Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses

[siftingtothetruth]

I am publishing a commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses, one by one. This is the first of that series. I'll keep adding to this thread. 

This is from www.siftingtothetruth.com/blog/2021/6/13/commentary-on-ramanas-forty-verses-invocatory-part-one-of-two :

Introduction

Forty Verses is one of Ramana Maharshi’s most famous works. It is one of his own chief and briefest summaries of his teachings, compiled at the request of one of his devotees. It explains the philosophy and the essence of that true knowledge which is beyond the changing things of the world, knowledge of the real Self.

It goes by other names as well: Ulladu Narpadu, Sad-Vidya, and Truth Revealed. The translation of the text is taken from The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi.

Invocation

I. IF REALITY DID NOT EXIST, COULD THERE BE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE? FREE FROM ALL THOUGHTS, REALITY ABIDES IN THE HEART, THE SOURCE OF ALL THOUGHTS. IT IS, THEREFORE, CALLED THE HEART. HOW THEN IS ONE TO CONTEMPLATE IT? TO BE AS IT IS IN THE HEART, IS ITS CONTEMPLATION.

Commentary: This invocation, which has two parts, starts before the forty verses themselves. Reality means that which is unchanging, whereas knowledge of existence is always in thought (or feeling, or perception, etc., which are all forms of thought). Reality is that which permits thought, that which is aware of it. Thought always implies a background which is itself not simply a thought. That which is beyond thought is beyond change, since changes are themselves in thought — in order to say something has changed, you have to think and make a comparison. In other words, changes are always cognized. Without concepts, you cannot say that something has changed. So the knowledge of existence — which is thought — implies something which is beyond change, and which is that which is aware of thought. That awareness which is beyond change we call Reality.

This background to thought — though phrasing it this way is of course itself a thought, and that’s inevitable, since any language that talks about Reality is going to have to use thought, and so be imprecise and imperfect — shines in what Ramana calls the Heart. While Reality is an abstract concept, the Heart is simply the ground of our own awareness. It is the background of thoughts that each of us can access. It does not refer to the physical heart. It refers to the background of thought that we can seek by turning our attention towards whoever it is that is witnessing all our experiences. That witness is “inside” all the other experience, which is on the “outside.” That inmost point is called the Heart. When this inmost “point” is reached, it turns out not to be a point at all, and to be entirely beyond the distinctions of inside and outside.

What we call Reality, which is a grand word which seems to be “out there” and “universal,” is equally in us. It is not merely in us, actually, but rather we are it.

It is the grand concept of Vedanta and of Ramana that the unchanging essence of the “out there” is also none other than the unchanging essence that is “in here.” When stripped of the inessential & the changing, which stuff is actually just a bunch of thoughts of those things, the out there and the in here are not merely similar — they are exactly one and the same.

This Heart is what is behind thought, and it is that from which all thought comes, and to which it all returns. So it is not itself a thought. But only thought can be the object of contemplation. So how are we to turn our attention towards the Heart? We simply have to just be the Heart. Which of course we already are.

“To be as it is in the Heart” means that we are to be just and only as it is in the Heart, meaning to be without thought. It means we have to abandon our delusions of being in thought — of having things to do, goals, doings, experiences. To turn away from thought, to stop pretending to be anything other than the Heart, is the way to contemplate it.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

[zazeniac]

Ramana again emphasizing the importance of removing focus from thought. One of his followers says to look at the arising of thought not as a loss or failure, but as a prompt to turn back to the source, to be still.

[laughter]

Great commentary A.K. I'm sure you'll have to just listen the sound of the eyeballs 'cause most people likely won't have anything to add.

[zendancer]

Jun 13, 2021 10:48:14 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Ramana again emphasizing the importance of removing focus from thought. One of his followers says to look at the arising of thought not as a loss or failure, but as a prompt to turn back to the source, to be still.

Yes, at one point I used self-referential thoughts like a dharma bell reminder to shift attention back to direct sensory perception (ATA-T). This has the effect of gradually shutting off discursive verbal thought, and eventually leads to silent awareness without reflection.

Good commentary Sifting! Well explained.

