Who am I? Paragraph 17

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in

the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand how

you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time to

read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump in

here if that is okay?

 

First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to

really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective' I

immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the

#4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached.

 

But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not

using that definition of objective but rather this one from

Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as

distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the

subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being,

independent of the mind; real; actual."

 

So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing

that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of objective

as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here.

 

Paragraph 17

 

For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective and

adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind

subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.

Quotes and comments:

 

Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This

will continue for several paragraphs.

 

"The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only

when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that there

is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are

objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these

thoughts?)"

 

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

comment:

 

Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is

in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have practice

in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not seek,

the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning

greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for

pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point.

 

Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes the

subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning that

the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a life

of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right?

Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is

not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in nature.

 

Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true

Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is

what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus by

seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are

objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to

Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality.

 

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

It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still the

mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop,

stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is

clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a

starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind?

So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are

still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can

look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or

being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea.

Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them?

 

So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific.

He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than

Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the

capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring-

Consciousness-Bliss).

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

 

Comment:

 

" In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who

they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle

experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker

continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss)."

 

Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand,

above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing that

is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their being

is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we

return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their

being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from

their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it

as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we are

is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do we

bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend

thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real Self,

at least that is how I read this.

 

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

Comment:

 

Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is

objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the seeker,

or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it

would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To my

mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some

words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in thinking

at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the

thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you

conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they come

and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the

mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the

thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records

them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is meditation

whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego.

 

 

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

Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self-

inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that thoughts

are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real.

Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or Self

is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push aside

rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see

what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are allowing

it to drop into that mind or not self.

 

And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is

still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts

or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal or

aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by

any means.

 

My final question would be this: how long does this stage last?

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

 

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Netemara,

 

Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired.

+++++

At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in

the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand how

you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time to

read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump in

here if that is okay?

 

First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to

really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective' I

immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the

#4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached.

 

But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not

using that definition of objective but rather this one from

Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as

distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the

subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being,

independent of the mind; real; actual."

 

So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing

that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of objective

as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here.

++++++

 

By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This is

used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived, then

it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the

seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all.

 

+++++++

Paragraph 17

 

For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective and

adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind

subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.

Quotes and comments:

 

Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This

will continue for several paragraphs.

 

"The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only

when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that there

is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are

objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these

thoughts?)"

 

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

comment:

 

Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is

in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have practice

in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not seek,

the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning

greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for

pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point.

 

Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes the

subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning that

the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a life

of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right?

Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is

not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in nature.

 

++++++++

By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all."

 

This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions),

beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind cannot

then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita

Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a

separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other terms

are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness-

Bliss) which is Absolute Being. .

 

As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a bundle of

thoughts."

 

Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is not

the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness that

fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in thinking

and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of mind.

++++++++++++

 

Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true

Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is

what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus by

seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are

objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to

Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality.

 

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

It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still the

mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop,

stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is

clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a

starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind?

So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are

still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can

look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or

being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea.

Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them?

 

So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific.

He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than

Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the

capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring-

Consciousness-Bliss).

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

 

Comment:

 

" In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who

they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle

experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker

continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss)."

 

Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand,

above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing that

is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their being

is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we

return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their

being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from

their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it

as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we are

is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do we

bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend

thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real Self,

at least that is how I read this.

 

++++++++++++++++++

Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to the

drawing board.

 

First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the

teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR

THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is permanent,

always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object of

the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description.

 

The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a

screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is

Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen?

 

The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are NOT

two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just one

Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process of

Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they are'

all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then what

remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find that

even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind is

totally quiet, that there still remains this

consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you will be

able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be separated.

 

The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental

process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to grasp

all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest

experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual

edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the capitol

is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge. This

Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist. Is

this conceptual?

 

+++++++++++++++++++

 

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

Comment:

 

Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is

objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the seeker,

or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it

would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To my

mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some

words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in thinking

at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the

thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you

conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they come

and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the

mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the

thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records

them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is meditation

whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, you need to move past these ideas.

 

You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is no

thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make up

your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought,

then what is it?

 

Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need for

inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent and

what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper."

