Guest guest Posted March 20, 2000 Report Share Posted March 20, 2000 Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or "What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2000 Report Share Posted March 20, 2000 At 2:31 AM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: > >Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this >while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the >continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets >quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and >notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" >This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." > >Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I >guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or >"What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" > >What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. If it "works" and the nondual nature of the world has been deeply seen, the comments of others would be superfluous. If it hasn't "worked", why think that it will? From the understanding "I" have been given, all there is is God, Consciousness, the Ultimate Reality. That which manifests phenomenally as "us" is God's action in time and space, and "we" do nothing. For that reason no technique of any kind can "work" because only God can make things "work". If God chooses to make a deep experience of nonduality manifest in "you", it will happen no matter what technique (or no-technique) is used, and the opinions of others will be irrelevant. Bhagavan's recommendation of self-inquiry does not mean that "self" will be found through using a technique, but rather that the strenuous practice of that technique will lead to an understanding that there is no "I" to be found and no "enlightenment" to be accomplished. The repetition of "Coca Cola, Coca Cola," will be just as effective if God's play determines that it will. There is no "should". "You" will continue to"do" what "youdo" because God chooses to act through "you" in that particular way. So...don't ask "me"! -kai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 RamanaMaharshi , kaivalya <jwthom@e...> wrote: > At 2:31 AM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: > > > >Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this > >while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the > >continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets > >quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and > >notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" > >This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." > > > >Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I > >guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or > >"What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" > > > >What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. > > If it "works" and the nondual nature of the world has been deeply > seen, the comments of others would be superfluous. If it hasn't > "worked", why think that it will? From the understanding "I" have > been given, all there is is God, Consciousness, the Ultimate Reality. > That which manifests phenomenally as "us" is God's action in time and > space, and "we" do nothing. For that reason no technique of any kind > can "work" because only God can make things "work". If God chooses > to make a deep experience of nonduality manifest in "you", it will > happen no matter what technique (or no-technique) is used, and the > opinions of others will be irrelevant. Bhagavan's recommendation of > self-inquiry does not mean that "self" will be found through using a > technique, but rather that the strenuous practice of that technique > will lead to an understanding that there is no "I" to be found and no > "enlightenment" to be accomplished. The repetition of "Coca Cola, > Coca Cola," will be just as effective if God's play determines that > it will. There is no "should". "You" will continue to"do" what > "youdo" because God chooses to act through "you" in that > particular way. > > So...don't ask "me"! > > -kai Our understandings seem very similar: There is an Absolute. That Absolute is who we are. Any separation we experience between ourselves and the absolute is due to ignorance and misidentification (the ideas an imaginations of the ego-I). Self-knowledge resolves this ignorance the same way that light "resolves" darkness. To clear up the ignorance as to who we really are Ramana again and again recommended self-inquiry. As I understand hiis Self-Realization story, this Self-=inquiry is what brought him to the realization. Self-inquiry is what I am doing. In doing this practice I have noticed that there are a number of "angles of vision" that can be taken that support the practice. It was one of these angles of visionns to which I referred in my posting. I find that the practice brings peace of mind, greater freedom and joy, etc. I still feel separation, and so I continue the practice. By the way, I do not understand inquiry as repetition. Rather inquiry is the process of seeing the unreality of the ego-I, disolving misidentifications by deep knowledge (knowledge at the same level as the knowledge that you yourself exist). Repetition, or Japa, was talked about by Ramana as something that a seeker could to if not ready for Inquiry. As I read your response, it sounds kind of dual ("If God chooses ...." sounds like an external force). I am also unclear as to what your specific recommendations are. It sounds like they were, "keep inquiring and wait for God." My practice is to keep inquiring untill Self-knowledge removes those ego-I concepts that separate "me" from "god." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 This one who sees an inside and an outside is this the same one who looks at the flow of the senses, and asks...what does not change? Is this also the same one who is witnessing? And is he walking/driving? (note: The term --witness-- ordinarily implies the duality of the one who witnesses and that which is witnessed. Bhagavan used the term in a slightly different way. When referring to saakshi--witness--He explained that the word saakshi must be understood as--presence--without which there could be nothing. The Self is the basis of all the experiences and remains, ever, as their witness and support) Atma Vichara leads to the source of the ego. There the ego disappears. Remaining as that source the ego no longer arises. And as you suggest it goes on throughout all activities; walking, driving, eating etc. Miles >< >on 21/3/00 2:31 am, Richard Clarke at r_clarke wrote: > Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this > while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the > continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets > quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and > notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" > This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." > > Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I > guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or > "What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" > > What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 At 3:34 PM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: >Our understandings seem very similar: There is no one to "understand". Concepts arise, sometimes even "understanding" arises, but everything is given by God. >There is an Absolute. That Absolute is who we are. Any separation >we experience between ourselves and the absolute is due to ignorance >and misidentification (the ideas an imaginations of the ego-I). >Self-knowledge resolves this ignorance the same way that light >"resolves" darkness. There is no self-knowledge, since there is no "self" to have knowledge. All there is is the Absolute, God, Consciousness, the Source. The "I" who believes himself separate and who "acts" is a creation of the ego (which is also a manifestation of the Absolute). >To clear up the ignorance as to who we really are Ramana again and >again recommended self-inquiry. He recommended many things, among them self-inquiry. Since self-inquiry was supposedly designed for the more educated and intelligent of his devotees, educated Westerners want to believe that self-inquiry is the correct path for themselves. What is the evidence that self-inquiry has "worked" for anyone, as opposed to, say, japa or bhakti? >As I understand hiis >Self-Realization story, this Self-=inquiry is what brought him to the >realization. Did he ever actually say that? If he did, could you give a citation? He probably believed that early in his career. >Self-inquiry is what I am doing. In doing this >practice I have noticed that there are a number of "angles of vision" >that can be taken that support the practice. It was one of these >angles of visionns to which I referred in my posting. I find that >the practice brings peace of mind, greater freedom and joy, etc. I >still feel separation, and so I continue the practice. Who is this "I" that "does" this? >By the way, I do not understand inquiry as repetition. Rather >inquiry is the process of seeing the unreality of the ego-I, >disolving misidentifications by deep knowledge (knowledge at the same >level as the knowledge that you yourself exist). Repetition, or >Japa, was talked about by Ramana as something that a seeker could to >if not ready for Inquiry. Who is ready for inquiry? >As I read your response, it sounds kind of dual ("If God chooses >..." sounds like an external force). Only if you assume that there is God and an individual upon whom God works. But God is all there is. There is no internal or external .. "Individuals" are one way God manifests in the world of space and time. There is no two - only God's will acting through his manifestations. > I am also unclear as to what >your specific recommendations are. It sounds like they were, "keep >inquiring and wait for God." My practice is to keep inquiring untill >Self-knowledge removes those ego-I concepts that separate "me" from >"god." Who is there to make recommendations? How can one "wait" for God when God is all there is? What is practice but the ego's need to "get" something? There's nothing to do and no one to do it. Everything that will ever happen has ALREADY happened. When that is understood deeply (through God's grace) the ego no longer has anything to grasp on to and understanding may arise. -kai RamanaMaharshi , kaivalya <jwthom@e...