Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[mat black]

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?

.

 

It's funny Steve, 'coz ive always prefered to focus on the essential core similarities among Advaita, Buddhism, Daoism etc,

Most people seem to prefer the oppostite and focus on the differences. And then say 'i am a this or that' based on which superficial aspect of whichever tradition they identify with.

The differences are only superficial.

If i read Sri Ramana Maharshi, the Heart Sutra, Sozans' Faith Mind, The Diamond Sutra, Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu...............to me, they are all essentially saying the same thing. Different roads, same destination, it's so simple.

These 40 verses by Sr Ramana Maharshi could easily have been spoken by a Buddhist, Taoist, or Zen master.

The TRUTH is beyond all classifications.

 

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

Yep, it leads to the source of every thought, feeling, emotion, experience, whatever.

 

Amazing.

Edited May 7, 2008 by mat black

[mat black]

11. Is it not, rather, ignorance to know all else without knowing oneself, the knower? As soon as one knows the Self, which is the substratum of knowledge and ignorance, knowledge and ignorance perish.

 

As im posting this, im listening to a commentary by Master Xuan Hua who is talking about Buddha Sakyamuni's enlightenment. Apon becomming enlightened, he exclaimed

 

"Strange, strange, strange indeed all beings have the wisdom and virtue of the Tathagata. All can become Buddhas. It is only because of random thinking and attatchments that they cannot certify to this"

 

Random thinking and attatchments create a huge distraction for us, we then identify with the distraction and experience suffering, confusion and forget our authentic Self.

And here Sri Ramana says above, "knowing all else without knowing one's self is ignorance"

[doc benway]

The eleventh verse could have easily been a quotation of Jiddu Krishnamurti, one of my personal favorites.

Much of his focus is the importance of each of us examining the content, process, and source of our own thought process, our "selves". He is a firm believer that no radical change or improvement will ever occur in the world and society unless a radical revolution first occurs within the individual.

 

Look at the truth of this. Throughout history we have had political leader after political leader, religious authorities of great brilliance (Buddha, Jesus, Ramana, pick a name!), political parties and platforms with revolutionary and sensible ideas, and despite all that we continue to find ourselves neck deep in a world of shit when you look at the general human condition. Why? The answers will never come from outside of ourselves, there must be a radical change within each of us. Nothing else will matter. This is Ramana's challenge to us as well. Find out who you are. WHat you are. Keep looking, peeling back the layers....

[Lozen]

I dig it.

[doc benway]

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.

 

11. Is it not, rather, ignorance to know all else without knowing oneself, the knower? As soon as one knows the Self, which is the substratum of knowledge and ignorance, knowledge and ignorance perish.

 

12. That alone is true Knowledge which is neither knowledge nor ignorance. What is known is not true Knowledge. Since the Self shines with nothing else to know or to make known, It alone is Knowledge. It is not a void.

I thought it might be worthwhile to see these three verses together as they really are interdependent.

Understanding 12. for me is totally dependent on keeping the principles of 10. and 11. in mind.

I find 12. to be fascinating. Particularly the last statement. "It is not a void."

Here perhaps we have a distinction between what Ramana is saying and an important principle in Buddhism, that of void. Anyone have any particular insight here?

[mat black]

10, 11 & 12 follow each other it seems.

Steve, after reading your post, i searched.........and searched. i don't know what to even say. To write anything would only be throwing ignorance over the page.

So, i read Pual Bruntons account of his time with Sr Ramana titled "the Maharshi and His Message" in it there was great encouragement. If I can quote

Maharshi:

"Unless a man embarkes upon this quest of the true Self, doubt and uncertainty will fllow his footsteps throughout life. The greatest kings and statesmen try to rule others, when in their heart of hearts, they know they cannot rule themselves. Yet the greatest power is at the command of the man who has penetrated his innermost depth. There are men of giant intellects who spend their lives gathering knowledge about many things. Ask thesee men if they have solved the mystery of man, if they have conquered themslves and they will hang their heads in shame. What is the use in knowing about everything else when you do not yet know who you are? Men avoid this enquiry in to the true Self, but what else is there so worthy to be undertaken?"

