Todd

In Chinese there are a bunch of words related to knowledge and other mental functions that incorporate the word for "body"- “体” A list from my dictionary: 体察-lit. "body scrutinize" to experience, to observe 体会-lit. "body able" to realize, to learn through personal experience 体谅-lit. "body forgive" to make allowances for, to be considerate 体念-lit. "body think of/miss/read aloud" to put oneself in someone else's shoes 体认-lit. "body recognize/know" to realize, to perceive intuitively 体悟-lit. "body realize/awaken" to realize 体惜-lit. "body cherish/pity" to understand and sympathize with 体现-lit. "body present" to embody, to reflect, to exemplify 体验-lit. "body examine" to experience for oneself/learn from experience I find it interesting that these are not the only words for these types of knowledge. There are other words for observation, consideration, knowing, realizing, etc, that do not include the word for body, which seem to be more commonly used. I do not have the sort of experience with Chinese that I can speak of the differences in how these are used in varying contexts, or even how they are used in the most common ways. The only one that I have personally encountered is 体会-"body able" and that is what led me to discover all these other words. I mention this because this extra set of vocabulary for knowledge seems to fit my experiences of knowledge. It is a worthwhile and vital realization that the sort of knowledge that stays in our heads is very limited and ultimately unsatisfactory, if not downright misleading and generally trouble making. It is vital to realize that truth can be apprehended in an instant, just as soon as we stop referring to this accumulated "knowledge" and basically just open to what is actually happening before we tell a story about it. However, there is a world beyond that realization. Many of the words that I listed above hint at different sorts of knowledge and realization. For example, there is knowing how to build a table in theory, and then there is actually being able to build a table that feels solid and looks nice without taking forever to build. The same goes for any number of pursuits. The number of "experts" willing to tell one how a given thing should be done often seems to be much greater than the number of people who can actually do a thing well. One of the key differences is that the person who can do a thing well hasn't merely abstracted limited experience into "knowledge" but has allowed their experiences to sink into their bodies, such that they can respond in a whole way, both body and mind, which is what is truly effective. What if we look at a similar dynamic in terms of realization? Lets say a door opens up into "where distinction never gazed". I don't know how to explain this, but in my experience this opening, though it feels complete, is not complete. It is actually an invitation to encounter everything and to know it as what one has realized. The strong tendency might be to pull away from anything that seems to be mired in unnecessary complexity, but a great gift is that we still have these bodies, which are anything but simple. If you really look into them, there is no end to what you might see. And if we are pulling away from the manifestations of the world, or trying to simplify them down to some concept, such as "merely manifestations of the the One", then our bodies will have something to say about that eventually. They will basically be like, "Hey! What about me!?" Within them can be found a richness of realization, which, though not fundamentally different, can never be encountered until we let go of the safety of the "One", or the "No-thing" or whatever concept we have got it all wrapped up into. The world is found there too.

Hi Hagar, I'm interested in this. What do you mean when you say its no biggie? As in not a flashy realization? Thanks Todd

