FROM SAD VIDYA V39

May 5, 2004

Dear Sri Nagaraja, Sri Alan & Sri Miles

Namaste

Thank you all for your kind and lucid responses to my query. Yes.

Now I do comprehend verse 39 much better!

The following lines were particularly useful to refresh

understanding..

Mahadevan's -

`In the Advaita experience there is no plurality at all.'

`There can be no action without duality.'

Sri Nagaraja's –

`advaita chintana and the resultant conviction developed, has to

be

confined to the bhava and not practically implemented in the worldly

activities (vyavahara). `

`It is obvious that once in Advaita, Guru comes into picture only

when one has to think, speak or act.'

My own search today led me to 'Sri Maharshi's Way -Upadesa Saram'

translation and commentary by D M Sastri:

bheda-bhaavanaat soham-ityasau

bhaavanaa `bhida paavanii mataa

8. Meditation on the identity of the individual and the Lord, "I

am

He", is more purifying than meditation which assumes a difference

between them.

`To assume that there is an ultimate distinction between the Lord

and the meditator is to deny His total presence and to limit His

being and Power and Knowledge. It involves the person in all the

contradictions of dualism, causing one to wrestle with imagined

problems of identity and behaviour which only strengthen the ego.

Nevertheless, at a certain level of devotional meditation, the

Maharshi accepted a dualistic approach as helpful. He Himself wrote

poems of great beauty and deep devotion to Arunachala. Sankara too

wrote devotional hymns, seemingly dualist in tone but ultimately

moving the devotee toward a sense of oneness with the Lord. In any

case the final necessity is for the meditator is to turn his

attention inward to the Self rather than outward toward any image or

concept, no matter how sacred.'

In Guru Raman's Grace

Love

anu

May 16, 2004

Namaste Smt.Anu,

The content retained here from your earlier posting reminds me of a shloka that

is recited in almost every vaidik household who perform daily puja at home as

also in all temples:

dEho dEvAlayah prOkto jIvo dEvah sanAtanaha |

tyajEd ajnAna nirmAlyam sOham bhAvEna pUjayet ||

Body is a temple resided by jiva, verily the eternal God bound by ajnana. By

discarding ajnana, the eternal God is to be worshipped in the soham bhava.

This is recited in the initial stages of puja. Focussing attention on outward

image or concept alongwith practice of what is stated above necessarily formed

part of ritual worship

The flowers that are offered to the idol of worship are removed the following

day making way for the next day's puja with fresh flowers. The discarded

flowers are called nirmaalya.

The mental nirmaalya of ajnana, or the fleeting identities, are to be discarded

to proceed with the day's puja in soham bhava. In due course this practice of

soham bhava with Ishta Devata helps in leading to full fledged self-enquiry.

This instruction is in place since ages but has lost its significance by

recitation as a matter of routine than applying one's mind to what one is

chanting and following the instruction. The rites and rituals have got

prominence conveniently forgetting the bhava in which they should be performed.

As such soham bhava had to be stressed separately.

In Bhagavan's grace

Nagaraja

anupadayachi <anupadayachi (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

My own search today led me to 'Sri Maharshi's Way -Upadesa Saram'translation and

commentary by D M Sastri: bheda-bhaavanaat soham-ityasau bhaavanaa

`bhida paavanii mataa8. Meditation on the identity of the individual and the

Lord, "Iam He", is more purifying than meditation which assumes a difference

between them."In any case the final necessity is for the meditator is to turn

his attention inward to the Self rather than outward toward any image or

concept, no matter how sacred.'In Guru Raman's GraceLoveanu

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

May 17, 2004

Dear Sri Nagaraja

Namaste

Thank you for this shloka and the fuller explanation of it. It

illustrates very beautifully the step by step approach needed to a

sound understanding and lasting relatiotionship with, and

realization of `soham bhava.'

"The mental nirmaalya of ajnana, or the fleeting identities, are to

be discarded to proceed with the day's puja in soham bhava. In due

course this practice of soham bhava with Ishta Devata helps in

leading to full fledged self-enquiry."

I am reminded of my visit to the ancient enormous Hoysala temple in

Belur-Karnataka few years ago...On the outside, elaborate

exquisite carvings depicting every possible gross human experience-–

can entrance you and engage your attention for hours on end...Then

when you have had enough of it, you cross the threshold and enter

the quieter middle sanctum where the carvings narrate experiences of

finer sentiments and aspirations...and finally with the mind quite

benumbed by this time, you aproach the innermost sanctum where in

deep silence you come face to face with the simple stark shrine of

the Deity.

"This instruction is in place since ages but has lost its

significance by recitation as a matter of routine than applying

one's mind to what one is chanting and following the instruction.

The rites and rituals have got prominence conveniently forgetting

the bhava in which they should be performed. As such soham bhava

had to be stressed separately."

This is very true. The desire to apply one's mind to the

teachings

needs to be kindled from a young age. Without that, teachings can

get misconstrued and misused.

Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)

because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they

have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is

spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because

it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority

of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis

when you find that anything agrees with reason

and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all

then accept it and live up to it.

~Buddha

(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

In Ramana's Grace

Regards,

anu

RamanaMaharshi, Nagaraja Pani

<swayanjata> wrote:

> Namaste Smt.Anu,

>

> The content retained here from your earlier posting reminds me of

a shloka that is recited in almost every vaidik household who

perform daily puja at home as also in all temples:

>

> dEho dEvAlayah prOkto jIvo dEvah sanAtanaha |

> tyajEd ajnAna nirmAlyam sOham bhAvEna pUjayet ||

>

> Body is a temple resided by jiva, verily the eternal God bound by

ajnana. By discarding ajnana, the eternal God is to be worshipped

in the soham bhava.

>

> This is recited in the initial stages of puja. Focussing attention

on outward image or concept alongwith practice of what is stated

above necessarily formed part of ritual worship

>

> The flowers that are offered to the idol of worship are removed

the following day making way for the next day's puja with fresh

flowers. The discarded flowers are called nirmaalya.

>

> The mental nirmaalya of ajnana, or the fleeting identities, are to

be discarded to proceed with the day's puja in soham bhava. In due

course this practice of soham bhava with Ishta Devata helps in

leading to full fledged self-enquiry.

>

> This instruction is in place since ages but has lost its

significance by recitation as a matter of routine than applying

one's mind to what one is chanting and following the instruction.

The rites and rituals have got prominence conveniently forgetting

the bhava in which they should be performed. As such soham bhava

had to be stressed separately.

>

> In Bhagavan's grace

> Nagaraja

>

May 17, 2004

Dear Smt. Anu, Sri.Nagaraja and others:

thanks for your postings and quotes...

in my thinking I get confused often about self-inquiry as a path and

the goal..

on the one hand self-inquiry as a path and the proponents encourage

analysis and 'reasoning' of what is real and what is not but on the

other hand when you ask specifics or "details of the goal" and ask

people who have attained the goal to 'identify' it and 'distinguish'

it from other similar states, they say 'IT is beyond the

comprehension of mind and buddhi'.

Thus they conclude: "'simply' practice and you will see it yourself"..

so the question that comes to mind often is 'how do i practice

something without knowing how to know (or uniquely identify) the goal'

may be, I am dealing only in the level of intellect and hence all

these questions but isn't there a close relationship between

intellect and intuition?

this is not to say that none of what people said gave me an idea; for

instance,

one of the definitions of the goal that sounded very practical to me

was:

if after reaching a particular state in one's sadhana (or practice of

self-inquiry), one awakens to the world but DO NOT feel anymore that

they need to get back to sadhana, then they can take it that their

individual 'I' is once and for all removed.

love to all, Murthy

RamanaMaharshi, "anupadayachi"

<anupadayachi> wrote:

> Dear Sri Nagaraja

> Namaste

> Thank you for this shloka and the fuller explanation of it. It

> illustrates very beautifully the step by step approach needed to a

> sound understanding and lasting relatiotionship with, and

> realization of `soham bhava.'

May 17, 2004

Dear Murthy,

Comments, if I may:

First, inquiry is the path. The goal is Self-knowledge (the knowledge

that, indeed, all is Brahman, and I am That.). Nome says that this

knowledge is at the same non-conceptual level is your knowledge of

your own existence).

Sages say much about what it is like. They say "Beyond a

Second,The source of Bliss itself,Birthless and deathless<" and

many more such things. They use these descriptions to describe what

cannot be expressed in words.

Now for us seekers, there is a process that I see described in many –

places. One form of this is: Listen (or read), Contemplate, then

deeply meditate to see for yourself how this is the truth. Another

form of this that I see described in Song of Ribhu (the Tamil Ribhu

Gita) is like this: The seeker comes to conviction (bhava) about the

Truth. After (for me, anyway) much inquiry. The conviction starts

moving to certainty. When this certainty gets firm (after the inquiry

and discrimination have removed all the mis-identifications) comes

Self-knowledge, which is itself, Self-realization or enlightenment.

>From what I see in my own practice, there is a mental component.

Certainly conviction and certainty start out as mental. And

they "point" beyond the merely mental to WHO YOU ARE.

Now, Sages say that what you are, you ALWAYS are. What is it within

you that is always there? That is always true? That does not depend

on any state (waking, dreaming or deep sleep)?

In terms of practice, do not concern yourself too much with "Do you

see a world?" or such. The real question is "How do you see your own

identity?" If as a body, or a particular person, or as a separate

individual, or as "This one, over here," then it is time to keep the

inquiry going. For whom is this individual? From where does this

sense of identity arise?

They call Self-realization "Beyond all states." If there is a state,

there is one who knows that state. Who is it that knows? (They call

him `the unknown knower of all the known).

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, "manof678" <manof678>

wrote:

> Dear Smt. Anu, Sri.Nagaraja and others:

>

> thanks for your postings and quotes...

