Author Topic: nan yar-Who am I-Comments  (Read 1481 times)

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« on: December 10, 2017, 10:20:54 AM »
Udai garu/Friends,
I am opening this thread in tandem with the thread-nan yar-Who am I -Guidance from Bhagavan...In this thread we may share whatever we wish to comment on or supplement with any other viewpoint or practices...You may like to move your comments and  link to vipassana to this thread...Thanks.
Namaskar

srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2017, 10:43:44 AM »
Quote
From Nan Yar

Since all living beings desire to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause of love, [in order] to attain that happiness, which is one's own [true] nature that is experienced daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jnāna-vicāra [knowledge-investigation] 'who am I' alone is the principal means
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends,

Let us meditate on this teaching. But before we do that I would like to encourage you to take a look at the following video:


Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixu4Kd5R1DI&t=213s

we are very conditioned in most of our responses. The fact is we have been feeding our mind with wrong ideas for a very long time. since childhood i have believed that i am this body, and happiness is in certain sensations and some success etc... i have been telling this and reinforcing this again and again to my mind. Now when i suddenly tell it the opposite it does not really "get" it. Most of these conditioned responses and beliefs have become automatic and very fast. The new information may sound reasonable and logical and yet it does not have the capacity to undo the conditioned feelings/ responses.

So the first thing we need to do if we have to reeducate this mind is :

Quote
1. Slow Down and Observe. Relax and become mindful.

slowing down and observing is really different from observing at our normal pace. when our mind is at its normal pace, it is not really observing, it misses a lot of stuff. that is why one needs to slow down a little and then see what is happening ... what is happening at the level of the body and the mind. when i observe the sensations of the body, am i observing the body or the mind ? sensation is really at the mental level. Its really observation. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi said "Trace the source of mind". That means, see whence is the thought/feeling/reaction arising from. As we slow down and observe carefully, we can see from where is this voice arising.

Quote
2. trace the voice/feeling . observe. It is like paying attention to see where is a sound arising from or like a dog sniffing to find the source of a smell.

We have a certain feeling and we have now slowed down completely and are very mindfully observing [very relaxed and mindful] ...but instead of just observing the thought, we are trying to trace the root ... who is this person who has this kind of thought/feeling ? We see two things: the wrong notions are seen as wrong notions and also ... we see that there is really no person out there ... infact these thoughts / feelings have no person in the background ... they are just idea floating in space if i may say so.

When we are relaxed and mindful we shall be able to see more clearly ... and the secret is, there is no one ... but this is not something to be held onto with force... this is a direct seeing , here and now. and in that observation / presence is pure joy or happiness of Self -- there is really no where to go , nothing to do. life itself is a pure joy. Living is indeed simply being.

I might have jumped the guns :)

Love!
Silence

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2017, 02:02:13 PM »
udai garu,
Everything has its utility and place...I have come across people who have participated in vipassana meditation course(10 days or so) and they found it beneficial...they discovered that they had a keen sense of awareness,had more energy by eating much less than what they were used to, a sense of balance,etc.
Bhagavan does refer to a few auxiliary aids like pranayama and upasana in nan yar...and as is his characteristic nature he leaves it to the seeker to suit himself as regards these...if one is truly earnest everything would fall in place and whatever is needed would get done.
This is the beauty of Bhagavan....he does not ever say 'Do this and that before you aim for something higher' etc...he just leaves it to the seeker...We may take up the issues regarding conditioned mind that you have alluded to a little later....after we have covered a little more of what Bhagavan says here .
Namaskar

srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2017, 08:28:17 PM »
Dear Ravi ji,
         :)

The purpose of sharing that video on Vipassana is not to explain about Sri SNGoenka's Vipassana :) ... i have heard lot of good things about it but i myself did not do it... the purpose of sharing that video was only to point out the level of conditioned responses we carry ... its very very deep... the idea is to elaborate upon the general method of taking the Guru Vakyas and internalizing them.

In Buddhism there are two methods : shamata and vipassana.
Shamata is to get extremely calm , relaxed and mindful.
vipassana is about observing to gain insight.
one has to become mindful and calm in order to gain insights and in order to sink in the teachings to a deeper level of consciousness. until we employ these teachings to remove the vasanas and wrong notions, we will remain conditioned. This is what i feel. ofcourse mind is bound to be ever conditioned and i as Self am never conditioned, yet , for me to not identify with the stream of thoughts that pass in the mind, a certain level of mindfulness is a prerequisite. once this is there , the teaching automatically starts to flower and work by itself.

