Sadhu Om's books

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

I've just finished reading " The Path of Sri Ramana " , part one & two.

 

Particularly in part one, Sri Sadhu Om explains that Self-Enquiry

isn't the repeating of " To whom " ... " Who Am I? " continously but that

Sri Ramana meant to " Abide in the Self " , keeping the " Attention on

the self " , Self-Attention.

 

This is confusing to me on many points. Consciousness is without

beginning or end, being present in the three " states " : waking,

dream, dreamless deep sleep. It is continous.

 

Thus, my constant consciousness, as in the waking " state " is the

same.

 

Sri Sadhu Om, in my comprehension, I understand as keeping my

attention (innerly) on myself (consciousness), abiding in this

consciousness.

 

My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the Self " means the

self in the waking state or the realized Self?

 

Namaste to All

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

 

You seem to have answered your own Q! While the

conscious Self is the same across waking, dream and

deep sleep, its the same Self that *self-abidance*

means. In my understanding, repeating who-am-i or

to-whom (not as a chant, of course) is needed only to

revert back to the self from wavering thoughts. So, in

short, who-am-i is a questioning path to reach the

goal of self-abidance.

 

praNAm,

--praveen

 

--- nonduel <nonduel wrote:

 

> isn't the repeating of " To whom " ... " Who Am I? "

> continously but that

> Sri Ramana meant to " Abide in the Self " , keeping the

> " Attention on

> the self " , Self-Attention.

 

> My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the

> Self " means the

> self in the waking state or the realized Self?

 

--prav

/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! --Br.Up.

4.5.15 */

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the Self " means the

self in the waking state or the realized Self?

 

Initially the self in the waking state

 

 

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:23 AM, nonduel <nonduel wrote:

 

> Namaste to All,

>

> I've just finished reading " The Path of Sri Ramana " , part one & two.

>

> Particularly in part one, Sri Sadhu Om explains that Self-Enquiry

> isn't the repeating of " To whom " ... " Who Am I? " continously but that

> Sri Ramana meant to " Abide in the Self " , keeping the " Attention on

> the self " , Self-Attention.

>

> This is confusing to me on many points. Consciousness is without

> beginning or end, being present in the three " states " : waking,

> dream, dreamless deep sleep. It is continous.

>

> Thus, my constant consciousness, as in the waking " state " is the

> same.

>

> Sri Sadhu Om, in my comprehension, I understand as keeping my

> attention (innerly) on myself (consciousness), abiding in this

> consciousness.

>

> My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the Self " means the

> self in the waking state or the realized Self?

>

> Namaste to All

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" nonduel " <nonduel wrote:

 

> My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the Self " means the

> self in the waking state or the realized Self?

 

Dear Nonduel:

 

I believe you are adding to your own confussion... there is ONLY Self.

There is no division in it, and Bhagavan Ramana always emphazised that

aspect that there are not two selves... The " self " with small " s " (as

you define it) of the waking state is just the reflection of

Consciousness in the Mind, and so, eventually, just an appearance

(seemingly real). Also, who is there to abide? " Abiding " , as far as I

understand, means to remove the idea that our identity is based on

that " self in the waking state " as you define it.

 

Namaste,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " nonduel " <nonduel wrote:

>

> Namaste to All,

>

> I've just finished reading " The Path of Sri Ramana " , part one & two.

>

> Particularly in part one, Sri Sadhu Om explains that Self-Enquiry

> isn't the repeating of " To whom " ... " Who Am I? " continously but that

> Sri Ramana meant to " Abide in the Self " , keeping the " Attention on

> the self " , Self-Attention.

>

> This is confusing to me on many points. Consciousness is without

> beginning or end, being present in the three " states " : waking,

> dream, dreamless deep sleep. It is continous.

>

> Thus, my constant consciousness, as in the waking " state " is the

> same.

>

> Sri Sadhu Om, in my comprehension, I understand as keeping my

> attention (innerly) on myself (consciousness), abiding in this

> consciousness.

>

> My other point is " Self " . Does his " Abiding in the Self " means the

> self in the waking state or the realized Self?

>

> Namaste to All

 

Namaste Nonduel,

 

First of all, I think there is a little bit of

confusion here.

 

In the teachings of Vedanta the words 'consciousness'

and 'self' refer to exactly the same 'thing,' as do the

words atman and brahman. There is only one 'self.'

 

The 'self' of the waking state, is the 'self' of

the dream state, is the 'self' which is realized,

or recognized, by the mind to be who 'I' am. It is

the 'self' one is right now, and always has

been, whether one has realized (recognized) it or not.

 

Perhaps what is meant by a the phrase

'realized self' is the self the mind has realized

to be me. That realization, however, does not change

the self, but it certainly does change the mind's

understanding

 

So, it is the mind that has this realization, or

recognition, not the 'self.' The self is always

exactly the same, whether the mind has realized

this truth or not.

 

Further more, one cannot abide as anything other than

the self. One can think one abides as something else

(the body/mind) but one does not.

 

So, what could be meant by the phrase 'keeping my attention

on myself (consciousness), or abiding in this consciousness?'

 

In order to keep one's attention on 'consciousness,'

or the 'self,' it seems to me that first of all one

would have had to have differentiated the 'self'

(or consciousness) from the body/mind/sense organs,

which one previously had taken the self to be one with

and a product of.

 

Prior to having done that, it seems to me that one might

be looking around for an imaginary 'self' to keep one's

attention on, while at the same time entirely missing

the actual self.

 

If one has been able to differentiate the non-changing,

ever present self (consciousness) from the changing

phenomena of the body/mind, then one can use the

mind to perform nididhyasana on that self, asking

questions such as 'What am I like?' 'Why is this

self called the beloved?' 'Is there anything that

limits me?' 'Do I have size, shape or color?'

 

Questions such as this allow the mind to 'come into

relationship' as it were, with the self. After an infinite

number of lifetimes of taking the self to be one with the

body/mind, questions such as this can serve to reinforce

the differentiation which the mind has now made, until

all of the habitual knots of adhaysa (taking the self to

be one with qualities of the body mind)have been untied.

 

Contemplating on the self in this way is called

nididhyasana in Vedanta.

 

Once recognized, the self is seen to be entirely self-evident,

the locus of 'me,' unchanging, never ever at any time not

present, and always was so, but previously taken to be

something else (a product of the body/mind), now realized

to be distinct, and therefore available to meditate, or

place one's attention, upon.

 

So perhaps what is being recommended by Sri Sadhu Om

is nididhyasana. However, I'm not sure that can be done

without first having successfully performed the

differentiation between the self (consciousness/atma/brahman)

and the body/mind.

 

The teachings of Vedanta do provide several methods

for making this important and necessary differentiation,

and so perhaps those methods (or prakriyas) need to be

listened to, applied and successfully followed

before one is able to follow Sadhu Om's instructions.

 

Without actually being very familiar with either Sadhu Om

or Sri Ramana's teachings, this is my surmise, which perhaps

other respected members might be able to comment upon,

expand or correct.

 

Pranams,

Durga