your own?
V. Of course I have; that is why I want to know about Life,
Death, Consciousness, etc.
Bh. Begin with the beginning: who has Life, Consciousness,
etc.? Have you, for instance, life?
V. Of course I know I am alive, for I see my body.
Bh. Do you always see the body? What happens to it and to
the universe when you go to sleep?
V. I don’t know, it is a mystery.
Bh. You may not know what happens to them, but do you
for that reason cease to exist?
V. I don’t know.
Bh. How do you then know that you exist even now?
V. Now I have awareness and see my body moving and
thinking.
Bh. But you see your body also moving and thinking and
being in all sorts of places while it is actually lying fast
asleep in Tiruvannamalai.
V. It is a mystery. Can I say that I, the permanent, am ever
present and only my ego changes?
Bh. So you think you are two persons: the permanent ‘I’ and
the ego. Is that possible?
V. Then please show me the way to the Real.
Bh.The Real is ever-present, like the screen on which all the
cinematographic pictures move. While the pictures
appear on it, it remains invisible. Stop the pictures, and
the screen, which has all along been present, in fact the
only object that has existed throughout, will become clear.
All these universes, humans, objects, thoughts and events
are merely pictures moving on the screen of Pure
Consciousness, which alone is real. Shapes and
phenomena pass away, but Consciousness remains ever.
A few days later Sri Bhagavan gave a different answer to a
similar question asked by Dr. Godel, a French Medical
Officer of the Suez Canal. He told the doctor: “You must
distinguish between the ‘I’, pure in itself, and the ‘I’-
thought. The latter, being merely a thought, sees subject
and object, sleeps, wakes up, eats and thinks, dies and is
reborn. But the pure ‘I’ is the pure Being, eternal
existence, free from ignorance and thought-illusion. If
you stay as the ‘I’, your being alone, without thought,
the I-thought will disappear and the delusion will vanish
forever. In a cinema-show you can see pictures only in a
very dim light or in darkness. But when all lights are
switched on, all pictures disappear. So also in the floodlight
of the Supreme Atman all objects disappear.”
Dr. G. That is the Transcendental State.
Bh. No, transcending what, and by whom? You alone exist.
my teacher's latest response. I've had alot of questions lately about what inquiry is and not. I'll have to look at that analogy again to see what he is getting at. Inquiring into the nature of the inquirer, however, I think means inquire to see that the nature of the inquiry is the blissful,infinite, eternal Self. I take it to be infinite in dimensions, where bliss is, and eternal because it is ever-present.
Dear Kassy,
Namaste. Concepts of destiny and individual free will are
entertained only so long as the individual to which either pertain is
assumed to exist. In Self-Knowledge, both ideas are absent, for the ego does
not exist. Self-inquiry reveals this Knowledge. The unreal ego has no part
in it, for the nature of the inquiry is of the Knowledge essence. If one
asks about the "I" that seems as if implicit in the inquiry, the answer is
found in the Maharshi's analogy of the stick used to turn the burning pyre.
Therefore, inquire into the nature of the inquirer.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
It seems my teacher is saying, same as Maharshi to destroy every vestige of what the 'I' identifies with, and the 'I' will naturally get consumed when it destroys everything else. And do it with the intention of someone who is drowning grapsing for air. That makes sense, because as I said, I can't be localized, but it's attachments, and self-definitions make themselves known to be 'stirred'.
.
... I can't be localized, but it's attachments, and self-definitions make themselves known to be 'stirred' ...
That is exactly the point. "We cannot know what God is - we can only know what He ist not" - as spiritual wisdom all over the world puts it.
Inquiring into the "i" we see that it is nothing else then a stream of mental images (we could say that the "self" is the ozean of consciousness where all this happens, but this is a mental image too).
All this mental images have to be given up.
But at first we need to know:
a) of their existence (because they are hidden)
b) how to give them up (by discovering and by dismissing them; i.e. sadhana)
This kind of practice is extremely difficult. Why? Because you don't gain something - you loose all. You are digging your own grave. And for the mind this is nearly impossible to accept.
We need an abundance of "spiritual weapons" to have success while walking on this long, long street. This weapons and the problems too are described by the sages and the holy ones. In the end we need a practical understanding of the path - but not much theory.
I dare to recommend you, LMM, I am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj. This great Master had the ability to explain in a practical manner the steps needed to inquire into the problems of the path.
It is not so helpful to ponder over and over again all this traditional arguments because they are the essence of the teaching, and for the beginners mind it is normally impossible to understand the truth of this essence; especially when there is no true guru in the near of you living this truth or being able to explain it in a helpful manner.
"M: [...] The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am' without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalised but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense "I am" is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.
Q: Then what am I?
M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. For as long as knowledge means description in terms of what is already known, perceptual, or conceptual, there can be no such thing as self-knowledge, for what you are cannot be described, except as except as total negation. [...]"
NISARGADATTA Maharaj
.
Good point, again though, I don't really see the distinction. It seems to be all helpful. I am That has been helpful at times, but also recently the Shankara works. It doesn't seem to me that those works such as the Shankara works or 40 verses are meant for experts (except maybe in the case of bad and pretentious translations), and that I am That is somehow made for beginners in contrast. All of it seems to be absorption. What you said about how you cannot know God, you can only know what God is not, made alot of sense. That teacher I correspond with is a true guru, coaxing me out of my ego, and suffering and responding from the Self as the Self, it's even less what he says intellectually, and just that he comes from the place my mind least expects. I've taken to just writing him my deepest worries, and just that act, for some reason is a deep surrender because my mind already recognizes his responses, that e-mail address as the sweet grass coaxing me into the stall. I've known nothing that works so well, my own efforts have not worked so well, and even my own readings of I am That or Who am I? have worked so well. Mainly because my mind thinks it can understand what is meant and gets stuck on one level of understanding for a long time, whereas a reply from my teacher takes that crutch away and I automatically go deeper, and then if I go back and read I am That it makes so much more sense.
I agree. I am That is really good. The first one I read was just a re-organized as sayings on the internet, then at some point I got it from the library. I always get really annoyed with some of the presentations of Nisargadatta. Like this one, had all these americans being interviewed who would talk like they understood his teachings, but it was pretty clear they didn't. (not that I do) And they were reducing him to some silly stereotype. But again, this is all ego. My judging them. I liked my teacher's response on that, essentially that if I see the needlessness of the ignorance that is the cause of the actions I find deplorable in others, I will have great compassion rather then being roused to anger and hatred. But that's the thing, I freely admit, I do not know the source of happiness within, I do not know that my ego is an illusion. (so I'm just as ignorant as they are) That is why I as much as possible rely entirely on the experts (only Jnanis), or that correspondence I mentioned because of the power it seems to have to cleanse problems both externally and internally. But in my teacher's latest response he seemed to be advocating that all of the non-self can be eliminated by the self and when the self is all that is left it will be consumed like the stick used to stir the funeral pyre. I like that analogy when I first read it.
