#true seeing

🔱  Om Namo Bhagavathe Sri ArunachalaRamanaya   🔱  

🕉️  

The Paramount Importance of Self Attention, by Sri Sadhu Om, As recorded by Michael James

Part Six - Mountain Path: July – August 2013 - Excerpt

Note of 7th January 1978 (Part 2)

🕉️  

Ignorance is of two types: 'I know' and 'I don't know'. Both depend upon the rising 'I', and both disappear when that rising 'I' is scrutinised. In verse 9 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says: 

Dyads [pairs of opposites such as knowing and not knowing] and triads [the three factors of objective knowledge: the knower, the knowing and the known] exist [only by] clinging always to 'one' [namely our mind or ego, which alone experiences such knowledge or ignorance]. If [anyone] looks within the mind [to discover] what that 'one' is, they [the dyads and triads] will cease to exist [because the ego on which they depend will be found to be non-existent]. Only those who have seen [this non-existence of the ego] are those have seen the reality. See, they will not be confused.

In the state of jñāna [knowledge] no 'I' can rise either to say 'I know myself' or 'I do not knοω myself'. This is the truth that Bhagavan teaches us in both verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu and verse 2 of Sri Arunāchala Ashtakam:

Saying 'I do not know myself' [or] 'I have known myself' is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object known, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth of everyone's experience.

When within [my] mind I investigated who the seer is, [and] when the seer [thereby] became non-existent, I saw that which remained [namely beginningless, endless and unbroken being-consciousness-bliss]. The mind does not [now] rise to say 'I saw', [so] in what way can the mind rise to say 'I did not see'? Who has the power to elucidate this [by] speaking, when in ancient times [even] you [as Dakshinamurti] elucidated [it] without speaking? Only to elucidate your state without speaking, you stood shining [from] earth [to] sky motionlessly [or as a hill].

To say 'I knοω myself' is as absurd as saying 'I do not knοω myself'. In verse twelve of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

That which is completely devoid of knowledge and ignorance is [true] knowledge. That which knows [anything other than itself] is not true knowledge. Since it shines without anything that is other [than itself] to knοω or to make known, self is [true] knowledge. Know it is not a void.

Bhagavan once told Muruganar: "It is not only that self does not know other things, it does not even know itself as 'I am this'." In verse 26 of Upadesa Undiyar he says: 'Being self alone is knowing self, because self is devoid of two. ...'. That is, there are not two selves so that one could be known by the other. Since self is indivisibly single, it can know itself only by being itself. And since being conscious of itself is its very nature, its being itself is itself its knowing itself. In verse 8 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

Whoever worships [it] in whatever form giving [it] whatever name, that is the way to see that [nameless and formless] substance [the absolute reality or God] in name and form. However, knοω [that] knowing the reality of oneself [by] subsiding in and becoming one with the reality of that true substance is seeing [it] in reality.

Here 'knowing the reality [or truth] of oneself' may mean either knowing the non-existence of the ego or knowing what we really are. However, 'knowing the non-existence of the ego' fits better in this context, considering the phrase 'subsiding in the reality of that true substance', though both meanings amount to the same thing. Whichever way it is taken, 'the reality of oneself' can be correctly known only by our subsiding in and becoming one with the reality of that true substance, which is our real self.

Worshiping that true substance (which is also called 'the supreme reality' or 'God') in any name or form may be a means to see visions of it in that name and form, but it cannot be a means to experience knowledge of the true nature of that reality, which is devoid of any name or form. In order to knοω the true nature of the reality one must know the true nature of oneself, the knower. Therefore in verse 1073 of Guru Vachaka Kovai Bhagavan says:

Since the many [forms of] God that are obtained [as visions or other such dualistic experiences] by clear [pure-hearted] worship undergo appearance and disappearance and [thus] perish, only one's own [true] nature, which always exists with clarity [or certainty], is the true form of God that exists immutably.

If God is experienced or known as other than the knower, he becomes an object of knowledge and as such he depends for his existence upon the knower. Since the knower is unreal, so too is whatever it knows. Therefore, the absolute reality or God can only be known truly by the knower being one with it. When the knower and the known are both resolved into the one reality, that is true knowledge.

Gaining second sight could depend upon nothing more than the time of your birth. A Lincolnshire woman told one folklorist that she had been born at twilight and could see things that other people couldn’t. However, it also meant that she hesitated to go out at twilight, because she often saw things that terrified her. Being in the right place, at the right time, might also be significant.

In one Scottish case, a child left asleep upon a fairy knoll came away from the spot endowed with the second sight. Whether this was a matter of the place alone, or the result of an intervention by the sith folk because they had chosen to favour the infant, we cannot tell.

