Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Dear Miles posted: Snip. 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables (mantras) picked up casually? Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.' Alton asks Miles: So I have been wasting all my years of repeating the "I Am" practice and refusing all thoughts except the "I Am" in thought and feeling? Was Nisargadatta only talking to the one he was having a dialogue with and not all those who would read it in later years, like myself? Nisargadatta also said that it is the Guru's words and not the Guru. Please advice this possibly disgruntled earnest seeker. If your answer agrees with Ramana, would you be willing to give me some words to repeat? I hope it wont be "Alton is a moron, which is probably true.. LOL.. Aloha, Alton RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > --------- > > 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables (mantras) > picked up casually? > > Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.' > Maharshi illustrated this by the following story : > > A King visited his Premier in his residence. There he was told that the > Premier was engaged in repetition of sacred syllables (japa). The King > waited for him and, on meeting him, asked what the japa was. The Premier > said it was the holiest of all, Gayatri. The King desired to be initiated by > the Premier. But the Premier confessed his inability to initiate him. > Therefore the King learned it from someone else, and meeting the Minister > later he repeated the Gayatri and wanted to know if it was right. The > minister said that the mantra was correct, but it was not proper for him to > say it. When pressed for an explanation, the Minister called to a page close > by and ordered him to take hold of the King. The order was not obeyed. The > order was often repeated, and still not obeyed. The King flew into a rage > and ordered the same man to hold the Minister, and it was immediately done. > The Minister laughed and said that the incident was the explanation required > by the King. 'How?' asked the King. The Minister replied, 'The order was the > same and the executor also, but the authority was different. When I ordered, > the effect was nil, whereas, when you ordered, there was immediate effect. > Similarly with mantras.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Dear Alton, I do think that repeating "I am" will bring you Realization. It is still on the level of thought. You have to get past thought. My teachers have commented that the seeker must take care with any practice or teaching to NOT take some snippet out of context of the total teaching. I do not know the teachings of Nisargadatta well enough to comment. I do know that since the time of the Upanishads, that teachers have directed seekers in many different ways to focus on the truth that "Thou are That." I think Ramana taught that for most seekers ANY form of repetition or concentration would not bring realization, since these are at the level of the mind. Ramana stressed looking for the "I am" within. He said that practicesthat involved concentration were a good way to prepare the seeker for inquiry, but do not serve as substitutes for the inquiry. I think a significant part of the practice is the questioning mind. A mondern Korean Zen teacher, Seung Sahn, says that practice is "Don't know." (Realization is "Like this.") He focused the seeker on the question, not the "answer." The focus on the question opens the mind. The focus on knowing the answer closes it. Has a life time of repetition of "I am" brought you realization? If not, then perhaps it may be appropriate to re-evaluate your practice. I do use "I exist" at the start of each meditation. This is the first thing that I notice when doing inquiry. This way the inquiry starts from a place of inner knowledge, starts with something that is incontrovertible. Here it is a 'launching pad' to the inquiry. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Miles posted: Snip. > > 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables (mantras) > picked up casually? > > Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.' > > Alton asks Miles: > So I have been wasting all my years of repeating the "I Am" practice > and refusing all thoughts except the "I Am" in thought and feeling? > Was Nisargadatta only talking to the one he was having a dialogue > with and not all those who would read it in later years, like myself? > Nisargadatta also said that it is the Guru's words and not the Guru. > > Please advice this possibly disgruntled earnest seeker. > > If your answer agrees with Ramana, would you be willing to give me > some words to repeat? I hope it wont be "Alton is a moron, which is > probably true.. LOL.. > > Aloha, > Alton > > > RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > --------- > > > > 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables > (mantras) > > picked up casually? > > > > Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.' > > Maharshi illustrated this by the following story : > > > > A King visited his Premier in his residence. There he was told that > the > > Premier was engaged in repetition of sacred syllables (japa). The > King > > waited for him and, on meeting him, asked what the japa was. The > Premier > > said it was the holiest of all, Gayatri. The King desired to be > initiated by > > the Premier. But the Premier confessed his inability to initiate > him. > > Therefore the King learned it from someone else, and meeting the > Minister > > later he repeated the Gayatri and wanted to know if it was right. > The > > minister said that the mantra was correct, but it was not proper > for him to > > say it. When pressed for an explanation, the Minister called to a > page close > > by and ordered him to take hold of the King. The order was not > obeyed. The > > order was often repeated, and still not obeyed. The King flew into > a rage > > and ordered the same man to hold the Minister, and it was > immediately done. > > The Minister laughed and said that the incident was the explanation > required > > by the King. 