What is the ‘self’ we are investigating when we try to be attentively self-aware?
In a comment that he wrote today on my previous article, Is it incorrect to say that ātma-vicāra is the only direct means by which we can eradicate our ego?, a friend called Viveka Vairagya wrote:
Viveka Vairagya, the aim and purpose of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is to find out what this ‘I’ or ‘self’ actually is. We are always aware of ourself, but our self-awareness is now confused, because it seems (in the view of ourself as this ego) to be mixed with awareness of our body and other things.
What is called the ‘ego’, ‘thought called I’ or ‘I-thought’ is what we now experience ourself to be, namely this ‘I’ that rises in waking and dream, grasping a body as itself and thereby experiencing itself as ‘I am this body, this person called Viveka Vairagya [or whatever]’. This is not our self-awareness in its original pristine form, but in a mixed and distorted form. However, it is still the same fundamental self-awareness. It is like a rope being seen as a snake rather than as it really is.
When we see a rope as a snake, it is still the same rope, and has not undergone any change. Only our perception of it is wrong. Likewise, when we see ourself as this finite ego, we are still the same infinite self-awareness, and we have not undergone any change, but as this ego our perception of ourself is wrong. That is, our awareness of ourself is distorted by being mixed and confused with awareness of other things that we mistake to be ourself, primarily a body (though not always the same body).
In order to see the rope as it is, all we need to do is to look very carefully at what now seems to be a snake, because when we look at it carefully enough, we will see that it is not actually a snake but only a rope. What we were seeing all along was just a rope, but we simply mistook it to be a snake. Likewise, in order to see or be aware of ourself as we actually are, all we need to do is to look very carefully at ourself, who now seem to be this ego or ‘I’-thought, because when we look at ourself carefully enough, we will see that we are not actually this finite ego (a limited body-mixed self-awareness) but only pure and infinite self-awareness. What we were aware of all along was only pure self-awareness, but we simply mistook it to be this adjunct-mixed self-awareness called ‘ego’ or ‘I-thought’.
You say that all you are aware of now is your body and thoughts, including the ‘I-thought’, but whereas we are aware of other thoughts (including our body and everything that we perceive as this seemingly vast universe) as objects, we are aware of ourself, this ego or ‘I’-thought, as the subject, the one who is aware both of itself and of all other things (which according to Bhagavan are all only thoughts projected and simultaneously experienced by ourself as this ego, like everything that we experience in a dream). Therefore there is a fundamental difference between our awareness of other things and our awareness of our ‘I’-thought, because this ‘I’-thought alone is what is aware of everything else, and it is our basic self-awareness, albeit mixed up with awareness of other things.
Therefore instead of looking at anything that is seen (any phenomenon of which we are aware), we should look at ourself, the one who sees (or is aware of) everything. This simple practice of trying to look back at the seer or looker, namely ourself, is what is called ātma-vicāra, self-investigation, self-attentiveness or being attentively self-aware.
Regarding your question, ‘So, why then don’t you say self-enquiry is “attentive I-thought-awareness”?’, we generally talk about being self-aware rather than being I-aware, because though ‘I’ and ‘myself’ are two words that refer to the same thing, we use each of them in a slightly different grammatical context, and in hyphenated words we generally use ‘self-’ as an abbreviation of ‘myself-’ or ‘oneself-’. Moreover, though Bhagavan taught us that our ego is a thought — our primal thought and the root of all other thoughts — and therefore referred to it as the ‘thought called I’ (‘நான் என்னும் நினைவு’ (nāṉ eṉṉum niṉaivu) in Tamil) or ‘I-thought’ (‘अहं वृत्ति’ (ahaṁ-vṛtti) in Sanskrit), this ego does not seem to us to be a thought but instead seems to be ourself, so it is more natural for us to talk about self-awareness than ‘I-thought-awareness’.
Still more importantly, though our ego is a mixture of pure self-awareness and adjunct-awareness (centred around our basic adjunct, namely a body), and is therefore called cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of self-awareness with non-conscious adjuncts), when we investigate our ego what we are seeking to know correctly is not any part of our adjunct-awareness (the non-conscious or jaḍa portion of this cit-jaḍa-granthi) but only our essential self-awareness (the conscious or cit portion of it), so we should be trying to isolate our essential self-awareness from all our adjuncts by focusing our attention on ourself (this essential self-awareness) alone. This is what Bhagavan indicated when he said (as recorded in the final chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel: 2002 edition, p. 89):
Like an illusory snake, the ego or ‘I’-thought does not actually exist as such, but is just an illusory phantom that seems to exist so long as (and only so long as) we are aware of anything other than ourself , and are therefore not attending exclusively to ourself. At night in a dark forest in which only a little moonlight can filter through the dense swaying foliage of the trees, we may imagine that we are seeing many ghosts moving about in the shadows, but if we look carefully at any of those ‘ghosts’, we will see that it is no such thing, but only the filtered light of the moon. Each ‘ghost’ seems to exist as such only when we look elsewhere, but disappears when we look at it directly. Likewise, this ghost called ‘ego’ or ‘I-thought’ does not actually exist, so it seems to exist only when we look elsewhere, and it dissolves and disappears when we look at it directly.
Therefore looking directly at this ego is the only way to dissolve it or annihilate it. If we try to kill an illusory snake by beating it with a stick, it will never die, because it is only a rope. The only way to ‘kill’ it is to look at it carefully and thereby see that it was never a snake but only a rope. Likewise we cannot annihilate our ego by any means other than by just looking at it and seeing that it is not actually the ego or ‘I’-thought that it seemed to be, but is only our pure immutable self-awareness, in whose clear view nothing other than ourself exists.
Therefore one thing we need to be cautious about when we use terms such as ‘the ego’, ‘the thought called I’ or ‘the I-thought’ is not to objectify or reify whatever we take these terms to mean, because what these terms denote is only ourself as the seer or experiencer of all other things, and as such we are not an object but only the subject, the awareness in whose view alone everything else exists. However, though this ego is the subject that knows all other things, so long as it seems to be such it is no more real than any of the things it sees or knows, as we will discover if (and only if) we investigate it. It is never actually anything but an illusory appearance, whose source and only substance is our actual self, which is eternally adjunct-free and immutable self-awareness.
Since this ego-awareness (or ‘I-thought-awareness’ as you call it) is just a seemingly limited and distorted form of our fundamental self-awareness, which alone is real and which we always experience, even when it seems to be this ego or ‘I’-thought, what we need to do is to see through its illusory outward appearance and recognise the fundamental self-awareness that it actually is. Therefore what we are seeking to know when we investigate ourself is not this illusory ego, which does not actually exist, but only our pure self-awareness, which alone is what actually exists. However, in order to see ourself as pure self-awareness, we must look through this ego or ‘I’-thought, which is what we now seem to be, and thereby see the real substance that underlies its illusory appearance, which is the pure self-awareness that we actually are.
You say self-enquiry is nothing but “attentive self-awareness”. I get the “attentive” and “awareness” parts. I don’t get the “self” part coz all I am aware of now is my body and thoughts, including the “I-thought”. So, do you mean I should be attending to the awareness of “I-thought”? That could make sense coz it is kinda attending to the snake (I-thought) and finding lo and behold that it is a rope (self). So, why then don’t you say self-enquiry is “attentive I-thought-awareness”? I hope my doubt makes sense.The following is my answer to this:
Viveka Vairagya, the aim and purpose of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is to find out what this ‘I’ or ‘self’ actually is. We are always aware of ourself, but our self-awareness is now confused, because it seems (in the view of ourself as this ego) to be mixed with awareness of our body and other things.
