Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 Two questions starting with the following. Ramana advises meditating on the Self as the subject. Is that really just another object to meditate on? One starts with some words to help quiet the mind. Nisargadatta suggests repeating the words "I Am" and refusing all thoughts and feelings except the "I Am" sense of conscious presence. Then when a seeker is more advanced he advises to drop the words and do it silently. Ramana suggests the "to whom" series of questions ending in "Who Am I" but for an advanced seeker one meditates on the Self, which is the Subject or "I Am" without words. All this to my knowledge is called Self Inquiry. During this process I noticed that one can sweep away thoughts with the mindfulness broom or if one is gifted one may have enough exclusive focus to mediate on the Subject, But even when the mind is quiet there is still that sensing, so that becomes the object of meditation. Nisargadatta has also said that it is all sensing unless the attention eats up the attention, then you may go to the no-knowingness deep dark blue state. It this how you see the process? Feel free to correct my take on this. Next question: If we succeed in this Self Inquiry and realize the Self, is it just self hypnosis? We have studied the teachings of the sages and are fully convinced, maybe through brain washing, that it is true. Will be then become Ramana Self hypnotized clones? Thanks to anyone who has the knowledge to answer these questions. Aloha, Alton the "Fool" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 Aloha Alton, Bless the fools. They have the wisdom to `not know.' My comments. As always I want to be clear on where I write from. I am just another seeker. I self-studied Zen and Ch'an Buddhist material for about 25 years, and had a long-term `mindfulness' practice. Perhaps 12 years ago I was blessed to be brought to hear the teaching of Nome at Society of Abidance in Truth (SAT) in Santa Cruz. Nome is self-realized, and always teaches standing as the Highest. SAT provides the teachings and practice of Ramana Maharshi, in perhaps the most complete form available. As to this one as a seeker, the progress is slow. And deepening continues. And there are occasional `glimpses' of a deep Reality within. I have read some of Nisargadatta (I am That and your postings), and see his as another Self-realized teacher. His language is different from Ramana's but the realization sure seems the same. This is consistent with what I know about spirituality, "One Realization, Many Paths." This gives the seeker a special problem if they read various teachers, to discriminate the teachings well enough (beyond the words used) to understand what is really there. It seems that different teachers teach in different conceptual frameworks that which is in no way conceptual and which fits no conceptual framework. Their framework is tempered by the culture in which they matured, and the way that they came to their own Realization. One problem for teachers is that they must use `illusion' to free us from `illusion.' (That is our problem as seekers, as well. To use maya to free ourselves of maya.) (They also need to encourage our practice without feeding our egos.) I am glad you started this dialog. After reading your last Nisargadatta post, I was thinking that his realization was the same as Ramana's and his view of "the way it is" seems the same. So I wondered as to the difference in practice between the two teachers? Now to your questions: Is Ramana's Self-inquiry "just another object to meditate on?" Well, what I have learned to look for in my inquiry is "he who knows" or "he who puts the reality" or "he who actually exists." Looking for "He who knows" this mind is not objective. Notice that the inquiry can take many different forms, can start with different variations, each one of which `points' beyond the mind and ego to the Being-Consciousness-Bliss on which the mind and ego `stand.' Another answer (one that I think Miles would give differently) … We are taught at SAT to use our intellect as a part of our practice. It works like this: In the beginning of inquiry the seeker is discriminating who they are and who they are not. There is a part of this that is a mental process, and that uses the intellect. The intellect is a `friend' of the practitioner, though, not the enemy. When the intellect is in agreement with the practice, it makes meditation that leads to samadhi much more accessible. So the `early' parts of inquiry have as their feature discrimination of `what is real' from `what is unreal' leading to the quiet mind and samadhi experiences. Then with the quiet mind or the samadhi experience, the inquiry can begin (anew, at a MUCH DEEPER place). In this inquiry one again notices that the quiet or the samadhi is known by someone. Who is that someone? (Who am I?) Self-inquiry (and Advaita Vedanta) are known as "Knowledge" practices. My teachers stress that spiritual progress really consists of Knowledge. When the seeker knows themselves as `they really are' then this is Self-Knowledge. I can't really explain this adequately, but this Knowledge (though it may use the intellect) is not a mental conceptual knowledge. This is Knowledge at the same level that you know your own existence. Ramana recommended inquiry to bring this Self-Knowledge. Even though the early stages of inquiry seem more mental, since they use the intellect, they also consist of this Knowledge. Knowing that there is an Absolute, or that the source of ahppiness is within are