Satsang from SAT on Existance: Questions and Answers

[Guest guest]

This material's copyright is owned by the Society of Abidance in

Truth, Santa Cruz, CA. SAT has graciously given me permission to

post from a transcript of a recent satsang. Members of the newsgroup

are given permission to use this material, but that this material

should not be further copied by or for others.

 

This is from the questions and answers after the discourse.

 

[R.S. signifies Russell Smith; N. signifies Nome; Q. signifies

Questioner; laughter means that everyone was laughing, not just the

speaker.]

 

Q.: Continuing my thorough inquiry into who I am, I have been

disidentifying from the body, then proceeding to the senses. The

external senses are easy to get rid of, the internal senses still are

more of a sticking point.

I find that at those levels at which I have inquired, if I review

them, that such things are not a subject anymore, so that I do not

need to inquire at that level anymore.

R.S.: Yes, we do not actually decide to terminate the inquiry, and

that includes each phase of it. It naturally becomes absorbed in

deeper Knowledge, and it is not needed. Your experience is an example

of that teaching.

N.: When ignorance is partially eliminated, it becomes full of holes.

When it is totally eliminated, concerning any particular point or

level, it becomes impossible to reconstruct it. Once you know that

ignorance is ignorance, an illusion, you just cannot continue

thinking in that way anymore, and the suffering that is concomitant

with ignorance, cannot be experienced at that level anymore. With

each degree of freedom you find, the same is true.

R.S.: So, with each point of the spiritual practice of inquiry, the

inquiry discharges itself like a river into the ocean, and you never

get to the point at which you make a decision that you will stop this

part of the inquiry because you logged in the appropriate hours

(laughter) or because you think you should be doing something else or

whatever. Your own experience is showing you that it works the way it

has been described, which is that it gets absorbed into a deeper

Knowledge or certainty, and it is simply a non-issue anymore.

Q.: After negating the body, I get to the senses easily, but there is

still this internal body sense that is a sticking point. I continue

to meditate upon that. Sometimes in meditation, I see the

misidentification with the body, the prana, the mind, and as this

person in one context. So I see that what works in addressing one

works with the others. It is the same kind of mental motion.

The meditation is moving more naturally to the prana, because the

gross, external experiences are less of an issue. As those get out of

the way, what I am left with as the next step is the flow of energy

in the body, as well as my heartbeat and other experiences.

I am trying to look at that from different states, such as dreamless

sleep, in which none of that is present. I have looked at the body in

the dream state, and in dreaming it is very clear that the body is

not present. I am trying to look in the same way at the senses and

prana.

R.S.: Let us say that in the dream you are a different creature, such

as an elephant. Do you have elephant prana or prana that is in common

with this body?

Q.: I do not know.

R.S.: I do not know either, especially because it is in your dream.

N.: Perhaps, he is dreaming he is a human.

R.S.: Is the prana the same or is it different?

N.: The dream senses would be elephant senses.

Q.: (laughing)

R.S.: For example, you may smell peanuts, which might be very

important to you in that state.

N.: You might have internal sensations that are customary to an

elephant, whatever those might be.

R.S.: This is why we offer cookies here after satsang, not peanuts.

(laughter)

N.: Although, on certain airlines, the treatment is different.

(laughter) Perhaps, it is an intuition they have of what they think

is really going on.

R.S.: If it is a universal prana, I want to know where such universal

prana comes from, that is, what is its source. If it is a prana

specific to the elephant or to the human being, it is a transient

phenomenon linked to the body and the senses.

N.: If the elephant you are dreaming yourself to be dies in the

dream, where does his prana go?

Q.: The prana disappears.

R.S.: In other words, the great hunter appears with the bow of

discrimination…(laughter)

N.: and slays the elephant of imagination. (laughter) What remains?

The elephant perishes. The elephant senses perish. The elephantine

dream ends. You are still existing, obviously. It was just a dream

elephant. Wherever his dream prana went, what can be said of that

prana or life energy? He seemed to be animated, and now he has become

inert. Maybe you take on another form in the dream, which is

reincarnation. Maybe, you awaken from the dream entirely.

R.S.: You inquire, "With the death of this elephant body, am I dead?"

N.: When you wake up, you, of course, see that your Consciousness

made up the whole of the dream, but your Consciousness was not

anything visible. The Consciousness was not really elephant prana.

The Consciousness was not elephant senses, was not elephant body, and

not the peanuts, but there were no peanuts, body, prana, etc. without

or apart from the Consciousness.

R.S.: We are assuming that when you wake up there are not peanut

shells scattered about. (laughter)

N.: Does he find large footprints outside his room?

Q.: I am using the other states to find out what is really existing

in my inquiry.

R.S.: Underneath this humor is a very serious point.

N.: The changing of the states shows us something about our real

identity. If you examine the three states of deep sleep, dream, and

waking, not from within the states, which would be a partial view,

but in total, this tells you something about your existence. It

reveals what you are and what you can actually be limited to.

You say that there are some sticking points. For each seeker, the

misidentification might be slightly different. You see the common

misidentifying, the common mental mode, whether it is with the prana,

with thought if more subtle, or, if grosser, with the senses or the

body. It is the same misidentifying, the same confounding your

existence with what it is not. Certain points may contain more

tendency; it is more habitual.

Q.: Yes, there is more habit with it.

N.: For one seeker, one aspect will be easier, for another that

aspect will be more difficult. The same inquiry is involved. The

quality of the ignorance does not change; only the form of it. The

inquiry is of the same essence. The distinction lies in whatever

object to which the inquiry is being directed.

R.S.: It is very worthwhile to direct the inquiry into the prana. If

you observe carefully, you will notice that the prana shifts and

changes. You know that your true identity does not shift and change.