"This kind of practice is extremely difficult. Why? Because you don't gain something - you loose all. You are digging your own grave. And for the mind this is nearly impossible to accept."
I was feeling that way on the train, that i don't want to give up all that I'm attached. Worse, I don't want to give it up, when I don't even have it. It is all longing for what I don't have. Yet, those attachments are sticky, and it feels like a loss to give them up. However, honestly I don't think it's a loss. Because what is gained is true love, pure happiness, selfless nonattached action, connection with everything and everyone. In truth, it seems like there is only gain, but the ego projects it, as that it is going to be a loss, and there is this resistance to actually diving within, to giving up those attachments. Even if it was something I possessed, do I really possess it, when it only exists in my experience for a transient ammount of time? So I also gain freedom from the fear of loss as well, and fear of death. So really, truly, there is only gain it seems. The loss is imagined. And even to quote Maharshi, he said the ego is a suicide. So really, maybe it is the other way around, taking ourselves as this individual, that doesn't even exist in our own experience, anyone's experience, and masking the joy that is natural is digging our own grave every moment we suffer, or in a state of dull stupor.
"M: [...] The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am' without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalised but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense "I am" is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.
Q: Then what am I?
M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. For as long as knowledge means description in terms of what is already known, perceptual, or conceptual, there can be no such thing as self-knowledge, for what you are cannot be described, except as except as total negation. [...]"
NISARGADATTA Maharaj
I always hear people talk like there are Maharshi's teachings, and nisargadatta's teachings. This same set of sentences with hardly an adjustment are found in the Who am I? essay and countless dialogues with Ramana. So evidently Ramana's teachings and Nisargadatta's teachings are precisely identical with not a slight difference.
I thought this was interesting when I first read it, it was a question put to my teacher in correspondence from a devotee of the late Robert Adams.
[This is a message from a disciple of Robert Adams. In previous
years, after the passing of his teacher, he had sought some
advice from Nome on the telephone and in correspondence.
Nome’s response follows.]
October 11, 2006
Master Nome,
Maybe I can formulate my conundrum better:
It was my first awakening experience that there was no I,
therefore there was no thou, no other, therefore no world. All
were concept only, but there is no one to have a concept.
39
There is no inner no outer, existence nor non-existence, nor
Void nor lack of Void, time or timeless. They were all concept,
illusions only apparently real.
I saw that the self-illumined Void that I had meditated on
for years again was just an object, an experience, a phenomenon
and therefore not real. What I was was beyond the Void.
I had looked within to find myself, but there was no within
or without, therefore it had been a mistake to look only within
because consciousness is everywhere, within and without. I
wondered why all the sages said to look within when there was
no within.
Though I did not see this clearly, I also saw that consciousness
itself was an illusion, a concept, yet not a concept that I
held, but a concept nowhere attached.
Robert never told me, but he told others that I was getting
close to enlightenment.
Yet, all of this knowledge occurred in the waking state, not
the dream or deep sleep states.
My second awakening occurred a few weeks later. When
waking from a dream, I saw that I was not touched by either
dream or waking, therefore, I also was not touched by sleep.
These were all added onto me and were false. The three states
were false-phenomenal realms imposed on me, who was without
attribute and unknowable. I knew I was only because I saw
that that which was, was not I, yet I observed all of existence,
which I knew was unreal. Only I was real and I didn’t know that
I directly, I was not an object to be known.
What I was, was not consciousness or lack of consciousness,
nor the three states, nor the world or lack thereof. I was not
touched by existence. Consciousness was about existence and I
was way beyond that.
At this point, Robert said I was enlightened.
But all these years one thing bothered me. Ramana and
Robert both always said all that there is, is consciousness, the
One consciousness.
Everyone talked about the Self as being self aware. I do not
understand this viewpoint. I do not know myself, but I am
myself and cannot be self-aware.
The self-illumined inner space, the self-luminous Void also
was an illusion, yet understood by whom?
40
All the years since then I felt I was missing something. I did
not see how Ramana could be right when he did not say that
the ultimate was beyond consciousness.
Was it the knowledge that I was not consciousness nor the
world an awareness beyond consciousness? If so, why did
Ramana not say it? Robert told everyone that everything is consciousness
and existence of the universe was unreal. But once
he told me that even consciousness did not exist. Were both
talking about world consciousness, observation and knowledge
of phenomena and I was aware, whatever I was, of that?
Robert spent 17 years wandering in India to make sure he
did not miss anything.
Where is the mistake here? It is obviously conceptual, but
what is the mistake?
(Name deleted)
this was my teachers response
Dear ,
Namaste. Thank you for your message.
Your have expressed very well your spiritual experiences
that, being of the nature of the nondual, are necessarily ineffable.
Perhaps I can offer a few comments that may be helpful.
If by consciousness is meant perception, sensory or mental
of any kind, it is unreal. Consciousness is devoid of the unreal.
If the question is what are perceptions and thoughts, they are
only Consciousness. Yet, Consciousness can never be modified
to become such, for what is mutable is unreal, and the unreal
does not exist. Existence cannot become nonexistent. It just is
as it is always. So, if the question is what is Consciousness or
Who am I?, the silent answer is the realization of eternal identity
as That. The Real alone ever is and the unreal has never come
to be is the self-evident Truth.
The known is only the knower. Who is the knower?
Inquiring in this manner, Knowledge is self-revealed. That
Knowledge is only unalloyed Consciousness, which is Being.
For this, ignorance is impossible.
The same holds true for the self-luminous Void.
Abandonment of the objectifying outlook is what is beneficial.
“Within” signifies nonobjective Being. Thus, the advice of the
41
sages. It should not be interpreted in terms of space, the body,
or even the thoughts, modes, and states constituting the mind.
As you may recall, the Maharshi, in Saddarshanam, negates
both the world and the awareness of it. All that is “this” and “I”
is illusory. The supposed connection (experience, perception,
conception, etc.), is equally illusory for there cannot be a real
connection between the unreal and the unreal. Illusion is that
which is not. The unreal has never come to be. There cannot be
any connection between the Real and the unreal for the Real is
and the unreal is not. For the Unborn there is no creation.
