The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard and Rob:

Both of you present cogent views on the ego and giving up tendencies.

I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from experience.

The more things I give up the more joy for life and consequently more peace I

have.

 

Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and read Ramana, but my prarabda

says not yet. Today we went to a Symphony concert and it was nice, but I find

that I am no longer interested in music. I only force myself to practice every

two weeks for a few minutes because I have one student and have to demonstrate

pieces for her.

 

I don't seem to have any real interest for anything except the aforesaid.

It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is just what the universe is

giving me?

Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and even though we may think

that we are making choices, we are not. If there is no ego that has substance

then how can there be any choices?

 

Thanks in advance anyone, for you replies.

 

I really think it is important to give up everything except family duty and

responsibility

 

Loving Sri Ramana

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Loving,

 

> The more things I give up the more joy for life

> and consequently more peace I have.

 

You're a lucky man.

 

> Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and

> read Ramana, but my prarabda says not yet.

 

The same urge (or lack of urges) has happened to me.

It's a side effect of self-inquiry. Bhakti came to me

too, and I was an atheist. It's an astonishing thing.

If you had told me a few years ago that my life would

turn in this direction, I would have laughed.

 

Here's something from the Talks book:

 

.. D.: What is Renunciation?

..

.. M.: Giving up of the ego.

..

.. D.: Is it not giving up possessions?

..

.. M.: The possessor too. (Article 163.)

 

The point I was trying to make earlier is this: If you

become concerned about the narcissistic things the

ego does, and try to control them by acting differently,

your efforts are counterproductive. Although your goal

with such efforts is to weaken the ego, you actually end

up strengthening it, because all such activities are

activities of the ego.

 

Actually, that point is not my own. I believe it is Sri

Ramana's point. I'm too tired now to search for

quotations but he said the same thing, it's in the Talks

book.

 

Sri Ramana said there are two ways around this problem:

Self-inquiry and surrender. He said these are the only

two kinds of practice that can eliminate the ego. This is

in the Talks book too.

 

> It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is

> just what the universe is giving me?

 

I believe Sri Ramana would say: don't worry about it.

Go do Self-inquiry instead.

 

Actually, he'd say: "Whose ego?"

 

> Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and

> even though we may think that we are making choices,

> we are not. If there is no ego that has substance then

> how can there be any choices?

 

The rishis tell us we are not really the doers of our

actions. We think we are, but it's only an illusion.

 

If we aren't the doers than we aren't choosers either.

 

But does it matter? Sri Ramana says that if we put effort

into Self-inquiry, we are more likely to realize ourselves.

So let's make that effort, and let's not spend a moment

worrying about whether we are really free to choose.

 

> I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from

> experience.

 

The only use I see here for intellect is to read Sri

Ramana's words very carefully to figure out exactly what

his instructions are for practicing.

 

> I really think it is important to give up everything

> except family duty and responsibility.

 

Don't forget to take your vitamins, too!

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

-

"LOVING SRI RAMANA" <leenalton

"RAMANA" <RamanaMaharshi>

Monday, September 16, 2002 3:02 AM

[RamanaMaharshi] The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear Loving,

 

I would agree with Sri Rob. You seems to be at a good place in your

practice. It is natural for joy to increase as ego decreases.

 

Also, Rob talked about dealing with ego not by control (which becomes

the ego controlling the ego -- not something that works spiritually).

 

The discrimination that I talk about has for its purpose the erasure

of the ego. In this way the seeker who has not yet quieted the mind

and erased the ego is able to use the intellect as an aide to

practice, not as an enemy to practice. This last point is something

that I have struggled with, and finally it was cleared up in dialog

with Nome. The intellect can be used in practice (at least in what

seems to me the "first half" of inquiry where the seeker learns to

see the mind and the ego-I, and starts to see that the seeker's

reality is truly something "greater" than these.

 

What I am calling the "first half" of inquiry gets the seeker to the

point where the quiet mind is common, and the seeker's mind has

started turning within, rather than the reflex to seek happiness from

the identifications with the world and such.

