cling to this silence

[Guest guest]

When this question Who am I? is raised, what results is silence, an

ending of the entire thought-process. Be watchful: cling to this

silence. This silence, though temporary, is the link between the 'I'

and the Self. "True Silence where no thoughts exist, is the real

state of Realisation," says Sri Bhagavan. The 'I' is a distortion of

this state of quietude, being a movement, a wave in the ocean of

stillness.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>From Sri Ramana, the Self Supreme by K. Swaminathan, pp. 113 - 14.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

, "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> When this question Who am I? is raised, what results

> is silence, an ending of the entire thought-process.

 

I wonder.

 

I suggest this question,

"Who am I"

is futile!

 

Why?

 

Because I have attempted

to tease my fellow siblings

into this inquiry, many times before

 

only to be struck

with solid answers

over the top of my head!

 

I am whoozy from trying to wake folks up.

> Be watchful: cling to this silence. This silence, though

> temporary, is the link between the 'I' and the Self. "True

> Silence where no thoughts exist, is the real state of

> Realisation," says Sri Bhagavan. The 'I' is a distortion

> of this state of quietude, being a movement, a wave in

> the ocean of stillness.

 

This is beautiful

but only to those who know beauty.

 

Blah, blah, blah to all the rest.

 

2 things to note:

 

1. There is no formula.

2. "Who am I?" is a formula.

(for those inclined to formulas)

 

Blessings,

David

(form-you![la])

[Guest guest]

No, David, Who am I? is no formula. You can only do it for yourself

and there is no verbal answer for it anyone could give. The answer is

not expressible in any words. So you may mistrust every answer

someone thinks he could give.

Blessings to you

Gabriele

>From Maharshi's Gospel:

 

 

D. But is it not funny that the 'I' should be searching for the 'I'?

 

 

Does not the enquiry, 'Who am I?' turn out in the end an empty

formula? Or, am I put the question to myself endlessly, repeating it

like some mantra?

 

 

M. Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is more than

repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry, "Who am I?'' were a mere

mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose

of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not,

therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'.

 

 

Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an

intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in

pure Self-awareness.

 

 

Self-enquiry is the one, infallible means, the only direct one, to

realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are.

 

 

 

 

, "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@i...> wrote:

> , "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

>

> > When this question Who am I? is raised, what results

> > is silence, an ending of the entire thought-process.

>

> I wonder.

>

> I suggest this question,

> "Who am I"

> is futile!

>

> Why?

>

> Because I have attempted

> to tease my fellow siblings

> into this inquiry, many times before

>

> only to be struck

> with solid answers

> over the top of my head!

>

> I am whoozy from trying to wake folks up.

>

> > Be watchful: cling to this silence. This silence, though

> > temporary, is the link between the 'I' and the Self. "True

> > Silence where no thoughts exist, is the real state of

> > Realisation," says Sri Bhagavan. The 'I' is a distortion

> > of this state of quietude, being a movement, a wave in

> > the ocean of stillness.

>

> This is beautiful

> but only to those who know beauty.

>

> Blah, blah, blah to all the rest.

>

> 2 things to note:

>

> 1. There is no formula.

> 2. "Who am I?" is a formula.

> (for those inclined to formulas)

>

> Blessings,

> David

> (form-you![la])

[Guest guest]

Thank you Gabriele! Truth in a nutshell.

 

Focusing the mind on something external is a method. Bringing the mind to

its source of Self-Awareness is to see the unreality of the mind as

something separate from consciousness. It is dissolution!

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

gabriele_ebert [g.ebert]

Friday, May 03, 2002 8:26 AM

Re: cling to this silence

 

 

D. But is it not funny that the 'I' should be searching for the 'I'?

 

 

Does not the enquiry, 'Who am I?' turn out in the end an empty

formula? Or, am I put the question to myself endlessly, repeating it

like some mantra?