examples of this early Knowledge. It seems that Nisargadatta uses an approach that seems more like `repetition.' I suspect that in actual practice, though, it is not repetition, but rather an alive internal looking at one's own Being. I would note that in my own inquiry, I always start with the sense of my existence. I think that is very much like the "I am" that Nisargadatta taught. In my own experiences I am sure that what happens is nothing like any kind of self hypnosis. In those times where I feel like I touched `something deeper' my experience is alert, aware, the sense of `bright consciousness,' a sense of joy, a sense of the `quiet.' I was perfectly able to respond to the environment as needed. It is, I suspect, a different way of using the brain. There is plenty of scientific evidence of a very different brain-state associated with deep spirituality. Among other things there is a part of the brain associated with a person's self-identification that becomes much less active (in the studies that I have read of). All for now. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Two questions starting with the following. > Ramana advises meditating on the Self as the subject. Is that really just another object to meditate on? > > One starts with some words to help quiet the mind. Nisargadatta suggests repeating the words "I Am" and refusing all thoughts and feelings except the "I Am" sense of conscious presence. Then when a seeker is more advanced he advises to drop the words and do it silently. > > Ramana suggests the "to whom" series of questions ending in "Who Am I" but for an advanced seeker one meditates on the Self, which is the Subject or "I Am" without words. All this to my knowledge is called Self Inquiry. > > During this process I noticed that one can sweep away thoughts with the mindfulness broom or if one is gifted one may have enough exclusive focus to mediate on the Subject, But even when the mind is quiet there is still that sensing, so that becomes the object of meditation. Nisargadatta has also said that it is all sensing unless the attention eats up the attention, then you may go to the no- knowingness deep dark blue state. > > It this how you see the process? Feel free to correct my take on this. > > Next question: > If we succeed in this Self Inquiry and realize the Self, is it just self hypnosis? We have studied the teachings of the sages and are fully convinced, maybe through brain washing, that it is true. > Will be then become Ramana Self hypnotized clones? > > Thanks to anyone who has the knowledge to answer these questions. > Aloha, > Alton the "Fool" > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Richard wrote: "I always start with the sense of my existence. I think that= is very much like the "I am" that Nisargadatta taught. ..... In those times where I feel like I touched `something deeper´ my exper= ience is alert, aware, the sense of `bright consciousness,´ a sense of joy, = a sense of the `quiet.´ I was perfectly able to respond to the environment = as needed. " Richard, I thought that the above IS IT, to keep that awareness (awareness = 'watching' awareness) state centeredness consciousness carried on two feet, = in everyday life...-- and Nisargadatta's way (he mentions instantaniously re= alizing it) seems fast and easy approach to reach this state and KEEP it as = a state of being a "view". I like simplifying and dislike mystifying and I"= m not looking for samadhi, since I noticed no amount of spiritual practice o= r meditation by itself is enough I MUST catch up 'so to speak' with ALL: my= character right understanding a change even happens on cellular level and s= amadhi experiences come only then. By the way Light and Sound meditation is = great to do the necessary 'cleaning' what do you say? ~all love Karta~ -thanks for the satramana org Url; it is the best Ramana site for my temper= ament.. RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Aloha Alton, > > Bless the fools. They have the wisdom to `not know.' > > My comments. As always I want to be clear on where I write from. I > am just another seeker. I self-studied Zen and Ch'an Buddhist > material for about 25 years, and had a long-term `mindfulness' > practice. Perhaps 12 years ago I was blessed to be brought to hear > the teaching of Nome at Society of Abidance in Truth (SAT) in Santa > Cruz. Nome is self-realized, and always teaches standing as the > Highest. SAT provides the teachings and practice of Ramana Maharshi, > in perhaps the most complete form available. As to this one as a > seeker, the progress is slow. And deepening continues. And there > are occasional `glimpses' of a deep Reality within. > > I have read some of Nisargadatta (I am That and your postings), and > see his as another Self-realized teacher. His language is different > from Ramana's but the realization sure seems the same. This is > consistent with what I know about spirituality, "One Realization, > Many Paths." This gives the seeker a special problem if they read > various teachers, to discriminate the teachings well enough (beyond > the words used) to understand what is really there. > > It seems that different teachers teach in different conceptual > frameworks that which is in no way conceptual and which fits no > conceptual framework. Their framework is tempered by the culture in > which they matured, and the way that they came to their own > Realization. > > One problem for teachers is that they must use `illusion' to free us > from `illusion.' (That is our problem as seekers, as well. To use > maya