>

> in my thinking I get confused often about self-inquiry as a path

and

> the goal..

>

> on the one hand self-inquiry as a path and the proponents encourage

> analysis and 'reasoning' of what is real and what is not but on the

> other hand when you ask specifics or "details of the goal" and ask

> people who have attained the goal to 'identify' it

and 'distinguish'

> it from other similar states, they say 'IT is beyond the

> comprehension of mind and buddhi'.

>

> Thus they conclude: "'simply' practice and you will see it

yourself"..

>

> so the question that comes to mind often is 'how do i practice

> something without knowing how to know (or uniquely identify) the

goal'

>

> may be, I am dealing only in the level of intellect and hence all

> these questions but isn't there a close relationship between

> intellect and intuition?

>

> this is not to say that none of what people said gave me an idea;

for

> instance,

>

> one of the definitions of the goal that sounded very practical to

me

> was:

>

> if after reaching a particular state in one's sadhana (or practice

of

> self-inquiry), one awakens to the world but DO NOT feel anymore

that

> they need to get back to sadhana, then they can take it that their

> individual 'I' is once and for all removed.

>

> love to all, Murthy

>

> RamanaMaharshi, "anupadayachi"

> <anupadayachi> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Nagaraja

> > Namaste

> > Thank you for this shloka and the fuller explanation of it. It

> > illustrates very beautifully the step by step approach needed to

a

> > sound understanding and lasting relatiotionship with, and

> > realization of `soham bhava.'

May 18, 2004

Dear Murthy,

--- manof678 <manof678 wrote:

> Dear Smt. Anu, Sri.Nagaraja and others:

>

> thanks for your postings and quotes...

>

> in my thinking I get confused often about

> self-inquiry as a path and

> the goal..

I don't believe for a moment that self-inquiry is the

"goal".

> on the one hand self-inquiry as a path and the

> proponents encourage

> analysis and 'reasoning' of what is real and what is

> not

Perhaps some practicioners of self-inquiry advocate

discrimination between the "real" and the "unreal";

but personally, I wouldn't advise engaging in

discrimination between the "real" and the "unreal".

And furthermore, I don't believe that such

discrimination is necessary for practicing

self-inquiry. I don't believe that anything is

"unreal". This whole notion of real and unreal is a

crutch that has been developed of millenia by persons

who are completley bewildered by life. I discount

those notions entirely.

> but on the

> other hand when you ask specifics or "details of the

> goal" and ask

> people who have attained the goal to 'identify' it

> and 'distinguish'

> it from other similar states, they say 'IT is beyond

> the

> comprehension of mind and buddhi'.

Really, it is beyond words. Words are only usefull

when describing or relating commonly known objects or

experiences. If I say "tree", then most people will

sort of know what I'm talking about although I could

be referring to any kind of tree; but as we move into

more and more specifics about the kind of tree I am

referring to I might completley lose the audience.

For instance, if I ask "Have you seen a "bottle-brush"

tree?", many persons probably wouldn't know what I was

talking about. They might not know whether they've

seen a "bottle-brush" tree or not because one may have

never been pointed out to them. So generally speaking

the word tree is understood by most persons; but as we

get more and more specific about relatively rare

species, the listeners may find themselves to be

completely lost. Pain is another good example, I

might tell you that I have a pain in my knee. I could

try to explain the intensity, and nature of the pain.

And in the end, the listener would have some idea of

my pain becasue they are familiar with pain; but

wouldn't be able to understand it completely.

So, the more common an object is, the easier it is to

describe it to someone. Then as we attempt to

describe experiences rather than objects, even common

experiences can be difficult to relate to someone.

And when we start speaking about mystical states that

very few people know about it is virtually impossible

to describe them. Mystical states are also difficult

to talk about because the "terms" that must be used to

try to describe these conditions can easily be

confused and misunderstood. This leads to endless

discussions that go nowhere.

> Thus they conclude: "'simply' practice and you will

> see it yourself"..

>

> so the question that comes to mind often is 'how do

> i practice

> something without knowing how to know (or uniquely

> identify) the goal'

Then don't worry about it. Don't practice. That's up

to you. But if I think that I want to go to Paris, I

will never know what Paris is like until I go there.

I can see movies and read books and talk to Parisians

and other persons who have been there; but I will

never experience Paris until I go there myself.

Before I ever went to India, I knew many, many Hindus

who had been born and raised in India. I had been

immersed in Hindu culture from afar for many years. I

sat at the feet of Hindu teachers, etc. I knew many,

many people who had gone to India and related their

experiences to me. But none of this really prepared me

for my own experience of India when I went there. All

of my so-called learning was nothing compared to what

I experienced when I got there. It really wasn't

anything like I thought it would be.

> may be, I am dealing only in the level of intellect

> and hence all

> these questions

So, dear Murthy, you are simply being controlled by

your own mind. The mind is the highest faculty that

you know and it seems to me that your mind has control

of you. Break the control the puny mind has over you

and don't let it make demands.

