Tamil

[Guest guest]

Ramesh: Does Ramana Maharshi have a basic? Yes indeed – the

question "Who am I?" And when he says this, the "I" is in the Tamil

language. What he means in English is not "Who am I?" but "Who is

this me?" In other words, is there a "me" at all? This is my

interpretation. Who is this me? Is there a "me" at all?

 

…..Does the "me" exist? Who is this "me" about whom I've been so

concerned all this life? That is Ramana Maharshi's question.

 

There are other references to Tamil in Balsekar's book and one might

wonder if Tamil is especially difficult to convert to English.

 

An ideal point of investigation into Ramana's teachings might be to

have access to the original writings and a complete understanding of

the original language Ramana spoke. As with interpretations and

translations of the bible, it seems that a complete, scholarly

understanding of all the writings could make a big difference in

one's understanding and ultimate use of the teachings. As I am not

such a scholar and do not have access to the original writings or

language, I must rely on others to provide me with the information

and hope that it is correct or at least of use. So far, the

interpretations of R. Balsekar and David Godman are the most complete

and useful interpretations of Ramana's teachings that I have found.

I accept that there may be many other such beneficial interpretations

by others who lived with and worked with Ramana's teachings and I

look forward to seeing such interpretations.

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Jim,

> Ramesh: Does Ramana Maharshi have a basic? Yes indeed – the

> question "Who am I?" And when he says this, the "I" is in the Tamil

> language. What he means in English is not "Who am I?" but "Who is

> this me?" In other words, is there a "me" at all? This is my

> interpretation. Who is this me? Is there a "me" at all?

Whether the question is 'Who am I?' or 'Who is this me?' makes no difference

nor, for that matter if it is 'ahamayamkuto' - 'Where does this 'I' come from?'

as found in Bhagavan's own Sanskrit version of Upadesa Saram or ko 'ham syAm -

'Who am I?' or more strictly according to syntax 'Who could this 'I' be? - as

found in Lakshmana Sarma's 'Sri Ramana Hrdayam' (the optative giving a nice air

of conjecture to the question). The 'I' in question is not 'in' any language,

this 'I' stands at the root of them all and uses them to explain and confound

the universe around himself, setting up endless debates about this, that, and

the other. The question asked in vichara hacks at the root of this ahamkara. It

is an open question ('Who am I?' is a fine representative of it), which sets up

a chain (with its corollary question 'To whom do these thoughts occur?') which

must return to itself, and thereby cuts through meandering thought in order

that sphurana might shine through unabated. Then the rehearsal is over and

vichara can start in earnest. It is not an objective question (therefore 'is

there a me at all?' does seem inappropriate), it is profoundly personal.

 

> I accept that there may be many other such beneficial interpretations

> by others who lived with and worked with Ramana's teachings and I

> look forward to seeing such interpretations.

A. W. Chadwick lived with Bhagavan for years. He had every opportunity to

clarify the method of Enquiry and is satisfied that 'Who am I?' is the

appropriate question for the practice of Self-enquiry. Of Chadwick, Bhagavan

said, 'Chadwick was here before, he was one of us. he had some desire to be

born in the West, and that he has now fulfilled.'

Chadwick (Sadhu Arunachala) writes:

'That everything is in the mind and that the mind is only a passing phenomenon

was continually stressed by Bhagavan, 'Who is the one behind the mind?' he

would ask repeatedly. 'Find that one and the mind itself will automatically

disappear.' To do this one must repeatedly seek out the source of the 'I' by

the enquiry 'Who am I?' This process has often been misunderstood, though

actually Bhagavan's teaching is quite clear. In this search one is not to

search for some transcendental 'I-Absolute', but for the ego itself and the

point where it arises. Find this, the ego automatically drops away and one then

knows there is nothing but the Self. ...Bhagavan said that the mind was like a

monkey never still for one second, it was an almost hopeless task to try and

quieten it; the best thing to do was to give it productive employment and not

allow it to fritter itself away building endless pictures. Let it concentrate

on 'Who am I? and then there will be no room for any other thought. It is like

using a thorn to extract a thorn from the foot. ' ('A Sadhu's Reminiscences of

Ramana Maharshi, p. 62-63)

Regards,

Miles

[Guest guest]

Dear Jim & Miles et al:

I found this subject of 'Tamil' fascinating.

First, Jim: I concur a lot with what you felt about Bhagavan's writings in

the original. I've been studying these over the past few months, and am perhaps

slowly starting to learn. Certainly, it takes a lot of concentration, and it's

been my experience that all His works have an immediate and silencing effect.

Discussions or the perceived need for them simply do not arise.

It could reasonably be added by a seeker: "Oh dear, then I am excluded! I

could never learn all the rules of such a complicated language!" to which I

could hopefully and fervently add that it is my belief that a great deal of the

original (in Tamil and/or in Sanskrit) can be absorbed. By listening to tapes of

the songs (40 verses, Arunachala poems etc) one can let the rhythm of the words

and phrases soak into the psyche. After familiarising, it can be found that

certain phraselets 'catch' in the mind. Then if one asks, for example, what

does the bit ..."teedinaal, oottam pidikkum, uruvatra peeyahantai, oor"

(transliteration slightly adjusted for phonetics) one could hear (In the Forty

Verses, verse 25):

"It means: 'When you seek it out, it takes to its heels [and runs], — this

formless spook [called the] ego. Ponder [on this]!' It can be seen in this

phrase-let that the first word is 'teedinaal' meaning 'if it is investigated',

and the final word 'oor' [pronounced like the 'o' in "Four"] means 'ponder,

consider'. The first word has the sense of "seek out and find" something like

the police on a raid, and the second word has the sense of "Turn it over in

your mind, ponder deeply". So in this way, by hearing, the upadesa starts to

root itself in...

