Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 I have a long-term practice of self-inquiry. A few months ago, I heard (more clearly) my teacher say that a key element in self- inquiry was negation. I had been using the meditation, "not this, not this" (neti neti) for some time, but saw that I was just doing this mediation as a mental practice. I talked again to my teacher, who said that I had to bring this negation to where it was my experience, not just a mental process. Since then I have been focusing the meditation on negation with good results. AS I do this mediation, I start with the usual inquiry (Who am I?). As I sit, and "things" come up, such as body sensation, thoughts, etc., I look at the "thing" until it is clear in awareness, then I ask myself, "Is this who I am?" After sitting for a while with this question, I see that this particular "thing" is an object. I see further that it is an object of mind. I see further that all of mind is an object. And I ask, "Who knows the mind?" This meditative approach takes me to "witnessing consciousness." When I ask at that point, "Who sees consciousness, the meditation stays at the same point, consciousness cannot be seen as an object. Then when I return the mediation to, "Who am I?" this witnessing consciousness and my identity merge. So the negation and the inquiry work together, and my practice deepens. I just wanted to post this. Often we seekers hear teachings that inspire us to greater depths. But to grow, we have to turn these teachings into our daily life. This is done by practice. I wanted to describe some productive areas of practice, and ask other to make similar contributions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 Hi, Thanks very much for posting that. I think it's very helpful to hear about people's experiences. One thing you don't mention is holding the I-thought until all other thoughts vanish. Has your teacher emphasized that at all? I'm curious because I didn't notice anything about that on the SAT website (maybe I missed it), and I think it's sort of the heart of the method (no pun intended). Best regards, Rob - <rclarke <RamanaMaharshi> Monday, August 20, 2001 3:18 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Self-inquiry and Negation > I have a long-term practice of self-inquiry. A few months ago, I > heard (more clearly) my teacher say that a key element in self- > inquiry was negation. I had been using the meditation, "not this, > not this" (neti neti) for some time, but saw that I was just doing > this mediation as a mental practice. I talked again to my teacher, > who said that I had to bring this negation to where it was my > experience, not just a mental process. > > Since then I have been focusing the meditation on negation with good > results. AS I do this mediation, I start with the usual inquiry (Who > am I?). As I sit, and "things" come up, such as body sensation, > thoughts, etc., I look at the "thing" until it is clear in awareness, > then I ask myself, "Is this who I am?" After sitting for a while > with this question, I see that this particular "thing" is an object. > I see further that it is an object of mind. I see further that all > of mind is an object. And I ask, "Who knows the mind?" > > This meditative approach takes me to "witnessing consciousness." > When I ask at that point, "Who sees consciousness, the meditation > stays at the same point, consciousness cannot be seen as an object. > > Then when I return the mediation to, "Who am I?" this witnessing > consciousness and my identity merge. So the negation and the inquiry > work together, and my practice deepens. > > I just wanted to post this. Often we seekers hear teachings that > inspire us to greater depths. But to grow, we have to turn these > teachings into our daily life. This is done by practice. I wanted > to describe some productive areas of practice, and ask other to make > similar contributions. > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks very much for posting that. I think it's > very helpful to hear about people's experiences. > > One thing you don't mention is holding the > I-thought until all other thoughts vanish. > Has your teacher emphasized that at all? > I do not recall those specific words from recent satsangs or other events, but my wife just reminded me of recent medation teachings that thaught that specific meditation. The emphasis at SAT is really on Self-inquiry. Much teaching relates to actual practice. Both our sages came to Self-Realization through inquiry, so naturally that is what they teach. In terms of what is the heart of the teaching as presented by SAT, the sages would really have to say. I am just a seeker, so what I say is from that stand. The teaching is strongly focused on teaching the practice taught by Ramana Marharshi. From that stand, I think they say something like ... The Self is the natural state, it is Who We Are. It is obscured by our ignorance (ego-idea, samsara). Self-inquiry reveals the ego-idea (and the world and the body) as non- existent, what is real is the Self. Spiritual Realization is a matter of Self-Knowledge, not any action. Perhaps if you are ever in California, you can come to a satsang or better yet, to a retreat. Thanks for your posting. Do you have a practice? What does it consist of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 