 

It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of

the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own Reality

is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That is

much closer to who you really are.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

 

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

Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self-

inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that thoughts

are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real.

Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or Self

is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push aside

rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see

what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are allowing

it to drop into that mind or not self.

 

And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is

still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts

or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal or

aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by

any means.

 

My final question would be this: how long does this stage last?

 

+++++++++++++++

Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is to

see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for all

time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an

individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being-

Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the body,

the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'-thought.

What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

 

Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing that

we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that when

Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the time.

We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in any

way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described as

timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did this

start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To verify

this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report back

to the group, "Did it ever begin?"

 

Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In

subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind. I

will post these sections with my comments.

 

Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two Self-

realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in Truth, in

Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in satsang

they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have also

gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the

comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from my

precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual

practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I follow

here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply."

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

+++++++++++++++++

Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to

understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living

teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too

easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond

both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How can

the mind know that which 'holds' it?

 

 

We are Not two,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your fine reply Richard. But one thing never ceases to

amaze me when I have a discourse with various groups who say that

there is "Oneness" or one path, they are quick to say that there is

some sort of fundamental difference that can be teased out. I was

talking to you as an exercise, mental exercise really. I have

studied with many teachers, and from my point of view this group does

not say anything, nor any group, has said anything which is beyond

the scope of self-realization as studied with a self-realized

teacher. In my opinion we are not in any wise in disagreement or

expressing differences.

 

But I do like to argue semantics. And even at that I still found that

there was no genuine argument here.

 

But again, the mind, as a collection of thoughts, versus the mental

body or sheath, which is a collection of energy, always sees

differences does it not?

 

I am not looking for a teacher, but thanks for the offer.

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

[Guest guest]

Dear Netemara,

 

I agree, it is best (essential for most seekers) to study with a

realized teacher. Certainly, for me, this is where most (or all) of

the spiritual progress in this life has come from.

 

The teacher, it is said, both pulls you from within and pushes you

from without. What more could we want?

 

After a teacher, the next part is actually developing a practice, so

you are able to develop (and some day realize for yourself the Truth).

 

About different groups talking in different ways, I think it is like

this:

 

The spiritual Truth is beyond words. Words function by breaking the

One to bits and pieces so that iIt can be discussed, while the One

remains One. Teachers, though, from time immemorial, have used words

as 'pointers' to the Truth. Since the words try to express the

unexpressable, it is not surprizing that different sages use

different words to point to the same Reality.

 

As for this one, he no longers likes to argue, semantics or

otherwise. What is more important is to use the focus and energy to

turn attention inside and discover who I am, so that can be the one

abiding reality.

 

I am just another seeker. My attempts to share are to encourage

others to practice. Also to share what I have been taught. As for

teachers, one should seek only those teachers who are Realized. That

does not include this one.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote:

>

>

> Thank you for your fine reply Richard. But one thing never ceases

to

> amaze me when I have a discourse with various groups who say that

> there is "Oneness" or one path, they are quick to say that there

is

> some sort of fundamental difference that can be teased out. I was

> talking to you as an exercise, mental exercise really. I have

> studied with many teachers, and from my point of view this group

does

> not say anything, nor any group, has said anything which is beyond

> the scope of self-realization as studied with a self-realized

> teacher. In my opinion we are not in any wise in disagreement or

> expressing differences.

>

> But I do like to argue semantics. And even at that I still found

that

> there was no genuine argument here.

>

> But again, the mind, as a collection of thoughts, versus the mental

> body or sheath, which is a collection of energy, always sees

> differences does it not?

>

> I am not looking for a teacher, but thanks for the offer.

>

> Namaste

>

> Netemara

[Guest guest]

Richard we are in agreement in one thing, that words hide the truth.

But actually I chose to talk to you because I think you have a nice

name. And I am attracted to Aries energy, which your name suggests.

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

[Guest guest]

Richard:

 

Nice clarification.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Hi Netemara,

 

Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired.

+++++

At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in

the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand how

you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time to

read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump in

here if that is okay?

 

First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to

really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective' I

immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the

#4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached.

 

But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not

using that definition of objective but rather this one from

Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as

distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the

subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being,

independent of the mind; real; actual."

 

So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing

that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of objective

as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here.

++++++

 

By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This is

used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived, then

it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the

seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all.

