Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[Mal]

O.k good. I think I see where you are comming from. I guess the sticking point is beleiving that "reality" is actually just an illusion too.

[mat black]

O.k good. I think I see where you are comming from. I guess the sticking point is beleiving that "reality" is actually just an illusion too.

The statement that reality is an illusion is given from the 4th stage of conciousness turiya. I spose we won't understand it 'till we realise it.

Just to continue breifly on the role of the senses, here an excerpt from a conversation with Sri Rmana and a questioner:

Question by a disciple: "There is more pleasure in dhyana (concentration) than in sensual enjoyments. Yet the mind runs after the sensual enjoyments and does not seek the former.

Why is it so?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "Pleasure or pain are aspects of the mind only. Our essential nature is happiness. But we have forgotten the Self and imagine that the body or the mind is the Self. It is that wrong identity that gives rise to misery. What is to be done? This mental tendency is very ancient and has continued for innumerable past births.Hence it has grown strong. That must go before the essential nature, happiness, asserts itself."

 

........and in regard to reversing the light:

To see objects the reflected light of the mind is necessary. To see the Heart it is enough that the mind is turned towards it. Then mind loses itself and Heart shines forth.

The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness.

When the ego, however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or sensing faculty. The cosmic mind, being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware.

 

here's the link to the site -very nice

http://www.hinduism.co.za/meditati1.htm

Edited April 15, 2008 by mat black

[mat black]

Sorry for posting so much on this thread, but here's Sri Ramana explaing how to maintain awareness in the midst of worldly activities:

 

Q: How to maintain the thought that all is Brahman in the midst of worldly activities?

Maharshi: When the harmonium is being played there is a constant note that is called sruti. Along with that, other notes also come out. If the ear is fixed on this note that is constant, then, while listening to the other notes, that original note cannot be forgotten. Actually, that first note gives strength to all the other notes. So, the principle to understand is that the first note is the adhistana [ substratum ] while the other notes represent worldy activities. During worldy activities , if [ awareness of] the note of the adisthana is continuous , whatever is spoken is then done with the authority of this adhistana note. But an ordinary man does not keep his attention on the first note , the adhistana. He merely listens to the subsequent notes . The jnani keeps his attention on the first note . Sukdev [ a sage of ancient India ] used to keep such attention and maintain his awareness of Brahman. When the attention is fixed properly on the first note , the effect of the other notes will not be felt.

 

Thanks - mat

[doc benway]

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."

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.

[Mal]

[Lozen]

I mean I always think of intuition etc. as being outside of the body -- but I guess this is wrong too, because I physically feel sensations in my gut, feelings I believe reside physically in the heart, nerves in the body... Hmmmm....

 

And who is to say that whatever it is would be freed from sensations? Why can't whatever it is have sensations outside the body??

 

Okay and here's the poem I quoted just for fun:

http://www.spinwwweaver.net/wwrww.html

[doc benway]

Would that observer not be set free from the illusions of the senses.

What makes you think the observer is not already free?

Is it not just attachment to and identification with the five-fold sheath that's restricted?

 

 

 

And who is to say that whatever it is would be freed from sensations? Why can't whatever it is have sensations outside the body??

What is a sensation without the sensory organ to transmit it and the brain and conditioning to perceive and record it? Is there something that is there beyond the realm of the senses? I think that's what we're trying to get at.

 

Our experience of the universe is all there really ever is when it comes to form. It is all the interpretation of formless energy, given form by the miracle of our senses and brain. Without the senses and brain to "make sense" of the infinite patterns of energy, there is no form. And to think we only are tuned in to a minute fraction of the possibities existing in the universe. It's astounding!

 

Yet there is something beyond form and the senses. And I think Ramana is pointing to that indirectly because it defies description or even experience in normal terms.

 

PS Very nice poem - I can see how it reminds you of what we're studying

[mat black]

Hi Mal & thanks

 

That this reality as we know it is an illusion can really only be understood when we know this truth through our own direct realization. Sri Ramana said, to merely say it's an illusion is only half the truth. So we just gotta keep investigating within where our sense of 'me-ness' arises from.

(oh, yeah, let me know if ou're ever comming to Melbourne)

 

And who is to say that whatever it is would be freed from sensations? Why can't whatever it is have sensations outside the body??