> wrote: > At 2:31 AM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: > > > >Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this > >while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the > >continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets > >quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and > >notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" > >This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." > > > >Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I > >guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or > >"What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" > > > >What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. > > If it "works" and the nondual nature of the world has been deeply > seen, the comments of others would be superfluous. If it hasn't > "worked", why think that it will? From the understanding "I" have > been given, all there is is God, Consciousness, the Ultimate Reality. > That which manifests phenomenally as "us" is God's action in time and > space, and "we" do nothing. For that reason no technique of any kind > can "work" because only God can make things "work". If God chooses > to make a deep experience of nonduality manifest in "you", it will > happen no matter what technique (or no-technique) is used, and the > opinions of others will be irrelevant. Bhagavan's recommendation of > self-inquiry does not mean that "self" will be found through using a > technique, but rather that the strenuous practice of that technique > will lead to an understanding that there is no "I" to be found and no > "enlightenment" to be accomplished. The repetition of "Coca Cola, > Coca Cola," will be just as effective if God's play determines that > it will. There is no "should". "You" will continue to"do" what > "youdo" because God chooses to act through "you" in that > particular way. > > So...don't ask "me"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 Kai, You say: "There is no two - only God's will acting through his manifestations." Sounds like two to me! Or maybe many! My understanding is that Ramana taught that God really does exist (even as the supreme creator of the universe). But, he taught further that such a premise is only true from the relative point of view - and is only maintained by those who have not realized the truth of the matter (those who believe in the reality of individual souls). God is the last form to go - not another form to be realized, thereby establishing the duality of God and his manifestations. Carl RamanaMaharshi Mailing-List: list RamanaMaharshi ; contact RamanaMaharshi-owner Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:12:50 -0800 kaivalya jwthom Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Self-inquiry meditation kaivalya <jwthom At 3:34 PM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: >Our understandings seem very similar: There is no one to "understand". Concepts arise, sometimes even "understanding" arises, but everything is given by God. >There is an Absolute. That Absolute is who we are. Any separation >we experience between ourselves and the absolute is due to ignorance >and misidentification (the ideas an imaginations of the ego-I). >Self-knowledge resolves this ignorance the same way that light >"resolves" darkness. There is no self-knowledge, since there is no "self" to have knowledge. All there is is the Absolute, God, Consciousness, the Source. The "I" who believes himself separate and who "acts" is a creation of the ego (which is also a manifestation of the Absolute). >To clear up the ignorance as to who we really are Ramana again and >again recommended self-inquiry. He recommended many things, among them self-inquiry. Since self-inquiry was supposedly designed for the more educated and intelligent of his devotees, educated Westerners want to believe that self-inquiry is the correct path for themselves. What is the evidence that self-inquiry has "worked" for anyone, as opposed to, say, japa or bhakti? >As I understand hiis >Self-Realization story, this Self-=inquiry is what brought him to the >realization. Did he ever actually say that? If he did, could you give a citation? He probably believed that early in his career. >Self-inquiry is what I am doing. In doing this >practice I have noticed that there are a number of "angles of vision" >that can be taken that support the practice. It was one of these >angles of visionns to which I referred in my posting. I find that >the practice brings peace of mind, greater freedom and joy, etc. I >still feel separation, and so I continue the practice. Who is this "I" that "does" this? >By the way, I do not understand inquiry as repetition. Rather >inquiry is the process of seeing the unreality of the ego-I, >disolving misidentifications by deep knowledge (knowledge at the same >level as the knowledge that you yourself exist). Repetition, or >Japa, was talked about by Ramana as something that a seeker could to >if not ready for Inquiry. Who is ready for inquiry? >As I read your response, it sounds kind of dual ("If God chooses >..." sounds like an external force). Only if you assume that there is God and an individual upon whom God works. But God is all there is. There is no internal or external .. "Individuals" are one way God manifests in the world of space and time. There is no two - only God's will acting through his manifestations. > I am also unclear as to what >your specific recommendations are. It sounds like they were, "keep >inquiring and wait for God." My practice is to keep inquiring untill >Self-knowledge removes those ego-I concepts that separate "me" from >"god." Who is there to make recommendations? How can one "wait" for God when God is all there is? What is practice but the ego's need to "get" something? There's nothing to do and no one to do it. Everything that will ever happen has ALREADY happened. When that is understood deeply (through God's grace) the ego no longer has anything to grasp on to and understanding may arise. -kai RamanaMaharshi , kaivalya <jwthom@e...