tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post3426302849426756215..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: 'Awareness watching awareness'Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4173780241000580582014-07-24T19:50:50.823+01:002014-07-24T19:50:50.823+01:00Awarness watching awarness -the term may not be gr...Awarness watching awarness -the term may not be grasped and assimilated , because like many of the comments state, it denotes an alien 2 person object as the aim. However, jumping over the hurdle of technicalities, what he means is indeed intriguing, to say the least. The body, the I , pointed out by Sri ramana is an idea, a thought. We do not live in the world, the world is our own projection. Similarly, the I thought is an object or form that we pick up in this "appearent" mental mess we create. When we have no center from which we operate from, to use the beautiful anology of Sri om, then we dwell in the limitless awarness- consciousness, just as the man who leaves the dark cave to emerge in the unlimited rays of the sun to arrive at the source of the so called I .Suppose that you did not operate from a center, therefore you had absolutely no limitations , likes and dislikes? Naturally, you would have absolutely no thoughts. Hence, you would be limitless awarness. As pointed out by Sri ramana, minds exists only in relation to gross objects. To put it more clearly, the illusion of being a body in a world with an existence in time and space "bounds" you to this bodies memories , feelings , thoughts, in short, all of it's idiosyncratic tendencies. What is the only state according to Sri ramana? The only state is the state free of thoughts. Therefore by dwelling in this state with firm love and abiding in it, the body consciousness, the feeling I am this body becomes a second person object. The ego cannot attend to self, the self is already realised and does not need inquiry. Sri ramana gave the exemple of shadows on the water. The ego is but mere shadows that have no true existence, the ego is false. The self, the state free of thoughts is the ever present background. There is no need to inquire, the only thing needed to do is to abide in self.Again, what is the self? The state free of thoughts. What do thought pertain to? Gross objects. And what do thoughts signify? Identification with forms. This is where I think the mistake both in the interpretation of awarness watching awarness and in the explaination arises. You cannot use this "i" idea to inquire. Awarness watching awarness would mean considering the false ego as true and inquiring into the self which is preposterous. How would a pen inquired into the nature of the the seer of that pen? Well, the I which is also just an object is powerless and devoid of any ability to inquire into the self. What would be more accurate would be to state that once youve actually seen and are mature enough to see the body as a alien second person object, follow and stay on that "frequency" to use the words of maharaj. Awarness would then denote a state and the "watching" part would be a farewell because the watcher would "dive" and dissolve in awarness to never again reemerge. Hence, the "watching" part is not a distance, nor an action, it simply denotes a state. It would mean the finality of the "watcher" , because once you are aware, then you are aware. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32386132977946457912014-07-24T19:25:01.974+01:002014-07-24T19:25:01.974+01:00Awarness watching awarness -the term may not be gr...Awarness watching awarness -the term may not be grasped and assimilated , because like many of the comments state, it denotes an alien 2 person object as the aim. However, jumping over the hurdle of technicalities, what he means is indeed intriguing, to say the least. The body, the I , pointed out by Sri ramana is an idea, a thought. We do not live in the world, the world is our own projection. Similarly, the I thought is an object or form that we pick up in this "appearent" mental mess we create. When we have no center from which we operate from, to use the beautiful anology of Sri om, then we dwell in the limitless awarness- consciousness, just as the man who leaves the dark cave to emerge in the unlimited rays of the sun to arrive at the source of the so called I .Suppose that you did not operate from a center, therefore you had absolutely no limitations , likes and dislikes? Naturally, you would have absolutely no thoughts. Hence, you would be limitless awarness. As pointed out by Sri ramana, minds exists only in relation to gross objects. To put it more clearly, the illusion of being a body in a world with an existence in time and space "bounds" you to this bodies memories , feelings , thoughts, in short, all of it's idiosyncratic tendencies. What is the only state according to Sri ramana? The only state is the state free of thoughts. Therefore by dwelling in this state with firm love and abiding in it, the body consciousness, the feeling I am this body becomes a second person object. The ego cannot attend to self, the self is already realised and does not need inquiry. Sri ramana gave the exemple of shadows on the water. The ego is but mere shadows that have no true existence, the ego is false. The self, the state free of thoughts is the ever present background. There is no need to inquire, the only thing needed to do is to abide in self.Again, what is the self? The state free of thoughts. What do thought pertain to? Gross objects. And what do thoughts signify? Identification with forms. This is where I think the mistake both in the interpretation of awarness watching awarness and in the explaination arises. You cannot use this "i" idea to inquire. Awarness watching awarness would mean considering the false ego as true and inquiring into the self which is preposterous. How would a pen inquired into the nature of the the seer of that pen? Well, the I which is also just an object is powerless and devoid of any ability to inquire into the self. What would be more accurate would be to state that once youve actually seen and are mature enough to see the body as a alien second person object, follow and stay on that "frequency" to use the words of maharaj. Awarness would then denote a state and the "watching" part would be a farewell because the watcher would "dive" and dissolve in awarness to never again reemerge. Hence, the "watching" part is not a distance, nor an action, it simply denotes a state. It would mean the finality of the "watcher" , because once you are aware, then you are aware.