Here's my take on it Loz,

We wanted sensation because of our desire for them. That's why we have a body. The Self that Ramana refers to has no need of sensations because it is by it's very nature perfect peace. It's up to us to return to that state of realizing this and abiding in it. Until we do, nothing else will ever really satisfy. After all the Self is our authentic nature

 

Steve

What is a sensation without the sensory organ to transmit it and the brain and conditioning to perceive and record it? Is there something that is there beyond the realm of the senses?

That which is the substratum of the senses, the substratum of everything. We aren't seperate from this substratum - the Self

And I think Ramana is pointing to that indirectly because it defies description or even experience in normal terms.

Maybe that's why he communicated mostly through silence, given that all else is born out of silence?

And yet isn't it great that we are using words to commincate our understanding of it to each other accross the world?

I hope that by doing this, we can encourage each other to find the Source.

The vibe here feels smooth - thanks Loz, Mal & Steve.

Edited April 16, 2008 by mat black

[mat black]

And I think Ramana is pointing to that indirectly because it defies description or even experience in normal terms.

Maybe the words, the silence, the look in the eyes are all just different methods used in order to create a resonance with that within us which recognises and knows the Self?

Sometimes just seeing the glimmer in the Maharshi's eyes ................they are like a pure spotless mirror emenating the radiance of the Self. When we look into those eyes......something withn us is enlivened because it inhenrently knows what it is looking at

Edited April 16, 2008 by mat black

[Lozen]

I did read something the other day that said brain patterns were the same when someone was, say, cycling or simply having a dream about cycling. Not sure how that applies...

 

I guess what I learned is that there is the physical and there is the nonphysical (and of course the two are linked) but it always STARTS in the physical. Hmmm... And I guess I'd apply that to form and non-form or whatever.

 

Plus didn't Ramana have a body and senses too?

[doc benway]

I did read something the other day that said brain patterns were the same when someone was, say, cycling or simply having a dream about cycling. Not sure how that applies...

 

I guess what I learned is that there is the physical and there is the nonphysical (and of course the two are linked) but it always STARTS in the physical. Hmmm... And I guess I'd apply that to form and non-form or whatever.

 

Plus didn't Ramana have a body and senses too?

Very good obserations. Yup, Ramana had a body and senses. I don't think that being in touch with the Self, even on a constant basis, is fatal. The body remains there and with the body the senses and that is how the Self experiences form. Self also experiences formlessness but I think that is something we don't experience during life.

 

THis is very relevant to a profound experience I had a few years ago that has me convinced that Ramana's verses are reality and that Mat is absolutely correct in one of his points. There are certain things that are primarily experiential. That is, if you haven't felt it, reading about it doesn't really mean much. Once you've felt it, the verbal description suddenly makes perfect sense. I've noticed that a lot with my Taijiquan practice and meditation, and, more than anything else, with reading Ramana, Nisargadatta, Watts, Osho, and so forth...

[Mal]

[mat black]

Edited April 18, 2008 by mat black

[doc benway]

6. The world is nothing more than an embodiment of the objects perceived by the five sense-organs. Since, through these five sense-organs, a single mind perceives the world, the world is nothing but the mind. Apart from the mind can there be a world?

From a practical standpoint, can we define or confirm a world other than using our senses?

Is there sound without an ear, sight without an eye, texture without touch?

 

a single mind perceives the world

This is really the crux of the matter for me. When you look for a long time for the source of the "I am" thought, this is a feeling that can arise. Each of us experiences independence and separateness due to our sensory perceptions, memories, and so on. Yet when you peel away the layers looking for the source of the "I" thought, it seems thtat there is a common awareness that is embodied in all of us. Again, very difficult to capture in words.

[mat black]

Steve, the way you elaborated on the #6 hits the nail on the head to me.

 

From a practical standpoint, can we define or confirm a world other than using our senses?

Is there sound without an ear, sight without an eye, texture without touch?

Potent questions, catalytic, and pointers to investigate the senses and realise that the world is tertiary (at least) following the senses, following the mind, following...............

 

Yet when you peel away the layers looking for the source of the "I" thought, it seems thtat there is a common awareness that is embodied in all of us.

Raindrops come in different sizes, yet every raindrop comes from the cloud. Every cloud has different colour, shape, density, yet every cloud comes from the ocean. The common awareness of the raindrop is the ocean, and every raindrop eventually returns to the ocean......................likewise, we find that we are not seperate from the Self

Edited April 19, 2008 by mat black

[doc benway]

Raindrops come in different sizes, yet every raindrop comes from the cloud. Every cloud has different colour, shape, density, yet every cloud comes from the ocean. The common awareness of the raindrop is the ocean, and every raindrop eventually returns to the ocean......................likewise, we find that we are not seperate from the Self

I hate to sound like we're trading compliments but I've got to say that your raindrop analogy is perfect!

