Ramana Maharshi Quotes - Truth Revealed

[Still_Waters]

Ramana: "Meditation on a precept concerning the nature of the 'I' is merely an aid thereto."

Ramana: "...merely to meditate on the nature of the 'I' is a confession of one's mental weakness."

NOTE: I once had difficulties with these quotes since I meditated on the "I AM" for some time and this seemed really provocative when I first read it.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 21 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Ramana: "...merely to meditate on the nature of the 'I' is a confession of one's mental weakness."

Some one, whom I respect highly, asked for a clarification regarding what I had personally realized from the above Ramana Maharshi quote. Feel free to comment as you see fit as my interpretation is certainly open to questioning.

As some of you know, one of my favorite Biblical passages is "Be Still and Know that I AM God" (Psalms 46:10). That has been a guiding principle in my life for many years.

In "Talks", Ramana commented on that passage and defined "Be Still" as "I AM" (WITH NO OTHER THOUGHTS), which is precisely what I had been doing. I realized that, as soon as one completes the sentence "I AM" with an identifying element such as "I AM <Still Waters>", one creates separation/differentiation. Hence, part of my practice had been to meditate on "I AM" with no other thoughts as it does give one (at least me) a sense of unitary consciousness.

When I read the above passage for the first time, I didn't understand what Ramana meant and hence I searched the index in Ramana's book "Talks" for ALL references to "I AM".

I then found a passage that started to clear up my confusion. "That which is no longer even says I AM". That was certainly not immediately obvious to me.

I then recalled that Nisargadatta Maharaj had once said that "I AM" is the first manifestation from the Absolute but is NOT the Absolute. It took a long time for all this to register.

Then I noted that the Sufi Master Hazrat Inayat Khan similarly stated that "Creation begins with the activity of consciousness, which is vibration". He goes on to say that the vibrations create a primal sound during which the One becomes aware of itself as the "I AM".

Taoist writings indicate: "In utter emptiness and complete silence (especially the mind), simply watch the return (to original nature)".

Other wisdom traditions pointed me in the same direction and the meaning of Ramana's words became clearer and clearer.

Having practiced conscious sleep for years, one can observe this process on an analogous ("As above, so below") basis as the dream universe manifests from the "nothingness" (in deep sleep) that is not really "nothing". One can also observe directly the transition from deep sleep to the so-called waking state that is not really "awake" in the Buddhist sense.

The "I AM" does eventually subside even if only temporarily for some like me and that complete stillness does indeed become more and more continuous.

At that point, "That which is does not even say I AM" .... even if only temporarily.... any more than one would state the obvious in saying "I have two arms and two legs".

P.S. I still meditate on the "I AM" (with no other thoughts) but as a gateway to the Absolute Stillness since I am not yet firmly established in "That" as I still get distracted/entangled in the Cosmic Drama and Ramana points to this as a "mental weakness". Eventually, however, even the thought "I AM" subsides even if only temporarily (for me).

P.S.S. Also keep in mind the Zen saying: "Equality without differentiation is poor equality; differentiation without equality is poor differentiation". BOTH perspectives are aspects of the Reality and one discovers how to shift perspectives just as one can shift attention between the dreamer and the dream-object in a lucid dream. ("As above, so below". "Man is made in the image of God.")

All should feel free to comment since, as I mentioned before, my interpretation is certainly open to question.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Ramana: "...merely to meditate on the nature of the 'I' is a confession of one's mental weakness."

If I understand his line of Self-inquiry it goes something like this. Follow the sense of "I Am" from gross to subtler and subtler levels. Eventually one arrives at the first thought, the "I" thought. Go deeper to that silence, stillness and serenity (casual body or bliss sheath?) and it's even beyond that. Hmm, perhaps that deep state of meditative silence is the first manifestation? This is where language is simply inadequate.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If I understand his line of Self-inquiry it goes something like this. Follow the sense of "I Am" from gross to subtler and subtler levels. Eventually one arrives at the first thought, the "I" thought. Go deeper to that silence, stillness and serenity (casual body or bliss sheath?) and it's even beyond that. Hmm, perhaps that deep state of meditative silence is the first manifestation? This is where language is simply inadequate.

That is EXACTLY my understanding and my practice. You expressed it so concisely and eloquently. YES !

[Still_Waters]

Ramana: "To the ignorant, the 'I' is the self limited to the body; to the Wise the 'I' is the Self Infinite."

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Follow the sense of "I Am" from gross to subtler and subtler levels.

The sense of 'I am.....' is the ego and its 'contents', the 'I'/Aham is localised consciousness. The 'contents/karas are the 'am.....' part, roughly speaking perceptual reality or what you perceive 'I' to consist of/doing. "I am going from gross to subtler" is still 'I am......'. And that's where so many Spiritual people fall over. The less 'contents' the less 'I am...' is until there is only the 'I' left.

Taking it from the other perspective for contrast, the more we think of ourselves as being Spiritual, having understandings, realisations, knowledge..... the more of an 'I am' we perceive ourselves to be.

I am..... is the gross, I Am (as in no contents) is the subtle.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

the 'I'/Aham is localised consciousness.

From the Advaita perspective there is no localized consciousness just like Moonlight is really Sunlight reflected. Ahamkara is the one that says "I am conscious". It's claiming consciousness as its own and yoking it to mind-body.

The "I" thought is the first step on the path to the Dark Side (duality). LOL!

EDIT: I suppose it's really thinking "I" is the local consciousness of mind-body. Again an appropriation by Ahamkara. Swami Vivekananda would call it "wearing a form".

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

EDIT: I suppose it's really thinking "I" is the local consciousness of mind-body. Again an appropriation by Ahamkara. Swami Vivekananda would call it "wearing a form".

But what's beyond thinking, what's beyond the thought of 'I am' when, in the case of severe trauma for Instance, the ego collapses into the self? Without the ego/Ahamkara the self has no sense of 'I am'.

I watched a documentary about Lifer in a monastery where they had dome guys who had successfully transcended their egos. The only problem was they we spoon-fed and had to have their nappies changed.

It's also how we perceive/define 'I', and most often than not it comes down to a single point of reference. But when there's nothing but 'I'? What exists when all form and everything that creates form is taken away.

'I' is consciousness.


Edit. Y'see, what many don't understand is that the ego/Ahamkara is individual. Not everybody's ego/Ahamkara superimposes on the self, some egos/Ahamkaras are fine with being a part of something bigger than themselves

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 26 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The sense of 'I am.....' is the ego and its 'contents'

, "I am going from gross to subtler" is still 'I am......'.

I am..... is the gross, I Am (as in no contents) is the subtle.

Understanding the "I" on various levels can be quite illuminating, as you are pointing out.

My favorite definition of meditation (taken from Nisargadatta Maharaj) is that "Meditation is the art of shifting attention to subtler and subtler levels of consciousness WITHOUT LOSING A GRIP ON THOSE LEVELS LEFT BEHIND".

I am <insert identifying information> ...... is the gross.

I AM (as in not contents) .... is the subtle.

However, as Ramana has also pointed out, there is a point at which "That which IS no longer even says I AM".

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 27 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The "I" thought is the first step on the path to the Dark Side (duality). LOL!