Hi Richard, Thanks very much for the answer. And please thank your wife too! I also practice self-enquiry. But my understanding of it may be different from yours. That's why I asked about holding the I-thought until all other thoughts vanish. I think this is the essence of self-enquiry. For several years I wasn't sure how to practice self-enquiry, so I tried every possible way that I could think of including the one you describe. This led to a remarkable experience, so I'm not regretful, nor do I mean to suggest anything critical. But since then, it has become apparent to me that there must be something else involved in the method, and I have gone back and read all of Bhagavan's writings very carefully, and I now believe that the essence of the method is: Hold the I-thought; the other thoughts will go away; the Self is what is left; wait for the heart to pull "you" in. See, for example, dialog 238 in the big Talks book: "What you consider to be the Self, is really either the mind or the intellect or the 'I'-thought. The other thoughts arise only after the 'I'-thought. So hold on to it. The others will vanish leaving the Self as the residuum." > Perhaps if you are ever in California, you can > come to a satsang or better yet, to a retreat. Thank you. It's a deal! Best regards, Rob - <rclarke <RamanaMaharshi> Monday, August 20, 2001 9:32 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Self-inquiry and Negation > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks very much for posting that. I think it's > > very helpful to hear about people's experiences. > > > > One thing you don't mention is holding the > > I-thought until all other thoughts vanish. > > Has your teacher emphasized that at all? > > > > I do not recall those specific words from recent satsangs or other > events, but my wife just reminded me of recent medation teachings > that thaught that specific meditation. > > The emphasis at SAT is really on Self-inquiry. Much teaching relates > to actual practice. Both our sages came to Self-Realization through > inquiry, so naturally that is what they teach. In terms of what is > the heart of the teaching as presented by SAT, the sages would really > have to say. I am just a seeker, so what I say is from that stand. > The teaching is strongly focused on teaching the practice taught by > Ramana Marharshi. From that stand, I think they say something > like ... > > The Self is the natural state, it is Who We Are. > It is obscured by our ignorance (ego-idea, samsara). > Self-inquiry reveals the ego-idea (and the world and the body) as non- > existent, what is real is the Self. > Spiritual Realization is a matter of Self-Knowledge, not any action. > > Perhaps if you are ever in California, you can come to a satsang or > better yet, to a retreat. > > Thanks for your posting. Do you have a practice? What does it > consist of? > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > I also practice self-enquiry. But my understanding > of it may be different from yours. That's why I asked > about holding the I-thought until all other thoughts > vanish. I think this is the essence of self-enquiry. > > For several years I wasn't sure how to practice > self-enquiry, so I tried every possible way that > I could think of including the one you describe. > This led to a remarkable experience, so I'm not > regretful, nor do I mean to suggest anything critical. > > But since then, it has become apparent to me that > there must be something else involved in the method, > and I have gone back and read all of Bhagavan's > writings very carefully, and I now believe that the > essence of the method is: > > Hold the I-thought; the other thoughts will go > away; the Self is what is left; wait for the heart > to pull "you" in. > > See, for example, dialog 238 in the big Talks > book: > > "What you consider to be the Self, is really > either the mind or the intellect or the 'I'-thought. > The other thoughts arise only after the 'I'-thought. > So hold on to it. The others will vanish leaving > the Self as the residuum." > Rob, Thank you for your response. Certainly when I talk about what is presently productive in my practice I am speaking only from this point of view. I have practiced long enough to know that different approaches may be productive at different "stages" in one's advances in Self-Knowledge. There is a place in practice where the focus starts moving from the various "object of mind" to the self. One learns that whatever it is that we desire, it is not to be found from either external events or things, not from body sensations or experiences, nor from mental states or moods. All of these are but objects of consciousness. But what is this consciousness? And "Who am I?" For me, this current practice in deep negation is productive at this stage of Self-Knowledge. It supports turning inward from the objects of senses and mind, towards the Self. This approach is also very useful to me outside of sitting meditation in approaching the apparent experiences of my so called daily life. It helps drive my focus inward. My teacher presently instructs me to contiue this process, but to start looking at my sense of being an "individual." The goal of such practice is to gain the certain Self-Knowledge that surely, "I am That." Sankara wrote about the requistes for realization. One of the formost of these is discrimination. I think this mediation I am presently doing is working specifically on discrimination. It focus my practice towards the experience of the Truth, which is much deeper than the mere understanding of the ideas of Truth. Discrimination supports Renuciation. Perhaps sometime later when my practice is more advanced, we can talk of Renuciation. Thank you again for responding to my post. I still wonder about what others in this newgroup find productive in their own practices? Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hi Richard, Thanks for writing back. I think you've done a great thing (a brave one, even!) by starting this thread about experiences. (I'll say a little more about my own experience towards the bottom of this message.) > I have practiced long enough to know that different > approaches may be productive at different "stages" > in one's advances in Self-Knowledge. My experience is the same. But I wonder: do we create these stages by the order in which we choose to do things? And is it possible to skip all stages but the last and go to it directly? Bhagavan seems to say that it is. > Sankara wrote about the requistes for > realization. One of the formost of these > is discrimination. I think this mediation I > am presently doing is working specifically > on discrimination. Yes, I think you're exactly right. And I think you picked an excellent terminology for your method, and Sankara's, when you put "negation" in the title of this thread. The point I've been trying to make is that Sri Ramana's method isn't negative; it's positive. This is why his disciples regarded his method as revolutionary. (I agree that Sri Ramana's method was positive but I'm not so sure it was revolutionary, since it seems to be the same method as the one in the Upanishads.) Here's what Sri Sadhu Om says about this (he was one of Sri Ramana's most respected discple- commentators): "If we are told, 'Abandon the east,' the practical way of doing so would be to do as if told, 'Go to the west!' In the same manner, when we are told, 'Discard the five sheaths, which are not Self', the practical way of discarding the non-Self is to focus our attention on ourself... Thinking 'I am not this, not this' (neti, neti) is a NEGATIVE method. Knowing that this negative method is just as impractical as saying, 'Drink the medicine without thinking of a monkey!' Sri Bhagavan has now shown us the practical way of drinking the medicine without thinking of the monkey, by giving us the clue, 'Drink the medicine while thinking of an elephant', that is, He has replaced the ancient negative method by giving us the POSITIVE METHOD 'Who am I?'" (page 103 in "The Path of Sri Ramana" Vol 1 by Sri Sadhu Om). More specifically, here's what Sri Sadhu Om says about neti-neti: "In ancient sastras the process of Self-enquiry is described as negating the five sheaths as 'not I, not I' (neti, neti). However aspirants struggle not knowing how to do so. That is why Sri Bhagavan first gives us (in verses 16 to 20) the technique of attending to the Self, which is the means to know what 'I' really is; then He points out in verse 22 that negating the five sheaths is the outcome of knowing the real 'I'. He thus implies that attending to 'I', Self, is itself the method of negating the five sheaths, the non-Self. Hence, in Upadesa Undhiyar, Sri Bhagavan has amended the path of knowledge (jnana marga) by rearranging the back-to- front process described in ancient sastras into a new and practical order -- that is, that which was given as the practice (neti, neti) is now pointed out to be the result." (page 99). > There is a place in practice where the focus > starts moving from the various "object of mind" > to the self. This makes me think that I didn't do exactly what you are describing because this didn't happen to me when I tried negating the objects. This makes me wonder if there isn't actually a positive aspect to your practice. In any case I wonder what I did differently. Perhaps you could say more about this. I'm very curious. What took place for me was an endless futile attempt to move away from the objects or to find something other-than-them. It sometimes felt as if my inner point of awareness was trying to swim backwards away from what it was seeing. As I swam, each sweep of the arms behind me brought foward some new bit of me-ness that seemed more genuinely me-like, but after a moment it would be recognized as something of which I was aware, therefore non-Self, and another sweep of the arms would ensue, another vain back-stroke in the attempt to swim away from the non-Self. After a few minutes of this effort, exhaustion would usually set in and the mind would become quiet. But it was a sterile quiet for our purposes. The positive result of this effort was an increasing conviction that all the objects of mind are just that, mere ideas generated by mental activity. But there was no development of any feeling of resting in the self or being the self. Then one day a sudden conviction arose that this activity was utterly stupid and futile because no matter how huge the effort to find the self, the only result could be some new mental representation. For a moment this conviction utterly ruled my mental apparatus, and as a result, for the first