You can look at the raindrop as the physical organism but also as the conscious self.

Very nice.

[Lozen]

6. The world is nothing more than an embodiment of the objects perceived by the five sense-organs. Since, through these five sense-organs, a single mind perceives the world, the world is nothing but the mind. Apart from the mind can there be a world?

 

Is that like asking if a tree falls in the forest, can anybody hear? I mean, some people don't have all five of their senses but that doesn't make sight or sound any less real... And does this only apply to humans? I'm not sure if animals can develop the same level of awareness as humans can, but I do believe animals can perceive objects using their senses irrespectively of whether or not humans do the same.

 

Also, aren't there animals or insects without "minds" as we know them who also perceive the world?

 

And isn't there more to the world than just objects that are perceived by the senses? What about emotions?

[doc benway]

Is that like asking if a tree falls in the forest, can anybody hear? I mean, some people don't have all five of their senses but that doesn't make sight or sound any less real... And does this only apply to humans? I'm not sure if animals can develop the same level of awareness as humans can, but I do believe animals can perceive objects using their senses irrespectively of whether or not humans do the same.

 

Also, aren't there animals or insects without "minds" as we know them who also perceive the world?

 

And isn't there more to the world than just objects that are perceived by the senses? What about emotions?

If a tree falls with no one to hear, there is no sound. THere are disturbances in the air but no sound unless a tympanic membrane is vibrated and connected to a cerebral cortex to interpret it as something meaningful.

Does color exist to a congenitally blind person?

I agree that animals are aware and perceive and are a part of the Mind.

I think there is much more to the world than is available to our senses yet, unless I can perceive it, either directly or indirectly, how can I know if it exists?

 

I think the most important point is the concept of non-duality. The Mind is not one individual's awareness but the aggregate awareness - the multitude of dewdrops on the spiderweb or the candlelight reflected in infinite mirrors, to use two Zen metaphors. The Mind is aware of everything because it is all minds. Every death is the extinguishing of but a single sensory aperture. Each new birth, yet another perspective of the Mind.

[Lozen]

I guess that tree falling thing has always bothered me, for people to think that things wouldn't keep happening in nature unless they were there to observe it. So a ton of birds started dropping dead due to DDT before any humans noticed it, but I don't think that made the effects any less real. Or there could be birds chirping and one could be lost in their own mind (no pun intended), but that doesn't mean the birds aren't chirping just because they can't hear it. And same with color to a blind person--if the person next to them isn't blind, I don't think the colors are CHANGING just because that person is there.

 

I do like the idea of the mind/all minds being aware of everything. It makes sense to me because I've perceived things or known things I've had no logical way of knowing--that someone is going to call before I hear the phone ring, things like that. I think my students can pick up on things without even realizing it--whether or not they act on their intuition is a whole 'nother story.

 

This stuff is fascinating...

[Mal]

[WhiteTiger]

Sorry to screw with anyone already on this topic. I do not mean to get everyone to start all over trying to explain it to me, and I in no way am trying to start arguements.

 

I believe just being you weren't there to perviece it means you mind didn't coprehend it. Thus in your mind it wasn't comprehended, DOES not mean that it didn't happen. If you claim it is not real (subjective reality, or in the words of more a taoist talk, personal reality) this is true. BUT if you claim that it never happened does not hold true, just your subjective reality, it didn't happen. You have no recollection of what happened. You do not know. I'm not saying go crazy trying to figure out the unreal, or what could have really happened or what did happen. I am however saying just because you didn't observe it to happen DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

 

Reality happens weather we are aware of it or not. This reality is not subjective (or personalized to your views and own experiences) Yet, we can not postulate what could have happened without evidance. Nor do I personally like to waste my time doing such things. But just because we didn't observe something doesn't mean its not real. I've had many people agrue me different. This subject and my personal view of it, is not something I'm willing to budge on.

 

All I can say is and ask the readers to try to think hard about, how does one becomes a Master of sword play? To master it means he must experience a great deal and feel he has gone in every direction of mastering every fine detail of every skill involved. But how can this master be a true master if he hasn't found out how to master things he hasn't yet come accross. Does he not have to experience it all? Does he know he experienced it all? So in the end if he has this master of sword play must be a master above all other masters that haven't experienced everything. Maybe my logic hasn't got enough meaning for I haven't achieved Wu Chi. but what i have understood in theory and what i have gotten to in my practices have lead me to this belief.

