Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Paragraph 19 The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes the mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, and is itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath and vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter subside, the former also subsides. COMMENTS I do not know enough about the first sentence here (The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital forces). Perhaps others can comment. I certainly have noticed in meditation (inquiry) what Ramana says about when mind quiets, so does breath. Perhaps this mind-breath connection is why breath control is recommended by some teachings, slow the mind by slowing the breath. I also have heard of a yogic idea of the connection between breath and the mind, saying, "With each breath comes a new thought." So certainly there seems to be a deep connection. Ramana continues to say that the mind is just thoughts, and that the `I'-thought is the root of all other thoughts. In a retreat once we were taught to look at our thoughts, one thought, any thought, and see how each thought revolves around the `I'-thought. This is an interesting exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it would be useful to you. In some thoughts, the ego is easy to see (thoughts that directly contain the "I"), in other thoughts, more discrimination may be needed to notice that the thought is based on a separate person, in this time, in this location, or in relation to some other person or object or world. In each of these cases the thought depends on the concept of the separate individual, embodied in this world. I also think this is an interesting way for the seeker to notice how fully the `I'-thought extends through all the mind's concepts. ------------------------ Comments are always invited and encouraged. We are Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Paragraph 19 > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes the > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, and is > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath and > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter subside, > the former also subsides. ******************* Net's COMMENT: >"The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > forces." Thank you first of all for this paragraph 19 -- Richard, it explains a lot of my meditation experiences. The first sentence really makes perfect sense in terms of meditation. I have had a lot of hit-or- miss experiences along these lines. When the concentration is perfect then one attains to the "breathless" state right? The problem being that since my concentration would rise and fall and not be faultless then so too would my experiences with the breathless state. For example, I would see the light and then the breathing would slow down almost to a stop, and then my tongue would go back to close off the throat, and then I would be almost there in that state and would suddenly, WITH A THOUGHT, BY THINKING ONE THOUGHT, OR BY ALLOWING ONE THOUGHT TO RISE IN MY MIND, would immediately come out of that state. I would always be disgusted with myself for doing that. But that one thought seemed to be out of my karmic control? You think? So, as the thoughts arise, or subside, so too does the breath. That has been my experience. And you have just explained to me why that was so: If they have a common genesis then one controls the other or sends the other one spinning out of control. Does that make sense? I have often wondered why "One thought spoiled the spiritual cooking" that I was doing. I have put this question to my former guru but he told me not to worry about the rehersals. But being a scientist I wanted DEFINITE ANSWERS to my inquiry. My mind is satisfied on this point now. Namaste Net ************ > COMMENTS > > I do not know enough about the first sentence here (The source of the > mind is the same as that of breath and vital forces). Perhaps others > can comment. I certainly have noticed in meditation (inquiry) what > Ramana says about when mind quiets, so does breath. Perhaps this > mind-breath connection is why breath control is recommended by some > teachings, slow the mind by slowing the breath. I also have heard of > a yogic idea of the connection between breath and the mind, > saying, "With each breath comes a new thought." So certainly there > seems to be a deep connection. > > Ramana continues to say that the mind is just thoughts, and that > the `I'-thought is the root of all other thoughts. In a retreat once > we were taught to look at our thoughts, one thought, any thought, and > see how each thought revolves around the `I'-thought. This is an > interesting exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it > would be useful to you. In some thoughts, the ego is easy to see > (thoughts that directly contain the "I"), in other thoughts, more > discrimination may be needed to notice that the thought is based on a > separate person, in this time, in this location, or in relation to > some other person or object or world. In each of these cases the > thought depends on the concept of the separate individual, embodied > in this world. I also think this is an interesting way for the > seeker to notice how fully the `I'-thought extends through all the > mind's concepts. > > ------------------------ > Comments are always invited and encouraged. > > We are Not two, > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 hi Richard, I'm way behind these paragraph posts; going backward. You wrote= : "..once we were taught to look at our thoughts, one thought, any thought, and see how each thought revolves around the `I´-thought. This is an interesting exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it would be useful to you= .." This is most interesting; I never was on a non-dualist retreat and or practiced vichara. My question is: to practice non-duality is it not keeping your awareness on awareness as a state? and keep this beingness all day (vipassana)? --or is Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enlightenment" experience, or (momentary) states ach= ieved by spiritual practices, rather looking for what will work in my every-day = life. I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I think, that I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away = students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - ~ love all Karta ~ RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Paragraph 19 > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes the > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, and is > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath and > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter subside, > the former also subsides. > > COMMENTS > > I do not know enough about the first sentence here (The source of the > mind is the same as that of breath and vital forces). Perhaps others > can comment. I certainly have noticed in meditation (inquiry) what > Ramana says about when mind quiets, so does breath. Perhaps this > mind-breath connection is why breath control is recommended by some > teachings, slow the mind by slowing the breath. I also have heard of > a yogic idea of the connection between breath and the mind, > saying, "With each breath comes a new thought." So certainly there > seems to be a deep connection. > > Ramana continues to say that the mind is just thoughts, and that > the `I'-thought is the root of all other thoughts. In a retreat once > we were taught to look at our thoughts, one thought, any thought, and > see how each thought revolves around the `I'-thought. This is an > interesting exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it > would be useful to you. In some thoughts, the ego is easy to see > (thoughts that directly contain the "I"), in other thoughts, more > discrimination may be needed to notice that the thought is based on a > separate person, in this time, in this location, or in relation to > some other person or object or world. In each of these cases the > thought depends on the concept of the separate individual, embodied > in this world. I also think this is an interesting way for the > seeker to notice how fully the `I'-thought extends through all the > mind's concepts. > > ------------------------ > Comments are always invited and encouraged. > > We are Not two, > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Karta: M: If I may respond to