> wrote: > At 2:31 AM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: > > > >Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this > >while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the > >continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets > >quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and > >notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" > >This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." > > > >Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I > >guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or > >"What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" > > > >What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. > > If it "works" and the nondual nature of the world has been deeply > seen, the comments of others would be superfluous. If it hasn't > "worked", why think that it will? From the understanding "I" have > been given, all there is is God, Consciousness, the Ultimate Reality. > That which manifests phenomenally as "us" is God's action in time and > space, and "we" do nothing. For that reason no technique of any kind > can "work" because only God can make things "work". If God chooses > to make a deep experience of nonduality manifest in "you", it will > happen no matter what technique (or no-technique) is used, and the > opinions of others will be irrelevant. Bhagavan's recommendation of > self-inquiry does not mean that "self" will be found through using a > technique, but rather that the strenuous practice of that technique > will lead to an understanding that there is no "I" to be found and no > "enlightenment" to be accomplished. The repetition of "Coca Cola, > Coca Cola," will be just as effective if God's play determines that > it will. There is no "should". "You" will continue to"do" what > "youdo" because God chooses to act through "you" in that > particular way. > > So...don't ask "me"! ------ DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click./1/2120/4/_/652210/_/953677164/ ------ Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 At 6:35 PM -0500 3/21/2000, pepi333 wrote: >pepi333 > >Kai, > >You say: "There is no two - only God's will acting through his >manifestations." > >Sounds like two to me! Or maybe many! My understanding is that >Ramana taught that God really does exist (even as the supreme creator of >the universe). But, he taught further that such a premise is only true >from the relative point of view - and is only maintained by those who >have not realized the truth of the matter (those who believe in the >reality of individual souls). God is the last form to go - not another >form to be realized, thereby establishing the duality of God and his >manifestations. > >Carl Concepts are not Truth, and it's always hard to get closer to Truth using them; but what else can we do if our only available method of communication is words? Bhagavan could communicate just by *being*, just with a *look*. We are not so fortunate. Attempts to understand Truth that come through me as concepts are no easier to understand than any other. And I'm not sure what you're getting at yourself in the paragraph above ;-) So allow some flat statements of "my"concept: (1 All there is is God, Consciousness, the Absolute, the Source, the All. (2 There are no individual souls. There are material bodies existing in time and space (phenomenality) that are animated by Consciousness and through which Consciousness acts and through which it is able to contemplate itself. Everything these individuals "do" is done by Consciousness, though the (God created) ego within the nervous system of each body tells the mind that it is an "I" acting out of its own will. (3 Time and space is a relative state created by the Absolute in which phenomenality exists. The Absolute exists outside time and space. Outside time and space everything that will happen inside time and space has already happened. Therefore no such thing as free will exists within phenomenality. (4 The Source has created time and space and the phenomena within it for its own amusement. It has no "purpose" in human terms. Therefore we can never understand it. Is this a dualistic concept? Insofar as the All, phenomena, time and space, action etc. are conceptualized, yes. Any conceptualization is inherently dualistic. Is it the Truth? Certainly not! Truth is beyond any and all concepts. What's the point? Whether we are solid objects created by God, or a dream in the Mind of God, makes no practical difference; we'll never be able to know anyway unless God reveals it, and our human minds are not equipped to understand it if God did. What's important is the understanding that everything we think we do is actually done by the highest Power, and that we are but its objects. So the belief in "practice", "technique", "sadhana", etc. founders on the understanding that God is doing all this, not us. For this reason nothing we "do" will work unless it's God's will that it work. And by extension, anything we "do" might just as easily work as any other thing if God chooses. "Seeking" itself is the problem - the belief that there is something we must "do" to come closer to God. We are already as