'How?' asked the King. The Minister replied, 'The > order was the > > same and the executor also, but the authority was different. When I > ordered, > > the effect was nil, whereas, when you ordered, there was immediate > effect. > > Similarly with mantras.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Dear Richard: As always I thank you for you wisdom and attention. Of course I may change as I do on a regular basis being mostly mutable water, but right now this ego is going to prove that what Ramana said is wrong. I plan on doing this "I Am" mantra until the end of creation and then for sure I will realize the Self. Anyway, just as soon as I can do it without distraction that would satisfy me for the time being. Of course if Miles is willing to take this tough dude on I will use the words he gives. Others on this list have convinced me that he is the one to give the WORDS. Aloha, Alton. RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > > I do think that repeating "I am" will bring you Realization. It is > still on the level of thought. You have to get past thought. > > My teachers have commented that the seeker must take care with any > practice or teaching to NOT take some snippet out of context of the > total teaching. I do not know the teachings of Nisargadatta well > enough to comment. > > I do know that since the time of the Upanishads, that teachers have > directed seekers in many different ways to focus on the truth > that "Thou are That." I think Ramana taught that for most seekers > ANY form of repetition or concentration would not bring realization, > since these are at the level of the mind. Ramana stressed looking > for the "I am" within. He said that practicesthat involved > concentration were a good way to prepare the seeker for inquiry, but > do not serve as substitutes for the inquiry. > > I think a significant part of the practice is the questioning mind. > A mondern Korean Zen teacher, Seung Sahn, says that practice > is "Don't know." (Realization is "Like this.") He focused the seeker > on the question, not the "answer." The focus on the question opens > the mind. The focus on knowing the answer closes it. > > Has a life time of repetition of "I am" brought you realization? If > not, then perhaps it may be appropriate to re-evaluate your > practice. > > I do use "I exist" at the start of each meditation. This is the > first thing that I notice when doing inquiry. This way the inquiry > starts from a place of inner knowledge, starts with something that is > incontrovertible. Here it is a 'launching pad' to the inquiry. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > > RamanaMaharshi, "lostnfoundation" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear Miles posted: Snip. > > > > 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables > (mantras) > > picked up casually? > > > > Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such mantras.' > > > > Alton asks Miles: > > So I have been wasting all my years of repeating the "I Am" > practice > > and refusing all thoughts except the "I Am" in thought and feeling? > > Was Nisargadatta only talking to the one he was having a dialogue > > with and not all those who would read it in later years, like > myself? > > Nisargadatta also said that it is the Guru's words and not the Guru. > > > > Please advice this possibly disgruntled earnest seeker. > > > > If your answer agrees with Ramana, would you be willing to give me > > some words to repeat? I hope it wont be "Alton is a moron, which is > > probably true.. LOL.. > > > > Aloha, > > Alton > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > > > > > > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > > --------- > > > > > > 8: Can anyone get any benefit by repeating sacred syllables > > (mantras) > > > picked up casually? > > > > > > Maharshi: 'No. He must be competent and initiated in such > mantras.' > > > Maharshi illustrated this by the following story : > > > > > > A King visited his Premier in his residence. There he was told > that > > the > > > Premier was engaged in repetition of sacred syllables (japa). The > > King > > > waited for him and, on meeting him, asked what the japa was. The > > Premier > > > said it was the holiest of all, Gayatri. The King desired to be > > initiated by > > > the Premier. But the Premier confessed his inability to initiate > > him. > > > Therefore the King learned it from someone else, and meeting the > > Minister > > > later he repeated the Gayatri and wanted to know if it was right. > > The > > > minister said that the mantra was correct, but it was not proper > > for him to > > > say it. When pressed for an explanation, the Minister called to a > > page close > > > by and ordered him to take hold of the King. The order was not > > obeyed. The > > > order was often repeated, and still not obeyed. The King flew > into > > a rage > > > and ordered the same man to hold the Minister, and it was > > immediately done. > > > The Minister laughed and said that the incident was the > explanation > > required > > > by the King. 'How?' asked the King. The Minister replied, 'The > > order was the > > > same and the executor also, but the authority was different. When > I > > ordered, > > > the effect was nil, whereas, when you ordered, there was > immediate > > effect. > > > Similarly with mantras.