Guest guest Posted July 15, 2001 Report Share Posted July 15, 2001 This is very articulate and clear statement. Also, wondering the extent to which it is David Godman's understanding, and whether Ramana would completely agree with the way he stated this ... More specifically, I understand Ramana to be pointing even beyond being the I subject, the pure subjectivity, to "neither subject nor object" , "neither creation nor destruction"... so wonder if it's truly reflecting Ramana to discuss a "culminating phase" in which one is being the I, is "experiencing the subject", in which one is pure subjectivity. Possibly, this is Godman's culminating phase, rather than Ramana's ;-) Nonetheless, Godman's statement rings very much "on target" here, particularly his clarity about ways that practices aimed at a quite mind, or blissful experiences, strengthen the subtle sense of subject/object ... Namaste, Dan Sri Ramana Maharshi maintained that Self-realisation could be brought about merely by giving up the idea that there is an individual self, which functions through the body and the mind. A few of his advanced devotees were able to do this quickly and easily, but the others found it virtually impossible to discard the ingrained habits of a lifetime without undertaking some form of spiritual practice. Sri Ramana Maharshi sympathised with their predicament and whenever he was asked to prescribe a spiritual practice which would facilitate Self-awareness he would recommend a technique he called self-enquiry. This practice was the cornerstone of his practical philosophy. Before embarking on a description of the technique itself it will be necessary to explain Sri Ramana Maharshi's views on the nature of the mind since the aim of self-enquiry is to discover by direct experience, that the mind is non-existent. According to Sri Ramana Maharshi, every conscious activity of the mind or body revolves around the tacit assumption that there is an `I' who is doing something. The common factor in `I think', `I remember', `I am acting', is the `I' who assumes that it is responsible for all these activities. Sri Ramana Maharshi called this common factor the `I'- thought (Aham-Vritti). Literally aham-vritti means `mental modification of `I'. The Self or real `I' never imagines that it is doing or thinking anything; the `I' that imagines all this is a mental fiction and so it is called a mental modification of the Self. Since this is a rather cumbersome translation of Aham-Vritti it is usually translated as `I'-thought. Sri Ramana Maharshi upheld the view that the notion of individuality is only the `I'-thought manifesting itself in different ways. Instead of regarding the different activities of the mind (such as ego, intellect and memory) as separate functions he preferred to view them all as different forms of the `I'-thought. Since he equated individuality with the mind and the mind with the `I'-thought it follows that the disappearance of the sense of individuality (i.e. Self-realisation) implies the disappearance of both the mind and the `I'-thought. This is confirmed by his frequent statements to the effect that after Self-realisation there is no thinker of thoughts, no performer of actions and no awareness of individual existence. Since he upheld the notion that the Self is the only existing reality he regarded the `I'-thought as a mistaken assumption which has no real existence of its own. He explained its appearance by saying that it can only appear to exist by identifying with an object. When the thoughts arise the `I'-thought claims ownership of them- `I think', `I believe', `I want', `I am acting' - but there is no separate `I'-thought that exists independently of the objects that it is identifying with. It only appears to exist as a real continuous entity because of the incessant flow of identification which are continually taking place. Almost all of these identifications can be traced back to an initial assumption that the `I' is limited to the body, either as an owner-occupant or co-extensive with its physical form. This `I am the body' idea is the primary source of all subsequent wrong identifications and its dissolution is the principal aim of self-enquiry. Sri Ramana Maharshi maintained that this tendency towards self-limiting identifications could be checked by trying to separate the subject `I' from the objects of thought which it identified with. Since the individual `I'-thought cannot exist without an object, if attention is focused on the subjective feeling of `I' or `I am' with such intensity that the thoughts `I am this' or `I am that' do not arise, then the individual `I' will be unable to connect with objects. If this awareness of `I' is sustained, the individual `I' (the `I'-thought) will disappear and in its place there will be a direct experience of the Self. This constant attention to the inner awareness of `I' or `I am' was called self-enquiry (vichara) by Sri Ramana Maharshi and he constantly recommended it as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the `I'-thought. In Sri Ramana's terminology the `I'-thought rises from the Self or the Heart and subsides back into the Self when its tendency to identify itself with thought objects ceases. Because of this he often tailored his advice to conform to this image of a rising and subsiding `I'. He might say `trace the "I"-thought back to its source', or `find out where the "I" rises from', but the implication was always the same. Whatever the language used he was advising his devotees to maintain awareness of the `I'-thought until it dissolved in the source from which it came. He sometimes mentioned that thinking or repeating `I' mentally would also lead one in the right direction but it is important to note that this is only a preliminary stage of the practice. The repetition of `I' still involves a subject (the `I'-thought) having a perception of an object (the thoughts `I, I') and while such duality exists the `I'-thought will continue to thrive. It only finally disappears when the perception of all objects, both physical and mental ceases. This is not brought about by being aware of an `I', but only by BEING the `I'. This stage of experiencing the subject rather than being aware of an object is the culminating phase of self-enquiry. This important distinction is the key element which distinguishes self-enquiry from nearly all other spiritual practices and it explains why Sri Ramana consistently maintained that most other practices were ineffective. He often pointed out that traditional meditations and yoga practices necessitated the existence of a subject who meditates on an object and he would usually add that such a relationship sustained the `I'-thought instead of eliminating it. In his view such practices may effectively quieten the mind, and they may even produce blissful experiences, but they will never culminate in Self-realisation because the `I'-thought is not being isolated and deprived of its identity. David Godman from Be As You Are /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to the Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.