I am inspired to ask this question in light of our different approaches to the matter. I'll give it a first go. I'll just begin with the example of conversation. I find that conversation in the correct spirit can be a powerful alchemical tool. With one friend in particular, I found myself accessing all sorts of interesting states with nothing more than some tea and a conversation until 5 am. It probably helped that I had no concept of spirituality beyond something that I wasn't much interested in. The concepts of spirituality do not much hinder our conversations now, though... they are still in the same spirit. Posting on this form seems like a form of alchemy at times, as well. It is both a powerful distraction and a stimulating force. Our views come up, and are challenged. We rub off on one another. I can find it difficult to sleep after posting something on here. It just stirs up so much energy, and attachment. At times I want to stay away from the forum, if only to free up time, but my integrity keeps pulling me back (mysteriously to me). Then there are the more traditional forms of alchemy, such as meditation, breathwork, mindfulness, meditative and/or spontaneous movement. These are some of the activities that the mind first calls up when alchemy is mentioned in the Daoist context. There may be disagreements about what actually constitutes alchemy, however. Perhaps one person feels visualizing qi moving is just mental masturbation, while another cannot imagine alchemy without it. Or else one needs to visualize just this thing, or do just that, to make this, which one trades for that, and so on. I feel that all programmatic notions of alchemy are incomplete. They may have powerful uses and effects, but they are weakened by their predetermined nature. They create the mind frame that alchemy is something that resides within and is the result of a practice. This in turn creates the mind frame that one is engaging in these practices to achieve some level, to make something that one can then rest on in other words. The practice becomes separate from life, even if only in very subtle ways. Those subtle separations separate heaven from hell however. So what is alchemy if it is not to be contained within any programmatic paths? Alchemy is very simple. It is happening at every moment. We do not notice it, or enjoy it, until we can recognize it and say YES. Any moment that we say YES to becomes the most powerful alchemical agent possible. This is because every time we say YES, it increases our capacity to say YES. At first it might seem like only a trickle, but thanks to the power of YES, that trickle begins to grow, until it is beyond our imagination. Most of us have already started saying YES in many ways. This movement often starts well before we are aware of it. For anyone who feels that this is too simple, I would suggest that you try it. Find something that you resist, and then say YES to it. Watch what happens when you allow what is, to actually be. What is it like to say YES and to let that YES carry through, from one moment to the next, even in pain and discomfort? The funny thing is that the moment we say YES, we lose our power, and the world begins to move us. We dive into uncertainty, right within the moment we have always known. Well thats my attempt for now. Anyone else?

Not everyone within TCM sees the left as Yang and the right as Yin. Somewhere in the classics (sorry can't be more specific, though pretty sure its in the Nei Jing) it says that the Lung descends on the right and Liver ascends on the left. The doctor who I have been following recently bases a lot of his treatments on those principles, and he maintains that when the classics were speaking of left and right, at least in this instance, they were talking about the doctor's point of view when treating a patient. If I am facing you and you are facing me, then my right hand corresponds to your left hand and vice versa. If I refer to the left side, from my point of view, then I am actually referring to your right side. With this interpretation, energy tends to rise more on the right and descends more on the left. This is more of a general tendency than a hard rule, in that on both sides of the body, energy moves in any number of directions. But this way of seeing the general tendency is opposite to the most common interpretation of what is said in the classics. There are less ambiguous statements about left and right though. For example, it is said that when the emperor gets up in the morning, he faces south, and the light from the rising sun falls on his left side, so the left side is more Yang. However, when one considers the pulses of the most commonly accepted pulse map, the right hand's pulses are all more Yang than the left hand's pulses. On the right, we have the Lung, Spleen/pancreas, and Kidney Yang. On the left we have the Heart, Liver and Kidney Yin. Why the Lung and Spleen/pancreas are more Yang than the Heart and Liver gets a little technical, and is not absolute, but the tendency is there. Also, it can be said that the left hand's pulses represent more the Blood and the right hand's pulses represent more the Qi. Altogether, what we are left with is a bit of a conundrum. There is no wide consensus within the TCM community, and, as my teacher says, the whole left and right issue is one of TCM's weak points. Though in some ways, ambiguity offers more room for creative approaches to novel situations. It also opens the door to a more nuanced way of seeing things.

I complete my master's program in TCM in a few days and I am planning on going to China in September for further exploration. My plan at the moment in to visit a few different cities/schools for a few weeks or a month each, to get a feel for where would be a good place to study at longer. Current plans are: Hangzhou, Chengdu, and Kunming. I am primarily interested in finding practitioners who have a depth of understanding. Even just a depth of understanding of physiology in Chinese medical terms, which can be translated to well chosen treatment strategies and treatments, would be appreciated. If this has developed in the context of some form of cultivation/contemplation, and goes along with a certain freedom of mind, such that learning and exploration continues, and nothing is held as sacred in the face of experience, then all the better. Any suggestions, based on first or second hand experience, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Song Yong Dao.

