Ramana's 40 Verses on Reality

[Unconditioned]

24. This inert body does not say 'I'. Reality-Consciousness does not emerge. Between the two, and limited to the measure of the body, something emerges as 'I'. It is this that is known as Chit-jada-granthi (the knot between the Conscious and the inert), and also as bondage, soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara, mind, and so forth.

 

This is one I've had a hard time with. As I started to type out how I didn't understand what it means I think I've figured it out.. maybe. The word that I didn't really know was inert which means "unable to move or resist motion".

 

So, our body does not move by itself, it does not say 'I' (it is not the Self).

Reality-Consciousness does not emerge

 

I think he is saying that because Reality-Consciousness does not emerge it is the root, source, Tao, void, etc. from which everything ELSE emerges. So between the source of emergence and our body the 'I' thought/assumption is created which is the source of suffering, bondage, etc.

 

Anyone else?

[steve]

This is one I've had a hard time with. As I started to type out how I didn't understand what it means I think I've figured it out.. maybe. The word that I didn't really know was inert which means "unable to move or resist motion".

 

So, our body does not move by itself, it does not say 'I' (it is not the Self).

Me too!!! It's not difficult to agree with your conclusion. I have a scientific/medical background so what I have struggled with has been the idea (more to the point, the reality) of separating the "I" from the brain.

 

I think he is saying that because Reality-Consciousness does not emerge it is the root, source, Tao, void, etc. from which everything ELSE emerges. So between the source of emergence and our body the 'I' thought/assumption is created which is the source of suffering, bondage, etc.

 

Anyone else?

Very insightful and well said!! Much thanks for that.

 

24. This inert body does not say 'I'. Reality-Consciousness does not emerge. Between the two, and limited to the measure of the body, something emerges as 'I'. It is this that is known as Chit-jada-granthi (the knot between the Conscious and the inert), and also as bondage, soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara, mind, and so forth.

 

I like the line "... and limited to the measure of the body." There is a brilliant book called The Body Has a Mind of It's Own which addresses the neural mapping that goes on between brain, body, and the immediate environment. I look at the "measure of the body" as being reflective of the fact that the chit-jada-granthi is the interface between our sensory apparatus and that which does not emerge.

 

For any of you familiar with the work of UG Krishnamurti, the concept of "inert body" seems to describe the unfortunate state that he found himself in after his "calamity." Very interesting to compare the expressions of awakening among gurus. It seems to me that the state one finds oneself in after such an experience is reflective of the personality characteristics that existed before hand. Ramana, de Mello - very loving; Osho, Gurdjieff - opportunistic; J Krishnamurti - intellectual and analytical; Nisargadatta - pragmatic, no BS; UG Krishnamurti - depressive and pessimistic.

 

But I digress...

[steve]

25. It. comes into being equipped with a form, and as long as it retains a form it endures. Having a form, it feeds and grows big. But if you investigate it this evil spirit, which has no form of its own, relinquishes its grip on form and takes to flight.

 

I'll take a stab at this but I feel like my understanding of this stanza is very superficial.

 

I interpret the first sentence as describing not only human life but all physical and material incarnations of "that" or maybe in this forum it would appropriate to label it "Dao." When the truth or essence of consciousness is sought, it is very ellusive. I'm in mind of the search for the "I" that Ramana was so fond of. But when we search, we can never find it. Perhaps because it is seraching for itself, like looking for your glasses because you forgot that you are wearing them. The frustration we feel from the endless search could be the reason to use the adjective "evil".

 

Like I said, I'm not all that confident my explanation is terribly insightful here.

[mat black]

25. It. comes into being equipped with a form, and as long as it retains a form it endures. Having a form, it feeds and grows big. But if you investigate it this evil spirit, which ,has no form of its own relinquishes its grip on form and takes to flight.

 

At the risk of throwing more ignorance into the discussion by including my 'take' on the quote, i hesitantly suggest.................

 

The body has a form determined by causes/conditions/karma/thought.

The form is determined by the minds' particular attatchments to ideas, desires etc. Based on this approach, a body ensues as a manifestation of the mind, comprised of 5 elements, and it endures (in one lifetime) as long as the 5 elements are retained in their particular format.

 

But if we investigate the body by examining the component parts and find their actual source of origin, we find that the component parts have no substantial, independent existence outside of the 'Self' or Buddha Nature. Therefore, it "has no form of its own" It came about according to our false thought, desire and karma.