 

 

M. Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is more than

repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry, "Who am I?'' were a mere

mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose

of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not,

therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'.

 

 

Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an

intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in

pure Self-awareness.

 

 

Self-enquiry is the one, infallible means, the only direct one, to

realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are.

 

 

 

 

, "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@i...> wrote:

> , "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

>

> > When this question Who am I? is raised, what results

> > is silence, an ending of the entire thought-process.

>

> I wonder.

>

> I suggest this question,

> "Who am I"

> is futile!

>

> Why?

>

> Because I have attempted

> to tease my fellow siblings

> into this inquiry, many times before

>

> only to be struck

> with solid answers

> over the top of my head!

>

> I am whoozy from trying to wake folks up.

>

> > Be watchful: cling to this silence. This silence, though

> > temporary, is the link between the 'I' and the Self. "True

> > Silence where no thoughts exist, is the real state of

> > Realisation," says Sri Bhagavan. The 'I' is a distortion

> > of this state of quietude, being a movement, a wave in

> > the ocean of stillness.

>

> This is beautiful

> but only to those who know beauty.

>

> Blah, blah, blah to all the rest.

>

> 2 things to note:

>

> 1. There is no formula.

> 2. "Who am I?" is a formula.

> (for those inclined to formulas)

>

> Blessings,

> David

> (form-you![la])

 

 

 

/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

[Guest guest]

As I have been a puzzled by this question myself, some time ago I noticed

the way one of Lallas poems was presented in NDS:

 

' the words "who am I" breaks the harmony. '

NondualitySalon/message/63505

 

 

 

 

It does feel embarrassing, realizing you have been asking somebody about his

name over and over - and getting an answer for a while....

 

 

 

A reader of arguments, 'for and against' could get confused and turn away.

 

Sometimes it could be good, but I guess, most times it will not.

 

 

 

Often the surrounding perspective is missing in these kinds of inputs and

answers, or they might not be seen by the reader.

 

As a comment I would like to bring a few words from the introduction to

'Mind in Buddhist psychology' a translation of Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan's "The

necklace of clear understanding"

 

 

 

 

'The Way' is a short term for the fact that man controls his future because

of his ability to perceive, to know, and to order what he perceives and

knows. This ability is dynamically active at this and every other moment,

for the mind cannot be a static entity or a mere state of function of

consciousness. Rather it involves questions of When? Where? Under what

conditions? From which perspectives? and hence the mind is an on-going

process in a person's life history.

 

In other words, the central problem of Buddhist psychology is that of the

personality, which is understood as implying that man has to be true to his

inner nature in whichever way it may be defined -- after, and not before

integrative techniques have been applied.

Such a conception has immediate bearings on the individual's

responsibilities which are inextricably tied up with the dimension of

'seriousness of living' as contrasted with the shallowness and

superficiality of behavioristic oversimplifications and silly reductions.

 

 

 

 

 

Alan

[Guest guest]

, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> No, David, Who am I? is no formula.

 

Not for the highly-evolved spiritual folk

who to lists such as this.

> You can only do it for yourself

 

What made me so spiritually-evolved?

Honestly, I do not remember doing anything

specific at all.

> and there is no verbal answer for it anyone could give.

 

For those less evolved,

they give all sorts of wacky 'answers'.

> The answer is

> not expressible in any words.

 

Well, we are on the same wavelength.

Who takes credit for that?

> So you may mistrust every answer

> someone thinks he could give.

 

I myself have been steadily enlightened

for a number of years now,

but my poor brother,

it's him who I worry about.

 

Still More Blessings,

David

[Guest guest]

, "Harsha" wrote:

> Thank you Gabriele! Truth in a nutshell.

 

What nutshell is large enough to contain Truth?

> Focusing the mind on something external is a method. Bringing the

> mind to its source of Self-Awareness

 

Who brings the mind to its Source?

> is to see the unreality of the mind as

> something separate from consciousness.