I had a sense that this was the case, which is part of why I'm visiting a few different places to see what comes up and go back to the one which seems most promising. It is looking like 3 months initial look around, then 8-9 more months after that. If I am compelled to stay longer, I might look into either getting a scholarship and focusing on Chinese for a year, or else teaching English to support myself while continuing studying. Really it depends on what arises. If by the end of the three months it seems obvious to come back to the States and to start a practice, then that is what I'll do. Same thing goes for spending years in China/Taiwan. I speak enough Chinese to get around but not enough to learn much of anything at a high level. Edit: Any suggestions for developing connections? I tend to see this as an outgrowth of awareness and intention, and some degree of humility. Perhaps there is some nuts and bolts stuff that it would be useful to know, though?

This is something I've been exploring recently as well, though more to do with physical pain. I'll just tell you whats come up, but keep in mind that it is very much an exploration. I would say that there is no set condition that must be met for us to recognize truth. If our state changes and the recognition of truth seems to change with it, then it means that we have confused truth with a state. This is an opportunity to explore the ways in which we are misperceiving/misconceptualizing our experience. What I seem to find, in this particular sort of misperception, is that I have identified truth with a feeling. This is interesting, since feelings come and go, and if I don't seek any particular feeling, then emptiness is clear. Another way of saying that emptiness is clear is that things take on more of their natural functioning. There are a lot of approaches to resolving mispeceptions, and it really depends on how deep you want to go. But just opening the question up is the most important part. It allows the possibility of clarification.

Sounds pretty spot on..

Scotty, There are many different definitions of enlightenment, and for very good reason. They aren't really meant to be statements of fact. This is why, if I had to choose a definition to stand by, then it would be "Enlightenment isn't what anyone thinks it is." That is if I HAD to choose. I don't even stand by that. Definitions of enlightenment are used as teaching tools. Different definitions guide attention in different directions. The usefulness of the definitions is not in holding onto the definitions, but in what happens when attention is directed in a skillful manner. I would suggest that, though it may be comprehensive to put together a long list of what has been said about enlightenment, it is not more effective than looking in the direction that one of the definitions points toward, and then staying with that until truth is revealed. The reason I say this, is because different definitions are pointing in different directions. This is not necessarily because the people who gave the definitions were aiming at different points, but because they were talking to different people. Different people have different tendencies, and so need different pointers. By way of analogy, lets say that enlightenment is a particular location in space, say 18th and Grand in Cinicinatti, OH. If you are starting in Austin, TX, then I will give you different directions to it than if you are starting Chicago, IL. In some ways, the directions would be opposite: go north vs go south. In other ways they would be the same: go east. Coming from New York, a different set of instructions is given. If I put these directions together I get: go east and north, go south and east, go north and west. We've got the bases covered for three people, but is this the best for any one of them, or for someone coming from Florida? And the thing with enlightenment is that it doesn't happen to be a particular location in space that we can then go to. It is right here, always. There isn't anything that we can do to arrive where we already are. It is only in thought that we were ever anywhere else, that we were ever anything but enlightened. Different people have different ways of thinking that they are somewhere other than enlightenment, so different pointers are given. As far as the allow everything to be as it is pointer goes, everything means everything. If there is a movement in me to send some poorly cooked food back, I'm not going to refer to the definition that I worked so hard at coming up with, and then tell myself that I shouldn't send the food back because it wouldn't be allowing everything to be as it is. That would be to take the definition conceptually, to still think that I can successfully navigate life by referring to thoughts. There would actually be a number of unseen assumptions that I would be making if I were to ignore the movement to send my food back. These assumptions are the very thing that create the denial of what is, which is enlightenment. Though if this definition doesn't do much for you, then feel free to chuck it. Its what you'd have to do eventually anyway.