 

I'm in mind of the search for the "I" that Ramana was so fond of. But when we search, we can never find it. Perhaps because it is seraching for itself, like looking for your glasses because you forgot that you are wearing them.

Searching but never finding if our search is focused on the objects and thoughts ie form, or maybe our search just hasn't gone deep enough yet? I wonder?

 

The frustration we feel from the endless search could be the reason to use the adjective "evil".

I agree Steve, and i also think that the term is used in reference to the body because it is a 'gross', impermanent, everchanging, unstable manifestaion. It is attatchment to this that causes so much suffering, greed, selfishness etc.

So, maybe it it refered to as evil because as long as we steadfastly and exclusively identify with it, we will inevitably experience suffering and also cause suffering for others?

 

Steve, your comments , as well as these 40 verses remind me very much about the Shurangama Sutra which im currently reading with explanation by Master Hua. The theme is so similar it's amazing.

Edited October 11, 2008 by mat black

[steve]

Your perspective helps me a lot in this stanza Mat.

_/\_

 

The theme is so similar it's amazing.

I do believe that a consistent truth underlies all of the various perspective.

[Todd]

I read this stanza somewhat differently. The "It" that comes into being equipped with form is neither the true Self, nor the body. Ramana laid the groundwork for this stanza in the previous two stanzas. In both of those stanzas he begins by saying that the body does not say "I". I think he is trying to tell us something. Namely, don't blame the body. Elsewhere, he repeats some lines that I believe are quite old, "The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman." These are not words that see the body as any impediment at all. It is something between the body and the true Self/Buddha nature/Truth that seems to cause all of our difficulties. He refers to this thing as "I" or the the "I-thought". He seems to be saying that it is the root of our mental world. How deep this mental world goes, I do not know. He suggest that it is quite deep, when he says that "Once the 'I' emerges, all else emerges." Hence, we are encouraged to inquire whence this "I" emerges. What is at the root of all that we think we see?

 

He is also careful, however, to distinguish the "I" from Reality-Consciousness (Self, Buddha-nature, Truth). He states that "Reality-Consciousness does not emerge." Hence, it does not come into being. It is before the "I", which is before all else that emerges, hence it cannot emerge.

 

So what is it that emerges? What is it that is equipped with form? Ramana seems to be trying to suggest to us that it is the "I-thought" that emerges, and that it is associated with form from its inception. The association with form may just be a misperception, but as long as we perceive the "I" as having a form, it endures. It grows stronger, and tries to incorporate more and more into itself, "My car, my wife, my children, my job, my realization, my good feeling, my crappy feeling, my ignorance, my love, my world, my species..." It just goes on and on. It grows bigger. But that is only as long as we accept that the "I" actually has independent existence, that it has form. If we investigate for ourselves whether this is true, down to the very core of our being, beyond even the "I" that realizes, only then, Ramana seems to be suggesting, does the "evil spirit, which has no form of its own, [relinquish] its grip on form and [take] to flight."

 

"Evil spirit" is not the name that I would use, but I can see why he might choose those words. So many of us seem to be so completely deceived, and it continues to deceive even most of those who have tasted life without it. Its really quite amazing.

[steve]

Thank you Todd - extremely well put. That really helps me.

[Unconditioned]

I agree with Todd - my interpretation is the same (even before reading the response) that Ramana is referring to the I/self/ego. He's explaining to us it's nature and how to rid ourselves of this.

 

I think the use of the word 'evil' is to distinguish that this 'self' is deceitful. This 'lie' is perhaps the biggest evil we can experience since it keeps us from Truth and the greatest 'good' is it's removal (even for a little while) which allows us to understand Truth. If he didn't add the color, it may have come across as just an explanation of the process of ego rather than an obstacle to understanding.

 

Just my take =)

 

Edit: reworded so it makes more sense.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Unconditioned

[steve]

I think the use of the word 'evil' is to distinguish that this 'self' is deceitful. This 'lie' is perhaps the biggest evil we can experience since it keeps us from Truth and the greatest 'good' is it's removal (even for a little while) which allows us to understand Truth.

Once the 'self' is removed, who is it that is left to understand Truth?

For understanding to occur, there must be one who understands.

Is understanding the objective?

I think we must be very careful with words.

[Unconditioned]

Once the 'self' is removed, who is it that is left to understand Truth?

For understanding to occur, there must be one who understands.

Is understanding the objective?

I think we must be very careful with words.

 

To be completely honest I'm more confused than ever and this happens from time to time.. just when I feel like things make sense I drop all of it and 'start over' because they're just thoughts on how things are based on other thoughts - a complete house of cards. I'm not sure what the objective is. The one that understands, is he just a ghost conjured by the process of imagination?

