Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
         

but all the same, they pointed different methods or ways

why do we speak in past tense, are they dead and Gone ? if not, and if they are still revealing ... be assured they are revealing what is best for you right now ... it could be self inquiry and being ever alive , they do not definitely lack the knowledge of self inquiry. A Buddhist following Buddha may land up with Self inquiry ... everyone , in any system who realized had to land up on that. no alternative.

The ADVENT of Bhagwan Sri Ramana happened, in my view, because the time for the Vichara, to be followed by one and all, everywhere, at all times, and not only in Hermitage by advanced devotees, had come. 

But that time did not come earlier ? before Ramana there was never a need for Vichara ?

I am of the firm opinion that fidelity to one's Guru and His Teaching is absolutely essential to progress in the realm of spirituality.

What would Ramana have said if someone were to say "Bhagwan Sri Ramana is unique to say the least" ?
if he would disagree , where is fidelity in saying this when he himself did not claim so ?
and would Ramana have said "X is of a different guru, Y is my own ?"
Please ponder. just think what would Ramana have commented if he were listening to this discussion of ours.

Love!
Silence

[srkudai]

fidelity to ramana is not equal to claiming ramana is of a different sect
by saying that ramana is saying the same truth as sankara ... nothing new is added... his greatness is not diminished
if u see greatness diminished this way, its purely an outlook based on ego isnt it ?

In fact, if self inquiry is understood as different from other methods taught in scriptures --- i am confident it is not understood.

and please do not give me that "if only you practiced" refrain ... i do practice it and saying i only have "theoretical knowledge" ... could be a play of ego .

[eranilkumarsinha]

Quote:
"if u see greatness diminished this way, its purely an outlook based on ego isnt it ?"



Dear Sri Udai, so I must accept that all these meaningless discussions you are forcing on us is the Self's doing, for I accept that you are realized and forcing your Janas on us, egoistic and ignorant ones. So be it, if it can satisfy you. If not, I wish to respond in some detail, to every point you have raised some time tomorrow or the day after, when I get some free time, for I feel that this is high time to call a spade a spade that it is.
Pranam,
 Anil   

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
       
Please take your time. There is no hurry.

Love!
Silence

[eranilkumarsinha]

Dear Sri Udai:


Quote:
"why do we speak in past tense, are they dead and Gone ? if not, and if they are still revealing ... be assured they are revealing what is best for you right now ... it could be self inquiry and being ever alive , they do not definitely lack the knowledge of self inquiry. A Buddhist following Buddha may land up with Self inquiry ... everyone , in any system who realized had to land up on that. no alternative."




This was with reference to the body. Why did you grasped time? I thought that yours was a liberated living (24*60*60)),transcending time and space. Yes, He is unceasingly revealing, and I am tuned to that, and therefore, I do not at all require your teaching.



Quote
"But that time did not come earlier ?   before Ramana there was never a need for Vichara ?"




But that does not mean that all those who realized raised the ultimate question from the very beginning and followed Sri Bhagwan's Vichara except in the end when all paths whatsoever converge or merge into Enquiry or the Vichara. There is no scope for your further argument here. Sri Bhagwan has unequivocally taught that whatever the path--bhakti, yoga or Jnana-- one is eventually led to Vichara and remains in the state of being, first with effort till it becomes effortless. This has been corroborated with my own experience. And I absolutely have no about it.   






Quote
"What would Ramana have said if someone were to say "Bhagwan Sri Ramana is unique to say the least" ? if he would disagree , where is fidelity in saying this when he himself did not claim so ?
and would Ramana have said "X is of a different guru, Y is my own ?"
Please ponder. just think what would Ramana have commented if he were listening to this discussion of ours."




This shows that you might have read myriad books but not Sri Bhagwan's Works thoroughly and deeply. He never claimed anything, He never even explicitly said while embodied that He was the Guru. With earnest seekers He communed in Silence which still goes on unceasingly in Silence. He is, for us, after all Supreme Illumination, nay, the only Illumination. You may keep saying what you may say, for it will neither make any difference to me nor His devotees at large.


Quote:
"Fidelity to ramana is not equal to claiming ramana is of a different sect
by saying that ramana is saying the same truth as sankara ... nothing new is added... his greatness is not diminished
if u see greatness diminished this way, its purely an outlook based on ego isnt it ?"



What sect? I do not know any sect. No, I shall never accept this. Sri Bhagwan never enjoined scriptural enquiry 'I am Brahma', etc., except in the case of Sri Annamalai Swami, saying they are mental activities. They may be mere aids but not the holistic Vichara as revealed afresh by Bhagwan Sri Ramana. I do not see Sri Adi Shankara apart from Sri Bhagwan. For that matter, I do not see any sage apart from Sri Bhagwan.
The one looking with the eye of the ego can never recognise the egolessness in others.
 