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Richard: If I may add my own comments, I agree with you. Any type of word formation is still a gesture of the thinking mind which is superficial. Even Bhagavan's inquiry "Who Am I?" is not a mantra but is a tool to guide one to the recognition that there is no answer. This inquiry is actually a two-step process because it's trying to answer this question that shuts down the verbal mind. This is why this question is a perfect koan because it serves the same purpose which is to move beyond the verbal mind. The verbal mind is an outer and rather superficial sheath. I don't usually talk about my own practice but years ago the verbal inquiry "Who Am I?" gave way to a thoughtless, wordless, bodiless penetration prior to attention where there is no form and are no words. Mark Dear Alton, I do think that repeating "I am" will bring you Realization. It is still on the level of thought. You have to get past thought. My teachers have commented that the seeker must take care with any practice or teaching to NOT take some snippet out of context of the total teaching. I do not know the teachings of Nisargadatta well enough to comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Mark, Yes, the words "Who am I?" are just pointers, not another mantra. When one is sufficently advanced in the practice, the words fall away. I also agree with you perception of the two-step process. Inquiry starts with the mind, then moves past it. Your words, "thoughtless, wordless, bodiless" could have bgeen said by my teacher. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Richard: > > If I may add my own comments, I agree with you. Any type of word > formation is still a gesture of the thinking mind which is superficial. > Even Bhagavan's inquiry "Who Am I?" is not a mantra but is a tool > to guide one to the recognition that there is no answer. This inquiry > is actually a two-step process because it's trying to answer this question > that shuts down the verbal mind. This is why this question is a perfect > koan because it serves the same purpose which is to move beyond > the verbal mind. The verbal mind is an outer and rather superficial sheath. > > I don't usually talk about my own practice but years ago the verbal > inquiry "Who Am I?" gave way to a thoughtless, wordless, bodiless > penetration prior to attention where there is no form and are no > words. > > Mark > > > > > > Dear Alton, > > I do think that repeating "I am" will bring you Realization. It is > still on the level of thought. You have to get past thought. > > My teachers have commented that the seeker must take care with any > practice or teaching to NOT take some snippet out of context of the > total teaching. I do not know the teachings of Nisargadatta well > enough to comment. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2002 Report Share Posted July 7, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya om gurave namah Dear Richard and Mark, Sorry for tardiness in responding to this. > I also agree with you perception of the two-step process. Inquiry > starts with the mind, then moves past it. While this may be argued from the theoretical standpoint, in order to draw attention to misplaced identity, it has no substance in reality. Even to say that Self Enquiry has one step is to miss the point. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Atma Vicara is process and goal. Absolutely nothing happens without the Self. Realisation is to get rid of the delusion that you have not realised. The Self is always realised. This is not dependent on any theoretical school of thought, whether advaita or dvaita, nor with any practice. It is simply the true state of affairs. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2002 Report Share Posted July 7, 2002 Miles: In principle you are correct but this is generally not how practice progresses. When people asked Bhagavan about how to do inquiry he told them to inquire by asking "Who Am I?" or "Who Is Thinking?" etc. He then told them that this would lead to the second step where the person would then try to respond in one way or another with an answer that would either lead them to another question or to a dead end. It's only when one has practiced inquiry for a while that the multiple steps shorten to a point where even the initial inquiry is no longer necessary in the verbal form. Then he instructed that this practice was to be followed until ALL obscurations are overcome and one realizes their true state. Even Bhagavan's extremely rare progression started with an inquiry into death when he was a teen. To say that one is already realized and only needs to remove obscurations is quite correct but the fact that very, very few people are able to move into the enlightened condition indicates that knowing this isn't enough and that a profound commitment to real practice is required. It takes correct practice, understanding and grace to wake up and this goes far beyond intellectual knowledge about how we are all really awake. If you study the lives of enlightened masters you see that most of them went through rather profound struggles to achieve the enlightened condition. It's a bit of a paradox that such struggle is required to find what is already there but then this shows the overwhelming power of maya, illusion. Mark Dear Richard and Mark, Sorry for tardiness in responding to this. > I also agree with you perception of the two-step process. Inquiry > starts with the mind, then moves past it. While this may be argued from the theoretical standpoint, in order to draw attention to misplaced identity, it has no substance in reality. Even to say that Self Enquiry has one step is to miss the point. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Atma Vicara is process and goal. Absolutely nothing happens without the Self. Realisation is to get rid of the delusion that you have not realised. The Self is always realised. This is not dependent on any theoretical school of thought, whether advaita or dvaita, nor with any practice. It is simply the true state of affairs. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2002 Report Share Posted July 8, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Mark, > In principle you are correct but this is generally not how practice > progresses. Thank you. The point made is simply that while practice is all important, if one clings to any intellectual idea of 'progress' or steps within the process, there is self-entrapment in the net of degrees of growth etc. There is absolutely no linear progression. The idea of steps is only in the mind. This is the experience here. All practice is simply a rehearsal for the spontaneous, absolute enquiry which is our nature. In spontaneous enquiry there is neither step, progression nor movement. There is only the Self. Practice Vicara, until it becomes automatic throughout life, but leave open the door to spontaneity (effortlessness). This is Grace. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2002 Report Share Posted July 8, 2002 Hi Miles: It's definitely not the case that inquiry is automatic. You can verify this for yourself with a single reading of Talks With Ramana Maharshi. In these stories and narrations you can see that Bhagavan must continually guide devotees to correct practice because they continually get off course. Inquiry is a practice that must be cultivated and maintained. Inquiry requires a moment to moment intention that persists through the endless machinations of mind and samsara. One doesn't need to concern oneself with steps or progress because this is also an error. The practice is simply to inquire and the results come on their own. We talk in terms of practice and progress because that is the way it typically works but it isn't' correct to be concerned about it. It's also incorrect to believe that an intellectual understanding is enough and that enlightenment will happen on it's own or that one can be random (spontaneous) about inquire and expect results. Bhagavan didn't randomly inquire. He first experienced the death of his personality in an experience that was sheer terror. After that, his practice consisted of ever deepening levels of samadhi where he sat in a dark pit where vermin ate away at his body. This is not spontaneous practice, this is an intentional practice that required a commitment on his part to the point where he didn't care if his body survived or not. His commitment was literally to the point of death. Bodhidharma sat facing a wall for 12 years and is purported to have cut off his eyelids so that sleep wouldn't interfere with meditation. I'm sorry Miles but the idea that one can kind of randomly spontaneously drift into enlightenment because "it's already the case" is a kind of superficial idea that only Westerners would fall for. If this weren't the case, there would be countless enlightened beings but even a cursory look at what human beings are up to on this planet should prove otherwise. What you are proposing is what a former teacher of mine referred to as "talking school" spirituality which has no substance, only ideas. It's about talk and consoling ideas, not about real spiritual practice. Without committed spiritual practice, "You can't get there from here." Mark Dear Mark, > In principle you are correct but this is generally not how practice > progresses. Thank you. The point made is simply that while practice is all important, if one clings to any intellectual idea of 'progress' or steps within the process, there is self-entrapment in the net of degrees of growth etc. There is absolutely no linear progression. The idea of steps is only in the mind. This is the experience here. All practice is simply a rehearsal for the spontaneous, absolute enquiry which is our nature. In spontaneous enquiry there is neither step, progression nor movement. There is only the Self. Practice Vicara, until it becomes automatic throughout life, but leave open the door to spontaneity (effortlessness). This is Grace. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2002 Report Share Posted July 8, 2002 Dear Mark, in the case of Ramana sitting in a dark pit it was no practice/sadhana but simply happened. His realization was final and there was no deepening afterwards. Outwarldy we see changes in His life, but when asked about He assured that the changes have been only outwardly. Inquiry will happen spontaneously - there is no contradiction that it also needs all effort - moment to moment and needs to be cultivated. When practice is deepened it becomes natural and not-enquiring is unnatural. So spontaneity sets in and it is discovered that it always has been natural but we have forgotten and it was hidden because the unnatural was made natural. This is when the I-I from within takes over. In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Hi Miles: > > It's definitely not the case that inquiry is automatic. You can verify this for > yourself > with a single reading of Talks With Ramana Maharshi. In these stories and > narrations you can see that Bhagavan must continually guide devotees to correct > practice because they continually get off course. Inquiry is a practice that must > be > cultivated and maintained. Inquiry requires a moment to moment intention that > persists > through the endless machinations of mind and samsara. > One doesn't need to concern oneself with steps or progress because this is also an > error. The practice is simply to inquire and the results come on their own. We > talk > in terms of practice and progress because that is the way it typically works but it > isn't' correct to be concerned about it. It's also incorrect to believe that an > intellectual > understanding is enough and that enlightenment will happen on it's own or that one > can be random (spontaneous) about inquire and expect results. > Bhagavan didn't randomly inquire. He first experienced the death of his personality > in > an experience that was sheer terror. After that, his practice consisted of ever > deepening > levels of samadhi where he sat in a dark pit where vermin ate away at his body. > This > is not spontaneous practice, this is an intentional practice that required a > commitment > on his part to the point where he didn't care if his body survived or not. His > commitment > was literally to the point of death. > Bodhidharma sat facing a wall for 12 years and is purported to have cut off his > eyelids > so that sleep wouldn't interfere with meditation. > I'm sorry Miles but the idea that one can kind of randomly spontaneously drift into > enlightenment because "it's already the case" is a kind of superficial idea that > only > Westerners would fall for. If this weren't the case, there would be countless > enlightened > beings but even a cursory look at what human beings are up to on this planet