Inquiry in Talks

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, MNW <miles.wright@b...> wrote:

>

>

> > Michael L. mentioned 'If we look at the book "Talks" for example,

Sri Ramana

> > almost never initiated any recommendation to anyone to ask "To

whom do these

> > thoughts arise?" Therefore his advice during "Talks" took quite a

different

> form

> > than his advice in "Who am I?"...

 

 

Dear Miles:

 

I did not do a very good job of expressing what I had in mind.

I will restate what I had in mind for the sake of clarification.

 

The following is a quote from the book "Who am I?"

 

11. "What is the means for constantly holding on to

 

the thought 'Who am I?'"

 

"When other thoughts arise,

 

one should not pursue them,

 

but should inquire: 'To whom do they arise?'

 

It does not matter how many thoughts arise.

 

As each thought arises,

 

one should inquire with diligence,

 

'To whom has this thought arisen?'.

 

The answer that would emerge would be 'To me'.

 

Thereupon if one inquires 'Who am I?',

 

the mind will go back to its source;

 

and the thought that arose will become quiescent."

 

Sometimes I call the above process

the To whom do these thoughts arise approach.

 

In the above described practice there are 4 elements:.

 

#1. "It does not matter how many thoughts arise"

As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence"

 

#2. "To whom do they arise?"

or "To whom has this thought arisen"

 

#3. "The answer that would emerge would be 'To me'."

 

#4. "Thereupon if one inquires 'Who am I?'

 

In the book "Talks" Sri Ramana almost never initiated a

recommendation to anyone to practice the above

four element sequential process.

 

That is what I meant by the original statement.

 

Regarding #2, often one reads Sri Ramana recommending

something that seems similar in "Talks".

 

Regarding #4, One certainly finds the words "Who am I?" many times

in "Talks".

 

When it comes to questions about "Talks" as a whole,

the best way to answer them is by reading the more than 600

pages, with the particular question in mind.

And to take notes or mark the relevant passages in the book.

The indexes miss too much.

A very time consuming process.

Or one might list several questions so that one reading

answers several at once.

 

It is important to read the whole complete dialogs in context

because one missing sentence can sometimes alter the meaning

either slightly or even completely change the meaning.

 

"The Self-enquiry practice laid out in 'Who am I?' can (and ideally

should) be carried on throughout the day irrespective of one's outer

mode. There is no need to set aside a quiet time, although many like

to do so."

 

Yes, I agree with the above, as stated in one of my previous postings

the reason I included the To whom do these thoughts arise approach

on the inquiry abidance page is that some people might find that

approach more compatable with other activities such as work, etc.

 

It is the awareness watching awareness approach that works

much better, especially in the beginning,

setting aside time with no other activities going on.

 

"There was no

> change in Bhagavan's teaching between 'Who am I?' and Talks,"

 

There are approaches to Self-inquiry in the book 'Talks'

that are not described in the book "Who am I?"

 

If one were interested they could read the more than 600

pages of the book "Talks" and make notes on how many different

ways of practicing Self-inquiry Sri Ramana described.

 

I will give an example of an alternative approach

in the quotes listed below.

 

"nor are there secret levels of understanding to be aspired to."

 

I agree with that.

 

There are many many different ways of looking at Sri Ramana's

instruction on Self-inquiry, and there are many different approaches

to Self-inquiry described by Sri Ramana,

however Sri Ramana is not hiding any secrets.

It is a question of what one focusses on in Sri Ramana's teachings.

I will give an example in the quotes below.

 

"Vichara strips the mind bare and cuts straight to the essence.

Of this there is absolutely no doubt."

 

I agree with that.

 

Some approaches to inquiry are profoundly more efficient

and quick to liberate the aspirant than others.

With some approaches to inquiry,

the aspirant may have to practice for trillions of imaginary

lifetimes and other approaches will liberate the aspirant

in a single imaginary lifetime.

 

>

>" 'The particular mode in which the enquiry is to be made is lucidly

set forth in Nan Yar."

 

One of the many approaches to Self-inquiry is described in the book

"Who am I?". It is one of the least efficient approaches.

It uses thought which is on the surface and superfical.

The Self is Awareness. One can go directly to awareness

instead of formulating questions using thought.

 

For 25 years, when I read "Talks", instead of seeing what

Sri Ramana said in the context given in "Talks",

I read it with the approach to Self-inquiry described in

the book "Who am I?" in mind. This was a huge error.

Because of this I missed an approach to Self-inquiry that is

a trillions times more efficient.

I will give an example in the quotes listed below.

 

A clarification of what I mean when I use the word "thought"

and the word "Awareness".

My native language is English. I, therefore, think in English.

Thoughts for me are therefore, the English words in the mind.

 

A consciousness wakes up in the morning.

That consciousness is aware, therefore it is awareness.

That consciousness stays aware during all the waking hours.

Like a background of awareness.

Thoughts may come and thoughts may go,

but the awareness that they are arising in is continuous.