 

I've never considered that mind

could be separate from consciousness.

 

I'll have to contemplate that one.

> It is dissolution!

 

I think I know what you are talking about

but if 'Who Am I' can be a formula for some

and dissolution for others

then what exactly is it

that makes it something for someone

and something else for another?

 

Love,

David

[Guest guest]

Interesting question, David. Also Sri Ramana was confronted with that

when people asked if "Who am I?" is a mantra or how to deal with it.

Some people were much confused and did not know what they should make

with it. There are a lot of talks about. As much as Ramana stressed

self enquiry being the most direct path he also accepted all other

parths leading in the last to this and recommended each person what

suits to him/her. So forcing someone doing self enquiry or make him

feel he should do by all means is surely the wrong way. One has to

discover it for oneself - otherwise it will be only a formula and

will not yet be seen what it really is and to what it points and so

it will be of no use, as you say.

 

When I post Ramana-quotes here about Self-enquiry it is only meant as

an offering. Everyone can do with it what suits him/her. I try to go

this path so I like to post such things (besides I don't think I am

much evolved because of this - LOL). But every doubt, discussion,

commenting is also welcome. There was a time I was confused about

discussions here on this list - but now I have learned to see it also

as a chance to go deeper. So everyone feel free to share your

thoughts and feelings, comments and critizism and .... - This is

meant as a general remark to all here.

 

In Sri Ramana

Gabriele

 

 

>

> I think I know what you are talking about

> but if 'Who Am I' can be a formula for some

> and dissolution for others

> then what exactly is it

> that makes it something for someone

> and something else for another?

>

> Love,

> David

[Guest guest]

Dear David:

 

Here are the answers to your questions.

 

1. Truth has no size. Any nutshell will do.

2. As supporting evidence from science (sorry), the universe started as an

infinitesimally small particle before the big bang. So one could technically

say that the whole universe could fit in a medium size nutshell.

3. Also, I have said before that, the whole infinity is contained in the

moment. Here the moment is a stand-in for a nutshell. Again, the Truth in a

nutshell argument has full support based on mystical insight and poetic

license.

 

As far as Who brings the mind to its Source, we cannot say anything. It

would appear that only the Source brings the mind to ItSelf and that is what

is meant by the statement I made earlier,

"The central force turns out to be not the method employed or not employed

but the Heart manifesting as the Guru that by Grace pulls one in to

realization, despite oneself".

 

We aim for your satisfaction David. I don't know how to make my words more

meaningful. Thanks for all your insights into nutrition and exercise.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

david bozzi [david.bozzi]

Friday, May 03, 2002 7:58 PM

Re: cling to this silence

 

, "Harsha" wrote:

> Thank you Gabriele! Truth in a nutshell.

 

What nutshell is large enough to contain Truth?

> Focusing the mind on something external is a method. Bringing the

> mind to its source of Self-Awareness

 

Who brings the mind to its Source?

> is to see the unreality of the mind as

> something separate from consciousness.

 

I've never considered that mind

could be separate from consciousness.

 

I'll have to contemplate that one.

> It is dissolution!

 

I think I know what you are talking about

but if 'Who Am I' can be a formula for some

and dissolution for others

then what exactly is it

that makes it something for someone

and something else for another?

 

Love,

David

[Guest guest]

, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> Interesting question, David. Also Sri Ramana was confronted with

> that

> when people asked if "Who am I?" is a mantra or how to deal with it.

> Some people were much confused and did not know what they should

> make with it.

 

I think that's my new inquiry

(not for everyone)

 

"What makes the folks who aren't confused with it

verses those who are?"

> There are a lot of talks about. As much as Ramana stressed

> self enquiry being the most direct path he also accepted all other

> parths leading in the last to this and recommended each person what

> suits to him/her.

 

I'll suggest Ramana's path was the most direct path

*for him*.

 

And furthermore, Ramana was smart enough to accept

all other paths because he knew they were all

just different manifestations of the same path.