[doc benway]

..........

I am however saying just because you didn't observe it to happen DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

 

Reality happens weather we are aware of it or not. This reality is not subjective (or personalized to your views and own experiences) Yet, we can not postulate what could have happened without evidance. Nor do I personally like to waste my time doing such things. But just because we didn't observe something doesn't mean its not real. I've had many people agrue me different. This subject and my personal view of it, is not something I'm willing to budge on.

..........

I haven't achieved Wu Chi. but what i have understood in theory and what i have gotten to in my practices have lead me to this belief.

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?

 

This leads to the other important quality of non-duality. Everything is inter-related. There is no real separation of events, objects, organisms. The separation is an illusion. THis is why everything that happens is real, because it effects everything around it, either directly or indirectly. This is why thoughts are also real, they effect actions, as do dreams and so on. Once the interconnection is felt (not understood, but really experienced), it makes more sense intellectually.

 

It's interesting that you bring up Wu Ji - this is the state of nothingness. In Wu Ji, there is no form or formlessness. Reality does not exist or not-exist. There are very strong parallels between the Daoist concepts of Wu Ji and Tai Ji, and the Hindu / Advaita concepts being discussed by Sri Ramana.

 

PS - Please don't apologize for your post - that's what this is all about. The tougher the questions, the more we all learn

[WhiteTiger]

It's interesting that you bring up Wu Ji - this is the state of nothingness. In Wu Ji, there is no form or formlessness. Reality does not exist or not-exist. There are very strong parallels between the Daoist concepts of Wu Ji and Tai Ji, and the Hindu / Advaita concepts being discussed by Sri Ramana.

 

Are we all not trying to achieve Wu Ji in one way or another weather we realize it?

 

Well, I must admit most of my education is Taoist (which trust me doesn't extend vary far in education). In my small education time i spent learning just a little bit of taoism there were small tiny traces of some other stuff which i believe to be some sort of tibatan buddhism or some sort of buddhism but to little of the traces are there for me to pinpoint what it is.

 

As for you saying that Wu Ji isn't found in Taoism, I'm not to sure thats correct, in Taoism theres Internal Alchemy, the most famous would be achieving immortality through a long series of internal alchemy practices, through here do you not at one point have to achieve Wu Ji, or am i completely and totally wrong? (Don't get me wrong I'm definately not trying to say how things are but rather asking a question to anyone and everyone reading this board?)

[doc benway]

 

As for you saying that Wu Ji isn't found in Taoism, I'm not to sure thats correct, in Taoism theres Internal Alchemy, the most famous would be achieving immortality through a long series of internal alchemy practices, through here do you not at one point have to achieve Wu Ji, or am i completely and totally wrong? (Don't get me wrong I'm definately not trying to say how things are but rather asking a question to anyone and everyone reading this board?)

WT,

I think that you must have misread or misunderstood my post. I didn't intend to say that Wu Ji is not found in Daoism. Wu Ji is a principle fundamental to Daoist philosophy. Maybe it was my poor description of what Wu Ji is (or isn't) that was confusing. My point was that the Wu Ji and Tai Ji concepts of Daoism have strong similarities to Hindi/Vedanta/Advaita concepts as demonstrated in Ramana's 40 verses.

[Lozen]

I think the perspective thing is absolutely fascinating. I think about it all the time at my job. I see things a certain way based on my experiences; other teachers and students see things a different way based on their experiences. Nobody is really right or wrong... wow, it's scary to say that because I'm very far from being a postmodernist and I do believe in objective truth and reality and even morality. But what I'm trying to say is that there is not one RIGHT perspective, only some that may be more useful than others. And I don't mean useful in a Machiavellian sense, but as in helping one further along their goals, as opposed to what they THINK they want.

 

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.

 

I had an experience once when I was in England where somehow everything seemed connected: the sidewalk, the letter I was mailing, the clouds, the air, the rain, the passers-by. I can't really explain it...

 

I just read somewhere that a Buddhist writer I love said that anything you write is directly affected by everything you have ever experienced. It rang true for me and I don't know how it would make sense only to say it is so. Likewise I heard W.S. Merwin speak recently (!!) and he said that poetry is what comes out after unbelievable anguish--after the cry of anguish you can make syllables. It is all common experience--and I think though we have unique ways to express it, it's all just one thread... Kind of like how people say artists are reflecting reality back to you. Or something.

 

Hope I'm making sense.