Energy ebbs and flows, increases and decreases, shifts and changes.

That is why there are all sorts of practices or yogas for increasing

subtle energy. Everyone agrees that it is expandable, and it

contracts as well. It can increase and it can diminish. It goes, up,

down, and sideways. It has motion, change, and modification. It is

the place to start discriminating or inquiring, because you know that

your ultimate identity is not going through those types of shifts or

processes. There is something behind that is changeless and does not

shift and change.

Q.: I find that when I am looking at the senses or prana, that it is

good to meditate on my sense of existence. When seeing the moving

senses and prana, I see that it is not in that experience and not in

that flux.

N.: The whole focus should be upon determining what the existence is

so that you know yourself. Self-Knowledge is the aim. The same kind

of discrimination that you were using in relation to the body applies

to the senses and prana also. Discern what is changeful and what is

changeless.

You have a constant sense of existence. That is changeless. Is this

thing called prana changeful? If it is changeful, it cannot be your

nature. It cannot be changeful and changeless at the same time. There

is something changeless. This is changeful. There is something that

is without modification, and something that has been modified. There

is something without rise or set, and something that is rising and

setting. There is something steady throughout all the three states,

and something that is only a product of a particular state. There is

something that has a beginning and an end, and there is something for

which there is no beginning or end. There is this of which you are

aware, such as the prana as something objective though subtle, and

there is That which is nonobjective, the knower who is not the known.

Discriminate in all these ways. Discern clearly.

R.S.: One final point that may be helpful in this inquiry into the

nature of life energy or prana: When people experience higher states

of consciousness in meditation, there are, frequently, corresponding

shifts of the prana or energy. This is just a matter of actual

meditative experience. It is a common occurrence in many traditions

among countless meditators. So, with higher states of Consciousness,

frequently, though there is no iron rule, there are shifts in the

prana. What happens due to lack of clear discrimination, the seeker

concentrates his attention on the energy or prana and noticed the

energy changes. The attention should be focused on the

Consciousness, for you will remember that it is a higher state of

Consciousness. When such higher states of Consciousness or deep

meditations are experienced and there are shifts in energy, all that

is needed is a little bit of wise discrimination. Of these two

factors, energy and Consciousness, where should your attention be?

The attention, or the inquiry, is back on the Consciousness, or back

on "Who a am I?"

Exploring higher states does not necessarily mean being constantly

distracted by energy changes. The point is to get the higher

Consciousness and not to be distracted by these beneficial, or even

pleasant, side effects.

Q.: Thank you.

 

Another Q.: The Existence itself is how I know of the existence. The

existence of the body is only by the existence itself. The body

itself cannot give me the truth of the Existence itself. Is this

right?

R.S.: Yes, it is.

Q.: The prana itself is only for the body. The prana and the senses

are for the body. If I have no problem discarding the body, why am I

having a problem with the senses or the prana, or life energy, or

breath?

N.: It is because one is more subtle than the other. The senses and

the life energy, or prana, are for the body. This is one perspective.

>From another perspective, the body is for the life energy. The life

energy has one form or another. The body is one of its forms.

R.S.: It usually connects through the breath.

N.: You can say the senses are only for the body, because the sense

organs are in your body. On the other hand, someone examining the

actual experience would say that he knows nothing about his body

except what is through the senses, and, therefore, the body is for

the senses.

No matter which is considered subject and object, the ultimate

subject is the inner Consciousness, and all these things are passing

phenomena.

Q.: That is the Existence itself?

N.: Yes, that is the Existence itself. That is the ultimate knower.

All the others are the known. When you make the mistake of

confounding the knower and the known, you get yourself into trouble

and bind yourself unnecessarily. The bondage leads to suffering.

Then, you think that the Self is the body or the life energy that

animates the body or that the Self is the senses. Then, you think of

the Self as a sensed thing or a sensing entity. That thought is not a

true definition of who you are.

Q.: So, I should find out that Existence and know who is existing.

That will take me through all that other illusion.

R.S.: Yes, exactly. That inquiry will guide you deeper than the body

or the bodily characteristics, deeper than the senses or sensory

characteristics, deeper than life energy or prana with its various

ebbs and flows or motions.

Q.: To something that does not depend on something else. The body can

not exist without the prana, and the prana depends on body.

N.: Yes, if one thing depends one another, and the other depends on

that first thing, they are both equally false and not the real

Existence. That is clear seeing.

Q.: That is the key for me. Thank you.

 

Another Q.: With all the details being talked about here, for myself

it is important to realize that the one who is questioning all this

is as much the illusion as the answers I get seemingly out there.

Pursuing the inquiry is as much an illusion as anything else.

N.: What remains?

Q.: I do not know. The answer to that will also be….whatever, I have

not come up with it.

N.: When you say that you have not come up with it…

Q.: I know that the question constantly changes, too. The modes and

aspects of the questioner are not always there in a constant theater.

So it must be as much an illusion as the rest.

N.: Then you need to look more essentially.

Q.: What do you mean?

N.: As long as you see that the questioner keeps changing, you have

not got to his essence. If you can say that the one who inquires does

not exist, yet you still feel that you exist, because you are still

there to say that you do not know or are confused, you still assume

your existence. You need to find out that existence in its essence.

The intellect will only take you so far, till the point at which it

seems to be an enigma. At that point, the inquiry must become more

experiential, beyond the domain of the intellect. That is what is

meant by being more essential.

Q.: The harder I try, the more I get entrapped in external things and

more ideas. When I think that that helps me or believe that it helps

me, there is nothing I can do about it. There is really nothing I can

do to get to any point by all this questioning. I feel that I am

standing here looking out and questioning all these things, but the

one standing here is an illusion also.

