Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[WhiteTiger]

The matter is simply one of perspective. Reality happens, certainly. Yet someone or something has to observe it or a secondary effect of it in some fashion for there to ever be any evidence that it happened. What if something happens and there is no person or living thing ever to observe it, EVER, either directly or indirectly. How do you propose to know that it happened? Is there any significance to it if it has never been directly or indirectly experienced?

 

I change my point of view on the matter. I never really thought that I was picking up secondary effects. I always saw it as reading things that basically was on another plane and often times I can or can not describe these things and when i do often people think I'm making things up like its magic or something. (which lead me to believe I just understood things that others could not. But now i realize its secondary effects which are even more subtle then the first effects. I'm talking specific things here that are confrontational things between two people and me taking part in the aftermath) the fact that i realized it was from a subtle of the secondary effects that leads me to believe something else happened that most or no other people observed it unless they had been there when the action or event happened.

 

Great stuff thanks for the talk... has already opened my eyes more!

[doc benway]

.... and I do believe in objective truth and reality and even morality.

Belief is an interesting thing that I have thought about a lot - belief is what happens when you don't know... it is a product of conditioning and experience. What would it be like just to not know and be open to seeing what "is" rather than what your conditioning has led you to "believe."

Just something to think about...

 

I guess I do think there is significance to things even if nobody knows or sees them. The fact that we can't figure out how to subdivide things even smaller than we have, or that there are undiscovered medicines in the rainforest, or that there are galaxies we haven't discovered I think has meaning even if there is no human observing it. I guess this is where my belief in an omnipotent God-force comes in, too.

.......

........

Hope I'm making sense.

Ahhh - I never limited this concept to direct human interaction. Just because a human doesn't see something doesn't mean that it is not there. If things are too small to see but still effect us in a way we may not be able to perceive directly, there is still relationship and interdependence there (ie quarks or strings or mitochondria). If there is a medicine waiting in the rainforest, it undoubtedly is part of that ecosystem and thereby has an indirect effect on life on this planet and, if discovered, will have an even more direct effect on us as organisms. Undiscovered galaxies still exert gravitational forces and participate in the structure of the universe, etc...

 

You're making plenty of sense to me.

 

Your comment about God-force is a nice segue to the next chapter:

 

7. Although the world and knowledge thereof rise and set together it is by knowledge alone that the world is made apparent. That Perfection wherein the world and knowledge thereof rise and set, and which shines without rising and setting, is alone the Reality.

 

So I look at the rising and setting of the 'world and knowlege thereof' relating to human life and existence and the world of our perceptions and arguably we could include other life forms as well. The world and knowledge thereof rise and set with birth and death and it is knowlege of the world (can we substitute consciousness or awareness here?) that makes it apparent. So next he says that there is something that does not rise and set but continues to shine. That is, something is there that transcends birth and death or transcends the world and knowledge of it. I think he uses the word Reality to distinguish the permanent (Reality) from the impermanent or illusion (Maya). Back to Buddhist concepts - this is where they came from.

[Lozen]

Okay, let's go to verse 8 in the interest of keeping this thread alive!

 

8. Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing It without name and form. That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity with it.

 

I really like this one. Of course calling it the Absolute Reality is just as much a name as calling it God or the Universe, but that's neither here nor there.

[Lozen]

Anyone?

[Todd]

Of course calling it the Absolute Reality is just as much a name as calling it God or the Universe, but that's neither here nor there.

 

No, that is definitely here. That is his whole point in fact. This is about realizing what is being pointed toward. It is about nothing else for Ramana, though we may have different ideas about our association with him. His only intent in using words is for you and I and everyone who hears or reads them to realize where they come from, and to abide as that. This is not a pipe dream, since he knows that it is possible. It is unavoidable as soon as we drop our worship, as soon as we drop our words, and enter into true prayer.

 

If we do not know what these words point toward in our own experience, continually, then how is it that we are keeping this knowledge from ourselves?

Edited April 27, 2008 by Todd

[Lozen]

No matter how you worship God/Buddha/Jesus/HaShem/Allah/the Universe/the Absolute Reality, that will help you realize it without name and form... I guess that implicitly makes sense to me because in Judaism God has no name or form, or at least the form cannot be known by man and the real name is too holy to utter, or something.