 

All I know is that this body would not function with out Life, that I am not my mind, and that everything is a function of Life - the source I've given the label Tao.

 

Hmm, looks like I have some 'soul searching' to do... thank you for the questions, they're helpful.

[steve]

To be completely honest I'm more confused than ever and this happens from time to time.. just when I feel like things make sense I drop all of it and 'start over' because they're just thoughts on how things are based on other thoughts - a complete house of cards.

I don't think this is a bad thing. If "I" understand, "I" am simply reinforcing the illusion of "I", am "I" not?

Maybe the issue is the "starting over"... ?

The search implies one who is searching.

[mat black]

Thank you Todd - extremely well put. That really helps me.

 

Ditto Todd

[Unconditioned]

I don't think this is a bad thing. If "I" understand, "I" am simply reinforcing the illusion of "I", am "I" not?

Maybe the issue is the "starting over"... ?

The search implies one who is searching.

 

Thank you.

[Mal]

These are not words that see the body as any impediment at all. It is something between the body and the true Self/Buddha nature/Truth that seems to cause all of our difficulties. He refers to this thing as "I" or the the "I-thought". He seems to be saying that it is the root of our mental world.

 

Nice

 

Maybe the issue is the "starting over"... ?

The search implies one who is searching.

 

Intriguing and reassuring. Perhaps the effort in trying to understand is more important than actually understanding what we can explain in words.

 

Especially since the understanding is done by the ego "I" and drags us into the mental realm away from the reality we are trying to understand.

[Lozen]

I got lost on 24 and 25, but let's move on... Sometimes I try to read through something all the way through before going back to the parts I have trouble with... So on that note...

 

26. If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.

[Mal]

haha I get lost ALL the time, part of the fun.

"If the ego is not, nothing else is."

Mmmmmmm (can we have some thinking music?)

[steve]

 

26. If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.

A lot of overlap with Buddhist and Daoist sensibility. Before differentiation there is wholeness - one Qi, Wuji, Buddha-mind. That is the state without the sense of "I", the state absent of individual ego. After differentiation, there is me and you and the 10,000 things. That's sort of how I read this.

[Todd]

26. If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.

 

 

When I first read this at least a couple weeks ago (I was thinking about posting the next verse), my first thought was, "That pointer isn't meant for me. That is for someone who thinks that the world is a place to escape from, or who has accepted the idea that only by escaping everything can we know God. This pointer is only for the first half of the journey."

 

I even used it in a conversation with someone who was having some of those feelings. It worked decently, but there was more said after that to focus things a bit.

 

Only today do I realize that he is speaking quite literally. He is speaking as literally as me saying that my fingers are typing this message. Neither is true, but they are both quite literal.

 

This pointer is very powerful.

 

What a fool I was!

 

Edit: I have to admit that it was more of an inquiry into what truth is rather than specifically into what ego is. But the vision that what truly is is not a thing, cannot be an object of perception, no matter how subtle, that any object is actually the ego... And if all these objects aren't it, what is? What sees? What allows everything to be, in my own experience, beyond even the subtlest object of perception?

 

And if that seems to be tasted, can we value it and give it more of our attention than anything else, while we go about our daily life? Certainly an ongoing question for me.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Todd

[Unconditioned]

A lot of overlap with Buddhist and Daoist sensibility. Before differentiation there is wholeness - one Qi, Wuji, Buddha-mind. That is the state without the sense of "I", the state absent of individual ego. After differentiation, there is me and you and the 10,000 things. That's sort of how I read this.

 

I think the other part of it is the action, the method. So how do we get into the state without the sense of "I"? By constantly inquiring on what it is. I feel this has lead me to some key realizations but I'm not yet sure how using the "I" to remove the "I" would completely work... hmm.

[steve]

I think the other part of it is the action, the method. So how do we get into the state without the sense of "I"? By constantly inquiring on what it is. I feel this has lead me to some key realizations but I'm not yet sure how using the "I" to remove the "I" would completely work... hmm.

Agreed - in fact, I believe that the entire 40 Verses is a progressive development of the "Who Am I" method in a stepwise fashion.

[Todd]

...but I'm not yet sure how using the "I" to remove the "I" would completely work... hmm.

 

Does the "I" that is being used even exist? Is any movement other than THAT?

 

Maybe that is why it might be good to find out what this "I" is. What is it doing? How does it affect my perception? How does it affect the world? Does it even exist? Is it separate from the world? What does exist?