N.: That is because he has not really been questioned.

Q.: The one who is doing that?

N.: Yes. The questioning is not an error. You are just not

questioning in a deep enough way. It is not that you are trying too

hard. You just need to apply your effort in the right way. If you say

that you will just not do, that is on the same level as saying that

you are doing. It is the same misidentification. The same "I" is

there. When you are done with not doing enough, you will feel

discontented, you will start doing again. That is not an answer. That

is a temporary respite in a state of inertia. It is not recommended

by any sage or any scripture. They recommend effort. They are not

trying to put you in the wrong direction, but you do need to apply

your effort in the right way. If you are to apply the effort in the

right way, the effort must be more subjective. That is, it must be

directed into the heart of the questioner himself. The "I" in the

center of all these things needs to be looked at directly and

experientially.

R.S.: I think that you have outlined it well yourself, when you say

that you can see that the questioner is an illusion as well as the

various things that he tries to hang on to for his identity. The only

disadvantage to that approach is just what you are describing. You

get to the place where there is nothing that you can do. Eventually,

you become frustrated being at that place because you are still

experiencing suffering. Then, you make a complete circle and say that

you must do some spiritual practice. The question is, "What practice

are you going to do?" and not if you are going to do practice. You

must do some practice in a progressive and systematic way that frees

you from the illusion. Self-inquiry is one such practice, and it is

suited definitely to people whose temperament is along lines of Self-

Knowledge. It is a progressive and systematic way of eliminating

illusion. That is why you hear these details. That is what you are

listening to.

Everyone has his own timeline. We do not have a way here that

everyone gets it at the same moment. They get to a point, after they

are done trying to figure it out, at which they say, "I think I have

decided that I need a spiritual practice." Inquiry functions as the

practice, as they start to systematically disidentify from the things

that make them "this entity," the things they are assuming they are

looking from.

N.: The details to which you are listening here are the attempts to

express and communicate experience that is actually situated beyond

the domain of words and, deeper still, beyond the domain of thought.

Some means of communication is temporarily devised, and that sound

like details to you, but it is actually an attempt to explain an

experience and to gain greater clarity to propel that same inquiry

even deeper.

Q.: I do not have the details myself now. But there is really not

much that I can do. As I say that I can do something, that seems to

be doing itself and there is someone there who is, I do not know.

R.S.: As the Maharshi has said, if you can be at peace without doing

anything and rest at peace and in freedom, we have nothing to say to

that other that such is fine. If, on the other hand, the seeker says

that he still experiences suffering, then we will come around to the

point of sadhana or spiritual practice in some form. The seeker may

say that at one level he knows that there is no practice, no

practitioner, no goal, no separate Enlightenment, no "me," no

Absolute as an object, etc., of which he may have actually had a

direct insight or glimpse of, or he may have simply read a darn good

book.

N.: If that is your actual experience, and such is permanently so,

all is said and done and you can rest in silence. If that is not the

permanent experience, this is when the questions start to dawn and

the effort is to be applied. There is no hard and fast rule that

effort must be building up an ego. In actual, essential spiritual

practice, the effort is applied so that it diminishes the sense of

ego even as the practice is going on. There is no rule that states

that if you bring forth effort, such makes more ego. To say so would

be to treat the ego as the ever-existent reality, which, fortunately,

is not the case.

In a very deep sense, the efforts aimed at dissolving the ego do not

come from the ego at all. The ego will not dissolve itself. That is

like asking an illusory man to get rid of himself.

Q.: That has been my view based upon the previous reading I have been

doing. Now, I see that it does not make much sense. I do not know

what else I can do. I get stuck with the inquiry at a certain point.

So, it has seemed like there is nothing else I can do. It seemed that

that view made my life go on easier because there was nothing I could

do about anything for myself.

R.S.; Yes, there is an element of surrender there. Another example of

such is when people say, "What can I do? It is all in God's hands."

At that moment there is more peace. It is not because they gave up,

but because it is in the hands of the Higher Power anyway at that

point. Whether they think of it as in God's hands or not, it is still

in God's hands.

N.: If it is completely in God's hands, the "I" is out of the

picture. Or if the inquiry is made, the "I" is out of the picture.

Either way, the "I" is out of the picture. The "'I' cannot do

anything but I am still in the picture" view means that some kind of

practice, along lines of inquiry or surrender, would be advisable.

Q.: I guess what I am saying is more like surrender.

R.S.: The surrender quality is what is making it work. There is no

harm in that. From the surrendered position, allow it to be all

according to the Higher Power or God's will, and if God wants inquiry

to be done, God will do it. (laughter). It means total surrender.

N.: Someone who is completely surrendered does not have suffering. He

lays no claim to it and has no sense of "mine." He possesses nothing.

R.S.: As long as the person thinks he is here and it is not totally

in the hands of God or the Higher Power, "I am here and I need to do

something," we say that doing some inquiry would be a good idea

because you get to know who you are. To know who you are is to find

God. That is where it all comes together.

N.: What does not work is thinking that when things are going fine,

you regard yourself in control and when things are rough that God is

at fault. (laughter)

R.S.: The only concern is this. Life is short and transient. That is

Buddhism 101 and facts of life 101. We do not want to be in a

position in which our life goes by and we do not surrender or inquire

or do some sort of spiritual practice. We must find a deeper peace

and freedom.

Q.: I have been saying to myself that I have been trying to put forth

the inquiry into who I am, and I feel that I am seeing that the

questioner is an illusion. How can I pick up the inquiry then?

R.S.: At that point, at which the questioner is illusory, can you

sense that there is a Reality behind it. That is where I want you to

direct your attention. There is still something that is ultimately

real. It is sensing that there is an Absolute that exists. That is

where I am directing you. Getting in touch with that would put you in

a very good position.

