The Ego and giving up.

09-15-2002, 09:02 PM

Dear Richard and Rob:
Both of you present cogent views on the ego and giving up tendencies.
I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from experience.
The more things I give up the more joy for life and consequently more peace I
have.

Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and read Ramana, but my prarabda
says not yet. Today we went to a Symphony concert and it was nice, but I find
that I am no longer interested in music. I only force myself to practice every
two weeks for a few minutes because I have one student and have to demonstrate
pieces for her.

I don't seem to have any real interest for anything except the aforesaid.
It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is just what the universe is
giving me?
Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and even though we may think
that we are making choices, we are not. If there is no ego that has substance
then how can there be any choices?

Thanks in advance anyone, for you replies.

I really think it is important to give up everything except family duty and
responsibility

Loving Sri Ramana

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

09-15-2002, 11:03 PM

Dear Sri Loving,

> The more things I give up the more joy for life
> and consequently more peace I have.

You're a lucky man.

> Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and
> read Ramana, but my prarabda says not yet.

The same urge (or lack of urges) has happened to me.
It's a side effect of self-inquiry. Bhakti came to me
too, and I was an atheist. It's an astonishing thing.
If you had told me a few years ago that my life would
turn in this direction, I would have laughed.

Here's something from the Talks book:

.. D.: What is Renunciation?
..
.. M.: Giving up of the ego.
..
.. D.: Is it not giving up possessions?
..
.. M.: The possessor too. (Article 163.)

The point I was trying to make earlier is this: If you
become concerned about the narcissistic things the
ego does, and try to control them by acting differently,
your efforts are counterproductive. Although your goal
with such efforts is to weaken the ego, you actually end
up strengthening it, because all such activities are
activities of the ego.

Actually, that point is not my own. I believe it is Sri
Ramana's point. I'm too tired now to search for
quotations but he said the same thing, it's in the Talks
book.

Sri Ramana said there are two ways around this problem:
Self-inquiry and surrender. He said these are the only
two kinds of practice that can eliminate the ego. This is
in the Talks book too.

> It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is
> just what the universe is giving me?

I believe Sri Ramana would say: don't worry about it.
Go do Self-inquiry instead.

Actually, he'd say: "Whose ego?"

> Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and
> even though we may think that we are making choices,
> we are not. If there is no ego that has substance then
> how can there be any choices?

The rishis tell us we are not really the doers of our
actions. We think we are, but it's only an illusion.

If we aren't the doers than we aren't choosers either.

But does it matter? Sri Ramana says that if we put effort
into Self-inquiry, we are more likely to realize ourselves.
So let's make that effort, and let's not spend a moment
worrying about whether we are really free to choose.

> I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from
> experience.

The only use I see here for intellect is to read Sri
Ramana's words very carefully to figure out exactly what
his instructions are for practicing.

> I really think it is important to give up everything
> except family duty and responsibility.

Don't forget to take your vitamins, too!

Cheers,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "LOVING SRI RAMANA"
To: "RAMANA"
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 3:02 AM
Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 04:47 AM

Dear Loving,

I would agree with Sri Rob. You seems to be at a good place in your
practice. It is natural for joy to increase as ego decreases.

Also, Rob talked about dealing with ego not by control (which becomes
the ego controlling the ego -- not something that works spiritually).

The discrimination that I talk about has for its purpose the erasure
of the ego. In this way the seeker who has not yet quieted the mind
and erased the ego is able to use the intellect as an aide to
practice, not as an enemy to practice. This last point is something
that I have struggled with, and finally it was cleared up in dialog
with Nome. The intellect can be used in practice (at least in what
seems to me the "first half" of inquiry where the seeker learns to
see the mind and the ego-I, and starts to see that the seeker's
reality is truly something "greater" than these.

What I am calling the "first half" of inquiry gets the seeker to the
point where the quiet mind is common, and the seeker's mind has
started turning within, rather than the reflex to seek happiness from
the identifications with the world and such.

What I might call the "second half" is where the seeker, inquiring
into the quiet mind sees directly, then becomes the Self.

What you say about "The more things I give up the more joy ..." seems
consistent with what seems to me to be less need for you to assert
you ego-views.

Keep the inquiry going!!!

