doc benway

That's one perspective. And that can be extended to the idea that we also see through our conditioning - which can be taken to the next step that we see through society's eyes, through our parents' eyes, through humanity's eyes and so on. But then, here's the next step, who or what is it that is doing the seeing? No answer is expected or encouraged at this point - it is the question that counts. The question is alive - it keeps you working at it. The answer is dead, limited, incomplete, inadequate.... Mal - very nice contribution, thank you! Mat - thanks so much for the Hindu link. Your selection of Ramana quotations is wonderful. 5. The body is a form composed of the five-fold sheath; therefore, all the five sheaths are implied in the term, body. Apart from the body does the world exist? Has anyone seen the world without the body? I love this! I need to sit with it for a while before I make any comments.

This is so beautifully and succinctly stated Mat - wow! Hang in there - this is something that needs a lot of patience. Have you ever had the experience that you read about something and you don't quite get what they're talking about, then you experience that something and suddenly the author makes perfect sense? I find that all the time in my taiji practice. It's even more dramatic in this area. Let's continue to work through the verses. We recognize forms because we are form. We are designed to recognized and interact with form. We're much, much more than that but we've been conditioned to focus on the form part. One way to look at it is that we are "tuned" to the frequencies of form. We don't see ultraviolet or infrared but they're there. We don't need them in our natural life so we don't recognize them. Meditation is a way to begin to recognize the other frequencies. The eye is tuned to form, as is the brain and thought. But the Eye (notice the capital) is something altogether different. Whenever you see Ramana use the capital he's talking about the collective, the Heart, the Mind, the Eye, and so on.... He's talking about the complment to form, the formless. The Eye is that which is behind the eye, that Mat refers to. Don't get too concerned with the confusion. It's just the analytical, intellectual mind trying to make sense of something that can't be made sense of. So I think Ramana is saying that there is a part of us, the part that sees through our eye, that is much much more than our physical or mental self. Something infinite, something not separate from everything else. Something that is timeless and boundless. And, as a corollary, the mind must be very still and peaceful to experience that part. It is very subtle and we are taught to ignore it since birth.

Perhaps if you open up totally to the bear and let her know how much you love and are willing to sacrifice, she will be filled with compassion and help you to continue in your practice.

What a blessing to have this sort of footage caught on tape to look at. Thanks for the links.

I also recommend the Way of Energy

3. 'The world is real.' 'No, it, is a mere illusory appearance.' 'The world is conscious.' 'No.' 'The world is happiness.' 'No.' What use is it to argue thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego. Again, very Buddhist, very Zen. Ramana comes from the Hindu Vedanta Advaita tradition which was the source of Buddhism and consequently the source of Zen. As in Zen meditation - do not think but do not not-think. As in Buddha's "thunderous silence." Very suggestive to me of the Heart sutra - form is nothingness, nothingness is form, form is form, and nothingness is nothingness...

I think you both make sense. Lozen - be careful how you use and interpret the word ego - I think Ramana refers to the illusion of separate self as ego and is not referring to more qualitative personality distinctions like egotistical or humble which we use to describe an individual's personality traits or behavior.

My only prerequisite is that I can't be drowsy or too physically tired. THe other thing is that I try to accept the fact that some days I will feel good about my "efforts" and other days I will be disappointed. Either way they are just feelings or thoughts and don't make any difference. WHen I used to be very attached to the outcome and the quality of my practice, I got turned off and let it fizzle. When I am able to let go of that attachment, it comes more naturally and is much more pleasant.

I seem to feel this dichotomy of being an individual yet being a part of everything at the same time. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be rational or make sense. Whatever it is, it's got to be way beyond the finite capacity of our thoughts or ability to understand... I'm hoping other people jump in - this is one of my favorite threads to have cropped up on TaoBums since I've been a member, but then again I really like Ramana. Shall we move on to the second stanza?