The best course is to know the Self. Such Knowledge is
nonobjective. It is that in which Being is Knowing. Being-
Consciousness-Bliss is neither an entity nor an activity of any
kind. Therefore, there can be no concept of attainment or its
opposite in the absence of any individual for whom these
could be.
Upadesa (spiritual instruction) is given in accordance with
the needs of the seeker. The essential teaching as revealed by
Dakshinamurti and Sri Bhagavan is this silent Knowledge. Sri
Ramana has said, “Silence is that is which no ‘I’ arises.”
Actual experience of true Knowledge is essential. Whatever
terms are used for expression, it is important to actually know
oneself. Whatever be the conception, it will be negated, even if
it is a spiritual conception. There is, though, no need to continue
conceiving and negating. The original meaning of the wise
sages of “Self,” “Being,” “Consciousness,” “Void,” “Brahman,”
“Siva,” and such should be directly known. It is that which is
self-known, self-luminous, undefined, beyond all states, ever the
same, and alone existing.
In the Knowledge of “I” the assumed conundrum is easily
dissolved. One should truly inquire, “Who am I?”
I hope that you find the above helpful. I trust that you
receive such friendly advice as it is intended. Your determination
to be thorough is wise. Do not stop until the Truth is always selfevident
and without an alternative. As always, you have a warm,
open invitation to visit here at the SAT temple. Please feel free
to write again if you are so inclined.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
... Where is the mistake here? It is obviously conceptual, but
what is the mistake? ...
Yes, that is exactly the point - the personal consciousness is unable to understand the BEING which is beyond of the consciousness. The concsiousness is unable to understand where it is when there is only BEING, which equally includes and excludes consciousness, or to put it more exactly: which transcends consciousness.
The whole human world is unable to understand this - our scientists too!
If I am unconscious but know that this BEING exists forth - where I am then? That is the question the mind cannot understand - it has to be "felt" in the heart. It has to be realized that "consciousness is all what exists" but that it has another nature as we normally assume. "Enlightenment" belongs to the waking state - as long as we see ourselves bound to "states" we cannot be set free.
Claro the mind is unable to understand this because it cannot understand its own absence! - because this means its death...
Nisargadatta expresses this with this really helpful and clever distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness":
Q: You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?
M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
----------------
I know a person having tried over 20 years to get an answer to this question and was happy and got full understanding by reading this distinction formulated by Nisargadatta.
What the individuum needs to know is that "the self is aware of itself" is nothing the embodied consciousness can understand.
This Awareness is the state before you begin to think. It is real experience or knowledge but is not known as a thing and not by a person.
But how to realize this in our day-to-day experience? Dive if you can, deep into the eyes of a newborn child - still he lives unbrokenly in this awareness, in this unconscious consciousness or conscious unconsciousness.
.
My teacher wrote a bunch of mandalas that are amazing. The first 3 are on Being Consciousness Bliss respectively. But there is one on practice that is really good. I'm debating between Bliss and practice. But maybe I'll share one a day. I feel like reading them gives a direct experience of the Self. If only temporary. I read through almost all of them today.
Mandala Three Bliss
To abide as the Self
Is Bliss uncaused and unrboken.
The Bliss inherent in this
Nondual Being-Consciousness
Is as expansive as the sky,
Yet so close within you.
Happiness is within.
Within is the SElf.
The search for happiness
is the search for oneself
The finding of oneself
Is the happiness perfect.
Freedom, peace, and happiness fused
Are the singular experience
Of the true Self
No fulfillment in illusion
No deficiency in the Self;
No happiness in dualism,
No suffering in nonduality;
One is truly happy Only by
abiding At the very Source
of all happiness,
As the Bliss of the Self.
Bliss uncaused and unbroken
is To abide as the Self.
The Bliss of the Self,
Joy of the Absolute,
Is the state of Being,
Unveiled, SElf-revealed, as it is.
Suffering is needless,
and grief unrelated,
To immortal Reality.
Misidentification, ignorance,
Alone causes suffering.
Self-Knowldge is Bliss,
Reality SElf-revealed
You are never required To be bound
or to suffer.
You are always required To be
free, at peace,
And happy within.
Suffering has no basis,
No real, valid cause;
All so-called causes mere excuses,
Illusion's experience of itself.
Suffering is not
Inherent in life;
The Bliss of the Absolute
is what is innate.
This is the Bliss,
Real and Eternal,
The Bliss of the Truth,
The Bliss of the SElf.
To know the SElf,
One always is,
Is the way to recover,
The Bliss never lost.
The happiness experienced
Anywhere anytime
Derives not from the experienced,
But from the SElf,
The sole source,
The same is true of love, peace,
Dearness and harmony,
The true, good, and beautiful
All this is the Bliss of the Self.
Desire is simply
The urge to be happy.
Turned outward, it is foolish;
Turned inward, it yields wisdom.
Turn inward to recover
The Bliss never lost.
Immutable Being is the root
Of peace everlasting.
Space-like Consciousness is the root
Of freedom from bondage.
The Bliss of the Self is the root
Of joyful love, devotion, and Oneness.
The way to recover the Bliss ever yours
Is to know the SElf that always you are.
One thing is needed for Bliss everlasting;
Dive within, to the source,
Detaching and inquiring
to know the Self.
I'll share the one on practice also.
Mandala five
Advice for Aspiration
Practice, practice, practice intensely
Like a man drowning Reaching for air;
Drowning in samsara
Reaching for blissful immortality,
Practice, practice, practice intensely.
Effortless certainly is Self-Realization,
Yet if it's not certain,
practice, practice, pracgtice intensely.
The intensity of Truth shines
As intensity of the practice
To know oneself truly
And to renounce all the unreal.
Practice of KNowledge
Destroys the shadows of ignorance,
Burning brightly and absorbing itself
In the Truth ever present.
Never is there a need
TO abandon the practice,
For what seems the means
Is really the End;
The End itself;
Manifests as means,
Jnana and jnana,
Knowledge-yielding KNkowledge.
Knowledge without practice
Is only momentary insight;
Practice iwthout knowledge
Is repetitive and unclear.
Neither practice nor KNowledge
Is worldly wandering in delusive maya,
Filled with suffering,
Bound in bitter fetters,
LIfe spent in a dream.
Knowledge practiced
Stands irrefutable,
Shines as direct expereince,
And abides as Being,
For the sake of Bliss,
For the sake of peace,
for the sake of freedom,
For the sake of Truth,
For the sake of the SElf,
Practice, practice, practice intensely.