 

What I might call the "second half" is where the seeker, inquiring

into the quiet mind sees directly, then becomes the Self.

 

What you say about "The more things I give up the more joy ..." seems

consistent with what seems to me to be less need for you to assert

you ego-views.

 

Keep the inquiry going!!!

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> Dear Sri Loving,

>

> > The more things I give up the more joy for life

> > and consequently more peace I have.

>

> You're a lucky man.

>

> > Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and

> > read Ramana, but my prarabda says not yet.

>

> The same urge (or lack of urges) has happened to me.

> It's a side effect of self-inquiry. Bhakti came to me

> too, and I was an atheist. It's an astonishing thing.

> If you had told me a few years ago that my life would

> turn in this direction, I would have laughed.

>

> Here's something from the Talks book:

>

> . D.: What is Renunciation?

> .

> . M.: Giving up of the ego.

> .

> . D.: Is it not giving up possessions?

> .

> . M.: The possessor too. (Article 163.)

>

> The point I was trying to make earlier is this: If you

> become concerned about the narcissistic things the

> ego does, and try to control them by acting differently,

> your efforts are counterproductive. Although your goal

> with such efforts is to weaken the ego, you actually end

> up strengthening it, because all such activities are

> activities of the ego.

>

> Actually, that point is not my own. I believe it is Sri

> Ramana's point. I'm too tired now to search for

> quotations but he said the same thing, it's in the Talks

> book.

>

> Sri Ramana said there are two ways around this problem:

> Self-inquiry and surrender. He said these are the only

> two kinds of practice that can eliminate the ego. This is

> in the Talks book too.

>

> > It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is

> > just what the universe is giving me?

>

> I believe Sri Ramana would say: don't worry about it.

> Go do Self-inquiry instead.

>

> Actually, he'd say: "Whose ego?"

>

> > Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and

> > even though we may think that we are making choices,

> > we are not. If there is no ego that has substance then

> > how can there be any choices?

>

> The rishis tell us we are not really the doers of our

> actions. We think we are, but it's only an illusion.

>

> If we aren't the doers than we aren't choosers either.

>

> But does it matter? Sri Ramana says that if we put effort

> into Self-inquiry, we are more likely to realize ourselves.

> So let's make that effort, and let's not spend a moment

> worrying about whether we are really free to choose.

>

> > I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from

> > experience.

>

> The only use I see here for intellect is to read Sri

> Ramana's words very carefully to figure out exactly what

> his instructions are for practicing.

>

> > I really think it is important to give up everything

> > except family duty and responsibility.

>

> Don't forget to take your vitamins, too!

>

> Cheers,

>

> Rob

>

> -

> "LOVING SRI RAMANA" <leenalton@h...>

> "RAMANA" <RamanaMaharshi>

> Monday, September 16, 2002 3:02 AM

> [RamanaMaharshi] The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sister and brother devotees;

Can one have a smaller ego or an ego that is skillfully working for

Self Realization? Ramana said that you are either free or not free at

all in replying to U.G's. question about, can you be free sometimes

and not at other times. Not exact quotes.

 

I see attacks on people's egos by other egos as a means of controling

others. If those who censure the actions of other egos would worry

about themselves we would have a more peaceful world.

 

Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer

the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri

Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it

with "Who and I".

It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more impersonal.

 

TIA,

Loving Sri Ramana

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Loving Ramana,

 

We are taught that the ego is but an idea, a thought. There is the

primary idea, the "I"-thought. There are also many

misidentifications that may be associated with the "I"-thought.

 

What might be called "a smaller ego" is really the elimination of

misidentification(s).

 

My teacher talks about the increasing sense of "vastness" for the

seeker as misidentications are resolved.

 

For most seekers this happens gradually. That is why Sankara

instructed the seeker to go from "gross to subtle" in their

discrimination and negation. I am not the body. I am not the life-

forces. I am not the mind. I am not the intellect. I am not the

unawareness (nescience) in sleep.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote:

> Dear Sister and brother devotees;

> Can one have a smaller ego or an ego that is skillfully working for

> Self Realization? Ramana said that you are either free or not free

at

> all in replying to U.G's. question about, can you be free sometimes

> and not at other times. Not exact quotes.

