Sadhana?

[Guest guest]

For the purposes of self inquiry, in the tradition of Maharshi, is

there considered to be a particular practice utilised, or would it be

more an attitude that motivates whatever the individual is practicing?

I have tried the questioning as a sort of contemplation and found it

very interesting and revealing. However, many individuals say it is

incorrect to use it this way. Can someone clear up that point for me.

Thanks.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gondolf1,

 

What is your particular practice and background. Perhaps people can be

more helpful if you give some information. Also, what works of Sri

Ramana are you familiar with. Most of the dialogues and many books by

Bhagavan are available free on-line http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/.

 

You can also look at the following article which talks about the Advaita

Method.

 

tag/ramana/page/3/

 

Namaste

Harsha

 

gondolf1 wrote:

> For the purposes of self inquiry, in the tradition of Maharshi, is

> there considered to be a particular practice utilised, or would it be

> more an attitude that motivates whatever the individual is practicing?

> I have tried the questioning as a sort of contemplation and found it

> very interesting and revealing. However, many individuals say it is

> incorrect to use it this way. Can someone clear up that point for me.

> Thanks.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If I understand correctly, you are using the words of the inquiry as a

mantra. Is this what you do?

 

The inquiry is for inquiring (for the purpose of finding out) who, if

anyone, is it exactly who is thinking or meditating, etc. At least

that is my understanding.

 

Richard

 

 

, "gondolf1" <gondolf1 wrote:

>

> For the purposes of self inquiry, in the tradition of Maharshi, is

> there considered to be a particular practice utilised, or would it

be

> more an attitude that motivates whatever the individual is

practicing?

> I have tried the questioning as a sort of contemplation and found it

> very interesting and revealing. However, many individuals say it is

> incorrect to use it this way. Can someone clear up that point for

me.

> Thanks.

>

[Guest guest]

Not really like a mantra. I would just ask the question and observe

what happens. Then ask the question again, and so on.

 

, "Richard" <richarkar

wrote:

>

> If I understand correctly, you are using the words of the inquiry

as a

> mantra. Is this what you do?

>

> The inquiry is for inquiring (for the purpose of finding out) who,

if

> anyone, is it exactly who is thinking or meditating, etc. At least

> that is my understanding.

>

> Richard

>

>

> , "gondolf1" <gondolf1@>

wrote:

> >

> > For the purposes of self inquiry, in the tradition of Maharshi,

is

> > there considered to be a particular practice utilised, or would

it

> be

> > more an attitude that motivates whatever the individual is

> practicing?

> > I have tried the questioning as a sort of contemplation and

found it

> > very interesting and revealing. However, many individuals say it

is

> > incorrect to use it this way. Can someone clear up that point

for

> me.

> > Thanks.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Gondolf,

 

I just gave a longer reply to your question but think it didn't go

through.

 

Basically you might read writings of Ramana Maharshi particularly "Who

Am I" which can be found on the internet. Also on the internet is the

site of V.V Brahmam, who is a follower of Ramana Maharshi's. It is:

www.brahmam.net .

 

Best wishes,

Richard

 

 

, "gondolf1" <gondolf1 wrote:

>

> Not really like a mantra. I would just ask the question and observe

> what happens. Then ask the question again, and so on.

[Guest guest]

(From one of previous postings)

Help on the Quest for Self-realization- Reminders- 50

The notion of individuality is only the "I"-thought manifesting

itself in different ways. Instead of regarding the different

activities of the mind (such as ego, intellect and memory) as

separate functions He (Sri Ramana) preferred to view them all as

different forms of the "I"-thought. Since He equated individuality

with the mind and the mind with the "I"-thought it follows that the

disappearance of individuality (i.e Self-realization) implies the

disappearance of both the mind and the "I"-thought. He regarded

the "I"-thought as a mistaken assumption which has no real existence

of its own.

Arranging thoughts in the order of value, the "I"-thought is the all-

important thought. Personality idea or thought is also the root or

the stem of all other thoughts, since each idea or thought arises

only as someone's thought and is not known to exist independently

of the ego. The ego therefore exhibits thought activity. The

second and third persons [he, you, that, etc.] do not appear except

to the first person . Therefore they arise only after the first

person appears, so all the three persons seem to rise and sink

together. Trace then the ultimate cause of "I" or personality.