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> Dear Sri Loving,
>
> > The more things I give up the more joy for life
> > and consequently more peace I have.
>
> You're a lucky man.
>
> > Personally all I really wish to do is meditate and
> > read Ramana, but my prarabda says not yet.
>
> The same urge (or lack of urges) has happened to me.
> It's a side effect of self-inquiry. Bhakti came to me
> too, and I was an atheist. It's an astonishing thing.
> If you had told me a few years ago that my life would
> turn in this direction, I would have laughed.
>
> Here's something from the Talks book:
>
> . D.: What is Renunciation?
> .
> . M.: Giving up of the ego.
> .
> . D.: Is it not giving up possessions?
> .
> . M.: The possessor too. (Article 163.)
>
> The point I was trying to make earlier is this: If you
> become concerned about the narcissistic things the
> ego does, and try to control them by acting differently,
> your efforts are counterproductive. Although your goal
> with such efforts is to weaken the ego, you actually end
> up strengthening it, because all such activities are
> activities of the ego.
>
> Actually, that point is not my own. I believe it is Sri
> Ramana's point. I'm too tired now to search for
> quotations but he said the same thing, it's in the Talks
> book.
>
> Sri Ramana said there are two ways around this problem:
> Self-inquiry and surrender. He said these are the only
> two kinds of practice that can eliminate the ego. This is
> in the Talks book too.
>
> > It is my ego that is playing games with me or it is
> > just what the universe is giving me?
>
> I believe Sri Ramana would say: don't worry about it.
> Go do Self-inquiry instead.
>
> Actually, he'd say: "Whose ego?"
>
> > Isn't what ever happens in one's life just prarabda and
> > even though we may think that we are making choices,
> > we are not. If there is no ego that has substance then
> > how can there be any choices?
>
> The rishis tell us we are not really the doers of our
> actions. We think we are, but it's only an illusion.
>
> If we aren't the doers than we aren't choosers either.
>
> But does it matter? Sri Ramana says that if we put effort
> into Self-inquiry, we are more likely to realize ourselves.
> So let's make that effort, and let's not spend a moment
> worrying about whether we are really free to choose.
>
> > I am not your intellectual equal but can talk from
> > experience.
>
> The only use I see here for intellect is to read Sri
> Ramana's words very carefully to figure out exactly what
> his instructions are for practicing.
>
> > I really think it is important to give up everything
> > except family duty and responsibility.
>
> Don't forget to take your vitamins, too!

>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LOVING SRI RAMANA"
> To: "RAMANA"
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 3:02 AM
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 06:54 AM

Dear Sister and brother devotees;
Can one have a smaller ego or an ego that is skillfully working for
Self Realization? Ramana said that you are either free or not free at
all in replying to U.G's. question about, can you be free sometimes
and not at other times. Not exact quotes.

I see attacks on people's egos by other egos as a means of controling
others. If those who censure the actions of other egos would worry
about themselves we would have a more peaceful world.

Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer
the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri
Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it
with "Who and I".
It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more impersonal.

TIA,
Loving Sri Ramana

09-16-2002, 07:12 AM

Dear Sri Loving Ramana,

We are taught that the ego is but an idea, a thought. There is the
primary idea, the "I"-thought. There are also many
misidentifications that may be associated with the "I"-thought.

What might be called "a smaller ego" is really the elimination of
misidentification(s).

My teacher talks about the increasing sense of "vastness" for the
seeker as misidentications are resolved.

For most seekers this happens gradually. That is why Sankara
instructed the seeker to go from "gross to subtle" in their
discrimination and negation. I am not the body. I am not the life-
forces. I am not the mind. I am not the intellect. I am not the
unawareness (nescience) in sleep.

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Alton Slater" wrote:
> Dear Sister and brother devotees;
> Can one have a smaller ego or an ego that is skillfully working for
> Self Realization? Ramana said that you are either free or not free
at
> all in replying to U.G's. question about, can you be free sometimes
> and not at other times. Not exact quotes.
>
> I see attacks on people's egos by other egos as a means of
controling
> others. If those who censure the actions of other egos would worry
> about themselves we would have a more peaceful world.
>
> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer
> the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri
> Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it
> with "Who and I".
> It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more
impersonal.
>
> TIA,
> Loving Sri Ramana

09-16-2002, 07:21 AM

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

As to whether one answer is better than another, I do not think this
matters. The word is not important, what is important is that one's
attention return "within." The "I' or "me" are just sign posts that
point a direction.

I once asked Nome about this. AS I recall he said that to begin with
the seekers answer to "For whom is this thought?" "To me" (or "I" if
you want) takes the seeker to their identification with mind/ego.
That is why this process ends with "Who am I?"

"For whom is this throught?" "It is for me?" "Well then, Who am I?"

The seeker with the thought(s) still stands a body/mind or such. The
inquiry starts with the mind, then points the seeker to that
Consciousness-Being that "lights up" the mind.