 

+++++++

Paragraph 17

 

For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective and

adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind

subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.

Quotes and comments:

 

Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This

will continue for several paragraphs.

 

"The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only

when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that there

is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are

objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these

thoughts?)"

 

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

comment:

 

Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is

in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have practice

in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not seek,

the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning

greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for

pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point.

 

Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes the

subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning that

the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a life

of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right?

Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is

not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in nature.

 

++++++++

By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all."

 

This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions),

beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind cannot

then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita

Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a

separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other terms

are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness-

Bliss) which is Absolute Being. .

 

As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a bundle of

thoughts."

 

Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is not

the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness that

fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in thinking

and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of mind.

++++++++++++

 

Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true

Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is

what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus by

seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are

objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to

Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality.

 

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

It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still the

mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop,

stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is

clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a

starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind?

So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are

still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can

look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or

being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea.

Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them?

 

So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific.

He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than

Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the

capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring-

Consciousness-Bliss).

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

 

Comment:

 

" In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who

they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle

experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker

continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss)."

 

Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand,

above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing that

is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their being

is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we

return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their

being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from

their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it

as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we are

is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do we

bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend

thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real Self,

at least that is how I read this.

 

++++++++++++++++++

Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to the

drawing board.

 

First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the

teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR

THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is permanent,

always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object of

the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description.

 

The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a

screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is

Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen?

 

The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are NOT

two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just one

Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process of

Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they are'

all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then what

remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find that

even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind is

totally quiet, that there still remains this

consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you will be

able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be separated.

 

The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental

process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to grasp

all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest

experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual

edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the capitol

is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge. This

Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist. Is

this conceptual?

 

+++++++++++++++++++

 

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

Comment:

 

Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is

objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the seeker,

or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it

would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To my

mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some

words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in thinking

at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the

thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you

conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they come

and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the

mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the

thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records

them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is meditation

whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, you need to move past these ideas.

 

You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is no

thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make up

your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought,

then what is it?

 

Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need for

inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent and

what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper."

 

It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of

the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own Reality

is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That is

much closer to who you really are.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

 

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

Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self-

inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that thoughts

are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real.

Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or Self

is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push aside

rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see

what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are allowing

it to drop into that mind or not self.

 

And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is

still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts

or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal or

aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by

any means.

 

My final question would be this: how long does this stage last?

 

+++++++++++++++

Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is to

see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for all

time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an

individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being-

Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the body,

the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'-thought.

What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

 

Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing that

we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that when

Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the time.

We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in any

way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described as

timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did this

start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To verify

this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report back

to the group, "Did it ever begin?"

 

Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In

subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind. I

will post these sections with my comments.

 

Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two Self-

realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in Truth, in

Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in satsang

they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have also

gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the

comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from my

precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual

practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I follow

here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply."

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

+++++++++++++++++

Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to

understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living

teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too

easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond

both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How can

the mind know that which 'holds' it?

 

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi

Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

Un: RamanaMaharshi-

List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi

 

 

[Guest guest]

Richard:

 

I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

with Bhagavan's teaching.

 

thanks,

Mark

 

 

 

Dear Netemara,

 

I agree, it is best (essential for most seekers) to study with a

realized teacher. Certainly, for me, this is where most (or all) of

the spiritual progress in this life has come from.

 

The teacher, it is said, both pulls you from within and pushes you

from without. What more could we want?

 

After a teacher, the next part is actually developing a practice, so

you are able to develop (and some day realize for yourself the Truth).

 

About different groups talking in different ways, I think it is like

this:

 

The spiritual Truth is beyond words. Words function by breaking the

One to bits and pieces so that iIt can be discussed, while the One

remains One. Teachers, though, from time immemorial, have used words

as 'pointers' to the Truth. Since the words try to express the

unexpressable, it is not surprizing that different sages use

different words to point to the same Reality.

 

As for this one, he no longers likes to argue, semantics or

otherwise. What is more important is to use the focus and energy to

turn attention inside and discover who I am, so that can be the one

abiding reality.