What is called the ‘ego’, ‘thought called I’ or ‘I-thought’ is what we now experience ourself to be, namely this ‘I’ that rises in waking and dream, grasping a body as itself and thereby experiencing itself as ‘I am this body, this person called Viveka Vairagya [or whatever]’. This is not our self-awareness in its original pristine form, but in a mixed and distorted form. However, it is still the same fundamental self-awareness. It is like a rope being seen as a snake rather than as it really is.
When we see a rope as a snake, it is still the same rope, and has not undergone any change. Only our perception of it is wrong. Likewise, when we see ourself as this finite ego, we are still the same infinite self-awareness, and we have not undergone any change, but as this ego our perception of ourself is wrong. That is, our awareness of ourself is distorted by being mixed and confused with awareness of other things that we mistake to be ourself, primarily a body (though not always the same body).
In order to see the rope as it is, all we need to do is to look very carefully at what now seems to be a snake, because when we look at it carefully enough, we will see that it is not actually a snake but only a rope. What we were seeing all along was just a rope, but we simply mistook it to be a snake. Likewise, in order to see or be aware of ourself as we actually are, all we need to do is to look very carefully at ourself, who now seem to be this ego or ‘I’-thought, because when we look at ourself carefully enough, we will see that we are not actually this finite ego (a limited body-mixed self-awareness) but only pure and infinite self-awareness. What we were aware of all along was only pure self-awareness, but we simply mistook it to be this adjunct-mixed self-awareness called ‘ego’ or ‘I-thought’.
You say that all you are aware of now is your body and thoughts, including the ‘I-thought’, but whereas we are aware of other thoughts (including our body and everything that we perceive as this seemingly vast universe) as objects, we are aware of ourself, this ego or ‘I’-thought, as the subject, the one who is aware both of itself and of all other things (which according to Bhagavan are all only thoughts projected and simultaneously experienced by ourself as this ego, like everything that we experience in a dream). Therefore there is a fundamental difference between our awareness of other things and our awareness of our ‘I’-thought, because this ‘I’-thought alone is what is aware of everything else, and it is our basic self-awareness, albeit mixed up with awareness of other things.
Therefore instead of looking at anything that is seen (any phenomenon of which we are aware), we should look at ourself, the one who sees (or is aware of) everything. This simple practice of trying to look back at the seer or looker, namely ourself, is what is called ātma-vicāra, self-investigation, self-attentiveness or being attentively self-aware.
Regarding your question, ‘So, why then don’t you say self-enquiry is “attentive I-thought-awareness”?’, we generally talk about being self-aware rather than being I-aware, because though ‘I’ and ‘myself’ are two words that refer to the same thing, we use each of them in a slightly different grammatical context, and in hyphenated words we generally use ‘self-’ as an abbreviation of ‘myself-’ or ‘oneself-’. Moreover, though Bhagavan taught us that our ego is a thought — our primal thought and the root of all other thoughts — and therefore referred to it as the ‘thought called I’ (‘நான் என்னும் நினைவு’ (nāṉ eṉṉum niṉaivu) in Tamil) or ‘I-thought’ (‘अहं वृत्ति’ (ahaṁ-vṛtti) in Sanskrit), this ego does not seem to us to be a thought but instead seems to be ourself, so it is more natural for us to talk about self-awareness than ‘I-thought-awareness’.
Still more importantly, though our ego is a mixture of pure self-awareness and adjunct-awareness (centred around our basic adjunct, namely a body), and is therefore called cit-jaḍa-granthi (the knot formed by the entanglement of self-awareness with non-conscious adjuncts), when we investigate our ego what we are seeking to know correctly is not any part of our adjunct-awareness (the non-conscious or jaḍa portion of this cit-jaḍa-granthi) but only our essential self-awareness (the conscious or cit portion of it), so we should be trying to isolate our essential self-awareness from all our adjuncts by focusing our attention on ourself (this essential self-awareness) alone. This is what Bhagavan indicated when he said (as recorded in the final chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel: 2002 edition, p. 89):
The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is Pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada-granthi. In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure consciousness of the Self.What is translated here as ‘the pure consciousness of the Self’ is pure self-awareness, which is what we actually are, and what he calls ‘the essential chit [cit or awareness] aspect of the ego’. Since we are the fundamental self-awareness from which the ego or ‘I’-thought (ahaṁ-vṛtti) and everything else appears in waking and dream and into which it all disappears in sleep, what he calls ‘your investigation into the source of aham-vritti’ is investigating our actual self, the pure self-awareness that we always truly are.
Like an illusory snake, the ego or ‘I’-thought does not actually exist as such, but is just an illusory phantom that seems to exist so long as (and only so long as) we are aware of anything other than ourself , and are therefore not attending exclusively to ourself. At night in a dark forest in which only a little moonlight can filter through the dense swaying foliage of the trees, we may imagine that we are seeing many ghosts moving about in the shadows, but if we look carefully at any of those ‘ghosts’, we will see that it is no such thing, but only the filtered light of the moon. Each ‘ghost’ seems to exist as such only when we look elsewhere, but disappears when we look at it directly. Likewise, this ghost called ‘ego’ or ‘I-thought’ does not actually exist, so it seems to exist only when we look elsewhere, and it dissolves and disappears when we look at it directly.
Therefore looking directly at this ego is the only way to dissolve it or annihilate it. If we try to kill an illusory snake by beating it with a stick, it will never die, because it is only a rope. The only way to ‘kill’ it is to look at it carefully and thereby see that it was never a snake but only a rope. Likewise we cannot annihilate our ego by any means other than by just looking at it and seeing that it is not actually the ego or ‘I’-thought that it seemed to be, but is only our pure immutable self-awareness, in whose clear view nothing other than ourself exists.
Therefore one thing we need to be cautious about when we use terms such as ‘the ego’, ‘the thought called I’ or ‘the I-thought’ is not to objectify or reify whatever we take these terms to mean, because what these terms denote is only ourself as the seer or experiencer of all other things, and as such we are not an object but only the subject, the awareness in whose view alone everything else exists. However, though this ego is the subject that knows all other things, so long as it seems to be such it is no more real than any of the things it sees or knows, as we will discover if (and only if) we investigate it. It is never actually anything but an illusory appearance, whose source and only substance is our actual self, which is eternally adjunct-free and immutable self-awareness.
Since this ego-awareness (or ‘I-thought-awareness’ as you call it) is just a seemingly limited and distorted form of our fundamental self-awareness, which alone is real and which we always experience, even when it seems to be this ego or ‘I’-thought, what we need to do is to see through its illusory outward appearance and recognise the fundamental self-awareness that it actually is. Therefore what we are seeking to know when we investigate ourself is not this illusory ego, which does not actually exist, but only our pure self-awareness, which alone is what actually exists. However, in order to see ourself as pure self-awareness, we must look through this ego or ‘I’-thought, which is what we now seem to be, and thereby see the real substance that underlies its illusory appearance, which is the pure self-awareness that we actually are.
Posts
293 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 293 of 293vivarta vada said... "sometimes we can read that when a wish is fulfilled the mind subsides temporarily."
That is an unusual translation.
In Nan Yar, Ramana said [brackets are my words]: "The truth is, whenever our thoughts [that is, our desires] get fulfilled, the mind turns back to its source and experiences Self-happiness alone."
The Self IS happiness (also called "bliss", "ananda", "love" as a noun). The physical body has a trick whereby when we do what it wants, it gives us a direct connection to the Self (the mind subsides) and we "feel good". Through self-attention, we can do this directly.
Ken, thanks,
I think you correctly quoted the mentioned passage.
But how can a fulfilled desire - only by its satisfaction turn the mind back to its source and experience self-happiness alone ?
Ken,
thanks for giving your description of the distinguishing features of thoughts and awareness.
vivarta vada said..."But how can a fulfilled desire - only by its satisfaction turn the mind back to its source and experience self-happiness alone ?"