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Alton Slater" wrote:
> Dear Sister and brother devotees;
>
> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama and Nome say to answer
> the question "to whom" with "me" instead of "I". I thought that Sri
> Ramana recommended to answer it with "I" and then following it
> with "Who and I".
> It does not feel right to answer with me as the I is more
impersonal.
>
> TIA,
> Loving Sri Ramana

09-16-2002, 08:15 AM

Dear LSR,

> I see attacks on people's egos by other egos
> as a means of controlling others.

Me too.

> If those who censure the actions of other
> egos would worry about themselves we would
> have a more peaceful world.

Sri Ramana agreed with this, as shown in this
passage from Living By the Words of Bhagavan:

.. A devotee, who was quite intimate with Bhagavan,
.. asked him, 'Some of the devotees who live with
.. Bhagavan behave very strangely. They seem to do
.. many things that Bhagavan does not approve of.
.. Why does Bhagavan not correct them?'
..
.. Bhagavan replied, 'Correcting oneself is correcting
.. the whole world. The sun is simply bright. It does
.. not correct anyone. Because it shines the whole
.. world is full of light. Transforming yourself is
.. a means of giving light to the whole world.'
..
.. Once, while I was sitting in the hall, someone
.. complained to Bhagavan about one of the devotees
.. who was sitting there: 'He is not meditating here,
.. he is just sleeping.'
..
.. 'How do you know?' retorted Bhagavan. 'Only
.. because you yourself gave up your meditation to
.. look at him. First see yourself and don't concern
.. yourself with other people's habits.' (pp. 109-110.)

Cheers,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alton Slater"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 08:38 AM

Dear LSR,

> Can one have a smaller ego...?

In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
(Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
Bhagavan," pages 130-32.

> Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> Self Realization?

Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.

> Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> with "me" instead of "I".

It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
"who". People used to be more careful about this than
we are today in American English. If you want to be
fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.

Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
"me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:

-- the thinker
-- the seeker
-- the inquirer
-- the doer
-- the knower

Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
the Talks book.

Cheers,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alton Slater"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 09:52 AM

Richard,Keep up the good work.I see clarity in your words.Thanks,Peter

09-16-2002, 11:23 AM

Dear Rob:
So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks
much.

Another question for you, Richard or anyone.
Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking
unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just do
it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already
had the teachings?

I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower
when I notice a thought.

Dear Richard:
You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I
have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love to
have the answers.

Mahalo to all here,

Loving Sri Ramana

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> Dear LSR,
>
> > Can one have a smaller ego...?
>
> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.
>
> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> > Self Realization?
>
> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.
>
> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> > with "me" instead of "I".
>
> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
> "who". People used to be more careful about this than
> we are today in American English. If you want to be
> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.
>
> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:
>
> -- the thinker
> -- the seeker
> -- the inquirer
> -- the doer
> -- the knower
>
> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
> the Talks book.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alton Slater"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 11:39 AM

Dear LSR,

> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the
> track of the knower when I notice a thought.

Exactly. That's the right idea. You're supposed
to do it silently.

All these little sentences (who am I? etc.) are written
down in books only to get the idea across.

Cheers,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alton Slater"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 11:44 AM

Alton:

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.
As inquiry progresses there is not need for "verbal" inquiry. It eventually
becomes a kind
of wordless penetration prior to attention. The verbal inquiry is a means
to silent inquiry until
there is a steady abiding in the "place."

Mark

Dear Rob:
So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks
much.

Another question for you, Richard or anyone.
Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking
unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just do
it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already
had the teachings?

I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower
when I notice a thought.

Dear Richard:
You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I
have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love to
have the answers.

Mahalo to all here,

Loving Sri Ramana

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> Dear LSR,
>
> > Can one have a smaller ego...?
>
> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.
>
> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> > Self Realization?
>
> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.
>
> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> > with "me" instead of "I".
>
> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
> "who". People used to be more careful about this than
> we are today in American English. If you want to be
> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.
>
> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:
>
> -- the thinker
> -- the seeker
> -- the inquirer
> -- the doer
> -- the knower
>
> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
> the Talks book.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alton Slater"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

Community email addresses:
Post message: RamanaMaharshi (AT) onelist (DOT) com
Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-subscribe (AT) onelist (DOT) com
Unsubscribe: RamanaMaharshi-unsubscribe (AT) onelist (DOT) com
List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner (AT) onelist (DOT) com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/RamanaMaharshi

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

09-16-2002, 11:51 AM

P.S. Bhagavan sometimes said that the question
should really be "Whence am I?" instead of
"Who am I?" ("Whence" means "from where".)