>

> I see attacks on people's egos by other egos as a means of

controling

> others. If those who censure the actions of other egos would worry

> about themselves we would have a more peaceful world.

>

> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer

> the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri

> Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it

> with "Who and I".

> It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more

impersonal.

>

> TIA,

> Loving Sri Ramana

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

 

As to whether one answer is better than another, I do not think this

matters. The word is not important, what is important is that one's

attention return "within." The "I' or "me" are just sign posts that

point a direction.

 

I once asked Nome about this. AS I recall he said that to begin with

the seekers answer to "For whom is this thought?To me" (or "I" if

you want) takes the seeker to their identification with mind/ego.

That is why this process ends with "Who am I?"

 

"For whom is this throught?It is for me?Well then, Who am I?"

 

The seeker with the thought(s) still stands a body/mind or such. The

inquiry starts with the mind, then points the seeker to that

Consciousness-Being that "lights up" the mind.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote:

> Dear Sister and brother devotees;

>

> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer

> the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri

> Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it

> with "Who and I".

> It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more

impersonal.

>

> TIA,

> Loving Sri Ramana

[Guest guest]

Dear LSR,

 

> I see attacks on people's egos by other egos

> as a means of controlling others.

 

Me too.

 

> If those who censure the actions of other

> egos would worry about themselves we would

> have a more peaceful world.

 

Sri Ramana agreed with this, as shown in this

passage from Living By the Words of Bhagavan:

 

.. A devotee, who was quite intimate with Bhagavan,

.. asked him, 'Some of the devotees who live with

.. Bhagavan behave very strangely. They seem to do

.. many things that Bhagavan does not approve of.

.. Why does Bhagavan not correct them?'

..

.. Bhagavan replied, 'Correcting oneself is correcting

.. the whole world. The sun is simply bright. It does

.. not correct anyone. Because it shines the whole

.. world is full of light. Transforming yourself is

.. a means of giving light to the whole world.'

..

.. Once, while I was sitting in the hall, someone

.. complained to Bhagavan about one of the devotees

.. who was sitting there: 'He is not meditating here,

.. he is just sleeping.'

..

.. 'How do you know?' retorted Bhagavan. 'Only

.. because you yourself gave up your meditation to

.. look at him. First see yourself and don't concern

.. yourself with other people's habits.' (pp. 109-110.)

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

-

"Alton Slater" <leenalton

<RamanaMaharshi>

Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear LSR,

 

> Can one have a smaller ego...?

 

In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

(Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

 

> Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> Self Realization?

 

Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

 

> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> with "me" instead of "I".

 

It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

"who". People used to be more careful about this than

we are today in American English. If you want to be

fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

 

Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

"me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

 

-- the thinker

-- the seeker

-- the inquirer

-- the doer

-- the knower

 

Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

the Talks book.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

-

"Alton Slater" <leenalton

<RamanaMaharshi>

Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

<PRE>Richard,Keep up the good work.I see clarity in your words.Thanks,Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Rob:

So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks

much.

 

Another question for you, Richard or anyone.

Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking

unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just do

it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already

had the teachings?

 

I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower

when I notice a thought.

 

Dear Richard:

You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I

have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love to

have the answers.

 

Mahalo to all here,

 

Loving Sri Ramana

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> Dear LSR,

>

> > Can one have a smaller ego...?

>

> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

>

> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> > Self Realization?

>

> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

>

> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> > with "me" instead of "I".

>

> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

> "who". People used to be more careful about this than

> we are today in American English. If you want to be

> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

>

> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

>

> -- the thinker

> -- the seeker

> -- the inquirer

> -- the doer

> -- the knower

>

> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

> the Talks book.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Rob

>

> -

> "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...>

> <RamanaMaharshi>

> Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear LSR,

 

> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the

> track of the knower when I notice a thought.

 

Exactly. That's the right idea. You're supposed

to do it silently.

