Monthly Archives: January 2015

Effacement of Thought

Posted on by
1

At the end of 2013 I was interested in getting a Ramana Maharshibroader perspective on the enlightenment process.  Guided by the spiritual teachers ratings on the spiritual teachers website I picked Sri Ramana Maharshi.  He had a five star rating which matched the rating of Bernadette Roberts and Nisargadatta Maharaj, two people I respect.

Yesterday, I was reading some excerpts from his Kindle edition of Words of Grace when I came upon this his definition of renunciation:

The entire effacement of thought is said to be the only true renunciation.

This definition is a lovely addition to the the definition of renunciation  I’d posted previously.  It also flows nicely from yesterday’s post on thinking.

As we begin to watch our thoughts and realize that they are just gibbly-goop, will naturally pull our energy from them.  It is easy to become forgetful of our realization and reengage with our thoughts.  Renunciation is the commitment to remember that we are not our thoughts.

Similar to the definition of renunciation I gave, Ramana Maharshi does not stop by simply giving us the negative aspect of renunciation (i.e. rejecting thoughts) but advises us in the positive aspect.  He says that the mind of the renunciant is immersed in the Self.  This means that even as we do our day, we are not really in our day (aka deceptive reality) because we are in communion with The Self (aka God).

When he refers to resting in the Self, his Indian religious beliefs are apparent.  Yes, the Hindus and Buddhist have been arguing for 2500 years about the existence of Self (atman and brahman).  Hindus believe in brahman (unchanging ultimate reality) and the Buddhist have rather simple proofs that show this is an impossibility.  Being schooled in Buddhist logic, I think that arguments may simply a matter of semantics.  Or maybe it is a perspective difference.  One sect focused on thoughts the other on feelings.

If we take Ramana Maharshi’s description out of a theistic viewpoint I think he would agree that resting in the moment, or just being, may be accurate ways to describe the mind of the renunciant.  How would you describe the idea of abiding or being immersed in God?

The Taoist would say we are acting from our center (Tan Tien) or in no-mind.  The highest way to be for the Taoist is not to act from one’s mind (thought) or from one’s heart (emotions), but to move from one’s center, completely aligned with the Tao.

 

Thinking

Posted on by
Reply

Do you know the difference between having a thought and being aware that you are having a thought?

Do you know the difference between having a feeling and being aware that you are having a feeling?

Yesterday we talked about how the self does not exist and how to personally investigate this in order to feel confident in this conclusion.  People that become obsessed with discovering the true nature of reality (which could be referred to as “knowing or seeing God”) create the causes and conditions for the direct experience of no-self or emptiness.

The direct experience of no-self or emptiness (also known as the Perfection of Wisdom) is what gives us the power to cut the fetters of limiting misbeliefs about the world and reach enlightenment.  Someone that has this insight is an arya or stream enterer.

I tend to identify more with my mind as being “myself”.  Exercises that use the mind to explore the mind are quite useful in loosening up this identification.  Anyone that spends much time watching their mind objectively will tend to not want to identify with the thinking processes of the mind.  In fact, one may conclude, “I am not my mind, it is possessed!”

The mind generates a long stream of judgements, opinions, repetitive thoughts, and the like.  When we disengage from identifying with them, these thoughts can be viewed as simple arisings and passings – much like a breeze that touches the surface of our skin.  They are not us.  They are something that seems to happen to us.

Then, what is left is identification with the observer.  It has become clear that we are not the thoughts that we think and we don’t even generate them consciously.  I was able to get to this point when I realized that I was still identifying with the part of the mind that was watching the thoughts.  “I” was the watcher, the observer, the part that says, “there is a breeze on your arm”.  It took an insight experience for me to blow that identification apart.

Slowly as you practice you will break down identification with self.  It is this dissolution of deceptive reality that leads to liberation.  The road is set before you and all you have to do is practice to reach the final goal.

The Self

Posted on by
Reply

On the Buddhist path one of the exercises that is popular is to try to find the self.  This naturally leads to a thorough investigation of all the possible things that could be self.

Am I my legs?  Would I exist if they were gone?

Am I my head?  Would I exist if it was gone?

Am I my mind?

Am I my thoughts?

Am I my feelings?

What am I?

This investigation is typically pursued as an analytical meditation.  I imagine my legs separate from the rest of my body.  Someone comes into the room and says there is Dorena and over there are her legs.

But what are they calling Dorena?  How many body parts do I need to lose before they no longer call me Dorena? If Dorena is a collection of things, what are the essential things?  Can a collection be truly called one thing? one self?

And what of my mind?  If I am in a coma or dead, people might still say, “Dorena is in that room”.  People would call my body “Dorena”.  So I must not be my mind.  Yet, if I lose my mind, people might also say, “She is no longer herself”.

To be told you have no self can sound absurd.  However, what is your defense to that?  Can you find something that you can definitively label yourself?

This process of beginning to understand ultimate reality is deepened by realizing intellectually that there is no self and then progressing to a direct experience of that reality.  Emptiness does not mean that there is nothing there, it simple refers to the fact that their is no self there.  When a room is empty, it usually means there are no people present.  Yet, there may be carpet, furniture and other things.  Similarly in order to talk about emptiness one must define what it is absent.  The object that is absent is the gakja.