 

Another Q.: He is already through it all and right at the "I"? Is

that the end point of the inquiry? One does not see the reality of

the question and the questioner, and you look behind that to the

ego "I"?

R.S.: Yes, and behind that is the Absolute. We cannot generalize and

say a person is at the beginning of the inquiry and another person is

at the end. Everyone's way of utilizing the inquiry is slightly

different. That is why it is not a codified or rigid path. The

freedom, or disidentification, and the discovery of the Absolute are

the same.

Q.: It seems that right there is the dissolution of the individual.

R.S.: Some disidentify from the world being real first and some from

the body first. There is no hard and fast rule about it. Only, one

cannot wind up misidentified with the things you own in the world or

with your body.

Q.: The next step is the dissolving of the individual.

R.S.: It may be.

Q.: It is looking at itself right there.

N.: Such depends on the aspiration. It may be a dissolution of the

individuality itself or there may be a need for some other

misidentification to be removed first.

 

Another Q.: Sometimes I can sense the subtle formulation of the "I"

thought. I then associate thoughts and my physical experience with

it. I inquire or try to remember who I am. What would be a good way

to pursue that?

N.: Whatever be the thought, be it a memory or a thought about

physical things or emotional thoughts, the direct way is to inquire

for whom the thought is. When you inquire, "For whom is this

thought?" the answer is obviously, "for me" within yourself. With

that inquiry the sense of identity should return from the physical

things of which you are thinking, from the emotions or personality

attribute, to that which is nonobjective. The sense of that thing or

thought being real will also return to its source or origin. The

identity and the sense of reality will both return to their source.

The thought itself will subside in meditation and vanish like a wave.

Once you are focused on the sense of "I, " then put the question to

yourself, "Who am I?" and seek to discern the Existence, the

Consciousness, which is also Bliss and is who you really are. Find

that out, not by saying anything about it, but by trying to find out

who it is not in reference to any thought whatsoever. If another

arises, ask yourself, "For whom is this thought? Who am I?" Do not go

with the thoughts. They can only tell what you are not, no matter how

personal they may seem to be. They can never tell you what you are.

Q.: So, I should not give any identity or reality to any thought.

Having said that, I still misidentify, so I need to practice to

establish myself in my real identity and not have a thought-based

identity.

N.: Yes. Let us conclude with some silent meditation.

 

******

We are Not two

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard:

Thank you and please thank your teachers for sharing their Satsang

with this group. I hope they continue to grant permission to share

with us. I have not read this last one yet but will tomorrow.

 

Wondering if your teachers advice, like Nisargadatta, to first do the

mind and then next the body?

Aloha,

Alton

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...>

wrote:

> This material's copyright is owned by the Society of Abidance in

> Truth, Santa Cruz, CA. SAT has graciously given me permission to

> post from a transcript of a recent satsang. Members of the

newsgroup

> are given permission to use this material, but that this material

> should not be further copied by or for others.

>

> This is from the questions and answers after the discourse.

>

> [R.S. signifies Russell Smith; N. signifies Nome; Q. signifies

> Questioner; laughter means that everyone was laughing, not just the

> speaker.]

>

> Q.: Continuing my thorough inquiry into who I am, I have been

> disidentifying from the body, then proceeding to the senses. The

> external senses are easy to get rid of, the internal senses still

are

> more of a sticking point.

> I find that at those levels at which I have inquired, if I review

> them, that such things are not a subject anymore, so that I do not

> need to inquire at that level anymore.

> R.S.: Yes, we do not actually decide to terminate the inquiry, and

> that includes each phase of it. It naturally becomes absorbed in

> deeper Knowledge, and it is not needed. Your experience is an

example

> of that teaching.

> N.: When ignorance is partially eliminated, it becomes full of

holes.

> When it is totally eliminated, concerning any particular point or

> level, it becomes impossible to reconstruct it. Once you know that

> ignorance is ignorance, an illusion, you just cannot continue

> thinking in that way anymore, and the suffering that is concomitant

> with ignorance, cannot be experienced at that level anymore. With

> each degree of freedom you find, the same is true.

> R.S.: So, with each point of the spiritual practice of inquiry, the

> inquiry discharges itself like a river into the ocean, and you

never

> get to the point at which you make a decision that you will stop

this

> part of the inquiry because you logged in the appropriate hours

> (laughter) or because you think you should be doing something else

or

> whatever. Your own experience is showing you that it works the way

it

> has been described, which is that it gets absorbed into a deeper

> Knowledge or certainty, and it is simply a non-issue anymore.

> Q.: After negating the body, I get to the senses easily, but there

is

> still this internal body sense that is a sticking point. I continue

> to meditate upon that. Sometimes in meditation, I see the

> misidentification with the body, the prana, the mind, and as this

> person in one context. So I see that what works in addressing one

> works with the others. It is the same kind of mental motion.

> The meditation is moving more naturally to the prana, because the

> gross, external experiences are less of an issue. As those get out

of

> the way, what I am left with as the next step is the flow of energy

> in the body, as well as my heartbeat and other experiences.

> I am trying to look at that from different states, such as

dreamless

> sleep, in which none of that is present. I have looked at the body

in

> the dream state, and in dreaming it is very clear that the body is

> not present. I am trying to look in the same way at the senses and

> prana.

> R.S.: Let us say that in the dream you are a different creature,

such

> as an elephant. Do you have elephant prana or prana that is in

common

> with this body?

> Q.: I do not know.

> R.S.: I do not know either, especially because it is in your dream.

> N.: Perhaps, he is dreaming he is a human.

