Practise of self enquiry

[Guest guest]

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

I'd have loved to see Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have this

thread's conversation. They were such masters of using words with

more precision just because, well, they knew what they were talking

about. "Self-inquiry" is a phrase as fecund as any

Rorschach test's image. We bring our egos to it and project meaning

into "self-inquiry" from our limited backgrounds -- while

Ramana Maharishi WAS the Self and KNEW the actual truth behind the phrase

-- a critical difference, eh?

Words like "peace" are poetic first and foremost, and, as

Ramana Maharishi consistently reminds, no quality of existence can

capture the infinity of the Self-Being. If one is looking for

"peace" then one is still in duality -- "one," (being

the ego pretending to be the experiencer,) will be seeking an object of

experience -- "peace."

If the ego is satisfied that "peace" has been

"experienced," it can delude itself that it has found a loop

hole in God's fine print and been able to have its cake and eat it

too.

But it is illogical.

"Being in the self" is merely a set of four words that try to

describe-capture what Ramana Maharishi teaches is in-describable.

In fact, when we do self inquiry and the mind creates "the mouna

response" when we ask "who am I?," the mouna is NOT the

Self-Being, it is merely -- yes, MERELY -- an experience in duality --

and like the digit symbol zero being use to hold a place in a set of

digits but not signifying any THING, mouna is an object of consciousness

that SYMBOLIZES ONLY the Self-Being. Mouna is a process of the mind

-- biochemicals abuzz.

Mouna is a zero-thought, (Patanjali says "A thought about

nothingness,) but notice that it is a kind of THOUGHT nonetheless.

The Self-Being is beyond thoughts, but the human mind "likes"

the experience of mouna as "the closest I can get to a symbol for my

Self-Being." The ego is still there whenever one says

"my," but by the constant pointing of the mind towards mouna,

prodding the mind to respond-with/create mouna to our inquiries, the word

"my" becomes less and less appropriate to us as our

identification begins to "thirst" for the real thing -- and the

only thirst quencher is the Absolute -- the silence that is beyond the

mind's zero-thought symbol of it.

When experiencing mouna -- a subtle processing -- be it during a

protracted immersion in samadhi or be it a micro-instant of clarity about

the silence "between" ANY two grosser thoughts -- the mind is

effortlessly drawn to the experience. The mind likes to indulge in

it and tries to repeat the experience again and again. We say,

"I like that experience." And of course this statement is

a true as any non-true statement can be!

"During" samadhi, ALL QUALITIES, not just the "good

qualities" are "felt" as a vast potential -- an infinite

capacity to create differences -- but this word "felt" is, and

can only be, used after the samadhi experience has been "lost sight

of." "Felt" is a word that is intuited and

poetically used only after the ego is once again a "doer involved in

doing a done" -- that trio being united-and-undifferentiated but

still having the potential to separate again after samadhi. Out of

samadhi, an "I" claims "ithad"

"feltpeace." But do not miss the fact that

anyone coming out of samadhi could equally say, "I experienced

"horror,injustice," and "evil."

The ego likes to brag and says, "peace" instead.

These words are the equivalent of closing one's eyes and pointing

anywhere at random and saying, "There! That's

everything." Yes, no matter where one points, one is pointing

at a part of everything -- just as one points to one chest and says

"me" when obviously other parts of the body would serve as

well, but just because one can identify a single quality of Being, it

doesn't mean that Being has been pointed to in any meaningful sense --

we're fish saying "there's ocean."

So, when a statement like "we can be always in self awareness even

while performing actions" comes along I notice two things:

that my ego loves to think the statement is true (I'm deluded after all,)

and that it is a poem through and through and can only "be

truthful" to the degree that I have clarity about samadhi-and-beyond

MEMORIES (thoughts.) Any thinker of these words will generate

his-her meaning for these words according to their clarity about their

previous experiences.

All this "poeming" at each other is the basis for the conundrum

of life -- where's meaning to reside when everyone has a different

meaning for every symbol used for communications? From words to

facial expressions to tone of voice and on and on -- all are mere symbols

that one interprets using a brain that is a claustrophobically tiny tool

-- a toothbrush for sweeping a parking lot.

Thus, Ramana Maharishi's wisdom: Don't bother -- get out of the

thought business! Let God take on that load. Retire, Ramana

Maharishi says. Do tapas by retiring from thoughts. Do this

by first attending to mouna (the quietest thought,) and then as that

symbol-of-silence (thought) is indulged in repeatedly, mouna becomes ever

more "graspable" intellectually and emotionally. That is,

the brain can generate lots of "logically consistent" thoughts

about the mouna experience -- but then, at some point, suddenly,

magic! We switch from being characters in a dream to realizing that

THAT -- which is beyond all dreams -- has always "been" our

true Self-Being (the word "been" is a big fat language-forced

error of course.)

The joke first laughed by the "newly" enlightened is that we've

been deluded that we are meat robots having chemical processes call

thoughts -- how'd that happen, eh? Funny us, eh?

