Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[mat black]

28. Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself, with a keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the 'I' originates.

 

 

Oh, i read this quote a long time ago. The version i heard is that the man dropped something very valuable to himself into the deep water, and so because of it's value he was determined to retrieve it......................

"with a keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the 'I' originates."

Wonderful analogy, reminds me of the single minded approach employed in Ch'an.

[steve]

28. Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself, with a keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the 'I' originates.

"keen one-pointed mind" - it's critical to be clear and focused to maintain such a challenging search

"controlling speech and breath" - this is puzzling to me. I guess controlling speech refers to staying focused on the search for the origin of I, refraining from distractions and so on.

What about controlling breath? Ramana wasn't much of an advocate of specific meditation practices or techniques.

Is it a reflection of the "water" analogy? Again reminding us that it may take a long time and we must be patient and disciplined and persevere?

[Lozen]

I understand that it can seem counterproductive to seek, when we tell ourselves that there is nothing to be found. The story has all the more weight when it seems to be based in experience. But I can say from my own experience, that any time that I have turned away from the direct experience that I was having to tell myself some story about it, which I then smugly confirmed in my own head as being more true than whatever I seemed to be experiencing, then that has immediately and effectively cut off the workings of what I really am. But when I have caught myself trying to jump in with some piece of "wisdom", and have instead allowed myself to acknowledge what it is that I am actually experiencing, then there has been the possibility of true inquiry. It really makes all the difference, and it is only our earnestness that allows it happen.

 

This I understand and agree with.... I think it is a lot like the Alan Watts quote I have to find...lol But I guess I still get stuck on the dualism/nondualism thing... Because I think it is folly to assume one can be separate or fortified or not a part of...well, everything... but to think one IS everything and there is no separateness seems just downright silly. I mean, who is it that would be doing the thinking?

 

 

I love the idea of diving into oneself. Controlling speech and breath seems to be a reference to meditation (am I wrong?) and perhaps he is alluding to "I" originating in thought.

 

This stuff is fascinating; I think this is my favorite verse yet...and certainly the only one I've been able to understand for the past ten verses or so.

[steve]

I think it is a lot like the Alan Watts quote I have to find...lol But I guess I still get stuck on the dualism/nondualism thing... Because I think it is folly to assume one can be separate or fortified or not a part of...well, everything... but to think one IS everything and there is no separateness seems just downright silly.

If you resonate with Watts and you are struggling with the oneness thing, have you ever read The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Watts? If not, and you are comfortable PMing me with your mailing address, I'd be happy to send you a copy. It's a cool little book. I try to keep an extra on hand for a friend.... you could keep it or pass it on when you're done with it.

 

I mean, who is it that would be doing the thinking?

 

Exactly!!!

That's what we're trying to figure out!

Ramana admonishes us to dive into that question for all we're worth.

[Lozen]

lol, i could give you my school address but you'd have to promise to pack in some crystals.

 

actually, have you read how i became stupid? that book ROCKS.

[steve]

lol, i could give you my school address but you'd have to promise to pack in some crystals.

 

actually, have you read how i became stupid? that book ROCKS.

I'll check it out.

[Lozen]

Thanks for the book!!!!

 

Here's verse 29:

 

29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry.

 

So you're supposed to seek I without using the word I? Uh....okay....

[steve]

Thanks for the book!!!!

 

Here's verse 29:

 

29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry.

 

So you're supposed to seek I without using the word I? Uh....okay....

You got the book?

Great!

Please let me know what you think of it when you've read it.

 

This verse, to me, asks us to take the first step in distancing ourselves from the self reference of "I"...

For example, instead of saying "I am not this or that", thinking more along the lines of "who is it that is feeling happy?" "who is it that is interested in finding out who is feeling happy?" and so on... There does seem to be a different quality to the two methods of questioning. One reinforces the assumption of someone there called "I" and the other steps back and attempts to give up that supposition. I hope that makes some sense...

[mat black]

This verse, to me, asks us to take the first step in distancing ourselves from the self reference of "I"...

For example, instead of saying "I am not this or that", thinking more along the lines of "who is it that is feeling happy?" "who is it that is interested in finding out who is feeling happy?" and so on... There does seem to be a different quality to the two methods of questioning. One reinforces the assumption of someone there called "I" and the other steps back and attempts to give up that supposition. I hope that makes some sense...

 

I like your explanation Steve. The self reference of I is interesting..........on the one hand it seems so tangible, but all those things which we identitfy it with are just phenomenal perceptions - likes, dislikes, feeling happy etc all change over time. So none of them can constitiute an I.

 

A couple of months ago when I was feeling pretty unwell, I uttered "argh, I hate being sick like this", just then the question arose inside, 'where does this feeling of hating being sick come from'. I did't ask 'who hates being sick, rather where does this 'hate' come from, though in essence, it's sort of the same question.

As I looked inside as to where this hate of being sick came from............I couldn't find it.........kept looking.........couldn't find it. The feeling was gone.

To re-trace the source all thoughts & feelings that arise at any time seems to be the key?

 

..........seeking the Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word 'I'..........

Non verbal inquiry, very subtle. re-tracing, re-tracing, re-tracing

[Unconditioned]

29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry.

 

Here's my take, similar but maybe a little different.

 

I think the key here is understanding where the 'I' comes from. What is the cause, the root cause, of us thinking we are "I"? Rather than using objects such as "I am ____ " or "I am not _____", searching for the source, the cause, of I results in not creating more ideas/concepts/objects for us to later have to unravel. I think he is giving us a technique that does not later have to be 'undone' (for lack of a better word).