 

All these little sentences (who am I? etc.) are written

down in books only to get the idea across.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

-

"Alton Slater" <leenalton

<RamanaMaharshi>

Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Alton:

 

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.

As inquiry progresses there is not need for "verbal" inquiry. It eventually

becomes a kind

of wordless penetration prior to attention. The verbal inquiry is a means

to silent inquiry until

there is a steady abiding in the "place."

 

Mark

 

 

 

Dear Rob:

So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks

much.

 

Another question for you, Richard or anyone.

Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking

unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just do

it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already

had the teachings?

 

I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower

when I notice a thought.

 

Dear Richard:

You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I

have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love to

have the answers.

 

Mahalo to all here,

 

Loving Sri Ramana

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> Dear LSR,

>

> > Can one have a smaller ego...?

>

> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

>

> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> > Self Realization?

>

> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

>

> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> > with "me" instead of "I".

>

> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

> "who". People used to be more careful about this than

> we are today in American English. If you want to be

> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

>

> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

>

> -- the thinker

> -- the seeker

> -- the inquirer

> -- the doer

> -- the knower

>

> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

> the Talks book.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Rob

>

> -

> "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...>

> <RamanaMaharshi>

> Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi

Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

Un: RamanaMaharshi-

List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

P.S. Bhagavan sometimes said that the question

should really be "Whence am I?" instead of

"Who am I?" ("Whence" means "from where".)

 

For example, he said:

 

.. As a matter of fact, in the quest method -- which is

.. more correctly 'Whence am I?' and not merely

.. 'Who am I?' ... we are trying to find whence the

.. the 'I' thought for the ego arises within us. [1]

 

He also said:

 

.. To enquire 'Who am I?' really means trying to

.. find out the source of the ego or the 'I' thought. [2]

 

Notes:

1. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 47.

2. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 68.

 

 

-

"Alton Slater" <leenalton

<RamanaMaharshi>

Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

 

If there are thoughts then there is still a thinker. One would like

to discriminate that thinker out of the seeker's sense of Reality.

Here one wants to know for certain that the Self is the source of

reality (and existance and consciousness and love).

 

Exactly how ones does that can vary according to the particular set

of tendencies of the seeker, and the tendencies that are "active" at

any given moment, so this is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

With thoughts the point is to see that they arise in the mind, and

that the mind has not independent existance. The mind exists within

Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda)and the source of the "light"

and "knowing" of the mind is that same SAt-Chit-Ananda, that is

called self-luminous.

 

So, I notice a thought, I ask myself either "For whom is this

thought?" Perhaps one could affirm that the thought is for the mind,

rather than ask. I have never asked about this, and don;t know. I

prefer the asking because the question opens the mind and

affirmations more tend to close the mind.

 

The thought must be for the mind (mind/body/ego/world) because the

Self has no thoughts. The Self has nothing added to it, nor anything

that is lacking -- ever.

 

So the inquiry as to who the thought is for first turns the seekers

attention to the mind. At this point the inquiry "Who am I?" turns

the seeker to the Reality that lights up the mind.

 

I might ask, "Is this who I am? No! Then who am I?"

 

I will use slightly different phrasings to myself at different

times. I do not think this matters, so long as the seeker is looking

for their Reality were it really is.

 

Also whether or not one has "had the teaching" does not matter. What

matters is where one is in terms of realizing these teachings. As we

all understand, mental or conceptual knowledge has much less value

that the deep knowledge that comes from the actual inquiry. As long

as one still nitices thoughts, it is still time for inquiry.

 

Again, what one wants to do with this inquiry on thoughts is to see

that one's own reality is Sat-Chit-Ananda, not the mind (and

body/world/life force/ego).

 

Am I making sense?

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote:

> Dear Rob:

> So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks

> much.

>

> Another question for you, Richard or anyone.

> Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking

> unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just

do

> it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already

> had the teachings?

>

> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower

> when I notice a thought.

>

> Dear Richard:

> You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I

> have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love

to

> have the answers.

>

> Mahalo to all here,

>

> Loving Sri Ramana

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> > Dear LSR,

> >

> > > Can one have a smaller ego...?

