Do you practice Atma vichara?

[DanielR]

Hi,

I try to do it, I'm not really sure if I'm doing it right. I sit in my posture and focus on the feeling 'I, I', or 'I am'. When thoughts arise I ask myself to whom do they arise, and try to focus on the heart.

Is this how Ramana Maharshi envisaged it? Well, I hope I'm doing it right!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atma Vichara, atma chintan, self analysis - yes we all do that, all the time. No particular posture required. One might be lying on the bed or walking or talking. I think you are doing it all right.

 

[DreadFish]

Hi,

I try to do it, I'm not really sure if I'm doing it right. I sit in my posture and focus on the feeling 'I, I', or 'I am'. When thoughts arise I ask myself to whom do they arise, and try to focus on the heart.

Is this how Ramana Maharshi envisaged it? Well, I hope I'm doing it right!

I also practice it. However, you say you focus on the feeling "I,I", but "I,I" does not imply the individual "I" feeling. Ramana said that the awareness "I,I" comes about after the individual "I am" is seen through.

Ultimately, your posture doesn't matter but, until you can focus easily in any posture, surely it helps to use a particular posture until your practice strengthens. I would advise, at least from my own experience (so take it with a grain of salt), that you need not focus specifically on your physical heart area. Ramana explained in different ways depending on the asker, but he once said that the aham has no physical location. You could consider aham as the heart of reality. So, when you ask "to whom does this arise?" you feel that subjective feeling of "me-ness" respond on it's own, often in the heart-area, and then focus on it again. That might be what you meant, but I figured I'd assume otherwise and cover all the bases just in case.

One piece of advice (again, take it with a grain of salt), is not to divide yourself: "Here's my "I" and here's me watching it". I think we often fall into this without realizing it. Don't be a person trying to find their "I" and focus on it, simply observe that "I" feeling in awareness just like you might stare at a spot on a wall without even thinking "I am watching this spot". You know what I mean? All associations and identifications, such as person, and doing this or that are tied to this core feeling of "me" or "I". So all of that stuff is false identification. "I" is just "I". What is it?

I think the technique involves a lot of groping in the dark and simply getting a feeling of things for yourself. Keep on truckin'!

 

[George-ananda]

I try to do it, I'm not really sure if I'm doing it right.

Who is that 'I' ?

 

[DanielR]

I also practice it. However, you say you focus on the feeling "I,I", but "I,I" does not imply the individual "I" feeling. Ramana said that the awareness "I,I" comes about after the individual "I am" is seen through.

Ultimately, your posture doesn't matter but, until you can focus easily in any posture, surely it helps to use a particular posture until your practice strengthens. I would advise, at least from my own experience (so take it with a grain of salt), that you need not focus specifically on your physical heart area. Ramana explained in different ways depending on the asker, but he once said that the aham has no physical location. You could consider aham as the heart of reality. So, when you ask "to whom does this arise?" you feel that subjective feeling of "me-ness" respond on it's own, often in the heart-area, and then focus on it again. That might be what you meant, but I figured I'd assume otherwise and cover all the bases just in case.

One piece of advice (again, take it with a grain of salt), is not to divide yourself: "Here's my "I" and here's me watching it". I think we often fall into this without realizing it. Don't be a person trying to find their "I" and focus on it, simply observe that "I" feeling in awareness just like you might stare at a spot on a wall without even thinking "I am watching this spot". You know what I mean? All associations and identifications, such as person, and doing this or that are tied to this core feeling of "me" or "I". So all of that stuff is false identification. "I" is just "I". What is it?

I think the technique involves a lot of groping in the dark and simply getting a feeling of things for yourself. Keep on truckin'!

Thanks for the reply. Yes, some advice of Ramana are a bit cryptic. It's a lot of groping as you say.

How long have you been doing it?

Who is that 'I' ?

I-I

 

[DanielR]

Hmm, there is no I

 

[George-ananda]

Hmm, there is no I

It's all Brahman..I-I

The separateness is an illusion of Maya superimposed over Brahman. See through the illusion and game over! It is all divine play.

 

[DreadFish]

But it sure isn't much use to just say it, "there is no 'I'". Better keep investigating it and find out whether that's true, first-hand. Maybe try not to have any preconceptions about it.

To answer your question: Im not sure. I've practiced it on and off for around a year, maybe. It's only in the past few months that I've been seriously practicing it consistently every day.

