Fwd: 'Who am I?' vs. 'I am'

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair> wrote:

Namaste Nathan-ji.

 

You seem to to the view that " Who am I? " is enquiry just

because it is grammatically in the interrogative, whereas " I am all "

or similar statements are affirmations simply because they are

grammatically in the affirmative.

 

" I am all " is not an auto-suggestive reinforcement like smokers are

asked to repeat " I hate the smell of cigarette smoke " . It is a call

to contemplate on scriptural statements, more importantly and

particularly the mahAvAkyAs.

 

I don't think " I am all " can be done without a preliminary vedantic

vision as a pre-requisite. So is the case with " Who am I? " . One

who is not expertly guided in the latter will end up asking " Who am

I? " interminably without getting a real good answer unless he has a

traditional methodology as aide or a positive credit to his account

from previous births. Don't you think one who has a good vedantic

background understands Bh. Ramana better than a novice? At least,

in my case, the traditional teaching to which I was initially

exposed, helped me understand Bh. Ramana better. Because of my

traditional background, I could relate very well with his

UpadesasAra and other similar works. That can't be said about a

novice who is listening to the words of Bh. Ramana for the first

time, unless he had evolved to a very knowledgeable level in his

previous birth!

 

So, in my opinion, there is no difference between affirmations and

interogatives. Both of them call for contemplation in the light of

scriptural statements. Contemplation is the soul of enquiry - not

the grammatical mode in which the method is captioned. And that

underscores the supremacy of the traditional over the so-called

hastily concluded " direct whatever " .

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

advaitin , " Nathan Port " <eport924> wrote:

>>

> I don't know what effectiveness affirmations such as " I am all " ,

> or " I am Brahman " would yield, but Sri Ramana didn't seem to

> recommend them. ................

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Nathan-ji.

>

> You seem to to the view that " Who am I? " is enquiry just

> because it is grammatically in the interrogative, whereas " I am

all "

> or similar statements are affirmations simply because they are

> grammatically in the affirmative.

>

> " I am all " is not an auto-suggestive reinforcement like smokers

are

> asked to repeat " I hate the smell of cigarette smoke " . It is a

call

> to contemplate on scriptural statements, more importantly and

> particularly the mahAvAkyAs.

>

> I don't think " I am all " can be done without a preliminary

vedantic

> vision as a pre-requisite. So is the case with " Who am I? " . One

> who is not expertly guided in the latter will end up asking " Who

am

> I? " interminably without getting a real good answer unless he has

a

> traditional methodology as aide or a positive credit to his

account

> from previous births. Don't you think one who has a good vedantic

> background understands Bh. Ramana better than a novice? At least,

> in my case, the traditional teaching to which I was initially

> exposed, helped me understand Bh. Ramana better. Because of my

> traditional background, I could relate very well with his

> UpadesasAra and other similar works. That can't be said about a

> novice who is listening to the words of Bh. Ramana for the first

> time, unless he had evolved to a very knowledgeable level in his

> previous birth!

>

> So, in my opinion, there is no difference between affirmations and

> interogatives. Both of them call for contemplation in the light

of

> scriptural statements. Contemplation is the soul of enquiry - not

> the grammatical mode in which the method is captioned. And that

> underscores the supremacy of the traditional over the so-called

> hastily concluded " direct whatever " .

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste All,

 

If I remember rightly, Ramana indicated that 'Who am I?' didn't

imply any separation of dualism, as in Aham Brahmasmi etc. Where

there is duality in the question. Ramana's position was Who am I?

drove the mind inwards to find out there really was no ego, and only

the Big I.

 

So there is a difference between dualistic affirmations and the Self

enquiry of Ramana. Perhaps the end result may be the same, but

Ramana was one for the most simplest and direct

route.........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

> advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

> wrote:

> > advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> > <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Namaste Nathan-ji.

>In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> It is difficult to understand why there is no duality in 'Who am

I?'

> where 'a mind is seen driven inwards to find out there really was

no

> ego, and only the Big I'. If Aham and Brahman in Aham Brahmasmi

are

> suggestive of daulity, then well the 'mind' and 'Big I' in 'Who am

I?'

> are also equally suggestive of duality. There is someone asking

the

> question (Aham)and realizing 'Big I-ness' (Brahman). The question

and

> the mahAvAkya thus have the same import and, whichever way one

goes,

 

Namaste,M-Ji et al,

 

IMHO It really isn't about asking a verbal question, which is

different in every language anyway Nan Yar etc. It is about

a 'feeling', and the little 'I' subsides leaving only the extant

feeling or big 'I'. Who am I actually refers back to oneself not

another concept that's why there is no duality in the question. It

doesn't create another condition or seek to create another

condition.....ONS...Tony.