The mechanism is not known - and in fact, its discovery would probably be one of the biggest ever.
It seems to me that our genes contain "programming" that make us desire things that aid our survival and reproduction (food, sex, social status) and dislike or fear things that imperil our survival (falling off a cliff, being bitten by a snake, etc.).
Since that system is inherited, it is not a perfect judge of what is going on right now (e.g. there might be a very secure rail keeping me from falling off the cliff, but I still fear it).
I think the basis for our experience of pleasure and pain, is that the physical body shields us in some way from "ananda" (as is part of our basic nature, satchitananda). As a reward for behavior that is advised by our genes, it removes some of that shielding for a short time.
Without that shielding, physical beings would walk off cliffs or into fires, and would have been exstinct long ago.
So, spiritual practice - and especially Self-attention - allows us to bypass that shielding and come directly into contact with satchitananda, our real Self.
Atman is Distinct from the Pancha Koshas (Consciousness is distinct from the five sheaths)
Here is a good account of why we are not the five sheaths but pure consciousness (Check out http://elmisattva-nonduality.blogspot.in/2012/12/atman-is-distinct-from-pancha-koshas-by.html). The reasoning lets us form an informed belief/faith that we are pure consciousness/self/brahman. But,reflected consciousness or chidabhasa (reflection of pure consciousness in the mind/intellect) becomes the ego by identifying itself with one of the five sheaths, body/mind/intellect, alternately, and hence falsely mistakes itself to be the doer / enjoyer.
Why We are Not the Doers
Bhagavan always advises us to give up the "sense of doership". That always made me wonder in what sense "I am not the doer". Here is a detailed account that makes it clear - www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/gohitvip/Doer-Experiencer.pdf
Viveka Vairagya, thanks for the interesting comments and links.
The second one- “I am neither the Doer nor the Experiencer" by V. Krishnamurthy makes a major different claim than Ramana - despite name-checking Ramana initially.
That PDF states that the soul - the jiva - is nothing but the spark of the Absolute Consciousness and therefore it is sentient.
Ramana states that the transmigrating soul, the jiva, is the causal body, and thus insentient, and that only the atman, the Self is sentient.
When we stop to consider that our vasanas, which V. Krishnamurthy admits are part of the jiva, are not eternal, then it is clear that the jiva is insentient.
However, V. Krishnamurthy states that the jiva is consciousness plus material adjuncts (the same description that Advaita uses for the ego). Nowhere does he refer either to causal body or ego (ahamkara).
What follows in his article is a rather selective use of "Advaita" in a very limited way for the purpose of Krishna bhakta. If you go to his autobiography, his goal is still to say certain complicated Krishna mantras with perfect pronunciation.
The links on his web site are a chaotic collection of articles on various Hinduism concepts.
It's worth noting that - just as in Christianity - Hinduism consists of a multitude of different sects that have conflicting beliefs. And, the conquest of India by the British did more to change Hinduism than any previous conquest, including the formation of new monotheistic Hindu sects with yet different beliefs from the older ones.
More recently, the Internet allows people to read an infinite array of ideas. Most people's spiritual and religious ideas use the sorting method "What I like" and "What I do not like". Thus, some ideas in "what I like" become unexamined assumptions. In the case of V.K. and his web site , that assumption is Krishna bhakta via mantra japa (as taught him by his father).
I find that Ramana Maharshi's teachings are unique in starting without any assumptions whatsoever. Instead one investigates the entirety of one's situation. Ramana's teachings are based solely on his own investigation (although he points out where they confirm the ideas found in scriptures).
Michael James is very committed to the same idea and method in his explanation of Ramana's teachings.
Since apparently very few people escape the "I like this idea" fallacy, then just about every other web site out there has some sort of error. The only exception I can think of is Adyashanti, because he is aware of the "I like this idea" fallacy. He once stated:
"We basically believe things either that we've been taught, sold or we really, really hope."
He teaches a practice "Rest as Awareness" that seems highly influenced by Ramana's teachings, but his explanations of the practice are less clear and precise than Sadhu Om and Michael's "Path of Sri Ramana, Part One".
Reading any other web sites can be a good way to sharpen your understanding by looking for the logical errors and baseless assumptions.
A popular New Age belief is that all teachings lead to the same place, but that is a rather huge mistake, because all of our experience of any ancient path is filtered through some fallible modern human's explanation - and the more famous, the more fallible.
In fact, Adyashanti jokes "All paths lead away from enlightenment".
Just to clarify, Adyashanti gets questions from students on various levels, so - like Ramana - depending on the person he is talking to, he does not always recommend or talk about Self-investigation. So, here is one where he does guide a student through beginning a Self-investigation practice. There is an interesting quality listening to a real-time recording of instruction, as opposed to reading about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJUIYDYFbOs
(And again, I only offer this to the extent that it seems entirely coherent with Ramana's teachings which are the gold standard.)
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the very observant comments. I did not read it as carefully or critically that you read it.
Hi Ken,
Something tells me you are not quite correct when you say "Ramana states that the transmigrating soul, the jiva, is the causal body, and thus insentient, and that only the atman, the Self is sentient." because causal body is not the soul or jiva, but the soul or jiva is the chidabhasa or reflected consciousness identifying itself with the causal-subtle-gross bodies as itself. Can you quote the text where "Ramana states that the transmigrating soul, the jiva, is the causal body, and thus insentient"?
Hi Ken,
Contrary to what you stated that "Ramana states that the transmigrating soul, the jiva, is the causal body, and thus insentient, and that only the atman, the Self is sentient." here is Ramana saying something different about jiva than what you stated he said:
Unbroken ‘I-I’ is the ocean infinite, the ego, ‘I’ thought, remains only a bubble on it and is called jiva, i.e., individual soul. (Talk 92)
the jiva, the knower consisting o f vritti (the mode of mind stuff) and reflected light, in the latent form (Talk 100)
Inner organ + the reflected light (jiva; pramtr) (Talk 100)
Sat = Being = the substratum (adhara). From this proceeds the particular, namely the jiva who veiled by ignorance identifies himself with the gross body. Here ignorance stands for not investigating the Self. Jiva is in fact knowledge only; yet owing to ignorance the wrong identity with the gross body results. (Talk 100)
It is the jiva who says that something veils the Absolute. (Talk 132)
I Hope the above citings convince you that Bhagavan does not equate soul or jiva with causal body.
Michael,
some questions:
1. Does the first/foremost of all thoughts that arise in the mind - called as the primal 'I'-thought - arise really or only seemingly ?
2. Is the source of the mind the same place or source where the 'I'-thought begins ?
3. Can there at all arise any 'I'-thought - seen from the view of the real self ?
4. How can there be any igorance(ajnana) in brahma-svarupa (prajnana) ?
Ken,
thanks for your reply. But how can satisfaction of a desire turn the mind to its source ?
Michael,
in which way is the infinite reality (called) the fundamental substance of the 'I' ?
Viveka Vairagya -
Here is a link to an article by David Godman on the various collections of Ramana Maharshi writings and conversations. Michael has echoed the exact same things in posts on this site.
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/05/authenticity-of-bhagavans-writings-and.html
The relevant portion is that the person who compiled "Talks" wrote down the conversations only at night, hours after they occurred, and that many things in "Talks" are from the understanding of the compiler, and are contrary to what Ramana said. As explained by Godman, this is known from a few examples where there is a second source.
So, on anything which is "technical", Talks is not a good source.
Vivarta Vada -
I already answered that question when you stated it before:
https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-is-self-we-are-investigating-when.html?showComment=1473989678157#c7480202485833500467
Ken,
thanks for your answer. But your given answer does not answer my question satisfactorily.