Enlightenment is a word. Definitions are by agreement. If you get enough people to agree with you about what enlightenment means, then thats what it means. I guess we can take it on faith that the word enlightenment is referring to something beyond an idea, that those who used it weren't just wasting breath. That allows us to look at famous people's words, and see what they have to say about it. One that comes to mind, is that when Buddha was asked what he had gained from Supreme Enlightenment, he replied, "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called the Supreme Enlightenment." Another that comes to mind is LaoZi's insistence that it is in the not-knowing, the un-graspability of the Tao that it is known. "We meet without seeing its face/ we follow without seeing its back" (chap. 21). If it were an experience, then would not Buddha have gained that experience? And would not LaoZi have metaphorically "seen" its face? But if it is not something that happens, if there were no shift, then what is this "Supreme Enlightenment", and what is "meeting" and "following"? Things become a bit simpler when we recognize that Enlightenment is not separate from us. It is arriving where we have always been. It is acknowledging where we have always been. It is giving adoration to where we have always been. It is dying completely into what we have always been. Always means always, which means all the times that we are pretty darned sure that we aren't enlightened. It also means that if we think we have somehow BECOME enlightened, then we have missed something. It always, already was. But if this is true, then what's all the fuss about? My contention is that we have very strong tendencies to dismiss what we are in favor of what we could be, or what we were, or what we think we are. We are dying to find something tangible and real, something satisfactory. What we are missing is how satisfactory life is without that effort. What we arem issing is how amazing it is that there is something, instead of just nothing, and that it is never fixed. It is continually expressive and creative. So yes, there is experience within enlightenment, since there is experience within us, but enlightenment is not any one of those experiences. If anything its is taking our hands off of those experiences, including experiences of oneness and ease and non-duality and bliss (which are not necessarily synonymous), and allowing the entirity of expression to reveal itself in each moment. it is the recognition that we are not defined, or made special or different or lesser, by any experience. It is resting in the faith that reality is self-revealing, and it is knowing this through and through and through. It is the same letting go that happens when we admit for one moment that we really don't know, but remain interested in what is, and when we have let this penetrate to a depth such that the movement to define ourselves by any experience does not gain traction on any gross level any longer. I cannot speak to that depth, or attest to whether or not it exists. But the most important thing, from my perspective, is what direction we are headed. Are we seeking an experience to define ourselves by? Or are we allowing reality to express itself, to reveal itself in its own time, and in its own way? Returning to the quotes, again from LaoZi: "Partial means whole crooked means straight hollow means full worn-out means new less means content more means confused thus the sage holds onto the one to use in guiding the world not watching himself he appears not displaying himself he flourishes not flattering himself he succeeds not parading himself he leads because he doesn't compete no one can compete against him the ancients who said partial means whole came close indeed becoming whole depends on this" (Red Pine trans. Chap 22) And from Seng T'san, the 3rd patriarch of Zen: "To live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection. To live in this faith is the road to non-duality. Because the non-dual is one with the trusting mind." Both of these speak of a wholeness in the "partial" or "imperfection". And this is what brings us to true wholeness. So if we want to be strongly discriminating in our definition of enlightenment, then we might say that it is only the true wholeness, which we achieve or realize by recognizing that "partial means whole" or by being "without anxiety about non-perfection." But if we are continually seeking this rigorously defined enlightenment, how will we ever reach the moment of "partial means whole"? I tend to prefer practical definitions of enlightenment-- something that points to the place of true power, because its pretty much impossible to recognize what is real when we are seeking some imagined state of perfection. It is good to be able to point out the wholeness that a person recognizes when they have a "glimpse", and to say, "yes, that is it. Rest as that wholeness (which you are) and allow it to reveal itself." Another good definition, which cuts out a lot of BS is "Enlightenment isn't what you think it is." Or again, from Seng T'san: "words ! The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday no tomorrow no today." *laughing at myself and all my words*

Thanks for the heads up. Its been a long time since I read anything by Bodri, so it will be interesting to see how my perception of it has changed.