time in my waking experience, all effort stopped. Then, because all effort stopped, an amazing rearrangement of my inner universe took place and the mind-illusion dropped, doership dropped, the mind-illusion was seen for what it was, all was peace, and all was now. Whether this was a glimpse of the self or not I don't know; but certainly it was a revelation that I am not the I that I had always taken myself to be. Unfortunately, the experience was temporary and apparently it cannot be regained by the same technique; the technique depended on my tricking myself into searching with intense effort for something that cannot be found, and I'm not quite dumb enough to fall for the trick a second time. That's why I have been forced to look for some other method. I now realize that Bhagavan's real method is unlike what I was doing. His method is incredibly simple: focus all attention on the feeling of self. Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya Rob - <rclarke <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:40 AM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Self-inquiry and Negation > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > > I also practice self-enquiry. But my understanding > > of it may be different from yours. That's why I asked > > about holding the I-thought until all other thoughts > > vanish. I think this is the essence of self-enquiry. > > > > For several years I wasn't sure how to practice > > self-enquiry, so I tried every possible way that > > I could think of including the one you describe. > > This led to a remarkable experience, so I'm not > > regretful, nor do I mean to suggest anything critical. > > > > But since then, it has become apparent to me that > > there must be something else involved in the method, > > and I have gone back and read all of Bhagavan's > > writings very carefully, and I now believe that the > > essence of the method is: > > > > Hold the I-thought; the other thoughts will go > > away; the Self is what is left; wait for the heart > > to pull "you" in. > > > > See, for example, dialog 238 in the big Talks > > book: > > > > "What you consider to be the Self, is really > > either the mind or the intellect or the 'I'-thought. > > The other thoughts arise only after the 'I'-thought. > > So hold on to it. The others will vanish leaving > > the Self as the residuum." > > > Rob, > > Thank you for your response. Certainly when I talk about what is > presently productive in my practice I am speaking only from this > point of view. I have practiced long enough to know that different > approaches may be productive at different "stages" in one's advances > in Self-Knowledge. > > There is a place in practice where the focus starts moving from the > various "object of mind" to the self. One learns that whatever it is > that we desire, it is not to be found from either external events or > things, not from body sensations or experiences, nor from mental > states or moods. All of these are but objects of consciousness. But > what is this consciousness? And "Who am I?" > > For me, this current practice in deep negation is productive at this > stage of Self-Knowledge. It supports turning inward from the objects > of senses and mind, towards the Self. This approach is also very > useful to me outside of sitting meditation in approaching the > apparent experiences of my so called daily life. It helps drive my > focus inward. > > My teacher presently instructs me to contiue this process, but to > start looking at my sense of being an "individual." > > The goal of such practice is to gain the certain Self-Knowledge that > surely, "I am That." > > Sankara wrote about the requistes for realization. One of the > formost of these is discrimination. I think this mediation I am > presently doing is working specifically on discrimination. It focus > my practice towards the experience of the Truth, which is much deeper > than the mere understanding of the ideas of Truth. Discrimination > supports Renuciation. Perhaps sometime later when my practice is > more advanced, we can talk of Renuciation. > > Thank you again for responding to my post. > > I still wonder about what others in this newgroup find productive in > their own practices? > > Not two, > Richard > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hi Richard, > I still wonder about what others in this > newgroup find productive in > their own practices? I wonder too. I hope others will answer. But I'm aware that many people think it's in bad taste or harmful or a violation of tradition to do so. If anybody here is refraining from answering for that reason, I would find it useful to hear them explain. I've never really understood that point of view, and I'd like to understand. Regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hello Rob, Your response excites me. It is great to have such a dialog! I will comment by adding notes through the dialog. Please remember that I comment as a fellow seeker, not as one standing in Self- Realization. These comments represent the best of my present understanding. RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for writing back. I think you've done a > great thing (a brave one, even!) by starting this > thread about experiences. (I'll say a little more > about my own experience towards the bottom of > this