So, no, we don't try to have TWO thoughts SIMULTANEOUSLY when we do self

inquiry -- 1. Mouna and 2. the experience of actions being

performed. The human mind can't do two things at once. We can

flick back and forth though. We can, during our daily activities,

put our attention on mouna by asking "Who am I?" This

takes the mind off of "gross relativity" and moves it in the

direction of lesser mental excitation -- "inwardly" is the word

often used. So, during the day, we can take an inward stroke

whenever we want to, but even if one is practiced at this technique and

can do this inward dive very frequently, the ultimate achievement will

merely be the ability to concentrate one's attention on mouna -- an

experience, a zero thought but a thought nonetheless. This is not

enlightenment, but it's very good spiritual therapy!

I believe self inquiry is easier with eyes closed and sitting

comfortably. The less one's environment is impacting the senses the

easier it is to attend to ever more subtle mental processing and get that

much closer to having "not anything happening in the

mind." It is at these quiet levels that one is able to slip

from identifying with gross thoughts into identifying with mouna (a brain

process) and then finally transcending even that identification and

realizing our true "words fail utterly" status which has never

been in the thought business. Homey don't play dat.

Then, finally the words click into harmony. The status of the

Absolute is unsullied by relativity, so awareness of waking thoughts,

dreaming thoughts, and even the thought "deep thoughtless

sleep" is an all-time reality. Only after enlightenment can the

concept "self inquiry" really be "understood."

Only then can the ego see its utter insignificance as a bean counting

anal retentive sub-process of the brain's "history

department."

Ramana Maharishi's grace is then, and only then, known, as one's own

Self-Being -- NOT as someTHING that one acquires by bhakti. Before

enlightenment, attending to Ramana Maharishi as an object of

consciousness is a wonderful meditation that leads to mouna as adroitly

as asking "Who am I?" His Grace is palpable. Bhakti

towards Ramana Maharishi is the same as asking "Who am

I?" His manifestation was so purified by a lifetime of

silence, that his every thought and action was the Absolute's immobility

moving. We think of mouna as "something not heard," but

we can also think of Ramana Maharishi as a person not there -- a singing

silence. A half century after his passing, his silence-personified

visage prompts a love that is about as mouna-ish as possible.

Attending to Ramana Maharishi IS SELF INQUIRY.

That's Ramana Maharishi's dual gift to us -- self inquiry on the inward

stroke taking us towards silence and then coming out and opening the eyes

and seeing the living silence of his divine personality. This is

the secret of satsang -- inescapable divinity no matter where the

attention goes!

Edg

At 12:00 AM 4/20/2006, you wrote:

Being only in Self means doing

no action. Being Self and being in its natural qualities like Knowledge,

Purity, Peace, Love, Happiness, Bliss and Powers, we can be always in

self awareness even while performing actions.

Richard Clarke <rclarke (AT) svcrm (DOT) com> wrote:

You are blessed with Ramana's grace. Let this grace fill you

until

there is nothing left of your individual idea of your self, and only

the Self remains.

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, Ananda

<oneness.univ

wrote:

>

> I have just started practicing self-enquiry (after returning

from

> Arunachala). I have some questions:

[Guest guest]

On 20/04/06, Edg <edg (AT) duveyoung (DOT) com> wrote:...when we do self inquiry and the

mind creates "the mouna response" when we ask "who am I?," the mouna is NOT the

Self-Being, it is merely -- yes, MERELY -- an experience in duality -- and like

the digit symbol zero being use to hold a place in a set of digits but not

signifying any THING, mouna is an object of consciousness that SYMBOLIZES ONLY

the Self-Being. Mouna is a process of the mind -- biochemicals abuzz. Mouna

is a zero-thought, (Patanjali says "A thought about nothingness,) but notice

that it is a kind of THOUGHT nonetheless.

----------

 

That which is created by the mind or the result of the mind's process is not

Mouna. The eternal Silence is not an effect.

 

"That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna." (Talks 230)

A.M.

[Guest guest]

What should be the ideal duration of this 'base' practice in the morning? I am

aware that the answer will also depend on factors like my own inclinations, the

time that I can spare in the morning etc. Nevertheless from your long practice

you would have realised that to be fruitful the practice needs to be of a

certain minimum duration. You would also be having a sense of the ideal

duration. Could you please share these with us. Many thanks and regards,

 

Venkat

On 4/19/06, Richard Clarke <rclarke (AT) svcrm (DOT) com> wrote:

A few additional comments:When I first started inquiry I found it very good to have a regular

time, when I am at my best, for practice. I found early in themorning the best.

I have continued to have this as a regular part ofpractice. It has been this

way for years now, and seems to me to bea 'base' of practice.

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkat,

 

What matters most is depth of practice. Time is of the mind. Depth is of

the Self.

