Being

I was reading "Ulladu Narpadu", which I had stopped long time back. Read the first verse. I feel it just totally covers everything that needs to be said on enquiry. The translation from the Ashram official website for the first shloka reads as follows:

"Unless Reality exists, can thought of it arise?
Since void of thought, Reality exists within as the Heart, how does
one know the Reality we term the Heart?
To know That is simply to be That in the Heart"

The explanation to this verse, I feel is as complex as the Tamil original words appear :) So, I wouldn’t even attempt to put it in words... But I have do have a couple of things to quote for the last line of the above meaning: "To know That is simply to be That in the Heart".

1. In the Letters', I came across, this:
"If all the false ideas and impressions are swept away and thrown out what remains is a feeling of plenty and that is the Self itself. Then there will be no such thing as a separate ‘I’; it will be a state of egolessness."

Somehow I have been thinking off late that there is this ego that is like a substratum on which other thoughts arise. But apparently, from the above, the "I" is "imbibed" in the other thoughts, still being root of the all thoughts as such. I guess the way to interpret it simply that without a thinker, there is no thought and not that one leads to another.

2. Another one is Talk 466:

"D.: Is not the Self the witness only (sakshimatra)?
M.: ‘Witness’ is applicable when there is an object to be seen. Then it is duality. The Truth lies beyond both. In the mantra, sakshi cheta kevalo nirgunascha, the word sakshi must be understood as sannidhi (presence), without which there could be nothing. See how the sun is necessary for daily activities. He does not however form part of the world actions; yet they cannot take place without the sun. He is the witness of the activities.
So it is with the Self."

Point is, awareness/witness is not a verb when referred to the Self. Its just state of Being. It just is. No duality. Its not even "witnessing as if a dream" - no.

The above two explain the last line of the meaning of ulladu narpadu shloka; that the false doesn't exist by itself... Once the thoughts subside, there is no separate i to catch hold of. That’s the reason why Bhagawan calls it a phantom and that we cannot catch it. Also, the fact that its not objective, we cannot catch "it". It’s after all not "it"... We should be telling I cannot catch i :) I feel to experience even the false purely by itself, if possible that is, is basically trying to feel the Absolute Consciousness. So, what is that we call as "I - thot" or the present awareness that is associated with body-consciousness? This is the Q that I got. So, if the i-thot cannot be separated as such, what is that "awareness" that we have, when there is not thought? When we are in "witness" state? Well, the talk quoted resolves that. That awareness is absolute awareness. Its not like being aware of your own thoughts or watching the origin of thoughts. There is no duality there. So, during that supposed i-thought state, the thoughts have not really subsided, even though they may seem to have. So, how to go ahead from there? I guess just hang on there and try to eliminate the residual subtle thoughts that might still be hanging around. So, we just need to be absolutely watchful of what’s happening. No wonder Maharshi says that the intellect needs to be very focused for a successful Enquiry!

Well, well, well...