The spirit of Truth
Is the spirit of practice,
You are always free,
And always free to be free,
Do not doubt the ability
To abide as the Self;
Do not let this ability go unused.
Nothing obstructs,
But one's imagination.
Persevere and inquiry,
Listen, reflect, meditate.
So that practice is filled with
The spirit of Truth.
Nonduality in practice,
Nonduality in Realization.
To search for Truth
While ignoring one's own Self
Is like confounding the original face
And the image in the mirror
KNowledge of the SElf
Trancends all duality
Self-inquiry includes not
The dualism one desires to transcend.
Inquiry reveals and does not create.
What is anew will be lost
And cannot be real.
What is ever revealed
And is not destroyed,
Oneself revealing
ONe SElf to oneself.
For Nonduality in REalization,
nonduality in practice.
And no darkness remains in LIght,
There remains no ignorance,
Bondage, or suffering
For those who are wise,
Sincere, honest, introspective,
Persevering, faithful,
And who carry the love
Of the Supreme
In their hearts.
Manifesting the true,
The good, and the beautiful.
Inspired by the sages,
The holy and gracious,
He who, with inward mind,
Seeks the light of Truth,
Finds himself absorbed
In the light timeless
That knows no darkness
Of delusion, illusion unreal.
He who, renouncing attachment
And aflame with the desire for Liberation,
INquires to know
The Truth of the SElf
Treads the supreme way
And is the crest jewel of living beings.
He is a light
Guided by light,
Effulgent in Bliss-KNowledge,
Is absorbed in LIght,
Light of pure Consciousness,
LIght that is infinite
Eternal Light of all,
Absolute Light,
Illusionless Self,
And no darkness remains in light.
That which you desire to find
Is found by destroying the vile
That seems to hide it,
The forgetfulness
That overlooks it,
The inadvertent mode
That slips by it.
The tendencies that you examine
In the light of true KNowledge,
Are those from which
You set yourself free.
The illusion dissolves
Into nothingness that it is,
Its only substance,
For when you hutn for the gloom,
With the light within,
You find only light,
And the gloom remains not,
Examining the bondage,
you find no fetters,
Examining the sorrow,
You find no valid cause,
Examining delusion's dream,
You find no substance, no dreamer.
To control thought or the mind,
Completely and finally,
Relizae that such
Has never actually come to be.
Confining concepts are
Like echoes in an empty canyon.
If you do not shout
How will there be any noise?
So does bondage and its erasure
Pivot on you.
Inquiring to know
What yourself is,
Trace the outer to the inner,
The branch to the trunk and the root,
The objective to the subjective,
And inquire, "Who am I?"
Ignorance will cease,
And you will thus realize
That which you desire to find.
The desire for LIberation
And earnest self-effort
Are the key ingredients
For SElf-Realization.
Sincerity of purpose,
Renunciation of attachment,
And introspection in the form of
Self-inquiry
Are what are needed
For SElf-Realization.
Meditation to know the SElf,
Dissolving the mind in its source,
Is the helpful means
For SElf-Realization,
If only one desires
Liberation strongly enough,
The necessary practice will manifest.
Bondage will vanish,
And the Truth will be Realized.
Desire for LIberation means
That one knows that
Self-Realization alone is necessary,
And nothing else is necessary.
Earnesness manifests as dilligence
and perseverence.
Dilligence is adherence to the teachings
of Truth.
Perseverence is the adament refusal
To stagnate in delusion.
REnunciation of attachment
Is clarity regarding happiness
And no longer fooling oneself
About what can never give
What is truly one's own.
Inquiry is discerning
Who you are,
Negating what you are not.
So that the SElf is SElf-revealed.
Treasure the Nondual Truth
As you would protect your own eyes,
And it, itself, will protect you
From blind pursuit of the unreal.
As you see yourself
So you see others
Though one who sees the Self
KNows the Self of all,
And identified as That,
Sees no others at all.
So treat others as you would yourself,
And love them as the Self
Beyond body and mind.
Humility is the vessel
Of Truth and Grace,
The ability to imbibe
The resevoir for wisdom,
And the vehicle of love,
Compassion is the understanding
That suffering is needless,
The eye of KNowledge
Sees the sufferer is not,
And silent Being ever prevails,
Countless divine attributes
Have one source within,.
Abide in the source,
The divine Absolute,
By diving within, urged by
The desire for Liberation.
The wise have shown the way.
look not without,
But look within.
Do not formulate opinions.
But know the Truth within.
Do not attempt to control others,
But learn to wisely govern yourself.
Do not seek to tell others,
But correct yourself.
Do not opine regarding others,
But seek the state of no defining idea regarding yourself.
Do not seek out the faults of others,
But critically examine yourself.
Do not learn jargon,
But learn the meaning in KNowledge.
Do not imitate or create anew,
But practice sincerely,
Realizing by direct experience,
What the holy sages have before you,
The wise have shown the way.
If you adhere to hte Truth,
The Truth adheres to you,
Illumines and supports you,
The Truth is realized by those
Who are consecrated to it.
One should spiritually practice
With as much intensity
As if life depended on it,
For, indeed, it does.
Do not delay to practice;
Do not wait to know yourself.
Patience is wiating
For osmething objective to occur.
Impatience is waiting
For something objective to occur.
Do not wait; know yourself.
Care for the root,
And the branches and leaves
Care for themselves.
What appears as intensity in practice.
Is, in RElaization, found to be
The solidity, vividness, And reality
of hte SElf.
Intensity in practice becomes
Immovability and imperturbability
In the KNowledge of the Absolute
INtensely inquire,
Knowing that no ignorant notion
Is too large to conqurer.
Intensely inquire,
KNowing that no ignorant notion
Is too small to relinquish.
Nothing will delude you
If you adhere to the Truth.
Sow and reap.
Meditation yields wisdom and inner experience.
Detachment yields freedom and peace.
Perseverence yields steadiness and strength.
Self-inquiry yields the Realization of the Absoute
And nothing less.
Sow and reap."
This is enough for now. This mandala actually goes on for a long while. But maybe I'll share more later. My teacher said it was meant as a meditation to engender being absorbed in the state of the Self, or pure COnsciousness.
i was thinking ravi might appreciate this one.
These again are mandalas my teacher wrote. I'm not trying to hog the message board, others are free to write. But I have found these incredibly helpful in the practice, so I'm sharing them.