message.) > > > I have practiced long enough to know that different > > approaches may be productive at different "stages" > > in one's advances in Self-Knowledge. > > My experience is the same. But I wonder: > do we create these stages by the order in > which we choose to do things? And is it > possible to skip all stages but the last and > go to it directly? Bhagavan seems to say that > it is. Certainly is seems that there are many cases of Sages who heard the truth once and were brought to Self-Realization. Those are not engaged in this discussion, though. For the rest of us, it is a matter of practice, sustained for however long it takes. These "stages" show up broadly in "enlightenment literature." A great example is the "Ten Bulls" from Ch'an and Zen. These provide a metaphor of the path of a seeker that has been used for at least the last thousand years. I see my own issues as those associated with number 5, "Taming the Bull." This is where the seeker starts to break the habit of the mind always going out, and starts acquiring the regular instinct to turn inside instead. During 5 the momentum switches from "out" to "in." > > Sankara wrote about the requisites for > > realization. One of the foremost of these > > is discrimination. I think this mediation I > > am presently doing is working specifically > > on discrimination. > > Yes, I think you're exactly right. And I think you > picked an excellent terminology for your method, > and Sankara's, when you put "negation" in the > title of this thread. > One beneficial resource that I have seen able to use is a audio tape series, "The Requisites of Realization." This is available from SAT. The Sages provided this teaching over 2 1/2 months. It is a series of 10 tapes presenting this major teaching of Sankara for modern audiences. These requisites include discrimination, detachment, self-control, peacefulness, renunciation, fortitude, faith, deep profound meditation, and desire for liberation. > The point I've been trying to make is that Sri > Ramana's method isn't negative; it's positive. > > This is why his disciples regarded his method > as revolutionary. (I agree that Sri Ramana's > method was positive but I'm not so sure it was > revolutionary, since it seems to be the same > method as the one in the Upanishads.) > > Here's what Sri Sadhu Om says about this (he was > one of Sri Ramana's most respected disciple- > commentators): > > "If we are told, 'Abandon the east,' the practical > way of doing so would be to do as if told, 'Go to > the west!' In the same manner, when we are told, > 'Discard the five sheaths, which are not Self', > the practical way of discarding the non-Self is > to focus our attention on ourself... Thinking 'I > am not this, not this' (neti, neti) is a NEGATIVE > method. Knowing that this negative method is just as > impractical as saying, 'Drink the medicine without > thinking of a monkey!' Sri Bhagavan has now shown > us the practical way of drinking the medicine without > thinking of the monkey, by giving us the clue, 'Drink > the medicine while thinking of an elephant', that is, > He has replaced the ancient negative method by > giving us the POSITIVE METHOD 'Who am I?'" > (page 103 in "The Path of Sri Ramana" Vol 1 by > Sri Sadhu Om). > > More specifically, here's what Sri Sadhu Om > says about neti-neti: > > "In ancient sastras the process of Self-enquiry is > described as negating the five sheaths as 'not I, > not I' (neti, neti). However aspirants struggle > not knowing how to do so. That is why Sri > Bhagavan first gives us (in verses 16 to 20) the > technique of attending to the Self, which is the means > to know what 'I' really is; then He points out in > verse 22 that negating the five sheaths is the outcome > of knowing the real 'I'. He thus implies that > attending to 'I', Self, is itself the method of negating > the five sheaths, the non-Self. Hence, in Upadesa > Undhiyar, Sri Bhagavan has amended the path of > knowledge (jnana marga) by rearranging the back-to- > front process described in ancient sastras into a > new and practical order -- that is, that which was > given as the practice (neti, neti) is now pointed out > to be the result." (page 99). > I am not an expert on Ramana's Talk's nor have I read the Sadhu Om book. But as I look through talks I see again and again Ramana teach about negation as a part of Self-inquiry. For example, in Talk 25 4th Feb, 1935, Ramana, in a dialog responding to the question, "Who am I? How is it to be found?" talks about elimination of drisya (the seen, all "objects," even objects of mind). Part way through this dialog the questioner asks, "Why should the objects drisya be eliminated? Cannot the Truth be realized even keeping the object as it is?" M. : No. Elimination of drisya means elimination of the subject and object. The object is unreal. … Eliminating the unreal, the Reality survives … If you look closely, I believe that you will see lots of similar references. In all of this we have to remember that Ramana's remarks were specific to the one to whom he was talking at the time. He certainly makes a range of practice related comments in the whole of Talks. > > There is a place in practice where the focus > > starts moving from the various "object of mind" > > to the self. > > This makes me think that I didn't do exactly