Self-attentiveness is not an action, because we ourself are not two but only one
In the final paragraph of one of my recent articles, The connection between consciousness and body, I wrote:
What Sri Ramana advises us is only to try to experience ourself alone, and experiencing ourself alone (that is, being exclusively self-attentive) is not an action.
Since our attention is now turned outwards (towards other things), in order to experience ourself alone we must turn it back within (towards ourself alone), so it may seem to us that such turning is an action. However, it is not actually an action, but only a cessation or subsidence of all action. Therefore in the path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) action in any sense (other than a purely metaphorical one) is not OK.
Of course śravaṇa (hearing, reading or studying Sri Ramana’s teachings about ātma-vicāra) and manana (reflecting on them) do entail activity of our mind, but the actual practice of ātma-vicāra entails giving up all action by attending to ourself alone. Attending to anything other than ourself entails a movement of our attention away from ourself towards that other thing, so it is an action, whereas being self-attentive entails no movement of our attention away from ourself but only its resting calmly in its source, ourself, so it is not an action but only a complete cessation of all action.
When I wrote “ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things”, I was obviously referring to ourself as the ego, because we experience other things only when we experience ourself as the ego. When we experience ourself as we really are, we are conscious of ourself alone (because nothing else actually exists), whereas when we experience ourself as the ego, we are conscious not only of ourself but also of other things.
You say ‘I infer that the first ourself is the ego-I and the second ourself is the self’, but there is only ever one ‘ourself’, because we are not two but only one. It is we ourself who now experience ourself as this ego (and consequently experience other things also), and it is we ourself who must therefore try to experience ourself alone in order to experience ourself as we really are.
You ask, “why would Sri Ramana advise us to try to attend the ‘I’ that is conscious of both ourself and other things, instead of just ourself (without other things)”, but when I wrote that he “advises us to try to attend only to ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things”, I did not mean to imply that we should be conscious of anything other than ourself. In fact I wrote ‘attend only to ourself’, which clearly implies that we should not be conscious of anything else. Now we are conscious of other things, but this ‘I’ who is now conscious of all these other things should try to be conscious of itself alone, because only when we are conscious of nothing other than ourself will we experience ourself as we actually are.
This is the simple but fundamental principle on which Sri Ramana based his essential teachings: so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as the ego, so in order to experience ourself as we actually are, we must try to be aware of ourself alone.
Attending to or experiencing anything other than ourself is the food that nourishes and sustains the illusion that we are this ego — the very air that it depends upon in order to survive — so attending to or experiencing ourself alone is depriving our ego of its life-giving food or air, and hence by investigating ourself (that is, trying to be exclusively self-attentive) we are undermining the very foundation on which this illusion is based.
This is the crucial principle that Sri Ramana teaches us in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
So long as we allow ourself to attend to anything other than ourself, our body and all the other extraneous things that we thus experience seem to be real, so Sri Ramana advises us to try to attend only to ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things. Therefore if we wish to follow his path and thereby to experience what this ‘I’ really is, we should not be concerned with our body or any connection we may seem to have with it, but should focus all our interest and attention only on ourself, the one absolute consciousness or pure self-awareness ‘I am’.Referring to this, a friend wrote to me asking:
1) If Sri Ramana advises us, the advice is for our mind or intelligence — that is, the action needs to be performed by the mind or intelligence, or by the ego-I — through attention.The following is adapted from the reply I wrote to him:
2) But then since you explained very often that attention on the self does not pertain to action, which entails no movement of mind, action that is performed by way of attention on the self (or the ego-I itself) will not nourish the ego-I. So, action is okay in that sense.
3) You wrote ‘ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things’. I infer that the first ourself is the ego-I and the second ourself is the self. The question is why would Sri Ramana advise us to try to attend the ‘I’ that is conscious of both ourself and other things, instead of just ourself (without other things). This is what the second sentence means.
What Sri Ramana advises us is only to try to experience ourself alone, and experiencing ourself alone (that is, being exclusively self-attentive) is not an action.
Since our attention is now turned outwards (towards other things), in order to experience ourself alone we must turn it back within (towards ourself alone), so it may seem to us that such turning is an action. However, it is not actually an action, but only a cessation or subsidence of all action. Therefore in the path of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) action in any sense (other than a purely metaphorical one) is not OK.
Of course śravaṇa (hearing, reading or studying Sri Ramana’s teachings about ātma-vicāra) and manana (reflecting on them) do entail activity of our mind, but the actual practice of ātma-vicāra entails giving up all action by attending to ourself alone. Attending to anything other than ourself entails a movement of our attention away from ourself towards that other thing, so it is an action, whereas being self-attentive entails no movement of our attention away from ourself but only its resting calmly in its source, ourself, so it is not an action but only a complete cessation of all action.
When I wrote “ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things”, I was obviously referring to ourself as the ego, because we experience other things only when we experience ourself as the ego. When we experience ourself as we really are, we are conscious of ourself alone (because nothing else actually exists), whereas when we experience ourself as the ego, we are conscious not only of ourself but also of other things.
You say ‘I infer that the first ourself is the ego-I and the second ourself is the self’, but there is only ever one ‘ourself’, because we are not two but only one. It is we ourself who now experience ourself as this ego (and consequently experience other things also), and it is we ourself who must therefore try to experience ourself alone in order to experience ourself as we really are.