close as we can be. "Practice" is an ego-driven attempt to get something for our "selves" (even when couched in terms of wanting to "give" it to others) and only strengthens the delusion of the "doer". It's the delusion of ourselves as a separate "doer" who "acts" to become "enlightened" that must dissolve before enlightenment happens. Is this what Ramana said or advised? His concepts were his own. "Mine" are another attempt based upon what understanding the Absolute has given to this particular manifestation of Consciousness. Should you believe it? Who is there to believe or be believed? It's just one small contribution to the conceptual dialogue. -kai >kaivalya <jwthom > >At 3:34 PM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: > >Our understandings seem very similar: > > There is no one to "understand". Concepts arise, sometimes even >"understanding" arises, but everything is given by God. > >>There is an Absolute. That Absolute is who we are. Any separation >>we experience between ourselves and the absolute is due to ignorance >>and misidentification (the ideas an imaginations of the ego-I). >>Self-knowledge resolves this ignorance the same way that light > >"resolves" darkness. > > There is no self-knowledge, since there is no "self" to have >knowledge. All there is is the Absolute, God, Consciousness, the >Source. The "I" who believes himself separate and who "acts" is a >creation of the ego (which is also a manifestation of the Absolute). > >>To clear up the ignorance as to who we really are Ramana again and >>again recommended self-inquiry. > > He recommended many things, among them self-inquiry. Since >self-inquiry was supposedly designed for the more educated and >intelligent of his devotees, educated Westerners want to believe that >self-inquiry is the correct path for themselves. What is the >evidence that self-inquiry has "worked" for anyone, as opposed to, >say, japa or bhakti? > >>As I understand hiis >>Self-Realization story, this Self-=inquiry is what brought him to the >>realization. > > Did he ever actually say that? If he did, could you give a >citation? He probably believed that early in his career. > >>Self-inquiry is what I am doing. In doing this >>practice I have noticed that there are a number of "angles of vision" >>that can be taken that support the practice. It was one of these >>angles of visionns to which I referred in my posting. I find that >>the practice brings peace of mind, greater freedom and joy, etc. I >>still feel separation, and so I continue the practice. > > Who is this "I" that "does" this? > >>By the way, I do not understand inquiry as repetition. Rather >>inquiry is the process of seeing the unreality of the ego-I, >>disolving misidentifications by deep knowledge (knowledge at the same >>level as the knowledge that you yourself exist). Repetition, or >>Japa, was talked about by Ramana as something that a seeker could to >>if not ready for Inquiry. > > Who is ready for inquiry? > >>As I read your response, it sounds kind of dual ("If God chooses >>..." sounds like an external force). > > Only if you assume that there is God and an individual upon whom >God works. But God is all there is. There is no internal or external >. "Individuals" are one way God manifests in the world of space and >time. There is no two - only God's will acting through his >manifestations. > >> I am also unclear as to what >>your specific recommendations are. It sounds like they were, "keep >>inquiring and wait for God." My practice is to keep inquiring untill >>Self-knowledge removes those ego-I concepts that separate "me" from >>"god." > > Who is there to make recommendations? How can one "wait" for God >when God is all there is? What is practice but the ego's need to >"get" something? There's nothing to do and no one to do it. >Everything that will ever happen has ALREADY happened. When that is >understood deeply (through God's grace) the ego no longer has >anything to grasp on to and understanding may arise. > >-kai > >RamanaMaharshi , kaivalya <jwthom@e...> wrote: >> At 2:31 AM +0000 3/21/2000, Richard Clarke wrote: >> > >> >Part of my practice is what I call "Moving meditation." I do this >> >while walking or driving. When doing this I let the mind follow the >> >continuous moving activity. After a litytle bit it natuurally gets >> >quiet. Then when mind is quiet I look at the flow of senses, and >> >notice that they are changing. I then ask "what does not change?" >> >This moves my view towards "witnessing consciousness." >> > >> >Meditating this way I still see an "inside" and and "outside." I >> >guess I should then inquire "who sees both inside and outside?" or >> >"What is both inside and outside and neither inside or outside?" >> > >> >What does anyone think about this approach. Comments? TIA. > > >> If it "works" and the nondual nature of the world has been >deeply >> seen, the comments of others would be superfluous. If it hasn't >> "worked", why think that it will? From the understanding "I" have >> been given, all there is is God, Consciousness, the Ultimate >Reality. >> That which manifests phenomenally as "us" is God's action in time >and >> space, and "we" do nothing. For that reason no technique of any >kind >> can "work" because only God can make things "work". If God chooses > > to make a deep experience of nonduality manifest in "you", it will >> happen no matter what technique (or no-technique) is used, and the >> opinions of others will be irrelevant. Bhagavan's recommendation >of >> self-inquiry does not mean that "self" will be found through using >a >> technique, but rather that the strenuous practice of that technique >> will lead to an understanding that there is no "I" to be found and >no >> "enlightenment" to be accomplished. The repetition of "Coca Cola, >> Coca Cola," will be just as effective if God's play determines >that >> it will. There is no "should". "You" will continue to"do" what >> "youdo" because God chooses to act through "you" in that >> particular way. >> > > So...don't ask "me"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 RamanaMaharshi , kaivalya <jwthom@e...