 

>From a more mundane level, for this one, 20 - 30 minutes is usually just

fine. I have heard some recommend 40 minutes or more. What is important is

that you actually inquire, not be sitting with mind busy and wandering. The

focus of inquiry should be 'non-objective.' Anything that is objective,

whether gross or subtle, is known. Who knows it? Who is this unknown knower

of all the known? Who am I?

 

Realization is a matter of identity - identity as the Self. (Not any kind

of individual. there are not two of you. You are just One. If you imagine

God and yourself, then you have imagined two.)

 

To know yourself as the Self is not a matter of any kind of attainment or

transformation. It is not something that comes. Anything that comes, goes.

It is temporary and you are without beginning or end. You are already That.

How could you be anything other than That? It is a matter of shining the

light of Consciousness on the ignorance. Inquiry is just this. Who am I? Am

I this (objective definition of myself)? How could I be this, I KNOW this?

So just who am I, anyway? (With MORE desire to know and more certainty that

you are not ANYTHING objective.)

 

--------------

Not two,

Richard

 

Original Message:

-----------------

S Venkatraman svenkat52

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:09:57 +0530

RamanaMaharshi

Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Practise of self enquiry

 

 

Dear Richard,

 

What should be the ideal duration of this 'base' practice in the morning? I

am aware that the answer will also depend on factors like my own

inclinations, the time that I can spare in the morning etc. Nevertheless

from your long practice you would have realised that to be fruitful the

practice needs to be of a certain minimum duration. You would also be having

a sense of the ideal duration. Could you please share these with us. Many

thanks and regards,

 

Venkat

 

 

On 4/19/06, Richard Clarke <rclarke wrote:

>

> A few additional comments:

>

>

> When I first started inquiry I found it very good to have a regular

> time, when I am at my best, for practice. I found early in the

> morning the best. I have continued to have this as a regular part of

> practice. It has been this way for years now, and seems to me to be

> a 'base' of practice.

>

>

 

 

--

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

[Guest guest]

_____________________

Thank you very much, Richard. That was most useful.

Regards, Venkat

On 4/21/06, rclarke (AT) svcrm (DOT) com <rclarke (AT) svcrm (DOT) com> wrote:

Dear Venkat,What matters most is depth of practice. Time is of the mind. Depth is ofthe Self.

>From a more mundane level,

[Guest guest]

Is the "I-I" a different technique from "Who am I?". The whoami seems to be

a question which results in a silence whereas the "I-I" sort of keeps

bringing one into I-consciousness. Somehow i feel the 2 are different,

unless i am doing them wrong.

 

Also, is "I-I" the same as just thinking "I" or "I AM". Somehow i find that

"I I" doesnt mean anything to me at the time of practice, whereas just "I"

or "I am" does give a sense of I-consciousness.

 

I often find myself alternating between periods of WAI and I-I/ I Am. Is

that okay?

 

In Ramana

a n

[Guest guest]

You put so many questions, to so many people!

Try listening to the Master!

Practise the techniques implanted by Sri Ramana.

Upadesa Undiyar Verse 20 and

Upadesa Saram Verse 20,

imbided deeply,

will put you right.

Regards,

k

(Moderator)

 

 

RamanaMaharshi, "Ananda Natana"

<oneness.univ wrote:

>

> Is the "I-I" a different technique from "Who am I?". The whoami seems

to be

> a question which results in a silence whereas the "I-I" sort of keeps

> bringing one into I-consciousness. Somehow i feel the 2 are different,

> unless i am doing them wrong.

>

> Also, is "I-I" the same as just thinking "I" or "I AM". Somehow i find

that

> "I I" doesnt mean anything to me at the time of practice, whereas just

"I"

> or "I am" does give a sense of I-consciousness.

>

> I often find myself alternating between periods of WAI and I-I/ I Am.

Is

> that okay?

>

> In Ramana

> a n

>

[Guest guest]

Ananda,

 

Is there a 'thinking' involved? Any 'thinking' would take us away from 'I'...

the essence. It is just 'being the 'I'. Thoughts subside there... bringing

in the joy of 'I'. 'Surrender/Bhakti' helps speeden this process.

 

'Who am I' starts off as a thought, but soon the thinking drops off.

Actually, 'Who am I not' can be a thought/question... 'Who am I' as a

question/thought would not have any direct answer... if it had, it would be

another 'concept'... and not the truth.

 

Sachin

 

----

 

Ananda Natana

04/25/06 00:25:41

RamanaMaharshi

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: Practise of self enquiry

 

Is the "I-I" a different technique from "Who am I?". The whoami seems to be

a question which results in a silence whereas the "I-I" sort of keeps

bringing one into I-consciousness. Somehow i feel the 2 are different,

unless i am doing them wrong.

 

Also, is "I-I" the same as just thinking "I" or "I AM". Somehow i find that

I I" doesnt mean anything to me at the time of practice, whereas just "I" or

"I am" does give a sense of I-consciousness.

 

I often find myself alternating between periods of WAI and I-I/ I Am. Is

that okay?

 

In Ramana

a n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "RamanaMaharshi" on the web.

 

RamanaMaharshi