Who am I? Paragraph 3

[Guest guest]

Who am I? Paragraph 3

 

Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical

adjuncts and their functions, saying `I am not this; no, nor am I

this, nor this' – that which remains separate and alone by itself,

that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very

nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss).

 

COMMENTS FROM A SEEKER:

 

Here Ramana instructs to reject all the "physical adjuncts and their

functions." Then what is left is only pure Awareness. This

continues his teaching about negation as a key process of inquiry.

 

What is this like in actual inquiry? One way that I have practiced

is to see in inquiry what is "objective." ANYTHING that is

experienced from the body or senses is objective. It is known. Who

is the knower? The life-energy (prajna) that courses through the

body is objective. Who knows this prajna? Every thought is

objective. It is known. For whom is the thought? Each of these

questions drives the seeker's attention inward.

 

Finally one gets to a point in the inquiry where it is no longer

possible to see the experience as any way objective. From this

place, if the inquiry `Who am I?' is made, then the only answer

possible becomes "This!"

 

I know of no way to describe this further. One thing that I can say

is that you will know, without uncertainty when this is your

experience.

 

I would also note that Awareness is described as "Existence-

Consciousness-Bliss." This is because these are inseparable.

Certainly the experience that Existence and Consciousness are the

same is one that is had by many. I have said that I start my inquiry

with noticing `I exist." This lets the inquiry flow from my

experience to either into the `I' or the "exist." Either can take

you to the deepest. Sages also use `Bliss' as one of the inseparable

descriptions of Awareness. The reason for this is that seeming

uncaused bliss is the universal experience of those who reach the

inner depths. Where does this bliss come from? Where does the sense

of existence come from? Where does the sense of reality come from?

Where does the consciousness (or knowing) come from? Where does the

sense of `I' come from? These are all good questions for the

inquirer. Each of these can be used in the negation like this, "Does

my sense of existence come from the body?" or "Does bliss (or

happiness) come from my senses?" (Then "From where do they arise?"

followed by "Who am I?")

 

The negation brings about knowledge of who you are not. This

knowledge opens the door to the knowledge of who you are. This

knowledge is what makes up Self-realization.

 

**********************

 

I invite others to add their comments of their own understanding,

experiences, or questions. I want to invite all into a deeper

practice of inquiry.

 

The translation that I am using is the one from Osborn's "Collected

works of Ramana Maharshi."

 

We are Not two,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard:

The his Self deepening experience you referred to can only be

described in some way after the fact, because if there are no objects

there can't be a knower? Then my experiences of having my third eye

open and going up and me asking "Who am I" and getting a rush like

someone getting a drug injection, were bogus spiritual experiences?

Thanks in advance if you want to answer this.

If your answer is yes to the aforesaid, then shall I abort those

experiences or just continue to ask to whom is this experience and

then follow with "Who am I".

Aloha,

Alton

 

 

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

wrote:

> Who am I? Paragraph 3

>

> Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical

> adjuncts and their functions, saying `I am not this; no, nor am I

> this, nor this' – that which remains separate and alone by itself,

> that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very

> nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss).

>

> COMMENTS FROM A SEEKER:

>

> Here Ramana instructs to reject all the "physical adjuncts and

their

> functions." Then what is left is only pure Awareness. This

> continues his teaching about negation as a key process of inquiry.

>

> What is this like in actual inquiry? One way that I have practiced

> is to see in inquiry what is "objective." ANYTHING that is

> experienced from the body or senses is objective. It is known.

Who

> is the knower? The life-energy (prajna) that courses through the

> body is objective. Who knows this prajna? Every thought is

> objective. It is known. For whom is the thought? Each of these

> questions drives the seeker's attention inward.

>

> Finally one gets to a point in the inquiry where it is no longer

> possible to see the experience as any way objective. From this

> place, if the inquiry `Who am I?' is made, then the only answer

> possible becomes "This!"

>

> I know of no way to describe this further. One thing that I can

say

> is that you will know, without uncertainty when this is your

> experience.

>

> I would also note that Awareness is described as "Existence-

> Consciousness-Bliss." This is because these are inseparable.

> Certainly the experience that Existence and Consciousness are the

> same is one that is had by many. I have said that I start my

inquiry

> with noticing `I exist." This lets the inquiry flow from my

> experience to either into the `I' or the "exist." Either can take

> you to the deepest. Sages also use `Bliss' as one of the

inseparable

> descriptions of Awareness. The reason for this is that seeming

> uncaused bliss is the universal experience of those who reach the

> inner depths. Where does this bliss come from? Where does the

sense

> of existence come from? Where does the sense of reality come from?

> Where does the consciousness (or knowing) come from? Where does

the

> sense of `I' come from? These are all good questions for the

> inquirer. Each of these can be used in the negation like

this, "Does

> my sense of existence come from the body?" or "Does bliss (or

> happiness) come from my senses?" (Then "From where do they arise?"

> followed by "Who am I?")

>

> The negation brings about knowledge of who you are not. This

> knowledge opens the door to the knowledge of who you are. This

> knowledge is what makes up Self-realization.

>

> **********************

>

> I invite others to add their comments of their own understanding,

> experiences, or questions. I want to invite all into a deeper

> practice of inquiry.

>

> The translation that I am using is the one from Osborn's "Collected

> works of Ramana Maharshi."

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Alton,

 

Even though the objects are not `who I am,' they are known, there is

still knowing. Sages say that Enlightenment is not a place of

voidness. When the ancients described Being as Sat-Chit-Ananda

(Being-Consciousness-Bliss) this definitely includes the knowing

principle (Consciousness).

 

This is confusing because we are talking about what cannot be

conceptualized or comprehended by the mind. We are talking about

what knows the mind, and is so perfect that it `reflects' the state

or mood of the mind flawlessly.

 

In terms of your experience of "rush," I would bet this is what the

Sages call "subtle experience." An example of this would be a

kundalini experience, bought about through manipulating breath. It

is still something known. Who gets the rush? Do not get caught up

in even the best subtle experience. As long as you can see it, then

it is objective to you. And the seer is never to be found in the

seen. This means `back to the inquiry.'

 

For years I held to a constant experience that I thought was the

consciousness of being. This was in what some call the heart-

center. I have come to understand that what we seek is not something

that is physical. This changed my practice and has taken it

deeper.

 

This is confusing to the mind. On one hand we are told that there is

Consciousness (and this is our actual experience in our highest

spiritual experiences), and on the other we are told that it is not

anything. Not anything physical, sensory, prajna, thought and mind,

subtle energy. Yet in your own experience, there is always this be-

ing. For whom is this?

 

Not two,

Richard

 

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

> Dear Richard:

> The his Self deepening experience you referred to can only be

> described in some way after the fact, because if there are no

objects

> there can't be a knower? Then my experiences of having my third eye

> open and going up and me asking "Who am I" and getting a rush like

> someone getting a drug injection, were bogus spiritual experiences?

> Thanks in advance if you want to answer this.

> If your answer is yes to the aforesaid, then shall I abort those

> experiences or just continue to ask to whom is this experience and

> then follow with "Who am I".

> Aloha,

> Alton