You ask, “why would Sri Ramana advise us to try to attend the ‘I’ that is conscious of both ourself and other things, instead of just ourself (without other things)”, but when I wrote that he “advises us to try to attend only to ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things”, I did not mean to imply that we should be conscious of anything other than ourself. In fact I wrote ‘attend only to ourself’, which clearly implies that we should not be conscious of anything else. Now we are conscious of other things, but this ‘I’ who is now conscious of all these other things should try to be conscious of itself alone, because only when we are conscious of nothing other than ourself will we experience ourself as we actually are.
This is the simple but fundamental principle on which Sri Ramana based his essential teachings: so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as the ego, so in order to experience ourself as we actually are, we must try to be aware of ourself alone.
Attending to or experiencing anything other than ourself is the food that nourishes and sustains the illusion that we are this ego — the very air that it depends upon in order to survive — so attending to or experiencing ourself alone is depriving our ego of its life-giving food or air, and hence by investigating ourself (that is, trying to be exclusively self-attentive) we are undermining the very foundation on which this illusion is based.
This is the crucial principle that Sri Ramana teaches us in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்குHere உரு (uru) or ‘form’ means anything other than ourself — that is, anything that has any features that distinguish it from what we actually are. Hence by attending to or experiencing anything other than ourself we are sustaining our ego by ‘grasping form’ and ‘feeding on form’. Therefore if we try to attend to ourself alone, we will thereby cease attending to or ‘grasping’ anything else, and hence our ego will ‘take flight’ — that is, the illusion that we are this ego will dissolve and disappear — and what will then remain is only our essential awareness of ourself as we really are.
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.
uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr.
பதச்சேதம்: உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும், உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṯkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum, uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr.
அன்வயம்: உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṯkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. ōr.
English translation: Grasping form, the formless phantom-ego rises into being; grasping form it stands [or endures]; grasping and feeding on form it grows [or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form, it grasps [another] form. If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight. Investigate [or know thus].
Posts
3 comments:
How long do you practice self-inquiry for at a time?
Ron, there are no hard and fast rules about duration of practice, because we each have to experiment and find what works best for ourself. The practice is aptly called self-investigation or self-enquiry, because it is a moment by moment investigation of what we actually are.
In order to experience ourself as we actually are we need to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from all other things (since we experience other things only when we experience ourself as the ego, something that is not what we actually are), so we must try to focus our entire attention on ourself alone, thereby with drawing it from all other things. Therefore we need to experience ourself alone for just a single moment in order to experience ourself as we actually are and thereby to destroy forever the illusion that we are an ego. When we once experience ourself as we actually are, we will cease forever experiencing anything else, so what we are aiming for when practising self-investigation is just a single moment of exclusive and hence perfectly clear self-attentiveness or self-awareness.
Therefore what is important when practising self-investigation is not so much the duration of our self-attentiveness as the intensity of it — that is, how exclusively we are aware of ourself alone. As I have written in my next article, which I may post here tomorrow, Sadhu Om used to explain this in terms of turning 180 degrees away from all other things towards ourself alone. The closer we come to turning 180 degrees, the less any awareness of anything else will be mixed with our self-awareness, but until we actually turn the full 180 degrees we are not yet experiencing ourself alone, in complete isolation from any awareness of other things. When we once manage to turn the full 180 degrees, we will experience nothing other than ourself, and thus we will experience ourself as we really are, after which we will never again experience anything else.
If we try to be self-attentive continuously for a prolonged period of time, our self-attentiveness is likely to be less intense. That is, if for example we are able to turn 150 degrees towards ourself and away from other things for a moment, we will be unlikely to be able to maintain that degree of self-attentiveness for a long duration, so rather than try to maintain it, it is better to make many fresh attempts, because on each attempt we may be able to turn a little further.
We obviously cannot measure how far we have turned at each attempt, and we should not try to measure it, because that would distract us from our attempt to be exclusively self-attentive. However, though we cannot accurately estimate how far we are turning on each attempt, we can be reasonably confident that many brief but fresh attempts will enable us to turn further than a prolonged attempt would.
In order to try to turn our entire attention towards ourself alone we need not be sitting in any particular posture or have any set time for practice. Since we are always aware of ourself, albeit aware of ourself along with other things, we can try to be self-attentive at any time or in any circumstances, so rather than setting aside any particular times for practice, we can attempt to turn our attention back towards ourself alone many times during the day in the midst of all our other activities. Even in the midst of a busy lifestyle, we still find time to think many unnecessary thoughts, so if we try to replace all the moments that we spend thinking such thoughts with moments of attempting to be self-attentive, we will end up having spent much of our day trying to be self-attentive, albeit not for a long duration at each attempt, but just many brief attempts.
Michael,
regarding the practice of self-investigation or self-enquiry please describe in simple words how to try to be self-attentive.
To replace all the moments that we spend thinking "unnecessary thoughts with moments of attempting to be self-attentive is nearly not practicable.
Being exclusively self-attentive i.e.aware of ourself alone seems to mean directing attention of the mind to ourself while losing attention to other things than our self-awareness. But what is ourself and how to get self-awareness alone ? As you write : Turning our attention back within(towards ourself alone) is its resting calmly in its source. But where or what is our source ? How exactly is to turn the attention to an unknown destination ?
How can I lose the experience of other things ?
It is astonishing that we partially experience ourself as we really are and that at the same time we are also conscious also of other things(i.e. not only of ourself). The power of illusion (of the mind) as awareness of or attention to anything other than ourself seems to be gigantic.
Post a Comment