Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Namaste, I've had some trouble previously understanding self-enquiry. By this continuous enquiry of "who am I?" I am assuming this is the method by which the seeker is kept abiding in the self, since no thoughts are allowed to rise without the enquiry, or no identification with anything. Is one just to enquiry continuously or is one to try to find the answer of the enquiry. Does this enquiry go for grose tendancies too? Like, for instance, identification with the body, or feelings of individuality. Namo Ramana Prem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Namaste, Yes this helps a bit, but what about the method talked about in the paragraph 26. This doesn't seem to be the same thing, but seems to me just to be a continuous questioning, just questioning more and more and every time a thought or somethin glike that comes up, the questioning continues and is back into the self. This doesn't quite sound the same as the discrimination between the real and unreal, although I've heard of this method too. What I stated above as how I understand the method, would this be a correct interpretation of self-enquiry as taught by Sri Ramana? Namo Ramana Prem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Paragraph 26 So long as subtle tendencies continue to inhere in the mind, it is necessary to carry on the enquiry: 'Who am I?'. As and when thoughts occur, they should one and all be annihilated then and there, at the very place of their origin, by the method of enquiry in quest of the Self. COMMENTS Gross tendencies are related to the "I am the body" notion. Subtle tendencies are at the level of thought, and identity with various `bundles of thought" like emotions or moods. Ramana instructs the seeker that as long as the seeker's identity is with anything other than the One Self, then the seeker needs to keep the inquiry going. This repeats the basic teaching: as long as one can inquire, then inquire. When one stands as the Self, then no more inquiry is possible. The stick (of inquiry) is finally burnt in the fire. In the other part of this paragraph, Ramana tells the seeker what to "do" with thoughts, or one thought; to stop the thought, when noticed (or better yet, when it rises), and stop it not by some act of control, but rather with inquiry. "For whom is this thought?" is the classic form of this inquiry. This inquiry turns the attention of the seeker from the thought back to the Self. --------------------- Your comments are invited and welcomed. We are Not two, Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Dear Prem, What I have been taught by my teachers, Nome and Russ, is that for most seekers, the inquiry starts as a mental process. The major component of this process is what Sankara called "Discrimination," which is seeing what is not "real" and seeing what is "real." I use quotes around "real" since I have some to understand that in Advaita Vedanta, "real" has a special meaning. Real is what is changeless and always present and true. Nome says that to experience the Real, what is alwasy present, is mainly a matter of eliminating the erronious assumptions of so-called reality. Advaita Vedanta sages have recommended for more than a thousand years to do this from the "gross to the subtle." This starts with the "I am the body" notion. I was taught to do this through a process of negation (not this, not this). In this negation, I 'look' at the body (mis)identification,m let it fill my awareness, and then ask something like, "Is this who I am? Does this define my identity?" When viewed in this manner, the misidentification is seen as something objective, something that is known. Who knows it? When this is done dilligently and thoroughly one's idenntity keeps moving deeper. >From 'gross to subtle' is body/world, senses, life energy, mind. After this inquiry deepens the seeker is brought to that which knows all that is objective, the mind becomes quiet, and the abidance in the Self become possible. Does this help? We are Not two, Richard Does this help? RamanaMaharshi, inneruniverse555@a... wrote: > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya > > Namaste, > > I've had some trouble previously understanding self-enquiry. By this > continuous enquiry of "who am I?" I am assuming this is the method by which > the seeker is kept abiding in the self, since no thoughts are allowed to rise > without the enquiry, or no identification with anything. Is one just to > enquiry continuously or is one to try to find the answer of the enquiry. > Does this enquiry go for grose tendancies too? Like, for instance, > identification with the body, or feelings of individuality. > > Namo Ramana > > Prem > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2002 Report Share Posted July 9, 2002 Dear Prem, It is my understanding that Ramana taught both, depending upon the seeker. The discrimination is more of an aide to inquiry. This is often needed as long as the "I am the body" notion remains. My teachers talk of 'half-steps." I think that this negation is a 'half-step.' In my own practice, it is like, "Who am I?Well, I am not this, so who am I?" If it stops at the negation, it does not go deep. In my own practice, this has taken me to periods a great depth. The depth comes and goes, so I see that my sense of identity remains in this body/mind. More inquiry is called for. In "Who am I? Ramana wrote: Paragraph 2 `Who am I?' I am not this physical body, nor am I the five organs of sense perception, I am not the five organs of external activity, nor am I the five vital forces, nor am I even the thinking Mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely the subtle vasanas (latencies of the mind) which being free from the functional activity of the sense organs and of the mind, and being unaware of the existence of the objects of sense perception. Paragraph 3 Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical adjuncts and their functions, saying `I am not this; no, nor am I this, nor this' – that which remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, inneruniverse555@a... wrote: > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya > > Namaste, > > Yes this helps a bit, but what about the method talked about in the paragraph > 26. This doesn't seem to be the same thing, but seems to me just to be a > continuous questioning, just questioning more and more and every time a > thought or somethin glike that comes up, the questioning continues and is > back into the self. This doesn't quite sound the same as the discrimination > between the real and unreal, although I've heard of this method too. What I > stated above as how I understand the method, would this be a correct > interpretation of self-enquiry as taught by Sri Ramana? > > Namo Ramana > > Prem > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2002 Report Share Posted July 10, 2002 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Namaste, Okay thank you. I think I understand a bit more. Namo Ramana Prem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.