The birth of the "I"-thought is one's own birth, its death is the

person's death. After the "I"-thought has arisen, the wrong

identity with the body arises. Get rid of the "I"-thought. So long

as "I" is alive there is grief. When "I" ceases to exist there is

no grief.

The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the

source from where the "I"-thought rises.

The "I am the body" idea is the primary source of all subsequent

identifications and its dissolution is the principal aim of Self-

enquiry.

Sri Ramana maintained that this tendency towards self-limiting

identifications could be checked by trying to separate the

subject "I" from the objects of thought which it identified with

(regard oneself as sharing characteristics of (another person);

associate oneself). Since the individual "I"-thought cannot exist

without an object, if attention is focused on the subjective

feeling of "I" or "I am" with such intensity that the thoughts "I am

this" or "I am that" do not arise, then the individual "I" will be

unable to connect with objects. If this awareness of "I" is

sustained, the individual "I" (the "I"-thought) will disappear and

in its place there will be a direct experience of the Self. This

constant attention to the inner awareness of "I" or "I am" was

called Self-enquiry (Vichara) by Sri Ramana and he constantly

recommended it as the most efficient and direct way of discovering

the unreality of the "I"-thought.

Source: Various reliable publications of / on Sri Ramana Maharshi's

teachings.

Richard <richarkar > wrote:

Hi Gondolf,

I just gave a longer reply to your question but think it didn't go

through.

Basically you might read writings of Ramana Maharshi particularly "Who

Am I" which can be found on the internet. Also on the internet is the

site of V.V Brahmam, who is a follower of Ramana Maharshi's. It is:

www.brahmam.net .

Best wishes,

Richard

, "gondolf1" <gondolf1 wrote:

>

> Not really like a mantra. I would just ask the question and observe

> what happens. Then ask the question again, and so on.

Looking for earth-friendly autos?

Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center.

[Guest guest]

Thanks a lot. The portion in bold print makes it very clear.-

 

-- In , Nisheet Nagpal

<nisheet2000 wrote:

>

> (From one of previous postings)

>

> Help on the Quest for Self-realization- Reminders- 50

>

> The notion of individuality is only the "I"-thought manifesting

> itself in different ways. Instead of regarding the different

> activities of the mind (such as ego, intellect and memory) as

> separate functions He (Sri Ramana) preferred to view them all as

> different forms of the "I"-thought. Since He equated individuality

> with the mind and the mind with the "I"-thought it follows that

the

> disappearance of individuality (i.e Self-realization) implies the

> disappearance of both the mind and the "I"-thought. He regarded

> the "I"-thought as a mistaken assumption which has no real

existence

> of its own.

>

> Arranging thoughts in the order of value, the "I"-thought is the

all-

> important thought. Personality idea or thought is also the root or

> the stem of all other thoughts, since each idea or thought arises

> only as someone's thought and is not known to exist independently

> of the ego. The ego therefore exhibits thought activity. The

> second and third persons [he, you, that, etc.] do not appear

except

> to the first person . Therefore they arise only after the first

> person appears, so all the three persons seem to rise and sink

> together. Trace then the ultimate cause of "I" or personality.

> The birth of the "I"-thought is one's own birth, its death is

the

> person's death. After the "I"-thought has arisen, the wrong

> identity with the body arises. Get rid of the "I"-thought. So long

> as "I" is alive there is grief. When "I" ceases to exist there is

> no grief.

>

> The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into

the

> source from where the "I"-thought rises.

>

> The "I am the body" idea is the primary source of all subsequent

> identifications and its dissolution is the principal aim of Self-

> enquiry.

>

> Sri Ramana maintained that this tendency towards self-limiting

> identifications could be checked by trying to separate the

> subject "I" from the objects of thought which it identified with

> (regard oneself as sharing characteristics of (another person);

> associate oneself). Since the individual "I"-thought cannot exist

> without an object, if attention is focused on the subjective

> feeling of "I" or "I am" with such intensity that the thoughts "I

am

> this" or "I am that" do not arise, then the individual "I" will be

> unable to connect with objects. If this awareness of "I" is

> sustained, the individual "I" (the "I"-thought) will disappear and

> in its place there will be a direct experience of the Self. This

> constant attention to the inner awareness of "I" or "I am" was

> called Self-enquiry (Vichara) by Sri Ramana and he constantly

> recommended it as the most efficient and direct way of discovering

> the unreality of the "I"-thought.