Only when i convert the guru vakyas into insights would i be able to live the truth completely. i am of the opinion that most people [which should include me] have not fully internalized the guru vakyas and the only way to do it is to start looking at the world through this teaching and remaining calm [shamata]. together ... they would pave way for a deep understanding which transforms our lives.

:) I am not trying to teach anything ... just sharing a few thoughts. This sharing is my own sadhana as well.

Love!
Silence
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 08:45:21 PM by srkudai »

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2017, 05:43:20 AM »
Udai Garu,

"for me to not identify with the stream of thoughts that pass in the mind, a certain level of mindfulness is a prerequisite. once this is there , the teaching automatically starts to flower and work by itself."

Yes....this is how JK always used to point out the nature of Observation and Attention....I shall share a video talks of JK a little later.

"I am not trying to teach anything ... just sharing a few thoughts. This sharing is my own sadhana as well"
Please interact freely....Be as you are!....ha ha.

Do you think that there is a possibility for thought to never arise(burnt rope)?....that it is impossible for thoughts to arise...We shall discuss this a little later.
namaskar




srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2017, 05:48:55 PM »
Dear Ravi ji,
     :) Yes its possible that thoughts do not arise.

If we do not talk [observe physical mauna] for a long time it would be a little difficult to start talking.
The same thing holds for mind too. when the mind does not talk for a long time, it takes some time to get it back to the thinking habit. Just as we might need a little effort to stop mind, it might require effort to make mind active again.

The crux of the understanding however is : whether mind is active or inactive, i remain ever untouched by the mind itself.

This is a very deep understanding. Movements in mind are seen as "That" ... like a mirage.  Not theoretically but really during the day to day activities.

In order to get to this simple understanding, however its important to revert to just be again and again.

Love!
Silence

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2017, 07:10:36 PM »
Udai garu,
Yes,I do understand and appreciate  freedom from thoughts and sensations in the actual sense.
I am not referring to the atrophy of the mind when I asked the question...It is not a question of whether the mind is active or inactive...It is rather a fundamental question....Is there a mind apart from the Self?
To understand this question let us take a hypothetical position.....Let us for a moment imagine that there is nothing other than  me (self)...no world, no other person but only 'I' existing alone without a second thing....What is thought?where is the room for such a thing?....and we may well suspect that it is not an altogether hypothetical situation ....it may well be a  possibility in the real sense like something that we daily experience in deep sleep.
Thought can only exist when there is something apart from me....like an electric spark can only come about when there is a break in the electric circuit....When there is no break in the circuit,there is simply no possibility of a spark(what is called arcing in Technical language).
we shall park our discussion on this until we are through with the complete study of nan yar.

We shall continue our study of nan yar...have been a little preoccupied with a few activities and hence the pause in the posting in that thread.
namaskar
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 07:26:54 PM by Ravi.N »

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2017, 09:50:55 AM »
udai/friends,
The second paragraph in nan yar covers a lot of ground and has deep implication...it touches upon what udai had mentioned earlier in his first  comment in this thread regarding observing the sensations in the body,thoughts in the mind,etc.
We shall deliberate on this further in the main thread but it tantamount to just this...that we are not the body mind mechanism....it is easy enough to understand that body is a mechanism but it takes a little deeper introspection to realize that the mind is also a mechanism(antakharana or inner organ as it is called)...we are not the body and we are not the mind...we are pure consciousness.
An analogy would help to appreciate what is stated...the analogy of a radio (and we may well add Television as well) illustrates this....As children we mistake the voice coming out of a radio and would like to peep into it to see who is doing all the talking....Inside the radio we find all electronic items only and no real person at all...We then understand that the Real person who is talking is someone independent of the Radio and the mechanism is only relaying his voice!
Just like as children,we were wrongly identifying the person who talks in a radio show as 'sitting inside the radio' we mistake our identity with the Body mind mechanism...and this false identification is the ego sense....Just as we peeped inside the radio and found no person there,we may do the same thing in observing the body mind mechanism....and we can eliminate that the Real 'I' is not dependent on the body-mind mechanism at all....this is the purpose of vichara


srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2017, 03:53:16 PM »
This is very nice explanation and let us together see what this has to say :)

Quote
Who am I? The sthūla dēha [the gross physical body], which is [composed] of sapta dhātus [the seven constituents, namely chyle, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and semen], is not 'I'.