> R.S.: Is the prana the same or is it different?

> N.: The dream senses would be elephant senses.

> Q.: (laughing)

> R.S.: For example, you may smell peanuts, which might be very

> important to you in that state.

> N.: You might have internal sensations that are customary to an

> elephant, whatever those might be.

> R.S.: This is why we offer cookies here after satsang, not peanuts.

> (laughter)

> N.: Although, on certain airlines, the treatment is different.

> (laughter) Perhaps, it is an intuition they have of what they think

> is really going on.

> R.S.: If it is a universal prana, I want to know where such

universal

> prana comes from, that is, what is its source. If it is a prana

> specific to the elephant or to the human being, it is a transient

> phenomenon linked to the body and the senses.

> N.: If the elephant you are dreaming yourself to be dies in the

> dream, where does his prana go?

> Q.: The prana disappears.

> R.S.: In other words, the great hunter appears with the bow of

> discrimination…(laughter)

> N.: and slays the elephant of imagination. (laughter) What remains?

> The elephant perishes. The elephant senses perish. The elephantine

> dream ends. You are still existing, obviously. It was just a dream

> elephant. Wherever his dream prana went, what can be said of that

> prana or life energy? He seemed to be animated, and now he has

become

> inert. Maybe you take on another form in the dream, which is

> reincarnation. Maybe, you awaken from the dream entirely.

> R.S.: You inquire, "With the death of this elephant body, am I

dead?"

> N.: When you wake up, you, of course, see that your Consciousness

> made up the whole of the dream, but your Consciousness was not

> anything visible. The Consciousness was not really elephant prana.

> The Consciousness was not elephant senses, was not elephant body,

and

> not the peanuts, but there were no peanuts, body, prana, etc.

without

> or apart from the Consciousness.

> R.S.: We are assuming that when you wake up there are not peanut

> shells scattered about. (laughter)

> N.: Does he find large footprints outside his room?

> Q.: I am using the other states to find out what is really existing

> in my inquiry.

> R.S.: Underneath this humor is a very serious point.

> N.: The changing of the states shows us something about our real

> identity. If you examine the three states of deep sleep, dream, and

> waking, not from within the states, which would be a partial view,

> but in total, this tells you something about your existence. It

> reveals what you are and what you can actually be limited to.

> You say that there are some sticking points. For each seeker, the

> misidentification might be slightly different. You see the common

> misidentifying, the common mental mode, whether it is with the

prana,

> with thought if more subtle, or, if grosser, with the senses or the

> body. It is the same misidentifying, the same confounding your

> existence with what it is not. Certain points may contain more

> tendency; it is more habitual.

> Q.: Yes, there is more habit with it.

> N.: For one seeker, one aspect will be easier, for another that

> aspect will be more difficult. The same inquiry is involved. The

> quality of the ignorance does not change; only the form of it. The

> inquiry is of the same essence. The distinction lies in whatever

> object to which the inquiry is being directed.

> R.S.: It is very worthwhile to direct the inquiry into the prana.

If

> you observe carefully, you will notice that the prana shifts and

> changes. You know that your true identity does not shift and

change.

> Energy ebbs and flows, increases and decreases, shifts and changes.

> That is why there are all sorts of practices or yogas for

increasing

> subtle energy. Everyone agrees that it is expandable, and it

> contracts as well. It can increase and it can diminish. It goes,

up,

> down, and sideways. It has motion, change, and modification. It is

> the place to start discriminating or inquiring, because you know

that

> your ultimate identity is not going through those types of shifts

or

> processes. There is something behind that is changeless and does

not

> shift and change.

> Q.: I find that when I am looking at the senses or prana, that it

is

> good to meditate on my sense of existence. When seeing the moving

> senses and prana, I see that it is not in that experience and not

in

> that flux.

> N.: The whole focus should be upon determining what the existence

is

> so that you know yourself. Self-Knowledge is the aim. The same kind

> of discrimination that you were using in relation to the body

applies

> to the senses and prana also. Discern what is changeful and what is

> changeless.

> You have a constant sense of existence. That is changeless. Is this

> thing called prana changeful? If it is changeful, it cannot be your

> nature. It cannot be changeful and changeless at the same time.

There

> is something changeless. This is changeful. There is something that

> is without modification, and something that has been modified.

There

> is something without rise or set, and something that is rising and

> setting. There is something steady throughout all the three states,

> and something that is only a product of a particular state. There

is

> something that has a beginning and an end, and there is something

for

> which there is no beginning or end. There is this of which you are

> aware, such as the prana as something objective though subtle, and

> there is That which is nonobjective, the knower who is not the

known.

> Discriminate in all these ways. Discern clearly.

> R.S.: One final point that may be helpful in this inquiry into the

> nature of life energy or prana: When people experience higher

states

> of consciousness in meditation, there are, frequently,

corresponding

> shifts of the prana or energy. This is just a matter of actual

> meditative experience. It is a common occurrence in many traditions

> among countless meditators. So, with higher states of

Consciousness,

> frequently, though there is no iron rule, there are shifts in the

> prana. What happens due to lack of clear discrimination, the seeker

> concentrates his attention on the energy or prana and noticed the

> energy changes. The attention should be focused on the

> Consciousness, for you will remember that it is a higher state of

> Consciousness. When such higher states of Consciousness or deep

> meditations are experienced and there are shifts in energy, all

that

> is needed is a little bit of wise discrimination. Of these two

> factors, energy and Consciousness, where should your attention be?

> The attention, or the inquiry, is back on the Consciousness, or

back

> on "Who a am I?"

> Exploring higher states does not necessarily mean being constantly

> distracted by energy changes. The point is to get the higher

> Consciousness and not to be distracted by these beneficial, or even

> pleasant, side effects.