 

[DanielR]

But it sure isn't much use to just say it, "there is no 'I'". Better keep investigating it and find out whether that's true, first-hand. Maybe try not to have any preconceptions about it.

To answer your question: Im not sure. I've practiced it on and off for around a year, maybe. It's only in the past few months that I've been seriously practicing it consistently every day.

I'm still undecided between Duality and Nonduality, but I nonetheless practice atma vichara. I have this ocd fear of being reborn. I don't know I've heard people say that there really is no rebirth because there is no I, I think even Ramana suggested this.

Still I want to say that I'm not following Neo-Advaita.

It's weird, but it seems like Advaita is gaining a huge amount of poplularity, especially in the past couple of years. When I started practicing Advaita it still wasn't this 'in' thing.

People I look up to are Ramana and Nisargadatta. I read a bit about Ramesh Balsekar, but I believe he is not authentic.

On a sidenote, since I'm practicing this sort of meditation, be it Shikantaza or AVichara, I had these really weird lucid dreams. One dream particularly left a huge impression on me, I have to be cautious not to fall into the solipsism trap, because that's what the dream was about.

Anyway sorry for my rant haha

 

[DreadFish]

I'm still undecided between Duality and Nonduality, but I nonetheless practice atma vichara. I have this ocd fear of being reborn. I don't know I've heard people say that there really is no rebirth because there is no I, I think even Ramana suggested this.

Still I want to say that I'm not following Neo-Advaita.

It's weird, but it seems like Advaita is gaining a huge amount of poplularity, especially in the past couple of years. When I started practicing Advaita it still wasn't this 'in' thing.

People I look up to are Ramana and Nisargadatta. I read a bit about Ramesh Balsekar, but I believe he is not authentic.

On a sidenote, since I'm practicing this sort of meditation, be it Shikantaza or AVichara, I had these really weird lucid dreams. One dream particularly left a huge impression on me, I have to be cautious not to fall into the solipsism trap, because that's what the dream was about.

Anyway sorry for my rant haha

I know what you mean, being not sure about duality or non-duality. I'd say, don't worry about it. Reality is as it is no matter what we think it is. The point is, do you think this method is effective? If it is, reality will be realized, whatever it is. I'd say, don't be concerned about what "belief" to adopt, just adopt the practice that you have faith in. You know, Nisargadatta speaks strongly about letting go of concepts and how other teachers teach concepts and ideas that they are still attached to.

Also, few people point this out but, non-duality, indicating no ultimately real polar opposites or separation does not mean oneness in the sense of singularity. If it was any one thing in particular, it would not be non-dual because (thing A being non-duality and thing B being duality), for reality to be thing A instead of thing B, A has to be substantially different and other than B. As I understand it, non-duality is inclusive of all things and perspectives in relativity, because they are all defined only in relativity to other things; it is the viewless view. The point is, they are not substantially separate or other to each other. Non-duality has room for duality to function at a certain level. Non-duality is not the same as absolute monism.

I also definitely understand the solipsism thing
I have struggled with the idea that Im the only one for a long time. I don't believe it's true, but that fear is still there sometimes, and sometimes these teachings of Ramana or Nisargadatta feed that fear. Or maybe it's better to say, that fear feeds on those teachings, sometimes. But they both specifically speak of reality being beyond "I". Nisargadatta says "I AM" is still time bound, so it can't be what you are. If there is ultimately no substantial "I" and "my world", then "I" can't be the only one.

Rant on, it helps to get these thoughts out

 

[Aupmanyav]

The separateness is an illusion of Maya superimposed over Brahman. See through the illusion and game over! It is all divine play.

Maya is on us. It is our faulty perceiving and understanding. Brahman is like a treated windshield. Nothing can stick on it.

 

[DreadFish]

Maya is on us. It is our faulty perceiving and understanding. Brahman is like a treated windshield. Nothing can stick on it.

Incidentally, Nisargadatta says we are even beyond Brahman, ultimately.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not understand that. I have not read much of Nissargadatta though I respect him.

 

[DreadFish]

I do not understand that. I have not read much of Nissargadatta though I respect him.

Im not too clear on it myself. However, he says anything which you perceive is not what you are. The very act of perceiving means that you cannot be what you perceive.