Lets do an interesting experiment. we need two people for this. We may invite our friend to participate with us.
so i close my eyes, and my friend touches me on my hand with a pen.  :) The experiment is done.
lets now ask : "what was my experience ?"

lets just stick to what we experienced.
what is the description ? Please see...
"my friend touched my hand with a pen" is this an accurate description or is the description:
"experience of touch"
its just an experience of touch, rest of the story is added up by my mind. Please see this as this is very important.

Our Sthula Deha ... what is it ? Carefully , it is only a collection of sensations. Do i experience this sthula body or is it only a set of sensations ? This is an interesting inquiry. i see , i feel, i hear etc. these all that are there. This is what we call a body. Its only a set of sensations.

And what happens if we zoom into a particular sensation ... observe it and zoom into it, closely seeing what is there ... and we see what ? There is no "I" out there. My hair is graying, it does not protest this. I may protest it. Please see this. In the lap of God, this body is eternally fulfilled.
The body does not alienate itself from the whole body of God. This is the beauty. It has not individuality of its own. it just functions as per a certain set of laws.

This cannot be a me , because there is no one out there. this is the starting point of our investigation.

Love!
Silence


Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2017, 06:13:03 AM »
Udai garu,
Here are a couple of video talks by JK that have a direct bearing on the discussions that you initiated in a few threads here....The passion earnestness and intensity that JK brings is tremendous...I am sure that these two talks if 'listened to' (sravana) would reveal the nature of enquiry...JK clearly explains the meaning of the words that he employs,the etymology of it, and facilitates that he and the listener are expploring it together as he often puts it....Many of JK's talks are available as video talks and more than reading him,it will help to watch and listen to him...This is a great opportunity for all those interested in getting to the source of the mind.
1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9IS1zW6In4
2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZlkYPlS5s0

In the second talk JK beautifully points out -the quality of mind that does not know....he points out so simply and effectively.
It may interest you that this is exactly what I have referred to in this thread 'Practical Hints from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'...Post on November 30th,2015 07:24 AM:
http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0]http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0]http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0

Have added the third link now....Please go through this first and then the first two
3.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YIwmdXfxe4 - How does observation reduce the strength and power of emotions and attachments?JK
.
namaskar
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 11:27:44 AM by Ravi.N »

srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2017, 11:02:11 AM »
Dear Ravi ji,
         Thank you for the links, ill listen to them later in the evening today :)


srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2017, 05:15:25 PM »
Dear Friends,
     
Quote
Who am I? The sthūla dēha [the gross physical body], which is [composed] of sapta dhātus [the seven constituents, namely chyle, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and semen], is not 'I'.

When we say "inquire who am i" , one has to really see, who is this "I".
Does the sthula deha say "I" ?
Please see.
if we may think of this "I" as a voice, or a sound ... can we see where is it arising from ?

This body is composed on the 5 elements, but do the 5 elements really have any sense of I ?

when i ask this, the first tendency is to say "no"... please see that this is not inquiry.
that would be reasoning.

To inquire is to "see" if  the 5 elements have a sense of "I". How do I see ? just as I would see if a sound is arising from a particular direction. one just looks at the 5 elements and sees, is this saying "I" ?

suppose 5 friends are there and one of them is clapping the hands. how do i know who is doing ? i pay attention. i put my ear to it and see ... look at each direction and see, is this the place from whence the sound is coming ?

This is what Bhagavan meant when he said "attend to the sense of I" ... observe , pay attention and see ... is it coming from the hands ? from the various body parts ? where is it coming from ?

Quote
The five jnānēndriyas [sense organs], namely the ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, which individually [and respectively] know the five viṣayas [sense domains or types of sense perception], namely sound, touch [texture and other qualities perceived by touch], form [shape, colour and other qualities perceived by sight], taste and smell, are also not 'I'.

We do not merely say this. we do not reason this logically. we see... see how none of these seem to say "I" .
the body just has some sensations... it does not say "good sensation" or "bad sensation" even. like a machine it has its own ways with respect to sensations. brign a sweet and it salivates. pinch and the hand withdraws ... but behind all this... where is "I" ? who is incharge of all these ?

when we see a nice rain, it is just raining or is someone standing over the clouds and "Pouring Rain" ?

we need to simply see , attentively observe... there is no i any where here.

