TO WHOM?

January 22, 2004

I need to ask some of you with experience about the formula: To whom

does this thought, etc. arise? The answer will be: To me! Then one

asks: Who am I? The mind will turn back to it's source (the Self)

and the arisen thought will also subside.

What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, happens after the

final question: Who am I? Where do you or your attention go? What

exactly do you experience - assuming it's describeable? What happens

to 'you'? What do you become or go into, etc.? Assuming you go into

the Source as Ramana claims, how long do you stay there? If you come

out again, how does it occur and (in your opinion) why? Have you

gone to the Source never to return? Is there a way to stay in/as the

Source/Self and yet do your job, attend your spouse and kids, pay the

bills, use the restroom, fix dinner, etc.? I'd really love to read

about other's actual, real experiences with the fruits of working

with Ramana's formula for Self-realization.

thanks,

jim

January 23, 2004

Hi Jim,

you were asking for first hand experience, so I will give you some.

Firstly, the approach that I know is slightly different. The approach

that I am intimate with is in seeing who "I" am, or what "I" is,

rather than seeing that the person does not exist. This is "I" in the

deepest possible sense.

My approach is in seeing quite clearly what is known as the person,

Warwick, and then asking, "Am I all of those attributes which make up

the person, or am I that which sees all those attributes?"

After asking that question it becomes clear that I am simple

consciousness, pure subjectivity, consciousness without form or

attributes.

And there is another, and important, dimension to it. All of what I

know as "me", that which is observable and has attributes, whether of

the body or the mind, exists in time.

What does that mean?

Well, it is very simple. Time simply refers to movement and change.

Imagine that everything that is known, physical and mental, were to

be snap-frozen. Then time would have no meaning.

Have you ever been watching a home movie when the projector jammed?

Then movement and change are stopped and time, within that frame of

reference, ceases.

So me, the entity, (and the world too, for that matter), lives, exists

in the dimension of time, where all is moving and all is changing. But

consciousness belongs to the dimension of eternity. Eternity doesn't

mean events, happenings, things, (for things are also events) going

on and on and on and on ad infinitum; eternity means consciousness

not going anywhere. And obviously, eternity is not to be gained in

the future, eternity is NOW. But now is not a point in time. When

people say, "Be here now", they mostly, so it seems to me, get it

wrong. They mean, "Consider these things/events which are happening

in front of the me."

They are referring to a very narrow focus of time, whereas NOW is not in time at all.

So in fact, consciousness, eternity and now are all the same. Of

course it is absolutely necessary to make the distinction between

mind, which is always moving and changing, and consciousness, which

is changeless.

Jim, you asked for first-hand stuff. I assure you that all the above

is first hand. None of it, not a bit, is beholden to anything read in

a book or heard in a lecture.

But you ask, how long does this last? What relevance does it have to

the world of changing nappies (diapers) preparing dinner and the

rest.?

Jim, I am struggling with the same question. It seems that I live in

two dimensions simultaneously, the dimension of time, where things

exist (because things are events) and deeds are done, and the

dimension of eternity, where no change happens, not birth nor death,

and no "things" exist.

When I am in conversation with you, or various others, or when I

listen to Francis Lucille, or read Atmananda, the consciousness of

consciousness is a tranquil presence.

But then I am caught in a traffic jam, or contemplating the bills I

have to pay and the income with which I will pay them, and the

tranquil awareness of awareness is obscured. (I know it can't be

destroyed -- it is not subject to change -- but it is certainly

obscured.)

So we are in the same boat.

I could make some suggestions about lines of enquiry that might lead

to the dethronement, the permanent dethronement, of time. I don't

necessarily mean that time is to be destroyed; I just mean that it is

to be dethroned, no longer given pride-of-place.

Or to put it in less high-falutin terms, I could mention some hot

leads I'm following that might solve the case.

And I would like to hear any suggestions from you.

Cheers