Mandala Ten
God, Guru, Grace
God, Guru, and the Self
Are one and the same.
There is no God
Other than the Self,
And there is no self
Other than God.
As there is no distance
Between Brahman and oneself,
Between the Self and oneself,
there is no distance
Between the Guru and the disciple
Brahman transceneds all,
The Self transcends all,
The Guru transcends all,
For Brahman alone is,
The Self alone is,
The Guru alone is,
A second exists not in Brahman,
An ego exists not in the Self,
For the Guru, no disciple exists.
Duality dissolves in Brahman
The ego vanishes in the Self,
The disciple ceases in the Guru.
Brahman formless is,
The Self formless is,
The Guru formless is.
Brahman-Being-Consciousness-Bliss.
The Self-Being-Consciousness-Bliss.
The Guru-Being-Consciousness-Bliss.
Brahman is itself alone.
The Self knows itself alone.
The Guru reveals his own existence
alone.
One alone is
God, Guru, and the Self.
The Truth reveals the Truth
To the Truth.
The Self reveals its own existence
As the one Self.
This is the truth of meditation,
The Truth of the Guru-and-disciple relationship.
Only a Self-Realized sage
Reveals Self-Knowledge,
Clearly, "like a fruit in the hand,"
Naturally, with no duality.
The unenlightened
Are unable to do so,
The Realized reveal it
With even the most awkward of words,
The unenlightened cannot do so
With even the eloquence of the most elegant of words.
The Realized reveal it
Even with silence.
In this silence,
There are no unenlightened ones.
Speaking, he is yet silent.
Speaking, the sage
Speaks only to God-
The real Self-
Whenever addressing
The disciple or aspirant.
Not to follow the Truth
Revealed by one's Guru
Is to cling to the illusions
of the world,
Walk eyes open into a raging fire,
Blind one's own eyes,
Injure oneself,
Drown oneself,
To fall again into nightmares
After being kindly awakened.
The wise yogi does not
Make himself thus
As one deserving of compassion,
But adheres to the Truth,
Dissolves himself into it,
Rests himself upon it,
Remains absorbed in it,
And is content
Truth is like water:
Strong enough
To dissolve solid rock,
Yet so gentle
It can touch your eyes.
Be devoted to your Guru,
For he will generously show you
That which might otherwise
Require eons fo striving,
Who shows what to whom?
To the Truth,
The Truth reveals the Truth.
For the sake of the Self
All are loved.
Love-the unitary feeling of Being-
Inseparable from divine Knowledge,
In the Realization of the formless
Self,
The Self that dwells
In the hearts of all,
In devotion deep,
All love's expressions
Are acceptable,
Regardless of apparent duality,
Provided the devotee
Harbors no egoism.
Cessation of frantic contention
By the false ego,
With its attendant dualism,
As if a second power,
Is sweet surrender.
All the teachings are taught,
All blessings bestowed,
All instruction followed,
All devotion surges upm
All love pours forth,
For the sake of the Self.
Aborbed in That, by That,
In which faith is placed,
Is one with faith,
The strength of the holy,
The pure in heart.
What is to be experienced tomorrow
Is believed in today.
When the residuum
Of contrary doubt dissolves,
Faith's essence remains
As the deepest conviction
The certitude of Knowledge,
Shining as direct experience
Without the notion of time,
With no seperation.
With that, one is
Absorbed in That by That.
Grace is of the Self.
It sheds itself upon itself.
Whenever the ego dissolves,
One abides in a state of Grace.
Guru's Grace,
Oneness of Knowledge and Being,
Is felt as the fusion
Of wisdom and love,
Knowledge of the Self
Is truly holy.
Love of the Truth
Is truly holy.
Love of those who abide identified with the Truth
is truly holy.
What is holy is immortal.
Revealing itself,
The Self is called Grace.
Grace is the call, grace prompts the response.
If sincere self-effort is total,
Grace is present in abundance.
Having come into the Grace of the Guru,
If the disciple ardently follows
The path shown by the Guru,
He will undoubtedly be Liberated
And will never be forsaken,
for Grace is the Self.
All is Grace:
The hope, the search,
The effort, the attainment,
The instruction, the application,
The revelation,
The world-transcendence,
The immense peace,
All is Grace:
The lessons, the learning,
The dissolution of the fetters,
The saving from distress,
The display of Truth's power,
The transcendent freedom,
All is Grace:
The support, the guidance,
The help, the illumination,
The unfailing wisdom,
The perfection of bliss.
All is Grace:
The smallest, the vastest,
Inner mind, entire universe.
The eternal state.
All is Grace:
The Self's own Knowledge,
Self-evident, of its own Self.
All is Grace:
The one silent Truth.
All is Grace.
All right
Is everything,
No matter what,
When, or where.
The perfect Absolute
Brings forth none other.
Contrary ideas
Change not the fact.
Creating, destroying,
The pleasurable, the painful.
Living and dying,
All is ever
All right.
Detached and free,
Identified with That,
The indestructable Bliss,
Transcendent of all,
Himself being all,
Eternal perfection
All is ever
All right.
Supremely simple,
Innate, is the Truth.
So many words,
For something ineffable,
So many explanations
For the inexplicable
So many descriptions
For the indescribable,
So many reasons
For the unthinkable,
So many parables
For the incomparable,
The Self alone is
Supremely simple.
First off, I don't know where everyone else went. Did I drive them away? (laugh). I was just thinking about how with this spiritual teacher, my guru, how he really does not tell me what to do, but gives me sort of hints, or things he says point in a certain direction as far as action. But I was thinking about how I've asked alot "what should I do?", etc. And in general have not gotten a response out of him on those kind of things. For instance on sexuality, how should I approach sesxuality? What is O.K in terms of action regarding it. He responded that a pleasurable sensation minus the happiness essence is meaningless for all. The happiness is what all truly want, and it is the Bliss of the Self. Along those lines. But on action regarding it, he said that the body acts, the Self does not act, indulgence and abstention pertain to the body and not the Self. So he didn't give me any guidance regarding sexual behavior. But how I should perhaps relate to sexuality in terms of it's importance. I was also amazed at how the deeper state I experienced around him, had nothing to do with any kind of state, had nothing to do with thought, action, all that stuff went on normally, but the sense of a me involved, or that I even existed was very subdued, and it seemed like fate was driving things like electicricity coursing through a wire. And I did feel a sense of peace, and also that nothing mattered. And that things were really easy, and lacking in the normal confusion. I was also amazed at how this teacher, who I have no doubt is a jnani, behaved so ordinarily, but superbly in that ordinary-ness. For instance when he came over to visit me with his wife the first time, I felt too intense to be in his presence, and so quietly hid in my room. He asked, "did you get some rest?" a perfectly normal question, but there was something about it, that was so intense, and the way his blue orb eyes slowly drifted toward me in this frighteningly majestic way. And that it felt like my whole nervous system was being re-wired. But the second time he came in my presence, this time his wife and him wanted to make sure I had food, I felt nothing. Just like being around normal people. I'm really thin, and the person whose apartment at the temple he took me to, he laughed, "he needs to eat". And while they were conversing, he gently looked at me affectionately with this very kind, and almost shy expression. And when I left I felt that kind of feeling of the mind unraveling, and billowing clouds of Bliss as I walked through town. It reminds me very much of interactions with Ramana Maharshi. Because Maharshi acted extremely ordinary, but also perfectly functional. But there was no "guru pretentions". The guru-ness was from the state. And also similarly the way he looked at people with the heart-melting affection.