should > prove otherwise. > What you are proposing is what a former teacher of mine referred to as "talking > school" > spirituality which has no substance, only ideas. It's about talk and consoling > ideas, not > about real spiritual practice. > Without committed spiritual practice, "You can't get there from here." > > > Mark > > > > Dear Mark, > > > In principle you are correct but this is generally not how practice > > progresses. > > Thank you. > > The point made is simply that while practice is all important, if one clings > to any intellectual idea of 'progress' or steps within the process, there is > self-entrapment in the net of degrees of growth etc. There is absolutely no > linear progression. The idea of steps is only in the mind. This is the > experience here. All practice is simply a rehearsal for the spontaneous, > absolute enquiry which is our nature. In spontaneous enquiry there is > neither step, progression nor movement. There is only the Self. Practice > Vicara, until it becomes automatic throughout life, but leave open the door > to spontaneity (effortlessness). This is Grace. > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2002 Report Share Posted July 8, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Gabriele, Indeed. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles > Dear Mark, > in the case of Ramana sitting in a dark pit it was no > practice/sadhana but simply happened. His realization was final and > there was no deepening afterwards. Outwarldy we see changes in His > life, but when asked about He assured that the changes have been only > outwardly. > Inquiry will happen spontaneously - there is no contradiction that it > also needs all effort - moment to moment and needs to be cultivated. > When practice is deepened it becomes natural and not-enquiring is > unnatural. So spontaneity sets in and it is discovered that it always > has been natural but we have forgotten and it was hidden because the > unnatural was made natural. This is when the I-I from within takes > over. > > > In HIM > Gabriele > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: >> Hi Miles: >> >> It's definitely not the case that inquiry is automatic. You can > verify this for >> yourself >> with a single reading of Talks With Ramana Maharshi. In these > stories and >> narrations you can see that Bhagavan must continually guide > devotees to correct >> practice because they continually get off course. Inquiry is a > practice that must >> be >> cultivated and maintained. Inquiry requires a moment to moment > intention that >> persists >> through the endless machinations of mind and samsara. >> One doesn't need to concern oneself with steps or progress because > this is also an >> error. The practice is simply to inquire and the results come on > their own. We >> talk >> in terms of practice and progress because that is the way it > typically works but it >> isn't' correct to be concerned about it. It's also incorrect to > believe that an >> intellectual >> understanding is enough and that enlightenment will happen on it's > own or that one >> can be random (spontaneous) about inquire and expect results. >> Bhagavan didn't randomly inquire. He first experienced the death > of his personality >> in >> an experience that was sheer terror. After that, his practice > consisted of ever >> deepening >> levels of samadhi where he sat in a dark pit where vermin ate away > at his body. >> This >> is not spontaneous practice, this is an intentional practice that > required a >> commitment >> on his part to the point where he didn't care if his body survived > or not. His >> commitment >> was literally to the point of death. >> Bodhidharma sat facing a wall for 12 years and is purported to have > cut off his >> eyelids >> so that sleep wouldn't interfere with meditation. >> I'm sorry Miles but the idea that one can kind of randomly > spontaneously drift into >> enlightenment because "it's already the case" is a kind of > superficial idea that >> only >> Westerners would fall for. If this weren't the case, there would > be countless >> enlightened >> beings but even a cursory look at what human beings are up to on > this planet should >> prove otherwise. >> What you are proposing is what a former teacher of mine referred to > as "talking >> school" >> spirituality which has no substance, only ideas. It's about talk > and consoling >> ideas, not >> about real spiritual practice. >> Without committed spiritual practice, "You can't get there from > here." >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> Dear Mark, >> >>> In principle you are correct but this is generally not how > practice >>> progresses. >> >> Thank you. >> >> The point made is simply that while practice is all important, if > one clings >> to any intellectual idea of 'progress' or steps within the process, > there is >> self-entrapment in the net of degrees of growth etc. There is > absolutely no >> linear progression. The idea of steps is only in the mind. This is > the >> experience here. All practice is simply a rehearsal for the > spontaneous, >> absolute enquiry which is our nature. In spontaneous enquiry there > is >> neither step, progression nor movement. There is only the Self. > Practice >> Vicara, until it becomes automatic throughout life, but leave open > the door >> to spontaneity (effortlessness). This is Grace. >> >> Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, >> Miles >> >> >> >> Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... >> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... >> Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... >> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... >> >> Shortcut URL to this page: >> /community/RamanaMaharshi >> >> > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2002 Report Share Posted July 8, 2002 MIles (and all), I also want to add my understanding to this. Certainly my teacher, who teaches "no-creation" (so therefore there is nothing to attain and no one to attain it), teaches of the need for practice. He also teaches that practice mainly consists of eliminating the erronious ideas (super-impositions) that show up as identification with the world or body or senses or prajna, or mind. when all these are removed, then the seeker will be able to identify as, to stand as, Being-Conscious-Bliss. This kind of teaching is an old one. Certainly it was taught by Sankara, in his Requisites for Realization. There were: Discrmination, Detachment, The "six essentials" of peacefulness, Self-control, Renunciation, Fortitude, Faith, and Deep Meditation Desire for Liberation In my own experience, not until I choose to practice r3egularly did much deep progress occur. I have also heard Nome warn against negating the need to practice by use of nonduality as an idea rather than as where one actually stands. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Hi Miles: > > It's definitely not the case that inquiry is automatic. You can verify this for > yourself > with a single reading of Talks With Ramana Maharshi. In these stories and > narrations you can see that Bhagavan must continually guide devotees to correct > practice because they continually get off course. Inquiry is a practice that must > be > cultivated and maintained. Inquiry requires a moment to moment intention that > persists > through the endless machinations of mind and samsara. > One doesn't need to concern oneself with steps or progress because this is also an > error. The practice is simply to inquire and the results come on their own. We > talk > in terms of practice and progress because that is the way it typically works but it > isn't' correct to be concerned about it. It's also incorrect to believe that an > intellectual > understanding is enough and that enlightenment will happen on it's own or that one > can be random (spontaneous) about inquire and expect results. > Bhagavan didn't randomly inquire. He first experienced the death of his personality > in > an experience that was sheer terror. After that, his practice consisted of ever > deepening > levels of samadhi where he sat in a dark pit where vermin ate away at his body. > This > is not spontaneous practice, this is an intentional practice that required a > commitment > on his part to the point where he didn't care if his body survived or not. His > commitment > was literally to the point of death. > Bodhidharma sat facing a wall for 12 years and is purported to have cut off his > eyelids > so that sleep wouldn't interfere with meditation. > I'm sorry Miles but the idea that one can kind of randomly spontaneously drift into > enlightenment because "it's already the case" is a kind of superficial idea that > only > Westerners would fall for. If this weren't the case, there would be countless > enlightened > beings but even a cursory look at what human beings are up to on this planet should > prove otherwise. > What you are proposing is what a former teacher of mine referred to as "talking > school" > spirituality which has no substance, only ideas. It's about talk and consoling > ideas, not > about real spiritual practice. > Without committed spiritual practice, "You can't get there from here." > > > Mark > > > > Dear Mark, > > > In principle you are correct but this is generally not how practice > > progresses. > > Thank you. > > The point made is simply that while practice is all important, if one clings > to any intellectual idea of 'progress' or steps within the process, there is > self-entrapment in the net of degrees of growth etc. There is absolutely no > linear progression. The idea of steps is only in the mind. This is the > experience here. All practice is simply a rehearsal for the spontaneous, > absolute enquiry which is our nature. In spontaneous enquiry there is > neither step, progression nor movement. There is only the Self. Practice > Vicara, until it becomes automatic throughout life, but leave open the door > to spontaneity (effortlessness). This is Grace. > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Richard, > Certainly my teacher, who teaches "no-creation" (so therefore there > is nothing to attain and no one to attain it), teaches of the need > for practice. Indeed. Practice is essential (abhyasa vairagyabhyam - by practice and non-attachment). The mind must grow 'strong', practice is the means. Through continued strength of practice the mind begins to fly to vicara at every opportunity. This is what is meant by 'automatic'. Like a man with his head held under water longs for air so the mind as soon as distracted by the lures of the world must immediately seek vicara. With practice that which once, apparently, took intense effort becomes effortlessness. > He also teaches that practice mainly consists of > eliminating the erronious ideas (super-impositions) that show up as > identification with the world or body or senses or prajna, or mind. > when all these are removed, then the seeker will be able to identify > as, to stand as, Being-Conscious-Bliss. neti neti - not this, not this -- while useful, this tends to be an intellectual practice. On this Sri Ramana has said: D. : I begin to ask myself 'Who am I?', eliminate body as not 'I', the breath as not 'I', the mind as not 'I' and I am not able to proceed further. M. : Well, that is so far as the intellect goes. Your process is only intellectual. Indeed, all the scriptures mention the process only to guide the seeker to know the Truth. The Truth cannot be directly pointed out. Hence this intellectual process. You see the one who eliminates all the 'not I' cannot eliminate the 'I'. To say 'I am not this' or 'I am that' there must be the 'I'. This 'I' is only the ego or the 'I'-thought...Therefore seek the root, question yourself 'Who am I?'; find out its source. (Talk, 197) > In my own experience, not until I choose to practice r3egularly did > much deep progress occur. It must go beyond choice. It must become a necessity. > > I have also heard Nome warn against negating the need to practice by > use of nonduality as an idea rather than as where one actually > stands. Indeed. The idea 'non-duality' is only valid as opposition to 'duality'...neither have anything to do with the Quest, Being. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Dear Miles, In terms of Ramana's recommendations on negation (neti, neti), I repost from "Who am I?" Paragraph 3 Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical adjuncts and their functions, saying `I am not this; no, nor am I this, nor this' – that which remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). This seems to fit with what my teacher says about the importance of eliminating the illusion to clear the field for the Real. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta@v...> wrote: > om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya > > Dear Richard, > > > Certainly my teacher, who teaches "no-creation" (so therefore there > > is nothing to attain and no one to attain it), teaches of the need > > for practice. > > Indeed. Practice is essential (abhyasa vairagyabhyam - by practice and > non-attachment). The mind must grow 'strong', practice is the means. Through > continued strength of practice the mind begins to fly to vicara at every > opportunity. This is what is meant by 'automatic'. Like a man with his head > held under water longs for air so the mind as soon as distracted by the > lures of the world must immediately seek vicara. With practice that which > once, apparently, took intense effort becomes effortlessness. > > > He also teaches that practice mainly consists of > > eliminating the erronious ideas (super-impositions) that show up as > > identification with the world or body or senses or prajna, or mind. > > when all these are removed, then the seeker will be able to identify > > as, to stand as, Being-Conscious-Bliss. > > neti neti - not this, not this -- while useful, this tends to be an > intellectual practice. On this Sri Ramana has said: > > D. : I begin to ask myself 'Who am I?', eliminate body as not 'I', the > breath as not 'I', the mind as not 'I' and I am not able to proceed further. > > M. : Well, that is so far as the intellect goes. Your process is only > intellectual. Indeed, all the scriptures mention the process only to guide > the seeker to know the Truth. The Truth cannot be directly pointed out. > Hence this intellectual process. > > You see the one who eliminates all the 'not I' cannot eliminate the 'I'. To > say 'I am not this' or 'I am that' there must be the 'I'. This 'I' is only > the ego or the 'I'-thought...Therefore seek the root, question yourself > 'Who am I?'; find out its source. (Talk, 197) > > > In my own experience, not until I choose to practice r3egularly did > > much deep progress occur. > > It must go beyond choice. It must become a necessity. > > > > I have also heard Nome warn against negating the need to practice by > > use of nonduality as an idea rather than as where one actually > > stands. > > Indeed. The idea 'non-duality' is only valid as opposition to > 'duality'...neither have anything to do with the Quest, Being. > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Richard, Indeed, I don't see any disagreement here the point being that the understanding that comes from 'neti neti' remains mindstuff without the quest 'Who am I?' As a preliminary understanding it is indeed helpful. In the ultimate analysis however to say 'I am this' or 'I am not that' remains in the realm of limitations. In Sri David Godman's 'Be As You Are', chapter 6 gives numerous examples of this very important point. Later in the text you have quoted there appears the statement 'Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the 'I'-thought and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is only through the enquiry 'Who am I?' that the mind subsides.' (from 'Who am I?') Even the affirmation 'I am Brahman' or the negation 'I am not this body' leaves the 'I' who makes the declaration...Who is it? Ultimately, once again, we are lead to investigation of the Self. This is the point. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles > Dear Miles, > > In terms of Ramana's recommendations on negation (neti, neti), I > repost from "Who am I?" > > Paragraph 3 > > Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical > adjuncts and their functions, saying `I am not this; no, nor am I > this, nor this' – that which remains separate and alone by itself, > that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very > nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). > > This seems to fit with what my teacher says about the importance of > eliminating the illusion to clear the field for the Real. > > We are Not two, > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Gabriele: Thanks for this correction. Can you point me to where Bhagavan talks about this? On your second point, I think we need to define our terms. You are describing the case where inquiry "takes over" and it's practice becomes self-perpetuating but what Miles was stating is that practice isn't necessary and that inquiry should be spontaneous or random which is something different. Mark Dear Mark, in the case of Ramana sitting in a dark pit it was no practice/sadhana but simply happened. His realization was final and there was no deepening afterwards. Outwarldy we see changes in His life, but when asked about He assured that the changes have been only outwardly. Inquiry will happen spontaneously - there is no contradiction that it also needs all effort - moment to moment and needs to be cultivated. When practice is deepened it becomes natural and not-enquiring is unnatural. So spontaneity sets in and it is discovered that it always has been natural but we have forgotten and it was hidden because the unnatural was made natural. This is when the I-I from within takes over. In HIM Gabriele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Richard: I agree with your points. I believe there is a common error that people make by assiming that since there is "nothing to attain" that it means essentially that one doesn't need practice and this is a misunderstanding. I've encountered many people who, because of this misunderstanding, decide