Quote:
"In fact, if self inquiry is understood as different from other methods taught in scriptures --- i am confident it is not understood. "



After years of practice of Sri Bhagwan's Vichara and seeking to remain always established at His Lotus Feet, by way of remembrance, study, and participation in a forum like this, I do not think that I need to understand anything from you particularly regarding Sri Bhagwan's Teaching.   



Quote:
"and please do not give me that "if only you practiced" refrain ... i do practice it and saying i only have "theoretical knowledge" ... could be a play of ego ."


May be. I do not know. I do not know any devotee of Sri Bhagwan who remained in perpetual agitation of the mind, seemingly always assailed by thought-wave, and apparently hankering for recognition as a guru. 



Thanks very much.
Pranam,
 Anil

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
      You are a wise person, i do not arrogate myself to be someone who can teach you ... that too via an online forum.
These are only a few thoughts that I shared, nothing personal ... i cannot know about you through your online posts and even if i can, it has no value for me.
my sharing in this and other forums are only my sadhana and nothing to teach people about.


Love!
Silence 

[eranilkumarsinha]

Quote from Sri Udai:
"These are only a few thoughts that I shared, nothing personal ... i cannot know about you through your online posts and even if i can, it has no value for me.
my sharing in this and other forums are only my sadhana and nothing to teach people about. "


Dear Sri Udai,

Yes, thanks very much for sharing a few thoughts. Yes, what can be personal between two of us? Yet, there is something common between two of us, that is, we both have ardent desire to know who really we are, and this is the only Goal for not only two of us, but most of us here in this forum.  The chosen Goal unites us all here.

Dear friend, Sri Udai, I have, from the very beginning regarded you as a seeker par excellence, having an inquisitive mind, and I do not mind at all if we differ on certain occasions, even regarding Vichara, for there is nothing unnatural about these disagreements--holding, dropping or even observing thoughts to which I shall naturally have serious disagreement, I can take all these without being attached . But when someone tries to belittle His Revelation Itself, coming out with theory after theory, to establish falsely that there is nothing new about Vichara He revealed, I have serious objection to raise though without being affected by such insinuation.  For, as I have gauged, almost all devotees of Sri Bhagwan understand that though the Vichara may have been known from the ancient times, its new Avatar, as a holistic spiritual practice from, begging to end, that is, starting with a false 'I' and ending with the Real One, was revealed by Bhagwan Sri Ramana alone. One may term this egoistic, or fanatical, or fundamentalism, it does not make any difference.

I do not like to compare Sri Bhagwan with any other Sage though I regard all Sages as the embodiment of the same Truth.  The Name 'Bhagwan Sri Ramana'  Itself is so  sacrosanct!! His Name is the Window to glimpse the Divine beyond, and His Vichara is the Door to enter and abide in Him. He is at once God, Guru, Self, Atma, Grace, Father, Mother et al. I am aware that many devotees even today cannot think to live without the Raft of His Name. Therefore, I am still a little sentimental about my Guru though you may term it as ignorance. That is fine with me.


Thanks very much.
  Pranam,
   Anil     

[eranilkumarsinha]

Sri Sadhu Om:

"The practice of witnessing thoughts and events, which is much recommended nowadays by lecturers and writers, was never even in the least recommended by Sri Bhagavan, Indeed, whenever He was asked what should be done when thoughts rise (that is, when attention is diverted towards second or third persons) during sadhana, He always replied in the same manner as He had done to Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai in 'Who am I?', where He says, "If other thoughts rise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire 'To whom did they rise?'. What does it matter however many thoughts rise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires 'To whom did this rise ?', it will be known 'To me'. If one then enquires 'Who am I?', the mind (our power of attention) will turn back (from the thought) to its source (Self)". Moreover, when He says later in the same work, 'Not attending to what-is-other (that is, to any second or third person) is non-attachment (vairagya) or desirelessness (nirasa)', we should clearly understand that attending to (witnessing, watching, observing or seeing) anything other than Self is itself attachment, and when we understand thus we will realize how meaningless and impractical are such instructions as 'Watch all thoughts and events with detachment' or 'Witness your thoughts, but be not attached to them', which are taught by the so-called gurus of the present day."
Source: The Path of Sri Ramana




Dear Devotees,

Sri Bhagwan's Vichara is both the practice as well as the Goal. One may go on saying that one is absolutely sure what the Vichara is.  Vichara is the holistic Revelation.  Is it not? Therefore,  how could one be absolutely sure unless such-a-one is realized or practiced it unwaveringly, diligently, with perseverance, till one began to listen palpably the voice of intuition from the Heart? Who will deliberate upon it and how? Vichara is the spiritual science, as it were. The lower mind, full of thoughts, cannot fully understand it; and the Pure Mind, which is verily the Self and is not apart is only aware.   

