[Satsang] The Meaning of the Question "Who Am I?"

[Guest guest]

>

> Ramesh:

> Does Ramana Maharshi have a basic? Yes indeed-the

> question "Who am

> I?" And when he says this, the "I" is in the Tamil language.

> What he means

> in English is not "Who am I?" but "Who is this me?" In other

> words, is there

> a "me" at all? This is my interpretation.

[...]

Thank you for this. From other perspectives it certainly makes sense that

there isn't a "me". Is there any scholarly agreement on a "wrong"

translation from Tamil? It wouldn't be a "first"; Tibetans are far from

happy with the translation by Evans -Wentz of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Jan

 

Harsha: The word KO-HUM is given to aspirants. Ko means Who and Hum means I

or me. What ever comes to mind in response to the question, the aspirant

says NA-HUM, meaning Not me, not me (neti, neti, etc.). Finally SO-HUM

describes the resulting awareness where the me is absent. This awareness is

held on to until there is absorption in the Self and the Self is Recognized

as the Self-Aware Awareness without an object. Nirvikalpa Samadhi gives

clear confirmation of this process.

[Guest guest]

> "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

> >

> > Ramesh:

> > Does Ramana Maharshi have a basic? Yes indeed-the

> > question "Who am

> > I?" And when he says this, the "I" is in the Tamil language.

> > What he means

> > in English is not "Who am I?" but "Who is this me?" In other

> > words, is there

> > a "me" at all? This is my interpretation.

> [...]

> Thank you for this. From other perspectives it certainly makes sense that

> there isn't a "me". Is there any scholarly agreement on a "wrong"

> translation from Tamil? It wouldn't be a "first"; Tibetans are far from

> happy with the translation by Evans -Wentz of the Tibetan Book of

> the Dead.

> Jan

>

> Harsha: The word KO-HUM is given to aspirants. Ko means Who and

> Hum means I

> or me. What ever comes to mind in response to the question, the aspirant

> says NA-HUM, meaning Not me, not me (neti, neti, etc.). Finally SO-HUM

> describes the resulting awareness where the me is absent. This

> awareness is

> held on to until there is absorption in the Self and the Self is

> Recognized

> as the Self-Aware Awareness without an object. Nirvikalpa Samadhi gives

> clear confirmation of this process.

 

Jan: Thank you Harsha. This is more concise than in several books on Ramana

and the matter with "me" I never saw properly explained in those books.

Apparently, the absence of a "me" is a hard nut to crack for Westerners

indeed. The above reminds of translations from Vedic texts by Max Müller

where the Christian perspective caused errors.