[Lozen]

xuesheng, really enjoyed the book! it seems like it is a bit more grounded in reality as i know it than ramana is though, more along the lines of "i am indelibly connected to everything" than "there is no i" though. hmmm...

 

On that note, though, here's verse 30:

30. If one enquires 'Who am I?' within the mind, the individual 'I' falls down abashed as soon as one reaches the Heart and immediately Reality manifests itself spontaneously as 'I-I'. Although it reveals itself as 'I', it is not the ego but the Perfect Being, the Absolute Self.

 

Is this like Martin Buber's I-thou?

[steve]

xuesheng, really enjoyed the book! it seems like it is a bit more grounded in reality as i know it than ramana is though, more along the lines of "i am indelibly connected to everything" than "there is no i" though. hmmm...

 

On that note, though, here's verse 30:

Is this like Martin Buber's I-thou?

I'm glad you liked the book. Alan has a way of making the most ineffable concepts seem natural. He was a gem!

 

I think what Ramana is saying is that there comes a time when the self falls away through constant inquiry into what it is, then the Self is all that remains. When that happens, you are still there and yet the you that is there is You rather than you...

Does that make any sense?

Once experienced, it is obvious.

It's really nothing but a matter of perspective but intellectual knowledge is not the same as direct experience and from Ramana's perspective, the direct experience required the inquiry into the nature of the self.

[Mal]

you are still there and yet the you that is there is You rather than you...

 

Yes, before you was a tiny thing, hiding and clinging. Now You is everything and nothing. It is still you, just no longer clinging to being you.

 

(more fun than typing I all the time )

 

but intellectual knowledge is not the same as direct experience and from Ramana's perspective he direct experience required the inquiry into the nature of the self

 

Ohh could that be because intellectual knowledge, reinforces the ego's feeling of separation?

 

Someone wrote the problem with intellectual knowledge is no mater how much you know, there is always something else that you don't know.

 

"Knowing" with wisdom or direct experience is a different sort of "knowing".

[Lozen]

From the perspective of neuroscience, your temporal lobes (iirc--the thinking part of your brain) can shut off more emotional experiences... this can be a good thing when making rational decisions or a bad thing because it can stop one from having mystical/spiritual experiences.

[Unconditioned]

Someone wrote the problem with intellectual knowledge is no mater how much you know, there is always something else that you don't know.

 

"Knowing" with wisdom or direct experience is a different sort of "knowing".

 

There are many things that we just do not have the capacity to know. The simple example is that our sensory perceptions are limited therefore so are our conclusions based on them. There's probably an easy way to debunk that logic but the point is that our knowledge is limited.

 

What we 'know' is based on the past. What we experience is tinted by what we remember from the past so generally we do not experience what is really happening, we experience an image of what is based on our previous experience. This collection of limited experiences is then stored in our memory, further changing the color of the tint on the lenses that we see through.

 

So, our knowledge is a collection of experiences based on the prior experiences/information we've collected. It's an endless loop. This all correlates to Ramana's question of "Who am I?". As we investigate further and further, once we reach the Heart, the Root, the Source, etc. the limited self is seen for what it is... we see the truth of it all, the real nakedness of the whole thing. Once that happens, spontaneously we experience directly rather than through our limited knowledge.

 

Can anyone else tell I've been on a J.Krishnamurti lately?

[steve]

 

Can anyone else tell I've been on a J.Krishnamurti lately?

I can....

JK was, without question, one of the most profound thinkers of the age.

I love his books. The cool thing is that once you get a sense of his approach and way of looking at things, you can develop it and explore it for yourself. It's a completely consistent "method."

Ironically, he didn't believe in methods. Bruce Lee was a big fan of his - I wonder if that's where Bruce got his idea of style of no style.

[Lozen]

31. For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self, arising from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of anything (as) other than the Self. Who can apprehend his State?

 

This reminds me of getting acupuncture yesterday. I felt like I was floating.

[Mal]

"Who can apprehend his State"

 

If you are "everything" how can any "thing" be separate and observe you.

[steve]

32. Although the scriptures proclaim 'Thou art That', it is only a sign of weakness of mind to meditate 'I am That, not this', because you are eternally That. What has to be done is to investigate what one really is and remain That.

 

I am constantly mystified at how he manages to capture things in words.

The more I read this, the more it makes sense but how to say it any better or clearer than it's stated right there?

[WhiteTiger]

Edited January 12, 2009 by WhiteTiger

[steve]

[Unconditioned]

Knowing is certainly preferrable to believing...

I don't think Ramana asks anyone to believe, just to practice.

 

Likewise many masters have said in so many words to 'test' it for yourself. Jesus, Buddha, etc.

 

Having the courage to test what you've heard/seen/concluded and to actually do that can remove a lot of stumbling blocks. Approaching these verses with an open mind of 'let me check that out' rather than 'yes, that sounds good, i'll buy that' will, in my opinion, bring you closer to what the author is pointing towards.

[Mal]

I hate to interrupt, (i really do)

 

But if i have not accepted one one of these numbers does it lose almost all meaning to try and move on (I mean there would be missing pieces to the puzzle)

 

I find that sometimes the next verse will help you to understand the previous one, they all sort of interrelate. and with that in mind

 

33. It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self' or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

[Lozen]

I *AM* THE SELF! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

 

lol

[Mal]

yes, reminds me of a movie

 

"I am the ONE... and you are ALL my b!tches"