And what is made out of the Vichara? Watching, witnessing, observing, etc., are certainly not Vichara as taught by Sri Bhagwan. Sri Bhagwan never even mentioned this practice of observing anything even with detachment. Why did Sri Bhagwan always tell His devotees to remain vigilant  and they should kill a thought  if it arose, at the very place of its rising by enquiring 'To whom did this rise? Who Am I?', and seek always to remain in Self-attention?   

Dear devotees, Self-attention, from the beginning to end, is alone the correct form of the Atma-vichara as taught by Bhagwan Sri Ramana. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that, learned opinions of the learned ones notwithstanding!!

Thanks very much.
Pranam,
 Anil

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
       

I hope if i question some of these things:
1. you would not take it to mean i am trying to teach you
or
2. i am criticizing or looking down upon Ramana / Sadhu OM

An inquiry can be conducted with an open mind without falling into any of these traps.

now ... you have written an entire post please comment on the following questions:

1.

"If other thoughts rise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire 'To whom did they rise?'

For this:
a) you have to recognize that thought has arisen , which you cannot do without observing. Am I right or do you think there is a way to discover that thought has arisen without observing.
b) What is meant by without completing ? when you observed it has already gone ! its something of the past.
or do you think a thought has staying power... it remains static ?

2.

'Watch all thoughts and events with detachment'

your emphasis on this quote:
Are you saying this is not vichara or are you questioning this method itself ?
if you are saying this is not vichara, who said it is vichara ? I certainly did not say so.
If you are questioning the method itself, then this is from the Buddha ... not from me.

3.

Self-attention,

what is this ? Self is not an object to be attended to.
how will you attend, please elaborate.
BTW : are you speaking of this awareness-watching-awareness school of thought ?



Love!
Silence
             

[eranilkumarsinha]

Dear devotees, I missed to say in my previous post that observing or watching or witnessing or attending to anything other than oneself, even while remaining detached, might be auxiliary aids to Vichara, but certainly not the Self-enquiry revealed as a complete Sadhana, which is holistic and integral whole, and in which the Whole is much, much greater than the sum of its components. In my view, those who are incapable to practice the Atma-vichara from the very beginning may engage in such practices though I doubt their efficacy.

I feel that some members here forget that His grateful and adoring devotees were drawn to Him like iron fillings to a powerful magnet because of the grandeur and majesty of Sri Bhagwan Himself (Godhead), and simplicity and directness of His Teaching of the Atma-vichara. Having come to His Lotus Feet irreversibly, these loving and adoring devotees, due to His Grace, gradually grasp intuitively as to what really Vichara is, and all doubts and confusions disappear. There is a popular saying in the realm of spiritual discourse: So-called teachers of spirituality amplifies, a Sage simplifies.
Pranam,
 Anil   

[eranilkumarsinha]

Dear Sri Udai, in my view, if one seeks to disinvest himself of the heavy baggage that one carries, and stays unswervingly on the core centre of the spiritual enquiry 'Who am I?', such questions, as you have asked, I am sure, will never arise at all.  For, I am also sure that if one tires to approach Sri Bhagwan's Vichara with so many preconceived notions, no reply even from Bhagwan Sri Ramana Himself can ever satisfy him. Yet, if you insist, I shall come up with my  own responses to all your questions some time tomorrow or the day after. 
Pranam,
 Anil

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
         

Yet, if you insist, I shall come up with my  own responses to all your questions some time tomorrow or the day after.

Please do so.

Love!
Silence

[eranilkumarsinha]

Sri Sadhu Om:
"......and in order to fulfil the aim of the mahavakyas, Sri Bhagavan breathes a new life into the sastras by means of His teaching, 'Who am I?'.  A revelation which was not disclosed before now through the sastras and which is essential for an aspirant to be able to practise Self-enquiry without losing his way, has now been added to the world of sastras by Sri Bhagavan. What is this revelation? The mind is destroyed only when it turns towards the first person!"


Dear Sri Udai,


We are friends. Are we not? Well, what follows is emanating from my deep feeling of friendship and solicitude, and therefore, I hope that you will not mind at all. I am going to respond to all your questions rather comprehensively sooner than later such that, I hope, this long drawn-out discussion comes to an end amicably. However, since you have misunderstood 'concentration' and even Self-attention is not intelligible to you, and based on my long interaction with you, I have a feeling, nay, I have reached conclusion that you have not read/studied Sri Bhagwan's Vichara in particular and His Teaching in general except Sri David Godman's 'Final Talks' and perhaps  the booklet 'Who Am I?'.  I feel that you might have read perfunctorily a few other books on Sri Bhagwan as well. Yes, of course, you have read some Vedanta, Sri Shankara's Works, Ashtavakra Gita , etc. From the study of these, you concluded that even Sri Bhagwan's Vichara could not go outside the scope of these sacred Works, and must be the same as presented in the Vedanta and taught by Sri Shankara.  But that is certainly not true as Sri Sadhu Om who moved intimately with Sri Bhagwan and associated closely with Sri Muruganar, has made clear in the above quote.