they've "achieved it" because they have an intellectual understanding only. Mark Discrmination, Detachment, The "six essentials" of peacefulness, Self-control, Renunciation, Fortitude, Faith, and Deep Meditation Desire for Liberation In my own experience, not until I choose to practice r3egularly did much deep progress occur. I have also heard Nome warn against negating the need to practice by use of nonduality as an idea rather than as where one actually stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Miles: I agree with you here. There is a distinction between mindstuff and practices that take place on that level and inquiry which penentrates to the place prior to mind and attention. Mark Indeed, I don't see any disagreement here the point being that the understanding that comes from 'neti neti' remains mindstuff without the quest 'Who am I?' As a preliminary understanding it is indeed helpful. In the ultimate analysis however to say 'I am this' or 'I am not that' remains in the realm of limitations. In Sri David Godman's 'Be As You Are', chapter 6 gives numerous examples of this very important point. Later in the text you have quoted there appears the statement 'Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the 'I'-thought and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is only through the enquiry 'Who am I?' that the mind subsides.' (from 'Who am I?') Even the affirmation 'I am Brahman' or the negation 'I am not this body' leaves the 'I' who makes the declaration...Who is it? Ultimately, once again, we are lead to investigation of the Self. This is the point. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Dear Mark, there are different sources. One of them is Mudaliar: Day by Day with Bhagavan, entry 4.10.46: Bhagavan replied: "I have never done any sadhana. I did not even know what sadhana was. Only long afterwards I came to know what sadhana was and how many different kind of it there were. It is only if there was any object or anything different from me that I could think of it. Only if there was a goal to attain, I should have made sadhana to attain the goal. There was nothing which I wanted to obtain. I am now sitting with my eyes open. I was then sitting with my eyes closed. That was all the difference. I was not doing any sadhana even then. As I sat with my eyes closed, people said I was in samadhi. As i was not talking, they said I was in mauna. The fact is, I did nothing. Some Higher Power took hold on me and I was entirely in Its hand." About what Miles said - he said not that practice is not necessary - in contrary. In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Gabriele: > > Thanks for this correction. Can you point me to where Bhagavan talks > about this? > On your second point, I think we need to define our terms. You are describing > the case where inquiry "takes over" and it's practice becomes self- perpetuating > but what Miles was stating is that practice isn't necessary and that inquiry should > be spontaneous or random which is something different. > > Mark > > > > Dear Mark, > in the case of Ramana sitting in a dark pit it was no > practice/sadhana but simply happened. His realization was final and > there was no deepening afterwards. Outwarldy we see changes in His > life, but when asked about He assured that the changes have been only > outwardly. > Inquiry will happen spontaneously - there is no contradiction that it > also needs all effort - moment to moment and needs to be cultivated. > When practice is deepened it becomes natural and not-enquiring is > unnatural. So spontaneity sets in and it is discovered that it always > has been natural but we have forgotten and it was hidden because the > unnatural was made natural. This is when the I-I from within takes > over. > > > In HIM > Gabriele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Gabriele: I've read this quote since I've read "Day by Day with Bhagavan" but I don't recall it. I see your point. Thanks, Mark Dear Mark, there are different sources. One of them is Mudaliar: Day by Day with Bhagavan, entry 4.10.46: Bhagavan replied: "I have never done any sadhana. I did not even know what sadhana was. Only long afterwards I came to know what sadhana was and how many different kind of it there were. It is only if there was any object or anything different from me that I could think of it. Only if there was a goal to attain, I should have made sadhana to attain the goal. There was nothing which I wanted to obtain. I am now sitting with my eyes open. I was then sitting with my eyes closed. That was all the difference. I was not doing any sadhana even then. As I sat with my eyes closed, people said I was in samadhi. As i was not talking, they said I was in mauna. The fact is, I did nothing. Some Higher Power took hold on me and I was entirely in Its hand." About what Miles said - he said not that practice is not necessary - in contrary. In HIM Gabriele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Mark, > but what Miles was stating is that practice isn't necessary and that inquiry > should be spontaneous or random which is something different. Enquiry is deliberate...never random. Practice is all important. Spontaneity (unforced, natural) is manifestation of everflowing Grace when strength of mind ensues. Then that which has taken effort becomes effortless. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Miles: Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood your original message and I see now what you were referring to. My mistake. Mark om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya Dear Mark, > but what Miles was stating is that practice isn't necessary and that inquiry > should be spontaneous or random which is something different. Enquiry is deliberate...never random. Practice is all important. Spontaneity (unforced, natural) is manifestation of everflowing Grace when strength of mind ensues. Then that which has taken effort becomes effortless. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles 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.