your question. The practice is to use the inquire "Who am I?" all the time and in response to all events. While it could be considered a meditation, it's just an inquiry that goes on even during meditation. K: This is most interesting; I never was on a non-dualist retreat and or practiced vichara. My question is: to practice non-duality is it not keeping your awareness on awareness as a state? and keep this beingness all day (vipassana)? --or is Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? K: I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enlightenment" experience, or (momentary) states achieved by spiritual practices, rather looking for what will work in my every-day life. M: Vichara is a moment to moment practice that encompasses all. K: I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I think, that I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - M: Baba Ram Dass once said that LSD was Jesus Christ to modern America in that it awoke a whole generation to spiritual pursuit and I believe he is correct. I've observed that MANY people on the paths of eastern religions owe their interest in part to experimentation with drugs which opened them up to new ways of thinking and to spiritual experience. According to many reachers, the LSD experience (mescaline, psylocibyn, etc) was a very close model to mystical experience and I believe I would agree. Is psychedelic experience the same as enlightenment? No. There are similarities between yogic and mystical experience and the expleriences some people have with LSD and these can be very enticing. However, since advaita isn't about any experience but about penetrating the illusion of separate existence, LSD experience isn't a good model for what Nisargdatta or Bhagavan are talking about. Bhagavan points to the utter dissolution of a separate self which is behind any or all experience. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 what do you mean?"Who > am I?" > When you breathe, inquire > eat, inquire > meditate, inquire > walk, inquire > work, inquire > hear shabd, inquire > see visions, inquire > see god, inquire > visit other planes, inquire > fly in a plane, inquire > Inquiry is the practice until all vasanas are overcome. This is his > teaching in.." And don't bug me with that in the VIEW: the constant rememberence of god is a subject object dual state!, just substitute god with self (or with Siva if you wish, I still don't know why pick him/her) and translate it= "BEING AWARE" ~k~ RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Karta: > > M: If I may respond to your question. The practice is to use the inquire "Who am > I?" > all the time and in response to all events. While it could be considered a > meditation, > it's just an inquiry that goes on even during meditation. > > K: This is most interesting; I never was on > a non-dualist retreat and or practiced > vichara. My question is: to practice > non-duality is it not keeping your > awareness on awareness as a state? > and keep this beingness all day > (vipassana)? --or is > Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? > > K: I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enlightenment" > experience, or (momentary) states achieved by spiritual practices, rather looking > for what will work in my every-day life. > > M: Vichara is a moment to moment practice that encompasses all. > > K: I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I think, that > I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on > acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. > Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away > students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - > > M: Baba Ram Dass once said that LSD was Jesus Christ to modern America > in that it awoke a whole generation to spiritual pursuit and I believe he is > correct. > I've observed that MANY people on the paths of eastern religions owe their interest > in part to experimentation with drugs which opened them up to new ways of thinking > and to spiritual experience. > According to many reachers, the LSD experience (mescaline, psylocibyn, etc) was > a very close model to mystical experience and I believe I would agree. > Is psychedelic experience the same as enlightenment? No. There are similarities > between yogic and mystical experience and the expleriences some people have with LSD > and these can be very enticing. However, since advaita isn't about any > experience but about penetrating the illusion of separate existence, LSD experience > isn't a good model for what Nisargdatta or Bhagavan are talking about. Bhagavan > points to the utter dissolution of a separate self which is behind any or all > experience. > > Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 dear Mark, I'll try to understand you and than answer, but for now I think it is not me who doesn't speak english <grin> --what you write is with other words used to discribe: AWARENESS WATCHING AWARENESS! Your awareness watching your awareness while ignoring thought. Automatically the "your" (and me and mine) will drop off and it will be obvious that awareness watching awareness is really awareness abiding in or being awareness" Ramana ~K~ RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Karta: > > M: If I may respond to your question. The practice is to use the inquire= "Who am > I?" > all the time and in response to all events. While it could be considered= a > meditation, > it's just an inquiry that goes on even during meditation. > > K: This is most interesting; I never was on > a non-dualist retreat and or practiced > vichara. My question is: to practice > non-duality is it not keeping your > awareness on awareness as a state? > and keep this beingness all day > (vipassana)? --or is > Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? > > K: I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enli= ghtenment" > experience, or (momentary) states achieved by spiritual practices, rather= looking > for what will work in my every-day life. > > M: Vichara is a moment to moment practice that encompasses all. > > K: I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I thin= k, that > I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on > acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. > Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away= > students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - > > M: Baba Ram Dass once said that LSD was Jesus Christ to modern America > in that it awoke a whole generation to spiritual pursuit and I believe he= is > correct. > I've observed that MANY people on the paths of eastern religions owe thei= r interest > in part to experimentation with drugs which opened them up to new ways of= thinking > and to spiritual experience. > According to many reachers, the LSD experience (mescaline, psylocibyn, et= c) was > a very close model to mystical experience and I believe I would agree. > Is psychedelic experience the same as enlightenment? No. There are simi= larities > between yogic and mystical experience and the expleriences some people ha= ve with LSD > and these can be very enticing. However, since advaita isn't about any > experience but about penetrating the illusion of separate existence, LSD = experience > isn't a good model for what Nisargdatta or Bhagavan are talking about. B= hagavan > points to the utter dissolution of a separate self which is behind any or= all > experience. > > Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Karta: I made the assumption that you've read Bhagavan's basic writings and had a fundamental understanding. You haven't and you don't so please read the documents I just uploaded before you ask more questions because you are still way off base and will never understand until you read Bhagavan's words and instruction. Mark what do you mean?"Who > am I?" > When you breathe, inquire > eat, inquire > meditate, inquire > walk, inquire > work, inquire > hear shabd, inquire > see visions, inquire > see god, inquire > visit other planes, inquire > fly in a plane, inquire > Inquiry is the practice until all vasanas are overcome. This is his > teaching in.." And don't bug me with that in the VIEW: the constant rememberence of god is a subject object dual state!, just substitute god with self (or with Siva if you wish, I still don't know why pick him/her) and translate it= "BEING AWARE" ~k~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Dear Net, Self-inquiry is really