> but isn't there a close relationship

> between

> intellect and intuition?

Not really.

Warmest regards,

michael

May 18, 2004

Dear Murthy,

I do not want to add confusion, and have NO desire to engage in some

kind of "argument" with anyone. BUT I feel a need to comment on

Michael's advice NOT to use discrimination in self-inquiry practice.

Discrimination has deep roots in Advaita Vedanta teaching. Certainly

it was clearly one of Sankara's Requisites of Realization. It is also

at the heart of the instruction in the Ribhu Gita. In "Who am I,"

collected from the earliest teachings of Ramana, the following is

found:

--------------------

"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.

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).

-----------------------

This sounds to me like Ramana taught discrimination as a part of Self-

inquiry.

Nome says that since you are already who you are, that Self-

realization consists primarily in removing the erroneous concepts.

Discrimination combined with inquiry does just this.

In my own practice I see that discrimination deepens and strengthens

inquiry. As, for example, I see more and more deeply that "the body

does not say 'I,'" my drive for inquiry becomes more intense. "IF I

AM NOT THIS BODY, JUST WHO AM I?

I assume from Michael's comments that he has attained great spiritual

depth from "consciousness watching consciousness." This is wonderful.

If does not, though, deny the effectiveness of discrimination, as a

part of a Self-inquiry practice. If discrimination were not deeply

beneficial to this spiritual practice, it would not have been

recommended for thousands of years.

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, Michael Bowes

<rmichaelbowes> wrote:

> Dear Murthy,

>

> --- manof678 <manof678> wrote:

> > Dear Smt. Anu, Sri.Nagaraja and others:

> >

> > thanks for your postings and quotes...

> >

> > in my thinking I get confused often about

> > self-inquiry as a path and

> > the goal..

>

> I don't believe for a moment that self-inquiry is the

> "goal".

>

> > on the one hand self-inquiry as a path and the

> > proponents encourage

> > analysis and 'reasoning' of what is real and what is

> > not

>

> Perhaps some practicioners of self-inquiry advocate

> discrimination between the "real" and the "unreal";

> but personally, I wouldn't advise engaging in

> discrimination between the "real" and the "unreal".

> And furthermore, I don't believe that such

> discrimination is necessary for practicing

> self-inquiry. I don't believe that anything is

> "unreal". This whole notion of real and unreal is a

> crutch that has been developed of millenia by persons

> who are completley bewildered by life. I discount

> those notions entirely.

>

> > but on the

> > other hand when you ask specifics or "details of the

> > goal" and ask

> > people who have attained the goal to 'identify' it

> > and 'distinguish'

> > it from other similar states, they say 'IT is beyond

> > the

> > comprehension of mind and buddhi'.

>

> Really, it is beyond words. Words are only usefull

> when describing or relating commonly known objects or

> experiences. If I say "tree", then most people will

> sort of know what I'm talking about although I could

> be referring to any kind of tree; but as we move into

> more and more specifics about the kind of tree I am

> referring to I might completley lose the audience.

> For instance, if I ask "Have you seen a "bottle-brush"

> tree?", many persons probably wouldn't know what I was

> talking about. They might not know whether they've

> seen a "bottle-brush" tree or not because one may have

> never been pointed out to them. So generally speaking

> the word tree is understood by most persons; but as we

> get more and more specific about relatively rare

> species, the listeners may find themselves to be

> completely lost. Pain is another good example, I

> might tell you that I have a pain in my knee. I could

> try to explain the intensity, and nature of the pain.

> And in the end, the listener would have some idea of

> my pain becasue they are familiar with pain; but

> wouldn't be able to understand it completely.

>

> So, the more common an object is, the easier it is to

> describe it to someone. Then as we attempt to

> describe experiences rather than objects, even common

> experiences can be difficult to relate to someone.

> And when we start speaking about mystical states that

> very few people know about it is virtually impossible

> to describe them. Mystical states are also difficult

> to talk about because the "terms" that must be used to

> try to describe these conditions can easily be

> confused and misunderstood. This leads to endless

> discussions that go nowhere.

>

> > Thus they conclude: "'simply' practice and you will

> > see it yourself"..

> >

> > so the question that comes to mind often is 'how do

> > i practice

> > something without knowing how to know (or uniquely

> > identify) the goal'

>

> Then don't worry about it. Don't practice. That's up

> to you. But if I think that I want to go to Paris, I

> will never know what Paris is like until I go there.

> I can see movies and read books and talk to Parisians

> and other persons who have been there; but I will

> never experience Paris until I go there myself.

> Before I ever went to India, I knew many, many Hindus

> who had been born and raised in India. I had been

> immersed in Hindu culture from afar for many years. I

> sat at the feet of Hindu teachers, etc. I knew many,

> many people who had gone to India and related their

> experiences to me. But none of this really prepared me

> for my own experience of India when I went there. All

> of my so-called learning was nothing compared to what

> I experienced when I got there. It really wasn't

> anything like I thought it would be.