There is the site that has defamation about my teacher, and some of the claims there. I don't know or care about the facts on that. (even if my guru frequented the toddy shop, I know him by his guru nature) But it is interesting to me, and this is the only reason I'm bringing it up, at how indifferent he is to that there is a site saying all these bad things about him. And it's really impressive to me, and in the same way Maharshi responded to a book of false claims about him where he said, "what you are saying that isn't true, but everything else is?" It seems in the same way, just as unthinkable for this teacher to try to defend his reputation. And that is what he said to me about it, but that kind of reiterating that it is delusive to form opinions about others, and something about being indifferent to rejection and acceptance. I'm only bringing it up, not to defend his reputation, which matters not to my inquiry, and he seems to care nothing about it, but just because it fits into the interesting-ness of being around a jnani and how little they care about the things most humans obsess about. If he doesn't care about his reputation, I even care less about it. I still though sometimes possess self-consciousness about how people view me. And so there is something inspiring about how much of a non-issue that is to a jnani. "So what are you saying, this isn't true? (referring to the defamation against Maharshi) but everything else is". Maharshi did not care at all, if the whole world gossiped about him. This teacher, though the one thing he said about how to treat others, is that it is axiomatic to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but not only that, he said with body/speech and mind. He said that would yield significant depth and lightness of heart.
This was a letter from my teacher to someone else about refuting defamation.
Dear ,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanya
Namaste. Thank you for your message. As mentioned earlier,
if someone knowingly says falsehood about someone else
and is refuted, he will just create another falsehood for he
retains the same motivation. If a person uses the mind in such
a way as to be susceptible to believing in such falsehoods, the
refutation will not necessarily clear his confusion or doubt.
Therefore, pursuit of such preservation of one's good name is
not truly worthwhile. In light of the eternal, what does it matter?
Even in a mere ten thousand years, who will remember?
Purnam (perfect fullness) and Ananda (Bliss) are within, so what
does it matter? In the illimitable Brahman, what does it matter?
Even in this mere vast universe, what does it matter?
Whether you think that there are charlatans or not is not significant.
Is your purpose to gauge others or to inquire within
yourself? Why waste time forming the mind into opinions about
individuals who do not actually exist? Who will determine who
is to be held in higher esteem and who not and upon what conceived
basis? Ask yourself if such concerns do anything to eliminate
the illusion of ego and bondage.
Anyone can put into practice that which Sri Bhagavan
Ramana teaches and find the truth of it himself.
If anyone finds what SAT does helpful, he can avail himself
of it as he pleases. If that is not so, one is free to look elsewhere.
The same is so for any other place, event, teacher, etc.
May you abide in the unconditional happiness and peace of
the Self.
29
Ever yours in Sri Ramana,
Nome
My teacher's poetry again. I'm listening to the Sea and Sinbad Ship on Youtube, and Robert Adams satsang audio Cosmic Joke. I leave it up to David Godman when (and what) to publish things as comments. I trust his wisdom.
mandala one
Being
The Self is just Being
It is not being this or that.
It is just Being.
Self-REalization is just Being.
It is not being this or that.
It is just Being.
Being knows no alternative.
The Self is just Being.
Being never changes its nature.
That which truly is never ceases to be.
That which ceases never actually is.
That which truly exists never changes.
That which changes never truly exists.
That which is changeless is without destruction.
The indestrutable is only
That which is without creation.
The unborn is the undying.
The unchanging is alone being.
Being never changes its nature.
The Self ever is
Just as it is.
There is no time
When Being is altered.
There is no time
When you are not the Self.
Primordial Being eternally is,
Is what you are even now.
Immutable Being is peace iteslef,
For there is no time
When Being is altered.
Just as it is,
The Self ever is.
Being alone knows itself,
The "I"-less "I" realized as "I,"
Forever undefined, the only Existence,
The only Knowledge,
The only Knower.
Thus is Brahman, Absolute Reality,
Always Present, unmarred perfection,
The unformed Void, attributeless Being,
Ever itself just as it is.
The only identity, the only reality,
Being alone knows itself.
Without any other is Absolute Being,
Formless and nondual, the only Existence.
Two that are formless cannot be.
Undivided, homogenous,
Alone is Being,
Nothing outside it and no outside;
Nothing within it;
Alone is Being.
Nothing comes before eternal Being;
Nothing comes after eternal Being.
Without any other is Absolute Being.
The Truth of Being
Is solely Reality.
Not from illusory things
Falsely experienced
Does the sense of reality
In every experience derive,
But only from the SElf,
The only source, the Real.
Real Being depends not
On anything else to be.
Uncaused itself, the Absolute Self,
Does not cause anything else.
Infinite, there is
Nothing beyond it produced by it.
Mistake not perception or conception
For Existence itself.
Reality is solely
The Truth of Being.
The Uncreated alone is all.
The all-transcendent
Is the all-pervasive
Neither dualism nor a concept of unity
Is the Nondual Truth.
Nonobjective Being is not a multiplicity;
Nor is it one-in-many;
Nor is it many-in-one.
Attributeless indivisibility it is
The Uncreated alone is all.
Be as you are.
Realization is just Being.
Final meditation upon the Truth
Consists of being it,
For which there is no alternative.
Being is neither a state nor an attainment.
Being is neither a thing nor an activity.
Being is and alone is.
Be as you are.
The Self alone exists eternally.
Solitary and indivisible,
The SElf is Being-Consciousness-Bliss,
Without beginning and without end.
The Self alone exists;
The SElf alone is real.