different from other forms of meditation. I hope that Ramana's "Who am I?" and my comments will show some of this difference. One thing, though Self-inquiry starts with the mind and thoughts the aim of the meditation is definately not anywhere in the thought realm. One is looking for what is always true, what is always present, and no thought fits that descritpion (not even the 'I'- thought). You could say that Self-inquiry is for the mind, snice when one gets beyond the mind into the state of premanent identity with the Self, no further inquiry is possible. I will keep writing. Perhaps it would be useful for you to review the first part of this series. I think it started in May. Should I post on the newsgroup the commentary as far as it goes? WE are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > wrote: > > Paragraph 19 > > > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes the > > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, and is > > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place > > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath and > > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter subside, > > the former also subsides. > > > ******************* > Net's COMMENT: > > >"The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > forces." > > Thank you first of all for this paragraph 19 -- Richard, it explains > a lot of my meditation experiences. The first sentence really makes > perfect sense in terms of meditation. I have had a lot of hit-or- > miss experiences along these lines. When the concentration is perfect > then one attains to the "breathless" state right? The problem being > that since my concentration would rise and fall and not be faultless > then so too would my experiences with the breathless state. > > For example, I would see the light and then the breathing would slow > down almost to a stop, and then my tongue would go back to close off > the throat, and then I would be almost there in that state and would > suddenly, WITH A THOUGHT, BY THINKING ONE THOUGHT, OR BY ALLOWING ONE > THOUGHT TO RISE IN MY MIND, would immediately come out of that state. > I would always be disgusted with myself for doing that. But that one > thought seemed to be out of my karmic control? You think? > > So, as the thoughts arise, or subside, so too does the breath. That > has been my experience. And you have just explained to me why that > was so: If they have a common genesis then one controls the other or > sends the other one spinning out of control. Does that make sense? > I have often wondered why "One thought spoiled the spiritual > cooking" that I was doing. I have put this question to my former > guru but he told me not to worry about the rehersals. But being a > scientist I wanted DEFINITE ANSWERS to my inquiry. My mind is > satisfied on this point now. > > Namaste > > Net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 everybody agrees on this one, I was scolded by yogies, and you are very right Mark, that any drug induced experience is vastly different from the natural way. I was hoping Richard would answer too.. ~thanks Karta~ RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Karta: > > M: If I may respond to your question. The practice is to use the inquire "Who am > I?" > all the time and in response to all events. While it could be considered a > meditation, > it's just an inquiry that goes on even during meditation. > > K: This is most interesting; I never was on > a non-dualist retreat and or practiced > vichara. My question is: to practice > non-duality is it not keeping your > awareness on awareness as a state? > and keep this beingness all day > (vipassana)? --or is > Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? > > K: I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enlightenment" > experience, or (momentary) states achieved by spiritual practices, rather looking > for what will work in my every-day life. > > M: Vichara is a moment to moment practice that encompasses all. > > K: I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I think, that > I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on > acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. > Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away > students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - > > M: Baba Ram Dass once said that LSD was Jesus Christ to modern America > in that it awoke a whole generation to spiritual pursuit and I believe he is > correct. > I've observed that MANY people on the paths of eastern religions owe their interest > in part to experimentation with drugs which opened them up to new ways of thinking > and to spiritual experience. > According to many reachers, the LSD experience (mescaline, psylocibyn, etc) was > a very close model to mystical experience and I believe I would agree. > Is psychedelic experience the same as enlightenment? No. There are similarities > between yogic and mystical experience and the expleriences some people have with LSD > and these can be very enticing. However, since advaita isn't about any > experience but about penetrating the illusion of separate existence, LSD experience > isn't a good model for what Nisargdatta or Bhagavan are talking about. Bhagavan > points to the utter dissolution of a separate self which is behind any or all > experience. > > Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Hi Karta, Answering your question about the "practice of nonduality" let me respond and add some context. My own experience is with the practice of Self-inquiry. The aim of this Self-inquiry is to see that Who I AM is the same identity as the Absolute (or God, or Atman, of Brahman, etc.). This is an ancient spiritual goal. The Upanishads say, "Thou art That." The seeker is what is sought. Over the last 3,000 years there have been different approaches recommended for the seeker to experience this Reality. One approach is to meditate on "Thou are That," and she how that is the truth. Another is japa (repetition). There are others, certainly more than I now. Another part of the teaching is that this Reality is changeless and ever present. Since it is ever-present, then it is Who you Are right now, so there is nothing to attain. So with the goal of Self- realization (realizing that You are That, and moving your identity to where you stand only as That), Self-inquiry is more a matter of removing from your own sense of identity who you are NOT. This Self-realization is the permanent state of sages like Ramana Maharshi (and Nome). It does not come and go. If you have an experience, no matter how wonderful, that comes and goes, then you need to keep going deeper, where there is less ego, less identity with this transient changeable body, mind and ego. Since Self-realization is not attained, how does it come? Through Knowledge (capitalized to stand for more than mental understanding, knowledge on the same basis as you know that you exist) of Who you Are. Self-Knowledge – the Knowledge that indeed, Thou are That. Self-inquiry (and the negation that is often preliminary to it) brings about this Knowledge. The temporary experiences often encourage and motivate the seeker, and provide a glimpse of the Absolute, yet even the best temporary experience is not Self-realization. As a seeker, I have had perfect masters to teach me Self-inquiry (once I was ready to actually have a daily spiritual practice). I have had a number of deep experiences (that come and go). I practice Self-inquiry, in daily meditations, and often (as much as I can remember to do so), during other activities and times of the day. I have found that Self-inquiry as a practice is deep and keeps changing as my own stand changes. In Self-inquiry there are also many ways that a seeker might approach the inquiry, where one approach if effective at one time, and another approach might go deeper at another time. This is a deep practice, and might take many years. How long have you been living forming your present identities and tendencies? I have found that every day I feel much more inner peace, I am much better able to handle the various changes and challenges in daily life without them disturbing the peace. What was previously problems that upset me now become blessed chances for practice. It helps me to know that this Richard is only an idea (I joke and say that I am my own erronious idea), a bundle of thoughts, and that "I" exist even without the identification with "Richard." That is enough for now. Thank you for your comments. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok: hi Richard, I'm way behind these paragraph posts; going backward. You wrote= : "..once we were taught to look at our thoughts, one thought, any thought, and see how each thought revolves around the `I´-thought. This is an interesting exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it would be useful to you= .." This is most interesting; I never was on a non-dualist retreat and or practiced vichara. My question is: to practice non-duality is it not keeping your awareness on awareness as a state? and keep this beingness all day (vipassana)? --or is Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as meditation? I thought that would be sufficient as I'm not fascinated by the "enlightenment" experience, or (momentary) states ach= ieved by spiritual practices, rather looking for what will work in my every-day = life. I think I'm the only one here who had dope and LSD experiences. I think, that I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience on acid very very similar to what I understand the Nisargadatta state is. Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent away = students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - ~ love all Karta ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Net, > > Self-inquiry is really different from other forms of meditation. ********* 1) Does that mean there are no points of convergence ever, or similarities? 2) I did not say that I was trying to practice Self-Inquiry. But you mention vital airs, breath, and thoughts in that first sentence. My question then are those three things arising differently in S-I med versus any other type of meditation? > hope that Ramana's "Who am I?" and my comments will show some of this > difference. ******************> " One thing, though Self-inquiry starts with the mind and thoughts the > aim of the meditation is definately not anywhere in the thought > realm. " you write. I agree. You have misunderstood my statement. I said that a thought arose. I was not trying to think. It arose by karmic nature perhaps. "One is looking for what is always true, what is always > present, and no thought fits that descritpion (not even the 'I'- > thought)." I don't disagree. I have not studied your form, and I am not trying to expound on it. Okay, here I am not disagreeing with you or saying that I was trying to bring in thoughts. Let's look at meditation as pure energy for sake of argument, I am saying that my meditation as energy was disturbed by thoughts. I was not TRYING to THINK, thinking arose and my meditation at that point (such as it was) sunk. So, I think you misunderstand my comments. Mind you I am not trying to argue just understand. ******************* "You could say that Self-inquiry is for the mind, snice when one gets > beyond the mind into the state of premanent identity with the Self, > no further inquiry is possible." > Fine. I have no argument with this statement. ************** Here you are describing what S-I meditation is, I am not disagreeing with you that it is not this. But I think that there is a purity, for lack of a better word, that exists in meditation as meditation: i.e. cessation of thought, regardless to how that cessation is achieved. Do you follow me? And regardless to what path one follows. There are similar ingredients. And you mentioned three of them. ************ I have read the first pages, maybe not the same ones. I am reading that S-I does work as an excellent form of spiritual practice. I am not saying that it does not require a teacher. What I am reading is that you are saying that I should throw away my experiences. I don't think you mean that but that is what you are saying in this response. Are you saying that vital airs (as an ingredient) are different with S-I med., versus meditation using Buddhist methods or Sant Mat Methods--are they? Do they manifest differently? Or are thoughts different? No, I think you would agree. Richard that is all I was addressing ONLY THAT FIRST SENTENCE. I do not profess to know your practice and hence was not trying to talk about it per se. I was talking about meditation, and its stages. And I don't think Ramana nor anyone else has cornered the market on it. While meditation practices do differ from culture to culture and from master to master, there ARE some things which remain constant. That is all I am addressing, nothing more. However, that reminds me that at one point the Sant Mat gurus totally confused me because they said that their form of meditation was different, had a different goal, different technique, started at a different place (eye center in the forehead), and that all old meditation experiences and practices were now defunct, throw them out, forget them. This is what I just went through. Now it's true this is different from what I read and learned before. However, now I question it. But it (Sant Mat) is perhaps the "path of the Eye" which is totally different from the "path of the Heart" which is how I understand Ramana's Self-Enquiry, at this point. If there are absolutely NO similarities to these things or in S-I meditation then I would be extremely surprised and would have to investigate further. I am a skeptic at this point about everything. So don't take anything personal. I am trying to really get at the TRUTH this time. If you think that is presumptious on my part, or I am wrong in my assessment, then I apologize and will just shut up. In conclusion, I am thinking out loud. I want to understand the Self- Enquiry meditation. I tell my students that it is easier to understand something when one has a shelf on which to hang or place NEW things. Are you asking me to tear my shelf down and replace it with another? Or can I just take the old objects off that shelf and replace them with new and better things? I am open, I am listening. Thank you. Namaste Netemara ***************** > I will keep writing. Perhaps it would be useful for you to review > the first part of this series. I think it started in May. > > Should I post on the newsgroup the commentary as far as it goes? > > WE are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > > wrote: > > > Paragraph 19 > > > > > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes > the > > > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, and > is > > > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place > > > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath > and > > > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter > subside, > > > the former also subsides. > > > > > > ******************* > > Net's COMMENT: > > > > >"The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > > forces." > > > > Thank you first of all for this paragraph 19 -- Richard, it > explains > > a lot of my meditation experiences. The first sentence really > makes > > perfect sense in terms of meditation. I have had a lot of hit-or- > > miss experiences along these lines. When the concentration is > perfect > > then one attains to the "breathless" state right? The problem > being > > that since my concentration would rise and fall and not be > faultless > > then so too would my experiences with the breathless state. > > > > For example, I would see the light and then the breathing would > slow > > down almost to a stop, and then my tongue would go back to close > off > > the throat, and then I would be almost there in that state and > would > > suddenly, WITH A THOUGHT, BY THINKING ONE THOUGHT, OR BY ALLOWING > ONE > > THOUGHT TO RISE IN MY MIND, would immediately come out of that > state. > > I would always be disgusted with myself for doing that. But that > one > > thought seemed to be out of my karmic control? You think? > > > > So, as the thoughts arise, or subside, so too does the breath. > That > > has been my experience. And you have just explained to me why that > > was so: If they have a common genesis then one controls the other > or > > sends the other one spinning out of control. Does that make sense? > > > I have often wondered why "One thought spoiled the spiritual > > cooking" that I was doing. I have put this question to my former > > guru but he told me not to worry about the rehersals. But being a > > scientist I wanted DEFINITE ANSWERS to my inquiry. My mind is > > satisfied on this point now. > > > > Namaste > > > > Net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Dear Net, Certainly Self-inquiry shares many elements