I love Finland! I'm sorry, was that too childish? Carry on.

Adyashanti's stuff. For books, I recommend Emptiness Dancing and My Secret is Silence. A lot of audio and video clips and short writings are available here. Full length satsangs are available here. There are more in the "Library" section, some of which are free. He also does an internet radio show a couple times a month. The next one is tomorrow at 6pm pacific. You can find it from the link above. Good luck! There is also a lot of video of a mixed bag of teachers available at Never Not Here. And then there is Red Pine's TaoTeChing... And most importantly, there is your own experience... It just depends on what resonates with you (which might be a lot of meditation or ignoring all teachings whatsoever).

I agree. In a way Wu Wei and non-self are just different ways of looking at the same thing. The "I" isn't so much a thing as a movement of energy, a verb. When the extra effort drops, then we are the Dao or the Self, consciously. Then there is movement without excess effort and identity without falsehood. Another way of looking at it, is that when we acknowledge the impossibility of separation, then we fall in line with the return. The movement of all things is return, from excess effort to appreciation.

37. The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth man?1 1 - This refers to a traditional story of a party of ten fools who were travelling together. They had to cross a river and on reaching the other shore wanted to check up whether all of them had got safely across. Each one counted in turn, but each one counted the nine others and forgot himself. So they thought the tenth man had been drowned and began to mourn him. Just then a traveller came past and asked them what was the matter. He at once saw the cause of their mistake and in order to convince them he made them walk past him one by one, giving each one a blow as he passed and telling them to count the strokes. Not an easy enjoinder to take, when one is viewing the world from duality. The beauty of it, however, is that it removes time. It removes the idea that reality is ever not present, that it is something that is achieved. If all of my actions and thoughts that are based upon the notion of a self, including those that are focused on seeing through the self, are merely distractions from what already is, then what am I doing? It kind've takes away the excuses, like, "I need to do this and that to get things in the right alignment to know and embody truth." Ramana seems to be saying, "No. Its much simpler than that. Just appreciate what already is." In this appreciation the seeker cannot find any point of reference, since it knows itself by the conflicts that it engages in. This might seem like confusion, or uncertainty at first, but it is pretty powerful when we acknowledge and don't move from it. When combined with earlier verses, which may or may not be a wise thing to do, an interesting picture emerges. I am thinking of the verses where he enjoins us to seek the state of the non-emergence of "I" or to seek the Reality that is always attained, or to dive into oneself with keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and to find the place whence the "I" originates... It seems like he's telling us to do something. This last verse can be seen as clarification of that. Our doing cannot be based upon the idea of a separate self. To act upon that is to perpetuate illusion, to give energy to illusion. Let go of our ideas of separateness, but then, if there remains a question, or a dissatisfaction, we may inquire, "What, in direct experience, is real?" Or if something seems to lost, "What could ever be lost? If everything is non-self, then that must include this." Then, but without the words, "What is this?". Its funny how the end of the "I" seems like such an END. As if, "Well, thats too simple; I'm not interested in that. There's all this other stuff to do before i get fed up and END." And yet, its like the tenth man. The thought of "I" stops us, leaves us at the side of river, mourning something that never was. It paralyzes us and makes things seem so small and limited. It is only in the moments when the "I" is not maintained that any progress can be made. And when the "I" is not given reality, that is just the beginning of EVERYTHING ELSE.

I've always enjoyed Red Pine's translation.