 

Is this about seeing yourself in relation to the Ultimate Reality?

 

Or did I miss something again?

[mat black]

Todd, spot on.

His only intent in using words is for you and I and everyone who hears or reads them to realize where they come from, and to abide as that.

All of Sri Ramana words are like a curved arrow, pointing straight back to where they came from.

 

Lozen

Is this about seeing yourself in relation to the Ultimate Reality?

Loz, i think, as Lin says, we use the name of the divine in orer to remove all other thoughts, become still & quiet. In that state, the Ultimate reality might be right on the tip of our nose so to speak.

 

8. Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing It without name and form.

Name -word, form - image. Both are phenomena and therefore still pretty dense. But i think they are used in this dimension (world) as expedients, a representation, reflection, reminder of the subtlty of 'that Reality'. Sounds leading to silence, forms pointing to the formless. Mantras can quieten the mind, images can open the heart so that ultimatelty we may become so sensitive to the source of sounds and forms, that we may 'realize it without name and form'

 

That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity with it.

Sounds like nirvana, or complete union with Tao. No more individuality, total return to and immersion with the source.

Edited April 28, 2008 by mat black

[Todd]

Thanks Matt.

 

No matter how you worship God/Buddha/Jesus/HaShem/Allah/the Universe/the Absolute Reality, that will help you realize it without name and form... I guess that implicitly makes sense to me because in Judaism God has no name or form, or at least the form cannot be known by man and the real name is too holy to utter, or something.

 

Is this about seeing yourself in relation to the Ultimate Reality?

 

Or did I miss something again?

 

I don't know. What is this about for you?

 

We can talk in terms of understanding, which I have never found to be that helpful, or we can talk in terms of realizing. The difference between them is that in understanding there is distance, and in realization there is no distance.

 

Is this about you, what you realize in this moment, or about words and concepts?

[Lozen]

I don't see a difference between understanding and realizing.

[Todd]

I don't see a difference between understanding and realizing.

 

You don't have to. Maybe I'm making it up.

[Mal]

I don't see a difference between understanding and realizing.

 

You don't have to. Maybe I'm making it up.

 

He he he cool, you 'realize It without name and form'

 

(long weekend, world tai chi day, lots of work strange how everyone went quiet all at once there, good to see Todd and WhiteTiger)

[Lozen]

[doc benway]

 

If we do not know what these words point toward in our own experience, continually, then how is it that we are keeping this knowledge from ourselves?

That's a fascinating question!

 

This verse really is the core of the teaching in many ways.

We create an image in our mind based on our years of personal conditioning and aeons of social/cultural conditioning. We use this image to try and understand or realize that which is beyond all efforts at imagining.

So the image can never be the thing, not even close. It isn't even that good a way to try and realize the thing. But it can be a stimulus to get us to look at the real thing itself - ourself - where the feeling of being comes from, our experience, our perceptions, and our sense of self. Like Mat said, it's a finger pointing at the moon.

He's telling you that you are God (or whatever you want to call it) as are we all. There is no separation, no difference. Only you're stuck during life experiencing yourself throught this limited group of sensory organs contained within a bag of skin. This is what gives the illusion of separation - the sensory organs and the bag of skin that contains them. But this is something you need to 'realize' - to feel, to know, rather than to "understand" which is an analytical process composed of thoughts.

[Lozen]

Saying one needs to "realize" instead of "understand" implies that what you are reading is necessarily true. But how can you "realize" something to be true if you don't even "understand" "what it is?

 

I'm not into the guru thing.

[Todd]

Saying one needs to "realize" instead of "understand" implies that what you are reading is necessarily true. But how can you "realize" something to be true if you don't even "understand" "what it is?

 

I'm not into the guru thing.

 

That is not what I am implying. What I am saying is that truth cannot be spoken. Ramana's teaching points directly at this fact, and invites us to notice what exists without reference to words. There is no truth in the teaching. They are strategies to get us to look for ourselves, at our own experience, without words. If these strategies don't work for you, or if you would rather not look, there is nothing wrong with that. I am just trying to help you understand what the teachings are about, which is to look beyond understanding, to your own experience, before understanding.

 

Understanding is what we try to do before we are willing to look.

[Lozen]

If truth cannot be spoken in words, why did he write 40 verses?

