Guest guest Posted November 14, 2002 Report Share Posted November 14, 2002 Dear Richard: I was doing the Vichara with questions this morning and I have a few questions for you. Since you have access to a living sage and are so generous in sharing his answers, I now will ask. If any of these questions have not been answered by Nome and you have an inclination to ask, then I would appreciate Nome's answers. I ask you because so far I have not found the answers in any of the Sri Ramana works that I have read so far. 1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions if it seems to work better for less thinking? Example: I see a thought and instead of asking, "to whom does this thought occur", I say internally, This thinking occurred to "me" , " who am I". This seems to work better for me in not having too many questions asked and more space between the thoughts. 2. For recurring almost identical objects is seems counter productive to keep asking the same question if in fact the object appearing is quite stable. For example, I hear the inner sound because not only did I have all those sound initiations, but I have been trained to hear subtle sounds as a professional piano tuner. So, I hear that sound all the time. If I ask, "to whom does this sound occur" I would have not silence at all. It is better to just let is stay and focus on the awareness of the sound? The same goes for pain in the legs etc. 3. If one does perceive silence; I just read that Sri Ramana says to ask, " to whom does this silence occur". If one is to realize the 'Self' one must have a quiet mind, right? Then disturbing the silence seems counter-productive to having a quiet mind to realize the 'Self'. So how long does one wait if one perceives silence to ask the aforesaid questions? Anyone who want to answer these questions is welcome, but please say if the answers are from a realized being of just one's opinion. Thanks in advance for any replies. Aloha, The "Self" aka Alton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2002 Report Share Posted November 14, 2002 What is the perception of silence? I do not recall Bhagavan asking about this. Engagement of silence is a form of nirvikalpasamAdhi. Hold it while you can! A tap to www.theHungerSite.com will give somebody a cup of rice. ShalauM! _______________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2002 Report Share Posted November 14, 2002 Dear Alton, some comments: >1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions if it seems to work better for less thinking? Example: I see a thought and instead of asking, "to whom does this thought occur", I say internally, This thinking occurred to "me" , " who am I". This seems to work better for me in not having too many questions asked and more space between the thoughts.< I don't think that the form of the question matters. What does matter is where it points. The question in not the purpose on inquiry, rather the inquiry "points" the seeker to the own Self. The purpose is to look into the non-objective. There are MANY different forms of the inquiry. The Self is also known as Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Being-Consciousness-Bless. One can inquiry in any of these three directions and arrive at the same Reality. Who am I? What is Existence? Who knows this? From where does the desire to be happy arise? These are all valid forms of inquiry, and point to the same Reality. >2. For recurring almost identical objects is seems counter productive to keep asking the same question if in fact the object appearing is quite stable. For example, I hear the inner sound because not only did I have all those sound initiations, but I have been trained to hear subtle sounds as a professional piano tuner. So, I hear that sound all the time. If I ask, "to whom does this sound occur" I would have not silence at all. It is better to just let is stay and focus on the awareness of the sound? The same goes for pain in the legs etc.< For me, the recurring objects of sense, become something to deal with in a little different form of the inquiry. Who knows the inner sound? Who knows the pain? >3. If one does perceive silence; I just read that Sri Ramana says to ask, " to whom does this silence occur". If one is to realize the 'Self' one must have a quiet mind, right? Then disturbing the silence seems counter-productive to having a quiet mind to realize the 'Self'. So how long does one wait if one perceives silence to ask the aforesaid questions?< Yes, inquiry starts as something done by the mind, and that finally quiets the mind. Then inquiry starts. How long it takes to get to the timeless is not meaningful. And asking a question does not need to disturb the silence. The silence is there at all times, whether we notice it or not. Sometimes in inquiry I notice that all rises in the selence, and the silence is always here. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "THE \"SELF\"" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Richard: > I was doing the Vichara with questions this morning and I have a few questions for you. > Since you have access to a living sage and are so generous in sharing his answers, I now will ask. If any of these questions have not been answered by Nome and you have an inclination to ask, then I would appreciate Nome's answers. I ask you because so far I have not found the answers in any of the Sri Ramana works that I have read so far. > > 1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions if it seems to work better for less thinking? > Example: I see a thought and instead of asking, "to whom does this thought occur", I say internally, This thinking occurred to "me" , " who am I". This seems to work better for me in not having too many questions asked and more space between the thoughts. > > 2. For recurring almost identical objects is seems counter productive to keep asking the same question if in fact the object appearing is quite stable. For example, I hear the inner sound because not only did I have all those sound initiations, but I have been trained to hear subtle sounds as a professional piano tuner. So, I hear that sound all the time. If I ask, "to whom does this sound occur" I would have not silence at all. It is better to just let is stay and focus on the awareness of the sound? The same goes for pain in the legs etc. > > 3. If one does perceive silence; I just read that Sri Ramana says to ask, " to whom does this silence occur". If one is to realize the 'Self' one must have a quiet mind, right? Then disturbing the silence seems counter-productive to having a quiet mind to realize the 'Self'. > So how long does one wait if one perceives silence to ask the aforesaid questions? > > Anyone who want to answer these questions is welcome, but please say if the answers are from a realized being of just one's opinion. > > Thanks in advance for any replies. > > Aloha, > The "Self" aka Alton > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2002 Report Share Posted November 15, 2002 a snip out of Day by Day with Bhagavan, entry 8.5.1946: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bhagavan: Keep all other thoughts away and try to find out in what place in your body the 'I' arises. Sadhu: But I am unable to think about this. Bhagavan: Why? If you can think about other things you can think about 'I' and where in your body it arises. If you mean that other thoughts distract you, the only way is to draw your mind back each time it strays and fix it on the 'I'. As each thought arise, ask yourself: "To whom is this thought?" The answer will be, "to me"; then hold on to that "me". Sadhu: Am I to keep on repeating "Who am I?" so as to make a mantra of it? Bhagavan: No. 'Who am I?' is not a mantra. It means that you must find out where in you arises the I-thought which is the source of all other thoughts. But if you find this vichara marga too hard for you you can go on repeating "I-I" and that will lead you to the same goal. There is no harm in using 'I' as a mantra. It is the first name of God. - THE "SELF" RAMANA Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:32 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Some question for Richard 1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions if it seems to work better for less thinking? Example: I see a thought and instead of asking, "to whom does this thought occur", I say internally, This thinking occurred to "me" , " who am I". This seems to work better for me in not having too many questions asked and more space between the thoughts. Thanks in advance for any replies. Aloha, The "Self" aka Alton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2002 Report Share Posted November 16, 2002 Dear Self aka Alton, > Anyone who wants to answer these questions is > welcome, but please say if the answers are from > a realized being or just one's opinion. This is an excellent request! What I'm about to say is my attempt to summarize what I think Bhagavan says based on my readings of books. If I had more time I would rummage through the books to find quotations to back up what I say here, but I'm feeling too lazy. If anybody thinks I have misrepresented Bhagavan's teachings here, please point it out. It would be helpful and informative to have a friendly disagreement about this. I think Alton's questions are good ones for all of us, so we can only help ourselves by trying to find the most accurate possible answers. > 1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions > if it seems to work better for less thinking? That's fine because self-inquiry isn't about saying the questions in your head anyway. If you find it helpful to say the words mentally, that practice probably can't hurt, but that isn't what Bhagavan is telling us to do. He's telling us to find the answer to those questions, not to repeat them mentally. If somebody asks you, "Is it raining?" you can't find the answer by repeating the words. You have to stick out your palm and feel for raindrops. > 2. For recurring almost identical objects it seems > counter productive to keep asking the same > question if in fact the object appearing is quite > stable. For example, I hear the inner sound because > not only did I have all those sound initiations, but I > have been trained to hear subtle sounds as a > professional piano tuner. So, I hear that sound all > the time. If I ask, "to whom does this sound occur" > I would have not silence at all. It is better to just > let is stay and focus on the awareness of the sound? > The same goes for pain in the legs etc. If you focus on the sound, you are doing dhyana (fixing the attention on an object). If you keep diverting your attention from the sound in an effort to find the "I" who hears the sound, you are doing self-enquiry. Bhagavan makes a big distinction between dhyana and self-enquiry. He calls the first "yoga;" he calls the second "the direct path." He says dhyana is helpful, and that in cases where it leads to realization, its success is due to the fact that