Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[Lozen]

Would anybody like to discuss this?

 

You can find it for free here: http://www.satramana.org/html/forty_verses_on_reality.htm

 

I'd like to begin discussing it soon because it is interesting and confusing and I need help.

[doc benway]

Would anybody like to discuss this?

 

You can find it for free here: http://www.satramana.org/html/forty_verses_on_reality.htm

 

I'd like to begin discussing it soon because it is interesting and confusing and I need help.

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/

[doc benway]

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.

[Lozen]

To be aware is to contemplate awareness?

 

I agree--the second part does seem sort of Buddhist... If you are not attached to your idea of yourself or to your stuff, then you are not afraid of death.

 

Whew, that was easy so far.

[doc benway]

To be aware is to contemplate awareness?

 

.................

 

Whew, that was easy so far.

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?

[Lozen]

I saw this as being about the whole "don't look at my finger, look at the moon" stuff... or that quote about how we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are... To be aware we are looking through a filter... So like if I tell my students a story there is the student, the story being told, the way they interpret the story and their reasoning for interpreting it that way. Is this too literal of a view?

 

I don't know the Advaita Vedanta... is Heisenberg's principle like the Schrodinger cat thing?

 

As far as "various powers," I interpreted it as meaning that each of the things listed (i.e. the person perceiving, the perceived, etc.) is a power...

 

From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of the principle...because eventually you perceive that the different persons perceiving have different perceptions?

 

LOL. That's a tongue twister...

[doc benway]

I saw this as being about the whole "don't look at my finger, look at the moon" stuff... or that quote about how we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are... To be aware we are looking through a filter... So like if I tell my students a story there is the student, the story being told, the way they interpret the story and their reasoning for interpreting it that way. Is this too literal of a view?

 

I don't know the Advaita Vedanta... is Heisenberg's principle like the Schrodinger cat thing?

 

As far as "various powers," I interpreted it as meaning that each of the things listed (i.e. the person perceiving, the perceived, etc.) is a power...

 

From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of the principle...because eventually you perceive that the different persons perceiving have different perceptions?

 

LOL. That's a tongue twister...

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.

[Lozen]

Yeah, I guess I've heard of advaita but I remember that Geshe Michael Roach said that the idea of there not being "I" or "you" or individual entities was a "dharma rumor." That it was our actions that connected us in an interwoven web of giver and receiver... But then when I went to my ten-day Vipassana brainwashing session five years ago, I remember the guru on video and on tape we had to listen to was saying there is no "I, you or we." Someone asked him in an interview what exactly we were trying to get rid of through meditating then, and he said "ignorance." But then, who is it that is meditating? So I get confused by this whole thing...

 

I remember Heisenberg now.

[doc benway]

Yeah, I guess I've heard of advaita but I remember that Geshe Michael Roach said that the idea of there not being "I" or "you" or individual entities was a "dharma rumor." That it was our actions that connected us in an interwoven web of giver and receiver... But then when I went to my ten-day Vipassana brainwashing session five years ago, I remember the guru on video and on tape we had to listen to was saying there is no "I, you or we." Someone asked him in an interview what exactly we were trying to get rid of through meditating then, and he said "ignorance." But then, who is it that is meditating? So I get confused by this whole thing...

 

I remember Heisenberg now.

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?

[Lozen]

2. All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can say, 'The three are really three' only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one's own Being, where the 'I', or ego, is dead, is the perfect State.

 

Okay, so the interconnectedness of the world, the soul and God. Is this like a whole I make my own reality thing? I'm also not clear on what he means by killing the I or ego. Is killing the ego understanding that one is not separate from their world and from God? Because I think you could see the interconnectedness and still be egotistical... or even not believe in interconnectedness and be quite humble.

[Mal]

Okay, so the interconnectedness of the world, the soul and God. Is this like a whole I make my own reality thing? I'm also not clear on what he means by killing the I or ego. Is killing the ego understanding that one is not separate from their world and from God? Because I think you could see the interconnectedness and still be egotistical... or even not believe in interconnectedness and be quite humble.

 

Cool discussion, and a cheap book with no postage problems How about.

 

The illusion

"I" can see these objects "world" "soul" and "God"."I" understand they are divisions of the perfect one.

 

vs

 

The reality

"world"+"soul"+"God" = us

 

"I" am all of them, but there is no "I" because "I' implies separate and there is no separateness

 

"the person who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light by which he sees: he himself is all of these"

 

Mmmm does my post make ANY sense?

[doc benway]

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.

[doc benway]

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...

[Mal]

I think you both make sense.

 

Cool, I found a Chang Tzu that expressed my idea better.

"If not for other there is no self. If not for self, nothing is apprehended."

 

I like 3. "What use is it to argue thus?" Once you stop looking for "objects" to classify ("it's like this" or "it's different to that") you just experience what is.

[Lozen]

I never understood all the Zen/Buddhist/heart sutra stuff but I do believe in the interconnectedness of all things so maybe that is a start.