Nothing exists but the Self.
The Self alone exists, eternally.
One Self is.
Never is there
A multiplicity of selves.
One infinite, indivisible,
Undifferentiated Self forever is.
Like space it is endless, formless;
Like space it is everywhere, pervading all;
Like space it is, colorless, immeasurable.
Ungraspable, having neither within nor without,
One Self is.
Nondual is Realization,
Of the nature of the invariable Self.
The SElf is never impure.
So, Self-Realization is
Not of the nature of purification.
The Self is never born,
So, Self-Realization is
Not of the nature of production
The SElf is never other then its own nature.
So Self-Realization is
Not of the nature of transformation.
The Self is never absent.
So, Self-Realization is
not of the nature of acquisition.
Of the nature of the invariable Self,
Nondual is Realization.
Abide free of imagination.
The Self, your real identity,
Is the Absolute and ever free.
Do not imagine otehrwise.
There is no distance Between you and Brahman,
Between yourself and the Self.
Abide free of imagination.
Know the Self as it is.
The SElf is not matter, thought, or entity.
The Self is never modified,
Has no conditions,
Never becomes.
Beyond matter-no birth and no death.
Beyond thought- nonobjective and inconceivable.
Beyond ego-no individuality and no separation.
Never having entered the body.
The Self does not exit it.
The bodiless is birthless, locationless, and deathless.
It does not come, is not conatined, and does not go.
The Self is known by the wise to be bodiless.
Never having entered the mind,
The Self is not bound by it.
The mind-free is unconceived and unperturbed.
It does not think or cease to think.
It knows no state, no mode, and no thought.
The Self is known by the wise to be of no mind.
Never having become individualized,
The Self is innately egoless.
The egoless is boundless, attributeless, illusionless.
It does not become bound and does not become liberated.
The Self is known by the wise to be egoless.
Know the Self as it is.
Only the Self ever is.
Nothing is experienced continuously
Except the Self.
The continuous alone is real;
The discontinuous never really is.
It comes from nowhere,
And it goes nowhere.
It has no birth,
And it has no death.
It shines in its own Light, self-existent.
Only the Self ever is.
How to compare the incomparable?
Vast like space,
Unmoving like the mountain,
Self-luminous like the sun,
With no shape like water,Burning all the straws of ignorance like fire,
Tranquil like the moon's light,
Deep like the ocean.
How to compare the incomparable?
The Self is:
In all beings their very Being
In all selves, the true identity,
In all minds, Consciousness,
IN all things, the unseen Existence,
In all joys, Bliss.
In all places, space.
In all time, endlessness,m
In every heart, The Self is.
My teacher again...
Mandala Eight
Illusion
The Self is
All in all at all times.
The quality of now
Derives from the Timeless.
The quality of here
Derives from the locationless.
When now is not,
When here is not,
The Self still ever is,
Infinite and qualitiless.
Transcendent of sense perception,
Formless Being is real,
Here, everywhere,
Now, and forever.
All forms arise from,
Appear in,
And dissolve into
The partless, indivisibel,
Conditionless, phaseless,
Homogenous, formless REality.
Never do they exist apart.
The Self is.
Never do they truly exist.
The Self is.
One is.
The known depends
On the knower
And does not exists
Apart from the knower.
As the knower is,
So is the known.
If endowed with delusion,
So the illusion.
If the real Self,
What is there to be known?
The source of experience,
Where it is experienced,
By whom it is experienced,
The nature of experience,
Are all one and the same.
If that one is known,
The triads are not;
One is.
Absolute Being alone is real.
The world is unreal.
What is seen is not there.
What is not seen is there.
All that is objective
Is only illusion.
And illusion is that
Which ever is not.
All illusion is
For the ego,
Based upon the ego,
And confined within the ego.
Self-Reazliation is
The Knowledge of the utter
Absence of the ego.
And the utter unreality
Of all the illusion.
This Knowledge is
One with Being,
Absolute Being alone is real.
Everything and nothing
The Self is.
Form is the Formless misperceived.
Forms regarded as existent
Cannot be nonduality;
In the Formless,
There can be no duality.
Appearance and disapperance
Of a thing or a thought
Are forms objective,
But the Formless is neither.
Where there is plurality,
One sees only false appearances;
Where there is nonduality,
One sees clearly and truly.
All this is Brahman;
All is the SElf.
Brahman alone is,
Creationless, unmanifested,
All, yet not all.
Not a thing in the SElf.
The SElf is
Everything and nothing.
Illusion and ignorance
Have no power of their own,
No self-existent continuity,
No real substance,
And cease to appear
If one examines them.
Differentiation is
Born of imagination;
Imagination has
Neither birth nor existence.
It is not that the Self-Realized
Do not see the world.
They see that, truly,
There is no world.
The Self alone is,
Alone is real.
All else is imagination
Illusion and ignorance.
Spaceless, timeless,
Unformed, unmeasured,
Unperceived, unconceived,
The Brahman-Self ever is.
The conception of space requires
Misidentification with the body.
The conception of time requires
Misidentification with thought.
The Self is neither
The body nor mind.
It carries not their attributes,
Their limits, their illusions.
Liberation from ignorance
Through Knowledge supreme
Is the destruction of illusion,
Of bondage and suffering,
All-blissful, all-peaceful,
Omnipresent, omniscient,
Transcendent, ever-pure,
The Brahman-Self ever is.
Always it is just as it is,
Illusionless, delusionless,
Spaceless, timeless.
As a daydream lasting but for a moment,
As hallucination,
And a mirage,
Regard all that appears,
All that is manifest.
All thought is only
An empty echo;
Regard the world
As its dream.
Consider the world
To be a dream
And discover the absence
Of a dreamer.
The bubble of illusion
Has no substance.
No world is there,
No external thing
And there exists not anyone
For whom such could be.
The entire universe is,
Indeed, in the mind,
Yet the mind, itself,
Does not exist,
As in a dream
Conceptions of inner and outer,
Seem as one's thought
And external sensing.
So, in this dream-like
Waking state illusion
Do such appear,
Only a dream.
All in the mind.
One thing invisible
In all this illusion
Is alone real,
Alone constitutes all,
As the Consciousness is
In a dream invisible
Yet alone truly present.
Know the world
To be unreal,
Yourself not a character in it,
And the dream of delusion is over.
Birth after birth,
Death after Death,
Ages and worlds,
The gross and the subtle,
Beings without number,
Experiences uncountable,
In the Light of Reality are
As a daydream lasting but
for a moment.