>

> > may be, I am dealing only in the level of intellect

> > and hence all

> > these questions

>

> So, dear Murthy, you are simply being controlled by

> your own mind. The mind is the highest faculty that

> you know and it seems to me that your mind has control

> of you. Break the control the puny mind has over you

> and don't let it make demands.

>

> > but isn't there a close relationship

> > between

> > intellect and intuition?

>

> Not really.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> michael

May 18, 2004

Dear Richard and everyone,

--- Richard Clarke <rclarke wrote:

> Dear Murthy,

>

> I do not want to add confusion, and have NO desire

> to engage in some

> kind of "argument" with anyone.

Neither do I. There is a vast difference between a

discussion and an argument.

> BUT I feel a need to

> comment on

> Michael's advice NOT to use discrimination in

> self-inquiry practice.

> Discrimination has deep roots in Advaita Vedanta

> teaching.

There's no question about it.

> Certainly

> it was clearly one of Sankara's Requisites of

> Realization.

Probably so.

> It is also

> at the heart of the instruction in the Ribhu Gita.

I don't know; but I believe you.

> In "Who am I,"

> collected from the earliest teachings of Ramana, the

> following is

> found:

>

--------------------

> "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.

>

> 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).

>

-----------------------

>

> This sounds to me like Ramana taught discrimination

> as a part of Self-

> inquiry.

I know that that is true. Ramana advocated many

things at different times. Ramana either liked to say

nothing, or advocate self-inquiry, or inquire into the

nature of the person and sometimes ask about the

current spiritual practices of the individual and

recommend that practice to them that they are already

doing. Even to this day, nearly every variation of

Hinduism finds a place at Ramana Ashrama.

It doesn't matter what bona fide spiritual practice

you do, it will take you there. You know - the "All

roads lead to Rome" thing.

> Nome says that since you are already who you are,

> that Self-

> realization consists primarily in removing the

> erroneous concepts.

> Discrimination combined with inquiry does just this.

I understand what Nome is saying and many of the

neo-advaitists are saying the same thing; but I do not

to that myself.

> In my own practice I see that discrimination deepens

> and strengthens

> inquiry. As, for example, I see more and more deeply

> that "the body

> does not say 'I,'" my drive for inquiry becomes more

> intense. "IF I

> AM NOT THIS BODY, JUST WHO AM I?

I believe you.

> I assume from Michael's comments that he has

> attained great spiritual

> depth from "consciousness watching consciousness."

As far as I know I've never practiced "consciousness

watching consciousness" in this lifetime.

SNIP

> If discrimination

> were not deeply

> beneficial to this spiritual practice, it would not

> have been

> recommended for thousands of years.

I know that it is a bona fide sspiritualpractice. But

I don't recommend it because it for this reason:

Nothing unreal exists. So what is there to

discriminate about? Nothing but the all pervading,

all powerful, eternal SELF exists. How does something

unreal exist? If it's unreal then it doesn't exist.

So then I don't know what it is you're seeing or

feeling that you think that you can negate.

But many things that we experience are impermanent

manifestations, limited appearances of the one sole

reality. If it is important to you, I could provide

you with many, many references to the fact that the

that the classic advaitic texts actually mean

"impermanence" rather than "unreality". But it

doesn't matter to me.

Here are some of Ramakrishna's words:

MASTER: "The jnani reasons about the world through the

process of "Neti, neti', and at last reaches the

Eternal and Indivisible Satchidananda. He reasons in

this manner: 'Brahman is not the living beings; It is

neither the universe nor the twenty-four cosmic

principles.' As a result of such reasoning he attains

the Absolute. Then he realizes that it is the

Absolute that has become all this--the universe, its

living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic principles."

So I understand that discrimination is a method of

attaining the Absolute; but I am saying two things:

1. Once one attains the absolute one realizes that

nothing is unreal. One realizes that "...it is the

Absolute that has become all this--the universe, its

living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic principles."

2. The practice of discrimination is a very dry, dry

path and I don't think that most westerners or even

westernized Hindus are suited for it. And if I were in

the "advocation" business, which I'm not, I wouldn't

advocate it.

In the end it proves to be FALSE. Even now everyone

knows that something unreal could not possibly exist.

Warmest regards,

michael

May 18, 2004

Dear Michael and all,

First, to apologize for mischaracterizing your practice as

consciousness watching consciousness. I was obviously mistaken here,

and confused you with another. I am not really sure what it is that

you would say is your practice.

I never, in what was written had said that discrimination is the

primary practice. Self-inquiry continues to be what I practice.

Discrimination, I have found in my practice, is a real help to that

inquiry. Were I standing identity as the Self, the non-creation of

all would be obvious. Were I standing as that identity I would not

need any spiritual practice. Also, I do not find discrimination to be

in any way "dry."