>

> Source: Various reliable publications of / on Sri Ramana

Maharshi's

> teachings.

>

> Richard <richarkar wrote:

> Hi Gondolf,

>

> I just gave a longer reply to your question but think it didn't go

> through.

>

> Basically you might read writings of Ramana Maharshi

particularly "Who

> Am I" which can be found on the internet. Also on the internet is

the

> site of V.V Brahmam, who is a follower of Ramana Maharshi's. It

is:

> www.brahmam.net .

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

>

> , "gondolf1" <gondolf1@>

wrote:

> >

> > Not really like a mantra. I would just ask the question and

observe

> > what happens. Then ask the question again, and so on.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Looking for earth-friendly autos?

> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisheet,

 

That was a great post of Ramana Maharshi's teachings. It was clear how

he said to become Self-realized.

 

To realize the Self (Consciousness,I-AM,Presence-Awareness) is a good

step. But how about what is beyond Consciousness?

 

Also, how can an illusionary person make these efforts to realize

he/she is illusionary? For whom is this realization yet to be known?

 

Thanks,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

Reflecting on your questions (see you mail, below) this is how I understand

it.

 

In "Thus Spake Ramana" we find the following from Sri Ramana:

 

"Pure Consciousness is indivisible, it is without parts. It has no form and

shape, no within and without. There is no 'right' or 'left' for it. Pure

Consciousness, which is the Heart, includes all; and nothing is outside or

apart from it. That is the ultimate truth."

 

Pure Consciousness is another name for "Atman", "Brahman", "the Self",

"God", "Heart" or whatever of the myriad names we give to That which is the

basis of All and without which nothing 'Is'.

 

One metaphor is as follows... as this Pure Consciousness becomes reflected

in various kinds of vehicles (adjuncts or upadhis) subtle or gross, it gives

them their sense of sentiency, which appear as a variety of consciousness.

In the case of the human mind it wells up as a sense of individuality which,

when identified with the mind-body, is felt to be different/separate from

others.

 

This identification with the mind-body takes the form of "I am this..."

Each of us has a slightly different sense, or experience, of what "this" in

"I am this" means for us. "I am this" is the personal ego. The personal

ego often seeks to fulfil itself in a variety of ways, some of these ways

are material and some of them are spiritual. Sometimes it is still just more

ego activity whatever it is called.

 

When we talk of the 'illusory ego' making efforts to discover it is

illusory, really what is meant is that the reflected consciousness turns

inwards towards its source, which Sri Ramana calls the Heart. Sri Ramana

suggested the path of Self-Inquiry in the form of "Who am I?" is the direct

method of turning the mind back towards the source.

 

We have a taste of that source in those moments where consciousness,

awareness, rests in its own being without identification with the mind/body

idea. This may happen in the silence between thoughts (it is always

constantly 'behind' thoughts). It may be first thing in the morning, in the

transition between sleep and waking; or it may be in the stillness of

meditation, the sacredness of the temple or of nature, or in the presence of

the Sage. When the feeling of 'I am this' is absent, the sense of 'I am',

alone, may be recognised to pulse as formless knowing in the heart.

 

Regards,

 

Peter

 

________________________________

 

[]

On Behalf Of Richard

18 January 2007 23:38

 

Re: Sadhana?

 

 

 

Nisheet,

 

That was a great post of Ramana Maharshi's teachings. It was clear how

he said to become Self-realized.

 

To realize the Self (Consciousness,I-AM,Presence-Awareness) is a good

step. But how about what is beyond Consciousness?

 

Also, how can an illusionary person make these efforts to realize

he/she is illusionary? For whom is this realization yet to be known?

 

Thanks,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for your answer to my question about the "illusory person"

trying to be rid of illusion. It was a good and much appreciated reply.

 

In the same post I also asked about that which is beyond Consciousness.