 

The book contains Bruntons' account of his time with Sri Ramana and of the Maharshis' instruction and assistance in stripping away the layers of habitual mental and sensory identification which shroud ones' understanding and realization of the authentic Self.

It a relatively short book - 87 pages, but so wonderful. It can be downloaded in PDF format from here http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downloads...his_message.zip

 

Bruntons recollection of the Maharshis words which he spoke to him and of his own subsequent experience are amazing, so articulate and truly inspiring. The book also gives some more context for the these verses that we have been discussing in this thread.

Edited May 17, 2008 by mat black

[Lozen]

I wonder if this is about how once you KNOW something (intuitively or instinctually or internally) it isn't intellectual book knowledge or lack of intellectual book knowledge, it just IS. You just KNOW. You can't prove or disprove it. Or something.

 

I'm not sure what the it is not a void part means... Maybe it is like an active knowing? I don't even know if I'd use the word know. Maybe sensing or perceiving or intuiting would be more accurate.

[mat black]

I wonder if this is about how once you KNOW something (intuitively or instinctually or internally) it isn't intellectual book knowledge or lack of intellectual book knowledge, it just IS. You just KNOW. You can't prove or disprove it. Or something

I think i know what you mean Loz, i just wonder if Sri Ramana is pointing to something even deeper than our instincts and intuition.

This real Knowing seems to be beyond the knowing of 'things' any phenomena. Though being semingly real and defined, things in and of themselves can have no independant actual existance as seperate from the one reality.

Sri Ramana says That alone is true Knowledge which is neither knowledge nor ignorance

So it seems that knowledge of things, phenomena (seemingly seperate fragments) etc is the type of knowledge which is inseperably paired to and mirrord by ignorance

What is known is not true Knowledge. True knowledge cannot be conceptualized. Kind of makes it hard to discuss it on a forum

Since the Self shines with nothing else to know or to make known, It alone is Knowledge. It is not a void.

Pure - neither excluding nor including - because including and excluding depend on seperation and division.

The Self is beyond and prior to all divisions of mind.

Oooooh, now number 13.

13. The Self, which is Knowledge, is the only Reality. Knowledge of multiplicity is false knowledge. This false knowledge, which is really ignorance, cannot exist apart from the Self, which is Knowledge-Reality. The variety of gold ornaments is unreal, since none of them can exist without the gold of which they are all made.

 

WOW

[doc benway]

I'm going to jump back to 12. for a second and say that "It is not a void" might relate to the discussion of knowledge and ignorance vs Knowledge. The Self cannot be void, nor can it be not-void. Do you know what I'm trying to say? Just like knowlege and ignorance are concepts and therefore not Truth, the void is conceptual and equally erroneous when discussing Truth. I think that could be something.

 

13. is beautiful. Can't you see the first chapter of Dao De Jing ringing through loud and clear?

I love the gold vs gold trinkets image.

Thanks for the Bruntons file Mal, I'm looking forward to reading that!

Lozen, your last post was on the money for me.

[mat black]

I'm going to jump back to 12. for a second and say that "It is not a void" might relate to the discussion of knowledge and ignorance vs Knowledge. The Self cannot be void, nor can it be not-void. Do you know what I'm trying to say?

I think that there is a great (meaning wonderful) paradox in this that you captured here Steve.

It reminds me of reading Sri Ramana as Saying that the stillness of the sage is actually both stillnes and activity. Like a spinning top that when spinning so fast appears to be still, but it's actually still and spinning at the same time. - this wisdom of the sages seems paradoxical, yet at the same time, feels so 'it'.

 

I love the gold vs gold trinkets image.

The variety of gold ornaments is unreal, since none of them can exist without the gold of which they are all made.

 

Number 13 is very powerful. It seems that he's refering to the absolute ALL, the basis for everyting and every non-thing.

Knowing this (the Self) is the only real knowing for in it, there is nothing un-known.

 

Each of these verses is great to meditate on, they feel like a catalyst to revert the awareness back onto itself, even prior to the concept of individualty. Back to the actual source of all.

