|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 19, 2018 23:10:20 GMT -5
Reading and re-reading his many beautiful works, I am struck by his emphasis (at least in the English translations! who knows if they were put together or translated accurately?) on "Self-attention." Attending to the Self. Keeping the mind on the Self.
I find this terminology inapt. One cannot ever attend to the Self. The Self is that it is, knows itself by its very being. Obviously, Maharshi knows that and says as much elsewhere.
There is only not attending to thoughts, feelings, and ideas of differentiation in the external world, goals, questions of what to do next and what decisions to make, and so on.
The waking attention which does not go outward into differentiation and decision is this "Self-attention" that is so misleadingly named.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2018 10:52:46 GMT -5
Reading and re-reading his many beautiful works, I am struck by his emphasis (at least in the English translations! who knows if they were put together or translated accurately?) on "Self-attention." Attending to the Self. Keeping the mind on the Self. I find this terminology inapt. One cannot ever attend to the Self. The Self is that it is, knows itself by its very being. Obviously, Maharshi knows that and says as much elsewhere. There is only not attending to thoughts, feelings, and ideas of differentiation in the external world, goals, questions of what to do next and what decisions to make, and so on. The waking attention which does not go outward into differentiation and decision is this "Self-attention" that is so misleadingly named. Conceptual knowledge means very little. For example, a medical student turns conceptual knowledge into becoming a doctor over 4 years, and then as an intern (Dr on training wheels), and *becomes* doctor. So I suspect Ramana was giving a means/"practice" to discover/experience the truth, you discover "I Am" is not the thoughts, I Am (which is still just a name/label, even capital S Self is just a name...that represents Something) Is attention-awareness. (This was basically the approach sdp was exposed to). |
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Dec 21, 2018 23:25:44 GMT -5
One cannot ever attend to the Self. The Self is that it is, knows itself by its very being. There is only not attending to thoughts, feelings, and ideas of differentiation in the external world, goals, questions of what to do next and what decisions to make, and so on. The waking attention which does not go outward into differentiation and decision is this "Self-attention" that is so misleadingly named. I'd agree wholeheartedly, though I'd suggest there are solid pointers to reality in both positive and negative stylings. Your example of not thinking or not attending to thoughts is of a via negativa focus, yet the ATA (Attend the Actual) pointer is a great way to get the body/mind mechanism into a 24/7 state of viewing things non-conceptually. Though they are positive and negative ways of saying the same thing, some people are naturally more attracted to one or the other. And of course, the goal here is the realization that there never was an individual to practice anything, as there was always only this non-differentiated being. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Dec 22, 2018 18:08:22 GMT -5
One cannot ever attend to the Self. The Self is that it is, knows itself by its very being. There is only not attending to thoughts, feelings, and ideas of differentiation in the external world, goals, questions of what to do next and what decisions to make, and so on. The waking attention which does not go outward into differentiation and decision is this "Self-attention" that is so misleadingly named. I'd agree wholeheartedly, though I'd suggest there are solid pointers to reality in both positive and negative stylings. Your example of not thinking or not attending to thoughts is of a via negativa focus, yet the ATA (Attend the Actual) pointer is a great way to get the body/mind mechanism into a 24/7 state of viewing things non-conceptually. Though they are positive and negative ways of saying the same thing, some people are naturally more attracted to one or the other. And of course, the goal here is the realization that there never was an individual to practice anything, as there was always only this non-differentiated being. Yes this is True But the story of something happening and the realisation that you as a character in the story never awakened to anything comes through a realisation or maturity. In Tantra you are holding hands between the seeker and the seer. Of course you are That pre reality but you are also a character in a story too. One domain isn't higher than another. As everything is That in drag. There's nothing in this in world that isn't That. At first I felt the character had come to This but later a deeper realisation a real death where the maturity the character was seen through. This happened 15 years later. I couldn't even remember by name. Lying in bed there was just This nothing else. And this shift is more of the natural state. Sitting in the directors chair, the seer and not so much the character that had a realisation. I don't even know if I'm choosing anymore. If what appears is the character or the seer of the experience. You can understand Rumis poem of roaming around the marketplace in a drunken manner now. As the mind is that still it's a difficult question to answer 😂 |
|