 

I do like the idea of not sitting and arguing about whether or not the world is illusion and just experiencing it. Geshe Michael (interesting that I'm quoting him so much because I've only heard him speak a handful of times) called those people "dharma monsters" who would argue about the letter of the law but not practice.

 

What is knowing one's self is the only big question I have. What is this state of no objective outlook or notions of unity/duality, self and ego.

[mat black]

[Lozen]

Should we go on to 4?

[mat black]

Lozen

What is knowing one's self is the only big question I have

It is the ultimate question.

Buddha says:"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world".

Sri Ramana says that of all the thoughts we have, the "I" thouhgt, the sense of 'me-ness' is the first, the one on which every other thought depends. All our desires, all our suffering, all our pleasures everything come after the I thought.

Sri Ramana says:

"Ask yourself the question, Who am I?

This investigation will lead in the end to the

discovery of something within you which is behind the mind.

Solve that great problem, and you will solve all other problems thereby. "

 

So we need to find out where this sense of 'me-ness' comes from, where does it arise? It's not intellectual, it's a direct investigation into our self. We know that we exist, no one denies that. So where does this sense of existing come from?

The sense of I and the breath have the same source. If we fix our attention on where is the breath comming from. When the breath slows down, we can look.......how does it come and go.......

 

We need to know this.

Edited April 14, 2008 by mat black

[mat black]

Should we go on to 4?

Yeah?

4. If one has form oneself, the world and God also will appear to have form, but if one is formless, who is it that sees those forms, and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity.

 

Amazing. How wonderful

This quote might have been said by any master, Buddist, Chuang Tzu, Zen master..............

Sri Ramana captured the pure essence. Like Steve said earlier, it stirs reminders of the Heart Sutra.

 

"Without the eye can any object be seen?" Or, we can reverse it and can ask, 'without the seer, can the eyes see?'

The eyes can only be used for seeing, but they need a seer. So who is it that sees through the eyes?

Master Xuan Hua said that Bodhisatvas can see with their ears and hear with their eyes. For them, the senses are interchangeable.

I think that for us, in our life, we are almost lived by our senses, while forgeting that intelligence, that awareness that preceeds the senses.

Without the eye can any object be seen?

If we reverse the globe on a torchlight and redirect the light back onto the torch, we see what gives the light it's source. Likewise, the energy that saw through our eyes if turned back upon itself, remains in itself........can know itself.

 

Thanks for starting this Lozen. Sri Ramana's compasion was boundless. Through these verses, hopefully we might all be inclined to re-cognise the THAT wehich we are essentially, beyond all definitions.

Edited April 14, 2008 by mat black

[Lozen]

I'm just really confused.

[doc benway]

I think that for us, in our life, we are almost lived by our senses, while forgeting that intelligence, that awareness that preceeds the senses.

This is so beautifully and succinctly stated Mat - wow!

 

 

I'm just really confused.

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.

[mat black]

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.

Love it Steve!

So we need to be patient as Lin always says. We have moved our focus so far from it, that in order to know the eye with a capital E requires practice. And as Lin also says: 'to listen to silence is real listening'

 

Sometimes we feel hungry, tired, energetic, sick, sad, exited.....on & on. We say 'i'm sick' but in order to even say it, there must be an awareness that is seperate from the sickness, otherwise it couldn't be known. The same goes for every experience that we have.

Sri Ramana reminds us to be aware of the one who is aware. Sounds paradoxical maybe. But it's only because our focus is so 'outer'.

 

I'm just really confused.

Like Steve said Lozen, it's ok to be confused. Sometimes we can get confused trying to understend Sri Ramana with our usual intellect. And then the more we try, the more confused we get. A bit like trying to lift ourselves off the ground by pulling on our shoelaces haha, the more we try, the harder it gets

Don't worry if you feel confused at the moment Loz, the confusion will drop off.

The mind always has a different 'theme' at any time - happiness, sadness impatience, etc. - And we all have them every day haha. Just like the sky has clouds, but occaisionally, a glimpse comes there is a clearing and only the clear sky is there.

 

If we remember that every state of the mind comes and goes (like clouds) - nothing is static, we gradually put less emphasise on attatching to our thoughts & feelings - 'good' or 'bad', pleasant or unpleasant. We become more sensitve to observing our mind.

Then we can get a knack for being aware of that which is always there within us through everything - just like the clear sky that is always behind the clouds.

The glimpses of awareness with 'no thought'.

Edited April 14, 2008 by mat black

[Lozen]

I get the seeing beyond the physical through our eyes... actually it reminds me of part of a poem by Clarissa Pinkola Estes where she talks about how "we see not through two eyes only but through the many eyes of intuition."

[Mal]

[Lozen]

I guess my view of dreams and things that not everyone can see but are just as present as things you can see is just that those aspects aren't developed in some people because they never got training. I guess through some of my training I learned to see auras and to move the dreaming body around--just like what happens in dreams except more consciously--I guess I "believe" in it and can "see" it in the same way I "see" form and not-form. So it doesn't seem as much like illusion to me. Or something.