Succint Explanation Of Atma Vichara (Ramana's Self-Enquiry)

[Deleted]

From Michael James' Happiness and the Art of Being
This dovetails nicely with zazen. I recognize that absolutely silent and peaceful state.

If we carefully read all the teachings of Sri Ramana, which are expressed extremely clearly both in his original Tamil writings and in Guru Vācaka Kōvai, and somewhat less clearly in the various books in which they were recorded in English, we should be able to understand very clearly what the actual practice of ātma-vicāra or self-investigation is and what it is not. Though many passages in the various English books may appear to be unclear or confusing, if we study such books with discrimination in the light of his original Tamil writings and Guru Vācaka Kōvai, we should be able to sift and pick out all the grains of genuine wisdom from the chaff of imperfectly or inadequately recorded ideas.

Regarding the practice of ātma-vicāra or self-investigation, two of the fundamental truths that we should be able to understand by reading the various available books are as follows: Firstly, ātma-vicāra is not a mental practice of repeatedly asking ourself any question such as ‘who am I?’. And secondly, asking ourself any such question even once is not actually an essential part of the practice of ātma-vicāra.

When we first try to practise self-attentiveness, we may find that asking ourself such questions occasionally is helpful as a means to divert our attention away from other thoughts towards ourself, but after we have gained even a little experience in this simple practice of self-attentiveness, we will find that it is easy for us to turn our attention towards our natural and clearly self-evident consciousness ‘I am’ without having to think ‘who am I?’ or any other such thought.

Whether or not we choose to use any question such as ‘who am I?’ as an aid in our effort to turn our attention towards ourself is ultimately irrelevant, because all that is actually necessary is that we focus our attention keenly and exclusively upon ourself – that is, upon our essential self-conscious being, ‘I am’. The actual practice of ātma-vicāra or self-investigation is only this intense focusing of our entire attention upon ourself. This practice of intense and clear self-attentiveness or self-consciousness is not a thought or an action of any kind whatsoever, but is only the absolutely silent and peaceful state of just being as we really are.

[Deleted]

More from Mr. James regarding Ramana's take on the mind after the fruit of SR is tasted.

Our mind or finite individual self is an imagination – a false form of consciousness that experiences itself as a body, which is one of its own imaginary creations. We imagine ourself to be this mind only because we ignore or fail to attend to our own true and essential being. If we knew what we really are, we could not mistake ourself to be any other thing. Hence, since our mind has come into existence because of our imaginary self-ignorance, it will be destroyed by the experience of true self-knowledge.

Therefore when we subside into our ‘heart’, the innermost core of our own being, where our true self-consciousness shines free from all adjuncts, all thoughts, all imaginations, all duality and all forms of limitation, our mind will disappear in the absolute clarity of that pure self-consciousness, just as an imaginary snake will disappear when we see clearly that what we mistook to be that snake is in fact only a rope. Because our mind is a false knowledge about ourself – an imagination that we are a material body – the experience of true self-knowledge will reveal that it is unreal.
Therefore the death that we will experience when we surrender our false individual self in the absolute clarity of true self-knowledge, which always shines in the innermost core of our being, is the death of our own mind. The death of our body is not a true death, because when our body dies our mind will create for itself another body by its power of imagination. As long as our mind survives, it will continue thus creating for itself one body after another. Hence the only true death is the death of our own mind.

However, though the experience of true self-knowledge is figuratively described as the death or destruction of our mind, we should not imagine that this implies that our mind has ever really existed. The death of our mind is like the ‘death’ of a snake that we imagine we see in the dim light of night. In the morning when the sun rises, that imaginary snake will disappear, because we will clearly see that it is in fact only a rope. Similarly, in the clear light of true self-knowledge our mind will disappear, because we will clearly recognise that it is in fact only our infinite and non-dual consciousness of our own essential being.

Just as the snake does not really die, because it never actually existed, so our mind will not really die, because it has never actually existed. Its death is real only relative to its present seeming existence. Therefore though in figurative terms the experience of true self-knowledge may be described as the death of our unreal self and as the birth of our real self, in reality it is the state in which we know that our real self alone exists, that it has always existed, and that our mind or unreal self has never truly existed.

[stardustpilgrim]

Dec 2, 2019 10:09:29 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

More from Mr. James regarding Ramana's take on the mind after the fruit of SR is tasted.

Our mind or finite individual self is an imagination – a false form of consciousness that experiences itself as a body, which is one of its own imaginary creations. We imagine ourself to be this mind only because we ignore or fail to attend to our own true and essential being. If we knew what we really are, we could not mistake ourself to be any other thing. Hence, since our mind has come into existence because of our imaginary self-ignorance, it will be destroyed by the experience of true self-knowledge.

Therefore when we subside into our ‘heart’, the innermost core of our own being, where our true self-consciousness shines free from all adjuncts, all thoughts, all imaginations, all duality and all forms of limitation, our mind will disappear in the absolute clarity of that pure self-consciousness, just as an imaginary snake will disappear when we see clearly that what we mistook to be that snake is in fact only a rope. Because our mind is a false knowledge about ourself – an imagination that we are a material body – the experience of true self-knowledge will reveal that it is unreal.
Therefore the death that we will experience when we surrender our false individual self in the absolute clarity of true self-knowledge, which always shines in the innermost core of our being, is the death of our own mind. The death of our body is not a true death, because when our body dies our mind will create for itself another body by its power of imagination. As long as our mind survives, it will continue thus creating for itself one body after another. Hence the only true death is the death of our own mind.