Vivarta Vada,
Most of the mechanisms of our mind and body are hidden from us.
We think "What was the name of the actor in that film?" and then time passes, and then the words "Dustin Hoffman" appear in our mind - without any indication of the mechanism going on.
We know the physical brain is involved, because if certain parts of the brain are removed, then the memories vanish.
Similarly, the physical body has ways to reward actions that are favorable to its survival. It is clear that it is the physical body, because a cat will get such a reward from catching and eating a mouse, but not from eating grass, while a cow is content eating grass, while we experience pleasure from eating grapes that are ignored by both the cat and the cow.
But, what is the basis for motivation? What could possibly cause a creature to do something rather than something else? Why does the change from pleasure to pain mean anything?
In terms of metaphysics, I can find no other source for motivation than connection to satchitananda or lack thereof. C.S. Lewis once said "Hell is simply the absence of God."
Ramana says: "What is called happiness is merely the nature of the Self." and "The truth is, whenever our thoughts [that is, our desires] get fulfilled, the mind turns back to its source and experiences Self-happiness alone."
I do not know of any other explanation for "motivation" that explains why pleasure and pain could actually move us to do something.
Again, it is true that the mechanism by which the physical body can shield the mind from satchitananda is unknown. But, we know that deep sleep bypasses that shield. We also know that a successful meditation on the Self can bypass that shield, and interruption of that meditation causes it to resume.
Ramana Maharshi on Samadhi and "I am" Feeling
(from Talk 226)
D.: Is there thought in Samadhi? Or is there not?
M.: There will only be the feeling ‘I am’ and no other thoughts.
D.: Is not ‘I am’ a thought?
M.: The egoless ‘I am’ is not thought. It is realisation. The meaning or significance of ‘I’ is God. The experience of ‘I am’ is to Be Still.
What is "I am" and What is the Practice
The way I see 'I am' is as reflection of Self or Pure Consciousness in the mind or intellect (the chidabhasa). So, chidabhasa as such is of the nature of consciousness and is us. The trouble is this reflected consciousness or chidabhasa, forgetting its true nature as consciousness or Self, identifies itself with the inert and insentient body-mind-intellect complex. Self-realization is only realization by chidabhasa (that is, us divested of our identities with body-mind-intellect) of its true nature as consciousness and not as the inert matter of body-mind-intellect. To do that, it needs to concentrate itself on itself as consciousness divesting itself of its identification with body-mind-intellect, the identification being nothing other than the various thoughts. So, dwelling on thought-free consciousness is the practice as I see it.
Here is what Nisargadatta Maharaj says on what 'I am' is and the practice (from "I Am That"): "There is the body and there is the Self. Between them is the mind, in which the Self is reflected as ‘I am’. Because of the imperfections of the mind, its crudity and restlessness, lack of discernment and insight, it takes itself to be the body, not the Self. All that is needed is to purify the mind so that it can realize its identity with the Self."
[deleted and re-posted with a crucial word corrected from "subtle body" to "causal body" since blogger does not allow editing of comments]
Viveka Vairagya,
This gets a little complex due to differing uses of terminology, particularly English ones.
V. Krishamurthy is referring to "jiva" as that which transmigrates from life to life.
In Path of Sri Ramana Maharshi, Vol. One (translated partially by Michael James and available as a free download from Michael's site), Sri Sadhu Om refers to that which transmigrates from life to life as the causal body:
"In deep sleep, the ego (ahankara - the mind in the
form of attachments) is still alive in the very subtle form of tendencies (vasanas); it is this form which is that base and cause for the rising of the subtle and gross bodies, and therefore it is called the causal body. Even in death, it is in this causal body that we exist. This causal body is not destroyed by the death of the gross body. The reason for asserting that even this causal body is not '1', is that we exist there to know even that state to be alien to us. There, our existence alone is real, and we cannot be the form [darkness or ignorance) which we assume there. Just as we rejected the gross body of the waking state as 'I am not this body', even though it appeared to be 'I', and just as for the same reason we rejected the subtle body of the dream state as 'not 1', let us now also reject this causal body (darkness or ignorance) of deep sleep as 'not I', since it is only a form which comes on us and goes. Therefore, having firmly eliminated all these three bodics as 'not I, not I', what then remains, that knowledge, the consciousness (chit) of our
existence (sat), alone is '1'.
Can we eliminate these three bodies? Certainly we
can, because they are only our sheaths and are extraneous to us."
So, he explains that it is "not I" and "extraneous to us". Thus it is not the Self.
V.K. wants to use certain things from Advaita and paste them into his Dvaita Krishna bhakta viewpoint (ironically that is supposedly what Papaji did after his first meeting with Ramana).
I just came across this very interesting quote from one of Ramana's foremost disciples:
"I once went for a walk near the housing board buildings. There was a sewage trench on one side of the building. I could smell the stench of sewage even though I was a long way away. I stayed away from it because I didn't want to be nauseated by the bad smell.
In circumstances such as these you don't say "All is one. Everything is the Self." and paddle through the sewage. The knowledge 'everything is the Self' may be there, but that doesn't mean that you have to put yourself in dangerous or health-threatening places.
When you become one with the Self, a great power takes over you and runs your life for you. It looks after your body; it puts you in the right place at the right time; it makes you say right things to people you meet. This power takes you over so completely, you no longer have any ability to decide or discriminate. The ego that thinks, 'I must do this,' or ' I should not do that' is no longer there. The Self simply animates you and makes you do all the things that need to be done.
If you are not in this state, then use your discrimination wisely. You can choose to sit in a flower garden and enjoy the scent of blooms, or you can go down to that trench I told you about and make yourself sick by inhaling the fumes there.
So, while you still have an ego, and the power of discrimination that goes with it, use it to inhale the fragrance that you find in the presence of an enlightened being, If you spend time and proximity of a jnani, his peace will sink into you to such an extent that you will find yourself in a state of peace. If, instead you choose to spend all you time with people whose minds are always full of bad thoughts, their mental energy and vibrations will start to seep into you.
I tell you regularly, 'You are the Self. Everything is the Self.' If this is not your experience, pretending that 'all is one' this may get you into trouble. Advaita may be the ultimate experience, but it is not something that a mind that still sees distinctions can practice.
Electricity is a useful form of energy, but it is also potentially harmful. Use it wisely. Don't put your finger in the socket, thinking 'all is one.' You need a body that is in good working order in order to realise the Self. Realising the Self is the only useful and worthy activity in this life, so keep the body in good repair till that goal is achieved. Afterwards, the Self will take care of everything and you won't have to worry about anything any more. In fact, you won't be able to because the mind that previously did the worrying, the choosing and discriminating will no longer be there. In that state you won't need it and you won't miss it.
~ Annamalai Swami, Final Talks"
Ken,
if I grasp correctly what you quote above from Sadhu Om means that the ego of 'souls' before getting a gross body for taking birth on earth exist in their very subtle causal body and on the other hand after earthly death of the gross body they continue to live in their causal body.
Ken,
thank you again for your explanations.
Yes, there is very reason to believe that our real existence of sat-chit-ananda comes out in all cicumstances of life.
Ken,
why should the 'physical body shield the mind from satchitananda' ?
Because otherwise when the physical body walks into a fire or off a cliff, it doesn't care - and then it doesn't reproduce.
So, if there were some physical bodies with pleasure and pain, and some without, the ones without did not get to reproduce.
I don't know of any information on this topic, so I do not know if it is merely a genetic evolution, or else whether some direction from "Ishvara" was involved.
We have pleasure and pain from our earliest moments, so very few people would even consider the possibility of it being absent.
we're investigating the ego.
to find out that it doesn't exist.
then what remains is the Self.