 

In the book "Who am I?" the following instruction is given:

 

"It does not matter how many thoughts arise.

 

As each thought arises one should inquire with diligence:

 

'To whom has this thought arisen?'.

 

A thought arises and I ask the question

'To whom has this thought arisen?'

I have formulated these English words in the mind

in order to ask the question:

'To whom has this thought arisen?'

 

Therefore that approach to Self-inquiry uses thought.

 

There are a small number of quotes by Sri Ramana in "Talks"

that could make a case that Sri Ramana meant feeling

instead of thought.

However, if that were true, then either Sri Ramana's words

or the translators words would have to be extremely, profoundly

poor communication.

Let us assume it would be because of the translation.

 

If you mean to feel then you just say feel:

'Feel to whom this thought has arisen.'

Also no need to put it in quotes:

'To whom has this thought arisen' if one is not asking oneself

that question using thought.

 

The same point about poor translation would apply

if Sri Bhagavan said 'see to whom has this thought has arisen?'

If you mean see, you don't say inquire and then put a question

in quotes: 'To whom has this thought arisen?'

You say 'See to whom has this thought arisen',

as we will see in the quotes from "Talks" below.

 

Therefore, either it is meant to

ask this question 'to whom has this thought arisen?'

which is using thought, or the translation is so far from

what was origianlly communicated as to warrant throwing

the book "Who am I?" in the trash.

 

If Sri Ramana says see who am I?

and a translator translates that as:

"Jump on the back of a flying camel while balancing a banana

one ones head"

Then such a book would belong in the trash can

and should not be read by any serious spiritual aspirant.

 

Therefore, I will assume that asking

'To whom has this thought arisen' is using thought

to formulate that question in one's mind.

 

However, using thought to ask various questions,

is not the only approach to Self-inquiry described

by Sri Ramana as we will see in the quote below.

 

> Talk 251:

> D.: How is this to be done?

> M.: See for whom the doubts exist. Who is the doubter? Who is the

thinker?

> That is the ego. Hold it. The other thoughts will die away. The ego

is left

> pure; see wherefrom the ego arises. That is pure consciousness.

 

Look at the first sentence of the answer:

 

"See for whom the doubts exist."

 

Notice the word see. For 25 years I would ignore the word see

and go right on to the next sentence.

When I say I would ignore it, I mean I should have paused

and looked at that word "see".

I would read words like "see" but I did not give them the attentin

they deserved.

I should have seen that another approach to self-inquiry was being

described instead of the one that uses thought to ask a question.

 

Seeing, looking, watching, observing.

 

Thus we have another approach to self-inquiry,

instead of formulating the question

'For whom do the doubts exist?' which uses thought to form

as question, we have "See for whom the doubts exist."

 

To see for whom the doubts exist

and to use thought to formulate a question

as to whom the doubts exist,

is as different in practice as night is from day.

 

There are better examples of quotes which demonstrate different

approaches to Self-inquiry by Sri Ramana, but I am using this

because it was the one selected in the message.

 

What follows next is Who is the doubter? Who is the thinker?

 

Does it mean see who is the doubter, see who is the thinker

or does it mean to formulate the question in thought

Who is the doubter and who is the thinker?

 

Sri Ramana had just stated see for whom the doubts exist.

 

Is he repeating the same advice with what follows next:

Who is the doubter? or is he recommending that one

think the question Who is the doubter?

 

If he means by that next sentence one should think

the question Who is the doubter,

then he has described two approaches to Self-inquiry

in two sentences, one after the other.

 

If he means by Who is the doubter?

the same as what he meant in the previous sentence,

then he is describing only one approach to Self-inquiry,

a very different one from the one described in the

book "Who am I?"

 

He begins saying "See to whom the doubts exist."

He ends by saying

 

"See wherefrom the ego rises. That is pure consciousness.

 

In both cases "see".

 

There are many ways of describing the

awareness watching awareness method.

 

See consciousness is also a very good way to describe it.

 

> Talk 618: See wherefrom the thought arises. It is the mind.

See for whom the mind or intellect functions. For the ego.

Merge the intellect in the ego and seek the source of the ego.

The ego disappears. ...When thoughts arise

> duality is present; know it to be the ego, and seek its source.

> > etc.

 

This quote provides an even better example.

No thought to be asked in the mind at all.

Nothing with a question mark even.

 

Just seeing and seeking. See, see, seek in the above quote.

 

Well I just used the quotes that were posted.

 

Maybe someday I will post some quotes from "Talks"

with some of the various approaches to Self-inquiry

that have been described by Sri Ramana.

 

What is far more important than the above,

is that I found a way to practice

Self-inquiry, Self-attention, Self-abidance.

 

A method that from my experience

is a trillion times more efficient and quick

than using thought to ask questions.

 

Someday I will post on one page,

my way of describing those practice instructions,

Sri Muruganar's way of describing those practice instructions

and Sri Nisargadatta's way of describing those practice

instructions, and Sri Annamalai Swami's glowing review of that

approach to Self-inquiry.