 

I dig this discussion Lozen and Steve, thank you both, & I'd be interested to hear what you think about the Brunton's book Steve.

[doc benway]

14. If the first person, I, exists, then the second and third persons, you and he, will also exist. By enquiring into the nature of the I, the I perishes. With it 'you' and 'he' also perish. The resultant state, which shines as Absolute Being, is one's own natural state, the Self.

 

This is a dangerous statement, IMO. The reason is this. It makes perfect sense and is very easy to conceptualize and understand. The danger is that, once understood intellectually, it is very easy to get caught in the trap of slacking off in our practice. It is not the concept or understanding that is important. It is the "enquiring into the nature of the I". That is the only way for the I to "perish". Until that happens, it's just an intellectual exercise...

[Lozen]

I think this is about how when you become more connected the distinction between self and other lessens. At least, that is how I understand it.

[doc benway]

I think this is about how when you become more connected the distinction between self and other lessens. At least, that is how I understand it.

Exactly! And at times, or perhaps at some point, for some, the distinction disappears altogether. It appears that there are those for whom this distinction is non-existent (Ramana, UG Krishnamurti,...) whereas for most people I think there are periodic experiences like that.

[Lozen]

15. Only with reference to the present can the past and the future exist. They too, while current, are the present. To try to determine the nature of the past and the future while ignoring the present is like trying to count without the unit.

 

 

Hmmm....

[doc benway]

What are the past and the future aside from thoughts?

One is memory, the other is the projection of memory in an effort to anticipate.

Neither the past or future exist aside from thoughts occuring in the present.

In that sense the present moment creates the future and the past at the same time.

One part that doesn't read well for me is "They too, while current, are the present." I'm not sure what is implied by that, it seems redundant. Maybe it's a translation issue.

[mat black]

One part that doesn't read well for me is "They too, while current, are the present." I'm not sure what is implied by that, it seems redundant. Maybe it's a translation issue.

 

Her's my shot at it.

 

Past and or future while current, ie when being thought about in ones mind, when dwelt apon, - "are the present"

We give life to the past in our mind when we dwell apon it. If we think of a memory from the past, we give it a present reality, even possibly experiencing a physical reaction in accordance with it. eg butterflies in our stomach just from recalling a nervous or embarassing incident from the past. Another example is when we breath shallow when remembering a sad event.

The body can manifest various signs of the mind still giving reality to the past (though this is not always concious on our behalf)

This reminds me of hearing Sailor Bob say that when we are sick, all the emotions of being sick from the past arise in our mind. Then it gets harder for us to get better. If we stay present, don't judge the 'sickness' and just allow it flow without lableing it, we recover quicker. Judgement of the present and emotions of the past can create stasis in the mind & body.

 

The only life, the only assumed reality that the past or future can have is in our mind. If we think about it whatever it is, it becomes, in our mind, the present.

So we need to be more aware if we find ourselves dwelling on the past or future. Catch such thoughts and any associated feelings & emotions if they arise without being moved by them - whether pleasant or unpleasnt. They are all conditioned, we created them all.

 

To try to determine the nature of the past and the future while ignoring the present is like trying to count without the unit

Some people would go to Sri Ramana asking about past lives, or future happenings. He would respond by saying that it is more important to know the present - know yourself here & now.

In the present, when there is awareness without thought, the openings for true understanding is possible.

 

- just 2 (australian) cents

 

Sorry if that was too long

Edited May 29, 2008 by mat black

[Lozen]

Modern-day wisdom would tell someone to look at the past and see what they learned and look where they want to be in the future and then USE THE PRESENT to do that, to make a plan. But I bet he's not talking about that either.

 

I also thought it was more simplistic than telling people the same thing meditation teachers do (when thoughts arise, etc....). I thought he was simply saying that when the past occurred, it was the present, or when the future will occur, it too will be the present.

[doc benway]

My problem with the statement occurs if I define current as occuring now, or present. In that sense to say

"They too, while current, are the present." means that while occurring now, they are occuring now. It just doesn't make sense to me. Now what if we define current as something flowing... then it works for me....

