Somebody, I've still to get thru the last lot, so please leave them at the altar and I'll get round to them when I can.
I AM ________________________________ From: ED <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, 1 April, 2011 22:37:49 Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse Maharaj, In exchange for your deep teachings would you be satisfied with the traditional offerings of sweets, fruit, flowers , gold and tantric maidens (so frowned upon by Anthony? ) ;-) -- Somebody --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > ED, Just close enough so I can receive your offerings is about right. Mikemaharaj Yes, babaji. -- Somebody ;-) "I am nobody and nothing. This body has no meaning. I am only a mirror in which you can perceive yourself. I am like fire: don't stay too far away or you will not get the warmth. But don't get too near or you may burn yourself. Learn the right distance." --Baba ji --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > ED, > > Slowly but surely you're ever creeping forward to my India 'experience' ; ) > > Mikeji "From: "Be As You Are" Sri Ramana Maharshi taught that every conscious activity of the mind or body, for example `I think', `I remember', 'I feel' `I am acting', [I am mindful. ?] etc., revolves around the tacit assumption that there is an individual `I' who is doing something, a common factor and mental fiction termed the `I'-thought (a translation of Aham-Vritti, which literally means `mental modification of `I'). He equated individuality with the mind and the mind with the `I'-thought which is dependent upon identification with an object, and said that after Self-realization there is no thinker of thoughts, no performer of actions and no awareness of individual existence. When the thoughts arise, he said, the `I'-thought claims ownership of them- `I think', `I believe', `I want', `I am acting'. In reality, there is no separate `I' that exists independently of the objects that it is identifying with, rather, an incessant flow of misidentifications based on an initial assumption that the `I' is individual and associated with the bodily form. He considered this `I am the body' idea as the primary source of all subsequent wrong identifications and its dissolution as the principal aim of self-enquiry. Sri Ramana taught that since the individual `I'-thought cannot exist without an object, if attention is focused on the subjective feeling of `I' or `I am' with such intensity that the thoughts `I am this' or `I am that' do not arise, then the individual `I' will be unable to connect with objects. If this awareness of `I' is sustained, the individual `I' (the `I'-thought) will disappear. In its place will be a direct experience of the Self. This constant attention to the inner awareness of `I' or `I am' is called self-enquiry (atma vichara). Sri Ramana Maharshi frequently recommended it as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the `I'-thought. He taught that the `I'-thought will finally disappear when the perception of all objects, both physical and mental, cease and only Self- awareness exists. This is not brought about by being aware of an `I', but only by BEING the `I'. This stage of experiencing the subject rather than being aware of an object is the culminating phase of self-enquiry. This important distinction is what distinguishes self-enquiry from most other spiritual practices. It also explains why Sri Ramana Maharshi consistently maintained that most other practices were ineffective. He often pointed out that traditional meditations and yoga practices were predicated on the existence of a subject who meditates on an object and he would usually add that such a relationship sustained the `I'-thought instead of eliminating it. In his view such practices may effectively quieten the mind, and they may even produce blissful experiences, but they will never culminate in Self-realisation because the `I'-thought is not being isolated and seen to have no real existence." --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > We just have to be careful with mindfulness - it's very much a >double-edged sword in that it can be the catalyst for awakening to reality, >but >it can also make us think we've 'got it' when in fact it's nothing but our >ego taking a very subtle rest. > > Also, we need to get past the way we think of mindfulness. In the beginning > we >tend to find ourselves consciously employing it at specific times. "Right, >I've >done the tidying up, taken a shower and washed the dishes. Now I'm going to >take the dog out and really focus on what I'm doing, feel the wind on my face, >not zone out and follow any thoughts and really be here" All well and good. > > But what we've also done there, by definition, is to > separate ourselves between >not being mindfull and being mindful which in turn also reinforces the sense >of >separateness from our intrinsic awareness of Budhha. > In simple terms, there is an awareness that is unborn and undying right >now which in Vedanta is expressed as 'I Am'. That awareness is right there >with >you when you're washing the dishes and putting out the rubbish and is there >prior to just when you think, "Now I'm going to practice mindfulness" and it's >there when you stop being mindful. > > Mike