It seems that the second sight may also be obtained through faery food. Cromek recorded that a person invited inside a fairy hill to feast with the inhabitants went away afterwards with the second sight, implying that consuming the food itself – or perhaps the proximity to the fairies during the meal – could have been the source. If it was the food, this will of course be in stark contrast to the usual outcome, in which the person eating faery food in Faery becomes trapped there. 

Another example of this same process comes from Skye – and significantly takes place on human terrain rather than inside a faery hill. Two men were out peat cutting. One paused and wished for a drink of milk, in response to which a faery women appeared and gave him exactly what he hoped for. He drank gratefully, but his friend refused for fear of faery influence. The one who had partaken found that he could see a host of faeries throwing darts at his companion. Conversely, food products less favourable to the sith folk may inhibit our ability to see them. Hence, on the island of Skye, it was believed that as oats were not a proper food for the faeries, any person who wished to be able to see them should not have oats about themselves when they went out in the hope of encountering them – although normally carrying oats was recommended as a protective measure for travellers.

Close physical contact with the fairies seems to be fundamental to many transfers, as is seen in Enys Tregarthen’s 1940 story of the fairy child Skerry Werry. A lost fairy child was taken in and cared for by a widow on Bodmin Moor. The longer the little girl stayed, the better the old woman’s ‘pixy sight’ became, so that she could see the pisky lights on the moor.

A third example of transfer by bodily contact is even stranger: an old Somerset woman who used to nurse those who were sick was one day walking to a well for water when a moth brushed against her face. This gave her the pixy-sight and she immediately saw a little man, who asked her to go with him immediately to tend his seriously ill wife. Then again, close association with faerie kind on a regular and prolonged basis can certainly convey second sight.

Once one person has the gift, others can benefit from it. Contact with the gifted individual, either by touching them or by looking over a shoulder, will reveal the fairies to the second person as well. Be warned, though. The fairies object to uninvited intrusions and to any behaviour they regard as spying. There is a Victorian report of a case from Wrexham in which a fairy blinded a person just because he looked at it.

Seeing through the fairies’ glamour risks exposing those aspects of their conduct that they might rather keep concealed from us (their propensity for stealing our property perhaps being the least of them). Knowing their secrets can put us in peril, so that it is possibly rash to wish too fervently for knowledge of their hidden world.

Justin: I cast True Seeing on Magnus. He can see things as they actually are for the duration, he has truesight, he sees secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane for 120 feet.

Griffin: Ok, Magnus- you don’t warn him then, Taako?

Justin: No, I can’t. I can’t take the risk.

Griffin: Alright, fucking- Magnus, suddenly and without explanation, your vision changes. You can see the audience now through the lights, and they are just a bunch of these fairly intricately put together wooden marionettes. They are faceless, but otherwise detailed complete with finger and joints, and they are the ones sort of moving around and reacting to all of these scenes.

🕉️ Arunachala Shiva 🕉️ Photo by Bernd Kalidas Flory

ॐ

Kan-nukkuk-kan-nāy Kan-nindrik-ka-nunaik Kā-nuva-devar-pār Arunā-chalā.

O Arunachala, who can see You, who, being the eye to the eye, sees without eyes? (Therefore) See me (by turning the glance of Your grace upon me).

ॐ 

Note :

The Tamil word ‘kan’ literally means eye, but is also used figuratively to mean consciousness. Arunachala is the eye to the eye, that is, it is the consciousness which illumines the mind, which sees through the physical eyes. Since the very nature of the mind is to see only second and third person objects through the eyes and other senses, how and by what eye can it see Arunachala, which is the reality of itself, the first person?

By itself, the mind is insentient, like a reflection in a mirror. If we wish the eyes of our reflection to see us, we must see them, must we not? likewise, since the mind is only a reflection of Arunachala, the real Self, it can see Arunachala only when Arunachala graciously sees it. Therefore in this verse the devotee prays to Arunachala to see him by turning the glance of Its grace upon him.

If we wish the eyes of our reflection in a mirror to look at us, we should look at them, should we not ? our reflection seeing us is nothing but our seeing it. They are not two separate actions. The cause that makes that reflection see us, is our seeing it, is it not? likewise, ‘we’, the unreal Jiva, are only a reflection of the Sadguru, who is Self, the Supreme Reality. If we wish to see our Self or Guru, we cannot do so unless He, by His grace, turns His gracious look upon us. That is why this prayer for His gracious look is made.