[doc benway]

If truth cannot be spoken in words, why did he write 40 verses?

Great question!

The Dao De Jing starts with a chapter that states that "The Dao that can be spoken of (named, described,...) is not the true Dao and the rest of the chapters speak about it...

 

Words are symbols that represent images and concepts. They are always limiting and are never the real thing, yet they are our primary method of communicating. So we use this limited tool to try and communicate with each other so that we can teach and learn and interact. No where is the limitation of words more obvious than in the realm of the metaphysical and spiritual.

 

I like the finger pointing to the moon analogy. The finger is not the moon nor even a representation of it but I can use my finger to help you see the moon. Likewise, these verses can perhaps help some people find an interest in beginning to investigate the nature of things and maybe even help get someone to the door but the seeker needs to open the door and step through (and leave himself behind...).

[Lozen]

Yeah, I love that verse! But I also like reading and understanding the Dao De Jing.

[doc benway]

9. The duality of subject and object and trinity of seer, sight, and seen can exist only if supported by the One. If one turns inward in search of that One Reality they fall away. Those who see this are those who see Wisdom. They are never in doubt.

Another statment of the non-dual nature of being. Also, I think there is the implication that this is something that requires direct experience, rather than rationalization or intellectual analysis, in his last two sentences.

[Lozen]

You know, this is really timely for me because I actually decided I wanted to read Ramana after meeting a martial artist who had Ramana tattooed on his arms. I've been e-mailing the dude and talking about atheism, religion, etc. and it's really forced me to rethink many of my beliefs--not in God, but in the possibility of someone being what I would call spiritual or even enlightened (I don't mean Enlightened like the masters) while being a complete atheist. I think introspection and the sincere desire to do good may be more important. So to me this verse is saying that if you are introspective, you do not need to concern yourself with external things as much. Kind of like when you know you need to do something and it doesn't matter what anyone else is saying or doing or tells you. You just know it for yourself.

[Todd]

Kind of like when you know you need to do something and it doesn't matter what anyone else is saying or doing or tells you. You just know it for yourself.

 

Exactly.

[doc benway]

I think introspection and the sincere desire to do good may be more important. So to me this verse is saying that if you are introspective, you do not need to concern yourself with external things as much. Kind of like when you know you need to do something and it doesn't matter what anyone else is saying or doing or tells you. You just know it for yourself.

Very well said!

[Lozen]

I got one!!

 

 

Onwards...

 

10. Ordinary knowledge is always accompanied by ignorance, and ignorance by knowledge; the only true Knowledge is that by which one knows the Self through enquiring whose is the knowledge and ignorance.

[mat black]

It is a real blessing to read the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

10. Ordinary knowledge is always accompanied by ignorance, and ignorance by knowledge; the only true Knowledge is that by which one knows the Self through enquiring whose is the knowledge and ignorance.

 

Knowledege - ignorance, yin - yang, night - day, etc etc, all are dualistic. But when we find the source of both knowledge and ignorance, yin and yang, night and day.................find that which supports and preceeds every duality then that is the only real knowledge.

All dualities must be supported by the all encompassing non - dual. The Self.

Again, Sri Ramana says realize the Self, and the source of both ignorance and knowledge will be known.

 

Here's another quote from Sri Ramana:

Knowledge and ignorance are of the mind. They are born of duality. But the Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. It is light itself

The Self, the light . _/\_

Edited May 5, 2008 by mat black

[doc benway]

Knowledege - ignorance, yin - yang, night - day, etc etc, all are dualistic. But when we find the source of both knowledge and ignorance, yin and yang, night and day.................find that which supports and preceeds every duality then that is the only real knowledge.

All dualities must be supported by the all encompassing non - dual. The Self.

Again, Sri Ramana says realize the Self, and the source of both ignorance and knowledge will be known.

 

I remember some recent discussions criticizing Advaita and Ramana and so forth and talking about how this forum should focus on Daoism.

What could be a more succinct expression of the parallels between Daoism and Ramana's expression of Advaita than this verse?

This gives a very clear insight into the rationale behind why they approach the problem through self inquiry in the form of "Who Am I?" or for whom does ignorance and knowlege arise? There are so many aspects to this seemingly simple question. It is amazing.