Development of the I

[Guest guest]

Dear respected teachers: Please help me. David Godman, on his website, states

that Tamil has no word for "I am" and this is why Ramana Maharshi uses the

term, "I-I" to describe the nirvakalpi state before Self-Realization is in

sahaja samadhi.

What is the importance of the development of phonetic language based on the

verb, "to be" in Advaita? In comparison it is stated by Thomas Cahill that

David, in the Songs of the Bible, is the first to use the word "I" as a form of

self-awareness in written language. David, in the building of the Temple of

Solomon, also violently imposed the monotheism of Yahweh on the matriarchal

polytheism of Canaan. Ramana Maharshi often referred to Yahweh's definition of

"I Am that I Am" as a good example of his teachings.

In David Abram's recent book, "The Spell of the Senuous" he describes the

importance of language in creating a connected spirituality with the land.

Amazingly languages that are not Indo-European do not use a definitive form of

"to be" and can often be expressed without "to be" at all. Phonetic language

is favored in its ability to communicate abstract ideas but is it not possible

that this detatched abstraction could be used as an ideology for destructive,

linear and patriarchal imperialism?

Brian Fagan's recent book, "Floods, Famines and Emperors," describes how because

of the global El Nino climate crises, hierarchial technological superstructures

had to be developed in order to continue the population fertility success of

farming. Is it not possible that the development of the abstract phonetic, "I

AM" co-evolved with this imperial process as a tool for science?

Abraham Seidenberg, in his essay, "The Ritual Origins of Geometry," states that

Brahmins developed an approximation of the square root of two in 3,000 B.C. so

that they could separation heaven and earth through sacrifice rituals. The

square root of two is the hypotenuse of the "I-I" triangle. Also the

Theosophists stated that in 3,000 B.C. there was a split between Brahmins who

practiced sacrifice and those who practiced non-injury. Please let me know if

you further information on this because I wonder if there is a connection

between the humming of I-I (square root of two) that comes from God and that

separates the Tree of Life from the Tree of Knowledge and the I-I of Ramana

Maharshi.

In this case it would seem to me that Sri Aurobindo's philosophy has much to

offer in terms of integrating the All-Seeing-Eye of Advaita with a holistic

approach.

I know I have connected a wide range of information in a speculative manner.

Please let me know if you think I'm just being an ideologue and if you can help

me clarify these issues.

Drew Hempel

 

 

 

 

 

Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi- Un:

RamanaMaharshi- List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/RamanaMaharshi Your use of is

subject to the

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Drew,

Thank you for this interesting post.

> David Godman, on his website, states that Tamil has no word for "I am" and

> this is why Ramana Maharshi uses the term, "I-I" to describe the nirvakalpi

> state before Self-Realization is in sahaja samadhi.

We should point out that the above idea is David Godman's interpretation and he

is quite clear (on his website) that it is not definitive. Other bhaktas might

interpret this in different ways.

Whenever this is discussed it seems it ends up as the proverbial 'can of worms'.

It can be looked at from various perspectives. So ... That Tamil can omit the

verb 'to be' as can Sanskrit (and many other languages) is not really the point

here at all.

'I-I' indicates the wordless sphurana which spontaneously arises when the 'I'

thought ceases. In linguistic terms this is paSyantI, pure consciousness, that

which exists prior to the word. It is the primary pulse of the Heart-centre.

Here we come up against another problem - Whether or not 'I-I' might be

interpreted as a pulse or throb. It has been related that there is indeed a

sensation on the right side of the chest which is palpable at certain times. On

this Bhagavan says, 'Sphurana is felt on several occasions, such as in fear,

excitement, etc. Although it is always and all over, yet it is felt at a

particular centre and on particular occasions. It is also associated with

antecedent causes and confounded with the body. Whereas, it is all alone and

pure ; it is the Self. If the mind be fixed on the sphurana and one senses it

continuously and automatically it is realisation.' (Talks; 62) And in Moments

Remembered, from the letter to Harry Dickman we find, ...In the course of

tracing ourselves back to our source, when all thoughts have vanished, there

arises a throb from the Hridaya on the right, manifesting as 'Aham' 'Aham'

'I-I'. This is the sign that Pure Consciousness is beginning to reveal itself.

But that is not the end in itself. Watch wherefrom this sphurana (throbbing)

arises and wait attentively and continually for the revelation of the Self.

Then comes the awareness, oneness of existence.' (p. 53) It must be felt

intuitively. The analysis is neither here nor there. There are other views too.

But I feel that the above describes the actual 'experience' well enough. Whether

there is a throb or not is not important. Looking for the source of the

'I'-thought is. So while academic discussions might be interesting we should

make atmavicara and find out for ourselves. Too much theory sets up clouds of

expectation.

> Ramana Maharshi often referred to Yahweh's definition

> of "I Am that I Am" as a good example of his teachings.

Indeed. He commented, 'This truth was taught by God to Moses: 'I AM that I AM''.

(Talk; 503) ''TO BE' is to realise--Hence I AM THAT I AM. I AM is Siva. Nothing

else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva and because of Siva.

Therefore enquire 'Who am I?' Sink deep within and abide as the Self. That is

Siva as BE-ing. (from Talk; 450)

note: BE-ing is not dependent on the assertion 'I am' but rather the assertion

'I am' can only appear from BE-ing.

Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan,

Miles

[Guest guest]

Dear Drew , Further to Miles's reply to your questions , I feel that Advaita

Vedanta is the

quintessence of Holism - if you mean by Holistic that it is a Teaching

characterised by an

understanding that the parts are intimately interconnected and only explainable

by reference to

the Whole .i.e.One - Not Two .There is nothing to prevent a Devotee of Ramana

Maharshi making as

many holistic connections as he pleases ,and I am sure many have and still

do.Regards , In Him ,

Alan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Post message: RamanaMaharshi

> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-

> Un: RamanaMaharshi-

> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/RamanaMaharshi

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page

from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

http://uk.my.