[Lozen]

Hmm, it makes sense to me though. The past was the present when it was the present; the future will be the present when it is the present, if you stay in the present you take care of past and future.

[doc benway]

Hmm, it makes sense to me though. The past was the present when it was the present; the future will be the present when it is the present, if you stay in the present you take care of past and future.

Very well said... I see what you're driving at.

[Lozen]

Thanks!!

 

16. Apart, from us where is time and where is space? If we are bodies, we are involved in time and space, but are we? We are one and identical now, then, and forever, here, and everywhere. Therefore we, timeless, and spaceless Being, alone are.

 

Someone has to help me with this one...

[Lozen]

Thanks!!

 

16. Apart, from us where is time and where is space? If we are bodies, we are involved in time and space, but are we? We are one and identical now, then, and forever, here, and everywhere. Therefore we, timeless, and spaceless Being, alone are.

 

Someone has to help me with this one...

 

Unless he's talking about cosmic energy or something?

[doc benway]

Unless he's talking about cosmic energy or something?

This is not an easy concept but it will come to you if you give it some time, I think. Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Osho, and Anthony Dimello helped me to get this concept.

Let's break it down and see what comes...

 

"Apart, from us where is time and where is space?" Think about it - time is only meaningful in a relative sense - comparing now to then. This only is significant to the brain that works by comparing things. Same goes for space. Here is meaningless without there. Where are we right now? Define where 'here' is. It's impossible. It's all relative and only meaningful to the brain that is conditioned to compare. In reality, time and space are the products of thought.

 

"If we are bodies, we are involved in time and space, but are we?" Are we our bodies? This is the value in the exercise of figuring out the question "who am I?" which was one of Ramana's primary methods for achieving awareness. Am I my body? If so, which part? If I lose a leg or both, am I not still I? "I" am still in existence until "I" die. What then? THis is worth investigating very deeply for yourself. This really can't be taught, only pointed at.

 

 

"We are one and identical now, then, and forever, here, and everywhere." Here again is the non-separation. The unity of all. The Dao. The oneness of existence. I think we've already explored that.

 

"Therefore we, timeless, and spaceless Being, alone are." The passages that preceed this one hopefully serve to show us that we are not our bodies. We are not something that is finite and can be quantified or localized. That is all an illusion. A useful and somewhat necesary illusion for survival, but an illusion nonetheless. Albert Einstein realized this through his study of math and physics (see my tag line). We are indescribable. We really have no absolute position in space and time. Our existence defies such simple definitions and descriptions...

 

I hope that helps. Don't give up! It took me several years of studying several different authors and meditating to get a grip on some of these concepts. It doesn't come easy...

 

PS Sorry I've been absent for a while but I'm recovering from an emergency appendectomy.... things are slowly getting better. It was quite an interesting and unexpected experience!

[thelerner]

16. Apart, from us where is time and where is space? If we are bodies, we are involved in time and space, but are we? We are one and identical now, then, and forever, here, and everywhere. Therefore we, timeless, and spaceless Being, alone are.

 

Someone has to help me with this one...

 

 

Here's how I chew on it; If I quiet my mind and look out I see the world, its just the world without labels wants or desires. Without the filters and conditioning of my mind- what going on is awareness. The bug, the bird looking out is also experiencing this awareness. When you look out quietly, without thought- awareness. Time is inconsequential, no thoughts of past or future.

 

You, me, bug and bird sharing in Nowness until wants, desires, goals and fears shatter now into pieces and plans.

 

Michael

[Lozen]

Oh.

 

Steve hope you feel better.

 

Here's 17:

 

To those who have not realized the Self, as well as to those who have, the word 'I' refers to the body, but with this difference, that for those who have not realized, the 'I' is confined to the body whereas for those who have realized the Self within the body the 'I' shines as the limitless Self.

 

So if you are aware or awake or whatnot you realize that you are more than just your body.

 

This almost sounds Christian; like he's talking about soul or spirit or whatnot.