> Q.: Thank you.

>

> Another Q.: The Existence itself is how I know of the existence.

The

> existence of the body is only by the existence itself. The body

> itself cannot give me the truth of the Existence itself. Is this

> right?

> R.S.: Yes, it is.

> Q.: The prana itself is only for the body. The prana and the senses

> are for the body. If I have no problem discarding the body, why am

I

> having a problem with the senses or the prana, or life energy, or

> breath?

> N.: It is because one is more subtle than the other. The senses and

> the life energy, or prana, are for the body. This is one

perspective.

> From another perspective, the body is for the life energy. The life

> energy has one form or another. The body is one of its forms.

> R.S.: It usually connects through the breath.

> N.: You can say the senses are only for the body, because the sense

> organs are in your body. On the other hand, someone examining the

> actual experience would say that he knows nothing about his body

> except what is through the senses, and, therefore, the body is for

> the senses.

> No matter which is considered subject and object, the ultimate

> subject is the inner Consciousness, and all these things are

passing

> phenomena.

> Q.: That is the Existence itself?

> N.: Yes, that is the Existence itself. That is the ultimate knower.

> All the others are the known. When you make the mistake of

> confounding the knower and the known, you get yourself into trouble

> and bind yourself unnecessarily. The bondage leads to suffering.

> Then, you think that the Self is the body or the life energy that

> animates the body or that the Self is the senses. Then, you think

of

> the Self as a sensed thing or a sensing entity. That thought is not

a

> true definition of who you are.

> Q.: So, I should find out that Existence and know who is existing.

> That will take me through all that other illusion.

> R.S.: Yes, exactly. That inquiry will guide you deeper than the

body

> or the bodily characteristics, deeper than the senses or sensory

> characteristics, deeper than life energy or prana with its various

> ebbs and flows or motions.

> Q.: To something that does not depend on something else. The body

can

> not exist without the prana, and the prana depends on body.

> N.: Yes, if one thing depends one another, and the other depends on

> that first thing, they are both equally false and not the real

> Existence. That is clear seeing.

> Q.: That is the key for me. Thank you.

>

> Another Q.: With all the details being talked about here, for

myself

> it is important to realize that the one who is questioning all this

> is as much the illusion as the answers I get seemingly out there.

> Pursuing the inquiry is as much an illusion as anything else.

> N.: What remains?

> Q.: I do not know. The answer to that will also be….whatever, I

have

> not come up with it.

> N.: When you say that you have not come up with it…

> Q.: I know that the question constantly changes, too. The modes and

> aspects of the questioner are not always there in a constant

theater.

> So it must be as much an illusion as the rest.

> N.: Then you need to look more essentially.

> Q.: What do you mean?

> N.: As long as you see that the questioner keeps changing, you have

> not got to his essence. If you can say that the one who inquires

does

> not exist, yet you still feel that you exist, because you are still

> there to say that you do not know or are confused, you still assume

> your existence. You need to find out that existence in its essence.

> The intellect will only take you so far, till the point at which it

> seems to be an enigma. At that point, the inquiry must become more

> experiential, beyond the domain of the intellect. That is what is

> meant by being more essential.

> Q.: The harder I try, the more I get entrapped in external things

and

> more ideas. When I think that that helps me or believe that it

helps

> me, there is nothing I can do about it. There is really nothing I

can

> do to get to any point by all this questioning. I feel that I am

> standing here looking out and questioning all these things, but the

> one standing here is an illusion also.

> N.: That is because he has not really been questioned.

> Q.: The one who is doing that?

> N.: Yes. The questioning is not an error. You are just not

> questioning in a deep enough way. It is not that you are trying too

> hard. You just need to apply your effort in the right way. If you

say

> that you will just not do, that is on the same level as saying that

> you are doing. It is the same misidentification. The same "I" is

> there. When you are done with not doing enough, you will feel

> discontented, you will start doing again. That is not an answer.

That

> is a temporary respite in a state of inertia. It is not recommended

> by any sage or any scripture. They recommend effort. They are not

> trying to put you in the wrong direction, but you do need to apply

> your effort in the right way. If you are to apply the effort in the

> right way, the effort must be more subjective. That is, it must be

> directed into the heart of the questioner himself. The "I" in the

> center of all these things needs to be looked at directly and

> experientially.

> R.S.: I think that you have outlined it well yourself, when you say

> that you can see that the questioner is an illusion as well as the

> various things that he tries to hang on to for his identity. The

only

> disadvantage to that approach is just what you are describing. You

> get to the place where there is nothing that you can do.

Eventually,

> you become frustrated being at that place because you are still

> experiencing suffering. Then, you make a complete circle and say

that

> you must do some spiritual practice. The question is, "What

practice

> are you going to do?" and not if you are going to do practice. You

> must do some practice in a progressive and systematic way that

frees

> you from the illusion. Self-inquiry is one such practice, and it is

> suited definitely to people whose temperament is along lines of

Self-

> Knowledge. It is a progressive and systematic way of eliminating

> illusion. That is why you hear these details. That is what you are

> listening to.

> Everyone has his own timeline. We do not have a way here that

> everyone gets it at the same moment. They get to a point, after

they

> are done trying to figure it out, at which they say, "I think I

have

> decided that I need a spiritual practice." Inquiry functions as the

> practice, as they start to systematically disidentify from the

things

> that make them "this entity," the things they are assuming they are

> looking from.

> N.: The details to which you are listening here are the attempts to

> express and communicate experience that is actually situated beyond

> the domain of words and, deeper still, beyond the domain of

thought.

> Some means of communication is temporarily devised, and that sound

> like details to you, but it is actually an attempt to explain an

> experience and to gain greater clarity to propel that same inquiry

> even deeper.