what > you are describing because this didn't happen to me > when I tried negating the objects. > > This makes me wonder if there isn't actually a positive > aspect to your practice. In any case I wonder what I > did differently. Perhaps you could say more about this. > I'm very curious. This present practice approach really has two parts. One part is the "Who am I?" The other is the "Is that who I am?" (which is the negation part). I have noticed that when working on a particular misidentification with the approach it is like you are "hitting" the misidentification from two sides (of the formless). > What took place for me was an endless futile > attempt to move away from the objects or to find > something other-than-them. It sometimes felt as > if my inner point of awareness was trying to swim > backwards away from what it was seeing. As I > swam, each sweep of the arms behind me brought > foward some new bit of me-ness that seemed more > genuinely me-like, but after a moment it would be > recognized as something of which I was aware, > therefore non-Self, and another sweep of the arms > would ensue, another vain back-stroke in the attempt > to swim away from the non-Self. > > After a few minutes of this effort, exhaustion would > usually set in and the mind would become quiet. > But it was a sterile quiet for our purposes. To me this sounds like a mental approach to the practice, and clearly the Self is not an object of mind. Sounds like you were doing it with intensity. No wonder you were worn out. Good thing that you found some other approach. > The positive result of this effort was an increasing > conviction that all the objects of mind are just that, > mere ideas generated by mental activity. But there > was no development of any feeling of resting in the > self or being the self. > The understanding was good. Too bad you did not have the "Who am I?" part of it too. > Then one day a sudden conviction arose that this > activity was utterly stupid and futile because no > matter how huge the effort to find the self, the > only result could be some new mental representation. > For a moment this conviction utterly ruled my > mental apparatus, and as a result, for the first time > in my waking experience, all effort stopped. Then, > because all effort stopped, an amazing rearrangement > of my inner universe took place and the mind-illusion > dropped, doership dropped, the mind-illusion was > seen for what it was, all was peace, and all was > now. Whether this was a glimpse of the self or not > I don't know; but certainly it was a revelation that > I am not the I that I had always taken myself to be. Great experience! Too bad it did not last. The experience came as you dropped some idea of who you are (for a while). Then the habits of your ideas identification with the world, body, senses, mind, ego returned. I have had a small number of such experiences. When I talk to my teachers about this, it seems like they see some idea of identification that remains (like I am the body or such), and talk about practices that I can do to remove the misidentification(s). For me some of this is like when I am meditating, learning to turn my mind "in" instead of "out," that perhaps 1 in 1000 times when I pick up the meditation, I forget to pick up the habit of mind that I usually hold, and have a deep experience without that habit. Then the habit reasserts, and there again it is I and the world and the "ten thousand things." > Unfortunately, the experience was temporary and > apparently it cannot be regained by the same technique; > the technique depended on my tricking myself into > searching with intense effort for something that cannot > be found, and I'm not quite dumb enough to fall for the > trick a second time. That's why I have been forced > to look for some other method. I now realize that > Bhagavan's real method is unlike what I was doing. > > His method is incredibly simple: focus all attention > on the feeling of self. Certainly a wonderful practice. For those of us who notice the restless mind and ego misidentifying, and notice ideas or body sensations in meditation (or in daily life) that divert our attention from the Self, I find it useful to see what is behind that idea, to see the misidentification involved, and the see that the Self illumines each of these ideas, and that the reality is from the Self, not from the object of mind. I have nothing but respect for your experiences and your hunger for the Truth. My intent is to just present some practice that is working for me right now. Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Dear Richard, Yes, this has been a wonderful dialog. This is a wonderful letter. It hasn't convinced me, but I must let you have the last word for now because I won't have time to answer your letter as carefully as it deserves for at least several days. Is there any chance that you'd like to write an article on this subject for the website of which I'm the editor, Realization.org? Perhaps you could use your letters here as a starting point. If you could give the readers a meticulous description of your practice, and communicate what the experience is like, it would make a terrific article. We could put a plug at the end for SAT and a link to their site and whatever else you want. Best regards, Rob - <rclarke <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:16 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Self-inquiry and Negation Hello Rob, Your response excites me. It is great to have such a dialog! I will comment by adding notes through the dialog. Please remember that I comment as a fellow seeker, not as one standing in Self- Realization. These comments represent the best of my present understanding. RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for writing back. I think you've done a > great thing (a brave one, even!) by starting this > thread about experiences. (I'll say a little more > about my own experience towards the bottom of > this message.) > > > I have practiced long enough to know that different > > approaches may be productive at different "stages" > > in one's advances in Self-Knowledge. > > My experience is the same. But I wonder: > do we create these stages by the order in > which we choose to do things? And is it > possible to skip all stages but the last and > go to it directly? Bhagavan seems to say that > it is. Certainly is seems that there are many cases of Sages who heard the truth once and were brought to Self-Realization. Those are not engaged in this discussion, though. For the rest of us, it is a matter of practice, sustained for however long it takes. These "stages" show up broadly in "enlightenment literature." A great example is the "Ten Bulls" from Ch'an and Zen. These provide a metaphor of the path of a seeker that has been used for at least the last thousand years. I see my own issues as those associated with number 5, "Taming the Bull." This is where the seeker starts to break the habit of the mind always going out, and starts acquiring the regular instinct to turn inside instead. During 5 the momentum switches from "out" to "in." > > Sankara wrote about the requisites for > > realization. One of the foremost of these > > is discrimination. I think this mediation I > > am presently doing is working specifically > > on discrimination. > > Yes, I think you're exactly right. And I think you > picked an excellent terminology for your method, > and Sankara's, when you put "negation" in the > title of this thread. > One beneficial resource that I have seen able to use is a audio tape series, "The Requisites of Realization." This is available from SAT. The Sages provided this teaching over 2 1/2 months. It is a series of 10 tapes presenting this major teaching of Sankara for modern audiences. These requisites include discrimination, detachment, self-control, peacefulness, renunciation, fortitude, faith, deep profound meditation, and desire for liberation. > The point I've been trying to make is that Sri > Ramana's method isn't negative; it's positive. > > This is why his disciples regarded his method > as revolutionary. (I agree that Sri Ramana's > method was positive but I'm not so sure it was > revolutionary, since it seems to be the same > method as the one in the Upanishads.) > > Here's what Sri Sadhu Om says about this (he was > one of Sri Ramana's most respected disciple- > commentators): > > "If we are told, 'Abandon the east,' the practical > way of doing so would be to do as if told, 'Go to > the west!' In the same manner, when we are told, > 'Discard the five sheaths, which are not Self', > the practical way of discarding the non-Self is > to focus our attention on ourself... Thinking 'I > am not this, not this' (neti, neti) is a NEGATIVE > method. Knowing that this negative method is just as > impractical as saying, 'Drink the medicine without > thinking of a monkey!' Sri Bhagavan has now shown > us the practical way of drinking the medicine without > thinking of the monkey, by giving us the clue, 'Drink > the medicine while thinking of an elephant', that is, > He has replaced the ancient negative method by > giving us the POSITIVE METHOD 'Who am I?'" > (page 103 in "The Path of Sri Ramana" Vol 1 by > Sri Sadhu Om). > > More specifically, here's what Sri Sadhu Om > says about neti-neti: > > "In ancient sastras the process of Self-enquiry is > described as negating the five sheaths as 'not I, > not I' (neti, neti). However aspirants struggle > not knowing how to do so. That is why Sri > Bhagavan first gives us (in verses 16 to 20) the > technique of attending to the Self, which is the means > to know what 'I' really is; then He points out in > verse 22 that negating the five sheaths is the outcome > of knowing the real 'I'. He thus implies that > attending to 'I', Self, is itself the method of negating > the five sheaths, the non-Self. Hence, in Upadesa > Undhiyar, Sri Bhagavan has amended the path of > knowledge (jnana marga) by rearranging the back-to- > front process described in ancient sastras into a > new and practical order -- that is, that which was > given as the practice (neti, neti) is now pointed out > to be the result." (page 99). > I am not an expert on Ramana's Talk's nor have I read the Sadhu Om book. But as I look through talks I see again and again Ramana teach about negation as a part of Self-inquiry. For example, in Talk 25 4th Feb, 1935, Ramana, in a dialog responding to the question, "Who am I? How is it to be found?" talks about elimination of drisya (the seen, all "objects," even objects of mind). Part way through this dialog the questioner asks, "Why should the objects drisya be eliminated? Cannot