[siftingtothetruth]

Invocation cont'd

II. THOSE WHO KNOW INTENSE FEAR OF DEATH SEEK REFUGE ONLY AT THE FEET OF THE LORD WHO HAS NEITHER DEATH NOR BIRTH. DEAD TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSSESSIONS, CAN THE THOUGHT OF DEATH OCCUR TO THEM AGAIN? DEATHLESS ARE THEY.

Commentary: All fear is rooted in the fear of death. But death can only afflict what is born, that is, what is changing: that is, what is thought. We have just seen that what is Real is unchanging, and that what is Real is us.

The Lord who has neither birth nor death is none other than this very Reality, the Heart. This Lord may go by many other names — Shiva or Vishnu or God or the Goddess, for example. But ultimately they all refer to this unchanging Reality.

In order to take refuge at the feet of this Lord, all else must be given up. This giving up is a kind of death. By dying to what is changing — to what one thought one was, but in fact is not — one realizes oneself to actually be the unchanging. What seems mortal has in fact never been born to begin with, and what is immortal cannot die. And the thought of death cannot occur to the immortals, which are those who have given up their stake in everything changing.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

[laughter]

Jun 15, 2021 11:28:11 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Invocation cont'd

II. THOSE WHO KNOW INTENSE FEAR OF DEATH SEEK REFUGE ONLY AT THE FEET OF THE LORD WHO HAS NEITHER DEATH NOR BIRTH. DEAD TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSSESSIONS, CAN THE THOUGHT OF DEATH OCCUR TO THEM AGAIN? DEATHLESS ARE THEY.

Commentary: All fear is rooted in the fear of death. But death can only afflict what is born, that is, what is changing: that is, what is thought. We have just seen that what is Real is unchanging, and that what is Real is us.

The Lord who has neither birth nor death is none other than this very Reality, the Heart. This Lord may go by many other names — Shiva or Vishnu or God or the Goddess, for example. But ultimately they all refer to this unchanging Reality.

In order to take refuge at the feet of this Lord, all else must be given up. This giving up is a kind of death. By dying to what is changing — to what one thought one was, but in fact is not — one realizes oneself to actually be the unchanging. What seems mortal has in fact never been born to begin with, and what is immortal cannot die. And the thought of death cannot occur to the immortals, which are those who have given up their stake in everything changing.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Seems to me very relevant to Ramana's personal story of a particular moment of realization.

[siftingtothetruth]

Jun 17, 2021 10:58:38 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jun 15, 2021 11:28:11 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Invocation cont'd

II. THOSE WHO KNOW INTENSE FEAR OF DEATH SEEK REFUGE ONLY AT THE FEET OF THE LORD WHO HAS NEITHER DEATH NOR BIRTH. DEAD TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSSESSIONS, CAN THE THOUGHT OF DEATH OCCUR TO THEM AGAIN? DEATHLESS ARE THEY.

Commentary: All fear is rooted in the fear of death. But death can only afflict what is born, that is, what is changing: that is, what is thought. We have just seen that what is Real is unchanging, and that what is Real is us.

The Lord who has neither birth nor death is none other than this very Reality, the Heart. This Lord may go by many other names — Shiva or Vishnu or God or the Goddess, for example. But ultimately they all refer to this unchanging Reality.

In order to take refuge at the feet of this Lord, all else must be given up. This giving up is a kind of death. By dying to what is changing — to what one thought one was, but in fact is not — one realizes oneself to actually be the unchanging. What seems mortal has in fact never been born to begin with, and what is immortal cannot die. And the thought of death cannot occur to the immortals, which are those who have given up their stake in everything changing.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Seems to me very relevant to Ramana's personal story of a particular moment of realization.

Great point. It certainly does chime with the Ramana's story of his moment of realization:

"So, on that day as I sat alone there was nothing wrong with my health. But a sudden and umistakeable fear of death seized me. I felt I was going to die. Why I should have so felt cannot be explained by anything felt in my body. Nor could I explain it to myself then. I did not however trouble myself to discover if the fear was well grounded. I felt 'I was going to die,' and at once set about thinking what I should do. I did not care to consult doctors or elders or even friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there.

