Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Snip from " I Am That" Reality cannot be Expressed. C# 42 Q: I have noticed a new self emerging in me, independent of the old self. They somehow co-exist. The old self goes on its habitual ways; the new lets the old be, but does not identify itself with it. M: What is the difference between the old self and the new? Q: The old self wants everything defined and explained. It wants things to fit each other verbally. The new does not care for verbal explanations - it accepts things as they are and does not seek to relate them to things remembered. M: Are you fully and constantly aware of the difference between the habitual and the spiritual? What is the attitude of the new self to the old? Q: The new just looks at the old. It is neither friendly nor inimical. It just accepts the old self along with everything else. It does not deny its being, but does not accept its value and validity. M: The new is the total denial of the old. The permissive new is not really new. It is but a new attitude of the old. The really new obliterates the old completely. The two cannot be together. Is there a process of self-denudation, a constant refusal to accept the old ideas and values, or is there just a mutual tolerance? What is there relation? Q: There is no particular relation. They co-exist. M: When you talk of the old self and new, whom do you have in mind? As there is continuity in memory between the two, each remembering the other, how can you speak of two selves? Q: One is slave to habits, the other is not. One conceptualizes, the other is free from all ideas. M: Why two selves? Between the bound and the free there can be no relationship. The very fact of co-existence proves their basic unity. There is but on self - it is always now. What you call the other self - old or new - is but a modality, another aspect of the one self. The self is single. You are that self and you have ideas of what you have been or will be. But an idea is not the self. Just now, as you are sitting in front of me, which self are you? The old or the new? Q: The two are in conflict. M: How can there be conflict between what is and what is not? Conflict is the characteristic of the old. When the new emerges, the old is no longer. You cannot speak of the new self and the conflict in the same breath. Even the effort of striving for the new self is of the old. Wherever there is conflict, effort, struggle, striving, longing for a change, the new is not. To what extent are you free for the habitual tendency to create and perpetuate conflicts? Q: I cannot say that I am now a different man. But I did discover new things about myself, states so unlike what I knew before, that I feel justified in calling them new. M: The old self is your own self. The state which sprouts suddenly and without cause, carries no stain of self; you may call it 'god'. What is seedless and rootless, what does not sprout and grow, flower and fruit, what comes into being suddenly and in full glory, mysteriously and marvelously you may call that 'god'. It is entirely unexpected yet inevitable, infinitely familiar yet most surprising, beyond all hope yet absolutely certain. Because it is without cause, it is without hindrance. It obeys one law only; the law of freedom. anything that implies a continuity, a sequence, a passing from stage to stage cannot be the real. There is no progress in reality, it is final, perfect unrelated. Q: How can I bring it about? M: You can do nothing to bring it about, but you can avoid creating obstacles. Watch your mind, how it comes into being, how it operates. As you watch your mind, you discover yourself as the watcher. When you stand motionless,only watching, you discover your self as the light behind the watcher. The source of light is dark, unknown is the source of knowledge. That source alone is. Go back to that source and abide there. It is not in the sky nor in the all - pervading ether. God is all that is great and wonderful; I am nothing, have nothing, can do nothing. Yet all comes out of me - the source is me; the root, the origin is me. When realty explodes in you, you may call it experience of God. Or, rather, it is God experiencing you. God knows you when you know yourself. Reality is not the result of a process; it is an explosion. It is definitely beyond the mind, but all you can do is to know your mind well. Not that the mind will help you, but by knowing your mind you may avoid your mind disabling you. It is like watching a thief - not that you expect anything from a thief, but you do not want to be robbed. In the same way you give a lot of attention to the mind without expecting anything from it......................... 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, This seems to me much like what Ramana said. Different words perhaps, but the same core. "Watch your mind" is like the active component of inquiry. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: big snip >Watch your mind, how it comes into being, how it operates. As you watch your mind, you discover yourself as the watcher. When you stand motionless,only watching, you discover your self as the light behind the watcher. The source of light is dark, unknown is the source of knowledge. That source alone is. Go back to that source and abide there> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 Richard: I agree with you. I believe Maharaj is referring to a type inquiry practice and is describing the witness state. When Maharaj is referring to the source, I believe he is referring to the same thing as Bhagavan. You recently mentioned there being many different Advaita practices and you are, of course, correct. I believe some of the practices used in Zen could be considered Advaita practices even if they don't use the same terminology because they both assume the non-dual nature and the practices are based on this assumption. In fact, the real point of koans is not to answer peculiar questions, it's to transcend the dualistic mind. Mark Dear Alton, This seems to me much like what Ramana said. Different words perhaps, but the same core. "Watch your mind" is like the active component of inquiry. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: big snip >Watch your mind, how it comes into being, how it operates. As you watch your mind, you discover yourself as the watcher. When you stand motionless,only watching, you discover your self as the light behind the watcher. The source of light is dark, unknown is the source of knowledge. That source alone is. Go back to that source and abide there> 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 6, 2002 Report Share Posted July 6, 2002 Mark, There is a kind of Ch'an/Zen practice called "Hua-Tou" ("word's head", or "thought's beginning"). It refers to the origin of consciousness where no thought has yet arisen. These are as old as the koan, but have not recieved the publicity. Certainly this is another non-dual practice -- and another case where language and terminology are very different. Advaita says there is only Self, Buddhism says "no self." Different (opposite) words, same realization. Here are some Hua-Tou examples: a. Where is the mind? b. Before I was born in this world, where was I? (Or, more well known, What was my face before I was born?) c. Where does this idea or conception or delusion or thinking come from? d. Any Hua-Tou may be used. The rule for choosing lies in the force of the feeling of doubt it arouses. That Hua-Tou which gives rise to the strongest feeling of doubt is the best one for you. Like inquiry, the Hua-Tou is a question that points the seeker at that on which the mind 'rests.' We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Richard: > > I agree with you. I believe Maharaj is referring to a type inquiry practice and > is describing the witness state. When Maharaj is referring to the source, > I believe he is referring to the same thing as Bhagavan. > > You recently mentioned there being many different Advaita practices and you > are, of course, correct. I believe some of the practices used in Zen could be > considered Advaita practices even if they don't use the same terminology because > they both assume the non-dual nature and the practices are based on this assumption. > In fact, the real point of koans is not to answer peculiar questions, it's to > transcend the > dualistic mind. > > Mark > > > Dear Alton, > > This seems to me much like what Ramana said. Different words > perhaps, but the same core. > > "Watch your mind" is like the active component of inquiry. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > big snip > >Watch your mind, how it comes into being, how it operates. As you > watch your mind, you discover yourself as the watcher. When you stand > motionless,only watching, you discover your self as the light behind > the watcher. The source of light is dark, unknown is the source of > knowledge. That source alone is. Go back to that source and abide > there> > > > > Sponsor > > > > 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 6, 2002 Report Share Posted July 6, 2002 Hi Richard: Thanks for this info, I haven't seen this before. It does make sense from the non-dual perspective and reinforces my observation that there are many similarities between higher Zen and Buddha Dharma and Bhagavan's teaching and Advaita. I would venture to say that the realization is the same. I also recall reading somewhere where a particular Buddhist Siddha, Manjusri I believe, achieved enlightenment through a hearing practice that involved something like inquiry. As I recall the practice was to listen to sound and inquire into each sound as to who was hearing it. Very similar to Bhagavan's teaching. Regards, Mark Mark, There is a kind of Ch'an/Zen practice called "Hua-Tou" ("word's head", or "thought's beginning"). It refers to the origin of consciousness where no thought has yet arisen. These are as old as the koan, but have not recieved the publicity. Certainly this is another non-dual practice -- and another case where language and terminology are very different. Advaita says there is only Self, Buddhism says "no self." Different (opposite) words, same realization. Here are some Hua-Tou examples: a. Where is the mind? b. Before I was born in this world, where was I? (Or, more well known, What was my face before I was born?) c. Where does this idea or conception or delusion or thinking come from? d. Any Hua-Tou may be used. The rule for choosing lies in the force of the feeling of doubt it arouses. That Hua-Tou which gives rise to the strongest feeling of doubt is the best one for you. Like inquiry, the Hua-Tou is a question that points the seeker at that on which the mind 'rests.' We are Not two, Richard 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.