to free ourselves of maya.) (They also need to encourage our > practice without feeding our egos.) > > I am glad you started this dialog. After reading your last > Nisargadatta post, I was thinking that his realization was the same > as Ramana's and his view of "the way it is" seems the same. So I > wondered as to the difference in practice between the two teachers? > > Now to your questions: > > Is Ramana's Self-inquiry "just another object to meditate on?" Well, > what I have learned to look for in my inquiry is "he who knows" > or "he who puts the reality" or "he who actually exists." Looking > for "He who knows" this mind is not objective. Notice that the > inquiry can take many different forms, can start with different > variations, each one of which `points' beyond the mind and ego to the > Being-Consciousness-Bliss on which the mind and ego `stand.' > > Another answer (one that I think Miles would give differently) … > We are taught at SAT to use our intellect as a part of our practice. > It works like this: In the beginning of inquiry the seeker is > discriminating who they are and who they are not. There is a part of > this that is a mental process, and that uses the intellect. The > intellect is a `friend' of the practitioner, though, not the enemy. > When the intellect is in agreement with the practice, it makes > meditation that leads to samadhi much more accessible. So the `early' > parts of inquiry have as their feature discrimination of `what is > real' from `what is unreal' leading to the quiet mind and samadhi > experiences. > > Then with the quiet mind or the samadhi experience, the inquiry can > begin (anew, at a MUCH DEEPER place). In this inquiry one again > notices that the quiet or the samadhi is known by someone. Who is > that someone? (Who am I?) > > Self-inquiry (and Advaita Vedanta) are known as "Knowledge" > practices. My teachers stress that spiritual progress really > consists of Knowledge. When the seeker knows themselves as `they > really are' then this is Self-Knowledge. I can't really explain this > adequately, but this Knowledge (though it may use the intellect) is > not a mental conceptual knowledge. This is Knowledge at the same > level that you know your own existence. Ramana recommended inquiry > to bring this Self-Knowledge. Even though the early stages of inquiry > seem more mental, since they use the intellect, they also consist of > this Knowledge. Knowing that there is an Absolute, or that the > source of ahppiness is within are examples of this early Knowledge. > > It seems that Nisargadatta uses an approach that seems more > like `repetition.' I suspect that in actual practice, though, it is > not repetition, but rather an alive internal looking at one's own > Being. > > I would note that in my own inquiry, I always start with the sense of > my existence. I think that is very much like the "I am" that > Nisargadatta taught. > > In my own experiences I am sure that what happens is nothing like any > kind of self hypnosis. In those times where I feel like I > touched `something deeper' my experience is alert, aware, the sense > of `bright consciousness,' a sense of joy, a sense of the `quiet.' I > was perfectly able to respond to the environment as needed. > > It is, I suspect, a different way of using the brain. There is > plenty of scientific evidence of a very different brain-state > associated with deep spirituality. Among other things there is a > part of the brain associated with a person's self-identification that > becomes much less active (in the studies that I have read of). > > All for now. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > > Two questions starting with the following. > > Ramana advises meditating on the Self as the subject. Is that > really just another object to meditate on? > > > > One starts with some words to help quiet the mind. Nisargadatta > suggests repeating the words "I Am" and refusing all thoughts and > feelings except the "I Am" sense of conscious presence. Then when a > seeker is more advanced he advises to drop the words and do it > silently. > > > > Ramana suggests the "to whom" series of questions ending in "Who Am > I" but for an advanced seeker one meditates on the Self, which is the > Subject or "I Am" without words. All this to my knowledge is called > Self Inquiry. > > > > During this process I noticed that one can sweep away thoughts with > the mindfulness broom or if one is gifted one may have enough > exclusive focus to mediate on the Subject, But even when the mind is > quiet there is still that sensing, so that becomes the object of > meditation. Nisargadatta has also said that it is all sensing unless > the attention eats up the attention, then you may go to the no- > knowingness deep dark blue state. > > > > It this how you see the process? Feel free to correct my take on > this. > > > > Next question: > > If we succeed in this Self Inquiry and realize the Self, is it just > self hypnosis? We have studied the teachings of the sages and are > fully convinced, maybe through brain washing, that it is true. > > Will be then become Ramana Self hypnotized clones? > > > > Thanks to anyone who has the knowledge to answer these questions. > > Aloha, > > Alton the "Fool" > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Dear Karta, My teachers say, (and Ramana also clearly taught) that Self- realization is a matter of removing false ideas and identifications. Clearly, since Self-realization is who we already are, practice is not a matter of gaining anything new. In terms of what IS IT, let us