eventually it develops into self-inquiry. Therefore, he says, you might as well do self-inquiry from the beginning. When he talked to people who couldn't do self-inquiry, or who preferred to do dhyana, he told them it was perfectly okay to do dhyana. But he also told them that dhyana isn't really a substitute for enquiry because eventually, to realize the Self, they would have to switch over to self-enquiry. > 2. For recurring almost identical objects it seems > counter productive to keep asking the same > question if in fact the object appearing is quite > stable. I'm quoting this sentence again to emphasize something. You talk about stable objects here as if that is the goal. Having stable objects is *not* the goal of self-enquiry. > Then disturbing the silence seems counter-productive > to having a quiet mind to realize the 'Self'. Nevertheless, that is what Bhagavan tells us to do. Here's why I think Bhagavan says this (this paragraph expresses my own ideas). When you do that kind of meditation, you are fixed in a state of imagining that you are an observer in your head who is hearing a silence. It seems quiet because it doesn't change. No other thoughts arise. There is just the unchanging sense that you are observing a silence. The problem with this is, you are reinforcing the illusion that you are an observer who lives in your head. This is the ego illusion. This kind of meditation actually strengthens the illusion that we are egos; it's like an exercise to make the illusion more continuous and more convincing. If you are hearing something -- anything -- even hearing a silence -- you are experiencing an object. The real thing is beyond objects. > If one does perceive silence; I just read that Sri > Ramana says to ask, " to whom does this silence > occur". If one is to realize the 'Self' one must have > a quiet mind, right? Then disturbing the silence > seems counter-productive to having a quiet mind > to realize the 'Self'. Yes, you see how radical and strange this teaching really is. You see correctly here what you are being asked to do. Yes, he is saying that it's not enough to hear silence. Instead, keep trying to locate the "I" who hears the silence. I see that I have repeated myself a lot in this message. I apologize for that, and also if I have misrepresented Bhagavan. Rob RamanaMaharshi, "THE \"SELF\"" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Richard: > I was doing the Vichara with questions this morning and I > have a few questions for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2002 Report Share Posted November 16, 2002 Dear Rob: Its much appreciated that you tune in every so often to share your expanse of knowledge. All your answers seemed to hit the mark and any repetetition was necessary to make your points. Thanks so much, Love, The "Self" aka Alton RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Self aka Alton, > > > Anyone who wants to answer these questions is > > welcome, but please say if the answers are from > > a realized being or just one's opinion. > > This is an excellent request! > > What I'm about to say is my attempt to summarize > what I think Bhagavan says based on my readings > of books. > > If I had more time I would rummage through the > books to find quotations to back up what I say here, > but I'm feeling too lazy. > > If anybody thinks I have misrepresented Bhagavan's > teachings here, please point it out. It would be helpful > and informative to have a friendly disagreement about > this. > > I think Alton's questions are good ones for all of us, > so we can only help ourselves by trying to find the > most accurate possible answers. > > > 1. Is it advantageous to shorten the questions > > if it seems to work better for less thinking? > > That's fine because self-inquiry isn't about saying > the questions in your head anyway. If you find it > helpful to say the words mentally, that practice > probably can't hurt, but that isn't what Bhagavan is > telling us to do. > > He's telling us to find the answer to those questions, > not to repeat them mentally. > > If somebody asks you, "Is it raining?" you can't find the > answer by repeating the words. You have to stick out > your palm and feel for raindrops. > > > 2. For recurring almost identical objects it seems > > counter productive to keep asking the same > > question if in fact the object appearing is quite > > stable. For example, I hear the inner sound because > > not only did I have all those sound initiations, but I > > have been trained to hear subtle sounds as a > > professional piano tuner. So, I hear that sound all > > the time. If I ask, "to whom does this sound occur" > > I would have not silence at all. It is better to just > > let is stay and focus on the awareness of the sound? > > The same goes for pain in the legs etc. > > If you focus on the sound, you are doing dhyana > (fixing the attention on an object). If you keep > diverting your attention from the sound in an effort > to find the "I" who hears the sound, you are doing > self-enquiry. > > Bhagavan makes a big distinction between dhyana > and self-enquiry. He calls the first "yoga;" he calls > the second "the direct path." > > He says dhyana is helpful, and that in cases where > it leads to realization, its success is due to the fact > that eventually it develops into self-inquiry. > Therefore, he says, you might as well do self-inquiry > from the beginning. > > When he talked to people who couldn't do self-inquiry, > or who preferred to do dhyana, he told