Never doing, always Being.
Never a thing, always Being,
Never an event, always Being,
Never a body, always Being,
It is you who declare
Anything is real.
An object declares not
Its own Reality.
Know yourself.
It is better to say
That the world is in you
Than you are in the world.
A mountain of responsibilities
Is as light as a feather
If the world is known
To be unreal.
An unreal body
Performs unreal actions
In an unreal world.
The bodiless Self you are,
Never doing always Being.
If the ego is not, creation is not.
The world in the sense,
The senses in the mind,
The mind within Consciousness,
Vast and formless.
To see the world,
One must stand as the body.
To see the body,
One must stand as the mind.
To see the mind,
One must stand as the ego.
Who am I?
If the ego is not, creation is not.
Brahman-Self ever is,
And alone can know itself.
Its own Knowledge, self-luminous,
Is its own path to itself.
No form yields the Formless;
Forms give rise only
To other forms.
The unreal yields not Reality;
The unreality conjures only unreality.
The Formless brings forth not form.
Unchanging, partless,
Existing as it is,
Always of its own nature,
Without deviation,
It brings not forth anything
Of another nature.
Reality brings forth not the unreal.
Illusion is not
Merely temporarily so;
Beginningless, existence-less,
The unreal never is;
Brahman-Self ever is.
Knowledge is true experience,
Direct and immeidate.
It depends not
On the product or measure
Of anything else.
To one with Self-Knowledge,
What difference could there be
Between appearing and disappearing,
A body or without,
A perception or without,
A thought or without?
To expect the perceptions
OF form, world,
Body, senses, and thought,
To dissapear at their own level
In order to transcend them
Is like expecting
The dream character
In one's dream
To see the dream forms, world,
Body, senses, and thought,
Disappear within the dream
Before waking up.
When the forms, world,
Body, senses, and thought
Vanish in true Knowledge,
The Reality of pure,
Transcendent Being
Reamains alone by itself,
With not a trace
Of anything else.
Even when all
Is thought of as appearing,
The Reality of pure,
Transcendent Being
Remains alone by itself.
Cessation of ignorance
Is the end of illusion, and
Knowledge is true experience.
this goes on for quite a while, I'm done for now.
Friends,
An excerpt from the Gospel of Sr Ramakrishna-Chapter 7,01/01/1883:
""Have you watched a feast given to the brahmins? At first there is a great uproar. But the noise lessens as their stomachs become more and more filled with food. When the last course of curd and sweets is served, one hears only the sound 'soop, soop' as they scoop up the curd in their hands. There is no other sound. Next is the stage of sleep-samādhi. There is no more uproar.
(To M. and Prankrishna) "Many people talk of Brahmajnāna, but their minds are always preoccupied with lower things: house, buildings, money, name, and sense pleasures. As long as you stand at the foot of the Monument 10(One of the then Tallest Buildings in Calcutta-Ravi), so long do you see horses, carriages, Englishmen, and Englishwomen. But when you climb to its top, you behold the sky and the ocean stretching to infinity. Then you do not enjoy buildings, carriages, horses, or men. They look like ants.
"All such things as attachment to the world and enthusiasm for 'woman and gold' disappear after the attainment of the Knowledge of Brahman. Then comes the cessation of all passions. When the log burns, it makes a crackling noise and one sees the flame. But when the burning is over and only ash remains, then no more noise is heard. Thirst disappears with the destruction of attachment. Finally comes peace.
"The nearer you come to God, the more you feel peace. Peace, peace, peace-supreme peace! The nearer you come to the Ganges, the more you feel its coolness. You will feel completely soothed when you plunge into the river."
Namaskar.
Friends,
Wish to share this excerpt from Chapter 7,of the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
VIJAY: "How can one see God?"
MASTER: "One cannot see God without purity of heart. Through attachment to 'woman and gold' the mind has become stained-covered with dirt, as it were. A magnet cannot attract a needle if the needle is covered with mud. Wash away the mud and the magnet will draw it. Likewise, the dirt of the mind can be washed away with the tears of our eyes. This stain is removed if one sheds tears of repentance and says, 'O God, I shall never again do such a thing.' Thereupon God, who is like the magnet, draws to Himself the mind, which is like the needle. Then the devotee goes into samādhi and obtains the vision of God.
God's grace is the ultimate help
"You may try thousands of times, but nothing can be achieved without God's grace. One cannot see God without His grace. Is it an easy thing to receive the grace of God? One must altogether renounce egotism; one cannot see God as long as one feels, 'I am the doer.' Suppose, in a family, a man has taken charge of the store-room; then if someone asks the master, 'Sir, will you yourself kindly give me something from the store-room?', the master says to him: 'There is already someone in the store-room. What can I do there?'
"God doesn't easily appear in the heart of a man who feels himself to be his own master. But God can be seen the moment His grace descends. He is the Sun of Knowledge. One single ray of His has illumined the world with the light of knowledge. That is how we are able to see one another and acquire varied knowledge. One can see God only if He turns His light toward His own face.
"The police sergeant goes his rounds in the dark of night with a lantern in his hand. No one sees his face; but with the help of that light the sergeant sees everybody's face, and others, too, can see one another. If you want to see the sergeant, however, you must pray to him: 'Sir, please turn the light on your own face. Let me see you.' In the same way one must pray to God: 'O Lord, be gracious and turn the light of knowledge on Thyself, that I may see Thy face.'
"A house without light indicates poverty. So one must light the lamp of Knowledge in one's heart. As it is said in a song:
Lighting the lamp of Knowledge in the chamber of your heart,
Behold the face of the Mother, Brahman's Embodiment."
As Vijay had brought medicine with him, the Master asked a devotee to give him some water. He was indeed a fountain of infinite compassion. He had arranged for Vijay's boat fare, since the latter was too poor to pay it. Vijay, Balaram, M., and the other devotees left for Calcutta in a country boat.
Namaskar.
My teacher's advise to trace the mode (anxiety, fear, depression, desire, stupor, dullness) to the thoughts constituting the mode, to the ego notion it all arises from, and inquiring Who am I? seems like it might work without fail. Something about the tracing causes the attachment or suffering to be forgotten about. And then when I inquire Who am I?, like last night, I actually felt the individual cease for a brief moment before panicking, and not liking the sensation of ceasing to exist. But the more this happens, though, the happier I become in my 'life', because of less confusion, attachment, and and an easier flow. ravi, ramakrishna's wisdom is priceless. Everything he says in perfect accord with Ramana's teachings.
Post a Comment