 

If someone along the way made a discovery

about certain practice instructions when stated in a certain way

that made the practice suddenly trillions of times

more efficient, I would hope they would share that discovery.

 

That is the essence of what I am attempting to share.

 

 

Take care,

 

with Love,

 

Michael L.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,this whole discussion can be simplified once one sees from Talks

and the Essays Who

Am I and Self Enquiry, that there are several approaches to Self Enquiry

 

1}questioning what ever arises as it arises

2}diving into the Heart [Eki Sloka]

3}awareness of awareness [as developed by Sadhu Om and others]

 

For those that find these difficult there are support practices given in the

Essay Self

Enquiry(Collected Works}

 

So one has a choice .Ramana said choose that which is easiest for you-get into

the Heart which

ever way you can .There is no exclusive way but each devotee has their favourite

which works best

for them .

Hope this clarifies rather than confuses the issue .In His Grace,Alan

 

 

______________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael L.,

 

I am very sympathetic to the idea of reading Talks carefully.

As you say, attention should be given to the questions as well

as the answers.

 

Unfortunately, though, because of the way Talks was compiled,

I don't think it's possible to deduce from it all the things you wish

to deduce.

 

For example, because of the way the book was recorded, it's not

possible to conclude that Bhagavan gave a certain piece of advice

more often than another, even though the first one appears more

often in the book.

 

Similarly, we can't infer from the fact that the word "see" appears in

the text, Bhagavan really said "see", nor can we assume that we are

given enough information about the questions for us to understand

adequately the context of each answer.

 

Here are some of the problems:

 

1. The conversations aren't transcripts. They are condensed,

paraphrased reconstructions made by a variety of people.

 

2. The book is not a complete record of everything Bhagavan

said on any given day. Far from it.

 

3. For at least part of the time that Munagala Venkataramaiah

was compiling the book, there was a rule forbidding anyone

from taking notes in the hall where Bhagavan spoke, so M.V.

had to wait until he returned to his room to record his

notes from memory. Sometimes he waited hours to write

the conversations down.

 

4. Bhagavan never edited any portion of the book (he did do

this with some other ashram books).

 

5. Bhagavan normally spoke in Tamil, and we are reading

an English translation. It's often impossible to translate single

words accurately, especially common verbs, because they

lack exact synonyms in other languages.

 

6. Some sections of the book were recorded by people other

than M.V., and presumably their work was inconsistent with

regard to accuracy and the amount of context they provided

for the answers.

 

7. M.V. (who recorded most of the book) had a reputation

for adding his own remarks to Bhagavan's when he translated

for Bhagavan in the hall. I think we have to assume that he

did the same thing in writing.

 

8. This eighth point, which I've left for the end, is proof all by

itself that we can't make too much of the conversations in

Talks. In some cases, a particular conversation appears in

both Talks and a second book by a different author, and the

two accounts are quite different.

 

The factual information in my eight numbered points is drawn

to a large extent from an unpublished letter by somebody who

knows much more about these things than I do. I wish I had his

permission to reproduce his letter, and to name him, but I don't.

 

Any mistakes in what I've written are mine, not his, and anything

valuable should be credited to him, not me.

 

Best wishes,

 

Rob

 

-

"uarelove" <uarelove

<RamanaMaharshi>

Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:05 AM

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: Inquiry in Talks

 

 

> RamanaMaharshi, MNW <miles.wright@b...> wrote:

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your reply.

> One of the many approaches to Self-inquiry is described in the book

> "Who am I?". It is one of the least efficient approaches.

> It uses thought which is on the surface and superfical.

Indeed. 'A thorn to remove a thorn.'

> The Self is Awareness. One can go directly to awareness

> instead of formulating questions using thought.

The Self has no need to go anywhere directly or indirectly. That ephemeral one

who thinks/sees, and claims the result, seems to be the problem.

> A thought arises and I ask the question

> 'To whom has this thought arisen?'

> I have formulated these English words in the mind

> in order to ask the question:

> 'To whom has this thought arisen?'

And in that instant thought is defeated and the mind turned inwards.

> Therefore that approach to Self-inquiry uses thought.

Of course it does. And tracing thought to its source is the name of the game.

> Thus we have another approach to self-inquiry,

> instead of formulating the question

> 'For whom do the doubts exist?' which uses thought to form

> as question, we have "See for whom the doubts exist."

The result is the same­­­

The answer? For me! Who am I?

> To see for whom the doubts exist

> and to use thought to formulate a question

> as to whom the doubts exist,

> is as different in practice as night is from day.

The answer in both cases is 'me' and in both cases ahamkara, the seer/thinker, is the culprit.

The Self has no doubts.

Let's simply practice.

And avoid linguistic polemic which is after all a result of over-analysis and

mere mindstuff fodder.

Thank you very much to Rob for the points made in his enlightening post

regarding 'Talks'. I seem to recall coming across a couple of those points in a

discussion some years back. It may have been in 'The Mountain Path' (anyone

recall?).

Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan,

Miles