First, I let go of the idea that I am supposed to stay with the pain. I become curious about the fact that I am sitting here, in pain, and I have not gotten up. Apparently there is something that is ok with the fact that I am experiencing pain. I get as deep a sense as I can for this aspect of being. I double check. This deepest aspect of myself, does it have a problem with this pain? Does it want me to move, or to get up? If it does, I do, but often it doesn't. It can be kind've funny when the pain gets intense and yet there is just stillness and ok-ness at the level of being that is really running the show. In my experience there is no real defined way that pain is dealt with/responded to/experienced. The key is to remain true to the deepest calling, in its mystery. My experience is also that the quality of the pain that I experience has changed a lot, such that it rarely shows up in my legs anymore (its moved to my back and chest, but is way less intense). Progress? Who knows?

For one quarter I had 7 year old boy with autism who came weekly for acupuncture. He was seven then. We did mostly scalp needling, since he could move around once the needles were in. Body acupuncture wasn't really possible. He took herbs rather sporadically, partially since it was probably difficult to get him to take them, and because his pediatrician was against them. He was also taking an antipsychotic, and also melatonin to help with sleep. The acupuncture seemed to offer some steady minor benefit (he started saying hello and goodbye to us for example, and his mom said that he was acting violently less often), but nothing dramatic. I don't think that we were able to give him all that Chinese medicine has to offer, especially since we did not give him much in the way of dietary advice, and my supervisors did not have much experience treating these sorts of conditions. There was also another 16 year old boy who was also coming in weekly. I only saw him a couple times. Again, no dramatic improvements. Here is a link to an interesting article on autism treatment from a Chinese Med perspective. There is also this shorter article, dealing mostly with herbal treatment and possible interesections between Chinese and Western concepts. There was also a small research study done in Hong Kong on using tongue acupuncture, which showed some benefit. I don't know how they were able to perform tongue acupuncture on autistic kids without using a lot of force. We had a lot of trouble even getting a look at the tongue of the little boy that we treated. Let me know if you find anything else. I am interested in this topic.

28. Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself, with a keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the 'I' originates.

If Ramana was like some modern teachers, then he saw many people have a glimpse of their true nature in his presence, and he heard many more people tell of glimpses of their true nature. He saw many fewer people who really went all the way with what they were shown, who achieved full realization. Why is this? I would suggest that it is because we don't know better. When we stumble upon a direct perception of our Self (an extinguishing of the 'I') we very quickly turn our attention away from what is revealed. When we turn our attention away (which is totally innocent), then the 'I' re-emerges. The 'I' tells itself a story about what happened, which it may periodically reinforce by allowing itself to disappear from time to time. It seems to miss the fact that the story never actually exists when the 'I' disappears, but as soon as it appears again, it gets very busy telling more stories. This verse is meant for just this situation. Some of the most recalcitrant stories are the spiritual or non-dual ones, such as that there is nowhere to go, nothing to attain, and no one to attain it. The teller of those stories conveniently misses the point that if there is no one to do any of these things, then who is it that says this is so? Apparently the 'I' has re-emerged. This is why Ramana is very clear when we says "The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT." It is possible to read his questions as rhetorical, and such a reading might spark something in some people, but Ramana is constantly suggesting that people seek and investigate what they really are, as long as the separate 'I' seems to emerge. This is just upping the ante, as you hinted at when you said that this is where we're seriously being challenged to do the work. I guess this is why Nisargadatta emphasized the importance of earnestness so constantly. I understand that it can seem counterproductive to seek, when we tell ourselves that there is nothing to be found. The story has all the more weight when it seems to be based in experience. But I can say from my own experience, that any time that I have turned away from the direct experience that I was having to tell myself some story about it, which I then smugly confirmed in my own head as being more true than whatever I seemed to be experiencing, then that has immediately and effectively cut off the workings of what I really am. But when I have caught myself trying to jump in with some piece of "wisdom", and have instead allowed myself to acknowledge what it is that I am actually experiencing, then there has been the possibility of true inquiry. It really makes all the difference, and it is only our earnestness that allows it happen. I'm sorry this is so long, but I feel like I have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is here. I take comfort in the fact that you can discover anything that I might say and much, much more in your own experience. The only prerequisite is to let go of everything that you know and dive into what you are, and value it more than anything that emerges.