I dont know, it seems like he would often say "call it whatever you want" with a lot of things; I dont think he was really nit-picky about semantics and concepts. So it might really just be down to how you define "Brahman". It's just a concept either way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not surprised. All Hindu philosophers were nit-picky about semantic and concepts. They had to survive intense debates where the options were either win or become a slave to the winner or drink a cup of hemlock.

It might turnout that Brahman (energy) is not just a concept but the reality. To understand what you perceive requires realization and 'divya drishti'.

 

[DreadFish]

I am not surprised. All Hindu philosophers were nit-picky about semantic and concepts. They had to survive intense debates where the options were either win or become a slave to the winner or drink a cup of hemlock.

It might turnout that Brahman (energy) is not just a concept but the reality. To understand what you perceive requires realization and 'divya drishti'.

Well, if you know it by idea, I think it's safe to say that its just a concept. The reality of "Brahman" is beyond Brahman. If it weren't, it wouldn't be Brahman.

That's one thing I admire about Nisargadatta; he seemed to have no interests in maintaining any traditions. He even said he didn't have faith in any religion, even Hinduism. If he is to be believed, he was ineffable.

This is all coming from the book I've been reading, The Ultimate Medicine. It comes from his final days before he died. Since he knew he was dying from throat cancer, he was disinclined to talk about any of the "kindergarten spirituality" basics and definitions and focused only on the most essential points of actually realizing reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kindly keep us informed about what you read.

 

[DanielR]

Well, if you know it by idea, I think it's safe to say that its just a concept. The reality of "Brahman" is beyond Brahman. If it weren't, it wouldn't be Brahman.

That's one thing I admire about Nisargadatta; he seemed to have no interests in maintaining any traditions. He even said he didn't have faith in any religion, even Hinduism. If he is to be believed, he was ineffable.

This is all coming from the book I've been reading, The Ultimate Medicine. It comes from his final days before he died. Since he knew he was dying from throat cancer, he was disinclined to talk about any of the "kindergarten spirituality" basics and definitions and focused only on the most essential points of actually realizing reality.

what do you think about him not teaching reincarnation?? I've read the Ultimate Medicine, it's a great book, it makes me sad that he had to suffer so much.

Reincarnation is another obsession with me. To be pulled back into this existence is abolutely terrifying to me. I suffer from anxiety disorders and a bipolar disorder so existence to me means dread and panic.

What makes me believe in duality is that it was not my decision that I'm on this earth, if I knew what would happen I would have never said YES.

But I feel like I made that decision with Advaita a long time ago and I feel it's thre right thing, it's probably that I don't want to accept its truth. It's not easy to let go of everything around you, like people you love/d jivas etc.

 

[DreadFish]

what do you think about him not teaching reincarnation?? I've read the Ultimate Medicine, it's a great book, it makes me sad that he had to suffer so much.

Well, as he says in that book, the disease was acting upon that bundle of the physical body and "I" consciousness, so he didn't suffer at all because he wasn't identified with the body or the "I" consciousess. Along the same lines, it's not you that's reborn unless you are identifying with time-bound, impermanent elements.

Reincarnation is another obsession with me. To be pulled back into this existence is abolutely terrifying to me. I suffer from anxiety disorders and a bipolar disorder so existence to me means dread and panic.

What makes me believe in duality is that it was not my decision that I'm on this earth, if I knew what would happen I would have never said YES.

But I think you need to go a bit deeper with it. If you think you are the one who's been pulled into existence, then you must be sure who you are. So, back to the basics, I think Ramana and Nisargadatta might recommend that you find out who it is that you believe is being subject to birth, death and rebirth.

I think it's important not to get too caught up in ideas and views because, apparently, they're basically dreams anyway. So, going with the basic atma vichara, and shikantaza, just see how thing actually exist and function right now. Don't take other people's word that this happens and this happens. It's all hearsay until you really experience it yourself.

But I feel like I made that decision with Advaita a long time ago and I feel it's thre right thing, it's probably that I don't want to accept its truth. It's not easy to let go of everything around you, like people you love/d jivas etc.

Well, like I said, I don't think non-duality is exclusive from duality. Don't get too caught up in worldviews.

I've also been afraid of it. Being attached to my loved ones is the biggest thing keeping me from not being attached to the world. My loved ones are the only reason im attached to the world. But, no one goes anywhere if we are to believe Ramana and Nisargadatta. The differences and seperation are superficial. I don't think there's actually anything to lose, even though it really seems like there is.

 

[DreadFish]

Kindly keep us informed about what you read.

Will do.