On to the discussion. That is a beneficial way to look at it, thanks.

Now, "What is Enlightenment?"

> > Nome says that since you are already who you are,

> > that Self-

> > realization consists primarily in removing the

> > erroneous concepts.

> > Discrimination combined with inquiry does just this.

>

> I understand what Nome is saying and many of the

> neo-advaitists are saying the same thing; but I do not

> to that myself.

What is it that you see as Enlightenment, and what is it that "leads

to" Enlightenment?

Is Enlightenment something that is attained, or some kind of

transformation?

My understanding is as expressed above by one you characterize

as "neo-advaitists." (By the way, it may be in this kind of

characterization you are rubricizing some very different teachings

and teachers into one convenient (mis)-labeling.): The Absolute is

all, and I am That. Since I am That already, there is nothing needed

to be "added." Practice, then, is the "shift" in identity from a

separate "individual" to the Identity as That. Whatever fosters

this "shift," may further the practice. (note: "shift" is my own

wording – I have never heard this used by a Sage. I do hear Sages

speak of this as Knowledge—Knowledge of who I am, Self-Knowledge).

What does it take to resolve ignorance? Knowledge. What resolves

darkness? Light. When the light comes, where does the darkness go?

When the rope that is-seen-as-a snake is known to be a rope, what

happens to the snake? Did it ever exist?

Discrimination supports my changing "stand" from a jiva to the

Absolute. When the "stand" is as the Absolute, there is no need for

discrimination (and, I hear, no self and other which to

discriminate).

To your closing words …

> So I understand that discrimination is a method of

> attaining the Absolute; but I am saying two things:

>

> 1. Once one attains the absolute one realizes that

> nothing is unreal. One realizes that "...it is the

> Absolute that has become all this--the universe, its

> living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic principles."

>

> 2. The practice of discrimination is a very dry, dry

> path and I don't think that most westerners or even

> westernized Hindus are suited for it. And if I were in

> the "advocation" business, which I'm not, I wouldn't

> advocate it.

>

> In the end it proves to be FALSE. Even now everyone

> knows that something unreal could not possibly exist.

As I understand it, a prime advaita teaching is that "All is

Brahman." From this view, it is taught that even ignorance is

Brahman. So from this view, if all is Brahman, how can anything be

unreal? BUT, if I keep seeing my identity as THIS BODY, I will never

know myself as Brahman. (So for me, back to the inquiry.) As a

seeker, I look for what is the source of "my" reality, of my

identity, or my being.

In terms of advocacy, what can any of us do but share with others

what we have found useful. What is the approach to practice that you

found most useful?

Not two,

Richard

RamanaMaharshi, Michael Bowes

<rmichaelbowes> wrote:

> Dear Richard and everyone,

>

> --- Richard Clarke <rclarke@s...> wrote:

> > Dear Murthy,

> >

> > I do not want to add confusion, and have NO desire

> > to engage in some

> > kind of "argument" with anyone.

>

> Neither do I. There is a vast difference between a

> discussion and an argument.

>

> > BUT I feel a need to

> > comment on

> > Michael's advice NOT to use discrimination in

> > self-inquiry practice.

>

> > Discrimination has deep roots in Advaita Vedanta

> > teaching.

>

> There's no question about it.

>

> > Certainly

> > it was clearly one of Sankara's Requisites of

> > Realization.

>

> Probably so.

>

> > It is also

> > at the heart of the instruction in the Ribhu Gita.

>

> I don't know; but I believe you.

>

> > In "Who am I,"

> > collected from the earliest teachings of Ramana, the

> > following is

> > found:

> >

> --------------------

> > "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.

> >

> > 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).

> >

> -----------------------

> >

> > This sounds to me like Ramana taught discrimination

> > as a part of Self-

> > inquiry.

>

> I know that that is true. Ramana advocated many

> things at different times. Ramana either liked to say

> nothing, or advocate self-inquiry, or inquire into the

> nature of the person and sometimes ask about the

> current spiritual practices of the individual and

> recommend that practice to them that they are already

> doing. Even to this day, nearly every variation of

> Hinduism finds a place at Ramana Ashrama.

>

> It doesn't matter what bona fide spiritual practice

> you do, it will take you there. You know - the "All

> roads lead to Rome" thing.

>

> > Nome says that since you are already who you are,

> > that Self-

> > realization consists primarily in removing the

> > erroneous concepts.

> > Discrimination combined with inquiry does just this.

>

> I understand what Nome is saying and many of the

> neo-advaitists are saying the same thing; but I do not

> to that myself.

>

> > In my own practice I see that discrimination deepens

> > and strengthens

> > inquiry. As, for example, I see more and more deeply

> > that "the body

> > does not say 'I,'" my drive for inquiry becomes more

> > intense. "IF I

> > AM NOT THIS BODY, JUST WHO AM I?

>

> I believe you.

>

> > I assume from Michael's comments that he has

> > attained great spiritual

> > depth from "consciousness watching consciousness."