Ramana Maharshi on Fulfilment of Desires
(from Talk 495)
The visitor said: “One must become satiate with the fulfilment of desires before they are renounced.” Sri Bhagavan smiled and cut in: “Fire might as well be put out by pouring spirit over the flames.(All laugh). The more the desires are fulfilled, the deeper grows the samskara. They must become weaker before they cease to assert
themselves. That weakness is brought about by restraining oneself and not by losing oneself in desires.
D.: How can they be rendered weaker?
M.: By knowledge. You know that you are not the mind. The desires are in the mind. Such knowledge helps one to control them.
D.: But they are not controlled in our practical lives.
M.: Every time you attempt satisfaction of a desire the knowledge comes that it is better to desist. Repeated reminders of this kind will in due course weaken the desires. What is your true nature? How can you ever forget it? Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind. They are not of the Self. You are the witness
of these states. Your true nature is found in sleep.
Ramana Maharshi on Sat and Chit Being One and the Same
(from Talk 506)
Sat(Being) is Chit (Knowledge Absolute); also Chit is Sat; what is, is only one. Otherwise the knowledge of the world and of one’s own being will be impossible. It denotes both being and knowledge. However, both of them are one and the same. On the other hand, be it Sat only and not Chit also, such Sat will only be insentient (jada). In order to know it another Chit will be needed; such Chit being other than
Sat cannot be. But it must be. Now taking Chit to be Sat, since Sat is Jada, Chit also becomes jada which is absurd. Again to know it another Chit is required, which is also absurd.
Therefore Sat and Chit are only one and the same.
dnya,
as you say: after finding out the non-existence of the ego the self remains. But then the ego rises again albeit merely seemingly. This is called superimposition of the self. The self does not prevent the seeming arising of the ego.
Therefore our self-investigation must necessarily go on until total annihilation of the ego is completed. So most of us have to prepare ourselves for a long journey to eradicate our mistake the pure self-awareness to be this adjunct-mixed self-awareness.
Viveka Vairagya,
I really enjoy (my) Sat and Chit. Being not aware of Sat and Chit must be terrifying.
Viveka Vairagya,
"Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind. They are not of the Self. You are the witness of these states. Your true nature is found in sleep."
First you say that sleep is only a 'phase of the mind' and not 'of the Self'.
Then it is stated that 'Your true state is found in sleep'.
How can there be 'found your true nature in sleep' when sleep is not 'of the Self' ?
Is there not a contradiction in terms ?
Michael,
quote of Sri Ramanasramam:
"In deep sleep, in spiritual trance (samadhi), when fainting, when a desired object is obtained, or when evil befalls an object considered undesirable, the mind turns inwards and enjoys that Bliss of Atman. Thus wandering astray forsaking the Self, and returning to it again and again is the interminable and wearisome lot of the mind."
Could you please give some explanation how according that above quote obtaining a desired object can make the mind turn inwards ?
On the other hand it is quoted above the contrary by Viveka Vairagya:
"Ramana Maharshi on Fulfilment of Desires
(from Talk 495)
The visitor said: “One must become satiate with the fulfilment of desires before they are renounced.” Sri Bhagavan smiled and cut in: “Fire might as well be put out by pouring spirit over the flames.(All laugh). The more the desires are fulfilled, the deeper grows the samskara. They must become weaker before they cease to assert themselves. That weakness is brought about by restraining oneself and not by losing oneself in desires.
D.: How can they be rendered weaker?
M.: By knowledge. You know that you are not the mind. The desires are in the mind. Such knowledge helps one to control them.
D.: But they are not controlled in our practical lives.
M.: Every time you attempt satisfaction of a desire the knowledge comes that it is better to desist. Repeated reminders of this kind will in due course weaken the desires....."
escape scot-free,
You ask "How can there be 'found your true nature in sleep' when sleep is not 'of the Self' ?" In sleep, the mind in the form of thoughts is absent, and only consciousness is found shining in sleep illumining the absence of objects and the world, and consciousness is the Self, which is your true nature. In sleep only mind is absent and hence sleep is one of its phases, but consciousness shines in all the three phases of waking-dream-deep sleep as an unchanging witness of those three states, hence sleep is not 'of the Self'. I hope that answers your doubt.
Viveka Vairagya,
thanks for your reply.
When in sleep the mind is absent can we correctly call sleep a phase of the mind ?
Using language is always a bit prolematical.
The three states of mind are not possible without consciousness. Is it then at all right to say that sleep is not 'of the Self' ?
escape scot-free,
I agree with you when you question "When in sleep the mind is absent can we correctly call sleep a phase of the mind ?" That is why, I used the expression "mind in the form of thoughts" because mind is existing in seed form in sleep. As Bhagavan says, mind is merged in sleep and not destroyed. Sleep is manolaya and not manonasa. Otherwise, sleep would have resulted in liberation.
To answer your second question ("The three states of mind are not possible without consciousness. Is it then at all right to say that sleep is not 'of the Self' ?") one will have to use the concept of chidabhasa or reflected consciousness, so sleep is 'of the chidabhasa or reflected consciousness' but not 'of the Self or pure consciousness'.
Thanks Viveka Vairagya for your remark.
I do not feel that the mind is easy to be convinced by hearing concepts about consciousness. Of course we have to make our own investigation and experience to get clear understanding. Nevertheless thank you for communicate your view.
escape scott-free stated:
"On the other hand it is quoted above the contrary by Viveka Vairagya: Ramana Maharshi on Fulfilment of Desires"
No, that is not the contrary.
You missed an important word. Here is some of the second quote:
"The more the desires are fulfilled, the deeper grows the samskara. "
In Nan Yar, Ramana states:
" The truth is, whenever our thoughts [that is, our desires] get fulfilled, the mind turns back to its source and experiences Self-happiness alone. In this way the mind wanders without rest, emerging and abandoning the Self and [later] returning within. "
He is clearly not stating that a single fulfillment of one desire makes one enlightened forever, only that such fuilfillment allows the mind to experience the Self briefly.
The word "samskara" used in VV's quote, is roughly equivalent to "vasana" meaning mental tendencies.
For example, if our favorite thing in life is ice cream, then each time we eat ice cream, it does not permanently satisfy our desire for ice cream, but rather, as Ramana points out, it only strengthens our desire for ice cream.
So, we will eat ice cream, and briefly experience the Self as a result.
Then, the next day again, and the following day.
Soon, we are having ice cream three times a day.
As Ramana says in Nan Yar:
"By analogy, the mind of a jnani[wise man] never leaves Brahman[the Absolute Ground of all Being], whereas the mind of someone who has not realised the Self is such that it suffers by wandering in the world before turning back to Brahman for a while to enjoy happiness. "
Viveka Vairagya -
Here is a link to an article by David Godman on the various collections of Ramana Maharshi writings and conversations. Michael has echoed the exact same things in posts on this site.
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/05/authenticity-of-bhagavans-writings-and.html
The relevant portion is that the person who compiled "Talks" wrote down the conversations only at night, hours after they occurred, and that many things in "Talks" are from the understanding of the compiler, and are contrary to what Ramana said. As explained by Godman, this is known from a few examples where there is a second source.
So, on anything which is "technical", Talks is not a good source.
Ken,
I can confirm that after having lapped up ice cream today my self-experience was in no way different from yesterday.
But I did not assert that a single fulfillment of one desire makes one 'enlightened forever'.
If you read your first quote of Nan Yar ? again you would clearly see what is stated:
"...whenever our thoughts/desires get fulfilled, the mind turns back to its source and experiences Self-happiness alone.....".
I only made the comment that it is stated in that quote that...the mind turns inwards or back to its source and experiences Self-happiness or enjoys that 'Bliss of Atman' - only when a desired object is obtained.