All good points. Advaita is basically the principle of non-duality. There is no me and you, just us. The universe is one connected mess - the separate parts are inseparable, inter-related, and inter-dependent. Heisenberg's principle was basically that if you measure the velocity of an electron, you can't pin down it's position. If you know it's exact position, you cannot tell it's velocity. A corollary is that it is the act of measuring velocity that alters position or the act of measuring the position which affects velocity therefore the measurer and the quantities being measured are interdependent.

That's a nice way to put it. Let's push on! The first verse seems pretty straightforward: 1. From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of a unique First Principle possessing various powers. Pictures of name and form, the person who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light by which he sees: he himself is all of these. THis seems to be an assertion of the non-separation between subject and object and the intervening medium and method of perception and interpretation. It's all inter-related and inseparable. Basic non-dual view of being I would say - classic Advaita Vedanta stuff. You could also say this view is completley consistent with principles of quantum mechanics like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The observer and observed are inter-related. The act of observing alters the observation and that which is observed. One question is, why does acceptance of this "unique First Principle" follow from our perception? And another is, what "various powers" does the First Principle possess?

My relationship with the idea of death has changed radically in the past few years. There was a time when I looked at death as "the enemy" to be fought and thwarted at all costs. There was even the fantasy of immortality - escaping death entirely. I no longer have those sorts of ideas. I look at death as natural, necessary, and I have less concern or fear about it. Who knows how I'll feel when death is truly imminent, I'm not trying to sound as if I have no fear or apprehension when it comes to pain and suffering and death but there's been a definite change. In Daoism there is the idea of mutual arising - yin/yang - life is yang to death's yin. Death must occur to renew and refresh life. Death gives meaning to life. Not only is the meditation on death valuable to illustrate impermanence. I think it also helps to give meaning and significance to what can otherwise be mundane and trivial aspects of life. I used to think a lot about what happens after death, what the experience will be like and so on. This is an important part of religious thought and how institutionalized religion keeps the population in check - fear of what happens after death. Now I look at it differently. THere is only experience when the experiencer is there. After death, I believe the experiencer is gone so there is no experience. Experience occurs during life - absence of exprience after death. I sort of look at death as the interval between life and life as the interval between death. Alan Watts has a nice analogy that I think is borrowed from Zen koans which is to try and imagine what it will be like to go to sleep and never wake up. Similarly, try to imagine what it is like to wake up after never having gone to sleep. I also like some of Watts' other ideas about celebrating the end of life - after all (I'm paraphrasing) just think, no more bills, no more illness, responsibilities, decisions to make.... YIPEEE! I'm not saying that I want to hurry my death - life has too much to offer, but it will in some ways be a welcome relief to the trials and tribulations of life and the suffering that often accompanies illness and injury. How boring and insufferable would it be to live forever? I wouldn't want it. Excellent subject for inquiry and introspection, jeff.

I'll start with the "Invocatory" - By the Heart, Ramana tends to refer to the center of all being and awareness. When he asks "How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation." - it is like the eyeball trying to see itself (without a mirror!) or the mind trying to look at itself from outside - it can never be outside of itself for it is itself. Section ii of the Invocatory seems to be much like the Buddhist admonition of attachment and impermanence.

Thanks for posting this Lozen. I'll start reading through the verses and will be glad to discuss it with you. One important point to make note of up front is Ramana's use of language. His use of words like Self, Heart, and Mind are not the typical English uses of these words. David Godman has translated and written much about Ramana and is a good resource for helping to interpret his teachings. http://davidgodman.org/

Pay it forward! Loved that movie...

Just a reminder to everyone interested that we plan to begin discussing Revealing the Tao Te Ching: In-depth Commentaries on an Ancient Classic by Hu Xuezhi around the beginning of May. thanks!