the Truth be realized even keeping the object as it is?" M. : No. Elimination of drisya means elimination of the subject and object. The object is unreal. . Eliminating the unreal, the Reality survives . If you look closely, I believe that you will see lots of similar references. In all of this we have to remember that Ramana's remarks were specific to the one to whom he was talking at the time. He certainly makes a range of practice related comments in the whole of Talks. > > There is a place in practice where the focus > > starts moving from the various "object of mind" > > to the self. > > This makes me think that I didn't do exactly what > you are describing because this didn't happen to me > when I tried negating the objects. > > This makes me wonder if there isn't actually a positive > aspect to your practice. In any case I wonder what I > did differently. Perhaps you could say more about this. > I'm very curious. This present practice approach really has two parts. One part is the "Who am I?" The other is the "Is that who I am?" (which is the negation part). I have noticed that when working on a particular misidentification with the approach it is like you are "hitting" the misidentification from two sides (of the formless). > What took place for me was an endless futile > attempt to move away from the objects or to find > something other-than-them. It sometimes felt as > if my inner point of awareness was trying to swim > backwards away from what it was seeing. As I > swam, each sweep of the arms behind me brought > foward some new bit of me-ness that seemed more > genuinely me-like, but after a moment it would be > recognized as something of which I was aware, > therefore non-Self, and another sweep of the arms > would ensue, another vain back-stroke in the attempt > to swim away from the non-Self. > > After a few minutes of this effort, exhaustion would > usually set in and the mind would become quiet. > But it was a sterile quiet for our purposes. To me this sounds like a mental approach to the practice, and clearly the Self is not an object of mind. Sounds like you were doing it with intensity. No wonder you were worn out. Good thing that you found some other approach. > The positive result of this effort was an increasing > conviction that all the objects of mind are just that, > mere ideas generated by mental activity. But there > was no development of any feeling of resting in the > self or being the self. > The understanding was good. Too bad you did not have the "Who am I?" part of it too. > Then one day a sudden conviction arose that this > activity was utterly stupid and futile because no > matter how huge the effort to find the self, the > only result could be some new mental representation. > For a moment this conviction utterly ruled my > mental apparatus, and as a result, for the first time > in my waking experience, all effort stopped. Then, > because all effort stopped, an amazing rearrangement > of my inner universe took place and the mind-illusion > dropped, doership dropped, the mind-illusion was > seen for what it was, all was peace, and all was > now. Whether this was a glimpse of the self or not > I don't know; but certainly it was a revelation that > I am not the I that I had always taken myself to be. Great experience! Too bad it did not last. The experience came as you dropped some idea of who you are (for a while). Then the habits of your ideas identification with the world, body, senses, mind, ego returned. I have had a small number of such experiences. When I talk to my teachers about this, it seems like they see some idea of identification that remains (like I am the body or such), and talk about practices that I can do to remove the misidentification(s). For me some of this is like when I am meditating, learning to turn my mind "in" instead of "out," that perhaps 1 in 1000 times when I pick up the meditation, I forget to pick up the habit of mind that I usually hold, and have a deep experience without that habit. Then the habit reasserts, and there again it is I and the world and the "ten thousand things." > Unfortunately, the experience was temporary and > apparently it cannot be regained by the same technique; > the technique depended on my tricking myself into > searching with intense effort for something that cannot > be found, and I'm not quite dumb enough to fall for the > trick a second time. That's why I have been forced > to look for some other method. I now realize that > Bhagavan's real method is unlike what I was doing. > > His method is incredibly simple: focus all attention > on the feeling of self. Certainly a wonderful practice. For those of us who notice the restless mind and ego misidentifying, and notice ideas or body sensations in meditation (or in daily life) that divert our attention from the Self, I find it useful to see what is behind that idea, to see the misidentification involved, and the see that the Self illumines each of these ideas, and that the reality is from the Self, not from the object of mind. I have nothing but respect for your experiences and your hunger for the Truth. My intent is to just present some practice that is working for me right now. Not two, Richard Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is subject to 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.