Quote
The five karmēndriyas [organs of action], namely the voice, feet [or legs], hands [or arms], anus and genitals, which [respectively] do the five actions, namely speaking, walking, giving, defecation and [sexual] enjoyment, are also not 'I'. The panca vāyus [the five 'winds',  vital airs or metabolic forces], beginning with prāṇa [breath], which perform the five [metabolic] functions, beginning with respiration, are also not 'I'

We see how the breathing is also not even voluntary ! Thank god it is not. and things are merely happening here. This body is more or less like a breathing statue ... Ribhu gita calls it Kunapam, a dead body ! Really thats how it is!!

Let us next move to the mind ...

[To Be Continued ...]
Love!
Silence

srkudai

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: nan yar-Who am I-Comments
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2017, 05:29:57 PM »
Quote
The mind, which thinks, is also not 'I'. The ignorance [the absence of all dualistic knowledge] that is combined with only viṣaya-vāsanās [dispositions, propensities, tendencies, inclinations, impulses, desires, taste or liking to experience the objects of sensory perception] when all viṣayas [sensory perceptions] and all actions have ceased [as in sleep], is also not 'I'. Having eliminated everything mentioned above as not 'I', not 'I', the aṟivu [knowledge, awareness or consciousness] that stands isolated alone is 'I'. The nature of [this] knowledge ['I am'] is sat-cit-ānanda [being-consciousness-bliss]

so we have seen that the "voice" of "I" does not arise from the physical elements or the prana vayu etc.
The elements like earth, water etc which make this body are also there in the external world and none of them have a sense of "I".
so whence is this voice called "I" arising from.

Could it be from the mind ? Infact, this body is also nothing more than mind. If we remove sensations and sensation related experiences, where is a body ? if we observe closely we might find that we store "tension" in our shoulders etc ! that just goes to show that the body is simply a kind of conglomeration of those mental sensations , as if "solidified"

what about mind ? is the "I" in the mind ? The mind also is jada like the body, we will see this. By virtue of being an "object" it becomes jada. There is an interesting way Astavakra gita starts  this same discussion, he starts with prithvi earth , agni etc... not with the body but with the 5 elements. and then everything reduces down to them. mind is nothing other than these 5 elements either !! do we see that ? mind and the 5 elements are the same. because mind can perceive these 5 elements we see only these. because mind cannot perceive anything else, everything else boils down to these !! what a mystery !!

The verse in Ashtavakra Gita is :

Quote
VERSE 3:

न पृथ्वी न जलं नाग्निर्न वायुर्द्यौर्न वा भवान् ।
एषां साक्षिणमात्मानं चिद्रूपं विद्धि मुक्तये ॥१-३॥

You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air or space. To liberate, know the witness of all these as conscious self. ॥3॥


These are called pancha maha bhutas, the 5 great elements that make everything. The Vedantic model is very systematic in analyzing the world. Anything we perceive, can be made up of only these 5 elements, because we have 5 senses. What is not seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelt etc ... cannot be perceived. Because we have only 5 senses. Even when we say "Magnetic Field", we are really talking from the point of view of an "observed phenomenon". I see that iron filings move in certain ways when in the presence of a magnet -- this is an observable phenomenon and therefore I "infer" a magnetic field. So the whole objective world has to be made up of these elements.

Now all these elements and their combinations are Jada by nature ... they are lifeless. Prithvi or Earth does not have a sense of "me". Water, fire, air, space ... none of them have a sense of "me". And this body is only a combination of such elements --- it too does not have a sense of "me". This the feeling called "I" cannot be the "voice" of any of these elements.

There is a beautiful example ... suppose there is an empty room and someone goes on knocking it... there will not be any response from inside, because there is really no one to "respond" ! The room itself does not say "Hey Look here! Stop tapping me like this... i dont like it". The room and its doors and windows are jada. They have no reactions of their own.

And the space in the room also does not respond. It does not say "dont disturb me". Because it is just the accommodating entity in whose presence the "room" can "be". So space has no response.

So who can respond ? If there is some "Person" inside , he responds. So every response is of a "person" inside.