Michael,
Because I do not experience uninterrupted happiness of being, I started reading some books about Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings.
While looking at myself very carefully I do not see that I am only pure and infinite self-awareness. Surely my carefulness used in order to be aware of myself as I actually am was not enough intense because I often was a little tired. After taking a short power-nap I will start again to learn looking (very) carefully. Because I discovered that I am not even able to look very carefully at myself for more than some minutes I have first to learn and then to practise it.
After some practice I will get in touch with your blog.
escape scot-free stated: " only when a desired object is obtained."
No, that is possibly a grammatical ambiguity in the use of the word "alone" in that particular English translation of Nan Yar.
The sentence that ends in alone is translated by Michael James as follows:
"In truth, whenever our thoughts [or wishes] are
fulfilled, it [our mind] turns back to its proper place [the core of our being, our real self, which is
the source from which it arose] and experiences only the happiness of [our real] self. "
From that translation it is clear that the word "only" refers to the fact that in that moment, the mind experiences only happiness, not that the mind only experiences by fulfilling desires.
Distorted awareness of myself,
You might want to read the very short Michael James translation of Nan Yar, which is Ramana's core ideas expressed very concisely and clearly. It can be read (or downloaded for free) from:
http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html
Ken,
thanks again for your clarifying explanation which version has more plausibility.
Ken,
yes, studying Nan Yar ? is a good idea. Thank you.
Michael,
…but we simply mistook it to be this adjunct-mixed self-awareness called 'ego' or 'I-thought'.
So we as this ego are an unfortunate case of mistaken identity. We are wrong about our identity obviously resulting from a misunderstanding or faulty judgement.
We do wrongly identify the nature our pure self-awareness as this ego – by mistake. We as this ego made and make that misguided judgement, that fateful (with serious consequences) inaccuracy.
According to Bhagavan even this adjunct-mixed ego can correct that erroneous judgement by intrusive self-investigation. So we are spoilt for the right choice.
May Arunachala help us to get started.
Michael,
sorry about an omitted word 'of'. Please read ...'the nature of our pure self-awareness' as this ego...
return to Arunachala,
There are many conceptual perspectives about this. Understanding more than one gives you a "three-dimensional" understanding, in the same way that looking at a mountain, and then seeing it from another angle, gives you a three-dimensional view of it.
Mark Dyczkowski, a scholar of ancient Scriptures, writes:
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa."
What he means here is that it is consciousness (Awareness) that "lights up" the objects of the world, ie makes them perceivable. Thus, when Awareness looks out through a limited viewpoint on the world (ie in a human body), it sees its reflection in the world and in thoughts about the world. Thus, not being able to see the Self (ie Awareness), because Awareness is itself what is doing the seeing, it identifies itself as only the thoughts and perceptions, because this is all of itself that it can perceive.
However, this self-identification as this combination of thoughts and perceptions has a major error, because what it is identifying as "subject" is actually "object", ie thoughts and perceptions are merely objects to the real subject, Awareness.
A crude analogy to this error would be if you identified your clothes as being part of you.
So this error known as ego, is a major force that keeps one from recognizing who you really are - Awareness.
(Note that a very technical philosophical viewpoint could find some technical errors in this, for example, since "all is one", then there is no subject and no object, etc.)
Ken,
thanks for your reply.
A conceptual perspective about that fundamental human error may be useful and required for the correction of the wrong perception. But at the practice of doing persistently and scrupulously self-investigation i.e. looking very carefully at ourself we are all alone in the world.
Michael, let me do some manana:
When we as the ego , (called primal thought and the root of all other thoughts, 'thought called I' , 'I-thought', nan ennum ninaivu in Tamil, aham-vritti in Sanskrit) as the mixed consciousness/mixture of pure self-awareness and adjunct-awareness (centred around our basic adjunct, namely a body) investigate ourself/our ego, what we are seeking to know correctly is not any part of our adjunct-awareness (the non-conscious or jada portion of this chit-jada-granthi) but only our essential self-awareness (the conscious or cit portion of it), so we should be trying to isolate our essential self-awareness from all our adjuncts by focussing our attention on ourself (this essential self-awareness) alone.
In our investigation into the source of aham-vritti, we take the essential chit aspect of the ego. That means that our essential chit aspect (cit portion) of the ego as the subject is doing the effort of investigating.
Therefore the enquiry must lead at the end to the essential chit [cit or awareness] aspect of the ego. So let us strike while the iron is hot.
Bhagavan's teaching consoles us: Only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself or look elsewhere and are therefore not attending exclusively to ourself this illusory ego seems to exist, and it dissolves and disappears when we look at it directly.
"…we must look through this ego or 'I'-thought, which is what we now seem to be, and thereby see the real substance…".
Could you please paraphrase the meaning of 'looking through' ?
Does it mean like 'look through a window pane' or rather 'with the help of this' or 'by this ego' as a tool, medium or instrument ?
I don't think any of the words are that precise. This was the idea of my previous post - if we read several different sentences by different people that refer to the same thing, then it is easier to grasp the non-verbal thing that is being pointed out.
In this particular case, I do not think that "looking through" is a technique instruction.
My impression that it means the same as " we must look through the apparent illusory snake to see the real rope that it was all the time. "
So, it is a description of the overall process, rather than something you do.
note: Ramana (and others like Adyashanti) are clear that if you are "doing" anything, then you are doing it wrong. Hence other sentences describing the technique are "be don't do", "be still" and "rest as awareness". Besides those, the only other aspect is "put your attention on I".
Ken,
in general concerns your recommendation to read several authors is quite good.
But in important spiritual affairs I have confidence exclusively in Bhagavan Sri Ramana.
Regarding the effort of self-investigation you are right. It is not a doing in the close sense of the word but rather keeping oneself attuned in inner awareness to the reality alone.
Michael,
"..., we are aware of ourself,..., as the subject, the one who is aware both of itself and of all other things which are all only thoughts projected and simultaneously experienced by ourself as this ego, like everything that we experience in a dream. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between our awareness of other things and our awareness of our 'I'-thought, because this 'I'-thought alone is what is aware of everything else, and it is our basic self-awareness, albeit...".
Because I think that there is only one awareness I do not really understand the meaning of that mentioned 'fundamental difference' may I ask you, Michael, to give some additional clarification about it ?
Michael,
we are taught that pure self-awareness is untainted from any ego/world appearance.
Did Bhagavan ever refer whether our pure self-awareness is aware when any 'I'-thought (aham-vritti) gets ready or prepares to rise or to appear ?
Can we assume that our/the pure self-awareness is aware of the seeming appearance/existece of this ego and the billions of 'I'-sparks or persons (whether with also a gross body or only subtle body) ?
Michael,
to look elsewhere instead of looking directly at this ego seems to provide much more happiness to the ego than to look directly at itself.
In spite of everything the ego's being as just an illusory phantom does evidently not satisfy itself. This ego seems to be unaware neither of its illusionary unreal being nor of its real nature and source. In its foggy view it does not even clearly recognize that its only substance is in reality our eternally adjunct-free and immutable self-awareness.
chit-jada-granthi:
The word "awareness" is being used differently in those sentences.
mixed and distorted:
Our pure self-awareness is aware of everything, and there is nothing other than it to be aware of anything, so the only possible answer is yes.
A question for you - is English your first langauge? (I.E. do you think in English?)