wsith other forms of meditation. It shares concentration, both can being a sense of well- being, as the mind releases its habitual focus. A quiet mind is acheved in many forms of meditation. The goal of Self-inquiry is clearly beyond anything mental, though. And the focus on the 'I' can prevent the meditator creating dualities of subject and object. In the teaching that I have recieved about Self-inquiry there has never been any focus on vital airs, etc., except as elements that can be negated on the way to Self-realization. Here is another form of the inquiry, just to perhaps give you something to meditate on, "Where does this sense of Reality come from?" And compare your sense of Reality when awake to that in the dream state. I think you will find that your sense of Reality is the same. Can it come from your waking body, in that case? If Who you Are is always true, where does your sense of Reality come from? We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > wrote: > > Dear Net, > > > > Self-inquiry is really different from other forms of meditation. > > ********* > 1) Does that mean there are no points of convergence ever, or > similarities? > > 2) I did not say that I was trying to practice Self-Inquiry. But you > mention vital airs, breath, and thoughts in that first sentence. My > question then are those three things arising differently in S-I med > versus any other type of meditation? > > > > > hope that Ramana's "Who am I?" and my comments will show some of > this > > difference. > ******************> > " One thing, though Self-inquiry starts with the mind and thoughts > the > > aim of the meditation is definately not anywhere in the thought > > realm. " you write. > > I agree. You have misunderstood my statement. I said that a thought > arose. I was not trying to think. It arose by karmic nature perhaps. > > "One is looking for what is always true, what is always > > present, and no thought fits that descritpion (not even the 'I'- > > thought)." > > I don't disagree. I have not studied your form, and I am not trying > to expound on it. Okay, here I am not disagreeing with you or saying > that I was trying to bring in thoughts. > > Let's look at meditation as pure energy for sake of argument, I am > saying that my meditation as energy was disturbed by thoughts. I was > not TRYING to THINK, thinking arose and my meditation at that point > (such as it was) sunk. So, I think you misunderstand my comments. > Mind you I am not trying to argue just understand. > > ******************* > "You could say that Self-inquiry is for the mind, snice when one > gets > > beyond the mind into the state of premanent identity with the Self, > > no further inquiry is possible." > > > Fine. I have no argument with this statement. > ************** > > Here you are describing what S-I meditation is, I am not disagreeing > with you that it is not this. But I think that there is a purity, for > lack of a better word, that exists in meditation as meditation: i.e. > cessation of thought, regardless to how that cessation is achieved. > Do you follow me? And regardless to what path one follows. There > are similar ingredients. And you mentioned three of them. > > ************ > > I have read the first pages, maybe not the same ones. I am reading > that S-I does work as an excellent form of spiritual practice. > > I am not saying that it does not require a teacher. > > What I am reading is that you are saying that I should throw away my > experiences. I don't think you mean that but that is what you are > saying in this response. > > Are you saying that vital airs (as an ingredient) are different with > S-I med., versus meditation using Buddhist methods or Sant Mat > Methods--are they? Do they manifest differently? Or are thoughts > different? No, I think you would agree. Richard that is all I was > addressing ONLY THAT FIRST SENTENCE. I do not profess to know your > practice and hence was not trying to talk about it per se. I was > talking about meditation, and its stages. And I don't think Ramana > nor anyone else has cornered the market on it. While meditation > practices do differ from culture to culture and from master to > master, there ARE some things which remain constant. That is all I > am addressing, nothing more. > > However, that reminds me that at one point the Sant Mat gurus totally > confused me because they said that their form of meditation was > different, had a different goal, different technique, started at a > different place (eye center in the forehead), and that all old > meditation experiences and practices were now defunct, throw them > out, forget them. This is what I just went through. Now it's true > this is different from what I read and learned before. However, now > I question it. But it (Sant Mat) is perhaps the "path of the Eye" > which is totally different from the "path of the Heart" which is how > I understand Ramana's Self-Enquiry, at this point. > > If there are absolutely NO similarities to these things or in S-I > meditation then I would be extremely surprised and would have to > investigate further. I am a skeptic at this point about everything. > So don't take anything personal. I am trying to really get at the > TRUTH this time. > > If you think that is presumptious on my part, or I am wrong in my > assessment, then I apologize and will just shut up. > > In conclusion, I am thinking out loud. I want to understand the Self- > Enquiry meditation. I tell my students that it is easier to > understand something when one has a shelf on which to hang or place > NEW things. Are you asking me to tear my shelf down and replace it > with another? Or can I just take the old objects off that shelf and > replace them with new and better things? > > I am open, I am listening. Thank you. > Namaste > > Netemara > > ***************** > > I will keep writing. Perhaps it would be useful for you to review > > the first part of this series. I think it started in May. > > > > Should I post on the newsgroup the commentary as far as it goes? > > > > WE are Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > > > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > > > wrote: > > > > Paragraph 19 > > > > > > > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > > > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitutes > > the > > > > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, > and > > is > > > > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place > > > > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath > > and > > > > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter > > subside, > > > > the former also subsides. > > > > > > > > > ******************* > > > Net's COMMENT: > > > > > > >"The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > > > forces." > > > > > > Thank you first of all for this paragraph 19 -- Richard, it > > explains > > > a lot of my meditation experiences. The first sentence really > > makes > > > perfect sense in terms of meditation. I have had a lot of hit- or- > > > > miss experiences along these lines. When the concentration is > > perfect > > > then one attains to the "breathless" state right? The problem > > being > > > that since my concentration would rise and fall and not be > > faultless > > > then so too would my experiences with the breathless state. > > > > > > For example, I would see the light and then the breathing would > > slow > > > down almost to a stop, and then my tongue would go back to close > > off > > > the throat, and then I would be almost there in that state and > > would > > > suddenly, WITH A THOUGHT, BY THINKING ONE THOUGHT, OR BY ALLOWING > > ONE > > > THOUGHT TO RISE IN MY MIND, would immediately come out of that > > state. > > > I would always be disgusted with myself for doing that. But that > > one > > > thought seemed to be out of my karmic control? You think? > > > > > > So, as the thoughts arise, or subside, so too does the breath. > > That > > > has been my experience. And you have just explained to me why > that > > > was so: If they have a common genesis then one controls the other > > or > > > sends the other one spinning out of control. Does that make > sense? > > > > > I have often wondered why "One thought spoiled the spiritual > > > cooking" that I was doing. I have put this question to my former > > > guru but he told me not to worry about the rehersals. But being > a > > > scientist I wanted DEFINITE ANSWERS to my inquiry. My mind is > > > satisfied on this