For example, he said:

.. As a matter of fact, in the quest method -- which is
.. more correctly 'Whence am I?' and not merely
.. 'Who am I?' ... we are trying to find whence the
.. the 'I' thought for the ego arises within us. [1]

He also said:

.. To enquire 'Who am I?' really means trying to
.. find out the source of the ego or the 'I' thought. [2]

Notes:
1. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 47.
2. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 68.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alton Slater"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 11:53 AM

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

If there are thoughts then there is still a thinker. One would like
to discriminate that thinker out of the seeker's sense of Reality.
Here one wants to know for certain that the Self is the source of
reality (and existance and consciousness and love).

Exactly how ones does that can vary according to the particular set
of tendencies of the seeker, and the tendencies that are "active" at
any given moment, so this is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

With thoughts the point is to see that they arise in the mind, and
that the mind has not independent existance. The mind exists within
Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda)and the source of the "light"
and "knowing" of the mind is that same SAt-Chit-Ananda, that is
called self-luminous.

So, I notice a thought, I ask myself either "For whom is this
thought?" Perhaps one could affirm that the thought is for the mind,
rather than ask. I have never asked about this, and don;t know. I
prefer the asking because the question opens the mind and
affirmations more tend to close the mind.

The thought must be for the mind (mind/body/ego/world) because the
Self has no thoughts. The Self has nothing added to it, nor anything
that is lacking -- ever.

So the inquiry as to who the thought is for first turns the seekers
attention to the mind. At this point the inquiry "Who am I?" turns
the seeker to the Reality that lights up the mind.

I might ask, "Is this who I am? No! Then who am I?"

I will use slightly different phrasings to myself at different
times. I do not think this matters, so long as the seeker is looking
for their Reality were it really is.

Also whether or not one has "had the teaching" does not matter. What
matters is where one is in terms of realizing these teachings. As we
all understand, mental or conceptual knowledge has much less value
that the deep knowledge that comes from the actual inquiry. As long
as one still nitices thoughts, it is still time for inquiry.

Again, what one wants to do with this inquiry on thoughts is to see
that one's own reality is Sat-Chit-Ananda, not the mind (and
body/world/life force/ego).

Am I making sense?

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Alton Slater" wrote:
> Dear Rob:
> So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes. Thanks
> much.
>
> Another question for you, Richard or anyone.
> Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind thinking
> unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just
do
> it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one already
> had the teachings?
>
> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the knower
> when I notice a thought.
>
> Dear Richard:
> You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I
> have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would love
to
> have the answers.
>
> Mahalo to all here,
>
> Loving Sri Ramana
>
> --- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> > Dear LSR,
> >
> > > Can one have a smaller ego...?
> >
> > In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
> > (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
> > Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
> > people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
> > Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
> > Bhagavan," pages 130-32.
> >
> > > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> > > Self Realization?
> >
> > Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
> > for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
> > inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
> > By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.
> >
> > > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> > > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> > > with "me" instead of "I".
> >
> > It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
> > "who". People used to be more careful about this than
> > we are today in American English. If you want to be
> > fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
> > has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
> > is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.
> >
> > Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
> > "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:
> >
> > -- the thinker
> > -- the seeker
> > -- the inquirer
> > -- the doer
> > -- the knower
> >
> > Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
> > the Talks book.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alton Slater"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
> > Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 11:54 AM

Dear Sri Loving Sri Ramana,

I would also agree with Mark here. This does not need in any way to
be verbal. What matters is the direction of attention.

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Mark" wrote:
> Alton:
>
> I hope you don't mind my jumping in here.
> As inquiry progresses there is not need for "verbal" inquiry. It
eventually
> becomes a kind
> of wordless penetration prior to attention. The verbal inquiry is
a means
> to silent inquiry until
> there is a steady abiding in the "place."
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Dear Rob:
> So many seekers here post great references to Ramana quotes.
Thanks
> much.
>
> Another question for you, Richard or anyone.
> Why cant I skip to " To I" when I become aware of the mind
thinking
> unsolicited thoughts and then follow it with "Who an I", or just
do
> it the whole schtick silently? Why ask the "To Whom" if one
already
> had the teachings?
>
> I prefer now just "to I" to keep my mind on the track of the
knower
> when I notice a thought.
>
> Dear Richard:
> You probably asked your teachers every conceivable question that I
> have thought of, so if you asked the above questions, I would
love to
> have the answers.
>
> Mahalo to all here,
>
> Loving Sri Ramana
>
> --- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> > Dear LSR,
> >
> > > Can one have a smaller ego...?
> >
> > In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
> > (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
> > Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
> > people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
> > Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
> > Bhagavan," pages 130-32.
> >
> > > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> > > Self Realization?
> >
> > Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
> > for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
> > inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
> > By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.
> >
> > > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> > > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> > > with "me" instead of "I".
> >
> > It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
> > "who". People used to be more careful about this than
> > we are today in American English. If you want to be
> > fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
> > has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
> > is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.
> >
> > Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
> > "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:
> >
> > -- the thinker
> > -- the seeker
> > -- the inquirer
> > -- the doer
> > -- the knower
> >
> > Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
> > the Talks book.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alton Slater"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
> > Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o...
> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-subscribe@o...
> Unsubscribe: RamanaMaharshi-unsubscribe@o...
> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o...
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/RamanaMaharshi
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