>

> As far as I know I've never practiced "consciousness

> watching consciousness" in this lifetime.

>

> SNIP

>

> > If discrimination

> > were not deeply

> > beneficial to this spiritual practice, it would not

> > have been

> > recommended for thousands of years.

>

> I know that it is a bona fide sspiritualpractice. But

> I don't recommend it because it for this reason:

>

> Nothing unreal exists. So what is there to

> discriminate about? Nothing but the all pervading,

> all powerful, eternal SELF exists. How does something

> unreal exist? If it's unreal then it doesn't exist.

> So then I don't know what it is you're seeing or

> feeling that you think that you can negate.

>

> But many things that we experience are impermanent

> manifestations, limited appearances of the one sole

> reality. If it is important to you, I could provide

> you with many, many references to the fact that the

> that the classic advaitic texts actually mean

> "impermanence" rather than "unreality". But it

> doesn't matter to me.

>

> Here are some of Ramakrishna's words:

>

> MASTER: "The jnani reasons about the world through the

> process of "Neti, neti', and at last reaches the

> Eternal and Indivisible Satchidananda. He reasons in

> this manner: 'Brahman is not the living beings; It is

> neither the universe nor the twenty-four cosmic

> principles.' As a result of such reasoning he attains

> the Absolute. Then he realizes that it is the

> Absolute that has become all this--the universe, its

> living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic principles."

>

> So I understand that discrimination is a method of

> attaining the Absolute; but I am saying two things:

>

> 1. Once one attains the absolute one realizes that

> nothing is unreal. One realizes that "...it is the

> Absolute that has become all this--the universe, its

> living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic principles."

>

> 2. The practice of discrimination is a very dry, dry

> path and I don't think that most westerners or even

> westernized Hindus are suited for it. And if I were in

> the "advocation" business, which I'm not, I wouldn't

> advocate it.

>

> In the end it proves to be FALSE. Even now everyone

> knows that something unreal could not possibly exist.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> michael

May 19, 2004

Hi Richard and everyone,

--- Richard Clarke <rclarke wrote:

> Dear Michael and all,

>

> First, to apologize for mischaracterizing your

> practice as

> consciousness watching consciousness.

> I was

> obviously mistaken here,

> and confused you with another.

I think that Michael L. is the "consciousness watching

consciousness" michael. There are a lot of michaels

out here in cyber-space and it can be really easy to

get mixed up. But apologies about something like that

aren't necessary. Actually, it's wonderful to be

accused of doing something that could be characterized

as "good".

> I am not really sure

> what it is that

> you would say is your practice.

I don't really practice anything anymore; but I used

to though.

> I never, in what was written had said that

> discrimination is the

> primary practice.

No. You didn't. :-)

> Self-inquiry continues to be what

> I practice. > Discrimination, I have found in my

practice, is a

> real help to that

> inquiry. Were I standing identity as the Self, the

> non-creation of

> all would be obvious. Were I standing as that

> identity I would not

> need any spiritual practice. Also, I do not find

> discrimination to be

> in any way "dry."

It sounds to me like you have found your optimal

practice.

> On to the discussion. That is a beneficial way to

> look at it, thanks.

>

> Now, "What is Enlightenment?"

>

> > > Nome says that since you are already who you

> are,

> > > that Self-

> > > realization consists primarily in removing the

> > > erroneous concepts.

> > > Discrimination combined with inquiry does just

> this.

> >

> > I understand what Nome is saying and many of the

> > neo-advaitists are saying the same thing; but I do

> not

> > to that myself.

> >

> What is it that you see as Enlightenment, and what

> is it that "leads

> to" Enlightenment?

Perhaps there is a "final condition". I don't know. I

don't believe in a "final condition", i.e,

"enlightenment". But I do know that radical changes

in a person's life and outlook can occur.

> Is Enlightenment something that is attained, or some

> kind of

> transformation?

Changes do occur. Changes that are made deliberately

to the body/mind organism can result in IT being tuned

to a channel or level that is not common to the human

race at large. When persons are tuned to various

channels, persons experience the same Universal

Reality in different ways.

> My understanding is as expressed above by one you

> characterize

> as "neo-advaitists." (By the way, it may be in this

> kind of

> characterization you are rubricizing some very

> different teachings

> and teachers into one convenient (mis)-labeling.):

> The Absolute is

> all, and I am That. Since I am That already, there

> is nothing needed

> to be "added."

Yes, the "...nothing needed to be added..." approach

is what I mostly refer to as the "neo-advaitist"

philosophy. This is a wonderful philosophy. In a

sense it is true. But I don't think that it ends up

producing the desired results for most seekers.

> Practice, then, is the "shift" in

> identity from a

> separate "individual" to the Identity as That.

> Whatever fosters

> this "shift," may further the practice. (note:

> "shift" is my own

> wording – I have never heard this used by a Sage.

I like the use of the word "shift".