"The shock or fear of death made me at once introspective, or 'introverted'. I said to myself mentally, i.e., without uttering the words — 'Now, death has come. What does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' I at once dramatized the scene of death. I extended my limbs and held them rigid as though rigor-mortis had set in. I imitated a corpse to lend an air of reality to my further investigation, I held my breath and kept my mouth closed, pressing the lips tightly together so that no sound might escape. Let not the word 'I' or any other word be uttered! 'Well then,' said I to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body, am "I" dead? Is the body "I"? The body is silent and inert. But I feel the full force of my personality and even the sound "I" within myself, — apart from the body. So "I" am a spirit, a thing transcending the body. The material body dies, but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. I am therefore the deathless spirit.' All this was not a mere intellectual process, but flashed before me vividly as living truth, something which I perceived immediately, without any argument almost. 'I' was something very real, the only real thing in that state, and all the conscious activity that was connected with my body was centred on that. The 'I' or my 'self' was holding the focus of attention by a powerful fascination from that time forwards. Fear of death had vanished at once and forever. Absorption in the self has continued from that moment right up to this time. Other thoughts may come and go like the various notes of a musician, but the 'I' continues like the basic or fundamental sruti note which accompanies and blends with all other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centred on 'I'. Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of myself and was not consciously attracted to it. I had felt no direct perceptible interest in it, much less any permanent disposition to dwell upon it."

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

[Reefs]

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

About 25 years ago, I lost interest in watching TV. It just seemed all too fake and superficial and a waste of time. I discovered that my life was a lot more meaningful and also more peaceful without it. So I've basically never actively watched TV ever since, even though all the places I've lived after that realization came with at least one TV set by default. But to me it's just a piece of furniture which basically goes unnoticed because I have no use for it. So, do I have to throw out my TV set in order to really be free? Of course not. Once you're really done with it, you're done. And with it goes the urge to make a point about it to others by throwing it out with a lot of theatrics.

It's easy to stay in alignment in a sheltered environment that offers only a minimum of contrast, like living in a monastery or a cave or on a mountaintop. But it is quite another thing to stay in alignment in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, where you have to deal with a maximum of contrast. If you can easily transition between these two worlds without falling out of alignment, then you've got it. But if you can't, if only the sheltered (i.e. controlled) environment gives you peace of mind but the normal life environment makes you lose your peace of mind again, then renouncing household and goods was just a crutch, an act. That's why I've always had a lot more respect for householders who live in freedom than for monks who live in freedom. You can gain (or fake) a relative level of freedom and peace of mind in a highly controlled environment, but you can't do that when you are fully exposed to life as it happens spontaneously. Because if it is real, it makes you flexible (natural flow). If it is just an act, it makes you stiff (forced, contrived). And as the Daodejing tells us, the stiff is a sign of death, the flexible is a sign of life.

[siftingtothetruth]

Jun 17, 2021 21:56:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

About 25 years ago, I lost interest in watching TV. It just seemed all too fake and superficial and a waste of time. I discovered that my life was a lot more meaningful and also more peaceful without it. So I've basically never actively watched TV ever since, even though all the places I've lived after that realization came with at least one TV set by default. But to me it's just a piece of furniture which basically goes unnoticed because I have no use for it. So, do I have to throw out my TV set in order to really be free? Of course not. Once you're really done with it, you're done. And with it goes the urge to make a point about it to others by throwing it out with a lot of theatrics.

It's easy to stay in alignment in a sheltered environment that offers only a minimum of contrast, like living in a monastery or a cave or on a mountaintop. But it is quite another thing to stay in alignment in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, where you have to deal with a maximum of contrast. If you can easily transition between these two worlds without falling out of alignment, then you've got it. But if you can't, if only the sheltered (i.e. controlled) environment gives you peace of mind but the normal life environment makes you lose your peace of mind again, then renouncing household and goods was just a crutch, an act. That's why I've always had a lot more respect for householders who live in freedom than for monks who live in freedom. You can gain (or fake) a relative level of freedom and peace of mind in a highly controlled environment, but you can't do that when you are fully exposed to life as it happens spontaneously. Because if it is real, it makes you flexible (natural flow). If it is just an act, it makes you stiff (forced, contrived). And as the Daodejing tells us, the stiff is a sign of death, the flexible is a sign of life.

Yes indeed...

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2021 21:56:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

About 25 years ago, I lost interest in watching TV. It just seemed all too fake and superficial and a waste of time. I discovered that my life was a lot more meaningful and also more peaceful without it. So I've basically never actively watched TV ever since, even though all the places I've lived after that realization came with at least one TV set by default. But to me it's just a piece of furniture which basically goes unnoticed because I have no use for it. So, do I have to throw out my TV set in order to really be free? Of course not. Once you're really done with it, you're done. And with it goes the urge to make a point about it to others by throwing it out with a lot of theatrics.