However, though the experience of true self-knowledge is figuratively described as the death or destruction of our mind, we should not imagine that this implies that our mind has ever really existed. The death of our mind is like the ‘death’ of a snake that we imagine we see in the dim light of night. In the morning when the sun rises, that imaginary snake will disappear, because we will clearly see that it is in fact only a rope. Similarly, in the clear light of true self-knowledge our mind will disappear, because we will clearly recognise that it is in fact only our infinite and non-dual consciousness of our own essential being.

Just as the snake does not really die, because it never actually existed, so our mind will not really die, because it has never actually existed. Its death is real only relative to its present seeming existence. Therefore though in figurative terms the experience of true self-knowledge may be described as the death of our unreal self and as the birth of our real self, in reality it is the state in which we know that our real self alone exists, that it has always existed, and that our mind or unreal self has never truly existed.

This contradicts this. Imagination is the improper word to use. You can't simultaneously say "our mind will create for itself a new body" and that the mind is imaginary. I understand what is trying to be conveyed, but imagination and imaginary are not the proper words. To say an imaginary mind will create for itself a new body is like saying the imaginary snake (the rope) is going to have imaginary snake babies.

Imaginary means doesn't in fact exist. I can daydream and imagine myself on a warm beach. But ~coming back~, my toes are cold.

Relative is the key to sorting this out.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2019 18:26:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Dec 2, 2019 10:09:29 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

More from Mr. James regarding Ramana's take on the mind after the fruit of SR is tasted.

Our mind or finite individual self is an imagination – a false form of consciousness that experiences itself as a body, which is one of its own imaginary creations. We imagine ourself to be this mind only because we ignore or fail to attend to our own true and essential being. If we knew what we really are, we could not mistake ourself to be any other thing. Hence, since our mind has come into existence because of our imaginary self-ignorance, it will be destroyed by the experience of true self-knowledge.

Therefore when we subside into our ‘heart’, the innermost core of our own being, where our true self-consciousness shines free from all adjuncts, all thoughts, all imaginations, all duality and all forms of limitation, our mind will disappear in the absolute clarity of that pure self-consciousness, just as an imaginary snake will disappear when we see clearly that what we mistook to be that snake is in fact only a rope. Because our mind is a false knowledge about ourself – an imagination that we are a material body – the experience of true self-knowledge will reveal that it is unreal.
Therefore the death that we will experience when we surrender our false individual self in the absolute clarity of true self-knowledge, which always shines in the innermost core of our being, is the death of our own mind. The death of our body is not a true death, because when our body dies our mind will create for itself another body by its power of imagination. As long as our mind survives, it will continue thus creating for itself one body after another. Hence the only true death is the death of our own mind.

However, though the experience of true self-knowledge is figuratively described as the death or destruction of our mind, we should not imagine that this implies that our mind has ever really existed. The death of our mind is like the ‘death’ of a snake that we imagine we see in the dim light of night. In the morning when the sun rises, that imaginary snake will disappear, because we will clearly see that it is in fact only a rope. Similarly, in the clear light of true self-knowledge our mind will disappear, because we will clearly recognise that it is in fact only our infinite and non-dual consciousness of our own essential being.

Just as the snake does not really die, because it never actually existed, so our mind will not really die, because it has never actually existed. Its death is real only relative to its present seeming existence. Therefore though in figurative terms the experience of true self-knowledge may be described as the death of our unreal self and as the birth of our real self, in reality it is the state in which we know that our real self alone exists, that it has always existed, and that our mind or unreal self has never truly existed.

This contradicts this. Imagination is the improper word to use. You can't simultaneously say "our mind will create for itself a new body" and that the mind is imaginary. I understand what is trying to be conveyed, but imagination and imaginary are not the proper words. To say an imaginary mind will create for itself a new body is like saying the imaginary snake (the rope) is going to have imaginary snake babies.

Imaginary means doesn't in fact exist. I can daydream and imagine myself on a warm beach. But ~coming back~, my toes are cold.

Relative is the key to sorting this out.

I think to James, God imagining, is creation. You have to understand mind IS Self(God) believing it is a mind contained and limited in a body. This mind, Self with amnesia, is not really limited. When you sleep at night, you dream and there's a world with pretty much the same attributes as this one and you're not you. You are somebody else. You imagine/create a new you and a world. I just thought this was a cool quote because we usually associate death with the death of the body.

[stardustpilgrim]

Dec 5, 2019 23:07:25 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Dec 5, 2019 18:26:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

This contradicts this. Imagination is the improper word to use. You can't simultaneously say "our mind will create for itself a new body" and that the mind is imaginary. I understand what is trying to be conveyed, but imagination and imaginary are not the proper words. To say an imaginary mind will create for itself a new body is like saying the imaginary snake (the rope) is going to have imaginary snake babies.

Imaginary means doesn't in fact exist. I can daydream and imagine myself on a warm beach. But ~coming back~, my toes are cold.

Relative is the key to sorting this out.

I think to James, God imagining, is creation. You have to understand mind IS Self(God) believing it is a mind contained and limited in a body. This mind, Self with amnesia, is not really limited. When you sleep at night, you dream and there's a world with pretty much the same attributes as this one and you're not you. You are somebody else. You imagine/create a new you and a world. I just thought this was a cool quote because we usually associate death with the death of the body.

Yes. I did not have a problem with the meaning of quote. It's good to know Ramana was not some kind of rebel, but appreciated the Tradition. For me this quote knits Ramana even more closely to Niz. And I think some have merely an intellectual understanding of the words, and not an experiential visceral in the marrow knowing, which is essential, obligatory. Otherwise, yes, a next incarnation occurs.