 

Your post said, "Pure Consciousness is another name

for "Atman", "Brahman", "the Self",

"God", "Heart" or whatever of the myriad names we give to That which

is the basis of All and without which nothing 'Is'."

 

Consciousness is the 4th state (the other 3 being dreaming, awake, and

deep sleep). The 4th state is called turya. It is Brahman. However

there is also the Parabrahman which is called the turyatita, which is

prior to/beyond Consciousness. It is not a state. The 4 states are

states of mind and body and the body/mind is needed for their

existence. Parabrahman is within all and unaffected by all. It is

unchanging, has no attributes, and is not a state.

 

Can you or anyone talk about the Parabrahman and how it fits into your

understanding and/or the writings by or about Ramana Maharshi?

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

, "Richard" <richarkar

wrote:

>

> Hi Peter,

>

> Thanks for your answer to my question about the "illusory person"

> trying to be rid of illusion. It was a good and much appreciated

reply.

>

> In the same post I also asked about that which is beyond

Consciousness.

>

> Your post said, "Pure Consciousness is another name

> for "Atman", "Brahman", "the Self",

> "God", "Heart" or whatever of the myriad names we give to That

which

> is the basis of All and without which nothing 'Is'."

>

> Consciousness is the 4th state (the other 3 being dreaming, awake,

and

> deep sleep). The 4th state is called turya.

 

 

 

turya is not a state. it is called

"the fourth state" only for the sake

of convienience.

 

the inexplicable, undefinable, timeless,

all-pervading, immutable and indisputable

self/atman/parabrahman/turyatita/heart/

and 'turya' are one and the same.

 

there are three states of mind. turya is

beyond mind and unimaginable.

 

there is nothing "prior" or "later" to it.

 

respectfully,

_()

yosy

 

 

nnb (nothing new below)

 

 

 

It is Brahman. However

> there is also the Parabrahman which is called the turyatita, which

is

> prior to/beyond Consciousness. It is not a state. The 4 states are

> states of mind and body and the body/mind is needed for their

> existence. Parabrahman is within all and unaffected by all. It is

> unchanging, has no attributes, and is not a state.

>

> Can you or anyone talk about the Parabrahman and how it fits into

your

> understanding and/or the writings by or about Ramana Maharshi?

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, that was an excellent post by Nisheet which goes to the method of

inquiry.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

Richard wrote:

> Nisheet,

>

> That was a great post of Ramana Maharshi's teachings. It was clear how

> he said to become Self-realized.

>

> To realize the Self (Consciousness,I-AM,Presence-Awareness) is a good

> step. But how about what is beyond Consciousness?

>

> Also, how can an illusionary person make these efforts to realize

> he/she is illusionary? For whom is this realization yet to be known?

>

> Thanks,

> Richard

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Yosy,

 

Thanks for your answer to my question.

 

I suppose my trying to create differences in the oneness doesn't make

much sense.

 

Best regards,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Very well stated Yosy! All the labels are for convenience only.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

yosyx wrote:

> turya is not a state. it is called

> "the fourth state" only for the sake

> of convienience.

>

> the inexplicable, undefinable, timeless,

> all-pervading, immutable and indisputable

> self/atman/parabrahman/turyatita/heart/

> and 'turya' are one and the same.

>

> there are three states of mind. turya is

> beyond mind and unimaginable.

>

> there is nothing "prior" or "later" to it.

>

> respectfully,

> _()

> yosy

>

>

> nnb (nothing new below)

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

You asked for some thoughts about 'what is beyond consciousness' in relation

to Brahman - Parabrahman, Turya - Turyatita. It sounds like you have

already given some thought to this so your understanding may in fact be more

useful than mine. Here's how I understand it - at this moment in time.

 

Brahman is spoken of in two important ways:

 

- With form and qualities

- Without form and qualities.

 

When it is spoken of as being with form and qualities (referred to as saguna

brahman) it normally involves ideas of Brahman as creator and sustainer of

the universe. In a variety of ways (depending on our religious backgrounds)

it is viewed as the supreme Intelligence/Spirit that has some relationship

with everything in creation. It is the Lord of all, the Inner Ruler, guide,

punisher & so on. We then speak of this supreme spirit (and experience it)

as if it is separate from ourselves. So this view involves the notion of

duality (dwaita). We could say it is Brahman (God) as it appears to us in

and through manifestation. Traditional devotion draws on this perspective.