[I thought this user comment on another Ramana Forum in 2010 by "Urmish Mehta" might be helpful to some readers here. Note that what he says in the first paragraph is true even if the knowledge is important and necessary to get to the point where you know to follow Ramana's teaching in the first place. So, you need rationality and knowledge just to the point of knowing exactly what to do - and then let it go, as stated more eloquently as follows:]
"Yes, when you are feeling a special relationship with your Guru or have devotion towards him or some philosophy or any kind of feelings etc, or ideas such as this is right and that is wrong, tiger's skin and non-violence etc, you are neck deep merged in what Bhagvan calls ego, the outer-I. Any of this stuff is a sure sign that outer-I is operative. The bad news is as long as this outer-I is operative, the subjective-I remains hidden. No matter how hard you try, read, talk, explain, ask, teach, lecture, go round the world, or get replied and get pampered by your special Guru, or swim in some special river or keep swimming, you never can get out of the operation of this outer ego. There is no way.
This is because, as already explained by Bhagvan at least few millions times, the outer-I is stuck with all these ideas and concepts and thoughts and the body sensations.
The only way out is to fall into silence and be there until it becomes obvious. When you fall into silence, the ideas, thoughts, concepts, theories drop. And on one fine morning or evening, it happens suddenly and unexpectedly, something like, "Oops! It's 'me' and I was always there from day one - totally independent of all this mess - heck.'
Another bad news is, when once again that outer ego becomes operative, you begin to write like I am doing now!
If I switch, I can't write but more importantly, if I write, I can't switch!
Any way, my gratitude to Bhagvan (every single Guru ever walked on this planet earth from time unknown and touched me in some way)....and whatever I happened to do or did or am doing, that is, if at all.
Folks, if you respond, don't expect me to respond back and also don't feel bad about it.
Just know that you are at right place, at right time and whatever you are doing is surely working in some mysterious way...so be assured."
Ken,
okay, awareness in different functions:
on the one hand awareness of other objects and
on the other hand our basic pure self-awareness.
But I cannot see two different kinds of awarenesses and therefore no 'fundamental difference' between them. Is not our basic self-awareness aware both of itself and of everything else/all other things ?
Ken,
of course, your answer 'yes' is obvious.
English is not my mother tongue. My thoughts appear not in English.
Ken,
it must be easy to 'fall into silence' because silence is our real nature.
Primarily we have to destroy the root problem of all, namely this ego-phantom, this impertinent cheeky devil.
chit -jada-granthi,
The word "fundamental" in the phrase that you are referring to - "fundamental difference" - is really not strictly necessary. When the sentence is read by itself, then it is somewhat confusing if the word "fundamental" is retained, because it requires the whole paragraph to justify the use of the word "fundamental" in that phrase.
So, I think that you can just remove that particular word "fundamental" in that one phrase "fundamental difference" without changing the overall meaning. Or better yet, just change it to "important difference".
By the way, what you describe is a "paradox" (one of many in spirtuality). The Self is aware of everything all the time. And yet we can also say that we are unaware of the Self when we are aware of others. And yet we are nothing but the Self. It is a paradox that all three things are true, even though conceptually they are contradictory.
Ken,
perhaps Michael will give further clarification of the mentioned phrase.
As far as truth in paradoxicalness is concerned it is also true that being aware of 'others' or 'other things' has awareness of the self as prerequisite, because being aware of anything is not possible without the underlying fundamental stream of self-awareness - if I am not wrong about that point.
Nevertheless paradoxa occur only in the confused view of ignorant observers.
The Simple Path of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
(from I Am That)
"The feeling 'I am' (I exist) is called consciousness. ... The ‘I am this’, ‘I am that’ are imaginary. ... There is the body and there is the Self. Between them is the mind, in which the Self is reflected as ‘I am’. Because of the imperfections of the mind, its crudity and restlessness, lack of discernment and insight, it takes itself to be the body, not the Self. ... I simply followed his [Guru’s] instruction which was to focus the mind on pure being ‘I am’, and stay in it. I used to sit for hours together, with nothing but the ‘I am’ in my mind ... the whole of my spare time (I had to work to keep my family alive). As a result of faith and earnest application, I realized my self (swarupa) within three years. ... The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am' without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalised but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. ... You observe the heart feeling, the mind thinking, the body acting; the very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. ... Turn within. ‘I am’ you know. Be with it all the time you can spare, until you revert to it spontaneously. There is no simpler and easier way. ... Hold on to the sense ‘I am’ to the exclusion of everything else. When thus the mind becomes completely silent, it shines with a new light and vibrates with new knowledge. It all comes spontaneously, you need only hold on to the ‘I am’. ... Relax and watch the ‘I am’. Reality is just behind it. Keep quiet, keep silent; it will emerge, or rather, it will take you in."---Nisargadatta Maharaj
Gratitude is the key to a happy life, because if we are not grateful, then no matter how we have, we are not going to be happy - because we always want something else or something more steadily."
- David Steindl Rast -
Read More here
How to Find Happiness in 5 minutes?
Leadership Mojo,
happiness is here and now - not 5 minutes far away.
Surely you have mistook your real nature with anything else.
Perhaps you have got the wrong blog.
But do not worry, we all make mistakes sometimes. To err is human.
It's "spam" - Leadership Mojo is posting to other sites in the hope of increasing his Page Ranging in Search.
Why would someone create a new site - in poor grammar - about Leadership, starting in September? A project for a college Business class, I would guess.
Ken,
yes, Mojo's leadership and comment are more than doubtful. As you state the comment is presumably/obviously posted only concerning page ranging and should be treated as spam.
Oops, "Page Ranging" should be "Page Ranking".
Ken,
ah, Mojo's comment rang false and therefore did not rank high.
Let us be on our guard.
Viveka Vairagya,
regarding 'The Simple Path of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj,
Holding on to the sense 'I am' to the exclusion of everything else sounds very easy.
But why should reality be "just behind the 'I am' " ?
What was Sri Nisargadatta's reason for smoking cigarettes ?
Michael,
"We are always aware of ourself, but our self-awareness is now confused, because it seems (in the view of ourself as this ego) to be mixed ..."
Assuming that our pure self-awareness can never be confused, should we not correctly say: Our self-awareness seems now to be confused instead of 'is now confused',... ?
Michael,
if our infinite self-awareness is always in its original pristine form and we have not undergone any change, how can this ego ever have any wrong perception of ourself ?
How can our awareness of ourself ever be distorted by being mixed and confused ... ?
Extremely Simple,
The teaching of Ramana Maharshi was given by him, in a very clear and logical fashion, as a description of the world and who we are, and a suggested practice for us to discover the truth of that for ourselves, in Nan Yar and Ulladu Narpadu.
Since he was from a family of lawyers and legal aides, he was highly educated in the Victorian British educational system, and so he had excellent reading, writing, and thinking skills, even by the age of 16.
Nisargadatta was a working class person with no formal education. All of his knowledge of spiritual concepts came from a propensity to spend his free evenings in religious discussions with more educated acquaintances.
His major work, "I Am That" was a collection of tape recordings of his question-and-answer sessions that was translated by Maurice Frydman, who Nisargadatta (and others) stated was also a Jnani (and whom had previously created a similar collection of question-and-answers by Ramana called "Maharshi's Gospel").
So, it seems likely to me that the polished language and statements of "I Am That" were partially due to Frydman's restatements of Nisargadatta's talks.
Nisargadatta often said that the specifics of his answers were only designed for the immediate spiritual benefit of the listener, rather than to be an accurate statement of reality. He told David Godman:
===
DG: For several months I have been reading I am That. Through those words I felt a very strong connection with you and the teachings. Can one have a connection with a Guru simply by reading his words, or is it necessary to come in person to see him?
Maharaj: The words will do their work wherever you hear or read them. You can come here and listen to them in person, or you can read them in a book. If the teacher is enlightened, there will be a power in them.
DG: In my particular case I read the words of a Guru who was still alive, and those words compelled me to come here and see you. Perhaps your words had such a strong effect because you are still alive and teaching. I made contact with a living teacher, a living presence. What about a hypothetical case of someone picking up I am That in fifty years' time, and in a country several thousand miles away. That person will never have a chance to see you. Will those words still have the power to transform and awaken?
