Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dear Gabriele: Thanks for your response. I thought that one does make the "I" thought or "I Am" the object of meditation in Vichara or Self Inquiry. There has to be some object for the subject as long as we have not realized and still perceive objects. As the eye cannot see itself, so the knower can not know it self as an object, right? Nisargadatta said that the "I Am" is the way in and also the way out. What does Ramana say about the aforesaid. Anyone who has some information about this thanks in advance. Also, when using the "I Am" in practice is that object also part of the elements. So that when we close our eyes the darkness we see or light if we see any is inextricably coupled with the element of space. Therefore gazing into the darkness is the "I Am" sense of presence as an object. I don't know that much about how the elements work except for the teachings that we had in Vipasana where one can penetrate the elements during intense meditation. Maybe we need a Buddhist scholar to explain this or do we have one here? If we were able to put 100 percent of our attention on the "I Am" IMO we would realized in a flash. However our attention is scattered in being something, wanting something, having something and our storehouse karmas that are sucking up attention parts. Aloha, Tired of Names but not of this great group. RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Dear Alton, > don't know if this is of any help. All what can be said about has > already been said - so far I see. Ramana has said it all. > The 'I' has not to be made another object - but awareness stays in > this primal 'I'-thought or -feeling, which is the root of all other > thoughts and so the I-thought will be drawn back to the Heart and be > consumed there. This is only possible with a silent mind. Attention > is then on itself and not on a centre in the body or elsewhere. The > body can do and experience meanwhile what it wants - that means > nothing. > If you feel drawn to focus on a centre in the body to make the mind > onepointed and silent - that's fine. Whatever helps to silence the > mind is fine. The I-thought arises from the Heart, from there all > other thoughts come up and go up to the brain - so perhaps you can > try to go the way back: from focus on the brain to the Heart. > > In HIM > Gabriele > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Atlon Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear Rob and everybody who reads or posts about this. > > > > OK, you say, "hold fast to this 'I'".) > > > > Now what exactly do I focus on when I hold the "I"? > > > > I make the 'I' another object, replacing all thoughts, sensations > of > > the body with this 'I' object. Moving the attention to the silence > > between the thoughts when I become aware of other unsolicited > objects > > appearing in consciousness? > > > > But, while doing the above one has to put the attention somewhere > in > > the body or in space? Since my thoughts appear to be arising in my > > brain I have found that I have much less thoughts focusing on that > > area. This morning I tried the right side of the heart and found > that > > I had 10 times the thoughts I usually have when I focus on the > > forehead or inside my head. My sense of presence or 'I' thought can > > be anywhere I chose to be aware of it? Right? > > If the attention is focused on the 'I' thought is that just another > > way of saying that the attention is on the attention or the space > > between the thoughts in the waking state? > > > > When the attention eats up the attention is that not samadhi or a > > possible entry into Self Realization? > > > > These questions are from a novice, but how can I learn unless I ask > > them. > > > > Also, Richard the questions for Self Inquiry that you shared are > > direct and informative, but are we not taking away the silence of > the > > mind and poluting the mind with so many questions. Is not Vichara > > done with a silent mind more efficacious? Or is that silent Vichara > > for advanced seekers. > > > > Thanks everyone in advance for replies. > > > > Tired of Names.. Aka Alton Slater > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > > Dear Everybody, > > > > > > Here's a passage from Talks that addresses this point > > > precisely. > > > > > > (Alton: regarding focus, he says "hold fast to this 'I'".) > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > .................... > > > > > > From Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi, article 131: > > > > > > D.: There are said to be six organs of different colours in > > > the chest, of which the heart is said to be two finger-breadths > > > to the right of the middle line. But the Heart is also formless. > > > Should we then imagine it to have a shape and meditate on it? > > > > > > M.: No. Only the quest "Who am I?" is necessary. What > > > remains all through deep sleep and waking is the same. > > > But in waking there is unhappiness and the effort to remove > > > it. Asked who wakes up from sleep you say 'I'. Now you > > > are told to hold fast to this 'I'. If it is done the eternal being > > > will reveal Itself. Investigation of 'I' is the point and not > > > meditation on the heart-centre. There is nothing like > > > within or without. Both mean either the same thing or > > > nothing. > > > > > > Of course there is also the practice of meditation on the > > > heart-centre. It is only a practice and not investigation. > > > Only the one who meditates on the heart can remain aware > > > when the mind ceases to be active and remains still; whereas > > > those who meditate on other centres cannot be so aware but > > > infer that the mind was still only after it becomes again > > > active. > > > .......