point now. > > > > > > Namaste > > > > > > Net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Net, > > Certainly Self-inquiry shares many elements wsith other forms of > meditation. It shares concentration, both can being a sense of well- > being, as the mind releases its habitual focus. A quiet mind is > acheved in many forms of meditation. The goal of Self-inquiry is > clearly beyond anything mental, though. And the focus on the 'I' can > prevent the meditator creating dualities of subject and object. > > In the teaching that I have recieved about Self-inquiry there has > never been any focus on vital airs, etc., except as elements that can > be negated on the way to Self-realization. > > Here is another form of the inquiry, just to perhaps give you > something to meditate on, "Where does this sense of Reality come > from?" And compare your sense of Reality when awake to that in the > dream state. I think you will find that your sense of Reality is the > same. Can it come from your waking body, in that case? If Who you > Are is always true, where does your sense of Reality come from? > > We are Not two, > Richard > > ************* Now, this response Richard, means more to me. Because it is like jumping over the fence of the vital airs, one does not need to concentrate on them (and thoughts etc.) so don't, pure and simple. That makes sense. What also makes sense is that perhaps these roadblocks came to me, which is really what all these things are, out of sanskaras, past life attempts, yogic lifetimes in the forests of India or something where all these things were practiced. And as I realized in teaching physics that on the return home: one passes by the same places that one passed when one left home in the first place. But one can also ignore the things ones sees on the way home, because they are familiar and do not add anything to the return home. HOwever, they can subtract from it, if you stop and admire them, or wonder about them, as perhaps I have been doing. That is what I was taught, not what I have fought. So, thank you. Especially, if you are giving me a dispensation from the airs and the like (smile), I will make much greater progress. I will also try the meditation you suggest. Net Namaste ******************* > RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Net, > > > > > > Self-inquiry is really different from other forms of meditation. > > > > ********* > > 1) Does that mean there are no points of convergence ever, or > > similarities? > > > > 2) I did not say that I was trying to practice Self-Inquiry. But > you > > mention vital airs, breath, and thoughts in that first sentence. > My > > question then are those three things arising differently in S-I med > > versus any other type of meditation? > > > > > > > > > hope that Ramana's "Who am I?" and my comments will show some of > > this > > > difference. > > ******************> > > " One thing, though Self-inquiry starts with the mind and thoughts > > the > > > aim of the meditation is definately not anywhere in the thought > > > realm. " you write. > > > > I agree. You have misunderstood my statement. I said that a > thought > > arose. I was not trying to think. It arose by karmic nature > perhaps. > > > > "One is looking for what is always true, what is always > > > present, and no thought fits that descritpion (not even the 'I'- > > > thought)." > > > > I don't disagree. I have not studied your form, and I am not trying > > to expound on it. Okay, here I am not disagreeing with you or > saying > > that I was trying to bring in thoughts. > > > > Let's look at meditation as pure energy for sake of argument, I am > > saying that my meditation as energy was disturbed by thoughts. I > was > > not TRYING to THINK, thinking arose and my meditation at that point > > (such as it was) sunk. So, I think you misunderstand my comments. > > Mind you I am not trying to argue just understand. > > > > ******************* > > "You could say that Self-inquiry is for the mind, snice when one > > gets > > > beyond the mind into the state of premanent identity with the > Self, > > > no further inquiry is possible." > > > > > Fine. I have no argument with this statement. > > ************** > > > > Here you are describing what S-I meditation is, I am not > disagreeing > > with you that it is not this. But I think that there is a purity, > for > > lack of a better word, that exists in meditation as meditation: > i.e. > > cessation of thought, regardless to how that cessation is achieved. > > Do you follow me? And regardless to what path one follows. There > > are similar ingredients. And you mentioned three of them. > > > > ************ > > > > I have read the first pages, maybe not the same ones. I am reading > > that S-I does work as an excellent form of spiritual practice. > > > > I am not saying that it does not require a teacher. > > > > What I am reading is that you are saying that I should throw away > my > > experiences. I don't think you mean that but that is what you are > > saying in this response. > > > > Are you saying that vital airs (as an ingredient) are different > with > > S-I med., versus meditation using Buddhist methods or Sant Mat > > Methods--are they? Do they manifest differently? Or are thoughts > > different? No, I think you would agree. Richard that is all I was > > addressing ONLY THAT FIRST SENTENCE. I do not profess to know your > > practice and hence was not trying to talk about it per se. I was > > talking about meditation, and its stages. And I don't think Ramana > > nor anyone else has cornered the market on it. While meditation > > practices do differ from culture to culture and from master to > > master, there ARE some things which remain constant. That is all I > > am addressing, nothing more. > > > > However, that reminds me that at one point the Sant Mat gurus > totally > > confused me because they said that their form of meditation was > > different, had a different goal, different technique, started at a > > different place (eye center in the forehead), and that all old > > meditation experiences and practices were now defunct, throw them > > out, forget them. This is what I just went through. Now it's true > > this is different from what I read and learned before. However, > now > > I question it. But it (Sant Mat) is perhaps the "path of the Eye" > > which is totally different from the "path of the Heart" which is > how > > I understand Ramana's Self-Enquiry, at this point. > > > > If there are absolutely NO similarities to these things or in S-I > > meditation then I would be extremely surprised and would have to > > investigate further. I am a skeptic at this point about > everything. > > So don't take anything personal. I am trying to really get at the > > TRUTH this time. > > > > If you think that is presumptious on my part, or I am wrong in my > > assessment, then I apologize and will just shut up. > > > > In conclusion, I am thinking out loud. I want to understand the > Self- > > Enquiry meditation. I tell my students that it is easier to > > understand something when one has a shelf on which to hang or place > > NEW things. Are you asking me to tear my shelf down and replace it > > with another? Or can I just take the old objects off that shelf > and > > replace them with new and better things? > > > > I am open, I am listening. Thank you. > > Namaste > > > > Netemara > > > > ***************** > > > I will keep writing. Perhaps it would be useful for you to > review > > > the first part of this series. I think it started in May. > > > > > > Should I post on the newsgroup the commentary as far as it goes? > > > > > > WE are Not two, > > > Richard > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> > wrote: > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" > <r_clarke@i...