Maharaj: Time and space exist in your mind, not in the Self. There is no limit to the power of the Self. The power of the Self is always present, always working, always the same. What varies is the readiness and willingness of people to turn their attention to it. If someone picks up this book ten thousand miles away in a thousand years' time, those words will do their work if the reader is in the right state to listen to and assimilate the words.
===
So, one should read Ramana for an accurate description of the world and Self-investigation pracice, and read Nisargadatta to get an experience of the Self (if the reader is sufficiently receptive).
Ken,
we are already aware of ourself i.e. of our self without any interruption. How could reading Nisargadatta lead to an experience of the self ?
extremely simple, you ask Viveka Vairagya: ‘But why should reality be "just behind the 'I am'"? According to Bhagavan’s teaching, there is nothing behind or in front of ‘I am’, and therefore this ‘I am’ exists absolutely alone. Anything we experience other than our essential awareness, ‘I am’, is merely our ego’s imagination, and since our ego is an formless phantom which exists only in its own view, nothing other than ‘I am’ actually exists.
Yes, I have also read that Nisargadatta smoked cigarettes, or more specifically Indian beedis, which are a crude form of cigarettes. Devotees of Nisargadatta believe that he was an atma-jnani - which may or may not be true - however for our argument sake let us assume that he was indeed a jnani. Therefore, when Nisargadatta was seen smoking beedis, what was smoking beedis was only Nisargadatta’s body. Since he was not that body, he was not really smoking. Smoking cigarettes is an action, whereas the jnani is an actionless reality, and therefore he cannot act in any way.
We should not judge an atma-jnani merely by his outward, mental or bodily actions, because these may not really reveal his inner state. It is said that even if we see our sadguru consuming liquor, we should not feel that he is no more worthy to be our sadguru.
Of course, generally we will not find a jnani smoking cigarettes or drinking liquor, but even if they are seen indulging in such acts, they still remain a jnani. Their bodies may have picked up certain habits in the past, and these bodies (of atma-jnanis) may still continue with those old habits.
For example, Bhagavan had repeatedly told us that he was not the body and mind which we mistook him to be, but in our ignorant view we did see Bhagavan indulging in many bodily and mental actions. Therefore, the jnani’s actions are only in our view. He just exists, and therefore in his clear experience he is merely pure, non-dual consciousness, or ‘I am’.
extremely simple,
Maharaj uses the term 'I am' to refer to reflected consciousness (chidabhasa), that is, reflection of Self or Pure Consciousness in the mind. Hence, just like an object can be said to be behind its reflection, reality, that is Self or Pure Consciousness, is said to be behind its reflection, the 'I am'. Bhagavan uses 'I am' to refer to something else as Sanjay pointed out.
As far as why Maharaj smoked cigarettes, see Sanjay's explanation of it above this comment.
extremely simple,
Upon further reflection it strikes me that what Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj means by 'I am' Sri Ramana Maharshi means by 'I-thought'. That is, both 'I am' and 'I-thought' refer to the same entity, namely, reflected light or reflected consciousness (chidabhasa), that is, reflection of Self or Pure Consciousness in the mind. Hence, just like Self or Reality can be said to be behind the 'I-thought', Self or Reality can be said to be behind the 'I am'.
Sanjay Lohia,
in this life of delusion we will not find any clarity about the real state of Nisargadatta. Maybe he tried to smoke his ego in the fire of the beedis (Smile). As we see the outwardly going mind and extroverted intellect do not provide sufficient clearness and transparency. Basically is everybody (every ajnani) a jnani in his real nature.
Because the experience of silence - that is self-knowledge - is alone perfect knowledge we should not rove in the forest of objective sense-and mind-bound knowledges and relativity. The mind's rising and jumping out through the senses should be (gradually) subdued. So let us annihilate all thoughts at the very place of origin- by consciously abiding in the self (atma-dhyana) and find the best means for the subsidence of mind. May the light of consciousness of the one real self arise through the extinction of our mental taints.
Atman alone exists and is real.
Viveka Vairagya,
let us consider that phrase of Nisargadatta "Reality is just behind the 'I am' " as metaphor. So nobody should be bothered by it and we are not led astray.
Regards.
Sir Michael James,
I just read: "Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi revealed the direct path of practice of Self-enquiry and awakened mankind to the immense spiritual power of the holy Arunachala Hill, the spiritual heart of the world."
That is very interesting.
I would be very pleased if you write some lines about that holy mountain Arunachala.
Plotin,
In the short term, I found three articles on Arunachala in this blog:
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2007/09/sri-arunachala-stuti-panchakam-english.html
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2009/06/sri-arunachala-stuti-panchakam-overview.html
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/12/truth-of-arunachala-and-of-seeing-light.html
Many thanks to you, Ken.
Your advice is very helpful. So I have to study a lot material about Arunachala.
If you have ever been there in Tamil Nadu/Tiruvannamalai bodily at this mountain, would you please be willing to report your impression in short form ?
Sorry, I have never been further South in India than Varanasi and Bodhgaya. Perhaps some other readers of the blog have been there.
A web search might give you some impressions. David Godman has lived there for 40 years, and would have commented on that either in his Youtube videos or his interviews on his web site http://davidgodman.org .
In fact, Godman has an article by Michael James on his web site, entitled "The Power of Arunachala" at:
http://davidgodman.org/asaints/powerofa1.shtml
Thank you again Ken for your estimable hints.
Reading the first article you mentioned to me (Article of 25 September 2007 Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam-English translation by Sadhu Om and Michael James) takes already my breath away. How did Michael James come to that deep inspiration and conviction about his world view, truth and his firm meekness ? His experience of inner awareness or of truth about reality must have been and must be mighty and tremendous.
Extremely Simple, I have replied to your question, ‘But why should reality be “just behind the ‘I am’”?’ in a separate article, ‘I am’ is the reality, ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, which I have posted here today.
Ken, regarding the comment I wrote a few weeks ago in which I said I had begun to write an article in reply to one of your earlier comments and hoped to complete it that day, I am sorry that I have not completed it yet, because it has become a much longer article than I expected, and I interrupted my writing of it to write my latest article, ‘I am’ is the reality, ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, which I likewise expected to be a short one but ended up becoming much longer than I anticipated. I now have some other urgent work to attend to, but as soon as I finish that I will resume writing my reply to you.
Michael,
many thanks for your detailed reply in the new article today " 'I am' is the reality..." which I will study carefully.
Ken, in my comment of 8 September 2016 at 07:56 I said that I had begun to write an article in which I would explain in more detail why we as we actually are are just pure and immutable self-awareness, which can never make any mistake or identify itself with anything, and in whose clear view no world or characters in it exist or even seem to exist. Though I said I hoped to finish that article on the same day, it became much longer than I had originally anticipated, and in the meanwhile my time was taken up with other work and commitments, including writing several other shorter articles, so I eventually finished my reply to you and posted it only today: As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself.
Michael,
thank you for clarifying some points in the discussion with our friend called Ken particularly what he wrote in his comments on 4 September 2016 at 23:27 (nr.40) and 5 Sept 2016 at 04:16 (nr. 45) in your new article of today "As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself."
Michael,
many thanks for your explanation regarding what Ken replied in his comment of 5 September 2016 at 04:26 in your today article.
Michael,
thank you for clarification about our actual self, thereby replying to Ken's comment of 7 September 2016 at 03:26.
Michael,
many thanks for explaining what we actually are with regard to some comments of Ken namely of 8 September 2016 at 02:09, at 17:49 and 9 September 2016 at 00:04 in your new article of today.
Post a Comment