Very good point, Todd. Yet, there are many interesting questions that can be asked. Why is it difficult to accept the possibility that altering brain physiology or hemispheric balance can affect perception of duality/non-duality? I believe that there are, in fact, studies suggesting laterality of analytical vs spiritual functions of the brain. Why is there any more potential to inform our practice if that is not the explanation? Why is an anatomic insult any more or less of a change in brain physiology than an emotional one? Both affect neurotransmitter balance dramatically. You are right, many people (including myself) tend to jump to the conclusion that there was a causal relationship between the stroke and the experience. We have no way of knowing the answer and I wonder how much it really matters. I got the distinct impression that she does feel that there is a causal relationship between the experiences but I could be misreading her.

I enjoyed this clip and it's stimulated some worthwhile discussions with friends, some of whom wouldn't otherwise be interested in this line of inquiry. It was posted her before not long ago. I'm sort of surprised there's not more discussion about it on this forum because I think it opens a lot of avenues to explore. When I watched it, I remember thinking at the end that the average "disbeliever" would respond - "how do you know all that stuff she experienced during her stroke wasn't just fantasy and imagination?". And I remember my imaginary response being something like - "whatever it was, the other part of her experience, the part that was damaged and non-functional, must also be exactly the same." Both parts of the brain are imaginary or both are real - call them what you will. But the experience of non-duality is every bit as valid as that of separateness, in my view. They are simply two sides to the coin. The non-dual experience may represent the "truth" about the universal existence, yet the duality is essential in the function and survival of the human organism. Fascinating that there appears to be such a compartmentaliztation for such experiences in the brain. I tend to think that most of our social conventions reinforce the left side function from infancy to death whereas the right side is only reinforced by the meditative traditions which are de-emphasized in most cultures - particularly industrial cultures. Religious traditions can and, dare I say, should empasize the spiritual. Yet even our religious traditions, especially in the West, take away the individual's autonomy and subjugate it to a set of rules and a "spiritual authority" - a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. This is where I find meditation to be invaluable. In my view, this strengthens the right sided functions. Over time, I imagine this may lead to a healthier balance between the analytical and experiential functions. Cool stuff.

For some people, there aren't very many options. They just don't have the access, time, or resources to study with a teacher. I find that workshops are no longer of any value to me. I am lucky enough to have a teacher I respect. I'm happy with his program of instruction. I've been to several workshops and seminars since I've been with my teacher. I find that I enjoy the experience but never keep up with any of the new practices because I don't even have enough time to really work on the stuff my teacher has aready given me. Nothing I've been exposed to in a workshop or seminar recently makes me want to sacrifice time I need to work on the stuff I'm already practicing... I do value meeting new people and intercating with them both physically (ie pushing hands...) and socially.

There's a very good book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn that addresses our bio-ecological imbalance and the likely consequences.

Never was a truer statement made... _/\_

Keeping the one point...

I also think it is important to remember that not only does attachment or identification give strength to negative impulses but resistance does as well. It is extremely important to be cautious regarding an admonition of "ignoring" so as not to fall into a trap of resistence. Nothing gives negative thoughts more power than an active attempt at resisting or ignoring. I find that simple recognition of the what the negative impulse is from a perspective of how I've created it as a part of my story, my reality, is enough. Leaning into the negativity and opening up to it sometimes can be effective when ignoring isn't. Here's a trivial example I got from a great book - Think of an elephant - it's color, smell, size, whatever.... for a few seconds - get it in your mind OK Now - Try not to think of an elephant for the next 5 minutes (or even 1 minute) and see what happens...

Nice

If I may, Hagar, I'd like to borrow your analogy. The enlightened mind is like the clear, pure sky which envelopes everything and is always already there. The everyday mind is like the snowstorm - the clear sky is already there, just obscured by the endless thoughts - many of which are looking for the clear sky. But the thoughts can never clear the sky because they are what's obscuring it in the first place! Enlightenment is always already there. It's not that you don't have to do anything to get there. It's that YOU can't do anything to get there because it's the you and the doing that are the problem. So it's not that YOU are already enlightened, it's the YOU that is the illusion. Enlightenment is the background but YOU have to become quiet enough to abide in it, perhaps.... Sorry if that doesn't make any sense... Excellent thread and post Mat (as always!)