> >

> > In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

> > (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

> > Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

> > people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

> > Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

> > Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

> >

> > > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> > > Self Realization?

> >

> > Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

> > for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

> > inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

> > By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

> >

> > > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> > > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> > > with "me" instead of "I".

> >

> > It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

> > "who". People used to be more careful about this than

> > we are today in American English. If you want to be

> > fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

> > has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

> > is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

> >

> > Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

> > "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

> >

> > -- the thinker

> > -- the seeker

> > -- the inquirer

> > -- the doer

> > -- the knower

> >

> > Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

> > the Talks book.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > Rob

> >

> > -

> > "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...>

> > <RamanaMaharshi>

> > Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

> > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

 

I would also agree with Mark here. This does not need in any way to

be verbal. What matters is the direction of attention.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote:

> Alton:

>

> I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.

> As inquiry progresses there is not need for "verbal" inquiry. It

eventually

> becomes a kind

> of wordless penetration prior to attention. The verbal inquiry is

a means

> to silent inquiry until

> there is a steady abiding in the "place."

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> Dear Rob:

> So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes.

Thanks

> much.

>

> Another question for you, Richard or anyone.

> Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind

thinking

> unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just

do

> it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one

already

> had the teachings?

>

> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the

knower

> when I notice a thought.

>

> Dear Richard:

> You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I

> have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would

love to

> have the answers.

>

> Mahalo to all here,

>

> Loving Sri Ramana

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> > Dear LSR,

> >

> > > Can one have a smaller ego...?

> >

> > In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

> > (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

> > Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

> > people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

> > Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

> > Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

> >

> > > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> > > Self Realization?

> >

> > Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

> > for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

> > inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

> > By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

> >

> > > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> > > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> > > with "me" instead of "I".

> >

> > It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

> > "who". People used to be more careful about this than

> > we are today in American English. If you want to be

> > fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

> > has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

> > is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

> >

> > Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

> > "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

> >

> > -- the thinker

> > -- the seeker

> > -- the inquirer

> > -- the doer

> > -- the knower

> >

> > Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

> > the Talks book.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > Rob

> >

> > -

> > "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...>

> > <RamanaMaharshi>

> > Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

> > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o...

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o...

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o...

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear LSR,

 

Other phrasings can be useful.

 

I have used the following (and more) as variations:

 

Where does this sense of I come from?

What is the source of this sense of identity?

>From where does this sense of reality arise?

 

Not two, Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote:

> P.S. Bhagavan sometimes said that the question

> should really be "Whence am I?" instead of

> "Who am I?" ("Whence" means "from where".)

>

> For example, he said:

>

> . As a matter of fact, in the quest method -- which is

> . more correctly 'Whence am I?' and not merely

> . 'Who am I?' ... we are trying to find whence the

> . the 'I' thought for the ego arises within us. [1]

>

> He also said:

>

> . To enquire 'Who am I?' really means trying to

> . find out the source of the ego or the 'I' thought. [2]

>

> Notes:

> 1. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 47.

> 2. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 68.

>

>

> -

> "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...>

> <RamanaMaharshi>

> Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

If our discussion/practice is ego-centric then the attention is obviously

outwards. First of all as one goes into this, one finds that ego itself does

not exist. So where is the problem. One has to assume and recognize that

there is an ego to make it real. The non-existent illusion weaves on.

The rest can not be explained.

regards,

Vatsa

 

Rob Sacks wrote:

 

> Dear LSR,

>

> > Can one have a smaller ego...?

>

> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody

> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If

> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other

> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal

> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of

> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

>

> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for

> > Self Realization?

>

> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search

> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-

> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day

> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

>

> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama

> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"

> > with "me" instead of "I".

>

> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches

> "who". People used to be more careful about this than

> we are today in American English. If you want to be

> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"

> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who

> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

>

> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of

> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

>

> -- the thinker

> -- the seeker

> -- the inquirer

> -- the doer

> -- the knower

>

> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in

> the Talks book.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Rob

>

> -

> "Alton Slater" <leenalton

> <RamanaMaharshi>

> Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM

> [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

> Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vatsa,

 

While in ultimate Truth there is no ego, that is not the experience

of most.