 

When Brahman is spoken of as being without form and qualities (referred to

as nirguna brahman)it normally involves ideas of Brahman as being formless,

unlimited, having no relationship to creation, as the latter is viewed as

ultimately unreal. It is referred to as the one true Existence as it does

not depend on another for its existence. It is Existence itself. It IS. It

is also referred to as the one true consciousness (Pure Consciousness)

because it IS Consciousness itself, without imperfections and limitless.

Just as the pot is ultimately unreal and is nothing but formless clay - its

substratum, so the universe of name and form is regarded as unreal being

nothing but formless consciousness-existence, which is its substratum. From

this perspective everything is the non-dual Brahman. The source of the

consciousness/awareness that rises up in the individual as Awareness (I am)

is non other than this Pure Conscious. Therefore the seeming individual is

Brahman, Pure Consciousness (Chit), Existence (Sat). Hence we are That.

 

In his commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra etc, Sri Shankara refers

to the saguna Brahman as the lower brahman (apara-brahman). He refers to the

nirguna Brahman as higher or supreme (para-brahman). While the former is

referred to as 'lower' we should note that Sri Shankara (as does Sri Ramana)

says that the various forms attributed to Brahman can be very useful aids

for meditation and the spiritual path.

 

Sri Ramana refers to both of these in his two introductory verses to Ulladhu

Narpadhu:

 

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

Is Real Consciousness a thing other than That?

Since that (Reality) dwell, thought-free, in the Heart;

how can It, - Itself named the Heart - be meditated upon?

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.

 

ii. Men of pure minds who intensely fear death

Surrender themselves unto the Lord of all,

The blissful One, the indwelling Self,

Who has no death nor birth.

By that (surrender) their ego and attachments

become extinguished.

How can they who (thus) have won abode in Immortality,

have any thought of death?

-----

 

If I have time I will share some thoughts on Turya and Turyatita later today

- otherwise tomorrow. Again, like the above, just tentative.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

Just a few more thoughts, as promised, on your questions re Brahman-

Parabrahman, Turya-Turyatita, the three states and Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

The traditional view is that Turiya is the non-dual, unconditioned

consciousness (eg see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika). Sri Ramana refers to it

as Pure Consciousness. It is the Atman. As it is "unconditioned

consciousness" it is nirguna brahman, which is also referred to as the

parabrahman.

 

Gaudapada explains that the three states of consciousness, namely waking,

dreaming, and dreamless sleep (deep sleep) are characterised by two things -

"non-apprehension of reality" and "mis-apprehension of reality". "Reality"

standing for Turya-Atman-Brahman. Tuyra is not a fourth state but rather

the unconditioned consciousness which is the substratum for all three

states. It is the one without a second, with no thing to know it and no

other for it to know.

 

Non-apprehension of Atman is the cause of ignorance.

Mis-apprehension is the resultant effect which leads us to see ourselves and

the world other than we are - pure consciousness.

 

For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

(mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the snake

disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope, its substratum.

In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true nature, we mistakenly

identify ourselves with the body mind and see a separate world of objects.

The sages tell us that when we recognise our true nature, Turya, then the

duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and world) disappears and non dual brahman

is directly 'experienced' as alone existing.

 

In his Mandukya Karika Gaudapada gives us a handy way of looking at Turya

and the three states which summarises the above. Each may be characterised

as follows.

 

Turya: (Atman, the Self) non-apprehension of duality.

Prajna (deep sleep): non-apprehension of Reality and duality.

Taijasa (dream state): non-apprehension + misapprehension of Reality.

Visva (waking state): non-apprehension + misapprehension of Reality.

 

As far as I know, turyatita is not referred to in the major upanishads.

Perhaps someone else has a reference, if it is? However, some of the minor

Upanishads refer to five states: visva, taijasa, prajna, turya and

turyatita. For example:

 

4. There are five Avasthas (states): Jagrat (waking), Swapna (dreaming),

Sushupti (dreamless sleeping), the Turya (fourth) and Turyatita (that beyond

the fourth)...