> wrote: > At 6:35 PM -0500 3/21/2000, pepi333 wrote: Thanks for your responses and viewpoints. I think this thread already has domonstrated the problem with trying to talk about nonduality. Meanwhile I will continue my practice of self-inquiry. Whether or not it brings Self-Relization, it brings ever increasing minute-to-minute inner peace, etc. After this thread I don't feel this is a particularly effective place to talk about the details of spiritual practice, so I will refain from doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2000 Report Share Posted March 21, 2000 Thank you for the comment. I appreciate it. Of course what you say is known by mind, (showing again the almost useless nature of cognative understanding when it comes to actual spiritual processes). As I practice I look for ways to bring this mere cognative understanding into my experience and deep knowledge. You understand Ramana'a use of witness well. The specific meditation that I was doing was one in which first I looked at all of the bodily sense experiences, and denying their reality, looked to stand as this "witness." One thing I have found about inquiry is that there are a lot of different angles of view. And for me it helps to look at ego-I from different viewpoints. It is like one disolves a little ego here, some there, etc. I do this in a variety of life settings and situations, not just seated mediation (though this seated mediatation is an important underpionning of my practice). I try to get to the root of ego and dissolve it. For me this is a work in progress. And _very_ important. RamanaMaharshi , Miles Wright <nanyar@z...> wrote: > > This one who sees an inside and an outside is this the same one who looks at > the flow of the senses, and asks...what does not change? Is this also the > same one who is witnessing? And is he walking/driving? > > (note: The term --witness-- ordinarily implies the duality of the one who > witnesses and that which is witnessed. Bhagavan used the term in a slightly > different way. When referring to saakshi--witness--He explained that the > word saakshi must be understood as--presence--without which there could be > nothing. The Self is the basis of all the experiences and remains, ever, as > their witness and support) > > Atma Vichara leads to the source of the ego. There the ego disappears. > Remaining as that source the ego no longer arises. > And as you suggest it goes on throughout all activities; walking, driving, > eating etc. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2000 Report Share Posted March 22, 2000 Hi Kai, >>on 21/3/00 10:12 pm, kaivalya at jwthom wrote: >>> As I understand hiis >>> Self-Realization story, this Self-=inquiry is what brought him to the >>> realization. >> >> Did he ever actually say that? If he did, could you give a >> citation? He probably believed that early in his career. Sri Bhagavan has said on many occasions that his great death-experience was essentially a questioning (vichara) of whether the 'I' died with the death of the body. He also said quite categorically that this was not an act of reasoning but a flash of true perception. (cf. Mahadevan;1977, Talks; 1955/1978, Osborne;1959 (this is a truly excellent account) etc.) This was a 'direct experience' which he said never left him, not a 'probable belief early in his career'. His teaching never changed or developed. Why would it? >> To clear up the ignorance as to who we really are Ramana again and >> again recommended self-inquiry. > > He recommended many things, among them self-inquiry. Since > self-inquiry was supposedly designed for the more educated and > intelligent of his devotees, educated Westerners want to believe that > self-inquiry is the correct path for themselves. What is the > evidence that self-inquiry has "worked" for anyone, as opposed to, > say, japa or bhakti? Sri Bhagavan spoke on all sorts of paths according to the questions of the people who visited. His nearest devotees however are clear that Self-Enquiry was the mainstay. For this we only have to look at the work of Sri Muruganar, the poet-devotee par excellence: 'Do not spread out the mind inquiring 'Who may you be?' and 'Who is he?' Turn it inward questing Steadily, keenly, 'Who am I?' (from Ramana Mandiram) And from Sri Bhagavan Himself in the last prose piece He wrote, 'Who am I?' prior to only responding verbally to enquiries. ''...in order to realize that inherent and untainted happiness, which indeed he daily experiences when the mind is subdued in sleep, it is essential that he should know himself. For obtaining such knowledge the enquiry 'Who am I?' in quest of the Self is the best means.'' Hope this helps. Miles 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.