Lets extend this to our body... the body is jada, made of the 5 elements and has no response of its own. the eyes, ears etc are like the doors and windoes of the room and the body is like that room. In the presence of "Awareness" any event is perceived ... though the mechanism is not "exactly" like the example above ... the Awareness has no reaction of its own. Awareness like the space in mind is simply the "Presence" which enables a reaction. Ashtavakra says its the witness. Its witness with respect to the objects of mind.

so who says "I" ? Who is the one who reacts and performs various actions ? Who is the "doer" or "Experiencer". Neither the body nor the Awareness are !!

We  discussed the example of a room with no one inside. And compared it to the body with only awareness [resembling space] inside. The body does not have a "like/dislike" , Awareness does not have "Like/Dislike" ... so whence is like / dislike coming up ?

Well ... even as I say this, its atonce available for everyone to see whether its true or not. There is no need to believe anything here. This is really what inquiry is all about! Let further see where it leads. Please notice this interesting point ... the truth value of this inquiry is not dependent on the authenticity of Bhagavan.  Infact Bhagavan spoke of this because this is the Truth, and is atonce available for all of us to directly see.

Ok, so we examined the body, which is like the room ... jada and has no likes or dislikes.
And we have examined the Awareness, which like the space accommodates all the thoughts etc, but has no reaction of itself.

So we are obviously left with only thoughts. Lets examine them now.
[Before we examine thoughts, lets also recognize that they themselves are also jada !! This is interesting. Being objects of awareness, they ought to be jada. they are made of the same 5 elements. all our thoughts are made of words ... they are made of ideas of forms, space, heat etc. they are based on the same thing. its not as if the world has these 5 elements and hence we have the thoughts of only these 5 elements ... the actuality is the mind is these 5 elements and hence the world we see is also the same.]

Lets continue our examination ... All thoughts are momentary... they come and pass away that very moment. The sorrow, worry, hurt etc which are really thought-formations ...appear to us as not momentary. They seem to have a sense of "Continuity" and in-fact they thrive on that "Continuity" ! how come this is possible ? Lets try to see... Suppose there is a dish I hate to eat. And I am in a situation where I have to eat it. :) I am intentionally taking a simple example. A complex situation is formed by a combination of simple situations.

so I am before this dish ... I have to take it. The first thought is "Pure Perception"... Eyes see the dish and true to their report we perceive the dish. That's the first perception. and as its the job of mind, it recollects all the memories and ideas that i have stored about the dish. And then from the memory arises a thought
T1: "I do not like this dish" , then the next thought...
T2: "But I have to eat it"
T3: "I cannot bear it"
T4: "This is terrible, even the smell is horrible"
T5: "This cannot be consumed! I wonder how people ever eat this"
...

Now plz see. T1 arose and vanished that very moment and then T2 came up. Between T1 and T2 there is a gap. So whats the "Common" entity between T1 and T2 ? Who is this "I" who is common between T1 and T2 ? It cannot be the Body... body is jada. It cannot be memory also, memory is jada! It cannot be awareness, Awareness has no "Reactions of its own. its just a witness"!!!
so who is this "I" that feels terrible ?

Its like a movie that's projected on a static white screen ...
P1: First the photo of a man is projected.
P2: P1, with hand slightly raised is projected
P3: P2 with hand slightly higher than that is projected
...

and what do we see ? We see a "motion". We see as if there is someone raising the hand. We do not see static pictures. How is this possible ? We have not recognized the "gap" and so ... the screen being "Static", we have attributed the continuity of the screen to the pictures and there appears to be a movie.

In vedanta this is explained with the example of a rolling ball of fire: Fire does not have shape and the shape of the ball is attributed to the fire. Ball does not glow, the glow of the fire is attributed to the ball! This is exactly the situation within! The Awareness does not have any like/ dislike ... the like/dislike of the thoughts is projected on it. Thoughts do not have continuity and the continuity of Awareness is attributed to the "I" which is common in the thoughts.

Really there is no "I" ... only a series of static thoughts that give the impression of a "continuous" entity!!! There is no "I" within ... only Awareness and the body ... with momentary thoughts. And yet ... an "I" seems to be "Formed". And that "I" , lets call it a "Role". Its all in memory in potential form... when the object is perceived, all related memories arise in a stream and a continuous entity called "I" appears to have been formed. And its this "I" that feels hurt, worried, troubled etc! A fictitious entity from the very beginning.

Where is this "I" really ?

Not asking a question , not reasoning about it ... just seeing ... directly ... where is it ?

Love!
Silence
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 05:35:58 PM by srkudai »