It's easy to stay in alignment in a sheltered environment that offers only a minimum of contrast, like living in a monastery or a cave or on a mountaintop. But it is quite another thing to stay in alignment in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, where you have to deal with a maximum of contrast. If you can easily transition between these two worlds without falling out of alignment, then you've got it. But if you can't, if only the sheltered (i.e. controlled) environment gives you peace of mind but the normal life environment makes you lose your peace of mind again, then renouncing household and goods was just a crutch, an act. That's why I've always had a lot more respect for householders who live in freedom than for monks who live in freedom. You can gain (or fake) a relative level of freedom and peace of mind in a highly controlled environment, but you can't do that when you are fully exposed to life as it happens spontaneously. Because if it is real, it makes you flexible (natural flow). If it is just an act, it makes you stiff (forced, contrived). And as the Daodejing tells us, the stiff is a sign of death, the flexible is a sign of life.

Environment is not separate from you! outer world simply reflects what you hold in your inner! It doesn't matter whether you are in the hustle and bustle of everyday life or mountaintop. If you hold the problematic inner belief, it simply reflects in your outer world. You are not only the perceiver of your life, the life you are perceiving is created by you as well. You don't have the power to place yourself into the controlled environment, If you hold the problematic inner belief, that would be reflected in your controlled environment as well. This is the one of the reason the child tortured by the parents are tortured by the school teachers and attracts the partner who torture them as well, it's because the problem is not in the outer world, it's in your inner world. The hidden infinite Creator has the power to confirm your belief!

[ouroboros]

Jun 18, 2021 0:07:18 GMT -5 @gopalan said:

Jun 17, 2021 21:56:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

About 25 years ago, I lost interest in watching TV. It just seemed all too fake and superficial and a waste of time. I discovered that my life was a lot more meaningful and also more peaceful without it. So I've basically never actively watched TV ever since, even though all the places I've lived after that realization came with at least one TV set by default. But to me it's just a piece of furniture which basically goes unnoticed because I have no use for it. So, do I have to throw out my TV set in order to really be free? Of course not. Once you're really done with it, you're done. And with it goes the urge to make a point about it to others by throwing it out with a lot of theatrics.

It's easy to stay in alignment in a sheltered environment that offers only a minimum of contrast, like living in a monastery or a cave or on a mountaintop. But it is quite another thing to stay in alignment in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, where you have to deal with a maximum of contrast. If you can easily transition between these two worlds without falling out of alignment, then you've got it. But if you can't, if only the sheltered (i.e. controlled) environment gives you peace of mind but the normal life environment makes you lose your peace of mind again, then renouncing household and goods was just a crutch, an act. That's why I've always had a lot more respect for householders who live in freedom than for monks who live in freedom. You can gain (or fake) a relative level of freedom and peace of mind in a highly controlled environment, but you can't do that when you are fully exposed to life as it happens spontaneously. Because if it is real, it makes you flexible (natural flow). If it is just an act, it makes you stiff (forced, contrived). And as the Daodejing tells us, the stiff is a sign of death, the flexible is a sign of life.

Environment is not separate from you! outer world simply reflects what you hold in your inner! It doesn't matter whether you are in the hustle and bustle of everyday life or mountaintop. If you hold the problematic inner belief, it simply reflects in your outer world. You are not only the perceiver of your life, the life you are perceiving is created by you as well. You don't have the power to place yourself into the controlled environment, If you hold the problematic inner belief, that would be reflected in your controlled environment as well. This is the one of the reason the child tortured by the parents are tortured by the school teachers and attracts the partner who torture them as well, it's because the problem is not in the outer world, it's in your inner world. The hidden infinite Creator has the power to confirm your belief!

Seems to me that you're both saying something quite similar, but coming at it from different ways.

I guess you're saying that you can only change outer by first changing inner. That you have no control over changing outer … because outer only ever flows from, or is an extension of inner, right.

But because of the relationship between inner and outer, or rather the fact that ultimately they are fluid (and feedback-loop), I'd say that to some degree you also can actually change inner by changing outer.

Like calming effect of feng shui, or sitting in zen garden.