> Q.: I do not have the details myself now. But there is really not

> much that I can do. As I say that I can do something, that seems to

> be doing itself and there is someone there who is, I do not know.

> R.S.: As the Maharshi has said, if you can be at peace without

doing

> anything and rest at peace and in freedom, we have nothing to say

to

> that other that such is fine. If, on the other hand, the seeker

says

> that he still experiences suffering, then we will come around to

the

> point of sadhana or spiritual practice in some form. The seeker may

> say that at one level he knows that there is no practice, no

> practitioner, no goal, no separate Enlightenment, no "me," no

> Absolute as an object, etc., of which he may have actually had a

> direct insight or glimpse of, or he may have simply read a darn

good

> book.

> N.: If that is your actual experience, and such is permanently so,

> all is said and done and you can rest in silence. If that is not

the

> permanent experience, this is when the questions start to dawn and

> the effort is to be applied. There is no hard and fast rule that

> effort must be building up an ego. In actual, essential spiritual

> practice, the effort is applied so that it diminishes the sense of

> ego even as the practice is going on. There is no rule that states

> that if you bring forth effort, such makes more ego. To say so

would

> be to treat the ego as the ever-existent reality, which,

fortunately,

> is not the case.

> In a very deep sense, the efforts aimed at dissolving the ego do

not

> come from the ego at all. The ego will not dissolve itself. That is

> like asking an illusory man to get rid of himself.

> Q.: That has been my view based upon the previous reading I have

been

> doing. Now, I see that it does not make much sense. I do not know

> what else I can do. I get stuck with the inquiry at a certain

point.

> So, it has seemed like there is nothing else I can do. It seemed

that

> that view made my life go on easier because there was nothing I

could

> do about anything for myself.

> R.S.; Yes, there is an element of surrender there. Another example

of

> such is when people say, "What can I do? It is all in God's hands."

> At that moment there is more peace. It is not because they gave up,

> but because it is in the hands of the Higher Power anyway at that

> point. Whether they think of it as in God's hands or not, it is

still

> in God's hands.

> N.: If it is completely in God's hands, the "I" is out of the

> picture. Or if the inquiry is made, the "I" is out of the picture.

> Either way, the "I" is out of the picture. The "'I' cannot do

> anything but I am still in the picture" view means that some kind

of

> practice, along lines of inquiry or surrender, would be advisable.

> Q.: I guess what I am saying is more like surrender.

> R.S.: The surrender quality is what is making it work. There is no

> harm in that. From the surrendered position, allow it to be all

> according to the Higher Power or God's will, and if God wants

inquiry

> to be done, God will do it. (laughter). It means total surrender.

> N.: Someone who is completely surrendered does not have suffering.

He

> lays no claim to it and has no sense of "mine." He possesses

nothing.

> R.S.: As long as the person thinks he is here and it is not totally

> in the hands of God or the Higher Power, "I am here and I need to

do

> something," we say that doing some inquiry would be a good idea

> because you get to know who you are. To know who you are is to find

> God. That is where it all comes together.

> N.: What does not work is thinking that when things are going fine,

> you regard yourself in control and when things are rough that God

is

> at fault. (laughter)

> R.S.: The only concern is this. Life is short and transient. That

is

> Buddhism 101 and facts of life 101. We do not want to be in a

> position in which our life goes by and we do not surrender or

inquire

> or do some sort of spiritual practice. We must find a deeper peace

> and freedom.

> Q.: I have been saying to myself that I have been trying to put

forth

> the inquiry into who I am, and I feel that I am seeing that the

> questioner is an illusion. How can I pick up the inquiry then?

> R.S.: At that point, at which the questioner is illusory, can you

> sense that there is a Reality behind it. That is where I want you

to

> direct your attention. There is still something that is ultimately

> real. It is sensing that there is an Absolute that exists. That is

> where I am directing you. Getting in touch with that would put you

in

> a very good position.

>

> Another Q.: He is already through it all and right at the "I"? Is

> that the end point of the inquiry? One does not see the reality of

> the question and the questioner, and you look behind that to the

> ego "I"?

> R.S.: Yes, and behind that is the Absolute. We cannot generalize

and

> say a person is at the beginning of the inquiry and another person

is

> at the end. Everyone's way of utilizing the inquiry is slightly

> different. That is why it is not a codified or rigid path. The

> freedom, or disidentification, and the discovery of the Absolute

are

> the same.

> Q.: It seems that right there is the dissolution of the individual.

> R.S.: Some disidentify from the world being real first and some

from

> the body first. There is no hard and fast rule about it. Only, one

> cannot wind up misidentified with the things you own in the world

or

> with your body.

> Q.: The next step is the dissolving of the individual.

> R.S.: It may be.

> Q.: It is looking at itself right there.

> N.: Such depends on the aspiration. It may be a dissolution of the

> individuality itself or there may be a need for some other

> misidentification to be removed first.

>

> Another Q.: Sometimes I can sense the subtle formulation of the "I"

> thought. I then associate thoughts and my physical experience with

> it. I inquire or try to remember who I am. What would be a good way

> to pursue that?

> N.: Whatever be the thought, be it a memory or a thought about

> physical things or emotional thoughts, the direct way is to inquire

> for whom the thought is. When you inquire, "For whom is this

> thought?" the answer is obviously, "for me" within yourself. With

> that inquiry the sense of identity should return from the physical

> things of which you are thinking, from the emotions or personality

> attribute, to that which is nonobjective. The sense of that thing

or

> thought being real will also return to its source or origin. The

> identity and the sense of reality will both return to their source.

> The thought itself will subside in meditation and vanish like a

wave.