first speak of IT as Self- Realization. This is a matter of the identity moving from body/senses/mind/ego to Being-Consciousness-Bliss, to the unshakeable knowledge that this is WHO I AM. Now as to practice (the means to `get to the other side') of self- inquiry, this is taught as a `formless' practice. What does this mean? One thing that it means is that different seekers go through different processes at different times in their practice. The heart of the practice is the "looking at the `first' (person)," ones own sense of identity and tracing this to its source. There are many ways to do this. My teachers say that Realization consists of Self- Knowledge (the deep knowing of who we are). This teaching is very old, certainly dating to Sankara (and probably earlier), so this is not some new form of the teaching. They teach inquiry in such a way as to bring about this Self-knowledge. They teach inquiry in a way as to use the intellect as an aide to practice, not as the enemy of practice. As I have learned inquiry, I see that it sometimes seems `active,' sometime `passive.' The `active' periods are where the intellect is more involved in discrimination (of what is real and what is temporary and changing). The `passive' periods are more periods of absorption. I am taught in the times of adsorption to continue the inquiry – someone knows the adsorption, who is he? This inquiry starts as something done during seated meditation. After it progresses, it becomes more continuous, something to be done during daily activity. Who knows this writing of this message? Who am I? Always it points back to the source, the sense of I, the sense of existence, the sense or reality, the source of happiness (these are all equivalent). As the Self-knowledge deepens, so does the experience. It is common that this occurs in `steps,' and with each step there is the experience of more freedom and joy. In all cases, realization may be said to be instantaneous, or can be said not to occur in time at all. I have noticed though, than in many cases the seeker who experienced the instantaneous awakening may have been practicing for many years. Whatever the case, the seeker is best not to get caught up in mental games. Using the mind to `figure it out' is a source of trouble. Using the mind to verify how the Truth is True is a great aide to practice. Do you see the difference? Glad you find the satramana.org site a good fit for your temperament. Thank you for your questions and our dialog. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "satkartar5" <mi_nok> wrote: > Richard wrote: "I always start with the sense of my existence. I think that= > is very much like the "I am" that Nisargadatta taught. > .... In those times where I feel like I touched `something deeper´ my exper= > ience is alert, aware, the sense of `bright consciousness,´ a sense of joy, = > a sense of the `quiet.´ I was perfectly able to respond to the environment = > as needed. " > > Richard, I thought that the above IS IT, to keep that awareness (awareness = > 'watching' awareness) state centeredness consciousness carried on two feet, = > in everyday life...-- and Nisargadatta's way (he mentions instantaniously re= > alizing it) seems fast and easy approach to reach this state and KEEP it as = > a state of being a "view". I like simplifying and dislike mystifying and I"= > m not looking for samadhi, since I noticed no amount of spiritual practice o= > r meditation by itself is enough I MUST catch up 'so to speak' with ALL: my= > character right understanding a change even happens on cellular level and s= > amadhi experiences come only then. By the way Light and Sound meditation is = > great to do the necessary 'cleaning' > > what do you say? > ~all love Karta~ > -thanks for the satramana org Url; it is the best Ramana site for my temper= > ament.. > RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > > Aloha Alton, > > > > Bless the fools. They have the wisdom to `not know.' > > > > My comments. As always I want to be clear on where I write from. I > > am just another seeker. I self-studied Zen and Ch'an Buddhist > > material for about 25 years, and had a long-term `mindfulness' > > practice. Perhaps 12 years ago I was blessed to be brought to hear > > the teaching of Nome at Society of Abidance in Truth (SAT) in Santa > > Cruz. Nome is self-realized, and always teaches standing as the > > Highest. SAT provides the teachings and practice of Ramana Maharshi, > > in perhaps the most complete form available. As to this one as a > > seeker, the progress is slow. And deepening continues. And there > > are occasional `glimpses' of a deep Reality within. > > > > I have read some of Nisargadatta (I am That and your postings), and > > see his as another Self-realized teacher. His language is different > > from Ramana's but the realization sure seems the same. This is > > consistent with what I know about spirituality, "One Realization, > > Many Paths." This gives the seeker a special problem if they read > > various teachers, to discriminate the teachings well enough (beyond > > the words used) to understand what is really there. > > > > It seems that different teachers teach in different conceptual > > frameworks that which is in no way conceptual and which fits no > > conceptual framework. Their framework is tempered by the culture in > > which they matured, and the way that they came to their own > > Realization. > > > > One problem for teachers is that they must use `illusion' to free us > > from `illusion.' (That is our problem as seekers, as well. To use > > maya to free ourselves of maya.) (They also need to encourage our > > practice without feeding our egos.) > > > > I am glad you started this dialog. After reading your last > > Nisargadatta post, I was thinking that his realization was the same > > as Ramana's and his view of "the way it is" seems the same. So I > > wondered as to the difference in practice between the two teachers? > > > > Now to your questions: > > > > Is Ramana's Self-inquiry "just another object to meditate on?" Well, > > what I have learned to look for in my inquiry is "he who knows" > > or "he who puts the reality" or "he who actually exists." Looking > > for "He who knows" this mind is not objective. Notice that the > > inquiry can take many different forms, can start with different > > variations, each one of which `points' beyond the mind and ego to the > > Being-Consciousness-Bliss on which the mind and ego `stand.' > > > > Another answer (one that I think Miles would give differently) … > > We are taught at SAT to use our intellect as a part of our practice. > > It works like this: In the beginning of inquiry the seeker is > > discriminating who they are and who they are not. There is a part of > > this that is a mental process, and that uses the intellect. The > > intellect is a `friend' of the practitioner, though, not the enemy. > > When the intellect is in agreement with the practice, it makes > > meditation that leads to samadhi much more accessible. So the `early' > > parts of inquiry have as their feature discrimination of `what is > > real' from `what is unreal' leading to the quiet mind and samadhi > > experiences. > > > > Then with the quiet mind or the samadhi experience, the inquiry can > > begin (anew, at a MUCH DEEPER place). In this inquiry one again > > notices that the quiet or the samadhi is known by someone. Who is > > that someone? (Who am I?) > > > > Self-inquiry (and Advaita Vedanta) are known as "Knowledge" > > practices. My teachers stress that spiritual progress really > > consists of Knowledge. When the seeker knows themselves as `they > > really are' then this is Self-Knowledge. I can't really explain this > > adequately, but this Knowledge (though it may use the intellect) is > > not a mental conceptual knowledge. This is Knowledge at the same > > level that you know your own existence. Ramana recommended inquiry > > to bring this Self-Knowledge. Even though the early stages of inquiry > > seem more mental, since they use the intellect, they also consist of > > this Knowledge. Knowing that there is an Absolute, or that the > > source of ahppiness is within are examples of this early Knowledge. > > > > It seems that Nisargadatta uses an approach that seems more > > like `repetition.' I suspect that in actual practice, though, it is > > not repetition, but rather an alive internal looking at one's own > > Being. > > > > I would note that in my own inquiry, I always start with the sense of > > my existence. I think that is very much like the "I am" that > > Nisargadatta taught. > > > > In my own experiences I am sure that what happens is nothing like any > > kind of self hypnosis. In those times where I feel like I > > touched `something deeper' my experience is alert, aware, the sense > > of `bright consciousness,' a sense of joy, a sense of the `quiet.' I > > was perfectly able to respond to the environment as needed. > > > > It is, I suspect, a different way of using the brain. There is > > plenty of scientific evidence of a very different brain-state > > associated with deep spirituality. Among other things there is a > > part of the brain associated with a person's self-identification that > > becomes much less active (in the studies that I have read of). > > > > All for now. > > > > We are Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "I-I" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Two questions starting with the following. > > > Ramana advises meditating on the Self as the subject. Is that > > really just another object to meditate on? > > > > > > One starts with some words to help quiet the mind. Nisargadatta > > suggests repeating the words "I Am" and refusing all thoughts and > > feelings except the "I Am" sense of conscious presence. Then when a > > seeker is more advanced he advises to drop the words and do it > > silently. > > > > > > Ramana suggests the "to whom" series of questions ending in "Who Am > > I" but for an advanced seeker one meditates on the Self, which is the > > Subject or "I Am" without words. All this to my knowledge is called > > Self Inquiry. > > > > > > During this process I noticed that one can sweep away thoughts with > > the mindfulness broom or if one is gifted one may have enough > > exclusive focus to mediate on the Subject, But even when the mind is > > quiet there is still that sensing, so that becomes the object of > > meditation. Nisargadatta has also said that it is all sensing unless > > the attention eats up the attention, then you may go to the no- > > knowingness deep dark blue state. > > > > > > It this how you see the process? Feel free to correct my take on > > this. > > > > > > Next question: > > > If we succeed in this Self Inquiry and realize the Self, is it just > > self hypnosis? We have studied the teachings of the sages and are > > fully convinced, maybe through brain washing, that it is true. > > > Will be then become Ramana Self hypnotized clones? > > > > > > Thanks to anyone who has the knowledge to answer these questions. > > > Aloha, > > > Alton the "Fool" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.