Hmmm … but what got you there to the garden …?

Ultimately it's like the question, which came first, chicken or egg.

What I do accept is, the only real change comes from within.

And you are right about those inner patterns which attract certain circumstances, and so reflect in environment. This is akin to kamma.

But we can only experience the dissatisfaction via outer, yes. And that dissatisfaction is the catalyst for change in inner. So again, chicken and egg to some extent.

Really, inner and outer are interdependent, as least as far as these attractive patterns are concerned.

For sure, it seems that the way these patterns change over time 'begins' with clarity (inner). But then also necessarily extends, fluidly, to action (outer). So first we see truth (problems) and then make appropriate changes. Or such changes naturally follow.

The biggest issue is that it's never quite clear what's meant by the 'you' that has no control over all this, and this has been mentioned before.

I don't have that particular problem because I see intent as underpinning the whole attractive pattern shebang, the whole feedback loop. (Mostly incredibly subtly). And it's only ever that very intent that comes close to engendering what might be conceived of as a 'you'. That’s a bit of a mindbender, hehe, and probably just leads to a lot more questions.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2021 7:06:38 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Jun 18, 2021 0:07:18 GMT -5 @gopalan said:

Environment is not separate from you! outer world simply reflects what you hold in your inner! It doesn't matter whether you are in the hustle and bustle of everyday life or mountaintop. If you hold the problematic inner belief, it simply reflects in your outer world. You are not only the perceiver of your life, the life you are perceiving is created by you as well. You don't have the power to place yourself into the controlled environment, If you hold the problematic inner belief, that would be reflected in your controlled environment as well. This is the one of the reason the child tortured by the parents are tortured by the school teachers and attracts the partner who torture them as well, it's because the problem is not in the outer world, it's in your inner world. The hidden infinite Creator has the power to confirm your belief!

Seems to me that you're both saying something quite similar, but coming at it from different ways.

I guess you're saying that you can only change outer by first changing inner. That you have no control over changing outer … because outer only ever flows from, or is an extension of inner, right.

But because of the relationship between inner and outer, or rather the fact that ultimately they are fluid (and feedback-loop), I'd say that to some degree you also can actually change inner by changing outer.

Like calming effect of feng shui, or sitting in zen garden.

Hmmm … but what got you there to the garden …?

Ultimately it's like the question, which came first, chicken or egg.

What I do accept is, the only real change comes from within.

And you are right about those inner patterns which attract certain circumstances, and so reflect in environment. This is akin to kamma.

But we can only experience the dissatisfaction via outer, yes. And that dissatisfaction is the catalyst for change in inner. So again, chicken and egg to some extent.

Really, inner and outer are interdependent, as least as far as these attractive patterns are concerned.

For sure, it seems that the way these patterns change over time 'begins' with clarity (inner). But then also necessarily extends, fluidly, to action (outer). So first we see truth (problems) and then make appropriate changes. Or such changes naturally follow.

The biggest issue is that it's never quite clear what's meant by the 'you' that has no control over all this, and this has been mentioned before.

I don't have that particular problem because I see intent as underpinning the whole attractive pattern shebang, the whole feedback loop. (Mostly incredibly subtly). And it's only ever that very intent that comes close to engendering what might be conceived of as a 'you'. That’s a bit of a mindbender, hehe, and probably just leads to a lot more questions.

I agree!

[laughter]

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

As far as I understand, the title of ZD's book about his search is based on a particular realization that settled this question for him.

First, we can and should see and note the mind hook in the issue. But that doesn't mean there isn't a significant potential relative philosophical insight. Take the koan of MU. One very commonsense observation is that a dog is not a person, nor vice-versa. A householder has no experiential point of reference for monkhood. In fact, anyone who never monked has only various degrees of hint as to what it's like to monk.

Now, we can make the same sort of observation in reverse - that a monk has no experiential point of reference for what it's like to stick it out in the world of commerce and family. This might seem obvious, but even contemplating the simple fact that the individualized human experience is quite limited relative to the potential breadth and depth of it can alter one's perspective.

The argument for monkhood is that it can be - in it's most extreme forms - the ultimate expression of simplification, of quieting the mind, and, as the debate you describe alludes, to Ramana's version of the pointer, "die before you die". The hustle and bustle of everyday life is the stuff of which the consensus trance is woven, after all. But, as with any other philosophical insight, there's another side to the coin: the potential of attachment to the culture and lifestyle of monking. The egoic identity, "I am a monk", and all that goes with that.