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dear Alton. vichara is not meditation on an I-thought as an object. What happens to the primal I-thought, to the feeling of I when it is on itself without this identification with objects? That is it what has to be found out by inquiry. The knower can not know itself as an object - right, as much as the eye can not see itself. I am not familiar enough with Nisargadatta's teaching to answer your question. Also I don't understand what is meant with "gazing in the darkness". Why should you gaze anywhere? Light, darkness - it's the eye (I) which sees. What is that eye (I)? You can't "use the I-am" - you only can stay in awareness of I am. It is nothing which can be "used". In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "Atlon Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Gabriele: > Thanks for your response. > > I thought that one does make the "I" thought or "I Am" the object of > meditation in Vichara or Self Inquiry. There has to be some object > for the subject as long as we have not realized and still perceive > objects. As the eye cannot see itself, so the knower can not know it > self as an object, right? Nisargadatta said that the "I Am" is the > way in and also the way out. What does Ramana say about the > aforesaid. Anyone who has some information about this thanks in > advance. > > Also, when using the "I Am" in practice is that object also part of > the elements. So that when we close our eyes the darkness we see or > light if we see any is inextricably coupled with the element of space. > Therefore gazing into the darkness is the "I Am" sense of presence as > an object. > > > I don't know that much about how the elements work except for the > teachings that we had in Vipasana where one can penetrate the > elements during intense meditation. Maybe we need a Buddhist scholar > to explain this or do we have one here? > > If we were able to put 100 percent of our attention on the "I Am" IMO > we would realized in a flash. However our attention is scattered in > being something, wanting something, having something and our > storehouse karmas that are sucking up attention parts. > > Aloha, > Tired of Names but not of this great group. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dear Gabriele: Now I am more confused than ever. My idea was that when Vichara succeeds then there is no longer any objects to meditate on, but until it does then meditating on the Self is an object. Anyway what does it matter as someday we shall know the Self and not just intellectually. Aloha, Tired of Names. . RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Dear Alton. > vichara is not meditation on an I-thought as an object. What happens > to the primal I-thought, to the feeling of I when it is on itself > without this identification with objects? That is it what has to be > found out by inquiry. > > The knower can not know itself as an object - right, as much as the > eye can not see itself. > I am not familiar enough with Nisargadatta's teaching to answer your > question. Also I don't understand what is meant with "gazing in the > darkness". Why should you gaze anywhere? Light, darkness - it's the > eye (I) which sees. What is that eye (I)? > You can't "use the I-am" - you only can stay in awareness of I am. It > is nothing which can be "used". > > In HIM > Gabriele > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Atlon Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear Gabriele: > > Thanks for your response. > > > > I thought that one does make the "I" thought or "I Am" the object > of > > meditation in Vichara or Self Inquiry. There has to be some object > > for the subject as long as we have not realized and still perceive > > objects. As the eye cannot see itself, so the knower can not know > it > > self as an object, right? Nisargadatta said that the "I Am" is the > > way in and also the way out. What does Ramana say about the > > aforesaid. Anyone who has some information about this thanks in > > advance. > > > > Also, when using the "I Am" in practice is that object also part of > > the elements. So that when we close our eyes the darkness we see or > > light if we see any is inextricably coupled with the element of > space. > > Therefore gazing into the darkness is the "I Am" sense of presence > as > > an object. > > > > > > I don't know that much about how the elements work except for the > > teachings that we had in Vipasana where one can penetrate the > > elements during intense meditation. Maybe we need a Buddhist > scholar > > to explain this or do we have one here? > > > > If we were able to put 100 percent of our attention on the "I Am" > IMO > > we would realized in a flash. However our attention is scattered in > > being something, wanting something, having something and our > > storehouse karmas that are sucking up attention parts. > > > > Aloha, > > Tired of Names but not of this great group. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dear confused Alton, aka now: Tired of Names, so as you are now tired of names you perhaps are also tired of identification with objects? Do the same and drop and ask "Who am I" - LOL. Ah, Gabriele is speaking nonsense. Good night In HIM Gabriele PS: Object - subject - hmm. The Self is One - allincluding. RamanaMaharshi, "Atlon Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Gabriele: > Now I am more confused than ever. My idea was that when Vichara > succeeds then there is no longer any objects to meditate on, but > until it does then meditating on the Self is an object. > Anyway what does it matter as someday we shall know the Self and not > just intellectually. > > Aloha, > Tired of Names. . > > RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > > Dear Alton. > > vichara is not meditation on an I-thought as an object. What > happens > > to the primal I-thought, to the feeling of I when it is on itself > > without this identification with objects? That is it what has to be > > found out by inquiry. > > > > The knower can not know itself as an object - right, as much as the > > eye can not see itself. > > I am not familiar enough with Nisargadatta's teaching to answer > your > > question. Also I don't understand what is meant with "gazing in the > > darkness". Why should you gaze anywhere? Light, darkness - it's the > > eye (I) which sees. What is that eye (I)? > > You can't "use the I-am" - you only can stay in awareness of I am. > It > > is nothing which can be "used". > > > > In HIM > > Gabriele > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Atlon Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > Dear Gabriele: > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > > > I thought that one does make the "I" thought or "I Am" the object > > of > > > meditation in Vichara or Self Inquiry. There has to be some > object > > > for the subject as long as we have not realized and still > perceive > > > objects. As the eye cannot see itself, so the knower can not know > > it > > > self as an object, right? Nisargadatta said that the "I Am" is > the > > > way in and also the way out. What does Ramana say about the > > > aforesaid. Anyone who has some information about this thanks in > > > advance. > > > > > > Also, when using the "I Am" in practice is that object also part > of > > > the elements. So that when we close our eyes the darkness we see > or > > > light if we see any is inextricably coupled with the element of > > space. > > > Therefore gazing into the darkness is the "I Am" sense of > presence > > as > > > an object. > > > > > > > > > I don't know that much about how the elements work except for the > > > teachings that we had in Vipasana where one can penetrate the > > > elements during intense meditation. Maybe we need a Buddhist > > scholar > > > to explain this or do we have one here? > > > > > > If we were able to put 100 percent of our attention on the "I Am" > > IMO > > > we would realized in a flash. However our attention is scattered > in > > > being something, wanting something, having something and our > > > storehouse karmas that are sucking up attention parts. > > > > > > Aloha, > > > Tired of Names but not of this great group. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dear Alton, The basic idea of self-inquiry is that you place your attention on the subject in an effort to find it. Here is how Sri Ramana said it: .. "Meditation requires an object to meditate .. on, whereas there is only the subject without .. the object in vichara. Meditation differs .. from vichara in this way. .. (Talks, article 390.) Since we are focusing attention on the subject, can't we call it an object? Sure, why not? Call it anything you like. It's imaginary anyway so who cares what we call it? Sri Ramana does the same thing. Here's a passage that answers all your questions. He analyzes the whole process of self- inquiry in terms of subject and object, and finishes by saying that the ego (the I-thought, the imaginary subject) is an object: .. D.: How is that Self to be known or realised? .. .. M.: Transcend the present plane of relativity. .. A separate being (Self) appears to know something .. apart from itself (non-Self). That is, the subject .. is aware of the object. The seer is drik; the seen .. is drisya. .. .. There must be a unity underlying these two, which .. arises as 'ego'. This ego is of the nature of chit .. (intelligence); achit (insentient object) is only the .. negation of chit. Therefore the underlying .. essence is akin to the subject and not the object. .. Seeking the drik, until all the drisya disappears, .. the drik will become subtler and subtler until the .. absolute drik alone survives. The process is called .. drisya vilaya (the disappearance of the objective .. world). .. .. D: Why should the objects drisya be eliminated? .. Cannot the Truth be realised even keeping the .. object as it is? .. .. M.: No. Elimination of drisya means elimination .. of separate identities of the subject and object. The .. object is unreal. All drisya (including ego) is the .. object. (From Talks, article 25) Did you see that last line? The ego itself -- that is to say, the I-thought, the subject that you take as the focus of your attention in the initial stages of the inquiry -- is an object. Best regards, Rob - "Atlon Slater" <leenalton <RamanaMaharshi> Friday, September 13, 2002 12:02 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Gabriele and everyone on the 'I' thought 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.