— Hymn: Arunachala Aksharamanamalai,  V.15 The Marital Garland of Letters To Sri Arunachala, by Sri Ramana Maharshi

ॐ

Source:  Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Word by word in English, Meaning: Sri Sadhu Om, Translation: Michael James

https://www.happinessofbeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Sri_Arunachala_Stuti_Panchakam-4.pdf

ॐ 🌺

In: The Path of Sri Rarnana - Part Two, by Sri Sadhu Om  

[ https://sageramana.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-Path-of-Sri-Ramana-Part-Two.pdf ]

Appendix - 4b:   Explanatory Notes on verse 8 of 

“ULLADU NARPADU” -  REALITY IN FORTY VERSES :

🕉️

"If one worships the Supreme in whatever form, giving Him whatever name, it is the way to see the Supreme in that name and form; yet, realizing one's own truth in the truth of that True Thing (the Supreme) and being one with It, having been resolved into It, is the True Seeing (Realization). Thus should you know!" 

🕉️

Notes:

The Supreme Brahman has no name and form of Its own. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (Sat-Chit-Ananda) are the three real aspects of Brahman, whereas name and form are Its unreal aspects. 

Therefore, if one worships the Supreme in any name and form, one can see the Supreme in that name and form: - Here, some give the meaning of the verse as, "Worshipping the Supreme in a name and form is a means to see Him in His formless and nameless nature". This interpretation is wrong. As the Tamil words 'Per uruvil' have two meanings:

(1)  (to see It) in name and form, (qualifying the nature of the seeing) (2)  (to see It) without name and form (qualifying the nature of the Reality), which would mean that through the worship of a name and form of the Supreme, one can realize the nameless and formless truth of the Supreme;

one should know which meaning is to be taken according to the context.

If Shri Bhagavan means that the worship of a name and form of the Supreme leads to realize the Supreme in Its formless and nameless Nature (which is the True Seeing), there would have been no need for Him to define the True Seeing of the Supreme in the following lines of the same verse beginning with the word 'yet'. 

As Shri Bhagavan emphatically defines what is the True Seeing in the last two lines of the same verse, we should understand that the second meaning should not be given to the Tamil words ('Per uru + il') in this context. 

Further, we should understand what Shri Bhagavan means in this verse from what He has said in verse 3 of 'Arunachala Ashtakam' also, that the Supreme can be seen only in name and form, if one worships Him in name and form; trying to worship the nameless and formless Supreme is in vain; to realize the nameless and formless Supreme the only way is to dissolve the individuality into the Supreme, through Self-enquiry. In the last two lines of this verse (verse 3) Shri Bhagavan gives His own experience that the individuality does not exist when the Knowledge of the Supreme-Self, dawns.

If at all we want to know how the worship of a name and form of the Supreme will be an aid to realize the nameless and formless Supreme, it is described in the second chapter 'Bhakti', how the Beloved God worshipped through name and form will incarnate Himself in the form of a Guru. The same Beloved God - has to come again in the name and form of a Sadguru to teach the worshipper the Paths of Self-surrender or Self-enquiry, that leads to the Non-dual Awareness - the True Seeing of the Supreme. 

Ulladu Narpadu V.8: https://shinymoonbird.tumblr.com/search/UN%20v.8

Sri Ramana Maharshi - Ulladu Narpadu, V.9

Dyads and triads exist by clinging always to one. The ‘one’ that Bhagavan refers to here is the ego, which is what perceives everything else, but if we (this ego) look within ourself to see what we actually are, we will cease to exist as this ego, and hence everything else (all the dyads and triads) will also cease to exist, and what will then remain is only the infinite self-awareness that we actually are, which as Bhagavan says in verse 7 ‘shines without appearing or disappearing as the base for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind’. 

Seeing ourself as this fundamental self-awareness is alone seeing what is real, and when we see it we will never again be confused, deluded or disturbed by the illusory appearance of any dyad or triad, as Bhagavan implies here when he says, ‘Only those who have seen [this] have seen the reality; they will not be confused [confounded, agitated or disturbed]’.

Since perception or awareness of anything other than oneself (any form or phenomenon) entails the basic triad (tripuṭi) of oneself as the perceiver, that other thing as what is perceived, and one’s perception of it, when Bhagavan says in this verse, ‘If one looks within the mind [to see] what that one [the ego] is, they [all dyads and triads] will cease to exist’, he clearly implies that when the ego is annihilated by self-investigation, everything else that was formerly perceived and the perception of all such things will cease to exist along with it. Without this triad of perceiver, perceived and perception, nothing other than oneself could be perceived, so since we as we actually are cannot be a member of such a transitory triad — because we alone are what actually exists and we exist forever, unlike the perceiver, who appears and disappears along with whatever it perceives — it should be clear to us that the perceiver of anything other than ourself can only be ourself as this transitory ego and not ourself as we actually are.

What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are.