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Paragraph 19 > > > > > > > > > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and > vital > > > > > forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that > constitutes > > > the > > > > > mind; and the 'I'-thought is the primal thought of the mind, > > and > > > is > > > > > itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same > place > > > > > whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, > breath > > > and > > > > > vital forces also subside; and conversely, when the latter > > > subside, > > > > > the former also subsides. > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************* > > > > Net's COMMENT: > > > > > > > > >"The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and > vital > > > > > forces." > > > > > > > > Thank you first of all for this paragraph 19 -- Richard, it > > > explains > > > > a lot of my meditation experiences. The first sentence really > > > makes > > > > perfect sense in terms of meditation. I have had a lot of hit- > or- > > > > > > miss experiences along these lines. When the concentration is > > > perfect > > > > then one attains to the "breathless" state right? The problem > > > being > > > > that since my concentration would rise and fall and not be > > > faultless > > > > then so too would my experiences with the breathless state. > > > > > > > > For example, I would see the light and then the breathing would > > > slow > > > > down almost to a stop, and then my tongue would go back to > close > > > off > > > > the throat, and then I would be almost there in that state and > > > would > > > > suddenly, WITH A THOUGHT, BY THINKING ONE THOUGHT, OR BY > ALLOWING > > > ONE > > > > THOUGHT TO RISE IN MY MIND, would immediately come out of that > > > state. > > > > I would always be disgusted with myself for doing that. But > that > > > one > > > > thought seemed to be out of my karmic control? You think? > > > > > > > > So, as the thoughts arise, or subside, so too does the breath. > > > That > > > > has been my experience. And you have just explained to me why > > that > > > > was so: If they have a common genesis then one controls the > other > > > or > > > > sends the other one spinning out of control. Does that make > > sense? > > > > > > > I have often wondered why "One thought spoiled the spiritual > > > > cooking" that I was doing. I have put this question to my > former > > > > guru but he told me not to worry about the rehersals. But > being > > a > > > > scientist I wanted DEFINITE ANSWERS to my inquiry. My mind is > > > > satisfied on this point now. > > > > > > > > Namaste > > > > > > > > Net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 dear Richard, this is very helpful:".. removing from your own sense of iden= tity who you are NOT." --the rest I got a while ago but thanjs for te consice great explanation. Y= ou mention, that the unique state is "Ramana's alone" so Nisargadatta is dif= erent? I assume that you are talking from experience, since that is only useful for me <smile> --the aim of Sant Mat meditation is to be an empty container so one is able= to HOLD god: =god's will=to be one with god's will=to be spontaneous, to be your-self. SAME as Ramana's state, I assume and many other's... I must add Mark's and your too, Rich and everybody (except Net) who mention= s Sant Mat at this forum makes my hair stand up--and I understand dear Mark's= frustration with me better <grin> --it reminds me of. when two blindfolded = buddies exchanged their perception of an elephant: a mouse who was holding t= he elephant's tail and a monkey sitting in his back. ROFL When one quotes a teaching without understanding it is agonising: people co= nstantly mixing up the tool of a practice with the method and with the motovating factor used, with the end-result, and with the final states achieved: confusing these with each-other, or melting these seperate aspects into one ~k~ RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Hi Karta, > > Answering your question about the "practice of nonduality" let me > respond and add some context. > > My own experience is with the practice of Self-inquiry. The aim of > this Self-inquiry is to see that Who I AM is the same identity as the > Absolute (or God, or Atman, of Brahman, etc.). This is an ancient > spiritual goal. The Upanishads say, "Thou art That." The seeker is > what is sought. > > Over the last 3,000 years there have been different approaches > recommended for the seeker to experience this Reality. One approach > is to meditate on "Thou are That," and she how that is the truth. > Another is japa (repetition). There are others, certainly more than > I now. > > Another part of the teaching is that this Reality is changeless and > ever present. Since it is ever-present, then it is Who you Are right > now, so there is nothing to attain. So with the goal of Self- > realization (realizing that You are That, and moving your identity to > where you stand only as That), Self-inquiry is more a matter of > removing from your own sense of identity who you are NOT. > > This Self-realization is the permanent state of sages like Ramana > Maharshi (and Nome). It does not come and go. If you have an > experience, no matter how wonderful, that comes and goes, then you > need to keep going deeper, where there is less ego, less identity > with this transient changeable body, mind and ego. > > Since Self-realization is not attained, how does it come? Through > Knowledge (capitalized to stand for more than mental understanding, > knowledge on the same basis as you know that you exist) of Who you > Are. Self-Knowledge – the Knowledge that indeed, Thou are That. > Self-inquiry (and the negation that is often preliminary to it) > brings about this Knowledge. > > The temporary experiences often encourage and motivate the seeker, > and provide a glimpse of the Absolute, yet even the best temporary > experience is not Self-realization. > > As a seeker, I have had perfect masters to teach me Self-inquiry > (once I was ready to actually have a daily spiritual practice). I > have had a number of deep experiences (that come and go). I practice > Self-inquiry, in daily meditations, and often (as much as I can > remember to do so), during other activities and times of the day. I > have found that Self-inquiry as a practice is deep and keeps changing > as my own stand changes. In Self-inquiry there are also many ways > that a seeker might approach the inquiry, where one approach if > effective at one time, and another approach might go deeper at > another time. This is a deep practice, and might take many years. > How long have you been living forming your present identities and > tendencies? > > I have found that every day I feel much more inner peace, I am much > better able to handle the various changes and challenges in daily > life without them disturbing the peace. What was previously problems > that upset me now become blessed chances for practice. It helps me > to know that this Richard is only an idea (I joke and say that I am > my own erronious idea), a bundle of thoughts, and that "I" exist even > without the identification with "Richard." > > That is enough for now. > > Thank you for your comments. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok: > hi Richard, I'm way behind these paragraph posts; going backward. You > wrote= > : "..once > we were taught to look at our thoughts, > one thought, any thought, and see > how each thought revolves around the `I´-thought. This is an > interesting > exercise, and if you have not tried this, perhaps it would be useful > to you= > ." > > This is most interesting; I never was on > a non-dualist retreat and or practiced > vichara. My question is: to practice > non-duality is it not keeping your > awareness on awareness as a state? > and keep this beingness all day > (vipassana)? --or is > Ramana's teaching based more on constant practice vichara as > meditation? > > I thought that would be sufficient as I'm > not fascinated by the "enlightenment" experience, or (momentary) > states ach= > ieved > by spiritual practices, rather looking for what will work in my > every-day = > life. > > I think I'm the only one here who had > dope and LSD experiences. I think, that > I had the first "realization": a deep awareness, a "being" experience > on > acid very very similar to what I > understand the Nisargadatta state is. > Is that possible? --also at his club it was mentioned, that he sent > away = > students who "didn't get" the teaching after a few weeks.. true? - > > ~ love all Karta ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 Dear Richard, > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > forces. Any number of branching paths, when traced back, always lead to a single Source. That single innate source is the Self of all. All the senses lead back to that one source. Thoughts start from and end in that one source. Words arise from and return to that one source. The inherent power is that one source. The goal is ever the same, irrespective of the supposed starting point. The starting point is in reality also the goal... ....By understanding the source of thoughts and actions, one becomes firmly established in their Source (Atmanishta). Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles (from commentary on Upadesa Saram) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 Dear Miles, Certainly you are correct. One thing I feel is intuitively correct is that since all is but Self, that if one can 'look' deeply enough in any direction, that what they will find is only Self. All of the apparant 'reality' arises from self. The apparent reality is but the Aboolute Reality (by a process of superimposition - the Real is superimposed on the unreal, giving the sense of reality). We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > > The source of the mind is the same as that of breath and vital > > forces. > > Any number of branching paths, when traced back, always lead to a single > Source. That single innate source is the Self of all. All the senses lead > back to that one source. Thoughts start from and end in that one source. > Words arise from and return to that one source. The inherent power is that > one source. The goal is ever the same, irrespective of the supposed starting > point. The starting point is in reality also the goal... > > ...By understanding the source of thoughts and actions, one becomes firmly > established in their Source (Atmanishta). > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > (from commentary on Upadesa Saram) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 Dear Karta, If I said anything to the effect that Ramana had some kind of unique state, then I want to correct that impression. There are many approaches to Self-realization. Self-realization is only one. In terms of practice, I recently spent one year where the primary meditative approach was 'negation,' discrimination really. I found that this needs to be done slowly so that it can be thorough. Sankara taught to do this "from gross to subtle." This means start with the body (or even some part of the body), "Is this who I am? Does this define my existence? Is this where reality come from?" Upon this meditation, one starts to see that the body is something that is perceived. So I cannot be the body, I must be closer to the 'perceiver' than the body. Next are the senses. Am I any sense? Am I this sense? If I feel like this sense defines me, what about in dream state, where this sense is inactive, yet I still experience it as real? Next is prana, life force. Is this breath who I am? (etc.) Next is mind (or thought), Here it can be useful to first look at an individual thought. After a while you can look at all thoughts together. In terms of thoughts, Ramana also recommended that the inquirer, when they notice a thought, does not have to let it come to conclusion. When the thought arises, one can ask, "From whom is this thought?" which brings the attention back to the Self. I found after sustained practice at this, a couple of things happened. One was that I am not certain that whatever I am, whoever I am, it will never be found in anything objective to me, not in the body, senses, prana, or mind. This has brought my Self-inquiry to a deep place. Any claims of a unique Self-realization have to be misguided (at least for the nondualist). For the nondualist, this is an absurd idea. We are Not two Richard RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok> wrote: > dear Richard, this is very helpful:".. removing from your own sense of iden= > tity who you are NOT." > --the rest I got a while ago but thanjs for te consice great explanation. Y= > ou mention, that the unique state is "Ramana's alone" so Nisargadatta is dif= > erent? > > I assume that you are talking from > experience, since that is only useful for > me <smile> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 thank you for clearing thing up Richard, I just left a Satsang and lost all my friends with it and now I'm very cautious with "cultic" language, now I understand this forum better. I must say that for me the vital airs come way after the mind and even my ego; but that I don't know for sure since I never surrendered or "left my ego behind". I was with a Mahan of Kundalini for years and can't even imagine the life force be separated from me before my death. >From now on I'll try to silently learn here and post only when can't understand. ~k~ just for curiosity how can one stay a year at Sat? are the requirements high spiritually and financially? RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Karta, > > If I said anything to the effect that Ramana had some kind of unique > state, then I want to correct that impression. There are many > approaches to Self-realization. Self-realization is only one. > > In terms of practice, I recently spent one year where the primary > meditative approach was 'negation,' discrimination really. I found > that this needs to be done slowly so that it can be thorough. > > Sankara taught to do this "from gross to subtle." This means start > with the body (or even some part of the body), "Is this who I am? > Does this define my existence? Is this where reality come from?" > Upon this meditation, one starts to see that the body is something > that is perceived. So I cannot be the body, I must be closer to > the 'perceiver' than the body. > > Next are the senses. Am I any sense? Am I this sense? If I feel > like this sense defines me, what about in dream state, where this > sense is inactive, yet I still experience it as real? > > Next is prana, life force. Is this breath who I am? (etc.) > > Next is mind (or thought), Here it can be useful to first look at an > individual thought. After a while you can look at all thoughts > together. In terms of thoughts, Ramana also recommended that the > inquirer, when they notice a thought, does not have to let it come to > conclusion. When the thought arises, one can ask, "From whom is this > thought?" which brings the attention back to the Self. > > I found after sustained practice at this, a couple of things > happened. One was that I am not certain that whatever I am, whoever > I am, it will never be found in anything objective to me, not in the > body, senses, prana, or mind. This has brought my Self-inquiry to a > deep place. > > Any claims of a unique Self-realization have to be misguided (at > least for the nondualist). For the nondualist, this is an absurd > idea. > > We are Not two > Richard > > > RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok> wrote: > > dear Richard, this is very helpful:".. removing from your own sense > of iden= > > tity who you are NOT." > > --the rest I got a while ago but thanjs for te consice great > explanation. Y= > > ou mention, that the unique state is "Ramana's alone" so > Nisargadatta is dif= > > erent? > > > > I assume that you are talking from > > experience, since that is only useful for > > me <smile> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 Dear Karta, I appreciate your concern about language. It can be confusing, and is not reality anyway. BTW, one way of looking at the life force in inquiry would to ask something like "For whom are the vital airs?" or "Who knows the vital airs?" I was not as SAT for the year, doing the negation practice. Self- inquiry does not depend on place or posture. I live about 30 miles away for the temple. So I go to satsangs, retreats and other spiritual events. One can live at the temple, they have a "residental retreat" program where one can rent a room, and a few of the members live at the temple. There are no special programs for the residents, though. In terms of your interaction with this newsgroup, my recomendation is to ask question and be willing to participate. You are wecome here. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok> wrote: > thank you for clearing thing up Richard, > I just left a Satsang and lost all my friends with it and now I'm very cautious with "cultic" language, now I understand > this forum better. I must say that for > me the vital airs come way after the mind > and even my ego; but that I don't know for sure since I never surrendered or > "left my ego behind". I was with a Mahan > of Kundalini for years and can't even > imagine the life force be separated from > me before my death. > > From now on I'll try to silently learn > here and post only when can't understand. > > ~k~ > just for curiosity how can one stay a > year at Sat? are the requirements high spiritually and financially? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.