 

I've got a lot of questions. And when one no longer seems relevant, I ask the next one. Sometimes its obvious not to verbalize a question, but to just see/be, and then something calls me to question.

 

How do I make this "I"? What about now? How do I create this sense of dissatisfaction?

 

I'm kind've grooving on Ramana's uncompromising direction toward the fullness of truth. I'm beginning to really see Xuesheng's idea of these verses building on the ground that is prepared before.

 

The next verse is the next clarification (for anyone who finds him or herself drawn to it):

 

27. The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT. Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive? Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?

[steve]

27. The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT. Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive? Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?

 

Now we're being seriously challenged to do the work!

 

The State of non-emergence is the state of being THAT.

 

THis is a statement, a definition. It is the core of non-duality. Exactly what another great Vedanta master talked about - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Sailor Bob's guru. His most famous book is I Am That.

 

Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive?

 

What is this? Is it an admonition to quest? Is it a subtle reminder that the quest simply reinforces the emergence of "I"? I think it may be Ramana teasing us, winking and smiling and beckoning us with his index finger, chuckling in his belly.

 

Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?

Is this rhetorical? I think so but perhaps not... Again, who is there to attain anything? The one who attains has arisen and cannot be THAT...

[Todd]

 

Without questing for that State of the non-emergence of 'I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the 'I' does not revive?

 

What is this? Is it an admonition to quest? Is it a subtle reminder that the quest simply reinforces the emergence of "I"? I think it may be Ramana teasing us, winking and smiling and beckoning us with his index finger, chuckling in his belly.

 

Without that attainment how is it possible to abide in one's true State, where one is THAT?

Is this rhetorical? I think so but perhaps not... Again, who is there to attain anything? The one who attains has arisen and cannot be THAT...

 

If Ramana was like some modern teachers, then he saw many people have a glimpse of their true nature in his presence, and he heard many more people tell of glimpses of their true nature. He saw many fewer people who really went all the way with what they were shown, who achieved full realization.

 

Why is this?

 

I would suggest that it is because we don't know better. When we stumble upon a direct perception of our Self (an extinguishing of the 'I') we very quickly turn our attention away from what is revealed. When we turn our attention away (which is totally innocent), then the 'I' re-emerges. The 'I' tells itself a story about what happened, which it may periodically reinforce by allowing itself to disappear from time to time. It seems to miss the fact that the story never actually exists when the 'I' disappears, but as soon as it appears again, it gets very busy telling more stories.

 

This verse is meant for just this situation. Some of the most recalcitrant stories are the spiritual or non-dual ones, such as that there is nowhere to go, nothing to attain, and no one to attain it. The teller of those stories conveniently misses the point that if there is no one to do any of these things, then who is it that says this is so?

 

Apparently the 'I' has re-emerged. This is why Ramana is very clear when we says "The State of non-emergence of 'I' is the state of being THAT."

 

It is possible to read his questions as rhetorical, and such a reading might spark something in some people, but Ramana is constantly suggesting that people seek and investigate what they really are, as long as the separate 'I' seems to emerge. This is just upping the ante, as you hinted at when you said that this is where we're seriously being challenged to do the work.

 

I guess this is why Nisargadatta emphasized the importance of earnestness so constantly.

 

I understand that it can seem counterproductive to seek, when we tell ourselves that there is nothing to be found. The story has all the more weight when it seems to be based in experience. But I can say from my own experience, that any time that I have turned away from the direct experience that I was having to tell myself some story about it, which I then smugly confirmed in my own head as being more true than whatever I seemed to be experiencing, then that has immediately and effectively cut off the workings of what I really am. But when I have caught myself trying to jump in with some piece of "wisdom", and have instead allowed myself to acknowledge what it is that I am actually experiencing, then there has been the possibility of true inquiry. It really makes all the difference, and it is only our earnestness that allows it happen.

 

I'm sorry this is so long, but I feel like I have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is here. I take comfort in the fact that you can discover anything that I might say and much, much more in your own experience. The only prerequisite is to let go of everything that you know and dive into what you are, and value it more than anything that emerges.

[steve]

I'm sorry this is so long, but I feel like I have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is here. I take comfort in the fact that you can discover anything that I might say and much, much more in your own experience. The only prerequisite is to let go of everything that you know and dive into what you are, and value it more than anything that emerges.

Very nicely stated - please don't apologize for length, I thought you were pretty concise considering the subject matter.

[Todd]

28. Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself, with a keen one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the 'I' originates.