Therefore, before I proceed to post my responses one by one, I wish to know: What do you make out of the following terms and phrases, which Sri Bhagwan has employed in the expression of His Revelation and which are central to the understanding of His Teaching of the Atma-vichara as well?
1.   Aham-vritti
2.   'I'-thought or the 'I'-consciousness
3.   Irreducible datum of all our experiences.
4.   The Heart
5.   Diving in
6.   In-gathering of the mind and senses.
7.   Source
8.   I AM THAT I AM
9.   Chit-Jada Granthi
10.   Pure 'I'
11.   Reflected Consciousness (Sutta rivu)
12.   One-pointedness of the mind
13.   Attention itself, what is it?


Moreover, since you emphasise the need to return to 'just Be' again and again, but at the same time you are unable to understand 'Self-attention', I wish to know from you what do you understand by 'Just Be or Stand Still'? I hope this 'just state of being' remains unaffected even while you are spending so much time on this forum formulating questions and, of course, your responses.

I shall request you to kindly confine your response to the above 13 nos. terms and phrases only till I come up with my own responses to your questions, that is, you must have a little patience till then.

Thanks very much.
Pranam,
 Anil   

[srkudai]

Dear Anil ji,
         

We are friends. Are we not? Well, what follows is emanating from my deep feeling of friendship and solicitude, and therefore, I hope that you will not mind at all.

No doubt on that Anil ji. We are friends who disagree on some ideas. That is perfectly fine.

I have reached conclusion that you have not read/studied Sri Bhagwan's Vichara in particular and His Teaching in general except Sri David Godman's 'Final Talks' and perhaps  the booklet 'Who Am I?'.  I feel that you might have read perfunctorily a few other books on Sri Bhagwan as well. Yes, of course, you have read some Vedanta, Sri Shankara's Works, Ashtavakra Gita , etc.

LOL how did you come to derive a list of books i read ?

From the study of these, you concluded that even Sri Bhagwan's Vichara could not go outside the scope of these sacred Works, and must be the same as presented in the Vedanta and taught by Sri Shankara.  But that is certainly not true as Sri Sadhu Om who moved closely intimately with Sri Bhagwan and associated closely with Sri Muruganar, has made clear in the above quote.

Ramana Paravidyopanishad , Sri Lakshmana Sarma:
verse 345:
The guru sugata [buddha] taught this truth, also the great teacher shankara taught the same; our own guru also tells us the same and this is also the essence of the vedanta.

Anil ji, In Vedanta being unique or different from tradition is not a virtue. A sage's greatness lies in the effortlessness with which he lives the teaching and not in giving a "different" teaching ... this is vedantic standpoint , some abrahmic faiths think that their prophet has to teach something different and new ... not so with vedanta.

Coming to your questions Anil ji, ill wait for you to answer my questions first and then ill respond to each and every one of these. There is no hurry , please take your time [not just hear , everywhere in life. be relaxed and calm is the fundamental aspect of vedanta , as you definitely know. we both are in agreement on this ]

Love!
Silence

[Ravi.N]

Anilbhai,
In that passage you have quoted from Sri Sadhu Om (December 12 10:04 am):
"He says later in the same work, 'Not attending to what-is-other (that is, to any second or third person) is non-attachment (vairagya) or desirelessness (nirasa)', we should clearly understand that attending to (witnessing, watching, observing or seeing) anything other than Self is itself attachment".

This is not translated correctly.Here is that excerpt from Paragraph Eleven of Nan yar:
"அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல் வைராக்கியம் அல்லது நிராசை; தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல் ஞானம். உண்மையி லிரண்டு மொன்றே".
This translates as :Not seeking 'anya' is vairagya or nirasa;not to let go of self is jnana.In truth both are one only.

Vairagya pertains to living in the world but not of it;Jnana is our true state of being....Vichara has to be pursued even while attending to the various activities in the work-a-day world...and vairagya means  not to stay invested in anything other than Self while carrying on with the day to day activities in the world....to be non attached.
This is how Sri Ramakrishna puts this:
"Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God.  Live with all - with wife and children, father and mother - and serve them.  Treat them as if they were very dear to you, but know in your heart of hearts that they do not belong to you.   
"A maidservant in the house of a rich man performs all the household duties, but her thoughts are fixed on her own home in her native village.  She brings up her Master's children as if they were her own.  She even speaks of them as 'my Rāma' or 'my Hari'.  But in her own mind she knows very well that they do not belong to her at all."
namaskar