The value I see in these sorts of potential relative and philosophical insights is to bring a person's attention to a point where the futility of applying intellect is understood in the context of a self-awareness of their own, subjective and emotional orientation to the underlying issue.

It's only then, that things even start to get interesting.  It's only then, that people can really even begin to relate to what you advise about non-stop self-inquiry/surrender to any meaningful depth. Monks that draw a blank on this are the "heads" side of that coin. ... but then again, I can only extrapolate and infer as to the particulars of that state of body/mind.

[zazeniac]

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Jun 17, 2021 10:58:38 GMT -5 laughter said:

Seems to me very relevant to Ramana's personal story of a particular moment of realization.

Interestingly and on another point, I'm in an argument with someone right now about whether the above verse about dying to oneself and one's possessions requires a literal, physical renunciation of household and goods -- i.e. monkhood. 

I find it difficult to understand why someone would make the argument that Ramana is in any way suggesting renunciation in a literal sense when in so many instances he endorsed the opposite view.

"Q: I am not learned in the scriptures and I find the method of self-enquiry too hard for me. I am a woman with seven
children and a lot of household cares and it leaves me little time for meditation. I request Bhagavan to give me some
simpler and easier method.

A: No learning or knowledge of scriptures is necessary to know the Self, as no man requires a mirror to see himself. All knowledge is required only to be given up eventually as not-Self. Nor is household work or cares with children necessarily an obstacle. If you can do nothing more at least continue saying ‘I, I’ to yourself mentally as advised in Who am I?’... if one incessantly thinks ‘I, I’, it will lead to that state [the Self].’ Continue to repeat it whatever work you may be doing, whether you are sitting, standing or walking. ‘I’ is the name of God. It is the first and greatest of all mantras.

Even om is second to it."

[laughter]

Jun 17, 2021 14:27:21 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Jun 17, 2021 10:58:38 GMT -5 laughter said:

Seems to me very relevant to Ramana's personal story of a particular moment of realization.

Great point. It certainly does chime with the Ramana's story of his moment of realization:

"So, on that day as I sat alone there was nothing wrong with my health. But a sudden and umistakeable fear of death seized me. I felt I was going to die. Why I should have so felt cannot be explained by anything felt in my body. Nor could I explain it to myself then. I did not however trouble myself to discover if the fear was well grounded. I felt 'I was going to die,' and at once set about thinking what I should do. I did not care to consult doctors or elders or even friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there.

"The shock or fear of death made me at once introspective, or 'introverted'. I said to myself mentally, i.e., without uttering the words — 'Now, death has come. What does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' I at once dramatized the scene of death. I extended my limbs and held them rigid as though rigor-mortis had set in. I imitated a corpse to lend an air of reality to my further investigation, I held my breath and kept my mouth closed, pressing the lips tightly together so that no sound might escape. Let not the word 'I' or any other word be uttered! 'Well then,' said I to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body, am "I" dead? Is the body "I"? The body is silent and inert. But I feel the full force of my personality and even the sound "I" within myself, — apart from the body. So "I" am a spirit, a thing transcending the body. The material body dies, but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. I am therefore the deathless spirit.' All this was not a mere intellectual process, but flashed before me vividly as living truth, something which I perceived immediately, without any argument almost. 'I' was something very real, the only real thing in that state, and all the conscious activity that was connected with my body was centred on that. The 'I' or my 'self' was holding the focus of attention by a powerful fascination from that time forwards. Fear of death had vanished at once and forever. Absorption in the self has continued from that moment right up to this time. Other thoughts may come and go like the various notes of a musician, but the 'I' continues like the basic or fundamental sruti note which accompanies and blends with all other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centred on 'I'. Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of myself and was not consciously attracted to it. I had felt no direct perceptible interest in it, much less any permanent disposition to dwell upon it."

Yes, that's how I remembered the story, thanks for taking the time to transcribe it here.

Did Ramana relate any subsequent event(s) that happened later in life that could be characterized as a realization or experience with significant existential overtones? The only one that I'm aware of is when he found the cow in the ditch, and I can understand if other's don't see it that way, but I do.