Does the "I" that is being used even exist? Is any movement other than THAT? Maybe that is why it might be good to find out what this "I" is. What is it doing? How does it affect my perception? How does it affect the world? Does it even exist? Is it separate from the world? What does exist? I've got a lot of questions. And when one no longer seems relevant, I ask the next one. Sometimes its obvious not to verbalize a question, but to just see/be, and then something calls me to question. How do I make this "I"? What about now? How do I create this sense of dissatisfaction? I'm kind've grooving on Ramana's uncompromising direction toward the fullness of truth. I'm beginning to really see Xuesheng's idea of these verses building on the ground that is prepared before. The next verse is the next clarification (for anyone who finds him or herself drawn to it): 27. The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT. Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive? Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?

When I first read this at least a couple weeks ago (I was thinking about posting the next verse), my first thought was, "That pointer isn't meant for me. That is for someone who thinks that the world is a place to escape from, or who has accepted the idea that only by escaping everything can we know God. This pointer is only for the first half of the journey." I even used it in a conversation with someone who was having some of those feelings. It worked decently, but there was more said after that to focus things a bit. Only today do I realize that he is speaking quite literally. He is speaking as literally as me saying that my fingers are typing this message. Neither is true, but they are both quite literal. This pointer is very powerful. What a fool I was! Edit: I have to admit that it was more of an inquiry into what truth is rather than specifically into what ego is. But the vision that what truly is is not a thing, cannot be an object of perception, no matter how subtle, that any object is actually the ego... And if all these objects aren't it, what is? What sees? What allows everything to be, in my own experience, beyond even the subtlest object of perception? And if that seems to be tasted, can we value it and give it more of our attention than anything else, while we go about our daily life? Certainly an ongoing question for me.

I read this stanza somewhat differently. The "It" that comes into being equipped with form is neither the true Self, nor the body. Ramana laid the groundwork for this stanza in the previous two stanzas. In both of those stanzas he begins by saying that the body does not say "I". I think he is trying to tell us something. Namely, don't blame the body. Elsewhere, he repeats some lines that I believe are quite old, "The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman." These are not words that see the body as any impediment at all. It is something between the body and the true Self/Buddha nature/Truth that seems to cause all of our difficulties. He refers to this thing as "I" or the the "I-thought". He seems to be saying that it is the root of our mental world. How deep this mental world goes, I do not know. He suggest that it is quite deep, when he says that "Once the 'I' emerges, all else emerges." Hence, we are encouraged to inquire whence this "I" emerges. What is at the root of all that we think we see? He is also careful, however, to distinguish the "I" from Reality-Consciousness (Self, Buddha-nature, Truth). He states that "Reality-Consciousness does not emerge." Hence, it does not come into being. It is before the "I", which is before all else that emerges, hence it cannot emerge. So what is it that emerges? What is it that is equipped with form? Ramana seems to be trying to suggest to us that it is the "I-thought" that emerges, and that it is associated with form from its inception. The association with form may just be a misperception, but as long as we perceive the "I" as having a form, it endures. It grows stronger, and tries to incorporate more and more into itself, "My car, my wife, my children, my job, my realization, my good feeling, my crappy feeling, my ignorance, my love, my world, my species..." It just goes on and on. It grows bigger. But that is only as long as we accept that the "I" actually has independent existence, that it has form. If we investigate for ourselves whether this is true, down to the very core of our being, beyond even the "I" that realizes, only then, Ramana seems to be suggesting, does the "evil spirit, which has no form of its own, [relinquish] its grip on form and [take] to flight." "Evil spirit" is not the name that I would use, but I can see why he might choose those words. So many of us seem to be so completely deceived, and it continues to deceive even most of those who have tasted life without it. Its really quite amazing.

Also good questions. I suspect that they can only be answered in being.