5. The Yogin is one that has realised Brahman that is all-full beyond Turya.

(Mandala Brahmana Upanishad Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar)

 

and

 

5. There is nothing other than Brahman of the five padas (i.e. the

turyatita).

(Para-Brahma Upanishad Translated by Prof. A. A. Ramanathan)

 

Sri Ramana also refers to Turyatita in a few places, though he normally

explains the traditional view.

 

The way I understand this, at least at this moment in time, is that the

reference to Turyatita has more to do with meditation practice than with the

traditional view of metaphysics. Certain types of samadhi (eg Kevala

Nirvikalpa) don't really fit easily into the 3 states. It seems Kevala

Nirvikalpa Samadhi certainly isn't the 'waking' or 'dream' state, and it

also doesn't quite equate with 'deep sleep' for the latter is characterised

by 'non-apprehension' of Reality. Nor does it quite equate with direct

Realisation of Atman and therefore liberation, as it is a temporary state.

 

Another reason for five states, rather than four, is due to the stage of

establishing oneself in the Witness State and recognising one is not any of

the other three states. Perhaps here, Turya is used to stand for a fourth

state, the Witness State. However, the spiritual aspirant has yet to

realize herself as the non-dual Brahman - a fifth 'state' (so called).

Hence this latter stage is referred to as Turyatita, beyond the fourth

(turya). Sri Ramana says as much in the following:

 

8. Why is the Self described both as the fourth state (turiya)and beyond the

fourth state (turyatita)?

 

"Turiya means that which is the fourth. The experiencers (jivas) of the

three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, known as visva, taijasa and

prajna, who wander successively in these three states, are not the Self. It

is with the object of making this clear, namely that the Self is that which

is different from them and which is the witness of these states, that it is

called the fourth (turiya). When this is known, the three experiencers

disappear and the idea that the Self is a witness, that it is the fourth,

also disappears. That is why the Self is described as beyond the fourth

(turiyatita)."

(Spiritual Instruction)

 

 

Apart from one or two passages like the above, Sri Ramana generally refers

to Turya in the traditional way, as follows:

 

D.: What is turiya?

M.: There are three states only, the waking, dream and sleep. Turiya is not

a fourth one; it is what underlies these three. But people do not readily

understand it. Therefore it is said that this is the fourth state and the

only Reality. In fact it is not apart from anything, for it forms the

substratum of all happenings; it is the only Truth; it is your very Being.

The three states appear as fleeting phenomena on it and then sink into it

alone. Therefore they are unreal.

(Talk 353.)

 

Just some thoughts. Hope they are useful.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate all of it and just will

intersperse feedback on two points in your post below.

 

Firstly, though, I wanted to say Siddharameshwar Maharaj has likened

the fourth state (Consciousness [chit], Brahman, etc.), which he

terms Knowledge, to a sleeping man who dreams he is awake while all

the time snoring away. He also said that no one can return from

Parabrahman.

 

, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

>you have already given some thought to this so your understanding

may in fact be more

> useful than mine.

 

My thought and understanding is useless.

 

> In his commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra etc, Sri

Shankara refers

> to the saguna Brahman as the lower brahman (apara-brahman). He

refers to the

> nirguna Brahman as higher or supreme (para-brahman). While the

former is

> referred to as 'lower' we should note that Sri Shankara (as does

Sri Ramana)

> says that the various forms attributed to Brahman can be very

useful aids

> for meditation and the spiritual path.

 

I may be incorrect but Ramana Maharshi geared much of his talk to

accomodate a variety of people. Therefore I think he also said that

what we seek is already here and now. Meditation in order to attain

something anew in the future, on a "path", is meaningless.

 

While I'm at it, how could Ramana Maharshi, who saw the unicity of

everything, try to instruct illusionary 'entities'?

 

Just some more useless thoughts of mine.

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

>>> Firstly, though, I wanted to say Siddharameshwar Maharaj has likened

the fourth state (Consciousness [chit], Brahman, etc.), which he

terms Knowledge, to a sleeping man who dreams he is awake while all

the time snoring away. He also said that no one can return from

Parabrahman. <<<

 

I'm not familiar with Siddharameshwar Maharaj's sayings. Perhaps you could

expand a little on his statement re Knowledge and the sleeping man and also

on his statement that no one can return from Parabrahm. Advaita Vedanta

would normally claim that no one left parabrahman in the first place

therefore no one returns there. So, it would be very interesting if you

could share a bit more on this.