 

I am just another seeker. My attempts to share are to encourage

others to practice. Also to share what I have been taught. As for

teachers, one should seek only those teachers who are Realized. That

does not include this one.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote:

>

>

> Thank you for your fine reply Richard. But one thing never ceases

to

> amaze me when I have a discourse with various groups who say that

> there is "Oneness" or one path, they are quick to say that there

is

> some sort of fundamental difference that can be teased out. I was

> talking to you as an exercise, mental exercise really. I have

> studied with many teachers, and from my point of view this group

does

> not say anything, nor any group, has said anything which is beyond

> the scope of self-realization as studied with a self-realized

> teacher. In my opinion we are not in any wise in disagreement or

> expressing differences.

>

> But I do like to argue semantics. And even at that I still found

that

> there was no genuine argument here.

>

> But again, the mind, as a collection of thoughts, versus the mental

> body or sheath, which is a collection of energy, always sees

> differences does it not?

>

> I am not looking for a teacher, but thanks for the offer.

>

> Namaste

>

> Netemara

 

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi

Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

Un: RamanaMaharshi-

List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mark,

 

I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers, Nome is

very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my explanations have

any clarity, it is from his teaching.

 

I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in Santa

Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of any

place they have visited.

 

I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> Richard:

>

> I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

> with Bhagavan's teaching.

>

> thanks,

> Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

your posting of Who am I together with the commentaries are very much

appreciated. Your comments are clear and bring out the right points.

So this speaks for the competence and state of your teachers as well

as for your understanding and practice.

But if the teaching of SAT is the "closest" to Ramana's which

are "availabe anywhere"? Who knows and who wants to know?

There is the proverb that if the disciple is ready the master will

appear - in whatever form, in the body or not - there is no general

rule.

 

In HIM

Gabriele

 

 

 

 

In HIM

Gabriele

 

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

wrote:

> Dear Mark,

>

> I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers, Nome

is

> very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my explanations

have

> any clarity, it is from his teaching.

>

> I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in

Santa

> Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

> anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

> known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

> temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of any

> place they have visited.

>

> I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

> entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

>

>

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> > Richard:

> >

> > I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

> > with Bhagavan's teaching.

> >

> > thanks,

> > Mark

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark and Richard, both have lots of Martian/Aries energy. That's

good because that is what is missing in my chart anyway, so it is

only natural that I would gravitate towards you.

 

But as I told just yesterday that I was not looking for a teacher, an

objective one, a flesh-and-bones one, however it seems that the

subjective teacher was looking for me. I did not mention that I have

practiced meditation for 30 years now and have had gurus and books as

teachers. I know of the Heart Path, and Eye Path, have practiced

both.

 

However, this past week not only has my ajna center been throbbing

but also kept getting a strange throbbing on the right side. I

wondered about it, did think it was out of the ordinary though, but

not THAT out of the box. Soooooo, I just clicked (intuitively) on

your archives and read there what I was experiencing, you call it the

Aham Shupara or something like that. But it got even stranger when

last night, all night, loud and clearly I hear the subjective, inner

teacher talking and I am sitting listening. It is not like anything

in particular I have read here but it resonanted with my mind and

being.

 

I have been taught that this is the inner guru the inner master --

however it seems, to the mind anyway, like someone other than Self

talking to me. It was the clearest thing I have ever heard on the

inside really in a long time. Don't know if this is even important

as I was not looking for it. But I do understand my

destiny/spiritual goal in this life is to find and go through the

secret heart path and eventually go beyond and not return to humanity

and earth, eventually. I have perhaps put off this path for some

time, that is the resistance of mind.

 

It is not something that one comes to after one lifetime, at least

not in my experience. That is the only thing "I know" -- i.e. what

my meditation experiences have taught me. So, I guess I will see you

on the other side --- just kidding.

 

Namaste

 

Netemara

 

Oh and thank you Alton for posting UG's experience just earlier this

month on the subject of Self-Realization. That is the real thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> Richard:

>

> Nice clarification.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> Hi Netemara,

>

> Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired.

> +++++

> At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in

> the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand

how

> you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time

to

> read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump

in

> here if that is okay?

>

> First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to

> really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective'

I

> immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the

> #4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached.

>

> But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not

> using that definition of objective but rather this one from

> Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object

as

> distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the

> subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being,

> independent of the mind; real; actual."