09-16-2002, 12:15 PM

Dear LSR,

Other phrasings can be useful.

I have used the following (and more) as variations:

Where does this sense of I come from?
What is the source of this sense of identity?
>From where does this sense of reality arise?

Not two, Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., "Rob Sacks" wrote:
> P.S. Bhagavan sometimes said that the question
> should really be "Whence am I?" instead of
> "Who am I?" ("Whence" means "from where".)
>
> For example, he said:
>
> . As a matter of fact, in the quest method -- which is
> . more correctly 'Whence am I?' and not merely
> . 'Who am I?' ... we are trying to find whence the
> . the 'I' thought for the ego arises within us. [1]
>
> He also said:
>
> . To enquire 'Who am I?' really means trying to
> . find out the source of the ego or the 'I' thought. [2]
>
> Notes:
> 1. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 47.
> 2. Day By Day With Bhagavan, p. 68.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alton Slater"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:23 PM
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.

09-16-2002, 08:17 PM

Dear all,
If our discussion/practice is ego-centric then the attention is obviously
outwards. First of all as one goes into this, one finds that ego itself does
not exist. So where is the problem. One has to assume and recognize that
there is an ego to make it real. The non-existent illusion weaves on.
The rest can not be explained.
regards,
Vatsa

Rob Sacks wrote:

> Dear LSR,
>
> > Can one have a smaller ego...?
>
> In at least one case, Sri Ramana described somebody
> (Perumal Swami) as having more ego than normal. If
> Perumal Swami had more, then we can infer that other
> people have less. Bhagavan's statements about Perumal
> Swami are reported in "Living By The Words of
> Bhagavan," pages 130-32.
>
> > Can one have... an ego that is skillfully working for
> > Self Realization?
>
> Yes, by turning the mind inward and letting it search
> for its source... in other words, by practicing Self-
> inquiry. There is an conversation about this in "Day
> By Day With Bhagavan," page 31.
>
> > Next question. Wonder why both Sri Lakshama
> > and Nome say to answer the question "to whom"
> > with "me" instead of "I".
>
> It's just grammar. "Me" matches "whom" and "I" matches
> "who". People used to be more careful about this than
> we are today in American English. If you want to be
> fussy about grammar, the answer to the question "To whom"
> has to be "me," but the answer to the question "Who
> is the doer" has to be "I" ... it's just grammar.
>
> Instead of thinking of Self-inquiry as an examination of
> "me" or "I", you can think of it as an examination of:
>
> -- the thinker
> -- the seeker
> -- the inquirer
> -- the doer
> -- the knower
>
> Bhagavan uses all these synonyms at various places in
> the Talks book.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alton Slater"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:54 PM
> Subject: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: The Ego and giving up.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: RamanaMaharshi (AT) onelist (DOT) com
> Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-subscribe (AT) onelist (DOT) com
> Unsubscribe: RamanaMaharshi-unsubscribe (AT) onelist (DOT) com
> List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner (AT) onelist (DOT) com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/RamanaMaharshi
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

09-17-2002, 04:28 AM

Dear Vatsa,

While in ultimate Truth there is no ego, that is not the experience
of most.

Ramana Maharshi (and many other sages) taught ways for the seeker to
come to the Knowledge of the reality of the Self (and unreality of
the body/mind/ego). They would not have provided this teaching unless
it were needed by seekers. The sages certainly were not teaching for
themselves, they no longer have any personal self.

There is also a risk for a seeker who takes this view: The risk is
that the seeker will not practice the inquiry needed for the
actual "disolution" of their own ego-idea.

Perhaps the idea of non-existance of the ego is all that you need. It
does not seem to be the same for others.

We are Not two,
Richard

--- In RamanaMaharshi@y..., Srivatsa Krishnaswamy wrote:
> Dear all,
> If our discussion/practice is ego-centric then the attention is
obviously
> outwards. First of all as one goes into this, one finds that ego
itself does
> not exist.