RE: Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX � i)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankaraman-ji,

 

 

 

Why not consider Lakshmana Sarma's rendition of the first mangalam to

Ramana's Forty Verses? After all, he painstakingly submitted his Sanskrit

rendering of all these versus, time and time again, until he felt Ramana

finally approved. He later translated the verses into English in

"Revelation". As I am sure you know, Ramana gave Lakshmana personal tutoring

in the meaning of the versus.

 

 

 

"i. Can there be a sense of existence without something that is?

 

Is Real Consciousness a thing other than That?

 

Since that (Reality) dwells thought free in the Heart,

 

how can It - Itself named Heart - be meditated on?

 

And who is there, distinct from It, to meditate on It -

 

the Self whose nature is Reality Consciousness?

 

Know that to meditate on It is just to be at one

 

with It within the Heart."

 

 

 

Or we might consider Sri Sadhu Om's translation into English from the

original Tamil.

 

 

 

"i. If the Reality ('I') did not exist, could there exist the consciousness

'am' (the consciousness of one's own existence)? Since that reality exists

in the heart devoid of thought, how to (or who can) meditate upon that

reality, which is called the Heart? Know that abiding in the Heart as it its

(that is, devoid of thought as 'I am'), alone is meditating (upon the

reality).

 

 

 

Both of these support your understanding that Existence is Pure

Consciousness. Might one change your last phrase just slightly? To state:

 

 

 

"To be aware of it is to abide as It in the Heart."

 

 

 

We could also say this "sense of existence", Awareness, is true Knowledge of

Reality. Is there any need to convolute it with statements like "awareness

of awareness by awareness" etc?

 

 

 

After all, in verse 12 of the Forty Verses, Ramana also says:

 

 

 

"The Real Self shines always alone, with neither things for Him to know, nor

persons to know Him;

 

Therefore He is only Consciousness."

 

 

 

Ramana explains it thus:

 

 

 

"The first stanza is the auspicious beginning. Why should the subject matter

of the piece be bought in here? Can knowledge be other than Being? Being is

the core - the Heart. How then is the Supreme Being to be contemplated and

glorified? Only to remain as the Pure Self is the auspicious beginning. This

speaks of the attributeless Brahman according to the jnana marga (method of

knowledge)." (Talks 566)

 

 

 

And also.

 

 

 

"You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of

time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is

understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the

individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and

that 'I - AM' alone prevails. 'I-AM' is the whole truth. . . . The

Heart is the Self." (Talk 503)

 

 

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

 

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Ganesan Sankarraman

22 December 2006 14:42

advaitin

Re: Re: Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX i)

 

Dear Sir,

There was some inaccuracy in my earlier version. The translation should be

as follows

.. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free

from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts.

It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be

as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.( Translated by Osborne)

 

But I would like it to be as follows

 

Other than Existence how can there be knowledge of existence. Because

Existence abides in the Heart as what is free from thoughts (

conceptualizations), who is to contemplate it and how is one to contemplate.

To abide as what is, is to be aware of it.

Existence or Reality I understand in the above context to be pure

consciousness or awareness. The knowledge of existence refers to the

existence part of it, the objective part of it. In simple words, the reality

does not exist as an object apart from the awareness of it.>In the

traditional context I understand the Atman to be Awareness and Brahman to be

the awareness of existence which is only awareness of awareness by

awareness. Language involves predication of truth which is not correct. One

can understand it only in silence.Saint Thayumanavar says, " Other than

shining as one's true Being it does not admit of any external object. Then

who or how can one understand it. The awareness only can understand

awareness swallowing all objectivity. It is like the camphor burning itself

out. Devoid of the notions of knower, knowledge and the known is the self

which is nothing but awareness."

with regards

Sankarraman>

[Guest guest]

Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

We could also say this "sense of existence", Awareness, is true Knowledge of

Reality. Is there any need to convolute it with statements like "awareness

of awareness by awareness" etc?

 

Dear friend,

I have already stated that any attempt to expatiate upon truth is to predicate it with attributes. Awareness is not an act performed by somebody to be aware of it through some instrument. Words are inadeqate.

Thank you for your kindly response

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankarraman-ji,

 

My apologies. You had, indeed, already stated "that any attempt to expatiate

upon truth is to predicate it with attributes." And, of course, words are

inedaquate, for the "awareness " referred to is not an act on behalf of

someone.

 

I was simply responding to that part of your mail where you were using words

to express your own understanding eg "But I would like it to be as

follows.." and "Existence or Reality I understand in the above context to

be....."

 

Just a friend in Ramana intending to explore with another.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Ganesan Sankarraman

23 December 2006 02:03

advaitin

RE: Re: Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX i)

 

Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com <not_2%40btinternet.com> > wrote:

We could also say this "sense of existence", Awareness, is true Knowledge of

Reality. Is there any need to convolute it with statements like "awareness

of awareness by awareness" etc?

 

Dear friend,

I have already stated that any attempt to expatiate upon truth is to

predicate it with attributes. Awareness is not an act performed by somebody

to be aware of it through some instrument. Words are inadeqate.

Thank you for your kindly response

Sankarraman