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03594532922548807715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40702838584097123392013-09-04T01:19:13.166+01:002013-09-04T01:19:13.166+01:00Awareness watching awareness as a term may inadver...Awareness watching awareness as a term may inadvertentntly imply two awareness principles/components?? Yes I agree as mentioned by michael - that it may help some to understand the principle of self-enquiry - but nonetheless it may also become confusing in the act of the practise itself By continuing to create an subject-object principle whereby the practitioner begins to (unknowingly/subconsciously) 'watch out' for awareness 'literally' seperated from themselves within their practise Hence why I tend to lean more towards the preciseness of ramana usuage of the term self-enquiry self-scrtuniy self-attentivenss - because it ceases/stops the practitionair to look for an awareness component as separate/divided from the practitionair him/herself - &/or as perceiving the subject-object idea that mind is so easily comforted with The other concern I would have in the practise itself is highlighted by the word watching This uses a component of the senses I know both ramana & murugannar may use these to get across the theoretical practise for those who find it hard to undertsand But in the practise itself they both seem on the whole?? to remain strict with words like 'being' be be still as opposed to some sensory terminology which would retain the practitionairs idea of seeing looking watching out or sensing for awareness Yes it is difficult to get across the practise of be still or being without perserverience in the practise itself Here most of us tend to get lost by the conditioned mind But I am glad that Michael remains so strict with extrapolating words as close as possible to the original tamil From the stories of ramana it seems that he himself remained strict in correcting even muruganar whose poetical skills however immense gifted may at times loosen the precisiness of the terminology that ramana offered instead for the rigours of the practise itself that is essentially our only real nature Yes it may seem pedantic to some reading this - but until we practise earnestly diligently it is impossible to qualify that importance of the exactness of these terms used by wise sages like ramana He knows more then any the confused doubting self-conceit nature that is mindMujeebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60912877000212187282007-03-06T15:09:00.000+00:002007-03-06T15:09:00.000+00:00In reply to today's comment by 'anonymous':Whateve...In reply to today's comment by 'anonymous':<BR/><BR/>Whatever helps each of us individually to draw our attention back to ourself — that is, to our fundamantal and essential self-consciousness 'I am' — is beneficial.<BR/><BR/>However, we should be careful not to be distracted from our single goal, which is the absolute clarity of non-dual self-consciousness. Anything other than 'I am' — whether a subtle object like a thought or a gross object like our breath — is liable to distract us from our essentially non-objective self-consciousness.<BR/><BR/>The practice of self-attentiveness is so very simple that we really do not need anything to support it. All we need is the true all-consuming love just to know and to be our real self, which we always truly are, but from which we allow ourself to be distract by our desires and attachments for anything other than that.<BR/><BR/>Provided that we have that love, there is nothing easier than to know and to be ourself. The sole aim and purpose of all our practice is therefore just to cultivate that love, and its inseparable counterpart, absolute freedom from desire and attachment.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes, MichaelMichael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61909243613795732172007-03-06T14:38:00.000+00:002007-03-06T14:38:00.000+00:00Mark, what I've been experimenting with, I've docu...Mark, what I've been experimenting with, I've documented here .. http://practicaladvaita.blogspot.com/2007/03/practicing-in-daily-life.html<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you may find something that feels right for you. Is that the right way, I don't know, I'm yet to find out myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-92102156991824587492007-01-09T13:17:00.000+00:002007-01-09T13:17:00.000+00:00Regarding the question of Mark, I think what he sa...Regarding the question of Mark, I think what he says is correct from the view point of objective meditation, but is not applicable to self-enquiry, where the search is for the very source of thoughts. This is clarified in the chapter, 'Aham Vritti,' of the book, 'Gospel,' edited by Maurice Frydman. Hence, once the quest is begun, it should be continuing, of course in the subliminal consciousness ( I don't want to use the word sub-conscious in view of its different connotations relating to Frauedian ideas of dreams )in spite of surface activities, this being more so in view of the fact that there is no individual doer, and is a misconception, in the light of the truth of the sole reality of the self. Further, one should not confound the Vyavaharic reality of the waking state as having any bearing on the Self, and interpret self-enquiry from that standpoint.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68153752991394062872007-01-08T22:07:00.000+00:002007-01-08T22:07:00.000+00:00Michael, please explain how to "withdraw our atten...Michael, please explain how to "withdraw our attention or consciousness from all other things and . . . focus it wholly and exclusively on itself, that is, on ourself" while one is moving, talking, eating, etc. How can I be typing these words if I am withdrawing my attention from the computer, my fingers, and the thoughts forming in my head? Or are you saying that this investigation is to be done only when one is sitting in meditation with the eyes closed? Maybe you answer this question in your book, but I have not finished it yet. Thanks.<br />MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com