>

> So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing

> that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of

objective

> as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here.

> ++++++

>

> By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This is

> used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived, then

> it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the

> seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all.

>

> +++++++

> Paragraph 17

>

> For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective

and

> adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind

> subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.

> Quotes and comments:

>

> Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This

> will continue for several paragraphs.

>

> "The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only

> when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that

there

> is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are

> objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these

> thoughts?)"

>

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

> comment:

>

> Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is

> in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have

practice

> in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not

seek,

> the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning

> greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for

> pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point.

>

> Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes

the

> subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning

that

> the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a

life

> of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right?

> Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is

> not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in

nature.

>

> ++++++++

> By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all."

>

> This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions),

> beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind cannot

> then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita

> Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a

> separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other

terms

> are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness-

> Bliss) which is Absolute Being. .

>

> As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a bundle

of

> thoughts."

>

> Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is not

> the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness that

> fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in

thinking

> and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of mind.

> ++++++++++++

>

> Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true

> Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is

> what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus

by

> seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are

> objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to

> Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality.

>

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

> It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still

the

> mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop,

> stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is

> clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a

> starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind?

> So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are

> still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can

> look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or

> being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea.

> Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them?

>

> So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific.

> He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than

> Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the

> capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring-

> Consciousness-Bliss).

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

>

> Comment:

>

> " In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who

> they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle

> experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker

> continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss)."

>

> Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand,

> above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing

that

> is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their

being

> is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we

> return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their

> being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from

> their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it

> as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we

are

> is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do

we

> bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend

> thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real

Self,

> at least that is how I read this.

>

> ++++++++++++++++++

> Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to

the

> drawing board.

>

> First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the

> teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR

> THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is

permanent,

> always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object of

> the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description.

>

> The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a

> screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is

> Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen?

>

> The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are NOT

> two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just one

> Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process

of

> Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they

are'

> all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then

what

> remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find

that

> even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind is

> totally quiet, that there still remains this

> consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you will

be

> able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be separated.

>

> The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental

> process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to

grasp

> all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest

> experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual

> edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the

capitol

> is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge.

This

> Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist. Is

> this conceptual?

>

> +++++++++++++++++++

>

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

> Comment:

>

> Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is

> objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the

seeker,

> or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it

> would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To

my

> mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some

> words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in

thinking

> at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the

> thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you

> conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they

come

> and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the

> mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the

> thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records

> them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is

meditation

> whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego.

> +++++++++++++++++++++++

> Again, you need to move past these ideas.

>

> You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is no

> thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make

up

> your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought,

> then what is it?

>

> Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need for

> inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent

and

> what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper."

>

> It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of

> the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own

Reality

> is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That is

> much closer to who you really are.

>

> +++++++++++++++++++++++

>

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

> Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self-

> inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that

thoughts

> are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real.

> Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or

Self

> is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push

aside

> rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see

> what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are

allowing

> it to drop into that mind or not self.

>

> And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is

> still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts

> or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal

or

> aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by

> any means.

>

> My final question would be this: how long does this stage last?

>

> +++++++++++++++

> Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is to

> see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for all

> time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an

> individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being-

> Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the

body,

> the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'-

thought.

> What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

>

> Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing

that

> we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that

when

> Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the time.

> We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in any

> way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described

as

> timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did this

> start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To verify

> this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report

back

> to the group, "Did it ever begin?"

>

> Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In

> subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind. I

> will post these sections with my comments.

>

> Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two Self-

> realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in Truth,

in

> Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in

satsang

> they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have

also

> gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the

> comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from my

> precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual

> practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I

follow

> here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply."

>

> Namaste

>

> Netemara

> +++++++++++++++++

> Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to

> understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living

> teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too

> easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond

> both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How can

> the mind know that which 'holds' it?

>

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o...

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o...

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Gabriele,

 

I certainly understand your comment. That is why I am reluctant to

make any claims. Certainly I feel they are "perfect masters," and I

also know how closely their teaching is aligned with Ramana's. the

gratitude in my heart for the grace of the teaching is immense.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> Dear Richard,

> your posting of Who am I together with the commentaries are very

much

> appreciated. Your comments are clear and bring out the right

points.