 

>>> I may be incorrect but Ramana Maharshi geared much of his talk to

accomodate a variety of people. Therefore I think he also said that

what we seek is already here and now. Meditation in order to attain

something anew in the future, on a "path", is meaningless.<<<

 

That's true - Ramana Maharshi responded in a way that was suited to the

individual concerned. As you say, he also said that what we seek is already

here and now. However, I don't think he said meditation practices and

associated paths were meaningless, but rather that the form of spiritual

practice depended on the temperament and maturity of the aspirant.

 

>>> While I'm at it, how could Ramana Maharshi, who saw the unicity of

everything, try to instruct illusionary 'entities'?<<<

 

In a way, the form of the Guru is as unreal as the "illusory entities" you

refer to. However, as pointed out in the previous mails the perception and

notion that the Self appears in the form of the Guru or Lord is a powerful

aid to aspirants. We might see this in terms of saguna brahman and nirguna

brahman, mentioned earlier. The form of the Guru that we perceive to be

external to us, along with all His attributes is the saguna aspect of the

Self shining through its manifestation as the Guru. But really, the true

nature of the Guru is that he is the formless Pure Consciousness itself,

which resides in each one's Heart. Rather, everything resides within It,

the Heart itself - and we are That.

 

With regards the form of the guru, Sri Ramana gives the example of the dream

lion that appears in the dream of the elephant which wakes it up. Thus wise,

the guru appears to us to awaken us. Once awake, the dream lion and dream

ego are no more, and realized as mere appearances of the underlying

consciousness.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter,

 

 

I've already sent the following but think it might not have gone

through:

 

You asked about Siddharameshwar Maharaj. He was a guru who advised

his disciples to read "Dasbodh", an ancient text by Samartha Ramdas.

It speaks of such things as the Parabrahman. Such as: "It is that

which cannot be seen and cannot be felt, which is not created, and

is not destriyes. That which does not come and does not go, is the

Supreme Being, Parabrahman."

 

It seems to me that the difference between Brahman and Parabrahman

is the former is witness and knows. The latter cannot get outside

Itself and does not know even Itself.

 

Two of Siddharameshwar's disciples were Ranjit Maharaj and the

better known Nisargadatta Maharaj. Nisargadatta's later books

expound much of Siddharameshwar's teachings. In fact a new book in

English recently came out giving Siddharameshwar's talks as taken

from Nisargadatta's notes.

 

Here are two quotes from Nisargadatta, gleaned from the editor's

(Robert Powell's) note in "The Ultimate Medicine" by Nisargadatta.

They may answer some of your questions, and even speak of meditation

(which co-disciple, Ranjit said was necessary at first to make the

mind more subtle). But in the end any differences in description of

perception of the states and non-states can perhaps be chalked up to

semantics. After all, there is only oneness and nothingness at the

core of all:

 

"This knowledge 'I am' or the 'beingness' is a cloak of illusion

over the Absolute. Therefore, when Brahman is transcended only

Parabrahman is, in which there is not even a trace of the

knowledge 'I am'"

 

"The sages and the prophets recognized the sense of 'being'

initially. Then they meditated and abided in it and finally

transcended it, resulting in their ultimate realization."

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter,

 

I sent you a reply about Siddharameshwar's teaching but as of yet it

didn't get posted. If you are interested send me an email and I shall

send it to you. My email is richarkar .

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

Many thanks for the information. I will look forward to discovering more

about him and his teaching.

 

best wishes,

 

Peter

 

________________________________

 

[]

On Behalf Of Richard

25 January 2007 21:07

 

Re: Sadhana?

 

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

I've already sent the following but think it might not have gone

through:

 

You asked about Siddharameshwar Maharaj. He was a guru who advised

his disciples to read "Dasbodh", an ancient text by Samartha Ramdas.

It speaks of such things as the Parabrahman. Such as: "It is that

which cannot be seen and cannot be felt, which is not created, and

is not destriyes. That which does not come and does not go, is the

Supreme Being, Parabrahman."

 

<snip>