4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 6 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 0 types of samādhi in the context of Indian yoga is given at Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtras (1986, 73–90). In case of Ramana Maharshi, he underwent amystical death experiencewithout prior preparation (Dojčár and Gálik 2017, 128). In the course of an informal discussion, Maharshi pointed out that Self-realization is possible only for those who are prepared. “ The vāsanās must be eliminated before jñāna dawns. One must sacrifice everything for the Truth. Complete renunciation is the index of fitness. ” (Venkataramiah 1968, 284). This means one has to be willing to give up all attachments for this process. As a significant part of the process ofĀtma vichāra is not accessible to mental processing, sometimes it is called a secret . In this paper, it will be attempted to distil from the bibliographical indications given in the available sources complemented by personal experience the structure of the process ofĀtma vichāra – partly by using narratives recorded in various ways by followers and visitors of Ramana Maharshi, partly by using introspection . In hisWho am I , Maharshi provides basic tenets of his method (Maharshi 1966, 1–12). There is also a number of dialogues of Ramana Maharshi with his fol - lowers, where an effort is made to make the process comprehensible to the reader (e.g. Osborn 1971, 8–253). In this regard, the following questions are investigated: 1. How the mind that is to be transcended can be used in the process ofĀtma vichāra ? 2. Whether the process ofmystical death is necessary for achieving the state ofmukti , “liberation”? 3. In what way is the prānarodha a usable pathway to mukti ? 4. Whether surrender is a practicable way for a contemporary practitioner? 5. In what ways were courses onĀtma vichāra contributing to making this approach practiced in the Czech Republic, Slovakia (former Czechoslovakia) and Hungary? 2 The Background Ātma vichāra is close to the neti–neti , “not this–not this” approach of Advaita Vedānta (Maharshi 1966, 1–2; Sanka - racharya 1982, verse 56–58). Both South and North Indian yoga branches declare thatmuktior jivanmukti , i.e. liberation from samsāra , can be achieved. Further, in this way individual human being can regain his/her highest status as a human through whom the Being is shining forth. It means not only a one way ‘implosion’ into the Being, but also a ‘re-emer - gence’ of the human being with his/her ahamkāra , i.e. individuality (Kumar et al . 2005, 61–68). Now, however, it is restructured in such a way, that he/she seems to be the same individuality but is expressing the information and energy flow from the level of Being, not the previous ahamkāricpattern of one living in avidyā (see Fig. 1). Ramana Maharshi said in this respect, “ All these vrittis are doubtless mental concepts of the mind. The wise say that pure abidance in the Self alone is jñāna. ” (Ganapati 2016, 29) . Dyczkowski (1989, 40) explains that the vedantin’s way is one of withdrawal from the finite in order to achieve a return ( nivrtti ) to the infinite is similar to the results ofĀtma vichāra . The concept of Brahman or Being is discussed in many philosophical treatises including Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali (1986, 28). Before a full success in yoga practice, that is samādhi , ahamkāramakes us feel as a conscious individualized beings. The term ahamkāra is often translated as Ego, even though it is our individualized consciousness that is serviced by the sensu latomind includingmanas , buddhi , and the other tattvas . This servicing is done also through processing of information from the outside environment through senses and from data stored in memory that are seamlessly blended into the perceived image of the environment. This process is colored by the reactions from individuality traits that are in turn influ - enced byprarabdha karma as present in karmashaya , “pool of karmas” (Patañjali 2001, 146). Still, any activity performed or experienced under individualized reception of beingness ( pravritti ) results in karma : favorable, neutral or unfavorable. Ramana Maharshi explained the prarabdha karma as “ [t]hat which has already begun to bear fruit ”, and sanchita karma as “ [t]hat which is in store and will later bear fruit ” (Venkataramiah 1968, 43).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=