> So this speaks for the competence and state of your teachers as

well

> as for your understanding and practice.

> But if the teaching of SAT is the "closest" to Ramana's which

> are "availabe anywhere"? Who knows and who wants to know?

> There is the proverb that if the disciple is ready the master will

> appear - in whatever form, in the body or not - there is no general

> rule.

>

> In HIM

> Gabriele

>

>

>

>

> In HIM

> Gabriele

>

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

> wrote:

> > Dear Mark,

> >

> > I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers, Nome

> is

> > very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my explanations

> have

> > any clarity, it is from his teaching.

> >

> > I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in

> Santa

> > Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

> > anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

> > known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

> > temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of

any

> > place they have visited.

> >

> > I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

> > entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

> >

> > We are Not two,

> > Richard

> >

> >

> >

> > RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> > > Richard:

> > >

> > > I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

> > > with Bhagavan's teaching.

> > >

> > > thanks,

> > > Mark

[Guest guest]

Hi Net,

 

My teachers have always said that the guru is within (naturally this

is so, given the nondual Reality).

 

It is wonderful to hear of your current experiences. When you get

to "the other side," light a candle for the rest of us.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote:

> Hi Mark and Richard, both have lots of Martian/Aries energy.

That's

> good because that is what is missing in my chart anyway, so it is

> only natural that I would gravitate towards you.

>

> But as I told just yesterday that I was not looking for a teacher,

an

> objective one, a flesh-and-bones one, however it seems that the

> subjective teacher was looking for me. I did not mention that I

have

> practiced meditation for 30 years now and have had gurus and books

as

> teachers. I know of the Heart Path, and Eye Path, have practiced

> both.

>

> However, this past week not only has my ajna center been throbbing

> but also kept getting a strange throbbing on the right side. I

> wondered about it, did think it was out of the ordinary though, but

> not THAT out of the box. Soooooo, I just clicked (intuitively) on

> your archives and read there what I was experiencing, you call it

the

> Aham Shupara or something like that. But it got even stranger when

> last night, all night, loud and clearly I hear the subjective,

inner

> teacher talking and I am sitting listening. It is not like

anything

> in particular I have read here but it resonanted with my mind and

> being.

>

> I have been taught that this is the inner guru the inner master --

> however it seems, to the mind anyway, like someone other than Self

> talking to me. It was the clearest thing I have ever heard on the

> inside really in a long time. Don't know if this is even important

> as I was not looking for it. But I do understand my

> destiny/spiritual goal in this life is to find and go through the

> secret heart path and eventually go beyond and not return to

humanity

> and earth, eventually. I have perhaps put off this path for some

> time, that is the resistance of mind.

>

> It is not something that one comes to after one lifetime, at least

> not in my experience. That is the only thing "I know" -- i.e. what

> my meditation experiences have taught me. So, I guess I will see

you

> on the other side --- just kidding.

>

> Namaste

>

> Netemara

>

> Oh and thank you Alton for posting UG's experience just earlier

this

> month on the subject of Self-Realization. That is the real thing.

>

>

>

-- In RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> > Richard:

> >

> > Nice clarification.

> >

> > Mark

> >

> >

> >

> > Hi Netemara,

> >

> > Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired.

> > +++++

> > At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested

in

> > the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand

> how

> > you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time

> to

> > read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump

> in

> > here if that is okay?

> >

> > First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms

to

> > really see this argument clearly. When using the word

`objective'

> I

> > immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like

the

> > #4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached.

> >

> > But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not

> > using that definition of objective but rather this one from

> > Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived

object

> as

> > distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the

> > subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being,

> > independent of the mind; real; actual."

> >

> > So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing

> > that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of

> objective

> > as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here.

> > ++++++

> >

> > By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This

is

> > used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived,

then

> > it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the

> > seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all.

> >

> > +++++++

> > Paragraph 17

> >

> > For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective

> and

> > adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind

> > subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.

> > Quotes and comments:

> >

> > Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry.

This

> > will continue for several paragraphs.

> >

> > "The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is

only

> > when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that

> there

> > is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are

> > objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these

> > thoughts?)"

> >

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

> > comment:

> >

> > Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which

is

> > in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have

> practice

> > in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not

> seek,

> > the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond --

(meaning

> > greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for

> > pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting

point.