> Once you are focused on the sense of "I, " then put the question to

> yourself, "Who am I?" and seek to discern the Existence, the

> Consciousness, which is also Bliss and is who you really are. Find

> that out, not by saying anything about it, but by trying to find

out

> who it is not in reference to any thought whatsoever. If another

> arises, ask yourself, "For whom is this thought? Who am I?" Do not

go

> with the thoughts. They can only tell what you are not, no matter

how

> personal they may seem to be. They can never tell you what you are.

> Q.: So, I should not give any identity or reality to any thought.

> Having said that, I still misidentify, so I need to practice to

> establish myself in my real identity and not have a thought-based

> identity.

> N.: Yes. Let us conclude with some silent meditation.

>

> ******

> We are Not two

> Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard: I am sure that I am still spiritually challenged.

I need to deal with the internal dialogue and quiet my mind before

Sankara's instructions would have any benefit. So, I will stay with

the thoughts until my mind gets quiet and then the aforesaid might

work. I already have strong beliefs that the teachings are totally

true, so now the work comes.

I will now ask, who is it that believes he is spritually challenged?

Aloha,

Alton

 

 

 

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...>

wrote:

> Dear Alton,

>

> The recommendation they usually give is like that given by

> Sankara, "gross to subtle."

>

> Their instruction is to negate:

>

> I am not the body,

> I am not the senses,

> I am not the life-energy (prajna),

> I am not the mind,

>

> then, if any sense of particularity (being this Alton)

> I am not the ego-I

>

> In all cases, the body, senses, prajan, mind, ego-I can be clearly

> seen in inquiry as objective. Objective to whom?

>

> Is this clear? I have found that meditation in this sequence has

> given me more depths of inquiry, more sense of freedom.

>

> Good question.

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

> RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...>

wrote:

> > Dear Richard:

>

> > Wondering if your teachers advice, like Nisargadatta, to first do

> the

> > mind and then next the body?

[Guest guest]

- Richard,

Your wonderful kindness in sharing the Satsang with us is deeply,

gratefully appreciated - thank you!

What a great good fortune you have to be in the blessing of such

company.

with love

Cecile

 

 

 

-- In RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...>

wrote:

> This material's copyright is owned by the Society of Abidance in

> Truth, Santa Cruz, CA. SAT has graciously given me permission to

> post from a transcript of a recent satsang. Members of the

newsgroup

> are given permission to use this material, but that this material

> should not be further copied by or for others.

>

> This is from the questions and answers after the discourse.

>

etc.........

[Guest guest]

Dear Alton,

 

Your is a good question. One of the "problems" in inquiry is that it

is "formless."

 

What that means is that one is not going to get an objective "answer."

 

"Gaze into the darkness" is not a bad metaphor. The problem is that

it is a metaphor, and if understood or practiced conceptually this

will lead one to their ideas rather than to their Being.

 

When I write about meditation, I mean self-inquiry. The focus of

self-inquiry is on the "sense of I." This is clear. What can be

confusing to the inquirer is what that means. And what to "do" in

inquiry.

 

Nome and Russ have taught that when on inquires one of two

things "happens." In one case, one is taken to the "witnessing

consciousness" where one knows and is not attached to the known. In

this case, one is taken beyond conceptual understanding. In the

other case, the inquirer is taken to some idea or sensation, etc.. In

this case one is to inquire to take the inquiry deeper. The most

common form of this is the inquiry form often talked about by

Ramana, "For whom is this?" then "Who am I?"

 

The sages also teach that Self-realization is not a process of adding

anything, since you are already the Self. Rather it is a matter of

removing ignorance, your ideas of who you are that are not the

ultimate Truth.

 

So what I have found in my inquiry, is that the use of "Is this who I

am?" has helped me to see, finally in ways that are beyond conceptual

understanding, what is objective (EVERY IDEA AND EXPERIENCE AND

SENSATION) and that in every case, the objective is known. Who is it

that knows? (Also the process of seeing what is objective and what

is deeper is known as "discrimination." This is the first of

Sankara's Requisites for Realization.)

 

Here I will talk from my experience, rather than from the teaching.

 

In this inquiry, in the beginning (which for me took a year's active

practice), most of the inquiry consisted of this viewing the

objective, then seeing that each item of the objective is known. As

this become deeper, I also started to see that this ego-I is

objective. Even the ego-I is something known. Who knows the ego-I?

 

In this inquiry, there comes a time when one gets to a place that

cannot be negated as objective.

 

During this time, some of the time in some of the inquiries, I

was "taken to a place" that is silent and filled with peace.

 

Now after this process, my inquiry gets to the silence, gets to the

witnessing consciousness more frequently, and faster during a given

inquiry. But certainly there are many times when the inquiry returns

me to something objective. I then use one of the forms ("For whom is

this?" as taught by Ramana, or "Where does the reality come from?"

which is kind of my own formulation, followed by "Who am I?) to

return my attention to the Self.

 

So, to sum it up, the formless self-inquiry can go in many ways,

depending on the seeker and the tendencies of that seeker. For most,

there are two "parts" of the inquiry. The critical preliminaries are

the elimination of ignorance, the mind's view of "what is real and

who I am." The inquiry is bearing real fruit when the inquirer is

taken beyond the objective. The inquiry is taken to finality when

the seeker comes to final Self-knowledge and no more takes any of the

objective to be their identity, rather their identity is the Self.

 

Long answer, Alton, for a short question. Does this help?

 

We are Not two.

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...> wrote:

 

> Wondering what you teachers advice on where to put your attention

> during mediation? If I remember correctly, Nisargadatta says to

gaze

> into the darkness.

> Thanks again for you great information on this list.

>

> Love,

> Alton