them it was > perfectly okay to do dhyana. But he also told them > that dhyana isn't really a substitute for enquiry because > eventually, to realize the Self, they would have to > switch over to self-enquiry. > > > 2. For recurring almost identical objects it seems > > counter productive to keep asking the same > > question if in fact the object appearing is quite > > stable. > > I'm quoting this sentence again to emphasize something. > You talk about stable objects here as if that is the goal. > Having stable objects is *not* the goal of self-enquiry. > > > Then disturbing the silence seems counter-productive > > to having a quiet mind to realize the 'Self'. > > Nevertheless, that is what Bhagavan tells us to > do. > > Here's why I think Bhagavan says this (this > paragraph expresses my own ideas). When you do > that kind of meditation, you are fixed in a state of > imagining that you are an observer in your head > who is hearing a silence. It seems quiet because > it doesn't change. No other thoughts arise. There is > just the unchanging sense that you are observing a > silence. The problem with this is, you are > reinforcing the illusion that you are an observer > who lives in your head. This is the ego illusion. > This kind of meditation actually strengthens the > illusion that we are egos; it's like an exercise to > make the illusion more continuous and more > convincing. > > If you are hearing something -- anything -- even > hearing a silence -- you are experiencing an > object. The real thing is beyond objects. > > > If one does perceive silence; I just read that Sri > > Ramana says to ask, " to whom does this silence > > occur". If one is to realize the 'Self' one must have > > a quiet mind, right? Then disturbing the silence > > seems counter-productive to having a quiet mind > > to realize the 'Self'. > > Yes, you see how radical and strange this teaching > really is. You see correctly here what you are > being asked to do. Yes, he is saying that it's not enough > to hear silence. Instead, keep trying to locate the "I" > who hears the silence. > > I see that I have repeated myself a lot in this message. > I apologize for that, and also if I have misrepresented > Bhagavan. > > Rob > > RamanaMaharshi, "THE \"SELF\"" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear Richard: > > I was doing the Vichara with questions this morning and I > > have a few questions for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2002 Report Share Posted November 16, 2002 I have the notion that Bhagavan would agree that it is advantageous to shorten the enquiry, though he suggested that "daiham n'Aham kau'ham sau'ham" would be a good mantra (Daiha [the body] na [is not] aham . ka: (who?) aham [am I?] sa: (This) aham (am I) But he also sugggested that the enquiry does not need to be a sentence, but merely be "I?" and that that might go down to a mere "?". Somewhere there begins the "I-I". But that's for you to know, and me to find out. A tap to www.theHungerSite.com will give somebody a cup of rice. ShalauM! _______________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2002 Report Share Posted November 21, 2002 This is the only interesting letter in this group. You are abviously meditating in the way that Bhagavan taught. If, as a piano tuner, you have been unable or too able to single out the sound of the inner ear, then don't do that, though you ought to play with the notion of listening to the right ear with the left, and vice versa, which ought to send any piano tuner mad (I thought they were all blind; are you the only sighted piano tuner hereabouts?) The method I think Bhagavan taught is quite simple: "Who am I?" If you get a response, "From whom?" and so on. It is such an easy game!!! A tap to www.theHungerSite.com will give somebody a cup of rice. ShalauM! _______________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2002 Report Share Posted November 21, 2002 -Dear Jiva wrote: I thought they were all blind; are you the only sighted piano tuner hereabouts?) The method I think Bhagavan taught is quite simple: "Who am I?" If you get a response, "From whom?" and so on. It is such an easy game!!! The "Self' aka Alton: I only knew two blind piano tuners. The rest could see, but not the Self. Bhagavan is the greatest and he teaching are too, but they wont work for space cases like me until I develop that trance capacity. Ramana had it before he realized. Nisargadatta et al had it too. So dont spend the next 50 lives asking "Who am I" and expect to become mokshad unless you first develop exclusive focus. All the above is MHO. Love, The "Self" Aka Alton -- In RamanaMaharshi, "Jiva Das" <jivadas@h...> wrote: > This is the only interesting letter in this group. You are abviously > meditating in the way that Bhagavan taught. If, as a piano tuner, you have > been unable or too able to single out the sound of the inner ear, then don't > do that, though you ought to play with the notion of listening to the right > ear with the left, and vice versa, which ought to send any piano tuner mad > (I thought they were all blind; are you the only sighted piano tuner > hereabouts?) > The method I think Bhagavan taught is quite simple: "Who am I?" > If you get a response, "From whom?" and so on. > It is such an easy game!!! > > > > A tap to www.theHungerSite.com will give > somebody a cup of rice. ShalauM! > > > > > _______________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail 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.