It can easily be seen that Bhagavan is using different words which mean the

same thing. (See Miles' posting below... regarding 'Sri Ramana Hrdayam'. There

are many examples in Bhagavan's works where 'different' things are pointed back

to the "I", and also cases where the same word is repeated (once in Sanskrit and

once in Tamil). It is a fascinating study (and possibly a subject for a separate

group) for anyone who would want to pursue it.

It is a blessing that Bhagavan always turns everything back into the Atma

Vichara, or into adoration for and surrender to, Arunachala, which often also

simultaneously morphs back into the atma vichara (and then is realised to be

the same thing). An example here can be seen in the eleven verses, verse 2.:

"Oh Arunachala, Thou Form of Grace itself!

once having claimed me, loveless though I be, how canst thou let me now

be lost, and fail to fill me so with Love that I must pine for Thee

unceasingly and melt within like wax over the fire?" (This translation from

the 1968 edition of the Collected Works.)

 

I've only sifted a little of this, and am still learning much, but it is

fascinating to see a snip of the Tamil, "mezhukaa // akattunai".

 

"anpuru varun>aa salavazhan mezhukaa

akattunai NinaiNtunaiN turuku(m)"

 

"Oh belovéd Arunachala! Thinking and thinking of you, you are deep within me*,

and the 'me' is melting like wax in the fire...!"

 

* akam (= aHam = the "I") - this is known by many who even lightly hear or read

Upadesa Saram, and 'akattu' or 'aHattu' is the dative case, probably showing

you are 'to me' (ie within me), and the more I think of you, so this "I", this

"me" starts to melt like wax in the fire.

 

So to quote Miles quoting Alan Chadwick, "Bhagavan said that the mind was like a

monkey never still for one second, it was an almost hopeless task to try and

quieten it; the best thing to do was to give it productive employment and not

allow it to fritter itself away building endless pictures"...

 

We can see and experience how the poetry always gives 'productive

employment', an exercise for the mind. It's my experience that the mind gets

concentrated in working on this rather difficult language, and that that very

concentration itself provides the "rocket fuel" for empowering the vichara. In

one way or another, Bhagavan very beatifully, and movingly, and emotionally

turns that thrust back onto this mysterious sense of "I", which starts to get

charred, the I-stick which churns the funeral pyre, reducing everything and

itself to vibhuti, the Ashes of Lord Siva. The ego has melted.

 

Oh, and there's one more thing: The 'rocket-fuel' is a twin mix, and the

ingredients are the necessary concentration and also the Grace of Bhagavan

Siva. But the concentration itself is also empowered by Grace.....

 

Best wishes

 

john

 

Siva—Siva

 

 

=================================================

> Ramesh: Does Ramana Maharshi have a basic? Yes indeed - the> question "Who

am I?" And when he says this, the "I" is in the Tamil> language. What he

means in English is not "Who am I?" but "Who is> this me?" In other words, is

there a "me" at all? This is my> interpretation. Who is this me? Is there a

"me" at all?Whether the question is 'Who am I?' or 'Who is this me?' makes no

difference nor, for that matter if it is 'ahamayamkuto' - 'Where does this 'I'

come from?' as found in Bhagavan's own Sanskrit version of Upadesa Saram or

ko'ham syAm - 'Who am I?' or more strictly according to syntax 'Who could this

'I' be?' - as found in Lakshmana Sarma's 'Sri Ramana Hrdayam' (the optative

giving a nice air of conjecture to the question). The 'I' in question is not

'in' any language, this 'I' stands at the root of them all and uses them to

explain and confound the universe around himself, setting up endless debates

about this, that, and the other. The question asked in vichara hacks at the

root of this ahamkara. It is an open question ('Who am I?' is a fine

representative of it), which sets up a chain (with its corollary question 'To

whom do these thoughts occur?') which must return to itself, and thereby cuts

through meandering thought in order that sphurana might shine through unabated.

Then the rehearsal is over and vichara can start in earnest. It is not an

objective question (therefore 'is there a me at all?' does seeminappropriate),

it is profoundly personal. > I accept that there may be many other such

beneficial interpretations> by others who lived with and worked with Ramana's

teachings and I> look forward to seeing such interpretations.A. W. Chadwick

lived with Bhagavan for years. He had every opportunity to clarify the method

of Enquiry and is satisfied that 'Who am I?' is the appropriate question for

the practice of Self-enquiry. Of Chadwick, Bhagavan said, 'Chadwick was here

before, he was one of us. he had some desire to be born in the West, and that

he has now fulfilled.'Chadwick (Sadhu Arunachala) writes:'That everything is in

the mind and that the mind is only a passing phenomenon was continually stressed

by Bhagavan, 'Who is the one behind the mind?' he would ask repeatedly. 'Find

that one and the mind itself will automatically disappear.' To do this one

must repeatedly seek out the source of the 'I' by the enquiry 'Who am I?' This

process has often been misunderstood, though actually Bhagavan's teaching is

quite clear. In this search one is not to search for some transcendental

'I-Absolute', but for the ego itself and the point where it arises. Find this,

the ego automatically drops away and one then knows there is nothing but the

Self....Bhagavan said that the mind was like a monkey never still for one

second, it was an almost hopeless task to try and quieten it; the best thing to

do was to give it productive employment and not allow it to fritter itself away

building endless pictures. Let it concentrate on 'Who am I? and then there will

be no room for any other thought. It is like using a thorn to extract a thorn

from the foot. ' ('A Sadhu's Reminiscences of Ramana Maharshi, p.

62-63)Regards,Miles--- End forwarded message ---

Ramanachala ~ Inner Tranquillity

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date:

03/02/04