 

Ramana Maharshi (and many other sages) taught ways for the seeker to

come to the Knowledge of the reality of the Self (and unreality of

the body/mind/ego). They would not have provided this teaching unless

it were needed by seekers. The sages certainly were not teaching for

themselves, they no longer have any personal self.

 

There is also a risk for a seeker who takes this view: The risk is

that the seeker will not practice the inquiry needed for the

actual "disolution" of their own ego-idea.

 

Perhaps the idea of non-existance of the ego is all that you need. It

does not seem to be the same for others.

 

We are Not two,

Richard

 

RamanaMaharshi, Srivatsa Krishnaswamy <vatsa@i...> wrote:

> Dear all,

> If our discussion/practice is ego-centric then the attention is

obviously

> outwards. First of all as one goes into this, one finds that ego

itself does

> not exist. So where is the problem. One has to assume and recognize

that

> there is an ego to make it real. The non-existent illusion weaves

on.

> The rest can not be explained.

> regards,

> Vatsa

[Guest guest]

Dear Vicki,

 

> I think what can be explained it is

> not worthwhile talking about

 

Yes but I think it's worthwhile talking about

method for people who want a method.

 

> It seems as if each one is imprisoned in one's

> own world .

 

I think this is a good definition of ego. As long

as we have egos, this is how it is.

 

> could you point to a discussion which is not

> ego-centric ?

 

This reminds me of something Bhagavan said:

 

.. Dr. Srinivasa Rao asked Bhagavan, "When we

.. enquire within 'who am I?" what is that?

..

.. Bhagavan: It is the ego. It is only the ego which

.. makes the vichara also. The Self has no vichara.

.. That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The

.. 'I' about which the enquiry is made is also the ego.

.. (Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 37.)

 

The same thing is true about these conversations and

this mail group. All of this is ego. It's pointless to

try to make the conversations less egoistic. The

"solution" to ego is self-inquiry.

 

> The impact of this realization made me turn back

> with more energy to self enquiry and to Ramana.

 

Something useful resulted.

 

Best regards,

 

Rob

[Guest guest]

Dear Rob,

Your pointers are very apt. I just want to add that

 

1. There is self-enquiry as a tool for the ego

2. There is awareness that there is self-enquiry (not at all participating in

enquiry also)

 

When it 'occurs' (or actual seeing) that the inquirer and the inquired are

two parts of the same ego, then there is freedom and that much noise created

by ego goes for good, once for all. The words lose their effect.

regards,

Vatsa

 

Rob Sacks wrote:

 

> Dear Vicki,

>

> > I think what can be explained it is

> > not worthwhile talking about

>

> Yes but I think it's worthwhile talking about

> method for people who want a method.

>

> > It seems as if each one is imprisoned in one's

> > own world .

>

> I think this is a good definition of ego. As long

> as we have egos, this is how it is.

>

> > could you point to a discussion which is not

> > ego-centric ?

>

> This reminds me of something Bhagavan said:

>

> . Dr. Srinivasa Rao asked Bhagavan, "When we

> . enquire within 'who am I?" what is that?

> .

> . Bhagavan: It is the ego. It is only the ego which

> . makes the vichara also. The Self has no vichara.

> . That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The

> . 'I' about which the enquiry is made is also the ego.

> . (Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 37.)

>

> The same thing is true about these conversations and

> this mail group. All of this is ego. It's pointless to

> try to make the conversations less egoistic. The

> "solution" to ego is self-inquiry.

>

> > The impact of this realization made me turn back

> > with more energy to self enquiry and to Ramana.

>

> Something useful resulted.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Rob

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

> Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vicki,

 

> reading your mails and answers to other people

> i see my own points of view expressed in

> a very clear way.

 

Your messages strike me the same way. I often

think that you have expressed my thoughts more

clearly and succinctly than I did.

 

Aren't egos cute when they are being nice to each

other!

 

Rob