 

(and equally as direct for those inclined)

> So forcing someone doing self enquiry or make him

> feel he should do by all means is surely the wrong way.

 

That's my sense, because I have asked the person in front

of me at the check-out counter, "Who Am I?", and that's

an example of a situation when I get those 'wacky' diversional

'answers'.

> One has to discover it for oneself -

 

Yes, so true.

But I still have the nagging sense that I never discovered

anything. Like what I what I did, or didn't do didn't even

matter.

> otherwise it will be only a formula and

> will not yet be seen what it really is and to what it points and so

> it will be of no use, as you say.

 

I'm not so down on formulas.

Formulas are (or can be) a pre-cursor

to what all of us are pointing at.

 

I.E. if the requirement is holding 3 baskets

and your brother can only hold 2

don't fault him for that.

> When I post Ramana-quotes here about Self-enquiry it is only meant

> as

> an offering.

 

I also. As everything I ever post to any list

or any statement I ever make to anyone

in live conservation...

 

...it's only an offering.

(thank-god)

> Everyone can do with it what suits him/her.

 

And *that* is truly profound...

> I try to go

> this path so I like to post such things (besides I don't think I am

> much evolved because of this - LOL).

 

I am human as the next human.

>But every doubt, discussion,

> commenting is also welcome. There was a time I was confused about

> discussions here on this list - but now I have learned to see it

> also as a chance to go deeper.

 

Me too!

(snorkel & mask on)

> So everyone feel free to share your

> thoughts and feelings, comments and critizism and .... - This is

> meant as a general remark to all here.

 

Yes, yes.

Put a bumper sticker on your car,

prepare to get bumped!

 

Blessings,

David

[Guest guest]

-Dear David,

somehow I like your openess and your "controverse" answers. Seems

there is also a good quantity of humour in it. Is it ok when they

make me sometimes smile - (as much as I also see the earnesty

behind)?

> "What makes the folks who aren't confused with it

> verses those who are?"

 

> I'll suggest Ramana's path was the most direct path

> *for him*.

>

> And furthermore, Ramana was smart enough to accept

> all other paths because he knew they were all

> just different manifestations of the same path.

 

For him there was no need of any path, but when disciple came to him

he found for them this to be the most direct path - otherwise he

would not have pointed it out so much. But this does not diminish

other paths. There is no "versus".

I think it is extremely rare that a person is so one-pointed and able

only to follow self-enquiry from the beginning. The most who felt

drawn to self-enquiry will do something else in addition or

preparation, what helps to control and quieten the mind: mantra-japa,

yoga, tai chi, breath control, singing devotional songs, listening

to good music (what for example I like to do: Vivaldi's Four Seasons

as an aid for self-enquiry: ha!), looking to the stars at night -

endless list .... There are a lot of means one can use to quieten the

mind - but at the end when self enquiry starts you somehow lose them.

I can't say if that is now expressed correctly.

> That's my sense, because I have asked the person in front

> of me at the check-out counter, "Who Am I?", and that's

> an example of a situation when I get those 'wacky' diversional

> 'answers'.

 

Yes, that surely does not work. Perhaps one should not ask such

questions at the check-out counter (LOL)! I think that's no question

at all to ask someone else. You must ask yourself and not someone

else! That is something only the guru may do - then it happens in

the power of his presence.

> > One has to discover it for oneself -

>

> Yes, so true.

> But I still have the nagging sense that I never discovered

> anything. Like what I what I did, or didn't do didn't even

> matter.

 

But perhaps one day it discovers you and enters your life and you

can't restrain.

>>

> I.E. if the requirement is holding 3 baskets

> and your brother can only hold 2

> don't fault him for that.

 

Then the requirement for your brother is holding 2 baskets and not 3

and this would be sufficient for him. (Perhaps I can hold only 1 and

hope he will not fault me - LOL!)

>

Blessings to you

Gabriele