> >

> > Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes

> the

> > subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning

> that

> > the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a

> life

> > of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that

right?

> > Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker)

is

> > not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in

> nature.

> >

> > ++++++++

> > By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all."

> >

> > This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions),

> > beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind

cannot

> > then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita

> > Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a

> > separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other

> terms

> > are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness-

> > Bliss) which is Absolute Being. .

> >

> > As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a

bundle

> of

> > thoughts."

> >

> > Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is

not

> > the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness

that

> > fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in

> thinking

> > and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of

mind.

> > ++++++++++++

> >

> > Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the

true

> > Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is

> > what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus

> by

> > seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are

> > objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to

> > Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality.

> >

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

> > It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still

> the

> > mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop,

> > stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is

> > clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just

a

> > starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind?

> > So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are

> > still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can

> > look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or

> > being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea.

> > Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them?

> >

> > So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is

specific.

> > He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate

than

> > Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the

> > capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring-

> > Consciousness-Bliss).

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

> >

> > Comment:

> >

> > " In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their

being, "who

> > they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle

> > experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker

> > continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-

Bliss)."

> >

> > Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully

understand,

> > above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing

> that

> > is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their

> being

> > is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we

> > return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their

> > being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate

from

> > their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it

> > as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we

> are

> > is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do

> we

> > bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we

suspend

> > thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real

> Self,

> > at least that is how I read this.

> >

> > ++++++++++++++++++

> > Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to

> the

> > drawing board.

> >

> > First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the

> > teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR

> > THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is

> permanent,

> > always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object

of

> > the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description.

> >

> > The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a

> > screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is

> > Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen?

> >

> > The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are

NOT

> > two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just

one

> > Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process

> of

> > Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they

> are'

> > all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then

> what

> > remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find

> that

> > even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind

is

> > totally quiet, that there still remains this

> > consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you

will

> be

> > able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be

separated.

> >

> > The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental

> > process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to

> grasp

> > all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest

> > experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual

> > edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the

> capitol

> > is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge.

> This

> > Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist.

Is

> > this conceptual?

> >

> > +++++++++++++++++++

> >

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

> > Comment:

> >

> > Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is

> > objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the

> seeker,

> > or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective

it

> > would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To

> my

> > mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some

> > words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in

> thinking

> > at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the

> > thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you

> > conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they

> come

> > and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the

> > mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch

the

> > thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records

> > them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is

> meditation

> > whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the

Ego.

> > +++++++++++++++++++++++

> > Again, you need to move past these ideas.

> >

> > You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is

no

> > thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make

> up

> > your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought,

> > then what is it?

> >

> > Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need

for

> > inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent

> and

> > what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper."

> >

> > It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of

> > the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own

> Reality

> > is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That

is

> > much closer to who you really are.

> >

> > +++++++++++++++++++++++

> >

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

> > Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of

self-

> > inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that

> thoughts

> > are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real.

> > Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or

> Self

> > is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push

> aside

> > rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see

> > what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are

> allowing

> > it to drop into that mind or not self.

> >

> > And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which

is

> > still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our

thoughts

> > or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal

> or

> > aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage

by

> > any means.

> >

> > My final question would be this: how long does this stage last?

> >

> > +++++++++++++++

> > Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is

to

> > see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for

all

> > time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an

> > individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being-

> > Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the

> body,

> > the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'-

> thought.

> > What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

> >

> > Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing

> that

> > we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that

> when

> > Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the

time.

> > We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in

any

> > way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described

> as

> > timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did

this

> > start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To

verify

> > this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report

> back

> > to the group, "Did it ever begin?"

> >

> > Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In

> > subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind.

I

> > will post these sections with my comments.

> >

> > Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two

Self-

> > realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in

Truth,

> in

> > Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in

> satsang

> > they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have

> also

> > gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the

> > comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from

my

> > precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual

> > practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I

> follow

> > here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply."

> >

> > Namaste

> >

> > Netemara

> > +++++++++++++++++

> > Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to

> > understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living

> > teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too

> > easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond

> > both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How

can

> > the mind know that which 'holds' it?