> I

> do hear Sages

> speak of this as Knowledge—Knowledge of who I am,

> Self-Knowledge).

> What does it take to resolve ignorance? Knowledge.

> What resolves

> darkness? Light. When the light comes, where does

> the darkness go?

> When the rope that is-seen-as-a snake is known to be

> a rope, what

> happens to the snake? Did it ever exist?

I don't have any questions along those lines. I don't

have any answers to all that either.

> Discrimination supports my changing "stand" from a

> jiva to the

> Absolute. When the "stand" is as the Absolute, there

> is no need for

> discrimination (and, I hear, no self and other which

> to

> discriminate).

Sure. As we agreed earlier, discrimination is a bona

fide spiritual technique and I'm truly happy to know

that you find it to be useful in your life.

> To your closing words …

>

> > So I understand that discrimination is a method of

> > attaining the Absolute; but I am saying two

> things:

> >

> > 1. Once one attains the absolute one realizes that

> > nothing is unreal. One realizes that "...it is

> the

> > Absolute that has become all this--the universe,

> its

> > living beings, an the twenty-four cosmic

> principles."

> >

> > 2. The practice of discrimination is a very dry,

> dry

> > path and I don't think that most westerners or

> even

> > westernized Hindus are suited for it. And if I

> were in

> > the "advocation" business, which I'm not, I

> wouldn't

> > advocate it.

> >

> > In the end it proves to be FALSE. Even now

> everyone

> > knows that something unreal could not possibly

> exist.

>

> As I understand it, a prime advaita teaching is that

> "All is

> Brahman." From this view, it is taught that even

> ignorance is

> Brahman. So from this view, if all is Brahman, how

> can anything be

> unreal?

> BUT, if I keep seeing my identity as THIS

> BODY, I will never

> know myself as Brahman.

Allow me to share something from my own life. At a

time when I still probably identified with the body to

a certain degree, I was suddenly and unexpectedly

drawn into the heart where I experienced the

SELF/ABSOLUTE/BRAHMAN/SATCHIDANANDA/or whatever you

want to call it. This happened before I knew of

Ramana Maharshi or his teachings of the "heart". It

was before, I began the practice of atma-vichara. It

was before I had even heard of it. It came at a time

when I still thought that I was a jiva - what a shock

I experienced. I nearly died. I was in horrible pain

for weeks. None of the doctors could figure out what

was wrong. I just resigned myself to death and

perhaps that was part of the process.

So, I know for a fact that you don't have to practice

inquiry or discrimination to find out, "Who I am".

What you are is not a "...less and less and less of

something..."; but a "...more and more and more..."

unto infinity - Infinite existence consciousness and

bliss. This indescribable, beautiful, awesome, BEING

is the heart. It's nothing like one would imagine by

listening to the lectures of the "pure consciousness"

school. I weep to think of how people can be

"short-changed" in this regard.

> (So for me, back to the

> inquiry.) As a

> seeker, I look for what is the source of "my"

> reality, of my

> identity, or my being.

>

> In terms of advocacy, what can any of us do but

> share with others

> what we have found useful. What is the approach to

> practice that you

> found most useful?

Well, what I've done isn't necessarily what might be

optimal for others. But it started out when I was

born into a very religious family. It progressed from

there to classic yoga. Not the "I want a pretty body"

yoga; but yoga taken up with the aim of realization.

Step by step through the eight limbs - IT just

progressed on and on, even through self-inquiry, until

it wasn't needed anymore. Specifically, though, I

think that the one single aspect that was most

beneficial for me was - constant, unceasing japam in

rhythm with the breath.

Warmest regards,

michael

May 19, 2004

dear murthy,

For me it is like this.We are all aware of those puzzles

that rely on optical illusions.Usually they contain two ways of seeing

things , with one way being more apparent than the other. Now for a whole

host of reasons there may come a point where that which previously seemed

impossible to percieve becomes obvious.

Prior to that we have to depend on the promise that we know there

is something hidden in the illusion-this might equate to a state of

awakening. After that we have to rely on the testimony of those who have

seen the alternative view, for they can easily move between seeing the two

ways of seeing the illusion-as a jnani can be enlightened but still have

compassion for those deluded by maya.

The person who has seen the alternative view may even give us

pointers/techniques on how to see through the illusion. Until we have full

experience of the other way of seeing things we

have to have faith in those who can see it. We also have to have deep faith

in the advice they offer on how to see the alternative state.

regards michael dillon

>"Richard Clarke" <rclarke

>RamanaMaharshi

>[RamanaMaharshi] Re: FROM SAD VIDYA V39

>Tue, 18 May 2004 00:59:20 -0000

>

_______________

Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger

http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

RamanaMaharshi

In-<c8bhiq+6o8t

User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

"Richard Clarke" rclarke

Mailing-List: list RamanaMaharshi; contact RamanaMaharshi-owner

Tue, 18 May 2004 00:59:20 -0000

[RamanaMaharshi] Re: FROM SAD VIDYA V39