> >

> >

> > We are Not two,

> > Richard

> >

> >

> >

> > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o...

> > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o...

> >

> > Shortcut URL to this page:

> > /community/RamanaMaharshi

> >

> > Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

to find the "perfect master" is indeed the greatest blessing on earth

there is. There can't be enough gratitute in our hearts for this.

The teaching of your masters is very close and aligned with Ramana's,

yes no doubt. So please continue to share it with us.

In HIM

Gabriele

 

 

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

wrote:

> Dear Gabriele,

>

> I certainly understand your comment. That is why I am reluctant to

> make any claims. Certainly I feel they are "perfect masters," and

I

> also know how closely their teaching is aligned with Ramana's. the

> gratitude in my heart for the grace of the teaching is immense.

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote:

> > Dear Richard,

> > your posting of Who am I together with the commentaries are very

> much

> > appreciated. Your comments are clear and bring out the right

> points.

> > So this speaks for the competence and state of your teachers as

> well

> > as for your understanding and practice.

> > But if the teaching of SAT is the "closest" to Ramana's which

> > are "availabe anywhere"? Who knows and who wants to know?

> > There is the proverb that if the disciple is ready the master

will

> > appear - in whatever form, in the body or not - there is no

general

> > rule.

> >

> > In HIM

> > Gabriele

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > In HIM

> > Gabriele

> >

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

> > wrote:

> > > Dear Mark,

> > >

> > > I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers,

Nome

> > is

> > > very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my

explanations

> > have

> > > any clarity, it is from his teaching.

> > >

> > > I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in

> > Santa

> > > Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

> > > anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

> > > known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

> > > temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of

> any

> > > place they have visited.

> > >

> > > I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

> > > entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

> > >

> > > We are Not two,

> > > Richard

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> > > > Richard:

> > > >

> > > > I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and

align

> > > > with Bhagavan's teaching.

> > > >

> > > > thanks,

> > > > Mark

[Guest guest]

Hello Richard:

 

I am familiar with Nome and heard him speak about ten years ago at a karate

dojo in San

Bruno and recall him having satsangs in the Bay Area quite a bit before

that. I have to confess,

however, that I don't know much about him other than that. I have received

material from SAT

and have had the intention to visit when I can get some time to visit Santa

Cruz. Perhaps later

this year. A taste of Ramanashram in California would be wonderful.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mark,

 

I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers, Nome is

very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my explanations have

any clarity, it is from his teaching.

 

I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in Santa

Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of any

place they have visited.

 

I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> Richard:

>

> I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

> with Bhagavan's teaching.

>

> thanks,

> Mark

 

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi

Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

Un: RamanaMaharshi-

List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Helo Mark,

 

It would be great for you to come to SAT for another satsang. You

will find the temple to be quite nice. The temple was build about

ten years ago, and since then Nome rarely travels to present swatsang

elsewhere.

 

If you will, let me know when you come, and I will look for you.

 

Where are you located?

 

WE are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> Hello Richard:

>

> I am familiar with Nome and heard him speak about ten years ago at

a karate

> dojo in San

> Bruno and recall him having satsangs in the Bay Area quite a bit

before

> that. I have to confess,

> however, that I don't know much about him other than that. I have

received

> material from SAT

> and have had the intention to visit when I can get some time to

visit Santa

> Cruz. Perhaps later

> this year. A taste of Ramanashram in California would be wonderful.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Mark,

>

> I am glad you are enjoying these posts. One of my teachers, Nome

is

> very closely aligned with Ramana's teaching. If my explanations

have

> any clarity, it is from his teaching.

>

> I am no expert on this, but I think that the teaching at SAT in

Santa

> Cruz, CA is the closest to that of Ramana's that is available

> anywhere. It continues to surprize me that it is not more well

> known. I have heard visitors say that the atmoshpere at the SAT

> temple is the most like Ramanashram (when Ramana was there) of any

> place they have visited.

>

> I will continue with the series, and when through, post the

> entire "Who am I?" with seeker's commentary.

>

> We are Not two,

> Richard

>

>

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> > Richard:

> >

> > I'm enjoying your posts. Your explanations are clear and align

> > with Bhagavan's teaching.

> >

> > thanks,

> > Mark

>

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o...

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o...

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>